Question about natural weight

[GangsterFresh]

I tried searching this up but could not find a proper answer for it, maybe I'm not searching correctly but here it goes (apologies for in advance for any confusion just in case):

Some stats about me, I am a 22 male and 5'8. My legs are very large and so is my stomach and lower back but my arms are kind of skinny.

Around 4 months ago, I weighted in at 180 pounds

Anyways personally I saw that my stomach and lower back where definitely a little fat in my opinion even though my whole overall body didn't look fat, I decided to go ahead and go for a cut first (cut down to 165-170 lbs) and kind of start on a solid foundation before bulking up again to 180-185. Now keep in mind, that 180 lbs I was originally walking around with 4 months ago was my natural weight, I ate at a maintenance if you can even call it that and was always at 180 lbs.

4 months later after many mistakes, some miscalculations with calories, and a little bit of cheating on diet, I am basically at 170 lbs in the morning, but usually walking around 175 lbs.

I can't help but think that maybe I should have bulked instead to maybe 190 and then cut down to my natural weight to 180, i don't know I never seen this brought up.

Is natural weight a thing? Is it better to bulk above your natural weight and then cut down back to your natural weight? OR is it better to cut down below natural weight and bulk up to natural weight?

OR do you bros just use mirror and go with the "I'm too fat I'm gona cut now" and vice versa? I like to use numbers and a tactic instead of using mirror...

TLDR:

Natural weight is 180 lbs, haven't been to gym, I looked fat in my opinion at that weight so I decided as a newbie gym goer to cut down first to 170 lbs instead of bulk. My concern is that maybe I should have bulked first above my natural weight (to 190 lbs) ESPECIALLY COS I WAS A BEGINNER and cut back down to my natural weight (180 lbs). What I did instead was cut below my natural weight, and looking more or less the same at 170 lbs and 180 lbs, and then I plan to bulk back up to 180 lbs. Should I have bulked instead in the beginning as a newbie cos I wasn't crazy fat? Is "natural weight" a thing? Whats the best way to build muscle, cut and bulk is the most efficient?

Thanks all! I didn't post pics of how I currently look but could definitely do this so lmk!~

[Mrpb]

Can you upload a current picture?

We first need to have an idea of your current body fat level.

[GangsterFresh]

Can you upload a current picture?

We first need to have an idea of your current body fat level.

I only have 1 post, says I need 50 to post pic... I am gona upload it to my profile pic right now 1 sec!

[SuffolkPunch]

Yes, homeostasis is a thing. People tend to have a certain appetite level that leads to settling at a certain weight. This may be changeable over long periods of time but anecdotally, it takes conscious effort to maintain a lower (or higher) weight

[Mrpb]

I only have 1 post, says I need 50 to post pic... I am gona upload it to my profile pic right now 1 sec!

Use your body space or imgur.com

[GangsterFresh]

Yes, homeostasis is a thing. People tend to have a certain appetite level that leads to settling at a certain weight. This may be changeable over long periods of time but anecdotally, it takes conscious effort to maintain a lower (or higher) weight

Yeah I remember reading something like this, I was 180 lbs and felt that was my natural weight but really it cos of the lifestyle I was living that made me think that was my natural weight. Now that I am at 172 lbs, in the beginning it was really tough but now its just a normal thing honestly. I think the body can def adjust, but the thing how much do you push it? Like if I go down to 150 lbs, no way my body adjusts to that?

[GangsterFresh]

Use your body space or imgur.com

Hey dude click on my profile page and go to my before and after.

4 months ago I was 180 lbs at 5'8 and age 22: I feel like I was probably at 20% bf maybe 22%

My current picture: Weight at 172 lbs, made some mistakes with counting calories prob could have cut more lbs in a 4 month time period but I am still a rookie, working out 3 times a week full body. I feel like now I am maybe 18% bf

People been telling me that at 5'8, I should be aiming to be around 160-165 lbs, what you think about this?

[Jcart159]

Hey dude click on my profile page and go to my before and after.

4 months ago I was 180 lbs at 5'8 and age 22: I feel like I was probably at 20% bf maybe 22%

My current picture: Weight at 172 lbs, made some mistakes with counting calories prob could have cut more lbs in a 4 month time period but I am still a rookie, working out 3 times a week full body. I feel like now I am maybe 18% bf

People been telling me that at 5'8, I should be aiming to be around 160-165 lbs, what you think about this?

Why do you care so much about a target weight? What's it mean to you other than a number on the scale?

Use your weight as a data point to measure your progress, not as a goal.

[rexfrommex]

you have two options try and go hard for physique or go hard for strength purposes.


chicks don't care how much you lift but they have eyes that work

[AdamWW]

you have two options try and go hard for physique or go hard for strength purposes.


chicks don't care how much you lift but they have eyes that work

You have a very narrow view of what women actually care about.

[faithbrah]

You have a very narrow view of what women actually care about.

found the guy who lifts for girls

[Mrpb]

People been telling me that at 5'8, I should be aiming to be around 160-165 lbs, what you think about this?

I agree with those people. Cut down to 160-165. Lose about 1 pound per week while following a good routine.

1. What is your lifting routine?
2. When you bulked how many pounds did you gain per month?

[Mrpb]

You have a very narrow view of what women actually care about.

Interesting topic imo. Some relevant science.

Estimates of physical strength determined over 70% of men's bodily attractiveness. Additional analyses showed that tallness and leanness were also favoured, and, along with estimates of physical strength, accounted for 80% of men's bodily attractiveness. Contrary to popular theories of men's physical attractiveness, there was no evidence of a nonlinear effect; the strongest men were the most attractive in all samples.

None of the 160 women in our study who rated attractiveness produced a statistically significant preference for weaker men (all p . 0.05).

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rspb.2017.1819

[Jcart159]

Interesting topic imo. Some relevant science.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rspb.2017.1819

I feel like the results would be vastly different if wealth were factored into the equation.

[Mrpb]

I feel like the results would be vastly different if wealth were factored into the equation.

I'd say these results are independent of the fact that women generally prefer wealthy men.

In general though women will often say that a man's body isn't important to them but there's a lot of science showing something else.

I remember a paper suggesting that bodily attractiveness is relatively more important for women when they're choosing a sexual partner vs. choosing a life partner. For wealth it will probably be the reverse. Makes sense.

[Jcart159]

In general though women will often say that a man's body isn't important to them but there's a lot of science showing something else.

Good point. I think men often get confused here because a woman's level of importance on physical traits is comparatively so much lower than it is for men that they think it's non existent.

[GangsterFresh]

I agree with those people. Cut down to 160-165. Lose about 1 pound per week while following a good routine.

1. What is your lifting routine?
2. When you bulked how many pounds did you gain per month?

Yeah that's is the plan to go down to 160-165, but after that I do want to bulk up again, is their a way to go up to 180 or 170 lbs and be at a low bodyfat or should I also bulk to 170-175 and cut down to 160-165? I know its subjective and really the mirror would tell me where I need to be at but what you recommend?

I haven't done a bulk so far, just started training 4 months ago. I go in 3 times a week and do 1.5-2 hours of full body and fininsh off with 10-15 min cardio.

[AdamWW]

Interesting topic imo. Some relevant science.


https://royalsocietypublishing.org/d...rspb.2017.1819

Not to sound like a feminist, but reducing women's values in men to purely physical traits is pretty insulting to the gender.

In my experience, unless you're talking about very shallow women, things like confidence, humor, and intelligence rank much higher on the priority list... along with shared interests.

I've dated plenty of bombshells in my day to also know that I'd rather date a physical 7/10 with 10/10 personality and 10/10 shared life goals than an underwear model with shyt for brains....

[Mrpb]

Not to sound like a feminist, but reducing women's values in men to purely physical traits is pretty insulting to the gender.

That's quite the straw man. No one is making that point in this thread...

In my experience, unless you're talking about very shallow women, things like confidence, humor, and intelligence rank much higher on the priority list... along with shared interests.

Well they will definitely say that, but there are some studies shedding a different light on it, especially when they're looking for a short term fling but bodily attractiveness also plays a role when selecting a life partner, a larger role then women will typically admit/be aware of.

I've dated ....

I'm talking about this topic from a scientific perspective, not from the n=1 perspective.

[AdamWW]

That's quite the straw man. No one is making that point in this thread...


Well they will definitely say that, but there are some studies shedding a different light on it, especially when they're looking for a short term fling but bodily attractiveness also plays a role when selecting a life partner, a larger role then women will typically admit/be aware of.



I'm talking about this topic from a scientific perspective, not from the n=1 perspective.

Wasn't intending to straw man... Just sharing my personal experience I guess.

Of course, I agree that for a fling the physical aspect is going to be much more important.

[Mrpb]

Wasn't intending to straw man... Just sharing my personal experience I guess.

Well you quoted the study but the study isn't "reducing women's values in men to purely physical traits", the study just focused at bodily attractiveness. It's not saying that's the only thing that matters, because that would be stupid, of course.

Of course, I agree that for a fling the physical aspect is going to be much more important.

Even when selecting a life partner bodily attractiveness plays a larger role than women will typically admit/be aware of. Unfortunately I can't find back the study that looked at this.

[AdamWW]

Well you quoted the study but the study isn't "reducing women's values in men to purely physical traits", the study just focused at bodily attractiveness. It's not saying that's the only thing that matters, because that would be stupid, of course.


Even when selecting a life partner bodily attractiveness plays a larger role than women will typically admit/be aware of. Unfortunately I can't find back the study that looked at this.

Like I said, I wasn't intending to straw man... im admitting to a poor choice of words.

[Mrpb]

Like I said, I wasn't intending to straw man... im admitting to a poor choice of words.

OK understood. It wasn't clear to me from post #20.

[1MANU]

You have a very narrow view of what women actually care about.

Well they may look at physique for breeding purposes. Income potential is high on the scale as well. Your ability to support potential offspring.

Lol...Im joking. My wife would kill me if she read that.

[AdamWW]

Well they may look at physique for breeding purposes. Income potential is high on the scale as well. Your ability to support potential offspring.

Lol...Im joking. My wife would kill me if she read that.

Oh for sure... I mean, I definitely think there is an inherent appeal to the masculine appearance that almost all women prefer if all other variables are held equal.

Money don't hurt obviously, but this day and age, women are in a much better position than they were historically when men being physically capable was much more of a life-preserving necessity. I mean there's LOTS of ugly rich dudes with hot wives ;o)

[Jcart159]

Oh for sure... I mean, I definitely think there is an inherent appeal to the masculine appearance that almost all women prefer if all other variables are held equal.

Money don't hurt obviously, but this day and age, women are in a much better position than they were historically when men being physically capable was much more of a life-preserving necessity. I mean there's LOTS of ugly rich dudes with hot wives ;o)

Those urges were built through evolution over thousands of years though. A couple years of improved equality isn't going to change wiring of the brain that quickly.

[1MANU]

Oh for sure... I mean, I definitely think there is an inherent appeal to the masculine appearance that almost all women prefer if all other variables are held equal.

Money don't hurt obviously, but this day and age, women are in a much better position than they were historically when men being physically capable was much more of a life-preserving necessity. I mean there's LOTS of ugly rich dudes with hot wives ;o)

Cmon! "Ugly" is subjective.

Poor OP. He is asking about natural weight and we are talking about ugly rich guys with hot wives...lol.

[1MANU]

Those urges were built through evolution over thousands of years though. A couple years of improved equality isn't going to change wiring of the brain that quickly.

True. Good point.

[AdamWW]

Cmon! "Ugly" is subjective.

Poor OP. He is asking about natural weight and we are talking about ugly rich guys with hot wives...lol.

hahaha!

[GangsterFresh]

You guys are awesome