From Steve's basic concept I rant..need clarification

[ap0258]

Steve had this written in his basic concepts I rant and I've wanted clarification from anyone who can shed light on this:

"7. Set goals properly. I am not going to get into the importance of setting goals. I just want to note that it is important to make sure your goals do not conflict. 9/10 people come onto this forum looking to lose fat and gain muscle. This is not how our bodies work. Focus on one thing at a time. Gaining muscle dictates different stimulus through diet and nutrition than does losing fat."

So I am basically trying to lose fat, get smaller, and gain lean muscle mass. I am currently 200lbs, 5'10 and 23yrs of age. I have been lifting weights and doing some cardio, and dropped some weight but it hasn't moved anywhere. I know this could be due to the fact taht I lift weights with progressive overload...but I really want to lose weight/fat and get smaller while adding muscle. Should I not lift weights and instead just focus first on losing fat and weight and then once I have reached that goal, move onto lifting weights? With lifting weights and cardio, I do put more emphasis on lifting weights...i know that muscles burn more calories than fat..but is this no the right way to go about it? hope ya'll can understand what I'm trying to say!

Also, I naturally have a huge chest and it keeps on getting bigger as I get stronger and lift higher weights, how can I stop it from getting too big?

 

[Sports FanAttic]

Steve had this written in his basic concepts I rant and I've wanted clarification from anyone who can shed light on this:

"7. Set goals properly. I am not going to get into the importance of setting goals. I just want to note that it is important to make sure your goals do not conflict. 9/10 people come onto this forum looking to lose fat and gain muscle. This is not how our bodies work. Focus on one thing at a time. Gaining muscle dictates different stimulus through diet and nutrition than does losing fat."

Hiya,

I personally don't agree with what Steve has said above - WHY can't our bodies lose fat, and gain muscle at the same time? As far as I'm concerned, one of the fundamental elements of losing fat is stimulating your muscles, because they'll help you burn more fat!

Also, not focusing at all on muscle development because you should 'focus on one thing at a time' will mean that you're burning muscle, as well as fat - which most people really don't want to do - ESPECIALLY if you just do cardio. Cardio is great, but it's important to remember that it will burn both fat and muscle.

I believe that (as with anything really) balance is the key. If you're trying to lose some weight and get leaner muscles, then why not aim for both at the same time?

Reduce your fat by adjusting your diet, increasing your metabolism by eating more regularly (not over-eating, of course, but 4 small meals a day rather than 3 big ones, for example, and healthy snacks between meals etc.), and doing a couple of cardio sessions a week.

Muscle-wise, focus on compound exercises - this will also help with the inbalance with your chest muscles. Compound exercises like press-ups, chin-ups, sit-ups, lunges etc. target multiple muscle groups, as opposed to isolation exercises which target only one muscle.

At the end of the day, I believe the best way to achieve weight loss is by a balanced diet and workout routine - and that routine would definitely include muscle development.

Good luck - keen to hear how you go about things, and how you get on!

 

[Cord the Seeker]

Hi.

I'm not Steve.

But here is my interpretation of Steve's point.

To my admittedly limited understanding, it is difficult to lose weight and build muscle mass at the same time. Losing weight requires a caloric deficit. Gaining muscle mass requires a caloric surplus. See the inherent problem?

We weight train when trying to lose weight in order to retain our current muscle mass and to build strength. When we lose weight, we lose some muscle along with the fat. Therefore, weight training is essential when trying to lose weight. Also, weight training burns calories, so its all good.

Keep doing weights and cardio together. Your choice on whether to focus on losing the weight and then building the muscle, or the other way around. Both should work, I think.

I may be totally wrong about all this, of course, and if there are some real experts on the subject who want to chime in, please do.

 

[Jeanette401]

Disclaimer - I'm not an expert.

However 1) it's possible to gain muscle and weight at the same time, it's just not likely if you're already very lean or very muscular.
2) Lifting the weights is still good even in a caloric deficit. There's a chance you'll gain muscle, and at the least it protects against you losing muscle.
3) Even if you don't gain muscle you can still get stronger.
4) There's a chance you'll lose 'lean mass' that's not actually muscle. You don't need as much connective tissue when you're smaller, and your body might get rid of some of it.

In general the recommendation is to lift the weights to keep (and maybe gain) muscle while eating at a caloric deficit.

Hope this helps!

 

[Steve]

Part I of Reply to Sports Fanattic

I personally don't agree with what Steve has said above - WHY can't our bodies lose fat, and gain muscle at the same time?

Not effectively.

Hypertrophy (muscle cell growth) is a very intensive process, energetically speaking. If you're not consuming enough energy to maintain the tissue you currently have (i.e., while dieting), what makes you believe your body is going to make that situation worse by adding more of a metabolically active tissue?

And even if it did decide to worsen the situation, where would the energy come from the facilitate such growth? We're all bound by the confines of thermodynamics, last I checked.

I'd like to hear your theories on that.

I've said many times here, but it bares repeating... the only time you *might* see appreciable and simultaneous fat loss and muscle gain is when the trainee is overly fat and/or untrained.

If you fall into either or both of those categories... there's a good chance concurrent body composition changes will occur. But it's not something that should be expected and it's not something that will be long-lived b/c of the aforementioned reasons.

As far as I'm concerned, one of the fundamental elements of losing fat is stimulating your muscles, because they'll help you burn more fat!

Stimulating your muscles does not automatically make you burn fat. Maybe you can explain what you mean a bit more please?

Also, not focusing at all on muscle development because you should 'focus on one thing at a time' will mean that you're burning muscle, as well as fat - which most people really don't want to do

You're misapplying what I wrote. Probably not your fault... more than likely I didn't make my point clear.

While losing fat it's important to worry about muscle maintenance since for most, that's the best they're going to get. Doing so requires eating adequate protein and lifting weight.

But the lifting weights portion is different when you're losing fat compared to when you're focusing on muscle development.

There are multiple reasons for this but the primary one has to do with recoverability. When dieting, we're deficient in energy by default... otherwise we wouldn't lose tissue. When we're deficient in energy, we're also deficient in recoverability.

Therefore, our training modalities must be adjusted to accommodate said reduced recoverability.

I'm not saying, "Don't lift weights while losing fat."

Quite the contrary in fact. Expand your thinking in order to realize that weight training has multiple applications that depend on your current state, training age, goals, etc. Everyone should be resistance training IMO, but not all resistance training is created equal.

Here is a blurb about this from a sticky on my forum:

Given the above point you might ask yourself why you should lift weights while dieting. For starters, the health benefits associated with lifting weights go well beyond fat loss and muscle gain. The biggest thing is a strong body tends to be a healthy body. Along those same lines, I buy into the old saying of, “you don’t use it you lose it.” Resistance training helps build and maintain strength and mobility and carrying these things with you as you age can never hurt. Strength training has also been shown to increase bone mineral density. I don’t know about you but I’m not a fan of getting old and breaking a hip. Resistance training has also been shown to prompt cardiovascular improvements, believe it or not. Increased insulin sensitivity, improved blood pressure, improved blood lipid profiles… the list goes on and on. Resistance training is good for you.

In relation to my point though I want to restate the original question: Why should I lift weights while dieting? For starters, complete novices who have never touched a weight before as well as people who are carrying around a lot of extra fat benefit from the ability to gain muscle and lose fat simultaneously. This depends a good bit on genetics too, but in general, simultaneous muscle gain and fat loss (hereafter referred to as recomposition) is next to impossible to achieve outside the realm of novices, overweight individuals and drug users. The reason being, keeping this simplistic, is that muscle building (hypertrophy) is a very intensive process, energetically speaking. Put differently, you need a surplus of calories (more energy in than out) to facilitate recovery and growth of new muscle. While dieting for fat loss, you don’t have adequate calories to maintain your current tissue (hence the loss in weight accompanying a caloric deficit). So adding something as metabolically active as muscle tissue probably isn’t going to happen in the face of an energy deficit. As I’m typing this it seems a bit wordy but suffice it to say, unless you're fat and/or untrained… don’t expect to gain an appreciable amount of muscle while dieting.

This probably makes you more eager to have the question answered. If I’m not going to be adding muscle why the heck should I waste my time resistance training when I can spend my time doing cardio? For starters, a weight lifting routine can be cardiovascular, but that’s a different subject for a different time. To my point, a major reason people aren’t content when they actually reach their goal weight is due to the simple fact that they didn’t lift weights while dieting or they lifted weights using screwy programming/parameters.

Including an appropriately structured weight lifting routine in your diet program gives your body a reason to hold on to as much muscle as possible. Without it, chances are good as you get closer to your goal weight that a higher proportion of weight lost will be from muscle rather than fat. Remember, there is a huge difference between losing fat and losing weight. Unless you’re interested in being a lighter, still soft version of your former self, I suggest you listen to this point.

On the same token:

Good nutrition = A
Resistance training = B
Cardio = C
Total Health and Good Physique = D

A+B+C=D

Take A, B, or C out of the equation and you are operating sub-optimally and giving up unique benefits associated only with the dropped variable.

Losing weight is as simple as creating a deficit. This deficit can come solely from diet, it can come solely from cardio exercise, it can come solely from weight training.

But that's assuming weight loss is the only thing that matters to you. In most, if not all cases things like appearance, health and performance matter more than the simplistic number on the scale. If that's the case, it's going to take a balanced approach utilizing all of the variables. Often times resistance training is the first variable dropped or worst, the variable that’s not even considered.

If you're interested, the entire sticky can be found here:

 

[Steve]

Part II of reply to Sports Fanatic

- ESPECIALLY if you just do cardio. Cardio is great, but it's important to remember that it will burn both fat and muscle.

When dieting, you're always burning a mixture of fat, sugar AND muscle.

Hint, hint.

You have a point that working to preserve muscle while dieting is important... but that doesn't counter my original point in question.

My original point was and still is... how you train for muscle growth is not how you should train for fat loss. Remember, this does not mean you shouldn't lift weights while dieting.

I believe that (as with anything really) balance is the key.

This I can agree with.

If you're trying to lose some weight and get leaner muscles, then why not aim for both at the same time?

Because human physiology doesn't work like that and managing realistic expectations is a critical part of helping people not only reach their goals with the least bumps along the way... but also keeping as much frustration at bay as possible.

Reduce your fat by adjusting your diet, increasing your metabolism by eating more regularly (not over-eating, of course, but 4 small meals a day rather than 3 big ones, for example,

Meal frequency has jack all to do with metabolic rate. I hope you don't find my refute offensive here. We're just conversing, which is great IMO b/c it helps shed light for all those interested.

Re: Meal frequency... here's a blurb from this month's newsletter we disperse to the clients at my gym:

With personal training, time is often limited to a 60-minute chunk of time for client-trainer interaction. Reaching your fitness/physique goals, though, requires much more than your 1-3 hours spent with your trainer each week. Adequate discussion about nutrition is a rarity. Hopefully this monthly section of the newsletter will help fill this void.

This month we’re going to talk about one particular facet of nutrition – meal frequency. Fads tend to develop and grow in the fitness industry more-so and at faster rates than in any other. One such fad states that in order to stoke your “metabolic furnace” and keep it burning hot, you need to eat many small meals each day. It’s quite often we hear clients say something like, “Man! I’m so frustrated. I simply can’t stick to eating 6 meals per day, it’s so frustrating! And I know it’s hindering my fat loss.”

Unfortunately for the companies and professionals that perpetuate this fad, it’s not something that’s supported scientifically. Research certainly suggests higher meal frequencies can help with factors such as satiety and regulation of blood sugar. It does not however, suggest that higher meal frequencies will lead to a faster metabolism when compared to lower meal frequencies.

Where does this myth come from?

To answer that question, we need to consider what metabolism is comprised of. The core components of what makes up your metabolism and thus your caloric needs are Resting Metabolic Rate (RMR), Thermic Effect of Activity (TEA), and Thermic Effect of Food.

Total Metabolism = RMR + TEA + TEF

For simplicity’s sake, RMR is the calories expended in a state of complete rest. Even when you’re sleeping your body requires energy for things like respiration, organ function, etc. In fact, RMR is the largest component of metabolism. TEA is simply the energy expended via activity. This can include formal exercise as well as gardening, walking the dog, or whatever you enjoy doing when you’re not resting. This is the second largest component of the metabolism equation.

TEF is what we’re really interested in with regards to this concept of meal frequency. TEF is simply the energy required to breakdown, process and digest the foods we eat. TEF increases after each meal, obviously, as your body works to handle the foods you recently consumed. Thus, the myth was born. People took this increase in TEF post-eating to mean eat more frequently to boost your metabolism.

The problem with this logic is this: if we eat fewer, larger meals… the thermic effect per meal is going to be larger as our bodies “work harder” to breakdown and utilize the larger quantity of food per meal. Compare this with more frequent, smaller meals where the thermic effect occurs more times per day but each time it’s small relative to a reduced-frequency eating pattern.

Thus, we’re left with zero net difference in terms of metabolism.

• Same calories spread over more, smaller meals = more frequent, yet smaller TEF per day

• Same calories spread over less, larger meals = less frequent, yet larger TEF per day

The primary reason we take issue with the incessant need to perpetuate this myth is it tends to make people anxious. The more rigidity you add to a nutritional plan, the less likely people are going to stick to it over the long-term. For those who have busy schedules, aren’t satiated by eating more frequently or simply don’t feel like eating 6 times per day… DON’T!

The moral of the story is what and how much you eat is certainly very important in terms of your fitness/physique goals, but how frequently you eat each day isn’t nearly as important. What takes far more precedence are things like calories in vs. calories out and nutrient (macro and micro) quality of your diet. These are things we will certainly cover in future newsletters.

Muscle-wise, focus on compound exercises - this will also help with the inbalance with your chest muscles.

I agree with the compound exercise recommendation.

For the chest imbalance, you want to look at overweighting pulling/rowing movements in relation to pressing movements, while simultaneously looking to increase flexibility and ROM of your chest, lats and shoulders.

At the end of the day, I believe the best way to achieve weight loss is by a balanced diet and workout routine - and that routine would definitely include muscle development.

Which I never suggested otherwise. At the end of the day, I think my original words were taken out of context which left you to believe I don't think people should be lifting weights while dieting.

If you read the post where this blurb was taken from, you'd see that this isn't the case.

Heck, I get paid to teach people to lift weights for fat loss

But I figured I'd add in some commentary in response to you since some good training discussion hasn't taken place here in a while.

 

[Tracy740]

Steve had this written in his basic concepts I rant and I've wanted clarification from anyone who can shed light on this:

"7. Set goals properly. I am not going to get into the importance of setting goals. I just want to note that it is important to make sure your goals do not conflict. 9/10 people come onto this forum looking to lose fat and gain muscle. This is not how our bodies work. Focus on one thing at a time. Gaining muscle dictates different stimulus through diet and nutrition than does losing fat."

So I am basically trying to lose fat, get smaller, and gain lean muscle mass. I am currently 200lbs, 5'10 and 23yrs of age. I have been lifting weights and doing some cardio, and dropped some weight but it hasn't moved anywhere. I know this could be due to the fact taht I lift weights with progressive overload...but I really want to lose weight/fat and get smaller while adding muscle. Should I not lift weights and instead just focus first on losing fat and weight and then once I have reached that goal, move onto lifting weights? With lifting weights and cardio, I do put more emphasis on lifting weights...i know that muscles burn more calories than fat..but is this no the right way to go about it? hope ya'll can understand what I'm trying to say!

Also, I naturally have a huge chest and it keeps on getting bigger as I get stronger and lift higher weights, how can I stop it from getting too big?

Well, I can atest to what Steve has said. I have been working and working HARD for the last month. I lost 7#'s in 25 days and 13" overall. Then I gained 4 back (or did I?) I dropped from a 22 to a 16 in those 25 days. My bra size has went from a 42c to a 39c. I really believe that there is no way to lose fat without gaining muscle and if you are not working out and losing fat more then likely the muscle is going with it!! But of course that is my opinion. If you looked at me right now you would not think that I still weigh 226 #'s because of the inches that I have lost, I am gaining muscles that I did not know even existed, my arms are toning up so I do not have as much of that under arm flab that waves in the wind.

 

[ap0258]

So with strength training while trying to lose fat, would you recommend doing progressive overload? Also, to supplement the repairing of muscles, you recommend taking in whey or casein protein to supplement? However, I don't want my muscles to get too big while I'm trying to slim down!

Also, how you do you guys fight off the insatiable hunger you get from dieting and working out?

 

[Sports FanAttic]

I hope you don't find my refute offensive here. We're just conversing, which is great IMO b/c it helps shed light for all those interested.

Not offensive at all I couldn't be further from being a professional - the only knowledge I have is from general research I've done, and personal experience - so having expert advice like yours is extremely valuable!

Re: metabolism in relation to meal frequency, I've read a lot about 'starvation mode' - the idea that your body slows it's metabolism to conserve energy if it's not getting enough nourishment. What are your thoughts on this?

I understand that what you're taking in is just as important as how often, but can you really say that upping the frequency of good foods won't help even more?

Thanks for the clarification re: muscle work during fat loss attempts - I probably should have read your original post

Cheers!

 

[Sports FanAttic]

Stimulating your muscles does not automatically make you burn fat. Maybe you can explain what you mean a bit more please?

Well, I've read things like a pound of fat will burn 2 calories a day, whereas a pound of muscle will burn 50. Whether the numbers are right or not is probably irrelevant - the idea is that the more muscle you have, the faster your metabolism (at rest, I presume) will be, and the more calories you'll burn (again, I presume while at rest).

So, stimulate muscles and you'll burn more calories...

Thoughts?

 

[Tracy740]

So with strength training while trying to lose fat, would you recommend doing progressive overload? Also, to supplement the repairing of muscles, you recommend taking in whey or casein protein to supplement? However, I don't want my muscles to get too big while I'm trying to slim down!

Also, how you do you guys fight off the insatiable hunger you get from dieting and working out?

My Personal Trainer recommended that I drink a Whey protien shake an hour before I work out. I have done that but when I mix it with milk, ya not good when you are working hard made my stomach ache and made me have acid reflux. I do not know if this is the correct thing as I think everyone has a different opinion!!

 

[Steve]

So with strength training while trying to lose fat, would you recommend doing progressive overload?

Sure. If you can add weight to the bar in small increments over time, go ahead. Don't be pushing to failure though... that can be counterproductive due to the whole recoverability thing.

Besides, failure isn't a goal with regards to muscle growth anyhow.

The stronger you get, the less you should expect to be able to progress in terms of weight on the bar when dieting. For instance, I rarely get much stronger while dieting. But most around here most likely don't have to worry about that.

Just saying... there's really no clear cut yes and no answers... it almost always depends.

Also, to supplement the repairing of muscles, you recommend taking in whey or casein protein to supplement?

A protein powder can be beneficial if you're not getting in adequate amounts of protein for muscle maintenance through whole foods. If you are though, I wouldn't sweat it.

I use protein powder to supplement my protein intake b/c with my schedule, I have trouble getting enough protein in through whole foods. But it's not because of some magical benefit provided by the powder.

It's just powder form of the stuff we can get from food.

While dieting, I'll typically rely less on powder since whole foods tend to satiate me better and hunger is always something I look to mitigate while dieting.

You should be looking to get in approximately 1 gram of protein per pound of goal body weight.

However, I don't want my muscles to get too big while I'm trying to slim down!

Read what I wrote above about hypertrophy being an energy intensive process while keeping in mind your energetic state while dieting.

Also, how you do you guys fight off the insatiable hunger you get from dieting and working out?

Hunger is inevitable.

Few thoughts though:

1. Eat as much food as possible while triggering fat loss. Being too rigid with our calories isn't necessary.

2. Load up on low calorie, high-nutrient-density foods such as veggies and fruits. I'll always keep cold, fresh veggies in the fridge to load up on when hunger gets the better of me. A huge bowl of spinach with chopped up carrots, snow peas, some cheese, and low calorie dressing for instance.

3. Protein is the most satiating macronutrient. Make sure you're getting enough, as noted above.

4. Fiber. Make sure you're eating a healthy dose of it daily.

5. Adequate water.

 

[Steve]

Not offensive at all I couldn't be further from being a professional - the only knowledge I have is from general research I've done, and personal experience - so having expert advice like yours is extremely valuable!

You've got my respect.

Re: metabolism in relation to meal frequency, I've read a lot about 'starvation mode' - the idea that your body slows it's metabolism to conserve energy if it's not getting enough nourishment. What are your thoughts on this?

Starvation mode is a very real phenomenon. But not in the context as most put it.

Sorry to copy and paste stuff I've written elsewhere but I've spent a lot of time on the stickies over on my forum so might as well put them to use, right. Besides, you'll get a much more thorough explanation:

What a buzzword this has become. Not only is our nation (world even) getting fatter by the day...

Now marketers are using scare tactics such as the dreaded starvation mode to strike fear in people trying to diet. What's next... broccoli makes you fat? As if there wasn't enough confusion and conflicting data out there already. But oh yea, wait... that confusion is what drives sales!

In actuality, there is some truth to what 'experts' are calling the starvation mode. But there's a whole lot of fiction and ignorance thrown into the mix as I see it today.

Can anyone here actually tell me what the starvation mode is?

My bet is most of your responses would look something like this:

"It is when you don't eat enough and your body thinks it's starving. When you reach this point, your body starts storing everything it can get its hands on as fat and breaks down your muscles."

Amirite?

Here are some myth busters in relation to the above quote:

* The starvation mode is not an event. It's not a mode either. Rather, it's a continual adaptation/readjustment of the bodily systems associated with metabolism in response to dieting and weight loss

* Said adaptation takes place regardless of the size of a calorie shortage (deficit). Diet using a very small deficit and the same adjustments will take place had you dieted using a more aggressive deficit. It will simply take longer for this to happen. In addition, there is no set level of caloric intake that triggers the starvation mode universally.

* You're body will not store fat if it is in a caloric deficit. Granted, the adaptation might slow down your metabolic rate. This does not mean, however, that all things you eat are stored as fat and all muscles you have will be lost. A deficit is a deficit no matter how you slice it and unless your body is magic, you're not going to be able to create something out of nothing (store fat without an excess of calories).

So here's the low down in simplistic terms...

The starvation response is simply a fancy way of labeling the adaptations that take place in our bodies in response to a shortage of energy.

The adaptations involved primarily exist to slowdown our metabolisms. The slowdown has a lot to do with the drop in body mass (specifically fat) associated with dieting. It also has to do with with hormonal shifts in response to the energy shortage.

Namely, our bodies don't want to be lean. Being lean goes against every natural inclination it has to survive as a species. We are a species that has evolved over many, many years. Deep in our past, a continuous and abundant food supply was something dreams were made of. Food was scarce. Knowing this, when early man would find food, he would eat a lot. His goal was to store fat which would help ensure his survival during the winter months when food would be nonexistent. Fat was a savior to these people.

We all know fat is a storage depot of excess energy. Very few of us, however, will ever be stranded on an island with no food and be forced to survive off of said storage. Our ancestors though, used this as their life blood for thousands of years which in turn, has influenced our genetic hardwiring.

The adaptations associated with dieting and losing weight, which we collectively call the starvation response or starvation mode, is simply a product of this genetic hardwiring.

In relation to plateaus... a plateau can stem from the starvation response. However, not all plateaus are products of the starvation response, so they are not one in the same as many believe. It's a given that a reduction in body weight will lead to a reduction in caloric requirements. At times though, it seems that caloric requirements drop further than weight. Put differently, in some instances it seems that what should in fact be a caloric deficit given your stats is actually maintenance or worse, a surplus. In these instances, the starvation response might be playing a role in the plateau.

It's also important to note the response is not universal to all dieters. It depends heavily on things such as genetics, sex, body fat and other stats, etc. With that in mind, obese people don't have to worry so much about metabolic slowdowns relating to the starvation response. They have much more room to wiggle, so to speak. If they find that they're plateaued, it's more likely stemming from something besides metabolic 'disruption.'

A huge regulatory signal that keeps your body out of "The Horrid Starvation Mode" is body fat. If you're fat, your body knows it for the most part and the adaptations we speak of from above are not something to be concerned with at the time.

However, if you're 500 lbs and you drop to 350... sure, starvation mode isn't something you need to concern yourself with but you still have to adjust your caloric intake to account for the giant loss in body mass.

All this said, the starvation mode is with any of us who are losing weight. There's no way around it. This certainly doesn't mean you shouldn't diet. It does mean, though, that you should manage your expectations appropriately and use logic and reason to navigate your way through losing your excess weight. Understand that weight loss is not a linear phenomenon. You can't set calories at X and expect Y amount of progress each and every week.

There's no doubt that these survival mechanisms built into our genetics play more of a role when we're lean trying to get leaner. When you're closer to your goal weight, there are some 'things' you can do to aid the process such as refeeds and carbohydrate cycling. This is beyond the scope of this thread though.

Hopefully this puts all the mysticism to rest.

You'll also find a great article written by a friend of mine, Tom Venuto, .

I understand that what you're taking in is just as important as how often, but can you really say that upping the frequency of good foods won't help even more?

Yes.

Our bodies simply don't adjust that quickly. Check out the Minnesota Starvation Experiment. In it, subjects who were already lean were put through intense starvation dieting over expansive periods of time to mimic Nazi concentration camps.

You want solid information, check out this article written by my favorite researcher/author... and another friend of mine, Lyle McDonald regarding meal frequency.



To boot, I've been doing this a long time. I've been fortunate enough to work with a large number of people and I've had a ton of experience toying around with very strict, yet diverse dieting protocols personally.

I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt that meal frequency matters very little if at all with regards to metabolic rate and fat loss results. 1 vs 6 meals might make some sort of difference, but nothing to write home about. 3 vs 6 meals isn't even worth spending more time writing about.

Read that bit I wrote above about TEF again. Where would the increased rate come from?

Also, you might be interested in checking out Martin Berkhan's blog. He's a trainer who has displayed fantastic results with his clients using a reduced meal frequency protocol known as intermittent fasting. You can find that here.

Thanks for the clarification re: muscle work during fat loss attempts - I probably should have read your original post

No problem at all... stimulated quality conversation which is always a good thing.

 

[Steve]

Well, I've read things like a pound of fat will burn 2 calories a day, whereas a pound of muscle will burn 50. Whether the numbers are right or not is probably irrelevant - the idea is that the more muscle you have, the faster your metabolism (at rest, I presume) will be, and the more calories you'll burn (again, I presume while at rest).

So, stimulate muscles and you'll burn more calories...

Thoughts?

More muscle you have, the faster your metabolism will be... yes. Problem is, for many, they're not going to be gaining muscle while dieting to an extent where metabolic rate is affected to an appreciable extent.

Sure, any little bit helps.

However, the numbers you brought up aren't accurate. They're commonly brought up though... so don't sweat it. The hard myths that get passed around this industry are hard to navigate.

Research puts the actual number at something like 14 calories per pound of lean tissue if memory serves me correct... but I haven't looked at the actual research in a long while and am too lazy to dig it up at the moment. Suffice it to say, it's greatly overstated more often then not.

Lean tissue makes up a lot of our BMR since lean tissue is metabolically active, right? And BMR comprises the largest component of our total metabolism, right?

Well here' the deal, skeletal muscle, the stuff that adapts positively to weight lifting, only comprises a small percentage of the total lean tissue that impacts your metabolic rate.

Mind you, lean tissue includes organs too.

Generally, skeletal muscle makes up less than 20% of the energy expenditure from lean tissue. The liver, alone, contributes to near 30%.

But again, the whole not gaining appreciable muscle while dieting bit really throws a big monkey wrench in the whole system.

 

[Sports FanAttic]

Cool - well, thanks for the links - I'll definitely check them out, and keep educating myself

A friend and I are currently on a health/fitness/weight-loss journey - he's looking to lose 20kg (he's currently 120), and I'm trying to gain muscle mass (not so concerned with weight), so your information above is extremely helpful for us - definitely some reading to do!

Cheers

 

[Steve]

You're welcome. My door is always open for discussion.

Best to you!

 

[Steve]

Ordinarily I subscribe to the belief that knowledge is power but after reading some of the posts in this thread I'm left thinking 'mmm...far too much intellectualising here' and if I may say so in my opinion not all of it giving accurate information.

I'm going to enjoy your opinion.

Bottom line is you have to use it to lose it. Running, swimming, cycling, dancing, jogging, aerobics, rowing, fast walking - any activity done for at least 30 minutes without a break, 3+ times a week that make you sweat will have you burning calories and losing the weight.

Who suggested otherwise?

Cutting down on how much fat and refined carbs you take into the body and boosting the amount of veggies, fruits and lean meat will get you that bit further that bit quicker. Adding in nuts, seeds and beans can make our food that bit more exciting and overall make what we eat more nutritious and beneficial to you body.

Who suggested otherwise?

To boot... in the context of fat loss, none of that matters if you're in a caloric surplus.

Before you get worried about the amount of muscle you may be losing if you just do cardio and no weights bear in mind professional sports men and women. Yes the vast majority strenghth train but the vast amount of the energy they use as atheletes is used up in cardio-vascular activities. Do you see them wasting away or losing muscle because of it??? No.

That's about as useless as it gets in terms of observational guesses.

How many athletes do you work with?

Looking solely at the allotment of time spent on various sporting activities without regard to nutritional status, specific training, etc. is useless to the conversation at hand pertaining to muscle maintenance.

The fact is, more than once in this forum and most likely in this thread it's been mentioned that maintaining muscle isn't difficult... it simply requires *some* resistance training and adequate protein consumption.

The fatter you are, the less you have to worry about this and the leaner you are, the more you do have to worry about this.

I'm not seeing where you're saying anything to counter what's been proposed.

Maybe you didn't understand what you were reading?

Some of the posts read as if c/v work without weight training is harmful to muscles. It's not. The very action of moving the human body involves muscle use, cardio work does use the muscles and does strenghten them. Weight training further conditions, tones and can enlarge the muscles.

You're missing the reams of data (peer reviewed research) which clearly shows excessive cardiovascular exercise will lead to muscle loss.

Nobody is saying if you do solely cardio your muscles are going to wither away. What we ARE saying is if you are dieting, which most are around here (keep in mind context please... we're not talking about high level athletes that are supporting their training with adequate nutrition) and you solely focus on aerobics and not adequate protein or resistance training, there's a very real and good chance you're not going to optimize your body composition.

It's that simple.

Why anyone is making this an either or proposition I do not know. It should be very clear knowing what we know about the body that varying your approach with cardio and resistance training is going to give you the most bang for your buck when it comes to physique enhancement.

I think both types of exercise are great for overall fitness, feeling of well-being.

I'm responding as I read your post. With this statement, it's very clear you either missed most of this thread or you didn't understand it.

If, when reading back, you'd like explanations to things you don't understand, by all mean, speak up. I'll help clear up the water. But what's been clearly mentioned is a balanced approach is optimal for improving your physique.

Not very scientific I know but put simply:
Big Muscles - heavey weights, 10 - 15 reps, 1 -2 sets
Lean and toned Mucles - light weights 20 - 30 reps, 3 sets

This is false.

You do not get to pick and choose how your muscles respond. A muscle either grows or it doesn't. Leanness or being tone is a function of fat mass while preserving muscle. No specific rep range creates leanness.

Having been gyming and c/ving for 11 years now I feel I know something on the subject. Using weights are only one way to get the muscles to work hard.

Maybe. But you're missing most of the research that has been done in the field. It's come a long way. I really do suggest you read through the articles that have been posted in this thread.

Swimming is indeed the only exercise that works nearly every muscle in the body and after a 20-30 min session by god you will definetly feel it.

Swimming is not the only exercise that works every muscle in the body.

 

[Sports FanAttic]

Ordinarily I subscribe to the belief that knowledge is power but after reading some of the posts in this thread I'm left thinking 'mmm...far too much intellectualising here' and if I may say so in my opinion not all of it giving accurate information.

Can I also add, in response to the 'intellectualising' statement above - what's wrong with intellectualising something?

Speaking purely from a personal perspective, I'd find it very difficult to go out and get motivated about fitness, my diet, or anything for that matter, if I didn't understand the reasons behind what I was doing, and why I was doing it. Having scientific background and evidence, like we've read in this thread (and throughout this entire forum) is not only interesting, it's extremely useful.

The idea that we shouldn't look deeper into this, because the answer is simply to 'use it or lose it' is, in my opinion, extremely shallow. There are a million different body types out there, with a million little nuances that will make certain exercises/diets etc. more effective than others. I think you'd struggle to see ANYONE get motivated if your one piece of advice was to just 'use it or lose it', and you didn't give them anything personalised to their particular situation, or any understanding of why it will work. Their results, too, would reflect that lack of personalisation and background information, I'm sure. I know MINE would...

You say that, in your opinion, not all of the information you're reading here is accurate. Well, what's the point in a forum, then? Why not just set up a Wiki put together by 'professionals', and have them write articles in response to questions that get submitted byt people like us? A forum is the gathering of a bunch of people who are at a similar stage in life/trying for similar things/sharing similar goals etc., and not all of those people are going to be 'professionals'. In fact, very few of us WILL be all that knowledgeable in a forum like this, because if we were we'd all be cut athletes that didn't need a weightloss/fitness/health forum - so I think you're missing the point there, too.

This forum - from what I can see so far - isn't about everybody knowing their stuff, and only commenting when they do. It's about sharing ideas, sharing what's working for you and what isn't, asking questions, etc. - and so what if someone makes a comment, and it's not 'accurate'? There are plenty of people scattered through this forum that DO know their stuff, and they'll invariably spot what you've written and give you their opinion.

Don't lose site of the idea of a forum - throwing out a problem/opinion/personal circumstance/whatever to the other members, and then having others respond to it/analyse it/intellectualie it/share their story/whatever, is the whole point.

 

[Jynus]

ditto everything steve just said. if i hear the "work the 12-20 rep range to tone" myth any more i'm going to go crazy. there is no such thing as a toning exercise.. i'm still completely dumbfounded at how this is still even in the fitness lexicon for people in the industry and media...

 

[shangrila]

Nothing like being kicked in the face when only trying to contribute to the dicsussion. You may disagree with what I said but to attack me as you have feels pretty horrible.

I appreciate there are many different beliefs re: the best way to exercise and strength train and the best way to acheive lasting weight loss. I don't claim to to be an expert I just wanted to contribute as I'm new here and wanted to try and make friends. I'm sorry for the obvious offence I've caused some people.

I was involved in the opening ceromony of the Commonwealth Games in 1986 as a teenager. The top atheletes of the day spent a month providing us with sports training and advice. It was a great time in my life, just a shame I didn't put it into proper practice for another 12 years. Regular national and international atheletic meets take place in Edinburgh and Glasgow. I used to go regularly in the 90s and was lucky enough to get a bit of time with the atheletes I had met through the Common Wealth Games.

My heroes include Sharon Davies, Duncan Goodhue, Rebecca Adlington, Micheal Phelps and Mark Foster. I was lucky enough to meet Sharon and Duncan in the 1980s. Swimming is something that has helped me enormously in learning to live with depression, manage bulimia and manage the pain of scoleosis plus at the same time get in shape. I've read many books and due to my spine problem have been advised by neuroligists, physios and other practitioners on the merits of swimming.

Because I love sport in general I've read alot of stuff. I've noticed that beliefs change over time. Stuff written in the 80's on, for example, how runners should train for competition differs loads to what's written now. The same can be said for info around dieting and exercise for weightloss. I've got books from over 2 decades that put forward upteen different theories and beliefs on how to get the body you want. There are many ways to get from A to B. Having waded through loads of reseach papers I've realised that no one research paper is right. There's a lot of choice out there.

There's nothing wrong with intellectualising, having a degree I can intellectualise with the best of them. I was just trying to simplify something that I thought had got overly complex. It was just an opinion that wanted to be heard, sorry for getting peoples back up.

The U.K did well in last years Olympics and our cyclists, swimmers and atheletes have been out and about loads at events where the public can meet them. I've been to a few events which have been really exciting.

'Steve - Super Nice and Caring Mod?' - maybey read your response to me again and ask yourself if this is always true.

Have removed my original post.