Bulking and Cutting: Questioning One of Bodybuilding's Oldest Dogmas

Disclaimer:  

I first want to preface this blog by positioning myself as a competitive natural bodybuilder. Much of what shapes my views on physical health comes from evidence, but my interpretation of the evidence is influenced by my experiences as someone who spent years competing in a sport that rewards body manipulation. This is an informal narrative blog that includes research, but also speculation and opinion. Although I believe - in many ways - bodybuilding can be an empowering pursuit, I recognize that discussions around body image, dieting, and body manipulation can be harmful.  

For these reasons, I encourage you to consider my opinions, read the research I cite, and reflect on your own beliefs rather than taking my word as dogma. 

If discussions around the aforementioned topics are not in your best interest, skip this blog and read another if you’d like. I have many blogs that cover topics in health and fitness separate from bodybuilding, including recipes and objective performance sports like running. 

Much of this blog is technical jargon, research recaps, and theory. Partly because I think this topic should be reserved for advanced trainees. If you’re new here - woot woot congrats on taking a trip down get-strong boulivard! There is a section called “A Note for The Non-Physique Athlete (TL;DR)” just before the conclusion, that skips all the bodybuilding-specific information. But before you go, I recommend taking a trip through this blog and maybe learning a thing or two about the wonderful world of hypertrophy (building big muscles).

Part 1: Introduction

Questioning My Rules: Why Revisit a Simple Topic?

As I prepare to enter my first purposeful growth phase for competitive bodybuilding in nearly a year and a half, I am going through what I would call a training macro-transition. In this, I find myself asking questions that I would encourage many of my clients to ask: Why am I doing this? What does this lead me towards? What is the best way to approach it? 

At first glance, the answer might seem simple for anyone with some knowledge of nutrition and training principles. I should eat more food, train hard, and allow my body the resources it needs to grow. I’ve been doing this for years, why not just go ahead with what works? This isn’t wrong; consistency is the foundation, but creating a new reality, especially at the level of extremity required in bodybuilding, is more complex. If I wanted to continue forward in physical pursuits without challenge, I’d do exactly what I believed to be true. However, bodybuilding to me is just as much - if not more - a mental journey. Consistent action will push my body, but my beliefs, my habits, and my comfort? These are only developed when the mind is left open. To do this, I need to reveal what limits my mind. Excluding the physical laws of nature and my innate psychology, the influences that have created the rules by which my actions abide also shape the limits of my physical capability.  

To understand how I can bring myself to a professional level, I must understand these limits and the ‘rules’ that created them, find the gaps in logic, and introduce something new. Where did these limits come from? Are they supported by evidence? Which ideas are rooted in physiology, and which are just byproducts of the physical culture I grew up in? 

To answer these questions, I looked backwards.  

In this blog, I want to walk you through that process. We’ll explore how the concept of bulking and cutting evolved throughout different eras of bodybuilding’s influence on physical culture, and how those historical influences continue to impact physical culture today. Then, I’ll transition into an overview of the evidence, providing a more scientific lens on hypertrophy. 

I won’t be able to cover everything in this blog. The physical culture around us has roots that go far beyond what is visible within my scope of confidence. Areas such as economics, history, social psychology, and gender studies all have a powerful influence on what we do with our bodies. For this reason, I plan to stay close to bodybuilding, exercise physiology, and nutrition science. 

My goal isn’t to tell you what to do with your body, that’s in your hands. As the 1980s champion bodybuilder and writer Bob Paris once said, “I’ll always do what I want with my body, and I’ll just have to live with what happens”. What I will do is attempt to use history, science, and personal experience to help explain a way to think about an old-school bodybuilding dogma in a new way. 

Bulking and Cutting: More Than Weight Cycling?

“Bulking and cutting” are purposeful phases of gaining and losing bodyweight with the primary goal of building muscle over time. In bodybuilding, periods of energy maintenance or surplus (earing more than needed to maintain bodyweight) are used to support muscle growth over months to years, while periods of energy deficit (eating less than needed to maintain bodyweight) are used periodically to reduce body fat over weeks to months. While body weight fluctuates throughout this process, the intended outcome is a net gain in muscularity. 

Weight cycling however, often referred to as “yo-yo dieting”, describes repeated cycles of weight loss and regain, and doesn’t necessarily include this clear long-term increase in muscle mass seen in bodybuilding. A recent review paper published in 2026 discusses the lean mass changes with weight cycling, with the authors stating that diet-induced weight loss results in approximately 20–30% of the weight lost coming from lean mass, and intentional overfeeding can lead to weight gain that is 20-50% lean mass. The authors postulate that variability in whether there is a net gain, loss, or maintenance of lean mass is likely dependent on things like physical activity habits, age, diet composition, and genetics. It then should become clear, that weight cycling is a broader term that can encompass weight changes with or without resistance exercise, whereas bulking and cutting is often used in a resistance training context like in muscle-related sports.

Despite weight cycling potentially leading to a net gain in lean body mass over time, weight cycling has been associated with psychological distress, body dissatisfaction, and disordered eating behaviors. This has been shown consistently and is an important consideration for athletes and coaches both in and out of physique sport. Yet, the evidence for any physical lasting metabolic impairment is less consistent in the general population and likely depends on multiple factors (1, 2, 3, 4). 

Looking more specifically at weight cycling in athletes, a 2024 review found that these weight cycling did not consistently produce meaningful impairments in body composition or metabolic function. This was especially true in strength and conditioning athletes, as periods of weight loss and regain are typically planned, supported by resistance training, and accompanied by higher protein intake (5).

Given the temporal limitations of the studies included, this review suggests ‘weight cycling’ is a physiologically safe tool for athletes in the short term, but that doesn’t translate to being beneficial to the public. Weight regain in this review occurred and lean mass returned to baseline, it didn’t grow. Also, female athletes were only represented as 10% of the sample size, and the psychological effects of this planned weight cycling was not discussed. The problem is most of this is speculation. There is a lack of research seperating between weight cycling in the public, and intentional phasic training cycles in athletic populations.

So, the question becomes more complex. There are clearly downsides to weight cycling, it doesn’t seem to always lead to more muscle, and although some of the harmful effects are avoided when measures are taken to preserve lean mass, it can still be harmful.

But if that’s the case, why is it used so commonly in the bodybuilding community? If bodybuilders everywhere are using cycles of weight gain and loss to build muscle, it should work, right? 

Part 2: The Evolution of Bulking and Cutting Through Bodybuilding

Historically, bodybuilding has gone through distinct eras, and the bias that dominated each has shifted over time.  

Early Modern Bodybuilding and Physical Culture (mid-1800s to 1950s) 

Bodybuilding wasn’t originally separated from strength performance yet. Early idols like Eugen Sandow were judged on appearance but also on feats of athleticism and strength.  

The ideal physique portrayed at this time was muscular, but also functional and attainable by the standards of the day, without the use of modern performance enhancing drugs.  

By the 1950s and 1960s, bodybuilding’s post-war expansion flooded magazine shelves. Training and nutrition knowledge was being shared to the public by top-level competitors such as Bill Pearl, Reg Park, and Leroy Colbert, who introduced the idea of bulking and cutting for competition. Still, bodybuilders at this time emphasized that gaining weight to the extent of sacrificing health or the ability to present the physique in competition was something to be avoided. 

One consideration is that cycles of ‘bulking’ were introduced to increase muscularity, and ‘cutting’ originated to achieve an ephemeral physique for competition. 

The Mass Era (1970s – 2000s) 

Bodybuilding underwent a major transition. Competitions went from a mix of less muscular competitors like Frank Zane and more muscular competitors like Arnold Schwarzenegger, to being almost completely dominated by exceedingly muscular competitors. This era was defined by a “bigger is better” mentality.  

Phrases like “eat big to get big” and “The Austrian Oak” became part of bodybuilding culture, but extended into magazines, tv, movies, and more. 

By the 90s and 2000s, especially with competitors like Dorian Yates and Ronnie Coleman, bodybuilding enters what is known as the “mass monster” era. Being lean on stage mattered, but size was heavily rewarded. Off seasons away from competing involved aggressive weight gain with substantial body fat gain, and this was accepted as part of the process to push levels of muscularity never seen before. The ‘bulk’ was now becoming extreme in competitive circles, and that messaging was finding its way into the public eye. 

Many bodybuilders weren’t seen during off seasons, as they were away from the stage, and away from the spotlight. So, this body fat gain was hidden from the public eye. Yet, magazines everywhere were selling size-building messaging and mass-gaining supplements, using images of bodybuilders just weeks or days before competition, clearly misrepresenting the product to monetize it.

Performance enhancing drug use also peaked, and the lack of science on the side effects meant reckless use was more likely. However, steroids were not discussed publicly, so bodybuilders attributed their lean mass gain to more food and heavy training, not the use of anabolic steroids. 

The Aesthetic and Lean Era (Mid 2010s to Present) 

Several things happened in tandem, but by far the largest driver were the three following: 

First, social media made physiques visible year-round rather than just on stage. Comparison was now happening daily, on a global stage, rather than just a weekend-long bodybuilding show. This meant the usual few-week long condition seen by athletes near their event or show, was expected daily, year-round. More feasible physiques became idolized, without the realistic body fat levels to match. Many social media personalities found out that if you’re lean, you can create an illusion of being more muscular. The rise of social media also created a new economic dynamic in the sport, as athletes were now earning more money when not competing through social media, rather than from competitions, increasing the pressure to stay lean to sell products online, where size was less rewarded. 

New divisions in bodybuilding emerged, like men’s physique and classic physique, which prioritize proportion and conditioning with less muscle. This further propagated this year-round condition, as top-level athletes in these divisions must adhere to weight caps. This means athletes using high levels of performance enhancing drugs stopped spending their off seasons trying to put on more size and subsequently gaining body fat. Now, they reallocated that drug use and time maintaining extreme levels of low body fat, to monetize the attention it received. 

Finally, the evidence grew. It became clearer that without the use of enhancements, eating more didn’t always lead to more muscle gain, and eventually led to disproportionate gains in body fat mass. This will be further discussed in the next section. These new science-based opinions compounded with new opinions and discoveries on the side effects and damaging impacts of steroid use and had an unexpected indirect impact on bodybuilding culture. To maintain monetization, bodybuilders often sought natural ambiguity. To do this, they would maintain a biologically feasible amount of lean mass, with extreme leanness, using performance enhancing drugs to make it possible. Without extreme degrees of muscularity, they would be more marketable to crowds who shunned the use of performance enhancing drugs. 

Where Bodybuilding Sits Today

In bodybuilding (and many other areas of physical culture), leanness has become a virtue on its own. Many recreational bodybuilders hesitate to gain weight, lose visible abdominal definition, or pursue size. This didn’t happen randomly. It’s a by‑product of how bodybuilding evolved and how its extremes were monetized. 

The early to mid‑2020s amplified this shift. Anti‑fatness and anti‑obesity messaging blended with fitness and bodybuilding culture. Pharmacology entered the conversation. Extremist camps formed around ideas like “lean is law” and “looksmaxxing.” In these spaces, gaining fat is treated as a failure, even when the goal is muscle growth. Yet the hypothyroidism, low testosterone, performance decrements, or compensatory drug use that results from being too lean for too long is hidden from the public. 

But bodybuilding as a sport hasn’t changed. Muscularity still wins. Nobody reaches a pro stage without gaining weight in the off‑season. What has changed is the broader culture. The average gym‑goer who decides to pursue bodybuilding today is more likely to recieve messaging to chase leanness indefinitley than to spend time gaining weight on purpose. And society reinforces and rewards that choice. 

Part 3: Recent Research Pushing Understanding

An Initial Debrief on The Harms of Bulking and Cutting on The Public

Some incredible work published in 2022 can give insight into how bodybuilding’s impact on shaping physical culture can cause harm (6). In a sample of 2762 Canadian young adults and adolescents with mean age 22.9, nearly 50% of men and one fifth of women and transgender/gender non-conforming individuals (TGNC) engaged in a bulking or cutting cycle. The researchers also found significant associations between any engagement in bulk and cut cycles and drive for muscularity, eating disorder pathology, and muscle dysmorphia pathology. 

One novel finding in this paper was that on average, men engaged in roughly 2.8 bulk and cut cycles on average over 12 months, whereas women and (TGNC) individuals engaged in 11.8 and 14.7 respectively. 

This means that the men in this study were more closely mimicking the bulking and cutting frequency supported by modern-day bodybuilding and science-based fitness messaging. Yet, their propensity for muscle dysphoria-related and disordered eating-realted behaviours were still significantly increased. Compared to then men, the women and TGNC groups had much more frequent phasic transitions, which the authors speculated may be akin to traditional dieting practices. 

This paper is wonderful, and it takes a step back to look at how the biomedical focus on weight manipulation for muscle gain has impacted humans on a real level. I do however, have some critiques. The study used the Eating Disorder Examination Questionnaire (EDE-Q) to find a statistically significant association between repeated bulking and cutting cycles and disordered eating behaviors, [11% (1-23%) increased risk in men, 21% (12-31%) in women, and 3% (-18-29%) in TGNC individuals]. Although the EDE-Q is a well-validated screening tool in clinical populations, it was not designed to distinguish between adaptive, goal-directed dietary behaviors (e.g., calorie tracking, structured eating, frequent body monitoring) and psychopathology. Consequently, individuals pursuing muscle-building or physique-related goals may score higher despite not meeting criteria for an eating disorder. The study therefore demonstrates an association between bulking and cutting and elevated eating disorder screening scores, and likely points to an increased clinical risk but it’s important to note this does not establish that bulking and cutting independently causes clinically significant disordered eating. 

Does The Science Support Bulking to Build Muscle? 

I first want to clarify by “building muscle” in this case, I mean from a healthy baseline. I say this because otherwise it may be tempting to look to case studies done on bodybuilders who get in competition condition and reach unhealthily low levels of bodyfat. However, body fat repletion using and energy surplus has obvious and clear benefits for returning the lean mass lost through an extremist energy deficit (7). This is not ‘building muscle’, but returning muscle.

Here’s what’s known: muscle growth requires energy and nutrient availability. There is plenty of evidence to show that an energy deficit impairs muscle protein synthesis unless the trainee is a beginner (8).

But, we don’t know for certain if a purposeful energy surplus in conjunction with resistance training increases lean mass more than resistance training without an energy surplus. Meaning, the evidence doesn’t answer if there is a difference between lifting weights and eating your needs, or lifting weights and eating more than your needs. Likely, whether or not an energy surplus is needed depends on the person’s training age, initial body composition, and goals.

The bigger question for a bodybuilder isn’t whether or not muscle growth will happen in an energy surplus, or even how much muscle growth will happen, but what is the relative proportion of lean mass to fat mass gain. As they are the only athletes that will need to subsequently remove any fat mass gained to compete. Therefore, any fat-gain that can be mitigated becomes advantageous.

One study that did provide more specific insight was published by natural bodybuilders and looked at energy intakes of 50 kcal/kg/day compared to 67.5 kcal/kg/day (a moderate surplus compared to a large surplus), and what was found was that although the larger energy surplus created greater lean mass gains, there was also greater fat-mass gain (9). It’s important to note that this study was not rigorously conducted, which makes it difficult to infer anything broadly. This data does point towards a non-linear relationship between the amount of energy surplus and the ratio of lean mass gain to fat mass gain.* 

There have been some more well controlled studies since, but the mixed training experience of the study group, small sample size, and difficulty to assess gains in lean mass over a short period, make it near impossible to accurately predict how much of a surplus is too much, or too little, to optimize lean tissue gain (10).  

Based on the basic laws that govern physics, and the aforementioned studies, I believe it to be reasonable to assume you can’t synthesize new tissue from nothing; you need enough energy to support muscle gain, either from the diet or otherwise. So, while beginners or someone returning from a break might gain muscle while being in at a net energetic loss, most trained individuals will eventually require they at least meet their energetic needs to build new lean tissue. 

Therefore, the hypothesis currently supported by natural bodybuilding experts is: Once the physiology for muscle growth is sufficiently supported, additional calories do not necessarily accelerate muscle protein synthesis. Instead, a greater proportion of weight gain is stored as body fat. While some body fat gain is an expected adaptation of a productive growth phase, excessive surpluses often reduce the efficiency of the process, without a proportional increase in muscle gain. 

For most trained lifters, this means maintaining a modest calorie surplus that supports consistent increases in body weight while allowing training performance, recovery, and muscle growth to progress. The objective is not to remain shredded year-round, nor is it to gain as much weight as possible and fight your appetite and satiety. Instead, it is to spend prolonged periods in an environment that supports muscle growth while minimizing unnecessary fat gain. 

This approach also acknowledges an important psychological and physiological reality. Excessive bulking often leads to longer and more aggressive dieting phases to get in competition shape, which can increase fatigue, reduce training quality, and make adherence more difficult. By creating slower rates of weight gain during a growth phase, athletes can often spend more time building muscle and less time increasing physiological stress to remove body fat.  

*This research is conducted without the use of anabolic steroids. These drugs would likely change nutrient partitioning, the dietary needs of someone building lean mass, the rate of lean mass gain, and the ratio of lean to non-lean mass gain. It is also important to note that in strength sports or strong-man sports, using large caloric surpluses to get exposure to lifting heavier loads is typical, and this is outside of the scope of this blog. 

Navigating a Complex Problem with Simple Answers

Before I move on, I want to note the gaps created by a reductionist approach to this research.

First, research on bulking and cutting, in combination with resistance training, with long-enough time frames to see how lean mass changes over time, using a trained and large-enough sample, has never been conducted.

Therefore, one cannot conclude, from evidence alone, that a surplus followed by deficit is better than simply eating near maintenance for hypertrophy. The evidence only hints towards this for well-trained, advanced lifters, seeking more lean mass gain.

Secondly, muscle and strength development within exercise and nutrition is multivariable. There is no standardized “best way” to build muscle in training, and nutrition cannot be reduced to simply '“meeting” or “not meeting” energy needs. The propensity for individuals to train with high degrees of mechanical tension, choose to accept the risk of lifting heavier loads, the amount of protein in their diet, the timing of meals around workouts - these all impact muscle building capacity, and are different between people, along side genetics, age, training history, and more.

An example to show this interaction: gaining weight more rapidly can be a catalyst for more aggressive progressive overload. This means an athelte gaining weight would experience heavier loads than one maintaining their bodyweight. Does that exposure to heavier loads lead to better neural gains and subsequently more lean mass gains? This is unknown.

Therefore, it should be clear, electing to pursue an energy surplus to build muscle, without addressing these foundations to muscle growth initially or at least in tandem, could result in non-desired outcomes.

Part 4: The Reality of Physique Athletics

You’re a Human, Not a Textbook

In Part 3, the little evidence available supports slower rates of weight gain for maximizing the ratio of muscle gained relative to fat gained. However, real-world bodybuilding is rarely ever that simple.  

The “optimal growth phase” assumes a level of precision that can take years to develop and often isn’t worth the sacrifice for non-competitive athletes. For newer athletes, accurately assessing energy intake, bodyweight trends, body fat mass trends, and being patient through months of slow progress while maintaining adequate protein, fiber, meal timing, and really good resistance training habits, are skills that if introduced too soon, might cause more psychological harm than physiological benefit. 

For example, if asked to increase your energy intake by 100 kcal per day exactly, because that’s optimal for muscle growth, would you be able to? Likely not. Even if you thought you were at that extra 100 kcal increase per day, the method of tracking may be incorrect. The calorimeter used to measure the energy in the food might have been slightly off, or the measured serving could be inaccurate.  

But let’s say you were targeting a range. If you aim for 100-500 kcal above what you typically consume, this becomes a bit more tangible, an extra snack or two. If you eat less one day, or more on another, you don’t have to stress. Does this seem more feasible to you? 

Bodybuilding is a long-term pursuit, building muscle is a multi-year and sometimes multi-decade long process. Constantly worrying about increases in body fat, frequently transitioning between bulking and cutting phases, or attempting to maintain leanness below what is comfortable year-round can make the process unnecessarily less enjoyable and as we’ve seen, exceedingly harmful.  

In practice, many successful bodybuilders understand that longevity matters and accept body fat gain, as it allows for prolonged periods of productive training, lifestyle flexibility, and often better adherence.  

This is where I believe the traditional concept of bulking and cutting may still have merit.  

A Pragmatic Approach to Lean Tissue Gains for The Physique Athlete 

Let’s say a physique athlete’s body carries 125lbs of lean mass; they have been resistance training for 2-3 years, are otherwise metabolically healthy, and have an estimated body fat percentage of 15%. They set the goal of building muscle to 140lbs of lean mass. That 15 lbs of energetically expensive tissue requires they at least meet their energetic needs. As previously discussed, it is more practical to add a snack or two and aim for a range of 1-500 kcal above their predicted energy needs, and track changes over time. If many miracles occur, all predictions are accurate, and somehow, they gain purely lean tissue; then the athlete has achieved their goal. 

However, this likely won’t happen. There will likely be accompanying body fat gain, and as long as an energetic surplus is maintained, that body fat gain will continue.

This might sound confusing, on one end, meet your needs so you can train hard and not be in a deficit. On the other, eat above your needs and eventually you’ll continue to gain bodyfat.

This is a common conundrum in sports nutrition when physique sport is discussed. The recommendation “eat enough to support your training” is usually meant as “avoid chronic low energy availability” not “remain in a perpetual energy surplus”. This is helpful messaging for athletes who struggle to meet their energy needs, but I also think this is where the public loses track: eventually, an energy intake above needs will lead to tissue gain, if this energy surplus is held for months, years, decades - bodyweight will rise indefinitley, likely not all lean mass. Body perception may change, blood pressure will rise, the ability to engage socially or physically in typical activities may change, social pressures may change, and new, unpredicted risks will emerge. In other words, it’s unreasonable and potentially harmful to recommend, in some cases, that physique athletes indefinitely consume an energy surplus if they want to also preserve their health. 

Rather, an energy surplus is used to guarantee an environment that supports lean tissue gain, with enough time spent to fully adapt to the training stimulus and gain meaningful amounts of lean mass. Once body fat accumulation begins to outpace meaningful lean tissue gains, periodic, short-term adjustments can reset body fat accumulation in non-extreme ways. When done correctly, I believe these phases of structured restriction can help to maintain health by preventing the need for extreme diet manipulations during a competition prep while simultaneously not interrupting the growth a bodybuilder needs long-term. 

From this perspective, bulking and cutting is a practical tool that acknowledges the realities of human behavior. It allows athletes to build capacity, power, strength, muscle mass, bone mass, and more, without sacrificing their health through the consequences of extremity. 

A Note for The Non-Physique Athlete (TL;DR)

If you’ve managed to read this whole blog, congrats! It covered a lot and I’m sure if bodybuilding isn’t something that interests or intrigues you, it was probably exceedingly boring at times.  

To make it easier on you, I summarized some of the key points from this writing that I believe are more relevant for the athlete who doesn’t compete but wants to build muscle in the long-term:  

1. Bulking and cutting cycles are associated with an increased risk for muscle dysmorphia, and disordered eating. If you feel this blog revealed you’re engaging in dietary changes that aren’t best for your health and want to chat with a provider who specializes in disordered eating, you can find resources at: https://nedic.ca/

2. Preemptively protect your relationship with food and your body. If tracking food, weighing yourself, or cycling between gaining and losing weight begins to dominate your thoughts or negatively affect your wellbeing, consider stepping back and speaking with a qualified health professional. Muscle is built over years, not weeks. 

3. Unless you compete in bodybuilding, you probably don’t need traditional bulking and cutting cycles to build muscle. Most people can make excellent long-term progress by eating enough to support training and allowing lean mass to increase gradually over months and years rather than intentionally oscillating between large surpluses and deficits. 

4. Periodic energy restriction to reset body fat stores is more important for bodybuilders because they play within the rules of competing at single digit bodyfat. Therefore, energy restriction may not be necessary for non-competitive athletes.

5. More calories doesn’t equal more muscle. Once sufficient energy is available, larger surpluses appear to produce more body fat than muscle. 

6. Training might matter more here than nutrition. Resistance training remains the primary stimulus for hypertrophy; nutrition supports the adaptation but doesn’t replace it. 

7. Accepting that some body fat gain is normal. Building some lean mass often is accompanied by some fat mass gain.

8. Nutrition isn’t simply ‘eating more or less than you need’ to build muscle, what you are eating and when matters just as much for hypertrophy, enjoyment, and health.

Conclusion 

I hope this blog helped you understand how bulking and cutting developed, how bodybuilding culture shaped the way we think about muscle growth, and how evidence can guide us toward a more balanced approach. 

Bodybuilding has changed dramatically over the decades. The sport has moved further away from its physical health origins, and the public has absorbed both the best and the worst parts of that evolution. We cannot undo that history, but we can choose which lessons we carry forward. 

Bodybuilding is a personal pursuit built on passion and self‑development. It sits at the intersection of fitness, art, and athleticism, and that unique position creates powerful influence. Meeting that influence with responsibility is what keeps the pursuit meaningful and protects the public. 

Using evidence, I’ve tried to provide a fair, but albeit opinionated way to approach this classical dogma in a sport I am passionate about. If you have any feedback, questions, or opinions, feel free to reach out to me or comment publicly on this blog. 

References

1. Ganson, K. T., Cunningham, M. L., Pila, E., Rodgers, R. F., Murray, S. B., & Nagata, J. M. (2022). "Bulking and cutting" among a national sample of Canadian adolescents and young adults. Eating and Weight Disorders, 27(8), 3759–3765. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-022-01470-y

2. Helms, E. R., Spence, A. J., Sousa, C., Kreiger, J., Taylor, S., Oranchuk, D. J., Dieter, B. P., & Watkins, C. M. (2023). Effect of small and large energy surpluses on strength, muscle, and skinfold thickness in resistance-trained individuals: A parallel groups design. Sports Medicine - Open, 9(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-023-00651-y

3. Madigan, C. D., Pavey, T., Daley, A. J., Jolly, K., & Brown, W. J. (2018). Is weight cycling associated with adverse health outcomes? A cohort study. Preventive Medicine, 108, 47–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.010

4. Magkos, F., & Stefan, N. (2026). Is weight cycling clinically harmful? The Lancet Diabetes & Endocrinology, 14(7), 594–607. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-8587(26)00037-9

5. Bagot, S., Pélissier, L., Pereira, B., et al. (2024). Weight regain, body composition, and metabolic responses to weight loss in weight cycling athletes: A systematic review and meta-analyses. Obesity Reviews, 25(2), e13658. https://doi.org/10.1111/obr.13658

6. Ribeiro, A. S., Nunes, J. P., Schoenfeld, B. J., Aguiar, A. F., & Cyrino, E. S. (2019). Effects of different dietary energy intake following resistance training on muscle mass and body fat in bodybuilders: A pilot study. Journal of Human Kinetics, 70, 125–134. https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2019-0038

7. Rossow, L. M., Fukuda, D. H., Fahs, C. A., Loenneke, J. P., & Stout, J. R. (2013). Natural bodybuilding competition preparation and recovery: A 12-month case study. International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance, 8(5), 582–592. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.8.5.582

8. Sanaya, N., Janusaite, M., Dalamaga, M., & Magkos, F. (2024). The physiological effects of weight-cycling: A review of current evidence. Current Obesity Reports, 13(1), 35–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13679-023-00539-8

9. Slater, G. J., Dieter, B. P., Marsh, D. J., Helms, E. R., Shaw, G., & Iraki, J. (2019). Is an energy surplus required to maximize skeletal muscle hypertrophy associated with resistance training? Frontiers in Nutrition, 6, Article 131. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnut.2019.00131