Weight-Loss Effect of lowering carbs?

[Spinner19641]

I was eating a heavy wholegrain carb diet but about 3 months ago decided to lower carbs. I had read that it would even blood sugar levels and, if combined with a higher protein diet, build muscle while dropping fat. Concurrently I increased resistance training because I had the energy to do more.

The net effect seems to be:
- increased energy & workout performance
- increased muscle
- reduced fat
- a notable drop in size (1 -2 inches all over which is nearly a dress size)

I have subsequently spoken to someone who does triathlons and he told me that was normal but to maintain a level of carb because zero carb can affect absorption of some vitamins. I do eat some carb every day (in vegetables, sushi, some pastry, etc but much less than I was) plus I am not overly disciplined.

My questions are:
- can I eat this way indefinitely?
- will I stop losing weight (because I don't want to lose any more weight - at 5ft 9 I am a UK 8 - 10 but I want to be athletic, not skinny)?

BTW, I always eat around 1,800 - 2,200 calories per day - I'm sloppy with the counting but I eat when I am hungry and until I am full at least 3 times a day plus snacks.

 

[Steve]

I was eating a heavy wholegrain carb diet but about 3 months ago decided to lower carbs.

Define heavy and lower.

I had read that it would even blood sugar levels and, if combined with a higher protein diet, build muscle while dropping fat.

A calorie deficit leads to a reduction in fat. Not lower carbs. Now if lowering your carbs puts you into a calorie deficit, then you're on to something.

And no, you're not going to build appreciable muscle in a calorie deficit. That's just not how our physiology works.

Concurrently I increased resistance training because I had the energy to do more.

Lowering carbs gave you more energy?

The net effect seems to be:
- increased energy & workout performance
- increased muscle
- reduced fat
- a notable drop in size (1 -2 inches all over which is nearly a dress size)

Congrats.

Typically lowering carbs tends to drop people's energy at first. But that's great it had the reverse effect on you.

As far as increased muscle... how are you measuring said increase?

As far as reduced fat, correlation is not equal to causation. Lowering your carbs and bumping up your protein intake, if anything, most likely controlled your calories better. High carb foods are generally much easier to over consume. Couple this with the increased protein consumption, which is the most satiating nutrient (meaning harder to over consume) and has the highest thermic effect in terms of digestion and utilization, and you have a recipe for a reduction in body fat.

So generally it's not the carbs per se... it's the indirect factors.

I'll couch this by noting that some people most certainly do fare better on lowered carbs - these are generally the insulin resistant folks. But this certainly doesn't apply to everyone.

- can I eat this way indefinitely?

Do you know how many calories per day you're consuming? How about how many grams of protein, carbs and fats per day?

Nobody can answer this question for you.

Rigid, restrictive diets that minimize or cut out entirely entire food groups (such as carbs) tend not to do so well for most folks in the long run in terms of compliance. A more balanced approach fares better in general.

That said, I personally know a number of long-long low carbers.

- will I stop losing weight (because I don't want to lose any more weight - at 5ft 9 I am a UK 8 - 10 but I want to be athletic, not skinny)?

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If you want to stop losing weight, you need to make sure calories are at maintenance. Or a surplus if you'd like to gain some weight.

BTW, I always eat around 1,800 - 2,200 calories per day - I'm sloppy with the counting but I eat when I am hungry and until I am full at least 3 times a day plus snacks.

What's your weight?

 

[Spinner19641]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post in such detail. I am not as competent at using the 'quotes' but I will try and answer your questions in the text.

Define heavy and lower.

I was eating 2 bowls of wholegrain rice with meat and vegetables 5 days a week (the other days varied) but I didn't get around to eating much else because that kept me full for 6 hours!

A calorie deficit leads to a reduction in fat. Not lower carbs. Now if lowering your carbs puts you into a calorie deficit, then you're on to something.

It is possible I was eating a lot more calories on the high carb diet.

And no, you're not going to build appreciable muscle in a calorie deficit. That's just not how our physiology works.



Lowering carbs gave you more energy?

Congrats.

Typically lowering carbs tends to drop people's energy at first. But that's great it had the reverse effect on you.

Initially no it did not - in fact I felt exhausted for about 7 - 10 days but that passed and then I had more even energy throughout a day than before. Probably the large carb meals were not doing me any good.

As far as increased muscle... how are you measuring said increase?

Mostly I can detect it in the arms/shoulders. I did increase the upper body resistance and my arms are definitely bigger and my thighs/legs/ab have more definition but that could be due to fat loss (?).

As far as reduced fat, correlation is not equal to causation. Lowering your carbs and bumping up your protein intake, if anything, most likely controlled your calories better. High carb foods are generally much easier to over consume. Couple this with the increased protein consumption, which is the most satiating nutrient (meaning harder to over consume) and has the highest thermic effect in terms of digestion and utilization, and you have a recipe for a reduction in body fat.

So generally it's not the carbs per se... it's the indirect factors.

That makes sense. I eat until I have had enough and that could be less calories than previously. I have wondered that myself. Maybe I cut calories without realising it.

I'll couch this by noting that some people most certainly do fare better on lowered carbs - these are generally the insulin resistant folks. But this certainly doesn't apply to everyone.

I don't know if I am insulin resistant or not. I do know that sugar makes me gain weight rapidly and if I keep eating it eventually I start to feel fatigued so I don't eat processed sugars.

Do you know how many calories per day you're consuming? How about how many grams of protein, carbs and fats per day?

Nobody can answer this question for you.

Rigid, restrictive diets that minimize or cut out entirely entire food groups (such as carbs) tend not to do so well for most folks in the long run in terms of compliance. A more balanced approach fares better in general.

That said, I personally know a number of long-long low carbers.

I don't measure my food intake that rigidly but I do eat a mix of food - dairy (mostly milk), vegetables, fruit, meat, fish, olive oils, nuts, carb (i.e. potatoes, carrots, beans and some bread/pastry/rice but not much of that.

I'm not sure I understand the question.

If you want to stop losing weight, you need to make sure calories are at maintenance. Or a surplus if you'd like to gain some weight.



What's your weight?

I don't know because I don't weigh myself anymore (not for 10 years now) but based on my measurements and what I weighed when I was this size in the past I must be between 130 - 140 pounds - which I am perfectly happy with given my height.

I just wanted to know if there was any problem with this approach and, given I have lost weight, whether this will level out now. Don't get me wrong, if it doesn't work for me then I'll add some carb back in. I was just trying it out and was surprised by the results and have been asking a few people what their take on this is.
Again, thank you for your response.

 

[Steve]

Firstly, thank you for taking the time to respond to my post in such detail. I am not as competent at using the 'quotes' but I will try and answer your questions in the text.

You're welcome. And I fixed your quotes for ya.

It is possible I was eating a lot more calories on the high carb diet.

Possible and probable. For those reading this though, that's not to be taken as lower carb approaches always lead to better control of calories.

Mostly I can detect it in the arms/shoulders. I did increase the upper body resistance and my arms are definitely bigger and my thighs/legs/ab have more definition but that could be due to fat loss (?).

More often than not people confuse leaning out with muscle gain. It's an optical illusion, really. I'm currently 200 lbs and 13% or so body fat. Last year I was 172 and 7-8% body fat. I looked much larger at 172 due to the illusion being lean provides.

It should also be noted that increased strength does not always mean increased muscle. In fact, early on in a "program" strength gains are almost always neurologically derived. Put simply, your brain and body learns to be stronger without a corresponding increase in muscle mass.

I'll note that I've trained a lot of people and muscle gain while dieting does in fact happen more often than what the literature would lead you to believe. But it's short lived and isn't very appreciable. And it tends to happen more so in un/detrained people who are fat.

Hypertrophy (muscle building) is a very intensive process, energetically speaking. If you don't have adequate energy coming in the door to maintain the tissues you currently have (which is default by definition if you're dieting), then your body isn't going to make matters worse by adding a lot of metabolically expensive tissue such as muscle.

That makes sense. I eat until I have had enough and that could be less calories than previously. I have wondered that myself. Maybe I cut calories without realising it.

Almost certainly.

You removed (for the most part) an entire food group. There are only three macronutrients that provide our bodies calories - protein, carbs and fats at 4, 4, and 9 calories per gram respectively. Some would lump alcohol into the mix too, which provides 7 calories per gram.

When you remove one of those, you're almost certain to drop calories. Not always, but you get the point.

Especially when you accompany this change by eating more protein for reasons I noted in my previous post.

I don't know if I am insulin resistant or not. I do know that sugar makes me gain weight rapidly and if I keep eating it eventually I start to feel fatigued so I don't eat processed sugars.

It only makes you gain weight rapidly if you're eating too much of it. You can't create something out of nothing. If you're in a calorie deficit, yet eating nothing but sugar, in the grand scheme you're not going to be gaining weight.

Granted, in the short run you might gain "weight" from water retention, but that's not really gaining weight.

Don't confuse what I'm saying as so many are akin to do by thinking I mean calories are the only thing that matters. Of course 2000 calories from coco puffs and gummy bears are going to net substantially different results in terms of body composition and health than are 2000 calories from chicken breast and broccoli.

Nutrient composition certainly matters.

But calories are the ultimate arbiter as far as weight gain or loss goes. You can't gain weight unless there's adequate energy coming in the door that extends beyond your needs (BMR, nutrient digestion and utilization, and activity) regardless of what sort of foods you're eating.

I just wanted to know if there was any problem with this approach and, given I have lost weight, whether this will level out now.

I have no problem with your loose approach to the numbers. That's how I roll too.

As long as you're getting in a hefty dose of protein (which is the only thing I personally monitor - 1 gram per pound of lean body mass), a nice chunk of fats coming primarily from healthy sources (fish, fish oil, flax, olive oil, nuts, avocados, etc), 4-7 servings of fibrous veggies per day, and 1-3 servings of fruit per day... all is well.

Will your weight level out? We can't really say because we don't know your weight and how many calories you're consuming. But time will tell. If it doesn't, sticking with the loose approach, you know you need to bump up your food intake. That's all. This is a process of adjusting what you're eating based on the reactions your body is giving you.

Caloric needs are mostly based on your weight. So in theory, as weight falls, caloric needs fall.

So if you initially needed 2500 calories per day to maintain your weight, for example, and you lost weight by eating 2000 calories per day.... eventually your body would level off losses b/c your maintenance it trending lower toward 2000 rather than 2500. Follow me there?

 

[Spinner19641]

That is very informative and interesting (& thank you for fixing my quotes).

Leaning out vs muscle gain
Given I don't have any way to measure my muscles I agree I could have leaned out. Bit disappointed by that because I was trying to build my upper body. I am training to ride a MT350 (160kg, heavy ex Army bike) and I need the upper body strength or the damned thing could crush me to death! Do I need to up my protein?

Removing a food group
I don't believe in doing that (I don't consider processed sugar (or alcohol) a food group & that is the only one I have removed & even then it does turn up in some healthy versions of condiments which I will eat). But I think you are saying I might need to up the calorie intake by way of protein if I want to build some muscle rather than just lean down?

Calories in/Calories out
Okay, that makes sense. When I ate processed sugar I ate everything else as well. Cut the sugar - cut the calories. Cut the calories - lose weight - less fatigue. That makes perfect sense.

Diet advice
In the diet you advise you do not suggest carbs - or am I missing something? The diet you list there is what I do eat (except for flax - not sure what that is & avocadoes which I eat in summer but it's getting cold here so I am moving to warm winter foods).

Summary
So, I think you're telling me:
- I unintentionally cut calories & that's why I lost weight
- I cannot build muscle if I am losing weight because I am in calorie deficit
- If I want to build muscle I need to up my calories
- I can up the calories by increasing protein (and/or carb?)
- Increasing the protein (combined with resistance training) will increase my muscle
- Increasing calories will also halt any further weight loss
- Otherwise the lower carb diet is okay

If that is all correct I have one final question.

To build muscle do I need to increase my carb intake as well as my protein intake.

I know I have added building muscle to the equation but I honestly thought I had done that. But if you're saying I probably haven't then I'd like to know what I need to do. Otherwise I am doing pointless weight work and that's annoying! Plus I genuinely need some more strength for that bike.

 

[Steve]

Leaning out vs muscle gain
Given I don't have any way to measure my muscles I agree I could have leaned out. Bit disappointed by that because I was trying to build my upper body. I am training to ride a MT350 (160kg, heavy ex Army bike) and I need the upper body strength or the damned thing could crush me to death!

Be sure to reread what I typed about strength gain above.

Actually, I'll repeat it to drive the point home - increasing strength isn't always a process of increasing muscle. Put differently, you can very well gain strength without increasing muscle.

Strength is a manifestation of many factors, not the least of which are neurological. Your nervous system sends electrical impulses from the central nervous system, through the periphery (PNS), to the muscles causing them to contract, creating tension in the muscles, and thus exerting force against some external object (a barbell, a player on the field, your body weight, a key on a keyboard, etc.)

Your nervous system, via strength training, becomes more efficient and effective in a nutshell. It sends more frequent electrical impulses. Each impulse recruits (stimulates) more muscle. There's improved co-contraction, synchronization, reflex potentiation, etc - all things that work to make you stronger without necessarily getting bigger muscles.

Do I need to up my protein?

To get bigger muscles? Couple things...

1. I don't know since I don't know how many grams of protein you're getting now. If you're going to track something, this is what you should be tracking.

2. Even if you were tracking, you can't cause anymore muscle growth via increased protein consumption in the face of a calorie deficit. Protein requirements do in fact go up while dieting... but that's more for muscle maintenance than it is for muscle growth. Remember, caloric state is the arbiter of whether you're gaining or losing new tissue.

Tissue growth requires nutritive support in the form of adequate calories and when you're dieting... they're short changed.

Removing a food group
I don't believe in doing that (I don't consider processed sugar (or alcohol) a food group & that is the only one I have removed & even then it does turn up in some healthy versions of condiments which I will eat).

All carbs wind up being glucose in your blood.

But yeah, I think it's a solid argument to remove as much processed crap from a diet as possible. I have a sweet tooth, personally. I also believe that genetics are the final arbiter of health and longevity.... so having some processed crap here and there, especially when they're on top of an already solid and balanced diet, aren't going to make one lick of a difference.

But I think you are saying I might need to up the calorie intake by way of protein if I want to build some muscle rather than just lean down?

Possibly, but I can't say for sure since a) I don't know how many calories you're eating, I don't know how many grams of protein you're eating, and most importantly c) I'm not exactly sure what your goals are.

Everyone wants to be muscular and lean. Yet, these are, for the most part, competing factors. By that, I mean you can't obtain them both at the same time unless you're extremely blessed in the genetics department or you're using drugs.

If you look at my pictures, my physique, which isn't the greatest but one many would probably be happy with, is the product of many, many cycles of dieting fat off alternated with many cycles of adding muscle. The former consisted of eating in a calorie deficit and the latter consisted of eating in a caloric surplus. There were other differences as well, nutritionally and on the exercise front... but calories were the main difference.

Granted, I could have simply dieted down, done what I could to preserve the muscle I had, and wherever that left me in terms of physique was wherever.

Genetically though I don't carry a lot of muscle. So when I first dieted down, I looked frail and skinny. My body fat was low and I was lean... but I certainly wasn't happy.

Over a lot of years of being in this business... I can say most people want "more" once they reach their goal weight. And unfortunately, as a society, we're so hooked on dieting that most people think "the magic" lies in more dieting. If they push their fat levels further, they'll somehow magically wind up looking like the bodies that plague the covers of all the popular magazines.

And that's not the case. That actually winds up causing more problems, if anything. Problems with hormones, psychology, etc.

In truth, to obtain the look that most of us are shooting for... we need to ditch the emphasis on weight (which you have, congrats) and focus on modifying our approach overtime to our current needs. Understanding that our needs are constantly evolving is a huge part of the disconnect most people are dealing with.

In your particular case, it becomes a matter of what you're thinking when you look at your reflection in the mirror. If you think you still look soft and not overly skinny (mind you, you can be both - which is what many call skinny fat), then I'd say to continue dieting down.

If you are soft looking but skinny, you need to add muscle. And if that's the case, you need more calories coming in the door than leaving. Of course how you're training matters a lot too... but that's beyond the scope here.

Diet advice
In the diet you advise you do not suggest carbs - or am I missing something? The diet you list there is what I do eat (except for flax - not sure what that is & avocadoes which I eat in summer but it's getting cold here so I am moving to warm winter foods).

What I listed are the essentials. As long as your diet has that and calories are controlled for your goal... the other things you eat aren't likely to make a lick of difference in terms of physique.

Take me for instance...

My calorie goal is 3000 per day.

1 gram protein = 4 calories

1 gram carb = 4 calories

1 gram fat = 9 calories

My protein goal is 170 grams. That's 680 calories, leaving me with 2300ish calories to fill of my original 3000.

I like about 30% of my calories to be coming from fat. That's 900 calories or 100 grams. This leaves me 1400 calories to fill.

I shoot for 5 servings of veggies per day. Suppose each serving of veggies has 30 calories, that puts me at 150 calories, leaving me 1250ish to fill.

I shoot for 4 servings of veggies per day. Suppose each serving has 60 or so calories, that's 240 calories, leaving me with about 1,000 calories to play with.

My "room to wiggle" is much larger than most folks around here because most around here under eat and/or are dieting. But whatever your "wiggle room" is after the essentials are accounted for is where freedom of choice really comes into play.

For me, personally, I fill it with whatever I want. I can be lean and eat pretty much whatever just as long as I have the essentials covered. Others who might be insulin resistance, for instance, might want to be more selective with their "wiggle room" calories.

- I unintentionally cut calories & that's why I lost weight

That's how all diets "work."

They directly or indirectly get you to control calories. Carbophobes love claiming that it's the low carbs that make them lose weight when they forget:

1. Water weight losses accompany the initiation of low carb dieting

2. Cutting carbs almost always accompanies an increase in protein, which is the most satiating nutrient.

3. Along with #2, protein also has the highest thermic effect out of the nutrients, meaning it requires the most energy to breakdown and utilize. Thus, it carries a slight metabolic rate increase.

 

[Steve]

- I cannot build muscle if I am losing weight because I am in calorie deficit

For the most part. With fat beginners, some crazy voodoo can happen where muscle is gained while dieting. But it's always short lived. The organism that we are, as humans, wouldn't have survived very long if we built huge muscles while starving.

The further you move away from this subset of the population (fat beginners) the least likely it is you're going to add muscle while dieting.

- If I want to build muscle I need to up my calories

If you've been losing weight, that means you've been eating less calories than your body needs. Which means, yes, if you'd like to add muscle now, you should eat more.

- I can up the calories by increasing protein (and/or carb?)

You can up your calories eating whatever you'd like. I can't tell you what I'd recommend since I don't know what you're eating in terms of nutrient amounts.

- Increasing the protein (combined with resistance training) will increase my muscle

I can't tell you to increase or decrease protein consumption as I don't know how much you're currently eating. I can tell you that protein requirements actually go down as calories go up.

But that's assuming you were eating enough while calories were down.

A general rule of thumb is 1 gram of protein per pound of lean body mass. Most don't know their LBM so it's an estimate. We're ballparking here anyhow.

- Increasing calories will also halt any further weight loss

Without a doubt, assuming you increase them enough to reach maintenance or surplus levels.

When you move into a surplus to build muscle, it's important to note that some fat will also be gained.

- Otherwise the lower carb diet is okay

Sure, for some folks.

To build muscle do I need to increase my carb intake as well as my protein intake.

Haha, sorry, not laughing at you... just laughing at the fact that I could have answered at least 50% of your questions with "I don't know."

You're asking for specific recommendations yet you don't specifically track your diet. That's like me asking you, "Do I need more oil in my engine? I put some in. I'm not sure how much. And I haven't measured with the dipstick."

I can tell you that personally, I've found higher carb intakes to be beneficial for muscle growth. "Higher" though is very vague.

I know I have added building muscle to the equation but I honestly thought I had done that. But if you're saying I probably haven't then I'd like to know what I need to do. Otherwise I am doing pointless weight work and that's annoying! Plus I genuinely need some more strength for that bike.

Just because it's not likely to build appreciable muscle while dieting doesn't mean weight training is worthless. Quite the contrary. First and foremost it provides one of the strongest incentives to preserve muscle while dieting. Most folks reach their goal weights and dislike what they see in the mirrors because they didn't concern themselves with muscle preservation - as long as the scale was going down they were happy.

It also helps to increase strength, as I noted above.

It also carries along with it a ton of health benefits.

Definitely not "pointless."

 

[Spinner19641]

Wow Steve! Thank you for such a comprehensive explanation and trying to get it down to a basic level I can understand.

Muscle vs Strength
I didn't know strength was neurological. Good to know. I will stop worrying about the size of my muscles and more on the weights I can manage and my endurance.

Protein intake
I don't know how to explain the amount of protein I eat but I do know it is more than we are told to eat. You know, the equivalent of the size of the palm of your hand per meal. I would eat twice that each meal in 2 meals a day plus nuts and milk. So I think I eat a lot of protein.

Eating around the edges
Yes, I have found eating a little of what you like does not make 'one lick of difference'. And I do eat sugary treats (baklava!) from time to time but I don't do it often and it never seems to make any difference.

My goals?
Good question. I started this diet and exercise programme over 3 years ago. Originally I wanted to get fitter, trim down a little and tone up a lot and I achieved that quite awhile ago. Now I'm not sure what I'm doing other than maintaining but I do want to be a bit stronger and it would be nice to have a little more muscle 'pop' (I am not targeting your level of muscle 'pop'!).

I don't think I can afford to lose much more weight. I might be a bit annoyed about where my body puts my fat levels but I look lean and my exercise programme is 6 days a week for 1.5 hours per day which includes resistance - and I really enjoy my workout so I do them properly & increase performance when I am able. I am definitely not skinny fat.

Future diet
I know I am not providing enough information - sorry but I don't track what I eat that way. I hate being hungry. So, I eat a healthy diet, eat when I am hungry and eat until I am full. I keep an eye on what I eat - not how much I eat.

Usually I eat 2 large vegetable & meat dishes (lightly stir fried in olive oils) per day plus 1 - 4 pieces of fruit plus 3 - 5 good sized handfuls of unsalted nuts plus at least half a litre of skimmed milk, maybe a little dried fruit plus I eat around the edges. I also take some vitamin supplements including fish oil.

But based on your posts I am already adding back some more vegetable based carb and will be more disciplined about eating regularly.

Hmm...
This has been a very useful and educational conversation and I appreciate your time and effort.

I've read a lot about cutting carb so I thought I'd try it. I didn't know what to make of the results so I have been asking people. I also couldn't understand why I lost weight but I didn't want to keep losing weight. And I wasn't sure of the long term impacts of a lower carb diet. To be honest, I was surprised to get any obvious results.

But...
- It's good to know the basis of my diet is fine.
- I will add back some vegetable carb - that's good because I have wanted a bit more potato, carrots, etc.
- I am very pleased I don't need to get bulky muscle to be stronger.
- I think I am eating enough protein but I will continue to be generous with it (because of the 'diet' advice I have read I have always wondered if I was eating too much protein but I didn't like to ask because I didn't want to have to give it up).
- As for muscle 'pop' - guess I'll have to pump more iron then!

Thank you. That has been incredibly useful.

 

[Steve]

Wow Steve! Thank you for such a comprehensive explanation and trying to get it down to a basic level I can understand.

My pleasure. Glad you're able to take something away from the exchange!

Protein intake
I don't know how to explain the amount of protein I eat but I do know it is more than we are told to eat. You know, the equivalent of the size of the palm of your hand per meal. I would eat twice that each meal in 2 meals a day plus nuts and milk. So I think I eat a lot of protein.

If by "what we are told to eat" you're talking about what the governmental agencies suggest... I'd argue they're far too conservative - especially in the context of active people.

Think of it like this.

My protein sources today will include:

A smoothie with milk, yogurt, protein powder, peanut butter among other things.

A protein shake in water and a serving of sunflower seeds.

4 ounces of pork tenderloin and one serving of almonds.

4 ounces of chicken breast and yogurt.

Tuna.

And probably one more helping before bed.

Granted, my needs are higher than yours, but you get the idea.

Each ounce of meat has about 7 grams of protein in general. So 3 ounces of meat, which might be the equivalent of a deck of playing cards, has approximately 21 grams or protein.

Now compare that to what I'm suggesting - 1 gram per pound of lean body mass. Or, in your particular case you could do 1 gram per pound of total body weight.

Eating around the edges
Yes, I have found eating a little of what you like does not make 'one lick of difference'. And I do eat sugary treats (baklava!) from time to time but I don't do it often and it never seems to make any difference.

I'm always amused by folks who "cheat" and expect some massive difference in terms of fat mass. They say things like, "I'm afraid to step on the scale tomorrow!"

But let's apply some logic to this.

There are approximately 3500 calories in one pound of fat.

That means a cheat meal would have to consist of 3500 calories to cause 1 pound of fat gain on top of your maintenance calories already being consumed.

Let's put 3500 calories into McDonalds speak.

Big Mac - 570 calories
Large Fries - 540 cals
A large Coke - 310 cals
9 piece Chicken Nugget - 430 cals
3 chocolate chip cookies - 510 cals
A vanilla milk shake - 360 cals

Feeling sick yet?

Yea? Well we're only at 2720 calories.

Add to this...

2.5 cheese burgers and you'd be right around the 3500 calorie mark.

Mind you, in order to gain one pound of fat from a cheat meal, in theory, you'd have to eat 3500 calories on top of your maintenance calories. So if your maintenance calories are right around 2500... you'd have to eat your days worth of calories plus the meal outlined above in order to gain one pound in your day.

Overweight and obesity happens over long continuums of time of slight mismatches in energy intake vs. expenditure. People don't typically balloon up overnight. They gain weight gradually and steadily over years.

I realize this doesn't necessarily apply to you... it's simply on topic regarding what you said about eating "off plan" not really having an impact. Again, it's always amusing to me when someone gets bent out of shape about one single meal and how it will impact fat levels.

My goals?
Good question. I started this diet and exercise programme over 3 years ago. Originally I wanted to get fitter, trim down a little and tone up a lot and I achieved that quite awhile ago. Now I'm not sure what I'm doing other than maintaining but I do want to be a bit stronger and it would be nice to have a little more muscle 'pop' (I am not targeting your level of muscle 'pop'!).

If that's the case, I'd focus on setting up a proper strength training routine which I've talked about quite a bit around this forum in the stickies and on my own forum.

I'd also bump calories to 500 over maintenance. You don't track calories... so I'd focus on bumping food intake up gradually over time and tracking weight and measurements. Ideally you're gaining 1-2 pounds per month.

 

[Spinner19641]

I am about to bolt out the door but I just saw your post and you have hit on a couple of subjects I have always wondered about. You have a knack for that!

Protein shakes
I know people who swear by protein shakes but they can't explain why so I haven't really understood why. What is the benefit of using a protein shake vs getting your protein from food? Is it simply a concentrated way of getting protein (with less fat?) or does it have some other 'magical' advantage I don't know about?

Relieved re your protein advice!
Curse the government agencies! I have actually fretted that maybe I overdo protein but I also quite like a night time protein snack (nuts or peanut butter).

Cheat meals?
I have heard (no doubt you will have a scientific explanation) that when people consume large quantities in a single sitting/day that much of it passes through the system largely undigested hence why the calorie intake has less effect. I don't know if that's true but I do know that eating a few so called cheat meals can keep my appetite up.

Cross fit?
I have some cross fit capability in my home gym - bench, weight bars, pull up bar, punching bag, various dumbells and mats plus usual cardio equipment (spinner bikes (I have 2), treadmill, rower).

What is your view of cross fit vs pure weight training. I can do both or either. Right now I do a lot of core work and dumbells but I could extend easily as I have a full range of weights.

But I have toyed with the idea of a cross fit programme.

Website?
Do you mean this one or do you have another?

And yes, I have read some of your posts on training. Very detailed re movements which is handy as I don't go to a public gym often.

Calorie increase
Yes but I need to be more disciplined about eating. I do find the diet a bit dull so motivation to eat can lapse a little. But the muscle/tone I have was hard won and I have no intention of giving it up so eating needs as much priority as working out.

Once again, thank you! I've talked to a lot of military trainers and fitness devotees over the years but this has been the most informative discussion I've had!

 

[Steve]

Protein shakes
I know people who swear by protein shakes but they can't explain why so I haven't really understood why. What is the benefit of using a protein shake vs getting your protein from food? Is it simply a concentrated way of getting protein (with less fat?) or does it have some other 'magical' advantage I don't know about?

Nope, nothing magical at all. I use them for their portability and concentration. My protein goal is always somewhere around 170-200 grams per day. That's way too much damn meat to be eating to get me up that high.

The powders are easier and cheaper.

Though I love my meat. I just use powder in conjunction with my whole foods to get me to my target.

If you're able to obtain all of your protein needs without them, they're totally unnecessary.

Relieved re your protein advice!
Curse the government agencies! I have actually fretted that maybe I overdo protein but I also quite like a night time protein snack (nuts or peanut butter).

Nah, unless you have some sort of medical condition that contraindicates higher protein intakes... I wouldn't sweat it one bit.

Don't forget, there are only 3 macronutrients to choose from. If protein intake is way low, you're going to be loading up on carbs and fats. I always throw that logic at folks crying the high protein = danger argument. And they're usually sitting there saying, "Oh, yea... I didn't think about that."

Just make sure you're eating plenty of veggies as well.

Cheat meals?
I have heard (no doubt you will have a scientific explanation) that when people consume large quantities in a single sitting/day that much of it passes through the system largely undigested hence why the calorie intake has less effect. I don't know if that's true but I do know that eating a few so called cheat meals can keep my appetite up.

Nah, for the most part large meals simply take longer to digest. This is where the whole Eat Six Meals Per Day dogma was born.

When you eat, your body expends energy to breakdown and utilize the food. This is known as the thermic effect of feeding and is one facet of our total energy expenditure per day.

People took this to mean, "eat more frequently to get more TEF throughout the day and thus expend more energy each day. Presto, faster metabolism."

Unfortunately, that's not the case.

2000 calories spread over 3 vs 6 meals will yield the same results in terms of metabolic rate. It's just the 3 meals per day will have higher TEFs per meal where the 6 meals per day will have smaller, yet more frequent TEFs per day.

It's a net wash.

Cross fit?
I have some cross fit capability in my home gym - bench, weight bars, pull up bar, punching bag, various dumbells and mats plus usual cardio equipment (spinner bikes (I have 2), treadmill, rower).

What is your view of cross fit vs pure weight training. I can do both or either. Right now I do a lot of core work and dumbells but I could extend easily as I have a full range of weights.

But I have toyed with the idea of a cross fit programme.

Are you talking about crossfit... from

If so, I have a lot to say about it.

Or are you simply talking about cross training, meaning using multiple modalities at once?

Website?
Do you mean this one or do you have another?

This isn't my site. I'm just a member here. My site can be found in the link in my sig.

Once again, thank you! I've talked to a lot of military trainers and fitness devotees over the years but this has been the most informative discussion I've had!

I appreciate you saying so. I've been in this field for a decade now, I'm proud to say. And it's not the length of time that matters, but it's the fact that I've truly dedicated myself to being a student first and a professional second. I'm glad you're learning new stuff.

 

[Spinner19641]

Thank you for your explanations.

I won't bother with protein shakes then - I prefer a steak and my protein needs are much lower anyway.

Crossfit.com
I am a member of that site and I studied it earlier this year to understand the basics. It was all a little intimidating for a beginner but I have heard that it yields excellent fitness results.

I went through a lot of the training specific threads (where they post a lot of video links to demonstrate exercises). I also looked into the 'garage gym' which is why I have some of the kit they talk about (but I don't have a tyre to flip about!).

They do have cross fit trainers in the UK but I can't commit to being somewhere at a specific time like that (work demands).

So, I am not sure whether to increase my weight work or try another style of programme like cross fit. And, if I do take on cross fit, what to do with my current programme (which I enjoy). Or maybe I could incorporate some of what I do daily now and have 2 days cross fit. Or should I keep my current workout but increase the weight work.

I have been puzzling about this for 6 months now.

Goals???!!!
You're probably gonna ask me what my goal is! And I don't know. I only took up working out 10 years ago and it is not my day job. For 7 years I worked out for 6 months, stopped for 6 months, start again for 6 months until mid 2007 I commited to not stopping my gym programme - to keep going no matter what and I have for just over 3 years now.

I started with a mini trampoline (& promptly injured myself), a treadmill and a huge multi gym machine (which I ditched because I found the restrictive movement boring & I am told working with free weights is better for the core) and have progressed from there. I just keep feeling my way and seeing what I might be able to do next.

These days I spin a lot on my feet, fast & to high resistance for an hour, run, do a lot of core work and now upper body weights. I have a gym that can do more but I'm not sure what to do next.

BUT, I do have a very demanding job so whatever I do gym-wise I must not get deeply fatigued so I have paced each step up rather than go ballistic (would love to but I run my own business and my team & clients need me to be alert and sane - well, sane-ish!).

Sig???
I can't see any 'sig' for you but I am interested in looking at your site. Is it against the rules to put it in a post?

Your advice
You've been in this field for 10 years? I assume you are a fitness trainer? Well, I've met a few in person and on forums. I can't handle the one-upping or the fanatical or the bullies - I need to understand - once I understand something I can get on board with it.

I don't have a problem with not knowing something. I am happy to learn but I don't like being yelled at or dumped on (in person or by forum).

Your style is great. Your explanations are clear and you are incredibly patient. I appreciate that. I can tell you want people to understand and I'm like that too so thanks again.

And your views on cross fit would be appreciated as well.

 

[tc57]

I just want to jump is and say also that Steve you are great. The way you explain things is fantastic to us who need to learn and understand nutrition and weight loss. And can have it broken down into terms that we can understand.

I loved the way you explained your "wiggle room" I know most everyone who comes here is wanting to learn how to lose weight, but I think the thing that is most important and a lot don't realize is the true secret to weight loss is learning to maintain as you go along. After many years of up and down, and losing control I now have finally learned how to maintain.

I have been to quite a few forums and talked with quite a few people in person, but you Steve have earned my respect just from reading your posts. You have helped me and I appreciate it! So I wanted to say thank you.

 

[Steve]

Crossfit.com
I am a member of that site and I studied it earlier this year to understand the basics. It was all a little intimidating for a beginner but I have heard that it yields excellent fitness results.

I went through a lot of the training specific threads (where they post a lot of video links to demonstrate exercises). I also looked into the 'garage gym' which is why I have some of the kit they talk about (but I don't have a tyre to flip about!).

They do have cross fit trainers in the UK but I can't commit to being somewhere at a specific time like that (work demands).

Okay... so here's my spiel about Crossfit.

It has really taken a beating the last couple of years as being retarded. And in many contexts, it's a deserving title. I'll note that the beating is only dished out in select circles in the industry where people actually know their stuff. The masses, unfortunately, have taken a cult-like following to the whole concept.

Why is it a deserving title?

From their website....

"We’ve used our same routines for elderly individuals with heart disease and cage fighters one month out from televised bouts"

When I first read this I thought to myself, "This has to be a joke." I mean seriously. If they honestly believe an MMA fighter 4 weeks out from a fight should be on the same program as an elderly individual with heart disease they are out of their minds and have no understanding whatsoever about how the human body works.

It is fundamentally flawed thinking to believe that having no structure to a program means it produces general results and this is better than specific. Yet, this is exactly what they're doing. Doing everything at random doesn't mean you develop all sorts of different things optimally, this is simply not how the human body adapts in response to stress. There is no such thing as a jack of all trades physiologically speaking. A marathon runner will never be a powerlifter and vice versa.

Throwing a bunch of methods together at random doesn't mean the body gets better at everything and there are much better ways of progressively developing "general" fitness that will improve health than their haphazard approach.

Now many setups operate like this; Curves, BodyPump, etc, etc. And I don't generally agree with any of these blanket approaches either. That said, Crossfit's offense in this regard is grander given the intensity at which most crossfit programs are operating at and the movements involved. Due to the skill set required to do the movements typical of a crossfit workout proficiently and intensely, applying guidelines without proper screening, individualization, and specificity is not only absurd... but also dangerous.

In a sense the lifts they do probably offer more benefit than the standard gym approach when done correctly. Then again performing heavy explosive lifts and training completely randomly without being physically prepared to do the things is a recipe for disaster in the long run. Taking a bunch of people, most of whom have little to no background in training outside of general health and fitness routines, and throwing them into an intense program of explosive and heavy lifts without any preparation work is one of the dumbest things you could possibly do.

It's one of the fastest growing segments of the fitness industry. Chains are popping up everywhere and people are buying into it like the gold rush. Invariably when such trends exist, you're going to see the sycophants come out to aggrandize popularity and belief.

I'll say someday I'd like if my gym looks like your typical crossfit gym. They have all the "right tools." It's the application of said tools that often leads me to cringe anytime I see a crossfit video on the net. That's sort of general though and I know for a fact there are "coaches" out there that apply crossfit-like programs in logical, safe, specific and productive ways.

Matt Perryman and I were actually just talking about this on another forum last week. He's about the king of haters when it comes to fads in the fitness industry. And he's looking to open a gym soon and it will resemble a crossfit set up. But there's one glaringly obvious difference between what his gym will be and what most typical crossfit gyms are - the coach who's applying programs.

I do crossfit-esque stuff with many of my clients, even.

Unfortunately, crossfit gyms are run by crossfit certified coaches. Guess what it takes to call yourself that? About a grand and a few days. Gee willy... as if the barriers to entry in the fitness profession weren't terribly short already!

The point is, how it's popularly applied is garbage more than it's not. As with any other method of training, there are pros and cons. When a good coach takes a crossfit-esque style of training and magnifies the pros and minimizes the cons, it can be a great set up. Unfortunately, that's not what happens at most crossfit facilities.

As a coach/trainer, I'm more inclined to identify exactly what my client wants and organize the training and nutrition to optimize my approach to attaining the goal.

The typical crossfit mentality is to throw a bunch of random shit at the body and see what sticks.

I could ramble on and on but that wouldn't do anyone any good, more than likely.

So, I am not sure whether to increase my weight work or try another style of programme like cross fit. And, if I do take on cross fit, what to do with my current programme (which I enjoy). Or maybe I could incorporate some of what I do daily now and have 2 days cross fit. Or should I keep my current workout but increase the weight work.

I'd definitely read the stickies on my forum.

But in VERY GENERAL terms without knowing what you're doing now, specifically and which direction you'd like to head in terms of muscle gain vs. fat loss... I'd recommend 4 days of strength training per week paired with 2-4 days of metabolic work, which I can define if you need.

With the strength training, I'd more than likely do something like an upper/lower split where the upper body is trained twice per week and the lower body twice per week.

Something like:

Day 1 - Heavy Horizontal / Light Vertical
Day 2 - Heavy Quad emphasis / Light Glute&Hamstring
Day 3 - Heavy Vertical / Light Horizontal
Day 4 - Heavy Glute&Hamstring / Light Quad

Horizontal would be things like chest press variations and row variations.

Vertical would be things like overhead press variations and pullup/pulldown variations.

Quad dominant would be things like squat variations (bilateral and unilateral).

Glute and Hamstring would be things like deadlift variations (bilateral and unilateral).

This is by no means an extensive list.

Heavy would be in the 4-8 rep range.

Light would be in the 8-12 rep range.

Goals???!!!
You're probably gonna ask me what my goal is! And I don't know. I only took up working out 10 years ago and it is not my day job. For 7 years I worked out for 6 months, stopped for 6 months, start again for 6 months until mid 2007 I commited to not stopping my gym programme - to keep going no matter what and I have for just over 3 years now.

I started with a mini trampoline (& promptly injured myself), a treadmill and a huge multi gym machine (which I ditched because I found the restrictive movement boring & I am told working with free weights is better for the core) and have progressed from there. I just keep feeling my way and seeing what I might be able to do next.

And that's how most people navigate. For most it's a touch and feel process. The people who are successful rationally detach themselves from various strategies and concepts so they can assess things objectively. Far too many folks get married to their workouts and wind up sticking with things that are either counterproductive or dangerous "just because."

Sounds like you have a good head on your shoulders.

These days I spin a lot on my feet, fast & to high resistance for an hour, run, do a lot of core work and now upper body weights. I have a gym that can do more but I'm not sure what to do next.

And what you do next is going to heavily depend on where you want to take your physique. If you want to add muscle, all of this metabolic work should be reduced quite a bit.

 

[Steve]

Sig???
I can't see any 'sig' for you but I am interested in looking at your site. Is it against the rules to put it in a post?

I see you figured it out.

Your advice
You've been in this field for 10 years?

Yup.

I started training in gyms at the age of 19. I started my pursuit of knowledge long before then, however. I remember receiving college level anatomy and physiology books my freshman year of high school for christmas. It has always been my passion. I love learning and I love teaching.

I assume you are a fitness trainer?

I refer to myself as a fitness consultant. I wear a few hats. I'm a trainer (work with general population folks). I'm a strength coach (work with local wrestling, baseball and track teams as well as individual athletes). I'm a consultant. I go into gyms and train trainers how to improve professionally. I train gym owners/managers how to hire better trainers. I write. I do seminars. Basically I try and put myself out there as much as possible as I'm happiest when I'm in front of people helping them navigate through what's become a very muddy market/industry.

Well, I've met a few in person and on forums. I can't handle the one-upping or the fanatical or the bullies - I need to understand - once I understand something I can get on board with it.

I hear you. I distance myself from the typical e-guru mentality. Though I have spewed harsh words on forums when I come across "professionals" selling bullshit or leading people down unsafe paths. It's not about ego, however. I simply can't stand the clowns who infest this industry and the net has magnified the problem many fold.

I don't have a problem with not knowing something. I am happy to learn but I don't like being yelled at or dumped on (in person or by forum).

Makes a lot of sense.

Your style is great. Your explanations are clear and you are incredibly patient. I appreciate that. I can tell you want people to understand and I'm like that too so thanks again.

Thanks very much for saying so. It's appreciated.

 

[Steve]

I just want to jump is and say also that Steve you are great. The way you explain things is fantastic to us who need to learn and understand nutrition and weight loss. And can have it broken down into terms that we can understand.

I loved the way you explained your "wiggle room" I know most everyone who comes here is wanting to learn how to lose weight, but I think the thing that is most important and a lot don't realize is the true secret to weight loss is learning to maintain as you go along. After many years of up and down, and losing control I now have finally learned how to maintain.

I have been to quite a few forums and talked with quite a few people in person, but you Steve have earned my respect just from reading your posts. You have helped me and I appreciate it! So I wanted to say thank you.

You're very welcome. And thanks for taking the time to kindly show your appreciation. I'm glad to hear you've learned to maintain. That's something many struggle with.

 

[Spinner19641]

Crossfit
That was not the answer I expected to get! But it reflects my own concerns about Crossfit and is the reason I have hesitated. I've tried some of those moves and they are very hard and tiring and I know all that uncontrolled movement (with or without weights) is a sure fire way to injure myself. I am also very wary of any regime with a high 'macho' element. 'Macho' often equals stupid!

I am relieved to have my 'gut feel' about Crossfit validated because I haven't managed to find anyone with an objective perspective to ask. That's an excellent explanation and I will pass it on to others.

Weight Training
I read your stickies which were very helpful.

I know there is a view that you can't build muscle using cardio equipment. Based on my own experience that has not been entirely true. I have build muscle in my lower body through spinning to high resistance and on my feet. I think there is a limit to how much muscle I could build that way (strength & specific leg muscles) but I have very strong legs now and squats with weights are no challenge in the lower body. In fact much of my upper body work with weights is done in squat position (makes it more interesting).

I hate the idea of giving up the metabolic training. I enjoy the sweat, rhythm, movement and my heart performance has improved significantly and it is a great stress management tool.

But I would like to have more core and upper body strength - with or without larger muscles.

I'll happily take up your offer to define a programme.

Current Programme
I don't know all the terms (I learn the movements, not the names) so I'll explain this as best I can.
- 1 hour spinning, high resistance, on my feet, fast
- 500 crunches (various leg positions to make it harder)
- 200 side lifts (legs off the floor - makes it harder)
- 120 other core movements including 30 push ups (man style), 60 sit ups (without hooking my feet under anything)
- 150 movements using 2 x 8kg dumbells some in squat and some full lifts from floor to ceiling.

I like to do controlled movements and high repetition. I'm told high rep is not necessarily the best way but I like to zone out when I workout. Too much switching about is distracting plus I forget what to do next!

I also like doing the same programme each day. I am happy to change my programme but I will do a change and then stick with it until I can do it comfortably before I consider changing it again. That's why I think each change through carefully because once I make the change I will stick with it.

Fitness 'professionals'
They drive me bonkers! Like you I am a consultant (obviously different expertise) and in my field there are a lot of 'clowns' as well. Whenever someone doesn't listen, tells me there is only one way, can't explain themselves clearly and is rude about it then they're a 'clown' no matter what their field is!


As for your 'sig'. Nah, I'm not that clever - someone helped me!!! But I will continue to explore your site. The stickies are very easy to understand and based on such obvious commonsense thinking. A lot of what you write is what I suspected to be true but haven't been able to validate it because the 'fitness professionals' are confusing. This conversation and the stickies is breaking my deadlock on what to do next. I've been deadlocked for 6 months but now I feel like I am getting somewhere - thank you for answering my 'carbs' post - we're a long way from that starting point! Whew! Thank you for taking the time!

 

[Steve]

Crossfit
That was not the answer I expected to get! But it reflects my own concerns about Crossfit and is the reason I have hesitated. I've tried some of those moves and they are very hard and tiring and I know all that uncontrolled movement (with or without weights) is a sure fire way to injure myself. I am also very wary of any regime with a high 'macho' element. 'Macho' often equals stupid!

I am relieved to have my 'gut feel' about Crossfit validated because I haven't managed to find anyone with an objective perspective to ask. That's an excellent explanation and I will pass it on to others.

Another big issue is Crossfit highlights videos time and time again of "studs" (male and female) who would excel in spite of the program they're following. And they're so large they have their own production team. So they put out videos and short shows highlighting these "athletes" (who are most of the time drugged up, especially the women) and it spews an air of superiority.

But this "complex" they're developing doesn't turn people away most of the time. Rather, it's sort of doing the opposite. People coming across it want to be one of the "cool kids."

There has been a number of reported cases where users of crossfit have worked themselves into a case of rhabdomyolysis and that's just stupid ass shit right there to put it bluntly.

In addition, they claim to have all the answers, but when they were criticized for being nothing but glorified circuit training (which has it's place) without sufficient strength work, they have the power to go out and recruit some of the top strength guys out there such as Mark Rippetoe and Loui Simmons. I respect these guys a lot but it really pisses me off that they got tied up with CF.

Rippetoe has since had a falling out and he's out, thankfully. But the point is, if they had all the answers, they wouldn't be bending to the criticism and bringing on these other guys.

Fact is, if they pitched themselves differently, I'd have no problem with it. But because they make themselves out to be everything to everyone when, in fact, there are many many flaws... well... you get the point.

Weight Training
I read your stickies which were very helpful.

Good. Thanks for taking the time.

I know there is a view that you can't build muscle using cardio equipment. Based on my own experience that has not been entirely true. I have build muscle in my lower body through spinning to high resistance and on my feet.

That's not necessarily the view. Rather the view is you can't build muscle doing cardio. If you jack up the resistance high enough though, you will surpass certain thresholds required for hypertrophy to occur.

You need tension overload to trigger muscular growth. The threshold for overload will happen uniquely to the exerciser. Someone like me who is accustomed to squatting and deadlifting hundreds of pounds in addition to my own bodyweight isn't going to realize hypertrophy via running.

On the other end of the spectrum however, someone who has been sedentary for the last decade and is carrying some excess fat will most certainly surpass the intensity threshold merely by running - even walking maybe.

The point is, there are a few variables that MUST be in place for hypertrophy to occur and the vast majority of the time cardio isn't going to provide them.

I hate the idea of giving up the metabolic training. I enjoy the sweat, rhythm, movement and my heart performance has improved significantly and it is a great stress management tool.

If I had a buck each time I heard this I'd be a wealthy man.

The issue in general is most people associate effective exercise as that which jacks up heart rate, gets you sweating, huffing and puffing, feeling the burn, etc. And this stuff certainly serves a purpose. But it's not the only weapon in the arsenal. And different weapons have VERY specific adaptations that they bring to the table.

If you're trying to optimize body composition and health, it's going to require the optimization of multiple factors: fat mass, muscle mass, aerobic capacity and power, anaerobic capacity and power, strength, power, etc.

All of these things are trained best using various modalities.

Most people overweight the endurance/metabolic stuff. They build the hell out of their aerobic engine but that only gets them so far. Unfortunately, it seems many folks are hooked on it. I equate it to the addiction some people have with the scale. It just "feels" right to them based on their preconceived notions regardless of how illogical it can be.

I'm not suggesting you drop metabolic work. Simply reorder your priorities.

- 1 hour spinning, high resistance, on my feet, fast
- 500 crunches (various leg positions to make it harder)
- 200 side lifts (legs off the floor - makes it harder)
- 120 other core movements including 30 push ups (man style), 60 sit ups (without hooking my feet under anything)
- 150 movements using 2 x 8kg dumbells some in squat and some full lifts from floor to ceiling.

Wow. Okay.

How often are you doing this?

There's a lot I can say here. I'll stick with a few random thoughts I have.

1. Everything you're doing is primarily metabolic. Just b/c you're using resistance (bodyweight or dumbbells) doesn't mean you're strength training. You can do cardio with weights and that's essentially what you're doing. What you're doing is not conducive to optimizing muscle mass, which is what *most* people want even though most don't realize it.

2. I'd ditch all of those crunches. I hardly do crunches. Many very smart researchers are actually finding that they're horrible for your spine. And what are they really doing for you? You can't magically tone up your midsection with them, so it's providing an enormous opportunity cost in terms of things you could be doing that'd better serve your goals. The core is built more for stability than it is for spinal flexion anyhow. When I work my core or the cores of my clients, it's almost always with things such as planks, pallof presses, rollouts, etc.

I could go on, but let's just say that if you were my paying client I'd overhaul everything you're doing. I hate coming out with guns slinging. I'm not a preacher, absolutist, or anything like that. But I do know how to match training modalities to various goals in a "healthy" balance.

I like to do controlled movements and high repetition. I'm told high rep is not necessarily the best way but I like to zone out when I workout. Too much switching about is distracting plus I forget what to do next!

You have to ask yourself, "Am I doing this to zone out? Or am I doing this to reach my goals and do what's optimal for my body and health?"

I'd spend some serious time thinking that through.

Look, you can do whatever you want and it might be suboptimal from the eye's of someone like me and that's perfectly fine. There are many ways to skin a cat. The problem is, you have to make sure it's a cat you're actually skinning.

Most people are skinning other animals and they never really get to where they'd like to be.

And that's fine for those folks who are just going through the motions - they enjoy the motions. But for those who are deadset on optimizing things and reach specific goals.... training needs to be much more deliberate.

I also like doing the same programme each day. I am happy to change my programme but I will do a change and then stick with it until I can do it comfortably before I consider changing it again. That's why I think each change through carefully because once I make the change I will stick with it.

Seems to me like you base a lot of your decisions on what's "good" in your mind's eye rather than your body's eye.

No offense!

 

[Spinner19641]

No offence taken.

But all you have said is what I shouldn't do not what I should do.

Ab crunches
As for the ab crunches. Yes, I have been thinking about ditching them. I have very flat abs with some definition and I find the crunches boring and unchallenging. I was pondering what to do instead. I do planks every so often just to see if I can.

Metabolic exercise
I didn't mean to only do metabolic exercise. It just evolved that way. I didn't even know it was metabolic. I certainly feel and look fitter but you'll probably tell me that I'm not.

My why's
I'm not an expert in this field. But I do think there is a combination of needs for me.

- Without a doubt I like the zone out. It's good for stress management.
- I'm not that bothered with the vanity of it. Some muscle 'pop' is nice.
- I aim to have greater endurance and strength. My days can be very long.
- I like the energy it can give but that comes with the diet as well.
- Oddly I derive confidence from being able to work out. Can't quantify that.

Mind vs Body
I don't know the difference between what is good in my mind versus how my body reacts (unless I injure myself & then my body sends a very clear message). My body seems to be responding well to the diet and exercise programme but then I don't know what measurement system you are using much less how to apply it.


Hmm, now I'm just confused. Not offended but definitely confused.

 

[Steve]

Confused? Good. That means there's lots of room for learning. Which I'll try and help with in my next post. I have a client coming in in 2 minutes. I'll hit this thread a bit later.