How can I reduce my body fat % further if my target weight is considered underweight?
Options
englishstudentabc1
Posts: 5 Member
Hi,
I am trying to reduce my body fat % in order to get more visible muscles, specifically abdominals for six pack look.
I'm 5' 4" male weighing 115 lbs currently. I believe that is an ideal weight for a male my height, except my body fat % is too high--I can only see the top 2 abdominal muscles and a slight outline of the next 2 below those.
So I have been cutting my calories in hopes that will make my midsection more visible. If go down to 108 lbs (anything below that is apparently underweight), i.e. drop 7 more lbs, will that be enough to get the body fat % drop for six pack?
Or will I need to go "underweight" to get six pack look, e.g. closer to 100 lbs?
I am trying to reduce my body fat % in order to get more visible muscles, specifically abdominals for six pack look.
I'm 5' 4" male weighing 115 lbs currently. I believe that is an ideal weight for a male my height, except my body fat % is too high--I can only see the top 2 abdominal muscles and a slight outline of the next 2 below those.
So I have been cutting my calories in hopes that will make my midsection more visible. If go down to 108 lbs (anything below that is apparently underweight), i.e. drop 7 more lbs, will that be enough to get the body fat % drop for six pack?
Or will I need to go "underweight" to get six pack look, e.g. closer to 100 lbs?
5
Replies
-
Most likely you just need more muscle development...if you're close to being underweight without visible abs, that would suggest that you need to build more muscle mass.26
-
Cutting calories isn’t going to help - maybe consider a couple bulk/cut cycles - lifting progressively heavy weights13
-
What is the current BF%
1 -
I'm female, 5'5", not completely devoid of muscle, and I'm pretty darned thin when at < 120. Unless you post a photo that tells us otherwise, I'm going to guess on the side of those who think you'll get a better result from working to build more muscle (eating at maintenance calories or above), vs. losing more weight.4
-
5'4 115 is already borderline underweight. If you maintain while building muscle, you will improve your BF%. It's also important to note that not everyone is genetically able to have a 6 pack at a lean but healthy weight.8
-
Here is a photo as of today. I don't have a body fat % yet, but am getting a scale for this soon. I'm guessing you can estimate my body fat % based on this photo.
0 -
You need to build muscle, not lose more weight. Can't reveal what isn't there.17
-
You need to bulk and lift. Your musculature is lacking, and losing more weight won't help that.8
-
More "gainzzz". If you are looking for a more aesthetic physique, having a goal of having a visible 6-pack is pretty close to being unrealistic if you are fairly novice with exercise & diet. Might want to start slow & consider building more muscle overall (esp. upper back, chest, shoulders, & legs for balance of course).3
-
Ok, I see BMI thrown around A LOT on here and I would just like to state something for the record: if you have above average (read: you've trained for like 6 months to a year or more) muscle development, you should be nearing the top of the "healthy" BMI range or even be in the "overweight" category. In other words, BMI is mostly garbage for anyone even remotely athletic. A "healthy" BMI for most people has them looking like a stick or skinny fat.
Aim for 10-18% BF, and as high of weight as you naturally achieve within those parameters. That is a sustainable athletic/fit BF% for a male.23 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »Ok, I see BMI thrown around A LOT on here and I would just like to state something for the record: if you have above average (read: you've trained for like 6 months to a year or more) muscle development, you should be nearing the top of the "healthy" BMI range or even be in the "overweight" category. In other words, BMI is mostly garbage for anyone even remotely athletic. A "healthy" BMI for most people has them looking like a stick or skinny fat.
Aim for 10-18% BF, and as high of weight as you naturally achieve within those parameters. That is a sustainable athletic/fit BF% for a male.
I would respectfully disagree. I know many women and men who are fit, have been focused on building muscle for awhile, look amazing, and fall quite nicely into the healthy BMI range. I'm not saying there aren't outliers, just that I don't think anyone "remotely athletic" is an outlier.
And that has nothing to do with the OP, who could put on a good amount of muscle and a little fat and still fit into the healthy BMI range.
OP, as previous posters have said, you need to take a long term view and focus on adding muscle. Please understand it is a process that will take a little time, but there's no shortcut to getting the look it sounds like you want. Check out the Most Helpful Posts in the Bodybuilding forum:
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10300326/most-helpful-posts-goal-gaining-weight-must-reads#latest8 -
You need to do a solid bulk if aesthetics is your thing.
Then cut when you have a decent amount of mass.2 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »Ok, I see BMI thrown around A LOT on here and I would just like to state something for the record: if you have above average (read: you've trained for like 6 months to a year or more) muscle development, you should be nearing the top of the "healthy" BMI range or even be in the "overweight" category. In other words, BMI is mostly garbage for anyone even remotely athletic. A "healthy" BMI for most people has them looking like a stick or skinny fat.
Aim for 10-18% BF, and as high of weight as you naturally achieve within those parameters. That is a sustainable athletic/fit BF% for a male.
This is absolutely not the case for me and many others. My BMI is around the middle, sometimes a bit lower mark and I happen to look very athletic, fit and healthy.8 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »Ok, I see BMI thrown around A LOT on here and I would just like to state something for the record: if you have above average (read: you've trained for like 6 months to a year or more) muscle development, you should be nearing the top of the "healthy" BMI range or even be in the "overweight" category. In other words, BMI is mostly garbage for anyone even remotely athletic. A "healthy" BMI for most people has them looking like a stick or skinny fat.
Aim for 10-18% BF, and as high of weight as you naturally achieve within those parameters. That is a sustainable athletic/fit BF% for a male.
Not universally true, and very rarely true, at best. Your outliers -- those who are very heavily muscled -- *may* have a BMI above the normal range. Outliers are not the full picture, but they do make a convenient case for people who want to completely eliminate BMI at all.
I'm in the smack middle, 20 percent body fat, and am athletic -- swimmer, long-distance runner, lifter. By your case, you'd think that I'm overweight. The reality is that I'm not.3 -
Sir Chris Hoy’s BMI is firmly in the overweight category.
Personally I’m in the camp that says BMI is outdated, although it is a useful tool for a lot of people and anything that encourages people to look after themselves is a good thing. My doctor has told me to disregard my own BMI numbers as it’s incorrect for me.
To the OP, a six-pack is hard to achieve and you need to train to get one. It’s not there like a fossil waiting to be uncovered by weight loss.
Ps - I don’t have a six pack, never have, never will.5 -
Jesus Christ, 10 "woos" on the BMI thing? Really?
The highest bodyweight I should have according to BMI is 189lbs as a 6'1 male. Last time I was 189 I was probably 11% BF and relatively weak compared to what I've achieved over years of strength training. Everything in my target bodyweight range of 190-220 (ie where I look remotely muscular and not like a twig) is considered overweight.
11 -
I'm going to add another vote for pick up heavy things and put them back down again...losing weight is only half of the body fat equation, the other half is putting on muscle.5
-
Take heart, OP: As a younger male, you're in the best possible demographic to gain muscle, and that would be an excellent goal to pursue. Here are two threads that are very informative, and may be quite helpful in your circumstances:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fatyoucantflexcardio wrote: »Jesus Christ, 10 "woos" on the BMI thing? Really?
The highest bodyweight I should have according to BMI is 189lbs as a 6'1 male. Last time I was 189 I was probably 11% BF and relatively weak compared to what I've achieved over years of strength training. Everything in my target bodyweight range of 190-220 (ie where I look remotely muscular and not like a twig) is considered overweight.
That's you, with your body composition and configuration. Cool. But OP is nearing underweight, and doesn't need to worry about being so muscular he hits the top end of the BMI range for a while, by which time he'll have a clearer understanding of all of this. Let's not have this silly BMI argument again; it's been hashed over on many threads.
You got woo-ed for saying "BMI is mostly garbage for anyone even remotely athletic."
Do more actually healthy weight high-level athletes fall into a higher-than-normal BMI category than among non-athletes? Sure. But it's not the commonest case. Are some recreational athletes or people with physically intense occupations so muscular that they have overweight BMI when not over-fat? Sure. But not very doggone many. Normal people using "but athletes" as part of their justification of being at an overweight BMI are mostly showing their cognitive bias. Here's a rundown of recent Olympic gold medalists; most people would consider them at least "remotely athletic".
https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20811275/bmis-of-champions-mens-edition/
And, for completeness and equal time,
https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a20793992/bmis-of-champions-womens-edition/
As a woman, I'd say I'm "remotely athletic" (LOL), not completely devoid of muscle, and am best at about BMI 20. Build matters.12 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »Jesus Christ, 10 "woos" on the BMI thing? Really?
The highest bodyweight I should have according to BMI is 189lbs as a 6'1 male. Last time I was 189 I was probably 11% BF and relatively weak compared to what I've achieved over years of strength training. Everything in my target bodyweight range of 190-220 (ie where I look remotely muscular and not like a twig) is considered overweight.
So if it's true of you it's more accurate than a tool designed for populations?
Riiiiiight....8 -
Take heart, OP: As a younger male, you're in the best possible demographic to gain muscle, and that would be an excellent goal to pursue. Here are two threads that are very informative, and may be quite helpful in your circumstances:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10177803/recomposition-maintaining-weight-while-losing-fatyoucantflexcardio wrote: »Jesus Christ, 10 "woos" on the BMI thing? Really?
The highest bodyweight I should have according to BMI is 189lbs as a 6'1 male. Last time I was 189 I was probably 11% BF and relatively weak compared to what I've achieved over years of strength training. Everything in my target bodyweight range of 190-220 (ie where I look remotely muscular and not like a twig) is considered overweight.
That's you, with your body composition and configuration. Cool. But OP is nearing underweight, and doesn't need to worry about being so muscular he hits the top end of the BMI range for a while, by which time he'll have a clearer understanding of all of this. Let's not have this silly BMI argument again; it's been hashed over on many threads.
You got woo-ed for saying "BMI is mostly garbage for anyone even remotely athletic."
Do more actually healthy weight high-level athletes fall into a higher-than-normal BMI category than among non-athletes? Sure. But it's not the commonest case. Are some recreational athletes or people with physically intense occupations so muscular that they have overweight BMI when not over-fat? Sure. But not very doggone many. Normal people using "but athletes" as part of their justification of being at an overweight BMI are mostly showing their cognitive bias. Here's a rundown of recent Olympic gold medalists; most people would consider them at least "remotely athletic".
https://www.runnersworld.com/races-places/a20811275/bmis-of-champions-mens-edition/
And, for completeness and equal time,
https://www.runnersworld.com/health-injuries/a20793992/bmis-of-champions-womens-edition/
As a woman, I'd say I'm "remotely athletic" (LOL), not completely devoid of muscle, and am best at about BMI 20. Build matters.
Come, come. You know Olympic medalists aren't really athletic.
All that cardio is just a farce, right?
3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K 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
- 390 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
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions