[RexImperator]

It's a continuum. Basically the idea is, if you are over 15%, cut first, then bulk. This really is an issue for the skinny fat person, who needs to lose fat and gain muscle. If you are 25% and start a bulk, you are going to look terrible for a long time, plus you'll have a really long cut to do later.

Edit: I guess if you are 6' 5" and want to be a powerlifter then it doesn't matter...go for the max weight class which I think is 308/unlimited. Not sure how healthy that is though.

[SlickyBoy]

(03-14-2015 08:59 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Otherwise, a guy who is overweight should reduce his calorie consumption (best way to do that is by cutting portion size)

I would add to this - stop eating out so much, especially at shitty chain restaurants where the "more is better" mantra has worked its way into every menu. This can be tough for guys who live on the road, go to a lot of company lunches, etc. since it seems everywhere you turn shitty food with tons of calories, sugar and carbs are all over the menu. But given the choice stop going to places with plenty of tasty food for not much money. Make your own food and save the great restaurants for the occasional night out (with a chick you are already banging, of course).

The US military of all places is terrible at this - people in many job functions routinely eat far too much processed, fried and calorie rich foods, defeating the purpose of physical training. It got so bad they actually changed the body-fat standards a few years back to accommodate all the fatasses.

[Giovonny]

I must respectfully disagree with my friend Nascimento.

Almost all men should consider adding muscle, no matter their body fat levels.

Muscle looks good.
Muscle burns fat.
Muscle building is good exercise.
Muscle building is fun exercise.

Almost all men would look better with more developed muscles.

I see no reason to discourage it.

Skinny guys should add muscle.

Fat guys should lose fat AND add muscle, at the same time.

(03-15-2015 07:50 AM)slubu Wrote:  

how are you guys measuring your body fat?

I just get naked and look in the mirror.

I can tell if my body is adding fat or losing it.

Just look at these pictures and compare your body:

(03-15-2015 09:08 AM)Nascimento Wrote:  

Which picture most resembles your body?

That is your body fat.

It really not much harder than guessing someones weight..

---

@slubu -- last time I saw you, your body fat was around 21%

[Nascimento]

Always value your input Gio. Though, I am not suggesting it's not important to add muscle.

Muscle is great. Ideally you add muscle and lose fat overtime, as you mentioned.

What I'm suggesting here is that to add muscle efficiently, it may be better to start from a leaner build if you are not so lean to start with.

By all means lift weights, improve your nutrition, and seek to add muscle/lose fat accordingly during the meantime. Just make it a goal to get lean first, while training hard, as that might be more worthwhile in the long run.

In terms of adding muscle/losing fat at the same time, that is not something I have much experience on so I will not touch on that and I'll leave it for the guys who know more about this. With that said, it's actually something I'm trying to do at the moment, even against odds that suggest it's very difficult, if you aren't a total newbie.

It seems my message wasn't as clear as I intended it to be originally, based on some feedback. I left some things out of the OP that I've tried to add on, my apologies. If anything from me has come off discouraging I meant quite the opposite.

Anyhow, my main intent was to spark a discussion and draw some varied insight from different guys and on that front the thread has gone well. Carry on.

[RexImperator]

Nascimento, you would probably only have to change the phrase "adding muscle" in the OP to "eating in a caloric surplus while lifting weights" and everyone in this thread would agree with each other. That's how I see it anyway. I think we all agree you should lift weights no matter what.

If you are skinny fat, untrained, and (typically) up around 20% or more, lift weights but eat at a deficit. You'll be losing fat and gaining strength, and some muscle. Not as much muscle as you could by eating more, however. It's going to suck but it will pay off when you are leaner and can start adding mass more efficiently. Once you get down to the lower teens, eat at maintenance for two weeks and then start a slight surplus (slow bulk). This way your body fat won't go over 20%.

I did it the other way (followed Rippetoe's advice) and it is not good. It's awesome getting stronger, but it sucks when you bust your ass in the gym while people (mostly family at get-togethers) will say you look like shit. Granted some girls actually dig the permabulk look (this might be a New England thing due to our long sucky winters) but I noticed those tend to be lower class girls. Then you have to spend a whole year cutting down. Nobody really cares about your 450lb.+ Deadlift if you're fat. Also, It fucks up your face. Good Looking Loser has some blog posts showing that effect.

More important than the effect on the ladies or your confidence, health-wise you start to feel lousy as your hormonal profile degrades and your sleep gets messed up (more snoring from the extra fat).

[Nascimento]

Agreed!

[Spike]

Fwiw, Big Brandon Carter also advises to get as lean as possible before you start. His theory is about the amount of fat cells you have to start with. It was not something i have heard before from other instructors so I don't know if broscience. Anyway, I read it in one of his books. Perhaps he has a YouTube video on it too. His advice is usually good.

Me personally, I'm more in the "start lifting asap" camp but I have never been above 16% bf. If I were to be obese or just quite fat I would start with 4 days cardio/two days (high reps, low to medium weight) lifting to shed fat first and make the tendons and muscle more strong/durable. You can't just start going to the max from day one. That's asking for injuries.

[Fortis]

A decent plan executed violently today is better than the perfect plan executed tomorrow. I agree with Nasci that it is ideal to start from low BF levels, but just get in the gym, clean up your diet and get some rest and you'll be further along than you will be if you don't lift at all.

[The Lizard of Oz]

I'm going to copy here a post I just made in another thread, because it struck me that it really belongs here as well. It is important that guys not go overboard with "cutting" and reducing body fat percentage because past a certain point it can have very negative consequences. You need some body fat to be healthy and thriving and for your brains and balls to be juiced ideally well.

(03-16-2015 07:26 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 07:13 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Getting to under 10% bodyfat is very difficult to do and maintain and completely unnecessary.

Not only that, it is in fact unhealthy and very negative for your mood and libido. At a sufficiently low body fat your body starts producing less testosterone, and your immune system is compromised. You will feel bad in all sorts of ways. You need the fat for your brains and balls to be juiced right.

There is absolutely no reason for any guy to go below 12% body fat. As kosko noted in this excellent post, looking "shredded" is not the same as being healthy and optimally thriving.

[Brian Shima]

Delete...

[Enigma]

(03-16-2015 07:30 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

I'm going to copy here a post I just made in another thread, because it struck me that it really belongs here as well. It is important that guys not go overboard with "cutting" and reducing body fat percentage because past a certain point it can have very negative consequences. You need some body fat to be healthy and thriving and for your brains and balls to be juiced ideally well.

(03-16-2015 07:26 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 07:13 PM)MrXY Wrote:  

Getting to under 10% bodyfat is very difficult to do and maintain and completely unnecessary.

Not only that, it is in fact unhealthy and very negative for your mood and libido. At a sufficiently low body fat your body starts producing less testosterone, and your immune system is compromised. You will feel bad in all sorts of ways. You need the fat for your brains and balls to be juiced right.

There is absolutely no reason for any guy to go below 12% body fat. As kosko noted in this excellent post, looking "shredded" is not the same as being healthy and optimally thriving.

[Hannibal]

You guys ever heard of bodyfat set point? Basically, the longer you have been fat, the more likely the homeostasis of your own body will fight your efforts for fat loss. So yes, you want to get swoler, get lean first and stay lean for at least a year or two before you consider a bulk.

If you're already very fat, I would go on a cutting (or even maintenance calorie) diet and lift heavy as shit until you see abs. You will get stronger, it will just take time. The weights will allow you to spare your existing muscle tissue and the caloric deficit should burn mostly fat, provided that you're not fucking around in the gym.

It stands to reason that, if you can get stronger without gaining a pound and you can keep (most) of your strength while cutting, then you can get stronger and leaner at the same time provided you work your ass off for it.

In order to get leaner dietwise, the simplest approach is to eat a lot of protein, upwards of 200 grams a day minimum and eat less than 100 grams of carbs a day. For reference, that looks like eating 2 pounds of chicken minimum and 1.5 cups of rice a day maximum, filling in the blanks with low carb shakes, vegetables, and fatty stuff like nuts and oils. Every once in a while you could have a cheat day to regulate your metabolism, just don't turn it into a six hour chinese buffet binge.

[Thoroughbred]

(03-16-2015 11:13 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

It's a continuum. Basically the idea is, if you are over 15%, cut first, then bulk. This really is an issue for the skinny fat person, who needs to lose fat and gain muscle. If you are 25% and start a bulk, you are going to look terrible for a long time, plus you'll have a really long cut to do later.

(03-14-2015 08:59 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Otherwise, a guy who is overweight should reduce his calorie consumption (best way to do that is by cutting portion size)

(03-19-2015 03:35 AM)Hannibal Wrote:  

You guys ever heard of bodyfat set point? Basically, the longer you have been fat, the more likely the homeostasis of your own body will fight your efforts for fat loss.

A theory I've had for a while, ever since doing them, is that for overweight blokes looking to seriously recomp their body on a deep, even cellular, level intestinal cleanses may be a good option.
The diet is strict alkaline for 4 weeks, and it will have you looking at POW camp menus with envy, but it second to none for redesigning the nutritional pathways in your body.
I've never been overweight, so I can't vouch 100% for it's effectiveness there, but Jesus, did I shed kilos quick.
It works with herbal formulas removing impacted matter from the intestinal walls, and with Psyllium Husk and Bentonite Clay to drag out what gets peeled off by everything else.
Parasites and pathogens have a huge amount to do with people craving sweet and fatty foods, remove these and people can focus on what they want to eat much clearer. It's like clear felling a forest - you remove the habitat, the organisms can no longer survive.

May be a good option for some.

[The Lizard of Oz]

Enigma,

I'm not sure a heavily juiced professional fighter and genetic specimen is really an appropriate model for a normal man.

The fact remains that excessively low body-fat levels are not optimal for cognitive and sexual performance.

[Spike]

(03-23-2015 10:37 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Enigma,

I'm not sure a heavily juiced professional fighter and genetic specimen is really an appropriate model for a normal man.

The fact remains that excessively low body-fat levels are not optimal for cognitive and sexual performance.

I'm striving for 10% all day, every day and on the daily. Do you think that percentage brings any disadvantages with it or is it still OK?

[Spike]

(03-22-2015 10:07 PM)Ollave Wrote:  

(03-16-2015 11:13 AM)RexImperator Wrote:  

(03-19-2015 03:35 AM)Hannibal Wrote:  

You guys ever heard of bodyfat set point? Basically, the longer you have been fat, the more likely the homeostasis of your own body will fight your efforts for fat loss.

A theory I've had for a while, ever since doing them, is that for overweight blokes looking to seriously recomp their body on a deep, even cellular, level intestinal cleanses may be a good option.
The diet is strict alkaline for 4 weeks, and it will have you looking at POW camp menus with envy, but it second to none for redesigning the nutritional pathways in your body.
I've never been overweight, so I can't vouch 100% for it's effectiveness there, but Jesus, did I shed kilos quick.
It works with herbal formulas removing impacted matter from the intestinal walls, and with Psyllium Husk and Bentonite Clay to drag out what gets peeled off by everything else.
Parasites and pathogens have a huge amount to do with people craving sweet and fatty foods, remove these and people can focus on what they want to eat much clearer. It's like clear felling a forest - you remove the habitat, the organisms can no longer survive.

May be a good option for some.

Can you link to some products which do this?

I'm still skeptical though because I don't think your bowels can get really get clogged with all kinds of residu but on the other hand, if arteries can clog, why not bowels. I just think a good case of diarrhea clears everything inside, how is it possible to have leftovers? Gross, I know.

I do want to give this the benefit of the doubt. I can't seem to get rid of that last bit of belly fat. It's been there for ages.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(03-23-2015 02:19 PM)Spike Wrote:  

(03-23-2015 10:37 AM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Enigma,

I'm not sure a heavily juiced professional fighter and genetic specimen is really an appropriate model for a normal man.

The fact remains that excessively low body-fat levels are not optimal for cognitive and sexual performance.

I'm striving for 10% all day, every day and on the daily. Do you think that percentage brings any disadvantages with it or is it still OK?

Yes, I think 10% is too low. There is no reason to go below 12% -- once you do, you could start seeing undesirable effects resulting from an excessively low fat content. Both your brain -- in terms of both mood and cognitive function -- and your balls, meaning all the mechanisms responsible for libido and sexual function, really need sufficient fats to keep functioning at optimal levels.

[Nascimento]

^^
Are we thinking about the same value? Since body fat % are so up in the air and it's hard to be fully accurate unless you take professional measures.

Athletes across many sports vary between 9-11 % body fat, during the season. This is the best composition to ensure optimal muscular performance with least amount of fat retention. Any lower and you compromise performance and get into some of the effects you mention.

Contrast the following:





These are healthy, athletic and elite physiques. Any man can benefit from a similar body composition, with really minimal drawbacks (I can't think of any besides a more rigorous diet to maintain the physique).

I don't think Ronaldo is compromising sexual function by being in this shape, at roughly 10%. Or thousands of other athletes.

On the other hand, the following I think we can agree is unhealthy and should not be a goal for 99.9% of people who workout, with the obvious exception being bodybuilders during their contest:

[The Lizard of Oz]

Nascimento, yes we are talking about the same value.

As I noted in the brief post to Enigma above, it would be a mistake for most men to attempt to model their body, and its fat composition in particular, after a handful of super-elite athletes who are both exceptional physical specimens to begin with, and often enough are on steroids, as well as on a rigorous regimen of supplements designed to optimize their performance in all sorts of ways and compensate for possible deficiencies.

If a normal -- however strong and relatively athletic -- guy attempts to reproduce that sort of physique by lowering his body fat content to those levels, it is very likely to cause more harm than good. And there is just no reason to do it. A guy with a body fat content of 12% can be perfectly muscular, strong, and attractive in every way and can maintain that level without an artificially restricted diet that deprives him of the many health benefits -- not to mention the pleasures -- of consuming plenty of high quality fats.

[Nascimento]

I agree many of these athletes are likely using some PED's, but not all.

I also agree a body fat of 12% is probably best over the long term, as opposed to having anything lower. It will be easier to maintain, you can be more flexible with your diet... Not to mention there might be less returns from a 10% body. As we know, even in warm weather it's unlikely we will ever be shirtless on a frequent basis. And if you're going to the beach for a week, just lean out temporarily from 12 to 10% if you really want to.

I'm still sticking by my idea from my other posts in this thread though. Which is, get as lean as you possibly can (without going to the extremes, single digits). It will put you in a better position to increase your muscularity if you have that lean base to build upon.

I don't have personal experiences to draw from (yet!), but as I've mentioned other guys have vouched for the greater benefits of getting real lean before 'bulking'. Real lean as in 10-12%, individual differences considered.

[Fortis]

I always shy away from using athletes as models for body types because these guys are juicing. No hate on juicing (gotta do what you gotta do to win), but I think the fact that many of these dudes can't come clean sets up unrealistic expectations for natural trainers.

[Nascimento]

To add to the above, sure - many pro's are on drugs.

But, you can guarantee most of them were clean or off in their formative years. It's only when they have the access, and the stakes increase at the elite level that they need every little edge they can get.

I'm 21 and up until recently I had been playing a competitive level of soccer. I'll spare the details, but I've played with and against very high level players, in some cases former and current pros (no big names). Though I have friends that have/currently playing or connected to MLS.

Don't know about the official pro level as never been remotely close to that level myself, but in my circle of teammates, and friends more involved than me, PED's aren't even mentioned in locker room talk. 99.9% sure none of these guys are using anything. Besides, they wouldn't have the money - college students.

It's been a while since I've been in my best shape for the sport, but my buddies still playing across the country at a high level (where optimal condition really becomes a necessity) are all ~10% body fat. These guys can't even drink and party until the off season, nor do they care much because during the season they are focused. I can assure you they aren't compromising their health, though they raise certain limitations to maintain their physiques, of course.

[Fortis]

Wasn't Arnold supposedly on drugs from the age of 15 onward? Or do you mean formative as in when they're super young?

When I was in high school you would hear about high school kids being busted with PEDs all the time. I knew a couple of football (american) players who would brag about shooting PEDs into their bodies.

But I'm not trying to a contrarian. I see what you're saying on your end.

[Nascimento]

I guess the sport context matters as well, I overlooked that. PED's are more rampant in Football and I wouldn't be surprised if use starts earlier. The sport requires you to be large and/or powerful more than others.

The area I am more familiar with (soccer) PED's are a very, very rare exception, almost unheard of, unless of course you talk about the very highest stakes.

The Ronaldo body though is very common in athletes my age playing competitively though, which is what I meant when I said formative years. Just clearing that up I should have been more specific.

I have a close buddy that plays for the current national university champions that is very, very lean. 100% not on anything.

Regarding Arnold -- he was a bodybuilder, lol.

[Fortis]

Absolutely, I overlooked that as well. I wouldn't be surprised if most soccer players were not on gear. They don't look it. They're usually not massive.