Jump to content
adampaul

How to get a Lean Body?

103 posts in this topic Last Reply

Recommended Posts

Yeah it's not rocket science.  No sugar, no refined grains, no processed crap, lots of plants, no fried food or anything else you already know is bad for you, not too much alcohol.  No refined grains is a key a lot of people ignore.  Refined grain is basically the same thing as sugar once it gets into your digestive system.  A big plate of white pasta with some not-bad-for-you sauce – as in, not cheese/cream sauce – and some veggies is a very bad weight loss meal.  Like was said above, that's a big part of why keto or paleo or atkins type diets work for people.  It puts a hard stop on grains.  But reasonable levels of non-refined grains can very much be part of a healthy weight diet, and in my opinion that's more sustainable for a lot of people.

Exercising is good for you and will improve your health and mental state, but honestly isn't super associated with weight loss.  Not that I'm advocating not exercising.  I'm pretty into fitness myself.  But lots of people think they can eat just a bit healthier – as opposed to actually eating healthily – and start exercising seriously and still lose weight.  Studies have shown that's not effective for weight loss.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Want to hide this ad? Register for free today!

45 minutes ago, mdl said:

Studies have shown that's not effective for weight loss.  

Primarily because the vast majority of the calories you burn in a day are just from existing and doing your own thing. Obviously active people on their feet all day will need more calories, and olympic swimmers excercise an unholy amount and have to eat an equally insane portion, but for most people they don't excercise anywhere near enough for it to make up for the increased hunger that results.

As an example, running a mile in 10 minutes still only burns 150 calories in a 200 lb man. That's the equivalent of drinking one soda, but running a mile tends to make people eat more than 150 extra calories in a day because they feel they earned it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

15 hours ago, mdl said:

Exercising is good for you and will improve your health and mental state, but honestly isn't super associated with weight loss. 

Unless they are adding lean muscle mass which will increase calorie burn at rest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

9 minutes ago, TN94z said:

Unless they are adding lean muscle mass which will increase calorie burn at rest

Not overly significant for most people. Actually, as you lose weight and mass, you require less calories because you carry less weight.

https://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/features/8-ways-to-burn-calories-and-fight-fat#1

Quote

According to Wharton, 10 pounds of muscle would burn 50 calories in a day spent at rest, while 10 pounds of fat would burn 20 calories.

Let's say you are 250 lbs, lose 80 of it, but gain 30 lbs of muscle. So you are 200 lbs, and probably ripped.

80 lbs of fat loss = -1600 calories
30 lbs of muscle = +1500 calories

You are actually losing 100 calories per day at rest.

Studies have shown that working, and not necessarily losing weight will reduce your risk of heart disease versus someone who doesn't work out. Being active is important regardless of losing weight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

3 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Not overly significant for most people. Actually, as you lose weight and mass, you require less calories because you carry less weight.

https://www.webmd.com/diet/obesity/features/8-ways-to-burn-calories-and-fight-fat#1

Let's say you are 250 lbs, lose 80 of it, but gain 30 lbs of muscle. So you are 200 lbs, and probably ripped.

80 lbs of fat loss = -1600 calories
30 lbs of muscle = +1500 calories

You are actually losing 100 calories per day at rest.

Studies have shown that working, and not necessarily losing weight will reduce your risk of heart disease versus someone who doesn't work out. Being active is important regardless of losing weight.

Not saying that is incorrect because I am no scientist, but I have a trainer friend that has many, many clients that have lost body fat, gained muscle mass, and now require many more calories to maintain. He has guys walking around at 7-8% and eating 6-7000 calories a day most days of the week just to maintain.

Your math adds up but it's not that cut and dry. You aren't factoring in metabolism in these individuals. As you lose more body fat and gain more lean muscle, your metabolism increases requiring you to have more calories to maintain. You have to factor in age when talking about metabolism, you have to factor in what diet was used to drop that weight, etc... There is too much left out in your 250lb person example.

I agree with your last statement and I'm not arguing that at all. And I know it's not necessarily essential for weight loss

Edited by TN94z
Acknowledging the last part of the quote

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

28 minutes ago, TN94z said:

Not saying that is incorrect because I am no scientist, but I have a trainer friend that has many, many clients that have lost body fat, gained muscle mass, and now require many more calories to maintain. He has guys walking around at 7-8% and eating 6-7000 calories a day most days of the week just to maintain

Yea, 7-8% body fat is pretty low. Also, are they body builders versus being lean? Are they actually training for sports? There are NFL players who play with 7-8% body fat.

Is this amount of calories due to muscle gain or because they work out 3 hours a day? It's well known that a person's muscles gains decrease exponentially as they become more fit.

The question is, do they need that many calories? Could they eat 3000 calories a day, work out half as much, and still maintain that 7-8% body fat?

There is a lot of misinformation in the body building world. They have the same issue with golf, bad information not based on science. Maybe this guy thinks they need that much. Maybe they need to work out excessively because they do eat that much.

36 minutes ago, TN94z said:

Your math adds up but it's not that cut and dry. You aren't factoring in metabolism in these individuals. As you lose more body fat and gain more lean muscle, your metabolism increases requiring you to have more calories to maintain. You have to factor in age when talking about metabolism, you have to factor in what diet was used to drop that weight, etc... There is too much left out in your 250lb person example.

That is true, but that has more to do with your body getting use to you working out, not muscle gain. Look at Michael Phelps. The guy eats 10,000 calories a day. He's not built like a tank. It's because of the excessive cardio. I could say there are people who have way more muscle than he does that require way less calories than he does.

I think people over emphasize how much muscle contribute to caloric intake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

The only people who actually need 6,000-7,000 calories per day for maintenance are those who are exercising on the level of an Olympic swimmer. There's no body style that requires 6,000-7,000 calories just for weight maintenance without insane amounts of exercise unless you're on a VERY lethal dose of DNP to the point where you cannot possibly survive outside of a perpetual ice bath.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

23 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

Yea, 7-8% body fat is pretty low. Also, are they body builders versus being lean? Are they actually training for sports? There are NFL players who play with 7-8% body fat.

Is this amount of calories due to muscle gain or because they work out 3 hours a day? It's well known that a person's muscles gains decrease exponentially as they become more fit.

The question is, do they need that many calories? Could they eat 3000 calories a day, work out half as much, and still maintain that 7-8% body fat?

Not body builders, no. They strength train. Got with the trainer because they were over weight. Worked with him for a couple of years, got lean, and now they have to eat more calories to maintain. The thing with strength training and working out for 3 hours a day versus actually working out for 3 hours is two totally different things. When an average body builder or strength athlete goes in the gym and spends 3 hours in there, they aren't working out physically for 3 hours.for your average guys that is, not your high level athletes. 7-8 is very lean...probably about the max that I've heard of people being able to walk around at and be healthy. The body building shows physique is not healthy at all. These particular guys I know will lose weight without maintaining their current caloric intake. Most of these guys are in and out of the gym in 2 hours or so from memory. I know when I worked with the same trainer on the same type program, I could finish in 45 minutes -1 hour but I wasn't eating that much.

23 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

There is a lot of misinformation in the body building world. They have the same issue with golf, bad information not based on science. Maybe this guy thinks they need that much. Maybe they need to work out excessively because they do eat that much.

I agree with that. This guy is the opposite. He is the first to tell you about this misinformation. I know his process once a person gets lean is to very slowly add calories back until he reaches the point to where his client is maintaining, so I would have to say no, he doesn't "think" they need that much, He has actually worked with them for years and taken the time to figure out what they need. They don't workout excessively.

23 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

That is true, but that has more to do with your body getting use to you working out, not muscle gain. Look at Michael Phelps. The guy eats 10,000 calories a day. He's not built like a tank. It's because of the excessive cardio. I could say there are people who have way more muscle than he does that require way less calories than he does.

I think people over emphasize how much muscle contribute to caloric intake.

I agree with you that excessive exercise cardio will require more calories for sure. But you can take a guy that has been training for years but didn't care about his diet. He is very used to working out, but his metabolism is still crushed because he eats like crap. So it's more than just getting used to working out. I'm not saying that more muscle is the only reason you need more calories. I'm just stating that adding lean muscle does increase metabolism which does require your body to need more calories for maintenance. I would be willing to bet that the increase in metabolism from getting lean will more than make up for the 100 calorie deficit that your example stated earlier...that's basically all I am saying. You can't just go by that math. Otherwise, my buddy who is less active than me, same weight as me, same age as me, but much leaner than me, shouldn't be eating as much as me. But if he tries to eat what I eat in a day, he would be starving to death.

9 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

The only people who actually need 6,000-7,000 calories per day for maintenance are those who are exercising on the level of an Olympic swimmer. There's no body style that requires 6,000-7,000 calories just for weight maintenance without insane amounts of exercise unless you're on a VERY lethal dose of DNP to the point where you cannot possibly survive outside of a perpetual ice bath.

I disagree. I have seen it for years. I'm not saying they eat that every single day, but maybe 3-4 days a week they have 6000 calorie cheat days. That keeps them maintaining. The other days they are eating 4000 or so. These guys are less than 200lbs. They are strength athletes but do not work out any more excessively than most that go to the gym. I am not a nutritionist and I am not a trainer. And I am certainly not saying that anyone should eat 6000 calories per day.

But that is steering the conversation down a road that I didn't mean for it to go down. I just used that as an example to make the point that the math used in that example doesn't mean that the person would need less calories to maintain. There is too much to factor in.

Edited by TN94z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Let me straighten this out...maybe I shouldn't have used the term "maintenance" in the 6000 calories example. I will admit that this was most likely in the muscle building phase. But my point is, just because you get leaner, it doesn't mean that you necessarily need less calories to maintain. And these guys' maintenance level did increase after leaning out. That was my bad by saying "maintenance." And I was also just stating that the example was not taking into consideration many factors. It's not that cut and dry

Edited by TN94z
Adding the last statement

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

On 9/21/2018 at 12:33 AM, mdl said:

Yeah it's not rocket science.  No sugar, no refined grains, no processed crap, lots of plants, no fried food or anything else you already know is bad for you, not too much alcohol.  No refined grains is a key a lot of people ignore.  Refined grain is basically the same thing as sugar once it gets into your digestive system.  A big plate of white pasta with some not-bad-for-you sauce – as in, not cheese/cream sauce – and some veggies is a very bad weight loss meal.  Like was said above, that's a big part of why keto or paleo or atkins type diets work for people.  It puts a hard stop on grains.  But reasonable levels of non-refined grains can very much be part of a healthy weight diet, and in my opinion that's more sustainable for a lot of people.

Exercising is good for you and will improve your health and mental state, but honestly isn't super associated with weight loss.  Not that I'm advocating not exercising.  I'm pretty into fitness myself.  But lots of people think they can eat just a bit healthier – as opposed to actually eating healthily – and start exercising seriously and still lose weight.  Studies have shown that's not effective for weight loss.  

For something that isn’t rocket science you sure are eliminating a lot of food that is perfectly fine in moderation and fine in a diet to get lean. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As regards the OP. To get lean you simply need to eat less than you are burning a day. Lifting weights will help get the look you probably want when you are lean, 140lbs lean on a man is well and good but just looks thin and scrawny imo. 

So a calorie controlled diet making sure to get adequate protein, 0.5g to 1g of protein per lb of body weight is sufficient.

A 500 calorie deficit per day is enough to lose 1 pound per week which is a nice slow and steady weight loss. 

Lift some weightsifyou want a bit of muscle on that lean body, do some cardio (golf is the only cardio I do 😂

You’d be well on the way to a lean body doing this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I’m still at 185 pounds eating mostly salads and proteins like grilled steak or chicken. I eat no more than a cookie or two per day.

Did a body fat test at 13% or so with only external fat near the tummy when I overeat. I’m doing the PT exercises along with my daily 5 minute golf training.

Hard to believe that a little over a year ago I was 227 pounds!

Still thinking of shaving down to 180-ish, but my body fat will be below 10%. Not sure that would be healthy for my age or not?

Very little internal fat in the torso, that is... not no internal fat 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Here is a good article on why people might think they are doing a negative energy balance, but they are not.

https://www.precisionnutrition.com/metabolic-damage

It's just the equation is more complex than we think.

1. Nutrition on the back of the product could be off as much as 20-25%.
2. The type of food matters in terms of how much of the nutrition is digested. Example, fat from peanut butter is absorbed a higher quantity than you would get from just eating peanuts.

Quote

In the end, by eating a diet rich in whole, minimally processed foods, the number of calories you absorb can be significantly less than what you expect. Plus they require more calories to digest.

Conversely, you will absorb more calories by eating lots of highly processed foods, plus burn fewer calories in the digestive process. (In addition, highly processed foods are less filling, more energy dense, and more likely to cause overeating.)

3. RMR can be off as much as 15% depending on the person, even if they are the same age and weight.
4. It takes more energy to eat protein versus fat and carbs.
5. Drastically reducing caloric intake can cause all other aspects that help you burn calories to reduce.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

10 hours ago, saevel25 said:

3. RMR can be off as much as 15% depending on the person, even if they are the same age and weight.

4. It takes more energy to eat protein versus fat and carbs.
5. Drastically reducing caloric intake can cause all other aspects that help you burn calories to reduce.

 

This seems pretty accurate for me at least. http://globalrph.com/medcalcs/resting-metabolic-rate-rmr/

This is the chart I am using and I'm already below the ideal body fat levels. I'm between 13% and 15% (depending upon what I do before I take it) while the ideal is between 16.4% and 20.9%. They note that these might be based upon statistics and not necessarily what is healthy. It's supposedly just he ALLOWABLE mean or so? They seem to say "essential" is 3% to 5%?

image.png.3980cc5e0496faa97f71cef1130d65b0.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

This seems pretty accurate for me at least. http://globalrph.com/medcalcs/resting-metabolic-rate-rmr/

This is the chart I am using and I'm already below the ideal body fat levels. I'm between 13% and 15% (depending upon what I do before I take it) while the ideal is between 16.4% and 20.9%. They note that these might be based upon statistics and not necessarily what is healthy. It's supposedly just he ALLOWABLE mean or so? They seem to say "essential" is 3% to 5%?

That chart shows REALLY unrealistically low body fat percentages. By that I mean it's talking about perfect world ideals, not ideals that are attainable by most people.

The average man has a body fat percentage of 18-24 percent. The best athletes in the world have body fat percentages of 6-13% for men and 14-20% for women. At the 8-10% range of body fat (for men) you are able to clearly see veins without flexing because of how little fat is present on the body.

Add about 5% to each of those percentages and you'd still have a person who was in better shape than probably 80% of the people their same age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

8 hours ago, Pretzel said:

The average man has a body fat percentage of 18-24 percent. The best athletes in the world have body fat percentages of 6-13% for men and 14-20% for women. At the 8-10% range of body fat (for men) you are able to clearly see veins without flexing because of how little fat is present on the body.

There are skinny people who have higher body fat because of the lack of muscle development.


I like the following,

1. Be active. I prefer HIIT training over endurance training just because there is less wear and tear on the body. Studies have shown being active reduces a lot of cardio vascular risk factors. Even if you do not lose the weight.

2. Eat more protein than you think.

3. Eat less processed foods. It is way to easy to overeat on calorie dense food.

4. Try to get good sleep when the sun is down. Studies have been done showing that people of the same weight and activity levels have higher health risks just because they are sleeping during the day compared to people who sleep when the sun is down.

5. Keep at it for at least 6-12 months and

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

15 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

1. Be active. I prefer HIIT training over endurance training just because there is less wear and tear on the body. Studies have shown being active reduces a lot of cardio vascular risk factors. Even if you do not lose the weight.

While the metabolism does drop some as we grow older, the primary reason why people gain weight as they get older is because of less activity. Many say "oh, you are lucky being able to eat all that food. I could too 10 years ago". The reason they can't is primarily less activity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

 

 

10 hours ago, Pretzel said:

That chart shows REALLY unrealistically low body fat percentages. By that I mean it's talking about perfect world ideals, not ideals that are attainable by most people.

The average man has a body fat percentage of 18-24 percent. The best athletes in the world have body fat percentages of 6-13% for men and 14-20% for women. At the 8-10% range of body fat (for men) you are able to clearly see veins without flexing because of how little fat is present on the body.

Add about 5% to each of those percentages and you'd still have a person who was in better shape than probably 80% of the people their same age.

Agreed. I don't think most people realize how low of body fat 8% really is. I mean most bodybuilders stepping on stage are in that 4-8% (depending on class) and those on the lower end of that range are a in extremely rough shape, it is super unhealthy.

 

1 minute ago, Zeph said:

While the metabolism does drop some as we grow older, the primary reason why people gain weight as they get older is because of less activity. Many say "oh, you are lucky being able to eat all that food. I could too 10 years ago". The reason they can't is primarily less activity.

Hormones levels also play a major factor which change a lot with age.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Awards, Achievements, and Accolades

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×

Important Information

Welcome to TST! Signing up is free, and you'll see fewer ads and can talk with fellow golf enthusiasts! By using TST, you agree to our Terms of Use, our Privacy Policy, and our Guidelines.

The popup will be closed in 10 seconds...