jwdieter Member

Keep in mind that elite distance runners are light because they are both low fat and low muscle. Especially upper body. If your objective is not aesthetics, you can let the upper body burn off and have an easier time at lower weights.

Fries and non-diet drink are more of a problem. Cheeseburger has decent macros. Make it a "meal" and you end up with a very low protein/calorie ratio, and low satiety.

Why would you have to train all day? All you have to do is break down muscles without providing enough fuel/rest to repair. After a while, gains stop, then strength starts decreasing. Take the angry unbeliever off his steroids, drop him down to 5 hours sleep/day, give him a 1000-day calorie deficit, and keep him on the…

She's not particularly muscular. The photo is just an action shot. This is like pausing a show and commenting on how goofy everyone looks.

Well, I will say the "there's no such thing as overtraining" theory is pretty easy to test, if you don't feel like reading about it. Just go with a progressive routine, start fairly heavy so you don't waste time, and ignore any deload programming.

So I guess supplemented elite strength athletes and bodybuilders respond positively to training every day and massive reps. How well does this concept work with normal people?

Should be able to cut to 10-12% pretty easy given the consistency and solid approach so far. It's nice to look good while bulking.

I have an elliptical. It's a nice thing to do while watching tv. Wife uses it all the time. Wouldn't say I love it, but it gets used quite frequently.

Need a calorie deficit for weight loss. If cardio produces that deficit, then it will work. Boot camp and insanity sound kinda cardio-ish to start with though. And 6 days/week of exercise is already significant. I'm guessing you'll see better success locking down the intake.

This fairly recent thread has a lot of links to other threads and good information: http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/1283019-using-just-dumbbells-for-strength-training?

You shouldn't react to water weight changes. Creatine will most likely help you work harder. Eat at deficit, strength train, get enough protein. Good luck.

What is the definition of a "lifestyle change"? If it includes tracking calories and eating at or below maintenance, then it will by definition work. If it is a high activity lifestyle with somewhat constrained eating, it should work. If it's just an idea someone had, before sitting back down and free-eating, then it's…

OHP is a tough one. Will lift the lightest and gain the slowest. How does it compare with your bench? Edit: sorry, 67.5kg for bench. So the ratio is about right there. Don't worry about it imo. Can always work on form, but OHP is just a weak lift in general.

If you feel like you can't control yourself, and you're eating 10,000 calories/day, you might benefit from seeing a mental health professional. Seriously. Not an insult.

Squats won't make your legs more lean. They won't make your legs bigger in a calorie deficit either.

Well, maybe the people in the study received shtty advice.

Get decent protein, strength train, and apply a reasonable deficit for your size. That's the best you can do. The margin of error on your scale is greater than your total weight loss so far. It's not an appropriate method to try to analyze small changes in weight. Also, lean mass includes water.

Female Olympic gymnasts are similar BMI. Quite fit. Solid musculature. :p

Just don't get too excited/depressed when some of it comes back. Up and down is how weight goes, and you're just looking for a downward trend over time.

The substitutions look good. I'd throw in some back extensions for deadlift day. Best of luck healing up and good choice to do what the doctor says.

A good program is progressive with deload mechanisms. Nothing particularly wrong with full body 3x8 for a young man, but see first sentence.

So doctors can take a quick measurement and point to that. So quick measurements can be used in statistics. Works a lot better than "looks fat".

If you're under 6' tall, you're very unlikely to be drafted in the NBA. NAH MAN clearly height is irrelevant.

If you're BMI obese, you're very likely to actually be body fat obese. So that's what it's good for.

The major problem with BMI in this study is it under-detected obesity. The major problem people have with BMI in this thread is people believe it over-detects obesity. Basically, there are a lot of obese people who aren't 30+ BMI.

The problem with what you're saying is like me saying I'm a natural 5'10 270 with shredded lower glutes. You're claiming 10% lower body fat than any woman with similar BMI on the study quoted many times in this thread. It's simply not believable, so your point isn't particularly strong.

Well, you've apparently managed to achieve a higher relative muscle mass than Iris Kyle (8x Ms Olympia), so that's.. something.

If your measurements are accurate, you're ridiculously off the charts. Are you a professional bodybuilder?

I'd say viewing lean mass as a static figure when significantly overweight is a bigger problem than BMI.

If you stick around and lose weight effectively, you'll be surprised. You're carrying around a lot of "lean" water and connective tissue with the 36 pounds of fat. And that's assuming the bf analysis was spot on.