Calorie Counter

Message Boards Goal: Maintaining Weight
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Recomposition: Maintaining weight while losing fat

1117118119120122

Replies

  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 153 Member Member Posts: 153 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    You can most probably get much stronger without changing your body composition much at all. Most novice lifters don't initially gain much if any muscle until they have adapted their central nervous system to more effectively use/activate what they already have. This gain in strength is sometimes quite linear and dramatic at first. Once you've maximized those CNS adaptations and are still unable to meet your goals for these calisthentic type movements then you would have to increase your overall muscle mass to keep improving.

    You do make a point about who generally benefits most from body recomposition. You need to decide what type of aesthetic you are aiming for. Maybe you don't want to be massive like a bodybuilder but you might want to have a more athletic and pleasing look. How much will you have to weigh to acheive that look and aesthetic? If you are pretty much already at that weight and just need to change composition - recomp will work, keeping in mind it is the slowest way to achieve most gains. However, if that body you want is going to require a significant increase in body mass, then recomp, by it's very nature, is not going to get you there. Also, being relatively lean means your body has less stored energy resources to use and an already slow process is going to be even slower.

    I've decided I want to be lean but stronger, more muscular, there are loads of examples, the two I mentioned above and Frank Medrano for example. These guys are lean, muscular but not massive.
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 153 Member Member Posts: 153 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Week 1 on maintenance cals and todays weight was the same as last Thursday, so a good start. I'm wondering if body recomp is right for me being lean and as said above 'under muscle'

    If recomp was the right choice for you a week ago it's right for you for at least a period of months!

    You really do need to seriously think about and set your desired goal physique and fitness capabilities before choosing the tools and methods to get there as well as making the time commitment.

    If you commit to having a similar physique to Andy Speers or Chris Hearia that you mention you have to train well, long and hard. Being lean already you have the advantage that interim progress will show far more quickly that if you were carrying a layer of fat. You would also probably have to accept that it would compromise your long distance running ability somewhat. That balance and compromise is yours alone to decide and also where to decide when to stop building muscle. No-one gets that physique accidentally.

    (e.g. I would love to have a far better power to weight ratio for my cycling performance but I'm not willing to aspire to an elite cyclist's physique or to diet so hard to get there. Compromise.)

    Thanks @sijomial training hard and long is not an issue, I trained for a sub 3 marathon and that was 70+ miles a week up to 3 hours running in one day, so this should be less time.

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    I'm trying to set small goals, it worked well with running and I think is the same for this, however, overall goal is low BF and stronger. Think calisthenics, being able to do multiple pull ups, dips, handstands maybe - not lumping big weights around the gym to get size as such. Does that make sense?

    As for long distance running, I've achieve my goal there, so time to challenge myself elsewhere and maybe just run the odd 5km.

    OK, so now I'm confused (about the bolded).

    On your other thread**, from which we suggested you come here, you said:
    Sorry that wasn't clear, I'm don't have loads to lose, so by upping my training which is well within my capabilities and sitting at maintenance I'm hoping to see body changes that are reduced bf% and a few gains.

    If you want "reduced bf% and a few gains", how is that different from "stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio"? That you're already pretty lean may put you at a little different point on the sliding scale of BF/muscle ratio than some other folks, but if you want lower body fat, and you don't want to lose much more weight . . . what is the option you're looking for, other than to add some muscle mass, while reducing your (admittedly already fairly small) fat stores?

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were saying that you were valuing your running performance, so don't really want to add body fat to add muscle faster (via a bulk & cut strategy).

    If that's so . . . how would you reduce body fat and make gains - assuming you mean muscle gains - simultaneously, without changing the muscle/BF ratio? What strategy would achieve that if not eating at maintenance (or maybe a very small increment above current maintenance) while increasing strength training more than your previous baseline?

    Like I said, now I'm confused about your goals and your view of tradeoffs.

    ** https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10795313/changed-goal-from-1kg-a-week-to-0-75kg-with-zero-weight-loss

    Hey @AnnPT77 maybe I am completely getting recomp wrong, but I'll try to explain what I'm thinking, firstly though, I'm going to give what I'm doing some time, stay at maintenance and train, so I'm not suggesting I'll abandon it after a week.

    I just had the impression that recomp is, for example, a person who wants to lose weight and but not in the traditional dieting or cutting method, so wants to slowly add muscle while reducing fat.

    I guess in that sense I do fall under that bracket but without any weight to lose as such, just a change in BF and muscle ratio. Overthinking maybe, I wondered if I'd need to bulk a bit but not cut after in the way some do.
  • jseams1234jseams1234 Member Posts: 1,186 Member Member Posts: 1,186 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    You can most probably get much stronger without changing your body composition much at all. Most novice lifters don't initially gain much if any muscle until they have adapted their central nervous system to more effectively use/activate what they already have. This gain in strength is sometimes quite linear and dramatic at first. Once you've maximized those CNS adaptations and are still unable to meet your goals for these calisthentic type movements then you would have to increase your overall muscle mass to keep improving.

    You do make a point about who generally benefits most from body recomposition. You need to decide what type of aesthetic you are aiming for. Maybe you don't want to be massive like a bodybuilder but you might want to have a more athletic and pleasing look. How much will you have to weigh to acheive that look and aesthetic? If you are pretty much already at that weight and just need to change composition - recomp will work, keeping in mind it is the slowest way to achieve most gains. However, if that body you want is going to require a significant increase in body mass, then recomp, by it's very nature, is not going to get you there. Also, being relatively lean means your body has less stored energy resources to use and an already slow process is going to be even slower.

    I've decided I want to be lean but stronger, more muscular, there are loads of examples, the two I mentioned above and Frank Medrano for example. These guys are lean, muscular but not massive.

    Ok, I looked up Frank... He's pretty big for a natural, especially considering his leaness. He's 5'6 and about 154# and probably around 10% bodyfat. Frankly (lol) he's bigger and more cut than most naturals I've seen in my time in the gym. He also has 16" arms at that height and being that cut. Achieving that body is entirely possible but certainly wouldn't be easy for most men. I'm not sure where you stand compared to that physique - but I'd hazard a guess that if that is your ultimate goal then recomp is probably not the way to go.
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 153 Member Member Posts: 153 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    You can most probably get much stronger without changing your body composition much at all. Most novice lifters don't initially gain much if any muscle until they have adapted their central nervous system to more effectively use/activate what they already have. This gain in strength is sometimes quite linear and dramatic at first. Once you've maximized those CNS adaptations and are still unable to meet your goals for these calisthentic type movements then you would have to increase your overall muscle mass to keep improving.

    You do make a point about who generally benefits most from body recomposition. You need to decide what type of aesthetic you are aiming for. Maybe you don't want to be massive like a bodybuilder but you might want to have a more athletic and pleasing look. How much will you have to weigh to acheive that look and aesthetic? If you are pretty much already at that weight and just need to change composition - recomp will work, keeping in mind it is the slowest way to achieve most gains. However, if that body you want is going to require a significant increase in body mass, then recomp, by it's very nature, is not going to get you there. Also, being relatively lean means your body has less stored energy resources to use and an already slow process is going to be even slower.

    I've decided I want to be lean but stronger, more muscular, there are loads of examples, the two I mentioned above and Frank Medrano for example. These guys are lean, muscular but not massive.

    Ok, I looked up Frank... He's pretty big for a natural, especially considering his leaness. He's 5'6 and about 154# and probably around 10% bodyfat. Frankly (lol) he's bigger and more cut than most naturals I've seen in my time in the gym. He also has 16" arms at that height and being that cut. Achieving that body is entirely possible but certainly wouldn't be easy for most men. I'm not sure where you stand compared to that physique - but I'd hazard a guess that if that is your ultimate goal then recomp is probably not the way to go.

    Fair enough, Andy Speers then! Frank is a big calisthenics athlete, probably a bad example but BF% is about right.

    Like I said earlier, small goals at first, but when asked about goals it seems most people are asking longer term.
  • KHMcGKHMcG Member Posts: 788 Member Member Posts: 788 Member
    I Recomp 'd from 25 percent bodyfat. Now I no longer have any gains. I've increased calories and protein to compensate.

    Went from 204 lbs to 168lbs.Im not. posting public pics anymore. My results can be seen in Midlife Crisis Fitness Group.

    At a certain point during my deficit eating I found I was losing size. I have had to adjust in order to recover that size and begin to build. No cut and bulk was used.
  • AnnPT77AnnPT77 Member, Premium Posts: 16,722 Member Member, Premium Posts: 16,722 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Week 1 on maintenance cals and todays weight was the same as last Thursday, so a good start. I'm wondering if body recomp is right for me being lean and as said above 'under muscle'

    If recomp was the right choice for you a week ago it's right for you for at least a period of months!

    You really do need to seriously think about and set your desired goal physique and fitness capabilities before choosing the tools and methods to get there as well as making the time commitment.

    If you commit to having a similar physique to Andy Speers or Chris Hearia that you mention you have to train well, long and hard. Being lean already you have the advantage that interim progress will show far more quickly that if you were carrying a layer of fat. You would also probably have to accept that it would compromise your long distance running ability somewhat. That balance and compromise is yours alone to decide and also where to decide when to stop building muscle. No-one gets that physique accidentally.

    (e.g. I would love to have a far better power to weight ratio for my cycling performance but I'm not willing to aspire to an elite cyclist's physique or to diet so hard to get there. Compromise.)

    Thanks @sijomial training hard and long is not an issue, I trained for a sub 3 marathon and that was 70+ miles a week up to 3 hours running in one day, so this should be less time.

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    I'm trying to set small goals, it worked well with running and I think is the same for this, however, overall goal is low BF and stronger. Think calisthenics, being able to do multiple pull ups, dips, handstands maybe - not lumping big weights around the gym to get size as such. Does that make sense?

    As for long distance running, I've achieve my goal there, so time to challenge myself elsewhere and maybe just run the odd 5km.

    OK, so now I'm confused (about the bolded).

    On your other thread**, from which we suggested you come here, you said:
    Sorry that wasn't clear, I'm don't have loads to lose, so by upping my training which is well within my capabilities and sitting at maintenance I'm hoping to see body changes that are reduced bf% and a few gains.

    If you want "reduced bf% and a few gains", how is that different from "stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio"? That you're already pretty lean may put you at a little different point on the sliding scale of BF/muscle ratio than some other folks, but if you want lower body fat, and you don't want to lose much more weight . . . what is the option you're looking for, other than to add some muscle mass, while reducing your (admittedly already fairly small) fat stores?

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were saying that you were valuing your running performance, so don't really want to add body fat to add muscle faster (via a bulk & cut strategy).

    If that's so . . . how would you reduce body fat and make gains - assuming you mean muscle gains - simultaneously, without changing the muscle/BF ratio? What strategy would achieve that if not eating at maintenance (or maybe a very small increment above current maintenance) while increasing strength training more than your previous baseline?

    Like I said, now I'm confused about your goals and your view of tradeoffs.

    ** https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10795313/changed-goal-from-1kg-a-week-to-0-75kg-with-zero-weight-loss

    Hey @AnnPT77 maybe I am completely getting recomp wrong, but I'll try to explain what I'm thinking, firstly though, I'm going to give what I'm doing some time, stay at maintenance and train, so I'm not suggesting I'll abandon it after a week.

    I just had the impression that recomp is, for example, a person who wants to lose weight and but not in the traditional dieting or cutting method, so wants to slowly add muscle while reducing fat.

    I guess in that sense I do fall under that bracket but without any weight to lose as such, just a change in BF and muscle ratio. Overthinking maybe, I wondered if I'd need to bulk a bit but not cut after in the way some do.

    That's what those other people are doing, who have a higher starting BF%, too, if they stay at the same body weight (see thread title :) ), lose fat, gain muscle mass. They're just starting with more fat to draw on. There are only so many variables to work with, here. ;)

    I can't recall whether in this thread, or not, but there are definitely many people on MFP who have goals similar to yours, but a higher current BF%, who get the advice to eat at a slight deficit for slightly higher net fat loss, but to keep strength training progressively to (at worst) preserve existing muscle or (at best) experience some very gradual gains. I can't think of many cases where someone visibly still overfat was encouraged to eat at maintenance and lift, to stay at current bodyweight (absent some non-bodycomp reason to do that for a while, such as diet fatigue).

    I'm sure there are some differences at the subjective level, but I don't believe it's a whole different concept. :)

    To the bolded: So eat at what you think is a small surplus, train hard, and see what happens, if you like. You won't gain fast, plus you know how to lose if you have to. And it's not like any of these decisions are irreversible.
  • kimny72kimny72 Member Posts: 15,486 Member Member Posts: 15,486 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Week 1 on maintenance cals and todays weight was the same as last Thursday, so a good start. I'm wondering if body recomp is right for me being lean and as said above 'under muscle'

    If recomp was the right choice for you a week ago it's right for you for at least a period of months!

    You really do need to seriously think about and set your desired goal physique and fitness capabilities before choosing the tools and methods to get there as well as making the time commitment.

    If you commit to having a similar physique to Andy Speers or Chris Hearia that you mention you have to train well, long and hard. Being lean already you have the advantage that interim progress will show far more quickly that if you were carrying a layer of fat. You would also probably have to accept that it would compromise your long distance running ability somewhat. That balance and compromise is yours alone to decide and also where to decide when to stop building muscle. No-one gets that physique accidentally.

    (e.g. I would love to have a far better power to weight ratio for my cycling performance but I'm not willing to aspire to an elite cyclist's physique or to diet so hard to get there. Compromise.)

    Thanks @sijomial training hard and long is not an issue, I trained for a sub 3 marathon and that was 70+ miles a week up to 3 hours running in one day, so this should be less time.

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    I'm trying to set small goals, it worked well with running and I think is the same for this, however, overall goal is low BF and stronger. Think calisthenics, being able to do multiple pull ups, dips, handstands maybe - not lumping big weights around the gym to get size as such. Does that make sense?

    As for long distance running, I've achieve my goal there, so time to challenge myself elsewhere and maybe just run the odd 5km.

    OK, so now I'm confused (about the bolded).

    On your other thread**, from which we suggested you come here, you said:
    Sorry that wasn't clear, I'm don't have loads to lose, so by upping my training which is well within my capabilities and sitting at maintenance I'm hoping to see body changes that are reduced bf% and a few gains.

    If you want "reduced bf% and a few gains", how is that different from "stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio"? That you're already pretty lean may put you at a little different point on the sliding scale of BF/muscle ratio than some other folks, but if you want lower body fat, and you don't want to lose much more weight . . . what is the option you're looking for, other than to add some muscle mass, while reducing your (admittedly already fairly small) fat stores?

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were saying that you were valuing your running performance, so don't really want to add body fat to add muscle faster (via a bulk & cut strategy).

    If that's so . . . how would you reduce body fat and make gains - assuming you mean muscle gains - simultaneously, without changing the muscle/BF ratio? What strategy would achieve that if not eating at maintenance (or maybe a very small increment above current maintenance) while increasing strength training more than your previous baseline?

    Like I said, now I'm confused about your goals and your view of tradeoffs.

    ** https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10795313/changed-goal-from-1kg-a-week-to-0-75kg-with-zero-weight-loss

    Hey @AnnPT77 maybe I am completely getting recomp wrong, but I'll try to explain what I'm thinking, firstly though, I'm going to give what I'm doing some time, stay at maintenance and train, so I'm not suggesting I'll abandon it after a week.

    I just had the impression that recomp is, for example, a person who wants to lose weight and but not in the traditional dieting or cutting method, so wants to slowly add muscle while reducing fat.

    I guess in that sense I do fall under that bracket but without any weight to lose as such, just a change in BF and muscle ratio. Overthinking maybe, I wondered if I'd need to bulk a bit but not cut after in the way some do.

    Recomp just means improving your body composition without much if any change to your weight. So attempting to slowly, over months (and years), increase your muscle while decreasing your body fat while staying about the same weight.

    If you get a chance to really read through a lot of this thread from the beginning, there is a ton of good info and examples.

    If you are already quite lean but under muscled, you might get closer to what you want by gaining weight very slowly while committing to a weight training program. There really isn't a "right" answer as different people prefer different aesthetic s and see themselves differently. You've just got to pick something, stick with it for several months, and see how you look and feel. :smile:
    edited May 28
  • jseams1234jseams1234 Member Posts: 1,186 Member Member Posts: 1,186 Member
    KHMcG wrote: »
    I Recomp 'd from 25 percent bodyfat. Now I no longer have any gains. I've increased calories and protein to compensate.

    Went from 204 lbs to 168lbs.Im not. posting public pics anymore. My results can be seen in Midlife Crisis Fitness Group.

    At a certain point during my deficit eating I found I was losing size. I have had to adjust in order to recover that size and begin to build. No cut and bulk was used.

    If you went from 204 to 168 that is NOT a recomp. You dieted down/cut. If you had STAYED at 204 and reduced your bodyfat percentage from 25% to a lower percentage - that is a recomp.
    edited May 28
  • jseams1234jseams1234 Member Posts: 1,186 Member Member Posts: 1,186 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    You can most probably get much stronger without changing your body composition much at all. Most novice lifters don't initially gain much if any muscle until they have adapted their central nervous system to more effectively use/activate what they already have. This gain in strength is sometimes quite linear and dramatic at first. Once you've maximized those CNS adaptations and are still unable to meet your goals for these calisthentic type movements then you would have to increase your overall muscle mass to keep improving.

    You do make a point about who generally benefits most from body recomposition. You need to decide what type of aesthetic you are aiming for. Maybe you don't want to be massive like a bodybuilder but you might want to have a more athletic and pleasing look. How much will you have to weigh to acheive that look and aesthetic? If you are pretty much already at that weight and just need to change composition - recomp will work, keeping in mind it is the slowest way to achieve most gains. However, if that body you want is going to require a significant increase in body mass, then recomp, by it's very nature, is not going to get you there. Also, being relatively lean means your body has less stored energy resources to use and an already slow process is going to be even slower.

    I've decided I want to be lean but stronger, more muscular, there are loads of examples, the two I mentioned above and Frank Medrano for example. These guys are lean, muscular but not massive.

    Ok, I looked up Frank... He's pretty big for a natural, especially considering his leaness. He's 5'6 and about 154# and probably around 10% bodyfat. Frankly (lol) he's bigger and more cut than most naturals I've seen in my time in the gym. He also has 16" arms at that height and being that cut. Achieving that body is entirely possible but certainly wouldn't be easy for most men. I'm not sure where you stand compared to that physique - but I'd hazard a guess that if that is your ultimate goal then recomp is probably not the way to go.

    Fair enough, Andy Speers then! Frank is a big calisthenics athlete, probably a bad example but BF% is about right.

    Like I said earlier, small goals at first, but when asked about goals it seems most people are asking longer term.

    Ok, I had a much longer reply but I think it went way off tangent. Your example of Andy Speers - another pretty jacked guy. This is a quote from Andy:

    "I basically just lifted weights and ate everything the cafeteria had to offer," says Spear.

    He entered college as a scrawny 140-pound pole vaulter at the University of Miami and put on 45 pounds of rock-hard muscle his first 2 years in college.

    What do you think he would look like if he just tried to recomp at 140? Stayed that same weight but just got leaner?

    You have to consider your goals. If that goal requires you to gain mass to achieve the aesthetic you want then you can't do it with a recomp.

    https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19546221/podcast-skinny-kid-got-jacked/
    edited May 28
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 153 Member Member Posts: 153 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Week 1 on maintenance cals and todays weight was the same as last Thursday, so a good start. I'm wondering if body recomp is right for me being lean and as said above 'under muscle'

    If recomp was the right choice for you a week ago it's right for you for at least a period of months!

    You really do need to seriously think about and set your desired goal physique and fitness capabilities before choosing the tools and methods to get there as well as making the time commitment.

    If you commit to having a similar physique to Andy Speers or Chris Hearia that you mention you have to train well, long and hard. Being lean already you have the advantage that interim progress will show far more quickly that if you were carrying a layer of fat. You would also probably have to accept that it would compromise your long distance running ability somewhat. That balance and compromise is yours alone to decide and also where to decide when to stop building muscle. No-one gets that physique accidentally.

    (e.g. I would love to have a far better power to weight ratio for my cycling performance but I'm not willing to aspire to an elite cyclist's physique or to diet so hard to get there. Compromise.)

    Thanks @sijomial training hard and long is not an issue, I trained for a sub 3 marathon and that was 70+ miles a week up to 3 hours running in one day, so this should be less time.

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    I'm trying to set small goals, it worked well with running and I think is the same for this, however, overall goal is low BF and stronger. Think calisthenics, being able to do multiple pull ups, dips, handstands maybe - not lumping big weights around the gym to get size as such. Does that make sense?

    As for long distance running, I've achieve my goal there, so time to challenge myself elsewhere and maybe just run the odd 5km.

    OK, so now I'm confused (about the bolded).

    On your other thread**, from which we suggested you come here, you said:
    Sorry that wasn't clear, I'm don't have loads to lose, so by upping my training which is well within my capabilities and sitting at maintenance I'm hoping to see body changes that are reduced bf% and a few gains.

    If you want "reduced bf% and a few gains", how is that different from "stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio"? That you're already pretty lean may put you at a little different point on the sliding scale of BF/muscle ratio than some other folks, but if you want lower body fat, and you don't want to lose much more weight . . . what is the option you're looking for, other than to add some muscle mass, while reducing your (admittedly already fairly small) fat stores?

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were saying that you were valuing your running performance, so don't really want to add body fat to add muscle faster (via a bulk & cut strategy).

    If that's so . . . how would you reduce body fat and make gains - assuming you mean muscle gains - simultaneously, without changing the muscle/BF ratio? What strategy would achieve that if not eating at maintenance (or maybe a very small increment above current maintenance) while increasing strength training more than your previous baseline?

    Like I said, now I'm confused about your goals and your view of tradeoffs.

    ** https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10795313/changed-goal-from-1kg-a-week-to-0-75kg-with-zero-weight-loss

    Hey @AnnPT77 maybe I am completely getting recomp wrong, but I'll try to explain what I'm thinking, firstly though, I'm going to give what I'm doing some time, stay at maintenance and train, so I'm not suggesting I'll abandon it after a week.

    I just had the impression that recomp is, for example, a person who wants to lose weight and but not in the traditional dieting or cutting method, so wants to slowly add muscle while reducing fat.

    I guess in that sense I do fall under that bracket but without any weight to lose as such, just a change in BF and muscle ratio. Overthinking maybe, I wondered if I'd need to bulk a bit but not cut after in the way some do.

    Recomp just means improving your body composition without much if any change to your weight. So attempting to slowly, over months (and years), increase your muscle while decreasing your body fat while staying about the same weight.

    If you get a chance to really read through a lot of this thread from the beginning, there is a ton of good info and examples.

    If you are already quite lean but under muscled, you might get closer to what you want by gaining weight very slowly while committing to a weight training program. There really isn't a "right" answer as different people prefer different aesthetic s and see themselves differently. You've just got to pick something, stick with it for several months, and see how you look and feel. :smile:

    What is under muscled? That doesn't make sense to me, I had enough to run a 2:59 marathon! That is not a level loads of people achieve.
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 153 Member Member Posts: 153 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    You can most probably get much stronger without changing your body composition much at all. Most novice lifters don't initially gain much if any muscle until they have adapted their central nervous system to more effectively use/activate what they already have. This gain in strength is sometimes quite linear and dramatic at first. Once you've maximized those CNS adaptations and are still unable to meet your goals for these calisthentic type movements then you would have to increase your overall muscle mass to keep improving.

    You do make a point about who generally benefits most from body recomposition. You need to decide what type of aesthetic you are aiming for. Maybe you don't want to be massive like a bodybuilder but you might want to have a more athletic and pleasing look. How much will you have to weigh to acheive that look and aesthetic? If you are pretty much already at that weight and just need to change composition - recomp will work, keeping in mind it is the slowest way to achieve most gains. However, if that body you want is going to require a significant increase in body mass, then recomp, by it's very nature, is not going to get you there. Also, being relatively lean means your body has less stored energy resources to use and an already slow process is going to be even slower.

    I've decided I want to be lean but stronger, more muscular, there are loads of examples, the two I mentioned above and Frank Medrano for example. These guys are lean, muscular but not massive.

    Ok, I looked up Frank... He's pretty big for a natural, especially considering his leaness. He's 5'6 and about 154# and probably around 10% bodyfat. Frankly (lol) he's bigger and more cut than most naturals I've seen in my time in the gym. He also has 16" arms at that height and being that cut. Achieving that body is entirely possible but certainly wouldn't be easy for most men. I'm not sure where you stand compared to that physique - but I'd hazard a guess that if that is your ultimate goal then recomp is probably not the way to go.

    Fair enough, Andy Speers then! Frank is a big calisthenics athlete, probably a bad example but BF% is about right.

    Like I said earlier, small goals at first, but when asked about goals it seems most people are asking longer term.

    Ok, I had a much longer reply but I think it went way off tangent. Your example of Andy Speers - another pretty jacked guy. This is a quote from Andy:

    "I basically just lifted weights and ate everything the cafeteria had to offer," says Spear.

    He entered college as a scrawny 140-pound pole vaulter at the University of Miami and put on 45 pounds of rock-hard muscle his first 2 years in college.

    What do you think he would look like if he just tried to recomp at 140? Stayed that same weight but just got leaner?

    You have to consider your goals. If that goal requires you to gain mass to achieve the aesthetic you want then you can't do it with a recomp.

    https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19546221/podcast-skinny-kid-got-jacked/

    He's 175lbs, that is not massive in my view, yes he was skinny at first but on the surface without knowing his back story you'd say he is lean and strong, not bulky.

