I do DVDs so I don't need to strength train
Options
Replies
-
Steve, I was hanging on to every word of this thread as if it were a new mystery novel!
First let me say I am so glad to finally stumble upon a thread that is not about arguing semantics or hashing out some blanket rules with no explanations. Real constructive "support"
Thank you so much for the information. And, I am actually glad that someone disagreed with you because it made you explain more and helped me better understand.
I am a DVD/video kinda girl, so in addition to circuit training, I do have some that are true strength training. Where, there is no cardio in between and plenty of time for rest between sets. Each one focuses on different parts so upper, lower, chest etc and these are where I usually learn about form. BUT since I am usually not exerting myself (feeling dead tired), and the calories burned are so low, I tend to not do them as often. I feel sort of felt like it was a waste. So post times I pick the circuit or cardio training videos.
My question: I tend work out around 5 times a week. Based on this and my new found knowledge, how often do you think I should do strength training….2/5?? Each week I try to make it more than 5times, but I really never go over this. Maybe I can’t do 6 times a week because I am burned out form so much cardiovascular and I can make it to 6 once strength training is added? Dunno.
Thanks in advance (p.s. I can post to the Q&A on your website too if you prefer)
You bring up some good points...
First I feel that it's important to explain the thread title. I worded it in such a way that it'd stir up controversy and draw views. In reality we can't generalize about ALL DVDs strength training programs being suboptimal. I've seen ones that are just fine... such as p90x. It's not something I'd ever do myself or recommend to a friend... but it utilizes traditional strength training paired with the foundational principles that drive optimal results in terms of muscle.
So of course not all DVDs are created equal.
Secondly, you brought up a great point about how strength training feels. It doesn't get you all jacked up in terms of heart and sweat rates. It doesn't leave you gasping for breath, generally speaking. And here's the kicker... it's not SUPPOSED TO. It challenges your body differently compared to more continuous forms of exercise.
The problem is, everyone equates "success" to exercise that feels like conditioning and that's unfortunate. Everyone's listening to their bodies yet they don't speak the language.
And I get it... intuition would tell you that hard, productive exercise leaves you sweaty with a high heart rate and a burning sensation in your muscles. It's just that there's a whole lot more to it... it being an optimum body composition.
I might do 5-10 sets of 2-5 reps of very heavy deadlifts. It's going to feel entirely different than, say, H.I.I.T. or some circuit training. Both can be productive. But the productiveness is specific to the mode of exercise. Put differently... each of the varying approaches will lead to unique results.
I've found that many people are too focused on the calories expended and the number on the scale. They're taking a numbers oriented approach over a results oriented approach.
Proper nutrition AND exercise (cardio AND resistance training) work in synergy.
Good nutrition = A
Resistance training = B
Cardio = C
Total Health and Good Physique = D
A+B+C=D
Take A, B, or C out of the equation and you are operating sub-optimally and giving up unique benefits associated only with the dropped variable.
Can you lose weight without lifting weights?
Certainly. Losing weight is a function of being in a chronic/consistent energy deficit, meaning, more calories out than in. This deficit can be established however you see fit.... less food, more activity, a combo, etc.
Will you look good only eating less without exercising?
Probably not, unless you are genetically gifted. And if you were, you probably wouldn't be here.
As for your question...
I'm assuming that your goal is fat loss and muscle preservation. If that's the case, it takes more volume to build an attribute than it does to maintain an attribute. Meaning, if maximizing muscle growth was the goal, you'd like want to be hitting the weights 3-7 days per week. If maintenance is the goal though, you can get away with 2 full body sessions per week.0 -
I have been focusing on cardio, but am aware that I really need to start strength-training if I am going to tone up the body fat that I have.
For clarity's sake... please know that you don't tone up the fat that you have with strength training. Strength training works your muscles. Fat and muscle are separate tissues. I don't want you or anyone else thinking that lifting weights turns your fa into muscle because that's not how things work.My question is, at the moment I don't have and can't afford gym membership. Like others here, I own resistance bands (set of 5, graded from 10-50lbs resistance) and I have various workout DVDs including ChaLean Extreme. I currenlty own one teeny-tiny kBell (haha) and a set of 3 dumbells, the biggest of which is only 2.2kg. Thing is though, the bands don't feel like they really do the ChaLean workouts justice, and sometimes I find it difficult to get them in the right place to do the exercises in time.
What sort of thing can I be looking at doing at home, without having to spend a lot of money on weights?
Best bet would be to invest in adjustable dumbbells. i know most sporting good stores have them. This will help you progress to a certain point and hopefully at that point you'll be able to afford other alternative.
Heck, I've even recommended that people use gallon jugs. Fill them up to a certain point that's challenging for a given movement. As you get stronger... add.My main problem areas are my upper arms (triceps) and stomach. I know you can't "spot reduce" fat but can you "spot tone"???
Spot reducing is the same as spot toning in my mind. Where I come from, toning isn't a verb. It's an adjective, as in toned, that describes what someone looks like when they've minimized their fat stores while ensuring the maintenance of muscle. Less fat covering an equal or even greater amount of muscle gives you that shaped look.
But if you're asking if you can target certain muscles with weights... you certainly can. You could target your tricep muscles (the ones on the back of your arms) with things like bench press, skull crushers. pressdowns, close grip pushups, dips, etc. And if you progressively overload them, they'll respond. But that's not going to have a significant impact on the fat that's covering them.0 -
I have been focusing on cardio, but am aware that I really need to start strength-training if I am going to tone up the body fat that I have.
For clarity's sake... please know that you don't tone up the fat that you have with strength training. Strength training works your muscles. Fat and muscle are separate tissues. I don't want you or anyone else thinking that lifting weights turns your fa into muscle because that's not how things work.My question is, at the moment I don't have and can't afford gym membership. Like others here, I own resistance bands (set of 5, graded from 10-50lbs resistance) and I have various workout DVDs including ChaLean Extreme. I currenlty own one teeny-tiny kBell (haha) and a set of 3 dumbells, the biggest of which is only 2.2kg. Thing is though, the bands don't feel like they really do the ChaLean workouts justice, and sometimes I find it difficult to get them in the right place to do the exercises in time.
What sort of thing can I be looking at doing at home, without having to spend a lot of money on weights?
Best bet would be to invest in adjustable dumbbells. i know most sporting good stores have them. This will help you progress to a certain point and hopefully at that point you'll be able to afford other alternative.
Heck, I've even recommended that people use gallon jugs. Fill them up to a certain point that's challenging for a given movement. As you get stronger... add.My main problem areas are my upper arms (triceps) and stomach. I know you can't "spot reduce" fat but can you "spot tone"???
Spot reducing is the same as spot toning in my mind. Where I come from, toning isn't a verb. It's an adjective, as in toned, that describes what someone looks like when they've minimized their fat stores while ensuring the maintenance of muscle. Less fat covering an equal or even greater amount of muscle gives you that shaped look.
But if you're asking if you can target certain muscles with weights... you certainly can. You could target your tricep muscles (the ones on the back of your arms) with things like bench press, skull crushers. pressdowns, close grip pushups, dips, etc. And if you progressively overload them, they'll respond. But that's not going to have a significant impact on the fat that's covering them.
Thanks for the reply
I know you can't "tone" fat and that it doesn't turn into muscle - sorry, that was particularly bad phrasing on my part!!! I know what I meant, I just failed to say it in any way that made sense.... d'oh!
What I want to do is REDUCE my body fat. I can feel some muscles (upper abs, for example) developing, or coming through, but they're still covered by that layer of squidgy fat. That's what I want to get rid of, so that instead of a bit that wobbles when I jump up and down, it's flat and - well - er - the word I would normallly use is "toned" but I can't think of what should go in there instead now! I don't expect to have a washboard stomach or a 6-pack but I would like something that isn't a flabby mass.
One point you make above is that certain exercises will make the muscles respond but won't have a significant effect on the fat that covers them. What would?
The running I've been doing has helped to some degree - my lower stomach is certainly a lot tighter (?) than it was and my legs are leaner. However there are still those problem areas, that I guess we all have to some degree, that I am struggling with. I will also admit that some of the exercises you've named (skullcrushers??? goblet squats??) I have never heard of!
Does that make a bit more sense?
thank you.0 -
One point you make above is that certain exercises will make the muscles respond but won't have a significant effect on the fat that covers them. What would?
A calorie deficit.
Which comes from controlled intake paired with reasonable amounts of structured exercise.
The deficit taps into the stored energy (fat), and the strength training influences the quality of weight loss by helping promote muscle maintenance while being in said deficit.
To expand a bit, let's look at what maintenance calories really means and go from there...
The body is in a constant flux of building up and breaking down. The maintenance level is the amount of energy it takes to fuel the building up so that it balances out the breaking down. This is vastly oversimplified, of course, but sufficient for the conversation.
At any rate, maintenance assumes that you have exactly enough energy to support all the energy you're expending in a given day (basal metabolism, activity, and digestion/utilization of food). Conservation of energy and all that good stuff that you never paid attention to in physics class, haha... energy output = energy input, so there's no net change to the system. Weight stays the same.
When you're eating under maintenance, you're providing less energy than is required to maintain that balance. The body needs that energy, so it gets it from the only choice it has: the existing tissues. In a perfect world, this is fat. In the real world, it's fat and muscle (another reason high protein is important while dieting).
In terms of energy requirements, muscle building is a very intensive process. Heck, even maintaining muscle is metabolically costly relative to fat. When your body is short-changed on energy, especially when you're relatively lean already, your body's starvation avoidance systems help to shed muscle.
Your body sees muscle as a wasteful resource (beyond the bare bones minimum) and fat as an energy depot to help ensure survival during times of energy shortfalls.
All of this to make the point that in order to give you best chances of reaching your goal physique, you need to let the deficit take care of the fat loss, which will occur in a genetically predetermined pattern.... and let the strength training take care of the muscle.
Does that clear things up at all?0 -
One point you make above is that certain exercises will make the muscles respond but won't have a significant effect on the fat that covers them. What would?
A calorie deficit.
Which comes from controlled intake paired with reasonable amounts of structured exercise.
The deficit taps into the stored energy (fat), and the strength training influences the quality of weight loss by helping promote muscle maintenance while being in said deficit.
To expand a bit, let's look at what maintenance calories really means and go from there...
The body is in a constant flux of building up and breaking down. The maintenance level is the amount of energy it takes to fuel the building up so that it balances out the breaking down. This is vastly oversimplified, of course, but sufficient for the conversation.
At any rate, maintenance assumes that you have exactly enough energy to support all the energy you're expending in a given day (basal metabolism, activity, and digestion/utilization of food). Conservation of energy and all that good stuff that you never paid attention to in physics class, haha... energy output = energy input, so there's no net change to the system. Weight stays the same.
When you're eating under maintenance, you're providing less energy than is required to maintain that balance. The body needs that energy, so it gets it from the only choice it has: the existing tissues. In a perfect world, this is fat. In the real world, it's fat and muscle (another reason high protein is important while dieting).
In terms of energy requirements, muscle building is a very intensive process. Heck, even maintaining muscle is metabolically costly relative to fat. When your body is short-changed on energy, especially when you're relatively lean already, your body's starvation avoidance systems help to shed muscle.
Your body sees muscle as a wasteful resource (beyond the bare bones minimum) and fat as an energy depot to help ensure survival during times of energy shortfalls.
All of this to make the point that in order to give you best chances of reaching your goal physique, you need to let the deficit take care of the fat loss, which will occur in a genetically predetermined pattern.... and let the strength training take care of the muscle.
Does that clear things up at all?
Yes, it certainly makes sense. How I apply it to me is where I struggle a bit. Currently my calorie goal here is set to 1460 (this follows something you posted in another thread, I think it was about "frantic to adhere to the right calorie intake?". I worked out the calculation you had there for roughly what I wanted to do at the time, which was lose 20lbs. Initially my calories were set by MFP to the world-wide 1200 so I have upped them a little from the initial goal. I also eat most of my exercise calories back, where I can (not always possible if I do a run at night) which I know is a massive debate in and of itself.
Now I'm on the "home stretch" as such; I've remained consistently at the same point now for approx 6-8 weeks, and although I have lost 20lbs, my muscle definition is sadly lacking, if that's the right term - not sure what is. "Skinny fat" comes to mind as the best description probably!!
I want to lose/reduce fat while maintaining the muscle I already have. I am assuming that with 14-1500 cals there is still a deficit built in so presumably I don't need to reduce that back down again - so that cover the last thing you mention - "let the deficit take care of the fat".
In the meantime I would say that currently virtually all my excercise (running, biking, horseriding) is cardio-based and I do no resistance training of any type - through a combination of (a) being clueless and (b) lack of equipment/money. I know I should be doing it, I just don't know quite how and what.... d'oh!0 -
Yes, it certainly makes sense.
Good.How I apply it to me is where I struggle a bit. Currently my calorie goal here is set to 1460 (this follows something you posted in another thread, I think it was about "frantic to adhere to the right calorie intake?". I worked out the calculation you had there for roughly what I wanted to do at the time, which was lose 20lbs. Initially my calories were set by MFP to the world-wide 1200 so I have upped them a little from the initial goal. I also eat most of my exercise calories back, where I can (not always possible if I do a run at night) which I know is a massive debate in and of itself.
Now I'm on the "home stretch" as such; I've remained consistently at the same point now for approx 6-8 weeks, and although I have lost 20lbs, my muscle definition is sadly lacking, if that's the right term - not sure what is. "Skinny fat" comes to mind as the best description probably!!
I want to lose/reduce fat while maintaining the muscle I already have. I am assuming that with 14-1500 cals there is still a deficit built in so presumably I don't need to reduce that back down again - so that cover the last thing you mention - "let the deficit take care of the fat".
This is how I go about calories.
I set maintenance at 14-16 calories per pound. Most tend to start most women or people who've already lost a considerable amount of weight at 14 and most men and highly active people at 16. Of course there are always those outliers who seem to have a sluggish metabolism or seem to be mostly sedentary... and in those cases, I might slide the entire spectrum down slightly, to say, 12-14 cals/lb. On the other side of the fence, there are always those who seem to be gifted in the metabolism department or they're highly highly active and I might slide their maintenance spectrum up to 16-18.
It all depends on the individual and circumstances.... but it's just a starting point anyhow... so not all that important. It's how they adapt their approach according to what's happening in response to the starting point that is important.
Once a reasonable estimate has been made about maintenance, I subtract 25-35% from it to reach a daily calorie target. There are cases where I'll go above or below this range... but by and large this is the range I work with. I'll typically hover on the lower end of that range for lighter folks and the higher end of the range for heavier folks.
With this method, you don't have to worry about eating exercise calories back or not. Here's why...
The 14-16 calories per pound for maintenance assumes the person is exercising most days of the week. So exercise calories are already factored in. Meaning anything below this maintenance intake should be a "raw" deficit... meaning it doesn't need any manipulation. It's net, in other words.
Make sense?In the meantime I would say that currently virtually all my excercise (running, biking, horseriding) is cardio-based and I do no resistance training of any type - through a combination of (a) being clueless and (b) lack of equipment/money. I know I should be doing it, I just don't know quite how and what.... d'oh!
Here's a resource you might consider checking out:
http://www.amazon.com/Mens-Health-Home-Workout-Bible/dp/1579546579
But look... start with some basic movements using solely your body weight where you're focusing more on form/execution than anything else. Do this for a few weeks until you're 100% comfortable with each movement. Then you can start loading the movements with whatever your have available... dumbbells, bands, gallon jogs, babies, books, or whatever!
From there though, progression of the load is very important. Which is why asking if "8 lb dumbbells is enough" is sort of silly. They're enough for right now, maybe. But your body will grow accustomed to this load and at that point will stop responding to it.
You could do something as simple as:
Body weight squats 3x15
Single Leg Romanian Deadlifts - 2x8 each leg
Pullups or assisted pullups - 3x12 (pullup bars are cheap and easy to install)
Pushups or modified pushups - 3x12
You could throw some accessory stuff in at the end for your core, arms and shoulders if you'd like, but it's really not necessary.
On another day you could simply repeat that workout or you could do something like:
Hip Thrusts
Reverse Lunges
Inverted Rows
Pushups or modified pushups
Using the same sets and reps as above.
You really have to get created when you're limited to little to no tools (DBs, bars, weight plates, benches, racks, etc).
Here are some videos of the exercises I listed above:
Squats:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9W2jnmUXdo
Single Leg Romanian Deads:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umqj_m8J2vw
Assisted Pullups and Pushups:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-mGDKS-13c
Or you could do the basic modified pushup:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpj_hL_m0tA
Or you could do eccentric/jump pullups:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrZ2P2XoSNA
Hip Thrusts: http://www.youtube.com/user/bretcontreras1#p/u/60/4w9JN9XRc_c (with this you could simply lean back against a low table - you'd need to put a towel under you for padding - or you could even lay back against a chair. You could eventually load the movement by putting weights on your waist area... books, dumbbells, or whatever)
Reverse Lunge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqpYfzQvsdI
Inverted Rows:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYUxXMGVuuU
For more advanced folks, you can check my buddy's (Bret Contreras) video out here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQYukgzj_kU
Realize that all the exercises Bret demonstrates in that video can be progressively loaded.
You are hopefully getting the idea here. And don't think of the above as a rigid program... it's just a quick example of what can be done. There are many ways of structuring things.
Once you graduate to "real" weights, I'd suggest reading through Mark Rippetoe's books titled Practical Programming and Starting Strength.
For the record... a beginner program for one of my clients coming to my gym might be as simple as this:
Squat
Bench Press
Deadlift
Pullups
Start with the bar, do 5-8 reps. Add 5-10 lbs. Repeat. Do this for a total of 4-6 sets for each exercise. Workout over.
Do this for a few weeks, or even months if the progress keeps up. Try to beat your weights each time. You can start adding some variety then, maybe this:
Workout A
Squat
Bench Press
Barbell Row
Dips
Workout B
Front Squat
Military Press
Deadlift
Pullups
Alternate between those 2-3 times a week, stick to sets of 5 on the barbell lifts and do 4-6 sets. You can do higher rep stuff on the dips and pullups. I'll also throw in some accessory stuff here and there for single limb work, core, and arms.0 -
Yes, it certainly makes sense.
Good.How I apply it to me is where I struggle a bit. Currently my calorie goal here is set to 1460 (this follows something you posted in another thread, I think it was about "frantic to adhere to the right calorie intake?". I worked out the calculation you had there for roughly what I wanted to do at the time, which was lose 20lbs. Initially my calories were set by MFP to the world-wide 1200 so I have upped them a little from the initial goal. I also eat most of my exercise calories back, where I can (not always possible if I do a run at night) which I know is a massive debate in and of itself.
Now I'm on the "home stretch" as such; I've remained consistently at the same point now for approx 6-8 weeks, and although I have lost 20lbs, my muscle definition is sadly lacking, if that's the right term - not sure what is. "Skinny fat" comes to mind as the best description probably!!
I want to lose/reduce fat while maintaining the muscle I already have. I am assuming that with 14-1500 cals there is still a deficit built in so presumably I don't need to reduce that back down again - so that cover the last thing you mention - "let the deficit take care of the fat".
This is how I go about calories.
I set maintenance at 14-16 calories per pound. Most tend to start most women or people who've already lost a considerable amount of weight at 14 and most men and highly active people at 16. Of course there are always those outliers who seem to have a sluggish metabolism or seem to be mostly sedentary... and in those cases, I might slide the entire spectrum down slightly, to say, 12-14 cals/lb. On the other side of the fence, there are always those who seem to be gifted in the metabolism department or they're highly highly active and I might slide their maintenance spectrum up to 16-18.
It all depends on the individual and circumstances.... but it's just a starting point anyhow... so not all that important. It's how they adapt their approach according to what's happening in response to the starting point that is important.
Once a reasonable estimate has been made about maintenance, I subtract 25-35% from it to reach a daily calorie target. There are cases where I'll go above or below this range... but by and large this is the range I work with. I'll typically hover on the lower end of that range for lighter folks and the higher end of the range for heavier folks.
With this method, you don't have to worry about eating exercise calories back or not. Here's why...
The 14-16 calories per pound for maintenance assumes the person is exercising most days of the week. So exercise calories are already factored in. Meaning anything below this maintenance intake should be a "raw" deficit... meaning it doesn't need any manipulation. It's net, in other words.
Make sense?In the meantime I would say that currently virtually all my excercise (running, biking, horseriding) is cardio-based and I do no resistance training of any type - through a combination of (a) being clueless and (b) lack of equipment/money. I know I should be doing it, I just don't know quite how and what.... d'oh!
Here's a resource you might consider checking out:
http://www.amazon.com/Mens-Health-Home-Workout-Bible/dp/1579546579
But look... start with some basic movements using solely your body weight where you're focusing more on form/execution than anything else. Do this for a few weeks until you're 100% comfortable with each movement. Then you can start loading the movements with whatever your have available... dumbbells, bands, gallon jogs, babies, books, or whatever!
From there though, progression of the load is very important. Which is why asking if "8 lb dumbbells is enough" is sort of silly. They're enough for right now, maybe. But your body will grow accustomed to this load and at that point will stop responding to it.
You could do something as simple as:
Body weight squats 3x15
Single Leg Romanian Deadlifts - 2x8 each leg
Pullups or assisted pullups - 3x12 (pullup bars are cheap and easy to install)
Pushups or modified pushups - 3x12
You could throw some accessory stuff in at the end for your core, arms and shoulders if you'd like, but it's really not necessary.
On another day you could simply repeat that workout or you could do something like:
Hip Thrusts
Reverse Lunges
Inverted Rows
Pushups or modified pushups
Using the same sets and reps as above.
You really have to get created when you're limited to little to no tools (DBs, bars, weight plates, benches, racks, etc).
Here are some videos of the exercises I listed above:
Squats:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9W2jnmUXdo
Single Leg Romanian Deads:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umqj_m8J2vw
Assisted Pullups and Pushups:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-mGDKS-13c
Or you could do the basic modified pushup:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpj_hL_m0tA
Or you could do eccentric/jump pullups:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrZ2P2XoSNA
Hip Thrusts: http://www.youtube.com/user/bretcontreras1#p/u/60/4w9JN9XRc_c (with this you could simply lean back against a low table - you'd need to put a towel under you for padding - or you could even lay back against a chair. You could eventually load the movement by putting weights on your waist area... books, dumbbells, or whatever)
Reverse Lunge:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqpYfzQvsdI
Inverted Rows:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYUxXMGVuuU
For more advanced folks, you can check my buddy's (Bret Contreras) video out here:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQYukgzj_kU
Realize that all the exercises Bret demonstrates in that video can be progressively loaded.
You are hopefully getting the idea here. And don't think of the above as a rigid program... it's just a quick example of what can be done. There are many ways of structuring things.
Once you graduate to "real" weights, I'd suggest reading through Mark Rippetoe's books titled Practical Programming and Starting Strength.
For the record... a beginner program for one of my clients coming to my gym might be as simple as this:
Squat
Bench Press
Deadlift
Pullups
Start with the bar, do 5-8 reps. Add 5-10 lbs. Repeat. Do this for a total of 4-6 sets for each exercise. Workout over.
Do this for a few weeks, or even months if the progress keeps up. Try to beat your weights each time. You can start adding some variety then, maybe this:
Workout A
Squat
Bench Press
Barbell Row
Dips
Workout B
Front Squat
Military Press
Deadlift
Pullups
Alternate between those 2-3 times a week, stick to sets of 5 on the barbell lifts and do 4-6 sets. You can do higher rep stuff on the dips and pullups. I'll also throw in some accessory stuff here and there for single limb work, core, and arms.
That's amazing, thank you so much for your help and time in typing all this out! I will print this off and read/digest properly.
I imagine it will help others as well as I have seen a few posts about people new to weights and lifting etc so this should benefit a whole lot of people.
Much appreciated! 0 -
Wow. I just spent the past several minutes reading this entire thread. Thank you so much for taking the time to address the questions that have been posted in layman's terms. I too am doing ChaLEAN Extreme (maybe one day you could review that too) and really love how powerful the workouts make me feel. And now with the knowledge I have gained from this thread, I am looking forward to even better results! Thanks again. 0
-
This is how I go about calories.
I set maintenance at 14-16 calories per pound. Most tend to start most women or people who've already lost a considerable amount of weight at 14 and most men and highly active people at 16. Of course there are always those outliers who seem to have a sluggish metabolism or seem to be mostly sedentary... and in those cases, I might slide the entire spectrum down slightly, to say, 12-14 cals/lb. On the other side of the fence, there are always those who seem to be gifted in the metabolism department or they're highly highly active and I might slide their maintenance spectrum up to 16-18.
It all depends on the individual and circumstances.... but it's just a starting point anyhow... so not all that important. It's how they adapt their approach according to what's happening in response to the starting point that is important.
Once a reasonable estimate has been made about maintenance, I subtract 25-35% from it to reach a daily calorie target. There are cases where I'll go above or below this range... but by and large this is the range I work with. I'll typically hover on the lower end of that range for lighter folks and the higher end of the range for heavier folks.
With this method, you don't have to worry about eating exercise calories back or not. Here's why...
The 14-16 calories per pound for maintenance assumes the person is exercising most days of the week. So exercise calories are already factored in. Meaning anything below this maintenance intake should be a "raw" deficit... meaning it doesn't need any manipulation. It's net, in other words.
Make sense?
Errmmmmm...... no..... Sorry, I'm being really thick about this (I've never quite got to grips with this stuff and numbers are not my strong point LOL).
So with regards to the above - for me, at 137lbs x 14cals, that comes to 1918 for maintenance per day. If I subtract 25% from 1918 to give me a deficit, that sets me 1438.5 as a daily goal. If I then go for a run that uses, say, 500 cals, BUT my daily goal is 1438, does that not mean that I am only actually giving my body 938 calories to sort itself out on from actual food/drink consumed?
*Puts on dunce hat and waits*0 -
Wow. I just spent the past several minutes reading this entire thread. Thank you so much for taking the time to address the questions that have been posted in layman's terms. I too am doing ChaLEAN Extreme (maybe one day you could review that too) and really love how powerful the workouts make me feel. And now with the knowledge I have gained from this thread, I am looking forward to even better results! Thanks again.
You're welcome. Thanks for following along!
I'll likely never see ChaLEAN unless one of my clients gives me a copy for review.
Here's the thing though...
As long as a strength training program has you using big movements (think squat variations, lunge variations, hip-hinge variations such as dealifts and hip thrusts, pressing and pulling) with weight that keeps you under 15 reps... it's probably okay. More importantly, it has to have said weight increasing over time.
Which is one of the big problems I've encountered. I've found that most women following DVDs from home have a couple sets of light dumbbells that aren't adjustable. So they never really wind up increasing the load, which is, at the end of the day, the most important variable when it comes to strength training and the adaptations we're hoping to achieve from it.
But if you're doing big movements with relatively heavy weights and increasing those weights over time.... you're probably on an okay course. If ChaLEAN has you doing this... good.
You know it's a problem though when they have people squatting and overhead pressing the same weight.0 -
This is how I go about calories.
I set maintenance at 14-16 calories per pound. Most tend to start most women or people who've already lost a considerable amount of weight at 14 and most men and highly active people at 16. Of course there are always those outliers who seem to have a sluggish metabolism or seem to be mostly sedentary... and in those cases, I might slide the entire spectrum down slightly, to say, 12-14 cals/lb. On the other side of the fence, there are always those who seem to be gifted in the metabolism department or they're highly highly active and I might slide their maintenance spectrum up to 16-18.
It all depends on the individual and circumstances.... but it's just a starting point anyhow... so not all that important. It's how they adapt their approach according to what's happening in response to the starting point that is important.
Once a reasonable estimate has been made about maintenance, I subtract 25-35% from it to reach a daily calorie target. There are cases where I'll go above or below this range... but by and large this is the range I work with. I'll typically hover on the lower end of that range for lighter folks and the higher end of the range for heavier folks.
With this method, you don't have to worry about eating exercise calories back or not. Here's why...
The 14-16 calories per pound for maintenance assumes the person is exercising most days of the week. So exercise calories are already factored in. Meaning anything below this maintenance intake should be a "raw" deficit... meaning it doesn't need any manipulation. It's net, in other words.
Make sense?
Errmmmmm...... no..... Sorry, I'm being really thick about this (I've never quite got to grips with this stuff and numbers are not my strong point LOL).
So with regards to the above - for me, at 137lbs x 14cals, that comes to 1918 for maintenance per day. If I subtract 25% from 1918 to give me a deficit, that sets me 1438.5 as a daily goal. If I then go for a run that uses, say, 500 cals, BUT my daily goal is 1438, does that not mean that I am only actually giving my body 938 calories to sort itself out on from actual food/drink consumed?
*Puts on dunce hat and waits*
No because the 14 cals/lb already has the calories expended via exercise factored in.
A general rule of thumb for BMR is 10 cals/lb.
So for a 130 lb woman, her BMR is likely in the neighborhood of 1300.
Assuming she's active, she probably expends 500 additional calories per day via formal exercise and plain old moving around. Which is approximately 4 more calories per pound.
So 10 for BMR + 4 for activity = 14 for maintenance.
Now do you see how the exercise is already factored in?0 -
Make sense?
No because the 14 cals/lb already has the calories expended via exercise factored in.
A general rule of thumb for BMR is 10 cals/lb.
So for a 130 lb woman, her BMR is likely in the neighborhood of 1300.
Assuming she's active, she probably expends 500 additional calories per day via formal exercise and plain old moving around. Which is approximately 4 more calories per pound.
So 10 for BMR + 4 for activity = 14 for maintenance.
Now do you see how the exercise is already factored in?
Yes, that's a bit clearer. Sorry, my brain cell seems to have gone AWOL when it comes to this stuff!! Thank you 0 -
No need for apologies. All good questions.
Best to you!0 -
bump...good stuff0
-
Just curious as to what you think of my current plan that I am doing now. Most, if not all, of the info that I am using comes from Tom Venuto's book Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle. (I am actually not doing *exactly* this *now* because the gym that I joined doesn't open for a month...so the exercise I do is about 5 days a week cardio and circuit training with dumbbells at home until that glorious day when I have access to better dumbbells, barbells, cable machines, and an assisted pull up machine, lol)
As far as nutrition, I have my goal set at 1500 calories. I weigh around 145 or so right now (5'5" female with close to 30% body fat...sad, sad, sad number...) I have actually been using his suggestions for calorie and carb cycling which seem to work, if for nothing else but to keep me sane about cravings and "cheating." So for 3 days straight I eat at 1500 cals or slightly under and I try to have a macro split of around 30% carbs, 20% fat, and 50% protein. Then every 4th day I eat around 1800 cals with more carbs and fat and less protein. This is all still "good" food without junky processed sugary crap, just different amount and different ratios of macros. I am not sure if what Tom says is 100% accurate for how it works in the body, but I can honestly say that it sooo helps me to stay on track and not even want to have a junk food cheat by slightly increasing carbs and cals every 4th day. It's like a built-in cheat day, only it's not really "cheating" if that makes sense. The first week I tried this nutrition method, I lost 1.8 pounds on the scale without even exercising at all. Last week I was exercising and I lost 2.6 pounds.
I guess before I mention my planned workouts, I should mention that my goals are to lose a significant amount of body fat, and then to strengthen the muscles. You can see my end goals in my signature, which I receive numerous messages about everyday, lol. But the goals are simply where I want to be for my ultimate goal of competing in figure competitions. I will most likely stay around 17-18% body fat otherwise. Just throwing that out there so more people won't flame me, haha...
I was planning on doing strength training workouts 4 days a week and cardio workouts 5 days a week. The strength workouts will change every 8 weeks or so simply because I get bored right around the 2 month mark of any program I start. I wanted to start off with an 8 week rotation of "The New Bodybuilding Workout" outlined in Tom Venuto's website. Basically it's a 2 day split workout working upper body and lower body separately. There are 4 different routines, 2 upper and 2 lower, that you alternate throughout the week.
As far as cardio goes, on the days that I do weight training, I was planning on doing a shorter cardio workout. Something like 20 to 30 minutes or so on that evil stair climber. On the days that I do cardio without weight training, I was planning on a longer cardio workout, like a 45 to 60 minute class such as Turbo Kick.
From my understanding after reading his e-book and going through his website, someone like me with more body fat to lose than others would benefit more from additional cardio sessions which is why I was going to do them 5 days a week. I have other plans that use just 3 days of weight training per week, but most of the splits that appeal to me according to the time I have in the gym and my goals seem to work best with 4 days a week alternating body parts. Some of the other plans that I was looking at including other training techniques such as Escalating Density Training, but the vote is still out on that one. I am not sure of the benefits other than what the random users on the internet say about it, although it seems as though it would work for fat loss? IDK.
I used to do P90X...a lot. When I was at my lowest body fat % (which was roughly 20%) that is how I got there. Only I added extra cardio to the mix so I was doing 3 days of weights and 5 days of cardio with 1 day of that horribly long and boring as crap yoga. My plans are similar to that, just different exercises for the weights using more than just dumbbells at home.
All in all, does this sound OK for my goals? Are there specific plans for weight training that you would recommend? I am not a beginner, just changing the direction of where I am going. I haven't used anything less than 15 pounds for anything in years. I just didn't see a difference because my diet was awful! I'm cleaning up the diet and trying to train the best I can...without the money to afford hiring a trainer for help which is why I went to Tom Venuto. And his stuff seems solid to me.0 -
Bump for the O/P to see my question. :bigsmile:0
-
Bump to check back on this later 0
-
Just curious as to what you think of my current plan that I am doing now. Most, if not all, of the info that I am using comes from Tom Venuto's book Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle. (I am actually not doing *exactly* this *now* because the gym that I joined doesn't open for a month...so the exercise I do is about 5 days a week cardio and circuit training with dumbbells at home until that glorious day when I have access to better dumbbells, barbells, cable machines, and an assisted pull up machine, lol)
As far as nutrition, I have my goal set at 1500 calories. I weigh around 145 or so right now (5'5" female with close to 30% body fat...sad, sad, sad number...) I have actually been using his suggestions for calorie and carb cycling which seem to work, if for nothing else but to keep me sane about cravings and "cheating." So for 3 days straight I eat at 1500 cals or slightly under and I try to have a macro split of around 30% carbs, 20% fat, and 50% protein. Then every 4th day I eat around 1800 cals with more carbs and fat and less protein. This is all still "good" food without junky processed sugary crap, just different amount and different ratios of macros. I am not sure if what Tom says is 100% accurate for how it works in the body, but I can honestly say that it sooo helps me to stay on track and not even want to have a junk food cheat by slightly increasing carbs and cals every 4th day. It's like a built-in cheat day, only it's not really "cheating" if that makes sense. The first week I tried this nutrition method, I lost 1.8 pounds on the scale without even exercising at all. Last week I was exercising and I lost 2.6 pounds.
I guess before I mention my planned workouts, I should mention that my goals are to lose a significant amount of body fat, and then to strengthen the muscles. You can see my end goals in my signature, which I receive numerous messages about everyday, lol. But the goals are simply where I want to be for my ultimate goal of competing in figure competitions. I will most likely stay around 17-18% body fat otherwise. Just throwing that out there so more people won't flame me, haha...
I was planning on doing strength training workouts 4 days a week and cardio workouts 5 days a week. The strength workouts will change every 8 weeks or so simply because I get bored right around the 2 month mark of any program I start. I wanted to start off with an 8 week rotation of "The New Bodybuilding Workout" outlined in Tom Venuto's website. Basically it's a 2 day split workout working upper body and lower body separately. There are 4 different routines, 2 upper and 2 lower, that you alternate throughout the week.
As far as cardio goes, on the days that I do weight training, I was planning on doing a shorter cardio workout. Something like 20 to 30 minutes or so on that evil stair climber. On the days that I do cardio without weight training, I was planning on a longer cardio workout, like a 45 to 60 minute class such as Turbo Kick.
From my understanding after reading his e-book and going through his website, someone like me with more body fat to lose than others would benefit more from additional cardio sessions which is why I was going to do them 5 days a week. I have other plans that use just 3 days of weight training per week, but most of the splits that appeal to me according to the time I have in the gym and my goals seem to work best with 4 days a week alternating body parts. Some of the other plans that I was looking at including other training techniques such as Escalating Density Training, but the vote is still out on that one. I am not sure of the benefits other than what the random users on the internet say about it, although it seems as though it would work for fat loss? IDK.
I used to do P90X...a lot. When I was at my lowest body fat % (which was roughly 20%) that is how I got there. Only I added extra cardio to the mix so I was doing 3 days of weights and 5 days of cardio with 1 day of that horribly long and boring as crap yoga. My plans are similar to that, just different exercises for the weights using more than just dumbbells at home.
All in all, does this sound OK for my goals? Are there specific plans for weight training that you would recommend? I am not a beginner, just changing the direction of where I am going. I haven't used anything less than 15 pounds for anything in years. I just didn't see a difference because my diet was awful! I'm cleaning up the diet and trying to train the best I can...without the money to afford hiring a trainer for help which is why I went to Tom Venuto. And his stuff seems solid to me.
Firstly, Tom is a buddy of mine. And his stuff is definitely worth reading. He's one of the good guys... so you're in good hands.
If the carb/cal cycling thing fits your psychology... stick with it. Personally, it's not for me. In fact, I find it's not for most of the people i work with. I'm more a fan of straight calorie and nutrient targets across a week in general. There are certainly instances where I'll deviate from this.... but my take is why muddy the waters if you don't have to.
I'm also much more loose on food selection than Tom is, which probably helps my way.
As for the strength training you outlined, I've not seen Tom's split but an upper/lower split is my favorite way to set things up. Especially for "bulking" purposes. For muscle maintenance while in a calorie deficit, I'm more inclined to stick with full body training 2-3 times per week in most instances.
Here's the thing... the program just isn't important to me. Your body doesn't care what the program is. It simply cares that you're providing it sufficient stimulus to trigger muscle preservation. And this is best accomplished by focusing on the big movements:
Barbell Squats, front squats, goblet squats, rear foot elevated split squats, reverse lunges, alternating lunges, step ups, leg presses, conventional deadlifts, romanian deadlifts, rack pulls, barbell hip thrusts, glute ham raises, bench press (various angles), pushups, dips, rows (barbell and dumbbell), cable rows, pull/chinups, overhead presses, etc, etc
These are the movements that are the most economical... they call on the greatest amount of muscle and allow for you to use the most amount of weight. Using these with loads that keep you between 3-12 reps and hitting each major movement or muscle group 2+ times per week is the name of the game.
This can be accomplished with an endless array/mixture of setups.
Long story short... your plan sounds just fine. It's likely not how I'd structure things... but that's not that important. As long as the basic rules are covered and a sane amount of volume is performed in each session.... it's really hard to go wrong.
I'll typically switch things up every 4-8 weeks myself. But in rank novices, which I know you said you're not, I'll typically keep progressing without a change until a change is warranted. Put differently... I don't change things for the sake of change... that whole keep your body guessing nonsense is a lot of bologna without context.
As long as you have some consistency in programming from which you can progress with for a certain period of time... that's what matters.0 -
Hey Steve, just wanting to pick your brain again.
A few weeks ago I started heavy lifting. I've P90X for 3 rounds & just think I've gotten out of it what I can, so it's time to increase size & strength with the compound lifts at a gym.
Anyway, my goal is to increase size & strength as much as I can given my short frame. I'm torn between 2 basic programs. A personal trainer that I just had 3 sessions with (no more) got me started on a routine that's basically Wendler's 5/3/1. He also mapped out how I'd continue it over the next several weeks. It only calls for a true load progression about monthly, but includes several of the compound lifts that I've seen you list.
The other routine, I'm considering is StrongLifts 5x5. I'm gonna guess you're familiar with it but just in case, it's basically an A & B workout of squats, deadlifts, BB rows & Presses at 5x5 3 days per week. You increase load about 5 lbs each day each exercise until you stall in your ability to hit the new load at 5x5, then dial back a little. Obviously there is much more load progression since you're adding 5 lbs every time.
My basic question is, since I'm a newcomer to true heavy lifting, wouldn't I be best suited with the SL 5x5 routine since more load progression = more gains? Or is it not that simple? Wendlers 5/3/1 seems to be more appropriate for experienced heavy lifters who are closer to their genetic potential. What say ye?0 -
Hey Steve, just wanting to pick your brain again.
A few weeks ago I started heavy lifting. I've P90X for 3 rounds & just think I've gotten out of it what I can, so it's time to increase size & strength with the compound lifts at a gym.
Anyway, my goal is to increase size & strength as much as I can given my short frame. I'm torn between 2 basic programs. A personal trainer that I just had 3 sessions with (no more) got me started on a routine that's basically Wendler's 5/3/1. He also mapped out how I'd continue it over the next several weeks. It only calls for a true load progression about monthly, but includes several of the compound lifts that I've seen you list.
The other routine, I'm considering is StrongLifts 5x5. I'm gonna guess you're familiar with it but just in case, it's basically an A & B workout of squats, deadlifts, BB rows & Presses at 5x5 3 days per week. You increase load about 5 lbs each day each exercise until you stall in your ability to hit the new load at 5x5, then dial back a little. Obviously there is much more load progression since you're adding 5 lbs every time.
My basic question is, since I'm a newcomer to true heavy lifting, wouldn't I be best suited with the SL 5x5 routine since more load progression = more gains? Or is it not that simple? Wendlers 5/3/1 seems to be more appropriate for experienced heavy lifters who are closer to their genetic potential. What say ye?
You hit the nail on the head. At the very heart of programming is the concept of providing as much overload as possible ( in terms of frequency) while allowing for recovery. When you're relatively new to true strength training (and even when you're coming back from a leave), your strength levels simply aren't close to where your genetic max is.
Sure, exercises and loads can feel tough. But in your body's mind, the loads don't generate enough "fatigue" to justify infrequent overload.
This is why a lot of the beginner strength training programs suggest overload at every workout. Keep this up until it stops working. Then back off, as SL suggests, and ramp up again from this new backoff point, which will hopefully allow for some accumulated fatigue to dissipate and allow for you to blow by your previous sticking point.
When that stops working, it probably makes sense to structure things slightly differently where you're overload is weekly instead of at each session.
I highly suggest reading Mark Rippetoe's Practical Programming. It's by far and away one of the best books out there for describing this stuff.
Long story short.... yes, I'd be more inclined to start with the SL program for the reasons you mentioned. Jim's 5/3/1 is fantastic. You'd see progress with it for sure. But I think something like the SL setup is better suited for you currently.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions