all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Simple goal reached, strong but still fat :/

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
One point that I think should be made is there is no corolation between 6 pack and health. 2 years ago I was 164 with visable is abs. I got sick all the time, the only strength movement I was improving on was pull-ups. At this point I'm 10-20 pounds heavier, no abs. Haven't been sick in a year and ( other then pull-ups) all my strength numbers have gone up. I think it important to balance haw you feel with how you want to look.
 
Valid point, Maine-ah KB...I have also regained some of that weight and gotten a little stronger. My six pack answer was in reply to OP's wanting to drop bodyfat and that I might have been tempted to think that my "genetics" had been holding me back rather than my mildly disciplined eating habits.
 
My genetics held me back until I went on a strict very low carb plan along with intermittent fasting for 4 months. The next 4 months I would have one VERY high carb day per week and the fat kept melting off. I went from 238 lbs >20% BF to 6.1% at 188, measured by Al Ciampa on the bodpod.
What the actual f***? So you lost 36 lbs of fat and 14 lbs of muscle. That's 2.5 lbs of fat loss every week. No wonder you were also losing a pound of muscle a week. Dude this is borderline starvation. Your body was so calorie deprived it was eating like 200 calories worth of muscle daily. Was Al Ciampa not freaking out, or is this regular for his trainees?

Whilst no one will argue with such results (at 188 lbs and 6.1% BF, I'm sure you looked jacked as s***), this is a little bit extreme. Still, congrats on some rather amazing results. The effort and discipline you used is clear!
 
Genetics to me are a bit of a cop-out... certainly they limit the absolute possible outcome, but that is a far cry from what most people achieve anyway. To get to your genetic potential requires enormous amounts of dedication and focus (and trial and error to find out what you're good or bad at in the first place)
Well, it's not about genetic limits. Obviously, very few ever get there.

The issue is that genetics helps well before you get to that limit. Some have the metabolism to eat what they want, and some just don't. Some gain muscle on ridiculous diets, some have to fight hard 7 days a week to just squeeze a muscle gain of 0.25 lbs. A diabetic has to deal with fat loss and muscle building while they're very insulin resistant while I just train hard and I'm very insulin sensitive. You get the idea.

I agree with you and @Glen that you should just try to do the best for your own body and not focus on genetics. I think they do affect you significantly regardless of how advanced you are, but you can't do anything about so just forget it. That said, I really dislike it when people compare themselves to others as @jca17 is saying. Genetics are a factor, they do make physical goals easier for some.

An example is female flexibility. I'll never give up on achieving my full pike because others (females) might have it easier. But I'm certainly not going to let any female tell me that it's "easy if you just try hard and put in the time". It's a lot harder for me.

Same with muscle building and women. If it's their goal, they should try hard. But never see any guy and think that they aren't working hard enough because they're muscular. Genetics play a huge role sometimes.
 
Genetics aren't an excuse to skip work. Always strive to become the best version of yourself.
Where genetics need to be highlighted are where a gifted person has a method and they try to sell that method to other people with their own self as their sample of 1 to back their method. Getting people to buy snake oil. The thing is, they may be very genuine, and just not understand how much more work it is for someone else to achieve what came easily for them.
 
What the actual f***? So you lost 36 lbs of fat and 14 lbs of muscle. That's 2.5 lbs of fat loss every week. No wonder you were also losing a pound of muscle a week. Dude this is borderline starvation. Your body was so calorie deprived it was eating like 200 calories worth of muscle daily. Was Al Ciampa not freaking out, or is this regular for his trainees?

Whilst no one will argue with such results (at 188 lbs and 6.1% BF, I'm sure you looked jacked as s***), this is a little bit extreme. Still, congrats on some rather amazing results. The effort and discipline you used is clear!

Probably not as extreme as your making out - stated OVER 20% so probably not as much muscle lost as indicated on your breakdown - add to that once below 8-9% I've always found a large drop off in muscle to get that 1% loss - more often than not it's not true muscle loss but fluids, intramuscular carbs and fats etc and are quickly regained when coming back up (don't think being 6% is healthy long term if a true 6% as most over estimate leanness)
 
Thanks, 305pelusa..I appreciate the kind words.

I was over 20% but was not measured. Going by previous and subsequent measurements I knew at the time I was at least 20%, almost certainly between 20~22%.

I lost 36 (maybe a couple more) pounds of fat in 8 months (notice the two consecutive 4 month periods). That's a little over 1 lb/week. I did lose some muscle but understood and accepted it.

Yes, I looked rather jacked and it WAS extreme..but getting that lean is pretty extreme, especially considering that I took no drugs or supplements of any kind.

A few Squadronmates and I had a bodyfat challenge amongst ourselves. One guy point blank said that I didn't know what I was talking about: guess I did...

Yes, 6.1% measured on the bodpod, which is touted as one of the most accurate methods.
 
Thanks, 305pelusa..I appreciate the kind words.

I was over 20% but was not measured. Going by previous and subsequent measurements I knew at the time I was at least 20%, almost certainly between 20~22%.

I lost 36 (maybe a couple more) pounds of fat in 8 months (notice the two consecutive 4 month periods). That's a little over 1 lb/week. I did lose some muscle but understood and accepted it.

Yes, I looked rather jacked and it WAS extreme..but getting that lean is pretty extreme, especially considering that I took no drugs or supplements of any kind.
Ah yes I just misread your post. I thought it was all in 4 months, not in two cycles of 4 months. Whoops. Yes that makes much more sense. I could barely believe my eyes with such a transformation.

OP should consider IF. Never tried it but these are excellent results. Once again, well done. I like it when people put clear effort and get their results.

A few Squadronmates and I had a bodyfat challenge amongst ourselves. One guy point blank said that I didn't know what I was talking about: guess I did...
Yes, 6.1% measured on the bodpod, which is touted as one of the most accurate methods.
Haha, well done showing them off. People don't realize that hard work does pay off.

Probably not as extreme as your making out - stated OVER 20% so probably not as much muscle lost as indicated on your breakdown - add to that once below 8-9% I've always found a large drop off in muscle to get that 1% loss - more often than not it's not true muscle loss but fluids, intramuscular carbs and fats etc and are quickly regained when coming back up (don't think being 6% is healthy long term if a true 6% as most over estimate leanness)
When I said muscle, I meant "Lean Body Mass" (mass that isn't fat). Not actual solid material since muscle is 70+% water. Losing a lb of non-fat weight a week is definitely a lot (but that's not what happened I realize now), because it constitutes about 0.25 lbs of real muscle, which requires around 1600 calories to make (that's where I got the 200 daily calories from). Sorry for the confusion, it's just the terminology that I learned.
 
Losing muscle when losing fat is a fact of losing weight, ask any body builder. Now the slower you lose it, the higher percentage of muscle you can hang onto, but you will still lose some.

@North Coast Miller is right. Look to sumo wrestlers on how to gain body fat and lots of it, eat and then sleep. If you want to lose, go to bed hungry, gain, go to bed full or take a nap after eating.

You have to eat for what you plan on doing the 4 to 8 hours after you eat. Also going for a walk after dinner helps lower blood sugar levels.

Now I'm going to rock the boat here and say yes, it is possible to out work a "bad" diet, just ask anyone that put up hay, shoveled snow or pulled green chain. Or ask anyone that walks for 6 to 8 hours a day. One hour of walking burns about 600 calories (depending on a few factors), now make that 6 hours of walking and you burn a whopping 3600 calories. In fact if you don't eat enough, you will bonk out.

The main problems with this approach is most people don't have that much time and people have a tendency to up the intensity too much and make it more glycolytic, which will turn you into a raving lunatic when it comes to food.

If you try to cut back food, your training is going to suffer, work more on timing what you eat.
 
Hello,

Here's the thread "food for abs": Food for abs

Otherwise, here are some threads about nutrition and weight in relation to training (diet section):
A return to IF 16/8
I need some help with Warrior Diet
S&S on a calorie deficit
Vegan body building
S&S + ESE + Slow Carb
Warrior Diet Questions
Anyone got experience with ketogenic diets?
Anabolic Diet
I started IF
Cyclical Keto Diet and Strength Training
Mixing Carbs and Fat. Good or Bad?
Your Warrior Diet Feasts

and some others about training (HIIT, MAF, etc...)
Rucking
Are we over thinking antiglycolic training?
A+A and Strength block training
High Intensity Aerobic Training Can Reverse The Aging Process
Why You Should Not Be Running by Mark Rippetoe
Why You Should Not Be Running by Mark Rippetoe
Slowness through HIIT?

And last but not least, an article on the blog: 3 Simple Nutrition Principles to Power Up Your Simple & Sinister Training

Some threads are long, but all are interesting and full of information. Basically, using just a little bit more calories through training and daily life than you eat (let's say 200 - 250) for some time will make you lose weight pretty smoothly while avoiding fatigue.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Bottom line:

To lose bodyfat cut the sugar, cut the flour, up the protein. Body/WEIGHT is where you concern yourself with calories.

It really is that simple.
 
Losing muscle when losing fat is a fact of losing weight, ask any body builder. Now the slower you lose it, the higher percentage of muscle you can hang onto, but you will still lose some.

@North Coast Miller is right. Look to sumo wrestlers on how to gain body fat and lots of it, eat and then sleep. If you want to lose, go to bed hungry, gain, go to bed full or take a nap after eating.

You have to eat for what you plan on doing the 4 to 8 hours after you eat. Also going for a walk after dinner helps lower blood sugar levels.

Now I'm going to rock the boat here and say yes, it is possible to out work a "bad" diet, just ask anyone that put up hay, shoveled snow or pulled green chain. Or ask anyone that walks for 6 to 8 hours a day. One hour of walking burns about 600 calories (depending on a few factors), now make that 6 hours of walking and you burn a whopping 3600 calories. In fact if you don't eat enough, you will bonk out.

The main problems with this approach is most people don't have that much time and people have a tendency to up the intensity too much and make it more glycolytic, which will turn you into a raving lunatic when it comes to food.

If you try to cut back food, your training is going to suffer, work more on timing what you eat.

I would say it depends. I went from 21% body fat to 11% and I have gained 2lbs of lean mass measured by Bod Pod. You can lose fat without losing musle. If I took myself to 6%, then yes, I would probably lose muscle.
 
One thought: I´m seeing a lot of suggestions of rather complex approaches to diet, such as IF, no carb, etc. These seem like powerful and complex approaches, maybe useful/required for reaching "outstanding" results, such as <12% body fat (like Wesker or Wxherk), but in my opinion not necessary for reaching normal numbers. The OP is talking about his interest in not being fat, which would probably mean having a goal of about 20% body fat (or a normal, fit adult body).

If the goal is "not being fat", my opinion is that a normal diet, avoiding processed foods, only eating whole foods in normal quantities is a better advice than complex diets. Only after this "normal diet" is mastered, and with a normal non fat body achieved, more complex diets should be attempted. Otherwise it would be like aiming for Sinister before achieving Simple, IMO.
 
I used to know a guy who was an avid bicycle rider, logging perhaps 30 to 100 miles a week. While most of the men he rode with had physiques like Lance Armstrong, he himself looked more like the store owner from Toy Story 2. Same workouts, but different DNA.
We have a name for people who look like that - fatty master, as in, "Oh, he's a fatty masters rider."

No disrespect intended, just reporting the terminology used in bikie circles.

-S-
 
One point that I think should be made is there is no corolation between 6 pack and health. 2 years ago I was 164 with visable is abs. I got sick all the time, the only strength movement I was improving on was pull-ups. At this point I'm 10-20 pounds heavier, no abs. Haven't been sick in a year and ( other then pull-ups) all my strength numbers have gone up. I think it important to balance haw you feel with how you want to look.
Same for me - too lean and I've tended throughout my life to get sick. The only thing I can comment on is that since starting my breathing practice, I'm am OK to be leaner and still seem to be healthy, but I find I still like being at the "2-pack" level of bodyfat as a general rule.

-S-
 
Losing muscle when losing fat is a fact of losing weight, ask any body builder. Now the slower you lose it, the higher percentage of muscle you can hang onto, but you will still lose some.
There's a saying in BBing circles. The last person to ask for BBing advice are... BBers.

A BBer, due to his large muscle mass, will have a hard time keeping the mass while cutting the fat. We, for the most part, have no issues there. We're capable of "recomping" as @Wesker11. If you lean out slow enough, it's entirely possible to lose fat and gain muscle simultaneously.

I do know what you meant. I was just making an aside because OP is 20% BF+, so recomping is entirely doable.

To lose bodyfat cut the sugar, cut the flour, up the protein. Body/WEIGHT is where you concern yourself with calories.
It really is that simple.
Haha it isn't quite that simple but for OP, it certainly is! However, OP already expressed his desire to eat his pastas and whatever else.
I completely agree with @Darren Best in that OP doesn't have to make huge dietary changes. He would need to change his training significantly though.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom