Math and abs

[lostintranslatn]

OK, need help figuring out some math behind my upcoming goals.

In April, husband and I are going on an anniversary cruise to the Bahamas. (Squee!) I would really like to attain my goal of having visible abs by said trip. (In case this is making me sound like a vain lame-face who can't set legit goals; never fear. This is in addition to taking up kickboxing, entering my second 5K, doing real push-ups, etc.)

I started my fitness journey at 198 pounds and approximately 30% BF. Since then, I'm down to 164 pounds and approximately 24% BF. (I'm six feet tall.) My current BF puts me in the "physically fit" category for women, but I want to get into the "athlete" zone, which I read somewhere on the Interwebz (so it must be true) is 14-20% for women. I believe the athlete zone is AKA the visible abs zone, no?

So, let's say I'm aiming for 18% BF by April 1. What (if anything) does that mean in terms of weight loss? Is there a formula for determining how many pounds of fat that is? So far tracking my weight (non-obsessively and fully aware of the faults of the scale, of course) has been a rather satisfying and quanitifiable way to track my journey. I guess I'm hoping for more numeric guidance on this particular quest...is there any?

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

I've read visible abs is anywear from 12%-18% depending on the person and how their fat distributes. All my fat goes to my gut and torso first, so I would have to get lower in that range for abs.

Let's see, at 198 lbs and 30% BF (59.4 lbs) that would have given you 70% lean body mass (138.6 lbs). At 164 lbs and 24% BF (39.4), you have 76% lean mass (124.6 lbs). So you've lost 14 lbs of lean bodymass and 20 lbs of body fat and losing at a 7:10 ratio. We'll assume you keep this ratio, which while not bad, could probably be improved on with more weight lifting from what alecto has said.

If you lose another 25.5 lbs with that ratio, it would have you losing 10.5 lbs of lean mass and 15 lbs of fat, giving you weights of 24.4 fat, 114.1 lbs lean, 138.5 lb total. At this point you would have a bodyfat percentage of 24.4/138.5=.176=17.6%.

Now, if you want to get them without losing that much weight, you would have to figure out a way to lose a higher ratio of fat to muscle, which from what others have said on this board is done with weight lifting.

[lostintranslatn]

Wow, thanks for all the math! I think, at six feet tall, any weight under 150 might look kind of gross...but it's hard to know for sure.

[spezzy]

What % you need for visible abs depends on your personal fat distribution. I personally can see visible abs at a higher percent (15-18%) than a lot of women because i'm grossly bottom heavy.

Anywhere from 12-18% though, yes, sounds about right (for women - men its under 10%)

Unfortunately, its hard to tell other than what Corey said - trying to figure out how much fat AND muscle you're losing at the same time.

You could also gain weight and lose bodyfat. (I've gained 10lbs and reduced my bf% in the past)

I'd just not focus so much on the exact numbers of what you NEED to do and work on keeping as much muscle as you can while losing fat.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

Wow, thanks for all the math! I think, at six feet tall, any weight under 150 might look kind of gross...but it's hard to know for sure.

You're probably right. If you can get that ratio to more like a 1:4, you could lose 15 lbs, 12 of which would be fat, and get to 18.4% BF at 149 lbs total.

Edit: Spezzy posted while I was writing. the big thing you need to focus is keeping that muscle while you lose fat, which is what makes the type of ratio I am talking about. Everyone around here says you do that with heavy lifting.

[aj_rock]

athlete zone =/= visible abs zone, not for guys or girls. A lot of sports require you carry a bit of pudge around in order to protect your vital organs. You'd be surprised how many professional athletes, both male and female, that do not have teh visible abs.

Setting your goals this way is dangerous though; you need to make sure you don't end up losing weight too fast. Setting a relative short term for a lot of change invites crash-dieting, which is generally a no-no.

[SuperVitali]

I don't think it's unreasonable/unsafe.

You have what, appriximately 12 weeks?

By the numbers above, you would need to lose approximately 25 lbs of fat to get to 17ish% body fat (assuming thats what you need, it's very possible you could see abs at 18-19%).

That means you would need to lose 2.08lbs of fat a week starting now. That's very possibly, with food near perfect and a solid exercise plan. Not to mention the muscle you gain in the process will help sway the bf% too.

But yea - I wouldn't obsess over the numbers - just eat well, and exercises regularly over the next 12 weeks and your goal should be obtainable.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

you would need to lose approximately 25 lbs of fat to get to 17ish% body fat

If it was pure fat loss, she'd only have to lose like 10 lbs, but it's never just fat loss.

[SuperVitali]

If it was pure fat loss, she'd only have to lose like 10 lbs, but it's never just fat loss.

