So you want a nice stomach
Options
Replies
-
I have only noticed bumping going on. Is there any other valuable information on heavy lifting and I this thread?0
-
fanncy0626 wrote: »I have only noticed bumping going on. Is there any other valuable information on heavy lifting and I this thread?
There was some in the earlier pages of the thread, but nobody has asked questions about it lately.0 -
fanncy0626 wrote: »I have only noticed bumping going on.
Even though this thread is located in the stickie thread, it's positioned second to last. Some noobs may tire of clicking before they get to the link so I bump it. The thread changed my perspective on how I approach eating and exercise. So if bumping this thread is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Consider me a fanboy of usmcmp. It's all good.
0 -
fanncy0626 wrote: »I have only noticed bumping going on.
Even though this thread is located in the stickie thread, it's positioned second to last. Some noobs may tire of clicking before they get to the link so I bump it. The thread changed my perspective on how I approach eating and exercise. So if bumping this thread is wrong, I don't wanna be right. Consider me a fanboy of usmcmp. It's all good.
I am very happy to hear that this thread helped you! It feels good to know that I saved at least one person some pain and frustration. I struggled for a few years and I'm glad I finally learned.0 -
phew...finished! Loads of great advice here - thanks so much @usmcmp !!0
-
What type of cardio is the most muscle-soaring? SS or HIIT?
How long do you recommend rest is periods to be when lifting heavy (i.e., 5x5)?0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »What type of cardio is the most muscle-soaring? SS or HIIT?
How long do you recommend rest is periods to be when lifting heavy (i.e., 5x5)?
Do you mean muscle sparing? Both and neither, there are other factors that are far more important than worrying about if you should do steady state or HIIT.
Rest periods when lifting heavy would depend on how close you are to your 1RM and your programming should explain that. Generally you pay attention to your breathing and when your breathing returns to normal you are ready for your next set. It could be 60 seconds or it could be 5 minutes.0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »What type of cardio is the most muscle-soaring? SS or HIIT?
How long do you recommend rest is periods to be when lifting heavy (i.e., 5x5)?
Do you mean muscle sparing? Both and neither, there are other factors that are far more important than worrying about if you should do steady state or HIIT.
Rest periods when lifting heavy would depend on how close you are to your 1RM and your programming should explain that. Generally you pay attention to your breathing and when your breathing returns to normal you are ready for your next set. It could be 60 seconds or it could be 5 minutes.
Yes - I meant muscle sparing. I am worrying about the other more important factors. After completing those - if like to know if you recommend SS or HIIT for more muscle sparing. Thanks
0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »What type of cardio is the most muscle-soaring? SS or HIIT?
How long do you recommend rest is periods to be when lifting heavy (i.e., 5x5)?
Do you mean muscle sparing? Both and neither, there are other factors that are far more important than worrying about if you should do steady state or HIIT.
Rest periods when lifting heavy would depend on how close you are to your 1RM and your programming should explain that. Generally you pay attention to your breathing and when your breathing returns to normal you are ready for your next set. It could be 60 seconds or it could be 5 minutes.
Yes - I meant muscle sparing. I am worrying about the other more important factors. After completing those - if like to know if you recommend SS or HIIT for more muscle sparing. Thanks
I've seen more studies supporting HIIT as muscle sparing than I have LISS, Personally, I prefer a combination. Considering your profile picture is that of a gay for pay model I can't guess your body fat or composition. It's likely that your body composition isn't to the point where you should worry about which one may burn more lean mass. As long as the other factors are in check (appropriate intake, protein levels and resistance training) the benefit of HIIT over LISS is increased mitochondrial density.0 -
Oh @usmcmp you ruined that for me. I was wondering why he needed this thread!!
@clarewho hahaha OOPS! Last night after his first question I thought he was just trying to "prove" I don't actually know anything. I went and did a google image search (I highly suggest you don't, it's not safe for work).0 -
Haha I'm still disappointed!!0
-
Thanks - a few more:
1) if I weigh a raw burger as 8oz, then it shrinks to 6oz after I cook it, I log 8, not 6?
2) if I do 2 lbs a wk bs 1 lb a week, so I risk more muscle loss - assuming I do everything else right (protein, resistance training, etc)?0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »Thanks - a few more:
1) if I weigh a raw burger as 8oz, then it shrinks to 6oz after I cook it, I log 8, not 6?
2) if I do 2 lbs a wk bs 1 lb a week, so I risk more muscle loss - assuming I do everything else right (protein, resistance training, etc)?
Most meats are recorded as pre-cooked weight, but there are entries for cooked meat weight.
If you choose 2 pounds per week it would put you at a more substantial deficit and the chances of losing lean mass are higher, all else being the same. You also risk lower adherence, faster negative hormonal response, faster cellular metabolic adaptations and lower energy levels. That's why I suggest the percentage instead of flat rate calorie reduction. 2 pounds per week is appropriate for a 300 pound man and not a 170 pound man, but 20% could be appropriate for both.0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »Thanks - a few more:
1) if I weigh a raw burger as 8oz, then it shrinks to 6oz after I cook it, I log 8, not 6?
2) if I do 2 lbs a wk bs 1 lb a week, so I risk more muscle loss - assuming I do everything else right (protein, resistance training, etc)?
Most meats are recorded as pre-cooked weight, but there are entries for cooked meat weight.
If you choose 2 pounds per week it would put you at a more substantial deficit and the chances of losing lean mass are higher, all else being the same. You also risk lower adherence, faster negative hormonal response, faster cellular metabolic adaptations and lower energy levels. That's why I suggest the percentage instead of flat rate calorie reduction. 2 pounds per week is appropriate for a 300 pound man and not a 170 pound man, but 20% could be appropriate for both.
Thanks so for someone who wants to lose 20-40 lbs, what should the target rate be based on the tdee-20%? 1lb. Is 1.5lb risky too?
0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »Thanks - a few more:
1) if I weigh a raw burger as 8oz, then it shrinks to 6oz after I cook it, I log 8, not 6?
2) if I do 2 lbs a wk bs 1 lb a week, so I risk more muscle loss - assuming I do everything else right (protein, resistance training, etc)?
Most meats are recorded as pre-cooked weight, but there are entries for cooked meat weight.
If you choose 2 pounds per week it would put you at a more substantial deficit and the chances of losing lean mass are higher, all else being the same. You also risk lower adherence, faster negative hormonal response, faster cellular metabolic adaptations and lower energy levels. That's why I suggest the percentage instead of flat rate calorie reduction. 2 pounds per week is appropriate for a 300 pound man and not a 170 pound man, but 20% could be appropriate for both.
Thanks so for someone who wants to lose 20-40 lbs, what should the target rate be based on the tdee-20%? 1lb. Is 1.5lb risky too?
Also - if only a pre cooked option exists on MFP. Do I keep it at 8 or do 6 if it shrunk?
0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »Thanks - a few more:
1) if I weigh a raw burger as 8oz, then it shrinks to 6oz after I cook it, I log 8, not 6?
2) if I do 2 lbs a wk bs 1 lb a week, so I risk more muscle loss - assuming I do everything else right (protein, resistance training, etc)?
Most meats are recorded as pre-cooked weight, but there are entries for cooked meat weight.
If you choose 2 pounds per week it would put you at a more substantial deficit and the chances of losing lean mass are higher, all else being the same. You also risk lower adherence, faster negative hormonal response, faster cellular metabolic adaptations and lower energy levels. That's why I suggest the percentage instead of flat rate calorie reduction. 2 pounds per week is appropriate for a 300 pound man and not a 170 pound man, but 20% could be appropriate for both.
Thanks so for someone who wants to lose 20-40 lbs, what should the target rate be based on the tdee-20%? 1lb. Is 1.5lb risky too?
Also - if only a pre cooked option exists on MFP. Do I keep it at 8 or do 6 if it shrunk?
There are cooked options. If you weigh it pre-cooking you log the pre-cooked weight using the raw entry. If you weigh it after cooking you log the post-cooked weight using the entry for the method you used to cook it.0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »Thanks - a few more:
1) if I weigh a raw burger as 8oz, then it shrinks to 6oz after I cook it, I log 8, not 6?
2) if I do 2 lbs a wk bs 1 lb a week, so I risk more muscle loss - assuming I do everything else right (protein, resistance training, etc)?
Most meats are recorded as pre-cooked weight, but there are entries for cooked meat weight.
If you choose 2 pounds per week it would put you at a more substantial deficit and the chances of losing lean mass are higher, all else being the same. You also risk lower adherence, faster negative hormonal response, faster cellular metabolic adaptations and lower energy levels. That's why I suggest the percentage instead of flat rate calorie reduction. 2 pounds per week is appropriate for a 300 pound man and not a 170 pound man, but 20% could be appropriate for both.
Thanks so for someone who wants to lose 20-40 lbs, what should the target rate be based on the tdee-20%? 1lb. Is 1.5lb risky too?
I'm not sure what you are looking for here. You either find your approximate TDEE and subtract a portion of it (I suggest 20%) or you use MFP's method and let them subtract a specific amount based on the rate you hope you'll lose at. This is your personal preference. I outlined how to use the method I prefer in the first post. You are free to set your goal however you want, whether that's half a pound per week or two pounds per week or based off a percentage. There are pros and cons to the different methods.
If you have any other questions feel free to send me a private message on here.0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »Thanks - a few more:
1) if I weigh a raw burger as 8oz, then it shrinks to 6oz after I cook it, I log 8, not 6?
2) if I do 2 lbs a wk bs 1 lb a week, so I risk more muscle loss - assuming I do everything else right (protein, resistance training, etc)?
Most meats are recorded as pre-cooked weight, but there are entries for cooked meat weight.
If you choose 2 pounds per week it would put you at a more substantial deficit and the chances of losing lean mass are higher, all else being the same. You also risk lower adherence, faster negative hormonal response, faster cellular metabolic adaptations and lower energy levels. That's why I suggest the percentage instead of flat rate calorie reduction. 2 pounds per week is appropriate for a 300 pound man and not a 170 pound man, but 20% could be appropriate for both.
Thanks so for someone who wants to lose 20-40 lbs, what should the target rate be based on the tdee-20%? 1lb. Is 1.5lb risky too?
I'm not sure what you are looking for here. You either find your approximate TDEE and subtract a portion of it (I suggest 20%) or you use MFP's method and let them subtract a specific amount based on the rate you hope you'll lose at. This is your personal preference. I outlined how to use the method I prefer in the first post. You are free to set your goal however you want, whether that's half a pound per week or two pounds per week or based off a percentage. There are pros and cons to the different methods.
If you have any other questions feel free to send me a private message on here.
Thanks. It won't let me PM you on my mobile. I want to know what a good goal rate of weight loss is - the result I am aiming for, not the method. I have 20-40 lbs to lose. Sounds like 2lbs results in too much muscle loss0 -
BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »BrianDavidBy32 wrote: »Thanks - a few more:
1) if I weigh a raw burger as 8oz, then it shrinks to 6oz after I cook it, I log 8, not 6?
2) if I do 2 lbs a wk bs 1 lb a week, so I risk more muscle loss - assuming I do everything else right (protein, resistance training, etc)?
Most meats are recorded as pre-cooked weight, but there are entries for cooked meat weight.
If you choose 2 pounds per week it would put you at a more substantial deficit and the chances of losing lean mass are higher, all else being the same. You also risk lower adherence, faster negative hormonal response, faster cellular metabolic adaptations and lower energy levels. That's why I suggest the percentage instead of flat rate calorie reduction. 2 pounds per week is appropriate for a 300 pound man and not a 170 pound man, but 20% could be appropriate for both.
Thanks so for someone who wants to lose 20-40 lbs, what should the target rate be based on the tdee-20%? 1lb. Is 1.5lb risky too?
I'm not sure what you are looking for here. You either find your approximate TDEE and subtract a portion of it (I suggest 20%) or you use MFP's method and let them subtract a specific amount based on the rate you hope you'll lose at. This is your personal preference. I outlined how to use the method I prefer in the first post. You are free to set your goal however you want, whether that's half a pound per week or two pounds per week or based off a percentage. There are pros and cons to the different methods.
If you have any other questions feel free to send me a private message on here.
Thanks. It won't let me PM you on my mobile. I want to know what a good goal rate of weight loss is - the result I am aiming for, not the method. I have 20-40 lbs to lose. Sounds like 2lbs results in too much muscle loss
It would depend on your current body fat percentage/body composition. The fatter you are the faster you can lose without risking lean mass. The leaner you are the slower you should lose. 20-40 pounds is a big range and doesn't tell me what your body composition is.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 917 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions