how do strategies change as you progress?
jacksonpt
Posts: 10,413 Member
First, let's take a person's ability to stick to an approach out of the conversation... let's assume good adherence to whatever approach we are talking about.
As you progress (get stronger, leaner, faster) and as your goals change (simply want to lose a little weight to wanting to look decent to want to wanting to be gawk-worthy), how should your approach to diet and exercise change?
I tend to think that someone who is just getting started and has 100lbs to lose should start with the basics - get their intake under control and get some exercise. They don't need to obsess about macros, whole foods, HIIT, cardio classes, free weights, etc. Start by eating reasonable portions and getting off their couch. If they want to get more detailed, that's great... but always start with the basics.
As they progress, they will undoubtedly get to the point where simple weight loss isn't their focus... they want to look better. They want to tone up or add a bit of muscle or whatever. At this point, their diet and exercise routine needs to be a bit more focused to match the new goals, correct? Macros become a bit more important, as does the type and intensity of their workouts.
Does everyone agree to this point, at least more or less?
So what about moving forward from that point? The person already looks decent, but they want to look great. They want to be strong and have clear muscle definition. They have an idea of their current BF % and want to get that number down even farther.
Should their approach to diet and exercise change again, because they have once again refined their goals? If so, how? Greater emphasis on whole foods and "clean eating"? More emphasis on heavy lifting? Does IF or other dietary approaches have more validity at this level than for someone just looking to lose 50lbs?
Then what if they wanted to take the next step and compete. Does their approach need to become even more focused given the exceptionally high goals?
Ok, if it helps, let's make this a little more real. I'm currently around 15% BF (based on calipur tests). I look decent, even with my clothes off. But I don't look "good". I'm not trying to look like ACG, but I do have some work to do. To this point, I've been an IIFYM person. If I wanted to get down to 10% BF, is IIFYM still the recommended dietary approach? I know SS is an IIFYM guy, but by preference, he's also a bit of an IFer and back-loader (at least last I knew).
I guess it comes down to this question. Is there a degree of diminishing returns to more flexible approaches (both dietary and exercise) as your goals become more focused?
As you progress (get stronger, leaner, faster) and as your goals change (simply want to lose a little weight to wanting to look decent to want to wanting to be gawk-worthy), how should your approach to diet and exercise change?
I tend to think that someone who is just getting started and has 100lbs to lose should start with the basics - get their intake under control and get some exercise. They don't need to obsess about macros, whole foods, HIIT, cardio classes, free weights, etc. Start by eating reasonable portions and getting off their couch. If they want to get more detailed, that's great... but always start with the basics.
As they progress, they will undoubtedly get to the point where simple weight loss isn't their focus... they want to look better. They want to tone up or add a bit of muscle or whatever. At this point, their diet and exercise routine needs to be a bit more focused to match the new goals, correct? Macros become a bit more important, as does the type and intensity of their workouts.
Does everyone agree to this point, at least more or less?
So what about moving forward from that point? The person already looks decent, but they want to look great. They want to be strong and have clear muscle definition. They have an idea of their current BF % and want to get that number down even farther.
Should their approach to diet and exercise change again, because they have once again refined their goals? If so, how? Greater emphasis on whole foods and "clean eating"? More emphasis on heavy lifting? Does IF or other dietary approaches have more validity at this level than for someone just looking to lose 50lbs?
Then what if they wanted to take the next step and compete. Does their approach need to become even more focused given the exceptionally high goals?
Ok, if it helps, let's make this a little more real. I'm currently around 15% BF (based on calipur tests). I look decent, even with my clothes off. But I don't look "good". I'm not trying to look like ACG, but I do have some work to do. To this point, I've been an IIFYM person. If I wanted to get down to 10% BF, is IIFYM still the recommended dietary approach? I know SS is an IIFYM guy, but by preference, he's also a bit of an IFer and back-loader (at least last I knew).
I guess it comes down to this question. Is there a degree of diminishing returns to more flexible approaches (both dietary and exercise) as your goals become more focused?
0
Replies
-
I'm no expert....but here's my 2 cents anyway:
I'm flexible with my diet. I try to hit my macros, but I'm not super strict about it. I try to eat nutritious foods most of the time, but I don't restrict treats. If I have a craving for pizza, I have pizza. Life is to be lived, and all that jazz.
I'm currently doing Strong Lifts and I'm happy with my progress. I feel like I still have about 15-20lbs of fat to lose, and then the focus will be on body fat percentage and strength gains. I have a mental image of a "look" that I want and I'm fairly confident that I can achieve it. I don't think that I'll ever look like a fitness model - because I know what it will take to get abs and I'm not willing to do that! Lol!
However, I am fully aware that as I get closer to my goal, I will have to change my diet some. I'll need to be more focused on my macros - higher protein, lower carb (not too low though....I like to run and I feel like **** without carbs for fuel). I'm also anticipating a change in my lifting program down the road. Strong Lifts is a great beginner program, but I know that I will outgrow it. I've got my eye on Wendler.
I think that the average person can be perfectly successful with a moderate approach - they will get the results they want, the body they want, and improved fitness and health without going to extremes. But, if you want to take it to the next level, you're probably going to have to make changes.0 -
I think you look better than decent, you look like you're in awesome shape to me:)0
-
I think it varies from person to person, and that it depends on what you're doing. I'd argue that flexibility of programs is an illusion that really just means it's more conveinent than some other alternative. You still have to strictly follow the guidelines, and they get more restrictive as you approach your ideal. Even on IIFYM for example, as you get closer to your ideal weight/composition you need more protein as LBM increases and your max calories decreases with weight. You also need to ramp up resistance training over time as you progress from a beginner, which requires energy balance as well.
I am supremely confident that, using strictly the basics (and of course assuming no medical issues), you can get into phenomenal shape and condition, and approach your genetic limit drug-free. More restrictive drug-free paradigms are simply one way to get there, and could potentially (depending on the person) be a slightly more efficient route. Ultimately it really comes down to conveinence and adherence, but we're not considering that component.
I do not think that you could not reach a level of fitness with say IIFYM that you could with say CBL unless you have adherence issues.0 -
Great post, and great things to ponder....
Interestingly enough, I was thinking about this over the last few days; how my nutrition goals have changed since September, as well as my fitness goals.....
How I think about it for myself and own purposes:
It all has to do with the stage of fitness I currently have and what I need to do to meet my goal(s) --short term and long term.
I agree with the deminishing returns. Personally, I *believe* I am going to eventually get to the point where I will have make a choice to sacrifice one thing for another --- mostly on the diet side -- for the final body composition I would *like* to have.
I'll have to weigh my options and make the choice. At the moment, it's not a sacrifice I am willing to make, and therefore am OK with knowing I achieve a realistic outcome that is appropriate for my current diet.0 -
I'd argue that flexibility of programs is an illusion that really just means it's more conveinent than some other alternative. You still have to strictly follow the guidelines, and they get more restrictive as you approach your ideal.
Good point...0 -
*snip*
I agree with the deminishing returns. Personally, I *believe* I am going to eventually get to the point where I will have make a choice to sacrifice one thing for another --- mostly on the diet side -- for the final body composition I would *like* to have.
I'll have to weigh my options and make the choice. At the moment, it's not a sacrifice I am willing to make, and therefore am OK with knowing I achieve a realistic outcome that is appropriate for my current diet.
Do you agree based on what you're read/heard, or based on experience?
I totally agree with the sacrifice piece... everyone has a line in terms of how hard they are willing to work to see continued progress.0 -
I agree that usually it is best to start with the basics and then tweak as you go along and as your goals, other than "lose weight" start to solidify.
However, there is no reason why IIFYM, applied sensibly, does not work. You may want to tweak things a bit the leaner you get based on results and gym performance, but the basics remain.0 -
So there's no benefit to "whole foods" over packaged foods given the same macros/cals, even with pretty high level goals? Fasted cardio vs non-fasted? IF vs grazing? etc etc?0
-
I think your diet does have to be less flexible as you progress further/get leaner.
By "flexibly" I mean hitting your calorie and macro goals, not food selection.0 -
I think your diet does have to be less flexible as you progress further/get leaner.
By "flexibly" I mean hitting your calorie and macro goals, not food selection.
I have some more lengthy opinions about the original post but I agree with the above. I'll try to reply to this sometime today.0 -
So what about moving forward from that point? The person already looks decent, but they want to look great. They want to be strong and have clear muscle definition. They have an idea of their current BF % and want to get that number down even farther.
I am definitely not an expert, but I feel like I am about here too. I am reading Power Eating by Susan Kleiner. I'm only maybe 1/5 of the way through it, but have already found several "livable" ways that I can definitely improve my diet.0 -
So there's no benefit to "whole foods" over packaged foods given the same macros/cals, even with pretty high level goals? Fasted cardio vs non-fasted? IF vs grazing? etc etc?
I wouldn't say no difference, because micronutrients also play a role. Micros don't effect body composition directly, but being low in some areas could lead to things like chronic fatigue or more frequent illness that would affect your training.
As far as the timing of you food, any potential benefits are far, far outweighed by personal preference.0 -
So there's no benefit to "whole foods" over packaged foods given the same macros/cals, even with pretty high level goals? Fasted cardio vs non-fasted? IF vs grazing? etc etc?
My opinion is that the leaner you get, the more stringent you need to be with your calories and macros. This often leads to having less 'extras' to work with and still hitting your targets while getting a decent mix of nutritious foods. It does not change the basic concept of IIFYM.
Also, 'whole foods' v packaged foods is a very undefined concept. Many packaged foods are nutritionally dense and have good macros and are satiating. Others, not so much. At what point does a whole food become a packaged food?
Adding: The main issue I see with getting to lower BF% is that you need to keep your deficit and getting lower and lower on your calories, due to adaptive thermogenesis, becomes problematic as gym performance is impaired on lower calories as is the ease of adherence. So, what often needs to happen is either adding cardio (if not already doing so) or some kind of conditioning routine as well as possibly doing refeeds in the week. This is where individual reactions and tweaking your plan comes into play.0 -
So there's no benefit to "whole foods" over packaged foods given the same macros/cals, even with pretty high level goals? Fasted cardio vs non-fasted? IF vs grazing? etc etc?
Whole foods make it easier to hit macro (relatively easy) AND micro (much harder in my opinion) nutrient goals. Further your nutrition needs will change as you reach elite levels of fitness. You need a lot more gas (and better quality too) to keep the lights on when you're running ultra marathons or whatever than if you're sitting on your a** playing wow all day. I also think that meal timing can be optimized to maximize performance, but that it ultimately becomes an individual thing.
Really that's the problem. We only have basic guidelines because the inherent differences from person to person in terms of calorie expenditure, body chemistry, and so on make it impossible to come up with the perfect precise plan. You have to start with the basics and adapt it to best fit you. We're all the same physiologically, but it's when people start making ultimate meal timing or food selection plans that it breaks down, because that isn't the same for everyone.0 -
So there's no benefit to "whole foods" over packaged foods given the same macros/cals, even with pretty high level goals? Fasted cardio vs non-fasted? IF vs grazing? etc etc?
My opinion is that the leaner you get, the more stringent you need to be with your calories and macros. This often leads to having less 'extras' to work with and still hitting your targets while getting a decent mix of nutritious foods. It does not change the basic concept of IIFYM.
Also, 'whole foods' v packaged foods is a very undefined concept. Many packaged foods are nutritionally dense and have good macros and are satiating. Others, not so much. At what point does a whole food become a packaged food?
Adding: The main issue I see with getting to lower BF% is that you need to keep your deficit and getting lower and lower on your calories, due to adaptive thermogenesis, becomes problematic as gym performance is impaired on lower calories as is the ease of adherence. So, what often needs to happen is either adding cardio (if not already doing so) or some kind of conditioning routine as well as possibly doing refeeds in the week. This is where individual reactions and tweaking your plan comes into play.
^ This sums up my thoughts nicely.
I would also add on the training front that as you become bigger/stronger, your training methods may need to change to accommodate that. Linear progression vs periodization would be one example in that a linear model is just fine for a beginner but not for an advanced trainee.0 -
Just for some anecdote:
Ninh Nguyen is one of Layne's students/trainees and he's in contest prep mode right now. He uses IIFYM and just posted a picture of two pop tarts on his facebook page today.
Now obviously this is just observational, but I think we can all agree that Layne isn't some uneducated bro that just dishes out stereotypical bb'er advice. He's well educated and obviously a smart dude who also knows how to win. The fact that he is okay with IIFYM, to me, is a good reinforcement. Obviously again this is just anecdote.0 -
Ok, if it helps, let's make this a little more real. I'm currently around 15% BF (based on calipur tests). I look decent, even with my clothes off. But I don't look "good". I'm not trying to look like ACG, but I do have some work to do. To this point, I've been an IIFYM person. If I wanted to get down to 10% BF, is IIFYM still the recommended dietary approach? I know SS is an IIFYM guy, but by preference, he's also a bit of an IFer and back-loader (at least last I knew).
I guess it comes down to this question. Is there a degree of diminishing returns to more flexible approaches (both dietary and exercise) as your goals become more focused?
As to this specific point.
I don't see any reason that you can't IIFYM your way down to ~10%. You may need to pay closer attention to your macros, your macro needs may change, your performance may change and your nutrient timing MAY need to change for performance based reasons (refeeding might become important as you get leaner), but you should still be able to IIFYM your way there.
I don't think there's a degree of diminishing returns as you get more focused. I think there's a degree of specificity that may need to happen with your training, and as you get leaner your dietary restrictions (numerically, not with food choice) get more difficult.
As for my personal preference, I do not follow IF strictly, but I do eat a lot of my calories at night and I train with just coffee + whey in my system. All of this is preferential and training performance based.0 -
Thanks everyone... Some good stuff in here for me to digest.0
-
I think A lot of the things that people do when they are trying to get really lean is simply a by product of having a much lower calorie allowance, while still having minimum protein, fat and micronutrient requirements.
With much less room to maneuver you will generally end up eating "cleaner" foods as they are more nutrient dense for the calories they provide. I don't think that in itself is proof that clean eating is "better" than a more relaxed approach.0 -
I'm no expert either, I have done some research on the topic, but I'll comment based solely upon my experience. Right now I'm at around 9-10% BF based on a 7 site caliper test. I've gotten this far with nothing more than solid training and a simple balanced diet only watching my calories and macros. I've done some calorie cycling when I've needed to cut and have also done some cycling on macros based on what I see in the mirror. I will say that the lower my BF has gotten, the more pronounced the effects of going over or under on calories or macros becomes. There are days where after a bad stretch of over consuming I can see the difference in key areas, when cutting and eating properly for long stretches I can see and feel the difference more readily than I could before. I do have goals of getting lower in BF and so far have not had to resort to clean eating, IF or anything else that I personally categorize as extreme eating. I've not given up any foods and am still seeing success. I do modify my training and change things up diet wise simply to improve my own adherence but I'm not convinced based on my success so far that I need to drastically change anything to continue moving toward my goal.
Now that said, my progress of course has slowed considerably as my BF has decreased. I buy into Lyle McDonald's theory that you don't need any special diet and training plan to get there, that simple diet and exercise will eventually yield the results you want, however the more focused diet and training plans will get you there much sooner. So for those that wish to compete or need results to come quicker, more stringent approaches may be needed. Me, I plan to be working on this for the rest of my life and have nothing to prove or show of to anyone but myself so I'm ok with what appears it will be a much longer road using traditional methods.0 -
Loving reading all this....thanks everyone0
-
Are the macros even that important? I mean, assuming a minimum amount of protein, and a minimum amount of fat, do the ratios matter at all? (Poorly worded, I know, but I trust this group will understand what I'm trying to ask.)0
-
What an excellent topic. This is my way of bumping.0
-
Are the macros even that important? I mean, assuming a minimum amount of protein, and a minimum amount of fat, do the ratios matter at all? (Poorly worded, I know, but I trust this group will understand what I'm trying to ask.)
From a training and adherence perspective, some people do better with higher carbs and some with lower carbs so I would say yes they do on an individual basis.0 -
Very interesting conversation. Thanks!0
-
Are the macros even that important? I mean, assuming a minimum amount of protein, and a minimum amount of fat, do the ratios matter at all? (Poorly worded, I know, but I trust this group will understand what I'm trying to ask.)
From a training and adherence perspective, some people do better with higher carbs and some with lower carbs so I would say yes they do on an individual basis.
But ignoring adherence...and I guess ignoring noticeable effects on training. I'm assuming we all know that if you're bonking in a training session, adequate carbs is a good place to look first. (And I should have included a minimum amount of carbs in my horribly-phrased question.)
ETA: My apologies, but I have apparently lost my ability to form cohesive questions tonight. Perhaps I'll try again tomorrow after adequate sleep. =P0 -
Are the macros even that important? I mean, assuming a minimum amount of protein, and a minimum amount of fat, do the ratios matter at all? (Poorly worded, I know, but I trust this group will understand what I'm trying to ask.)
From a training and adherence perspective, some people do better with higher carbs and some with lower carbs so I would say yes they do on an individual basis.
But ignoring adherence...and I guess ignoring noticeable effects on training. I'm assuming we all know that if you're bonking in a training session, adequate carbs is a good place to look first. (And I should have included a minimum amount of carbs in my horribly-phrased question.)
ETA: My apologies, but I have apparently lost my ability to form cohesive questions tonight. Perhaps I'll try again tomorrow after adequate sleep. =P
I am going to let you get some sleep coz I iz confoozed.
0 -
I think A lot of the things that people do when they are trying to get really lean is simply a by product of having a much lower calorie allowance, while still having minimum protein, fat and micronutrient requirements.
With much less room to maneuver you will generally end up eating "cleaner" foods as they are more nutrient dense for the calories they provide. I don't think that in itself is proof that clean eating is "better" than a more relaxed approach.
Good point about clean eating being a "byproduct" of having less flexibility with total cals vs macro minimums. Never looked at it that way.0 -
Are the macros even that important? I mean, assuming a minimum amount of protein, and a minimum amount of fat, do the ratios matter at all? (Poorly worded, I know, but I trust this group will understand what I'm trying to ask.)
From a training and adherence perspective, some people do better with higher carbs and some with lower carbs so I would say yes they do on an individual basis.
You're addressing carbs here... sounds like carb intakes should be based on energy level/gym performance, but have little impact on body comp goals assuming fat/protein/total cal intakes are where they should be?0 -
You're addressing carbs here... sounds like carb intakes should be based on energy level/gym performance, but have little impact on body comp goals assuming fat/protein/total cal intakes are where they should be?
According to this:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/muscle-growth-and-pos-workout-nutrition.html
carbs can help on a bulk. As I understand it protein can have the same effect but carbs are more efficient with the whole insulin thing (I'm not really looking at the PWO piece but just the inhibition of protein breakdown). I suspect at elite levels of fitness it would become more important to get carbs on a bulk. Would definitely like to know from folks who have read more on the subject than I.0
This discussion has been closed.