Adarq.org

Bodyweight: 84.8kg/186.95lb

New milestone with BW quietly slipping under 85kg/187lb. With just over 2 weeks left, i'm not expecting to lose too much more weight but obviously I still need to lose maybe another 2kg to be lean. idk. I will do my best to get to under 84kg, maybe 83.5kg best case. We'll see. I'm lifting today but i might also join a gym to do some cardio later in the PM. From here on, more training, doing 2 a days.

Training
FSB 1x125
BS 1x132.5, 4x120, 2x3x120
CR 15x220 (PR)
BP 6x70, 3x80, 0Fx90, 3x75 (paused)
OHP 3x50, 1x57.5, 4Fx50
BBALL - ~10 windmill attempts

Squat notes:
Wanted to do some sets of 6 but i know if i do them, i prob wont be able to squat shit the rest of the week. So a trade off was made. I'll prob be able to get htem in later during the week though.

---

Quote from: entropy on March 30, 2014, 01:09:02 am

Bodyweight: 85kg/187lb

Blah how did the scale tip so low? Prob just an anomoly after bball yesterday, im sure it will go back up over the next few days.
Waist is into the 34s though, but that's neither there nor here. I could see a clear defined 4 pac after ball yesterday but im still fat as fuck, i think i should be thinking in terms of 80-82.5kg bw to be lean (10-12%).

Have you ever had your bodyfat tested?  Do you think that you have no muscle?  The reason I ask is a training partner of mine just got his bodyfat tested.  He is a pretty skinny build and has quads about 3'' smaller than mine (so def smaller than yours) and he was at 2.4% bodyfat at 6'3'' 181lbs.  This is a guy that doesn't lift weights (red pants in the video below)...   I really don't see how you can have the muscle mass and big lifts but have such low height/weight ratios required for bodyfat unless your bones are like half the mass of the average person.  Maybe you are more like 7% now.   



<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVnGGTXp9M" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUVnGGTXp9M</a>

7% isn't in the ballpark. You've seen me at my lightest/leanest @ ~165lb and you thought i was above 10% then. I'm no where as lean now as I was then. It's not that I think i have no muscle, it's just i have too much bodyfat for how much muscle I have. I'd probably be as lean as your friend if i weighed 180-183 (estimating here, have no idea whether i'd need to weigh as low as 170 say in reality). But yeah we've talked about htis and you convinced me I might have lightweight birdlike bones. I just find it hard to put on muscle/strenght without putting on too much bodyfat. Like in January when i ended my bulk, i was 98kg, squatting 170kg and front squatting 145kg, could still dunk. But was just soo fat. Dieting down 15kg to get lean and i've lost muscle and strength, gone from 27.5" thighs to just under 25" etc. Lifts have come down too. If I could do my bulks more efficiently, maybe i'd be a better athlete but i kinda got it wrong this time around haha.

I'm just going to try to recreate my old PRs while staying under 85kg. It might take time/patience but i have a feeling if i get that done, i will prob have a similar amount of muscle as i did at 98? probably not but that's my hope.

^^^ http://www.adarq.org/strength-power-reactivity-speed-discussion/shoulder-mass-builder-neutral-grip-seated-db-press/

I already dumped BB OHP , the back stress difference is really humongous.

7% isn't in the ballpark. You've seen me at my lightest/leanest @ ~165lb and you thought i was above 10% then. I'm no where as lean now as I was then. It's not that I think i have no muscle, it's just i have too much bodyfat for how much muscle I have. I'd probably be as lean as your friend if i weighed 180-183 (estimating here, have no idea whether i'd need to weigh as low as 170 say in reality). But yeah we've talked about htis and you convinced me I might have lightweight birdlike bones. I just find it hard to put on muscle/strenght without putting on too much bodyfat. Like in January when i ended my bulk, i was 98kg, squatting 170kg and front squatting 145kg, could still dunk. But was just soo fat. Dieting down 15kg to get lean and i've lost muscle and strength, gone from 27.5" thighs to just under 25" etc. Lifts have come down too. If I could do my bulks more efficiently, maybe i'd be a better athlete but i kinda got it wrong this time around haha.

Yeah... I'm wholly confused.  If you claim you would be at 2.4% at 180-183.... And now you are at 187... woudn't that make you a lot leaner than 7% currently? 

My main point is that perhaps the mirror isn't the best gauge for your bodyfat levels. The person I am comparing you to is the same height as you and has much less lowerbody muscle than you (as judged by quad size) and doesn't really lift...  However, he is 2.4% at 180 while you claim to be much higher % at 165lbs.   That doesn't make sense.  Sure, if we just look at you both you "look" much fatter.   But how fat you look and how fat you are are not always in agreement. 

I don't want to get into some long argument about race and bodyfat but just a few things to consider.  You have not been training for most of your life so you probably added a lot of subcutaneous fat cells to your body.   You are south-asian ethnicity and some evidence suggests that as such have a slightly higher set point as far as the fat you store subQ.   As such it seems reasonable to me that you might get down to 175 lbs or so (with a decent 400lb squat) and take a look at yourself in the mirror and think "I'm still too fat" while in reality your actual bodyfat % is not THAT high (say around 7%). Trust me that seeing person after person get their bodyfat tested suggests that the mirror really isn't reliable for everyone.  Cutting till you are as "ripped" as that other guy might just not work...  That's all.

Quote from: T0ddday on April 03, 2014, 02:15:48 pm

Yeah... I'm wholly confused.  If you claim you would be at 2.4% at 180-183.... And now you are at 187... woudn't that make you a lot leaner than 7% currently?   

Right, I don't think he is 2.4% and i don't think i would be either if i weighed 180-183. Isn't that near enough essential bodyfat levels? Like stage ready bodybuilder levels? I dont think your friend is there, i'd say he's maybe somewhere between 6% and 12% as a guess just from visual inspection but that's not worth much. What was the estimation method btw? 2.4% with how much error? Cause if the error is say ± 3.5% then i wouldn't put much stock in 2.4% (which is claiming what, that you know bodyfat to 2 figures? i dont think so).

Quote

My main point is that perhaps the mirror isn't the best gauge for your bodyfat levels. The person I am comparing you to is the same height as you and has much less lowerbody muscle than you (as judged by quad size) and doesn't really lift...  However, he is 2.4% at 180 while you claim to be much higher % at 165lbs.   That doesn't make sense.  Sure, if we just look at you both you "look" much fatter.   But how fat you look and how fat you are are not always in agreement. 

But the mirror is the only reliable thing we can rely on. If i look lean enough compared to other ppl who are athletic, i'd say i'm around that 10% mark, even though in reality, i have no idea what exact number my bodyfat might be in that case. And in truth it doesn't even matter. Its just a threshold of going from average in shape guy to athletic bodyfat levels. If i took a DEXA today and it came out with 6.9% (say) i wouldn't say great i'm lean now, i dont need to worry about my bodyfat. Because i'd know that i'm not quite there compared to my desire level of leanness. And after DEXA what else is there, dunk test? It's got issues too with error. We can't really do much better than mirror and photos in practice..

Ok, first of all the method we use to test at the lab at USC is hydrostatic weighing.  It's the same method used at the NBA combine and we have data from both the lakers and other athletes where we compare MRI/DEXA to hydrostatic weighings and the error is less than 1% with multiple weighings in all cases.  The athlete I am showing you is maximum 3% bodyfat.  He is a 45.x second 400m sprinter and you really don't see athletes running those times that are above 5%.   I really don't understand how you can just contradict data and say "I'd say he is between 6 and 12%".  Just for reference if you see an athlete who D1 (alabama) level (football and track) and is 6'3'' 180lbs in the USA that guy is not EVER 12% bodyfat.   The SEC is the best conference in American College football... you will never find an athlete capable of performing at that level standing 6'3'' 180 who is not single digit bodyfat.  Every non-kicker or quarterback who is double digit bodyfat weighs over 200lbs.   

The point of all this is that your argument that the mirror is reliable is simply not true.  I don't know much about Australia but there must be a decent sports lab around where you can get better data.  It would help you on your training. 

Quote from: T0ddday on April 03, 2014, 02:15:48 pm

Quote

I don't want to get into some long argument about race and bodyfat but just a few things to consider.  You have not been training for most of your life so you probably added a lot of subcutaneous fat cells to your body.   You are south-asian ethnicity and some evidence suggests that as such have a slightly higher set point as far as the fat you store subQ.   As such it seems reasonable to me that you might get down to 175 lbs or so (with a decent 400lb squat) and take a look at yourself in the mirror and think "I'm still too fat" while in reality your actual bodyfat % is not THAT high (say around 7%). Trust me that seeing person after person get their bodyfat tested suggests that the mirror really isn't reliable for everyone.  Cutting till you are as "ripped" as that other guy might just not work...  That's all.

It's interesting but its also a recipe for complacency. People have no shortage of excuses for not cutting. I'm going to recomp. I'm carrying a lot of LBM underneath so my bodyfat isnt that high. I'm just a few weeks away from seeing my abs IF I WANT. etc. In the end its only when you do the hard work and get rid of the bodyfat that you have something solid to show. But the only problem is when I get there, i am so weak that it's counterproductive to becoming athletic. There is probably a sweet spot to being strong enough and fat enough to be athletic though. I need to work harder at optimising my training and diet to find it..

Totally agree.  It's a BS excuse 99% of the time.   But not in your case.   While you may not be a gifted athlete one thing that is special about you is your dedication.  While Raptor refuses to give up eating candies and chocolate, following your journal is great because you are really inspiring with your level of dedication to your diet.   You don't drop from 210 to 190 in as short as you do without great dedication to your diet.  The reason I'm commenting here is that your consistent insistence that you are fat can slow you down in your goals to become a better athlete.  If this was bodybuilding... this would be a different story.   You are fat for a bodybuilder because the mirror says so and the only solution is to keep cutting into you look lean for bodybuilding and maybe you just don't have the genetics to be a bodybuilder.   But this isn't about bodybuilding this is about athletic performance.   And the fact that you are able to remain super dedicated to your diet, lose weight, but not appear super lean leads me to believe that maybe the level of leanness that will maximize athletic performance for you just won't have you looking super cut.  And chasing a certain look may derail your training.   Fact is the mirror might just be a shitty way for you to judge your bodyfat. 

The simple test is to take a look at sprinters like Walter Dix and Craig Pickering.  Your "mirror test" would estimate them around 15% bodyfat.   I used to be puzzled by how "fat" guys run so fast.  The truth is Walter Dix just looks fat... whatever you want to call it (thick skin, subQ water, low muscle tonus, extra skin, etc) he just isn't holding a huge amount of fat.   If he was really 15% bodyfat that would suggest he could lose around 20 lbs....  A guy who runs 19.5 in the 200m losing 20lbs of fat would mean he runs 18.9 at the slowest.  So, either believe that the mirror test is accurate and that there are "fat" athletes who are just a diet away from breaking every world record known to man OR realize that all high level athletes are not carrying tons of excess non-functional tissue but some just look better doing it.   Which one is it?

Judging from your level of dedication I would say you consistently grossly estimate your bodyfat and need to settle in at a reasonable bw and maximize performance.   The fact that you complain so much about strength losses when cutting is evidence that you are leaning than you think.   Notice how KF didn't drastically lose strength until he was pretty light.  I've cut to 5% and it isn't until I'm well into single digits that the strength losses become noticeable...  16% guys don't get weaker when they go to 12% (unless they are WAY stronger than any of us).   Consider that.   

Hey Toddday, what type of sprinter has the lowest body fat % usually in your experience? Meaning, as a general average? The 100m sprinter, the 200m sprinter, or the 400m sprinter?

Short answer:  At lower levels 400m training will reduce bodyfat the most but 100m sprinters will have the least bodyfat. 

Long Answer: For high level athletes I'd say it's pretty much a wash between those distances because they really have a lot more overlap than most people realize (consider that Tyson Gay has run 9.x, 19.x, 44.x --- a lot of "100m" or "400m" guys can do both).  Maybe you could differentiate if you compare only guys who excel at the 60m/100m vs guys who are really 800m/400m guys.  For example Martin Rooney vs. Dwain Chambers.  In that kind of comparison the short sprinter will almost always have lower bodyfat levels than the middle distance sprinter simply because the 400m/800m guy carries far less muscle mass.   Additionally, as the distances increase you get shorter runners which also have more % bf.   This is actually an excellent comparison to consider because it hammers home a point that I think we need to all remember and that for all discussions of leanness we need to STOP CONSIDERING BODYFAT AS A PERCENTAGE!!!!

This concept that you NEED to have 3%, 4%, or 8%  bodyfat as "essential bodyfat" is completely invalid when it comes to athletes.  These %'s assume a constant amount of lean mass and as such are silly.  A 6' distance runner might weigh 150lbs and have about 10 lbs of fat ( 6.6 % bodyfat ).  If you add 30 lbs of muscle to the athlete you shouldn't expect his bodyfat to remain the same.   In fact the amount of "essential fat" needed is more likely a function of organ size/chest cavity size and probably doesn't go up much with height.   There are people alive with zero bodyfat so the idea of "essential fat" is somewhat incorrect anyway... 

But the point is if you want to really consider you question accurately you should really focus on amount of fat mass rather than % of bodyfat to eliminate confounding information like height and muscle mass.   The answer there is more straightforward....  All track athletes who compete at an event where bodyweight is the primary resistance are not going to get away carrying a large amount of fat for two reasons:  1) It slows you down.  2) Hard training reduces the amount you carry.   I'd estimate that the numbers really don't vary that much for the 10k and down... Men probably have between 5-10lbs of bodyfat and the differences in %'s are just a function of muscle mass and height.   The formula doesn't really change until the endurance requirement increases so much that fatty acid oxidation is a useful energy source...  The catch is of course the longer the race the more mileage incurred in training means fat storage is harder to achieve.  This is why women get so hard to beat as distances increase past the marathon (more adept at fat storage in spite of training).   

Hm... so as an useful training means for both athleticism and fat loss, 400m runs would be "the best"?

No.  First of all you have to decide what you mean by athleticism.  Second, training "like a 400m runner" would be optimal for fat loss, but that does not necessarily mean doing a bunch of 400m runs (although I have fallen into that trap myself).   Doing lots of 400m runs would be more like training for the mile.  Training to reduce your 400m time would include a lot of work in the 100m-300m range at a pace better than your 400m PR.   For the untrained and soft the 400m is a good test because if you make it a goal to reduce your time it is almost incumbent on you that you will have to lose BF to achieve your goal.  Also, 400m is long enough that you can quite easily reliably hand-time yourself and gauge your progress...

For the type of athleticism that you desire ( I'm thinking unilateral jumping / weight loss ) you should emulate someone like Christian Taylor.  One of the hardest working athletes I have been around and an absolute beast who runs the 400 in 45 seconds and is the Olympic champion in the triple jump.  Get conscious of your 400m time, get some interval work and some end of practice reps in at 400m, but don't neglect your jumps.  The biggest bang for your buck for the athleticism you desire will come from constant training (bounding/jumping then running) WHILE you are losing the babyfat.  Keep your strength up but don't worry about things like squats -  if you are doing proper bounding/jumping they are almost counterproductive.  CT hardly squats and I would bet he cannot squat as much as he can hang clean.... Of course he can hang clean almost double bw:

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og_koqNOdJ4" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og_koqNOdJ4</a>

(should probably be in the beast thread... that's a 165 lb triple jumper!)

you get quality dialogue because you obviously care and put in really hard, dedicated work, and your whole process is out there for everyone to see and engage with.