There's a mistake that the naturals will get screwed a lot more with them, but the hormones too, and it's amazing how I detect this mistake talking to students and such, of course I don't let them get it wrong, right? That's what I'm here for, but I wo n't let you go wrong from now on either. Then click on I like it, subscribe to the channel because we are going to talk here about the reversibility of "bulking" to "cutting".
So right now we see people making a lot of mistakes, including I commented a lot about reversibility in my nutrition courses , this is extremely important, why? Let's make the understanding here cool for you to see how the error is so simple, logical, but many people don't think about it. First, how do we do some calculations?
So I want to make a "bulk", where do I get stuff from the "bulk"? So we have macronutrient values from food, calories, and we have some macronutrient calculations for me who want to do a "bulk". Leandro, why don't you teach this?
Do you only talk about it in your course? No, here too, just look for Leandro Twin + theme, macros for "bulk", "cut", body recomposition, stabilization of results, performance, there's a video for everything here. And at this moment when you are going to make this choice of macros, you do some calculations and on top of these calculations you pre-establish your diet, but have you ever imagined that the mathematical calculations, even those most endorsed of care, they do not take all in consideration.
So come on, you put weight, height, age, physical activity factor , something like that, you have a value there, do a macro calculation , and make an energy offering for your body, you making this energy offering you you'll have some answers, and you'll probably stagnate and then you've been calibrating the diet a little so you can not stagnate, so you can keep evolving, and then when you're going to make the "cut", and that's for the opposite, too, ok? From the "cut" to the "bulk", same thing, you will make the "cut", you again resort to your mathematical intervention, make that equation, have a result, make a new caloric offer and turn the key to the "cut ", and then you miss. Then you will say: man, but how am I going to go wrong if I did the right math ?
I saw Leandrão's video for "bulk", I saw Leandrão's video for "cut" and I was wrong, but why? Because you missed seeing this video, which is reversibility, this moment of turning the key, it has to be smarter. Come on, you did the math and it turned out that your metabolism and expenditure are three thousand calories, you throw three and five hundred in the "bulk", there comes a time when you stagnate, why do you stagnate?
Hey, because you 're training heavier and heavier, you have more muscle mass, more energy, so your metabolism speeds up, your physical condition asks you for more strength, you used the bench press thirty, now you get forty, from where will this energy come out ? It has to leave somewhere, so you have to eat more to keep evolving, and then you end the "bulk" eating four thousand two hundred calories, but in the last two weeks the weight was more or less stable, I started with eighty , I finished at ninety, I was eating four and two hundred at ninety kilos, when you go to math again, at the beginning of the "bulk" it was three thousand mathematically speaking, in the "cut" I went up ten kilos so it makes a difference, but if you throw ten kilos on the table do not increase one thousand and two hundred calories spent, it increases some two hundred, then you put three and two hundred there, well, I'll take five hundred and I'm going to go down in the diet, and then you put three and two hundred less five hundred, two and seven hundred and start the diet at two and seven hundred, then you lose muscle mass, then you say: I didn't understand where I went wrong, the math was all perfect. So does math take into account how heavy you are training?
Ah but there's the activity factor. Ah, but it's not perfect. Does it take into account your level of thyroid hormones that in a "bulk" it is higher than in a "cut"?
Does it take into account a testosterone, insulin sensitivity? So there are several factors that are not embraced, if mathematics embraced biology there was no biology, it was just mathematics, so if there is biology it is because we have a field where mathematics embraces until a certain point and then not. You have four thousand two hundred there and you're keeping the weight, that is, you're eating what you're spending, so it's actually four thousand two hundred, math gave three thousand two hundred, it doesn't matter, what's happening in reality?
Four and two hundred. If four and two hundred is like this, how am I going to start my "cutting"? I'm going to take out five hundred calories.
So I'm going to start the "cut" with three and seven hundred? It is, yes. And then you're going to add a little bit of cardio, a little bit of that stuff, then you're going to stagnate in two, three, four weeks.
Then you will say: you see, the account was wrong. He wasn't, he was right, he replied, then he stagnate, no problem you would stagnate anyway, now you make a new adjustment and so on. The same opposite, and in the "cut" even more, in the "cut" your testosterone, that's why I spoke of naturals, right, testosterone, thyroid, all this goes down considerably, and then you finish your "cut" there with two thousand calories, you turn the key to a three and five hundred "bulk" , gain a lot of fat in two, three, four weeks, and then your "bulk" has to be shorter because it was dirtier , being dirtier you have less time to "bulk" or the same time but with a lot of dirt, then to clean it is a lot of time to "cut", and you lose more muscle mass, in the end you may have evolved, I think it's very important to say this, some people might say: oh Leandro, but I've never done that and I evolved.
Yes, your 1. 0 car rides too, but we have the Formula 1 car, we are discussing here the best result, performance, and the greatest delivery in the shortest time. At this moment of reversibility, then we understand that mathematics is not.
. . right?
Leandrão, what is the math then for the end of the "bulk", for the end of the "cut", to make the key turn? It doesn't have, and it doesn't need to, it's useless, because at that moment you already have reality and that's what matters most , why do you do the math for what in the beginning? Because you have nothing, having nothing, you need to have a starting point, after you have a starting point it's gone.
So you're there at the end of the "bulk", you go around and take the calories off little by little, in the "cut" the same thing. Let's not forget that in the "cut" you also have thermogenics, which have a low influence on metabolism, very different from what people imagine, but still has some influence, and we have aerobics too. So at this point, if you are going to make the switch from "cut" to "bulk" you cut all thermogenics, aerobics and sometimes increase calories, it can still be too much, because intake is one thing but expenditure is another, so always do it slowly.
Now if you make a lot of mistakes, then in the turn from "bulk" to "cut" you lose muscle mass, from "cut" to "bulk" you gain fat, and this really implies a real loss, oddly enough, it's better you lose time than you lose muscle mass or gain body fat at that time, so reverse dieting has to be done carefully. Leandrão, you talked about several equations, diet setup. Are we going to "cut" the diet together?
Or "bulk", whatever , but I'll leave you with the "cut" diet, but not only the calculation of macros, two grams of this, because there are people who tell me they don't understand, so I set it up , there's even the table there for download, together like that in the table, together with you, what you put in the data, when you put it in the food, what we put in the gram of macros, etc. , much more interactive. So take a look at this video here and let's set up a diet together.
