What is the bear minimum exercise you need to do to be ripped/toned?
Replies
-
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.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. 🤷♀️
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.0 -
Luluetduet8 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.1 -
from the definition i understand of "ripped", as opposed to "built", it's about diet, not exercise. lose enough body fat and anyone looks ripped unless they have extra skin covering some muscles. my elderly mother lost a lot of weight, and despite the fact that she was weak and frail, the lack of body fat showed off every muscle she had clearly and with every striation.
that being said, i'm a short woman who used to lift seriously. i spent at least 12 hours per week (often up to 20 hours) in the gym resistance training with intensity and made great gains in size and strength. without a doubt, i had the most muscle by far i've ever had in my life in those years. but since i didn't diet down, and maintained a higher than normal weight for my height, i wasn't at all ripped.2 -
Just gotta say that "bare minimum" effort and "maximum" results usually do not go together.
7 -
That ain't a lot. I eat that to maintain. When I first started bulking up to put on weight, I was eating 4000-4500 calories a day.deputy_randolph wrote: »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.
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
1 -
It takes years and years of dedication and hours and hours and hours of bloody hard work to get ripped.
Sorry. No short cuts.2 -
Luluetduet8 wrote: ».... 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? ...
Here's a good option for what you are asking for.. AWorkoutRoutine.com. The basic beginner program is about as simple and quick as it gets. And effective. (1 leg, 1 push, 1 pull). All compound movements. 3x/week. If you superset an arm and leg movement to save time, you can be out of gym in 30 minutes per session.3 -
Luluetduet8 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.4 -
it depends on the person.
I've been doing 20 push-ups 3 times a week (Nothing else on arms/upper body) for the past year, and have arms like Linda Hamilton in Terminator.
I've had to stop cycling as my legs were getting too big. I can't squat or lunge, legs get really big. I've been doing 25 donkey kicks on each leg, and 25 fire-hydrants, 3 times a week for the past year. Have a J-LO rear-end.
I began doing 100 crunches every morning a month ago, and already have a really defined pack of abs. The 6pack isn't there yet, just the 2 lines down the side and the central pack of muscles.
Am 5'5" and weigh 137lbs. Would love to weigh 10lbs less. Gyms have opened up here, so can get back to elliptical. That's the only cardio I can do and not get huge thighs.
Hard to get enough exercise in to create a calorie deficit, as exercise makes me bigger.
1 -
Doing the "bare minimum" is not a foundation for success in any endeavor.1
-
I'm about to go for a bike ride. Not because it's good for me, not because it burns calories, just that the sun is out, I haven't been on a particular trail in a while, and bikes are fun. If you find things you enjoy, it doesn't feel like a chore.1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions