Need some estimates

T

Tripsin

0
f_BP4m_ae54130.png


I want to know what you guys think his body fat % and overall weight are in this. I would use someone else's pics but these are just too good. The layout in the pic on the right is exactly how cut I want to be, but I want to know what kind of numbers I need. I'm thinking maybe 10% @ 170lb? He's got 4 inches on me in terms of height so that probably changes things a bit. I'm not looking to get buff, that has never been one of my goals, I'm just looking to be in good respiratory/cardiovascular health with a muscular body that I can be proud of.
 
Its hard to be specific but, I would guess at around 8% or thereabouts. The exact numbers will be different for everyone as your body won't store fat in the same places as Brad's or lose it in the same areas or the same order. Definitely very low though.

What stage are you at currently and what is your plan?
 
IMDB lists him as 5'11 1/2. I would have guessed shorter, I guess because so many Hollywood stars are short.

Yeah, I'd say 170 is probably close, single digits bf.

Some people on here talk like he's scrawny. I wouldn't say that, he's just not bulky. He's got a great physique
 
Last edited:
Yeah I know all the cliches about him but the fact remains that he has a very nice body with the major muscles clearly visible, and very cut in general.

I haven't created a plan yet, but I've just started dieting while doing research on what is safe/appropriate as far as cardio/nutrition goes. Lets just say that I have quite a bit of fat to shed so I'm going to do that first while working out lightly to minimize muscle loss during fat loss. Once I have my body fat around 10% I'll start working out to build up the muscles. My only concern is that I might look scrawny/anorexic at that point in between when I get done with fat loss, but before I start weight training.
 
Yep definatlely right there gooch.

As phate said you can definately still lift heavy while losing fat it doesnt have to be all cardio. Where are you getting your information from as far as your research goes? Make sure you read the stickies on here and take some articles claims with a grain of salt. There are alot of cowboys out there.
 
I'm getting most of my information from forums and forum stickies, the ones on this forum as well as some others (although this place is my favorite =p). There are a couple of articles I've read, but some of them seem to contradict eachother so its a bit confusing. I'm trying to keep to the basics, keep things simple, etc.

Should simply lifting heavy be enough or do I have to change my diet to include more protein and include before and after workout meals as if I were in bulking mode? My maintainence with cardio is 2800. I'm cutting 500cal via diet and another 500 by running 4-5 miles daily, so I'm eating 1800cal. Should I just toss going to the gym 3 times a week in there? Am I at least correct in assuming that this will only preserve muscle, and not help me gain it? I was under the impression that there needs to be an energy surplus to gain muscle. Right now, my muscle hiding under my fat is probably not much more than the amount the stickman pic dude has.

As for Ryan Reynolds, he's pretty buff I'd say, especially around the abdominal area. But I'm an average joe so he just looks big to me.
 
Tripsin said:
Should simply lifting heavy be enough or do I have to change my diet to include more protein and include before and after workout meals as if I were in bulking mode? My maintainence with cardio is 2800. I'm cutting 500cal via diet and another 500 by running 4-5 miles daily, so I'm eating 1800cal. Should I just toss going to the gym 3 times a week in there? Am I at least correct in assuming that this will only preserve muscle, and not help me gain it? I was under the impression that there needs to be an energy surplus to gain muscle. Right now, my muscle hiding under my fat is probably not much more than the amount the stickman pic dude has.
Click to expand...

I'm a little confused. If your Maintenance level is 2800 calories and you're eating 1800 calories, thats a 1000cal deficit before your running?? If this is correct, I would think you need to up your calories by about 500.

Defiitely get to the gym and start lifting some weights. If you're new to training, you may be fortunate enough to see some muscle gain and fat loss at the same time but, don't expect i to last indefinitely as you're running at a deficit so tissue loss will be the net result from your efforts. Don't forget though, lifting weights also uses calories :)

Good luck
 
My [BMR x 1.2 daily activity level] is 2300. By running, I raise my daily energy expenditure to 2800. I'm cutting 500cal by eating less. So yes, I have a total deficit of 1000. Since I'm eating 1800cal in nutrients, I'm thinking I should be able to avoid starvation mode.

A 500 cal deficit isn't acceptable for me. I have about 30lb of fat to lose and I don't have 30 weeks to do it. No, I don't have a deadline, but I don't want to drag this out over half a year.

Thanks for your post Chris, I hope to see some of those newbie gains because heaven knows I could probably use some. :)

Edit: Anyone have any thoughts on thermogenics? A lot of their advertisements say "product was combined with appropriate exercise" so I don't know how much effect the actual product has on burning fat.
 
Last edited:
Tripsin said:
My [BMR x 1.2 daily activity level] is 2300. By running, I raise my daily energy expenditure to 2800. I'm cutting 500cal by eating less. So yes, I have a total deficit of 1000. Since I'm eating 1800cal in nutrients, I'm thinking I should be able to avoid starvation mode.

A 500 cal deficit isn't acceptable for me. I have about 30lb of fat to lose and I don't have 30 weeks to do it. No, I don't have a deadline, but I don't want to drag this out over half a year.

Thanks for your post Chris, I hope to see some of those newbie gains because heaven knows I could probably use some. :)

Edit: Anyone have any thoughts on thermogenics? A lot of their advertisements say "product was combined with appropriate exercise" so I don't know how much effect the actual product has on burning fat.
Click to expand...

What you're actually doing by running is increasing your activity level and therefore your activity multiplier. It is on these numbers that you should calulate your deficit so, I would suggest you recalculate just to make sure.

With a 1000 calorie deficit, whilst you will see significant progress, it will not only be more difficult to maintain but, will also put you at risk of putting weight back on more easily should you falter. A 500 calorie deficit is considered a safe, maintainable level - have a good read through all the info here and give it a try.

With regards thermogenics, you really do not need them. Many of them, unless they contain ephedra, are little more than energy boosters containing caffiene as their main ingredient and will give you nothing other than an empty wallet! The only time I would ever recommend any thermogenic supplements would be when you're very close to your goal (at around 10% bodyfat) and have plateaued because your body is desperately trying to cling onto fat reserves. Even then, I would suggest you try all kinds of diet and excercise manipulation first. I honestly think that if your nutrition and excercise plan is in place, you will see plenty of progress without supplements.

HTH
 
Tripsin said:
My [BMR x 1.2 daily activity level] is 2300. By running, I raise my daily energy expenditure to 2800. I'm cutting 500cal by eating less. So yes, I have a total deficit of 1000. Since I'm eating 1800cal in nutrients, I'm thinking I should be able to avoid starvation mode.
Click to expand...

Is this 1.2 factor right ? Shouldn't it be higher ? What do you do during the day ?

Reason I ask is, Dr. John Berardi's lifestyle adjustment factors to RMR ( close to BMR ) to account for lifestyle ( excluding exercise ) is......

1.2-1.3 for Very Light (bed rest)
1.5-1.6 for Light (office work/watching TV)
1.6-1.7 for Moderate (some activity during day)
1.9-2.1 for Heavy (labor type work)​

How much do you weight btw ?
 
Last edited:
hes talking about his resting mbr so 1.2 should be about right then adding in his expenditure about he deficit you really need to be careful at 1000cals if your new to training this might workout for a short amt of time w/o starvation mode but this will kick in soon if you really want to go that far below mantenance pushing it would be 800 cals but twice a week you need to eat at mantenance this will be able to trick your body for a while but I still say try the 500, brad pitt wasnt able to look like this through a 1000cal deficit hahah, if you continue that 1000 cal deficit your going to lose all your muscle with the fat and look like that other guy even if your eating a proper diet at 1800 cals, if that mattered I could eat a balanced diet of 1000cals aday and be ok (not gonna happen) slow it down your setting yourself up for failure trust me I know i did it myself
 
mdawson2 said:
hes talking about his resting mbr so 1.2 should be about right then adding in his expenditure
Click to expand...

Perhaps it's semantics then, cause he referred to the 1.2 in the context of a " daily activity level ".

Actually, that's why I asked how much he weighed, because you should be able take your weight in pounds and multiply it by 11 to get your ballpark estimate of your RMR ( which is very close to your BMR ).

And once you get your RMR, you simply add a " daily activity level " factor to get your caloric needs before exercise. I just thought a factor of 1.2 for daily activities seemed a bit low for most people - particularly in light of the guideline descriptions cited by Berardi. I would have expected it to be closer to 1.5 - 1.6. - again, which why I asked what he did during the day.

Cause as we both know, usually it's RMR + activity calories + exercise calories that ballparks your overall maintenance calories.
 
Last edited:
I would also be interested to know how the OP has calculated that he is burning 500 calories per day through excercise. If it is from what a cardio machine is saying, it is highly unlikely to be accurate. This is why I would think using an activity multiplier might be more useful than simply subtracting estimated excercise calories, even with both only being estimates.
 
I'm 18 years old, 67 inches (5'7") tall, and about a week into this, I weight 170lb.

My day includes going to college in the morning, driving around for any chores I may have for the day, around 2-3 hours a day in front of the computer, hanging out with friends at any of half a dozen of our favorite spots, and schoolwork in the evening. Throw in maybe an hour or two of watching TV and halfassed studying in there and you have my typical day. I work Fri-Sat-Sun combined 20-25 hours. Since I've started cardio, I've made time for an hour of exercise, most of that being running 4-5 miles.

I've used these two sources to calculate my daily maintainance without the cardio:

The formula found in this sticky: http://training.fitness.com/nutrition/nutrition-101-a-32846.html

And this website:
Estimated Calorie Requirements

The sticky formula gave me 2250 and the second website gave me 2480, so I've averaged it out to 2300.

As for the multipliers listed by Wrangell; Why does the good doctor give a multiplier of as much as 1.3 for "Very light (bed rest)"? A sedentary lifestyle that includes no real activity should be a multiplier of 1.0, since that is what is needed to keep you alive and if you're in bed all day, that's all you're really doing, keeping yourself alive.

Were I to use that formula and your recommendation of 1.6, I would get a maintainance of 2992, almost 3000. There is no way I expend that much while doing "Office Work/watching TV."

As for how I calculate how many calories I'm burning; I've used calculators that show that, for my weight, I should burn 127-134 calories for every mile that I jog/powerwalk. I jog on a local track so I can measure the distance, and that means I don't have a calorie measurer. And its common knowledge that 1mile=100calories so I run 4-5 miles to make sure I expend 500cal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top