Revamped my idea of a good routine! Crique me please :)

NJDevilsFan7576 wrote: »

On top of that, Ive never heard of any credible source that says a threadmill wont help you lose weight. Its not about the calories burned as much its about your heart rate being in the optimal range for weight burn. You can do anything for half hour or an hour a day with your heart at above 120 (as opposed to 70 resting) and you will burn fat. Give me peer reviewed and credible resources to back your claim and Ill take you seriously @kozykondition1

http://jap.physiology.org/content/113/12/1831

Excerpts for you:

The exercise groups were as follows: 1) resistance training (RT), (3 days/wk, 3 sets/day, 8–12 repetitions/set); 2) aerobic training (AT), (calorically equivalent to ∼12 miles/wk at 65–80% peak VO2); 3) aerobic training plus resistance training (AT/RT), (calorically equivalent to ∼12 miles/wk at 65–80% peak VO2 plus 3 days/wk, 3 sets/day, 8–12 repetitions/set).

These were the specific findings, by the numbers (from the graph):
•The aerobics only group (deemed “most successful”), lost a mere 3.8 pounds of body weight and 3.6 pounds of fat in 8 months.
•The resistance training group gained 2.3 pounds of lean body mass and lost only .57 pounds of fat mass.
•The aerobic plus resistance group lost 5.36 pounds of fat mass and gained 1.78 pounds of lean body mass. That looks like the winner to me for overall body composition improvement, but even that is nothing to get excited about.

3.8 pounds of body weight in 8 months.

kozykondition1 wrote: »

NJDevilsFan7576 wrote: »

On top of that, Ive never heard of any credible source that says a threadmill wont help you lose weight. Its not about the calories burned as much its about your heart rate being in the optimal range for weight burn. You can do anything for half hour or an hour a day with your heart at above 120 (as opposed to 70 resting) and you will burn fat. Give me peer reviewed and credible resources to back your claim and Ill take you seriously @kozykondition1

http://jap.physiology.org/content/113/12/1831

Excerpts for you:

The exercise groups were as follows: 1) resistance training (RT), (3 days/wk, 3 sets/day, 8–12 repetitions/set); 2) aerobic training (AT), (calorically equivalent to ∼12 miles/wk at 65–80% peak VO2); 3) aerobic training plus resistance training (AT/RT), (calorically equivalent to ∼12 miles/wk at 65–80% peak VO2 plus 3 days/wk, 3 sets/day, 8–12 repetitions/set).

These were the specific findings, by the numbers (from the graph):
•The aerobics only group (deemed “most successful”), lost a mere 3.8 pounds of body weight and 3.6 pounds of fat in 8 months.
•The resistance training group gained 2.3 pounds of lean body mass and lost only .57 pounds of fat mass.
•The aerobic plus resistance group lost 5.36 pounds of fat mass and gained 1.78 pounds of lean body mass. That looks like the winner to me for overall body composition improvement, but even that is nothing to get excited about.

3.8 pounds of body weight in 8 months.

Grant, I've only skimmed through the linked study but I didn't find anything about purposefully eating at a reduced calorie level. There is mention of track calories but nothing to indicate that any of the participants knew their maintenance calories (or an approximation) and then ate less than that on purpose. You seem to be overlooking that for the OP as well.

NJDevilsFan7576 wrote: »

ndj1979 wrote: »

OP - I think a beginner lifting program + calorie deficit + some cardio is the way to go. If you start lifting now you can get some newbie gains, preserve the existing muscle you have, and also start to lose body fat, and get stronger.

so I would say pick from strong lifts, starting strength, or new rules of lifting and go with it...

I most definitely am over thinking all of this haha. You have some great words here as well as sijomial who sent me a great email after I apologized for insulting his help lol. Im gonna do some searching for programs tonight and tailor it to the recommendations you made. Thanks for all the help guys.

It was mentioned in the other thread that if you were to do SL on the same days as your GF, it might cause an issue with 4(I think?) people trying to rotate in/out of the squat rack. Any way you could do some light cardio on those days, and do your strength training on her "off" days?

ndj1979 wrote: »

NJDevilsFan7576 wrote: »

sijomial wrote: »

The general consensuses is that maybe I should lose weight before I build muscle

Awful idea frankly.
The main benefit of strength/weight training in a deficit is to preserve your existing muscle mass. Far easier to maintain what you have than risk losing it and have to rebuild.

As a young male you are well placed to at least maintain your muscle mass - if your training is good, deficit is low (slow rate of weight loss), adequate protein and you haven't many training years under your belt there's a reasonable chance of adding muscle.

Assuming you are new to weights I would recommend 3 x week, full body, focussed on the main compound lifts. (Plenty of well known programs about.)

Cardio to taste and to progress towards your fitness goals NOT to create an excessive deficit. Fuel your exercise.

This kinda goes against good advice given in my past thread. I was told Ill only get noobie gains but they will hault after a little while. Biggest goal is to get ride of a gut at the moment. I don't know what to do Rather conflicting to me really

lifting + cardio will get rid of your gut...

I think you are over thinking it..

pick a program
stay in a deficit
mix in some cardio
do this for four months and then re-assess...

if you just do cardio now and burn through your existing mass you are just going to be further behind the 8 ball when you want to start lifting. Why not get a good lifting foundation now, rather than four months from now...??

I tend to always like what he says...

Also, alot of people wish they had started lifting (I am one of them) when they started loosing weight... 99.9% of folks that are now at their fitness peak (weight loss and weight lifting programs) will tell you to start lifting now...

i have to agree with all the muscle builders here. the more muscle you have, the higher your BMR, and the more calories you'll burn just being alive. and it really doesn't require weights, per se. there are "bodyweight" routines that will build muscle too! (perhaps not as quickly) Be thankful for that testosterone

millej49 wrote: »

I'd definitely say that losing weight before building muscle is a good idea, because to build you have to have a calorie surplus. And since you can't tell your body to ONLY make muscle with the surplus you'll end up having more fat to cut in the long run.

Completely untrue. You can convert fat to muscle and also lose weight while building muscle. I did it without even trying. I weighed 123lbs with a 27" waist and quite visible butt fat when I started lifting for fun the first time. I lifted to "bulk" or at least to increase weight. I went up to being able to squat 250lbs very comfortably and bench 90, among other things. And I weighed...123lbs at the end, but my butt had lost all visible fat, I had a sixpack that was slightly visible in daylight, I had a smaller waist, and I gained .5" on each of my arms, 1" on my calves, and lost 1" on my thighs. This was in 4 months.

I was on the whatever-the-heck-I-want-to-eat diet and wasn't particularly paying any attention to anything other than wanting to lift heavier stuff for fun.

For heaven's sake, do what's easier on your body. Lift + deficit will make you build muscle and lose weight.

MamaBirdBoss wrote: »

millej49 wrote: »

I'd definitely say that losing weight before building muscle is a good idea, because to build you have to have a calorie surplus. And since you can't tell your body to ONLY make muscle with the surplus you'll end up having more fat to cut in the long run.

Completely untrue. You can convert fat to muscle and also lose weight while building muscle. I did it without even trying. I weighed 123lbs with a 27" waist and quite visible butt fat when I started lifting for fun the first time. I lifted to "bulk" or at least to increase weight. I went up to being able to squat 250lbs very comfortably and bench 90, among other things. And I weighed...123lbs at the end, but my butt had lost all visible fat, I had a sixpack that was slightly visible in daylight, I had a smaller waist, and I gained .5" on each of my arms, 1" on my calves, and lost 1" on my thighs. This was in 4 months.

I was on the whatever-the-heck-I-want-to-eat diet and wasn't particularly paying any attention to anything other than wanting to lift heavier stuff for fun.

For heaven's sake, do what's easier on your body. Lift + deficit will make you build muscle and lose weight.

First off you cannot "convert fat to muscle". I don't know if this was just hyperbole, or of you actually think that fat was turning into muscle. Second, while your personal experience is good for you, comparing a four pound loss while increasing muscle is vastly different than what the OP is talking about.

For instance, how much could you squat originally, what was your BF% to start, and at the end? And unless you naturally eat healthy, I doubt that you were on the "whatever-the-heck-I-want-to-eat diet". Also, if you had an iota of reading comprehension capability you'd notice I never told him to not lift while he was losing weight. In fact, I told him that lifting would be a good idea, but that low intensity ling duration cardio would be one of the best ways to cut fat.

Last, I don't know if it was your intent, but your comment came off as highly confrontational, and I'd like to note that there's a difference between debate, and confrontation. My previous paragraph was confrontational, if you'd like to talk rationally and civilly I would be glad to do so, because as I always say, I'm not an expert.