Abs abs please i want tight core
Options
Replies
-
cwolfman13 wrote: »doralim1990 wrote: »LeahEstevez4 wrote: »doralim1990 wrote: »My calories is already deficit enough as hell . I ate whole plant based food 80% all the time at about 1000cal per day! I was told that it is too little and i need at least 1200. Thats what confuse me. I can be toned in other body parts just not the abs.
well.. i actually think youre starving
Because i eat mostly plant based, veggie, fruit, potatoes, oats. I do get to eat alot to hit 1000. I dont think i could smash in another 200-300. Except from high fat food like avocado or nuts. That would be easy.
dietary fat doesn't make you fat and is essential...avocados and nuts are extremely good for you.
Gahh so on point! I will eat my nut butter everyday again! I miss them!
0 -
You burn more FAT sleeping 8 hours a day than doing 2 hours of hiking, yes. Notice I didn't say CALORIES. The ratio of calories from hiking will come from mostly from glycogen and little fat if glycogen is depleted enough. The body's energy source at rest is 100% FAT (unless you have alcohol in your system) which is why rest is so important. You're resting more than you're working out throughout the day so the amount of FAT% burned will be much much higher than if you were working out. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.
Ok let's get back to specifics - are you saying that someone will burn MORE FAT resting on the couch for 2 hrs rather than going for a 2 hr hike/long run? (Both people will sleep at night so that's a wash). There is no case where someone gets to pick between a 2 hrs activity OR an 8 hr sleep.
Secondly, are you saying that someone who is bedridden, but consumes exactly 500 cals under their TDEE will be in exactly the same weight and body composition as a moderate distance runner who does the same (500 cals under TDEE, say 10 hrs of cardio a week)?
he's talking about what gets used for fuel...at rest, your body will use fat for fuel...when you're active, your body will use glycogen for fuel. he never mentioned body composition and he's not advocating for not working out...he's simply talking about what gets used for fuel for various activities...i.e. when you're running on a treadmill, you're not actively burning fat...you are burning stored glycogen as it is a more effective fuel...it's like a hybrid switching from battery to gas....it switches to gas when it needs to do more.
secondly, if someone was bed ridden or in a wheel chair, etc...and they consumed 500 calories less than their TDEE (which would be a pretty low number) they would lose about 1 Lb per week...if a person workouts out for 10 hrs per week and eats roughly 500 calories per day below their TDEE, they're going to lose about 1 Lb per week...the difference is that the active person will be able to eat a lot more to accomplish the same thing because the activity will substantially increase their TDEE. Of course body composition wouldn't be the same...he never suggested as such.0 -
doralim1990 wrote: »@3bambi3
Yes i did read it. My TDEE - 20% is about 1,240cal / day. Which is my current calories goal. So basically i need to increase 200cal more each day? Pretty easy if i just shove 2tbsp of peanut butter everyday.
Yes, but you're only a few lbs from your goal. You shouldn't be cutting at TDEE-20%, more like 5-10%0 -
@queenliz99
Hi yes of course, It was very kind of you to calculate for me. What i mean was, i did not eat both the rice and the sweet potatoes just one of them. So its either like 1 medium sweet potatoes with a cup of veggie or half cup of rice with a cup of veggie for lunch. Its not likely to hit 1,800 as veggie is pretty much very very low in calories and i dont really cook with oil.0 -
@RGv2 so i need to increase my calorie intake to 1,400cal each day?0
-
projectsix wrote: »Ab muscle bellies are genetic but otherwise the muscle shouldn't be trained anymore than any other muscle group. I haven't directly trained abs for years. It's all about being a lower body fat for them to simply show.
Yeah, but she hasn't been lifting at all, and I'm sure you do
Doralim, go on and start lifting weights. You are surely just flabby because of exercise habits, so you need to challenge those muscles, girl! If you want to directly target your abs to grow, go for it. But I'd suggest lifting for the whole body at least 2x a week, too. You'll love the results.
If you find you need to cut another few pounds later, you'll know better whether that's 3 or 7 or whatever once you have muscles that are big enough to be seen.0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »projectsix wrote: »Ab muscle bellies are genetic but otherwise the muscle shouldn't be trained anymore than any other muscle group. I haven't directly trained abs for years. It's all about being a lower body fat for them to simply show.
Yeah, but she hasn't been lifting at all, and I'm sure you do
Doralim, go on and start lifting weights. You are surely just flabby because of exercise habits, so you need to challenge those muscles, girl! If you want to directly target your abs to grow, go for it. But I'd suggest lifting for the whole body at least 2x a week, too. You'll love the results.
If you find you need to cut another few pounds later, you'll know better whether that's 3 or 7 or whatever once you have muscles that are big enough to be seen.
Hi, definitely has planning to do so. Just need to get a few dumbells 0 -
doing a bunch of ab exercises doesn't make them POP more. The muscle will be more conditioned, but that doesn't affect how they look much at all.
@ninerbuff
I know you're an American Ninja Warrior fan, so taking the above comment into consideration, what do you think about Tremayne Dortch's abs? They certainly seem to pop out of him more than other people of the same bodyfat %.
Awkward pic of his abs, but you get the idea...
0 -
Go do a session of compound weight lifting. Then look in the mirror. Presto! Abs!
Few people have a six pack showing when they wake up. Those few have a very low body fat percentage.
Date night can get everyone pumping iron.0 -
doralim1990 wrote: »@RGv2 so i need to increase my calorie intake to 1,400cal each day?
I think that is the correct intake for you, but I also think you're currently miscalculating.0 -
doralim1990 wrote: »@RGv2 so i need to increase my calorie intake to 1,400cal each day?
I think that is the correct intake for you, but I also think you're currently miscalculating.
I used TDEE calculator on iifym.com0 -
doralim1990 wrote: »doralim1990 wrote: »@RGv2 so i need to increase my calorie intake to 1,400cal each day?
I think that is the correct intake for you, but I also think you're currently miscalculating.
I used TDEE calculator on iifym.com
He means your food intake.0 -
doralim1990 wrote: »doralim1990 wrote: »@RGv2 so i need to increase my calorie intake to 1,400cal each day?
I think that is the correct intake for you, but I also think you're currently miscalculating.
I used TDEE calculator on iifym.com
He means your food intake.
^^Yep, It's been said a handful of times in this thread alone.0 -
Some are hard to measure but most of them are stick to the true measurements. I mean like how do you measure your veggie stir fry?0 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »he's talking about what gets used for fuel...at rest, your body will use fat for fuel...when you're active, your body will use glycogen for fuel. he never mentioned body composition and he's not advocating for not working out...he's simply talking about what gets used for fuel for various activities...i.e. when you're running on a treadmill, you're not actively burning fat...you are burning stored glycogen as it is a more effective fuel...it's like a hybrid switching from battery to gas....it switches to gas when it needs to do more.
I know he's saying that and it's misleading. Which is bigger, 100 or 60? Now which is bigger, 100% of 100 cals or 60% of 800 cals? Saying 100 is bigger than 60 is true but completely wrong in context.
If you want to use the Hybrid analogy you have to reverse it (and it still isn't great). Glycogen is your limited 1 hr battery charge, and fat is a 100 gallon tank. You are always burning gas, but you can use the electric motor for extra speed/power in combination with the gas motor. When you're done speeding, your gas motor will slowly charge your electric charge back up. The goal of racing is to go exactly fast enough that your glycogen runs out at the finish line (and you don't overheat).
You burn fat while doing cardio. A lot.
0 -
doralim1990 wrote: »
Some are hard to measure but most of them are stick to the true measurements. I mean like how do you measure your veggie stir fry?
You appear to be measuring in cups, not weighing. Also, you're using generic entries, and some are incorrect. For example: There is no way 6oz of oatmeal is 100 calories.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=JVjWPclrWVY
0 -
doralim1990 wrote: »Some are hard to measure but most of them are stick to the true measurements. I mean like how do you measure your veggie stir fry?
Have you seen the recipe builder? It allows you to enter the ingredients and then say how many servings it makes.
I second using a food scale; My guess is that you are eating more than you expect, but you are also currently losing at half a pound a week, which is a pretty good goal considering you don't have much to lose. You probably are already eating closer to 1200-1400 calories a day (the medium banana entry for example, you should be weighing your banana and entering how much you're eating based on weight).0 -
doralim1990 wrote: »Just to be clear again, i am really not starving myself, in fact i am quite stuffed most of the time. I have a small frame (all of my bones are small) but i am the skinny fat type. It is so hard to be toned except my legs. I don't have a jiggly thighs. But the rest of the body are just pfffttttt! Like abs and arms! Duh
You can be stuffed and still starving. The volume of food is not important, it's the caloric content.0 -
cafeaulait7 wrote: »projectsix wrote: »Ab muscle bellies are genetic but otherwise the muscle shouldn't be trained anymore than any other muscle group. I haven't directly trained abs for years. It's all about being a lower body fat for them to simply show.
Yeah, but she hasn't been lifting at all, and I'm sure you do
Doralim, go on and start lifting weights. You are surely just flabby because of exercise habits, so you need to challenge those muscles, girl! If you want to directly target your abs to grow, go for it. But I'd suggest lifting for the whole body at least 2x a week, too. You'll love the results.
If you find you need to cut another few pounds later, you'll know better whether that's 3 or 7 or whatever once you have muscles that are big enough to be seen.
Even if you never exercise, your muscles are not "flabby" when you're flexing them. If you're flexing and it's jiggly, you've got fat above your muscles.0 -
I think what's missing here is that whether you do it with cardio or not, math still applies. If someone ate 1200 calories and did no exercise or ate 1700 and 500 calories burned from exercise, the net of 1200 calories doesn't change. Granted the person eating 1700 and exercising will probably be better health wise due to activity, but it's still not changing the equation of CICO.Traveler120 wrote: »
I didn't take it personally, sorry if it came across that way. And I even agree that cardio/exercise is not necessary for fat loss. If a person is obese and is eating 4000 calories, then yes, all they have to do is eat less.
I've just now realized I was refuting your original first response and somehow you're taking it personally.Traveler120 wrote: »Well, if someone is already eating at a certain level (which is why I told OP 'if your diet is on point') AND, they don't want to or can't eat less (because they're already eating less) AND, they still want to lose more fat, THEN yes they NEED to do cardio/exercise to burn fat because where else is your deficit going to come from. Niner said you don't need to and he/she was wrong.
Let's look at this objectively: I've been doing this for 30 years and almost 20 years as a professional helping hundreds of people personally to lose/gain/maintain weight and fat. I've worked with obese, overweight, normal, and underweight people. I've studied physiology, kinesology, nutrition and biology along with some other sciences. Now why in the world would I DIRECTLY give someone wrong information? Because I want them to fail?
As I've mentioned, you can disagree, but doesn't mean your opinion is correct.
The scenario we had was with someone who'd already cut back severely (1200). And there are also people like me and others who would prefer to eat a reasonable amount of food 1700 (healthy of course) which for me at 125 lbs would be close to maintenance calories. So if I still want to lose weight then cardio/exercise is the only option I have. The only issue I had was the generalized statement that cardio/exercise isn't necessary which coming from a professional like yourself, can be confusing, especially in light of the fact that those of us opting for exercise as our primary focus, we're losing fat just fine without the necessity of severe calorie restriction.
I'm not trying to be confusing. Calorie deficit is all that's needed to lose weight. How one achieves that is a preference.
A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 393 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions