Shaf... Get in here

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19077
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:10 am

Beer Jew wrote:Define fat.


More than 20% bf.

Image
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
newguy
Top
Posts: 1799
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by newguy » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:43 am

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Beer Jew wrote:Define fat.


More than 20% bf.

Image
The problem, I think, with BF% is, how do you measure it?

Honestly, for the general pop, fat is like the proverbial porn definition. We know it when we see it.

But outside of that, are there any visual...waist size to BW to height ratios.....that we can use? i.e. if you can see ab muscles you are not fat. If you can't see ab muscles but your waist is 36 and you are 6'3 you are fine? If you can squat 750....you might be fat but really who cares?

Things like that.
"When I was little, my father was famous. He was the greatest samurai in the empire. And he was the Shogun's decapitator. He cut off the heads of a 131 Lords. It was a bad time for the empire."

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19077
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Tue Feb 07, 2017 4:50 am

newguy wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Beer Jew wrote:Define fat.


More than 20% bf.

Image
The problem, I think, with BF% is, how do you measure it?

Honestly, for the general pop, fat is like the proverbial porn definition. We know it when we see it.

But outside of that, are there any visual...waist size to BW to height ratios.....that we can use? i.e. if you can see ab muscles you are not fat. If you can't see ab muscles but your waist is 36 and you are 6'3 you are fine? If you can squat 750....you might be fat but really who cares?

Things like that.
I think it's not terribly hard. I'm a bit of an outlier yet the neck to waist thing gets to within 2% of underwater weighing. 90% of people guess their BF wrong of course, but if you measure out to 20, get it below 15 and you'll be fine. Or just go wait until you see lower abs and then start eating.

But none of this is super important. Want to know if you're fat? jog on treadmill in your underwear in front of a mirror..it'll be clear.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Beer Jew
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Beer Jew » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:00 am

I'm Beerjew, and I'm fat.

User avatar
Beer Jew
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Beer Jew » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:04 am

Well shit... that neck to waist thing puts me at 23%. Less than I thought.

User avatar
Bobby
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Bobby » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:33 pm

Any links to the neck/waist thing?
You`ll toughen up.Unless you have a serious medical condition commonly refered to as
"being a pussy".

User avatar
Beer Jew
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Beer Jew » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:23 pm


User avatar
Beer Jew
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Beer Jew » Tue Feb 07, 2017 2:24 pm

If my neck stayed the same, I'd need to drop to a 34 inch waist to be 15% at my height. Probably doable.

User avatar
Beer Jew
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Beer Jew » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:28 pm

On a serious note...

Do people feel there's a genuine advantage for unassisted strength competitors to be at 15% or below?

The old argument of "look at the top people in each weight class, they're lean etc." doesn't hold much water with me. I'll always be in the 93kg class, but as I get stronger I'll lean out naturally. If, like at the end of last year I feel I'm putting on too much weight, I'll slowly drop. I'm down 9lbs this year so far.

My bodyfat % makes no difference to me - my strength does, and it would be good to get a bit more hypertrophy in the areas I noted at the start of the thread. But I'd be interested to hear if people think there's a genuine advantage for strength competitors.

The way I view it - I'd have to accept a period of strength loss whilst I dieted heavily, likely accompanied by worse recovery abilities. In a few months when I hit 15%, I'd then have to build that strength back up, and likely just put the weight on again.

Boris
Top
Posts: 1511
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2008 1:54 am

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Boris » Tue Feb 07, 2017 3:42 pm

Beer Jew wrote:On a serious note...

Do people feel there's a genuine advantage for unassisted strength competitors to be at 15% or below?

The old argument of "look at the top people in each weight class, they're lean etc." doesn't hold much water with me. I'll always be in the 93kg class, but as I get stronger I'll lean out naturally. If, like at the end of last year I feel I'm putting on too much weight, I'll slowly drop. I'm down 9lbs this year so far.

My bodyfat % makes no difference to me - my strength does, and it would be good to get a bit more hypertrophy in the areas I noted at the start of the thread. But I'd be interested to hear if people think there's a genuine advantage for strength competitors.

The way I view it - I'd have to accept a period of strength loss whilst I dieted heavily, likely accompanied by worse recovery abilities. In a few months when I hit 15%, I'd then have to build that strength back up, and likely just put the weight on again.
The answer is probably no, there's not a huge need for strength competitors to be cut. But, there's not an advantage in being needlessly fat either. The toll of being unnecessarily heavy does creep up on you and can be cumulative.

I've been heavy and I've been light. (I've always been weak) I'll never go back to being heavy if I can help it.

User avatar
newguy
Top
Posts: 1799
Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 2:32 am

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by newguy » Tue Feb 07, 2017 5:59 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
newguy wrote:
Blaidd Drwg wrote:
Beer Jew wrote:Define fat.
But none of this is super important. Want to know if you're fat? jog on treadmill in your underwear in front of a mirror..it'll be clear.
I am fat.
"When I was little, my father was famous. He was the greatest samurai in the empire. And he was the Shogun's decapitator. He cut off the heads of a 131 Lords. It was a bad time for the empire."

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19077
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:25 pm

Beer Jew wrote:On a serious note...

Do people feel there's a genuine advantage for unassisted strength competitors to be at 15% or below?

The old argument of "look at the top people in each weight class, they're lean etc." doesn't hold much water with me. I'll always be in the 93kg class, but as I get stronger I'll lean out naturally. If, like at the end of last year I feel I'm putting on too much weight, I'll slowly drop. I'm down 9lbs this year so far.

My bodyfat % makes no difference to me - my strength does, and it would be good to get a bit more hypertrophy in the areas I noted at the start of the thread. But I'd be interested to hear if people think there's a genuine advantage for strength competitors.

The way I view it - I'd have to accept a period of strength loss whilst I dieted heavily, likely accompanied by worse recovery abilities. In a few months when I hit 15%, I'd then have to build that strength back up, and likely just put the weight on again.

I think the logic is this..and I've seen it work in practice not just in theory, dropping down below where you're natural BF level is, lets say you walk around at 18-20 (that's me) and you drop to say 12, working your way BW back up is where you put on muscle. Before I ever touched TRT, i weighted 231, I've run back and forth between 213 and 240 several times over the years, every time I got down to a lower level of BF at the exact same bodweight. Also, it was very easy to put mostly muscle back on as I went up, regardless of supplements. In most cases I wasn't even using excessive protein. I've done this adding TRT and the results are better, add low dose test you're even better, add Tren a couple times a year...Bob's your Uncle...but the mechanism in eqach cse is essentially the same. Your nutrient partitioning is better when you're leaner.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

User avatar
Beer Jew
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Beer Jew » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:23 pm

But it's the timeline I'm curious about. Is it worth the lost time?

From a looks point of view, the bodyfat doesn't bother me in the slightest. I wouldn't mind losing the love handles, but that's pretty much it.

Ironic that this started as a thread asking Shaf for advice.

User avatar
Beer Jew
Sgt. Major
Posts: 3273
Joined: Sun Jan 16, 2011 6:35 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Beer Jew » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:23 pm

Just kidding Shaftabulous.

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19077
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:29 pm

Beer Jew wrote:But it's the timeline I'm curious about. Is it worth the lost time?

From a looks point of view, the bodyfat doesn't bother me in the slightest. I wouldn't mind losing the love handles, but that's pretty much it.

Ironic that this started as a thread asking Shaf for advice.
There is no time lost. You lose a little strength as you're going down but in the overall you're still gaining strength. We're not talking herculean levels of leanness. We're going from chubby to out of season bodybuilder and back to slightly less chubby. Rinse Repeat.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

dkay
Sarge
Posts: 182
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:44 am

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by dkay » Tue Feb 07, 2017 11:23 pm

terra wrote:I vaguely recall a discussion on IGx about "Hollywood" muscles and how the delts and traps are targeted by actors who want to look muscular for their role. However, training arms also makes sense if you want to look good in a t'shirt.
My take on the Hollywood delt/trap thing is that these guys are on the gas during training for these roles - the receptors in the delts and traps are particularly "receptive" and they blow up disproportionately on a 150 lb frame. They can be skinny as a whip, still have cheekbones, but have some meat on the traps, delts, and arms. I think it is much more difficult for natural guys to get the same effect.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6470
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by Sangoma » Wed Feb 08, 2017 8:47 am

As far as body fat is concerned, it is an interesting one. Among competitive weightlifters it is an issue, especially at lower weight categories. Obviously, the more fat, the less muscle, less strength as the result. Super heavies, especially in the 70-s and 80-s, used to eat themselves to higher lean mass, picking up lots of fat along the way. I think Pisarenko was the first really heavy OL who had relatively low bodyweight (compared to Alexeev and Zhabotinsky he looked like a bodybuilder).

I agree with BD: nutrient partitioning is way better in leaner states. On Datbetrue I came across the concept of "priming" - maximally leaning out before starting on building muscle. There is also "reverse dieting", where after a long period of leaning out caloric intake is increased - and the athlete, paradoxically, becomes leaner before fat gain eventually kicks in. Definitely easier to stay leaner when you are lean, if it makes sense.
Image

User avatar
ledfistaco
Gunny
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 4:27 pm
Location: brooklyn, ny

Re: Shaf... Get in here

Post by ledfistaco » Wed Feb 08, 2017 12:24 pm


Post Reply