RJ's Diary

Hey, I'm new here and just searching through diff posts and I came upon yours. I just wanted to say that I agree with the whole hard to get motivated doing cardio! I hate cardio the most, I love lifting weights and doing sit-ups and all that kind of stuff, but cardio! AHH!!!

I've just recently got back into exercise and I know for losing weight cardio is very important, so when I go to the gym, I make sure the first place I head to is the cardio area. My goal is to do 30-60 min of cardio a day (depending on how much time I have in the morning before work). Sometimes I'll switch it up between the bike, treadmill, and eliptical just so that it makes it kind of different and feel less like torture :p

I wish you luck in your weight loss and also luck in staying motivated for your cardio! Just do it first and get it over with ;)
 
ok ive come up with a plan i'm thinking about implementing... It hits my muscle groups twice a week... low reps per set total of 25 reps. 45 seconds rest between sets. any input would be nice thanks...

Saturday

Cardio (interval) 30 mins

Sunday

Bench 5x5
Squats 5x5

Cardio (interval) 30 mins

Monday
HIIT

Tuesday
Cable Rows
5x5

Wednesday
Crunches (resisted)
5x5

Military presses (standing)
5x5

Cardio (interval) 30 mins

Thursday

Deadlifts
5x5

Friday (day off from work)

Curls
5x5

triceps press downs
5x5

shoulder laterals
5x5

HIIT

Hmmm, you aren't hitting chest twice per week? I recommend something a little simpler while you are dieting. Resistance training only a couple of times per week, and I would cut the isolation day out that you added on Fridays.

Maybe something like this:

Day 1:

Full Squat 5x5
Bench 5x5
Row 5x5
Abs

Day 2:

Light Full Squat (20% reduction in weight from previous day) or Front Squat 5x5
Deadlift 2x5
Pull up or pulldowns 5x5
Standing OH Press 3x5

Day 3:

Full Squat 5x5 (pyramid up to so that the last set is heavier than day 1 squat)
Bench 5x5
Row 5x5
Abs

This is not set in stone, but it is certainly more optimal than what you have presented and your goals.

Also, I don't like working with percentages when setting up your diet. I rather use the actual grams, it is more precise.

This said, read this post I made in another thread concerning how to set up a diet:

Before I get into specifics with someone, I like to make sure they have their calories figured out first. That is the driving factor behind all of your goals. For general purposes, maintenance caloric intake is 15 calories per pound of body weight. From this, I like to start with a deficit of roughly 15%.

I think any diet for the average person, leaving out goal dependencies, should worry about calories first and foremost, then protein requirements, then EFAs. Once they are accounted for, it is fair game to toy around with the remaining macronutrients required to fulfill your energy requirements.

For instance, if I need 3500 calories to maintain, that is the number I will shoot for.

I like to have 1 - 1.5 gm of protein for each pound that I weigh. Keep to the low end when bulking, keep to the high end while dieting. Right now that would be 195 grams, since I weigh 195 and am currently bulking. There are 4 calories in each gram of protein, which equals out to be 975 calories (using 1.25 grams/lb). If you are not weight training, these requirements would be lower. If you are dieting with a caloric deficit, protein requirements actually increase.

Then I worry about my fats. I like to have somewhere in the neighborhood of 50-100 grams as a minimum. Of this, I keep it to the healthy side of things with monounsaturateds (olive oil), certain polyunsaturateds (omega-6/9s, stuff like flax oil, borage oil, etc), and a source of omega-3s (fish oil caps, or a serving of omega-3 rich fish like salmon). Let's say from this, I take in 100 grams of fat. There are 9 calories per gram of fat, leaving us with 900 calories here.

That gives us a total of 1875 calories, while I am shooting for 3500! I need 1625 more. This is where I add my carbs and I toy around with the other macronutrients too. As an average, I would say 200 grams of carbs is a good number for an active individual. I have gone much higher myself. At any rate, once you calculate your proteins and fats, you fill the deficit needed to reach your caloric goal with a mixture of the 3. I tend to keep protein pretty stable at 1 - 1.5g per lb.

It tends to be very personal and goal dependent from this point forward. If you were going to be doing a lot of frequent cycling, I would load up on carbs, especially close to your workouts/cycles. Active people can benefit from carbs, although there is no such thing as an essential carbohydrate, there are only essential amino acids and essential fats.


In terms of cardio, I would try and find at least one day to have a complete rest. You don't want to tax your body too much while dieting.

And for now, if you follow a resistance training program similar to the one I presented here, I would bump HIIT down to once per week for starters. Other than that LISS and IT is fine on the other days.

Oh yea, and rest between sets can be longer as you are lifting relatively heavy weights. Weight lifted dictates length of rest periods. When I do 5x5, I rest 90 to 120 seconds between sets.

I am sure I am forgetting something that I wanted to say, but you get the idea.
 
thanks for the input i'm working on implementing the resistance training in... i think i got how i want to do it.

Saturday
Cardio... LISS or IT


Sunday
full squat 5x5
bench 5x5
row 5x5
abs
Cardio... LISS or IT

Monday
Complete Rest

Tueday
light full squat
deadlift 2x5
pulldowns 5x5
standing oh press 3x5
Cardio LISS or IT

Wednsday
Cardio LISS or IT

Thurdsay
Thu
fullsquat 5x5
bench 5x5
row 5x5
abs

Friday
HIIT

As for diet I had a few concerns.
The formula you use doesn't take into account bodyfat.
which means that i would need 4452 calories for maintenance... it seems excessive

My average RMR according to the link Tom provided is 2599 calories a day and fitday says my average is 3232 burned.

that would actually put me at a major surplus.
 
What link does Tom use?

And 15 cals per pound is pretty accurate 99% of the time unless you have been chronically undereating. Remember, the bigger you are, the more cals you need to maintain. It is not just about fat free mass. All tissues need calories for maintenance.
 
Here's how I do it:

I go here - Bodybuilding.com - Tris Mardiastuty - Resting Metabolic Rate Calculator. - to get my RMR. I use RMR instead of BMR, because it's a nice proxy for the calories used without any exercise. Then I multiply that number by 7 to get my weekly RMR.

For example, my RMR is 2,355 calories, or 16,485 calories a week.
Then I add up all the calories from the actual exercise that I do in a week:
HIIT, once a week: 500 cal.
SS Cardio, 2x/week: 2,000 cal.
Interval Cardio, 1x week: 1,000 cal.
Weight Training, 2x week: 1,100 cal.

Total: 4,600 cal.
Total Weekly calories = 21,085
Total Daily calories = 3,012 <-- Maintenance level.

I then set my caloric intake about 500 calories below that, or roughly 2300 calories on my non-cheat days, which allows 3,000 calories or so on a cheat day once a week.

I'm finding that if you stick to high quality nutrition, 2300 calories a day is absolutely do-able and doesn't leave me hungry at all.

Of course, I've been on a plateau for 31 days now, so what do I know? :D
 
thanks for stopping in tom and steve, your time doesnt go unnappreciated! im quite the opposite... im having a rough time getting down over 2500 calories (with junk food NO PROBLEM!). i cut out all junk food, i think im eating too much veggies and getting full. the protein shakes help :)
 
Rjaz, if you took all the other activity Tom does outside of exercise, even if he is moderately sedentary, he would be close to a maintenance of 15 cals per pound. ;)

Tom, how do you determine how many cals you are burning per mode of exercise?
 
Rjaz, if you took all the other activity Tom does outside of exercise, even if he is moderately sedentary, he would be close to a maintenance of 15 cals per pound. ;)

Tom, how do you determine how many cals you are burning per mode of exercise?

Steve, if I set my RMR at 15 x 243 lbs., I'd be a blimp! Even on my cheat days I can't get down 3,600 calories! Unless I eat lots of cake and ice cream. :p

I use a Polar heart rate monitor to determine the calories burned. I found the machines were overstating calories burned by about 10 to 15%, so I went with the more conservative figure on my HR monitor.
 
Steve, if I set my RMR at 15 x 243 lbs., I'd be a blimp! Even on my cheat days I can't get down 3,600 calories! Unless I eat lots of cake and ice cream. :p

I use a Polar heart rate monitor to determine the calories burned. I found the machines were overstating calories burned by about 10 to 15%, so I went with the more conservative figure on my HR monitor.

Hahaha, right, and 15 cals per lb is an estimate just like all other equations you use. It doesn't account for personal issues. You started dieting long ago, and eating less. Eventually, your metabolism adjusted for that. I forget your starting weight, but long ago, you were eating 3600 calories + to get you to that size.

15 calories per pound is an excellent starting place for most. Better to eat too much than too little, and adjust on a weekly or bi-weekly basis as results are measured. If 15 cals seems way to high to some, which is the case for some, many actually around this forum, then you automatically know that you are dealing with a chronic undereater. Simple as that. Or someone with a deficiency, such as thyroid.
 
hmmm i wouldnt think im a chronic under eater, i think i used to just eat a lot of really bad thigns like fast food and stuff. but i get what you mean.
 
hmmm i wouldnt think im a chronic under eater, i think i used to just eat a lot of really bad thigns like fast food and stuff. but i get what you mean.

Look, I am not pulling 15 calories per pound out of my butt. This is a number used by most strength coaches out there that is derived by averages and takes into account moderate physical activity and body size. Body size being the biggest factor contributing to calorie intake. If you are big, there are no questions about it, you NEED to eat a lot of food to maintain that. This is basic physiology.

If you find a 300 lb person and tell them their maintenance is AROUND 4500 calories and they say, "Oh no, it can't be that high, I would blow up like a blimp if I ate that much," you know one of three things:

1. This person has no idea how many calories they are consuming, and has little concept of what foods contain what calories. Believe it or not, but this tends to be the case more often than not. There are a few studies I have seen (I will try and dig them up) where scientists found the average dieter tracking their own intakes under-reported intake by roughly 50%.

2. The person has reduced their metabolism by eating under this maintenance level for a period of time, triggering the adaptive responses (mainly hormonal), which in turn reduced the amount of calories your body actually burns. This tends to be the case more often when you are dealing with relatively lean individuals. Maybe sub 15% bf.

or

3. There is something going on medically, such as thyroid dysfunction.

It really is that simple.

I am going to go out on a limb here and say this. Plateaus, for the most part, are experienced by lean people trying to get leaner. In every single study I have ever seen where food was self monitored by the test subjects, plateaus occurred. However, every single time you locked these people into the lab and the scientists actually monitored the food intakes, weight was always lost with no plateaus. Go figure.

Tom, I know you are on a plateau right now and if you don't figure it out soon, we are going to change some things up. I truly believe you are not one of these people who mis-judge their food intake. You are too precise. I have definitely seen where people had to go down to 8 calories per pound to trigger weight loss. This may be the case for you. A more strict approach may be needed where you are not upping cals to maintenance or surplus at all. Nature of the beast.

You have to remember, this is to everyone, metabolisms do not slow down by huge amounts. The largest ever reported slow down was only 30%, and that was in a study where they starved already lean people. In leaner counterparts, the adaptive responses that people like to call the "starvation mode" occur rather easily. In larger people carrying a lot of excess bodyfat, these adaptive responses are not triggered as easily if at all. Reason being, your body has many hormonal indicators that send signals to your brain saying hey, there is no reason to invoke the starvation response since we have all this stored energy in the form of fat, lying around. Hence, you have a difference in how plateaus are triggered more easily when comparing lean to fat people.

This said, fat loss can stall. It does not come off linearly. It has been noted that sometimes it seems as if momentum needs to be built, and I really haven't seen any scientific explanation for this. However, scientists have agreed that this phenomena occurs. There is still much to be learned on the subject. The hormonal adaptations are very new relative to the time spectrum.

Bit of a ramble, but thought I would share my thoughts.
 
scientists found the average dieter tracking their own intakes under-reported intake by roughly 50%.

This is amazing! I really thought that the 'error factor' was more like 10% and have always added a 10-15% fudge factor to my daily calories to compensate for under estimating!

Holy Cow! 50%???
 
Thanks for another great post, Steve.

I could believe the under-reporting part. Before I started tracking every morsel I put in mouth, I made some guesstimates about what I was eating, and I suspect it was a good 500 to 700 calories short of reality.

Of course, now that I am precisely tracking everything, I'm on a plateau. No fair!! :mad:

Anyway, RJ, you shouldn't have these problems, because you're younger than I am. Steve won't admit it yet, but after 55, your metabolism just gets "tired out". That's my science and I'm stickin' to it! :D
 
Thanks for another great post, Steve.

I could believe the under-reporting part. Before I started tracking every morsel I put in mouth, I made some guesstimates about what I was eating, and I suspect it was a good 500 to 700 calories short of reality.

Of course, now that I am precisely tracking everything, I'm on a plateau. No fair!! :mad:

Anyway, RJ, you shouldn't have these problems, because you're younger than I am. Steve won't admit it yet, but after 55, your metabolism just gets "tired out". That's my science and I'm stickin' to it! :D

Well it does slow with age. That just means you have to drop lower in calorie intake. IMO, you are eating on the high end for weight loss in your personal circumstance. If I remember correctly, you are eating over 10 cals per pound, but I could be off. This coupled with your age, I def. think we can squeeze some cals out of your intake to see the weight loss pick back up. It is all trial and error though, as you know.
 
Great stuff, yeah i never thought you just pulled the figure out of your ass, so to speak, just thought maybe you missed my stats or something, or maybe it might make a difference.

I am very specific with calorie monitoring... i know the tare weight of my butter knife so i can track how many grams on spread im putting on my baked potato :) i preweigh my jar of peanuts to know exactly how many grams i consumed

(a scale is amazing! no guesswork!)

I think i am doing much better this time around due to actually counting calories and not guestimating, or doing a diet where you eat all protein as much as you want and no carbs. I feel better, im less irratable, and now i know not to spin my wheels putting myself into hypertrophy when im in a calorie defecit. Big thanks to everyone... this information and support will make the difference this time.

well enough chat... i gotta work out to do

thanks again!
 
Well it does slow with age. That just means you have to drop lower in calorie intake. IMO, you are eating on the high end for weight loss in your personal circumstance. If I remember correctly, you are eating over 10 cals per pound, but I could be off. This coupled with your age, I def. think we can squeeze some cals out of your intake to see the weight loss pick back up. It is all trial and error though, as you know.

I can relate to that one...at 50, I feel like my metabolism is definitely a lot slower than it was at 40 and even a measurable difference in the past three years...I am sure that menopausal issues fall into that factor for women...and that is frustrating too!

Beth
 
10 min warm up on stationary bike
stretching

Resistance training.

Light full squats
0x6 0x5 0x6 0x5 0x6
-knee felt good no problems, still taking it slow dont want to risk anything, will move up to bar next work out. every now and then theres a slight reminder of my knee problem while at work, on pain scale 1-10 its a 1.

Deadlifts
100x5 100x5
-been a while since i did deadlifts, felt good. i'll slowly start to move up in weight

Pulldowns
220x5 220x5 220x5 200x5 200x5
-didnt notice i was doing 220 used wrong resistance bar. had intended to start at 180. wasn't really 5 full quality reps which is whty i went down to 200

Standing OH press
50x5 55x5 60x5
-60 felt about right

finished up with about 20 mins of cardio, and then stretching/cooldown

total time
1h 01m
458 calories

i was drained, i actually took a 15min nap before work
 
RJ Just wanted to stop by and say hello and thank you for pointing me to Fitday.com.

I started using it and it looks like its going to help me a lot. I was having a lot of trouble keeping track of calories by hand.

Thanks Again.
 
Back
Top