240: Keep leaning, or add muscle?

[240 or bust]

I know I talk a lot of sh*t and all... but I'm a relative newbie to lifting, been lifting regularly for 2 years now.   Lifted some for wrestling in high school then ignored the weights for the last 10 years.

I really need some advice. I'm 28, at 5'10 and 196 pounds. In January I bulked up to a chubby 220+.. have leaned down since, just by cutting out garbage/fast food.

Anyway, is it time to lift big and eat big, and work to add muscle to what is a very skinny frame?

Or, should I keep getting leaner and leaner?Advice? What needs help? And, lean or bulk? thanks!  -240


my belly in january, then now.

[Camel Jockey]

I say add some more beef, but still eat clean foods and don't cheat. No reason why you can't do both.

[xkol]

yep. and today i woke up and realized i'm not a 17-year old ex-con in a cold state, too poor to buy a digi camera.

Yep, that life would really suck, huh xkol? 

lol, too poor to buy a digital camera, i remember sayin that.. yo check it i jus got me a low rida truck wit 5 seats 3 1k watt amps an 2 15in subs bumpin under my seat, so you kno i cant be spendin no money ona camera i got  car payments

[Rimbaud]

How about you try to maintain the lower bodyfat & add muscle slowly? Just my thoughts...

[Captain Equipoise]

If you want to stay natural, clean up your diet, do cardio every other day and lift  regularly (proper form is essential)
if you're feeling a bit adventurous, do a nice light cycle of test  prop + winstrol and you'll gain some nice quality muscle. Either way, clean up the diet and do cardio. Personally if I were you, I'd lost 5 more lbs. of fat and start from there.

Good luck.

Cpt. EQ

[body88]

If you want to stay natural.

I was skinny as a teen. I was about 5'10 155 lbs with a metab faster than rocky at a tranny convention.  I bulked up to 200 lbs eating everything in sight while I ate clean I had to much fast foods etc. Anyway i got to 12 percent b fat. For me that was much to high. I started working with a National Level Competitor whom thought my potentail was good and through consultations and advice hepled me greatly with knowledge and advice. I think you should diet all the way down until you're ripped. To be honest you're prob about 175 - 180 to be ripped for real. When i dieted down i went down all the way to 178 at which i was 5.9 percent b fat on a multi caliper pinch test. Anyway i bulked out the right way to 200 lbs at 8.2 percent b fat. i wear a 32 jean with ease. My advice to you would be to do the same. Get all the fat off you and start from there. Forget scales and numbers.  When you diet all the way down save as much muscle as you can... By the time you are down to bare bones you're body will ready to handle the loads of Cal's. You're genetics are not the best but they are not the worst either(you could be Royalty). Get that diet clean and diet down then bulk while including low carb days in the bulk cycle. If you need any diet advice myself and many others on this board can help you out. Anyway i got some advice you may be able to use. I have some diet plans that would cater to youre stats. Pm me and ill help you out if you want

If you're lifting for the love of it to look good and get the Broads take the advice get real lean then re bulk. you got All the time in the world.

www.mgponline.com

[gordiano]

Lean out. But this time, stick with it. Part of the problem is that you are ALWAYS changing your mind. Losing another 5 to 10 lbs could make a big difference.



 

[growth]

I get measured with calipers quite often and hover around 15% bf right now according to those measurements and I look more defined than you. So you better try to get down closer to the bodyfat percentage that you had when you sarted training, which looks like a single digit bodyfat. Then you will also know how much muscle you really gained since you started.

And as body88 pointed out very correctly: When you have low bodyfat it is much easier to add weight with a better muscle to fat ratio and it is also easier to actually verify your progress by skinfold measurements/photos/the mirror.

[bald]

Lean up dude, more muscle doesn't mean shit, if you can't see it.

Keep on the diet and the cardio, good luck.

[mugsy]

are the black and whites the old pics or new ones?  if so, i'd say to add some more muscle.  you don't look too bad now.

[Bast1]

240, KEEP DIETING!!!!!  Lose 20 more pounds or so, and you will look better (lower your calories gradually each week).  Then you can start gaining with a clean diet and stay relatively lean.   You look better already, why stop now?

[Bast1]

How about you try to maintain the lower bodyfat & add muscle slowly? Just my thoughts...

Treat losing body fat and gaining muscle separately unless you want painfully slow results.   You need to have a caloric deficit to lose fat at a decent rate, and more calories than maintainance to gain muscle at a decent rate.

[bRIZZAd]

I won't rant like last time ... but growth has some good advice here that I mentioned previously, and Hedgehog also supported.  Once you TRULY lean up, you'll be better off for the next bulk.  A lean body should not be insulin resistant like higher BF %'s, and you will see better muscle vs. fat gain while bulking at lower BF %'s because of this.  Get down low for summer man! Who cares what the scale says.  It will be then that you truly see what your gains are.

When I was 198, I could still see my abs before dieting down.  I figure you'll need to get down into the 170's to start lookin good.  I figure that's 12-16 solid weeks of cardio every workout day and keeping the diet in check most of the time. 

It does seem a bit depressing when you realize you'll have to kill all that weight on the scale, when you fought so hard to pack it on.  I'm now realizing even after 1.5years of a couple bulks, that I will probably have to come down to the weight I was when I began lifting & eating... into the 160's!  Bah.  Makes me feel like I haven't done anything.  Your mind will mess with you.  BUT... regardless... I can tell in the mirror I'm not going to look the same in the 160's as I did previously.  I'll be at a really low BF%, whereas before I was just scrawny with a higher BF%.

Do it!

 

 

[bRIZZAd]

I found this posted @ the forums on www.bodybuilding.com concerning the 'Volume of Fat'.  It hopefully may provide some motivation for you.  If anyone knows what the volume of 1lb of muscle is, to compare by... pipe up.  The opposite of this information would be nice to know as well. Would give you a good idea of how much larger every single pound of muscle added can make you...

Ok, so I've seen several websites that show various replicas of what five pounds of fat looks like, typically in the form of a yellow rubbery substance in a roughly cylindrical shape. Initially I was shocked by the large volume, and it gave me a new perspective on fat loss. Losing just 5 pounds might not seem like a whole lot (unless you're already at a relatively low bodyfat %) but seeing what it actually looked like made me realize that it really is.

The thing is, I really wanted something like one of those replicas that I could hold in my hands and see in person to get the full effect. Since I don't have $75 dollars to order one (there are several sites that sell them) I decided to make my own model, somehow.

So first I had to find out the density of human body fat. A frequently referenced study that I found on the net put it at .9g/cm^3. One cm^3 is a mL, so with a few calculations, you get a density of 1.98 lbs. / Liter. This is a very practical way of expressing the density because so many common beverage containers are measured in liters. So with some rounding:

1 lb. of fat = .5 Liters
2 lb. of fat = 1 Liter
4 lb. of fat = 2 Liters
7.5 lb of fat = 1 Gallon

So, say you lose two pounds a week, pure fat, and retain your muscle mass. After 2 weeks you don't see a huge change, but you know you're down 4 pounds of fat and want an objective way of visualizing what that looks like. Go grab a 2 liter bottle. There you go. That's the size of the fat that you lost. Say you keep going at that rate, 2 lb. a week. Two more weeks, you're down 8 lbs. total. Grab a gallon of milk and take a good look at it. That's pretty close to how much you've lost in fat volume (you've actually lost .22 liters more, but there's some air at the top, so...).

So next time you get discouraged about the rate of your fat loss or the fact that you don't notice a huge difference in your gut or love handles, just remember that even one pound is a significant volume, and great progress.

And attached is a photograph of what 5lbs of Fat should look like....

[bRIZZAd]

I guess I'll answer my own question. The density of muscle is, according to most websites I've searched on = 1.056 g/cm^3.

The density is GREATER than fat.  Not by a lot, but just keep in mind that for every LB of muscle you DID add, even if you came back down to the scrawny 160's or 170's, you'll be much larger than you were to begin with, IMO.

[bRIZZAd]

It appears to be roughly the same, though muscle is more dense like mentioned... so you'll weigh more while actually being smaller. D'oh  my bad.  Ah well. 

[Sljck-NjnjaRjder]

I think I recall muscle weighs 5 or 7 times more than fat?

A pound of muscle = a pound of fat. 

Its the mass of the two that is different.  Muscle is like 2/3 smaller than fat in mass size. 

[Mushroom]

ahh yes, the old 'which is heavier, a ton of feathers or a ton of bricks' logic.

yeah, I meant more dense or whatever.

I have a question... can anyone do that math on this one...

How thick (in inches or pixels) would 10 pounds add to the surface of the entire body? I know the head and feet might not grow at same velocity as belly.. but averaged.
I guess you'd have to (somehow) measure the surface area of the human body, then... um... ?

I can't believe I just wasted 10 mins of my life figuring this out, but here ya go:

Lots of formulas for approximating surface area of the body.  I used the Mosteller formula:

BSA (m²) = ( [Height(cm) x Weight(kg) ]/ 3600 )^½

5'10"=177.8cm
196#=88.904kg

Your surface area is [(177x88.904)/3600]^1/2 = 2.09meters^2

Using the figures from brizzads post, 10#=5.05 liters of fat.

5.05/2.095m^2=2.4 liters per m^2

1 liter=1mm spread over 1m^2

so...

10# spread over your entire body would equal about a 2.4mm thickness  - about 1/10 of an inch everywhere.

[TJ-JD]

240, my suggestions to you (these aren't meant to be insults, just a wake-up call):

You need to clear your head and start over the right way.  There comes a point in almost everyone's training (particularly natural trainers) where they realize that they have been wasting a lot of time by trying to incorporate advise which is either: (i) better suited for people using AS, or (ii) better suited for no one and really just designed to sell another silly magazine.  You various pics aren't showing progress, they are showing different camera angles, poses, and lighting.

You make a lot of assertions about working harder than others, doing different routines out of magazines (some sort of shoulder routine), and about how your dedication allows you to do things differently (your claim that one will not overtrain by going five days a week if they eat enough).  However, your results are falling short of where they should be.  You are using your genetics as a cop-out, rather than accepting that fact that your short-comings are more likely related to your approach.

I would suggest throwing away all the muscle magazines, as well as everything you think you know.  Put on your shirt and put away the camera.  Learn how to really lift heavy weights and learn how to recover.  Stop trying to give advice and instead read advice from credible sources.  Realize that an anonymous BB is probably not the best place to get advice, nor is some guy who has a good body, but really no idea how it got that way.

If you want some good starting advice for good sources of reading materials and how to get on the right track, try to ask Gary for some advice in the training forum.

[TNTBOOM]

240, my suggestions to you (these aren't meant to be insults, just a wake-up call):

You need to clear your head and start over the right way.  There comes a point in almost everyone's training (particularly natural trainers) where they realize that they have been wasting a lot of time by trying to incorporate advise which is either: (i) better suited for people using AS, or (ii) better suited for no one and really just designed to sell another silly magazine.  You various pics aren't showing progress, they are showing different camera angles, poses, and lighting.

You make a lot of assertions about working harder than others, doing different routines out of magazines (some sort of shoulder routine), and about how your dedication allows you to do things differently (your claim that one will not overtrain by going five days a week if they eat enough).  However, your results are falling short of where they should be.  You are using your genetics as a cop-out, rather than accepting that fact that your short-comings are more likely related to your approach.

I would suggest throwing away all the muscle magazines, as well as everything you think you know.  Put on your shirt and put away the camera.  Learn how to really lift heavy weights and learn how to recover.  Stop trying to give advice and instead read advice from credible sources.  Realize that an anonymous BB is probably not the best place to get advice, nor is some guy who has a good body, but really no idea how it got that way.

If you want some good starting advice for good sources of reading materials and how to get on the right track, try to ask Gary for some advice in the training forum.

what a great advice this is !

clap clap clap

[goatboyIII]

I agree with what others have said. Keep cutting. Just do it very slow, so you don't lose a ton of muscle along with it.

I'd put you somewhere north of 15%, and IMO that should be the highest you ever go, even at the end of a bulk. I don't like to go higher than 13-14% max, then cut back to 8-9% in each cycle. If you're 16 or 17%+, you've got no business bulking. I know there are some that will disagree with this, but I guarantee you 90% of then have never seen their abs.

(note - this advice is for natural training. Obviously, different rules apply if you're "on".)

[vikingpower]

A pound of muscle = a pound of fat.

Its the mass of the two that is different. 

i think you mean volume .... their mass is both 1lb but their density is different so muscle has a smaller volume

[usa86]

i think you mean volume .... their mass is both 1lb but their density is different so muscle has a smaller volume

you got it v-power, this concept (mass vs weight vs density) is not as intuitive as many people think

[HERACLES]

you need to train those legs man before throwing those gross hairy pics of them up!
Sorry!

Great job on weight loss though!

[JPM]

240:  your may want to consider starting (with serious intent) power rack, partial muscle range training along with power lifting.  If a rapid increase of pure muscle gain is the goal , say 15-20 lbs (muscle) over the summer, than your going to have to begin training like the Big Boys do. Don't know if your local area has any heavy duty gyms but you might want to make the effort to find one and also a proper trainer. Though a 400 squat is a nice weight you could be doing reps with 440 & partial lockouts with close to 600 quicker than you think. Gain the muscle mass first than focus on cutting out the body fat. You must develop the foundation first. With this type of training muscle size does follow strength increases.

I see these gains in a somewhat short period over and over again with the athletes who have to gain muscle mass in a two to three month period. They also tend to reduce body fat as their training steps up. These are mostly college guy's with a few high schooler's now and than. Most are benching near 350, cleaning near 300 , DL'ing middle 400's and squating 420 range after three months.  They don't have the ripped BB'ing look but the do develop the powerfull rugged look.  Good Luck.