that was called - let's make as many inane posts as I possibly can and then I can get enough posts to hit this forum with my lovely spam
yeah i'm on to that trick
Weight lifting: lift fast or slow for more efficient fat loss
- Thread starter Gator1
- Start date
that was called - let's make as many inane posts as I possibly can and then I can get enough posts to hit this forum with my lovely spam
yeah i'm on to that trick
Michelley85
New member
I read it all, there's a shit ton of information.
For this you are recommending...
In your example I found myself torn between the two options (1. less weight, more reps 2. more weight, less reps).
I think I'll come back later when I can unscramble some thoughts because I'm having a hard time explaining myself.
Edit: I just want to add... Yes, I want to lose weight (fat) but I want to keep my muscle. So, I DO want to stick to the muscle maintenance side of things, and I think it's safe for me to do that at this point, but how am I to be sure if I should I be doing more of a circuit routine or a maintenence routine, at this time? lol, long question. Should I do more circuit type training until closer to my goal weight or start at maintenance right now?
I don't want to just lose weight, I want to look fit and toned and muscular, not thin and flabby. I rather be 155 and muscular versus 140 and skinny, if that makes sense?
For this you are recommending...
In your example I found myself torn between the two options (1. less weight, more reps 2. more weight, less reps).
I think I'll come back later when I can unscramble some thoughts because I'm having a hard time explaining myself.
Edit: I just want to add... Yes, I want to lose weight (fat) but I want to keep my muscle. So, I DO want to stick to the muscle maintenance side of things, and I think it's safe for me to do that at this point, but how am I to be sure if I should I be doing more of a circuit routine or a maintenence routine, at this time? lol, long question. Should I do more circuit type training until closer to my goal weight or start at maintenance right now?
I don't want to just lose weight, I want to look fit and toned and muscular, not thin and flabby. I rather be 155 and muscular versus 140 and skinny, if that makes sense?
Last edited:
What it comes down to is prioritizing your training based on what you're looking to obtain. There are so many tools that provide you with the various improvements you're looking for, so you have to plan wisely when building a plan.
Let me try and make this a bit more clear for you...
We know you're striving for that toned, atheletic look, right? Of course you're limited by the confines of your genetics. That said however, we can still break it down into how we need the body to change in order to get you looking as close to your goal as your genetics allow. Once it's broken down into these factors, we can match the type of training that best suits each factor and blend them together for a balanced routine.
Make sense?
When it comes to improving body composition, planning is relatively simple. The only factors involved have to do with losing fat and gaining/maintaining muscle.
To lose fat, we know you need a caloric deficit. We need less energy in than out. We establish this deficit by decreasing the amount of food we eat and increasing our activity.
We won't delve into the food side of things as this isn't the thread.
On the activity side of things in the context of calorie wasting stuff, we want to focus in on the things that promote continuous movement. A lot of things can fall into this camp. Swimming, walking, jogging, treadmill, elliptical, hiking, weight lifting, etc.
Notice: Weight lifting can be added to this group. It simply is applied in a way that promotes caloric expenditure rather than strength and muscle. It's important to note too, that an on/off switch does not exist. Think of it as a continuum. If you're weight training is geared more towards higher rep, lower weight, and short rest stuff, you're not going to get much in terms of muscle and strength gains. This holds even more true if you've been lifting weights for any appreciable length of time.
When you're first starting out, you can pretty much improve most qualities pertaining to the muscles with any sort of weight training.
The other factor we're concerned with is muscle maintenance/gain. This is best served by heavier lifting using lower reps and more rest. Your body doesn't need an awful lot of this to promote muscle maintenance. Maybe 2-3 sessions per week.
So a typical week might look something like:
Monday: Strength Training
Tuesday: Interval Cardio
Wednesday: Hiking
Thursday: Strength Training
Friday: Steady State Cardio
Saturday: Body Weight Resistance Training Circuit
Sunday: Off
Notice, resistance training is in the example schedule three times. But two of the sessions are in place for muscle maintenance and strength (Monday & Thursday) and one of the sessions is in place for calorie wasting (Saturday).
Is this starting to make more sense?
It's also important to note that the above hypothetical schedule isn't anything magic nor is it something written in stone. I'm simply trying to paint a picture.
Let me try and make this a bit more clear for you...
We know you're striving for that toned, atheletic look, right? Of course you're limited by the confines of your genetics. That said however, we can still break it down into how we need the body to change in order to get you looking as close to your goal as your genetics allow. Once it's broken down into these factors, we can match the type of training that best suits each factor and blend them together for a balanced routine.
Make sense?
When it comes to improving body composition, planning is relatively simple. The only factors involved have to do with losing fat and gaining/maintaining muscle.
To lose fat, we know you need a caloric deficit. We need less energy in than out. We establish this deficit by decreasing the amount of food we eat and increasing our activity.
We won't delve into the food side of things as this isn't the thread.
On the activity side of things in the context of calorie wasting stuff, we want to focus in on the things that promote continuous movement. A lot of things can fall into this camp. Swimming, walking, jogging, treadmill, elliptical, hiking, weight lifting, etc.
Notice: Weight lifting can be added to this group. It simply is applied in a way that promotes caloric expenditure rather than strength and muscle. It's important to note too, that an on/off switch does not exist. Think of it as a continuum. If you're weight training is geared more towards higher rep, lower weight, and short rest stuff, you're not going to get much in terms of muscle and strength gains. This holds even more true if you've been lifting weights for any appreciable length of time.
When you're first starting out, you can pretty much improve most qualities pertaining to the muscles with any sort of weight training.
The other factor we're concerned with is muscle maintenance/gain. This is best served by heavier lifting using lower reps and more rest. Your body doesn't need an awful lot of this to promote muscle maintenance. Maybe 2-3 sessions per week.
So a typical week might look something like:
Monday: Strength Training
Tuesday: Interval Cardio
Wednesday: Hiking
Thursday: Strength Training
Friday: Steady State Cardio
Saturday: Body Weight Resistance Training Circuit
Sunday: Off
Notice, resistance training is in the example schedule three times. But two of the sessions are in place for muscle maintenance and strength (Monday & Thursday) and one of the sessions is in place for calorie wasting (Saturday).
Is this starting to make more sense?
It's also important to note that the above hypothetical schedule isn't anything magic nor is it something written in stone. I'm simply trying to paint a picture.
ChefChiTown
New member
My baseball trainers would tell me to do bicep curls like this...
One second for the curl (arms up)
Two seconds to reset (arms down)
One second pause between reps
I was told to do that for all weight lifting exercises and it worked for me. But, obviously everybody is different.
One second for the curl (arms up)
Two seconds to reset (arms down)
One second pause between reps
I was told to do that for all weight lifting exercises and it worked for me. But, obviously everybody is different.
People keep saying, "everyone is different."
Can someone explain this to me?
I'm not being a jackass either. I sincerely want to hear your thoughts on the subject. From what I can tell... circumstance and context is different. But human muscle and it's response to various stresses? I don't see how that's unique or variable.
Can someone explain this to me?
I'm not being a jackass either. I sincerely want to hear your thoughts on the subject. From what I can tell... circumstance and context is different. But human muscle and it's response to various stresses? I don't see how that's unique or variable.
ChefChiTown
New member
If I used your workout routine, I'm not going to get the same results as you would.
If you used my workout routine, you're not going to get the same results as I would.
Why? Because, everybody is different. What works for you might not work for me. What works for me might not work for you. My body is different from your body and vice versa.
Sure, the "science" behind it is all the same, but, unfortunately, our bodies are not.
Michelley85
New member
Yes, you're not saying either do it "this way or that way", you're saying combine the two types of strength training.
My week actually looks like that, but I opt for interval cardio everyday with the strength 2-3 times a week.
ChefChiTown
New member
Our bodies are different in a million different ways. My bones might not be as strong as your bones. My muscles might not be able to heal as fast as yours. My lung capacity might not be as good as yours. I might not be able to run as fast as you. I might not be able to jump as high as you can. My body might not process nutrients as well as yours. Etc.
I've had countless injuries that will forever effect the way my body works, which adds a ton of other differences as well.
All of these things effect how well our body can handle a workout. And, since every person's body is different, workouts aren't going to have the same exact results for each individual person.
Michelley85
New member
Genetics..
Yes, you're not saying either do it "this way or that way", you're saying combine the two types of strength training.
My week actually looks like that, but I opt for interval cardio everyday with the strength 2-3 times a week.
Which is fine. The strength training needs to be more specific than the calorie wasting stuff. For the calorie wasting stuff you can do pretty much anything. Sure, some things might be more optimal than others but at the end of the day and for the sake of sanity, I think it's important to select things you enjoy.
I have clients who despise running and typical cardio. For them, it's common to see me throw circuit training into the mix b/c they don't view that the same they do other forms of cardio. It's more tolerable.
Right, these are all obvious.
I suppose my question wasn't clear enough... I assumed there was enough context. My real question is, how are our bodies different in a way that will elicit different responses from identical stimuli?
For example, if both of us followed identical strength training routines where all things are held constant except you have your body and I have mine... our bodies are going to respond to the stress differently?
If so, how and why?
Yes, we might be at different points from varying histories, genetics, physiological issues, etc, etc. And these sort of variables can dictate appropriateness of various protocols and they can dictate various rates of adaptation.
But that's not my question.
That doesn't apply to what I'm asking.
I'm not interested in appropriateness. I'm asking how do different bodies respond vastly different to the same stressor.
Michelley85
New member
Last edited:
Doc Bunkum
New member
Well, let me throw this out for discussion.
If a calorie is a calorie, as many claim, then identical diets should produce identical results in test subjects.
Only we know that it isn't necessarily the case.
So if two people eat the same food, and follow the same exercise routine, why do they get vastly different results?
Let's stick within the confines of generally healthy individuals. When you start throwing in clinical variables, things get foggy. That's like throwing diabetes into a conversation about insulin response to various carbohydrate ingestions.
That said, I'm not asking a trick question. I agree, rates of adaptation will vary depending on things such as training age, muscle fiber distribution, age, caloric state, etc, etc, etc.
This does not mean, however, that on a gross level, one stimulus will elicit different responses in terms of adaptability. It's the rate or appropriateness of the adaptation that will vary... but not the adaptation itself.
To make my point more clear, let's stick with moderate to heavy weight training. Take some guy who never lifted a weight in his life and put him on a structured, progressive weight training program. His rate of adaptation is going to be much, much faster than my rate to the same routine given my training experience. The adaptations will still be the same in response to progressive loading of the muscles (increased strength and muscle size).
I suppose I'm splitting hairs a bit but I think people misapply the whole "everyone's bodies are different" bit. I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread has... I just wanted some clarification.
That said, I'm not asking a trick question. I agree, rates of adaptation will vary depending on things such as training age, muscle fiber distribution, age, caloric state, etc, etc, etc.
This does not mean, however, that on a gross level, one stimulus will elicit different responses in terms of adaptability. It's the rate or appropriateness of the adaptation that will vary... but not the adaptation itself.
To make my point more clear, let's stick with moderate to heavy weight training. Take some guy who never lifted a weight in his life and put him on a structured, progressive weight training program. His rate of adaptation is going to be much, much faster than my rate to the same routine given my training experience. The adaptations will still be the same in response to progressive loading of the muscles (increased strength and muscle size).
I suppose I'm splitting hairs a bit but I think people misapply the whole "everyone's bodies are different" bit. I'm not suggesting anyone in this thread has... I just wanted some clarification.
ChefChiTown
New member
Are you saying that every single person on the face of the earth can all have muscular bodies that look as if they were chiseled from granite?
We're all different. Nobody is the same. Some people just can't do certain things, no matter how hard they try and no matter how hard they work at it. Everybody has their limits, which makes us all different.
In regards to your example of both of us following identical strength training routines...
You say that all things would remain constant. Meaning, we do the same exact exercises with the same exact weights? Correct?
Let's say that your body builds muscle faster than mine does. If your body builds muscle faster than mine, then you will increase the amount of weight you use faster than I would. That would mean that I would be using less weight than you. That would mean that I would be weaker than you. That right there would effect any "constant" that we might have from that point on.
That is why I say that everybody is different.
It might not have been your question, but those things are all differences that can greatly effect our bodies and how they operate, especially during workouts.
Yes, it does. I have bad knees, due to years of playing catcher in baseball. My bad knees effect my leg exercises, preventing me from doing certain things. It effects my running too. If I run for more than 10 minutes or so, the pain in my knees begins to effect my workout.
I have also partially torn both of my achilles tendons, I've torn my patellar tendon and I tore all of the cartilage off of my neck, which healed improperly, causing me to have limited neck mobility, limited flexibility and frequent neck and back pain.
All of that effects my body's ability to withstand exercise. I can't do all of the things that you can do. That makes a big difference, especially in workouts.
I've already addressed that.
If everybody was the same, then you would give every single one of your clients the same exact workout routine, no matter what. But, I'm willing to bet that each person has a specific, individualized workout routine that you give them.
A calorie is a calorie. It can be nothing else.
People confuse this claim with a nutrient is a nutrient.
Our bodies handle calories all the same via thermodynamics.
Nutrients though, that's an entirely different matter.
My bit is more 'big picture' dealing with the core fundamentals. And from the sounds of it, I'm not making myself clear at all... which is most likely the case. But on the nutritional front... a calorie deficit inside the realms of healthy people will always lead to tissue loss. Glocuse will always lead to insulin response. My argument is the body, in it's purest form, abides by the same physiological/biological laws universally.
Not at all.
I'm saying the body will respond to the stress of say, resistance training, the same. The degree of response and the rate of response might vary.
But the adaptation is the same regardless.
I never suggested otherwise.
Correct.
You're missing my point entirely.
Adaptation is the same.
Rate is different.
To simplify...
You drive a civic. I drive a porshe. We both drive from point A to point B at the max speeds our respective cars allow. Obviously I get there faster. But the means of transportation and the corresponding factors are all the same. You used a car, you used fuel, etc, etc.
Maybe a shitty example but I'm not sure how else to differentiate adaptation from rate/degree of adaptation.
Then you're talking about apples and I'm talking about oranges.
My point is, b/c a specific adaptation is related to a specific way of training universally, regardless of rate or degree of adaptation, it becomes clear how one should prescribe various modes of training for various goals. Just b/c one might not have the proclivity to respond as quickly as another doesn't mean that stressor is no good. The same training regimine should be applied. It will just take longer.
I'm running short on time and probably barely making sense at this point, but hopefully some.
ChefChiTown
New member
Adaption is only needed when there are differences.
Once again, adaption is only needed when there are differences.
Other than the fact that they're cars and that they have a similar structure, everything else about them is completely different. Just like how our bodies are completely different.
Your engine (body) might be more powerful than my engine. Your fuel injection system (stamina) might be more powerful than my fuel injection system. Etc.
Even though we both have engines and we both have fuel injection systems, doesn't mean they work in the exact same way.
I know what you're talking about, but I just don't see how the comment of "everybody is different" can be argued. Not that I'm sitting here trying to make the point of "I am right, you are wrong", but even if you just look at the people that walk into your gym, you can physically see that everybody is different.
Chef, my apologies if I'm not making myself clear. Really.
The thing is, you telling me that everyone is different is doing nothing for the conversation. I train for a living. If you think I don't know people's bodies are unique, I haven't done a good job at all over my years on this forum displaying my knowledge on the subject.
If everyone had the same exact needs then I wouldn't have a job as a trainer. It should be obvious to you that there is a disconnect between what I'm talking about and what you are assuming I'm talking about. Let me try and bridge that gap.
Let's frame this discussion which should allow for a little more clarity. It was started on a bad foot by me with such an open ended question.
To let you in on where I'm coming from, I'm used to hearing people say "calorie counting doesn't work for me." Or, "resistance training doesn't do anything for my body." Things like this.
I'm speaking on a very, very foundational level here.
This foundational level I speak of are the "laws" that all of our bodies abide by. For instance:
- a shortage of energy will always lead to tissue loss
- a stress placed above and beyond what our muscles are accustomed to will always lead to an adaptation that is universal to that specific stress
To try and put this in terms you might understand, here is an example:
I broke my tibia and fibula years ago in a sports accident. My grandfather did the same thing at a much older age. I healed about twice as fast as he did. In your terms, that's because our bodies are different. He was old and I was young. I was healthy, he was not. I was active, he was not. And so on.
These are obvious differences that I don't think anyone needs to have pointed out.
That said, our bodies responded to the break identically. Swelling occurred around the break. Osteoblasts helped form new bone as well as collagen. Etc, etc, etc.
I'm speaking in terms of this latter level and you're speaking in terms of the former. This is where the miscommunication lies.
I'm talking about stuff books are written about with regards to physiology, biology and physics. These foundational concepts are not the sort of things that apply to some but not others. It's the way our bodies work.
As a trainer, these are the necessary understandings that one *must* have a firm grasp of LONG BEFORE they start applying the foundational concepts to various individuals with individual needs.
The way you're responding to me you'd think I made the comment, "Everyone is identical."
Hint: I didn't.
I said our bodies respond to specific stresses the same because we are humans. You took this out of context to an elementary level of understanding with regards to the human body where, "If Sue is injured and John is not, they're bodies can't be trained the same way."
That has nothing to do at all with what I'm discussing.
I'm not debating whether a 90 year old with drastic mobility issues should be trained like an 18 year old football player. I'm arguing that, for example, applying resistance training in a specific way will elicit specific responses that are the same in each.
If I had both train to increase the rate of force development (power), their neuromuscular systems would both develop/adapt in a way to increase power. Sure, the rate and magnitude of change would vary greatly. But the adaptation would behave the same regardless. This doesn't mean that each would be trained identically given their obvious unique factors. It means we know that both of their bodies will adapt the same with regards to power training... now it's a matter of seeing what their limits are, what their time frames are, etc and building a routine around these things to elicit the universal adaptations we desire.
Now you're saying, "Adaption is only needed when there are differences."
If I'm being honest, I have no clue at all what you mean by this. Can you elaborate please. Only elaborate if, after reading what I just wrote above, there's still a disconnect. If there's isn't, great... let's move on.
Adaptation is needed for anyone who wants to improve. If there's no adaptation, there's no improvement.
Also, I sincerely hope you realize I'm just discussing here. I suspect you are too... not getting heated or anything like that. I don't sense that you are, which I appreciate since most people on the Internet have trouble separating themselves and their emotions from a debate.
So thanks... look forward to hearing from you.
The thing is, you telling me that everyone is different is doing nothing for the conversation. I train for a living. If you think I don't know people's bodies are unique, I haven't done a good job at all over my years on this forum displaying my knowledge on the subject.
If everyone had the same exact needs then I wouldn't have a job as a trainer. It should be obvious to you that there is a disconnect between what I'm talking about and what you are assuming I'm talking about. Let me try and bridge that gap.
Let's frame this discussion which should allow for a little more clarity. It was started on a bad foot by me with such an open ended question.
To let you in on where I'm coming from, I'm used to hearing people say "calorie counting doesn't work for me." Or, "resistance training doesn't do anything for my body." Things like this.
I'm speaking on a very, very foundational level here.
This foundational level I speak of are the "laws" that all of our bodies abide by. For instance:
- a shortage of energy will always lead to tissue loss
- a stress placed above and beyond what our muscles are accustomed to will always lead to an adaptation that is universal to that specific stress
To try and put this in terms you might understand, here is an example:
I broke my tibia and fibula years ago in a sports accident. My grandfather did the same thing at a much older age. I healed about twice as fast as he did. In your terms, that's because our bodies are different. He was old and I was young. I was healthy, he was not. I was active, he was not. And so on.
These are obvious differences that I don't think anyone needs to have pointed out.
That said, our bodies responded to the break identically. Swelling occurred around the break. Osteoblasts helped form new bone as well as collagen. Etc, etc, etc.
I'm speaking in terms of this latter level and you're speaking in terms of the former. This is where the miscommunication lies.
I'm talking about stuff books are written about with regards to physiology, biology and physics. These foundational concepts are not the sort of things that apply to some but not others. It's the way our bodies work.
As a trainer, these are the necessary understandings that one *must* have a firm grasp of LONG BEFORE they start applying the foundational concepts to various individuals with individual needs.
The way you're responding to me you'd think I made the comment, "Everyone is identical."
Hint: I didn't.
I said our bodies respond to specific stresses the same because we are humans. You took this out of context to an elementary level of understanding with regards to the human body where, "If Sue is injured and John is not, they're bodies can't be trained the same way."
That has nothing to do at all with what I'm discussing.
I'm not debating whether a 90 year old with drastic mobility issues should be trained like an 18 year old football player. I'm arguing that, for example, applying resistance training in a specific way will elicit specific responses that are the same in each.
If I had both train to increase the rate of force development (power), their neuromuscular systems would both develop/adapt in a way to increase power. Sure, the rate and magnitude of change would vary greatly. But the adaptation would behave the same regardless. This doesn't mean that each would be trained identically given their obvious unique factors. It means we know that both of their bodies will adapt the same with regards to power training... now it's a matter of seeing what their limits are, what their time frames are, etc and building a routine around these things to elicit the universal adaptations we desire.
Now you're saying, "Adaption is only needed when there are differences."
If I'm being honest, I have no clue at all what you mean by this. Can you elaborate please. Only elaborate if, after reading what I just wrote above, there's still a disconnect. If there's isn't, great... let's move on.
Adaptation is needed for anyone who wants to improve. If there's no adaptation, there's no improvement.
Also, I sincerely hope you realize I'm just discussing here. I suspect you are too... not getting heated or anything like that. I don't sense that you are, which I appreciate since most people on the Internet have trouble separating themselves and their emotions from a debate.
So thanks... look forward to hearing from you.