A Frustrated Girl who Runs and Lifts
Replies
-
4) She wants a healthy blend between her lifting and her running and a sub-16% body fat percent. Running less is the way she's going to get there, unless she suddenly doubles her running speed, in which case she's also going to lose a lot of strength and muscle mass when she leans out She can't have the development she wants and keep up the marathon without changing her body composition. She has to choose what she wants more.
Yeah, I think this is what it boils down to.
Yes. Thank you.0 -
I have cut down on my miles significantly and now only running 3-6 miles on the days I run. I do more weights and see much better results. I am sure you have thought of this, but what are you are eating on your long runs? Gels, jelly beans, ect. Those hold a lot of calories. I have trained with other runners for marathons and half marathon and they had the same issue as you, but after the run they would be starving and make bad eating decisions. During the run they would take way too many Gels!
Thanks this is exactly what I will be doing. Also you are right i made bad choices while training. ...but I was starving lol0 -
Lol what I meant was its a fact that sprinters have better body composition. If someone prefers looking at a walking stick, that's fine! To each his own. If you're arguing that the average marathoner is as attractive as the average sprinter, then you're just in denial. Sprinters look like fitness models lol
And also by the way, THE OP DOES LOOK GREAT. I agree. She's awesome!!!
Was just conveying the physiology of it. Sprinting promotes positive effects and hormonal effects that maintain muscle mass and even build it, promote fat loss and leanness more than any other form of exercise. Long distance steady-state cardio does the opposite. Like it or not, that's fact. And honestly, like it or not, a person of the opposite sex will be more physically attracted to said sprinter type physique 9 times out of 10 lol. Sorry if it isn't politically correct enough for you.
Aesthetically, there is no "better body composition". Why? Because it is entirely in the eye of the beholder. Stop acting as if your personal preference applies to everyone. Your opinion applies only to you so just stop making wild overgeneralizations and stating it as FACT. It isn't a fact and will never be a fact, it's personal preference (your very narrow personal preference).
That is all.0 -
LOL not even close.
I am so glad you've finally put your finger on that elusive universally attractive body type.
Me, I actually prefer my guys skinny. I also like them without traumatic football-induced brain injuries and with a modicum of taste and tact.0 -
Come on guy. How can you be this clueless? There are many different people with different goals and desires. For you to come here and say that a specific body type is 'gross' is beyond insulting. There are marathon runners here who have that body. And are happy with that body. You don't decide whats attractive to everyone. Just to you. I think guys who wear glasses look stupid. I can't say that all women would agree with me. Its just my opinion. By the way..I don't actually think that. But to insult a whole group of people sharing this same support site with you is pretty douchy. Even you have to see that.
LOL not even close.0 -
I find the female body type on the right extremely attractive. The one on the left I honestly wouldnt touch with a ten foot pole lol. I don't know of any male or female that would disagree. Not fact, but pretty widely accepted and agreed upon!
LOL not even close.
Wow, my mind is honestly blown by how rude and judgmental people can be.
Yes, many people find the bodies of sprinters more attractive. Yes, the OP does not want the body of a marathoner. This has been established. FOR 7 PAGES. And you're STILL posting things shaming the bodies of marathoners?
Serious marathoners don't do it for the body. They do it because it's what they love and they want to be the best at their sport. I'm sorry, is there something so wrong with that?
I mean, how disrespectful can you get? Come on.0 -
Come on guy. How can you be this clueless? There are many different people with different goals and desires. For you to come here and say that a specific body type is 'gross' is beyond insulting. There are marathon runners here who have that body. And are happy with that body. You don't decide whats attractive to everyone. Just to you. I think guys who wear glasses look stupid. I can't say that all women would agree with me. Its just my opinion. By the way..I don't actually think that. But to insult a whole group of people sharing this same support site with you is pretty douchy. Even you have to see that.
LOL not even close.
Admittedly, you're right I totally shouldn't have worded it as rude as I did. Wasn't expecting to offend anyone personally. Was just giving my opinion.0 -
Was just conveying the physiology of it. Sprinting promotes positive effects and hormonal effects that maintain muscle mass and even build it, promote fat loss and leanness more than any other form of exercise. Long distance steady-state cardio does the opposite.
"There isn’t a single elite 400m program that doesn’t use at least 3 days of low intensity, high volume tempo work (some even opt for things like a 20minute run on grass). Their volumes are higher than [100m] sprinters, but generally similar intensities for the majority of the time.
...
A large proportion (3 or more days per week and a majority of the total weekly volume) of a 400m runner’s training is done at low aerobic level intensities.
...
at it was the high volume of low intensity tempo work that kept his sprinters lean. Not the short sprint work they were doing (which was short sprints with massive rest) but the high-volume, low-intensity work that kept them lean.
Now, you might counter, but 400m guys are muscular. Yes, because of the time they spend in the weight room. It has nothing to do with the sprint work they’re doing.
.....
If 400m runners are lean due to anything, it’s genetics combined with the overall training load which, I’d note again, is predominantly made up of low-intensity work with fairly low volumes of (non-interval) speed work tacked on.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html0 -
Seriously? The reason why marathoners are thin is because each pound of extra body fat adds about 2.4 minutes to their total time. It's a choice that they make and work hard at to be elite.
If you are training simply to finish a marathon and eat at a sufficient amount, it's not going to happen to you.
It's one more thing to add to the MFP list of things not to worry about accidentally doing.0 -
Is there anything we can do to get you to stop? This is after all a support site.
Come on guy. How can you be this clueless? There are many different people with different goals and desires. For you to come here and say that a specific body type is 'gross' is beyond insulting. There are marathon runners here who have that body. And are happy with that body. You don't decide whats attractive to everyone. Just to you. I think guys who wear glasses look stupid. I can't say that all women would agree with me. Its just my opinion. By the way..I don't actually think that. But to insult a whole group of people sharing this same support site with you is pretty douchy. Even you have to see that.
LOL not even close.
Admittedly, you're right I totally shouldn't have worded it as rude as I did. Wasn't expecting to offend anyone personally. Was just giving my opinion.0 -
I find the female body type on the right extremely attractive. The one on the left I honestly wouldnt touch with a ten foot pole lol. I don't know of any male or female that would disagree. Not fact, but pretty widely accepted and agreed upon!
LOL not even close.
Wow, my mind is honestly blown by how rude and judgmental people can be.
Yes, many people find the bodies of sprinters more attractive. Yes, the OP does not want the body of a marathoner. This has been established. FOR 7 PAGES. And you're STILL posting things shaming the bodies of marathoners?
Serious marathoners don't do it for the body. They do it because it's what they love and they want to be the best at their sport. I'm sorry, is there something so wrong with that?
I mean, how disrespectful can you get? Come on.
Wow.
OP was asking about AESTHETICS. LOOKS. APPEARANCE.
Clearly there are some very sensitive people here... But how can you get mad at reality? lol
For any marathoners I offended, I'm sorry. Wasn't my intention.0 -
Here's a wild thought. Perhaps, and just bear with me here, sprinting doesn't give you a sprinter's body any more than marathon running gives you a marathoner's body? Maybe people with certain body types tend to get good at certain kinds of activities?
Mind blown.0 -
Here's a wild thought. Perhaps, and just bear with me here, sprinting doesn't give you a sprinter's body any more than marathon running gives you a marathoner's body? Maybe people with certain body types tend to get good at certain kinds of activities?
Mind blown.
Crazy talk.
Next you're going to try to tell me that killing turkeys doesn't cause winter.0 -
OP was asking about improving her own appearance, not for you to bash the appearance of all marathon runners. That's where the problem came in.I find the female body type on the right extremely attractive. The one on the left I honestly wouldnt touch with a ten foot pole lol. I don't know of any male or female that would disagree. Not fact, but pretty widely accepted and agreed upon!
LOL not even close.
Wow, my mind is honestly blown by how rude and judgmental people can be.
Yes, many people find the bodies of sprinters more attractive. Yes, the OP does not want the body of a marathoner. This has been established. FOR 7 PAGES. And you're STILL posting things shaming the bodies of marathoners?
Serious marathoners don't do it for the body. They do it because it's what they love and they want to be the best at their sport. I'm sorry, is there something so wrong with that?
I mean, how disrespectful can you get? Come on.
Wow.
OP was asking about AESTHETICS. LOOKS. APPEARANCE.
Clearly there are some very sensitive people here... But how can you get mad at reality? lol
For any marathoners I offended, I'm sorry. Wasn't my intention.
People can get plenty mad at the reality of someone being a complete, oblivious [don't want a strike]; they have every right. Especially since you keep trying to spout off the "fact" of your opinion.
Opinion =/= fact <
That's a fact.0 -
I don't know. I've heard that glycogen stores and water retention go hand in hand. But 10 pounds worth ?
According to some trainers like Rachel Cosgrove, focusing on long - term endurance cardio trains your body to be far more efficient and adapted to the exercise, thus fewer calories are burned. She worked out 20 hours a week and trained for a triathlon. She ended up having to watch what she ate despite exercising more. She lost her abs until she took up high intensity interval training.0 -
Was just conveying the physiology of it. Sprinting promotes positive effects and hormonal effects that maintain muscle mass and even build it, promote fat loss and leanness more than any other form of exercise. Long distance steady-state cardio does the opposite.
"There isn’t a single elite 400m program that doesn’t use at least 3 days of low intensity, high volume tempo work (some even opt for things like a 20minute run on grass). Their volumes are higher than [100m] sprinters, but generally similar intensities for the majority of the time.
...
A large proportion (3 or more days per week and a majority of the total weekly volume) of a 400m runner’s training is done at low aerobic level intensities.
...
at it was the high volume of low intensity tempo work that kept his sprinters lean. Not the short sprint work they were doing (which was short sprints with massive rest) but the high-volume, low-intensity work that kept them lean.
Now, you might counter, but 400m guys are muscular. Yes, because of the time they spend in the weight room. It has nothing to do with the sprint work they’re doing.
.....
If 400m runners are lean due to anything, it’s genetics combined with the overall training load which, I’d note again, is predominantly made up of low-intensity work with fairly low volumes of (non-interval) speed work tacked on.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html
Of course, it's called tempo runs. Because YOU CANT sprint at a high intensity every day. The body can't withstand that lol.
You are also taking the longest end of the "sprinter" spectrum, a 400m runner... 100m sprinters aka the leanest and most muscular ones, rarely cover more than 2000m TOTAL IN EVEN A MEDIUM INTENSITY TEMPO RUN. Wayyyy less on high intensity speed days.
Genetics? LMAO. Omg. Look at a field of sprinters and a field of runners. Must all be genetic. You are just being foolish.
Trust me, there's nothing you can teach me about this stuff. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.0 -
Maybe this has been posted already, but I'm just too lazy to read all the replies. Derp. Studies show that endurance running will cause hypothyroid, slowing your metabolism.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323550604578412913149043072.html#articleTabs=article0 -
Was just conveying the physiology of it. Sprinting promotes positive effects and hormonal effects that maintain muscle mass and even build it, promote fat loss and leanness more than any other form of exercise. Long distance steady-state cardio does the opposite.
"There isn’t a single elite 400m program that doesn’t use at least 3 days of low intensity, high volume tempo work (some even opt for things like a 20minute run on grass). Their volumes are higher than [100m] sprinters, but generally similar intensities for the majority of the time.
...
A large proportion (3 or more days per week and a majority of the total weekly volume) of a 400m runner’s training is done at low aerobic level intensities.
...
at it was the high volume of low intensity tempo work that kept his sprinters lean. Not the short sprint work they were doing (which was short sprints with massive rest) but the high-volume, low-intensity work that kept them lean.
Now, you might counter, but 400m guys are muscular. Yes, because of the time they spend in the weight room. It has nothing to do with the sprint work they’re doing.
.....
If 400m runners are lean due to anything, it’s genetics combined with the overall training load which, I’d note again, is predominantly made up of low-intensity work with fairly low volumes of (non-interval) speed work tacked on.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html
Good post. It also links to this: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/sprinters-vs-marathoners.html0 -
I don't know. I've heard that glycogen stores and water retention go hand in hand. But 10 pounds worth ?
According to some trainers like Rachel Cosgrove, focusing on long - term endurance cardio trains your body to be far more efficient and adapted to the exercise, thus fewer calories are burned. She worked out 20 hours a week and trained for a triathlon. She ended up having to watch what she ate despite exercising more. She lost her abs until she took up high intensity interval training.
Rachel Cosgrove has been mentioned a few times now. Thank you I will defiantly check that out!! It sounds like the right path.0 -
If I sprint 1 block, I should be even leaner0
-
Muscle doesn't weight more than fat. 1lb of muscle weighs the same as 1lb of fat. Muscle takes up less volume than fat and is more dense. When gaining muscle we crate micro tears in the muscle bundle which is what develops it. The body sends water to the area to repair it so when building muscle we often retain water. The dense muscle coupled with water retention could be a reason for not losing weight but it won't last forever. Muscle is the metabolic engine that burns the calories.0
-
On a totally unrelated note, I'd love to see a video of this 185 bench. That's damn impressive, and especially surprising for someone who runs marathons.0
-
On a totally unrelated note, I'd love to see a video of this 185 bench. That's damn impressive, and especially surprising for someone who runs marathons.
Indeed, it is at the Elite level for lifting.
http://exrx.net/Testing/WeightLifting/BenchStandards.html0 -
Was just conveying the physiology of it. Sprinting promotes positive effects and hormonal effects that maintain muscle mass and even build it, promote fat loss and leanness more than any other form of exercise. Long distance steady-state cardio does the opposite.
"There isn’t a single elite 400m program that doesn’t use at least 3 days of low intensity, high volume tempo work (some even opt for things like a 20minute run on grass). Their volumes are higher than [100m] sprinters, but generally similar intensities for the majority of the time.
...
A large proportion (3 or more days per week and a majority of the total weekly volume) of a 400m runner’s training is done at low aerobic level intensities.
...
at it was the high volume of low intensity tempo work that kept his sprinters lean. Not the short sprint work they were doing (which was short sprints with massive rest) but the high-volume, low-intensity work that kept them lean.
Now, you might counter, but 400m guys are muscular. Yes, because of the time they spend in the weight room. It has nothing to do with the sprint work they’re doing.
.....
If 400m runners are lean due to anything, it’s genetics combined with the overall training load which, I’d note again, is predominantly made up of low-intensity work with fairly low volumes of (non-interval) speed work tacked on.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html
Of course, it's called tempo runs. Because YOU CANT sprint at a high intensity every day. The body can't withstand that lol.
You are also taking the longest end of the "sprinter" spectrum, a 400m runner... 100m sprinters aka the leanest and most muscular ones, rarely cover more than 2000m TOTAL IN EVEN A MEDIUM INTENSITY TEMPO RUN. Wayyyy less on high intensity speed days.
Genetics? LMAO. Omg. Look at a field of sprinters and a field of runners. Must all be genetic. You are just being foolish.
Trust me, there's nothing you can teach me about this stuff. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
That was Lyle McDonald. Not the poster. Next you can explain to us why Lyle is so wrong. I always enjoy these.
We get it though. You don't like running. That's wonderful. IDGAF. For every dense runner who doesn't understand that weight lifting isn't going to make everyone bulky (particularly women), there's another handful of bodybuilders who seem to be literally scared of running. My happy median (when I'm not on an injured knee - from surfing, not running) is in the 10-15km run range. Not very long, but long enough for my purposes. If you're a competitive bodybuilder or powerlifter then don't run. If you're a competitive marathoner then don't lift. The vast majority of us are not pro competitors and are trying to find the program that works for us at this point in time. Of course there are compromises in absolutely anything we do.0 -
On a totally unrelated note, I'd love to see a video of this 185 bench. That's damn impressive, and especially surprising for someone who runs marathons.
Indeed. Was this done with a free barbell or on a Smith machine? With a benching shirt or without gear? I am curious.0 -
I find the female body type on the right extremely attractive. The one on the left I honestly wouldnt touch with a ten foot pole lol. I don't know of any male or female that would disagree. Not fact, but pretty widely accepted and agreed upon!
LOL not even close.
Wow, my mind is honestly blown by how rude and judgmental people can be.
Yes, many people find the bodies of sprinters more attractive. Yes, the OP does not want the body of a marathoner. This has been established. FOR 7 PAGES. And you're STILL posting things shaming the bodies of marathoners?
Serious marathoners don't do it for the body. They do it because it's what they love and they want to be the best at their sport. I'm sorry, is there something so wrong with that?
I mean, how disrespectful can you get? Come on.
Wow.
OP was asking about AESTHETICS. LOOKS. APPEARANCE.
Clearly there are some very sensitive people here... But how can you get mad at reality? lol
For any marathoners I offended, I'm sorry. Wasn't my intention.
By the way, the over use of "lol" doesn't actually make you funny. I sort of am thinking that this doesn't mean what you think it means.0 -
I find the female body type on the right extremely attractive. The one on the left I honestly wouldnt touch with a ten foot pole lol. I don't know of any male or female that would disagree. Not fact, but pretty widely accepted and agreed upon!
LOL not even close.
Wow, my mind is honestly blown by how rude and judgmental people can be.
Yes, many people find the bodies of sprinters more attractive. Yes, the OP does not want the body of a marathoner. This has been established. FOR 7 PAGES. And you're STILL posting things shaming the bodies of marathoners?
Serious marathoners don't do it for the body. They do it because it's what they love and they want to be the best at their sport. I'm sorry, is there something so wrong with that?
I mean, how disrespectful can you get? Come on.
Wow.
OP was asking about AESTHETICS. LOOKS. APPEARANCE.
Clearly there are some very sensitive people here... But how can you get mad at reality? lol
For any marathoners I offended, I'm sorry. Wasn't my intention.
Can you pretty please stop trying to impose your reality on the rest of us?0 -
I'm in the same boat. I run and cycle for a hobby and also lift. At some point if I want to increase the weight I deadlift and squat I'm going to have to cut back on cycling and running. So far a 30 minute run or an hour on the bike seem to work best for me. Anything more and it affects my lifts.0
-
Was just conveying the physiology of it. Sprinting promotes positive effects and hormonal effects that maintain muscle mass and even build it, promote fat loss and leanness more than any other form of exercise. Long distance steady-state cardio does the opposite.
"There isn’t a single elite 400m program that doesn’t use at least 3 days of low intensity, high volume tempo work (some even opt for things like a 20minute run on grass). Their volumes are higher than [100m] sprinters, but generally similar intensities for the majority of the time.
...
A large proportion (3 or more days per week and a majority of the total weekly volume) of a 400m runner’s training is done at low aerobic level intensities.
...
at it was the high volume of low intensity tempo work that kept his sprinters lean. Not the short sprint work they were doing (which was short sprints with massive rest) but the high-volume, low-intensity work that kept them lean.
Now, you might counter, but 400m guys are muscular. Yes, because of the time they spend in the weight room. It has nothing to do with the sprint work they’re doing.
.....
If 400m runners are lean due to anything, it’s genetics combined with the overall training load which, I’d note again, is predominantly made up of low-intensity work with fairly low volumes of (non-interval) speed work tacked on.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html
Of course, it's called tempo runs. Because YOU CANT sprint at a high intensity every day. The body can't withstand that lol.
You are also taking the longest end of the "sprinter" spectrum, a 400m runner... 100m sprinters aka the leanest and most muscular ones, rarely cover more than 2000m TOTAL IN EVEN A MEDIUM INTENSITY TEMPO RUN. Wayyyy less on high intensity speed days.
Genetics? LMAO. Omg. Look at a field of sprinters and a field of runners. Must all be genetic. You are just being foolish.
Trust me, there's nothing you can teach me about this stuff. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
That was Lyle McDonald. Not the poster. Next you can explain to us why Lyle is so wrong. I always enjoy these.
Here are well a few reasons why he is wrong.
1. He says "Protein intake should be based on LBM not total weight." Then he goes out and writes a book on protein that only talks about protein intake based on total weight.
What he actually said:
"]Logically, of course, it makes the most sense that LBM would be the primary determinant of protein requirements, there being little need to provide large amounts of dietary protein to fat cells. However, this has to be weighed against the general difficulty in getting a good estimate of body fat percentage and body fat (necessary to determine true LBM); methods can vary drastically and many are inappropriate for athletes.
For the reasons discussed above and to remain consistent with the research (which always expresses protein recommendations relative to total body weight), I will express protein intake recommendations relative to total body weight throughout this book. I'd simply note that athletes carrying an excess amount of body fat may wish to scale back their total protein intakes slightly to account for the extra fat they are carrying."2. He has said many times, "You can't build muscle and burn fat at the same time." Yet he goes and writes a book about it called UD 2.0
What he actually said:
"But more specific approaches can be effective in achieving this goal. The Ultimate Diet 2.0 has often generated muscle gains while people dieted to single digit body fat levels (I’d note that the gain in muscle never reaches equality with the fat loss) but it also alternates specific dieting and gaining phases during the week."3. I had a private group with some of the most experienced members on MFP where we did Lyle's RFL... We all concluded it was mostly BS and mind games.
Several people here would disagree with you.
http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124. He says 6-8 reps is optimal for muscle growth. Neglecting genetic factors. Someone might have more fast twitching to slow twitching fibers and vice versa... you can't just pick a small range like 6-8 reps and say it's best...
What he actually said:
"For most people, 80-85% of maximum is roughly 5-8 repetitions there is variance in this between individuals and perhaps muscle groups (for example, some people find that they can get 12-15 repetitions at 85% of maximum in some leg movements)."
"And that’s the answer that repeatedly comes up among people in the field who aren’t clueless: 5-8 repetitions. If you had to pick a single rep range to work at to optimize the growth response, it would 5-8 reps per set.
Which isn’t to say that there aren’t valid and valuable reasons to work in other repetition ranges, mind you. But that wasn’t the original context of my weird hypothetical."0 -
Was just conveying the physiology of it. Sprinting promotes positive effects and hormonal effects that maintain muscle mass and even build it, promote fat loss and leanness more than any other form of exercise. Long distance steady-state cardio does the opposite.
"There isn’t a single elite 400m program that doesn’t use at least 3 days of low intensity, high volume tempo work (some even opt for things like a 20minute run on grass). Their volumes are higher than [100m] sprinters, but generally similar intensities for the majority of the time.
...
A large proportion (3 or more days per week and a majority of the total weekly volume) of a 400m runner’s training is done at low aerobic level intensities.
...
at it was the high volume of low intensity tempo work that kept his sprinters lean. Not the short sprint work they were doing (which was short sprints with massive rest) but the high-volume, low-intensity work that kept them lean.
Now, you might counter, but 400m guys are muscular. Yes, because of the time they spend in the weight room. It has nothing to do with the sprint work they’re doing.
.....
If 400m runners are lean due to anything, it’s genetics combined with the overall training load which, I’d note again, is predominantly made up of low-intensity work with fairly low volumes of (non-interval) speed work tacked on.
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/pole-vaulting-for-a-hot-body.html
Of course, it's called tempo runs. Because YOU CANT sprint at a high intensity every day. The body can't withstand that lol.
You are also taking the longest end of the "sprinter" spectrum, a 400m runner... 100m sprinters aka the leanest and most muscular ones, rarely cover more than 2000m TOTAL IN EVEN A MEDIUM INTENSITY TEMPO RUN. Wayyyy less on high intensity speed days.
Genetics? LMAO. Omg. Look at a field of sprinters and a field of runners. Must all be genetic. You are just being foolish.
Trust me, there's nothing you can teach me about this stuff. You seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
That was Lyle McDonald. Not the poster. Next you can explain to us why Lyle is so wrong. I always enjoy these.
Here are well a few reasons why he is wrong.
1. He says "Protein intake should be based on LBM not total weight." Then he goes out and writes a book on protein that only talks about protein intake based on total weight.
What he actually said:
"]Logically, of course, it makes the most sense that LBM would be the primary determinant of protein requirements, there being little need to provide large amounts of dietary protein to fat cells. However, this has to be weighed against the general difficulty in getting a good estimate of body fat percentage and body fat (necessary to determine true LBM); methods can vary drastically and many are inappropriate for athletes.
For the reasons discussed above and to remain consistent with the research (which always expresses protein recommendations relative to total body weight), I will express protein intake recommendations relative to total body weight throughout this book. I'd simply note that athletes carrying an excess amount of body fat may wish to scale back their total protein intakes slightly to account for the extra fat they are carrying."2. He has said many times, "You can't build muscle and burn fat at the same time." Yet he goes and writes a book about it called UD 2.0
What he actually said:
"But more specific approaches can be effective in achieving this goal. The Ultimate Diet 2.0 has often generated muscle gains while people dieted to single digit body fat levels (I’d note that the gain in muscle never reaches equality with the fat loss) but it also alternates specific dieting and gaining phases during the week."3. I had a private group with some of the most experienced members on MFP where we did Lyle's RFL... We all concluded it was mostly BS and mind games.
Several people here would disagree with you.
http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/forumdisplay.php?f=124. He says 6-8 reps is optimal for muscle growth. Neglecting genetic factors. Someone might have more fast twitching to slow twitching fibers and vice versa... you can't just pick a small range like 6-8 reps and say it's best...
What he actually said:
"For most people, 80-85% of maximum is roughly 5-8 repetitions there is variance in this between individuals and perhaps muscle groups (for example, some people find that they can get 12-15 repetitions at 85% of maximum in some leg movements)."
"And that’s the answer that repeatedly comes up among people in the field who aren’t clueless: 5-8 repetitions. If you had to pick a single rep range to work at to optimize the growth response, it would 5-8 reps per set.
Which isn’t to say that there aren’t valid and valuable reasons to work in other repetition ranges, mind you. But that wasn’t the original context of my weird hypothetical."
Stop it with your logic and your reading of things.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions