So you want a nice stomach
Replies
-
governatorkp wrote: »I don't really agree with the general look of this.
Assuming you are an average person with an average weight;
I'd focus mostly on muscle building.
Calorie deficit? That's not going to help you building those muscles, in contrary.
What's working for me is HIIT with a focus on strength and stability.
Combined with the NEEDED caloric intake (Check out the Harris–Benedict equation) or even higher.
Have regular meals, your caloric intake evenly spread throughout the day in 5 meals.
Your metabolism will be soaring up.
The logic behind it is to build muscle.
To increase muscle, you need to feed them so they can recover and build up.
More muscle means more energy burn, in action and in rest.
Getting a ripped stomach is all about losing body fat.
And the most efficient way for you to do so is by strengthening or increasing your muscles.
An energy deficit will not work in your advantage, in contrary.
My experience, my opinion.
I don't think you read my first post.
1. It was written for the general MFP population who are trying to lose weight. The goal is to maintain lean mass while losing weight.
2. People can increase muscle mass on a deficit. Considering that the majority of people reading this or who have responded don't know much about lifting, we can safely assume most people on MFP are going to experience beginner gains (plus the obese population can gain muscle in a deficit)
3. The calorie goal I suggest is fairly high because we want to fuel the body/muscle while they are still losing fat (that's also why my protein suggestion is fairly high).
4. This post is in the general diet and weight loss section, not the gaining section. That means people in this section should absolutely not be eating more than their body needs. Meal timing is irrelevant to this population and eating 5 evenly spaced meals is broscience that is not backed by real science.
Getting a ripped stomach is about having adequate lean mass and low body fat. Both of those can be accomplished using everything I wrote in the first post.0 -
arditarose wrote: »Hi, @usmcmp
Quick question. I'm trying a recomp right now and while I never did much direct ab work in a deficit, I'm wondering if I might add a bit in now? I don't really like doing ab work so I'm kind of just hoping that I'll get a nice little result from my compound lifts-but maybe not. Thoughts?
@arditarose From the look of it you have a solid foundation for your core that has come from compound lift. Compound lifts will help maintain that foundation, but by now you probably notice that there are areas that lag a bit (my obliques suck). At this point is where I would add in more isolation work for the core.
Thanks, that's what I figured. Will find the best way to work in a bit more isolation work. Love this thread
0 -
governatorkp wrote: »I don't really agree with the general look of this.
Assuming you are an average person with an average weight;
I'd focus mostly on muscle building.
Calorie deficit? That's not going to help you building those muscles, in contrary.
What's working for me is HIIT with a focus on strength and stability.
Combined with the NEEDED caloric intake (Check out the Harris–Benedict equation) or even higher.
Have regular meals, your caloric intake evenly spread throughout the day in 5 meals.
Your metabolism will be soaring up.
The logic behind it is to build muscle.
To increase muscle, you need to feed them so they can recover and build up.
More muscle means more energy burn, in action and in rest.
Getting a ripped stomach is all about losing body fat.
And the most efficient way for you to do so is by strengthening or increasing your muscles.
An energy deficit will not work in your advantage, in contrary.
My experience, my opinion.
I don't think you read my first post.
1. It was written for the general MFP population who are trying to lose weight. The goal is to maintain lean mass while losing weight.
2. People can increase muscle mass on a deficit. Considering that the majority of people reading this or who have responded don't know much about lifting, we can safely assume most people on MFP are going to experience beginner gains (plus the obese population can gain muscle in a deficit)
3. The calorie goal I suggest is fairly high because we want to fuel the body/muscle while they are still losing fat (that's also why my protein suggestion is fairly high).
4. This post is in the general diet and weight loss section, not the gaining section. That means people in this section should absolutely not be eating more than their body needs. Meal timing is irrelevant to this population and eating 5 evenly spaced meals is broscience that is not backed by real science.
Getting a ripped stomach is about having adequate lean mass and low body fat. Both of those can be accomplished using everything I wrote in the first post.
"The goal is to maintain lean mass while losing weight."
In that case, I agree with your suggestions.
However, to get a 'lean', 'toned' middle section like this?
Perhaps we have different views on what 'toned' is.
How is the FACT that eating regularly throughout the day improves your metaboliosm, broscience?
What it does is managing your insulin levels throughout the day to maximize time spent in the fat burning zone.
I'm guessing I totally misunderstood your post, apologies.
It indeed will work for obese or sports newbies, what I meant is that an average, already fit person would most probably need more to become toned in their middlesection, regarding exercise and nutrition.
It wasn't quite clear to me that the community group these instructions were directed to were the total beginners/obese.
Keep up the good work!
0 -
governatorkp wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »I don't really agree with the general look of this.
Assuming you are an average person with an average weight;
I'd focus mostly on muscle building.
Calorie deficit? That's not going to help you building those muscles, in contrary.
What's working for me is HIIT with a focus on strength and stability.
Combined with the NEEDED caloric intake (Check out the Harris–Benedict equation) or even higher.
Have regular meals, your caloric intake evenly spread throughout the day in 5 meals.
Your metabolism will be soaring up.
The logic behind it is to build muscle.
To increase muscle, you need to feed them so they can recover and build up.
More muscle means more energy burn, in action and in rest.
Getting a ripped stomach is all about losing body fat.
And the most efficient way for you to do so is by strengthening or increasing your muscles.
An energy deficit will not work in your advantage, in contrary.
My experience, my opinion.
I don't think you read my first post.
1. It was written for the general MFP population who are trying to lose weight. The goal is to maintain lean mass while losing weight.
2. People can increase muscle mass on a deficit. Considering that the majority of people reading this or who have responded don't know much about lifting, we can safely assume most people on MFP are going to experience beginner gains (plus the obese population can gain muscle in a deficit)
3. The calorie goal I suggest is fairly high because we want to fuel the body/muscle while they are still losing fat (that's also why my protein suggestion is fairly high).
4. This post is in the general diet and weight loss section, not the gaining section. That means people in this section should absolutely not be eating more than their body needs. Meal timing is irrelevant to this population and eating 5 evenly spaced meals is broscience that is not backed by real science.
Getting a ripped stomach is about having adequate lean mass and low body fat. Both of those can be accomplished using everything I wrote in the first post.
"The goal is to maintain lean mass while losing weight."
In that case, I agree with your suggestions.
However, to get a 'lean', 'toned' middle section like this?
Perhaps we have different views on what 'toned' is.
How is the FACT that eating regularly throughout the day improves your metaboliosm, broscience?
What it does is managing your insulin levels throughout the day to maximize time spent in the fat burning zone.
I'm guessing I totally misunderstood your post, apologies.
It indeed will work for obese or sports newbies, what I meant is that an average, already fit person would most probably need more to become toned in their middlesection, regarding exercise and nutrition.
It wasn't quite clear to me that the community group these instructions were directed to were the total beginners/obese.
Keep up the good work!
"fat burning zone"? No. If you have insulin issues you would need to manage your eating and carb timing. Other than that your body will maintain a certain balance of glycogen, which it will fill from fat stores if you are not adding enough fuel (if you are in a calorie deficit). You can't do anything special to ensure your body burns fat instead of glycogen. It doesn't matter if you are burning fat or glycogen at any given moment because overall calories in compared to calories out is what determines fat loss.
There are actually studies showing that your metabolism increases once you reach 14-16 hours in the fasted state and it doesn't drop below the normal level until 72 hours in the fasted state. The reason people say to eat every few hours is because of the thermic effect of food. Even then it is misunderstood. People see more spikes when the metabolism increases to digest food eating every few hours. You would get larger spikes eating less often. Calories and macros being equal, the metabolic boost you get from eating 6 meals versus 3 would be equal, because it isn't about timing.0 -
governatorkp wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »I don't really agree with the general look of this.
Assuming you are an average person with an average weight;
I'd focus mostly on muscle building.
Calorie deficit? That's not going to help you building those muscles, in contrary.
What's working for me is HIIT with a focus on strength and stability.
Combined with the NEEDED caloric intake (Check out the Harris–Benedict equation) or even higher.
Have regular meals, your caloric intake evenly spread throughout the day in 5 meals.
Your metabolism will be soaring up.
The logic behind it is to build muscle.
To increase muscle, you need to feed them so they can recover and build up.
More muscle means more energy burn, in action and in rest.
Getting a ripped stomach is all about losing body fat.
And the most efficient way for you to do so is by strengthening or increasing your muscles.
An energy deficit will not work in your advantage, in contrary.
My experience, my opinion.
I don't think you read my first post.
1. It was written for the general MFP population who are trying to lose weight. The goal is to maintain lean mass while losing weight.
2. People can increase muscle mass on a deficit. Considering that the majority of people reading this or who have responded don't know much about lifting, we can safely assume most people on MFP are going to experience beginner gains (plus the obese population can gain muscle in a deficit)
3. The calorie goal I suggest is fairly high because we want to fuel the body/muscle while they are still losing fat (that's also why my protein suggestion is fairly high).
4. This post is in the general diet and weight loss section, not the gaining section. That means people in this section should absolutely not be eating more than their body needs. Meal timing is irrelevant to this population and eating 5 evenly spaced meals is broscience that is not backed by real science.
Getting a ripped stomach is about having adequate lean mass and low body fat. Both of those can be accomplished using everything I wrote in the first post.
"The goal is to maintain lean mass while losing weight."
In that case, I agree with your suggestions.
However, to get a 'lean', 'toned' middle section like this?
Perhaps we have different views on what 'toned' is.
How is the FACT that eating regularly throughout the day improves your metaboliosm, broscience?
What it does is managing your insulin levels throughout the day to maximize time spent in the fat burning zone.
I'm guessing I totally misunderstood your post, apologies.
It indeed will work for obese or sports newbies, what I meant is that an average, already fit person would most probably need more to become toned in their middlesection, regarding exercise and nutrition.
It wasn't quite clear to me that the community group these instructions were directed to were the total beginners/obese.
Keep up the good work!
You know what's funny? Right now we've got a thread going on talking about a study that suggests the exact opposite might be true.0 -
muffin0615 wrote: »Any ideas for losing baby belly? I have difficult time with weights due to back problems and prior back surgery. I'm 5'4" currently 160 lbs. Pre baby weight was 145lbs. and before working nightshift I was around 135lbs. I am eating 1200 calories a day and working out about an hour daily on my treadmill. Thanks!
Go back and read the first post. Start implementing what you can. Find a way to add some sort of resistance training even if it's just body weight stuff.
You have the patience of a saint!0 -
Big thanks for useful info.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »
Here's what I mean;
I'm not a chemistry expert, I'm not a dietician or food consulent.
I cannot argue with you about what you claim to be facts.
However I have my own experiences.
The more I look into people 'dieting' (Calorie deficit, eat 3 times a day) the more I see "cravings" and "cheating" and such.
The more I look into people doing as I did.. Well, those problems are almost non-existant, results are faster, more stable and retained way longer.
To compare, on a slight calorie deficit eating 3 times a day, following HIIT focused on strength,
I went from 21.5% of BF to 19.7% (-1.8%) in 3 months. I lost 3kg weighing 59 kg. (January-March).
I started eating more and 5 times a day, still doing the very same exercise, not changing anything else beside diet;
I went from 19.7% BF to 17.7% (-2%) in 5 weeks. I gained 4kg weighing 63 kg. (April-May).
Looking leaner, more toned yet stronger.
As I said, I can't give you any hard facts and won't bother to look any up either,
because the internet is full of contradictional information, and A LOT of false information.
I can tell you however, what I am suggesting worked and IS working for me, for my mother,
and for many others, with better and faster results, without cravings or hunger or tiredness,
and often permanently breaking the cycle of poor eating or dieting, succeeding, but then gaining weight and starting the whole thing all over again.
People can choose doing whatever they want to do.
I know a lot of people make the mistake of undereating.
The mistake of choosing 'dieting' instead of 'healthy eating' and healthy living.
People are often scared to eat more, they immediately link it to weight gain.
I see many people struggling with dieting just as I have.
I've been struggling with food for 6 years up until now, digging into and trying out advice such as your.
I've found something that actually works and provides relief and I believe it may be heard by others.
0 -
Loosely from all the previous comments,
HASfit provides some good full-body workouts on their website,
for both experienced and beginner,
for at home or in the gym.
If anyone needs some inspiration, you should check it out;
you can filter on Workout Type or Muscle Group.
0 -
There is no fat burning zone. You store fat if you're in a calorie surplus. You burn when you're not. You don't have to eat 6 times a day to lose fat, Intermittent fasting is the best evidence for that. The idea that not eating for a few hours makes your body think you're starving is ridiculous.1
-
stevencloser wrote: »There is no fat burning zone. You store fat if you're in a calorie surplus. You burn when you're not. You don't have to eat 6 times a day to lose fat, Intermittent fasting is the best evidence for that. The idea that not eating for a few hours makes your body think you're starving is ridiculous.
Altho many succesful weight loss plans are based on that idea.
I never claimed you have to eat 6 times a day to burn fat.
Read my previous post. I did lose body fat following all mentioned suggestions in the OP.
However lost more bodyfat faster without calorie deficit and with eating 5 times a day.
If intermittent fasting is a perfect evidence, then what do you have to say about my own personal experiences?0 -
Without calorie deficit goes against physics.0
-
Also you don't seem to understand how percentages work.
Even if your body fat estimations were correct to the 0.1st percent (they're not, not even if you went to a doctor to get a dexa scan done.) You didn't lose fat when you gained 4 kilos. 19.7% of 59 kilos is almost the same as 17.7% of 63.
You ate more and gained weight. You can believe that that was all muscle (it isn't), but not even your own experience supports the things you said.0 -
governatorkp wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »There is no fat burning zone. You store fat if you're in a calorie surplus. You burn when you're not. You don't have to eat 6 times a day to lose fat, Intermittent fasting is the best evidence for that. The idea that not eating for a few hours makes your body think you're starving is ridiculous.
Altho many succesful weight loss plans are based on that idea.
I never claimed you have to eat 6 times a day to burn fat.
Read my previous post. I did lose body fat following all mentioned suggestions in the OP.
However lost more bodyfat faster without calorie deficit and with eating 5 times a day.
If intermittent fasting is a perfect evidence, then what do you have to say about my own personal experiences?
Uhm, that total calories trump meal frequency. You will lose in a deficit regardless of your number of meals spread throughout the day....0 -
stevencloser wrote: »Also you don't seem to understand how percentages work.
Even if your body fat estimations were correct to the 0.1st percent (they're not, not even if you went to a doctor to get a dexa scan done.) You didn't lose fat when you gained 4 kilos. 19.7% of 59 kilos is almost the same as 17.7% of 63.
You ate more and gained weight. You can believe that that was all muscle (it isn't), but not even your own experience supports the things you said.
You've got a point there.
However, I suppose my personal goals are different from those the OP aimed at.
I'll stop bothering this topic and find my way in the weight gaining section.
Thanks for your insights.0 -
If you go to the weight gain section and say that you gained 4 kilos of muscle in 5 weeks you're not going to get much different answers.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »If you go to the weight gain section and say that you gained 4 kilos of muscle in 5 weeks you're not going to get much different answers.
I never claimed I gained 4 kilos of pure muscle.
Also, I am going to look there for more information about my specific personal goal,
as it's useless to keep commenting on it in this topic, which has nothing to do with that.
No need to be rude, you're making a lot of assumptions and are misunderstanding.0 -
Sorry if it sounded rude to you. But tell me what did you think your 4 kilo gain was if you said your bodyfat went down in the same sentence? It can only be muscle or fluid retention from glycogen.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Sorry if it sounded rude to you. But tell me what did you think your 4 kilo gain was if you said your bodyfat went down in the same sentence? It can only be muscle or fluid retention from glycogen.
I suppose those two you stated.
I can't say, 4 kilo of muscle would sound ridiculous in 5 weeks, however I wouldn't know what to think as I am in the middle of hormone replacement therapy as well.
It's confusing because, as you said, 19.7% of 59 is about the same as 17.7% of 63.
So if my fat mass in kg stayed the same, what are those 4 kgs indeed then, if they can't be muscle..
Obviously I myself have a lot of questions, otherwise I wouldn't come digging around on forums.
I'm guessing I didn't think my arguements through enough and they've been invalidated.
0 -
governatorkp wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »
Here's what I mean;
I'm not a chemistry expert, I'm not a dietician or food consulent.
I cannot argue with you about what you claim to be facts.
However I have my own experiences.
Let's look at these right here. Cutting out all your personal stuff and getting down to facts.
The average sumo wrestler eats 10,000-20,000 calories per day. The average sumo wrestler skips breakfast to try to be as hungry as possible for lunch. Lunch is often 5,000-10,000 calories (depending on training level and how much they have to gain or maintain). After lunch they are so full they take a nap, then wake up to train for three hours. After training they have a second meal of 5,000-10,000 calories. It's also not told that many will snack during food prep or between meals, but the traditional wrestlers do not count those as meals or food eaten since they are not seated at a table. Do you think the average man could eat 10,000 calories across the day and not gain fat?
http://www.banzuke.com/00-4/msg00060.html
I take issue with the "average overweight person" graph because there is no set standard to an average person. I became obese eating 7 meals per day.
Here are some studies on meal timing:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19943985
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20339363
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17413096
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15452402
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16450542
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20029094
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17909674
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3508745
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9040548
Here's one on blood glucose:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405701
Here are some studies on "starvation mode":
http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=/BJN/BJN71_03/S0007114594002151a.pdf&code=97abffefc12eb742c3e652438a6bb5dd
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3661473
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2405717
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/108372921 -
governatorkp wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Sorry if it sounded rude to you. But tell me what did you think your 4 kilo gain was if you said your bodyfat went down in the same sentence? It can only be muscle or fluid retention from glycogen.
I suppose those two you stated.
I can't say, 4 kilo of muscle would sound ridiculous in 5 weeks, however I wouldn't know what to think as I am in the middle of hormone replacement therapy as well.
It's confusing because, as you said, 19.7% of 59 is about the same as 17.7% of 63.
So if my fat mass in kg stayed the same, what are those 4 kgs indeed then, if they can't be muscle..
Obviously I myself have a lot of questions, otherwise I wouldn't come digging around on forums.
I'm guessing I didn't think my arguements through enough and they've been invalidated.
Did you start strength training? Come off a restrictive diet? Add creatine? You say hormone replacement therapy, but not specifically what the regimen is. Those can all increase water weight, which would make all body fat measurement methods show a lean mass increase (since water is counted as lean mass).0 -
Drink plenty of water, try tummy exercise and maintain your food taking .. try not to stay calm at all keep moving in your placedncing is an amazing way to lose fat0
-
Did you start strength training? Come off a restrictive diet? Add creatine? You say hormone replacement therapy, but not specifically what the regimen is. Those can all increase water weight, which would make all body fat measurement methods show a lean mass increase (since water is counted as lean mass).
The only thing I've changed since March (When I weighed 59 kg) is nutrition.
Hormone replacement therapy started in February, which is simply a 1g Testosterone injection every 3 months.
I'm still doing the same HIIT workout in the same frequency.
It lasts about 45-60 minutes, burning around 400-500 kcal.
Working out 6 days out of 7, fairly sedentary rest of the day.
I upped my calorie intake from 1600 to 2500 (gaining those 4 kgs), now 2800.
As for supplements, I don't take creatine.
Though I've been using BCAA and L-Carnitin, however I already used those weighing 59kg.
You talk about water weight, but isn't 4kgs of 'water' rather.. much?
Numbers are one thing, but in those 5 weeks I see a significant change in the mirror which makes me think it can't be 4kgs of fat, or water, or only those two.
Clothing still fits perfectly (I'm assuming gaining 4 kgs of fat/water would be noticeable in clothing?)
I'm looking more muscular, mostly in back, arms and upper abs/obliques.
Measurements with tape in those regions tell an increase.
Any idea?
0 -
governatorkp wrote: »Did you start strength training? Come off a restrictive diet? Add creatine? You say hormone replacement therapy, but not specifically what the regimen is. Those can all increase water weight, which would make all body fat measurement methods show a lean mass increase (since water is counted as lean mass).
The only thing I've changed since March (When I weighed 59 kg) is nutrition.
Hormone replacement therapy started in February, which is simply a 1g Testosterone injection every 3 months.
I'm still doing the same HIIT workout in the same frequency.
It lasts about 45-60 minutes, burning around 400-500 kcal.
Working out 6 days out of 7, fairly sedentary rest of the day.
I upped my calorie intake from 1600 to 2500 (gaining those 4 kgs), now 2800.
As for supplements, I don't take creatine.
Though I've been using BCAA and L-Carnitin, however I already used those weighing 59kg.
You talk about water weight, but isn't 4kgs of 'water' rather.. much?
Numbers are one thing, but in those 5 weeks I see a significant change in the mirror which makes me think it can't be 4kgs of fat, or water, or only those two.
Clothing still fits perfectly (I'm assuming gaining 4 kgs of fat/water would be noticeable in clothing?)
I'm looking more muscular, mostly in back, arms and upper abs/obliques.
Measurements with tape in those regions tell an increase.
Any idea?
You may have gained .5 kg of muscle, but it's very possible to gain 4 kgs of water and not have it noticeable. I gained 4.5 kg of water weight in the first week after my last bodybuilding competition. My clothes still fit the same and my muscles looked a bit fuller. I didn't look any fatter.
The average woman only gains .45 kg of muscle per month. They can gain .68 kg in a really really good month. If the testosterone is simply bringing your test levels up to a normal woman's levels your gains would be in line with the average. If the testosterone is in addition to a normal test level you could be gaining more, but still not 4 kgs worth. If your levels were low (which is what replacement indicates) then you are most likely regaining lean mass you lost previously, but you still gained mostly water with a little bit of fat.0 -
You may have gained .5 kg of muscle, but it's very possible to gain 4 kgs of water and not have it noticeable. I gained 4.5 kg of water weight in the first week after my last bodybuilding competition. My clothes still fit the same and my muscles looked a bit fuller. I didn't look any fatter.
The average woman only gains .45 kg of muscle per month. They can gain .68 kg in a really really good month. If the testosterone is simply bringing your test levels up to a normal woman's levels your gains would be in line with the average. If the testosterone is in addition to a normal test level you could be gaining more, but still not 4 kgs worth. If your levels were low (which is what replacement indicates) then you are most likely regaining lean mass you lost previously, but you still gained mostly water with a little bit of fat.
Thanks for taking your time to actually analyze my situation and give useful information.
To clarify, the testosterone is about cross-sex hormone treatment.
What would your advice be on lowering body fat then?
If looking at the OP, that would be simply creating a calorie deficit while remaining to do the same exercise?
Also, what method of calculating caloric need would you recommend?
I've been using the Harris Benedict Equation.
My BMR is 1650 for men. (1480 for women)
Excercising 6 times a week would put me in the Moderate-Heavy exercise rank, meaning
Moderate:
1650 x1.55 = 2557
1480 x1.55 = 2294
Heavy:
1650 x1.725 = 2846
1480 x1.725 = 2553
Which number would you recommend calculating a deficit on?
+ Is it even needed to create a deficit since the workouts burn about 400-500 kcal?
If not, and the deficit exercise creates is okay, should I eat part of the deficit back or is 500kcal okay?
+ On rest day (as I said I work out 6 out of 7 days) does that mean I should less (as I don't have the energy burn of the workout)?
0 -
For some reason it double-posted my comment.
As it seems to not be possible to remove a comment,
I'm clarifying this useless edited post..
0 -
governatorkp wrote: »You may have gained .5 kg of muscle, but it's very possible to gain 4 kgs of water and not have it noticeable. I gained 4.5 kg of water weight in the first week after my last bodybuilding competition. My clothes still fit the same and my muscles looked a bit fuller. I didn't look any fatter.
The average woman only gains .45 kg of muscle per month. They can gain .68 kg in a really really good month. If the testosterone is simply bringing your test levels up to a normal woman's levels your gains would be in line with the average. If the testosterone is in addition to a normal test level you could be gaining more, but still not 4 kgs worth. If your levels were low (which is what replacement indicates) then you are most likely regaining lean mass you lost previously, but you still gained mostly water with a little bit of fat.
Thanks for taking your time to actually analyze my situation and give useful information.
To clarify, the testosterone is about cross-sex hormone treatment.
What would your advice be on lowering body fat then?
If looking at the OP, that would be simply creating a calorie deficit while remaining to do the same exercise?
Also, what method of calculating caloric need would you recommend?
I've been using the Harris Benedict Equation.
My BMR is 1650 for men. (1480 for women)
Excercising 6 times a week would put me in the Moderate-Heavy exercise rank, meaning
Moderate:
1650 x1.55 = 2557
1480 x1.55 = 2294
Heavy:
1650 x1.725 = 2846
1480 x1.725 = 2553
Which number would you recommend calculating a deficit on?
+ Is it even needed to create a deficit since the workouts burn about 400-500 kcal?
If not, and the deficit exercise creates is okay, should I eat part of the deficit back or is 500kcal okay?
+ On rest day (as I said I work out 6 out of 7 days) does that mean I should less (as I don't have the energy burn of the workout)?
Your circumstances are unique and calculators are not going to work for you. Most of what you are going to face is different simply due to biological and interventional variables. Sorry I made assumptions on your situation prior on the need for hormone replacement, I did not mean it as an insult, just based off your calorie intake and your hormone replacement comment.
You are finding yourself also in a situation where recomposition may be the best method. You would lower your HIIT to focus on mostly resistance training and progressive overload. It's harder to do that when you are focusing in increasing calorie burn through HIIT. Along with a program more focused on muscle gain you would need to experiment with calorie intake to maintain your body weight. Women traditionally have lower lean mass (due to biology requiring females maintain more body fat to support reproduction) and lower testosterone, while men naturally have higher lean mass and higher testosterone. That's the reason the calculators spit out different numbers with identical statistics when you change the gender.
From your current intake I would simply lower it week by week until you maintain weight. From there your goal is to keep your weight fairly constant while lifting to build lean mass. You will be slowly lowering body fat while adding muscle. I've talked about recomposition a few times through this post because as you were stating earlier, lean people require other methods than a deficit to increase lean mass while reducing body fat.0 -
I'll try out the things you've just suggested.
As for lowering my intake until weight stays stable, what dropping margin are we talking about?
You talked about creatin earlier, would it be of any use to add that supplementary (at this stage)?
Would you mind if I keep contacting you as time passes and I'm trying out your suggestions?
0 -
governatorkp wrote: »
I'll try out the things you've just suggested.
As for lowering my intake until weight stays stable, what dropping margin are we talking about?
You talked about creatin earlier, would it be of any use to add that supplementary (at this stage)?
Would you mind if I keep contacting you as time passes and I'm trying out your suggestions?
Most people drop about 100 calories per week. I'm guessing your margin between current intake and TDEE isn't huge, so 100 calories the first couple of weeks and 50 after that just to try to get close to TDEE. Over time you may find you need to increase calories as you lose fat and add lean mass. Your NEAT and exercise activity may not always be constant, so weighing weekly and making adjustments after a few weeks of up or down trend is a good idea.
Creatine can help with recovery. It can also help with gym performance. You'll gain up to 3 kgs when you start taking it. It's cheap and I feel 5g daily of creatine monohydrate is well worth adding in as a supplement.
http://examine.com/supplements/Creatine/
Feel free to send me a private message whenever you have questions!0 -
asflatasapancake wrote: »governatorkp wrote: »
I'll try out the things you've just suggested.
As for lowering my intake until weight stays stable, what dropping margin are we talking about?
You talked about creatin earlier, would it be of any use to add that supplementary (at this stage)?
Would you mind if I keep contacting you as time passes and I'm trying out your suggestions?
Most people drop about 100 calories per week. I'm guessing your margin between current intake and TDEE isn't huge, so 100 calories the first couple of weeks and 50 after that just to try to get close to TDEE. Over time you may find you need to increase calories as you lose fat and add lean mass. Your NEAT and exercise activity may not always be constant, so weighing weekly and making adjustments after a few weeks of up or down trend is a good idea.
Creatine can help with recovery. It can also help with gym performance. You'll gain up to 3 kgs when you start taking it. It's cheap and I feel 5g daily of creatine monohydrate is well worth adding in as a supplement.
http://examine.com/supplements/Creatine/
Feel free to send me a private message whenever you have questions!
I remember taking Creatine back when I was in college football to get the gainz. I gained a bit of weight and strength. Shortly after, the substance was banned by the NCAA. I looked recently, and it is no longer banned. Not sure Creatine really did all that much for me. I was lifting crazy and eating like a horse back then and feel I would've gained strength and size regardless. I'm starting to lift heavy again and am just doing protein powder for supplements this time. Not saying Creatine couldn't help some. Just not for me.
Creatine is natural, you get it in smaller doses from eating beef and fish. Some people have naturally higher capacity and natural ability to store creatine, so they don't see much of a difference in muscular endurance. Some protein powders contain creatine. It's not going to magically build more muscle, but it can aid in gym performance and recovery.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions