What is the bear minimum exercise you need to do to be ripped/toned?
Luluetduet8
Posts: 49 Member
Let’s assume you have your nutrition on point, meaning you’re hitting your calories and macro nutrients for your cut and bulk/lean bulk or whatever.
What is the most efficient cutting routing and most efficient bulking routine you can think of? I don’t mean lose ten pounds in a month. I mean, what plan would be the least amount of work per week that would lead to incredible results if you do it consistently over time? Could you theoretically get ripped with 90 minutes of lifting a week with the right exercises? Or maybe it’s ten minutes a day of HIT? What’s the least amount of effort and what’s the plan you should follow to be ready for hot boy/girl summer? GO!
What is the most efficient cutting routing and most efficient bulking routine you can think of? I don’t mean lose ten pounds in a month. I mean, what plan would be the least amount of work per week that would lead to incredible results if you do it consistently over time? Could you theoretically get ripped with 90 minutes of lifting a week with the right exercises? Or maybe it’s ten minutes a day of HIT? What’s the least amount of effort and what’s the plan you should follow to be ready for hot boy/girl summer? GO!
3
Replies
-
Just to kick things off, my guess is 30 minutes three times a week of compound exercises. Upper body, lower body, total body?? I’ve never tried this so I’m just going off of what I’ve read.2
-
INCREDIBLE RESULTS usually require a dedication of gym time. I'd say an hour a day on just lifting splits.
Realize that a lot of the leanest people do up to 2.5 hours a day in the gym regularly.
Personally because I'm at where I need to be in muscle, I only train one body part a day (about 35-40 minutes) and some cardio (40-60 minutes) daily 7 days a week.
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
8 -
It depends on what you personally mean by "incredible" and "ripped". There's a vast distance between a moderately successful female fitness model, and top pro female bodybuilder, y'know? (And both of those are stretch goals.)
No matter your definition of "incredible" and "ripped", I'm pretty sure the answer is *not* exclusively HIIT. (Exclusively doing HIIT is not the answer to much of anything, IMO, though I admit to cynicism on the subject.)
For most non-trivial definitions, it'd be more than 30 minutes 3 times a week doing compound exercises . . . and another factor is the span of years doing the routine (or rather, series of appropriate routines). A smart 90 minutes a week IMO will build some strength, and lead to what a lot of people would call "toned" (if at low enough body fat), with patience.
I'm pretty sure that "what's the minimum weekly investment to get world-class results" isn't the way to look at it, if one has serious goals and wants a happy life.
But what do I know, I don't even lift, much. 🤷♀️ All I have is a bunch of experience being female.5 -
Right. The issue is that I chose a subjective goal. What if we say we’re going for 8 pounds of muscle a year for someone who is new to weight lifting…would the amount of lifting you do matter time wise (assuming progressive overload?) or is it not possible to even hit that level unless you’re working out an hour a day?0
-
I need a definition here, because 'ripped' and 'toned' are not the same thing in my mind. Both involve resistance training and weights, but only one of them involves hypertrophy and a very low body fat percentage.2
-
Okay let me try to rephrase…we’re trying to gain the max amount of muscle with the least amount of time spent lifting weights haha and you can state what you think this would be for someone brand new vs
A veteran.0 -
The issue is you're comparing two things and trying to come up with one answer. Max muscle and exercise time, trying to come up with the one best. What's better in your scenario: 15 lb muscle for 60 min/day or 9 lbs for 30 min/day?2
-
On a practical level it's going to friend on a lot of things like your genetics, age, sex, and a whole lot of etc. It's not like anyone can just tell you to do 4 minutes and 23 seconds 2x a week of squats.
On a philosophical and somewhat snarky level, getting ripped isn't really "compatible with" the least amount of exercise. Building muscle is hard, building lots, like more than most of the population, takes work, more than most people are willing to put in.12 -
The issue is you're comparing two things and trying to come up with one answer. Max muscle and exercise time, trying to come up with the one best. What's better in your scenario: 15 lb muscle for 60 min/day or 9 lbs for 30 min/day?
Either actually. I’m looking for efficiency. This is more of a thought experiment than anything else.
So for example, if you could only do nine lifts to make the most impact on your physic what would they be? What if you could only do five lifts?
Or maybe ….swimming sprints? Since it’s a full body work out and would cut down on your fat.
0 -
A lot is going to depend on age, sex, and genetics, as well as your starting point and desired time frame.
You mentioned “hot girl summer” which makes me think you are asking the minimum to look good on the beach, not on the stage at a competition. Three sessions a week of compound exercises would probably do that if they were hard sessions. I lift pretty minimally - several compound lifts three times a week - and honestly it takes me more like 90 minutes per session unless I am really paying attention and forcing myself to stay on track. I could do it in 30 but it would have to be done as a circuit and it would take my full attention, no goofing off on the phone during recovery. For a 50+ woman with no great ambitions that keeps me in good enough shape that my neighbor makes comments like, “Damn! Have you seen yourself from the back? Your shoulders look amazing!” No one is going to mistake me for a bodybuilder, and leanness and getting ripped have to do with diet, not working out, but three sessions is enough for me to maintain enough muscle to look like a fit person. When I have to drop to two sessions I start losing reps and muscle gradually.4 -
Pull ups, military press, bent over row, deadlift, squat. I’m also fond of the ab roller which works back, arms, and shoulders as well as abs.Luluetduet8 wrote: »The issue is you're comparing two things and trying to come up with one answer. Max muscle and exercise time, trying to come up with the one best. What's better in your scenario: 15 lb muscle for 60 min/day or 9 lbs for 30 min/day?
Either actually. I’m looking for efficiency. This is more of a thought experiment than anything else.
So for example, if you could only do nine lifts to make the most impact on your physic what would they be? What if you could only do five lifts?
Or maybe ….swimming sprints? Since it’s a full body work out and would cut down on your fat.
Cutting down on fat is done by fork put downs and table push aways and has nothing to do with the gym.
8 -
rheddmobile wrote: »A lot is going to depend on age, sex, and genetics, as well as your starting point and desired time frame.
You mentioned “hot girl summer” which makes me think you are asking the minimum to look good on the beach, not on the stage at a competition. Three sessions a week of compound exercises would probably do that if they were hard sessions. I lift pretty minimally - several compound lifts three times a week - and honestly it takes me more like 90 minutes per session unless I am really paying attention and forcing myself to stay on track. I could do it in 30 but it would have to be done as a circuit and it would take my full attention, no goofing off on the phone during recovery. For a 50+ woman with no great ambitions that keeps me in good enough shape that my neighbor makes comments like, “Damn! Have you seen yourself from the back? Your shoulders look amazing!” No one is going to mistake me for a bodybuilder, and leanness and getting ripped have to do with diet, not working out, but three sessions is enough for me to maintain enough muscle to look like a fit person. When I have to drop to two sessions I start losing reps and muscle gradually.
As another 50+ woman, I’d add that putting on eight pounds of muscle isn’t easy.
I work a damn sight more than 90 minutes a week to get results and comments similar to @rheddmobile
I dunno, maybe it’s easier for the younger set, but I see much younger people busting their *kitten* at the gym and somehow suspect it’s not.4 -
Luluetduet8 wrote: »The issue is you're comparing two things and trying to come up with one answer. Max muscle and exercise time, trying to come up with the one best. What's better in your scenario: 15 lb muscle for 60 min/day or 9 lbs for 30 min/day?
Either actually. I’m looking for efficiency. This is more of a thought experiment than anything else.
So for example, if you could only do nine lifts to make the most impact on your physic what would they be? What if you could only do five lifts?
Or maybe ….swimming sprints? Since it’s a full body work out and would cut down on your fat.
Swimming is a great exercise, good for a body, and will increase strength and muscle . . . but very much more slowly than weight training would. If you can do some cardio without being over-fatigued, that's a good thing, too. If you find swimming fun, sure, swim. Swimming (sprints or otherwise) doesn't "cut down on your fat". Eating fewer calories than you burn is what cuts down on your fat. Swimming would burn some, sure. Sprints all the time would be a bad strategy for weight loss (creates excess fatigue) and for fitness (that's not how sensible fitness progressions are paced).
If you're looking for personal guidance, my cranky-granny-style advice would be to stop theorizing, start on a decent-ish path, and learn things about working out, about your body, about your interests and preferences, from actual experience.
The best approach to increased muscle is not "which X number of exercises", it's more like "pick a well-designed progressive strength program that looks like it'll fit into your current life reasonably well". There are candidate programs in this thread:
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10332083/which-lifting-program-is-the-best-for-you/p1
Start the program, as per directions, though it's fine to start with some reduced weight or starter exercises if the ones in the program are too aggressive for you right at first (i.e., work up to it).
The best approach to reduced fat is to manage the balance between your eating and your calorie expenditure (whatever activities that may include). If you're currently more than trivially over-fat, set a calorie goal for *slow* loss. (Fast loss is more counter-productive for muscle gain; and fast loss isn't that important as long as you're not so obese currently that your weight itself creates significant health risks). Dial in the calorie goal, figure out how to be full/satisfied (or close enough), then make sure you're hitting reasonable nutrition goals, especially protein.
Stick with the exercise/eating program for a few months, and assess your progress. Change things up, if necessary, after that few months. (You can fine tune the calorie goal after one or two menstrual periods, if needed to keep the average loss rate observable but slow.)
Physical improvement is mostly about *doing* things, even maybe slightly suboptimal ones, not about trying to optimize in theory before even starting. Yeah, you don't want to go willy-nilly, but basic decent approaches are many and diverse. If you pick a program, manage your eating alongside, you'll make progress, and you'll learn from doing.6 -
I.
I think there is a problem in this whole premise and it is mostly what Ann mentioned in passing - optimize in theory before even starting.
There's also a lot to be said for lofty goals, but there is a BIG GLARING RED FLAG at the idea that you're going to get big results in minimal time and that's the whole plan. You know where you are. You know where you want to be. How can you get there as fast as possible.
The real truth, IMO, I have found is that if you are entirely results driven in either weight-loss, fitness, or anything else in life that requires consistent, daily, work, to achieve or maintain - you are in for a bad time. You can't just... do it, achieve it and move on and keep it.
The 'fastest' result/minimal work you can do is what you enjoy enough not to mind doing it for more than 30 minutes a day, 3 days a week. It needs to be something you like doing for the sake of doing. Nothing wrong with big goals, but how you achieve them needs to involve you doing things you LIKE, not things you have to force yourself to do.
Because, man alive, no future vague goal is ever enough to get anyone through a long time - and in the case of fitness a lifetime - of doing things they really don't want to do at all.
Optimal result/minimal time? Time spent doing things you find fun that have health benefits. Biggest waste of time? Forcing yourself to do things you actively dislike (not just don't love) doing for a goal as vague as 'hot summer body' or 'ripped'.
8 -
in my way of thinking, "fastest results to ZOMG hot girl summer body" sounds a lot like "cheapest humanly possible place to get a tattoo" or "what could possibly be wrong with week-old sushi?"
just saying17 -
in my way of thinking, "fastest results to ZOMG hot girl summer body" sounds a lot like "cheapest humanly possible place to get a tattoo" or "what could possibly be wrong with week-old sushi?"
just saying
EXACTLY.
Also sounds a lot more like someone trying to prove something to someone else, and that sounds an awful lot like 'Hold my beer and watch this' and we all know how THAT ends.
2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »On a practical level it's going to friend on a lot of things like your genetics, age, sex, and a whole lot of etc. It's not like anyone can just tell you to do 4 minutes and 23 seconds 2x a week of squats.
On a philosophical and somewhat snarky level, getting ripped isn't really "compatible with" the least amount of exercise. Building muscle is hard, building lots, like more than most of the population, takes work, more than most people are willing to put in.
5 -
I'm a bit fluffy right now, but when I was hitting my stride I looked healthy and fit...I looked like I worked out, but certainly didn't have some kind of insanely awesome, incredible physique. It also took me a couple of years to really get to where I wanted to be...so the notion that you're just going to go hit the gym for a couple weeks and come out with a "hot girl summer bod" is pretty much a non starter...just doesn't happen that fast.