    Anyway, maybe I'll drop the messaging in this thread as people seem a little frustrated by the questions.
  • kimny72kimny72 Member Posts: 15,486 Member Member Posts: 15,486 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    sijomial wrote: »
    Week 1 on maintenance cals and todays weight was the same as last Thursday, so a good start. I'm wondering if body recomp is right for me being lean and as said above 'under muscle'

    If recomp was the right choice for you a week ago it's right for you for at least a period of months!

    You really do need to seriously think about and set your desired goal physique and fitness capabilities before choosing the tools and methods to get there as well as making the time commitment.

    If you commit to having a similar physique to Andy Speers or Chris Hearia that you mention you have to train well, long and hard. Being lean already you have the advantage that interim progress will show far more quickly that if you were carrying a layer of fat. You would also probably have to accept that it would compromise your long distance running ability somewhat. That balance and compromise is yours alone to decide and also where to decide when to stop building muscle. No-one gets that physique accidentally.

    (e.g. I would love to have a far better power to weight ratio for my cycling performance but I'm not willing to aspire to an elite cyclist's physique or to diet so hard to get there. Compromise.)

    Thanks @sijomial training hard and long is not an issue, I trained for a sub 3 marathon and that was 70+ miles a week up to 3 hours running in one day, so this should be less time.

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    I'm trying to set small goals, it worked well with running and I think is the same for this, however, overall goal is low BF and stronger. Think calisthenics, being able to do multiple pull ups, dips, handstands maybe - not lumping big weights around the gym to get size as such. Does that make sense?

    As for long distance running, I've achieve my goal there, so time to challenge myself elsewhere and maybe just run the odd 5km.

    OK, so now I'm confused (about the bolded).

    On your other thread**, from which we suggested you come here, you said:
    Sorry that wasn't clear, I'm don't have loads to lose, so by upping my training which is well within my capabilities and sitting at maintenance I'm hoping to see body changes that are reduced bf% and a few gains.

    If you want "reduced bf% and a few gains", how is that different from "stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio"? That you're already pretty lean may put you at a little different point on the sliding scale of BF/muscle ratio than some other folks, but if you want lower body fat, and you don't want to lose much more weight . . . what is the option you're looking for, other than to add some muscle mass, while reducing your (admittedly already fairly small) fat stores?

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought you were saying that you were valuing your running performance, so don't really want to add body fat to add muscle faster (via a bulk & cut strategy).

    If that's so . . . how would you reduce body fat and make gains - assuming you mean muscle gains - simultaneously, without changing the muscle/BF ratio? What strategy would achieve that if not eating at maintenance (or maybe a very small increment above current maintenance) while increasing strength training more than your previous baseline?

    Like I said, now I'm confused about your goals and your view of tradeoffs.

    ** https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10795313/changed-goal-from-1kg-a-week-to-0-75kg-with-zero-weight-loss

    Hey @AnnPT77 maybe I am completely getting recomp wrong, but I'll try to explain what I'm thinking, firstly though, I'm going to give what I'm doing some time, stay at maintenance and train, so I'm not suggesting I'll abandon it after a week.

    I just had the impression that recomp is, for example, a person who wants to lose weight and but not in the traditional dieting or cutting method, so wants to slowly add muscle while reducing fat.

    I guess in that sense I do fall under that bracket but without any weight to lose as such, just a change in BF and muscle ratio. Overthinking maybe, I wondered if I'd need to bulk a bit but not cut after in the way some do.

    Recomp just means improving your body composition without much if any change to your weight. So attempting to slowly, over months (and years), increase your muscle while decreasing your body fat while staying about the same weight.

    If you get a chance to really read through a lot of this thread from the beginning, there is a ton of good info and examples.

    If you are already quite lean but under muscled, you might get closer to what you want by gaining weight very slowly while committing to a weight training program. There really isn't a "right" answer as different people prefer different aesthetic s and see themselves differently. You've just got to pick something, stick with it for several months, and see how you look and feel. :smile:

    What is under muscled? That doesn't make sense to me, I had enough to run a 2:59 marathon! That is not a level loads of people achieve.

    I'm talking about aesthetics, not strength.
  • jseams1234jseams1234 Member Posts: 1,186 Member Member Posts: 1,186 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    You can most probably get much stronger without changing your body composition much at all. Most novice lifters don't initially gain much if any muscle until they have adapted their central nervous system to more effectively use/activate what they already have. This gain in strength is sometimes quite linear and dramatic at first. Once you've maximized those CNS adaptations and are still unable to meet your goals for these calisthentic type movements then you would have to increase your overall muscle mass to keep improving.

    You do make a point about who generally benefits most from body recomposition. You need to decide what type of aesthetic you are aiming for. Maybe you don't want to be massive like a bodybuilder but you might want to have a more athletic and pleasing look. How much will you have to weigh to acheive that look and aesthetic? If you are pretty much already at that weight and just need to change composition - recomp will work, keeping in mind it is the slowest way to achieve most gains. However, if that body you want is going to require a significant increase in body mass, then recomp, by it's very nature, is not going to get you there. Also, being relatively lean means your body has less stored energy resources to use and an already slow process is going to be even slower.

    I've decided I want to be lean but stronger, more muscular, there are loads of examples, the two I mentioned above and Frank Medrano for example. These guys are lean, muscular but not massive.

    Ok, I looked up Frank... He's pretty big for a natural, especially considering his leaness. He's 5'6 and about 154# and probably around 10% bodyfat. Frankly (lol) he's bigger and more cut than most naturals I've seen in my time in the gym. He also has 16" arms at that height and being that cut. Achieving that body is entirely possible but certainly wouldn't be easy for most men. I'm not sure where you stand compared to that physique - but I'd hazard a guess that if that is your ultimate goal then recomp is probably not the way to go.

    Fair enough, Andy Speers then! Frank is a big calisthenics athlete, probably a bad example but BF% is about right.

    Like I said earlier, small goals at first, but when asked about goals it seems most people are asking longer term.

    Ok, I had a much longer reply but I think it went way off tangent. Your example of Andy Speers - another pretty jacked guy. This is a quote from Andy:

    "I basically just lifted weights and ate everything the cafeteria had to offer," says Spear.

    He entered college as a scrawny 140-pound pole vaulter at the University of Miami and put on 45 pounds of rock-hard muscle his first 2 years in college.

    What do you think he would look like if he just tried to recomp at 140? Stayed that same weight but just got leaner?

    You have to consider your goals. If that goal requires you to gain mass to achieve the aesthetic you want then you can't do it with a recomp.

    https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19546221/podcast-skinny-kid-got-jacked/

    He's 175lbs, that is not massive in my view, yes he was skinny at first but on the surface without knowing his back story you'd say he is lean and strong, not bulky.

    Anyway, maybe I'll drop the messaging in this thread as people seem a little frustrated by the questions.

    Maybe I'm getting this all wrong... but aren't you "skinny"? Not trying to be mean, btw. I had to go back a few pages and look. Yeah, you aren't heavily muscled at all. You aren't going to look like any of your examples without adding significant muscle mass. I'd also not really consider 17% lean... I'm about that right now and I consider that super fluffy - it's where I'm at after a bulk.
    edited May 28
  • KHMcGKHMcG Member Posts: 788 Member Member Posts: 788 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    KHMcG wrote: »
    I Recomp 'd from 25 percent bodyfat. Now I no longer have any gains. I've increased calories and protein to compensate.

    Went from 204 lbs to 168lbs.Im not. posting public pics anymore. My results can be seen in Midlife Crisis Fitness Group.

    At a certain point during my deficit eating I found I was losing size. I have had to adjust in order to recover that size and begin to build. No cut and bulk was used.

    If you went from 204 to 168 that is NOT a recomp. You dieted down/cut. If you had STAYED at 204 and reduced your bodyfat percentage from 25% to a lower percentage - that is a recomp.

    Context was missing. My bad... It took 4 years.
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 153 Member Member Posts: 153 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    You can most probably get much stronger without changing your body composition much at all. Most novice lifters don't initially gain much if any muscle until they have adapted their central nervous system to more effectively use/activate what they already have. This gain in strength is sometimes quite linear and dramatic at first. Once you've maximized those CNS adaptations and are still unable to meet your goals for these calisthentic type movements then you would have to increase your overall muscle mass to keep improving.

    You do make a point about who generally benefits most from body recomposition. You need to decide what type of aesthetic you are aiming for. Maybe you don't want to be massive like a bodybuilder but you might want to have a more athletic and pleasing look. How much will you have to weigh to acheive that look and aesthetic? If you are pretty much already at that weight and just need to change composition - recomp will work, keeping in mind it is the slowest way to achieve most gains. However, if that body you want is going to require a significant increase in body mass, then recomp, by it's very nature, is not going to get you there. Also, being relatively lean means your body has less stored energy resources to use and an already slow process is going to be even slower.

    I've decided I want to be lean but stronger, more muscular, there are loads of examples, the two I mentioned above and Frank Medrano for example. These guys are lean, muscular but not massive.

    Ok, I looked up Frank... He's pretty big for a natural, especially considering his leaness. He's 5'6 and about 154# and probably around 10% bodyfat. Frankly (lol) he's bigger and more cut than most naturals I've seen in my time in the gym. He also has 16" arms at that height and being that cut. Achieving that body is entirely possible but certainly wouldn't be easy for most men. I'm not sure where you stand compared to that physique - but I'd hazard a guess that if that is your ultimate goal then recomp is probably not the way to go.

    Fair enough, Andy Speers then! Frank is a big calisthenics athlete, probably a bad example but BF% is about right.

    Like I said earlier, small goals at first, but when asked about goals it seems most people are asking longer term.

    Ok, I had a much longer reply but I think it went way off tangent. Your example of Andy Speers - another pretty jacked guy. This is a quote from Andy:

    "I basically just lifted weights and ate everything the cafeteria had to offer," says Spear.

    He entered college as a scrawny 140-pound pole vaulter at the University of Miami and put on 45 pounds of rock-hard muscle his first 2 years in college.

    What do you think he would look like if he just tried to recomp at 140? Stayed that same weight but just got leaner?

    You have to consider your goals. If that goal requires you to gain mass to achieve the aesthetic you want then you can't do it with a recomp.

    https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19546221/podcast-skinny-kid-got-jacked/

    He's 175lbs, that is not massive in my view, yes he was skinny at first but on the surface without knowing his back story you'd say he is lean and strong, not bulky.

    Anyway, maybe I'll drop the messaging in this thread as people seem a little frustrated by the questions.

    Maybe I'm getting this all wrong... but aren't you "skinny"? Not trying to be mean, btw. I had to go back a few pages and look. Yeah, you aren't heavily muscled at all. You aren't going to look like any of your examples without adding significant muscle mass. I'd also not really consider 17% lean... I'm about that right now and I consider that super fluffy - it's where I'm at after a bulk.

    Yes, which is why I said recomp is potentially not the right path, because I've only a fluffy amount of BF to go and not a big weight recomp of fat to muscle.

    It is more like train hard at a small surplus as Ann suggested.

    BTW I'm not a complete novice, when I was younger I was around 14 stone and training in the gym most days but with the goal of getting bigger, which considering in now under 11 stone, was significantly bigger than now. Running took over and now I've achieved my running goal I decided I'd like to get stronger in calisthenics. The reason I picked those I did is not necessarily because of their size but they are strong within that sport.

    It would take years to get to that skill level potential, so my goals are smaller. I'm more interested in progressing the moves that aesthetics etc.
    edited May 29
  • SunshinfitSunshinfit Member Posts: 153 Member Member Posts: 153 Member
    I was looking into starting this. I tend to not eat enough protein so that is the first thing I need to work on
  • richiechownsrichiechowns Member Posts: 153 Member Member Posts: 153 Member
    So good news is my weight has been stable over the last 3 weeks, with minimal movement up/down.

    I have some basic calipers now and measured twice on each area, with my average looking to be 15% BF, so a fair amount of room to recomp. Next stage will be working out my lifting plans or body weight exercise routine.
  • DvdgzzDvdgzz Member Posts: 431 Member Member Posts: 431 Member
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »
    jseams1234 wrote: »

    I may have not been clear above, I see lots of people talking about recomp as they are heavier and want to stay the same weight but change the muscle/BF ratio. Whereas I'm fairly lean so it's not such a ratio change.

    You can most probably get much stronger without changing your body composition much at all. Most novice lifters don't initially gain much if any muscle until they have adapted their central nervous system to more effectively use/activate what they already have. This gain in strength is sometimes quite linear and dramatic at first. Once you've maximized those CNS adaptations and are still unable to meet your goals for these calisthentic type movements then you would have to increase your overall muscle mass to keep improving.

    You do make a point about who generally benefits most from body recomposition. You need to decide what type of aesthetic you are aiming for. Maybe you don't want to be massive like a bodybuilder but you might want to have a more athletic and pleasing look. How much will you have to weigh to acheive that look and aesthetic? If you are pretty much already at that weight and just need to change composition - recomp will work, keeping in mind it is the slowest way to achieve most gains. However, if that body you want is going to require a significant increase in body mass, then recomp, by it's very nature, is not going to get you there. Also, being relatively lean means your body has less stored energy resources to use and an already slow process is going to be even slower.

    I've decided I want to be lean but stronger, more muscular, there are loads of examples, the two I mentioned above and Frank Medrano for example. These guys are lean, muscular but not massive.

    Ok, I looked up Frank... He's pretty big for a natural, especially considering his leaness. He's 5'6 and about 154# and probably around 10% bodyfat. Frankly (lol) he's bigger and more cut than most naturals I've seen in my time in the gym. He also has 16" arms at that height and being that cut. Achieving that body is entirely possible but certainly wouldn't be easy for most men. I'm not sure where you stand compared to that physique - but I'd hazard a guess that if that is your ultimate goal then recomp is probably not the way to go.

    Fair enough, Andy Speers then! Frank is a big calisthenics athlete, probably a bad example but BF% is about right.

    Like I said earlier, small goals at first, but when asked about goals it seems most people are asking longer term.

    Ok, I had a much longer reply but I think it went way off tangent. Your example of Andy Speers - another pretty jacked guy. This is a quote from Andy:

    "I basically just lifted weights and ate everything the cafeteria had to offer," says Spear.

    He entered college as a scrawny 140-pound pole vaulter at the University of Miami and put on 45 pounds of rock-hard muscle his first 2 years in college.

    What do you think he would look like if he just tried to recomp at 140? Stayed that same weight but just got leaner?

    You have to consider your goals. If that goal requires you to gain mass to achieve the aesthetic you want then you can't do it with a recomp.

    https://www.menshealth.com/fitness/a19546221/podcast-skinny-kid-got-jacked/

    He's 175lbs, that is not massive in my view, yes he was skinny at first but on the surface without knowing his back story you'd say he is lean and strong, not bulky.

    Anyway, maybe I'll drop the messaging in this thread as people seem a little frustrated by the questions.

    I mean, that would depend on someones height. You described the Jeff Cavaliere as being heavily muscled and he is about that weight. Idk if you'd consider me as heavily muscled but I am only 175 as well at the moment and maybe 180 in my profile pic.

  • alexmosealexmose Member Posts: 714 Member Member Posts: 714 Member
    sardelsa wrote: »
    I figure I'd share my progress in this thread. I link it so often so it would be nice to be part of it ;)
    It wasn't a long recomp and doesn't look like much but it's something. I was maintaining around 132-135lbs. I am 5'7". Kept protein around 0.8-1g per lb bodyweight. Trained about 3x per week full body.

    There are about 5.5 months between photos. I lost about 1" off my waist, it's tighter and more defined, also my loose skin from pregnancy tightened up. My glutes are a bit larger, rounder and definitely built up my legs (hello quads!)

    na4mqkrkfjv5.jpg

    nice arms ;)
Sign In or Register to comment.