Road to Six Pack ABs - Get Ripped!
Options
Replies
-
More assumptions.JeffseekingV wrote: »No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
And again with the bodybuilder comparison.
If you didn't notice, people stopped listening.
I'm glad you did. So no need to post further0 -
For @LolBroScience and @MrM27: Thought you guys would find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
Um, this looks like a peer reviewed science study. Is that allowed here? ;-)0 -
For @LolBroScience and @MrM27: Thought you guys would find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
Um, this looks like a peer reviewed science study. Is that allowed here? ;-)
I don't anyone in the discussion is obese though right? It's an interesting read though0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
I've done the cut (as a female) and I did not lose 23% of my weight from lean mass. The studies actually say that dieters who do no resistance training and have sub optimal protein intake lose 25% of the weight as lean mass. By the way the women in that study started at 18% body fat and dropped to 12% in 12 weeks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11360131), which is like a man dropping from 9% to 5%. That's not even close to a man dropping from 14% to 10%.
Let's say he does lose 2 pounds of lean mass. A man can average about 2 pounds of lean mass gains a month for the first 5 years of training. That means after the first month of bulking (ignoring rebounding hormones that would increase his initial gains) he would have it back. If he's been training for 5-8 years then it is about 1.5 pounds of lean mass in a month.
Yeah there were assumptions. That's why I said " I assume". Stating the obvious isn't clear enough? I said 2-3 lbs so we are right there depending what he actually weighs. If he weighs more, then the actual weight in pounds will be more. Less is he weighs less. If he's been training for 5-8 years, his gains back won't be as great either. And your study didn't account for lifting nor did it discuss specific body fat amounts as one can't lose fat linearly. Ie at high body fat as at very low body fat correct? How long would it take to gain that 1-2 lbs back via lifting and eating? And how much does that add to the amount he wanted to bulk in the first place? And how do you know it wouldn't be faster just to bulk now with a lean gain and just cut once?
I typed out a long response with a bunch of numbers and decided it doesn't even matter. I really don't care what he does first. If he's cool with getting fat before cutting that's fine. Gains difference between the methods? Could be zero (because either way he's going to have to cut and will lose lean mass) or it could be 8 pounds.
I frankly don't give a *kitten* at this point. I've lived two bulks and saw how the mass gains worked for lean and not so lean. I've cut to stage ready (which isn't his goal) twice, and I've seen how the fat versus lean mass loss worked. Obviously YMMV.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »JeffseekingV wrote: »No. IMHO, his loss in LBM is more significant than the theory that it's better to gain LBM while at a lower BF %
People cut to lower their BF% to show the muscles underneath. For most, it's worth the loss in order to look leaner. Nothing wrong with that.
Again, your ASSUMING the length he'd have to "STRUGGLE" to gain back. I did say at his % it would be relatively harder to gain LBM vs cutting down from above 14%. But that was a GUESS. It's also a TIME issue, cutting, bulking and then cutting again.
In a quick search, women were found to lose ABOUT 23% lbm when cutting for a bodybuilding competition. He's not a woman but I'll use it anyway.
I'll ASSUME he's around 170lbs. At 14%, he has 146lbs of LBM. A quick/dirty calc. If he wants to be 10%, he'll end up at around 160lbs. So he will have to lose roughly 10lbs. So around 2-3lbs of that will be muscle and the rest fat. If he loses it the right way. So IMHO, he'll be in the hole about 2-3 lbs before bulking.
Another post here mentions that "10lbs of muscle gain" might be difficult to do. Which I agree. So the 2-3 lbs he has to gain back represents 20-30% of an optimistic LBM gain.
Maybe this person only wants to gain 5llbs of LBM and not 10? Great. If that is the case, then after his cut, he'd have to gain 7-8lbs of LBM. Getting a little close that optimistic 10lbs right? If he just starts at 14%, he'd only have to bulk up the 5lbs. If he does a LEAN bulk, then the fat gain might not equal 5lbs. Maybe less. So now at 180lbs, he'd have to lose 18lbs to get to a 10% BF ratio again. And hopefully kept on as much muscle as possible.
I've done the cut (as a female) and I did not lose 23% of my weight from lean mass. The studies actually say that dieters who do no resistance training and have sub optimal protein intake lose 25% of the weight as lean mass. By the way the women in that study started at 18% body fat and dropped to 12% in 12 weeks (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11360131), which is like a man dropping from 9% to 5%. That's not even close to a man dropping from 14% to 10%.
Let's say he does lose 2 pounds of lean mass. A man can average about 2 pounds of lean mass gains a month for the first 5 years of training. That means after the first month of bulking (ignoring rebounding hormones that would increase his initial gains) he would have it back. If he's been training for 5-8 years then it is about 1.5 pounds of lean mass in a month.
Yeah there were assumptions. That's why I said " I assume". Stating the obvious isn't clear enough? I said 2-3 lbs so we are right there depending what he actually weighs. If he weighs more, then the actual weight in pounds will be more. Less is he weighs less. If he's been training for 5-8 years, his gains back won't be as great either. And your study didn't account for lifting nor did it discuss specific body fat amounts as one can't lose fat linearly. Ie at high body fat as at very low body fat correct? How long would it take to gain that 1-2 lbs back via lifting and eating? And how much does that add to the amount he wanted to bulk in the first place? And how do you know it wouldn't be faster just to bulk now with a lean gain and just cut once?
I typed out a long response with a bunch of numbers and decided it doesn't even matter. I really don't care what he does first. If he's cool with getting fat before cutting that's fine. Gains difference between the methods? Could be zero (because either way he's going to have to cut and will lose lean mass) or it could be 8 pounds.
Oddly enough, I've said this same conclusion at least one page ago0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »For @LolBroScience and @MrM27: Thought you guys would find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
Um, this looks like a peer reviewed science study. Is that allowed here? ;-)
I don't anyone in the discussion is obese though right? It's an interesting read though
I'm obese. By BMI standards.0 -
JeffseekingV wrote: »For @LolBroScience and @MrM27: Thought you guys would find this interesting.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865771?dopt=Abstract&holding=f1000,f1000m,isrctn
Um, this looks like a peer reviewed science study. Is that allowed here? ;-)
I don't anyone in the discussion is obese though right? It's an interesting read though
I'm obese. By BMI standards.
I don't think the study is accounting for your body in the definition of obese.0 -
I just have one question, everyone is trying to put on lean muscle right. If a muscle is not lean, isn't it just fat?
P.S I have gained approximately 10kg or a bit over 20lbs of LBM. Took about 6 years so far.0 -
And FWIW, retention of LBM is a lot easier than gaining it but still in the case of the OP I would recommend cutting first because of the partitioning between muscle/fat gains is not going to be great at above 15% BF unless he has some awesome genetics or drugs basically.0
-
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Based on what I've been eating, I think around 2100-2200. MFP suggests about 1950, but I think that's a little too low.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, maybe you are right then.@ForecasterJason
The reason it seems ridiculous to you about the concept of how hard it is to do what you are talking about is because reading it and doing it are completely different. When you try it a few times, you outlook changes.
Personally, I am not that far right now from the starting stats I mentioned in that example. For all intents and purposes, I would be considered a complete beginner in consistent weight training. For my entire life I have always been very lean. At this point, I am trying to do a slow bulk. I don't expect to be putting on 20 pounds in the next year at the pace I'm going. But because of my age, muscle/fat ratio, and perhaps other factors, I have been blessed with a lightning fast metabolism right now. I know it will slow down as I get older, and for that reason I am hesitant to slow it down by gaining unnecessary body fat right now. This is why I do believe (for me, at least) gaining muscle on a slow bulk is hard, and why I am setting my expectations low.
But clearly, I seem to be an outlier in this thinking.
What are your maintenance calories at out of curiosity.?
Holy *kitten*! What are your stats? I maintain at 2600. I'm a 29 year old, female, 5'9",190 pounds and 23% body fat. MFP has me around 2200.
this makes me so sad.
I'm not losing on 1700...
I totally don't get that because between kicking @$$ lifting and dancing, you should be burning well above that!!!!!
seriously- I think the same thing too- except here I am... scale stubbornly still stuck at 160. it's disheartening to be SO busy- pull such long hours- for 7 days a week... and be hungry all the bloody time- and stuck.
I know I could tighten some details up- and get more protein- but for cripes sake. You'd think- at SOME point something would budge- might be time to drift toward "cleaner" food LOL shameful.
Hmmm...have you tried increasing your calories a bit to get things moving?
Because of the way my life ebbs and flows- I over the course of the month wind up with refeeds- so I have high weeks and lower weeks- usually my average winds up at a deficit- but I know around 1800-2000 I will maintain so I'm hesitant to go much higher.
I have mine set to 1650 right now- but for TDEE- % I have room to do 1750- so I aim for a range- I don't think my numbers are "off" I think I could tighten up macros- but I don't really think they are wrong honestly. But holiday's are coming- I could wind up eating closer to maintance and then I'll see how it pans out LOL
0 -
ForecasterJason wrote: »
Based on what I've been eating, I think around 2100-2200. MFP suggests about 1950, but I think that's a little too low.LolBroScience wrote: »ForecasterJason wrote: »
Well, maybe you are right then.@ForecasterJason
The reason it seems ridiculous to you about the concept of how hard it is to do what you are talking about is because reading it and doing it are completely different. When you try it a few times, you outlook changes.
