• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.

Squats are better for fat loss than Cardio

I dunno, i thought they got to 6-7%.

The reason i chose 10% was i was informed 10-12 % is where you start seeing abs coming through. I dont know how true this is.


Depends on the person..

You may never have visible abs due to loose skin form being overweight..

Just be happy with what happens and dont get your hopes up in case it doesnt. No one gives a **** aobut abs anyway only fairies :eek:
 
I agree Jim, don't worry about number.If you look good and your 20% who cares?

You don't need ridiculously low BF levels to have abs shining through.
 
I agree Jim, don't worry about number.If you look good and your 20% who cares?

You don't need ridiculously low BF levels to have abs shining through.

You'll be happier.
This is what I was alluding to.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
No one cares huh! I'm not too sure about that. Again, just because your not doesn't mean everyone else isn't. I think 6ft 100kg and 10%BF would look amazing.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
No one cares huh! I'm not too sure about that. Again, just because your not doesn't mean everyone else isn't. I think 6ft 100kg and 10%BF would look amazing.
Posted via Mobile Device

It would...at what cost?
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Depends on the person..

You may never have visible abs due to loose skin form being overweight..

Just be happy with what happens and dont get your hopes up in case it doesnt. No one gives a **** aobut abs anyway only fairies :eek:

Yeah im prepared for the possibility of not having showing Abs due to being a fat bastard. But after being as big as i was for as long as i was, to be able to show people that havent seen me for a while a flat gut/abs would be amazing.

Having showing abs makes you look bigger all over. That small waist line is what the older bodybuilders had going for them over todays monsters in my opinion.

Thats the goal right? Small waist, huge upper body for that V shape. Hehe i wish.

I agree Jim, don't worry about number.If you look good and your 20% who cares?

You don't need ridiculously low BF levels to have abs shining through.

Yeah good advice, its something that i have to keep reminding myself. I have no idea what i would look at 10% bodyfat, hell i have no idea what i would look like at 20% bodyfat. I dont even have a clue what i would be now.

No one cares huh! I'm not too sure about that. Again, just because your not doesn't mean everyone else isn't. I think 6ft 100kg and 10%BF would look amazing.
Posted via Mobile Device

I agree 100% Morgan.

One day i want to get to those types of bodyfat levels just to show myself i can achieve it. Its a long term goal. I dont expect to be there in the next couple years. Something to work toward!
 
I dunno, i thought they got to 6-7%.

The reason i chose 10% was i was informed 10-12 % is where you start seeing abs coming through. I dont know how true this is.

I do regular endurance as well as my weights training for Kyokushin. Im 9.8% Bodyfat at 84 kgs and only my top 4 ab muscles and obliques are visible without tensing. Under pressure the lower abs show, but in order for my lower abs to be seen without tensing I need to do more work on them ie hanging leg raises.

From what Ive seen from people that 10-12% mark with visible abs is about right. Having said that, to make them "pop" and be visible through a shirt they have to work them hard in addition to having a low BF%
 
Yeah im prepared for the possibility of not having showing Abs due to being a fat bastard. But after being as big as i was for as long as i was, to be able to show people that havent seen me for a while a flat gut/abs would be amazing.

Having showing abs makes you look bigger all over. That small waist line is what the older bodybuilders had going for them over todays monsters in my opinion.

Thats the goal right? Small waist, huge upper body for that V shape. Hehe i wish.



Yeah good advice, its something that i have to keep reminding myself. I have no idea what i would look at 10% bodyfat, hell i have no idea what i would look like at 20% bodyfat. I dont even have a clue what i would be now.



I agree 100% Morgan.

One day i want to get to those types of bodyfat levels just to show myself i can achieve it. Its a long term goal. I dont expect to be there in the next couple years. Something to work toward!


**** abs,

id rather look like this EDIT, when i look like this i wont care about abs..

mark_felix.jpg
 
Last edited:
I do regular endurance as well as my weights training for Kyokushin. Im 9.8% Bodyfat at 84 kgs and only my top 4 ab muscles and obliques are visible without tensing. Under pressure the lower abs show, but in order for my lower abs to be seen without tensing I need to do more work on them ie hanging leg raises.

From what Ive seen from people that 10-12% mark with visible abs is about right. Having said that, to make them "pop" and be visible through a shirt they have to work them hard in addition to having a low BF%

Your lower abs shorten the distance between your pelvis and sternum, do reverse crunches instead, Leg raises will work the hip flexors.
 
Leg raises will still hit your abs hard but in an anti trunk extension/flexion way not a trunk flexion way.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
Squats are better for fat loss than Cardio

Without getting bogged down with the denotation or connotation of the word cardio, I will get straight in giving my opinion here.

The aim here is one and not two and that is fat loss. As I have stated on numerous occasions on this forum, the simple straight forward formula for fat loss is to actually add some muscle or maintain what you have whilst at the same time either maintaining your maintenance calorie requirement or decreasing it by about 200 calories. To sum up what I had just said and couch it into a fat loss formula, it would look something like this: Fat Burns in the Engine of Muscle. That means the more muscles you have the less fat you’ll have or put another way; the more muscles to fat ratio you have (or can maintain) the easier it would be for you to lose fat. Muscles increase your metabolism speed; fat increases your waist measurement!

Now that we have our formula, we can proceed to solve the question.

Does a squat build muscles? Yes
Does a squat maintain muscles (given the appropriate calories)? Yes
Does a squat raise one metabolism? Yes
Does a raise the anabolic hormone testosterone? Yes
Does a squat involve more than one muscle? Yes
Does a squat involve the largest group of muscles? Yes
Can the tempo be varied whilst performing a set of squat? Yes
Can the reps be varied when doing squats? Yes
Are there variants to a back squat? Yes

Does a cardio session (as we understand cardio) require a long duration? Yes
Is a long duration of cardio (say a 60 minute jog) associated with cortisol release? Yes
Is cortisol associated with muscle burning? Yes
Are long distance runners lean in the fat department? Yes
Are long distance runners small in the muscle department? Yes

I’ll stop here otherwise this would become really boring.

I’d just like to add three points here:

  • HIIT is not the cardio I’m referring to when I refer to “cardio”.
  • Long distance walking is great for fat loss (if you’ve got the time…plenty of time)!
  • Front squats would serve one’s abs better than back squats if one can do it properly. The placement of the bar alters and places a huge amount of emphasis on the core muscle which would make them so involved by stabilising and maintaining one’s upright position.
Fadi.
 
**** abs,

id rather look like this EDIT, when i look like this i wont care about abs..

mark_felix.jpg

I think most people would be happy if they were built like that lol. I would imagine if he went on a little cut he wouldnt have a problem with abs showing lol.

When i comment about abs showing, i dont mean having a 6 pack that shows through a t-shirt lol. I just mean a hint of abs showing, pretty much just so i have a flat gut. This for example.

crocop11.jpg


Anybody have an idea what the above bf% would be. Cause teh above looks awesome.

Its Mirko Cro Cop, 6'2 100kg. Is the reason i want to get to 100kg.
 
If someones goal is to look like a bodybuilder doing 5kg cable cross overs it is a retarded goal..

If someone wants to be an olympic lifter and practices with pussy weights for life it is a retarded goal..

If i want to be a powerlifter through training with 60kg deadlfits, it is a retarded goal..

Noobs, i suppose i came across a little harsh & a little offensive. I'm sorry mate. I must say I do struggle with the above comment. I have to say though, that if somebody goal, for example is to be a powerlifter & did 60kg deadlifts...that's not 'retarded'. That's their decision. You, nor Shrek, nor anybody has the right to put them down or call them names.

Would you define the above goals as retarded goals, because their retarded goals? If so, that's a backwards way of looking at it. Are they silly goals because you say so? If so, that's a matter of opinion, not fact.
 
Aerobics is merely exercise movement that functions in an aerobic environment, rather than anaerobic. The term was coined by Dr. Kenneth Cooper...the "father" of aerobics.

In other words; a bunch of people jumping around like spastic monkeys.

Walking is walking, great for recovery after strenuous activity, also good for the soul.

Kenneth Cooper, changed the way we exercised, he thought if some was good, more would be better, it wasn't until 5 or so years later he realisde he was wrong on the count, he introduced the concept, you should do a certain amount of steps a day.
 
Noobs, i suppose i came across a little harsh & a little offensive. I'm sorry mate. I must say I do struggle with the above comment. I have to say though, that if somebody goal, for example is to be a powerlifter & did 60kg deadlifts...that's not 'retarded'. That's their decision. You, nor Shrek, nor anybody has the right to put them down or call them names.

Would you define the above goals as retarded goals, because their retarded goals? If so, that's a backwards way of looking at it. Are they silly goals because you say so? If so, that's a matter of opinion, not fact.

If the goal and the path towards the goal dont match then it is retarded...

If i want to go to the moon and practice all day making paper airaplanes it is sitll a retarded goal as it unachievable from what i am doing...

Let me rephrase the goal isnt retarded but how the people want to go about achieving it is retarded. So that makes that goal retarded for them...
 
Top