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

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.