Weekly workout plan, advice needed

[Lettuce]

Okay. I've heard a few different views on working out, so I should probably start with my goals. I need to shed a few pound from my midsection and want to balance out my body. Unfortunately, after several years of bowling, my right arm is quite a bit stronger than my left. Kinda like the guy from "The Lady in the Water"

BWAHAHAHA! Just kidding, not that bad. LOL!!! :jump1:

So, back to the point. I've heard to work out every other day/three times a week and I've heard only weight training one day a week with 2 days of cardio. I've also heard to just do cardio to burn the fat off than worry about building my body up. What would be the most efficiant way for me to shed my midsection and build my "beach body" up?

 

[MarkMyWords]

I vote for 3 fullbody workouts a week, 2-3 sessions of HIIT, and as much extra biking, running, walking etc. as you'd like. That way, the intense, heavy, compounds from the full body workouts give your body a reason to hold onto muscle, the HIIT helps to melt fat, and of course any extra cardio is just more calories burned.

Then nutrition has to be nailed down. As long as you are eating in a small deficit, that combines with the extra energy being burned, and the result is fat being shed on a weekly basis. Don't neglect any part of the puzzle though!

 

[g8r80]

Unfortunately, after several years of bowling, my right arm is quite a bit stronger than my left. Kinda like the guy from "The Lady in the Water"

Yeah, right, it's from bowling, sure... Fess up, we know why your right arm is stronger than your left arm

 

[stroutman81]

So, back to the point. I've heard to work out every other day/three times a week and I've heard only weight training one day a week with 2 days of cardio.

As stated in the above post, strength training should be done more frequently than once per week. Something like 3 full-body sessions per week or a 4 day split of upper/lower are easy ways to go about it.

Pretty much anything will work assuming you don't use retardedly high volume and focus on proper loading of the muscles.

I've also heard to just do cardio to burn the fat off than worry about building my body up.

An energy (calorie) deficit is what 'burns' fat off. Said deficit can be established by eating less food, moving more, or a combination of the both. The body doesn't know any difference.... it simply recognizes the energy deficit.

That said, theoretically you could lose fat with little to no cardio. Assuming you're in this for total health and not about starving yourself though, I'd suggest at least a handful of cardio sessions each week.

As well as maintaining/improving cardiovascular fitness, cardio also acts as a ballast to your caloric deficit. Without cardio, you have to eat less and less, which isn't fun for most. I like to think of cardio as a caloric *bank*. You can bank calories here to add to your diet. Burn 300 calories though cardio and that's 300 extra calories you can eat.

Hunger can be a pain in the ass the leaner you get.

In terms of bulking up while dieting.... I wouldn't expect much of it. Building muscle is a very intensive process, energetically speaking. As stated above, while dieting you must be in an energy deficit in order to oxidize fat. This said, during this time you won't have the energetic capacity to facilitate muscle growth. Hell, your body will barely maintain what you've got.

If you are a complete novice, some muscle growth can be expected, but it will be short-lived more than likely.

You still though, should strength train as it acts as a stimulus to preserve the muscle you currently have.

Rambling here, but hopefully you can take something from this.

What would be the most efficiant way for me to shed my midsection and build my "beach body" up?

Figure out your maintenance caloric intake... point where energy in = energy out.

You can assume this to be something like 14-16 calories per pound with exercise factored in.

From here, establish a deficit of 20-30% off of said maintenance.

This deficit can be comprised of a reduction in food. You can track your intake with something like or .

The deficit can also be comprised of a few sessions of cardio each week as well as the 2-3 full body sessions as mentioned above.

Best to ya!

 

[Lettuce]

Great advice guys. Thanks a lot.

Figuring 15 cals for every pound, I'm looking at about 2925/day (which is about the average I was eating. Take out 20%, I'm down to 2340, which is about 100 less than what I ate yesterday.

I've been working out for quite some time now and man-o-man do I wish I could replicate the growth I saw when I first started! LOL!!! I did see a bit of an improvement when I started training again and there has been a slow development over the last 9 months. I will be the first to admit, out of those 9 months there were only 54 days I went to the gym, two of which were solely to shower. Now, we have the influx of these "Resolutionists" and I was surprised that only 2 days into the new year the place was CRAMMED! I figured it would take about a week before it got packed that way. I gotta deal with another 2 months of these people. I wish there was a way to weed out the people who aren't gonna stick to it and keep the ones who are instead of dealing with 2-3 months of cramped locker rooms and no space to work out on the floor. I just bought a stability ball at sports authority and will be going back Sat to get a few dumbells so my wife and I could do wome stuff at home until they thin out. LOL!

So, I should do something like, FBW Mon, HIIT Tues, FBW Wed, HIIT Thur and FBW Fri, rest the weekend. Maybe add another HIIT during the weekend, depending on my mood.

As far as my diet, I'm doing pretty well with phasing out some of the junk food for the time being at least, but I do give myself a good cheat meal once a week, normally Friday. Speaking of which, in about 2 weeks, I'm treating myself to a Drovers Platter and a nice mug of Yuengling! I try to keep it high protein/high fiber (which unfortunately is kicking my butt ATM, pardon the pun) and lots of fruit. I'm getting better with my veggies too. God they taste like hell, but I just remind myself of the effects of NOT eating right.

 

[stroutman81]

So, I should do something like, FBW Mon, HIIT Tues, FBW Wed, HIIT Thur and FBW Fri, rest the weekend. Maybe add another HIIT during the weekend, depending on my mood.

Way too much high intensity cardio.

When you diet, your recoverability declines. In general, I wouldn't throw any CNS-intensive work in on off-training days. If you feel you must do this type of training, I'd consolidate the intensity days.

With the plan you set up here, overtraining is almost a certainty while dieting.

I'm ok throwing 1-2 high intensity cardio sessions in during the initial stages of a diet. However, the *deeper* you go into it, the less and less I'd do of it.

I'm not sure I really put much weighting on the EPOC effects associated with HIIT at this stage in the game anyhow.

In other words, you have to look at it from the big picture, and ultimately the stress response and adaptive process will be the final arbiter of what you do. Thus diet and its cascading effects on the body will be a key factor to consider.

A very wise man I know said this with regards to this very topic:

"I know it's not all the rage these days, but relying on low to moderate volumes of basic strength training, low to moderate intensities of metabolic work, and focusing on diet as the key modality actually does work. I'm not training endurance athletes, I'm training people that want to look better. Everything in moderation."

 

[Lettuce]

Okay. So, should I just do something like 30-45 mins cardio and my FBW mon, wed and fri?

 

[stroutman81]

I'd throw as much steady state work as needed, which is going to be different from individual to individual, diet to diet.

If you want to keep HIIT in the mix, I'd do it on strength training days. That's what I meant above when I said, "consolidate your CNS-intensive training."

Remember, this is a touch & feel process. As time progresses, you should be tracking progress using various metrics. With feedback from said metrics, you'll know when you need to alter/tweak your appproach.

 

[Chillen]

Hunger can be a pain in the ass the leaner you get.

Best to ya!

Steve, I dont mean to hyjack the thread. But could you "please" provide additional thoughts on this.



Chillen

 

[Lettuce]

Steve, I dont mean to hyjack the thread. But could you "please" provide additional thoughts on this.



Chillen

I agree. Some clarification is needed.

The leaner muscle you have on your body the more you can eat. IIRC, the aproximation is you burn 50 cals for every pound of muscle in one day. Say you have 50 pounds of straight lean muscle (just for instance) that's about 2500 cals a day. Which is what I eat now, sorta. Than you have to figure your brain uses 10% of the calories you consume a day, digestion itself is about 10-15% (i'm going off memory so I may be a bit off). In essence, by adding lean muscle you are giving yourself the right to eat more. I'd be willing to bet, after going thru a short period of either eating less calories/day or working out more and burning off more than I take in, and leaning out, I would be able to fill a day with 3000-3500 cals and not think twice (seeing as it's not horribly fattening junk foods).

I think the biggest problem for me is, I don't stay full long enough for my exercise to have an effect. Because of the foods I normally chose, I burn thru them (digestivly speaking) and begin to feel hungry again. I had a great day on the 3rd. I ate loads of protein and fiber and felt full for most of the day, but after I came home from the gym I felt hungry so I snacked on some chips. They were Herr's multi grain tortilla chips, 140 cals per serving and I was able to controll myself and keep it at about one serving.

I was finally able to get to the store and get real food, so I'll have something "real" to bring to work with me so I don't eat the junk they have there and feel the urge to get fast food inthe morning.

 

[stroutman81]

Steve, I dont mean to hyjack the thread. But could you "please" provide additional thoughts on this.



Chillen

Certainly.

The leaner muscle you have on your body the more you can eat.

You need to banish the idea that leanness has something to do with muscle. Rather, it has everything to do with how much body fat you are carrying.

IIRC, the aproximation is you burn 50 cals for every pound of muscle in one day.

No, that's a lot of mythical BS right there that's just flat out false.

Let's take me for example. When I started this journey, I was 170ish pounds. A couple of months back I was 205. That's 35 lbs gained. If you saw my pics, I'm lean.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say 10 lbs of that was fat. That's 25 lbs of muscle I've put on.

With your numbers, I should be burning 1250 more calories per day.

Hint: I'm not.

Research puts the number at 5.89kcal/lb/day.

Let's not forget, muscle mass on average accounts for less than 20% of BMR.

Say you have 50 pounds of straight lean muscle (just for instance) that's about 2500 cals a day. Which is what I eat now, sorta. Than you have to figure your brain uses 10% of the calories you consume a day, digestion itself is about 10-15% (i'm going off memory so I may be a bit off).

Nah, it's a bit more complex than this. See above.... muscle accounts for a small part of BMR, relatively speaking.

Your organs in a systemic sense account for much, much more. Liver and brain function alone can account for a total of almost 50% of BMR.

In essence, by adding lean muscle you are giving yourself the right to eat more.

In a way, but most overstate it by A LOT. This thread case in point.

*********************************************************

Chillen, the leaner you get, the more your body is going to resist your efforts. Leptin is a bitch. I've discussed it with you before on WLF.

But there is a bunch of other things downstream from Leptin like gherlin which can really screw with appetite. Adaptations/swings in these hormones tend to be more volatile the leaner you get... part of that whole 'starvation response' mechanism people like to talk about.

Basically, the leaner you get, the more your body is going to regulate things like hunger, metabolic rate, SNS activity, etc.

That's all I meant.

 

[Lettuce]

So, in essence, what you are saying is that the less fat you have on your body the more you're gonna want to eat?


Have you ever tried eating high fiber foods??? I'm never full, but recently, I've been eating high fiber/protein foods and I'm getting full faster and staying fuller longer. I just had lunch. One 8 oz can of L/S V8, one slice of L/F Provolone cheese, one fiber one bar 1.4 oz., one cup of FF yogurt and I was full. I had a cup of tea only cause I have one cup every morning. I had all of 12 oz of food (20 oz counting the tea) and I was full.


I agree 50cals/lb/day seems a bit high. I'll give you that, but from what I have read in many DIFFERENT places, the more muscle mass you have the more you will burn off, both in a "resting" state and while doing strenous work.


Now, as far as your number of 5.89 cals/lb/day, are you eating the same amount of cals/day? Have you tried eating more? (Not that it's the greatest idea, but it's the only way to figure out if you can or can't burn more off.)


Unfortunately, not all people are the same. Some people can do more with less and others less with more. I.E. My wife has been through chemo twice and is on thryoid medication to regulate her levels since her thyroid isn't working properly anymore. When her bloodwork comes back fine and her numbers are in the normal range, she is gaining weight, her hair is falling out and no matter how much she sleeps, she feels run down all the time. Then, when her bloodwork comes back and it's outside of the normal range (low) she feels great, her hair stops falling out, she's rested and she starts to lose weight. Also, her white blood cell count (what protects you from getting sick) is low. normal range is 4.3-10.8 (4,300 and 10,800 cells per cubic millimeter (cmm)). Hers is 2.4-2.6. WAY below normal and she is the healthiest person I know.


I am in no way saying you don't know what you are talking about, just presenting the fact that no two people are gonna seee the same result. Another example for you. My next door neighbor lost over 130 pounds (between 17-19 years of age) and is now eating the same as he ate before, save for the fact that he cut soda down to once or twice a week, and not gaining any weight. He cut his intake down to better foods and a few less cals a day while losing weight and is now back to eating at least what he was eating before. So, he added muscle mass, lots fat and not is managing to burn off what he couldn't burn off before. It wasn't a matter of inactivity cause we both would come home from school and shoot hoops till we couldn't see the ball anymore, 5 days a week. So you can't say it's cause he stopped playing video games and went outside for a change.


I am going to COMPLETELY forget the notion that every pound of muscle burns 50 cals/day. Looking on it now, it seems a bit exaggerated. I'll have to do a little more research on it later in the day.

 

[stroutman81]

So, in essence, what you are saying is that the less fat you have on your body the more you're gonna want to eat?

I'm saying the more below your body's natural settling point you go in terms of fat stores, the more your body is going to resist you. Increased hunger is just one example.

How do you think the human race has survived all these years without these 'safety-mechanisms' in place?

Have you ever tried eating high fiber foods???

I'm not talking about me and my problems. Hell, I'm bulking right now. Trust me, I've got no problems with hunger at the moment, lol.

I'm never full, but recently, I've been eating high fiber/protein foods and I'm getting full faster and staying fuller longer.

Yup, both nutrients are satiating in general.

There are a few 'tricks of the trade' to reduce hunger but in the grand scheme of things, it can be a bear as you get below that setpoint.

I agree 50cals/lb/day seems a bit high. I'll give you that, but from what I have read in many DIFFERENT places, the more muscle mass you have the more you will burn off, both in a "resting" state and while doing strenous work.

Don't move targets.

I wasn't contesting this at all.

I was simply saying your figure is overstating the actual.

Now, as far as your number of 5.89 cals/lb/day, are you eating the same amount of cals/day? Have you tried eating more? Have you tried eating more?

I'm not sure why you are asking me these questions?

I am in no way saying you don't know what you are talking about, just presenting the fact that no two people are gonna seee the same result.

I wasn't contesting this either.

I was simply discussing the basics of adaptation with regards to dieting.

Another example for you. My next door neighbor lost over 130 pounds (between 17-19 years of age) and is now eating the same as he ate before, save for the fact that he cut soda down to once or twice a week, and not gaining any weight.

Are you suggesting that he is eating at his new weight, the same calories he was eating at his old, much higher weight?

That very well could be.

But he'd have to offset that with energy expenditure. If not, there's just no way. The laws of thermodynamics apply to everyone.

He cut his intake down to better foods and a few less cals a day while losing weight and is now back to eating at least what he was eating before.

Again, it has to be going somewhere. His metabolism didn't automatically upregulate to account for what he was eating when he was 100+ lbs heavier. If so, he needs to get himself to a lab asap b/c I know a great number of people who would want to get their hands on him for study.

It's either he increased his energetic output to balance out the high intake at his new, lower weight or you are overestimating his current intake compared to his old (are you tracking every bit of energy that did and does go into his body?)

To add, you mention below that his activity remains unchanged.

This said, I'd love to see his pre-weight-loss dietary log compared to his post-weight-loss dietary log if you don't mind?

So, he added muscle mass, lots fat and not is managing to burn off what he couldn't burn off before. It wasn't a matter of inactivity cause we both would come home from school and shoot hoops till we couldn't see the ball anymore, 5 days a week. So you can't say it's cause he stopped playing video games and went outside for a change.

Yea, my apologies. I didn't read the entire thread before I started responding.

I just don't buy it. He would be the first case EVER of someone losing 130 lbs and being able to maintain the same energetic intake now that he had when he was carrying 130 additional lbs.

Let's look at this logically.

Let's suppose he started at 300 lbs.

He lost 130.

He now sits at 170.

A rough estimate of what it would take to maintain 300 lbs with activity might be something like 4000 calories.

Now at 170 lbs, you are saying his maintenance is still 4000 calories without any change in activity when the average 170 lber might have a maintenance of something like 2500 calories.

You are accrediting this to the fact that he can eat his old energetic intake due to the newly, packed on muscle. Strange that he packed on *enough* muscle while dieting, nonetheless, to make this a possibility.

Building muscle is a very intensive process, energetically speaking. Sure, novices and fatties can experience some pretty crazy concurrent body recomp in the face of an energetic deficit.....

But this!?

Using the figures from above, that means he has packed on enough new muscle to 'burn up' 1500 calories (4000-2500).

Even using your insanely high number of 50 cal/lb for muscle, that means he has packed on 30 lbs of muscle. Do you think he did?

We know that muscle is not this metabolically active though. So let's put it still at an aggressive 10 cal/lb. That would be an additional muscle mass of 150 lbs. Did he add 150 lbs of muscle?

I am going to COMPLETELY forget the notion that every pound of muscle burns 50 cals/day. Looking on it now, it seems a bit exaggerated. I'll have to do a little more research on it later in the day.

You can start with this:

Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7. Links
Dissecting the energy needs of the body.McClave SA, Snider HL.
Department of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA. samcclave@louisville.edu


*************************************

Look, I'm not trying to be a hardass here. It just seems like you aren't really grasping what's in the realm of possibility with regards to human metabolism.

 

[Lettuce]

Look, I'm not trying to be a hardass here. It just seems like you aren't really grasping what's in the realm of possibility with regards to human metabolism.

Yup. Sure. I'm just making **** up off the top of my head.

Forget what my friend did. Everyone I know who has more muscle mass eats more than I do and doesn't gain a pound. I never said these people got to this weight and than said, "Okay. I'm gonna stop being active and working out." No. These people would be stupid to do that after all that hard work and accomplishing that amount of weight loss or muscle gain. Fact of the matter is, if you have more muscle mass and you are an active individual, you will be able to eat X amount and someone who isn't would only be able to eat >X amount without gaining weight.

It's a simple formula and apparently I haven't been saying it clearly enough.

For this - Y > X

If your body expends X as energy every day and you intake Y per day, you will hold onto Y-X.

If your body expends Y as energy every day and you intake X per day, you'll lose weight by "burning" stored fat to make up for the difference in Y-X.

If you burn off X per day and intake X per day, you should break even, give or take a pound or two, depending on rest days and how much your body thinks it's "starving."

My goal is not to get to 8, 10, 12% body fat. My goal is to get to a healthy weight and stay there. I don't want to essentially "starve" my body or have it feel that way so it stores fat. That's what got me here in the first place.

:boxing_smiley:

Now, lets take the boxing gloves off and be friends again. Please?

 

[stroutman81]

I'll just step out of this thread.... I've said all I need to say.

Best of luck.

Oh yea, and the gloves were never on, on my end.

 

[Lettuce]

Sounds good to me.

I've taken every bit of information you've given me and corrected my misconceptions.