Thread: Total Disapointment

Have you taken measurements? Thighs and calves? For this purpose, pictures don't cut it for documenting changes. You need to rely on measurements. Have you done them? Are they different?

I don't know what your body type is, but for some reason my intuition makes me believe you are like me.

5'10 ish, carrying around fat but also very muscular, strong upper body, legs like tree trunks with little fat, but always had issue with fat around the chest and gut. Meso/endo mix, where you put on muscle easilly, but the gooey yellow stuff just the same. Maybe even a capricorn?

My goal weight before when I was 260 was 220. I got there, and saw that I needed more, so then my goal was 200. I got there, and saw that there was still fat, though I was in the best shape ever. I got down to 190, wich was my new goal, and I STILL was loose, though I think a lot of that was skin. I think a good estimate would be to take your goal weight and subtract 10 lbs from it. so for me, 180 I would really start to lean out.

Id say for you, 175-180 is ideal. You would probably be around 8-10% bf, and if you are like me, quite muscular and toned. Now just to get rid of that lousy blubber and reveal the Adonis underneath...

Originally Posted by ArnoldsProtege

5'10 ish, carrying around fat but also very muscular, strong upper body, legs like tree trunks with little fat, but always had issue with fat around the chest and gut. Meso/endo mix, where you put on muscle easilly, but the gooey yellow stuff just the same. Maybe even a capricorn?

If that is him, with the exception that I'm a Libra, you've described me as well. But I've been holding at 225 for the last six months with the fat slowly coming off, but the weight remaining the same.

I just had my wife help me measure to compare to my 10-29-09 measurements. I am a Leo by the way and 5'9" tall
Here are the changes:

Chest = Gained 1"
Waist = Lost 4" the tape says my waist is 42" but I wear size 36 Jeans and they fit comfy so go figure
Hips = Lost 2.5"
Neck = Lost 2.5"
Wrist = Lost 3/4"
Biceps flexed = Lost 1"
Thighs Flexed = Lost 3" My thighs were not 30" (wishful thinking andI was wrong they are 25")
Forearms = Gained 1"

But why do I look the same? I am working out 4 days a week and I have raised the intensity of my workouts.

On another note, does anyone use L-Methionine to help burn more fat? Years ago a nutritionist recommended it to me for fat loss but I don't remember all the details.

Here is my current disappointing picture:
http://illiana.i8.com/images/Personal/03-02-2010A.jpg

I think you've been successful so far --- 18lbs since December is pretty good progress.


It's difficult to gauge the exact poundage that will translate to the physique that you are looking for. Keep up the good work, stick to your dieting and try to get through this period of uncertainty.

I think changing your body is kinda like growing tall during your adolesence. Other people notice because they see you every now and again but because you see yourself everyday (maybe in the mirror), there are very gradual changes that you might not notice. I myself have been like this. When I first started I didn't think I was making progress till I compared old pictures to new ones. Maybe you should try taking a now picture and compare yourself to it to see that you really are making progress.

Originally Posted by ArnoldsProtege

I don't know what your body type is, but for some reason my intuition makes me believe you are like me.

5'10 ish, carrying around fat but also very muscular, strong upper body, legs like tree trunks with little fat, but always had issue with fat around the chest and gut. Meso/endo mix, where you put on muscle easilly, but the gooey yellow stuff just the same. Maybe even a capricorn?

My goal weight before when I was 260 was 220. I got there, and saw that I needed more, so then my goal was 200. I got there, and saw that there was still fat, though I was in the best shape ever. I got down to 190, wich was my new goal, and I STILL was loose, though I think a lot of that was skin. I think a good estimate would be to take your goal weight and subtract 10 lbs from it. so for me, 180 I would really start to lean out.

Id say for you, 175-180 is ideal. You would probably be around 8-10% bf, and if you are like me, quite muscular and toned. Now just to get rid of that lousy blubber and reveal the Adonis underneath...

Holy shit did you just nail me. 6 foot, holding at 215-220. 18in neck, 18" arms, 36in waist, and no matter what I do I cant get rid of the spare tire. I was down to 12% bodyfat before they started coming off.

Built gave me the best advise on this, and I will state it for you:

"No matter how hard you try, you can't drain the deep end of the pool first"

If you are predisposed to holding fat in that area, it will be the first place you gain fat and the last place you lose it. Just keep at it.

Seeing how I am built, back to one of my original questions, can I get to a 168lb weight without a lot of muscle loss and health problems?

What is your current BF% and weight?

Originally Posted by kyle64

Seeing how I am built, back to one of my original questions, can I get to a 168lb weight without a lot of muscle loss and health problems?

How did you arrive at 168lbs? Just curious.

If you keep the weight on the bar to give the muscle a reason to hang around in a deficit in addition to getting adequate protein, then there's no reason you should lose an excessive amount of muscle. SOME muscle loss is to be expected when you're losing upwards of 50lbs total.

Could it be that the hard to shift fat deposits around the lower torso are hormone related? lower back and abdominal fat are often indicative of high cortisol levels , have you thought about using growth hormone? perhaps including some kind of OBLA training or Giant sets where a lactic threshold is met could spike a bit of GH naturally.This could alter your body composition without further restricting your calories.

RC

My current weight is 208 lbs and BF I am not sure about, I know my BMI is 32.5% but I heard BMI is not reliable because there are different types of bodies and it may not apply to someone who has a larger frame, what ever that means.
168 lbs was a wild guess, I just don't think 198 lbs is going to give me the look I am seeking, that is 10 lbs from now and if you saw the picture I posted I don't think 10 lbs is going to really make that much difference.

Kyle,

I think you need to take a deep breathe here and realize that first you've made great progress so far. You should enjoy it and congratulate yourself.

Second, I wouldn't get hung up on some arbitrary weight goal of 168 lbs. And don't get so hung up on what the scale says. The mirror will let you know if you've arrived at where you want to be.

It's a process. Just keep at it. Make sure you take necessary diet breaks so you don't hit the wall. The journey to arrive at your destination is without doubt an emotional rolleroaster. Just stay the course. You'll get there.

KY

Originally Posted by kyoun1e

Kyle,

I think you need to take a deep breathe here and realize that first you've made great progress so far. You should enjoy it and congratulate yourself.

Second, I wouldn't get hung up on some arbitrary weight goal of 168 lbs. And don't get so hung up on what the scale says. The mirror will let you know if you've arrived at where you want to be.

It's a process. Just keep at it. Make sure you take necessary diet breaks so you don't hit the wall. The journey to arrive at your destination is without doubt an emotional rolleroaster. Just stay the course. You'll get there.

KY

I agree with all of this.

Just wanted to add to the good advice already given.I've been where you are,and it sounds like alot of others have too.You've made commendable progress and your wife is not just being nice; you don't lose that much and someone that close not notice.You,like the rest of us will always be your own worst critic. Think of fat like snow;it melts last where it's piled the deepest.Stay with the plan and Like Kyoun1e said don't get worried about how much the scale reads you'll know when you see it in the mirror.

I appreciate all the positive input from you guys. I am a little unsure about how much mid section workout I should be doing, I was working my abs, obliques and lower back every other day. A body builder I know told me it was a bad idea for me to be doing that much mid section training because it is only going to make my waist bigger.
Should I be doing a lot of midsection workouts? That is the area where I have most of my fat.

diet is key to abs.

Originally Posted by kyle64

Should I be doing a lot of midsection workouts?

Nope.

I think 2-3 heavier sets 2-3 times per week is plenty.

KY

When your bf gets low enough you'll see abs.Work your core twice a week at most.

Originally Posted by roastchicken

Could it be that the hard to shift fat deposits around the lower torso are hormone related? lower back and abdominal fat are often indicative of high cortisol levels , have you thought about using growth hormone? perhaps including some kind of OBLA training or Giant sets where a lactic threshold is met could spike a bit of GH naturally.This could alter your body composition without further restricting your calories.

RC

Could you go into a little more detail on this? The majority of my fat is stored in my lower back and around the sides. I have fairly defined abs long before this even starts coming off.

Well since it was asked, 168 lbs at 5'9'' isn't indicative of being malnourished nor is it an unhealthy weight.

But I think you are peering too far into the future for yourself. 18 lbs off and decreased measurements means you look different. Sure maybe the pictures don't do the trick for you, but there is a difference.

Play it by ear, there is no need to resort to drastic long term decisions in weight loss.

Consider this -

You went from 225 lbs to 207 lbs. That accounts for 8% loss of total body weight. When you looked at your pictures, you didn't notice much of a change. Your current goal is to reach 198 lbs, which would result from 12% of total body weight loss.

Now if you lose 30 lbs from 198, that is 15%. My point is, the lighter you get, the more each pound counts as a percentage of your total body weight lost. The lighter you get, the more each pound lost will make a visual difference.

If you have two 6' individuals, one being 220 lbs and the other 200 lbs, and they both lose 20 lbs, the latter one's appearance will have a more significant change because he lost a greater total percentage of body mass.

Just stick with your program and good things will happen.

Originally Posted by fufu

Well since it was asked, 168 lbs at 5'9'' isn't indicative of being malnourished nor is it an unhealthy weight.

Not at all. I was 163lbs last summer and I'm right around 5'9". If anything I still had a bit of chub.

Originally Posted by danzik17

Not at all. I was 163lbs last summer and I'm right around 5'9". If anything I still had a bit of chub.

Different body types can carry mass differently. But generally I think anything over 150 lbs is OK for anyone under 6' tall.

I used to be 135 lbs while being 6'. I definitely wasn't unhealthy, but I could have used some mass. I was a skinny motherfucker though!

I cannot find any research papers to stand behind right now but this is a laymans explanation of what i'm saying to you.

When muscles contract vigorously for long periods, the circulatory system begins to lose ground in delivery of oxygen (necessary for energy production). In these conditions the breakdown of glucose is converted to lactic acid. As the lactate is produced in the muscles, it leaks out into the blood and is carried around the body. If this condition continues, the functioning of the body will become impaired and the muscles fatigue very quickly. This point is often measured as the lactate threshold.

The aim of the training system is to saturate the muscles in lactic acid, which will educate the body's buffering mechanism to deal with lactic acid more effectively. Thus raising the anaerobic (lactate) threshold. It's not the lactic acid that causes the burn in the muscles as you exercise, but the hydrogen ions released as the lactic acid leaks out. An elevation in blood lactic acid levels is a major trigger of growth hormone (HGH) release. Increasing HGH,is beneficial for gaining muscle / lean tissue and reducing fat.

Human growth hormone works by increasing the amount of IGF-1 that our livers excrete. IGF-1 blocks insulin from transporting glucose to our cells. After we eat, our pancreas usually releases insulin in sufficient levels to convert carbohydrates into glucose. The body stores this in fat cells to use for energy. HGH induced IGF-1 stops this happening and so forces the body to burn fat for energy.

HGH Fat Loss works like this: Normally we use glucose for energy and only when that is gone do we use the fat reserves. By blocking the use of the glucose, the theory is that we can get significant fat loss.

I'm sorry, as i said before i can't find any papers right now linking hgh's effect on cortisol level with a view to reducing abdominal fat but you could look into what charles poliquin has to say about it, his biosignture course focuses a lot on hormonal based fat distribution.

However Ultimateley you will never lean out if calories in exceeds calories out.

RC

Thank you, very informative. I will do more research on this.

I generally hate doing cardio unless I am outside but the weather is too cold now to be outside cycling or running so I am only doing 20 minutes a day tops cardio but I do a lot of floor strength exercises, about an hour then I go on with the weights.
Am I going to have increase cardio to get to my goals?

However Ultimateley you will never lean out if calories in exceeds calories out.

Since October 29th I have not gone over my calorie limit, not one day. At my current weight my daily intake to maintain is 3120, I eat between 1700 and 2200 calories per day on my diet rest days I go up to around 2700!
Could you explain how I can do what you are suggesting roastchicken? Is this what you mean by giant sets? http://www.muscleandstrength.com/wor...-routine-.html

Originally Posted by kyle64

I generally hate doing cardio unless I am outside but the weather is too cold now to be outside cycling or running so I am only doing 20 minutes a day tops cardio but I do a lot of floor strength exercises, about an hour then I go on with the weights.
Am I going to have increase cardio to get to my goals?

No, there is no need to increase cardio to further weight gains. Keep your calories in check and the weight will come off.

Dietary control should always be the primary focus when losing weight. If you find you aren't getting the results you want, the problem always lays in the diet volume, not the exercise volume.

Originally Posted by kyle64

I generally hate doing cardio unless I am outside but the weather is too cold now to be outside cycling or running so I am only doing 20 minutes a day tops cardio but I do a lot of floor strength exercises, about an hour then I go on with the weights.
Am I going to have increase cardio to get to my goals?
Since October 29th I have not gone over my calorie limit, not one day. At my current weight my daily intake to maintain is 3120, I eat between 1700 and 2200 calories per day on my diet rest days I go up to around 2700!
Could you explain how I can do what you are suggesting roastchicken? Is this what you mean by giant sets? The Giant Set Routine! | Muscle & Strength

First off i am not saying increase cardio, in fact if you are going to go ahead and commence lactic acid type training then you actually want to limit cardio.

What you have posted a link for is Tri-sets ,these are a perfect example of lactic threshold training, same body part tri-sets are awesome for lactic accumulation. giant sets are more like circuit training and can contain numerous different exercises.

look into charles poliquins GERMAN BODY COMPOSITION 6-12-25 brutal does not describe leg day

rc