My Goal: 170 Lbs. and Cut

[quote]Defender wrote:
Magarhe wrote:
Bulk up to 240lbs then cut your way back.

See Prof X, no need to get cross at him, just got to feed him info that will help him out.

Once he gets to 240 he won’t want to get to 170 anymore.

Instead of berating him for having small goals, make him think his first goal is ENORMOUSLY far away and get him going to it.

Thing is this guy is 160lbs and that 170lbs is a lot of weight, it is in fact 10lbs more than current. What he doesn’t realise is that 10lbs heavier he will hardly notice and is still small. 10lbs spread over your whole body is hardly noticeable when you are 160lbs. If it was 100% in your arms maybe you’d notice it. Going from 160 to 170 he will think “gee I look the same, really”. It is not that he is setting goals low it is that he doesn’t realise that they are low.

Once he achieves it he will realise it wasn’t that big a deal and should have had a bigger goal.

Isn’t the rule of thumb that your arms increase in circumference by 1" for every 15 pounds of muscle? If that’s the case, a 15 pound increase in LBM would only yield a 1/3" inch increase in arm diameter – barely noticeable.
[/quote]

I’ve noticed it has taken me (on average) about 15-20lbs for every inch on my arms. For a grown man, a 10lbs weight difference is barely noticeable.

Man, you need to get up to 200 bare minimum before cutting down again. I am 207ish right now, getting up to 215 before I cut back down to a lean 205 (8-10% bf). After that, I am gonna see about getting to 210 and then eventually 220-225, in steps of 5-8 pounds of lean muscle. I know I need to add like 15-20 pounds if I want 10-15 pounds of muscle. I hate bulking sometimes (I am bloated as hell a lot and I hate note seeing abs, I can’t lie), but it must be done to become stronger and bigger.

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Now people are telling others what their goals should be? unreal[/quote]

Maybe because a jump from 160-170 pounds “ripped” at 5’9" seems pointless. It’s like going from “AIDS patient” to “marathon runner”.

DD

Thanks for the replies, I got some good info.

WhiteCaesar, you said you are the same height as me. I am curious, what is your ideal weight?

All I know is I dont want to be huge. For example, I would rather have the physique of Warrick Dunn (RB, Atlanta Falcons) instead of London Fletcher (LB, Buffalo Bills). Two players that I like, both 5’9".

[quote]hit the gym wrote:
Thanks for the replies, I got some good info.

WhiteCaesar, you said you are the same height as me. I am curious, what is your ideal weight?

All I know is I dont want to be huge. For example, I would rather have the physique of Warrick Dunn (RB, Atlanta Falcons) instead of London Fletcher (LB, Buffalo Bills). Two players that I like, both 5’9".[/quote]

I’m 5’9", as well.

I sit at about 192.

Here’s my thread with a few pictures:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1157291

I still want to get to 200. And I will.

-Nate

Have you seen a 5’9" 170lb ripped guy?

If so, could you post that physique?

I agree that others shouldn’t be telling you what you should want. I don’t see anything wrong with suggestions, or other’s oppinions, but you already said what you wanted, so I’m thinking it would be better to ask if he really knows what 170 ripped at 5’9" looks like.

Ripped is a lot leaner than some people realize, and even though muscle weighs more than fat, it’s surprising how much weight one can lose when getting ripped, even while maintaining his muscle.

Maybe 170 ripped at 5’9" doesn’t look that bad, I don’t know.

I personally am on a fairly long-term fat loss phase to finaly get rid of this fat on me, and I’m getting scarred that I’m already down to 178lbs, at 5’5".

Also, he IS bulking right now, and realizes that he needs to gain MORE than 10 lbs to end up 10lbs heavier, plus ripped.

That would mean he would have to gain at least 15lbs of lean mass, maybe more.

Doesn’t it take approx. a year to gain 10lbs of LBM (depending on many factors of course)?

This would mean that with his “small” goals, he would still be bulking for over 18 months! Doesn’t seem like a bad goal to me.

Short-term goals are important too.

[quote]hit the gym wrote:
Thanks for the replies, I got some good info.

WhiteCaesar, you said you are the same height as me. I am curious, what is your ideal weight?

All I know is I dont want to be huge. For example, I would rather have the physique of Warrick Dunn (RB, Atlanta Falcons) instead of London Fletcher (LB, Buffalo Bills). Two players that I like, both 5’9".[/quote]

I’m not really sure what Dunn’s physique is like (don’t remember ever seeing him without pads) but I, like you, have exactly zero desire to look like London Fletcher.