People with incredible physiques that go beyond just looking healthy and fit put in a *kitten* ton of work...more than most people are really willing to do.
That said, your best bet is probably a good full body program run 3x per week that focuses primarily on compound movements with some assistance work mixed in combined with 4-5 days of light to moderate cardio and a good diet. That's not going to get you "ripped", but for most people that will leave them looking fit and healthy. A good full body session in the gym is going to take you about an hour 3x per week. Most of my cardio is riding bikes, either road or mountain...so more recreational physical activity than "workout"
But yeah...incredible results require incredible work...there's just no way around that. I prefer to be less than incredible and just be healthy and fit and enjoy myself.13 -
You sound like you don't want to spend a lot of time in the gym. As a newbie, you can get decent results with a SMARTLY designed progressive overload program using mostly compound lifts. The key word is SMART, which doesn't always mean "more" (and in fact usually doesn't). It won't happen overnight, though. You might visually notice small results in 6 weeks, but more noticeable in a minimum of 12 weeks.
I personally do 3 total body sessions per week that last me 75-90 minutes that include about 7-9 exercises, not including my lengthy prehab stuff I do beforehand. I don't have time to go 5-6 days, plus I have other hobbies and exercises I like. I follow smartly-designed programs and study up quite a bit on strength training. I have been lifting for quite some time and think I look pretty decent for my age (44), but am not female competitor. Would I get better results with body-part or push-pull splits? Don't know, but I am happy with what I'm doing with the time I have.6 -
wunderkindking wrote: »I.
The real truth, IMO, I have found is that if you are entirely results driven in either weight-loss, fitness, or anything else in life that requires consistent, daily, work, to achieve or maintain - you are in for a bad time. You can't just... do it, achieve it and move on and keep it.
The 'fastest' result/minimal work you can do is what you enjoy enough not to mind doing it for more than 30 minutes a day, 3 days a week. It needs to be something you like doing for the sake of doing. Nothing wrong with big goals, but how you achieve them needs to involve you doing things you LIKE, not things you have to force yourself to do.
Because, man alive, no future vague goal is ever enough to get anyone through a long time - and in the case of fitness a lifetime - of doing things they really don't want to do at all.
Optimal result/minimal time? Time spent doing things you find fun that have health benefits. Biggest waste of time? Forcing yourself to do things you actively dislike (not just don't love) doing for a goal as vague as 'hot summer body' or 'ripped'.
THIS. IMHO, knowing dozens of people who are very fit through either gym work and/or endurance training, the common denominator is ALWAYS that they enjoy the process and the improved physique is a happy by-product of that process. For these folks, it has become a habit and part of their identity. Motivation comes and goes, but the exercise habit is automatic. As in EVERY DAY automatic.5 -
On another thread, you (OP) said something like "My goal was to hit 16% BF before starting general weight lifting at maintenance to see If I can get some newbie gains."
With a good program, you can get newbie gains, but I have reservations about an untrained woman getting to 16% BF before starting strength training. Going to 16% BF with average-ish muscle mass for a woman stands a decent chance of being quite underweight, and underweight is probably not the best start for an appearance-focused training effort.
Standard charts put 14%-20% BF as the "athlete" level for women, which implies an assumption of some muscle mass. It's complicated, but that's the lowest theoretically healthy body fat range, and some women will experience amenorrhea (loss of menstrual periods) even there - not exactly a sign of optimum health. Please be careful.5 -
If you are thinking least amount of work
It's taken me years, often 3 times a week excercise, but can go up to 5 (from 30 minutes to 5 hours), various sports, coaching, dietician, physical therapy, proper diet, lifestyle (no beer, avoid soft drinks, fast food, candy, cake most of the year)
It's more a calling, dedication than 'quickest way there', you are going to need more motivation than that maybe
You will have setbacks, may not be able to train for 5 months or so, only train twice or once a week, injuries, get older, etc
Let's not talk financial investment, although you can do a lot with little, there is a significant investment, over time
And I am not even one of the most ripped examples...
Have won awards and job offers for my looks, but that's part genetics too maybe, besides training
7 -
On another thread, you (OP) said something like "My goal was to hit 16% BF before starting general weight lifting at maintenance to see If I can get some newbie gains."
With a good program, you can get newbie gains, but I have reservations about an untrained woman getting to 16% BF before starting strength training. Going to 16% BF with average-ish muscle mass for a woman stands a decent chance of being quite underweight, and underweight is probably not the best start for an appearance-focused training effort.
Standard charts put 14%-20% BF as the "athlete" level for women, which implies an assumption of some muscle mass. It's complicated, but that's the lowest theoretically healthy body fat range, and some women will experience amenorrhea (loss of menstrual periods) even there - not exactly a sign of optimum health. Please be careful.
Also, for a woman it’s a lot easier to hang on to muscle mass than build it. If you are fat your legs probably have some muscle just from moving you around. Lifting while losing helps hang on to that muscle.4 -
Ah. I’m realizing that this was maybe what one would call a stupid question.
There is no best “most effective” exercise or list of exercises without very specific outcomes outlined. Only after you figure out your goal could you figure out the most reasonable amount of time it would take to get you there.6 -
On another thread, you (OP) said something like "My goal was to hit 16% BF before starting general weight lifting at maintenance to see If I can get some newbie gains."
With a good program, you can get newbie gains, but I have reservations about an untrained woman getting to 16% BF before starting strength training. Going to 16% BF with average-ish muscle mass for a woman stands a decent chance of being quite underweight, and underweight is probably not the best start for an appearance-focused training effort.
Standard charts put 14%-20% BF as the "athlete" level for women, which implies an assumption of some muscle mass. It's complicated, but that's the lowest theoretically healthy body fat range, and some women will experience amenorrhea (loss of menstrual periods) even there - not exactly a sign of optimum health. Please be careful.
For some background, I got that 16% number from a website that marked that percentage as “excellent” for women. But I’ll keep an eye out for signs of being underweight (I won’t be hanging out here for long). The main reason I went that though was from reading in community people cut first to offset the fat they would get while bulking. And since I was about to start that soon, I figured I would give myself a good runway since I hate cutting and didn’t want to do it again for like 8 months.
The other thing that is tricky is knowing whether I’m a newbie or not. I have always worked out my whole life. I did p90x in full two times last year and have lifted with the strong curves and Michael matthews programs, buuuuut I haven’t really been super consistent with lifting specifically due to life stuff getting in the way. So I don’t feel like a newb, but I’m definitely lifting novice levels for my weight according to a chart I read on MFP. I’m assuming that makes me a newb lol2 -
Luluetduet8 wrote: »On another thread, you (OP) said something like "My goal was to hit 16% BF before starting general weight lifting at maintenance to see If I can get some newbie gains."
With a good program, you can get newbie gains, but I have reservations about an untrained woman getting to 16% BF before starting strength training. Going to 16% BF with average-ish muscle mass for a woman stands a decent chance of being quite underweight, and underweight is probably not the best start for an appearance-focused training effort.
Standard charts put 14%-20% BF as the "athlete" level for women, which implies an assumption of some muscle mass. It's complicated, but that's the lowest theoretically healthy body fat range, and some women will experience amenorrhea (loss of menstrual periods) even there - not exactly a sign of optimum health. Please be careful.
For some background, I got that 16% number from a website that marked that percentage as “excellent” for women. But I’ll keep an eye out for signs of being underweight (I won’t be hanging out here for long). The main reason I went that though was from reading in community people cut first to offset the fat they would get while bulking. And since I was about to start that soon, I figured I would give myself a good runway since I hate cutting and didn’t want to do it again for like 8 months.
The other thing that is tricky is knowing whether I’m a newbie or not. I have always worked out my whole life. I did p90x in full two times last year and have lifted with the strong curves and Michael matthews programs, buuuuut I haven’t really been super consistent with lifting specifically due to life stuff getting in the way. So I don’t feel like a newb, but I’m definitely lifting novice levels for my weight according to a chart I read on MFP. I’m assuming that makes me a newb lol
Well, I think the fact that you haven't been super consistent in the past is kind of the answer to your own question. Basically, you need to find a program that you think you'll be able to do consistently, because that's about as important as anything else. I'd look into programs that give you the most bang for your buck in a shorter amount of time AND is something you actually somewhat enjoy that you think you'll be able to stick with. I also agree with others about not just focusing on the aesthetics part of it. Focusing on the amount of weight you lift increasing over time is a really objective way to measure your progress.2 -
Luluetduet8 wrote: »On another thread, you (OP) said something like "My goal was to hit 16% BF before starting general weight lifting at maintenance to see If I can get some newbie gains."
With a good program, you can get newbie gains, but I have reservations about an untrained woman getting to 16% BF before starting strength training. Going to 16% BF with average-ish muscle mass for a woman stands a decent chance of being quite underweight, and underweight is probably not the best start for an appearance-focused training effort.
Standard charts put 14%-20% BF as the "athlete" level for women, which implies an assumption of some muscle mass. It's complicated, but that's the lowest theoretically healthy body fat range, and some women will experience amenorrhea (loss of menstrual periods) even there - not exactly a sign of optimum health. Please be careful.
For some background, I got that 16% number from a website that marked that percentage as “excellent” for women. But I’ll keep an eye out for signs of being underweight (I won’t be hanging out here for long). The main reason I went that though was from reading in community people cut first to offset the fat they would get while bulking. And since I was about to start that soon, I figured I would give myself a good runway since I hate cutting and didn’t want to do it again for like 8 months.
The other thing that is tricky is knowing whether I’m a newbie or not. I have always worked out my whole life. I did p90x in full two times last year and have lifted with the strong curves and Michael matthews programs, buuuuut I haven’t really been super consistent with lifting specifically due to life stuff getting in the way. So I don’t feel like a newb, but I’m definitely lifting novice levels for my weight according to a chart I read on MFP. I’m assuming that makes me a newb lol
I'd suggest looking at some other websites, and biasing that research toward centrist health-focused thinking, just to get some contrast. Be sure you're looking at information *for women* because healthful BF% are very different for men on account of their very different overall physiology.
My sense is that 16% *might* be "excellent" for someone (female) who's elite in some sports. However, that's building in an assumption of fairly high muscle mass, well above what an average women, even a common recreational athlete, might have. The average woman has BF% more likely in the 30s, and even elite athletes (in sports that don't inherently favor low total bodyweight) may be in that 14-20% or so range (higher, of course in some sports that favor raw mass - I'm talking mainstream sports, neither offering performance benefits for high *or* low total mass.) Even in my sport (rowing), which benefits from relatively lower body weight with high strength, elite women are maybe 12-16% BF. They're strong AF, look Fine.
I'm relieved to hear that you have at least some strength background, but realistically, that's not a lot, in the big picture. Since strength generally increases faster than mass for beginners, the fact that you're at beginner strength norms would suggest that your current muscle mass is less likely to be unusually high, though it's not an absolute certainty. (There's detraining effects, starting point mattered, blah blah blah.)
Really, just get started on a good-enough lifting program, consistently, and a good-enough eating program to support it. You can fine-tune as you go along.
Even if you're still bent on losing weight for a bit, there's no reason not to start seriously lifting. At worst, you'll keep existing muscle, build some strength, get work in on form, and be in a better position when you're ready to start bulking. At best, as a relative beginner, you could even build some mass . . . especially if you keep the calorie deficit relatively small. I'm assuming you're young (from my perspective, at 65), which will favor better results, too, even in a small deficit.2 -
Way too many variables to answer your question.
In fact, I’m kind of wondering if you should have posted this in the debate forum.
If you are actually looking for a workout routine that will build muscle then I recommend heavy lifting. Mike Matthews’ Bigger, Leaner, Stronger for men and Thinner, Leaner, Stronger for women is an easy to follow introduction to lifting for building muscle.
Btw, I agree with one of the comments above along the lines of: people who want ‘ripped’, muscular bodies need to have a different mindset than the OP seems to have. The real question should be: Are you willing to put in as much work as is needed for as long as it is needed to get ‘ripped’?
Think of these sayings:
- you can’t wish for it, you have to work for it.
- it’s about the journey, not the destination
- the only bad workout is the one that didn’t happen
- wherever you go, go with all your heart0 -
age_is_just_a_number wrote: »Way too many variables to answer your question.
In fact, I’m kind of wondering if you should have posted this in the debate forum.
If you are actually looking for a workout routine that will build muscle then I recommend heavy lifting. Mike Matthews’ Bigger, Leaner, Stronger for men and Thinner, Leaner, Stronger for women is an easy to follow introduction to lifting for building muscle.
Btw, I agree with one of the comments above along the lines of: people who want ‘ripped’, muscular bodies need to have a different mindset than the OP seems to have. The real question should be: Are you willing to put in as much work as is needed for as long as it is needed to get ‘ripped’?
Think of these sayings:
- you can’t wish for it, you have to work for it.
- it’s about the journey, not the destination
- the only bad workout is the one that didn’t happen
- wherever you go, go with all your heart
I mean, I usually work out 1-1.5 hours a day and I eat right. I’ve always been on top of it. My main question was trying to better understand exactly what exercises pack the most punch and what’s the progression to get there as quick as possible. Not really because I’m running to get there (I have a lifetime to be/stay fit) but really to hear about people’s perspectives on strategy.
BUT The issue I realized after posting is exactly what you said. Too many variables that I wasn’t accounting for. This made the question kind of stupid in hindsight.
Good news is I still learned a thing or two from yall. Mainly that I’m a newb which I was not expecting since I’ve done strength training my whole life haha I just haven’t really done a lot of lifting heavy/body building specifically and I wasn’t thinking of it being that different. I also didn’t realize that 16% was supposed to be considered like elite athlete. I’ve always had like 18% so going two percent lower didn’t seem like a big change for me.3 -
Luluetduet8 wrote: »age_is_just_a_number wrote: »Way too many variables to answer your question.
In fact, I’m kind of wondering if you should have posted this in the debate forum.
If you are actually looking for a workout routine that will build muscle then I recommend heavy lifting. Mike Matthews’ Bigger, Leaner, Stronger for men and Thinner, Leaner, Stronger for women is an easy to follow introduction to lifting for building muscle.
Btw, I agree with one of the comments above along the lines of: people who want ‘ripped’, muscular bodies need to have a different mindset than the OP seems to have. The real question should be: Are you willing to put in as much work as is needed for as long as it is needed to get ‘ripped’?
Think of these sayings:
- you can’t wish for it, you have to work for it.
- it’s about the journey, not the destination
- the only bad workout is the one that didn’t happen
- wherever you go, go with all your heart
I mean, I usually work out 1-1.5 hours a day and I eat right. I’ve always been on top of it. My main question was trying to better understand exactly what exercises pack the most punch and what’s the progression to get there as quick as possible. Not really because I’m running to get there (I have a lifetime to be/stay fit) but really to hear about people’s perspectives on strategy.
BUT The issue I realized after posting is exactly what you said. Too many variables that I wasn’t accounting for. This made the question kind of stupid in hindsight.
Good news is I still learned a thing or two from yall. Mainly that I’m a newb which I was not expecting since I’ve done strength training my whole life haha I just haven’t really done a lot of lifting heavy/body building specifically and I wasn’t thinking of it being that different. I also didn’t realize that 16% was supposed to be considered like elite athlete. I’ve always had like 18% so going two percent lower didn’t seem like a big change for me.
Maybe it's not, for you. It would be pretty low for a woman of average muscle mass. I don't think you've said clearly how tall you are, how much you weigh, or shared photos that would give us some concrete way to say. The source that said that was "excellent" was not looking at it in the most common mainstream way, I think - seems more aimed at athletes, if anything could make it make sense. What you've said about your exercise background and strength didn't seem to support a probability that you have a higher-than-average muscle mass, but no way to know for sure.
Average or lower muscle mass, for a woman, at 18% body fat, would mostly just be . . . thin, really thin. 🤷♀️2
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 424 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions