How much definition can someone get by only doing 3 exercises

[gotsmack]

I don't like lifting weights.

Anyway I have found 3 exercises that I really like. Hindu push ups, Hindu squats, and chin ups. I have a recumbent bike for cardio.

I'm working on figuring out a meal plan that suits me.

Assuming I Only do those 3 exercises, how much definition can I expect to get? I'm not interested in getting big.

Thanks

For clarification, lots of people are saying that definition is 90% nutrition. My friend who is thinner than me ran 3-5 miles a day every day and for the most part ate vegetables and grilled chicken or fish. He wasn't super strict about it though and he didn't get defined. He just got what appeared to be sickly thin, even though he was in good health. I want that to NOT happen to me.

here are my stats, 5'10", 160 lbs, 32" waist

 

[SociallyChallenged]

That's a terribly one-sided way to look at doing things. You need to open your horizons and look into other things - weights, cardio, BW exercises, etc. You can get muscle definition by controlling your diet a large amount also. Muscle definition is 90% nutrition. I'm not joking.

EDIT: This is IMPORTANT: DO NOT DO HINDU SQUATS. Those thing are horrid for you knees. I just watched a form video and that crap is ridiculous. Any exercise that has your knees come that far in front of your toes is REALLY bad news for your joints. Keep doing them if you don't cherish your knees, but otherwise, switch to bodyweight normal squats.

 

[Koing]

Definition is govern by more what you eat and calories expensed then what exercises you do. Exercises build bulk as well as raise your metabolic rate.

Koing

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Koing
Definition is govern by more what you eat and calories expensed then what exercises you do.

Koing

Maybe he should eat a Hindu Diet.

 

[paulxcook]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Koing
Definition is govern by more what you eat and calories expensed then what exercises you do.

Koing

Maybe he should eat a Hindu Diet.

Or just a Hindu.

 

[KoolDrew]

Definition comes from diet.

What are your current stats?

 

[presidentender]

I'm six feet tall and I weigh 150 (would be 140 without lifting). I lift. Don't tell me you don't have the frame for it.

That said, body weight exercises are fine. For definition, like everyone else says, you have to eat right.

 

[paulxcook]

Also, I have tiny little girl wrists. That's not a reason to not lift. Your first sentence is really all you needed to say. If you just want to be defined you could focus on losing body fat.

 

[citan x]

The best way to achieve definition is a very good diet and some form of high intensity exercise.

Low intensity cardio does not build definition. The classic example are marathoners and sprinters. Sprinters are way defined, and marothoners are skinny, little people. Cardio might keep you from ballooning if you eat more than you should, but it will not help loose that last bit of fat.

Your friend probably got skinny because he wasn't eating enough to sustain his running. Running take a lot of calories. If you only run and don't eat enough, you will lose everything: muscle, fat, bone.

Those three excercises you mentioned are pretty good and work out all your body. I don't see why those exercises wouldn't help in getting defined. The most important element for this is still the diet. Without a proper diet, the body can't adapt.

I am not so sure Hindu squat are horrid for knees. Some people say regular squats are horrid for knees too. I don't think people really know what is bad for knees or not. I was actually recommended Hindu squats to improve my knees.

 

[KoolDrew]

Low intensity cardio does not build definition. The classic example are marathoners and sprinters. Sprinters are way defined, and marothoners are skinny, little people. Cardio might keep you from ballooning if you eat more than you should, but it will not help loose that last bit of fat.

:roll:

There is so much wrong with that paragraph...

EDIT - Lyle McDonald did two blog posts dealing with just that argument (among a ton of other blog posts about steady state versus interval training)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...our-way-to-a-hot-body/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...inters-vs-marathoners/

 

[onlyCOpunk]

Cut out the sodium and salt, stick to clean foods and anyone can see definition whether you lift weights or not. Basically cut down your body fat % and everything will start to show.

 

[Kaido]

Originally posted by: gotsmack
For clarification, lots of people are saying that definition is 90% nutrition. My friend who is thinner than me ran 3-5 miles a day every day and for the most part ate vegetables and grilled chicken or fish. He wasn't super strict about it though and he didn't get defined. He just got what appeared to be sickly thin, even though he was in good health. I want that to NOT happen to me.

I don't know what the Hindu exercises are, but my dad follows a pretty simple program and has awesome results - go to bed early, eat right, and some light cardio plus morning exercises. He just eats 3 meals a day, not 6, but eats pretty well and only has junk food once or twice a week instead of daily like I did. He goes on walks around the block a few times a week and does a basic PT routine in the morning that includes crunches and pushups and stuff, no weights or machines or anything. He's 60 and has bigger guns than I have lol

So yes, if you have a good body resistance program coupled with a good diet you'll have a good-looking body instead of a flabby one. My dad's program is almost like HIIT, but with self-resistance exercises. Lots of pushups, crunches, focus is on doing them quickly and consequetively and doing proper form, plus flexing your stomach muscles and whatnot.

 

[spamsk8r]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Low intensity cardio does not build definition. The classic example are marathoners and sprinters. Sprinters are way defined, and marothoners are skinny, little people. Cardio might keep you from ballooning if you eat more than you should, but it will not help loose that last bit of fat.

:roll:

There is so much wrong with that paragraph...

EDIT - Lyle McDonald did two blog posts dealing with just that argument (among a ton of other blog posts about steady state versus interval training)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...our-way-to-a-hot-body/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...inters-vs-marathoners/

Nobody is doubting the fact that steady-state cardio will make you lose fat. The issue is that doing a lot of it tends to catabolize muscle, thus making you leaner, but also less muscular (this is, of course, if you don't have a weight training program in place). So if *all* you do for fat loss is lots of steady-state cardio, you tend not to look "defined" (especially if you're not eating enough to sustain your lean body mass).

 

[KoolDrew]

The issue is that doing a lot of it tends to catabolize muscle

And this is no different than any other type of training.

 

[spamsk8r]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

The issue is that doing a lot of it tends to catabolize muscle

And this is no different than any other type of training.

True (except for weight training, obviously) but the impact of steady state on muscle catabolism is quite profound, simply due to the volume of training you must partake in. With HIIT you only do it for a half-hour at most. With LISS, you have to do a lot more volume, and that's what tends to be catabolic. It's more the amount of time spent versus the training modality.

 

[KoolDrew]

True (except for weight training, obviously) but the impact of steady state on muscle catabolism is quite profound, simply due to the volume of training you must partake in. With HIIT you only do it for a half-hour at most. With LISS, you have to do a lot more volume, and that's what tends to be catabolic. It's more the amount of time spent versus the training modality.

Besides the fact that too much weight training can be catabolic for obvious reasons, have you actually ever measured the amount of calories burned doing HIIT versus steady state? Interval work is switching between very high and very low effort. The end result? An average calorie burn per minute nearly identical to that of moderate intensity steady state cardio.

Also, it's been proven the amount of calories burned through EPOC is so small as to be irrelevant. There are times when intervals may be a better option and it can be a great tool for fat loss, but all the arguments for it being better for fat loss and steady state being detrimental to body composition are just plain retarded.

 

[citan x]

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Low intensity cardio does not build definition. The classic example are marathoners and sprinters. Sprinters are way defined, and marothoners are skinny, little people. Cardio might keep you from ballooning if you eat more than you should, but it will not help loose that last bit of fat.

:roll:

There is so much wrong with that paragraph...

EDIT - Lyle McDonald did two blog posts dealing with just that argument (among a ton of other blog posts about steady state versus interval training)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...our-way-to-a-hot-body/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...inters-vs-marathoners/

There is nothing wrong with the paragraph. I admit it is somewhat vague, but I read those articles and there is nothing to refute what I wrote. You are thinking of my fist sentence and that I was implying that I meant sprinters do high intensity workouts to get their bodies. I wrote no such thing. I don't even mention high intensity in that paragraph. I know sprinters have a pretty varied workout regimen and strict diets. I was trying to compare a sprinters total training regimen to that of marathoners, who do tons of cardio, and the differences in their appearance.

Basically, my point was that low-intensity cardio by itself will not lead to a defined body. I wrote this paragraph and next one in response to gotsmack's running friend who did not get defined when he ran a lot and ate poorly. A lot of people equate a diet to vegetables and low calories, but a good diet is way more than that. Eating too little is just as bad as not eating enough specially if your demanding a lot of your body.

In simple terms:
running and bad diet (too many calories) = not defined body
running and ok diet = not defined body
running and bad diet (too little calories) = weak not defined body
running and good diet = lean body
well rounded exercise regimen and bad diet = not defined body
well rounded exercise regimen and good diet = defined body
varied high intensity exercise and good diet = defined body in short amount of time spent working out = win and fun

 

[KoolDrew]

Originally posted by: citan x

Originally posted by: KoolDrew

Low intensity cardio does not build definition. The classic example are marathoners and sprinters. Sprinters are way defined, and marothoners are skinny, little people. Cardio might keep you from ballooning if you eat more than you should, but it will not help loose that last bit of fat.

:roll:

There is so much wrong with that paragraph...

EDIT - Lyle McDonald did two blog posts dealing with just that argument (among a ton of other blog posts about steady state versus interval training)

http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...our-way-to-a-hot-body/
http://www.bodyrecomposition.c...inters-vs-marathoners/

There is nothing wrong with the paragraph. I admit it is somewhat vague, but I read those articles and there is nothing to refute what I wrote. You are thinking of my fist sentence and that I was implying that I meant sprinters do high intensity workouts to get their bodies. I wrote no such thing. I don't even mention high intensity in that paragraph. I know sprinters have a pretty varied workout regimen and strict diets. I was trying to compare a sprinters total training regimen to that of marathoners, who do tons of cardio, and the differences in their appearance.

Basically, my point was that low-intensity cardio by itself will not lead to a defined body. I wrote this paragraph and next one in response to gotsmack's running friend who did not get defined when he ran a lot and ate poorly. A lot of people equate a diet to vegetables and low calories, but a good diet is way more than that. Eating too little is just as bad as not eating enough specially if your demanding a lot of your body.

Ahh, gotcha. In that case, I agree. Sorry for misinterpreting what you wrote.

 

[citan x]

In simple terms:
running and bad diet (too many calories) = not defined body
running and ok diet = not defined body
running and bad diet (too little calories) = weak not defined body
running and good diet = lean body
well rounded exercise regimen and bad diet = not defined body
well rounded exercise regimen and good diet = defined body
varied high intensity exercise and good diet = defined body in short amount of time spent working out = win and fun

Replace running with cardio. I just naturally equate running with cardio since that is what I do.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: paulxcook

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Koing
Definition is govern by more what you eat and calories expensed then what exercises you do.

Koing

Maybe he should eat a Hindu Diet.

Or just a Hindu.

some hindu chicks are smokin hot!