Weight lifting tactics for OVERALL fat loss?
Replies
-
What would be considered "optimal"?
The general recommendation is 1g per lb of LBM.
Most recommendations you'll read on fitness and bodybuilding forums are that you need 1 - 1.5g of protein per lbm.
These recommendations are purely anecdotal and not backed by science. It's broscience and perpetuated by the supplement industry (for obvious reasons).
Most official recommendations (like FDA, RDA, NSCA etc.) are way lower. Sometimes as low as 0.36g per lbs of bodyweight.
It's usually pretty easy to hit those goals with a normal diet.0 -
The main drawback on extensive cardio is lean muscle loss (unless of course supplementation and strength training are ideal).
Why should you lose lbm when doing cardio? Doesn't make sense. And I haven't read one study that supports this theory (besides a lolworthy study where they had 20 people train on a 800kcal diet).
You body will not reduce muscle mass that is needed.
Of course if you do strength / resistance training and then stop doing that and just continue lower body cardio your body will adapt and reduce the muscles needed for the resistance training.
I know a lot of guys that have never done anything else but cardio in their lifes. Swimmers, runners etc. Especially the swimmers don't look weak
I think that a combination of strength training + cardio is most efficient. Especially since the strength training will help you push the boundaries of the cardio training higher. So both aspects will have a positive affect on each other.
In the end the most important thing is still "what you like to do". Because that's what you'll keep doing.But the reality is that intake/output is the main basis on how weight loss is mostly effected.
I agree 100%.0 -
What would be considered "optimal"?
The general recommendation is 1g per lb of LBM.
Most recommendations you'll read on fitness and bodybuilding forums are that you need 1 - 1.5g of protein per lbm.
These recommendations are purely anecdotal and not backed by science. It's broscience and perpetuated by the supplement industry (for obvious reasons).
Most official recommendations (like FDA, RDA, NSCA etc.) are way lower. Sometimes as low as 0.36g per lbs of bodyweight.
It's usually pretty easy to hit those goals with a normal diet.
These are for people not at a deficit and not exercising, both of which increase your need for protein (as it does for muscle growth also).
There are a bunch of studies that show a 1g per lb of LBM is beneficial - it is not actually broscience. Let me find them and post.0 -
There are a bunch of studies that show a 1g per lb of LBM is beneficial - it is not actually broscience. Let me find them and post.
You won't be able to find any legitimate studies. There are non.
Read "How much protein?" by Brad Pilon. That's a very well researched book with tons of references to studies.
The 1-1.5g/lbs lbm rule is broscience perpetuated by the protein and supplement industry.0 -
buump 0
-
Where did you get your "facts"? I am seriously interested in reading any studies that prove this. Because this (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1526539) is just one of many articles I read that is backed up by many studies that suggest the opposite of what you are saying.
This is ABOLUTELY wrong. Please don't listen to it. If you want to know why, read about EPOC or the "afterburn" effect. Yes, the initial calorie burn with cardio is more, but with resistance trainging, that calorie burn will continue for up to 48 hours AFTER your workout. Cardio may last for 2 to 3 hours after on a good day, unless you are talking about HIIT, which is a completely different story.
If you want to build a bigger calorie deficit then you should do more cardio. You can burn way more calories with cardio because you can do it for longer times, use bigger muscle groups and do it every day.
Sorry. This is absolutely wrong.
The effects of EPOC are missunderstood and greatly overestimated.
Just some facts:
- EPOC is not exclusive to resistance training. EPOC effect exists after aerobic and anaerobic ("cardio") exercise.
- One(!) study found that the EPOC effect was still "measureable" after 38 hours. Measureable(!) yes. Significant NO. Most studies have found that the EPOC effect drops nearly exponentially. You know what that means no?
- The duration of the EPOC effect seems to be stronger related to the time of the exercise. This means 2h of cardio will result in a longer EPOC effect than 1h of weight training.
- anaerobic training led to higher EPOC values than aerobic training while doing the same ammount of work. But the difference between the two values is actually pretty small.
- But the most fun-fact: Trained people have actually a much shorter EPOC effect.
etc.
You can burn more calories with cardio.
It's actually pretty simple physics. You can do more "work" with cardio than with resistance training. Just compare your work in the gym (lift weight A over distance B against gravity) and compare that to a 2-3h session of cardio (at 120W, 160W, 180W whatever you can do at an aerobic level). You can easily calculate the energy needed to do both. And you'll find that you need way more energy to to the cardio session than the resistance training. And as a bonus you can actually do two of the cardio sessions because you don't even need a day of rest. EPOC is lol in comparison.
Resistance training has many many benefits. But cardio is king when it comes to burning calories.