Personally, I am not that far right now from the starting stats I mentioned in that example. For all intents and purposes, I would be considered a complete beginner in consistent weight training. For my entire life I have always been very lean. At this point, I am trying to do a slow bulk. I don't expect to be putting on 20 pounds in the next year at the pace I'm going. But because of my age, muscle/fat ratio, and perhaps other factors, I have been blessed with a lightning fast metabolism right now. I know it will slow down as I get older, and for that reason I am hesitant to slow it down by gaining unnecessary body fat right now. This is why I do believe (for me, at least) gaining muscle on a slow bulk is hard, and why I am setting my expectations low.
But clearly, I seem to be an outlier in this thinking.
What are your maintenance calories at out of curiosity.?
Holy *kitten*! What are your stats? I maintain at 2600. I'm a 29 year old, female, 5'9",190 pounds and 23% body fat. MFP has me around 2200.
this makes me so sad.
I'm not losing on 1700...
I totally don't get that because between kicking @$$ lifting and dancing, you should be burning well above that!!!!!
seriously- I think the same thing too- except here I am... scale stubbornly still stuck at 160. it's disheartening to be SO busy- pull such long hours- for 7 days a week... and be hungry all the bloody time- and stuck.
I know I could tighten some details up- and get more protein- but for cripes sake. You'd think- at SOME point something would budge- might be time to drift toward "cleaner" food LOL shameful.
Hmmm...have you tried increasing your calories a bit to get things moving?
Because of the way my life ebbs and flows- I over the course of the month wind up with refeeds- so I have high weeks and lower weeks- usually my average winds up at a deficit- but I know around 1800-2000 I will maintain so I'm hesitant to go much higher.
I have mine set to 1650 right now- but for TDEE- % I have room to do 1750- so I aim for a range- I don't think my numbers are "off" I think I could tighten up macros- but I don't really think they are wrong honestly. But holiday's are coming- I could wind up eating closer to maintance and then I'll see how it pans out LOL
Yeah, sounds solid. That's soooooo frustrating!!!0 -
Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.0 -
Yup, guilty of that fat boy syndrome myself. I always tell people that it's a complete mind fk. Remind yourself that the weight gain this time is part of a plan and you're in complete control.LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.
I also think there would be a decent amount of people that would bulk into that not so decent territory, get upset with how they are looking and might not use that as the proper motivation but instead just take it to a whole new level of being relaxed. Next thing you know they are Forever Bulking. "It's alright bro, I can eat that, I'm bulking".
I can see that too. I had a tough time switching from bulk to cut. First, because I enjoyed eating so much. Second, because I gained more fat than planned and sort of said JSF.
I am glad that Kyle brought this aspect up. We've focused mostly on the physiological part of bulking. Bulking and cutting are physiological and psychological. Can't separate brain and body.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.
Yep that has been me for the last two years. My bulk/not bulk continues. LOL
0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.
Yep that has been me for the last two years. My bulk/not bulk continues. LOL
That's funny...I always thought it was harder for women because they can never be "thin enough." I didn't realize guys had the same struggle!0 -
mustgetmuscles1 wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »Something else I was thinking about in relation to the argument of going from 8-15% and 14-20%. I think there's a large psychological component to it as well...you have more of a "cushion room".
Starting at 8% and going to up 14% you're essentially moving from a "good" to "decent" in reference to body comp. Moving from from 14% to 20% is like moving from "decent" to "not that great". Most people in that 14-20% range will end up getting fed up with body composition, cutting. Repeating said process causes them to spin their wheels.
Hopefully I worded that correctly... and obviously the level of body fat is subjective, but I'd say on average more people would prefer to be 14% at the end of a bulk, rather than 20%.
I was thinking about this same thing last night. It reminds me of an article about "Former Fat Boy Syndrome" where they reach a slightly uncomfortable level of fat and ditch bulking to cut back down to comfortable. When I posted how long my bulk was and how much I gained there were many people who confessed to lasting less than a month because they couldn't stand to gain more than 5 pounds.
Yep that has been me for the last two years. My bulk/not bulk continues. LOL
That's funny...I always thought it was harder for women because they can never be "thin enough." I didn't realize guys had the same struggle!
Yea it sucks. It might be easier for the guys that were not overweight before. I dont know. I got down to 160 from 210. Gained 10lbs back almost instantly and have been bouncing back and forth between 170-175 for a long time now. I am just a recreational lifter and dont have any body building or power lifting goals so it not really a big deal for me but the struggle with the idea of fat gain is real.
0 -
Not that this will "help" either of you, but it's an interesting read.
http://www.jcdfitness.com/2009/10/the-former-fat-boy-syndrome/0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 999 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions