Have a question? How about a live Q&A starting in 3, 2, 1... Go!

amandarunning wrote: »

stroutman81 wrote: »

amandarunning wrote: »

Another question (greedy!). What's your take on protein sources such as whey powder and protein bars? I have a sweet tooth and was satisfying that with a bar or two a day. Started to wonder if that was stalling weight loss so not had any for 3 weeks. No change on the scales so thinking that to hit my revised macros (with protein being the main goal) then adding a bar a day either for breakfast or as a snack wouldn't be such a bad thing? Just can't do savoury for breakfast!

Let me ask you this...

Why do you think powders and bars could stall your fat loss irrespective of calories?

Good question. Firstly, clutching at straws (other than tightening my belt calorie-wise!) for the scales refusing to budge. Secondly, if I continue to use them then I never really get top-side of my sweet tooth. Not getting top-side of that can lead to eating more calories as it's about taste and craving rather than hunger/nutrition/macros. Plus not using them makes me focus on protein & macro splits from whole/less processed foods which has to be a better option?

Going cold turkey on them hasn't hurt too much plus my wallet appreciates the change!

Am I answering my own question? Possibly. I'm thinking they should be the exception rather than the norm??

Today has been a juggling act with calories and macros which I've enjoyed. Then part of me wonders about doing this every day for the rest of my life and that seems obsessive, strict, controlling etc etc. That suits my nature but sometimes also makes me sigh...

Well, for what it's worth, I use powder daily. And most days I eat a bar, too. I mean, come on... how can you go wrong with a warmed Quest bar?!!

But for me, I accept that I'm not a robot and I am human... which means food ISN'T solely about fuel. It's also about pleasure and enjoyment.

fatcity66 wrote: »

I have a question, if you'll humor me:

Why do some people lose tons of water weight in the beginning of a diet, while others lose very little? I mean, even people who have the same amount of weight to lose? Any insight on this?

Thanks!

Totally depends on the person, the training, the diet, etc. For example, every molecule of glycogen carries 3 molecules of water. So if you're rocking a low card diet and/or a very glycogen-depleting training regimen, you can lose far more water than someone who's not applying these sorts of things.

Age, sex, weight, etc... there are a lot of factors that can influence this.

girlviernes wrote: »

Okay, a couple questions. I've always heard that you need at least a day off in between working a muscle for muscle recovery. If you are still sore on the 2nd day after a workout, does that mean your muscles are still recovering, and if so, would it make sense to wait another day? Also, how would you recommend combining workouts that are somewhat strength building (yoga, pilates) with actual weight training? For example, would there be a problem to do a full body workout on Day 1, pilates Day 2, and full body Day 3?

Thanks, and this is great!

It's human nature to think categorically. We tend to organize things by simple rules and guidelines. But the thing is, our bodies don't know about these categories and rules. They just are - sitting there all adaptive to whatever it is we throw at it.

The question here really is, "Can I outpace my body's ability to adapt by throwing too much at it?"

Right?

First, yes... this is a balancing act between training and recovery. But people tend to forget that everything about the body is adaptive. There isn't some fixed time period that needs to be place between exercise bouts. Recovery ability, itself, is adaptive. Meaning one could conceivably start with, for example, a full body program done 2-3 times per week and add volume gradually as their bodies adapt until - at some point - adding a 4th day makes sense.

A buddy of mine and I were just chatting about this on FB and he called this "exposure therapy." I like that term.

Take myself as an example. I train full body 5 times per week. That doesn't mean I'm doing bench press 5 time per week. But it does mean each muscle is getting worked quite a bit across the week. I've been training pretty consistently for nearly 20 years. I've built a decent work capacity.

Oh yeah... on top of my strength training I go for a walk most days and typically 1 big hike each week.

So long story short... you can "grow into" a high frequency routine and be totally fine.

Now there are a lot of variables that need to be factored in including diet, work capacity, genetics, resiliency, temperament, lifestyle/other stress, etc. What I typically see in my practice is people trying to do far too dang much while slashing calories, raising babies, and vying for promotions at their stressful jobs. Oh yeah, all this while also having all sorts of jaded and extreme perceptions and expectations, which only adds more stress to the pot.

They try and go from 0 to 100 with no respect for building work capacity over time and balancing everything else with their training and diet.

andylllI wrote: »

Ok one more question, when you are doing 45-90 min at a heart rate of 145ish, which based on your profile age is about 70-75% of theoretical max, do you feel like you are doing anything? Because I don't. I could do that for several hours before feeling it esp if we are talking about walking with a load or jogging. I tend to like to have my hr around 160-170 to feel like I am doing something. So is the idea of this lower intensity training to do it more often/ daily? Or should I do it and it will benefit me even if it doesn't feel like "real" exercise?

Your perceptions and the language of your body aren't necessarily on the same page. I see people, day in and out, doing the equivalent of punching their bodies in the face. They think it's best to jackhammer their body into submission with excessive intense exercise all because if "feels" best.

Building performance is a game of specificity and finesse. Don't get me wrong, there are times and place to really push it.

But cardiac output training is meant to be easy. It's low intensity. Going too high on the intensity continuum negates the adaptations we're trying to have happen. Namely, we want hypertrophy of the heart's chambers (namely left ventricular eccentric hypertrophy). This, in turn, will increase the amount of blood your heart can pump and thus increase the amount of oxygen being delivered to your muscles each beat and each minute. More oxygen = better recovery between intense bouts of anaerobic work.

Go too high in intensity and you don't allow your left ventricle to fill completely and thus you miss the specific stimulus we're shooting for.

psulemon wrote: »

With the understanding that you need low body fat in order to have visible abs, do you feel that it's beneficial to dedicate time to just doing ab/core exercise or just concentrate on compound lifting? I have seen a lot of suggestions for not doing ab or core routines if you are doing a full body lifting routine. On the other hand, I have seen some articles that would suggest ab/core routines are beneficial as it's your foundation and your abs are no different than other muscles and if you want to have developed abs, you should specifically work them.

I find that most people don't need specific hypertrophy work for their abs. In almost all cases, once body fat is low enough, my clients (and myself) have perfectly fine ab musculature without ever doing any direct hypertrophy work. In many cases, hypertrophying the midsection would work against the appearance a lot of people are targeting.

I do, however, think core training is important. The vast majority of the time, though, it's going to be more isometric in nature where we're targeting anti-rotation and anti-extension stuff primarily.

And I never program entire routines for the abs.