all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Thicker lower waist with S&S?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
The Nail

The Nail

Level 7 Valued Member
Odd question to the group.

My waist line, as measured around my belly button, has stayed the same for about a month. Yay! The area around my lower waist where my pants sit is getting thicker - my obliques? - as my pants are fitting tighter. It doesn't seem like it's fat, as again the waist measurement is staying constant; my conditioning is still hella on point; my pants fit the same otherwise.

Anybody else noticed this?
 
Bigger glutes and maybe a little thigh and ab growth in the front. If you're like me my pants sit below my iliac crests, where oblique hypertrophy would not make much difference. I have noticed the same though. Now I think I know what people who wear skinny jeans feel like even though I've never worn them ;)
 
Last edited:
I noticed my pants (which uesed to be looser) are tighter. Pretty much everything else is the same.
 
Anyone else who has problems with his/her pants?
My leg length is a 34 and my waist is 32/33 (depending on the fashion company).
The problem is my thighs and butt are so thick that I need a 36 and sometimes even 38 to fit them in there.
You rarely get a 32/33 waist in combination with a 36 or 38 length, so a lot of times I need to get a 34/36, 36/36, 34/38 or something like that and have them stitched up to fit better. Luckily my mom was a professional sewer in her youth.
Everytime I need a new suit, I spend like a whole weekend at the mall to finally find one that fits...
 
Thanks @rickyw @Kettlebelephant @Steve Freides @HUNTER1313 !

For a month and a half I've been working hard to make the TGU as challenging as possible. This could be where the hypertrophy of the waist muscles is coming from. Those muscles are definitely the most sore when I do that first set of goblet squats in the morning.
I just wanted to make sure I wasn't in fat denial :rolleyes:.

Kettlebelephant said:
Anyone else who has problems with his/her pants?
Click to expand...
I dropped 6" off my waist last year, so I don't have that problem anymore. Especially now that I exclusively run S&S and no longer powerlift. S&S gives me more of the classical build...but I did notice since I've been doing more and more with the 32k I'm getting that 'hamstring sweep' back where my hamstrings make my upper legs wider. So maybe I'll have that problem again soon :p
 
when I did a lot of lifting awhile back, I bought suits and such at a clothing store that specialized in athletes...almost all the suits came with a 10" drop- i.e. the chest size was 10" more than the waist size. Only problem- it was a little expensive, as the adult athletes tend to be very well-paid.
 
I had a problem getting a kilt to fit. I took all the proper measurements, but they just didn't fit. I ended up going to see the guy personally and he said I have a hockey butt or something. It has something to do with measurements being a little different than most guys. So he had to modify my kilts.
 
I would say that per tape measure waist is pretty unchanged, normally with all the variation in women's jeans I have a hard time finding a pair that does not gape in the back waist when bending.

Do notice a difference in glutes, sorta that more bulk at the top, towards the waist end of things. Makes the waist gap more of a problem. Can't say the hubby has any complaints though ;)
 
I remember when my dad started weight lifting in his 50s. He has been skinny all his life, still is, but he reached a point where I had to mention to him that it was definitely time to get some bigger pants. It looked like he was going to rip through the ones he was wearing.
 
I should probably start relying on a DEXA scan or something similar. Never had one but seems the most accurate tracking tool.
 
The Nail said:
I should probably start relying on a DEXA scan or something similar. Never had one but seems the most accurate tracking tool.
Click to expand...
Only neg with DEXA is the radiation exposure. The one thing 100% certain to cause cancer is just that, and it is lifetime cumulative so repeated lower levels may be as bad as bigger one time exposure. CT scans are a lot worse than conventional xrays. If you can find one in your area, InBody machines use some complex electrical current (very weak) through body and proprietary algorithms to process and get result within a couple %age points of DEXA without the risks. Most accurate if fasting state as any bolus in g.i. tract will be measured as fat by this machine. See attached research. I called the InBody company and they referred me to a muscleman vitamin store reasonably close to me that will test me free.

Nice coincidence is that the shop is quite close to my favorite restaurant in the region so I go in fasted and then run over for a pig out.
 

Attachments

  • InBody BIA accuarcy-independent study.pdf
    455.4 KB · Views: 10
  • Full Page Flyer - Prior to Testing + Testing Procedures.pdf
    497.7 KB · Views: 6
I do agree with minimizing our radiation exposure, but it's good to see the dose of dexa in context:

"The amount of radiation used (in DXA) is extremely small—less than one-tenth the dose of a standard chest x-ray, and less than a day's exposure to natural radiation. DXA bone density testing is the most accurate method available for the diagnosis of osteoporosis and is also considered an accurate estimator of fracture risk."-radiologyinfo.org
 
Absolutely, and the context is the sum total of all radiation exposure (intentional or not) in your life, all the xrays including dental, airplane flights, etc. And yes DEXA is the most accurate method but if you look at that paper I posted, not by much. Water tank immersion is pretty close too.

Also, the risk from radiation is not a "stand alone" but will add to or possibly multiply any other risk factors you may have, smoking (even at earlier time in your life), chemical exposures including pesticides and paint and solvents, grilled meats, acrylamides in foods, all sorts of things that may in themselves not be a big deal but we have no idea where our personal threshold lies. To me it just seems to be smart to minimize what exposures we have some control over; this is one of them.

Do you really need THE MOST ACCURATE when the next in line is only a very few % off and the one after that only a bit farther off?
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom