I do DVDs so I don't need to strength train

rachmaree

Hi Steve! If you do check back on this thread, I was wondering your thoughts on my situation. You were helpful in the last thread about lean people getting leaner, so I thought I would ask another question/ more questions.

Questions are always welcome. That's what this place is all about and what I'm here for.

For the past 2 months I have gotten more serious with weight training, by which I mean I actually have a program written for me, rather than just doing whatever weights I feel like at the time, and the owner of the gym I recently joined has given me a new program.

Glad to hear. Also cool that the owner of your gym gets involved with his clients like that. Many gym owners are businessmen and not fitness professionals and barely tell the difference between an *kitten* and an elbow.

Granted, I know plenty of fitness owners who are supposed fitness professionals who also don't have business guiding people... but that's a different story.

Most of the sets are 3 or 4 sets of 12-15 reps, which seems reasonable, although I will sometimes do less reps with higher weight depending how I feel, but I follow his program.

Not terrible. I venture into this rep zone here and there for some of my clients. By and large, if I had to give an average rep range that I employ, it'd be closer to 5-8... sometimes even lower.

It's client dependent though. With overweight/obese clients, I'll work in more high rep stuff.

For most others though, I stick with the above rep range.

And that's for the "meat and potato" exercises such as squat variations, deadlift variations, pressing, and pulling. For example, here's the workout of a client I trained last night. She's fit for the most part and trying to get leaner. Obviously it's one part of a large puzzle... but just to give you an idea:

A1 - Barbell Squats - 3x5
A2- Single Leg DB Romanian Deadlilfts - 3x12 each leg
B1 - Cable Rows - 3x8
B2 - Single Arm DB Bench Press - 3x8
C1 - Single Leg Hip Thrust - 2x12
C2 - Rollouts - 3x10
D - Skull Crushers

The letters simply represent groupings of exercises. For example, she did A1, then with minimal rest went into A2, then rested, then start again.

The primary exercises which would be the squats, rows, and bench press were done in the 5-8 rep range. The other stuff is all accessory stuff.... it's the details on top of the foundation. For these smaller, more isolative movements, I prefer higher rep ranges.

Again, just a snapshot.

For a couple of the exercises, he has written higher reps- for example, squats, 5 sets of 20, and the abductor/ adductor machines (not sure about spelling) he has said 4 sets of 50 reps!?

It's hard to say without knowing his bigger picture thinking and how this fits into everything else. I can say though that typically I'd not have my clients doing 20 reps squats... especially if muscle maintenance while dieting was the goal. There are some old school bodybuilding programs that have people doing 20 rep squats and for a lot of people, they seem to work in terms of muscle growth. Some speculate that the leg muscles respond better to higher rep sets than other parts. I don' t know how accurate that is.

For me personally... I hate high rep squats. I've never had a problem putting mass on legs sticking with the lower rep ranges.

And I'd never have my clients doing the adductor and abductor machine... especially for 50 reps but also not even for lower reps. I just don't see the point. It would sound to me like he believe you can "tone" the problem areas most women tend to have... but that's just a guess. I'd ask him "why?" he's recommending these things just to make sure he does in fact know what he's talking about.

Too many folks feel comfortable taking advice from anyone who's a professional in the fitness industry when in fact most people in the fitness industry aren't fit to be giving advice. Being critical is a must if you're going to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Do you think there is any benefit in doing 50 reps on those thigh machines? I don't particularly enjoy using those machines in the first place, and 50 reps is quite challenging and super boring. Also for leg extentions he has said 20 reps. Are there any exercises you would suggest doing higher reps?

See above.

Put it this way... the only machine I have in my gym is a cable tower that allows for horizontal and vertical pulling. If you want to call that a machine, so be it. I'm not particularly fond of machines since they're not, generally speaking, dare I say functional. By that I mean most of them lock you into a fixed range of motion and the real world requires you to be strong in multiple planes of motion.

Rather than doing leg extensions and adductions/abductions... I'd much sooner see my clients doing barbell squats, goblet squats, front squats, conventional deadlifts, romanian deadlifts, suitcase deadlifts, step ups, alternating lunges, reverse lunges, hip thrusts, single leg squats, etc, etc.

He also recommended 45 minutes of cardio post strength training, which means I am doing really long sessions at the gym! I have definitely noticed improvement in my stomach area, which could possibly be due to eating 'cleaner,' plus all that cardio, I just wonder if there might be a more efficient way to do my training? I can be there for up to 2 and a half hours if I do abs as well.

Yea, that's pretty crazy. There's no magic to doing your cardio after your strength training. If you can fit your cardio into separate sessions, in fact, I'd say that'd be ideal.

And I wouldn't go doing marathon ab sessions... treat them like you would any other muscle for the most part.

And correlation does not equal causation. There are a lot of moving parts that could contribute to a leaner midsection.

For reference, I am 159cms, 52kgs (not trying to necessarily lose weight, just lower bodyfat%) and currently lifting 5 days a week, with cardio post workout 30-45 minutes, and sometimes extra (cardio) sessions in the morning. My 'rest/ off' days I sometimes do some cardio.

Without getting into specifics... for my clients who are trying to get leaner, I'll typically recommend:

1-3 days of strength training. It takes less work to maintain muscle than it does to increase it. Since in order to get leaner you need to lose fat... that also means you need to be in a calorie deficit. When in a calorie deficit, it's tough to add muscle... especially if you're not fat and/or very new to this sort of training. Therefore muscle maintenance is the target. Where I might have someone training 3-5+ days per week with weights when muscle growth is the goal, 1-3 sessions per week is plenty for maintenance.

In terms of conditioning or cardio work, it really depends on teh client. I have some clients who will do none. They'll simply keep tight wraps of their nutrition ensuring they're in a calorie deficit that way. They despise cardio and know it's not necessary in order to get lean. Others enjoy it or like the added "sink" for additional calorie consumption so they add it in. How much, again, depends on the person... but on average I'd say 2-5 sessions per week ranging from 15-60 minutes per session depending on the type and intensity.

As you can tell, there is no One Right Way of going about this, but speaking generally, I find that having to go beyond this typically means a) the clients nutrition isn't on point or b) they've fallen victim to believing more is more and feel the need to beat their bodies into submission rather than coaxing the fat off with smart planning/training.

I want to lose fat, so I know I should eat at a calorie deficit, but I worry if I eat above maintanance I will gain weight/ fat, rather than build mucsle?

I'm not sure I follow. Are you planning on eating at a deficit or at a surplus?

If your goal is to get leaner, I'd recommend a deficit.

If your goal is to grow more muscle, I'd suggest a conservative surplus... maybe start at maintenance and go up by 10% every 2-4 weeks depending on the results you're getting. Keep in mind that muscle growth happens at much slower rates than fat loss.

If you're eating at surplus though... of course you'll gain weight. Some of it will be fat. Some of it will be muscle. Genetics dictate the ratio for the most part but nutrition and training definitely play a significant role as well.

I currently try to eat 150grams of protein per day, keep the fat reasonably low, and the rest is carbs.

Why low fat? And what's reasonably low?

Thanks so much for your input, I really appreciate it. The owner of the gym is a really nice guy, and the first trainer in three years that has actually shown interest in what I do at the gym. He is an ex amateur bodybuilder, but I am aware that doesn't automatically mean he has all the answers! I wasn't impressed when I did check my weight, and he said I should lose 4 more kgs!! He said 49kgs would be ideal. I don't agree. Anyway....

I have basically been eating at a deficit, but it is not consistent. By that, I mean, some days I am at a 500 calorie defecit, other days 100. There are days when I am around maintanence, it really depends. I do sometimes go over, but on average, 300-500 deficit most days. To be honest I mostly eat when I am hungry, and have been more careful about what I am eating. I have my macros on here set to 40% protein, 40% carbs and 20% fat. I sometimes go over a bit on fat and carbs, as I find it hard sometimes to hit my protein goal, especially on a workout day.

Why low fat... I am not too sure why ı set my macros to that.

I have lost a couple of kgs in the past 6 weeks or so eating like this, but I am not sure I want to keep eating at a deficit. Seeing the muscle start to show makes me want to lose more fat to show it better, but at the same time I love lifting and I think it might be cool to try to build muscle. I know I have to decide!

Thanks again for your advice. Today was my legs day and I did less reps with more weight for barbell squats, leg extentions, I did the leg curls and stiffleg deadlifts as a superset, and skipped the adductor/ abductor machines altogether.

I am going to have a better look at the exercises you mentioned, to make sure I know exactly what they are, and then ı would like to try incorporating them into my program.

bcattoes

To say that you won't build muscle with resistance training. squats or cardio just isn't true. It's true that you will only build it to a certain point and that point will not be as much as if you lifted weights. But you CAN have a toned body with muscles from cardio and resistance training. Or at least I can (I really don't know anything about the rest of you). I have for most of my life.

End6ame

Thanks so much for your input, I really appreciate it. The owner of the gym is a really nice guy, and the first trainer in three years that has actually shown interest in what I do at the gym. He is an ex amateur bodybuilder, but I am aware that doesn't automatically mean he has all the answers! I wasn't impressed when I did check my weight, and he said I should lose 4 more kgs!! He said 49kgs would be ideal. I don't agree. Anyway....

I have basically been eating at a deficit, but it is not consistent. By that, I mean, some days I am at a 500 calorie defecit, other days 100. There are days when I am around maintanence, it really depends. I do sometimes go over, but on average, 300-500 deficit most days. To be honest I mostly eat when I am hungry, and have been more careful about what I am eating. I have my macros on here set to 40% protein, 40% carbs and 20% fat. I sometimes go over a bit on fat and carbs, as I find it hard sometimes to hit my protein goal, especially on a workout day.

Why low fat... I am not too sure why ı set my macros to that.

I have lost a couple of kgs in the past 6 weeks or so eating like this, but I am not sure I want to keep eating at a deficit. Seeing the muscle start to show makes me want to lose more fat to show it better, but at the same time I love lifting and I think it might be cool to try to build muscle. I know I have to decide!

Thanks again for your advice. Today was my legs day and I did less reps with more weight for barbell squats, leg extentions, I did the leg curls and stiffleg deadlifts as a superset, and skipped the adductor/ abductor machines altogether.

I am going to have a better look at the exercises you mentioned, to make sure I know exactly what they are, and then ı would like to try incorporating them into my program.

Take a look at the book “Starting Strength” it has great information on core exercises including why they are important, how to properly perform them, the mechanics, human physiology, etc… It also emphasizes a similar rep break down that Steve recommended; high weight, lower rep on core lifts and lower weight higher rep on assistance exercises. It can be technical at times but is a great reference for anyone interested in strength training.

stroutman81

To say that you won't build muscle with resistance training. squats or cardio just isn't true. It's true that you will only build it to a certain point and that point will not be as much as if you lifted weights. But you CAN have a toned body with muscles from cardio and resistance training. Or at least I can (I really don't know anything about the rest of you). I have for most of my life.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

But anyone can be toned if fat stores are dropped to a minimum threshold. Without resistance training and/or good genetics and/or good drugs though, that "toned" look isn't going to be what most are shooting for. Fat loss without maximizing muscle maintenance/gain typically leaves most people wanting more. Granted, there are exceptions. But it's definitely a very common problem in my experience where people lose fat without putting an emphasis on muscle maintenance and they wind up frustrated.

To say that you won't build muscle with resistance training. squats or cardio just isn't true.

This statement in particular really confused me. Can you please elaborate? Also, I admittedly didn't read the entire thread but who in particular are you referring to? Who claimed that you can't build muscle "with resistance training, squats or cardio" and where did they say it?

stroutman81

Take a look at the book “Starting Strength” it has great information on core exercises including why they are important, how to properly perform them, the mechanics, human physiology, etc… It also emphasizes a similar rep break down that Steve recommended; high weight, lower rep on core lifts and lower weight higher rep on assistance exercises. It can be technical at times but is a great reference for anyone interested in strength training.

Yea, I'd second that recommendation. Mark Rippetoe's books, Starting Strength and Practical Programming, are very good reads. I wouldn't necessarily follow the programs outlined in them to a T for everyone but as a "catch all" approach... most would be served well with them. Especially leaner folks trying to get leaner and maintain muscle while eating hypocalorically.

stroutman81

Thanks so much for your input, I really appreciate it. The owner of the gym is a really nice guy, and the first trainer in three years that has actually shown interest in what I do at the gym.

Oh I'm sure his intentions are good. Like I said though... you owe it to yourself to be "picky" when it comes to the advice you consume in this industry.

He is an ex amateur bodybuilder, but I am aware that doesn't automatically mean he has all the answers!

Yea, a lot of bodybuilders resort to drugs and because most anything works when using drugs, they're led to believe that their individual way of going about things is gospel. They they preach it to people who may or may not be in similar shoes to the shoes they wore while training or competing.

Don't get me wrong... I know some bodybuilders who are extremely smart when it comes to this stuff. Tom Venuto and Layne Norton come to mind. By and large though, I've found most bodybuilders rely on "bro science" for their smarts. Some of it pans out to be good advice. A lot of it pans out to be garbage.

I have basically been eating at a deficit, but it is not consistent. By that, I mean, some days I am at a 500 calorie defecit, other days 100. There are days when I am around maintanence, it really depends. I do sometimes go over, but on average, 300-500 deficit most days.

Most people are in these shoes.... even if they know it or not. Daily energy expenditure is not a static thing. Unless you're constantly changing your daily calorie intake each and every day (which seems a bit neurotic to me), you're deficit (or surplus) is varying day to day.

Larger folks with a lot of wiggle room as far as calories go typically don't need to worry about this daily variance. Smaller folks however, who don't have large daily energy expenditures, can run into some issues. It's easy to be off by 100-200 or so calories, which, for a smaller person, can be substantially different rates of fat loss or muscle gain.

If you've not had problems in terms of plateaus though, I'd say your way (of eating when you're hungry) is optimal. No point in muddying the waters unless you have to. That has always been my approach.

I would note however that you should pick one or the other - fat loss or muscle gain. Sure, while losing fat you might gain some muscle. But you should pick one "theme" and stick with it. Take me as an example. I'm around 190 lbs at 10% body fat or thereabouts.

Genetically... if I never ate the way I did or trained the way I have... I'd be a puny runt. I'd be parked at 6' and likely 165 lbs.

Instead, I've cycled over the years where I'd spend time in a surplus focusing on building as much muscle as possible while minimizing fat gains. Once I'd reach a certain point where I felt heavy or too soft, I'd switch gears and focus on fat loss while maximizing muscle maintenance. At the end of each successive phase, I'd be a few steps further along in terms of an improved physique.

People carrying around a lot of fat should focus on fat loss. Once they're at leaner levels, then they can reassess - decide if they're happy with where their bodies are then or should they work to improve things. And if they're lean enough.... that means adding muscle.

It's the interim folks who tend to have a confusing time of things. They aren't fat by any means. They aren't ripped either. Should they work to gain muscle or should they focus on losing more fat? There really isn't a right answer here. Personally, I'm more inclined to get as lean as comfortably possible... which doesn't mean bodybuilder lean... and then use that as the foundation to "bulk" from if you so desire.

Let me know if you have anymore questions.

bcattoes

To say that you won't build muscle with resistance training. squats or cardio just isn't true. It's true that you will only build it to a certain point and that point will not be as much as if you lifted weights. But you CAN have a toned body with muscles from cardio and resistance training. Or at least I can (I really don't know anything about the rest of you). I have for most of my life.

I'm not sure I follow what you're saying.

But anyone can be toned if fat stores are dropped to a minimum threshold. Without resistance training and/or good genetics and/or good drugs though, that "toned" look isn't going to be what most are shooting for. Fat loss without maximizing muscle maintenance/gain typically leaves most people wanting more. Granted, there are exceptions. But it's definitely a very common problem in my experience where people lose fat without putting an emphasis on muscle maintenance and they wind up frustrated.

To say that you won't build muscle with resistance training. squats or cardio just isn't true.

This statement in particular really confused me. Can you please elaborate? Also, I admittedly didn't read the entire thread but who in particular are you referring to? Who claimed that you can't build muscle "with resistance training, squats or cardio" and where did they say it?

To elaborate: I do cardio (currently Zumba) DVDs 6 days a week and 3 or 4 days a week I do resistance training (resistance bands, desk push ups and squats) and I develop muscles. If I stop doing this, I lose muscle. That's pretty much it, if I do it I'm fit (thin and firm), if I don't, I'm not. have muscles that you can see and feel. I don't look all pumped up like Jillian Michaels (thank God) but I look pretty fit. Therefore, cardio DVDs and resistance builds muscles for me. I've always used cardio DVDs to get or stay in shape.

stroutman81

To elaborate: I do cardio (currently Zumba) DVDs 6 days a week and 3 or 4 days a week I do resistance training (resistance bands, desk push ups and squats) and I develop muscles. If I stop doing this, I lose muscle. That's pretty much it, if I do it I'm fit (thin and firm), if I don't, I'm not. have muscles that you can see and feel. I don't look all pumped up like Jillian Michaels (thank God) but I look pretty fit. Therefore, cardio DVDs and resistance builds muscles for me. I've always used cardio DVDs to get or stay in shape.

Right, but who were you responding to? Who claimed that you can't build muscle "with resistance training, squats or cardio" and where did they say it?

Here's another point in reference to what you just said. Something I elaborated on in detail earlier in this thread. There's a threshold of intensity* that's required to elicit improvements. This threshold is very low for untrained people. For this reason, rank novices can see improvements in muscle mass and strength simply by walking. Their body weights provide enough intensity to drive change.

As this person adapts to the training though, the threshold will actually increase. That's to say what once acted as an overload on the body will become a maintenance load. That's the essence of life, really. Our bodies are biologically hardwired to adapt to their surroundings to help ensure survival. Only when these surroundings "stress" the body do they cause change.

My long winded point, which may or may not make sense seeing as how I'm wrestling with a 1 year old as I type this, is that pushups, for instance, will certainly represent enough of an overload for a lot of folks... especially women. IN response to this overload, primarily your chest, shoulders, and triceps will get stronger and possibly get bigger. After a while though, as your body gets used to this load, the improvements will slow and eventually stop assuming you aren't gaining weight. You can certainly increase the overload by lifting one leg in the air, elevating both feet, wearing a weight vest or putting a weight on your back, etc.

The point of this thread wasn't to imply that circuit training was worthless. It was that for OPTIMAL RESULTS to occur, you need to apply the right sort of stimulus. This doesn't mean less appropriate stimuli won't do 'something.'

stroutman81

And just to add to that... this is the very reason why pretty much anything works for a novice. A novice can pretty much gain muscle and lose fat by doing nothing but walking. Which is why it's important to jump in and do something rather than worrying about doing things perfectly. Paralysis by analysis trips up a lot of people when if they jumped in and got busy... they'd a) get a lot of bang for their buck and b) learn as they go.

But as noted... that threshold definitely adapts just as the other variables which is why your training needs to get more specific and progressive the further along the curve you go in terms of fitness.

bcattoes

My long winded point, which may or may not make sense seeing as how I'm wrestling with a 1 year old as I type this, is that pushups, for instance, will certainly represent enough of an overload for a lot of folks... especially women. IN response to this overload, primarily your chest, shoulders, and triceps will get stronger and possibly get bigger. After a while though, as your body gets used to this load, the improvements will slow and eventually stop assuming you aren't gaining weight. You can certainly increase the overload by lifting one leg in the air, elevating both feet, wearing a weight vest or putting a weight on your back, etc.

The point of this thread wasn't to imply that circuit training was worthless. It was that for OPTIMAL RESULTS to occur, you need to apply the right sort of stimulus. This doesn't mean less appropriate stimuli won't do 'something.'

I was refering to the OP which said:

"You can do squats with your body weight or while holding pink dumbbells until you're ready to pass out, but unless you're brand spanking new to this stuff, that's probably not going to overload your muscles and cause them to maintain while dieting or to grow.

Building or even maintaining muscle seems to be the elusive variable for most people. They're too busy worrying about whether they're smaller or lighter and wind up forgetting that looking great nekkid is about much more than size and weight. To optimize muscle, you need to move heavy stuff... picking it up and putting it back down. Period. "

Which sounded to me like were saying you couldn't build muscle by doing cardio & resistance. Which is not true. But if, in fact, you were just saying that you can't achieve "OPTIMAL RESULTS" (i.e. your opinion of optimal results) then I can buy that. It's just that I don't think building muscles as big as possible looks good nekkid or is optimal. I like a more naturally healthy look. Like you got that way without trying. (just MHO)

circusmom

Love the post!

stroutman81

I was refering to the OP which said:

"You can do squats with your body weight or while holding pink dumbbells until you're ready to pass out, but unless you're brand spanking new to this stuff, that's probably not going to overload your muscles and cause them to maintain while dieting or to grow.

Building or even maintaining muscle seems to be the elusive variable for most people. They're too busy worrying about whether they're smaller or lighter and wind up forgetting that looking great nekkid is about much more than size and weight. To optimize muscle, you need to move heavy stuff... picking it up and putting it back down. Period. "

Which sounded to me like were saying you couldn't build muscle by doing cardio & resistance. Which is not true. But if, in fact, you were just saying that you can't achieve "OPTIMAL RESULTS" (i.e. your opinion of optimal results) then I can buy that. It's just that I don't think building muscles as big as possible looks good nekkid or is optimal. I like a more naturally healthy look. Like you got that way without trying. (just MHO)

You seem to be missing the part where I say "unless you're new to this stuff." You also are missing the primary point that I'm trying to make which is that you need overload to drive adaptation. Period. What will overload a beginner is small. Bodyweight squats will likely suffice. That'll stop working unless you increase the load.

I'm assuming you're missing these points because I'm not making them very clearly, which I apologize for.

Also, and this is important too... it's not about building big bulky muscles. Women can't do that without supraphysiological levels of anabolic hormones (drugs). Not to mention that the vast majority of women around here are in calorie deficits. Muscle growth is a very intensive process, energetically speaking. Calories are energy. If you don't have enough energy coming in the door to maintain the tissues that they currently have, your body isn't going to make matters worse by adding a bunch of metabolically expensive tissue (muscle) while being shortchanged.

This isn't about "truth" as you put it. It's about facts. I'm not an expert on many things... but fitness and muscular adaptation happen to be in my wheelhouse. I've been fortunate in that I've had the tremendous opportunity to work hands on with scores of women to help them reach their ideal physiques. Over the years, it has become pretty obvious that most women are looking for the same thing. Not all. But most. The "naturally fit" look is a great descriptor. Jessica Alba has a body that most of my women have commented about wanting.

Here's the kicker.

In order for most of my clients to reach that look, they've had to reduce body fat to relatively low levels while MAXIMIZING muscle mass. You seem to imply that maximizing muscle mass on a woman will lead to bulkiness and unnatural looking muscles. This couldn't be further from the truth. Unless you're a statistical outlier with loads more anabolic hormones coursing through your body genetically or you're using drugs... maximizing muscle mass is going to give most women the mileage they need to reach the naturally fit look they're shooting for. It's going to provide them the "shape" they desire once body fat levels are dropped to a minimum.

I'm not here to tell you you're wrong. I'm not here to tell you what to do. I'm here to share my knowledge and experience. Which, by the way, has bode well for many, many woman on this very forum... I'm sure they can attest. Just check out the lean getting leaner thread for examples. If you have good things happening with your plan and body... I think that's great.

And I don't want this to be a tit fot tat here. I do appreciate your perspectives and they've helped this conversation along even more, so thanks.

If I'm still not clear or you have more questions or comments, I'm all ears.

End6ame

You seem to be missing the part where I say "unless you're new to this stuff." You also are missing the primary point that I'm trying to make which is that you need overload to drive adaptation. Period. What will overload a beginner is small. Bodyweight squats will likely suffice. That'll stop working unless you increase the load.

I would expand on this by pointing out that what Steve is saying is the reason why trainees at different levels train in different ways. A novus powerlifter, olympic lifter, bodybuilder, athlete, etc will not train the same as an intermediate or advance level trainee in the same sport. They require different approaches because they require different levels of intensity and recovery periods to continue to drive adaptation. This is one of the (many) reasons why muscle/fitness magazines are actually counterproductive to the average person when they advertise the routines that advanced bodybuilder or athletes perform. Since the average person is not at the same level of performance or gifted with the same genetics, those routines will not facilitate the same kind of results. A better, approach would be to advertise the routine that athlete used as a novus. While this approach is better it is still not going to produce the exact same results because genetics in advanced trainees are a large factor.

The classic example of this is with Arnold Schwarzenegger. There are countless routines published that Arnold allegedly used during his body building career and novus after novus pick up these routines expecting to look like Arnold. What many of them do not realize is that Arnold actually started his career as a powerlifter and trained for strength in the 5x5 method prior to training for appearance as a bodybuilder; and this is where a novus should start if their goal is to be/look like Arnold.

While this may stray from the point a bit, I bring it up to emphasize that training needs to be different at different levels and for different goals. When you reach a point where you are not able to drive adaptation, your training style needs to change if you want to keep progressing. However, this is not the same as the training ADD that many people have where they recommend changing routines/programs every month.

bcattoes

I was refering to the OP which said:

"You can do squats with your body weight or while holding pink dumbbells until you're ready to pass out, but unless you're brand spanking new to this stuff, that's probably not going to overload your muscles and cause them to maintain while dieting or to grow.

Building or even maintaining muscle seems to be the elusive variable for most people. They're too busy worrying about whether they're smaller or lighter and wind up forgetting that looking great nekkid is about much more than size and weight. To optimize muscle, you need to move heavy stuff... picking it up and putting it back down. Period. "

Which sounded to me like were saying you couldn't build muscle by doing cardio & resistance. Which is not true. But if, in fact, you were just saying that you can't achieve "OPTIMAL RESULTS" (i.e. your opinion of optimal results) then I can buy that. It's just that I don't think building muscles as big as possible looks good nekkid or is optimal. I like a more naturally healthy look. Like you got that way without trying. (just MHO)

You seem to be missing the part where I say "unless you're new to this stuff." You also are missing the primary point that I'm trying to make which is that you need overload to drive adaptation. Period. What will overload a beginner is small. Bodyweight squats will likely suffice. That'll stop working unless you increase the load.

...

Sorry, I will try to read all that later, but I didn't miss the part where you say "unless you're new to this stuff". It's just that I'm not new to exercise or muscled tone (assuming that's what you meant by "this stuff"). I've been at it for 30+ years. I guess it was the remark about not maintaining that really got me. I have developed and maintained good muscle tone over my life by primarily cardio DVDs and sometimes running. There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle whether you are just starting or you've been at it for years.

stroutman81

Sorry, I will try to read all that later, but I didn't miss the part where you say "unless you're new to this stuff". It's just that I'm not new to exercise or muscled tone (assuming that's what you meant by "this stuff"). I've been at it for 30+ years. I guess it was the remark about not maintaining that really got me. I have developed and maintained good muscle tone over my life by primarily cardio DVDs and sometimes running. There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle whether you are just starting or you've been at it for years.

Okay. So now it's pretty obvious the points you're missing.

1. There will be statistical outliers who can be lean, toned, and have the body that most women desire by doing pretty much anything. Their genetics are king, and this isn't to discredit their hard work either. It just means their target is much bigger so it's easier to hit with various forms and dosages of exercise. This is by far an exception to the rule. If light weights and cardio were all that was needed for *most* to obtain the body they are after.... there'd be a lot more toned women running around as this is the form that many seem to flock to.

2. This is the big one. You said, "There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle." This implies that using a muscle is what's required to drive growth and strength increases. That's far too general. I use my muscles typing on the keyboard, moving my mouse, and driving my car. But these things aren't going to drive growth and strength improvements. Science is pretty clear on there having to be an overload event to drive these adaptations.

And like I've said numerous times now, in a rank, untrained novice, running (for example) can drive changes in terms of muscle and strength in the leg muscles. There's plenty of research showing this in fact. But it's short lived. You can't expect this to drive continued improvements in strength and muscle simply because you're "using" them.

Sure, if you gained weight, running would place more strain on the muscles and thus you'd drive further adaptation. But that doesn't seem very reasonable.

You could also run further.... and this would certainly drive adaptations. But specificity of training means something. By that, I mean we know how we need to train to elicit specific adaptations. Long, continuous, low-level loading can drive oxidative adaptations... but that's a far shot away from strength and muscle growth.

From the sounds of it, this low level loading stuff got you to where you want to be. But this simply brings us full circle back to point #1.

Matiara

Sorry, I will try to read all that later, but I didn't miss the part where you say "unless you're new to this stuff". It's just that I'm not new to exercise or muscled tone (assuming that's what you meant by "this stuff"). I've been at it for 30+ years. I guess it was the remark about not maintaining that really got me. I have developed and maintained good muscle tone over my life by primarily cardio DVDs and sometimes running. There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle whether you are just starting or you've been at it for years.

Okay. So now it's pretty obvious the points you're missing.

1. There will be statistical outliers who can be lean, toned, and have the body that most women desire by doing pretty much anything. Their genetics are king, and this isn't to discredit their hard work either. It just means their target is much bigger so it's easier to hit with various forms and dosages of exercise. This is by far an exception to the rule. If light weights and cardio were all that was needed for *most* to obtain the body they are after.... there'd be a lot more toned women running around as this is the form that many seem to flock to.

2. This is the big one. You said, "There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle." This implies that using a muscle is what's required to drive growth and strength increases. That's far too general. I use my muscles typing on the keyboard, moving my mouse, and driving my car. But these things aren't going to drive growth and strength improvements. Science is pretty clear on there having to be an overload event to drive these adaptations.

And like I've said numerous times now, in a rank, untrained novice, running (for example) can drive changes in terms of muscle and strength in the leg muscles. There's plenty of research showing this in fact. But it's short lived. You can't expect this to drive continued improvements in strength and muscle simply because you're "using" them.

Sure, if you gained weight, running would place more strain on the muscles and thus you'd drive further adaptation. But that doesn't seem very reasonable.

You could also run further.... and this would certainly drive adaptations. But specificity of training means something. By that, I mean we know how we need to train to elicit specific adaptations. Long, continuous, low-level loading can drive oxidative adaptations... but that's a far shot away from strength and muscle growth.

From the sounds of it, this low level loading stuff got you to where you want to be. But this simply brings us full circle back to point #1.

#1 applies to me, though I just learned that recently.

For weight training (I've also realized that I'm not training for strength), I've always used body weight resistance and have never used higher than 5s. That gets the results that I want quickly and keeps me where I want to be. It was not until I started reading here that I learned that this was not "normal" and that most people require far more effort to get the results that I do in what I've found out is a very basic routine. In real life, I can lift everyday objects up to 100 lbs without a lot of effort, so I'm no weakling. I've played around with the idea of doing a heavy lifting routine, but I like my muscles as they are.

When I started reading here and learned that my weight routine was pretty rudimentary, I thought about it and figured out that because I'd inherited my maternal grandfather's body type, for the most part, I could get away with a lighter routine than most. He was lean and ripped until the day he died. He was nicely muscled, had six pack abs, and there wasn't a pinch of fat anywhere. And this was a man who ate crap and fried food every day and was sedentary.

Unfortunately, I also inherited my maternal grandmother's propensity to gain belly fat. She was model thin with the exception of her stomach and that's where I gain fat when I'm sedentary. When I stop working out and watching what I eat, my body stays "toned" with the exception of my stomach.

So, I workout mainly to get and keep the belly fat off and I"ve found that as long as I'm consistent with working out and don't go overboard with junk food, it comes off pretty quickly. I did some experimentation the first part of the year by playing around with different routines and exercises and my body did not respond as I would have liked, so I'm going back to what has always worked for me, which is cardio and light resistance. Thanks, Grandpa!

fergalizcious

I always have difficulty knowing just how heavy my weights should be when I do strength training. Do I make them so heavy that I struggle to even lift?

5 and fewer reps build strength. 15 or more reps build endurance. Anywhere in between provides a mixture of both. You should mix up what you do, and pick a weight that causes you to fail on or around the last rep. It will take some experimenting to figure out.

End6ame

I always have difficulty knowing just how heavy my weights should be when I do strength training. Do I make them so heavy that I struggle to even lift?

5 and fewer reps build strength. 15 or more reps build endurance. Anywhere in between provides a mixture of both. You should mix up what you do, and pick a weight that causes you to fail on or around the last rep. It will take some experimenting to figure out.

It is actually more about intensity than it is about reps. Granted, picking a weight at 80% of your 1 rep max will naturally land you around the 5-6 rep mark, though you should have 1 or 2 reps left “in the tank” before failure. Training to failure consistently is a good way to over train and hinder your recovery.

stroutman81

Sorry, I will try to read all that later, but I didn't miss the part where you say "unless you're new to this stuff". It's just that I'm not new to exercise or muscled tone (assuming that's what you meant by "this stuff"). I've been at it for 30+ years. I guess it was the remark about not maintaining that really got me. I have developed and maintained good muscle tone over my life by primarily cardio DVDs and sometimes running. There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle whether you are just starting or you've been at it for years.

Okay. So now it's pretty obvious the points you're missing.

1. There will be statistical outliers who can be lean, toned, and have the body that most women desire by doing pretty much anything. Their genetics are king, and this isn't to discredit their hard work either. It just means their target is much bigger so it's easier to hit with various forms and dosages of exercise. This is by far an exception to the rule. If light weights and cardio were all that was needed for *most* to obtain the body they are after.... there'd be a lot more toned women running around as this is the form that many seem to flock to.

2. This is the big one. You said, "There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle." This implies that using a muscle is what's required to drive growth and strength increases. That's far too general. I use my muscles typing on the keyboard, moving my mouse, and driving my car. But these things aren't going to drive growth and strength improvements. Science is pretty clear on there having to be an overload event to drive these adaptations.

And like I've said numerous times now, in a rank, untrained novice, running (for example) can drive changes in terms of muscle and strength in the leg muscles. There's plenty of research showing this in fact. But it's short lived. You can't expect this to drive continued improvements in strength and muscle simply because you're "using" them.

Sure, if you gained weight, running would place more strain on the muscles and thus you'd drive further adaptation. But that doesn't seem very reasonable.

You could also run further.... and this would certainly drive adaptations. But specificity of training means something. By that, I mean we know how we need to train to elicit specific adaptations. Long, continuous, low-level loading can drive oxidative adaptations... but that's a far shot away from strength and muscle growth.

From the sounds of it, this low level loading stuff got you to where you want to be. But this simply brings us full circle back to point #1.

#1 applies to me, though I just learned that recently.

For weight training (I've also realized that I'm not training for strength), I've always used body weight resistance and have never used higher than 5s. That gets the results that I want quickly and keeps me where I want to be. It was not until I started reading here that I learned that this was not "normal" and that most people require far more effort to get the results that I do in what I've found out is a very basic routine. In real life, I can lift everyday objects up to 100 lbs without a lot of effort, so I'm no weakling. I've played around with the idea of doing a heavy lifting routine, but I like my muscles as they are.

When I started reading here and learned that my weight routine was pretty rudimentary, I thought about it and figured out that because I'd inherited my maternal grandfather's body type, for the most part, I could get away with a lighter routine than most. He was lean and ripped until the day he died. He was nicely muscled, had six pack abs, and there wasn't a pinch of fat anywhere. And this was a man who ate crap and fried food every day and was sedentary.

Unfortunately, I also inherited my maternal grandmother's propensity to gain belly fat. She was model thin with the exception of her stomach and that's where I gain fat when I'm sedentary. When I stop working out and watching what I eat, my body stays "toned" with the exception of my stomach.

So, I workout mainly to get and keep the belly fat off and I"ve found that as long as I'm consistent with working out and don't go overboard with junk food, it comes off pretty quickly. I did some experimentation the first part of the year by playing around with different routines and exercises and my body did not respond as I would have liked, so I'm going back to what has always worked for me, which is cardio and light resistance. Thanks, Grandpa!

Well you should feel fortunate. I've known a number of people who are in similar shoes as yours. I grew up with a kid who was insanely ripped from childhood to adulthood. I went to a college of 6,000 or so students and it was a tight knit community. You pretty much knew everyone's face. My friend attended the same school. He was by far and away the most ripped guy on campus.

The kicker?

He never really lifted weights. He ate pretty liberally too. The genetic cards that were dealt to him were awesome.

The primary point I'm trying to make to the other poster though, is while he was rocking his hot body with little to no heavy loading, there were thousands of others who could never get by with his lifestyle while maintaining such insane body composition numbers.

n = 1 does not make a very good sample size.

And that's been the overwhelming case in my own book of business as a trainer/strength coach over the years. I've dealt with some folks who have awesome genetics. They're always fun to train since they can make amazing progress in relatively short periods of time. But by and large... that's not the case for most people.

Thanks for sharing your experience!

bcattoes

Sorry, I will try to read all that later, but I didn't miss the part where you say "unless you're new to this stuff". It's just that I'm not new to exercise or muscled tone (assuming that's what you meant by "this stuff"). I've been at it for 30+ years. I guess it was the remark about not maintaining that really got me. I have developed and maintained good muscle tone over my life by primarily cardio DVDs and sometimes running. There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle whether you are just starting or you've been at it for years.

Okay. So now it's pretty obvious the points you're missing.

1. There will be statistical outliers who can be lean, toned, and have the body that most women desire by doing pretty much anything. Their genetics are king, and this isn't to discredit their hard work either. It just means their target is much bigger so it's easier to hit with various forms and dosages of exercise. This is by far an exception to the rule. If light weights and cardio were all that was needed for *most* to obtain the body they are after.... there'd be a lot more toned women running around as this is the form that many seem to flock to.

2. This is the big one. You said, "There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle." This implies that using a muscle is what's required to drive growth and strength increases. That's far too general. I use my muscles typing on the keyboard, moving my mouse, and driving my car. But these things aren't going to drive growth and strength improvements. Science is pretty clear on there having to be an overload event to drive these adaptations.

And like I've said numerous times now, in a rank, untrained novice, running (for example) can drive changes in terms of muscle and strength in the leg muscles. There's plenty of research showing this in fact. But it's short lived. You can't expect this to drive continued improvements in strength and muscle simply because you're "using" them.

Sure, if you gained weight, running would place more strain on the muscles and thus you'd drive further adaptation. But that doesn't seem very reasonable.

You could also run further.... and this would certainly drive adaptations. But specificity of training means something. By that, I mean we know how we need to train to elicit specific adaptations. Long, continuous, low-level loading can drive oxidative adaptations... but that's a far shot away from strength and muscle growth.

From the sounds of it, this low level loading stuff got you to where you want to be. But this simply brings us full circle back to point #1.

I'm not sure I am "one of the lucky few". I believe anyone can develop and maintain muscles with cardio and resistance. The level is individual, or course, just as the level of muscle that can be obtained via hard core pumping iron varies by individual. Every body has it's limits. Whether you need the hard core pumping really is just a question of where, exactly, you want to be.

End6ame

Sorry, I will try to read all that later, but I didn't miss the part where you say "unless you're new to this stuff". It's just that I'm not new to exercise or muscled tone (assuming that's what you meant by "this stuff"). I've been at it for 30+ years. I guess it was the remark about not maintaining that really got me. I have developed and maintained good muscle tone over my life by primarily cardio DVDs and sometimes running. There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle whether you are just starting or you've been at it for years.

Okay. So now it's pretty obvious the points you're missing.

1. There will be statistical outliers who can be lean, toned, and have the body that most women desire by doing pretty much anything. Their genetics are king, and this isn't to discredit their hard work either. It just means their target is much bigger so it's easier to hit with various forms and dosages of exercise. This is by far an exception to the rule. If light weights and cardio were all that was needed for *most* to obtain the body they are after.... there'd be a lot more toned women running around as this is the form that many seem to flock to.

2. This is the big one. You said, "There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle." This implies that using a muscle is what's required to drive growth and strength increases. That's far too general. I use my muscles typing on the keyboard, moving my mouse, and driving my car. But these things aren't going to drive growth and strength improvements. Science is pretty clear on there having to be an overload event to drive these adaptations.

And like I've said numerous times now, in a rank, untrained novice, running (for example) can drive changes in terms of muscle and strength in the leg muscles. There's plenty of research showing this in fact. But it's short lived. You can't expect this to drive continued improvements in strength and muscle simply because you're "using" them.

Sure, if you gained weight, running would place more strain on the muscles and thus you'd drive further adaptation. But that doesn't seem very reasonable.

You could also run further.... and this would certainly drive adaptations. But specificity of training means something. By that, I mean we know how we need to train to elicit specific adaptations. Long, continuous, low-level loading can drive oxidative adaptations... but that's a far shot away from strength and muscle growth.

From the sounds of it, this low level loading stuff got you to where you want to be. But this simply brings us full circle back to point #1.

I'm not sure I am "one of the lucky few". I believe anyone can develop and maintain muscles with cardio and resistance. The level is individual, or course, just as the level of muscle that can be obtained via hard core pumping iron varies by individual. Every body has it's limits. Whether you need the hard core pumping really is just a question of where, exactly, you want to be.

Let me explain this another way.

If you lay out in the sun for 30 minutes per day for one week, you will have a nice brown tan at the end of the week. If you continue this pattern where will you be at the end of the month? Most people would say you would be even darker, but the truth is that you would look the same because you have not increased the level of stress. A sun tan is your skin’s response to the stress imposed by the sun; this response is designed to prevent your skin from burning. In this example you were able to both build and maintain a sun tan fairly easily with little effort, simply by continuing to repeat that behavior, however in order to increase your sun tan you will need to increase the stress i.e. time spent in the sun.

This same concept applies to exercise. Increasing muscle mass or getting stronger is your muscle’s response to the stress imposed by resistance; this response is designed to allow you to more easily repeat the action in the future. So you can both build and maintain a certain level of “fitness” fairly easily with little effort, simply by continuing to repeat that behavior, however in order to increase your level of “fitness” you will need to increase the stress i.e. increase resistance.

Granted this is an extremely over simplified comparison, but it illustrates the point. Yes you can develop and maintain muscles with cardio and resistance, but you will cease to develop further if you don’t increase the stress.

bcattoes

Sorry, I will try to read all that later, but I didn't miss the part where you say "unless you're new to this stuff". It's just that I'm not new to exercise or muscled tone (assuming that's what you meant by "this stuff"). I've been at it for 30+ years. I guess it was the remark about not maintaining that really got me. I have developed and maintained good muscle tone over my life by primarily cardio DVDs and sometimes running. There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle whether you are just starting or you've been at it for years.

Okay. So now it's pretty obvious the points you're missing.

1. There will be statistical outliers who can be lean, toned, and have the body that most women desire by doing pretty much anything. Their genetics are king, and this isn't to discredit their hard work either. It just means their target is much bigger so it's easier to hit with various forms and dosages of exercise. This is by far an exception to the rule. If light weights and cardio were all that was needed for *most* to obtain the body they are after.... there'd be a lot more toned women running around as this is the form that many seem to flock to.

2. This is the big one. You said, "There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle." This implies that using a muscle is what's required to drive growth and strength increases. That's far too general. I use my muscles typing on the keyboard, moving my mouse, and driving my car. But these things aren't going to drive growth and strength improvements. Science is pretty clear on there having to be an overload event to drive these adaptations.

And like I've said numerous times now, in a rank, untrained novice, running (for example) can drive changes in terms of muscle and strength in the leg muscles. There's plenty of research showing this in fact. But it's short lived. You can't expect this to drive continued improvements in strength and muscle simply because you're "using" them.

Sure, if you gained weight, running would place more strain on the muscles and thus you'd drive further adaptation. But that doesn't seem very reasonable.

You could also run further.... and this would certainly drive adaptations. But specificity of training means something. By that, I mean we know how we need to train to elicit specific adaptations. Long, continuous, low-level loading can drive oxidative adaptations... but that's a far shot away from strength and muscle growth.

From the sounds of it, this low level loading stuff got you to where you want to be. But this simply brings us full circle back to point #1.

I'm not sure I am "one of the lucky few". I believe anyone can develop and maintain muscles with cardio and resistance. The level is individual, or course, just as the level of muscle that can be obtained via hard core pumping iron varies by individual. Every body has it's limits. Whether you need the hard core pumping really is just a question of where, exactly, you want to be.

Let me explain this another.

If you lay out in the sun for 30 minutes per day for one week, you will have a nice brown tan at the end of the week. If you continue this pattern where will you be at the end of the month? Most people would say you would be even darker, but the truth is that you would look the same because you have not increased the level of stress. A sun tan is your skin’s response to the stress imposed by the sun; this response is designed to prevent your skin from burning. In this example you were able to both build and maintain a sun tan fairly easily with little effort, simply by continuing to repeat that behavior, however in order to increase your sun tan you will need to increase the stress i.e. time spent in the sun.

This same concept applies to exercise. Increasing muscle mass or getting stronger is your muscle’s response to the stress imposed by resistance; this response is designed to allow you to more easily repeat the action in the future. So you can both build and maintain a certain level of “fitness” fairly easily with little effort, simply by continuing to repeat that behavior, however in order to increase your level of “fitness” you will need to increase the stress i.e. increase resistance.

Granted this is an extremely over simplified comparison, but it illustrates the point. Yes you can develop and maintain muscles with cardio and resistance, but you will cease to develop further if you don’t increase the stress.

I understand. And I agree, to "increase" muscle, you need to increase resistance after a certain point. The point I had a problem with is "maintenance". But maybe the OP meant to "maintain the rate of increase". In which case I did miss the point. What I was trying to say is that you do not have to continually increase resistance to maintain muscle tone once a certain level is achieved (whatever level that may be).

mgmlap

bump

stroutman81

I'm not sure I am "one of the lucky few". I believe anyone can develop and maintain muscles with cardio and resistance. The level is individual, or course, just as the level of muscle that can be obtained via hard core pumping iron varies by individual. Every body has it's limits. Whether you need the hard core pumping really is just a question of where, exactly, you want to be.

Hmmm, I'm not sure what else to say really. Maybe your ideal physique is not similar to the one the majority of my clients aim for or the ones most of the women I've encountered on here aim for. Or maybe you're wrong about the genetic card you've been dealt.

Or are you training people day to day and getting the same results in them that you're realizing with yourself using your suggested strategies?

Or maybe I'm wrong. Certainly possible.

I look at the research though and it's pretty clear what sort of training does what in terms of the various forms of adaptations that can occur with the body. I look at my experience with my clients. I look at what's happening on the gym floor... who looks the part and who doesn't and what is each 'camp' doing in terms of exercise. After that, I just don't feel that I'm wrong.

I'm not financially tied to any one mode of training. I'm passionate about strength *and* endurance sports. I try to be as objective as possible in my assessment of information and my training advice. And I can say beyond the shadow of a doubt that the equipment on the floors of the gyms that I own and the programs that get handed to my clients are the product of what I feel is best for them given their goals. If I found that light weight, high rep pump and tone training would deliver better results, I'd have no reason to avoid it.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, which is perfectly fine.

Best to ya!.

stroutman81

I understand. And I agree, to "increase" muscle, you need to increase resistance after a certain point. The point I had a problem with is "maintenance". But maybe the OP meant to "maintain the rate of increase". In which case I did miss the point. What I was trying to say is that you do not have to continually increase resistance to maintain muscle tone once a certain level is achieved (whatever level that may be).

I never meant to imply that. Sorry if you read something that way.

If it took X to build a certain amount of muscle or strength, it's going to take X + Y to build more of it.

More applicable to your point I think... if it took X to build a certain amount of muscle or strength, anything less than X is likely going to lead to a loss of muscle. X took you beyond your body's natural setpoint, for lack of a better term, so by reducing X, you're giving your body a reason to gravitate back to this setpoint.

Based on what you're saying, I think you'll agree with these points.

Where we will have to agree to disagree I think is what X needs to be for *most* women to reach the physique they're shooting for.

sarah829522

Steve - How would you train a woman with PCOS where their hormones are not normal and even though they are being treated by a doctor for that condition the tendency for their body is that they will build more muscle than the average female. Would you still tell them to strength train to the extent of muscle failure/extreme effort on the last few reps in this case? I am interested in toning up, not bulking up. My doctor says I will tend to bulk up more than the average female. How should I balance this reality with my desire to just be toned?

Just curious what your take is on this. I've been working out with a trainer 2x/week and was recently diagnosed with PCOS and Insulin Resistance. I see him Thursday and will ask him as well. But wanted to get your opinion or see if you have any experience training other women with IR & PCOS.

Thanks!

Matiara

Sorry, I will try to read all that later, but I didn't miss the part where you say "unless you're new to this stuff". It's just that I'm not new to exercise or muscled tone (assuming that's what you meant by "this stuff"). I've been at it for 30+ years. I guess it was the remark about not maintaining that really got me. I have developed and maintained good muscle tone over my life by primarily cardio DVDs and sometimes running. There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle whether you are just starting or you've been at it for years.

Okay. So now it's pretty obvious the points you're missing.

1. There will be statistical outliers who can be lean, toned, and have the body that most women desire by doing pretty much anything. Their genetics are king, and this isn't to discredit their hard work either. It just means their target is much bigger so it's easier to hit with various forms and dosages of exercise. This is by far an exception to the rule. If light weights and cardio were all that was needed for *most* to obtain the body they are after.... there'd be a lot more toned women running around as this is the form that many seem to flock to.

2. This is the big one. You said, "There just isn't much cardio you can do without muscle." This implies that using a muscle is what's required to drive growth and strength increases. That's far too general. I use my muscles typing on the keyboard, moving my mouse, and driving my car. But these things aren't going to drive growth and strength improvements. Science is pretty clear on there having to be an overload event to drive these adaptations.

And like I've said numerous times now, in a rank, untrained novice, running (for example) can drive changes in terms of muscle and strength in the leg muscles. There's plenty of research showing this in fact. But it's short lived. You can't expect this to drive continued improvements in strength and muscle simply because you're "using" them.

Sure, if you gained weight, running would place more strain on the muscles and thus you'd drive further adaptation. But that doesn't seem very reasonable.

You could also run further.... and this would certainly drive adaptations. But specificity of training means something. By that, I mean we know how we need to train to elicit specific adaptations. Long, continuous, low-level loading can drive oxidative adaptations... but that's a far shot away from strength and muscle growth.

From the sounds of it, this low level loading stuff got you to where you want to be. But this simply brings us full circle back to point #1.

#1 applies to me, though I just learned that recently.

For weight training (I've also realized that I'm not training for strength), I've always used body weight resistance and have never used higher than 5s. That gets the results that I want quickly and keeps me where I want to be. It was not until I started reading here that I learned that this was not "normal" and that most people require far more effort to get the results that I do in what I've found out is a very basic routine. In real life, I can lift everyday objects up to 100 lbs without a lot of effort, so I'm no weakling. I've played around with the idea of doing a heavy lifting routine, but I like my muscles as they are.

When I started reading here and learned that my weight routine was pretty rudimentary, I thought about it and figured out that because I'd inherited my maternal grandfather's body type, for the most part, I could get away with a lighter routine than most. He was lean and ripped until the day he died. He was nicely muscled, had six pack abs, and there wasn't a pinch of fat anywhere. And this was a man who ate crap and fried food every day and was sedentary.

Unfortunately, I also inherited my maternal grandmother's propensity to gain belly fat. She was model thin with the exception of her stomach and that's where I gain fat when I'm sedentary. When I stop working out and watching what I eat, my body stays "toned" with the exception of my stomach.

So, I workout mainly to get and keep the belly fat off and I"ve found that as long as I'm consistent with working out and don't go overboard with junk food, it comes off pretty quickly. I did some experimentation the first part of the year by playing around with different routines and exercises and my body did not respond as I would have liked, so I'm going back to what has always worked for me, which is cardio and light resistance. Thanks, Grandpa!

Well you should feel fortunate. I've known a number of people who are in similar shoes as yours. I grew up with a kid who was insanely ripped from childhood to adulthood. I went to a college of 6,000 or so students and it was a tight knit community. You pretty much knew everyone's face. My friend attended the same school. He was by far and away the most ripped guy on campus.

The kicker?

He never really lifted weights. He ate pretty liberally too. The genetic cards that were dealt to him were awesome.

The primary point I'm trying to make to the other poster though, is while he was rocking his hot body with little to no heavy loading, there were thousands of others who could never get by with his lifestyle while maintaining such insane body composition numbers.

n = 1 does not make a very good sample size.

And that's been the overwhelming case in my own book of business as a trainer/strength coach over the years. I've dealt with some folks who have awesome genetics. They're always fun to train since they can make amazing progress in relatively short periods of time. But by and large... that's not the case for most people.

Thanks for sharing your experience!

I don't take it for granted, believe me. It's nice to know that I'm exceptional at something.

I've actually been looking for information for a friend of mine who's struggling with a plateau and I'm going to send her some of the posts from this thread. She's working with a PT and he's recommended that she start lifting heavier and eliminate a lot of the sugar from her diet, but she doesn't want to hear that. Since I've started progressing again now that I've gotten out of my body's way, she's asked me to e-mail her my fitness routine and a sample of my weekly diet. I've told her that it may work temporarily just because it would be something different, but it won't work long term because we have completely different body types and that she should listen to her trainer. However, she seems to think that copying me will yield her the same results that I'm getting.

stroutman81

Steve - How would you train a woman with PCOS where their hormones are not normal and even though they are being treated by a doctor for that condition the tendency for their body is that they will build more muscle than the average female.

First, let me say that it'd depend on her goals. In these cases, generally speaking it'd be easier to maintain muscle while losing fat due to the higher androgens. Problem is, losing fat is typically more difficult for someone with PCOS.

With these two variables identified, I'd juice up metabolic workouts and tone down strength workouts. In other words, I'd prioritize caloric expenditure and put muscle building/preserving work on maintenance levels... maybe 1-2 sessions per week.

Would you still tell them to strength train to the extent of muscle failure/extreme effort on the last few reps in this case?

There seems to be a misconception that I'm talking about training to failure when in fact I'm not. I rarely have my clients train to muscular failure. Heck, I rarely have them train to technical failure, which is where the weight is heavy to a point where technique starts to crumble during the last rep or two.

We know there's a minimum threshold of intensity that's required to call on all muscle fibers from rep 1 of a set. A ballpark of this intensity would be 80-85% of one's maximum ability.

I base a lot of my loading parameters on this notion.

I am interested in toning up, not bulking up. My doctor says I will tend to bulk up more than the average female. How should I balance this reality with my desire to just be toned?

See above... I'd prioritize metabolic training over strength training.

It's important to note that not all women with PCOS bulk up easily. So, as with everything else, you're going to have to jump in and test the waters. Adapt your approach as you go.

If you find that 1 strength training session per week isn't cutting it... bump it up to 2. And so on.

By metabolic training I'm talking about circuit training (lighter weight, high rep/volume, low rest), traditional cardio, etc.

Just curious what your take is on this. I've been working out with a trainer 2x/week and was recently diagnosed with PCOS and Insulin Resistance. I see him Thursday and will ask him as well. But wanted to get your opinion or see if you have any experience training other women with IR & PCOS.

I do. I'd be interested in hearing the advice your trainer gives you too.

Almost everyone who has a weight problem has some degree of insulin resistance... so I've seen plenty of this. Strength training does good things for IR as it sensitizes the tissues we want to be shuttling calories to... muscle. But in your case, too much of it could *possibly* bulk you up.

Keep in mind though that men have very high levels of androgens relative to females. When they're dieting (calorie deficit) they're not bulking up. Muscle building requires a lot of energy and when your body is shortchanged, as in when it's dieting, bulking up shouldn't be a huge concern.

ladyhawk00

Bump...missed this the first time around... Thanks

PJilly

Fascinating, informative thread. Bump.