Considering that losing fat without some muscle mass loss is highly unlikely and gaining muscle mass without gaining any fat quantity is also unlikely, all we have to do is trying to optimize our routine and diet, that is, building muscles but gaining the least amount of fat possible in a bulking phase (a.k.a. "clean bulk"), and losing fat but losing the least amount of lean mass possible.
Under these assumptions, I designed a strategy for myself, where I set a diary goal for my weight, observing a medium-term goal in a significant range and measuring my weight in the same conditions, almost every morning. I'm a ectomorph thin (1m93), keeping a 5 days/week exercise routine (basically anaerobic), a good quality of sleep and a diet designed for cutting or bulking phase with an amount of calories as reference.
The "trick" - and the quid of this question - is if my weight is below my diary goal, I eat more carbs (small GI) and if my weight is above my diary goal then carbs will be avoided in all meals but breakfast, pre-workout and post-workout.
Now, let's imagine a [almost-?]diary PDCA cycle, where:
- Plan = the goal of the day and a previously defined and adequated exercise routine, diet, sleeping, hydration, etc;
- Do = your exercise routine, diet, sleeping, hydration, etc;
- Check = your every-morning measure, compared to the goal of the day. Are you really doing what's is your plan? Is your plan really good?;
- Act = Correct one or more points of your plan;
If the red line (real weight) is too above the blue line (goal), possibly it means an extra fat gain; if the red line is too below, possibly it means too much muscle loss. Both cases, we must act. Sure, "too below" and "too above" still sound subjective.
You can see the diary goals and results at this graph below:
The point is: I guess it is working, but I'd like to understand if there is any risk for my goals or even for my health. Could this goal system be an efficient approach?
