PDA

View Full Version : question about waist size and bulking



Eric Cartman
08-28-2007, 04:28 PM
Just curious, what size waist would you consider bulking to? What point would you never cross on a bulk? I'm asking, cause I've currently bulked to size 39 inch waist, and I heard today that if you're over 34 inch waist you are at risk to be very sick! Obviously Im gonna cut, but next time I bulk I want to know if it is safe to go over 34... or do any of you even consider that option?

EC

RhodeHouse
08-28-2007, 04:30 PM
I'm currently sitting at a 44, and I'm healthy as can be. Whoever said you can get sick is just dumb.

sharkall2003
08-28-2007, 04:31 PM
I bulked to a 40" waist, but I've always had a big waist, My hips are just like that. now I'm down something like 37". If you're going for a taper, you should try to never gain in the midsection. Could add some cardio.

sharkall2003
08-28-2007, 04:32 PM
I'm currently sitting at a 44, and I'm healthy as can be. Whoever said you can get sick is just dumb.

Well, men with large midsections that are predominantly fat are supposed to be at a major disadvantage when it comes to long-term health. Coronary heart disease, diabetes, and many other conditions are actually linked with a large waist.

RhodeHouse
08-28-2007, 04:37 PM
Shark - I'm screwed! The belly helps the squat and the bench. I definately agree if you're fat, though. I'm not fat, just big-boned.

sharkall2003
08-28-2007, 04:39 PM
Shark - I'm screwed! The belly helps the squat and the bench. I definately agree if you're fat, though. I'm not fat, just big-boned.

I'm feeling ya on that. 8" wrists for the win!

RCASEYH
08-28-2007, 04:59 PM
What a LOT of people don't seem to take into account when looking at something as simple as their 'waist size' is the amount of development some larger guys have achieved in all the muscles of their midsection ... not just in the front of their body, but their sides and especially their lower backs. Most average joes who don't work-out carry around a pregnant gut of 100% lard with minimal muscle development underneath it all.
(Which is why the whole BMI scale really isn't worth spit. But, I digress ... ) ;)

I would say that it is all on a case-by-case basis and you'll know when an increasing waist size is due to a TON of excess body fat vs. fat & development of your underlying musculature.

Outshine
08-28-2007, 07:21 PM
Just curious, what size waist would you consider bulking to? What point would you never cross on a bulk? I'm asking, cause I've currently bulked to size 39 inch waist, and I heard today that if you're over 34 inch waist you are at risk to be very sick! Obviously Im gonna cut, but next time I bulk I want to know if it is safe to go over 34... or do any of you even consider that option?

EC

What waist size did you start this bulk at?

Eric Cartman
08-28-2007, 10:33 PM
What waist size did you start this bulk at?

I'd say that I was around 36 inch waist when I started this, and 165 lbs... I have bulked up to 200 lbs, and 39 inch waist... lots more muscle, but certainly too much fat... this is largely due to the rather sloppy bulk with too much junk food..

I did a recent cut down to 185 lbs,.. then bulked and got back to 200 again, but with decent muscle gains..

I'm doing a 2-3 week cut now, and then gonna re-evaluate..

This doctor said on a talk show that if you're over a 34 inch waist, youre at risk for serious diseases.. but that seems ridiculous, cause I just had a check-up and my doctor said I was really healthy.. but I guess now I'm worried and may try to get down to 165 lbs again, cause I got a bit freaked out..

EC

Brotherofiron
08-29-2007, 06:11 AM
my previous winter bulk i started at a 34inch waist and only went to about a 36inch waist...now after a serious summer cut im down to about a 30-32 inch waist depending the brand of pants im wearing...this winter i dont want to go any higher than a 34...because im short i get unproportioned very quickly when i put on weight.

Outshine
08-29-2007, 09:47 AM
I'd say that I was around 36 inch waist when I started this, and 165 lbs... I have bulked up to 200 lbs, and 39 inch waist... lots more muscle, but certainly too much fat... this is largely due to the rather sloppy bulk with too much junk food..

I did a recent cut down to 185 lbs,.. then bulked and got back to 200 again, but with decent muscle gains..

I'm doing a 2-3 week cut now, and then gonna re-evaluate..

This doctor said on a talk show that if you're over a 34 inch waist, youre at risk for serious diseases.. but that seems ridiculous, cause I just had a check-up and my doctor said I was really healthy.. but I guess now I'm worried and may try to get down to 165 lbs again, cause I got a bit freaked out..

EC

39 inch waist sounded pretty high, but when you consider that you started at 36 inches, it's a 3 inch gain... which isn't so bad. I think next time you'd be better off starting to bulk when you are leaner. A 36 inch waist is a better waist size to END a bulk at rather than START a bulk at.

And, while you should listen to doctors, you need to also bare in mind that broad statements like that are aimed at the typical average dumbass, not people like us who do squats, deads, good mornings, and heavy ab work... all of which can increase waist measurements.

What the doctor is really saying is just don't be a fat ass.

Eric Cartman
08-29-2007, 10:11 AM
39 inch waist sounded pretty high, but when you consider that you started at 36 inches, it's a 3 inch gain... which isn't so bad. I think next time you'd be better off starting to bulk when you are leaner. A 36 inch waist is a better waist size to END a bulk at rather than START a bulk at.

And, while you should listen to doctors, you need to also bare in mind that broad statements like that are aimed at the typical average dumbass, not people like us who do squats, deads, good mornings, and heavy ab work... all of which can increase waist measurements.

What the doctor is really saying is just don't be a fat ass.

Sounds like very good advice, thanks dude!

RCASEYH
08-29-2007, 11:24 AM
I second what Outshine said.

And he also hit the nail on the head with regard to the MD's comments. That's exactly what I meant in my last reply to you. The medical community is looking at someone who is NOT in the gym on a regular basis. A huge waist in the case of the 'average joe' is predominantly due to all adipose tissue (generally speaking) -- which is extremely unhealthy and a precursor to heart disease -- vs. the developed midsection of muscle w/fat in someone who is a weightlifter. (I know, I talk like a bad textbook -- I work in the medical field myself.)

Regardless of the actual numbers of your waist size, the leaner you are when you start, the better off you will be in the long run.

Eric Cartman
08-30-2007, 01:00 AM
Sounds good.. so if I cut down to 30 inch waist now, and around 160-170 lbs, how much strength and muscle should I expect to lose?

Unholy
08-30-2007, 03:45 AM
I have a 37.5" waist right now, and if you see my most recent pics you can clearly see I'm not fat. Some people just have a bigger waist.

Eric Cartman
08-31-2007, 09:45 PM
Well, I started my cut.. just curious, whats the most weight any of you have lost in a short period of time? I'm trying for 5 lbs a week, is that unrealistic?

EC

Outshine
09-01-2007, 06:51 AM
Well, I started my cut.. just curious, whats the most weight any of you have lost in a short period of time? I'm trying for 5 lbs a week, is that unrealistic?

EC

It's unrealistic if you have any desire to maintain ANY muscle. 1lb a week would be maximum for me, with preferred being 0.5 per week.

Unholy
09-01-2007, 07:01 AM
Well, I started my cut.. just curious, whats the most weight any of you have lost in a short period of time? I'm trying for 5 lbs a week, is that unrealistic?

EC

That is completely unrealistic. I lost 70lbs in 11 months, that was pretty good and I didn't lose any LBM on my cut. I would say you could do 1.5lbs a week if you have a big amount of fat to lose, otherwise .5-1lb a week is advisable.

Stumprrp
09-01-2007, 07:10 AM
im around a 37, but my chest relaxed is 47-48 so its all good.

i plan on getting to around a 40, but with hopefully a 52-53 inch chest.

samj
09-01-2007, 07:13 AM
i am 198-200lb 33.5inch waist not bad considering the size of my arse

Unholy
09-01-2007, 07:14 AM
i am 198-200lb 33.5inch waist not bad considering the size of my arse

I your ass effects the measurement you get for your waist then you either

A) Have no idea where to measure your waist

B) Are a freak of nature

samj
09-01-2007, 03:07 PM
no i where 34inch pants they are tiny bit to big on the waist but tight on the legs you see

Eric Cartman
09-01-2007, 04:50 PM
That is completely unrealistic. I lost 70lbs in 11 months, that was pretty good and I didn't lose any LBM on my cut. I would say you could do 1.5lbs a week if you have a big amount of fat to lose, otherwise .5-1lb a week is advisable.

Well so far I've done 5 days of INTENSE exercise, tons of weights, running, walking,swimming, etc... I ate very little, and I lost 6 lbs... I don't notice any loss in muscle.. I figured that was a good model for cutting.. I guess if I start to see muscle loss I'll have to slow down..

EC

Unholy
09-01-2007, 04:53 PM
Yes but you do realize the first week or so you will lose a ton of initial water weight. I lost 6 lbs in 2 days. I look leaner. As soon as I stuff my face and drink a few 40's of Old E bye bye abs.

Eric Cartman
09-02-2007, 01:18 PM
Okay, I went from 202 to 196 in about five days... if I can replicate that in week 2, will you believe me then?

EC

dscarth
09-02-2007, 02:52 PM
Okay, I went from 202 to 196 in about five days... if I can replicate that in week 2, will you believe me then?

EC

Are you being facetious at this point or what? I couldn't tell before so I let someone else answer.

If you lose significantly more than 2lbs a week you are setting yourself up for a world of ****.

6lbs/week is not a sustainable weight loss goal unless you are obese or morbidly obese, and even then it wouldn't be advisable unless under medical supervision. You'd need a weekly defecit of 21,000 calories (3000cals/day). The math doesn't work unless you are starving yourself or are on a VLCD.

Eric Cartman
09-03-2007, 09:31 AM
Ok, then to lose the 40 lbs that I need to lose, that will take me 20 weeks, or almost half a year... that means I can't bulk again till almost March or April! That would suck...

EC

Outshine
09-03-2007, 09:34 AM
Ok, then to lose the 40 lbs that I need to lose, that will take me 20 weeks, or almost half a year... that means I can't bulk again till almost March or April! That would suck...

EC

It does totally suck, but when you need to cut 40lbs, that's just how it is.

That's why everyone hates cutting, and why it's really smart to do everything in your power to limit fat gain while bulking.

Eric Cartman
09-03-2007, 10:33 PM
Do you think it takes twice as long to cut off fat as it does to gain the weight in the first place? I guess my biggest fear is I do a long 6 month cut, lose the 40 lbs.. and then gain it back in a few months...

For every month of bulking, how long to cut what you just added in fat?

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
09-03-2007, 10:40 PM
When you bulk, you're gaining muscle and fat. When you cut...you're cutting the fat and trying to lose as little muscle as possible...lifting heavy and short...keeping your protein intake up...etc...

You add some LBM, cut the fat, add a little more LBM, cut the fat. It takes a while, but you're slowly building your muscle mass up and becoming a more efficient fat burner along the way. Stop thinking about it so much. It's a long process and requires consistency.

BFGUITAR
09-03-2007, 11:52 PM
Im surprised to hear such huge waist lines!!! Ive NEVER been over a 34 even at my fattest... I must have a small waist.

sCaRz*Of*PaiN
09-04-2007, 01:02 AM
Yes...that is a small waist.

live2lift
09-04-2007, 03:33 AM
I went on a cut from 212lbs and 39.5" waist to 189 lbs. and 36" waist in about a 4 month period. And although I know I lost mostly fat I have no doubt that I lost some muscle too. Bench went down by 10-15 lbs. I'm slowly gonna ramp my calories back up to maintanence while trying to lose another 1-1.5" off my waist. I've continued to lift heavy and I'll get that bench back up. A 345 bench will be much more impressive at 185 than it was at 212.

Unfortunately doing things right in reguards to bbing takes time. To the OP....just keep at it and try not to get impatient. Looking good/big and getting strong is a marathon, not a sprint.

onecrazycowgirl
09-04-2007, 08:55 AM
Yes but you do realize the first week or so you will lose a ton of initial water weight. I lost 6 lbs in 2 days. I look leaner. As soon as I stuff my face and drink a few 40's of Old E bye bye abs.


Okay, I went from 202 to 196 in about five days... if I can replicate that in week 2, will you believe me then?

EC


If you can replicate that every week for a month, it will be believable. According to my nutrition prof, in the first week to two weeks of dieting, it's normal to drop weight at up to 3 times the rate that you'll continue to lose it on the same diet with the same amount of exercise.

leetuck
09-04-2007, 09:27 AM
Of the 6lbs of weight you have lost... realistically how much of that do you think is fat? I would say no more than 3 lbs.

Lose 6 lbs a week for a month and I will believe you.

Eric Cartman
09-04-2007, 09:35 AM
OKay, I agree that this is a marathon.. I dont mean to over-analyze this.

But I think its a good question, what is the ratio of fat gain to fat loss... do people gain fat faster then they can lose it, or does it take the same amount of time to lose the fat as to gain it...

I think its an interesting question!

But hey, I agree with you that I need patience..

EC

Eric Cartman
09-05-2007, 09:32 AM
Well just my own observation, it does take the average person about a week to lose 2 lbs... and when I bulk, I tend to gain about 3 lbs a week... so my guess would be the ratio is about 3:2, meaning that it would take 10 weeks to gain 30 lbs, and about 15 weeks to lose it..

So my conclusion, its easier to gain weight then to lose weight...

EC

Outshine
09-05-2007, 10:21 AM
Well just my own observation, it does take the average person about a week to lose 2 lbs... and when I bulk, I tend to gain about 3 lbs a week... so my guess would be the ratio is about 3:2, meaning that it would take 10 weeks to gain 30 lbs, and about 15 weeks to lose it..

So my conclusion, its easier to gain weight then to lose weight...

EC

That really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Eat 500 cals below maintenance a day and you'll lose 1lb per week. Double that (or burn more calories through exercise) and you'll lose 2. Cut it in half and you'll lose 0.5. Reverse it all (above maintenance instead of below) and it works out exactly the same when bulking.

There is only a 3:2 ratio if you bulk/cut in a way that makes it so. It could just as easily be 2:3, or 1:3, or 3:4 or 1:1, etc..

Oh, and also, 3lbs per week on a bulk is a bit crazy. The best a natural lifter (non-beginner) in a caloric surplus with good training can hope for is something like 0.25-0.5lbs of muscle per week. So if you're gaining 3lbs per week... a huge amount of that is fat.

XYU
09-05-2007, 10:40 AM
That really doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

Eat 500 cals below maintenance a day and you'll lose 1lb per week. Double that (or burn more calories through exercise) and you'll lose 2. Cut it in half and you'll lose 0.5. Reverse it all (above maintenance instead of below) and it works out exactly the same when bulking.

There is only a 3:2 ratio if you bulk/cut in a way that makes it so. It could just as easily be 2:3, or 1:3, or 3:4 or 1:1, etc..

Oh, and also, 3lbs per week on a bulk is a bit crazy. The best a natural lifter (non-beginner) in a caloric surplus with good training can hope for is something like 0.25-0.5lbs of muscle per week. So if you're gaining 3lbs per week... a huge amount of that is fat.


Thus, the need to lose as much fat as soon as possible. I say he's been on a few of these cycles, and hasnt become any fitter.

Jordanbcool
09-05-2007, 11:25 AM
Well just my own observation, it does take the average person about a week to lose 2 lbs... and when I bulk, I tend to gain about 3 lbs a week... so my guess would be the ratio is about 3:2, meaning that it would take 10 weeks to gain 30 lbs, and about 15 weeks to lose it..

So my conclusion, its easier to gain weight then to lose weight...

EC

It will always be easier to gain weight then to lose it. Our bodies don't mind getting fat but they hate getting smaller. Mostly because its a huge disadvantage if you're lean when you run out of food. A obese person can last several months without any food at all while a lean person may last a few days or weeks. That is a considerable amount of time difference which is why we're genetically programmed to become fat.

However you have some misconceptions on fat loss. I followed an extreme PSMF diet and during the first week I lost about 10lbs. You're body is comprised of many different things besides muscle and fat. Namely glycogen (carbohydrate storage) and water retention both of which can be lost rather easily in the initial stages of any cut especially when you restrict carbs.

I think you're overthinking this too much. Weight fluctuation is totally normal throughout a cut/bulk. If you aren't consistently losing some sort of weight be it 10lbs or .5lbs then you simply are eating too much. Or atleast not low enough to lose weight.

Also in your regards to fat loss and fat gain (compared to muscle gain) depends on many many factors and is not the same from person to person. Which is something you have to come to terms with. Some people can eat crap and gain pure muscle while others have to gain 30lbs of fat to put on 5lbs of muscle. Likewise, some people diet easier then others in that they don't lose much of any muscle. While others may lose extreme amounts of muscle if they aren't careful. It has to do with training, rest, diet, supplementation, assistance and finally a persons genetics. So the question you're asking isn't easily explained by one thing.

SpecialK
09-05-2007, 03:51 PM
Are you supposed to measure your waist right at the belly button?

Jordanbcool
09-05-2007, 04:04 PM
I would its much more accurate from a body "fat" standpoint.

For me I usually have the same waist band year round. I had a 36-38inch waist when I was 30% bodyfat now at half that bodyfat I'm only at a 34inch waist. Measuring at the belly button gives you a much better picture IMO.

Eric Cartman
09-05-2007, 07:43 PM
Actually, I guess it probably is all genetics... I'm definitely one of those people who gains weight very easily.. but I also find that I am good at keeping muscle during the cutting phase....

The cut so far is going well, lost 7 lbs and have made some strength gains today, believe it or not..

I guess I'll post another thread when I reach my goal of size 30 waist, and then we can discuss the next bulk...

EC

Eric Cartman
10-23-2007, 11:08 PM
I'm down to 183 lbs from 203 where I started... but my waist size is about 37.5... so I guess I lost 2 1/2 inches on my waist after losing 20 lbs.. I hope that is normal...

Dorikin69
10-24-2007, 04:46 PM
Well so far I've done 5 days of INTENSE exercise, tons of weights, running, walking,swimming, etc... I ate very little, and I lost 6 lbs... I don't notice any loss in muscle.. I figured that was a good model for cutting.. I guess if I start to see muscle loss I'll have to slow down..

EC


I've lost like upwards of 12 lbs. in a single day when I was wrestling. It's just water weight, and it can't be good to loose that much weight long term.

Jorge Sanchez
10-24-2007, 04:56 PM
Don't worry so much about weight and waist size. Cut until you're happy with the way you look.