In one of the studies, overweight people were assigned to three groups: diet-only, diet plus cardio and diet plus cardio plus weights. In this 12 week study, the diet-only group lost an average of 14.6 pounds. The diet plus cardio group lost 15.6 pounds and the group that included resistance training lost an average of and pounds of fat.
The cardio group showed no significant loss to the diet group (only one more pound) however the group that included weight training produced significantly greater results.
Here is another great example:
Bryner RW, Ullrich IH, Sauers J, Donley D, Hornsby G, Kolar M, Yeater R.
Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate.
J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr;18(2):115-21.
In this study, the cardio group did 4 hours of cardio per week. the weight training group did 2-4 sets of 8-12 reps of 10 exercises, 3 times per week.
The weight training group actually INCREASED metabolism even though the subjects were on a VLCD (which was used to negate the effects of diet on this study).
I am not bashing cardio. I am not telling the OP that they shouldn't do cardio. I am simply pointing out to the OP that the best bang for your buck as far as fat loss while preserving lean body mass while on a calorie deficit is resistance training. hands down.0 -
100% correct.I think that a combination of strength training + cardio is most efficient.0 -
Bump for later0
-
Where did you get your "facts"? I am seriously interested in reading any studies that prove this.
Which facts do you disagree with?
Let's go through them:EPOC is not exclusive to resistance training. EPOC effect exists after aerobic and anaerobic ("cardio") exercise.
This is basic sport physiology. You can find this "fact" in ANY serious book about sports physiology.
So the question is only "how much higher and longer is the EPOC effect of anaerobic exercise vs. aerobic exercise.One(!) study found that the EPOC effect was still "measureable" after 38 hours. Measureable(!) yes. Significant NO.
This study is quoted in your "article" of T-Nation itself. Please READ the study. The effects are only measureable after up to 38 hours. Not significant.
Point proven by a study you supposedly "know".Most studies have found that the EPOC effect drops nearly exponentially.
You'll find this fact in nearly any study on that topic.
Check for example:
Schmidt, Wilfred Daniel (1992): The effects of aerobic and anaerobic exercise on resting metabolic rate, thermic effect of a meal, and excess postexercise oxygen consumption.The duration of the EPOC effect seems to be stronger related to the time of the exercise. This means 2h of cardio will result in a longer EPOC effect than 1h of weight training.
See same study as above.But the most fun-fact: Trained people have actually a much shorter EPOC effect.
Kevin R. Short; Darlene A. Sedlock: Excess postexercise oxygen consumption and recovery rate in trained and untrained subjectsBecause this (http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1526539) is just one of many articles I read that is backed up by many studies that suggest the opposite of what you are saying.
Sorry, but "T-Nation" is not a good source to get your infos from. That's a bodybuilder oriented, supplement selling site. You don't think that they are biased towards telling you the stuff that they want to believe?
But I'll bite. There are in total 3 studies in that article. Only three. I wouldn't call that "many" unless you count that way (one, two, many).
First study mentioned is the one from above. Yeah. Nice cherry-picking, word-twisting by T-Nation here. Please read the study itself. The study proves that you can still measure an EPOC effect after 38 hours. Measure! The effect itself was too small to have any real effect on your metabolism. Btw. the elevation of EPOC effect is closely related to duration of the workout. And cardio workouts tend to be longer ... think about it.
Second study. I have not been able to read the study. Found only the summary. So far it looks pretty weak to me. They had only 35 subjects. So in total they placed 11 in the cardio group and 10 in the resistance training group. That is a tiny sample. If you know anything about statistics and variance you'll know that this is too little to draw any conclusions. The weight-loss difference between both groups is lol. My own weight fluctuates more in two weeks (many threads on this topic on MFP). Cardio group gained more VO2, Resitance group had higher 1RMs. Both expected results.
Third study. This study gets quoted a lot and it's absolute horse manure. PLEASE READ THIS BULL**** BEFORE YOU QUOTE IT. They put 20 people for 12 weeks on a 800kcal diet. First of all they don't even have a control group (lol). And then they let the cardio group exercise longer so that they are in a even deeper calorie deficit. And then they try to interpret the results. LOLOLOL That is not a "study" that is pure BS.It's actually pretty simple physics. You can do more "work" with cardio than with resistance training. Just compare your work in the gym (lift weight A over distance B against gravity) and compare that to a 2-3h session of cardio (at 120W, 160W, 180W whatever you can do at an aerobic level). You can easily calculate the energy needed to do both. And you'll find that you need way more energy to to the cardio session than the resistance training. And as a bonus you can actually do two of the cardio sessions because you don't even need a day of rest. EPOC is lol in comparison.
THIS is the important part. If you have any understanding of thermodynamics then you'll understand that you can do more "work" (in a physics sense) with cardio than with pure resistance training. To do "work" you need energy (measured in kJ, kcal etc.). Good luck trying to disprove the fundamental laws of physics.0 -
There are a bunch of studies that show a 1g per lb of LBM is beneficial - it is not actually broscience. Let me find them and post.
You won't be able to find any legitimate studies. There are non.
Read "How much protein?" by Brad Pilon. That's a very well researched book with tons of references to studies.
The 1-1.5g/lbs lbm rule is broscience perpetuated by the protein and supplement industry.
Thanks for bumping this as I forgot to get the studies so thanks for the reminder.
I would like to point out that the recommendations you mention are for people at maintenance and not doing significant exercise, both of which increase the need for protein.0 -
I have always questioned this and believe it's overblown.
The main drawback on extensive cardio is lean muscle loss (unless of course supplementation and strength training are ideal).Sorry. This is absolutely wrong.
The effects of EPOC are missunderstood and greatly overestimated.
Just some facts:
- EPOC is not exclusive to resistance training. EPOC effect exists after aerobic and anaerobic ("cardio") exercise.
- One(!) study found that the EPOC effect was still "measureable" after 38 hours. Measureable(!) yes. Significant NO. Most studies have found that the EPOC effect drops nearly exponentially. You know what that means no?
- The duration of the EPOC effect seems to be stronger related to the time of the exercise. This means 2h of cardio will result in a longer EPOC effect than 1h of weight training.
- anaerobic training led to higher EPOC values than aerobic training while doing the same ammount of work. But the difference between the two values is actually pretty small.
- But the most fun-fact: Trained people have actually a much shorter EPOC effect.
etc.
You can burn more calories with cardio.
It's actually pretty simple physics. You can do more "work" with cardio than with resistance training. Just compare your work in the gym (lift weight A over distance B against gravity) and compare that to a 2-3h session of cardio (at 120W, 160W, 180W whatever you can do at an aerobic level). You can easily calculate the energy needed to do both. And you'll find that you need way more energy to to the cardio session than the resistance training. And as a bonus you can actually do two of the cardio sessions because you don't even need a day of rest. EPOC is lol in comparison.
Resistance training has many many benefits. But cardio is king when it comes to burning calories.
But the reality is that intake/output is the main basis on how weight loss is mostly effected.
A.C.E. Certified Personal/Group FitnessTrainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 28+ years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition0 -
I agree with everyone on the compound lifts and kettlebells, but I disagree with "lift heavy". If you want overall tone you want to do lighter weights with more reps, heavy weights will cause your muscles to want to adapt to that heavy weight so they will rebuild bigger--this is what body builders do. You don't need a lot of weight to just create strength and tone. Of course you want to add weight over time as it gets easier. Also, starting out really heavy could cause you to hurt yourself since I'm guessing you haven't lifted in a while. All in all muscle is better than fat in any form.
no no no. The rep range of 10-12 is "supposed" to build mass......The rep range of 6-8 is "supposed" to build strength. That said......there is no real difference and if you are going to be eating at a deficit it won't matter because you can not gain mass on a deficit. Heavy is relative. Heavy = the most weight you can do........with good form.......for < 10 reps.
The rep ranges depend on your source, but something no one's brought up is the part rest intervals play in this. According to a textbook I refused to sell back, for instance, 5-7 reps is optimal for strength training -- meaning that you're lifting a weight heavy enough that you can only do that number of reps before failure, not that you just stop after that many reps -- 8-12 is for hypertrophy (increasing muscle size), and above 12 is for endurance.
The idea of using low weight, high reps for muscle tone is a common misconception... yeah, you'll improve muscle tone somewhat if you haven't been working out at all, because you've gone from doing nothing to doing something, but that doesn't make it the best way to develop toned muscles. The best way is strength training, which means lifting heavy. Any decent strength training program for beginners doesn't start off heavy, but gets you there in a way that won't cause injury. The first poster above said that lifting heavy is what bodybuilders do and that heavy weights are about getting bigger muscles. This is only partially true. 8-12 reps is moderate, not heavy, and bodybuilders do these sets with only a small amount of rest (i.e. 30 seconds) between them. This is necessary to build larger muscles the way bodybuilders intend, because it's the accumulation of human growth hormone released that's needed for muscular hypertrophy. Heavy lifting, training specifically for strength, on the other hand, requires a rest period of 3-5 minutes between sets so that the muscles can completely recover and refuel for the next maximal effort. This rest period is long enough that the HGH released by the intense exercise does not have the same cumulative effect, the result being that the muscles build strength but don't increase dramatically in size. There will be some size increase, but not bodybuilder-style size increase. The first poster above has conflated powerlifters with bodybuilders.
Lift heavy, follow a sound program like stronglifts, and you will be pleased with the results.
If you want to do cardio and keep it fun, I suggest Couch to 5K if you want to run and are new to it (it's a sensible progression that builds up your muscles and endurance so that you can actually enjoy the process instead of quitting in pain and deciding that you hate running, like so many beginning runners are forced to do) , or if you're used to running and just want to make it more enjoyable, Zombies, Run! looks like a lot of fun. You know, if you're into that sort of thing. I'm on week 3 of C25K and loving it, and plan on making a creepy playlist (I might look for Walking Dead soundtrack songs, ha) and using Zombies, Run! after that.
But like one poster said, the most important part of all of this is to do exercises that you actually enjoy. The best designed program in the world will do you no good whatsoever unless you enjoy it enough to keep doing it!0 -
There are a bunch of studies that show a 1g per lb of LBM is beneficial - it is not actually broscience. Let me find them and post.
You won't be able to find any legitimate studies. There are non.
Read "How much protein?" by Brad Pilon. That's a very well researched book with tons of references to studies.
The 1-1.5g/lbs lbm rule is broscience perpetuated by the protein and supplement industry.
Thanks for bumping this as I forgot to get the studies so thanks for the reminder.
I would like to point out that the recommendations you mention are for people at maintenance and not doing significant exercise, both of which increase the need for protein.
Peer reviewed studies as requested...I would say the fact that there are peered reviewed studies refutes your categorical assertion that higher than the minimum RDA levels of protein recommended is 'broscience'. "Broscience' means it sounds good but is BS. Now, is 1g/lb lbm the optimal number - who knows, and I never said it was. But calling it broscience is hyperbole.
There are more studies that show higher levels of protein is beneficial but as we are talking about people on a deficit here, I will just provide the ones that were conducted in that circumstance:
In this one, double the RDA recommendation outperformed the RDA recommendation for preserving LBM for individuals in a calorie deficit:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16046715
In this one, triple the RDA recommendation were 'significantly superior' to the RDA recommendation for preserving LBM for individuals in a calorie deficit:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19927027
In this one, people on calorie restriction only, with no exercise benefited from a higher protein diet for LBM retention as compared to a lower one:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/172991160 -
im not going through this debate0
-
Bumping!0
-
ETA *sigh* as the post that I was responding to got deleted, it now looks like I am talking to myself.0
-
*0
-
There are a bunch of studies that show a 1g per lb of LBM is beneficial - it is not actually broscience. Let me find them and post.
You won't be able to find any legitimate studies. There are non.
Read "How much protein?" by Brad Pilon. That's a very well researched book with tons of references to studies.
The 1-1.5g/lbs lbm rule is broscience perpetuated by the protein and supplement industry.
There's actually a fair amount of research that would support between 2xRDA (1.6 g/kg bodyweight) up to about 2.2g/kg if I recall correctly. 1g/lb LBM happens to be a reasonable approximation.0 -
ETA *sigh* as the post that I was responding to got deleted, it now looks like I am talking to myself.
I was wondering about that.
How YOU doin?0 -
ETA *sigh* as the post that I was responding to got deleted, it now looks like I am talking to myself.
I was wondering about that.
How YOU doin?
0 -
Squats, Deadlifts, Clean and Jerk, Snatch, Pullups, Pushups, Bench Press, Box Jumps etc etc.Thanks everyone (:
What are some examples of compound exercises? And WHAT THE HELL ARE KETTLEBELLS :P0 -
3 things:
1) calorie deficit
2) lifting heavy (high weight, low reps)
3) keeping the muscles on what I like to call "cooldown"
Having your body constantly working with your muscles is an incredible metabolism boost. Being in a constant state of repair is what you are going for.
I would suggest figuring out what your deficit number is going to be through trial and error. Internet calculations and recommendations will only help you so much. Use those to start, but don't rely on them. Be very consistent in your average weekly routine. You can obviously change up the muscle groups and whatever you want whenever, but make sure to keep it at the same intensity level. Measure thoroughly. Watch changes. Adjust intake.0 -
Squats, Deadlifts, Clean and Jerk, Snatch, Pullups, Pushups, Bench Press, Box Jumps etc etc.Thanks everyone (:
What are some examples of compound exercises? And WHAT THE HELL ARE KETTLEBELLS :P
This is all you need. Period.
To improve stability and ****, do random lifts that target specific muscles like shoulder shrugs type of thing. There are tons of resources for learning lifts.
Go to bodybuilding.com
Click "workouts"
Click "Exercises"
Scroll down to "Find Exercises by Body Part"
Click on random body parts and try out some new **** and have fun :-D
Oh yeah, links: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/workout/exercise.html0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.8K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions