I want to look better completely!

Options
ashevans07
ashevans07 Posts: 2 Member
in Health and Weight Loss
Hey, I’m 6’3 24 years old, 104 KG workout 4 times a week have a skinny fat build guessing because of my height ANYWAY this year I want to look my best for holidays I want to have bigger arms and possibly a 6 pack I have 6-7 months to achieve this and I’m dedicated but because of my build i don’t know whether I should cut weight or build muscle or how many calories I should eat or burn and I’ve tried searching about body recomp etc and it’s just always over complicated to build weight and lose fat so I’m wondering how to achieve my goal or get close to it atleast! I want to look my best and I’m determined!
Tagged:

Answers

  • ashevans07
    ashevans07 Posts: 2 Member
    Options
    I meant build muscle and lose fat****
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,649 Member
    Options
    You're currently in the upper level of the overweight range

    While I understand that you're trying to say that in your opinion, you're under muscled, you are using a term that refers to a metabolically obese normal weight person. You are neither of the two

    Set MFP to lose 1lb/0.5kg a week.
    Make sure you are using a structured training program and that you're performing the exercises correctly
    Go at it!
  • tomcustombuilder
    tomcustombuilder Posts: 1,634 Member
    Options
    Calorie deficit to burn off the fat while using a proven beginners lifting program. That way you will maintain what muscle you have, and once the fat is burned off then you can go to a diet that will allow for muscle gain. Don’t try any recomp as it doesn’t work for most people and even for the people that it does work for it’s not excruciatingly slow, and it’s really hard to see any kind of improvement along the way
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,925 Member
    edited January 28
    Options
    Yeah, a re-comp is one of those theoretical possibilities that have come up in the last twenty years and it took a decade of RCT to figure that out, so yeah, it's possible, but it's totally useless for the vast majority to get the results most want....a total waste of time. imo

    You could diet down and lose body fat and get down to a reasonable amount percentage wise but during this phase you will have built pretty much 0 muscle, except for some newbie gains but the reality is your probably going to lose muscle mass which is not really a good course of action.

    You could lift in a slight calorie surplus now with a very well designed weight resistance program which by default muscle is added should lower your overall body fat percentage while still adding some body fat and then when your satisfied with your muscle mass you can cut. Just keep in mind how long this overall transformation is going to take and just an educated guess I would conclude at least 2 years but probably closer to 4 years, this may not apply to you, this is just an average. Also the appearance of building muscle and getting stronger is a good incentive to keep going. cheers.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,925 Member
    Options
    My idea of fueling a well designed intense weight resistance program is not the same as you believing that any surplus is referred to or described as "bulking" Results vary, nuance matters.
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,925 Member
    edited January 28
    Options
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Yeah, a re-comp is one of those theoretical possibilities that have come up in the last twenty years and it took a decade of RCT to figure that out, so yeah, it's possible, but it's totally useless for the vast majority to get the results most want....a total waste of time. imo

    You could diet down and lose body fat and get down to a reasonable amount percentage wise but during this phase you will have built pretty much 0 muscle, except for some newbie gains but the reality is your probably going to lose muscle mass which is not really a good course of action.

    You could lift in a slight calorie surplus now with a very well designed weight resistance program which by default muscle is added should lower your overall body fat percentage while still adding some body fat and then when your satisfied with your muscle mass you can cut. Just keep in mind how long this overall transformation is going to take and just an educated guess I would conclude at least 2 years but probably closer to 4 years, this may not apply to you, this is just an average. Also the appearance of building muscle and getting stronger is a good incentive to keep going. cheers.

    Almost nobody who is already overweight/obese (read not incredibly lean) would ever put on enough muscle to lower their body fat percentage while eating in a calorie surplus. Unless they were on performance enhancing drugs. It's just not really feasible to put on that much muscle that fast. That why people on a bulk get fat. And people on a dirty bulk get really fat.

    Who's talking anytime fast, not me. The result in a best case scenario is not a calorie surplus and if it's done right, body fat would/can be minimum, it's adequate fuel for a more intense workout, which results in better hypertrophy. I guess losing strength and muscle mass over the course of a year or so, because that is the time line this generally takes, is really not that appealing to me and I'll go with building muscle and manage fat gain instead if my goal was to build muscle.
  • sollyn23l2
    sollyn23l2 Posts: 1,617 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    sollyn23l2 wrote: »
    neanderthin wrote: »
    Yeah, a re-comp is one of those theoretical possibilities that have come up in the last twenty years and it took a decade of RCT to figure that out, so yeah, it's possible, but it's totally useless for the vast majority to get the results most want....a total waste of time. imo

    You could diet down and lose body fat and get down to a reasonable amount percentage wise but during this phase you will have built pretty much 0 muscle, except for some newbie gains but the reality is your probably going to lose muscle mass which is not really a good course of action.

    You could lift in a slight calorie surplus now with a very well designed weight resistance program which by default muscle is added should lower your overall body fat percentage while still adding some body fat and then when your satisfied with your muscle mass you can cut. Just keep in mind how long this overall transformation is going to take and just an educated guess I would conclude at least 2 years but probably closer to 4 years, this may not apply to you, this is just an average. Also the appearance of building muscle and getting stronger is a good incentive to keep going. cheers.

    Almost nobody who is already overweight/obese (read not incredibly lean) would ever put on enough muscle to lower their body fat percentage while eating in a calorie surplus. Unless they were on performance enhancing drugs. It's just not really feasible to put on that much muscle that fast. That why people on a bulk get fat. And people on a dirty bulk get really fat.

    Who's talking anytime fast, not me. The result in a best case scenario is not a calorie surplus and if it's done right, body fat would/can be minimum, it's adequate fuel for a more intense workout, which results in better hypertrophy. I guess losing strength and muscle mass over the course of a year or so, because that is the time line this generally takes, is really not that appealing to me and I'll go with building muscle and manage fat gain instead if my goal was to build muscle.

    Right. Which is all fine. And eating in a small calorie surplus (for people who are already lean) is a great way to add muscle. Just so long as you don't lead people to believe they're going to decrease their fat percentage while eating in a surplus. Because then they're going to be really demotivated when they find that they did, in fact, also add fat. And then they're going to give up. Because someone on the internet told them they could decrease their fat percentage by eating more.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,649 Member
    Options
    @neanderthin I generally agree with many of the points you make.

    That said this is not just a theoretical edge discussion.

    Not to mention that your description of what you propose is closer to what I would call recomp as opposed to bulk if we want to get nuanced🤷‍♂️

    You are proposing that a 24 yo self described as not particularly athletic, self described and supported as per their stats to be over fat (shy of being obese but definitely over fat unless particularly muscled which they have self described they are not), you are proposing to that person with no proven exercise and gym and strength training record to not lose weight as their primary goal at 104kg.

    Nope.

    While preserving muscle is a good goal, you don't see me proposing 1kg/2lb a week fast loss and no strength effort. The suggestion is measured but appreciable deficit of 500Cal a day and full on training.

    The technicality of whether you are stronger as an absolute measure or you feel stronger because your weight to strength ratio changed with reasonable weight loss is mostly a technicality.

    Sure. Most normal weight people cannot win a strong man competition. The muscle mass in a strong man competitor could snap most of us in half.

    But I am willing to bet ya that most 100kg people would be a lot happier, healthier, and functionally capable with the normal muscle mass allotted to them by nature at 80 or 75kg.

    And if they lose at a reasonable rate and engage in reasonable amounts of training they will actually end stronger than your average 80 or 75kg person. Just like athletes on a cut don't lose all their gainz during a cut.

    Certainly there is no reason to presuppose that they will be any weaker/less muscled than a normal 80/75kg person engaged in the same activities.... if they don't over push the deficits and if they do not consistently under eat their nutrients including protein.

    If they want to have more muscles than your average person they need more and better training. Not more calories to start.

    Analysis paralysis. Fear of muscle loss. No.

    During a sane weight reduction the muscles in use are not going to run away.

    Sure. At 70-75kg you can bet that my calf muscles are reduced compared to what they were at 130+. What exact point would there be for the previously sized ones to be there?
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,925 Member
    edited January 28
    Options
    PAV8888 wrote: »
    @neanderthin I generally agree with many of the points you make.

    That said this is not just a theoretical edge discussion.

    Not to mention that your description of what you propose is closer to what I would call recomp as opposed to bulk if we want to get nuanced🤷‍♂️

    You are proposing that a 24 yo self described as not particularly athletic, self described and supported as per their stats to be over fat (shy of being obese but definitely over fat unless particularly muscled which they have self described they are not), you are proposing to that person with no proven exercise and gym and strength training record to not lose weight as their primary goal at 104kg.

    Nope.

    While preserving muscle is a good goal, you don't see me proposing 1kg/2lb a week fast loss and no strength effort. The suggestion is measured but appreciable deficit of 500Cal a day and full on training.

    The technicality of whether you are stronger as an absolute measure or you feel stronger because your weight to strength ratio changed with reasonable weight loss is mostly a technicality.

    Sure. Most normal weight people cannot win a strong man competition. The muscle mass in a strong man competitor could snap most of us in half.

    But I am willing to bet ya that most 100kg people would be a lot happier, healthier, and functionally capable with the normal muscle mass allotted to them by nature at 80 or 75kg.

    And if they lose at a reasonable rate and engage in reasonable amounts of training they will actually end stronger than your average 80 or 75kg person. Just like athletes on a cut don't lose all their gainz during a cut.

    Certainly there is no reason to presuppose that they will be any weaker/less muscled than a normal 80/75kg person engaged in the same activities.... if they don't over push the deficits and if they do not consistently under eat their nutrients including protein.

    If they want to have more muscles than your average person they need more and better training. Not more calories to start.

    Analysis paralysis. Fear of muscle loss. No.

    During a sane weight reduction the muscles in use are not going to run away.

    Sure. At 70-75kg you can bet that my calf muscles are reduced compared to what they were at 130+. What exact point would there be for the previously sized ones to be there?

    The op said they workout 4 days a week and want a 6 pack in 6 or 7 months and I have no idea what that means as it relates to the op but I suspect they have some experience in a gym and are just not happy with the amount of fat covering their muscle and would also like to gain some muscle. I agree that losing weight, specifically body fat before attempting to add muscle is sensible and what most people should do.
  • PAV8888
    PAV8888 Posts: 13,649 Member
    edited January 28
    Options
    I guess I have to chuckle. I most certainly have my own filtering software running!

    I automatically discount timelines when it comes to weight loss and even more so in terms of physique based goals. My bias is that they lead to suboptimal for the long-term decisions.

    I also admit that I automatically discount non-specific multiple times a week work out aspirations esp. when it sounds like the person just started as a beginner based on everything else being said.

    All these things are great if they pan out. Especially if they engage in a proven beginner program esp with form checks and support.

    But chances are way higher that someone is following the pictograms on a bunch of circuit training machines. Or doing barbell curls. And they may get sick, injured, bored, or give up based on lack of results commensurate to perceived effort

    At least that's what I was doing when I was 24 and hitting 220+🤷‍♂️

    Nothing wrong with the circuit training and barbell curls as part of a more complete program of reduced calorie consumption and increased activity and exercise 😉
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,454 Member
    Options
    neanderthin wrote: »
    My idea of fueling a well designed intense weight resistance program is not the same as you believing that any surplus is referred to or described as "bulking" Results vary, nuance matters.

    Just to be clear. Any male that is overfat (more than excellent, maybe good category should not be eating over maintenance. Hopefully is clear.

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/body-fat-percentage-chart#women

    Age 20–29 years
    Category Percentage
    dangerously low under 14%
    excellent 14 to 16.5%
    good 16.6 to 19.4%
    fair 19.5 to 22.7%
    poor 22.8 to 27.1%
    dangerously high over 27.2%

    Age 30–39 years
    Category Percentage
    dangerously low under 14%
    excellent 14 to 17.4%
    good 17.5 to 20.8%
    fair 20.9 to 24.6%
    poor 24.7 to 29.1%
    dangerously high over 29.2%

    Age 40–49 years
    Category Percentage
    dangerously low under 14%
    excellent 14 to 19.8%
    good 19.9 to 23.8%
    fair 23.9 to 27.6%
    poor 27.7 to 31.9%
    dangerously high over 31.9%

    Age 50–59 years
    Category Percentage
    dangerously low under 14%
    excellent 14 to 22.5%
    good 22.6 to 27%
    fair 27.1 to 30.4%
    poor 30.5 to 34.5%
    dangerously high over 34.6%

    Age 60–69 years
    Category Percentage
    dangerously low under 14%
    excellent 14 to 23.2%
    good 23.3 to 27.9%
    fair 28 to 31.3%
    poor 31.4 to 35.4%
    dangerously high over 35.5%
  • neanderthin
    neanderthin Posts: 9,925 Member
    edited January 28
    Options
    Well for me PAV being 6'1" at 22yrs old I worked out at the gym 3 times a week and as intense as I could, or it seemed that way, played hockey, soccer, baseball and kickboxing twice a week and finally got up to 155lbs while eating like I was starving. Today 49 years later I still play hockey and I still think I workout hard at the gym, but I'm just kidding myself and managed to get up to about 250 and now back to 180ish, so I'm not as smart as I was at 22 but I'll just have to live with it, maybe do an extra set.

Categories