Thing is, Fletcher has to be close to 240 or so and neither of us will get close to that without meaning to (in fact, I think we’d have a hard time even if we were really trying). Also, Fletcher is pretty smooth for a linebacker.

I guess I don’t really have an ideal weight – I was a boxer for years, and am very happy now that the scale is for me just a matter of casual interest – I measure my progress by PRs and by how much I like what I see in the mirror. My goals at this point are to be stronger and leaner.

I don’t think anyone should be criticizing your particular goals. I guess I shouldn’t have made that comment about wanting you to shoot for 190 – I just think you’ll get to 170 fairly soon and ought to have a long-term goal. I also think you might be surprised by what 170 looks like when you get there.

However, if when you hit 170 you find that you really have achieved your ideal physique, then I will be the first to congratulate you.


Warrick Dunn was 180lbs, not 170lbs, and he still looked small without his pads on.

Also, it is my strong opinion that they LIE with many of those weights posted by the NFL. I have no doubt many of those guys are HEAVIER than the weights posted. There is no way Jerome Bettis is only 255lbs.

I don’t think anyone is criticising his goals, just pointing out that his perception of 170lbs might be really really wrong.

I think the OP has an idea of what 170lbs will look like and does not realise that what he really wants is at least 190 and probably 210 lbs, cut. AT LEAST 190. I think if he gets to 170lbs cut he will go “what the? no different?”

170lbs is FRIKKING LIGHTWEIGHT! at 5’9" !!! wtf!!! that is like a skinny little kid or an elderly bedridden gentleman!

160lbs is insane lightweight! that’s a 14 year old kid for christs sake! who has never lifted weights! that’s a skinny girl! 170lbs is a girl with tits!

has america got lower gravity or something?

I’m just spitballing here, but I don’t think you’re as much “ripped” as you are kinda lean. You’re 160 now. To make 170 ripped, you’d probably have to bulk relatively cleanly to about 190. Figure you make 190 at maybe 15% bf. That gives you 28.5 lbs of fat, which means that at 170 you’d have about 5% bf if you cut without losing any muscle. You need to hit 200lb to be sure though :).

Muscle loss is…likely…while cutting for an extended period of time. Not inevitable, but likely, since you’ll probably make some mistakes on the way.

I’m not going to tell you what your goals should be, but if you want a pro RB physique, you probably need a little bit more mass than 170 ripped.

You have 40 lb to gain. Get to it.

[quote]WhiteCaesar wrote:
hit the gym wrote:
Thanks for the replies, I got some good info.

WhiteCaesar, you said you are the same height as me. I am curious, what is your ideal weight?

All I know is I dont want to be huge. For example, I would rather have the physique of Warrick Dunn (RB, Atlanta Falcons) instead of London Fletcher (LB, Buffalo Bills). Two players that I like, both 5’9".

I’m not really sure what Dunn’s physique is like (don’t remember ever seeing him without pads) but I, like you, have exactly zero desire to look like London Fletcher.

Thing is, Fletcher has to be close to 240 or so and neither of us will get close to that without meaning to (in fact, I think we’d have a hard time even if we were really trying). Also, Fletcher is pretty smooth for a linebacker.

[/quote]

London Fletcher looks like he lifts weights seriously. I am a little lost as to why that look would be avoided if there was the slightest chance you could gain that much muscle.

This is a bodybuilding forum, right?

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I’m just spitballing here, but I don’t think you’re as much “ripped” as you are kinda lean. You’re 160 now. To make 170 ripped, you’d probably have to bulk relatively cleanly to about 190. Figure you make 190 at maybe 15% bf. That gives you 28.5 lbs of fat, which means that at 170 you’d have about 5% bf if you cut without losing any muscle. You need to hit 200lb to be sure though :).

Muscle loss is…likely…while cutting for an extended period of time. Not inevitable, but likely, since you’ll probably make some mistakes on the way.

I’m not going to tell you what your goals should be, but if you want a pro RB physique, you probably need a little bit more mass than 170 ripped.

You have 40 lb to gain. Get to it.[/quote]

I totally agree with you, i am lean right now at 160 but want to be ripped at 170lbs.

A poster suggested that i gained 15 pounds and cut 5 pounds. You suggest that i gain 40 pounds and cut 30 pounds. Big difference hehe.

I think I will go somewhere in the middle because I am pretty lean right now and i eat clean (ALOT but clean).

I also found this thread helpful in determining my ideal weight, although not popular with everybody:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=FC04B4464EF539E67F3FFA83EEE16831.hydra?id=1234090

I will really try to reach my goal in 1 year. thanks

[quote]hit the gym wrote:
Aragorn wrote:
I’m just spitballing here, but I don’t think you’re as much “ripped” as you are kinda lean. You’re 160 now. To make 170 ripped, you’d probably have to bulk relatively cleanly to about 190. Figure you make 190 at maybe 15% bf. That gives you 28.5 lbs of fat, which means that at 170 you’d have about 5% bf if you cut without losing any muscle. You need to hit 200lb to be sure though :).

Muscle loss is…likely…while cutting for an extended period of time. Not inevitable, but likely, since you’ll probably make some mistakes on the way.

I’m not going to tell you what your goals should be, but if you want a pro RB physique, you probably need a little bit more mass than 170 ripped.

You have 40 lb to gain. Get to it.

I totally agree with you, i am lean right now at 160 but want to be ripped at 170lbs.

A poster suggested that i gained 15 pounds and cut 5 pounds. You suggest that i gain 40 pounds and cut 30 pounds. Big difference hehe.

I think I will go somewhere in the middle because I am pretty lean right now and i eat clean (ALOT but clean).

I also found this thread helpful in determining my ideal weight, although not popular with everybody:

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do;jsessionid=FC04B4464EF539E67F3FFA83EEE16831.hydra?id=1234090

I will really try to reach my goal in 1 year. thanks[/quote]

That thread was utter bullshit. I feel sorry that any kid will actually read it and go by those charts listed.

[quote]hit the gym wrote:
Thanks for the replies, I got some good info.

WhiteCaesar, you said you are the same height as me. I am curious, what is your ideal weight?

All I know is I dont want to be huge. For example, I would rather have the physique of Warrick Dunn (RB, Atlanta Falcons) instead of London Fletcher (LB, Buffalo Bills). Two players that I like, both 5’9".[/quote]

Isn’t Dunn like 195 or 205?

[quote]hit the gym wrote:

A poster suggested that i gained 15 pounds and cut 5 pounds. You suggest that i gain 40 pounds and cut 30 pounds. Big difference hehe.
[/quote]

Well, what do you think is easier?

Gaining 15lbs then cutting back 5lbs to get a net gain of 10lbs

Gaining 40lbs and then losing 30lbs for a net gain of 10lbs?

The first is what people try to do but it is very very hard to do. You body just goes “screw you, I am not going to add muscle, you are not eating enough, cop this I’ll make you exhausted”. You workout less hard, you do less, or even if you push yourself, YOU DO NOT GROW, NO MUSCLES, nothing, and you wonder WTF is going on and why it has taken you 2 years to gain 5lbs and half of it is fat anyway and your strength sucks.

[quote]Magarhe wrote:
hit the gym wrote:

A poster suggested that i gained 15 pounds and cut 5 pounds. You suggest that i gain 40 pounds and cut 30 pounds. Big difference hehe.

Well, what do you think is easier?

Gaining 15lbs then cutting back 5lbs to get a net gain of 10lbs

Gaining 40lbs and then losing 30lbs for a net gain of 10lbs?

The first is what people try to do but it is very very hard to do. You body just goes “screw you, I am not going to add muscle, you are not eating enough, cop this I’ll make you exhausted”. You workout less hard, you do less, or even if you push yourself, YOU DO NOT GROW, NO MUSCLES, nothing, and you wonder WTF is going on and why it has taken you 2 years to gain 5lbs and half of it is fat anyway and your strength sucks.

[/quote]

If someone gains 40lbs and only 10lbs of that is lean body mass, they have fucked up as far as making progress.

[quote]Professor X wrote:
London Fletcher looks like he lifts weights seriously. I am a little lost as to why that look would be avoided if there was the slightest chance you could gain that much muscle.

This is a bodybuilding forum, right?[/quote]

He’s thicker around the middle and on the bottom than I want to be. I know lots of people on this forum talk about wanting to “look good naked,” which is probably a goal that most people share, but I think it’s also important to look good in clothes as (depending on your profession :)) that’s how most people will see and judge you.

I think in general shorter guys need to stay leaner in order to look good in clothes. Fletcher absolutely has an impressive amount of muscle – I mentioned in my original post how hard I thought it would be for me or the OP to build that kind of size – but I think the extra thickness he has around his waist and thighs would make him look somewhat bulky/pudgy when he’s wearing a suit.

I Googled Fletcher, but couldn’t find a photo of him in a suit. I’m attaching one that I think sort of illustrates what I mean.