Good stuff, I appreciate the breakdown In high school I played two sports and never really compensated with a diet full of the required proteins and carbs necessary to handle the physical demand. My weight suffered because I likely could have competed with more strength and energy for my frame. At 175 and 6’3 during the years of 17-21 I was carved yet I felt I lacked foundation. I changed nothing other than the amount of sports I involved myself in and boom the pounds packed on. Interesting thing about me is I have the frame of an Albert Puljos with and athletic prowess of a rough and tumble strapy nba rebounder. Lol either way at 215 I I feel ripped enough to remove my shirt at the beach as opposed to my former 230 self that looked like a bouncer worker at a club in Washington heights nyc.
Most body types don’t take a good body shot....lol at my size I sparred with angel manfredy around 2005 and he hit me with a body shot I will never forget. I stayed upright so till this day I brush my shoulders in pride lol.
My point was the thin waist and legs type don't take as good as a body shot with the thicker waist and thicker legs type. There will always be exceptions, but I find this to be true most of the time,
6'3", 215 is a good weight if you have the muscle to support it, which it sounds like you do. I got as high as 220 when my kids were young but for me was definitely carrying more weight than I wanted to. I feel good at 180ish. It requires consistent work and watching what I eat but that's OK for now. Like the millions of others, I will probably tire of it at some point and head back to around 200. I have come to the conclusion proper weight is a journey, not a destination. We hit our target weight, maybe go a little lower, then we bounce up. As long as you are enjoying the journey that's what it's all about.
SInce aesthetics do not matter, & he is still very successful & athletic, the tone of mockery & contempt is particularly wrong. In both senses of the word. Should he be faulted for having long arms? Now we are gonna ridicule guys for genetic traits, & ones that help them anyway? And you could be the world's greatest athlete & be balding. More unevolved, ugly contempt. And Wilder is very lean & 6' 7". Anyone that tall, let alone with minimal body fat, does not have a "wide waist" at 36". Now what is unusual is his leg measurements. The thighs especially. While any dude can seem to have relatively big thighs if they are overweight-without being very strong-even Ye Olde Tyme, shorter & much lighter, modern day LHW or BELOW (on the day of the fight) HWs had thighs not below the early 20's! 18" is so small, like near the smallest weight categories, that I long wondered if it was a mistake. 14" calves are small for a HW, just a bit under the average man I reckon. But Holyfield had all his bulk on the upper body, was listed at 13", & even HE had 22" thighs. 18" for a 6' 7", modern day HW is almost unbelievable.
Interesting. But if you were in that much of a calorie deficit a day, you would be losing 3 & 1/2 lbs. a week! Since 3,500 calories equals a pound. Maybe a little less due to homeostasis. Anyway that would have been too much, you would have lost muscle & your body slowed its metabolism against a starvation effect, as we were evolved to do. But the actual weight you lost, almost 6 lbs. a month, was a good slow loss. 1% of body weight a week is the most one should aim for-if you wanna be halthy & keep it off. Also, assuming your bodyfat percentages are accurate, & you weighed yourself at the same times/with the same amount of water...only ~ 10 lbs. of your weight loss was fat. If your numbers are accurate, you must have shed some lean muscle. Do the math & see what a 5.3% drop in fat weight is.
Who gives a **** what his waist is? This aint no bodybuilding show, this is boxing. Tyson Fury's waist ration to his legs will be even worse, but guess what, it don't stop him from boxing your head off LOL.
Not really. Chris Algieri and Shane Mosley have the same chest measurement. They're skinny, tall Welterweights.
Your overview is correct. I am aware of the 3500 calorie measurement but, as you noted, that varies greatly, from person to person. Also, the reality is as one loses weight and pushes it hard there are inevitably days where you take a break and allow the body to recuperate, which I did. It is not a straight line at all in losing weight. It was frustrating at times because I would calculate the caloric intake and yet it would not show on the scale. I definitely lost muscle but I did that on purpose, did not lift at all when losing the weight. Wanted to take off the pounds and then lift once I hit my goals. As to measuring fat loss, I am not convinced these scales accurately reflect actual fat loss. I am more inclined to believe the calculations have been pre-loaded. In other words, I am skeptical that the scales actually reflect YOU. I think instead the scales give you a reading based on data already loaded into the scale based on height, age, weight, etc. I could be wrong but that is my sense. The reason I say this is on days when I would work especially hard and drop say 6 lbs after both workouts and not eating anything, it would show me dropping .5% in fat. Then when I drank a lot of water to rehydrate the "fat loss" would disappear. It seems related to weight not actual fat loss.
What surprises me most, given how lean he is and how thin his legs are, is that his waist is even 36". Given his height and body fat levels I would have thought his waist would have been more like 34".