Man boobs
- Thread starter Tonofnoise
- Start date
Tonofnoise
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Posts
- 159
houseman said:
I DID SOME SEARCHING ONLINE AND I FOUND YOUR MUSCLES HOLD ABOUT 6000 CALS OF GLYCOGEN. USED MOSTLY BY LONG DISTANCE RUNNERS. THANKFULLY I DON'T THINK I'M DOING THAT ANYTIME SOON.
Tonofnoise
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Posts
- 159
Well I Want To Thank Everyone For Their Input. I've Done Some More Research Online. And I'm Working With A Trainer On A Chest Intensive Work Out.
I'll Let You Know How Things Work Out.
I'll Let You Know How Things Work Out.
urbodyismytempl
Virgin
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2004
- Posts
- 25
not so fast
seems to me you have not yet determined if your large chest is due to fat or due to gynecomastia, which is not fat, but fibroglandular tissue. It makes a big difference in treating it. If it is fat you just need to lose weight. If it is glandular tissue, that will not help. You either need to remove the inciting cause, if there is one, and hope it goes away after that, or you need a plastic surgeon to remove the tissue. The way to tell the difference is through mammography or ultrasound, among other options.
seems to me you have not yet determined if your large chest is due to fat or due to gynecomastia, which is not fat, but fibroglandular tissue. It makes a big difference in treating it. If it is fat you just need to lose weight. If it is glandular tissue, that will not help. You either need to remove the inciting cause, if there is one, and hope it goes away after that, or you need a plastic surgeon to remove the tissue. The way to tell the difference is through mammography or ultrasound, among other options.
Eilan said:
Yeah, I agree. 35% percent is a lot of fat Don't try to lose it too fast. Your body's metabolism will go into starvation mode if you try to lose too much too fast. Running a 1000 calorie deficit a day is usually considered the max for a health diet. Other than that, do a lot of cardio and at a low intensity. High intensity workouts use up just your glycogen reserves while at lower intensities the body gets some of its energies from fats.
I believe the input data is incorrect. Too much exercise and too much bf%age to make sense. The easiest thing to mess up is estimate of caloric intake. I bet it's a LOT more. You're doing the tough stuff, the workout. Now what you need to do is eat the same way you've been eating all along, but RELIGIOUSLY, write down every single thing you eat. Figure out how many cals are in each food. Do this for 2-3-4 weeks or more. THEN tell us how many calories you were REALLY taking in. You would be shocked how off you could be in estimation.
Once you've done that, you need to figure out how many cals you need to reduce to where you begin to lose some weight. Adjust downward until you're at a pound a week. A bit more if you like. Keep going until you stop losing fat. Then reduce the cals a bit more. BTW, increasing workout=reducing cals. Take your pick and best of luck.
But I agree with those who say you don't know if you have gynecomastia at 35%. Go down to 15-20% and you'll know. And with the workouts you're doing, you can "relatively" easily get there. OH, and make sure you get enough protein. I gram for each pound of bodyweight minimum.
Once you've done that, you need to figure out how many cals you need to reduce to where you begin to lose some weight. Adjust downward until you're at a pound a week. A bit more if you like. Keep going until you stop losing fat. Then reduce the cals a bit more. BTW, increasing workout=reducing cals. Take your pick and best of luck.
But I agree with those who say you don't know if you have gynecomastia at 35%. Go down to 15-20% and you'll know. And with the workouts you're doing, you can "relatively" easily get there. OH, and make sure you get enough protein. I gram for each pound of bodyweight minimum.
losing fat is the most important thing. there are many regions in the male body where testosterone is converted to estrogen. of primary interest to you is the adipose tissue. adipose tissue contains the enzyme necessary to convert testosterone to estrogen in significant quantities. this means that the more fat you have, the more estrogen you produce as a male. estrogen will promote fat deposition in the chest, hips, butt, thighs etc.. the only way to slow this process is to lose the fat. simply burn a few hundred more calories a day than you take in. easily said, but millions of americans have problems doing this.
in the meantime, focus on movements that target the upper chest (e.g. incline bench or dumbell press and inclined fly). This will create more mass higher up that will help to spread the fat out to where it belongs while creating a more balanced look. also do light squats to promote better posture. this will bring your chest up and out and will also spread out the fat in your chest.
in the meantime, focus on movements that target the upper chest (e.g. incline bench or dumbell press and inclined fly). This will create more mass higher up that will help to spread the fat out to where it belongs while creating a more balanced look. also do light squats to promote better posture. this will bring your chest up and out and will also spread out the fat in your chest.
Tonofnoise
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Posts
- 159
Thank You All Again For Your Possitive Responces. As I Stated Before I Am And Have Been Working On Lowing My Body Fat. The 35% However Is Between My Gut To My Boobs. After That Arms Shoulders And Legs Are About 10 - 13%. I Currently Do Count My Cals. And On Average I Intake 1500 - 1800 Cals. 3 - 4 Days A Week I Hit The Gym And Burn Between 1000-1500 Cals Each Day At The Gym. But Before I Was Doing A More Universail Work Out, And Now I'm Focusing More On Chest, Back, And Shoulders. As Many People Have Post You Can't Spot Reducefat. However Between My Cardio And Focusing Most Of My Lift In My Target Area For 3 Month I'm Hoping To See Better Results Than What I'm Seeing Now.
The Other Option Presented To Me Was A Agressive Cardio Program However I Would Loose Some Strenght And Since I'm In Active Physical Combat Twice A Week I Don't Want To Loose Any Power.
So If An Hour Of Cardio Hour And 15 Mins Of Lifting And 15 Mins Of Abs Does Not Show Results Than I'll Be Making Changes Again.
Ejfan Before You Leave Than You For Your Input. I Took A Print Out Of These Conversations With Me When I Saw My Trainer.
The Other Option Presented To Me Was A Agressive Cardio Program However I Would Loose Some Strenght And Since I'm In Active Physical Combat Twice A Week I Don't Want To Loose Any Power.
So If An Hour Of Cardio Hour And 15 Mins Of Lifting And 15 Mins Of Abs Does Not Show Results Than I'll Be Making Changes Again.
Ejfan Before You Leave Than You For Your Input. I Took A Print Out Of These Conversations With Me When I Saw My Trainer.
Tonofnoise said:
35% on between your chest and abs? Wtf!
Buddy... get with the program here. Get an overall bodyfat assessment done. 11point caliper test to figure out where you ACTUALLY are.
You can't frigging spot reduce!
You're eating too few calories. Unless you are gasing yourself you can rest assured you will lose muscle and strength. No iffs ands or buts about it.
FACK!
Its really hard to loose fat and gain muscle at the same time. Not impossible, just very hard. Somtimes in the winter I dont excersize as much as I should so i have to put it into gear for the summer. I take a month to loose the fat, then two months to gain muscle. Works well. Ive been where you are, lifting weights probally isn't the answer, weights gain bulk unless your doing high reps.
Tonofnoise
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2004
- Posts
- 159
houseman said:
NOTED ABOUT THE BODY ASSESSMENT HOWEVER I NOT ABLE TO AT THIS TIME. I'M GOING FROM AN ASSESSMENT I HAD A YEAR AND 1/2 AGO.
ALREADY AGREED WITH THE SPOT REDUCTION HOWEVER THE WAY I WAS TRAINING BEFORE WASN'T WORKING SO MY TRAINING NOW FOCUSED MORE ON CHEST, BACK AND SHOULDER THAN LEGS AND ARMS.
