What is the bear minimum exercise you need to do to be ripped/toned?

AnnPT77 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.

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.

Luluetduet8 wrote: »

AnnPT77 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.

Most effective lifting strategy to put on muscle mass is compound movements. I put on 8+lbs of muscle in just over a year. I was also competitively powerlifting at the time. I generally lifted for 2+ hours 4 days a week minimum. And I ate A LOT. I was easily consuming 2400-2600 calories a day. I was definitely not 18% bf at that time.

It's really hard to do two things at once, especially when those two things are: gain muscle and stay lean.

Luluetduet8 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

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. 🤷‍♀️

I might be just thin. I don’t know what’s average. I am 4’10 and was 107.6 pounds at 18% BF. That was the last I checked about a month ago at a hydrostatic measuring place. Or whatever it’s called when they dunk you in water.

That's not an underweight BMI at 107 or 101 (assumed weight at 16% BF, at least if all lean mass is retained - maybe at least close, since relatively little weight difference), which is reassuring. Specifics help.

It takes years and years of dedication and hours and hours and hours of bloody hard work to get ripped.
Sorry. No short cuts.

Luluetduet8 wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

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. 🤷‍♀️

I might be just thin. I don’t know what’s average. I am 4’10 and was 107.6 pounds at 18% BF. That was the last I checked about a month ago at a hydrostatic measuring place. Or whatever it’s called when they dunk you in water.

4'10" here as well. Was 108 lbs last July (I put on some 'winter fluff' since then after everything started back up that I need to lose). I was noticeably 'toned'.

A few years of the workout I listed above, adding weighted sit-ups and back extensions during rest periods between 2nd arm movement sets. So weight lifting ~30 minutes 3x per week will make a significant difference in your physique over time if you keep with it.

The increased strength also made my running and cycling much better.