Cutting body fat, is it essential?

[GeoffBUK]

Ok so I've been wondering for a while if I should cut some fat, not for asthetic reasons, I don't care that I haven't got a six pack, Perhaps health should be number one priority, but honestly I just want to make some progress - add muscle and gain strength
Is recomping likely in middle age (45) and with no great genetics?
Or must I cut and bulk, is my visceral fat belly blunting my response to training, am I delusional that I can gain any muscle hovering around the same bodyweight?
My weight was about 208lbs at just over 5'10 last time I checked, waists 40-41"
Any insight or feedback much appreciated

[JohnHelton]

I would say that it is pretty essential considering you are not new to strength training. Plus a 40" waist at 45 is a definite health risk. You may be forming plaques in your arteries right now. I would highly recommend putting strength goals on the backburner and cutting some serious weight off (while still training). Then you can start bulk and cut cycles. I recommend cutting and bulking based on waist measurements. Cut down to 33" and bulk to 35". That is my plan.

[lheugh]

To add to what John said, recomp is a possible transient occurrence in certain circumstances.
1. Newbie gains (most potent period of adaptive training responses leading to repartitioning of calories consumed and released from stored adipose tissue)
2. Obesity (less potent signalling of a deficit due to high stores of energy so muscle protein synthesis rates aren't attenuated as much)
3. Enhanced individuals (super potent anabolic signalling overriding the balance quo)

[broseph]

I agree with those that came before me.

I also found myself with a 40+ inch waist circumference at one point. I've cut as low as 32.5, but I typically live in a window between 33 and 36. My advice would be to cut down a few+ inches, then maintain for a while- maybe maintain for half the time you spent cutting, before killing those last few inches and maintaining that size for a while.

Your body "wants" to go back to being fat after cutting, so those maintenance phases are key to resetting the set point.

I think unless you're super anabolic, very weak, or mega obese, recomposition is a pipe dream.

Personally, I use the scale (pounds of bodyweight) to measure my success WHILE cutting and bulking, but I use my waist circumference as the basement and ceiling of those phases. And maintenance phases are still employed.

[quikky]

@GeoffBUK, this is a super easy one: lose the fat. No sensible argument can be made for a casual lifter to be walking around with a 40" waist. It's not good for your health, nor is it good for your training progress long term. Cut to <35", maintain for a bit, then decide where to go from there.

[MarkKO]

Cut the weight. If you're 208 lbs at five feet 10 with a 40ish inch waist a lot of that 208 is excess and is, as has been said, both increasing health risks and likely hurting your ability to gain muscle.

@JohnHelton has a great idea of getting to the point where your t-shirt hands off your chest like drapes as an indicator of your waist being where it should be. I would do that, get to that point and maintain whatever weight that is for six to 12 months. At that point you should be in a position to carefully and slowly add weight in muscle.

[Hardartery]

I am going to disagree slightly with most of these opinions, based on being a 50 year old man and the experience that goes with that.
there is a point of "Too fat". At only 208 lbs, your waist is possibly a little large but that i not a judgement that can be made strictly from the given numbers. I don't know how big your hips or basic frame are (There was an argument about ribcage size in a differnt thread for example). You can recomp, it will be much more difficult than for a young man. In large part this is due to the decline in natural growth hormone production and partly because of natural decline of testosterone production. Test helps build muscle, estrogen derived from it is joint and heart protective, and your baseline calorie consumption will drop off with the drop in growth hormone and gradual loss of muscle from lower test levels. That's just how it is. So you are bailing water from a boat with a slow leak, not that I am trying to be pessimistic here.
I can tell you that no conclusions regarding arterial health and calcium scores can be directly drawn from anything described by you. There are correlations in data regarding adipose tissue and those conditions, but they are just that. Correlations. And correlations without any qualifiers like levels and types of exercise or how sedentary the individuals are, or what their genetic predispositions are. My wife always has much worse cholesterolthan I do, always. Even at under 100 lbs (5'-0 high) she was way worse in the numbers than I was at 6'-0 300 lbs (And I was eating entire large pizzas and 8 piece fired chicken meals to dirty bulk). On paper, she's the one looking forward to a heart attack. In reality, it is more likely that monkeys will fly out of my ass.
I said all of that to get to this part. You need some cardio for cardio health. It doesn't necessarily need to be a lot, 20 mins 3 times a week is probably more than enough unless you live on Cheetos and never get off the couch. Stretching is important, mostly because maintaining flexibility helps you be more active during the day and burn more calories just doing what you do. If you want more muscle, how you lift is going to matter. Lifting for hypertrophy is different than strength and you will have to maintain a good focus to build because it is sow and next to impossible for you to see in yourself as the changes are so slow. Adding muscle while cutting is not going to happen, but adding muscle while at maintenance might. Remember, the data out there is not you, you are the data so it is important to log stuff to give yourself perspective looking back over time to know what actually works for you as an individual.

[janoycresva]

no reason to be fat as a non competitive lifter, cut down to 15% bf or so first imo

i used to be afraid of losing strength while cutting, then i had a moment of clarity and realized chasing numbers that 10000 random genetically blessed 16 year olds on tiktok can beat in a year of lifting at the expense of being 20% bf makes absolutely no sense

[MarkKO]

I am going to disagree slightly with most of these opinions, based on being a 50 year old man and the experience that goes with that.
there is a point of "Too fat". At only 208 lbs, your waist is possibly a little large but that i not a judgement that can be made strictly from the given numbers. I don't know how big your hips or basic frame are (There was an argument about ribcage size in a differnt thread for example). You can recomp, it will be much more difficult than for a young man. In large part this is due to the decline in natural growth hormone production and partly because of natural decline of testosterone production. Test helps build muscle, estrogen derived from it is joint and heart protective, and your baseline calorie consumption will drop off with the drop in growth hormone and gradual loss of muscle from lower test levels. That's just how it is. So you are bailing water from a boat with a slow leak, not that I am trying to be pessimistic here.
I can tell you that no conclusions regarding arterial health and calcium scores can be directly drawn from anything described by you. There are correlations in data regarding adipose tissue and those conditions, but they are just that. Correlations. And correlations without any qualifiers like levels and types of exercise or how sedentary the individuals are, or what their genetic predispositions are. My wife always has much worse cholesterolthan I do, always. Even at under 100 lbs (5'-0 high) she was way worse in the numbers than I was at 6'-0 300 lbs (And I was eating entire large pizzas and 8 piece fired chicken meals to dirty bulk). On paper, she's the one looking forward to a heart attack. In reality, it is more likely that monkeys will fly out of my ass.
I said all of that to get to this part. You need some cardio for cardio health. It doesn't necessarily need to be a lot, 20 mins 3 times a week is probably more than enough unless you live on Cheetos and never get off the couch. Stretching is important, mostly because maintaining flexibility helps you be more active during the day and burn more calories just doing what you do. If you want more muscle, how you lift is going to matter. Lifting for hypertrophy is different than strength and you will have to maintain a good focus to build because it is sow and next to impossible for you to see in yourself as the changes are so slow. Adding muscle while cutting is not going to happen, but adding muscle while at maintenance might. Remember, the data out there is not you, you are the data so it is important to log stuff to give yourself perspective looking back over time to know what actually works for you as an individual.

These are all good points.

However, 5 10' and 208ish with a 40-41 inch waist without a picture conjures up the image of someone carrying a fair amount of weight around the midsection. Around 210 lbs at that height isn't really a ton of weight if you're talking about someone who lifts weights, although it's far from emaciated. If you factor in a 40ish inch waist that would suggest not too much of that weight is muscle. It would be a different story for 5 10', 208 lbs and a 34 inch waist.

Certainly the health risks of not doing anything aren't prohibitive, and as you say just for health even some small changes would do wonders anyway. I just can't help but think in terms of being able to build muscle in this situation shedding some of what I'm assuming is fat around the midsection will be a good first step if only to give some room to gain more weight down the track in muscle.

[Hardartery]

These are all good points.

However, 5 10' and 208ish with a 40-41 inch waist without a picture conjures up the image of someone carrying a fair amount of weight around the midsection. Around 210 lbs at that height isn't really a ton of weight if you're talking about someone who lifts weights, although it's far from emaciated. If you factor in a 40ish inch waist that would suggest not too much of that weight is muscle. It would be a different story for 5 10', 208 lbs and a 34 inch waist.

Certainly the health risks of not doing anything aren't prohibitive, and as you say just for health even some small changes would do wonders anyway. I just can't help but think in terms of being able to build muscle in this situation shedding some of what I'm assuming is fat around the midsection will be a good first step if only to give some room to gain more weight down the track in muscle.

I think it depends a lot on the actual goals. Is it really just long term health as a priority? Is it some vanity? Honestly, there is nothing wrong with some vanity, it can be the motivation that gets someone to a better health position, they go hand in hand up to a point. It's the extremes that kill us. From a personal perspective, I really like the low carb/keto approach for cutting as I think that it's the most muscle sparing diet to cut with and pushes the metabolic engines up a little. Adding back some carbs after you get to the target allows for improved workouts and a bit of an instant boost in perceived muscularity when the glycogen gives those muscles a fuller pump. It's also a very easy diet, which makes it more likely to succeed. I like the limited food options which provide for better control of the daily calories while still insuring protein and mineral needs.
As long as the BP is under control and you can do normal activities without feeling and looking like you ran a marathon you are generally in reasonable shape and don't need major life renovations, IMO. I would love to look like Thor when he pulled 501, but that's vanity and unrealistic. Loose fitting pants and the ability to walk anywhere anyone else is going without dying are pretty much the top target at the moment, and light cardio a few times a week takes care of the second thing already. I'm down roughly 20 lbs since France, the difference between the scale at my parents' place about two weeks ago and this morning. The "Keg" is deflating quite rapidly and the shoulders are not.

[asdf]

cardio health ... 20 mins 3 times a week is probably more than enough

Major health organizations recommend *at least* 150-300 minutes per week of moderate exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous exercise. Going beyond the upper end confers additional health benefits.

[Hardartery]

cardio health ... 20 mins 3 times a week is probably more than enough

Major health organizations recommend *at least* 150-300 minutes per week of moderate exercise or 75-150 minutes of vigorous exercise. Going beyond the upper end confers additional health benefits.

The key word being "Exercise". If he's lifting, then he is almost certainly going to exceed that with the listed cardio. I was specifically noting what IME results in cardio health, and I know that many other sources specify 20 minutes 3 times a week for cardio specifically. Certainly, a little more isn't going to be bad, but cost/benefit, YMMV and all of that.

[CaptainAwesome]

I am going to disagree slightly with most of these opinions, based on being a 50 year old man and the experience that goes with that.
there is a point of "Too fat". At only 208 lbs, your waist is possibly a little large but that i not a judgement that can be made strictly from the given numbers. I don't know how big your hips or basic frame are (There was an argument about ribcage size in a differnt thread for example). You can recomp, it will be much more difficult than for a young man. In large part this is due to the decline in natural growth hormone production and partly because of natural decline of testosterone production. Test helps build muscle, estrogen derived from it is joint and heart protective, and your baseline calorie consumption will drop off with the drop in growth hormone and gradual loss of muscle from lower test levels. That's just how it is. So you are bailing water from a boat with a slow leak, not that I am trying to be pessimistic here.
I can tell you that no conclusions regarding arterial health and calcium scores can be directly drawn from anything described by you. There are correlations in data regarding adipose tissue and those conditions, but they are just that. Correlations. And correlations without any qualifiers like levels and types of exercise or how sedentary the individuals are, or what their genetic predispositions are. My wife always has much worse cholesterolthan I do, always. Even at under 100 lbs (5'-0 high) she was way worse in the numbers than I was at 6'-0 300 lbs (And I was eating entire large pizzas and 8 piece fired chicken meals to dirty bulk). On paper, she's the one looking forward to a heart attack. In reality, it is more likely that monkeys will fly out of my ass.
I said all of that to get to this part. You need some cardio for cardio health. It doesn't necessarily need to be a lot, 20 mins 3 times a week is probably more than enough unless you live on Cheetos and never get off the couch. Stretching is important, mostly because maintaining flexibility helps you be more active during the day and burn more calories just doing what you do. If you want more muscle, how you lift is going to matter. Lifting for hypertrophy is different than strength and you will have to maintain a good focus to build because it is sow and next to impossible for you to see in yourself as the changes are so slow. Adding muscle while cutting is not going to happen, but adding muscle while at maintenance might. Remember, the data out there is not you, you are the data so it is important to log stuff to give yourself perspective looking back over time to know what actually works for you as an individual.

Here here. People can't really figure out what's going on from some basic numbers. People gain fat in weird ways, and bodyweight can vary strangely for reasons other than even fat or muscle mass. I like to joke about "if you can look down and still see the equipment, you're good". But truthfully, I've been able to do that at even 310+ pounds. I just don't store a lot of bodyfat in my midsection. Way more of it is in my legs. I also weigh more than I look like I do, probably by about 30 or so pounds. I'm not naive enough to think it's due to me just having so much muscle mass, because I've seen lean as fuck bodybuilders who were my height, lighter in weight, and who clearly had much bigger muscles and appeared larger than me overall.

As to the OP, bulking and cutting are where the real changes are made. If you want to change your body, you have to be doing one of those things, depending on which change you want to make. Recomping is the domain of novices and the rather fat, as has been said already. The dream of just recomping your way into the body you've always wanted is a fantasy, and trying to run with it is likely to ensure you'll never get there. You've got to figure out that point of "alright, I'm getting too fat from this bulk" for yourself. If you're there, you need to cut. If you're not, keep going. I've never done maintenance phases yet since I've come out of cuts impatient to start lifting heavy again, but it does seem to have worked for my fiancee, even though she didn't do it intentionally. She's one of the only people I know to have dropped a huge amount of fat and kept it off.

[MarkKO]

These are all good points.

However, 5 10' and 208ish with a 40-41 inch waist without a picture conjures up the image of someone carrying a fair amount of weight around the midsection. Around 210 lbs at that height isn't really a ton of weight if you're talking about someone who lifts weights, although it's far from emaciated. If you factor in a 40ish inch waist that would suggest not too much of that weight is muscle. It would be a different story for 5 10', 208 lbs and a 34 inch waist.

Certainly the health risks of not doing anything aren't prohibitive, and as you say just for health even some small changes would do wonders anyway. I just can't help but think in terms of being able to build muscle in this situation shedding some of what I'm assuming is fat around the midsection will be a good first step if only to give some room to gain more weight down the track in muscle.

I think it depends a lot on the actual goals. Is it really just long term health as a priority? Is it some vanity? Honestly, there is nothing wrong with some vanity, it can be the motivation that gets someone to a better health position, they go hand in hand up to a point. It's the extremes that kill us. From a personal perspective, I really like the low carb/keto approach for cutting as I think that it's the most muscle sparing diet to cut with and pushes the metabolic engines up a little. Adding back some carbs after you get to the target allows for improved workouts and a bit of an instant boost in perceived muscularity when the glycogen gives those muscles a fuller pump. It's also a very easy diet, which makes it more likely to succeed. I like the limited food options which provide for better control of the daily calories while still insuring protein and mineral needs.
As long as the BP is under control and you can do normal activities without feeling and looking like you ran a marathon you are generally in reasonable shape and don't need major life renovations, IMO. I would love to look like Thor when he pulled 501, but that's vanity and unrealistic. Loose fitting pants and the ability to walk anywhere anyone else is going without dying are pretty much the top target at the moment, and light cardio a few times a week takes care of the second thing already. I'm down roughly 20 lbs since France, the difference between the scale at my parents' place about two weeks ago and this morning. The "Keg" is deflating quite rapidly and the shoulders are not.

That too, absolutely.

There's no way in hell I could do any kind of keto or low carb. If I get more that around 25-30% of my calories from fat my gut feels like garbage, and protein doesn't really keep me feeling full either.

So it's very very lucky for me that I can eat a fair amount of carbs and lose weight. I go between 400-600 grams a day to maintain weight and I can comfortably lose weight on 400 a day too.

[asdf]

If he's lifting, then he is almost certainly going to exceed that with the listed cardio.

I get your point, but I think it depends on how one lifts. Also, the major exercise guidelines include resistance training 2x per week *in addition* to the 150-300 minute of moderate exercise.

I know that many other sources specify 20 minutes 3 times a week for cardio specifically.

Would you mind sharing who you have in mind?

[Hardartery]

If he's lifting, then he is almost certainly going to exceed that with the listed cardio.

I get your point, but I think it depends on how one lifts. Also, the major exercise guidelines include resistance training 2x per week *in addition* to the 150-300 minute of moderate exercise.

I know that many other sources specify 20 minutes 3 times a week for cardio specifically.

Would you mind sharing who you have in mind?

Yeah, the "How" can be critically important, but not as much as it might seem. I did an hour plus of very high intensity interval training for 3 months to cut to make U105kg. Combined with diet, it got me there just barely, but it also did a number on my strength. It also did wonders for my Medley performance. It was too much because it negatively impacted strength. However, 20 minutes or so 2-3 times a week will do the same thing for my cardio conditioning and help keep my BP in line even if my weight gets above my magic threshold of 265 lbs. My lifting can get much more brutal than it might look from the logs, but even if I backed it off to weekend warrior level I think that amount of cardio would still get the job done. If "Lifting" is really just about being a creeper and ogling women at the gym then that's not enough cardio.
I don't have too many names off the top of my head that carry weight, it's something that I hear repeatedly in podcasts and have heard from a lot of certified trainers, and I have seen some actual scientific data on it but don't have it in front of me because it wasn't important to me, to be honest. It only reinforced my experience so I didn't note it.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

Doing some back of the enveloppe calculations (don't take those numbers too seriously), you're probably around 25% body fat (getting close to the obesity threshold). So if you are concerned with your health, you probably need to take action. If I were you I would aim to lose about 20 lbs over the course of the next 6 months, with a small calorie deficit of 500 kcal or so. If your training is on point you probably should not lose a lot of muscle or strength (people seem terrified of this but in my experience it does not happen, unless you're doing some pretty extreme dieting). If you are cutting I would not do a lot of cardio, instead to do more walking and try to conserve your energy for lifting. As far as training volume goes, you don't need that much, since you're just trying to maintain your muscle mass. Also as others have suggested, the maintenance period after is also really important, to make sure your body is getting used to this new settling point.

[Brackish]

I think most of the people here covered pretty much everything I would have mentioned. The only thing I can really contribute is saying I'm similar height (5' 9"), and my weekly average weights are sitting right around 158 lbs w/ a waist measurement at 33-34", depending on how much Chinese food and beer was consumed the night before. Unless you're carrying significantly more muscle mass than me (Possible - I sort of still consider myself to be "skinny fat".) or you bones are laced with adamantium, I would say cutting some weight would be good from both an aesthetic and long term health outcome(s) perspective.

[GeoffBUK]

Typed a post and lost it, ahhh, TLDR:

Thanks for all the feedback/help, like @Hardartery said if I had a big frame with a wide waist/hips 40" might be different but I don't have a big frame, 147lbs when I was 30 yo, I have big beer gut, so a cuts probably a good idea @janoycresva , that second paragraph was very true

[FredM]

Ok so I've been wondering for a while if I should cut some fat, not for asthetic reasons, I don't care that I haven't got a six pack, Perhaps health should be number one priority, but honestly I just want to make some progress - add muscle and gain strength

As almost everyone else has said, you should definitely cut some fat. Although you haven't given enough evidence to prove you're "unhealthy," it is HIGHLY UNLIKELY you're healthier at this bw than you would be 20 lbs less and a 35" waist.

Is recomping likely in middle age (45) and with no great genetics?

No. Unless you just started resisting training this year.

is my visceral fat belly blunting my response to training

"The data" says no. I think "expert anecdotal consensus" says otherwise. Generally, unlike most people, I trust the latter over the former -- probably because I've dealt with data on a regular basis since college and have a better idea on how reliable it is. I think it's more than likely you'll have a higher muscle/fat ratio in bulk phases if you're starting from 15% or less BF than >20%.

I am I delusional that I can gain any muscle hovering around the same bodyweight?

Yes. Not because it's not possible. It definitely is. But based off all these questions it's obvious you don't have your training and nutrition dialed in to the point it would need to be. You'll have to cut and bulk significant amounts of weight while tracking training to understand how you respond because you'll never know with small deltas. Once you have a better idea of what type of training/diet works for you you can decrease the deltas and hover +/- 5 lbs around where you want to be if you really want (I'd still call it suboptimal though).

My weight was about 208lbs at just over 5'10 last time I checked, waists 40-41"

I'd guess you're almost 30% bf from those numbers. I think the calculators are pretty bad for >20% and would bet money that if you sent your picture to a professional they'd tell you're significantly higher bf% than you think.

I'm 5' 11" and 175 with a 31.5" waist and most bf% calculations (skin fold, navy, ymca, etc) put me <13% bf. I'm probably 20% or a little higher.