Single Digit Body Fat %

Training Bodybuilding
125

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:

lanky mofo, do you want some sort of award for pointing out the fact that i don’t have a ton of muscle? i mean, my pictures are up here somewhere, for all the world to see. tell me something i don’t know. and i also suspect that you, for whatever reason, feel that i should be ashamed of the way i look. funny thing is, though, and it’s the damndest thing: your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. even so, i’ll be the first one to tell you that there is much room for improvement in the case of my physique. i can assure you, though, it’s not for a lack of trying.
[/quote]

I don’t feel you should be ashamed of the way you look. Hell, you look better than people who don’t lift weights. However, your opinions with regards to bodybuilding have significantly less credibility and for some reason you don’t realize that. That is why no one understands why you continue to post in these forums as some sort of authority. I know you’re not a troll like everyone else believes, you’re just too ignorant to realize your opinions don’t mean anything in the BB forum.

Honestly, your posts may actually be helpful in the conditioning forum. There are probably plenty of people in there who would love to be as ripped as you. And I’m not being sarcastic.

126

…dont feed the trolls

.greg.

127

This is funny shit

128

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]angus_beef wrote:

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

  1. Bodybuilding is NOT about building size… it’s NOT about becoming shredded … it’s NOT about being aesthetic. Bodybuilding IS COMBINING THESE 3 ELEMENTS INTO THE MOST IMPRESSIVE PACKAGE POSSIBLE.

YES getting big is one part of bodybuilding.

YES getting shredded is one part of bodybuilding.

But real bodybuilding requires both. [/quote]

Thanks for reiterating that … It seems like when anything other than becoming “huge” is discussed the topic isn’t deemed as bodybuilding. [/quote]

Gee, that would be because guys like you ignore the “GETTING BIG” part. You claim you want to be no bigger than 190lbs at your height but you’ve got some bodybuilder with arms over 21" as your avatar.

Once again, no one is dictating goals but have the common sense to realize the difference between “gaining a little muscle” and BODYBUILDING.

How is it guys like you ignore messages like that in what CT wrote and only focus on what you want to? His post didn’t say anything that the rest of us haven’t said in this very thread.[/quote]

O professor, i’m starting to feel like the teachers pet with all this attention… My words verbatim were " i would much rather be a lean 190 than a marsh mellow 250" … Nowhere in this statement did i limit myself to 190lbs

If you would revert to my initial statement, it was in response to someone saying the generally consensus on this forum is to get big… where i was being sarcastic and i stated that being lean was obsolete … this was simply to show that BODYBUILDING is not about either or, rather it’s a combination.

Why there is talk about being huge in this thread baffles me… It’s like going into a thread about bulking and advising someone to reduce their caloric intake.

We all get it, you need to get big, no one is ignoring the getting big part but thats a discussion for another thread… Lets stay on topic professor.
[/quote]

This is ignorant. Some guy logs on and posts about how easy it is to maintain single digit body fat readings yet when questioned about his stats, suddenly there is no info given.

Your comments make an equal amount of sense. No one here has a final goal of looking like a “marshmellow” as you put it…however, many people may have to allow some extra body fat gain in order to reach the size goals they are after. That is WHY it is important to note that on a thread about single digit body fat readings in a BODYBUILDING FORUM when people are posting as if it is EASY to gain the size of a bodybuilder while maintaining single digit body fat readings.

Yet this had to be explained to you.

Gaining that size initially IS A NECESSITY. You won’t be gaining as much size if you mistakingly believe you can get truly big while maintaining single digit body fat readings the whole way.

That is WHY CT noted that most people underestimate their body fat readings. A true sub-10% bodybuilder physique would look damn near contest ready to anyone more average. That is also not a conditions conducive to making further gains in size over the long term.

That means it would be STUPID to avoid discussing the importance of that size initially when the fucking forum is all about building yourself into a bodybuilder-like physique.

Get it now, genius?

129

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:

lanky mofo, do you want some sort of award for pointing out the fact that i don’t have a ton of muscle? i mean, my pictures are up here somewhere, for all the world to see. tell me something i don’t know. and i also suspect that you, for whatever reason, feel that i should be ashamed of the way i look. funny thing is, though, and it’s the damndest thing: your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. even so, i’ll be the first one to tell you that there is much room for improvement in the case of my physique. i can assure you, though, it’s not for a lack of trying.
[/quote]

I don’t feel you should be ashamed of the way you look. Hell, you look better than people who don’t lift weights. However, your opinions with regards to bodybuilding have significantly less credibility and for some reason you don’t realize that. That is why no one understands why you continue to post in these forums as some sort of authority. I know you’re not a troll like everyone else believes, you’re just too ignorant to realize your opinions don’t mean anything in the BB forum.

Honestly, your posts may actually be helpful in the conditioning forum. There are probably plenty of people in there who would love to be as ripped as you. And I’m not being sarcastic.[/quote]

Wait, so he’s not a troll?

He really thinks like this? I write a post about how calves seem to be more limited by genetics than other muscle groups and he uses this as an excuse to not gain more size than some small dead guy named Otto?

Wow.

130

If no one likes the weight class subforums idea, then maybe the simplest idea would be to just answer the question one time, sticky it, then refer to it every time someone new asks the same question. In essence, these questions all surround the concept of how to lose body fat to the point that all abs are visible, single digit bodyfat, whatever. If the guy weighs 160 and ends up at 140 with visible abs, but no muscle definition, he will have learned the hard way that maybe he needs to build some muscle mass first. If he’s happy with what he sees, then I guess it really doesn’t matter what anyone else thinks. It’s just harder to convince some people with words, then for them to go through the process themselves.

131


Going back to what I said earlier, many people are delusional about how they think they’ll look after fat loss. They look at people like Tom Venuto (attatched) and THINK that all they need to do is lose fat to look like that…when in reality, Tom, although famous for his fat loss book (burn the fat, feed the muscle), he’s a bodybuilder who spends most of his time BUILDING muscle.

It’s ridiculous to think, “oh well, I just want to be in shape and look good naked”…you still have to build up a decent muscle base for this to happen! lol

It’s no use arguing that “I don’t want to be huge”, because you’ll still have to get a hell of lot bigger than you are now to look decent when leaning out. People like Tom didn’t spend most of their lives just dieting…tell him that it’s “easy to stay really lean while building muscle”…

132

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Going back to what I said earlier, many people are delusional about how they think they’ll look after fat loss. They look at people like Tom Venuto (attatched) and THINK that all they need to do is lose fat to look like that…when in reality, Tom, although famous for his fat loss book (burn the fat, feed the muscle), he’s a bodybuilder who spends most of his time BUILDING muscle.

It’s ridiculous to think, “oh well, I just want to be in shape and look good naked”…you still have to build up a decent muscle base for this to happen! lol

It’s no use arguing that “I don’t want to be huge”, because you’ll still have to get a hell of lot bigger than you are now to look decent when leaning out. People like Tom didn’t spend most of their lives just dieting…tell him that it’s “easy to stay really lean while building muscle”… [/quote]

Good point. You are right in assuming that people GROSSLY underestimate how much scale weight they lose when getting into near contest shape.

A guy might be 5’10" and 205 with the beginning of an abdominal outline and thinks that he only needs to lose 10-15lbs to look “ripped at 190”.

In reality it’s more like this:

  • He probably has roughly 15% body fat and would need to drop down to 8% to look very good. So that’s 15lbs of fat
  • Water IS stored in fat cells. From experience you drop roughly 1lbs of water for every 2-3lbs of fat you lose. So around 5-7lbs more to lose
  • Some intramuscular water/glycogen loss is bound to happen too. Assuming that his body can store 500g of glycogen (plus 1500g of water) … for around 5 of weight, a reduction of 50% of those stores means 2lbs less at least.
  • While not desirable, some muscle loss might happen during a relatively severe diet… maybe 1-2lbs

So that “10-15lbs” to lose becomes something like 25lbs.

Our friend would thus need to drop down to 180lbs to look close to ripped. And that is assuming that he does things right and doesn’t lose too much muscle.

5’10" and 175-180lbs… doesn’t that sounds like the Calvin Klein models that many make fun of for being too skinny? And a lot of those who make fun of these models are… 5’10", 205 guys with roughly 15% body fat :slight_smile:

When I first prep Sebastien (guy doing a double biceps on the front page) for a contest it was his first. He was around 217lbs on 5’9". He told me “I’m gonna be a heavyweight (over 198lbs) or at the top of the lightheavies (something 195-198lbs)”… he probably reasoned like the example I mentioned earlier.

I told him that he would hit the stage at 176lbs… he obviously didn’t believe it.

Come contest time he was… 177lbs (okay so I was a bit off!)

He was peeled and won the overall.

The lesson to learn is that if you have never actually dieted down to contest (or near contest) condition, there is no way of knowing how much you will need to lose… and it is almost always much more than you think.

The other lesson is that even if you only want to look “Calvin Klein-ish” you will still need to build a significant amount of muscle; just being lean is not enough.

133

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Going back to what I said earlier, many people are delusional about how they think they’ll look after fat loss. They look at people like Tom Venuto (attatched) and THINK that all they need to do is lose fat to look like that…when in reality, Tom, although famous for his fat loss book (burn the fat, feed the muscle), he’s a bodybuilder who spends most of his time BUILDING muscle.

It’s ridiculous to think, “oh well, I just want to be in shape and look good naked”…you still have to build up a decent muscle base for this to happen! lol

It’s no use arguing that “I don’t want to be huge”, because you’ll still have to get a hell of lot bigger than you are now to look decent when leaning out. People like Tom didn’t spend most of their lives just dieting…tell him that it’s “easy to stay really lean while building muscle”… [/quote]

Good point. You are right in assuming that people GROSSLY underestimate how much scale weight they lose when getting into near contest shape.

A guy might be 5’10" and 205 with the beginning of an abdominal outline and thinks that he only needs to lose 10-15lbs to look “ripped at 190”.

In reality it’s more like this:

  • He probably has roughly 15% body fat and would need to drop down to 8% to look very good. So that’s 15lbs of fat
  • Water IS stored in fat cells. From experience you drop roughly 1lbs of water for every 2-3lbs of fat you lose. So around 5-7lbs more to lose
  • Some intramuscular water/glycogen loss is bound to happen too. Assuming that his body can store 500g of glycogen (plus 1500g of water) … for around 5 of weight, a reduction of 50% of those stores means 2lbs less at least.
  • While not desirable, some muscle loss might happen during a relatively severe diet… maybe 1-2lbs

So that “10-15lbs” to lose becomes something like 25lbs.

Our friend would thus need to drop down to 180lbs to look close to ripped. And that is assuming that he does things right and doesn’t lose too much muscle.

5’10" and 175-180lbs… doesn’t that sounds like the Calvin Klein models that many make fun of for being too skinny? And a lot of those who make fun of these models are… 5’10", 205 guys with roughly 15% body fat :slight_smile:

When I first prep Sebastien (guy doing a double biceps on the front page) for a contest it was his first. He was around 217lbs on 5’9". He told me “I’m gonna be a heavyweight (over 198lbs) or at the top of the lightheavies (something 195-198lbs)”… he probably reasoned like the example I mentioned earlier.

I told him that he would hit the stage at 176lbs… he obviously didn’t believe it.

Come contest time he was… 177lbs (okay so I was a bit off!)

He was peeled and won the overall.

The lesson to learn is that if you have never actually dieted down to contest (or near contest) condition, there is no way of knowing how much you will need to lose… and it is almost always much more than you think.

The other lesson is that even if you only want to look “Calvin Klein-ish” you will still need to build a significant amount of muscle; just being lean is not enough.[/quote]

But…I DON’T WANT TO GET TOO HUGE!!!

and

I would rather be a ripped 190 than a “marshmallow” 250!!!

The truth is, there is no way in hell you can get “too huge” when it takes all out serious attention to gaining size just so some of those “marshmallows” can diet down to a ripped 200-220lbs.

Most of these guys are going to hit a wall because gaining past those first 20-40lbs usually takes more drastic measures in training and diet. That means it is a hell of a lot harder to reach 200+ lean than it was to hit 190 lean.

134

[quote]Professor X wrote:
Most of these guys are going to hit a wall because gaining past those first 20-40lbs usually takes more drastic measures in training and diet. That means it is a hell of a lot harder to reach 200+ lean than it was to hit 190 lean.[/quote]

Agreed, and you see the same thing in powerlifting (or strength training) going from 100 to 200 in the bench press is easier than going from 200 to 300. It is then much harder to go from 300 to 400… and even harder to go from 400 to 500.

The later might require many years of effort while going from 100 to 200 might require 3-5 months… for the same improvement.

To get back to Sebastien… he was 177 at his first contest. 187 a year later, 192 a year after that, then 195 with one more year, and finally 198 last year. All of which in similar condition. Of course, he does tend to relax his training and eating far from a contest which means that he has to spend some time just to get back to a decent shape, but still. It does illustrate that the better you become, the harder it is to improve.

The only problem I have with guys constantly eating to add as much mass as possible is that you do not know if said individual actually has the willpower and discipline to actually diet the weight off to near-contest condition.

Let me explain myself. Let’s take an individual who wants to become a bodybuilder. He thus needs to gain a lot of muscle and eventually get shredded.

He decided to eat for growth until he reaches a size that he feels is sufficient to look good in contest shape. In the process it is likely that he will add some fat. Let’s say for example that he started his “career” with 20lbs of fat more than what he needs to have to be in contest shape. While adding size over the years he manages to put on 40lbs of lean mass and roughly 20lbs of fat.

He attains the size he wants and finally decides to diet down for a contest. By now he has around 40lbs of fat to lose (plus roughly 10-15lbs of water). So something like a 20-24 weeks diet (16 or so if he uses pharmaceutical fat loss agents).

WHAT IF after a few weeks we “discover” that our friend CAN’T DIET. By that I mean that for whatever reasons he can’t stick to his diet, and certainly not for 20 weeks. He either lacks discipline, toughness, freaks out when he feel himself getting smaller, has huge cravings, food addiction, whatever.

And trust me, there is A LOT MORE of these guys than of guys who can diet. Even among those who want to be bodybuilders.

So now we have a guy who has added 20lbs of fat, but who can’t diet it off (not to mention the 20 he already had to lose).

My point is that unless we know for a fact that someone has what it takes to diet the fat off, adding a significant amount of fat while adding muscle size is not that good of an idea.

When I work with a guy who has competed several times I am normally much more aggressive during the mass gain phase of the prep. Because I know that even if the guy gains some fat, he will not have a problem dieting it off and in case it will be worth it.

For example I’m prepping a guy for the Canadian Nationals. He was 225 (on 5’9") when we started. I eventually got him up to 265lbs… during the last 2 months of his mass phase he actually had to eat at a fast food joint once every day just to get in enough calories.

Now after 6 weeks of dieting he is down to 248 with roughly the same condition as when he was 225-230. He probably gained 15lbs of fat, but that allowed him to gain 20lbs or so of muscle. In his case it was worth it because he has no problem dieting.

Now, do the same thing with somebody who can’t diet properly and you have a recipe for disaster.

That’s one reason why I don’t like freely advocating spending a lot of time overeating to gain size as a universal recommendation.

With somebody who can’t diet for long, that is not the best solution. You might need ‘‘mini-diet’’ phases of 1-2 weeks to:

  • keep fat gain down
  • learn how to diet and be comfortable with the process (you can gradually increase the length of the dieting phases)

So just recommending to eat for growth until you’ve reached your desired size as a “universal recommendation” is wrong.

PROVE TO ME THAT YOU CAN DIET … then we can use a long and aggressive mass phase. Otherwise we might need to take a more conservative approach.

Some people mention Dave Tate (and even myself) as people who bulked and got fat before dieting down to a very muscular physique. TRUE but Dave (and I) is a VERY focused individual… once he set his mind on something he will never digress regardless of how difficult it is. He can diet down for 20-24 weeks without a problem. I have no issues with guys like him gaining fat while attempting to build muscle (as long as he is comfortable with it) because he has proven himself time and time again.

135

[quote]Christian Thibaudeau wrote:

The only problem I have with guys constantly eating to add as much mass as possible is that you do not know if said individual actually has the willpower and discipline to actually diet the weight off to near-contest condition.

Let me explain myself. Let’s take an individual who wants to become a bodybuilder. He thus needs to gain a lot of muscle and eventually get shredded.

He decided to eat for growth until he reaches a size that he feels is sufficient to look good in contest shape. In the process it is likely that he will add some fat. Let’s say for example that he started his “career” with 20lbs of fat more than what he needs to have to be in contest shape. While adding size over the years he manages to put on 40lbs of lean mass and roughly 20lbs of fat.

He attains the size he wants and finally decides to diet down for a contest. By now he has around 40lbs of fat to lose (plus roughly 10-15lbs of water). So something like a 20-24 weeks diet (16 or so if he uses pharmaceutical fat loss agents).

WHAT IF after a few weeks we “discover” that our friend CAN’T DIET. By that I mean that for whatever reasons he can’t stick to his diet, and certainly not for 20 weeks. He either lacks discipline, toughness, freaks out when he feel himself getting smaller, has huge cravings, food addiction, whatever.

And trust me, there is A LOT MORE of these guys than of guys who can diet. Even among those who want to be bodybuilders.[/quote]

No doubt…but much of that is also because they are, without a doubt, trying to get even bigger so they lose interest in worrying about definition as a top priority. Mind you, I am strictly speaking of highly motivated bodybuilders here and not people who are just gaining fat for no reason.

For instance, I haven’t dieted down before this because I knew the size I was trying to reach. I also knew from attempting dieting in the past years back that when I dropped about 25lbs, I realized I still needed more size to look good at the weight I was shooting for…so I went back to gaining more size. It is only NOW that I feel I have enough size to look thick enough when I do diet down…and I am NOT even trying to hit “contest shape”. I just want to get my abs out and look good at this size.

No one but me before now would have understood my long term goal and everyone who would have assumed I didn’t diet because I somehow lacked the discipline would also be wrong. I just know what I want and to me, having that size and strength is more important than being smaller with abs constantly showing.

I do agree though that there are limits to the amount of fat someone should gain, but again this is largely an individual decision and not one others should make without knowing intimate details of that person’s goals and motivations.

[quote]

My point is that unless we know for a fact that someone has what it takes to diet the fat off, adding a significant amount of fat while adding muscle size is not that good of an idea.[/quote]

Agreed, but no one is going to know that for a fact. This comes down to self realization and that is a personal growth process mentally for the individual. Some are cut out for this and some aren’t. It has always been that way. There will be people who just get fat just like there will be people who stay small because they are afraid to eat enough to grow.

[quote]

That’s one reason why I don’t like freely advocating spending a lot of time overeating to gain size as a universal recommendation.

With somebody who can’t diet for long, that is not the best solution. You might need ‘‘mini-diet’’ phases of 1-2 weeks to:

  • keep fat gain down
  • learn how to diet and be comfortable with the process (you can gradually increase the length of the dieting phases)

So just recommending to eat for growth until you’ve reached your desired size as a “universal recommendation” is wrong.

PROVE TO ME THAT YOU CAN DIET … then we can use a long and aggressive mass phase. Otherwise we might need to take a more conservative approach.

Some people mention Dave Tate (and even myself) as people who bulked and got fat before dieting down to a very muscular physique. TRUE but Dave (and I) is a VERY focused individual… once he set his mind on something he will never digress regardless of how difficult it is. He can diet down for 20-24 weeks without a problem. I have no issues with guys like him gaining fat while attempting to build muscle (as long as he is comfortable with it) because he has proven himself time and time again.[/quote]

Well, once again, if 1,000 people started training, there may be 5 to 10 of those who actually have what it takes to take this to an extreme level. Even less will stand out on stage to any significant degree.

The discipline to withstand some sort of extreme dieting is going to be rare no matter what…but it is also the most efficient way to reach that end goal whether we are sure of the individuals ability to persevere or not. It is the same as the discipline to get really big when you start out really skinny.

In the end, Dave Tate wouldn’t look like Dave Tate without using his approach. You wouldn’t look like you without using the approach you did. The “X-Men” on this site who can do the same will remain hidden until they do it. That’s just life.

136

[quote]Professor X wrote:

[quote]LankyMofo wrote:

[quote]joe shumsky wrote:

lanky mofo, do you want some sort of award for pointing out the fact that i don’t have a ton of muscle? i mean, my pictures are up here somewhere, for all the world to see. tell me something i don’t know. and i also suspect that you, for whatever reason, feel that i should be ashamed of the way i look. funny thing is, though, and it’s the damndest thing: your opinion means absolutely nothing to me. even so, i’ll be the first one to tell you that there is much room for improvement in the case of my physique. i can assure you, though, it’s not for a lack of trying.
[/quote]

I don’t feel you should be ashamed of the way you look. Hell, you look better than people who don’t lift weights. However, your opinions with regards to bodybuilding have significantly less credibility and for some reason you don’t realize that. That is why no one understands why you continue to post in these forums as some sort of authority. I know you’re not a troll like everyone else believes, you’re just too ignorant to realize your opinions don’t mean anything in the BB forum.

Honestly, your posts may actually be helpful in the conditioning forum. There are probably plenty of people in there who would love to be as ripped as you. And I’m not being sarcastic.[/quote]

Wait, so he’s not a troll?

He really thinks like this? I write a post about how calves seem to be more limited by genetics than other muscle groups and he uses this as an excuse to not gain more size than some small dead guy named Otto?

Wow.[/quote]

Your posts get misconstrued on a daily basis. I’m surprised you’re surprised.

137

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The discipline to withstand some sort of extreme dieting is going to be rare no matter what…but it is also the most efficient way to reach that end goal whether we are sure of the individuals ability to persevere or not.
[/quote]

I don’t think a lot of people realize this. I’m helping two guys prep for shows, and while it’s physically difficult at the beginning of the diet, after about 10 weeks, you’re so zeroed in on the goal, so insanely focused, that it becomes more of a mental game. Nothing can dissuade you.

A few weeks ago, I’d watch co-workers eating something I might normally grab a piece of , almost missing it and having to reaffirm what I’m doing. Now, 4 weeks out,… compeltely unfazed. Not everyone can last to that point in a diet. Christian mentioend in his old "beast’ article how he would start diets, and then bail out partially into them.

For the average “I wanna be ripped” gym rat, the amount of perseverence necessary to ride a strict cut to the end will never be fully understood (nor will the amount of size you will absolutely lose in the process, hence PX’s constant pushing for adding size first in every case).

S

138

[quote]The Mighty Stu wrote:

[quote]Professor X wrote:
The discipline to withstand some sort of extreme dieting is going to be rare no matter what…but it is also the most efficient way to reach that end goal whether we are sure of the individuals ability to persevere or not.
[/quote]

I don’t think a lot of people realize this. I’m helping two guys prep for shows, and while it’s physically difficult at the beginning of the diet, after about 10 weeks, you’re so zeroed in on the goal, so insanely focused, that it becomes more of a mental game. Nothing can dissuade you. A few weeks ago, I’d watch co-workers eating something I might normally grab a piece of , almost missing it and having to reaffirm what I’m doing. Now, 4 weeks out,… compeltely unfazed. Not everyone can last to that point in a diet. Christian mentioend in his old "beast’ article how he would start diets, and then bail out partially into them. For the average “I wanna be ripped” gym rat, the amount of perseverence necessary to ride a strict cut to the end will never be fully understood (nor will the amount of size you will absolutely lose in the process, hence PX’s constant pushing for adding size first in every case).

S[/quote]

Just to expand, that “warrior mentality” is sorely missing from this website on the forums. I am dieting now with an absolute goal this time…however, I had to push to reach this level of size for me to mentally accept actually shifting everything towards a goal that needs me to nearly reverse my strategy up to this point.

Whereas in the past I might have quit dieting after dropping 20lbs because I looked flat, had lost muscle or simply realized that I needed to carry even more size to reach a goal, now I KNOW I have the size to look fairly decent after a drastic drop in body weight.

That mental battle is going to be there no matter the goal whether it be gaining or dieting…and of course there will be few who can push towards either extreme.

It took force initially as a beginner to accept force feeding myself at times even though I wasn’t hungry. It now takes the same will power (along with all that I have learned up to this point) to feel confident in my strategy to diet down to any significant degree past “damage control”.

In effect, there are no drastic physical changes until you go to war with yourself. Anything less is like playschool…which seems to be the level most of these guys are working on.

You don’t make extreme progress without extreme measures.

139

[quote]Professor X wrote:

You don’t make extreme progress without extreme measures.[/quote]

Should be on a t-shirt -lol

S

140

Wow, this thread really redeemed itself lol

Aside from the obvious dropping calories, what tweaks to the diet would you guys do when “getting ripped”? Like the macro nutrient breakdown; would it be low to very low carbs, then protein would be the main nutrient on the last few weeks?

CT - what would a “conservative bulk” look like to you (short term and long term)? Obviously minimal fat gains, but would you just do a little “trim” (mini diet) frequently? Sorry for hijack there :slight_smile:

141

[quote]its_just_me wrote:
Wow, this thread really redeemed itself lol

Aside from the obvious dropping calories, what tweaks to the diet would you guys do when “getting ripped”? Like the macro nutrient breakdown; would it be low to very low carbs, then protein would be the main nutrient on the last few weeks?

CT - what would a “conservative bulk” look like to you (short term and long term)? Obviously minimal fat gains, but would you just do a little “trim” (mini diet) frequently? Sorry for hijack there :)[/quote]

It’s hard to answer as there are no universal diet.

I have dieted bodybuilders for shows using a very low carbs diet and who responded very well.

I have dieted bodybuilders who lost size on a VLC diet and I had to use either a carbs cycling or moderate carbs approach.

I have dieted bodybuilders on a high carbs diet and who got shredded.

Not everybody is built the same way so not everybody can and should use the same diet.

As for a conservative mass gaining phase (I hate the term ‘‘bulking’’) it once again depends on the individual.

With some people I use control days wedged in the diet week. For example, the guy might eat for growth (nutrients surplus) 5 days out of 7 and have 2 ‘‘control days’’ where the calories and carbs are both low. Ideally these are on non-consecutive days.

With others I might use a mini-diet phase of 1-3 weeks when the guy begins to accumulate too much fat.

With some I use a small caloric surplus instead of a large one.

It depends on the individual’s physiology and psychological traits.

142

The “carb cycling” you recommended is working as well. I am still having cheat meals on Thursdays and Sundays and have not added cardio yet. The other days are very low carbs with some days the only carbs being from the Finibars and maybe a little rice. It helps to have those two days right now because it keeps me filled out which is a HUGE mental boost for someone who is used to being more filled out. I also tend to stick to my diet very strictly when I know those days are coming. I can feel like starving on Tuesday and get through it because I know Thursday will make me feel better.

143

Not directly related to the focus of this thread, but if its not too much trouble, can somewhat estimate my bodyfat based on the pictures? I at first belived that I was around the 15-17% area, but than heard a poster saying that everybody drastically underestimates theirs. Am I somewhat on the mark or am I just a delusional fatty? Thanks

144

[quote]VerbalHologram wrote:
Not directly related to the focus on my thread, but can somewhat estiamte my bodyfat based on the pictures? I at first belived that I was around the 15-17% area, but than heard a poster saying that everybody drastically underestimates theirs. Am I somewhat on the mark or am I just a delusional fatty? Thanks[/quote]

First, THE NUMBER DOES NOT MATTER. I have a good estimation of how much you are carrying, BUT AGAIN IT DOESN’T MATTER.

I say this because I have seen guys who were lean literally get depressed because their reading was higher than they thought it would be…EVEN THOUGH THEY WERE LEAN ENOUGH TO BE HAPPY BEFORE THE READING.