Weight training everyday or every other day

[Lizabell]

Hi all!

I'm a 30yr old female and have been doing full body workouts 3x a week for a while now. I'm in the process of losing weight (have 20lbs to lose), so I'm working with a calorie deficit.

My question is, is there any type of weight training I could do every single day or should I always follow the every other day principle? Are their less intense workouts I can do everyday or am I better off doing more intense workouts 3x a week?

Thanks,
L

 

[andyroid20]

You could do a split where you work out different parts of your body on different days but personally I would stick with a good full body on 3 days. On the others days you could perhaps do a brisk stroll in the evening or cardio thats very slow (purely to burn calories, not fast enough to be a workout) to aid in your weight loss.

 

[buzz]

agree with above,but if its purely fatloss you are after,upping the cardio on off days wont do you any harm,do some HIIT and some SS.
what is you weights routine like.

 

[Habib]

Hi all!

I'm a 30yr old female and have been doing full body workouts 3x a week for a while now. I'm in the process of losing weight (have 20lbs to lose), so I'm working with a calorie deficit.

My question is, is there any type of weight training I could do every single day or should I always follow the every other day principle? Are their less intense workouts I can do everyday or am I better off doing more intense workouts 3x a week?

Thanks,
L

As long as you don't work the same muscles on consecutive days you can, like a split routine.

 

[Goldfish]

agree with above,but if its purely fatloss you are after,upping the cardio on off days wont do you any harm,do some HIIT and some SS.
what is you weights routine like.

Not necessarily true, especially if we're talking HIIT. While it may increase the rate of fat loss initially, if her resistance program is good, it should have some lower body work in it. Doing that, then HIIT the next day, then RT again, then HIIT again, then RT...it's a recipe for stalled progress down the track as the legs don't recover from either session before being worked again, so training can't improve. Furthermore (and this is much more important to me), it's a setup for overuse injuries, which would definitely stall progress.

Steady State HR, by nature, is low-to-moderate intensity, because higher intensity would not be maintainable for long, so 1-2 SS sessions per week would probably be more beneficial than HIIT. At a low intensity it should improve recovery from the day before, and at a moderate intensity (about 60%MHR) it should have some improved health benefits without impairing progress.

 

[buzz]

Not necessarily true, especially if we're talking HIIT. While it may increase the rate of fat loss initially, if her resistance program is good, it should have some lower body work in it. Doing that, then HIIT the next day, then RT again, then HIIT again, then RT...it's a recipe for stalled progress down the track as the legs don't recover from either session before being worked again, so training can't improve. Furthermore (and this is much more important to me), it's a setup for overuse injuries, which would definitely stall progress.

Steady State HR, by nature, is low-to-moderate intensity, because higher intensity would not be maintainable for long, so 1-2 SS sessions per week would probably be more beneficial than HIIT. At a low intensity it should improve recovery from the day before, and at a moderate intensity (about 60%MHR) it should have some improved health benefits without impairing progress.

thats why i put "hiit and some ss" also very few people actually train hard enough to overtrain causing any stalling IMO,and if the diet is ok even better,its more the CNS that needs to be worried about rather than the muscles(which some studies show can be worked everyday without a problem)
also forgot to add,she is doing this for fat loss not hypertrophy.

 

[illiniphase4]

Steady State HR, by nature, is low-to-moderate intensity, because higher intensity would not be maintainable for long, so 1-2 SS sessions per week would probably be more beneficial than HIIT. At a low intensity it should improve recovery from the day before, and at a moderate intensity (about 60%MHR) it should have some improved health benefits without impairing progress.

I think that HIIT should probably be performed on the same days as RT for two main reasons:

1) You can sometime get a calorie burn equal to a longer SS period in less time meaning that you can get in a full body workout and still have time left over for a bout of HIIT. And even with fatigued muscles, it is still possible to perform a short (15-20 minute) and effective bout of HIIT at the end of a RT workout day.

2) Because SS is now done on the off days, it is likely that the OP will have more time to dedicate to SS training, meaning that she can optimize caloric expenditure over the course of the entire week.

 

[Lizabell]

Not necessarily true, especially if we're talking HIIT. While it may increase the rate of fat loss initially, if her resistance program is good, it should have some lower body work in it. Doing that, then HIIT the next day, then RT again, then HIIT again, then RT...it's a recipe for stalled progress down the track as the legs don't recover from either session before being worked again, so training can't improve. Furthermore (and this is much more important to me), it's a setup for overuse injuries, which would definitely stall progress.

Steady State HR, by nature, is low-to-moderate intensity, because higher intensity would not be maintainable for long, so 1-2 SS sessions per week would probably be more beneficial than HIIT. At a low intensity it should improve recovery from the day before, and at a moderate intensity (about 60%MHR) it should have some improved health benefits without impairing progress.

I do some HIIT here and there, so I'm not too worried about it becoming a problem. I usually get 2-3 days (usually just 2 days) of FBW which includes squats, lunges, side lunges, rows, flies, pushups, presses, planks, etc. and I run or hike 2-3 days a week (again, usually just 2 days) for about 30 minutes or so--just recently ran 10k for the first time-- and then I play a 2 hour game of soccer on Sundays, and every other Sunday is a 3 hour hike in the mountains with the hiking club here. Sometimes I can still make the soccer game after hiking if the hike wasn't too long. So, I can say I get 4-6 days of workouts a week of either FBW or cardio.

HIIT: Since I was told that HIIT should make me feel like death, I know that doing a FBWO the following day would be silly since my muscles went through enough on the HIIT day. I've tried Tabata sprints and really loved/hated them, but have only kept that for every once in a while. As part of my plan, if I do Tabata sprints or any other HIIT, I usually use them in place of a FBW. But I have a question about HIIT then: does it really increase the rate of fatloss? I've heard conflicting thoughts on this. I remember trying to make sure I had HIIT 1-2 times a weeks when I first started out, but have not really kept up on it. I laugh when I say I count my soccer day as HIIT since I'm sprinting up and down a bit, but all in all, it isn't hard enough to call it HIIT and I'm able to sustain the 2hr game (hence, still cardio!) It may be considered MIIT, but nonetheless, it is still just an extra day of exercise for me since I enjoy it so much and don't consider it a requirement of my exercise program.

Diet: I'd say my diet is good. Not great and totally clean, just good. We live in Korea for the time being and so luckily, processed crap is not east to find. I cook 95% of our meals, and I have a toddler whom I wish to keep on a healthy diet, so we eat well balanced meals. I cannot deny, however, that I do eat out with my friends and make not so great choices (the Indian restaurant here is hard to resist, and I do indulge in Starbucks coffees more than I should), but I'm still losing weight so I know Im ok for now until I get closer and closer to my goal weight where I might have to start watching every single calorie.

Oh, since we're moving back to the USA in 1 month, I know that the transition through hotels and such means a very high chance of derailing my diet and exercise routine, but we're gonna do what we can. When we visited for Thanksgiving, we joined a gym for 2 weeks, so we might do that while we find a place to live and settle in. Moreso, I'd say it's the meeting up with family and friends that makes it extremely difficult time-wise.

And Buzz, what is CNS?

 

[Lizabell]

off the track of my original post, but a concern of mine

One other thing I want to add:

My other concern about moving back to the States is that my circle of friends for motivation will be gone. The majority of expats here (I've spent the last year in S. Korea) are very much into fitness and that has created a great environment to be around. I never thought I'd enjoy hiking huge mountains, running roadside or playing soccer with a bunch of European, South American and Asian men (I'm the only female out there). Going back home, most of my friends and family find going out to eat the only social thing to do and there are also no soccer leagues that I can find, no mountains nearby to hike and the roadways I'd run have no sidewalk for me to feel comfortable running on. There are two women here that trail run every day (13 miles or so in the mountains, how they do it, I don't know) and though I never really see myself doing that myself, I still find it inspiring and motivating since there's an aura of fitness around me, and so everyone respects the fact that if I want to go run, they don't try to sabotage my workout or diet, in fact, they encourage me. I guess what I'm trying to say is, the fitness bubble I live in right now is the best environment for me to stay involved and motivated. The mentality is about enjoying our time during the week or weekends with our friends doing active things. We all enjoy it. Not one person stays behind because the activity doesn't interest them. I think going back home, I'll be safe for the summer since we kayak, sail, beach volleyball, bike ride, etc. but come winter, oh no! I know people who are really dedicated are able to break through these challenges, so I guess what I'm looking for now is some advice on how to work around those challenges (finding outdoor ways to exercise year round and not feel isolated by the fact that basically none of my friends or family are going to encourage or join me on my workouts).

Thanks all for the posts!!

Lizabell

 

[illiniphase4]

1) HIIT doesn't necessarily mean that you should feel like death. You should feel exhausted and fatigued, but the extremes of the sensation should pass with a good 5-10 minute cool-down. As for sustaining the HIITs throughout your workout regiment... it's not that big a deal if you fluctuate or even end up sticking to SS. Most studies show that while HIIT provides larger immediate fat loss, the overall difference in body fat reduction (provided proper dieting is followed) is not statistically significant between HIIT and SS, typically after a 6 month period.

The major plus side with HIIT is that you can essentially still "get the job done" in half the time and also work the upper levels of your cardiorespiratory threshold, which can be a huge gain in if you get involved in athletics down the road.

As for your concerns about motivation, if you find yourself a good gym, it's not too hard to find similar friends to motivate you. And maybe you can serve as a motivator to the friends you end up making through work and new social circles. Also, with the whole internet, you can easily keep up with friends and maintain some level of motivation be keeping journals with each other, at least until you get comfortable in your new surroundings.

 

[buzz]

1) Most studies show that while HIIT provides larger immediate fat loss, the overall difference in body fat reduction (provided proper dieting is followed) is not statistically significant between HIIT and SS, typically after a 6 month period.

The major plus side with HIIT is that you can essentially still "get the job done" in half the time and also work the upper levels of your cardiorespiratory threshold, which can be a huge gain in if you get involved in athletics down the road.
QUOTE]

agree with this.
one of the other benefits of HIIT is it builds slightly more muscle than SS because of the fibres engaged.

LIZABELL
CNS (central nervous system ),when you feel tired/drained/weak, get fevers/flus etc,could be your CNS rather than your muscles that are tired.

 

[Lizabell]

Thanks Buzz and Illiniphase4, I appreciate the responses.

I do feel great after a 5-10 minute cool down from HIIT, I just mean the during and immediately after phase As far as building more muscle during HIIT as opposed to SS, is that really true, even on a calorie deficit? I was under the impression that lean tissue is hard to build on a calorie deficit.

 

[illiniphase4]

Thanks Buzz and Illiniphase4, I appreciate the responses.

I do feel great after a 5-10 minute cool down from HIIT, I just mean the during and immediately after phase As far as building more muscle during HIIT as opposed to SS, is that really true, even on a calorie deficit? I was under the impression that lean tissue is hard to build on a calorie deficit.

You can still develop muscle tissue in a caloric deficit, provided that you are intaking enough protein to exceed your body's basal requirements, so muscle tissue development can be hampered if a deficit is maintained over the length of an extended training period. In essence, once you hit your weight loss goal, you want to move towards a caloric balance as opposed to a deficit in order to prevent that from happening.

 

[IWalkAlone]

While it can be done, it is very hard to do. Sometimes all the protein in the world will not make a difference. I know that research indicates it is not impossible to build lean muscle on a significant caloric deficit, but I also know I have never seen anyone do it in real life settings.

 

[illiniphase4]

That may be true, but "significant calorie deficit" is somewhat relative to the individual. Provided that the caloric intake does not drop below the basal metabolic requirements (it can still be beneath the resting metabolic requirements), and protein intake also exceeds the basal requirements, the body is capable of developing muscle tissue even with a caloric deficit.

 

[IWalkAlone]

In sorry- please don't think this is meant to be disrespectful, but how is your post at all helpful to the OP? I see lots of posts from beginners or people struggling to meet their goals and they need basic, practical, real world advice, not what is clinically possible in a controlled lab environment. Unless she is going to get her urine checked daily to make sure her nitrogen % is over 18%, giving her the impression that she can "technically" build while in a calorie deficit is false hope and can be confusing. She was under the impression that she would not build muscle in a caloric deficit, and for most people most of the time she is correct. Telling her that it can be done under unusual cicumstances definitely shows that you know what you are talking about in terms of biological and metabolic responses of the body, but it's pointless to the average person trying to still get the basics perfected.

 

[illiniphase4]

giving her the impression that she can "technically" build while in a calorie deficit is false hope and can be confusing.

My posting was neither false hope nor confusing. Modest improvements to muscle mass are attainable even with a sustained diet with a caloric deficit to the resting metabolic rate + Harris-Benedict (daily activity), provided basal requirements have been met. This is one of the reasons that weight gains can occur during a weight loss program involving cardio and resistance training and a calorie deficit to the RMR and daily activity. Weight from muscle mass can sometimes be gained at a faster rate than fat mass loss, even with a caloric deficit. I'm not advocating that she create some sort of huge deficit, just alluding to the point that she can reach some of her weight loss and muscle development goals at a caloric deficit.

While the following article focuses mainly on lean mass maintenance, it is noted in the abstract that muscle area and strength gains between dieting exercisers and non-dieting exercisers are comparable.

 

[devildog28]

To be honest I think you're doing too much full body weight lifting.

Here's what I do. Wednesdays are my really heavy day for arms, chest, and abs. Saturdays are weight circuit training. I chose the 300 workout to hit those muscles that wednesday's workout doesn't get like legs and back. I keep it simple; meaning I don't do every single little gadget machine in the gym. I use 4 pieces of equipment and that's it. It's worked real good for me in terms of strength, mass, and definition.

I suggest doing only one day of really intense lifting full body workout, waiting 2 days then do circuit training. Those other days do cardio.

 

[buzz]

As far as building more muscle during HIIT as opposed to SS, is that really true, even on a calorie deficit? I was under the impression that lean tissue is hard to build on a calorie deficit.

sorry i meant in general,but even on a defecit (like weight training) it is better atleast in maintaning what you have gained.

if you have ever watched the biggest loser show,they are basicly on negative energy balance but reatain alot of muscle,but they are massively obese and have plenty of stored energy

 

[IWalkAlone]

My posting was neither false hope nor confusing. Modest improvements to muscle mass are attainable even with a sustained diet with a caloric deficit to the resting metabolic rate + Harris-Benedict (daily activity), provided basal requirements have been met. This is one of the reasons that weight gains can occur during a weight loss program involving cardio and resistance training and a calorie deficit to the RMR and daily activity. Weight from muscle mass can sometimes be gained at a faster rate than fat mass loss, even with a caloric deficit. I'm not advocating that she create some sort of huge deficit, just alluding to the point that she can reach some of her weight loss and muscle development goals at a caloric deficit.

While the following article focuses mainly on lean mass maintenance, it is noted in the abstract that muscle area and strength gains between dieting exercisers and non-dieting exercisers are comparable.

I think you're missing my point. I'm not disagreeing with the science. What is more important, though, helping the OP or proving that you are correct? While the study you posted backs up what can be done, you either misread or misinterpreted the results. The study was done on clinically obese women (which the OP is likely not if she only has 20 pounds to lose), and it did not show that muscle may be built, only retained: "Adding weight training exercise to a caloric restriction program results in maintenance of LBW compared with DO." I still have no idea how, for her, in a practical setting, what was conducted in a controlled environment of a group that would not necessarily include her, can be beneficial to keep pointing out. Again, know your audience- sometimes helping a client or poster means giving them the advice that is most likely to occur, not proving you are correct with a study of what could possibly, under the right circumstances be achieved.