I don't see why lean mass would be lost if there was any kind of resistance training going on. It's possible to get stronger/gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

[bigm141414]

I don't see why lean mass would be lost if there was any kind of resistance training going on. It's possible to get stronger/gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

Not so. If you are eating at a caloric deficit to lose weight then that weight will come from both fat and muscle. It is possible to gain strength while lose weight with weight training, and weight/resistance training allows you to lower the percentage of muscle loss to the single digits but you can't add muscle and lose weight at the same time.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

I don't see why lean mass would be lost if there was any kind of resistance training going on. It's possible to get stronger/gain muscle and lose fat at the same time.

Very hard and you need a near perfect balance. To gain lean muscle, one needs to have a calorie surplus correct? I could understand if you're eating a surplus for a time after lifting and a deficit otherwise, which I plan to try, but most people its either lift and eat a surplus and gain muscle and some fat or eat at a deficit while losing fat and limiting muscle loss.

[161803398874989]

Very hard and you need a near perfect balance. To gain lean muscle, one needs to have a calorie surplus correct? I could understand if you're eating a surplus for a time after lifting and a deficit otherwise, which I plan to try, but most people its either lift and eat a surplus and gain muscle and some fat or eat at a deficit while losing fat and limiting muscle loss.

Dude. What is fat for? That's right, ENERGY STORAGE. What do we measure energy in? That's right, CALORIES. So BURNING FAT yields CALORIES.

If you eat on a caloric deficit, you lose fat because your body requires energy to maintain itself, which it gets from fat. That's the whole point of losing weight through diet.

So, YES, you will build muscle. It may not be as much as you would build when bulking, but shit, it can and it will happen.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

BURNING FAT yields CALORIES.

If you eat on a caloric deficit, you lose fat because your body requires energy to maintain itself, which it gets from fat. That's the whole point of losing weight through diet.

So, YES, you will build muscle. It may not be as much as you would build when bulking, but shit, it can and it will happen.

You won't build muscle because your body will only transform enough fat into energy to give the body what it needs. The body won't waste energy building muscle because it thinks there is a shortage of food because of the deficit and will conserve as much energy as it can. It will repair the muscles so that they can function, but even this it does at a slower rate, which is why recovery takes longer while on a deficit compared to a surplus.

You can build strength, which is making the muscles operate more efficiently. I believe this has to do with with breaking down the fibers and them being repaired to be oriented more in the proper direction for the stress they are being put under, but they won't come back bigger.

[SuperVitali]

Not so. If you are eating at a caloric deficit to lose weight then that weight will come from both fat and muscle. It is possible to gain strength while lose weight with weight training, and weight/resistance training allows you to lower the percentage of muscle loss to the single digits but you can't add muscle and lose weight at the same time.

I 100% disagree, speaking from personal experience.

You absolutely can do both, that is a huge, and common misconception.

We're talking about body re-composition. Burning fat and gaing muscle. There's no magic switch in our body that puts us into fat burning mode or muscle building mode, both are two processes that are ongoing in our bodies.

For a quick and dirty explanation of how muscle growth occurs - look here:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/27784-muscle-growth-work/

As long as we provide our muscles the fuel (amino acids/protein), it can continue on making new muscle fiber. It's very possible to eat an adaquet amount of protein without creating a calorie surplus.

[SuperVitali]

You won't build muscle because your body will only transform enough fat into energy to give the body what it needs. The body won't waste energy building muscle because it thinks there is a shortage of food because of the deficit and will conserve as much energy as it can. It will repair the muscles so that they can function, but even this it does at a slower rate, which is why recovery takes longer while on a deficit compared to a surplus.

You can build strength, which is making the muscles operate more efficiently. I believe this has to do with with breaking down the fibers and them being repaired to be oriented more in the proper direction for the stress they are being put under, but they won't come back bigger.

Not true.

Please read this and the citations at the bottom:

http://examine.com/faq/will-lifting-weights-convert-my-fat-into-muscle.html

(i know, we arent specifically talking about weightlifting, but the informationt here directly relates to our topic).

My point is, fat burning and muscle building are two related, but different processes that both happen at the same time.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

For a quick and dirty explanation of how muscle growth occurs - look here:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/27784-muscle-growth-work/

As long as we provide our muscles the fuel (amino acids/protein), it can continue on making new muscle fiber. It's very possible to eat an adaquet amount of protein without creating a calorie surplus.

This talks about how muscle grows, yes, but what it does not address is how the body depletes it. When in a caloric deficit, other hormones are released that tell the body to eat away at the muscle to transform it into energy, which is why muscle mass is lost during dieting, not just fat. These muscle eating processes work against the muscle building processes.

Also, while on a deficit, hormones are released that tell the body to convert some of the protein consumed, which usually goes to muscle building, into energy because that's what it currently needs. This saps the muscle building process of some of its fuel, further decreasing the efficiency. This is one reason why bumping protein way up helps, because it gives energy from both.

So you have these two competing processes going on. Lifting heavy increases the muscle building process which is why it helps to make dieters lose less muscle mass than they would otherwise, it is going against its own efforts to eat its muscle. However, at a deficit, you'll never get it to the point where it will completely counter act the muscle eating processes and result in a net gain.

[SuperVitali]

Which is why I said, you can more than eat ample protein without going into a surplus. Add bcaa supliments into this if you're really worried you wont have enough amino acids to provide as fuel for bodily functions and protein synthesis.

How do you explain me going from 147 lbs, up to 158, gaining more muscle and having a lower body fat%? I lift weights heavily, and I don't eat a surplus.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

Which is why I said, you can more than eat ample protein without going into a surplus. Add bcaa supliments into this if you're really worried you wont have enough amino acids to provide as fuel for bodily functions and protein synthesis.

How do you explain me going from 147 lbs, up to 158, gaining more muscle and having a lower body fat%? I lift weights heavily, and I don't eat a surplus.

Because you actually ate a surplus? I can't see gaining 11 lbs while on a caloric deficit. It flies in the face of the laws of thermodynamics. Consuming less energy than you burn results in the body converting mass (fat and muscle) to energy. Consuming more energy than you burn results in converting energy to mass (fat and muscle). There's no way around this. The only thing you can control is how you work out on one of these two which will determine the ratios of where energy is taken from or stored in.

As for the lower %, you gained a larger ratio of muscle to fat than you already had, resulting in a lower BF %.

We're beating this to death, this is discussed elsewhere on the forum in length, let's stopped jacking this thread.

[SuperVitali]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Science and my own personal experience say otherwise.

[bigm141414]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Science and my own personal experience say otherwise.

Can we get back to the real question at hand: the general calculus solution to the perfect dead lift. That involves math and abs

[67alecto]

We'll have to agree to disagree. Science and my own personal experience say otherwise.

Except that there's no science behind what you've listed. The page you linked describes itself as "Akin to Wikipedia, we are a site that allows people to contribute to the site".

To summarize:

Increasing weight requires a calorie surplus. What that weight turns into depends on your activity, but will be a combination of fat and lean muscle.

Losing weight requires a calorie deficit. What weight is lost depends on your activity, but will be a combination of fat and lean muscle.

They are mutually exclusive situations.

The only exception to this is what is commonly referred to as "newbie gains". If you have been sedentary forever, then there is short window when it is possible to burn fat and add muscle mass. This does not last, and is not repeatable.

Every fitness forum on the web has people that swear they can do both at the same time. But it simply isn't possible. If it was, then the professional bodybuilders would all be doing it. Instead, what you have is two distinct cycles. Bulking and cutting. Bulking consists of heavy lifting, little or no cardio, and excess calories. Muscle mass and fat are added during this phase. The lifting during this phase is designed to add as much muscle mass as possible. Cutting consists of more lifting, but with cardio, and less calories. Fat and muscle are lost during this stage. The lifting during this phase is designed to retain as much muscle as possible. The duration of these phases will affect how they present.

Strength training during a calorie deficit will allow the body to retain more lean muscle mass. With no strength training, the typical ratio of fat lost to lean muscle lost is 75%/25%. In the actual studies that were done (not bro-science), adding strength training reduces the amount of lean muscle mass lost to single digits.

People trying to lose weight mistakenly think that they are adding muscle MASS for two reasons: 1) they get stronger and 2) they start to see muscles. Strength can be increased without an increase of muscle mass until you reach the functional limits of the muscle mass you have. This strength gain can be substantial. Muscles start appearing because fat is being lost and the muscles you already had are becoming more defined. If you're carrying around an extra 20, 50, 100, 200, etc pounds, you're going to have some strong muscles underneath the fat.

/end thread highjack

To answer the original question about BF% and visible abs, there isn't a set number that automatically grants visible abs - everyone has a different body composition - so the range of visible abs is always presented as that...a range. If you look in the mirror and you can't see your abs, your body fat isn't low enough.

[aj_rock]

What alecto said. Especially if you're trying to get into visible ab range. Your body fights the fat-loss far too much for some protein not to be lost in turnover.

What vitali said wasn't untrue either though. If you gain 11 lbs, and the vast majority of it is muscle, then yes bf% goes down as a virtue of your body carrying more mass but the same fat. Actual fat store remains constant, at best.

[andygates]

Ah, this old rant again. Hee! Super V, you might be able to do it, but sure as kittens are fluffy I've never got the trick of it.

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

Not fluffy...