How can I reduce my body fat % further if my target weight is considered underweight?
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 -
https://m.imgur.com/r/BulkOrCut/10GvRyI
I googled 5'4 145lbs...this guys end pic is 141, which is at the absolute top of the BMI "healthy" range in weight for a 5'4 male. Notice how he isn't ridiculously muscular, but has muscle and is definitely below 18% BF (not by much, but still).
When I quoted stats for me, it was an EXAMPLE, not the end all be all.
Using Olympic runners as an example of a healthy BMI is just as ridiculous as me using Derek Poundstone as an example of an OBESE BMI.3 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »https://m.imgur.com/r/BulkOrCut/10GvRyI
I googled 5'4 145lbs...this guys end pic is 141, which is at the absolute top of the BMI "healthy" range in weight for a 5'4 male. Notice how he isn't ridiculously muscular, but has muscle and is definitely below 18% BF (not by much, but still).
When I quoted stats for me, it was an EXAMPLE, not the end all be all.
Using Olympic runners as an example of a healthy BMI is just as ridiculous as me using Derek Poundstone as an example of an OBESE BMI.
Speed skating, swimming, tennis, soccer, pole vault, and high jumping are ridiculous, too? Or did you just see the name of the URL and not bother to read further?3 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »https://m.imgur.com/r/BulkOrCut/10GvRyI
I googled 5'4 145lbs...this guys end pic is 141, which is at the absolute top of the BMI "healthy" range in weight for a 5'4 male. Notice how he isn't ridiculously muscular, but has muscle and is definitely below 18% BF (not by much, but still).
When I quoted stats for me, it was an EXAMPLE, not the end all be all.
Using Olympic runners as an example of a healthy BMI is just as ridiculous as me using Derek Poundstone as an example of an OBESE BMI.
The thing is when you said thisyoucantflexcardio 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.
You were no longer using yourself as an example, you were making a generalization about the rest of us here.12 -
And I stand by it. Yes, there are plenty of fit people who fall within the healthy BMI range, usually cardio and endurance athletes. OP is obviously a young male, and his wanting "abs" and obsession with getting them, considering he wanted to keep cutting body fat even though he is at the bottom of the healthy BMI range, is worrying, and also highlights the problem with BMI. Someone built like OP should be worrying about building muscle at that weight. My point is that BF% is MUCH more important than BMI, especially for fit/athletic people, and I stand by it.10
-
youcantflexcardio wrote: »And I stand by it. Yes, there are plenty of fit people who fall within the healthy BMI range, usually cardio and endurance athletes. OP is obviously a young male, and his wanting "abs" and obsession with getting them, considering he wanted to keep cutting body fat even though he is at the bottom of the healthy BMI range, is worrying, and also highlights the problem with BMI. Someone built like OP should be worrying about building muscle at that weight. My point is that BF% is MUCH more important than BMI, especially for fit/athletic people, and I stand by it.
OP posted because he realized if he lost more weight he would fall into the "underweight" BMI category and wanted to know what to do. It looks to me like BMI worked great in this situation. If not for his looking at the BMI range for his height, he may have just continued trying to lose weight.9 -
You really think an extremely generalized formula created in the 1830s is a better tool than fat calipers, dexa scans, neck & waist measurements ratios, and all the countless other ways of measuring body composition that have been invented since then?
EDIT: My point is that BMI is outdated, too general, and needs to stop being touted as a good measurement of body composition and target bodyweight. There are so many better methods and formulas that need to be pushed into common knowledge - and if they were common, OP would not have even needed to make this post.6 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »You really think an extremely generalized formula created in the 1830s is a better tool than fat calipers, dexa scans, neck & waist measurements ratios, and all the countless other ways of measuring body composition that have been invented since then?
No one says BMI is the be all and end all measurement, nor is it intended to be. Just that it is a decent guide and starting point. Most people aren't experienced with calipers and don't have affordable access to DEXA. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the OP, he isn't trying to lose weight because of BMI. And we are all giving him the same advice as you are - he needs to build muscle.
There are Debate threads about BMI if you'd like to discuss it further rather than hijacking the OP's thread.12 -
youcantflexcardio wrote: »You really think an extremely generalized formula created in the 1830s is a better tool than fat calipers, dexa scans, neck & waist measurements ratios, and all the countless other ways of measuring body composition that have been invented since then?
No one says BMI is the be all and end all measurement, nor is it intended to be. Just that it is a decent guide and starting point. Most people aren't experienced with calipers and don't have affordable access to DEXA. Regardless, this has nothing to do with the OP, he isn't trying to lose weight because of BMI. And we are all giving him the same advice as you are - he needs to build muscle.
There are Debate threads about BMI if you'd like to discuss it further rather than hijacking the OP's thread.
Didn't mean to hijack or start a debate.
OP - go lift heavy things, and eat a small surplus. Also do moderate cardio. The physique you want will come, be patient.4 -
Another vote for you need to gain weight and build muscle first. Losing more weight at this point will most likely lead to disappointment (judging by your goals of wanting a six pack)2
-
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.
This is Chris Hoy - not surprising he’s a slight outlier. He’s the same height and weight I am - but at least 5% leaner. He’s quite jacked. Not the best example to use to discredit BMI as he’s just over the top of normal at a BMI of 27.
7
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions