Skinny-Fat Bulk or Cut? Pics Included - Help!

Bigger Stronger Leaner
161

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]Yogi wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Nice work, Reed. I don’t think you were very fat at all at 240, but of course you look much better at 205.

But can you really say with absolute certainty that bulking up to 240 didn’t help? I mean, just between you and Flip; he’s never allowed himself to get over 12%, and he’s 180ish at 5’10". You bulked to 240 and now you’re 205 at 5’7" with fewer training years than him.

Doesn’t that support my argument?
[/quote]

no, because your strength gains didn’t justify getting so fat. I’m not trying to be a dick and call you out, but you got fat. The all out mega bulk is fine if you are gaining the strength to justify it, but you didn’t.

I’m sorry I was rude to you earlier, but the point remains the same.[/quote]
No problem. I don’t have thin skin, so rudeness doesn’t bother me much.

But now if you’ll forgive me for being rude; my seven-year-old daughter has better reading comprehension than you. I was comparing Reed’s results to Flipcollar’s. That post didn’t have anything to do with my own results.

Besides that, if you had been paying attention you would have realized that neither Flip nor Reed got much stronger than I did (both were stronger, but not by much at all) as naturals. But once again, Reed achieved that level of strength much faster.[/quote]

Firstly, it’s been entertaining following this thread over the past couple of days, much amusement has been provided. But just to offer a ‘naturals’ perspective, since you seem so caught up in the ‘they take steroids so fuck them’ attitude (okay maybe not quite that far but whatever). 20% is pretty fat, and it doesn’t need to be done to get strong. You seem to think your accomplishments show that what you say is law in regards to what OP should do, but there are a great many natural lifters out there who have avoided getting as fat and put on more strength (yours truly included, 616lb dead at 228lbs ~15% bf). But as others have said, OP specifically said he doesn’t want to get fat, and I strongly disagree that he needs to to pack on muscle and strength.

All that being said, what you’re now saying is pretty similar to what others have suggested in terms of macro breakdown and overall calories. However I think your earlier statement about 2 x bodyweight(lb) protein being needed is pretty far off the deep end and that combined with what comes across as a belief that you know best is what’s causing others to call you out.

OP for what it’s worth just keep at it, follow the general recommendations for calories etc and you should, if you’re training hard and smart, see a difference. But be patient! If it was quick and easy then everyone would do it.

162

Yep. That’s what everybody got stuck on: 2g/lb protein. 5 pages later, that’s still the main focus. Nobody actually analyzed the plan, they just jumped off into “OMG HE JUST SAID 2G/LB!!! WHAT A FUCKING IDIOT!!!” land without realizing that 2640kcal with a 40-40-20 split equals… Hey, would you look at that! 2g/lb protein, 2g/lb carbs, and .5g/lb fat. How about that. I chose to present it the way I did so it would be easier for the OP to calculate: double, double, half.

That’s why it’s hilarious that everybody’s of the opinion that 2640 at 40-40-20 is perfectly fine, but 2g of protein per pound is outrageous. It’s the same damn thing.

Looking through Flip’s log, I see that my original touch of envy was well placed. He went from DL’ing 405 to 525 in just over three years, naturally, and without allowing his bf to get over 12%. Not just everybody can do that. It took me almost two years to go from 405 to 495, and I had to bulk up to a fat 235.

163

[quote]Reed wrote:
This is at 205 when I learned I was stupid and making smaller much more trackable and reasonable adjustments were the way to go, NEVER ate more than 240g of protein just barely over my bw at 205lbs and only 200g on off days while also drastically increases my carbs to well over 300g literally over double what I ate before when I thought I was “intolerant” Still nothing impressive but, for a powerliftering redneck ill take it. [/quote]

So what part of your nutrition knowledge was wrong?

Relative to what you thought you knew, you decreased calories, decreased protein, and increased carbs.

What else changed?

Since you are/were working with Amit, I’m guessing that you moved most or all of the carbs around your workout, and probably switched to different carb sources… is that right?

164

Comparing individual results is kind of stupid. Some guys have the genetic potential to deadlift 900, while others will struggle to ever hit 550. The latter guy is going to have to push the weight gain harder to keep gaining strength as he approaches his genetic limit. He may get fat, to keep the weight on the bar increasing. If his goal is strength, that’s fine. If his goal is physique-related, though, it obviously isn’t fine.

2 g protein / lb of BW is too much, according to virtually every reputable source. There is no reason to ever go above 1.5 imo, and most of the time between 1 and 1.25 is better.

165

[quote]LoRez wrote:

[quote]Reed wrote:
This is at 205 when I learned I was stupid and making smaller much more trackable and reasonable adjustments were the way to go, NEVER ate more than 240g of protein just barely over my bw at 205lbs and only 200g on off days while also drastically increases my carbs to well over 300g literally over double what I ate before when I thought I was “intolerant” Still nothing impressive but, for a powerliftering redneck ill take it. [/quote]

So what part of your nutrition knowledge was wrong?

Relative to what you thought you knew, you decreased calories, decreased protein, and increased carbs.

What else changed?

Since you are/were working with Amit, I’m guessing that you moved most or all of the carbs around your workout, and probably switched to different carb sources… is that right?[/quote]

Lorez pretty much everything changed with my nutrition from the timing, amount and sources. The largest change was carbs for sure. As said I usually had 100-150g a day tops unless was a cheat day and then there was pretty much nothing off limits. Even though I def shouldnt have been cheating haha. Normal carb sources came from Grits, Whole Grain Breads, Pasta and Potatoes. After I changed up carb sources it switched to Oats, White Rice, and Sweet Potatoes (beans occasionally as well), and the introduction of fast acting carbs during training. Most of carbs are actually spaced out relatively even through out the day. With about half being based around pre/intra and post training.

Fats were dropped much lower. I would normally hit closer to 80-100g of fat a day alot coming from Eggs and Beef. Now almost all fat comes from Coconut Oil, Almond Butter, Fish Oil, and also fair to mention I do still eat Beef once a day but, it MUCH leaner cuts than normal. Fat sits around 45g a day now so cut in half as well.

Protein sources changed quite a bit as well. Before it was not uncommon to hit close to 500g of protein a day mostly from Eggs, Beef, Chicken, Low Fat Milk and Whey. Today I take in roughly 40-50g 5 times a day for a total of no more than 250g tops. This includes counting protein from my carb sources as well. My sources changed more to Egg Whites, Chicken, Fish and 1 shake a day ( 1 scoop whey usually mixed with Egg Whites) usually only at training where before I was going through 5 scoops or so aday mixed in milk and fruit.

My meals frequency was increased from 3 to 5. I was told to do 6 but, 3 is just much easier for my schedule ( this is not counting intra work calories ) even with less overall calories. This has helped drastically with bloating, energy, and all around feeling better. Meal timing used to be completely random as well and at the start of working with Amit I was never hungry in the morning so I hardly ever ate breakfast. Now, I make sure it happens usually because I am nauseous from hunger lol.

As for when I was dropping maximum amount of fat and really trying to get sub 10% I never had to drop my carbs below 200g a day. I kept Carbs at Breakfast and then had 50g pre/intra/post. On off days they were dropped to around 150g.

166

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Yep. That’s what everybody got stuck on: 2g/lb protein. 5 pages later, that’s still the main focus. Nobody actually analyzed the plan, they just jumped off into “OMG HE JUST SAID 2G/LB!!! WHAT A FUCKING IDIOT!!!” land without realizing that 2640kcal with a 40-40-20 split equals… Hey, would you look at that! 2g/lb protein, 2g/lb carbs, and .5g/lb fat. How about that. I chose to present it the way I did so it would be easier for the OP to calculate: double, double, half.

That’s why it’s hilarious that everybody’s of the opinion that 2640 at 40-40-20 is perfectly fine, but 2g of protein per pound is outrageous. It’s the same damn thing.[/quote]

^It’s hilarious how he continues to make shit up when the excessive amount of protein was ONE of the things he was called out for, with ONE of the most recent being:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Skinny fat people are almost always carb intolerant. [/quote]

Lol

167

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]cavemansam wrote:
jay pierce
one thing i have noticed over the years is how many big strong guys will say this is how i got big and strong but now that i smarter i should have done it this way
when you look at total picture most big strong guys got big and strong the same way eat alot lift alot[/quote]
Very true. I also see tons of guys who never reach their goals because they refuse to lose sight of their abs.

Hell, talk to a pediatric doc about fat stores and human growth! That’ll open your eyes for sure. They’ll tell you in a heartbeat that without sufficient fat stores, the human body doesn’t grow nearly as fast. Or to look at it from another angle; the quickest way to stunt a kid’s growth is to keep them skinny. Period.

Well, when we’re new to lifting, the same rule seems to apply. Want to stay weak? Stay skinny. Sure, you’ll grow, but you won’t grow nearly as fast as the guy who eats to get strong.

20x bodyweight in calories with a 40-40-20 macro split will get the job done almost every damned time. I’m training a 17yo right now who started lifting two years ago. After six months, his dad asked me to help him because he wasn’t showing any progress. I put him on this same diet, and I’ve been coaching his lifts. He just hit a 265 bench press, 340 squat, and 385 DL. He’s also gone from 120lbs to 160 without any discernable fat gain.[/quote]

^I’m not in the habit of criticising someone else’s physique, so for anyone reading his claims, just look at his pics in his profile and decide for yourself.

Yes, some fat is necessary. Excessive fat gain is a different story.

EDIT.

Why does maintaining a reasonable bodyfat percentage mean “stay skinny”? Seriously, the stuff this guy makes up…

168

[quote]Yogi wrote:
I’m going to bow out of this conversation as we’re going around in circles.

JayPierce, I checked your hub and yes, you were fat as fuck (20%? lols!) and your bulking didn’t give you anywhere near the strength to justify looking so shit. I wish you luck in your training endeavours, but you are the classic case of bulking gone wrong, no matter how you want to rationalise it. Soup’s on, fat boy.

dt79, Aliens is the second best action film ever made.

And I’m out.
[/quote]
Alright alright I said I was joking. I give it 3rd.

“Game over man! Game over!”

169

[quote]Reed wrote:
Lorez pretty much everything changed with my nutrition from the timing, amount and sources.[/quote]
Thanks for writing all of that out, and it’s obviously worked well for you. It’ll take me some time to actually understand those changes, since most of that doesn’t make much sense to me, yet.

170

It certainly shows the level of knowledge demonstrated by some, when they claim that a person needs to defend a statement such as “most skinny-fat people are carb intolerant” and “drink plenty of water because it’s essential for growth”.

It also shows a little something about them when they keep repeating the same statement over and over as their sole argument, when that statement has been rebutted over and over.

One more time for the mentally impaired: I did not recommend for the OP to get fat. I did not give him any suggestion which would cause him to gain any significant amount of fat. I gave him a recommendation that I know will work for him.

171

So, dt79, tell us your story. A few of us have given backgrounds, posted pics, and listed lift numbers for comparison. Or maybe have training logs.

Nothing about you, though. How did you get to such an advanced level in physique and strength, and how did you become so knowledgeable about diet and lifting?

172

3091×2318 486 KB

@OP

If I was in your position I would definitely cut to at least 10-12% body fat and then gain lean mass until your desired body is achieved.

If you gain 5lb muscle, so what you won’t see it you’ll still be skinny fat.

Being 20%bf has no benefit over being 10-12%. At 10-12% you will feel lighter and look healthier especially in the face.

It takes years to build muscle but only weeks to lose fat, personally I would get fat loss out of the way and then focus on building muscle for the rest of the time until you feel too fat and then cut again.

Don’t be this guy

173

1920×1080 370 KB

185-273

Im sure he got strong as hell but look at him.

174

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
It certainly shows the level of knowledge demonstrated by some, when they claim that a person needs to defend a statement such as “most skinny-fat people are carb intolerant” [/quote]

Agreed.

Never said that. Why do you continously make shit up. Post the exact quote where I disputed the fact that “water is essential for growth”.

Making shit up again. My last point was written to refute a claim that, once again, you made up.

I have never written this. Quote me where I did.

175

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
So, dt79, tell us your story. A few of us have given backgrounds, posted pics, and listed lift numbers for comparison. Or maybe have training logs.

Nothing about you, though. How did you get to such an advanced level in physique and strength, and how did you become so knowledgeable about diet and lifting? [/quote]

I have written my history and my stats in this very forum section before. I simply cannot be bothered to go through them again because of you. But don’t worry, I have been FAR more advanced than you, or you will ever be if you continue with what you are doing.

As for knowledge, regulars who have read my posts can be the judge of that.

But I will tell you this. I have been around since Biotest was selling Androsol and CT still had his Lair of the Ice Dog forum, so don’t bring up things old forum members have written and change them to suit your silly little arguments as I’ve read them all.

176

[quote]TC15 wrote:
@OP

If I was in your position I would definitely cut to at least 10-12% body fat and then gain lean mass until your desired body is achieved.

If you gain 5lb muscle, so what you won’t see it you’ll still be skinny fat.

Being 20%bf has no benefit over being 10-12%. At 10-12% you will feel lighter and look healthier especially in the face.

It takes years to build muscle but only weeks to lose fat, personally I would get fat loss out of the way and then focus on building muscle for the rest of the time until you feel too fat and then cut again.
[/quote]

I don’t agree.

  1. It’s possible for a beginner to gain muscle in a very desirable ratio of LBM to fat. It’s even possible for a beginner to lose fat as muscle is built.

  2. The OP is not actually fat. He has a small amount of belly fat, but his bigger issue is a lack of muscle mass. He will LOOK BETTER even in the short term by focusing on adding muscle as opposed to losing fat, as long as he doesn’t go overboard with the weight gain.

Every single time I would advise a beginner in his position to focus on gaining strength and muscle, which he can do rapidly given proper training and diet, instead of “cutting”. Seriously… the guy is 132 lbs and you want him to cut?

177

[quote]dt79 wrote:

I have written my history and my stats in this very forum section before. I simply cannot be bothered to go through them again because of you. But don’t worry, I have been FAR more advanced than you, or you will ever be if you continue with what you are doing.

As for knowledge, regulars who have read my posts can be the judge of that.

But I will tell you this. I have been around since Biotest was selling Androsol and CT still had his Lair of the Ice Dog forum, so don’t bring up things old forum members have written and change them to suit your silly little arguments as I’ve read them all.[/quote]
Got a link?

Here again, you ignore what has been written because you’re emotionally invested in your argument. I intentionally got to 235, held it for a few months, and then dieted down to 200. I took almost three years off after that. That picture you’re obsessing over and insulting me for is from over four years ago.

I also stated exactly why I did it; to change my body weight set point. If you’ve been around for that long, you likely know who’s advice I took in doing it. Guess what? It worked exactly the way they said it would. My set point changed to around 200, and I have stayed within ten pounds of it since then.

So the “if you continue with what you are doing” part of your rant doesn’t make any sense whatsoever because I’m not 235 any more, have no intention of getting that heavy again for quite a while, and I’m not eating the way I was eating them. If you had actually read what I posted instead of skimming over it to find something to bitch about, you’d know all of that.

178

[quote]dt79 wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
It certainly shows the level of knowledge demonstrated by some, when they claim that a person needs to defend a statement such as “most skinny-fat people are carb intolerant” [/quote]

Agreed.

Never said that. Why do you continously make shit up. Post the exact quote where I disputed the fact that “water is essential for growth”.

Making shit up again. My last point was written to refute a claim that, once again, you made up.

I have never written this. Quote me where I did.
[/quote]

You posted that the 2g/lb protein was only one of the things I was “called out” for. I quoted 2 more things I was “called out” for. They were:

  1. “2g/lb of protein”, which is not outrageous, especially in the OP’S case.

  2. “Drink plenty of water”- which you did call a rubbish comment.

  3. “495 DL is an advanced lift”, which it is. People’s definitions of “advanced” may differ, but it’s definitely not a novice or intermediate lift. It’s not elite or world class, but it is advanced.

  4. “Almost all skinny fat people are carb intolerant”. That’s a fact, and to restore insulin sensitivity and the ability to handle high levels of carbs, a higher-protein and lower-carb diet combined with metabolically challenging exercise is the way to go.

  5. I got fat- which has been the more interesting part of the conversation because I’m not the only one who got fat and I’m not the only one who improved strength levels quickly, either.

  6. Almost forgot about gene expression, which is the idea behind altering the bodyweight set point, consuming more protein and less carbs (relative to overall calories) and my suggestion to alternate the program he’s on with a high volume hypertrophy program after he’s built some strength.

I stand by every bit of this. You can “call me out” all you want.

179

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]dt79 wrote:

I have written my history and my stats in this very forum section before. I simply cannot be bothered to go through them again because of you. But don’t worry, I have been FAR more advanced than you, or you will ever be if you continue with what you are doing.

As for knowledge, regulars who have read my posts can be the judge of that.

But I will tell you this. I have been around since Biotest was selling Androsol and CT still had his Lair of the Ice Dog forum, so don’t bring up things old forum members have written and change them to suit your silly little arguments as I’ve read them all.[/quote]
Got a link?

Here again, you ignore what has been written because you’re emotionally invested in your argument. I intentionally got to 235, held it for a few months, and then dieted down to 200. I took almost three years off after that. That picture you’re obsessing over and insulting me for is from over four years ago.

I also stated exactly why I did it; to change my body weight set point. If you’ve been around for that long, you likely know who’s advice I took in doing it. Guess what? It worked exactly the way they said it would. My set point changed to around 200, and I have stayed within ten pounds of it since then.

So the “if you continue with what you are doing” part of your rant doesn’t make any sense whatsoever because I’m not 235 any more, have no intention of getting that heavy again for quite a while, and I’m not eating the way I was eating them. If you had actually read what I posted instead of skimming over it to find something to bitch about, you’d know all of that. [/quote]

Oh, I have not ignored anything. I could go much further, but you have not addressed all the things you made up in my second last post. And it’s hilarious how you continue to make things up even in this reply.

I know exactly who you are talking about. He is one of the reasons why I have an emotional investment in this forum. You are regurgitating his words out of context.

180

I’m not making anything up, and I addressed everything in that post. I’m not dumbing it down any farther.

The instructions were simple: pick a goal weight, overshoot it by about 15%, hold that weight for a few months, diet back down to the goal weight. I don’t need to include the pages and pages of context. It’s no more complicated than that.