Roosh V Forum
The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Printable Version

+- Roosh V Forum (https://www.rooshvforum.com)
+-- Forum: Main (/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: Life (/forum-14.html)
+--- Thread: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] (/thread-42604.html)

Pages: 1 2


The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Virtus - 11-21-2014 11:52 AM

This is an interesting infographic from Precision Nutrition that helps you understand what is necessary for *most* people to get really, really lean.
It's up to you to decide if it's worth it.

There will always be exceptions to every rule, but for the most part, this is pretty accurate:

See More

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/cost-of-getting-lean-infographic

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/cost-of-getting-lean

[Image: precision-nutrition-cost-of-getting-lean...raphic.png]


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - britchard - 11-21-2014 11:59 AM

Yes it is worth it. The infographic is a bit confusing but it gives a good idea of what's healthy and what's not.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - DJ-Matt - 11-21-2014 12:22 PM

How about we wait for the population to not be full of a bunch of fatasses before we start questioning how healthy being ripped is?


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - MY DETROIT PLAYAS - 11-21-2014 12:30 PM

Overall yes it's worth getting into the healthy side of that ledger

*This should come with a corresponding scale of the caliber of women one is capable of pulling as he ascends on the health continuum


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Kaizen - 11-21-2014 12:36 PM

It's really a straight forward tradeoff.

To look more ripped, you have to make greater sacrifices in terms of diet/lifestyle.

If it's worth it for someone to get to single digit body fat, good for them.

Personally at my age and genetics...I can live without being ultra lean. A six pack is only good at the beach and I don't want to be the guy drinking water at the bar.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - jimukr104 - 11-21-2014 12:36 PM

Best is between 10-12% i think.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Oz. - 11-21-2014 12:37 PM

This is pretty accurate for the most part, I currently sit between the 10-12% range but want to bring it down to 8-9% it technically is not too hard to do I don't put much effort into it now (well I don't think its a lot of effort anyways) it's more about time managing for me than anything else


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Downtown - 11-21-2014 12:47 PM

i recently went from 12% to 8% and now back to 10%. i can tell you the sacrifices i had to make were extreme. no drinking, no other food other than sushi and green juice (for a month!), with intermittent fasting and an extreme caloric deficit.

i peaked at 8% in august in time for beach vacation and it was great. but unsustainable for me.

i'm back up to 10, maybe even 11% at this point and see no different in my reflected attractiveness from females.

i'll get back to 8% for summer next year, but like hell i will during the winter. i dont think i could either. something about the cold and dark just makes me gain fat.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Dhorv9 - 11-21-2014 02:59 PM

You can maintain around 10-12% body fat with social drinking a couple times a week and the odd cheat meal. (for most dudes)
The key is whenever you are by yourself, at home, working, etc. You follow your diet, calories, cut back on carbs, etc. Follow your diet and plan 90% of the time.
Then when it comes time to drink, its not really going to set you back.
Alcohol can't be turned into body fat. It prevents FAT BURNING, because the alcohol must be burned first.
What makes people fat is sugary or carb laden drinks, and the drunk munchies. Beer and wings, that late night drunk pizza, sugary girly drinks.
Stick to clear alcohol like vodka, gin, tequila, and just add some lime juice or whatever.
The next best thing is straight dark liquors.
Also, if you know you are going to be drinking the next day, cut back on carbs the day before. Then when you are drinking, having some beers isn't going to make you gain body fat if you are already somewhat carb depleted.
This is actually very easy to do. Just eat a little less when you are gonna drink, and stick to manly drinks. There you go.
There are plenty of athletes that actually get pretty loaded on a somewhat regular basis


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Pontifex Maximus - 11-21-2014 03:11 PM

It seems that 10-12% is the ideal range:

- All of the people I know most successful with women don't have a six- pack. They're all in the 10-15% range. If I need to spend 75 min. in the gym, I could have already approached 25+ women day gaming, or doing two 30 min. Russian Rosetta Stone sessions.
- A dietary limit also means the potential date venues are severely limited, it throws logistics straight out the window. But if you don't eat, she might not order appetizers.
- In terms of appearance, there's only four main things a man needs. Hair and a chiseled face. A muscular pectoral to dominate men and a muscular glute to show the woman the ticket to getting jack-hammered.
- Regardless if you are running day/game or night game, you will rarely have your shirt-off unless you're a male stripper. A man with 15% body fat/broad chest&shoulder man in a nice suit will always peacock over a 8% smaller cat. A bigger target simply is noticed more.
- If you're truly working out for function over aesthetics, then your abs won't have that Arnold V-Cut tapered look. When you squat and dead-lift heavy, your abs are supposed to get thicker to divert weight from your lower spine. Your body cares not for beach appearances when you have 300 lb. of iron on your shoulders. If you lift enough, you'll have more of a beer keg rather than a six-pack.
- If one of the costs of a 6% body fat is decreased testosterone, what's the point of having sex? Every molecule you intake is focused on keeping you alive, you'll have nothing to make a nut in the first place.
- While narcissism is a supposedly a Dark Triad trait some women like, most women don't like men who are hyper-narcissists This is especially true if you leave Anglo nations and have to run some beta provider in foreign countries. When I went to China/Japan, it was actually detrimental to my game because they treat you like a lumbering ox rather than a more balanced individual.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Nascimento - 11-21-2014 04:20 PM

In all my adult years I've never been below <15% body fat. And now that I am going even a bit higher (probably around 19% right now) due to starting to put on some weight at the gym, I'm finding girls are even more receptive to me, even if I have a small belly underneath my shirt.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Ensam - 11-21-2014 06:26 PM

Very few men are below 15% body fat. In fact only 5% of the population aged 20-39 years old is below 15.5% (see: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_11/sr11_250.pdf, Table 3). There's additional evidence the women find men with 12% body fat most attractive:
Quote:Twenty-nine women in the fertile stage of their menstrual cycle (meaning they were more receptive to sexual cues, and more responsive to masculinity) rated pictures of 69 young white males of all body sizes by their attractiveness, masculinity, and body fat.

They then took these rating and compared them to how well the men's immune system responded to a Hepatitis B vaccine. They also tested circulating testosterone levels in the participants.

The results showed that a man's masculinity rating didn't mean he was more attractive, and also didn't mean that his immune system worked better. How masculine a man was also wasn't an indicator of how much testosterone he had either.

On the other hand, body fat was linked to attractiveness, high testosterone levels, and a stronger immune system. Too much fat was bad too, though: Body fat attractiveness had a bell-shaped curve. The most attractive men had 12 percent body fat.
http://www.businessinsider.com/body-fat-linked-to-male-attractiveness-and-immune-system-2012-11

Original study (BI link is wrong - because they're terrible journalists):
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1751/20122495


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Lemmo - 11-22-2014 08:39 AM

I think the costs are overrated. Exercise, once it becomes a habit, feels good. Fast food slop tastes awful and feels like a mild poisoning. People just accustom themselves to a slovenly lifestyle and then can't overcome inertia. It isn't that their current habits are inherently more enjoyable.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Downtown - 11-22-2014 08:49 AM

yes but the difference between 8 and 12% is huge and takes big sacrifices. 8% is not sustainable for most.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Sturmgeist - 11-22-2014 09:08 AM

I have gone from 288 to 202 since March 5th. About 35% plus body fat down to 13%. My goal is to hit 9%.

Simple dieting, lifting and occasional slow paced jogging has got me thus far. I don't see the appeal of ever getting back over 15%. I have hypothyroidism and am on medication for it. So to those who keep bitching about "muh genetics" they can keep complaining because the rest of us know it's bullshit.

I count calories daily using "MyFitnessPal" application on my Android phone. It's so incredibly easy. There has been some sacrafice to lose weight, but not as bad as this information portrays. I'll have a couple of drinks a week (Friday) and refrain the rest of the week. Self control isn't that hard.

2200 calories per day at 6'1" and 32 years old is easy. My macros are: 65% fat/30% protein/5% carbs.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Travesty - 11-22-2014 11:56 AM

^ 13% is easy.

8% is hard. You eat like a fucking rabbit.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Tresdus - 11-22-2014 01:05 PM

Infographic is bullshit. 95% of pro bodybuilders are on steroids, they don't experience any of the negatives. In fact most pro bodybuilders eat mcdonalds every day.

Dieting to 6-8% as a natural is useless. You will loose your sex drive and won't even be able to get a boner.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - jimukr104 - 11-22-2014 02:22 PM

As I said 10-12% is best but nothing wrong with 13-14% either. As a slim guy I would lose mass if I went under a 10%, even a 12%.

But I was going by reality.

If I look at the diagram in this thread I will admit that the under 6% looks the best. But it is because the diagram is wrong and misleading . The under 6% guy has a very nice V making his shoulders look wider as well thus reason he looks the best but in reality the V is part genetics. In the real world the 10-12% would also show the V but in the above picture it is missing. In fact in reality going under 6% would /might make the V less if some mass on the back gets loss also.

The above diagram shows bigger arms also at less than 6% but reality would be arms more cut up but smaller in size. It doesn't take into account the mass/muscle loss that accompanies getting BF that low.

Brad Pitt was 6% in the fight club..the famous photo that girls love but he weighed 150-155 lbs doing so. He actually looks more solid when he went back over 165lbs. Sure he will still be slim but with less cuts and it made him look bigger. In Troy he was about 175-180lb and looks MUCH stronger. Of course they oil and paint on cuts to make actors look more buff but that is a different story lol.

In conclusion: 10-12% with a V is best NOT without a V like above. V makes the biggest difference.

Quote:Infographic is bullshit. 95% of pro bodybuilders are on steroids, they don't experience any of the negatives. In fact most pro bodybuilders eat mcdonalds every day.

They omit the fact that Bodybuilders eat like pigs 9 months of the year and only reduce during the cutting phase. At over 220 lbs muscle..their body burns everything they eat like a furnace using coal.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Sebastian - 11-24-2014 04:10 PM

I don't understand about the Cost of getting Lean as Asian........

Getting muscular is one thing but staying lean doesn't require that much effort at all in my opinion.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - RickyGP - 11-24-2014 05:32 PM

Awesome infographic. Very useful

From Leangains:

Truth About Alcohol, Fat Loss and Muscle growth

Cheat Day Strategies for A Hedonist


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Sturmgeist - 11-24-2014 05:38 PM

(11-22-2014 11:56 AM)Travesty444 Wrote:  ^ 13% is easy.

8% is hard. You eat like a fucking rabbit.

Being a fat shit American that I was, 13% isn't as easy as you think. I've had to slowly develop strong willpower, count calories and hit the gym.

For years I neglected my body, now it's time to put in work indefinitely.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Kieran - 11-25-2014 04:07 AM

Genetics plays a massive part. I've never not had a 6-pack since I was about 12 years old, and I drink like a fish. I do eat well though.

I'm at around 8% consistently and feel fine. However, I've been as low as 6% (not measured but I had a full eight pack, I could put my fingers into the cavity down my abs and they would go in about an inch, I had veins on stomach, and a hollow looking face). For me this was the point that the costs started to show as I lost all my sex drive, developed an acne like rash on my face (looked like acne, but yet I couldn't feel it - would be unaware that it was there without a mirror), started feeling ridiculously emotional all the time, I felt cold all the time even though it was summer, my feet hurt to stand / walk from such low body fat, my ass hurt to sit down for more than 10 minutes or so, I got bruises and knocks easily, and my hands started getting more problems hitting pads etc.). I also ended up coming down with shingles from overdoing the training.

I also didn't really get the benefits seen in the other thread where some people's faces began looking far better looking. I have very young looking features even though I'm 30, and don't really have the big jaw and cheekbones like some in that thread, so I just looked very drawn, with big eyes and dark circles.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - rudebwoy - 11-25-2014 12:33 PM

^ you probably did it naturally. Alcohol has a lot of empty carbs.

Most people who look like that take something.

Since most guys have a belly, young and old. Being lean and fit puts you above your competition.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Every10GivesMeA10 - 11-25-2014 02:35 PM

Just lol @ people who think going from 15% bodyfat to 8% will get them more women. It is purely psychological.


RE: The cost of getting lean: Is it really worth the trade-off? [Infographic] - Tresdus - 11-25-2014 08:21 PM

(11-25-2014 02:35 PM)Every10GivesMeA10 Wrote:  Just lol @ people who think going from 15% bodyfat to 8% will get them more women. It is purely psychological.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etW61dfrXpk

Fuck yeah it will. I have gotten laid purely of my photos of online dating. You have no clue what you're talking about unless you've experienced it.