Kankles

dkwilson16

dkwilson16

Member
Awards
0
Ok so this may be a little funny to some of you BUT- one of my nicknames some people call me is kankles because i kind of have thick legs and ankles. I'm not a bigger guy at all, you can see in my avatar pic, I'm 21 yrs old, 6"0 220 about 15% bf... Played Quarterback in high school and college so i'm not at all "fat." I guess it's just that i have thick legs and ankles... Anyways, i was going to see if anyone had any information on my type of build and/or mainly any (leg) exercises i could do to make my ankles skinny for once or more defined... Or is it just that i need to lower my bf% and that will make everything reduce in size? Hopefully i'm not stuck with thick ass legs forever because i feel it makes my whole frame look more squatty than i really am...

Here is just a pic i had on my computer from a couple summers ago to kind of see my whole frame... (my upper body is a lot smaller there might i add)

 

rckvl7

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
The only thing you can do is lose some fat or gain more muscle on your upper body to balance it out more. Do you do any sort of training?
 
dkwilson16

dkwilson16

Member
Awards
0
The only thing you can do is lose some fat or gain more muscle on your upper body to balance it out more. Do you do any sort of training?
as in do i workout or as in do i run? i mean im in the middle of my mdrol cycle so of course i workout... and im going to cut after my pct as far as running goes...

my log has my workout progress
 

rckvl7

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I meant either. Your routine looks like a typical bodybuilders routine which I am not a fan of, but I won't get into that. As I said the only thing you can do is try to lose some fat, and try to gain more mass in your upper body so it looks more balanced. You might just have genes though for bigger calves than other people.
 
dkwilson16

dkwilson16

Member
Awards
0
I meant either. Your routine looks like a typical bodybuilders routine which I am not a fan of, but I won't get into that. As I said the only thing you can do is try to lose some fat, and try to gain more mass in your upper body so it looks more balanced. You might just have genes though for bigger calves than other people.
I gotcha... I mean i have been wondering if on legs day instead of sticking to heavy lifting, like heavy squats and other exercises that focus on building mass, i just rode the bike or maybe the resistance bike and maybe that could tone down my legs alone? You know, something to just cut the fat off my legs alone if that is possible. At this point, with my given "leg build", i would rather get them just trimmed down and lean rather than building them any bigger. They would look more muscular that way anyways...
 

rckvl7

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
There is not more or less "toned". There is only more or less fat, and more or less muscle. You also can't target body fat on your body. Don't cut out heavy squats, that would be a mistake. Generally speaking stuff that is 8+ reps will produce more muscle hypertrophy than lower reps with heavier weight.
 
dkwilson16

dkwilson16

Member
Awards
0
There is not more or less "toned". There is only more or less fat, and more or less muscle. You also can't target body fat on your body. Don't cut out heavy squats, that would be a mistake. Generally speaking stuff that is 8+ reps will produce more muscle hypertrophy than lower reps with heavier weight.
Your first statement is kind of common sense now that i think about it, stupid me. Thanks for the info man, i guess ill just cut real hard after my pct and see if dropping my bf% will define my legs (calves/ankles) a bit more. If not i will just do like you said and blow my upper body up to look more proportional overall.
 

rckvl7

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
One of the best things you can do for your cutting is hill sprints. Steady state cardio sucks.

Edit: yeah, a muscle can look "toned" but that is a result of body fat and muscle size, it's not a way of working out.
 
dkwilson16

dkwilson16

Member
Awards
0
One of the best things you can do for your cutting is hill sprints. Steady state cardio sucks.
I will definitely implement that into my routine when i start to cut... Being at 6"0 220 and about 15% bf right now, about what weight/bf% do you think i would need to be at by around June 1st (8 weeks of cutting April and May) to be able to start seeing my abs come summer time? My goal is to get to 230 by the end of my mdrol cycle but i kind of need to start thinking about some goals for my cut so once my PCT is over i can hit it hard and know what goal I am shooting for for summer.
 

rckvl7

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
It will vary by the person but you usually hear 10% thrown around to see the abs.
 
Carcaya

Carcaya

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Steady state cardio does not suck. Just stick with a moderate cut diet, maybe 40% carbs, 40% protein, 20% fat, maintainence cals - 200 + regular intense training + 30 minutes elliptical target heart rate 150 or so. You will lean out real well and get your calves cut.

My calves are the first thing to drop fat in a cut, could be genetics.
 

rckvl7

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Steady state cardio does not suck. Just stick with a moderate cut diet, maybe 40% carbs, 40% protein, 20% fat, maintainence cals - 200 + regular intense training + 30 minutes elliptical target heart rate 150 or so. You will lean out real well and get your calves cut.

My calves are the first thing to drop fat in a cut, could be genetics.
For fat loss and maintaining muscle steady state cardio sucks compared to hill sprints/sprints, prowler pushes, sled dragging etc.
Also I would never go below 30% fat for macros, especially on a cut.
 
Carcaya

Carcaya

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
For fat loss and maintaining muscle steady state cardio sucks compared to hill sprints/sprints, prowler pushes, sled dragging etc.
Also I would never go below 30% fat for macros, especially on a cut.
I am pretty sure that the calories burned from steady state cardio with moderate heart rate come at a higher percentage from fat calories than do from high intensity cardio. Of course, you will burn a ton more calories doing HIIT. A proper diet with steady state is a great way to lose the recommended pound per week healthy loss of fat. I think it is a sad thing to completely ban steady state cardio with such condemnation. It is fair for you to keep whatever opinion you may have though rckvl.

Why not below 30% fat macros? What is the reasoning? A highly successful bodybuilder who competes at npc utah suggested this nutrient ratio for me. I lost a lot of fat and even built muscle. He uses the APEX software and i am pretty sure they have a good reputation. My personal experience says to stay with my original suggestion.
 

rckvl7

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
I am pretty sure that the calories burned from steady state cardio with moderate heart rate come at a higher percentage from fat calories than do from high intensity cardio. Of course, you will burn a ton more calories doing HIIT. A proper diet with steady state is a great way to lose the recommended pound per week healthy loss of fat. I think it is a sad thing to completely ban steady state cardio with such condemnation. It is fair for you to keep whatever opinion you may have though rckvl.

Why not below 30% fat macros? What is the reasoning? A highly successful bodybuilder who competes at npc utah suggested this nutrient ratio for me. I lost a lot of fat and even built muscle. He uses the APEX software and i am pretty sure they have a good reputation. My personal experience says to stay with my original suggestion.
Actually no, during steady state cardio your body will actually start using your muscles as fuel. Why do you think marathon runners are skinny or skinny fat and sprinters are muscular and cut? I'm not saying that steady state cardio is useless, just that for burning fat and maintaining muscle, sprinting/interval training is much more effective.

Fat is essential for your body, I would cut carbs before cutting fat. Eating fat isn't what makes you fat. Basically what makes you fat is eating more calories than your body requires. I'm not saying other ways don't work, I just don't think they work as well or are as healthy.
 
Carcaya

Carcaya

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
Actually no, during steady state cardio your body will actually start using your muscles as fuel. Why do you think marathon runners are skinny or skinny fat and sprinters are muscular and cut? I'm not saying that steady state cardio is useless, just that for burning fat and maintaining muscle, sprinting/interval training is much more effective.

Fat is essential for your body, I would cut carbs before cutting fat. Eating fat isn't what makes you fat. Basically what makes you fat is eating more calories than your body requires. I'm not saying other ways don't work, I just don't think they work as well or are as healthy.
Everything in its proper order and form. A marathon runner and sprinter are extreme cases. I still disagree with how you state nutrient metabolism takes place. I highly advocate our 15% body fat friend to utilize steady state cardio to lose his body fat. HIIT is advisable as well as a decent method for weight loss.

Fat is essential for the body AND carbs are as well. Dipping below 30% fat macronutrient 'on a cut' is not a bad thing. Hell, Arnold's Encyclopedia suggests 20% fat calorie intake.

Regardless, I have tested all these things with my own body and I stick with my original suggestion SOLELY on my own experience. To OP, use your best judgement and go get 'em! Soon enough you will be dekankled!
 

rckvl7

Member
Awards
1
  • Established
"Shugart: Good point. I'm going to throw out some very general questions now and let you guys duke it out. Here we go. What's better for the average guy wanting to be lean and muscular? HIIT (high intensity interval training) or long bouts of jogging at one pace (low-intensity)?

Staley: Clearly the former. There's really no debate on that. And you don't need a university degree or advanced physiology textbooks to understand why this is so: when you expose your body to repeated long-duration excursions, your body wants to weigh less in order to become more efficient at doing what you're asking it to do. And the easiest way for your body to weigh less is to catabolize muscle (which of course, weighs more than fat).

Shugart: What do you think, Coach Snippy?

Alessi: If they're a qualified HIIT trainee, that is, under the age of 35, without a pre-existing heart condition or family history and have at least six months prior training experience, then it becomes a simple energy game (calories in, calories out). For that, HIIT burns more calories in less time.

Shugart: HIIT or jogging, Thib?

Thibaudeau: Well, the only thing you have to do is compare the physique of a sprinter to that of a marathoner. Which one is leaner and more muscular? The sprinter of course! In fact, sprinters, as a group, have a better body than 95% of all the people spending hour after hour in the gym. This is all the more impressive considering that most sprinters will strength train three, maybe four times per week using only basic movements such as the bench press, squat, the Olympic lifts and hamstring work.

Of course, one could argue that the top sprinters are genetically gifted for leanness, strength and muscle. However, put the same guys on a hefty regimen of long distance running and chances are the quality of their physiques will vastly decrease.

This is not to say that low-intensity aerobic work is to be avoided. However, it shouldn't be abused. Let's face it, as T-men we like to shout high and loud that aerobic work isn't manly. But the fact is that aerobic work does offer several benefits, including the shift toward a better lipid profile, a lowered risk of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension, as well as fat loss. So aerobic work isn't the Devil; however, it's not the fastest route towards a muscular and lean physique.

In my opinion, long sprints, 200-400m (even 800m) with short rest intervals are best when it comes to losing fat while minimizing the potential for muscle loss. Most people wanting a great physique should engage in this type of activity. Furthermore, a recent study concluded that 400m running actually involves the aerobic energy system and lead to improvement in max VO2 similar to long, slow-pace aerobic work.

That being said, slow-pace aerobic work isn't to be discounted as it offers several health benefits. I know that health is always something that bores the athletes to no end, but good health is important: you can't improve if you're in the hospital can you?
Shugart: Good point. Lonnie?

Dr. Lowery: The way you posed that question makes for a difficult "right" answer. In short, either approach will work for an average guy wanting a little of each (some leanness and muscularity). Again, I prefer 100% specific, usually heavy, weight training sessions of 45 to 60 minutes for the muscle building, and then either 20 to 30 minutes of treadmill or 45 to 60 minutes of straight treadmill separated from the resistance exercise by at least four hours.

The treadmill session is scarcely even a workout, per se, for any intensity-crazed bodybuilder. Burning fat can be done at intensities that are low enough as to not interfere terribly with muscle recovery (e.g. a non-panting ten-second heart rate in the low 20's for a college-age male).

I respect the different approaches (HIIT vs. slow-and-steady) as equally valid but I'm old school in that I believe the crossover effect (burning fat at lower intensities and shifting to mostly muscle glycogen use at high intensities) can be manipulated to the bodybuilder's advantage. Slow-and-steady is a more direct and specific method for reducing subcutaneous body fat without interfering with muscle building efforts. "
article



-Again, steady state cardio/aerobics, has it's place. It is pretty widely accepted in the strength and conditioning field that sprints, intervals, however you want to word it, are more effective at burning fat and maintaining muscle.
 
Top