AND PLEASE TELL ME HOW EATING MORE IS GOING TO HELP ME LOOSE WEIGHT. I BELIEVE I'VE GOT A FAIRLY WELL BALANCED DIET AND I TRY TO SHOOT UNDER 2000 OR 2500 CALS. UNLESS YOU CAN SHOW ME A SYSTEM WHERE YOU TAKE IN MORE CALS THAN YOU CAN BURN AND YOU STILL LOOSE WEIGHT. IF YOU KNOW A WEB LINK THAT OUT LINES THE DIET YOUR TAKING ABOUT PLEASE SENT IT TO ME AND I'LL SHOW IT TO MY TRAINER. I'VE ALREADY ASKED SEVERAL PEOPLE AND THEIR TELLING ME DIET WAS I'M FINE.
crysede
coulda been a lady
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2001
- Posts
- 5,748
The problem is, you’re thinking of your metabolism as being entirely controlled by your activity level, but it’s not. While many people in the exercise industry (and damn near everyone in the diet industry - go figureTonofnoise said:
) still think that the less you eat, the more you lose, scientists have shown that this is NOT the case: dieting can actually prevent you from losing weight! Guides that tell you how many calories are burned doing various activities are based on how many calories your body would burn under ideal conditions. But your body is living under famine conditions, so you'll be burning much fewer calories (and the last thing your body will want to do is burn valuable fat).
By way of illustration, think about what happened to people in concentrations camps: inmates were being fed maybe 500 calories/day, were forced to do hard labour, and many survived for years. According to exercise charts, the average man should be burning at least 4000 calories/day under those conditions. If we do the math, that means a 160lbs man should have lost 360lbs a year! Obviously that’s impossible - so how did they survive?
The answer is that our bodies evolved to cope with periods of famine: when resources (i.e., food) start getting tight, your metabolism becomes a lot more efficient so that you can hang onto those few precious calories. (This is why low-calorie diets are only effective on the short term, and get less effective the more often you do them - if famine occurs regularly, your body will learn to get into famine-mode very quickly.)
Now consider your case: by forcing your body to do a lot of exercise, while giving it less than the half the calories it wants, you’re mimicking famine conditions. Hence, your body is hanging onto those precious pounds of fat like they’re solid gold. (Think of it from your body’s perspective: as far as it can tell, that fat may be all that’s standing between it and death by starvation - after all, the famine could get worse any day!). This means that it’s going to take you a long, long time to shed that fat, and the more weight you lose, the harder it’s going to get to lose more.
You’ll be able to loose the fat much faster if you get your body out of starvation mode: show it that food is plentiful, then it won’t care about burning up your fat reserves, since it won’t see any need for them. There’s no way you should be eating less than 3000 cal/day - probably more like 4000.
Last edited:
crysede said:The problem is, you’re thinking of your metabolism as being entirely controlled by your activity level, but it’s not. While many people in the exercise industry (and damn near everyone in the diet industry - go figure
Guides that tell you how many calories are burned doing various activities are based on how many calories your body would burn under ideal conditions. But your body is living under famine conditions, so you'll be burning much fewer calories (and the last thing your body will want to do is burn valuable fat).
By way of illustration, think about what happened to people in concentrations camps: inmates were being fed maybe 500 calories/day, were forced to do hard labour, and many survived for years. According to exercise charts, the average man should be burning at least 4000 calories/day under those conditions. If we do the math, that means a 160lbs man should have lost 360lbs a year! Obviously that’s impossible - so how did they survive?
The answer is that our bodies evolved to cope with periods of famine: when resources (i.e., food) start getting tight, your metabolism becomes a lot more efficient so that you can hang onto those few precious calories. (This is why low-calorie diets are only effective on the short term, and get less effective the more often you do them - if famine occurs regularly, your body will learn to get into famine-mode very quickly.)
Now consider your case: by forcing your body to do a lot of exercise, while giving it less than the half the calories it wants, you’re mimicking famine conditions. Hence, your body is hanging onto those precious pounds of fat like they’re solid gold. (Think of it from your body’s perspective: as far as it can tell, that fat may be all that’s standing between it and death by starvation - after all, the famine could get worse any day!). This means that it’s going to take you a long, long time to shed that fat, and the more weight you lose, the harder it’s going to get to lose more.
You’ll be able to loose the fat much faster if you get your body out of starvation mode: show it that food is plentiful, then it won’t care about burning up your fat reserves, since it won’t see any need for them. There’s no way you should be eating less than 3000 cal/day - probably more like 4000.
4000 cal a day? If you do several hours of activity each day then yes. If not thats alot of food.
If whoever started this thread went running instead of lifting weights for the same amount of time these man boobs would be gone. Lift weights if you want to gain weight IMO.
crysede
coulda been a lady
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2001
- Posts
- 5,748
1. He does several hours of activity a day.Frank.S said:
2. A healthy, active man his age/height/weight would have a basal rate of around 2800 cal/day (i.e., that's how many calories his body would be burning just staying alive) - the calories burned through exercise would be added to this, so he ought to be burning well over 3000 cal/day.
Er . . . no. You should read the rest of thread - EJFan and Houseman went over this on the previous page.
Frank.S said:
I DIET on roughly 3500 cals/day. And I have an office job. Most of my activity in the day comes from my training which is hard, heavy and intense. Any less than 3500 cals and I am losing more muscle than fat.
I could do less but I would quick stall out. crysede hit the nail on the head and obviously knows what he/she is talking about.
Yeah, umm WRONG. Science has proven that intense weight lifting causes increased metabolic rate for a period of 24-48 hours whereas running, I believe, is 2-3 hours after exercise.
Weight lifting THEN cardio is the effective 1-2 punch for greater fat loss. Cardio only will effect weight loss, not necessarily fat loss. There IS a difference.
I just want to say thanks for the insightful replies. This problem has been bugging me for years, but I haven't gotten serious about losing weight to see if it would go away. I was worried that it was genetic, and perhaps even used that conclusion to procrastinate exercising, but this thread has given me some motivation. I didn't know many things; I had no idea that I needed to take in a good amount of calories to lose weight. And I was pretty clueless about weights vs. cardio, or how to use a combination. So thanks.
crysede said:
Have to agree. I lost 127 pounds in 18 months eating around 2900 cals/day
And due to broken foot, and lame knee, I did it without much activity.
My Diet was controlled carb, high fat. Starve your body of sugar, and force it to burn fat.
Sakriv said:
People are confusing you. Weightlifting is about cycles. Cutting and Bulking. For both you need a minimum of protein. But for cutting, which is DEFINITELY what you want for awhile, you need to have a deficit of calories. By deficit I mean if including exercies you utilize 4000 cals, you need to go down to say 3300 cals. If you burn 3000 you need to go down to 2300. If you burn 2000, you have to go lower, etc. 3500 cals represents one pound of fat. So you can figure out how much you can lose in a week. But make sure not to go too fast because that will put you in starvation mode.
For a bunch of the best, most scientific articles you will ever read, by a guy who reads every damn study on this topic in existence, go to http://www.bodyrecomposition.com . That guy really knows his stuff and he doesn't bullshit.
He isn't around that often these days cause he's trying to make the us olympic team for 2006, but his forum archives have great info and his articles should be all you need.
dwh2 said:
I agree, Lyle is one inbtelligent mofo. Definitely understands dieting and to some extent, training.
My only problem with what Lyle preaches is CKD dieting. It's great to a point but eventually you will stall out. Anyone looking to get to under 12%bodyfat will really struggle unless they are more advance than I'd venture to say the average person here at Lit it. Another thing, the depletion workouts on 1200-1500 calories with 50 or less grams of carbs are fucking bruttal.
You don't know what hell is until you've done this for 6 weeks.
lol
EJFan said:
Yeah, it's Ultimate Diet 2.0. Revised from the original body opus diet.
Lyle wasn't the originator of this diet, he simply took TKD and turned it into a more advanced CKD diet.
Seriously, unless you are an advaned trainer, this "program" will chew you up and spit you out. You really have to be intune with your body and training to keep at it for a full 6-8 weeks and to do it PROPERLY.
