move less and eat less

Ctrum69

I'm not sure about the soundness of your theory, but I do know that I tend to lose without much exercise, but I'm a regular, avid exerciser while in maintenance.

But that has more to do with the fact that I prefer faster weight loss, make deep deficits, and prefer to take it easy while the deep deficits do the cutting.

Incidentally, for those wondering, I always come out of periods of intense cutting just as strong as when I went in, if not stronger.

yeah, I've noticed EXACTLY the same thing. Then I noticed something else. I kinda always suspected I was working out too much before, but I did not have the mental fortitude to work out less. Essentially, I used training as a distraction. Fine if you need it to get through this, but understand that it is slowing you down.

What you are presenting here is kinda half right.. and it depends, primarily, on what kind of exercise you are doing. If you are doing mad weight work, then the rest day is absolutely necessary, to build larger muscles. That's how they work. Heavy weight training creates microtears in muscle, which have to rebuild, and do so slightly bigger, and stronger, than before. That's why they tell you to work upper body one day, then lower body the next, so the stressed groups have a day to recover.

However, for cardio or stretching (walking, biking, cardio yoga, etc), you aren't doing that kind of muscle damage, so no rest day is actually needed. Many of the best programs will start you with rest days to build up your endurance, but a month or three in, you are doing some sort of workout daily, with a single workout being your 'Rest" and a double being your "Regular day".

EVERYONE plateus in weight loss and muscle gain. It's part of the body's amazing ability to adapt to it's surroundings, and "Save for later". If you put yourself in a caloric deficit, and burn more calories on top of it, your body will burn fat to provide fuel. But eventually, it adapts to this "new" standard, and begins, again, trying to sock away savings for "lean times". That's your plateu when you need to again change things up.

The "standard" of health that most exercise regimens put forth is actually on the lean side of "healthy". Which isn't really a problem if you have constant food, and good quality food at that. But your body actually probably wants to hold onto a bit more fat than you think it should, and it will try even harder if it thinks it's being "Starved". It takes quite a while to get it to fully adapt to a new regimen of lower calories and higher rates of cardio exercise as "normal".

So.. yeah, heavy weight training? You want to take rest days. DDPYoga or walking or jogging? Unless your run is a 5K or better, you probably don't actually need a rest day, and doing it two days in a row is not going to hurt your weight loss.

Another thing to remember is: Muscle is twice as dense as fat, and therefore, weights 2x as much by volume (more or less). So weight is not the only indicator. Body fat percentage and the tale of the tape will often tell you more about what's going on that a scale. If you weigh the same, but put two inches on your thighs and chest, and took six off your waist.. you are doing well, even though the scale does not reflect that.

What you eat is also just as, if not more, important than how much you eat, which is something a lot of people miss. Sure, you can do the same amount of calories in a pizza meal, or one of lean fish or chicken, yogurt, a small amount of cheese, chia seeds and a gallon of salad. Guess which one is going to help with your goal more?

pcastagner

I'm not sure about the soundness of your theory, but I do know that I tend to lose without much exercise, but I'm a regular, avid exerciser while in maintenance.

But that has more to do with the fact that I prefer faster weight loss, make deep deficits, and prefer to take it easy while the deep deficits do the cutting.

Incidentally, for those wondering, I always come out of periods of intense cutting just as strong as when I went in, if not stronger.

yeah, I've noticed EXACTLY the same thing. Then I noticed something else. I kinda always suspected I was working out too much before, but I did not have the mental fortitude to work out less. Essentially, I used training as a distraction. Fine if you need it to get through this, but understand that it is slowing you down.

What you are presenting here is kinda half right.. and it depends, primarily, on what kind of exercise you are doing. If you are doing mad weight work, then the rest day is absolutely necessary, to build larger muscles. That's how they work. Heavy weight training creates microtears in muscle, which have to rebuild, and do so slightly bigger, and stronger, than before. That's why they tell you to work upper body one day, then lower body the next, so the stressed groups have a day to recover.

However, for cardio or stretching (walking, biking, cardio yoga, etc), you aren't doing that kind of muscle damage, so no rest day is actually needed. Many of the best programs will start you with rest days to build up your endurance, but a month or three in, you are doing some sort of workout daily, with a single workout being your 'Rest" and a double being your "Regular day".

EVERYONE plateus in weight loss and muscle gain. It's part of the body's amazing ability to adapt to it's surroundings, and "Save for later". If you put yourself in a caloric deficit, and burn more calories on top of it, your body will burn fat to provide fuel. But eventually, it adapts to this "new" standard, and begins, again, trying to sock away savings for "lean times". That's your plateu when you need to again change things up.

The "standard" of health that most exercise regimens put forth is actually on the lean side of "healthy". Which isn't really a problem if you have constant food, and good quality food at that. But your body actually probably wants to hold onto a bit more fat than you think it should, and it will try even harder if it thinks it's being "Starved". It takes quite a while to get it to fully adapt to a new regimen of lower calories and higher rates of cardio exercise as "normal".

So.. yeah, heavy weight training? You want to take rest days. DDPYoga or walking or jogging? Unless your run is a 5K or better, you probably don't actually need a rest day, and doing it two days in a row is not going to hurt your weight loss.

Another thing to remember is: Muscle is twice as dense as fat, and therefore, weights 2x as much by volume (more or less). So weight is not the only indicator. Body fat percentage and the tale of the tape will often tell you more about what's going on that a scale. If you weigh the same, but put two inches on your thighs and chest, and took six off your waist.. you are doing well, even though the scale does not reflect that.

What you eat is also just as, if not more, important than how much you eat, which is something a lot of people miss. Sure, you can do the same amount of calories in a pizza meal, or one of lean fish or chicken, yogurt, a small amount of cheese, chia seeds and a gallon of salad. Guess which one is going to help with your goal more?

sorry, if you are talking to me about muscular hypertrophy in the context of weight loss, you need to start over from the beginning. In a deficit we train to improve coordination (strength) and we train to REDUCE muscle atrophy. we do not train while losing weight to "grow muscles bigger".

your idea of training seems to assume your muscles are the only thing being trained. not so. when you train, it's an assault on every system in your body from your nerves to your muscles to your endocrine system. incidentally, the SAME CAN BE SAID FOR WEIGHT LOSS.

you also do not account in any way for inflammation or any long term systemic effects at all, or the fact that of all the types of training, endurance will suffer the most in a calorie deficit. it's a very costly adaptation in absolute conflict with a weight loss goal.

QuietBloom

For me, scale weight is pretty much meaningless. I run to get better at running, so I do it at least 5 days a week. It creates a big calorie deficit and lowers my appetite. Working out only 3X a week just so you can see a faster drop on the scale seems counter-intuitive to me when it comes to losing weight the healthy way.

Perhaps you are seeing less water retention in the muscles when you see the scale dropping faster. Dunno.

ETA: I see you are not open to discussion. Next time you might want to blog this if you don't want it debated.

pcastagner

For me, scale weight is pretty much meaningless. I run to get better at running, so I do it at least 5 days a week. It creates a big calorie deficit and lowers my appetite. Working out only 3X a week just so you can see a faster drop on the scale seems counter-intuitive to me when it comes to losing weight the healthy way.

Perhaps you are seeing less water retention in the muscles when you see the scale dropping faster. Dunno.

I am seeing much more rapid than usual reduction in SKINFOLD THICKNESS. most of us here use "weight" interchageably with "body fat". if this is a problem for you, read up on colloquialisms and see why they are great shorthand ways to communicate.

I'm not a total ditz, I track my bodyfat percentage and could care less about the number on the scale without a context. this isn't one of those posts by a newb who got it all figured out, this is one of those posts by a guy at this for a while with much success, who realizes he could have made better use of his past 12 months after finally accepting some COMMON RECOMMENDATIONS.


are you trying to lose weight? if not, you are exactly the type of person I encourage to work out 5 times a week if she likes it.

Greytfish

My two favorite running myths:

1) It burns a lot of calories.

2) It does not damage muscle tissue and that differentiates it from lifting. Running is damage with no build.

QuietBloom

My two favorite running myths:

1) It burns a lot of calories.

2) It does not damage muscle tissue and that differentiates it from lifting. Running is damage with no build.

:huh:

kgeyser

Meh. I'm working out 6 days a week. I do a combination of cardio, resistance training, and yoga. Improves my cardiovascular health, musculoskeletal system, endurance, and flexibility. I'm helping to preserve lean body mass and improving my overall health while losing weight consistently. It works for me, I can do it with the resources I have available to me, and I'm happy with the results.

Do you have any actual evidence that you need 6 days a week to prevent muscle loss, that working out less would not preserve even more muscle, or anything else positive to contribute to the discussion?

All I see is "neat, but I'm too stubborn to even consider I could be doing this better".



SCIENCE tells us that activating a muscle group once a week is what prevents the muscle loss. Where on earth did you get the idea that doing any more than is going to prevent even more loss?

How are you building your skeletal health in a deficit, and don't you think you might build a better skeleton if you spent more time training while at maintenance or at a surplus (good old 2nd law of thermodynamics)

Why do you not think you would be better off getting the weight down, then increasing exercise AND food at the same time, so that your body has the materials it needs to make these adaptations?



The time you spend in a deficit and the severity of that deficit is the risk you take for the eventual chance to build something better. What I see a lot of is a reverse sweet spot, with the subject in a deficit too steep to be gentle, for too long, while simultaneously overtraining. Then a whole lot of surprise when, after a time, the program stops working. If this is you: eat less, move less.

maybe I shoulda said eat more, rest more, but I wanted to play on the old eat more move more thing.

Wow, lot of assumptions there, don't you think? I said I work out six days a week doing a combination of those things. I never said what each day of my workout was, did I? But there you go calling me stubborn and lecturing me about SCIENCE and the best way to do things when you don't even know what it is I'm doing or how long I've been doing it.

So to reiterate my previous statement: Meh.

It's almost like I made the intellectual leap of assuming you were contradicting what I said.

I guess I'm just crazy like that.

I am disagreeing with what you said. There's nothing wrong with working out more than 3 times per week. Working out more than three times a week does not necessarily mean that a person is overtraining, hindering their weight loss progress, or doing anything detrimental to their body. You're assuming that if someone isn't doing it the way you think they should that they are setting themselves up for failure.

The reason I work out six times a week? Because I have at most 30 minutes to exercise each day. That's a whopping 3 hours a week of exercise. Three days I do resistance training. Right now I have an upper body day, lower body day, and a total body day. So I hit each body part a maximum of twice per week. I have no access to a gym, which means I use a combination of dumbbells and body weight exercises. I feel comfortable doing that in light of the fact that I do not have the ability to lift heavy or progressively load very much since my dumbbells max out at 25 lbs. On non-weight days I do cardio or yoga. I mix up my cardio and do different things each day. I change my exercise routines every 4-5 weeks so I incorporate different exercises to work the muscles and so I don't get bored.

This works for me, as I said in my initial post, based on the resources I have available to me, and I'm seeing results. I've lost weight, lost inches, improved my endurance and cardiovascular health, improved my flexibility, I've increased my weights on every exercise, and I'm seeing overall improvements to my physical capabilities. I can jump higher, I can do REAL push-ups, and I'm working on being able to do a pull-up. I eat plenty of food, and I have plenty of energy. I don't need to hit my goal weight to achieve my goals. Fat chicks can kick *kitten* too.

Greytfish

Confused?

Greytfish

I do agree that the number of workouts is not determinitive of whether one is overtraining or training enough to undercut goals. What most people here refer to as "training" is not the intesity and exertion of what someone training for health and performance would consider training. They may be long, too long, even, but they're not necessarily overtraining. They may be causing their body unproductive confusion, but that's different.

broox80

I totally get it!!! I went from hours of cardio to 15-30 min of circuit training and the weight started falling off!!! I know for me doing more concentrated exercise for less time has made all the difference!! I did up my calories also.

Mia_RagazzaTosta

0/10 WNB

Ctrum69

sorry, if you are talking to me about muscular hypertrophy in the context of weight loss, you need to start over from the beginning. In a deficit we train to improve coordination (strength) and we train to REDUCE muscle atrophy. we do not train while losing weight to "grow muscles bigger".

your idea of training seems to assume your muscles are the only thing being trained. not so. when you train, it's an assault on every system in your body from your nerves to your muscles to your endocrine system. incidentally, the SAME CAN BE SAID FOR WEIGHT LOSS.

you also do not account in any way for inflammation or any long term systemic effects at all, or the fact that of all the types of training, endurance will suffer the most in a calorie deficit. it's a very costly adaptation in absolute conflict with a weight loss goal.

Umm.. Okay. If you think that works for you, f'n go nuts man.

But what you are saying flies in the face of just about every successful weight loss/exercise program out there.

joanthemom8

Well, I'm not a scientist or nutritionist or a fitness expert, but I know what usually works for me. If I watch my calorie intake, and exercise regularly (4-5 week) I will lose weight. If I intake too many calories (even if I'm exercising regularly) I won't lose weight. If I can't get in exercise for a stretch of time, but I restrict my calorie intake, I lose weight. So, for me, in order to lose weight, the calorie intake is the key. Exercise helps a lot (and makes me feel good), but if I'm in a pickle I know it's all about the food that affects me.

QuietBloom

Confused?

About your erroneous statement? Not in the least.

MiloBloom83

My two favorite running myths:

1) It burns a lot of calories.

2) It does not damage muscle tissue and that differentiates it from lifting. Running is damage with no build.

<<Check out my legs. Heavily damaged from running. I also notice that the scale moves in the wrong direction when i stop running. This Myth-Busted! *this is where i would insert a Jamie Hyneman gif if i knew how*

pcastagner

sorry, if you are talking to me about muscular hypertrophy in the context of weight loss, you need to start over from the beginning. In a deficit we train to improve coordination (strength) and we train to REDUCE muscle atrophy. we do not train while losing weight to "grow muscles bigger".

your idea of training seems to assume your muscles are the only thing being trained. not so. when you train, it's an assault on every system in your body from your nerves to your muscles to your endocrine system. incidentally, the SAME CAN BE SAID FOR WEIGHT LOSS.

you also do not account in any way for inflammation or any long term systemic effects at all, or the fact that of all the types of training, endurance will suffer the most in a calorie deficit. it's a very costly adaptation in absolute conflict with a weight loss goal.

Umm.. Okay. If you think that works for you, f'n go nuts man.

But what you are saying flies in the face of just about every successful weight loss/exercise program out there.

You see, the thing is, I didn't come up with this. I was looking at a successful plan and realized I have been repeatedly ignoring expert recommendations that REST is one of the most important components of a program. And by rest, I mean rest. As opposed to training, which is "not rest".

I just refused to believe. Over A year ago I started following leangains. Why did it take me until now to believe the author of that program when he says an extra day of rest is better than an extra day of training, and that reduces calories means reduced recovery?

Probably the same cognitive distortions you see at work in this thread prevented me from understanding that which is clearly and literally stated. Like when I say you should focus on rest during when losing weight, and train just enough to minimize muscle loss and increase strength, you instead pretend I claim you should follow that pattern in a surplus or at neutral energy balance.

Ctrum69

You see, the thing is, I didn't come up with this. I was looking at a successful plan and realized I have been repeatedly ignoring expert recommendations that REST is one of the most important components of a program.

I just refused to believe. Over A year ago I started following leangains. Why did it take me until now to believe the author of that program when he says an extra day of rest is better than an extra day of training?

Probably the same cognitive distortions you see at work in this thread prevented me from understanding that which is clearly and literally stated.

Ahh.. now I see where you are getting this from.

I don't disagree. If you are throwing weights around in a gym, yes, an extra rest day is better than an extra workout day.

if you are doing cardio, or power yoga, or anything like that, it makes little to no diference.

A lot of this "you burn more fat without moving" is based (erroneously) on the science that when you are sitting still you burn a higher percentage of fat than carbs, and then when you start moving you burn carbs for quick energy, and if you KEEP moving long enough, you'll switch back over to fat burning.

That's.. sorta true. It's actually a percentage (sitting on the sofa runs about 60/40 fat to carbs, walking for 20 minutes about 65% fat, and jogging/sprinting for 20 minutes about 40% fat), however, that's only a percentage of calories burned. You will burn far more calories on the 20 minute run than sitting on the couch for 20 minutes, will also get beneficial cardio rates in there (unless you are watching a very scary movie), and build muscle tone while running.

So, yeah, I can kinda see where you are coming from.. but the same advice about eating, resting, and diet composition for a WWE superstar will not apply to someone who is just watching their intake and doing 30 mins of cardio a day, with some weight training every other day, etc.

Also, I totally disagree that you cannot build muscle while in a calorie deficit. You may not get Jay Cutler huge, but it has been done, time and again, even with zero impact workouts requiring no weights. It most certainly is possible, one just has to pay attention to what one is putting into the engine for best results.

pcastagner

You see, the thing is, I didn't come up with this. I was looking at a successful plan and realized I have been repeatedly ignoring expert recommendations that REST is one of the most important components of a program.

I just refused to believe. Over A year ago I started following leangains. Why did it take me until now to believe the author of that program when he says an extra day of rest is better than an extra day of training?

Probably the same cognitive distortions you see at work in this thread prevented me from understanding that which is clearly and literally stated.

Ahh.. now I see where you are getting this from.

I don't disagree. If you are throwing weights around in a gym, yes, an extra rest day is better than an extra workout day.

if you are doing cardio, or power yoga, or anything like that, it makes little to no diference.

A lot of this "you burn more fat without moving" is based (erroneously) on the science that when you are sitting still you burn a higher percentage of fat than carbs, and then when you start moving you burn carbs for quick energy, and if you KEEP moving long enough, you'll switch back over to fat burning.

That's.. sorta true. It's actually a percentage (sitting on the sofa runs about 60/40 fat to carbs, walking for 20 minutes about 65% fat, and jogging/sprinting for 20 minutes about 40% fat), however, that's only a percentage of calories burned. You will burn far more calories on the 20 minute run than sitting on the couch for 20 minutes, will also get beneficial cardio rates in there (unless you are watching a very scary movie), and build muscle tone while running.

So, yeah, I can kinda see where you are coming from.. but the same advice about eating, resting, and diet composition for a WWE superstar will not apply to someone who is just watching their intake and doing 30 mins of cardio a day, with some weight training every other day, etc.

Also, I totally disagree that you cannot build muscle while in a calorie deficit. You may not get Jay Cutler huge, but it has been done, time and again, even with zero impact workouts requiring no weights. It most certainly is possible, one just has to pay attention to what one is putting into the engine for best results.

Well if you are accusing me of setting people up to steer them towards heavy lifting not too often instead of power yoga or running when trying to go from fat to fit...


I'm guilty.


Yes you can build muscle in a deficit, technically. Practically, from 210 to 157 in less than a year (I'm up to 163 at the same BF now), you are losing lean mass and some of it is muscle.

Of course, my current weight might be higher with the same body fat if I had been less stubborn and rested more.

Greytfish

Confused?

About your erroneous statement? Not in the least.

What is it you believe is erroneous?

My two favorite running myths:

1) It burns a lot of calories.

2) It does not damage muscle tissue and that differentiates it from lifting. Running is damage with no build.

<<Check out my legs. Heavily damaged from running. I also notice that the scale moves in the wrong direction when i stop running. This Myth-Busted! *this is where i would insert a Jamie Hyneman gif if i knew how*

:laugh:

All exercise damages muscle tissue. You can't condition mucle any other way. You can't build muscle any other way. Running does the former, not the latter. If you want to build/bulk muscle, you have to strength train. That's why runners look like runners and lifters look like lifters.

Greytfish

[Of course, my current weight might be higher with the same body fat if I had been less stubborn and rested more.

Rest is not just important in terms of rest days or cross training/light activity days, but also from a perspective of sleep. The body can't repair and can't build in a constant state of fatigue. I can't tell you how many people spend lots of time in the gym, sleep 4 hours/night and can't figure out why they aren't building.....

pcastagner

Confused?

About your erroneous statement? Not in the least.

What is it you believe is erroneous?

My two favorite running myths:

1) It burns a lot of calories.

2) It does not damage muscle tissue and that differentiates it from lifting. Running is damage with no build.

<<Check out my legs. Heavily damaged from running. I also notice that the scale moves in the wrong direction when i stop running. This Myth-Busted! *this is where i would insert a Jamie Hyneman gif if i knew how*

:laugh:

All exercise damages muscle tissue. You can't condition mucle any other way. You can't build muscle any other way. Running does the former, not the latter. If you want to build/bulk muscle, you have to strength train. That's why runners look like runners and lifters look like lifters.

Also should be noted the endurance adaptation works better with proper rest as well , and in a calorie deficit also needs more time. Everything is slower on a deficit.


Even athletes who eat enough to maintain periodize their training to maximize its effectiveness. As they approach competition readiness rest becomes the dominant aspect.

pcastagner

[Of course, my current weight might be higher with the same body fat if I had been less stubborn and rested more.

Rest is not just important in terms of rest days or cross training/light activity days, but also from a perspective of sleep. The body can't repair and can't build in a constant state of fatigue. I can't tell you how many people spend lots of time in the gym, sleep 4 hours/night and can't figure out why they aren't building.....

Ha! Explains why I'm so happy on RPT. The CNS overload makes me sleep like 10 hours some nights.

Ctrum69

You are confusing two aspects though.

Building mass muscle, (which we actually aren't designed to do), vs losing fat.

The two CAN happen simultaneously.

But as someone else said, there's a reason lifters look like lifters (unnaturally overmuscled, with bizarre disparity in size to function), and runners and swimmers look like they do (lean build, functional muscle development).

But going from nothing, to watching your caloric intake, and doing 30 mins of cardio a day, WILL burn fat, WILL build lean muscle, and WILL result in weight loss, as long as there are no underlying medical conditions (thyroid imbalance that sets an extremely low metabolism, etc).

And it WILL burn/build them faster than doing it 2x/wk.

pcastagner

If anyone wants to discuss further, please keep in mind it doesn't matter if your program works. They pretty much all work. This is about working BETTER.

pcastagner

You are confusing two aspects though.

Building mass muscle, (which we actually aren't designed to do), vs losing fat.

The two CAN happen simultaneously.

But as someone else said, there's a reason lifters look like lifters (unnaturally overmuscled, with bizarre disparity in size to function), and runners and swimmers look like they do (lean build, functional muscle development).

But going from nothing, to watching your caloric intake, and doing 30 mins of cardio a day, WILL burn fat, WILL build lean muscle, and WILL result in weight loss, as long as there are no underlying medical conditions (thyroid imbalance that sets an extremely low metabolism, etc).

And it WILL burn/build them faster than doing it 2x/wk.

No, you are majorly under informed about lifters and what they look like, sorry. You are thinking of bodybuilders, which is a separate discipline that also involves lifting things. And you accused me of over generalizing!

To become "overmuscled" for the functions I those muscles, one must train along unnatural parameters. I follow the idea that the different faculties become better by doing the thing they are meant to do.

You might not notice them, but there are lifters who train for strength, and they are way more flexible and coordinated than you, and move more gracefully.

Ctrum69

You are confusing two aspects though.

Building mass muscle, (which we actually aren't designed to do), vs losing fat.

The two CAN happen simultaneously.

But as someone else said, there's a reason lifters look like lifters (unnaturally overmuscled, with bizarre disparity in size to function), and runners and swimmers look like they do (lean build, functional muscle development).

