can stronglift be reduced to 3x5?
Robbnva
Posts: 590 Member
Time is an issue for me, and I want to get in some cardio after. Would reducing to 3x5 affect my workout at all or affect my strength gains? I'm focused on losing weight first, building strength second. Right now workouts are going over an hour which means I have to cut out cardio or else I have to go over my calorie goals which I don't want to do.
0
Replies
-
Can't you just eat a little less?
IIRC, isn't starting strength a 3x5 program?0 -
I'm assuming you are in a caloric deficit as well, I'd say that 3x5 is great. I do 3x3-6 with 3 warm up sets beforehand. My lifting is still about an hour long though due to the warm ups and 2+ minute long rests between sets.
BTW, when dieting reduced volume is recommended anyways. So this might even work better for you for more than just time constraints.
ETA I don't do stronglifts though, I do an upper/lower split. Full body doesn't bode well for me for regular usage haha. But when I HAVE done full body on this cut/diet I have done it at 3 sets.0 -
Ice Cream Fitness 5x5 has a cutting version which only has 3x5 for the main compound lifts but then adds in 2x8 of accessory work. It's something to look into. The ICF (cutting) workouts only took me about 45 mins0
-
Can't you just eat a little less?
IIRC, isn't starting strength a 3x5 program?
I can eat less but then I'm still hungry, I've lost almost 90lbs without being hungry so don't really feel like I should start being hungry now. Not to mention I have to increase my protein intake when lifting and added protein adds more calories
And SL is a 5x5 program
To the other suggestion, I'll look into that ice cream SL0 -
Doesn't SL have a 3x5 version as well?0
-
Greyskull LP would also somewhat fit the bill. It's 2x5 and then 1xAMRAP.0
-
I’d increase the weight, and do 5 x 3. Depending on the intensity of the cardio, you might be able to mix it in during the rest between sets.0
-
SL is specifically designed to go down to 3x5 and then 1x5 as you progress. So yes, 3x5 is fine assuming intensity is there. Worst case, progress may be slower. Not the end of the world.0
-
-
AllanMisner wrote: »I’d increase the weight, and do 5 x 3. Depending on the intensity of the cardio, you might be able to mix it in during the rest between sets.
Don't do this. Please, don't.
0 -
Chief_Rocka wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »I’d increase the weight, and do 5 x 3. Depending on the intensity of the cardio, you might be able to mix it in during the rest between sets.
Don't do this. Please, don't.
Any specific reason why not?0 -
Time is an issue for me, and I want to get in some cardio after. Would reducing to 3x5 affect my workout at all or affect my strength gains? I'm focused on losing weight first, building strength second. Right now workouts are going over an hour which means I have to cut out cardio or else I have to go over my calorie goals which I don't want to do.
It seems to me that you need to prioritize your goals and then prioritize your methods of getting there. SL 5x5 should not be taking over an hour, but if you want to drop it down to 3x5, it is not going to have that big of an effect if you keep the intensity up. If you can make an hour 3 days a week for SL5x5, can you not make some other time during the week for cardio?
My real question would be what are your calorie goals and what are you basing them off of? You can always eat more or less depending on the direction your body fat is going. Do not just set some arbitrary number as a goal. You need calories to gain strength and then some more if you are going to do cardio on top of strength training. You might consider giving a 531 template combined with cardio afterwards a try. You can still gain strength while still losing fat that way.0 -
I try to get cardio in because my calorie goal to lose 2lbs a week is low is 1370, so I like to burn calories so I can eat more. I get that number based off mfp and I know its accurate because for 2 weeks I ignored that number and went 1500 instead and my weight loss was 1lb in both of those 2 weeks.
Weight lifting doesn't burn many calories, at least not in a quantitative manner like cardio does.
SL takes me about 45 to 55 minutes now that the weight has gotten heavier and I'm.having to do 3 minute breaks instead of 1.5 minutes. On workout A, the rests alone take 36 minutes minimum (5 sets with a rest after the first 4, not even counting the time it takes to get the setup for the next workout and the warmups. )
Its minimum 45. Today with deadlifts it took me 45 minutes and that was doing a mixture of 1.5 and 3 min rests between sets. Squats were not hard but I'm almost struggling with OH presses so I rested the full 3 on those.
1370 is tough to achieve without any exercise which is why I always do something, even if its just a brisk 20 minute walk.0 -
Worked well for me (I did starting Strength which is very similar to SL but 3x5).0
-
Yes, 3x5 will still show strength gains but less muscle gains (less volume). But if you are trying to lose weight you are probably not gaining much if any muscle anyway. I recently switched from 5x5 to 3x5 due to calorie deficit and time issues. But once you get to needing the full three minutes between sets as well as having some failures and 5 minute waits... yes, it can get closer to an hour.0
-
I try to get cardio in because my calorie goal to lose 2lbs a week is low is 1370, so I like to burn calories so I can eat more. I get that number based off mfp and I know its accurate because for 2 weeks I ignored that number and went 1500 instead and my weight loss was 1lb in both of those 2 weeks.
Weight lifting doesn't burn many calories, at least not in a quantitative manner like cardio does.
SL takes me about 45 to 55 minutes now that the weight has gotten heavier and I'm.having to do 3 minute breaks instead of 1.5 minutes. On workout A, the rests alone take 36 minutes minimum (5 sets with a rest after the first 4, not even counting the time it takes to get the setup for the next workout and the warmups. )
Its minimum 45. Today with deadlifts it took me 45 minutes and that was doing a mixture of 1.5 and 3 min rests between sets. Squats were not hard but I'm almost struggling with OH presses so I rested the full 3 on those.
1370 is tough to achieve without any exercise which is why I always do something, even if its just a brisk 20 minute walk.
Your ticker shows you have something like 25-35 lbs to lose. 2lbs a week is too high of a weight loss goal at this point.
0 -
Why?0
-
It is my understanding that, the less you have to lose, the more likely it is that an aggressive deficit will cause higher loss of LBM with the fat. Even with a lifting program and higher protein intake, your body will still cannibalize muscle as well as fat. You can help limit that loss by slowing the weight loss. Plus, food is fuel for those workouts.0
-
It is my understanding that, the less you have to lose, the more likely it is that an aggressive deficit will cause higher loss of LBM with the fat. Even with a lifting program and higher protein intake, your body will still cannibalize muscle as well as fat. You can help limit that loss by slowing the weight loss. Plus, food is fuel for those workouts.0
-
AllanMisner wrote: »Chief_Rocka wrote: »AllanMisner wrote: »I’d increase the weight, and do 5 x 3. Depending on the intensity of the cardio, you might be able to mix it in during the rest between sets.
Don't do this. Please, don't.
Any specific reason why not?
I'd like to know, too - which part of it are you responding to? I lift at a gym with an indoor track (thank goodness), so I get in a mile or so just between reps. It saves time.0 -
It is my understanding that, the less you have to lose, the more likely it is that an aggressive deficit will cause higher loss of LBM with the fat. Even with a lifting program and higher protein intake, your body will still cannibalize muscle as well as fat. You can help limit that loss by slowing the weight loss. Plus, food is fuel for those workouts.
Right but all the experts say 1 to 2lbs a week isn't aggressive.0 -
It is my understanding that, the less you have to lose, the more likely it is that an aggressive deficit will cause higher loss of LBM with the fat. Even with a lifting program and higher protein intake, your body will still cannibalize muscle as well as fat. You can help limit that loss by slowing the weight loss. Plus, food is fuel for those workouts.
Right but all the experts say 1 to 2lbs a week isn't aggressive.
You don't think cutting your calories to under 1400 as a male is aggressive? You are doing cardio just to be able to eat more.
As a slightly overweight 5'5 female my calorie goal was higher than your before exercise to lose weight.
The less weight you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be. You burn fewer calories overall which makes it harder to create a deficit.0 -
1-2 lbs is recommended. 2lbs being the high end which is more appropriate when you are on the higher end of the amount of weight to lose. 25-35 lbs is not the high end.0
-
It is my understanding that, the less you have to lose, the more likely it is that an aggressive deficit will cause higher loss of LBM with the fat. Even with a lifting program and higher protein intake, your body will still cannibalize muscle as well as fat. You can help limit that loss by slowing the weight loss. Plus, food is fuel for those workouts.
Right but all the experts say 1 to 2lbs a week isn't aggressive.
2 lbs isn't aggressive when you have 100 lbs to lose. But it is pretty aggressive when you only have 25 lbs to lose. Think about it - when you started losing weight, cutting 1000 calories a day probably equated to 25-33% of your daily caloric needs. Now, it's closer to a 45% cut. And it is probably below your basal metabolic rate which is what your body uses just living (what the hospital would feed you if you were in a coma). While eating below that will not send you into starvation mode (myth), it can cause metabolic damages - I.e. Your body suddenly becomes a lot more efficient and you actually decrease how many cals you burn in general.
0 -
It is my understanding that, the less you have to lose, the more likely it is that an aggressive deficit will cause higher loss of LBM with the fat. Even with a lifting program and higher protein intake, your body will still cannibalize muscle as well as fat. You can help limit that loss by slowing the weight loss. Plus, food is fuel for those workouts.
Right but all the experts say 1 to 2lbs a week isn't aggressive.
2 lbs isn't aggressive when you have 100 lbs to lose. But it is pretty aggressive when you only have 25 lbs to lose. Think about it - when you started losing weight, cutting 1000 calories a day probably equated to 25-33% of your daily caloric needs. Now, it's closer to a 45% cut. And it is probably below your basal metabolic rate which is what your body uses just living (what the hospital would feed you if you were in a coma). While eating below that will not send you into starvation mode (myth), it can cause metabolic damages - I.e. Your body suddenly becomes a lot more efficient and you actually decrease how many cals you burn in general.
0 -
kethry70 whats metabolic damages ?0
-
3dogsrunning wrote: »It is my understanding that, the less you have to lose, the more likely it is that an aggressive deficit will cause higher loss of LBM with the fat. Even with a lifting program and higher protein intake, your body will still cannibalize muscle as well as fat. You can help limit that loss by slowing the weight loss. Plus, food is fuel for those workouts.
Right but all the experts say 1 to 2lbs a week isn't aggressive.
You don't think cutting your calories to under 1400 as a male is aggressive? You are doing cardio just to be able to eat more.
As a slightly overweight 5'5 female my calorie goal was higher than your before exercise to lose weight.
The less weight you have to lose the smaller your deficit should be. You burn fewer calories overall which makes it harder to create a deficit.
Well, to be honest I'd be doing the cardio anyway even if my calorie goal was 2000, but if it was 2k I wouldn't be eating the exercise calories back.0 -
It is my understanding that, the less you have to lose, the more likely it is that an aggressive deficit will cause higher loss of LBM with the fat. Even with a lifting program and higher protein intake, your body will still cannibalize muscle as well as fat. You can help limit that loss by slowing the weight loss. Plus, food is fuel for those workouts.
Right but all the experts say 1 to 2lbs a week isn't aggressive.
2 lbs isn't aggressive when you have 100 lbs to lose. But it is pretty aggressive when you only have 25 lbs to lose. Think about it - when you started losing weight, cutting 1000 calories a day probably equated to 25-33% of your daily caloric needs. Now, it's closer to a 45% cut. And it is probably below your basal metabolic rate which is what your body uses just living (what the hospital would feed you if you were in a coma). While eating below that will not send you into starvation mode (myth), it can cause metabolic damages - I.e. Your body suddenly becomes a lot more efficient and you actually decrease how many cals you burn in general.
You should lose a max of 1% of your body weight. For me that's 2.08 lbs a week.
I only started lifting weight cause people told me doing cardio only is causing me to lose muscle mass, I don't really care about bulking, I just want to tone/lose fat/tighten skin. I'm perfectly happy jogging/walking 7 days a week but I don't want to lose muscle mass. I do realize that by eating less I won't build much if any muscle.
That's why I'm here trying to find out of doing 3 sets of 5, will be fine or not0 -
It is my understanding that, the less you have to lose, the more likely it is that an aggressive deficit will cause higher loss of LBM with the fat. Even with a lifting program and higher protein intake, your body will still cannibalize muscle as well as fat. You can help limit that loss by slowing the weight loss. Plus, food is fuel for those workouts.
Right but all the experts say 1 to 2lbs a week isn't aggressive.
2 lbs isn't aggressive when you have 100 lbs to lose. But it is pretty aggressive when you only have 25 lbs to lose. Think about it - when you started losing weight, cutting 1000 calories a day probably equated to 25-33% of your daily caloric needs. Now, it's closer to a 45% cut. And it is probably below your basal metabolic rate which is what your body uses just living (what the hospital would feed you if you were in a coma). While eating below that will not send you into starvation mode (myth), it can cause metabolic damages - I.e. Your body suddenly becomes a lot more efficient and you actually decrease how many cals you burn in general.
Thanks for your input. But I'm not asking advice about my diet.0
This discussion has been closed.
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
- 424 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