I went from morbidly obese to 6 pack abs! Ask me Anything

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

vismal wrote: »

CadeIsaiahNelson302 wrote: »

Hey so you obviously lost weight first, but my question is how did you get the six pack after? I've lost weight pretty well in the past but have struggled to build muscle. Did you cut to skinny and then build

That's basically it, yes. Cut weight until you are relatively lean, lifting weights the whole time to maintain muscle mass and possibly build strength. When you achieve relative leanness (not necessarily abs lean) you can start eating in a small calorie surplus. This is when you focus on building as much size/strength as possible while keeping fat gains minimal. After a doing that for 6-9 months, you do another fat loss phase to remove the fat added during the bulk. If you do things right, after a year of bulk/cut cycling you end up leaner and more muscular than when you started. It may take several cycles to gain a 6 pack.

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

Hi Vismal –
I really appreciate you taking the time. Can you please review my plan, and let me know if you think I’m missing anything or have interpreted anything wrong? I’ve interspersed questions throughout my plan.
Current status:
- 31 years old
- 5’ 9”
- 188 lbs
- 43” waist around navel

My goal
- Lose 40 lbs, which will hopefully reveal a six pack
- I originally wanted to lose 2lbs a week (if it will not affect lean muscle – assuming I do all the other things right like protein requirements), but chose to be happy with 1 lb a week if it’ll make me less likely not to give up
- So goal is 40 lbs loss in 40 weeks time – Does that sound reasonable? What do you think is the most aggressive goal which will still stay way from the risk of burn out? 40 weeks is longer than I would like. I just don’t want to sacrifice lean body mass if I do more aggressive than 1lb / week
-
Nutrition
- 11 calories per lb of body weight
- 0.8g+ of protein per lb of body weight
- 0.45g+ fat per lb of body weight
- Remainder in carbs

Resistance Training
- Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
- ICF “cutting version”
- 3 sets for main lifts, 2 sets for accessories

Cardio Training
- Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday
- 25 minutes of vigorous-intensity cardio Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday (to get the CDC recommended cardio benefits)

40 lbs in 40 weeks is completely achievable. I'd be quite happy with that, and if you manage to do it faster, consider that a bonus. Nutrition looks fine for a starting point. You will have to adjust calories based on your actual results. The only thing I would caution is that expecting a 6 pack to be waiting for you after your initial fat loss phase may set you up for disappointment. While some genetically lucky individuals will find that to be the case, the majority of people do not. It took me a few rounds of bulk/cut cycles to achieve visible abs. If abs are your goal, you're going to need to drop the fat regardless of if you'll get them on the first cut or not, so the plan is still solid. Just don't get extremely disappointed if you find you still need to do a few bulking phases before you have decent abs. Most people do. I did.

Hi Vismal - You're awesome. I do want to clarify an important question I have.

I understand that 1 lb a week in weight loss is a realistic, achievable goal.

I really want to accelerate that rate to 2 lbs a week - while STILL following all the same protocols (keep the resistance training intensity up, keep at the caloric discipline needed to result in ~2 lbs a week, ensure I hit my macros in protein and fat, etc.)

I want to know if you think there will at all be a larger risk for MUSCLE loss if going at a 2lb rate vs. a 1lb rate (given that I believe I have around 40 lbs of fat to lose).

I understand that there is definitely a risk of burn-out, which I acknowledge. But I am interested to know if you believe that there is a risk of more MUSCLE loss at 2lb vs 1lb (given I have 40 lbs of fat to lose). I've heard conflicting things from people regarding this, so wanted to know if you have an opinion - and if it's based on anything in the literature, scientific, etc. that you've seen.

Thanks!!

Yes, as you get leaner, the faster you lose, the greater the risk of losing lean mass.

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

vismal wrote: »

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

vismal wrote: »

CadeIsaiahNelson302 wrote: »

Hey so you obviously lost weight first, but my question is how did you get the six pack after? I've lost weight pretty well in the past but have struggled to build muscle. Did you cut to skinny and then build

That's basically it, yes. Cut weight until you are relatively lean, lifting weights the whole time to maintain muscle mass and possibly build strength. When you achieve relative leanness (not necessarily abs lean) you can start eating in a small calorie surplus. This is when you focus on building as much size/strength as possible while keeping fat gains minimal. After a doing that for 6-9 months, you do another fat loss phase to remove the fat added during the bulk. If you do things right, after a year of bulk/cut cycling you end up leaner and more muscular than when you started. It may take several cycles to gain a 6 pack.

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

Hi Vismal –
I really appreciate you taking the time. Can you please review my plan, and let me know if you think I’m missing anything or have interpreted anything wrong? I’ve interspersed questions throughout my plan.
Current status:
- 31 years old
- 5’ 9”
- 188 lbs
- 43” waist around navel

My goal
- Lose 40 lbs, which will hopefully reveal a six pack
- I originally wanted to lose 2lbs a week (if it will not affect lean muscle – assuming I do all the other things right like protein requirements), but chose to be happy with 1 lb a week if it’ll make me less likely not to give up
- So goal is 40 lbs loss in 40 weeks time – Does that sound reasonable? What do you think is the most aggressive goal which will still stay way from the risk of burn out? 40 weeks is longer than I would like. I just don’t want to sacrifice lean body mass if I do more aggressive than 1lb / week
-
Nutrition
- 11 calories per lb of body weight
- 0.8g+ of protein per lb of body weight
- 0.45g+ fat per lb of body weight
- Remainder in carbs

Resistance Training
- Monday, Wednesday, and Friday
- ICF “cutting version”
- 3 sets for main lifts, 2 sets for accessories

Cardio Training
- Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday
- 25 minutes of vigorous-intensity cardio Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday (to get the CDC recommended cardio benefits)

40 lbs in 40 weeks is completely achievable. I'd be quite happy with that, and if you manage to do it faster, consider that a bonus. Nutrition looks fine for a starting point. You will have to adjust calories based on your actual results. The only thing I would caution is that expecting a 6 pack to be waiting for you after your initial fat loss phase may set you up for disappointment. While some genetically lucky individuals will find that to be the case, the majority of people do not. It took me a few rounds of bulk/cut cycles to achieve visible abs. If abs are your goal, you're going to need to drop the fat regardless of if you'll get them on the first cut or not, so the plan is still solid. Just don't get extremely disappointed if you find you still need to do a few bulking phases before you have decent abs. Most people do. I did.

Hi Vismal - You're awesome. I do want to clarify an important question I have.

I understand that 1 lb a week in weight loss is a realistic, achievable goal.

I really want to accelerate that rate to 2 lbs a week - while STILL following all the same protocols (keep the resistance training intensity up, keep at the caloric discipline needed to result in ~2 lbs a week, ensure I hit my macros in protein and fat, etc.)

I want to know if you think there will at all be a larger risk for MUSCLE loss if going at a 2lb rate vs. a 1lb rate (given that I believe I have around 40 lbs of fat to lose).

I understand that there is definitely a risk of burn-out, which I acknowledge. But I am interested to know if you believe that there is a risk of more MUSCLE loss at 2lb vs 1lb (given I have 40 lbs of fat to lose). I've heard conflicting things from people regarding this, so wanted to know if you have an opinion - and if it's based on anything in the literature, scientific, etc. that you've seen.

Thanks!!

Yes, as you get leaner, the faster you lose, the greater the risk of losing lean mass.

Thanks so if I have 40 lbs to lose. When should I make the switch from a 2lb rate to a 1lb weight? Halfway thru, or even earlier?

Also - What are your thoughts on the following:

1. Thanks so if I have 40 lbs to lose. When should I make the switch from a 2lb rate to a 1lb weight? Halfway thru, or even earlier? You aren't going to lose the weight in a linear fashion, nor will your "on paper" numbers ever correlate with what you actually lose. For that reason, I would just pick a goal that puts you in a deficit, see how things go, and adjust based on your actual results. These things never go exactly as planned, and often go quite differently then planned.

2. For ICF since I'm doing the 3x5 version - the original author suggests progressing every OTHER workout for A/B. So for example. Workout B has the deadlift @ 200lbs. Then i have to wait until I do Workout B again and STILL do 200lbs. Only after I come across workout B again do I try to progress up 5 lbs. Is this what you did, or did you try to progress every workout (i.e., B to or (A to A). I didn't do the ICF program for most of my initial weight loss. It's simply what I recommend and what I would have done had I known more about diet/fitness. As long as you progress it doesn't matter how you do it. Adding weight every other workout will lengthen the time it takes until you actually stall, but as a novice you might be able to get away with adding weight every workout at first. There are pros and cons to each option and it's ultimately up to you

3. Pre-workout: I watched your pre-workout video. How important is this? Not very. If I had to quantify it with a number, less than 5%. It's something extra that if you have money to blow on, will have some benefits. Fortunately creatine and caffeine are going to be the things in the preworkout that gives you the most benefit, and they are the cheapest ingredients.

4. What rest intervals did you take during your main lifts and on our accessories? What do you recommend. I'd imagine I should always be maximizing my intensity, so therefore I should always be on the high end of rest time (so 3 mins for main lifts and 2 mins for accessories). Do you agree? Is this what you did?I always say, rest as long as you need to so that you can give it your all on the next set. Within reason of course. This will vary from day to day. Some days you feel great and need less rest, other days a 3x5 on squats might take you 20 minutes. Obviously the more compound movements like squats and deadlifts will require significantly longer rest periods than isolation movements like curls or crunches.

Thanks!

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

Thanks - So I will pick a calorie target (9, 10, 11, 12) as you suggest, and see how it goes. Given that I have 40 lbs to lose, I want to do as aggressive as possible, while not losing lean body mass. Do you think it's okay to adjust week by week such that I'm closer to 2 lbs per week (instead of 1 lb per week) for a certain period of my weight loss (like the first half - meaning 20 lbs). Or do you think that I need to change that.

I understand that I can't predict it, it won't be what I expect etc. But if I am choosing to modify my intake, I'd rather make it more aggressive early one (when I have more fat to lose), then later on (when I'm becoming more relatively lean).

So if you were me, and you wanted to be as aggressive as possible (without burning out), and trying to keep your lean body mass, and had 40 lbs to lose, how much weight do you think you'd need to lose before you change to a more conservative pace by upping your relative intake.

Thanks!

You are asking a question that really can't be answered. You are just going to have to see what happens. Just pick your calorie target, see what your results are like, and modify based on those results. You seem over concerned with doing things fast. Body recomposition is EXTREMELY slow. The speed in which you lose the initial 40 lbs will not be all that important in the long run. So again, just set your calories, do it for a month, examine your progress, and adjust based on results.

rdouma73 wrote: »

Would you mind posting your 5x5 routine?

The routine I recommend is the ICF 5x5. If you google that you will find both the routine and a video by it's creator explaining the routine.

mfm143 wrote: »

Hi again , question about macros - so if I am hitting all my numbers fairly well ( within 1-3g) but am going over my total daily calories** by (50-100 - including my exercise calories) -is this a big deal ?

** FYI -I followed your how-to video ( great by the way) and I was @ 1950 total calories with 59g fat, 117 protein, and 200+ carbs, however as I am being a lil more aggressive with my initial weight loss, I modified my numbers to 1600 total daily cals with pretty much same for p&f and as mfp only uses percentages I had to reduce carbs to 160g.

If you used my video to calculate your macros, you shouldn't be eating back exercise calories. Also, you shouldn't be going over calories. The goal is to hit your total calories, while getting in at least your minimums for protein and fat. You do not need a target for carbs. They are flexible and will fall into place based on hitting your total calories. This video explains that more:

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

vismal wrote: »

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

Thanks - So I will pick a calorie target (9, 10, 11, 12) as you suggest, and see how it goes. Given that I have 40 lbs to lose, I want to do as aggressive as possible, while not losing lean body mass. Do you think it's okay to adjust week by week such that I'm closer to 2 lbs per week (instead of 1 lb per week) for a certain period of my weight loss (like the first half - meaning 20 lbs). Or do you think that I need to change that.

I understand that I can't predict it, it won't be what I expect etc. But if I am choosing to modify my intake, I'd rather make it more aggressive early one (when I have more fat to lose), then later on (when I'm becoming more relatively lean).

So if you were me, and you wanted to be as aggressive as possible (without burning out), and trying to keep your lean body mass, and had 40 lbs to lose, how much weight do you think you'd need to lose before you change to a more conservative pace by upping your relative intake.

Thanks!

You are asking a question that really can't be answered. You are just going to have to see what happens. Just pick your calorie target, see what your results are like, and modify based on those results. You seem over concerned with doing things fast. Body recomposition is EXTREMELY slow. The speed in which you lose the initial 40 lbs will not be all that important in the long run. So again, just set your calories, do it for a month, examine your progress, and adjust based on results.

I started at 198 lbs 4 weeks ago, and am now at 184 - so ~3.5 lbs a week. You said that you'll lose a lot more weight faster in the first week weeks, but the average so far is 3.5lbs. Do you expect this rate to continue. Or does the fact that it's been this great for 4 weeks mean that I've been too aggressive on my caloric deficit? My goal is to maintain my lean body mass while losing fat as fast as possible (so if it's safe to do that at 2 lbs per week, i'd prefer that, instead of 1lb per week).

That rate will not likely continue. It will probably slow way down and possible even stall for a week or two. This happens and is nothing to worry about. If you are in a deficit, you are losing fat, even if swings in water weight mask that on the scale. I again am going to say that you are overly concerned with the speed of loss. Quit worring about 1 vs 2 lbs per week. Just focus on losing. You'll get there when you get there. With only 40 lbs to lose, 1 lb a week average is fine. Expect it to be faster at first and slower towards the end.

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

I'm impressed by your discipline to not take another bite of food once you hit your caloric goal for the day. I know you mentioned a strategy of focusing on your long-term satisfaction of your goal vs. the short-term pleasure of say a slice of pizza.

However, what I'm interested in knowing is that when it's towards the end of the day, and you already hit your caloric goal. And for some reason you are not just hungry, but ravenously hungry - what strategies do you have to deal with that?

Or do you somehow do other strategies such that your hungriness level is never raveneous in nature, but merely more a mild feeling that you're able to control/ignore?

If you eat enough whole foods throughout the day, you should not be ravenously hungry. If you are, try eating less during the day and saving the majority of your calories for later. The more of a problem hunger is, the more you need to limit processed things. When my calories are low and I've been dieting for awhile, I work in a lot less highly processed foods then I do during a muscle gaining phase or even the onset of a diet. In the end it all comes down to self control. Sometimes you will just be hungry. Hunger is a feeling. It won't kill you or harm you. I have learned to just except that hunger, in one way or another, will be a part of my goals. I do what I can to limit it but when it comes, I just deal with it.

BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »

What do you think are the primary obstacles for most people?

Motivation? Doing the wrong thing? Focusing on unimportant things?

And what can people do to overcome these primary obstacles?

Really all of these things. People focus on the details when the basics are all they really need. You can achieve amazing results simply tracking calories and macro nutrients while exercising. Magazines and television don't help. You have people trying to over complicate weight loss all the time. Eat this not that, don't eat after 6, avoid carbs, don't avoid carbs just eat "good" carbs, fat makes you fat, good fat doesn't make you fat, high reps for weight loss, paleo is the only way to lose. All this nonsense confuses people and distracts from the very simple process that is actual weight loss. Eat less, move more. Then throw in the pyramid type companies that make people think the key to weight loss is in their wallet. In reality you don't need any of this.

Unfortunately, true body recomposition simply takes a ton of time. This discourages people quite a bit. Though it takes years and years to make your body obese, for some reason, people believe they should be able to reverse all of it quite quickly. This just isn't the case. This is why so many people come out of the gate running, lose a bunch of weight in the first few weeks/month (water losses) then as soon as the reality of weight loss sets in and things slow down, many people just give up. They must understand that there is no quick fix and that a real, lifelong change is necessary. Most people simply aren't willing to make that commitment.

katel605 wrote: »

Thank you so much for all the information! I just spent the last several hours devouring all the information!

I'm a female with a goal of losing 90 lbs. I don't have a gym membership to do ICF 5x5 like you recommend but I do kettlebell workouts 3x a week for about 15-20 minutes. Do you think this is enough for now as far as preserving lean mass?

It's better than no resistance training at all, but is not as good as a proper barbell/dumbbell workout. The issue with things like kettlebells and that you really can't do the best compound movements like barbell back squats, deadlifts, bench press, and barbell rows.