How To Get A 6 Pack

[Ijustwannateach]

I think the other fat has its own distribution issues, too- though I agree understanding visceral fat as per your post is important to understand the influence of aging.

[tropo]

I think the other fat has its own distribution issues, too- though I agree understanding visceral fat as per your post is important to understand the influence of aging.

It is such a problem for so many of us it's a shame more research is not done. I think the problem is that it is so far out of reach. You can't grab it and quantify it the same way as subcutaneous fat. To analyse it properly an expensive MRI would be necessary.

[robblok]

True it might be out of reach for some of us (me) but that does not mean im not going to try. I have been at a weight plateau for a while now though i see my muscles more defined. It would be nice if there was a cheap and accurate way of checking bodyfat. Those machines with the electric current are crap as they use tables for normal people not muscular people. A skin caliper i have but its also hard to use if your not a pro.

I think this is one of the more frustrating things of weight / fat loss. I am actually going for fat loss not weight loss. It would be nice to know if my eyes are true. Even a tape measure around the waist would not tell it all.

[tropo]

Those machines with the electric current are crap as they use tables for normal people not muscular people. A skin caliper i have but its also hard to use if your not a pro.

There are bio-impedance machines that are quite accurate. I used one in NZ straight after doing the hydrostatic weighing and DEXA scan and the reading was within 1% of the DEXA result. It used hand grips in addition to the foot plates. I'd have to look up the name of it - from memory it was from Korea.

The Tanita bio-impedence scale at my gym is junk. Any machine which requires me to input whether I'm "normal" or "athletic' is a joke as it's obviously guessing. I come out at about 23% body fat on that one, which is ridiculous. It is interpreting my muscle weight as fat even though I program it "athletic". There is a huge scale of "athletic" body types which makes the results meaningless.

Using a pinch caliper on the fat an inch above the iliac crest seems to be quite accurate and it is a very easy place to measure. I have a table which interprets the body fat result according to age - therefore it takes into consideration visceral fat accumulation.

Edited March 6, 2012 by tropo

[transam]

If my old memory serves me well, abs can be worked every day, other stuff needs a day to recover.

[tropo]

If my old memory serves me well, abs can be worked every day, other stuff needs a day to recover.

That's a myth. There is no benefit in working them everyday. If you can't see them you may as well work them once a week for all the good it will do. It is a total waste of energy training abs everyday. It's also a waste of energy doing very high reps. You'll make the ab muscles thicker if you use resistance and lower reps. People have this weird notion that if they work their midsection everyday that a six pack will magically appear. In fact, if a person builds the size of the ab muscles which are covered by a layer of fat their mid-section will look bigger.

[transam]

If my old memory serves me well, abs can be worked every day, other stuff needs a day to recover.

That's a myth. There is no benefit in working them everyday. If you can't see them you may as well work them once a week for all the good it will do. It is a total waste of energy training abs everyday. It's also a waste of energy doing very high reps. You'll make the ab muscles thicker if you use resistance and lower reps. People have this weird notion that if they work their midsection everyday that a six pack will magically appear. In fact, if a person builds the size of the ab muscles which are covered by a layer of fat their mid-section will look bigger.

I shall write to Lou.

[tropo]

I shall write to Lou.

Cheers - let me know what he says.

A lot of bodybuilders don't even train abs until they're starting to cut for competition. He may have been one of them.

Back when Lou (and Arnold) were active most bodybuilders used to train 6 times a week on a double split. Perhaps they were doing it right because IMO they looked better back then than they do today.

Edited March 6, 2012 by tropo

[transam]

I shall write to Lou.

Cheers - let me know what he says.

A lot of bodybuilders don't even train abs until they're starting to cut for competition. He may have been one of them.

Back when Lou was active most bodybuilders used to train 6 times a week on a double split.

I jest,your information is valuable.

[robblok]

I shall write to Lou.

Cheers - let me know what he says.

A lot of bodybuilders don't even train abs until they're starting to cut for competition. He may have been one of them.

Back when Lou (and Arnold) were active most bodybuilders used to train 6 times a week on a double split. Perhaps they were doing it right because IMO they looked better back then than they do today.

I have to agree.. now they are too big.. Arnold was big.. but not a freak.. or at least i did not think so.

[Tolley]

did the bio impedence test a year or so ago and came up about 20 percent fat which is okay considering my level of activity at the time. But when i used those useless scales at the gym the instructor was trying to tell me i had 28 percent body fat.

Also when i did the bio impedence test they said i had too much muslcle which i think if i can remember was 45 percent roughlly. So maybe you can have too much muscle too?

[robblok]

Im not sure if you can have too much muscle.. at least i cant imagine it would be easy to get too much muscle. I do know that these scales where you have to imput your weight age ect are more guessing then real.

[tropo]

Im not sure if you can have too much muscle.. at least i cant imagine it would be easy to get too much muscle. I do know that these scales where you have to imput your weight age ect are more guessing then real.

Yeah, you have to work very hard to gain muscle. It's not like you just wake up with it.

did the bio impedence test a year or so ago and came up about 20 percent fat which is okay considering my level of activity at the time. But when i used those useless scales at the gym the instructor was trying to tell me i had 28 percent body fat.

Also when i did the bio impedence test they said i had too much muslcle which i think if i can remember was 45 percent roughlly. So maybe you can have too much muscle too?

Were the people remarking that you "have too much muscle" Thai? If so, they were probably making a common error where they use "too" to denote "much". My wife also uses "too" to mean "a lot of".

If you have a lot of muscle, those cheap scales they use at gyms will probably mark you down as obese.

Edited March 6, 2012 by tropo

[Tolley]

Im not sure if you can have too much muscle.. at least i cant imagine it would be easy to get too much muscle. I do know that these scales where you have to imput your weight age ect are more guessing then real.

Yeah, you have to work very hard to gain muscle. It's not like you just wake up with it.

did the bio impedence test a year or so ago and came up about 20 percent fat which is okay considering my level of activity at the time. But when i used those useless scales at the gym the instructor was trying to tell me i had 28 percent body fat.

Also when i did the bio impedence test they said i had too much muslcle which i think if i can remember was 45 percent roughlly. So maybe you can have too much muscle too?

Were the people remarking that you "have too much muscle" Thai? If so, they were probably making a common error where they use "too" to denote "much". My wife also uses "too" to mean "a lot of".

If you have a lot of muscle, those cheap scales they use at gyms will probably mark you down as obese.

No this one done in Australia. They check everything and i mean everthing and they come up with what they consider your real or biological age. My ideal weight according to them was 78 kgs and I was 86 at the time. They have things called phase and angle. I dont have the paperwork with me here but i will dig it out this weekend as i am back in Pattaya. It was done at a naturopathic clinci in Subiaco in Perth

[tropo]

No this one done in Australia. They check everything and i mean everthing and they come up with what they consider your real or biological age. My ideal weight according to them was 78 kgs and I was 86 at the time. They have things called phase and angle. I dont have the paperwork with me here but i will dig it out this weekend as i am back in Pattaya. It was done at a naturopathic clinci in Subiaco in Perth

The Tanita scales at California Wow give a biological age too - it's only based on percentage of bodyfat, so it really doesn't mean much at all - but one guy in his 40's was really proud to be "told" that his biological age was 18. I suppose if they can make the odd person feel good about themselves it can't be all that bad - unfortunately this is compensated for by making more heavily muscled guys sad when they are "told" they are obese, myself included.

The whole concept of "ideal bodyweight" is ridiculous IMO. If you have a reasonable degree of muscular development and you're not carrying around too much bodyfat you are "ideal". The weight on the scale is not really all that important.

[robblok]

No this one done in Australia. They check everything and i mean everthing and they come up with what they consider your real or biological age. My ideal weight according to them was 78 kgs and I was 86 at the time. They have things called phase and angle. I dont have the paperwork with me here but i will dig it out this weekend as i am back in Pattaya. It was done at a naturopathic clinci in Subiaco in Perth

The Tanita scales at California Wow give a biological age too - it's only based on percentage of bodyfat, so it really doesn't mean much at all - but one guy in his 40's was really proud to be "told" that his biological age was 18. I suppose if they can make the odd person feel good about themselves it can't be all that bad - unfortunately this is compensated for by making more heavily muscled guys sad when they are "told" they are obese, myself included.

The whole concept of "ideal bodyweight" is ridiculous IMO. If you have a reasonable degree of muscular development and you're not carrying around too much bodyfat you are "ideal". The weight on the scale is not really all that important.

I have to agree 100% here. I just had an other nice workout. I think things are progressing nicely even though the scales tell an other story. I seem to be getting leaner.. but im not loosing weight.

[Ijustwannateach]

^That happened to me for a long time the last time I had a good, uninterrupted 6 months of exercise (we're talking before the flood, of course). Kept getting leaner and smaller- showed up in the belt size- but didn't actually lose mass overall- I attributed it to the density difference between muscle and fat. That's one of the reasons why weightlifting/musclebuilding needs to be an important component of a weight-loss/control program.