[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
when I was up to 208 lbs/20% body fat it was 39" around the belly button.
Now I’m down to 165 lbs/12% BF 33" (perhaps slightly lower, been a week or so).
I have a pair of work shorts that I was to a point where I had to slightly suck in to make them button. Now, they almost hang off me to the point of needing a belt.
Going to take a slower approach this time with bulking, and watch the quality of my carb sources a little better[/quote]
Wait what?!?! didn’t you gain like 30 lbs of BW to get to 208?[/quote]
40 lbs actually
Lost more muscle than I wanted though.
When I started bulking I was 167 18% body fat
[/quote]
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
when I was up to 208 lbs/20% body fat it was 39" around the belly button.
Now I’m down to 165 lbs/12% BF 33" (perhaps slightly lower, been a week or so).
I have a pair of work shorts that I was to a point where I had to slightly suck in to make them button. Now, they almost hang off me to the point of needing a belt.
Going to take a slower approach this time with bulking, and watch the quality of my carb sources a little better[/quote]
Wait what?!?! didn’t you gain like 30 lbs of BW to get to 208?[/quote]
40 lbs actually
Lost more muscle than I wanted though.
When I started bulking I was 167 18% body fat
[/quote]
Your progress sucks.
[/quote]
Yes it does. I also went for 3 weeks without training when I got married, honeymoon, then traveling more. Not that makes up for bad progress, but I know I lost a bit muscle during that process.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
when I was up to 208 lbs/20% body fat it was 39" around the belly button.
Now I’m down to 165 lbs/12% BF 33" (perhaps slightly lower, been a week or so).
I have a pair of work shorts that I was to a point where I had to slightly suck in to make them button. Now, they almost hang off me to the point of needing a belt.
Going to take a slower approach this time with bulking, and watch the quality of my carb sources a little better[/quote]
Wait what?!?! didn’t you gain like 30 lbs of BW to get to 208?[/quote]
40 lbs actually
Lost more muscle than I wanted though.
When I started bulking I was 167 18% body fat
[/quote]
Your progress sucks.
[/quote]
I also didn’t listen to the advice around here and hold that weight a lot longer. I got to it and maybe a month later started dropping calories 500/day. I did that till I got to about 185 lbs or so.
And I will say for keeping protein high, keep weights heavy and slightly reducing calories if your body is not used to holding that weight, it’s gonna drop the muscle just as quick as fat.
I remember hearing last year on like CNN or some shit, this bullshit doctor ranting about how if your waist is over 34 inches, you’re at a high risk of heart attack, stroke etc, and its considered obese.
Because, you know, everones hips and ass are exactly the same. Oh and everyone is 5’8’’ too.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
when I was up to 208 lbs/20% body fat it was 39" around the belly button.
Now I’m down to 165 lbs/12% BF 33" (perhaps slightly lower, been a week or so).
I have a pair of work shorts that I was to a point where I had to slightly suck in to make them button. Now, they almost hang off me to the point of needing a belt.
Going to take a slower approach this time with bulking, and watch the quality of my carb sources a little better[/quote]
Wait what?!?! didn’t you gain like 30 lbs of BW to get to 208?[/quote]
40 lbs actually
Lost more muscle than I wanted though.
When I started bulking I was 167 18% body fat
[/quote]
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
I remember hearing last year on like CNN or some shit, this bullshit doctor ranting about how if your waist is over 34 inches, you’re at a high risk of heart attack, stroke etc, and its considered obese.
Because, you know, everones hips and ass are exactly the same. Oh and everyone is 5’8’’ too.[/quote]
I thought it was anything over 38" was an increased risk. And I have a strong feeling that this correlation is only relevant for individual that dont lift weights much.
Interesting thing about this thread is that there is a lot of variation in waist size for people of different heights, weights, and BF %. Im thinking wais measurements are only relevant if you are going to compare them to YOURSELF. (ie: if you can decrease your waist by 2" while maintaining your thigh and arm size, then you lost fat)
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
I remember hearing last year on like CNN or some shit, this bullshit doctor ranting about how if your waist is over 34 inches, you’re at a high risk of heart attack, stroke etc, and its considered obese.
Because, you know, everones hips and ass are exactly the same. Oh and everyone is 5’8’’ too.[/quote]
I thought it was anything over 38" was an increased risk. And I have a strong feeling that this correlation is only relevant for individual that dont lift weights much.
Interesting thing about this thread is that there is a lot of variation in waist size for people of different heights, weights, and BF %. Im thinking wais measurements are only relevant if you are going to compare them to YOURSELF. (ie: if you can decrease your waist by 2" while maintaining your thigh and arm size, then you lost fat)[/quote]
They are meaningless when comparing two different people. I have a wide frame. There is no way in hell my waist will ever be only 32" unless I have a part of my hip bone removed. That is one reason I have worked so hard on the width of my shoulders and back. Bodybuilding is about illusion, not specific numbers.
I doubt most of the pros you guys see in the mags TRULY have waists under 32". Guys like Cutler and Gunter Schlierkamp doubtfully have waists much under 38-39".
[quote]jo3 wrote:
This might be getting into the nitty gritty, but is the waist measurement standard around the belly button or around the hip bone?[/quote]
Its usually the belly button or the narrowist point
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
I remember hearing last year on like CNN or some shit, this bullshit doctor ranting about how if your waist is over 34 inches, you’re at a high risk of heart attack, stroke etc, and its considered obese.
Because, you know, everones hips and ass are exactly the same. Oh and everyone is 5’8’’ too.[/quote]
I thought it was anything over 38" was an increased risk. And I have a strong feeling that this correlation is only relevant for individual that dont lift weights much.
Interesting thing about this thread is that there is a lot of variation in waist size for people of different heights, weights, and BF %. Im thinking wais measurements are only relevant if you are going to compare them to YOURSELF. (ie: if you can decrease your waist by 2" while maintaining your thigh and arm size, then you lost fat)[/quote]
They are meaningless when comparing two different people. I have a wide frame. There is no way in hell my waist will ever be only 32" unless I have a part of my hip bone removed. That is one reason I have worked so hard on the width of my shoulders and back. Bodybuilding is about illusion, not specific numbers.
I doubt most of the pros you guys see in the mags TRULY have waists under 32". Guys like Cutler and Gunter Schlierkamp doubtfully have waists much under 38-39".[/quote]
No doubt in my mind. Cutler’s waistline looked huge when he lost the olympia the time before last.
I have big hips too which doesnt help the whole V shape, which is now why i am striving to shrink the % of fat these next couple months.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
when I was up to 208 lbs/20% body fat it was 39" around the belly button.
Now I’m down to 165 lbs/12% BF 33" (perhaps slightly lower, been a week or so).
I have a pair of work shorts that I was to a point where I had to slightly suck in to make them button. Now, they almost hang off me to the point of needing a belt.
Going to take a slower approach this time with bulking, and watch the quality of my carb sources a little better[/quote]
Wait what?!?! didn’t you gain like 30 lbs of BW to get to 208?[/quote]
40 lbs actually
Lost more muscle than I wanted though.
When I started bulking I was 167 18% body fat
[/quote]
Your progress sucks.
[/quote]
x2[/quote]
Wow, i remember the pics from the 11-t thread, how tall are you?
[quote]SteelyD wrote:
I haven’t measured my waist in a long time. In fact, I don’t want to. The only measurements I take are quads, arms, calves, and shoulder girth every couple months.
To me, it’s too much of a mental burden to worry about actual waist size when trying to put on size. The number is meaningless except in the context of the other bodyparts-- it’s more visual. I can monitor waist size in relation to shoulders/lats/chest with a mirror and pics.
Having said that, I wear size 38 jeans/dress pants (sometimes 40 depending on brand) which are loose around the waist, but tight in the quads. I’m on the verge of needing to move up a pant size because of my ass/legs. Hair under 5-9", 240ish[/quote]
Your exactly right that the exact number doesn’t really matter. I just find it helpful because sometimes i look in the mirror and think I look a bit fat even though i might not have gained any fat. its good to have an objective measure for peice of mind for me and its interesting to see other guys mearsurements.
s good to have an objective measure.
[quote]Scorzerci wrote:
Are you guys measuring the natural waist, or the pants waist?[/quote]
i’m measureing the waist at belly button or just above. obviously some guys are using pant size which might be higher if you have a big ass or lower if you have a beer gut.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
I remember hearing last year on like CNN or some shit, this bullshit doctor ranting about how if your waist is over 34 inches, you’re at a high risk of heart attack, stroke etc, and its considered obese.
Because, you know, everones hips and ass are exactly the same. Oh and everyone is 5’8’’ too.[/quote]
Here in Australia “they” (not exactly sure who) have released an add campain saying that a 96cm waist for men might mean your at a greater risk of lifestyle diseases.
obvioulsy this doesn’t take into account individuality but it does make a bit of sense. i’ve heard that abdominal fat (including viseral fat) is a better indicator for health than overall body fat levels.
