High Body Fat %

[shock]

I just took my body fat measurments, to begin the skinnyguy.net program. I definately have a small stature, with more fat around my mid section. I would say I'm skinny fat. My bf% is 33%! I knew by bf% would be somewhat high, but not that high. I had my gf take all my measurments...we came up with 37 something at first. I had her do it again, so she was used to the calipers.

According to Ellis, above 25% is considered obese. Haha. I'm weighing in at 160. So for a 22 y/o, are these stats somewhat normal?

My second question is this...According to Ellis I should be on the Fat Loss program... Low calorie, high protien diet with cardio 3x a week. That just seems somewhat extreme. I have a good metabolism, and I'm trying to put on mass..not lose it. So would I be okay to continue the mass program, but also include cardio excerises? Or should I hold off, and try to get my bf% down before I move on. I guess I'm eager to start lifting and eating big.

Any suggestions?

 

[Skilla_Staz]

I'm damn sure you did it wrong...DAMN sure...

 

[Throttle]

unless you're less than 5 feet tall that just doesn't add up.

 

[shock]

No..I'm 5'8. I mean I definately have a bit of a belly... nothing really noticeable unless my shirt's off. Everywhere else I'm pretty skinny. It does seem pretty damn high.. It could very well be user error...I mean nor myself or my gf have ever used a skin caliper before. I plugged in all the numbers into a parillo calculator online...

 

[Throttle]

in any case, at 5'8 160 pounds you need to lift weights, not try to lose fat. start here: http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=110033

 

[The Living Legend]

edit: n/m, it's already covered

 

[blinkwatt]

Have a trainer or someone skilled with the calipers take your bodyfat,I'm your height and was once at your weight and I was in the 12-15% bodyfat range.

 

[Quagmire911]

Here's a good thread for body recomp:

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=114618

The one posted by throttle is also good and more in depth about training etc...

 

[danielzxc]

in any case, at 5'8 160 pounds you need to lift weights, not try to lose fat

Why?

If your body fat is too high, it's too high, no matter how much underlying muscle you have. Either way, you still have to build muscle and lose fat if you wanna look good. Those things are best done one at a time. Doesn't really matter what you do first. I would recommend cutting first, because (a) it teaches discipline and you can't kid yourself that "it's working" if it obviously isn't and (b) building muscle when starting off with low bf levels is easier. (Building muscle at the same time as losoing fat is by far more myth than reality. Maybe a newb could a BIT at the same time, but not anything really significant.)

I also highly doubt this guy is over 30%. Dude, what's your waist measurement around the navel?

 

[Warboss Alex]

(Building muscle at the same time as losoing fat is by far more myth than reality. Maybe a newb could a BIT at the same time, but not anything really significant.)

Please explain why it's a myth.

 

[danielzxc]

Explain to me why I should believe it, since it seems to contradict basic assumptions about the way the body uses energy. You're either in an caloric surplus or a caloric defecit. If surplus, you gain mass, if defecit, you lose mass. Simply based on that alone it seems unrealistic to be able to gain one kind of mass (lean) while losing another (fat).

Secondly, if it is so easy to do, why do no professionals ever do it? They all bulk and then cut. Why wouldn't they use the most optimal method and save themselves time? Remember, these are guys whose careers depend on being the best, so if there's a better method out there you would certainly expect them to use it.

Anyway, I notice you hire yourself out for online training. So maybe you have got a personal stake in pushing the "gain muscle lose fat at the same time" line. If that's the case, I'm not intrested in a debate. Good luck to you.

 

[Warboss Alex]

Well, now I'm 'off duty' lol - the signature has been removed, and we can talk about it.

The mathematics of calories in vs. calories out does apply to weight in general. You must specify whether the weight you gain/lose is fat weight, or muscular weight. They are different types of tissue and losing/gaining one does not automatically mean you're losing/gaining the other as well.

Professionals don't do this because they are professionals. Losing fat while gaining muscle is not the optimal way to do either, so they have an offseason where they concentrate on gaining muscle, and a pre-contest when they diet and possibly lose muscle (though most don't if they do it properly). Plus, when we're talking professionals, we're talking about people at an already advanced state of muscularity and/or leanness. You cannot go from 8% to 4% (stage ready) while optimally gaining muscle, no. Therefore they do what's optimal for them. Unless you're a competitor, why have a seperate offseason and precontest (or bulk/cut cycles), and compromise fat burning or muscle gains, when you can have both? (albeit at a lesser rate)

People thinking in terms of calories in/out generally talk about the whole day, or a whole week. Therein lies the flaw.

What would happen if, for example, you got up in the morning, had a small protein shake (or some aminos - let's say 25g protein and 100 calories for the sake of the example), and then did cardio, burning 300 calories. You're in a deficit, right? But the protein you ingested should ensure that most of the deficit is taken from stored bodyfat. Then for the rest of the day you eat a surplus of calories, ending up at the end of the day at say, 200 calories over maintainance (clean calories from meat, eggs, veggies, fats, carbs etc).

What would be the net result of this?

Or say if you spent 3 days of the week in a calorie deficit, and the other 4 in a surplus (talking slight surplus/deficit here from clean foods) - what would the result be over the course of the week?

 

[danielzxc]

A couple of good points there Alex, that I myself used to ponder about when I first learnt about defecit/surplus stuff. The time frames they gave were arbitrary, but what about what happens "in between", I used to wonder. Still, defecit/surplus is a good approximation of what's going on, and i think it's the best way to think about it.

The reason is that you have to ask yourself, just how much lean mass can a guy expect to ever put on (like over a lifetime, or over a long period like 10 years)? The answer, for the average guy, is depressingly little. I think the very best evidence shows pretty clearly that some guys are gonna be lucky to ever put 5lbs lean mass. Five pounds!. The average guy might get 15lbs. And a genetic rarity, maybe 20-30. (The further you move away from the average height of 5'9, obviously the numbers will rise, but %-wise they will be the same).

Now, how much lean mass can the average guy expect to get by tinkering with slight defecits in the morning, surpluses at night, or withwhatever other delicate build muscle, burn fat systems are out there? And how long's it gonna take him?

And you said yourself that for competitors who are at an advanced stage of muscularity build muscle burn fat won't work, but what about for an average guy that's already built say 7 or 8 pounds of lean mass? For HIS standards, he would also be at an "advanced" level, so he would also be better of ditching the delicate system and just doing a good old fashioned bulk then cut.

Finally, I've never met ANYONE who I would say had a good body -- decent size with sub10% -- who claimed he had achieved his results by using a delicate 'build and burn' regimen. Not one. And I have been around gyms for for years, and spent a lot of time picking the brians of people I looked up to. The only places I ever seen where people with good physiques claim to have done it with 'build and burn' is on the internet and bodybuilding mags. That alone should tell you something.

 

[danielzxc]

Also, I forgot to say, you agree that the rate of both muscle building and fat burning are lower when you are trying to do both at once. So realistically, it probably works out roughly the same in how long it takes to achieve pleasing results, right? Well in that case, why not used the PROVEN method of bulk then cut (or cut then bulk then cut)? Why RISK something as delicate as 'build and burn'?

I'll admit it, a big reason for why I am so anti build and burn is because I wasted so much fkkn time trying to pull it off but i got NOWHERE. I didn't build muscle. I didn't burn fat. I just fkkn stayed the same. Okay, my lifts got stronger, but that is fkkn IT. What a waste of time man. In that time I could squeezed in three or four good bulk then cut cycles and I would have been WAY ahead. Let's face it, most people are gonna be like me. They're gonna spend ages tinkering with just the right macro mix, just the right defecit or surplus and basically just end up spinning their wheels and going nowhere -- but in their heads, they can kid themselves that changes are happening.

On the other hand, if they just did a pure bulk and a pure cut, it's very hard to kid yourself. Either the scales are moving up or they're moving down. And on a pure cut, especially, either your waistline is shrinking or it's not; either the skinfolds are coming down or they're not. Very very hard to kid yourself. Bulking is a bit different, 'cos you can kid yourself that it's "all muscle", or some wildly wildly unrealistic level of muscle, like "75%" or even "40%". Realistically, the amount of muscle you put on in a bulk is gonna be way closer to 20% than 50%, and even less than that the more advanced you get.

 

[Warboss Alex]

Five pounds!. The average guy might get 15lbs. And a genetic rarity, maybe 20-30. (The further you move away from the average height of 5'9, obviously the numbers will rise, but %-wise they will be the same).

Where have you come up with these numbers? Are you saying an individual who's 160lbs before training has a genetic potential of 165lbs (at the same bodyfat)? I'm sorry but if that's what you're imply then it's absolute bull - though maybe I misunderstood.

A natural lifter should expect AT LEAST 20lbs in their first year if they're doing things right, another 10 the second year and from then on it'll be a struggle to gain 5lbs in a year, yes. But if you're not gaining like then you're not doing it right, I'm sorry.

As for not meeting anyone with a good body from build and burn, I can believe that, as most gymgoers are brainwashed with bulk/cut, flex routines, crossovers, kickbacks and all that. Build and burn (which is a nice way of putting it) takes time and requires a degree of consistency and precision, though not to the extent you're putting it.. a lot of people don't have the patience.

I have no problem with bulks/cuts IF they're implemented correctly. Which does not value the scale above all as you say.. the scale going up simply means you're putting on weight, and does not pay any attention to the quality of weight. If you put on 50/50 fat and muscle on a 'bulk' then you're not muscling up, you're getting to be a lardass, and that's just lazy in my opinion.

Now I'm not saying that everyone should to the build and burn thing necessarily. IF you are at a bodyfat you're comfortable with then go all out for muscle gain but do the usual techniques to keep bodyfat down: as low carb as you can gain from, timed appropriately, green tea, lots of cardio, proper food combinations, clean calories to ensure you don't gain fat with the muscle. You can put on significant muscle without gaining too much, or any, fat, if you know what you're doing.

Likewise if you ONLY want to lose fat then do so, but not at the expense of losing muscle (unless you're severely overweight). That's my gripe with the bulking and cutting cycles - you take two steps forward with the bulks (gaining muscle and fat) and then 1.5 steps backwards with the cuts (losing fat and muscle), leaving you with a net gain of what, 1-2 lbs?

if you can implement these correctly then they're a good choice, but truth be told, you'd do better with some gear to not lose muscle during the cuts and not gain too much fat on the bulks. For a natural guy, things should be done more gently and precisely if you're interested in keeping all your gains and not turning into a lardass. Of course, it requires a consistency and dedication most don't have, hence why people just go by the scale most of the time, which is flawed in my thinking.

 

[danielzxc]

Where have you come up with these numbers? Are you saying an individual who's 160lbs before training has a genetic potential of 165lbs (at the same bodyfat)? I'm sorry but if that's what you're imply then it's absolute bull - though maybe I misunderstood.

I said SOME guys will only ever gain 5lbs. Not the AVERAGE guy.

And yeah, SOME guys, dude, simply will never make any significant progress in this game. Just like it's only SOME guys who will reach the pinnacle, other guys, at the other extreme, are simply not cut out for it at all.

Now, where the fkk are YOU getting YOUR numbers? You think the AVERAGE guy is gonna be able to put on 20 fkking pounds lean in one year? Not even the most genetically gifted manage that (unless they are like 6'6). And then 10 pounds the second year, and then another five... so about 35lbs. That's what you think the AVERAGE guy is capable of huh?

I don't mind sharing with you how I reached my conclusions, but I'm just interestd in first hearing where the hell you came up wiht the above? Was it simply just because it's sometihng that every guy would love to believe, that he has that kind of potential? I am CERTAIN it cannot be because you've actually measured and tracked people's results, because then you'd know yourself how low the real average is.

Which does not value the scale above all as you say.. the scale going up simply means you're putting on weight, and does not pay any attention to the quality of weight. If you put on 50/50 fat and muscle on a 'bulk' then you're not muscling up, you're getting to be a lardass, and that's just lazy in my opinion

oh, the scales aren't THAT bad, gimme me a break. Sure, you can also tape measure your parts. Thing is, if you bulk, you're GONNA put on fat, and fat ALSO makes youre measruments larger, so again, just like with the scales you won't really know just how much muscle and just how much fat you're gaining. You just ACCPET that you're gaining both. If you know you're working out right and eating right, then you just EXPECT that some of it is gonna be muscle.


Oh, wait a second, you're one of those people who believes that you can build lean muscle without putting on ANY fat (ie that this is possible). Umm... yeah okay dude. Again, you are absolutley at odds with how every competetive builder in the world does it.

My last words on this. I think you do have a stake in 'build and burn', as I supsected from the start. Bulk and cuts too simple, too straightforward, too easy to judge for yourself whether it's working or not. 'Build and burn' requires, as you say, a lot more "precision" and fine-tuning. And that's where Mr Personal Online Trainer comes on the scene, promising to iron out all wrinkles in your routine and diet. "Hmm, I think you need to replace the cashews with walnuts, and have 30% less after 4:35pm and drink two and a half cups of green tea before midday. That should do the trick". Lol. I've been around the block when it comes to bodybuilding dude. Heard a LOT of fkkn BS. Good luck to you. Suckers born every minute.

 

[Warboss Alex]

I shan't dignify that with a reply. I thought we were having a civil discussion until your last paragraph.

 

[Fred Da Head]

zxcguy, would you recommend that a total newbie to running start training like an olympic athlete, doing two or three workouts a day, every day? After all, if you don't do what the top people do, you're doing it wrong, right?