But going from nothing, to watching your caloric intake, and doing 30 mins of cardio a day, WILL burn fat, WILL build lean muscle, and WILL result in weight loss, as long as there are no underlying medical conditions (thyroid imbalance that sets an extremely low metabolism, etc).

And it WILL burn/build them faster than doing it 2x/wk.

No, you are majorly under informed about lifters and what they look like, sorry. You are thinking of bodybuilders, which is a separate discipline that also involves lifting things. And you accused me of over generalizing!

To become "overmuscled" for the functions I those muscles, one must train along unnatural parameters. I follow the idea that the different faculties become better by doing the thing they are meant to do.

You might not notice them, but there are lifters who train for strength, and they are way more flexible and coordinated than you, and move more gracefully.

Really? You've seen me move to be able to say that? LOL.

Lift for size/mass = body builder.

Not sure what's "generalizing" about that.

Anyway.. now you are getting personal, so I'm out. Ta!

Banothebano

A large deficit (1000 calories or a TDEE-20% cut depending on stats) coupled with heavy weight training once or twice a week is the most optimal routine to preserve LBM and lose weight healthily.

pcastagner

You are confusing two aspects though.

Building mass muscle, (which we actually aren't designed to do), vs losing fat.

The two CAN happen simultaneously.

But as someone else said, there's a reason lifters look like lifters (unnaturally overmuscled, with bizarre disparity in size to function), and runners and swimmers look like they do (lean build, functional muscle development).

But going from nothing, to watching your caloric intake, and doing 30 mins of cardio a day, WILL burn fat, WILL build lean muscle, and WILL result in weight loss, as long as there are no underlying medical conditions (thyroid imbalance that sets an extremely low metabolism, etc).

And it WILL burn/build them faster than doing it 2x/wk.

No, you are majorly under informed about lifters and what they look like, sorry. You are thinking of bodybuilders, which is a separate discipline that also involves lifting things. And you accused me of over generalizing!

To become "overmuscled" for the functions I those muscles, one must train along unnatural parameters. I follow the idea that the different faculties become better by doing the thing they are meant to do.

You might not notice them, but there are lifters who train for strength, and they are way more flexible and coordinated than you, and move more gracefully.

Really? You've seen me move to be able to say that? LOL.

Lift for size/mass = body builder.

Not sure what's "generalizing" about that.

Anyway.. now you are getting personal, so I'm out. Ta!

Thanks for stopping by anyway.

patriciapowerswilliamson

HI, I agree with you. I was told by my Cardiologist that working out (cardio) and strength training five days a week was great for the heart muscle. I workout for stress relief and because i love how I feel when I am done.

wheird

Meh. I'm working out 6 days a week. I do a combination of cardio, resistance training, and yoga. Improves my cardiovascular health, musculoskeletal system, endurance, and flexibility. I'm helping to preserve lean body mass and improving my overall health while losing weight consistently. It works for me, I can do it with the resources I have available to me, and I'm happy with the results.

Do you have any actual evidence that you need 6 days a week to prevent muscle loss, that working out less would not preserve even more muscle, or anything else positive to contribute to the discussion?

All I see is "neat, but I'm too stubborn to even consider I could be doing this better".



SCIENCE tells us that activating a muscle group once a week is what prevents the muscle loss. Where on earth did you get the idea that doing any more than is going to prevent even more loss?

How are you building your skeletal health in a deficit, and don't you think you might build a better skeleton if you spent more time training while at maintenance or at a surplus (good old 2nd law of thermodynamics)

Why do you not think you would be better off getting the weight down, then increasing exercise AND food at the same time, so that your body has the materials it needs to make these adaptations?



The time you spend in a deficit and the severity of that deficit is the risk you take for the eventual chance to build something better. What I see a lot of is a reverse sweet spot, with the subject in a deficit too steep to be gentle, for too long, while simultaneously overtraining. Then a whole lot of surprise when, after a time, the program stops working. If this is you: eat less, move less.

maybe I shoulda said eat more, rest more, but I wanted to play on the old eat more move more thing.

Do you have any actual evidence that your method works or are you just talking out of your neck?