The Road To <10% Body Fat

[ccc]

CH 4 tomorrow at 8 is how to get fit fast. "Myth busting" apparently.

Could be interesting. However the "Fast" bit makes me a little wary. 

Like losing weight I don't necessarily think doing these things 'fast' is the best long term plan. Will still watch it.

[Turned Out Nice Again]

3 hours ago, JoeDavola said:

I've never been able to sustain resistance training; I've always ended up injuring myself and quitting.

However I have found a great new personal trainer, and I'm really hopeful this time that I've found the advice that I need to stick at this for a while and make a real difference.

Currently learning how to do the main moves, squat, bench press, pull up, push up ... properly. I think I need one to one advice on these to work around my weaknesses and injuries, but I'm gonna drop a few grand this year on regular personal training, and with a bit of luck no injuries will flare up and take me out of the game.

I'm really enjoying it so far and if I can keep this up then I should be in much better shape this time next year than I've ever been in. Here's hoping.

That all sounds brilliant Joe. Keep us updated with progress.

[SpectrumFX]

3 hours ago, JoeDavola said:

Thanks - that's what they're telling me - that these niggly pains are a result of weak stabilization muscles and the exercise should help.

Hopefully I will be updating this topic this time next year a whole new man!

Remember to take a before picture, so you can compare and contrast to an after pictures later on (Don't worry, you don't have to post them here )

[bendy]

Not a fan of PT's myself - I reckon as someone who has no background in the fitness industry I could blow them out the water training/diet wise.  That is sort of majorly due to this place with the amount of journals/documentaries etc. that just aren't mainstream or don't appear to be mainstream until years after the minority know about it.

I suppose PT's do have a place but at some point you should be able to let go of the umbilical and go it alone.  As usual though, every circumstance is unique (though cheekily I reckon if I was a PT I'd annoy my clients that much by saying you need to do this/that and need to ditch this/that I'd end up with little business!!!)

[JoeDavola]

16 hours ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

That all sounds brilliant Joe. Keep us updated with progress.

Cheers! Will do.

14 hours ago, SpectrumFX said:

Remember to take a before picture, so you can compare and contrast to an after pictures later on (Don't worry, you don't have to post them here )

Actually they've been asking me to do this, I'm a bit self conscious about such things but they've assured me it'll never be published, it's so that I can go back 6 months from now and see how I've come on, and how any muscle imbalances ect..have been improved.

13 hours ago, bendy said:

Not a fan of PT's myself - I reckon as someone who has no background in the fitness industry I could blow them out the water training/diet wise.  That is sort of majorly due to this place with the amount of journals/documentaries etc. that just aren't mainstream or don't appear to be mainstream until years after the minority know about it.

I suppose PT's do have a place but at some point you should be able to let go of the umbilical and go it alone.  As usual though, every circumstance is unique (though cheekily I reckon if I was a PT I'd annoy my clients that much by saying you need to do this/that and need to ditch this/that I'd end up with little business!!!)

There's lots of dodgy PT's, that's for sure. I've not spoken to this one about diet but I'm a bit of a nutrition nut and won't be blindly following what they tell me to eat.

[Sledgehead]

 

On 6/28/2015 at 8:59 AM, ccc said:

On 6/28/2015 at 8:35 AM, Rave said:

All these people saying "I was x weight / y waist size and didn't have a six pack"...you do realise that having a six pack requires larger than usual abdominal muscles right?

Not really - everyone has a six pack - the only question is whether you can see/feel it or not.

I heard some 'expert' on that Ch4 "how to get fit fast" say the same as you ccc,

BUT SURELY, this is simply wrong by definition.

A six pack is not simply rectus abdominis.

A six pack is the visual manifestation of rectus abdominis from outside the body.

If this were not true, the question "how do I get a six pack?" would have no meaning.

As to Rave's assertion that having a six pack requires larger rectus abdominis, well, there has to be some truth in that especially on a thread entitled "The road to <10% body fat".

The title tells us that the OP is carrying more weight that he'd like. Coupled with his pictures (certainly no shame there) we can see this might be the case, especially if he wants a six pack.

But surely this is the point:

This girl has lost a bunch of weight in 12 months. Good on her.

But anyone can see from pic 2 that she stands no chance of having a six pack w/o the surgery shown in pic 3, because she simply has too much skin.

And here is Rave's point.

To get a six pack if you are a little overweight WILL most certainly require larger abdominals, because you will have to make up for loose skin with knobblier (bigger & more toned) abdominal muscles. otherwise you will have a very long wait to reveal your fat reduction.

I say all this not to dishearten people, but merely to point out the quickest route to visible results. And surely, that is what they are after.

 

[jfk]

Still keeping to my activity of 1 session kickboxing, 2 sessions of Jitsu and a 5k park-run, have started running twice through the week at lunchtime (just a quick couple of laps of the local park, just under 2k).  Feeling good, endurance building up. Didn't put too much lard on over chrimbo due to the house of sickiness. I had lurgy for most of December and managed to pull a rib muscle from all the coughing due to my lurgy   (so to echo ccc's comment about ribs - yeah, they're damn painful to recover from)

Weight is pretty much still static at 83/85kg but composition changing. Got my 5k time down to 25m 54s closer to my psychological goal of 25m

[ccc]

Nice work. What height are you ? 

I'm doing boxing for few weeks due to bust toe. Quite liking just focusing on that aspect of it. There's enough to think about never mind the kicking and rest of it.

So much to learn. It really is like chess but at the speed of F1. 

Just wee things like how you move your body/head in response to their right or left to the face - and how that sets you up for your chosen response. Same when they come in for your ribs, your block sets you up to hit them back. Something I had zero clue of but now makes total sense. 

Now once I practice that enough so it comes naturally - and then do the same for the other 100 things I have to learn. I may be quite handy. 

Mark 2045 for my World Title fight. Age could be an issue. 

[ccc]

6 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

 

I heard some 'expert' on that Ch4 "how to get fit fast" say the same as you ccc,

BUT SURELY, this is simply wrong by definition.

A six pack is not simply rectus abdominis.

A six pack is the visual manifestation of rectus abdominis from outside the body.

If this were not true, the question "how do I get a six pack?" would have no meaning.

As to Rave's assertion that having a six pack requires larger rectus abdominis, well, there has to be some truth in that especially on a thread entitled "The road to <10% body fat".

The title tells us that the OP is carrying more weight that he'd like. Coupled with his pictures (certainly no shame there) we can see this might be the case, especially if he wants a six pack.

But surely this is the point:

This girl has lost a bunch of weight in 12 months. Good on her.

But anyone can see from pic 2 that she stands no chance of having a six pack w/o the surgery shown in pic 3, because she simply has too much skin.

And here is Rave's point.

To get a six pack if you are a little overweight WILL most certainly require larger abdominals, because you will have to make up for loose skin with knobblier (bigger & more toned) abdominal muscles. otherwise you will have a very long wait to reveal your fat reduction.

I say all this not to dishearten people, but merely to point out the quickest route to visible results. And surely, that is what they are after.

 

Yes I suppose if you get to the too much stretched skin stage then a 6 pack may be a totally different proposition. For anyone before that stage though it's perfectly achievable. Although as per that show on CH 4 - the effort required is a bit mental. I definitely agree for this goal diet is hugely important.

Interesting to see them talking - like most places - as if high intensity interval training is some sort of new thing. I and many other people have been at it for decades !!

Not the worst programme on the subject ever though - some interesting stuff.

What you make of the full time bloke body model ? I know he was in the bulking stage and all - but 2 sessions at the gym each day and I'd want to be looking a lot better than that !!

Or is that what bulking does ? Take away all your definition ? He had very little really considering.

[bendy]

 

8 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

 

I heard some 'expert' on that Ch4 "how to get fit fast" say the same as you ccc,

BUT SURELY, this is simply wrong by definition.

A six pack is not simply rectus abdominis.

A six pack is the visual manifestation of rectus abdominis from outside the body.

If this were not true, the question "how do I get a six pack?" would have no meaning.

As to Rave's assertion that having a six pack requires larger rectus abdominis, well, there has to be some truth in that especially on a thread entitled "The road to <10% body fat".

The title tells us that the OP is carrying more weight that he'd like. Coupled with his pictures (certainly no shame there) we can see this might be the case, especially if he wants a six pack.

But surely this is the point:

This girl has lost a bunch of weight in 12 months. Good on her.

But anyone can see from pic 2 that she stands no chance of having a six pack w/o the surgery shown in pic 3, because she simply has too much skin.

And here is Rave's point.

To get a six pack if you are a little overweight WILL most certainly require larger abdominals, because you will have to make up for loose skin with knobblier (bigger & more toned) abdominal muscles. otherwise you will have a very long wait to reveal your fat reduction.

I say all this not to dishearten people, but merely to point out the quickest route to visible results. And surely, that is what they are after.

 

Well I posted pics a few pages back (a year ago) and although I didn't start out at pic 1 here (and I'm male) I'd say that is some serious crash dieting and the wrong approach to being defined if that's what you want to be.  Skin will retract if done properly.

 

Bulking can take away definition, that's the idea of bulking and cutting you will gain muscle on the bulk (and fat) and lose fat on the cut (and less muscle).

Personally I follow my own plan , may even treat you all to a years update photo's soon you deviants

[ccc]

So when you cut you lose more fat than muscle. I see the point now. If you can be arsed. Not for me.

[workingpoor]

14 minutes ago, ccc said:

So when you cut you lose more fat than muscle. I see the point now. If you can be arsed. Not for me.

Only of you are very careful to keep protein intake high to prevent muscle catabolism, you will still lose a small amount even doing that. 

Don't monitor protein intake and you will likely lose muscle & fat especially if you do it rapidly cutting needs to be done slowly 1- 1.5 lb of bodyfat a week max hence cuts go on for up to 3 months usually

[Steppenpig]

3 hours ago, ccc said:

 

Not the worst programme on the subject ever... 

Agreed, but that girl runner in black they showed from time to time as background shot,  had literally the worst heel strike I've ever seen. 

[frozen_out]

On 2/6/2017 at 9:14 AM, bendy said:

Not a fan of PT's myself - I reckon as someone who has no background in the fitness industry I could blow them out the water training/diet wise.  That is sort of majorly due to this place with the amount of journals/documentaries etc. that just aren't mainstream or don't appear to be mainstream until years after the minority know about it.

I suppose PT's do have a place but at some point you should be able to let go of the umbilical and go it alone.  As usual though, every circumstance is unique (though cheekily I reckon if I was a PT I'd annoy my clients that much by saying you need to do this/that and need to ditch this/that I'd end up with little business!!!)

I met a self-proclaimed PT through kickboxing. Turned out he was a complete and utter charlatan.

You can pretty much learn anything from a book, what you might struggle with is motivation. that's where having someone to ball at you/push you comes in.

Out of interest - anyone here tried crossfit? or is that too rich for the HPC skinterati blood? 

[ccc]

17 minutes ago, workingpoor said:

Only of you are very careful to keep protein intake high to prevent muscle catabolism, you will still lose a small amount even doing that. 

Don't monitor protein intake and you will likely lose muscle & fat especially if you do it rapidly cutting needs to be done slowly 1- 1.5 lb of bodyfat a week max hence cuts go on for up to 3 months usually

Too much hassle !!

I actually think a bloke or burd with those crazy ripped abs doesnt look that great. Just looks very weird to me. 

16 minutes ago, Steppenpig said:

Agreed, but that girl runner in black they showed from time to time as background shot,  had literally the worst heel strike I've ever seen. 

Didn't notice that but her running style was rather weird. Maybe she could do with a PT 

That reminds me of the scientist running expert bod when talking about running styles. He said most heel strike but only very few run with a more forefoot style and usually elite athletes. That's just not true. Anyone can run that way !!

Anyway I won't go off on one again.

[Turned Out Nice Again]

10 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

The title tells us that the OP is carrying more weight that he'd like. Coupled with his pictures (certainly no shame there) we can see this might be the case, especially if he wants a six pack.

Still going for it. I'm only eating one main meal per day now and have recovered lost ground since falling off the wagon last year. It might be time soon for some new pics.

[workingpoor]

2 hours ago, ccc said:

Too much hassle !!

I actually think a bloke or burd with those crazy ripped abs doesnt look that great. Just looks very weird to me. 

 

You never wanted to get "on stage" then? 

[Sledgehead]

57 minutes ago, Turned Out Nice Again said:

Still going for it. I'm only eating one main meal per day now and have recovered lost ground since falling off the wagon last year. It might be time soon for some new pics.

I remain unconvinced that you are going about things the healthy way.

There is nothing special or new about bulking and shredding (or HIT for that matter - can you say circuit training anyone?).

Bulking and shredding is the same as building and cutting.

And that is its proper form and 'function'.

Building or bulking is just about building muscle mass.

Shredding or cutting is merely about getting definition - and here's the important point - for competition.

It's that necessary step body builders must take to win awards, because competition demands definition and striation.

But make no mistake: it will mean muscle loss, even with the best protein, knowledge and guidance.

And at your age, that is something you can ill afford to do.

Instead I'd concentrate on building muscle. That will increase your metabolic rate and help you to stay leaner in a healthy way. Moreover, your core will just get more sucked in and toned, merely by handling more and more weight. The extra weight taken on your bones will also have a beneficial effect on their density, another important issue as you get older.

Okay, so maybe if you put on a lot of muscle, you might get the notion to do a bit of cutting just to impress at the beach (though frankly, ime, women don't care much for cut bodies, save a six pack). But that should only be done after bulking.

Cutting without bulking is a metabolic disaster imo. You will lose muscle mass so your metabolism will slow. When you stop the reduction in calories and cardio, you will find you put on weight (fat) much easier. Moreover your bones will suffer.

Basically shredding has no meaning w/o bulking and competition. Well, anorexia might be a meaning, but I'm guessing that's not your goal?

 

[Turned Out Nice Again]

2 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

I remain unconvinced that you are going about things the healthy way.

There is nothing special or new about bulking and shredding (or HIT for that matter - can you say circuit training anyone?).

Bulking and shredding is the same as building and cutting.

And that is its proper form and 'function'.

Building or bulking is just about building muscle mass.

Shredding or cutting is merely about getting definition - and here's the important point - for competition.

It's that necessary step body builders must take to win awards, because competition demands definition and striation.

But make no mistake: it will mean muscle loss, even with the best protein, knowledge and guidance.

And at your age, that is something you can ill afford to do.

Instead I'd concentrate on building muscle. That will increase your metabolic rate and help you to stay leaner in a healthy way. Moreover, your core will just get more sucked in and toned, merely by handling more and more weight. The extra weight taken on your bones will also have a beneficial effect on their density, another important issue as you get older.

Okay, so maybe if you put on a lot of muscle, you might get the notion to do a bit of cutting just to impress at the beach (though frankly, ime, women don't care much for cut bodies, save a six pack). But that should only be done after bulking.

Cutting without bulking is a metabolic disaster imo. You will lose muscle mass so your metabolism will slow. When you stop the reduction in calories and cardio, you will find you put on weight (fat) much easier. Moreover your bones will suffer.

Basically shredding has no meaning w/o bulking and competition. Well, anorexia might be a meaning, but I'm guessing that's not your goal?

I hear you and will be upping the resistance work. I don't agree though that just 1 (nutritious +  protein-rich) meal per day is unhealthy eating per se. as I am still reasonably muscular.

[Sledgehead]

6 hours ago, ccc said:

What you make of the full time bloke body model ? I know he was in the bulking stage and all - but 2 sessions at the gym each day and I'd want to be looking a lot better than that !!

Or is that what bulking does ? Take away all your definition ? He had very little really considering.

Yeah, he was bulking, so lack of definition. Of course it depends on the person. Some have naturally much more subcutaneous fat. Genetics innit.

[workingpoor]

12 minutes ago, Sledgehead said:

Yeah, he was bulking, so lack of definition. Of course it depends on the person. Some have naturally much more subcutaneous fat. Genetics innit.

Ectomorph 

Mesomorph 

Endomorph 

We have been over this last year. 

[workingpoor]

12 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

 

I heard some 'expert' on that Ch4 "how to get fit fast" say the same as you ccc,

BUT SURELY, this is simply wrong by definition.

A six pack is not simply rectus abdominis.

A six pack is the visual manifestation of rectus abdominis from outside the body.

If this were not true, the question "how do I get a six pack?" would have no meaning.

As to Rave's assertion that having a six pack requires larger rectus abdominis, well, there has to be some truth in that especially on a thread entitled "The road to <10% body fat".

The title tells us that the OP is carrying more weight that he'd like. Coupled with his pictures (certainly no shame there) we can see this might be the case, especially if he wants a six pack.

But surely this is the point:

This girl has lost a bunch of weight in 12 months. Good on her.

But anyone can see from pic 2 that she stands no chance of having a six pack w/o the surgery shown in pic 3, because she simply has too much skin.

And here is Rave's point.

To get a six pack if you are a little overweight WILL most certainly require larger abdominals, because you will have to make up for loose skin with knobblier (bigger & more toned) abdominal muscles. otherwise you will have a very long wait to reveal your fat reduction.

I say all this not to dishearten people, but merely to point out the quickest route to visible results. And surely, that is what they are after.

 

I feel sorry for that girl, she is probably happy that she lost the weight but to have that massive scar across the lower abdomen at that age? all for some loose skin that could have been avoided, i would expect sagging from someone 40+ but crikes that can't be a good thing surely? 

[ccc]

5 hours ago, workingpoor said:

You never wanted to get "on stage" then? 

?

[ccc]

4 hours ago, workingpoor said:

I feel sorry for that girl, she is probably happy that she lost the weight but to have that massive scar across the lower abdomen at that age? all for some loose skin that could have been avoided, i would expect sagging from someone 40+ but crikes that can't be a good thing surely? 

Yes pictures like this aimed at people BEFORE they get fat could be a great incentive for them to keep it off. 

I'm sure most think - oh well yes I'm getting fat but I can lose it if I want. I doubt most realise such extreme surgery as this may also be required. Could make all the difference to some people ?

Of course it would see seen as "Fat shaming" so you would probably get arrested with idiots shouting that picture #1 is just a "Real" woman.

Drink shaming is fine

Drug shaming is fine

Smoking shaming is fine

Fat shaming should also be fine.

It's probably got the largest negative impact on this country out of all the above. Yet we have idiots cheered on for celebrating it. 

[SpectrumFX]

7 hours ago, Sledgehead said:

I remain unconvinced that you are going about things the healthy way.

There is nothing special or new about bulking and shredding (or HIT for that matter - can you say circuit training anyone?).

Bulking and shredding is the same as building and cutting.

And that is its proper form and 'function'.

Building or bulking is just about building muscle mass.

Shredding or cutting is merely about getting definition - and here's the important point - for competition.

It's that necessary step body builders must take to win awards, because competition demands definition and striation.

But make no mistake: it will mean muscle loss, even with the best protein, knowledge and guidance.

And at your age, that is something you can ill afford to do.

Instead I'd concentrate on building muscle. That will increase your metabolic rate and help you to stay leaner in a healthy way. Moreover, your core will just get more sucked in and toned, merely by handling more and more weight. The extra weight taken on your bones will also have a beneficial effect on their density, another important issue as you get older.

Okay, so maybe if you put on a lot of muscle, you might get the notion to do a bit of cutting just to impress at the beach (though frankly, ime, women don't care much for cut bodies, save a six pack). But that should only be done after bulking.

Cutting without bulking is a metabolic disaster imo. You will lose muscle mass so your metabolism will slow. When you stop the reduction in calories and cardio, you will find you put on weight (fat) much easier. Moreover your bones will suffer.

Basically shredding has no meaning w/o bulking and competition. Well, anorexia might be a meaning, but I'm guessing that's not your goal?

 

I would agree that if you want to be big and obviously very muscular, then running a calorie restriction probably isn't the optimal approach.

There is however increasing evidence to show that if you want to be healthy and live a long time, then running a calorie restriction may be a very good idea.

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms14063