Discussion of training protocol

[theleip]

Originally Posted by TrainerTodd View Post

Try doing 3 sets of 12-15 with a lighter weight. This is the recommended weight training range for weight loss where 8-12 is more for toning. Also try some lower intensity cardio for a longer period of time like a brisk walk for 45 to 60 minutes.

I also calculated your estimated caloric needs for weight loss. They sit around 1539 per day. You should get 192 grams of carbohydrates per day. Mostly coming from whole grains and dark green leafy vegetables to make sure you are getting enough fiber. 128 grams should come from protein. Try to get them from lean meats like chicken breast and fish. Plant proteins are good too. Eat red meat sparingly. Your fat intake should be about 28 grams per day. Try to stick with fats that are liquid at room temperature. These are mostly going to be plant fats. Animal fats will be solid at room teperature. I can send you a food journal that helps keep track of this stuff if you want to drop me an email.

also be careful which protein supplements you by. many of them have a lot of saturated fat in them.

TrainerTodd, while I appreciate your effort, you are really off base on your advice here. It seems pretty textbook "textbook" information. You might want to broaden your studies beyond just want you were taught by whatever cert it was you have gotten. As harsh as this sounds it isn't meant to be. It is to help you, help people better.

 

[theleip]

TrainerTodd Wrote

TrainerTodd Wrote:

The calculations came from my Sports nutrition instructor who happens to be a Registered Dietician and also similar to the ISSA instruction. THe Reps are a pretty general sets and reps for weight loss. Again ask my exercise physiology instructor. But I suppose he is off base with his many years of research and his docorate. hmmmm. I guess it boils down to which resource you want to pull it from among others that are out there.


Oh of which none of are internet based research. Published documented, tested, research. Oh and my own experience with the technique. I am no fool. I know how to do research and it does not involve google. My certification is just one of my many resources I have access to. Part of the benefit of being a college student. I have access to a lot of the physiology journals and just about any other health related journal and it costs me nothing more than my tuition. Which is not cheap. And if my own clients were not getting great results then I would look esle where, but I am having great success with it all. And I always keep in mind that they are all just scientific studies which makes them all theory and are not proven 100% as is any other of these techniques and some people should keep that in mind, before dismissing other theory. My advice is given because I want to help and nothing more and I will never discount the advice of anyone else in this forum. And if this all continues to be an issue i can discontinue my participation, because I am not getting anything out of this, outside of the simple joy of helping others. She had tried your advice and I was simply giving an alternative.

I am currently looking at a case study done in 2004 where they discussed weight training and weight loss. This particular program was a circuit. This lady was already fit in terms of cardiovascular fitness, so she worked at a higher intensity for that. But here is a small segment of the article discussing the sets and reps
"Prior to our 1-hour training sessions, Kate warmed up for 10 minutes on a full-body elliptical cross trainer. Her routine then began with 3 minutes of running at 6.5 miles per hour on a treadmill at a 4 percent incline. Next, Kate performed a compound set of walking lunges and seated leg extensions for 2 minutes, completing three sets of 15 repetitions each."

and here were the results and a sample workout:

Weight in
Date Pounds Chest Waist Hips

6-11-03 174.6 38.75 34.5 40.5
8-15-03 158.9 38.0 32.75 38.5
10-17-03 148.4 38.0 31.0 38.0
12-3-03 143.5 38.0 30.25 37.5
Results: -31.1 -0.75 -4.25 -3.0

Date Thigh Calf Upper Arm Forearm

6-11-03 25.75 15.0 12.5 9.5
8-15-03 21.75 14.5 12.25 9.5
10-17-03 21.75 14.5 11.75 9.5
12-3-03 20.75 14.5 11.5 9.5
Results: -5.0 -0.5 -1.0 0.0

* SKINFOLDS (MILLIMETERS)

Date % Body Fat Chest Midaxillary Triceps

6-11-03 25.8 13 16 23
8-15-03 20.3 13 13 18
10-17-03 19.5 11 13 17
12-3-03 17.2 10 9 17
Results: 8.6 -3 -7 -6

Date Subscapular Abdominal Suprailiac Thigh

6-11-03 24 21 16 28
8-15-03 16.5 13 10 18
10-17-03 12 11 8 18
12-3-03 11 11 8 17
Results: -13 -10 -8 -11

SAMPLE WORKOUT

Run #1 3 min 6.5 mph at 4% incline; HR = 150-165
bpm
lunge/leg extension 2 min 3 x 15, no rest periods
crunches 1 min 6 minutes

Stepmill[TM] 3 min fat burner program, level 12
bench press/dumbbell flyes 2 min 3 x 15, no rest periods
double crunches 1 min 12 minutes

Run #2 3 min 6.5 mph at 4% incline; HR = 150-165
bpm
seated row/biceps curl 2 min 3 x 15, no rest periods
V-ups 1 min 18 minutes

Stepmill[TM] 3 min fat burner program, level 12
shoulder press/french press 2 min 3 x 15, no rest periods
crunches 1 min 24 minutes

Run #3 3 min 6.5 mph at 4% incline; HR = 150-165
bpm
lateral raise/leg curl 2 min 3 x 15, no rest periods
double crunches 1 min 30 minutes

Stepmill[TM] 3 min fat burner program, level 12
triceps push-down/dumbbell 2 min 3 x 15, no rest periods
lat pull-over V-ups 1 min 36 minutes

Run #4 3 min 6.5 mph at 4% incline; HR = 150-165
bpm
crunches 1 min 40 minutes

* With transitions, exercise setup time and rest periods, 6 compound
sets will equal 1 hour.

Key: bpm = beats per minute; min = minute(s); mph = miles per hour

I hope you can read the numbers that got bunched up in the paste.

 

[theleip]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrainerTodd View Post
The calculations came from my Sports nutrition instructor who happens to be a Registered Dietician and also similar to the ISSA instruction. THe Reps are a pretty general sets and reps for weight loss. Again ask my exercise physiology instructor. But I suppose he is off base with his many years of research and his docorate. hmmmm. I guess it boils down to which resource you want to pull it from among others that are out there.
I can see the ego got hurt a little here, none the less because you put forth such a massive effort to put me in my place and lecture me based on OTHER peoples credentials I will respond. Also there is an edit button, you can add to what you wrote previous. That was also not a smart ass comment, but truly to inform you if not aware to lessen clutter. This may need to be taken to a new thread.

As far as where you gathered your information, a RD don't mean much to me,neither does any cert or formal education for that matter. I have seen a 17 year old high school kid wipe the floor with a PH.D, paper is paper.

I pull my information from all kinds of sources, mostly scientific studies. The sources you pull from do matter, understanding proper studies and how they are run is important to if they are valid or not. I perform my own lab work and studies at this moment, I know a thing or two about variables.

Here is why your information you gave was lacking.

Quote:
Try doing 3 sets of 12-15 with a lighter weight. This is the recommended weight training range for weight loss where 8-12 is more for toning. Also try some lower intensity cardio for a longer period of time like a brisk walk for 45 to 60 minutes.
Steady State cardio is not the superior method for fat loss, not to mention this individual is obviously above those methods in the sense of training anyway. Anyone that does double cardio session and one of them a spinning class can start to integrate interval training and perhaps HIIT which can produce a great EPOC effect causing for a heavier metabolic increase following a span of time.

There is nothing wrong with a 3x12-15 rep range for beginners but "light weights" isn't the idea. The proper rep range is the idea. If 12 is the number of reps then the weight should be equal to that amount of movements.

"Toning" does not exist, it is merely the removal of body fat to show muscle that lies underneath.

Quote:
I also calculated your estimated caloric needs for weight loss. They sit around 1539 per day. You should get 192 grams of carbohydrates per day. Mostly coming from whole grains and dark green leafy vegetables to make sure you are getting enough fiber. 128 grams should come from protein. Try to get them from lean meats like chicken breast and fish. Plant proteins are good too. Eat red meat sparingly. Your fat intake should be about 28 grams per day. Try to stick with fats that are liquid at room temperature. These are mostly going to be plant fats. Animal fats will be solid at room teperature. I can send you a food journal that helps keep track of this stuff if you want to drop me an email.
The first thing that jumps out at me is the suggestion of 28 grams of fat a day. That is about 15% of her daily dietary calories coming from fat.
This is too low of a fat intake.

The caloric amount you are suggesting is far to low given for the activity she is suggesting. Double cardio sessions, weight training, pilates...I would recalculate again there fellow.

The red meat argument is old and tried. It has been proven over again and then some that the major source of problems is not of red meat itself but any meat with a high amount of saturated fat. Nothing wrong with someone having lean meat of anykind.

Quote:
. My advice is given because I want to help and nothing more and I will never discount the advice of anyone else in this forum. And if this all continues to be an issue i can discontinue my participation
One, this is the harsh truth section. We as professionals have a right to give it like it is, that is why we get our own section. You will find that for the most part we are a pretty nice lot. If your ego can't take the challenge then that is your issue. Prove your case if so desire, but we are not going to cry over you leaving, there is tons of support here. You though are more than welcome to be apart of it.

As for you case study...

I don't even know what that is. I would like to see the reference where you go this and what journal it was published in cause I have never seen a study written out like that before.

Not to mention what does that prove anyway. That Kate worked out? Did a bunch of machine isolated movements. No talk of the nutritional guidelines which are everything when it comes to fat loss. Nothing crazy about a 30 pound loss of a 6 month period of time, with honestly not that impressive changes in body composition.

This study also has nothing to do with the topic at hand either. My discussion to how to improve fat loss function while not achieving a decrease in metabolic or hormone function due to a too low caloric intake and too high of an energy output.

Let's take for a moment Lukewarms situation. Hell let's take one day of her training. I am going for this purpose choose her spinning+elliptical day. I can only go based on the information provided and a guess of how long and intense these sessions are. My guess will be somewhat educated at least in the basis of a average spin class at a local gym.

Lets say her BMR is roughly 1500.
Lets add basic activity or day to day life.
Too keep it on the real low side, we get 2000 calories.
Now lets add her workout. A spin class if it lasts for 45 mins at her size, will be on the low end 600-700 calories.
Then she goes and hopes on the elliptical. Lets say for only 20 mins. Burns maybe 150 calores.

Add it up we get 2850 calories is what she needs for this day. Now I am not saying that 1500 is dangerously low, but if you want to keep yourself, especially a female, a fat burning machine, your better off staying at a more moderate caloric decrease. Now of course these are estimates, but most underestimate the impact of a caloric deficit on a females hormones.

I urge you since you read journals to look into the work of Anne Loucks at the University of Ohio, some solid information there on thyroid function, metabolism and more. I recommend...


# Loucks, A.B., R.A. Brown, C.G. Campbell, L.K. Hilton, J.K. Lavery, and J.R. Thuma. Low energy availability disrupts luteinizing hormone (LH) pulsatility in regularly menstruating women, but not in men. 1998 Endocrine Society Meeting, Abstract #OR13-5.

# Loucks, A.B., L.K. Hilton, J.M. Slade, J.R. Thuma. An energy availability of 30 kcal/kg lbm/day does not disrupt luteinizing hormone (LH) pulsatility but does suppress insulin, leptin and T3 in regularly menstruating young women. 1999 Endocrine Society Meeting, Abstract #P3-342.

# Hilton, L.K., M. Verdun, R.A. Brown, J.R. Thuma, and A. B. Loucks. Leptin responses to acute exercise depend on carbohydrate availability. 2000 American College of Sports Medicine Meeting, Abstract #21.

# Loucks, A., L.K. Hilton, J.R. Thuma, E.R. Jopperi, A.L. Cornelius, K.A. Vamvas. An energy availability of 20 kcal/kgLBM/day disrupts luteinizing hormone (LH) pulsatility in regularly menstruating young women. 2000 Endocrine Society Meeting, Abstract #2282.
__________________

 

[theleip]

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrainerTodd View Post
I am currently looking at a case study done in 2004 where they discussed weight training and weight loss. This particular program was a circuit. This lady was already fit in terms of cardiovascular fitness, so she worked at a higher intensity for that. But here is a small segment of the article discussing the sets and reps
"Prior to our 1-hour training sessions, Kate warmed up for 10 minutes on a full-body elliptical cross trainer. Her routine then began with 3 minutes of running at 6.5 miles per hour on a treadmill at a 4 percent incline. Next, Kate performed a compound set of walking lunges and seated leg extensions for 2 minutes, completing three sets of 15 repetitions each."

WRANGELL WROTE


Well, could you please tell us what conclusion(s) - in your view - should be drawn from this 1 case study of 1 person ?

And, from a general perspective , how can you drawn any inferences / conclusions about any exercise protocol on the basis of only 1 person - this 1 lady ' Kate ' ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by TrainerTodd View Post
I also calculated your estimated caloric needs for weight loss. They sit around 1539 per day. You should get 192 grams of carbohydrates per day. Mostly coming from whole grains and dark green leafy vegetables to make sure you are getting enough fiber. 128 grams should come from protein. Try to get them from lean meats like chicken breast and fish. Plant proteins are good too. Eat red meat sparingly. Your fat intake should be about 28 grams per day. Try to stick with fats that are liquid at room temperature. These are mostly going to be plant fats. Animal fats will be solid at room teperature. I can send you a food journal that helps keep track of this stuff if you want to drop me an email.

WRANGELL WROTE


Curious - how did you come with the calc of ' 1539 calories per day ' and ' 128 grams from protein ' ?

And, why is fat only 16% of total daily calories- what is your rationale for that ? I thought fat is usually around 20%- 25%.

 

[theleip]

STEVE WROTE

Oh brother.

This is WHY I am not a trainer.

And Todd, even if your "science" showed something of substance.... science doe not create reality. It defines it.

Experience and results speak volumes.

 

[theleip]

TrainerTodd Wrote

This case study is just an example of one such example. This shows that Higher repetitions are generally used for fat loss. Although it does not illustrate the cardio end. This case study is one of many different studies that show the results of high repetition training. As for the cardio resaerch shows that that fat used as a fuel source is drectly related to your VO2 max, which is directly related to your heart rate. The higher percentage of your VO2 max you are working at the higher the percentage of carbohydrates that are used for fuel. If you work at a lower intensity (lower VO2 max percentage) the higher the percentage of fat is being used as a fuel source. So therefore the lower end heart rate burns more calories from the fat source, where higher end heart rates use carbohydrates. The idea is if you go longer period of time at a lower intensity you burn the same amount of calories, but there is a higher percentage coming from fat and not from your carbohydrate stores.

It is the same with weight training. Higher intensity burns more of the carbohydrates as aopposed to fat, which the higher repetions do. This is why body builders will train at high reps when they are trying to cut body fat before competition. The higher reps creat slow twitch muscle fibers which give that long lean look instead of a bulky large muscle. Fast twitch Grow quickly and use less oxygen to function.

As you become more conditioned you can work at a higher intensity and still keep your VO2 max in that range. In fact that is what you want to do as you progress so that you don't plateau as easily.

The caloie counts came from a formula I have that I got in my sports nutrition course, and is based on weight, gender, body fat percentage, and activity level, and a substraction of 500 calories for 1 pound per week. The grams comes from another equation where it tells me how many calories should come from each category and then I divide them buy their gram equivalent. eg 1 gram of carbs = 4 calories 1 gram of protein = 4 calories and 1 gram of fat = 9 calories.

So if you were to cut 500 calories a day from diet and burn 400 calories from walking and burn 400 calories from weight training about 3 days a week you should lose about 2 pounds per week, maybe a little more.

Again, this is not a good plan for building muscle mass or toning.

I am an exercise science major and if this information is not accurate I suppose I am just wasting my time in school, which I only have one year left. Also we have a 90% pass rate for those of us who sit in on the ACSM certification exams. The pass rate for the general public i believe is only 60%, I will have to double check on that though.

Finally, it was not the challenge it was the notion that I had no clue of what I was discussing. The Entry was only a small bit so that I would not take up a ton of space, and it came from the acedemic one file at Eastern Michigan University.
here is the citation
Case study: weight loss: a client finally sees results with a unique circuit training program.(Trainer). Jeff M. Reynolds.
IDEA Health & Fitness Source 22.4 (April 2004): p66(4). (1908 words)

NOt the best example but easily accessed to demonstrate the use if higher reps. It is fine if you do not personally believe in it, but please do not discount my knowledge because it is well founded with a solid education and I am very proud of that and I apologize if have offended any body in the process.

Also I did not necessarily say light weights. Ony what they could do for the given amount of weight. Preferably enough where they can't complete the last set. When they can then you add weight to keep the body adapting.

 

[theleip]

Tony Wrote

TT, the problem with your study is that it doesnt prove that higher reps are used for fat loss. It proves that exercise can lead to fat loss. Fat loss can come from high/moderate/low reps, doesnt really matter as long as you're expending more calories then you're consuming. I can take any person who has lost fat and say, "That program/diet works best for fat loss." Doesn't hold true because there are many different strategies. Please dont talk about bodybuilders when we are discussing general population. The two DO NOT coincide.

Are you saying that we should try to burn our fat stores over our carb stores? Boy I hope not.
__________________

 

[theleip]

Wrangell Wrote

This case study is just an example of one such example. This shows that Higher repetitions are generally used for fat loss. Although it does not illustrate the cardio end. This case study is one of many different studies that show the results of high repetition training. As for the cardio resaerch shows that that fat used as a fuel source is drectly related to your VO2 max, which is directly related to your heart rate. The higher percentage of your VO2 max you are working at the higher the percentage of carbohydrates that are used for fuel. If you work at a lower intensity (lower VO2 max percentage) the higher the percentage of fat is being used as a fuel source. So therefore the lower end heart rate burns more calories from the fat source, where higher end heart rates use carbohydrates. The idea is if you go longer period of time at a lower intensity you burn the same amount of calories, but there is a higher percentage coming from fat and not from your carbohydrate stores.

Lets see.....

a) You go at a low VO2 max for 60 minutes and burn 500 calories.

b) You go at a low VO2 max for 40 minutes and burn 500 calories.​

In theory, all other things being equal - over 7 days for example ( i.e creating a 3,500 calorie deficit ) - would a) & b) cause you lose a pound of fat at the same time / rate over 7 days ?

Or would one - a) or b) - be faster than the other - or no difference ?

It is the same with weight training. Higher intensity burns more of the carbohydrates as aopposed to fat, which the higher repetions do. This is why body builders will train at high reps when they are trying to cut body fat before competition..

Sorry, maybe it's me....but I'm getting a bit confused.

Are you saying if someone does 45 - 75 ( hi rep ) bicep curls vs 8 ( low rep ) bicep curls, that the 45+ curls are higher in intensity - and as a result - that this person will lose more fat ? More fat lost just in their arms ( doing the hi reps ) or more fat lost overall on their body ?

But, how does this ( bold above ) differ from the " High Reps leads to more definition / less body fat / getting cut " notion that is ( and has been for some time ) generally accepted in fitness literature as a ' MYTH ' ?

Better yet - how would you differentiate this high rep / cutting you've described from the ' Spot Reduction ' Myth ?

The higher reps creat slow twitch muscle fibers which give that long lean look instead of a bulky large muscle. Fast twitch Grow quickly and use less oxygen to function.

So, high reps can only give you ' long lean ' muscles whereas low reps lead to ' bulky large '.

Not sure exactly what you mean between ' long lean ' and ' bulky large ' muscles when it comes to reps - but I assume this is a reps / hypertrophy issue you're touching on and not the reps / fat loss issue you brought up ?

As you become more conditioned you can work at a higher intensity and still keep your VO2 max in that range. In fact that is what you want to do as you progress so that you don't plateau as easily.

The caloie counts came from a formula I have that I got in my sports nutrition course, and is based on weight, gender, body fat percentage, and activity level, and a substraction of 500 calories for 1 pound per week. The grams comes from another equation where it tells me how many calories should come from each category and then I divide them buy their gram equivalent. eg 1 gram of carbs = 4 calories 1 gram of protein = 4 calories and 1 gram of fat = 9 calories.

Curious, does this formula have a name / author ? Can I access it on-line ?

I am an exercise science major and if this information is not accurate I suppose I am just wasting my time in school, which I only have one year left. Also we have a 90% pass rate for those of us who sit in on the ACSM certification exams. The pass rate for the general public i believe is only 60%, I will have to double check on that though.

This line of argument you're taking, i.e .......

- I am an exercise science major
- we have a 90% pass rate
- The pass rate for the general public i believe is only 60%​

........is an example of a fallacious reasoning and not a good way to support your arguments IMO

Let's hope you're not in that 10% when you write your exam.

 

[theleip]

TrainerTodd Wrote

What I am saying is that the low intensity exercise (ie. less than 30% of your VO2) chooses fat as a fuel source more than carbohydrate. There is a 50/50 mix at about 40% of your vO2 max. High intenstity exercies (ie. 70% of your VO2 max) is mostly carbohydrate. I am going to give you a small part from this exercise physiology book discussing hormone activity that causes the increase of fat metabolism during low intensity exercise.

"What factors control the rate of fat metabolism during prolnonged exercise? Fat metabolism is regulated by those variables that control the rate of fat breakdown (a process called lypolysis). Tryglycerides are broken down into free fatty acids (FFAs) and glycerol by enzymes called lipases. These lipases are generally inactive until stimulated by hormones epinephrine, norepinephrine, and glucagon. For example, during, low-intensity. prolonged exercise blood levels of epinephrine rise, which increases ipase activity and thus promotes lyolysis."

On a side note given this information you also have to consider total energy used when it comes to fat loss. The best place for fat oxidation to occur is about 50% of VO2 max where carbyhdrate percentage is slightly higher than fat percentage. For those who do not know 50% VO2 max is just under the lactate threshold which is usually about 60% of VO2 max. Unless you are trained then this graph will slide to the right a little bit. The lactate threshold is when the level of blood lactate levels begin to rise because your body can't process it fast enough because your body is in anaerobic activity, such as running for most people and heavy weight lifting.

Repetitions of 70 would be ridiculous and reps of that amunt are shown to do nothing for you you. But sets up to 15 and some are now saying even 20, but I prefer 15.

Now to the calorie formula. you guys i am not too big of man to admit that you have discovered a flaw in the formula. The second one anyway (where i break dwn the grams). I don't know why I didn't realize this before but you are right. 15% is too little fat. I am going to have to use the second one now. It requires a little more work but is more accurate. The initial formula to get the actual calories is still good though. I have 2 different ones for that, but they both come out with relatively the same numbers. I don't know if it can be found online but if you want to email me I can send them to you so I don't take up any more room. I have cluttered this place up enough.

here is a good website to get a taste of this information out of this exercise physiology textbook. Exercise Physiology: Theory and Application to Fitness and Performance Information Center:. Although it does not have the actual text it does have flash cards and you can see some of the graphs and things that I am looking at, particularly graph figure 4.11 and 4.14 and 4.13.

Oh and I should do just fine on the exam. I have over a 3.0 GPA. I will also sit on the NSCA exam.

 

[theleip]

Tony Wrote

So the fat burning zone then?

 

[theleip]

TrainerTodd Wrote

60% - 70% of Max heart rate. I prefer to stay right around the 65% or 70% mark. Unless they are really new to exercise then I stay at the lower end.

I have a gentlemen I am using this technique with and he started out at 269 pounds he is now at 245 and it has been 8 weeks.

 

[theleip]

I wrote


TrainerTodd,

I certainly don't think you to be a moron, infact I am pleased as I see a lot of potential being that you can grasp somethings based on your study.

The principals and techniques that you are referring too are what everyone learns. Be it 4 years college or weekend warrior mail certification. Fat burning zones, high reps, toning, low calories etc...This is all the same information tossed out over and over again.

Can you lose weight based on this style of programing? Yes.

Is it optimal? No

That is the point that we are trying to make. Most college text book nutrition courses for both average person and sports nutrition base their calculations off of the my pyramid system and government recommendations. They are WAY behind the game right now and sadly so are most college texts.

Lets take the old fat burning zone for a spin.

Lets say that working at a lower intensity of 60-65% of max HR for 45mins you burn 300 calories all total.
You burn 3.80 fat calories per min. overall burning 171 calories of the 300 from fat. and 129 calories from carb/protein sources.

Total fat calories equals 171

Now lets say you do an interval session for 45 mins working between a HR of 65-85% of max heart rate.
You burn 550 calories total.
You burn 5.80 fat calories per min. overall burning 261 calories from fat and 289 calories from carbs/protein.

Total fat calories equals 261 calories

Yes you are burning more carbohydrate calories, but you are also burning more overall fat calories.

Not to mention if you are talking about a HIIT style of training not only do you see more overall fat calories burned in a shorter period of time, you are going to see a higher metabolic increase over a span of DAYS. With fat burning zone steady state cardio once you are done, your done.

This is just one example of the kind of training principals that some of us are aware of based on outside studying that will soon be inside knowledge and is to some places.

I highly recommend you checking out some really solid doctors, trainers, and resources as well as studies not just assigned to you.

Testosterone Nation (ignore the advertising and forum idiots, the articles make up for it)
EliteFTS - Powerlifting and Strength Training Products and Knowledge for Lifters, Athletes, Coaches, and Trainers
Dr. John Berardi, Ph.D.
Wanna be Big.com - The Ultimate Weight Training and Bodybuilding Resource
Bodyrecomposition - Lyle McDonald
The Science of Total Training

There are just to list a few.

Also check out the training forums at JPfitness.com

In the end there are all kinds of opinions and you could do what works best for you, however having a closed mind to training options that are what we field test, is not the best way to improve your knowledge.

We have seen and some have tried your way for years, its done, yeah it works alright, but if there are better methods, why not use them?

 

[theleip]

I have a gentlemen I am using this technique with and he started out at 269 pounds he is now at 245 and it has been 8 weeks.

You know after this statement I am thinking I was wrong in wasting my time on that last post.

Also use the edit button or I am going to be forced to combine your posts myself.

 

[theleip]

Trevor M. Wrote

One aspect your completely forgetting Tod. Is the process known as EPOC AKA Oxygen debt.

When one commits to exercising squarely in the aerobic zone, Where use of oxygen for the break down of glucose to pyruvate occurs instead of the transformation of latic acid, Such as in the anaerobic zone. The body is left with little reason to enhance the metabolic drive of the person. Meaning any practical increases in oxygen debt are not seen.

Lets not forget that the temporary enhancement in metabolism leads to a greater instance of calories, mostly from bodily lipid oxidation(lipolysis), up to 24-48 hours afterwards. And you mentioned epinephrine, apparently you forgot that epinephrine&norepinephrine levels are elevated in conjunction to increased oxygen debt.

And while technically yes you may burn a greater percentage of calories from fat while in the aerobic zone you are neglecting to factor in the actual number. A percentage line is a very misleading thing. For instance on a percentage line the % fat of calories I burn while typing higher then that I burn while training in a range of 50-55% of my Vo2m. Understand where I am going with this?

An hour spent in LISSC compared to what can be done in half the time with HISSC along with increased and prolonged oxygen debt and other factors I will not go into right now. Well, It shouldn't be hard to figure which is more time efficient and overall better.

 

[theleip]

TrainerTodd Wrote

You know you are right it not optimum for EVERYBODY, but I have found it works best for the "untrained", I would never use it on people who would be considered fit. I incorporate many different philosophies in my training, because that not all work the same for everybody. I am not against learning more. But this is the technique I use the most because I mostly deal with the untrained who are overweight or obese. And I have had very good results. If that changes I will re-evaluate, but right now I cannot argue with the results. Out of the 3 people I have used this on so far, the combined total pounds for them all is 61 pounds. Two of these are female and I just started with another female onthe same regimen, and I can't wait to see how she does on it. What I really like is that with this method my clients do not get stressed out about how hard it is and therefore they do not give up. Not to say that they would have anyways, but I have seen it. The athletes I work with are an entirely different story. I use an entirely different set up. And there is a lady I work with that wants to firm and I combine the two. The "toning" reps (I use quotations because you are right there is no such thing) but it is easier for clients to use this term. The reason I use those reps is because it combines the weight loss and a little of the hypertrophy to give that defined look. I also use interval cardio with her.

You will have EPOC when you exercise no matter what. The only difference is that it is a little longer with higher intensity. And I said the best place is about 50% of your VO2 max. That is just under the lactate threshold.

 

[theleip]

Trevor M. Wrote

The reason I use those reps is because it combines the weight loss and a little of the hypertrophy to give that defined look. I also use intercal cardio with her.

Hypertrophy comes from inducing stress on the IIAmg and IIBmf. Those rep ranges will not successfully induce the needed stress to inflict the needed trauma on these MF. Those rep ranges while using what you say "lighter weight" can not be considered Hypertrophic, atleast not to an optimum stand point.

You will have EPOC when you exercise no matter what. The only difference is that it is a little longer with higher intensity. And I said the best place is about 50% of your VO2 max. That is just under the lactate threshold.

The removal of lactate from the body through its conversion to pyruvate is one of the prime influences of the degree of oxygen debt. As I said, Without the production of lactate there is little affect in concern to EPOC.

So your statement that "you will have it no matter what" is completely flawed. Epoc is always in affect but its the degree at which it happens is what is important.

 

[theleip]

Epoc is always in affect but its the degree at which it happens is what is important.

Agreed, especially when I was discussing it over a period of days. Also studies have showed that when working in a 60-70% range of MR for a SS period your metabolic raise stops pretty much right after you do.

I would like to add a final note that if you know so much about clients and how to train them (be athlete or obese) then how come you assessment of this situation was so off base?

Also this is being moved, not erased though.

 

[theleip]

TrainerTodd Wrote

Ok I have had enough. you guys are right I know nothing, even though i am sitting here staring at the book published for 2007. That is not recent enough data. I am obviously not helpful in any way, so have a good day and good luck. I will continue to have success I am sure and I hope you will as well.

Besides I don't feel it was that far off except for the calories. I was just offering an alternative considering she was struggling with what was advised earlier. That is all. Nothing more. It never hurts to try something different. You know the principle of individual differences and all.

 

[corndogggy]

Damn, ol' Todd is going to go crawl up underneath a rock with his textbook after arguing with all of us.

 

[tonymcclellan]

Leigh you could've just moved the old posts.