Low calorie diets and vigorous lifting

[Espi]

Lost Dog, you're not the only one.

And yet, only creating a deficit with more activity doesn't work either.. and produces either overtraining OR overeating. My maintenance would be really high when I was training with high volume workouts as well as quite a bit of cardio. But I'd just overeat in order to combat the overtraining.

Didn't Poliquin (?) say: there's no overtraining, only undereating?

There seems to be a very delicate balance. And i've found that not traing too much nor having a too large deficit overall and also not go too long on a low calorie intake is the best approach.
Yes, it's slow.. but I've kept it off. This is in stark contrast with all the radical diets I'd tried before or trying to get a big deficit from training alone.

[BjsAust]

Originally Posted by Leigh P.

Where people usually blame a slow metabolic rate it is really just getting more tired and moving less. From shaking your foot when you sit to asking your wife to get something out of the car you normally would have.

Wow, this is really a really fascinating insight. Its so easy to think of 'activity' as what you do in the gym. It never really crossed my mind that working hard in the gym, then collapsing on the couch and not moving for a couple hours means I'm burning less calories that if I did that same workout and then went about my day as normal. I know on the weekends in particular, if I do a workout in the morning, I'm much more likely to put off mowing the lawn and doing yard work.

I'll really have to bare this in mind.

[Espi]

Exactly. I'd be wasted for the remainder of the day when I was working out in the monring. After some adaptation, I fared much better when liftng at night. Plus I could eat more food right away. I now despise lifting in the weekend as it necessitates lifting in the morning and be hungry and/or tired all day long.

[Chris Correia]

Originally Posted by Espi

Lost Dog, you're not the only one.

And yet, only creating a deficit with more activity doesn't work either.. and produces either overtraining OR overeating. My maintenance would be really high when I was training with high volume workouts as well as quite a bit of cardio. But I'd just overeat in order to combat the overtraining.

Didn't Poliquin (?) say: there's no overtraining, only undereating?

There seems to be a very delicate balance. And i've found that not traing too much nor having a too large deficit overall and also not go too long on a low calorie intake is the best approach.
Yes, it's slow.. but I've kept it off. This is in stark contrast with all the radical diets I'd tried before or trying to get a big deficit from training alone.

There is probably no problem if someone isn't particularly concerned (or overly concerned, in at least some cases) with achieving a certain look/body composition/leanness.

Leigh and others who seem skilled at helping people make changes (and getting the compliance) might be able to turn any sow's ear into a silk purse. However, I wonder if, for the majority of the people, to hope to live their usual lives, exercising and eating decently, if they're just not going to achieve a certain look.

If we're willing to exercise, eat well, and takes whatever results we get, then there isn't a problem. I wonder to what degree it's artificial to achieve some of the aesthetic goals some people have. There seems to be a lot of fixating on "the look" which is, in good measure, a media perpetrated image that does not naturally happen, and doesn't happen without greatly contrived measures.

[Leigh P.]

Originally Posted by BjsAust

Wow, this is really a really fascinating insight. Its so easy to think of 'activity' as what you do in the gym. It never really crossed my mind that working hard in the gym, then collapsing on the couch and not moving for a couple hours means I'm burning less calories that if I did that same workout and then went about my day as normal. I know on the weekends in particular, if I do a workout in the morning, I'm much more likely to put off mowing the lawn and doing yard work.

I'll really have to bare this in mind.

This is where a lot of people cause themselves unneeded frustration. They work out far too hard and just elate themselves. The body WILL do everything it can to make you make up for that lost energy. Keeping aware of it forcing you down makes your fat loss efforts go a lot quicker.

[Leigh P.]

Originally Posted by Chris Correia

There is probably no problem if someone isn't particularly concerned (or overly concerned, in at least some cases) with achieving a certain look/body composition/leanness.

Leigh and others who seem skilled at helping people make changes (and getting the compliance) might be able to turn any sow's ear into a silk purse. However, I wonder if, for the majority of the people, to hope to live their usual lives, exercising and eating decently, if they're just not going to achieve a certain look.

If we're willing to exercise, eat well, and takes whatever results we get, then there isn't a problem. I wonder to what degree it's artificial to achieve some of the aesthetic goals some people have. There seems to be a lot of fixating on "the look" which is, in good measure, a media perpetrated image that does not naturally happen, and doesn't happen without greatly contrived measures.

I obviously deal with those who are highly fixed on achieving a certain look or maintaining a look. While I do work with obese clients, the majority of my clients are pure "vanity" pound loss clients. With our culture taking a turn to such a high amount of people being overweight it makes you wonder if what is accepted as in shape will start to alter, of course this is more of a social conversation than physiological.

Regardless getting lean and mean, whatever kind of level that is for you, is made a lot more complicated than it needs to be. People forget that for years bodybuilders have been doing 5-day splits, eating tons of carbs, and walking on a incline achieving the "look" just fine.

[Leigh P.]

Originally Posted by Lost Dog

So why so much concern (not talking about you) when people try the Velocity Diet or Get Shredded trying to lose the last layers?

I wanted to hit on this real quick as well.

If you notice a running theme with all real low calorie diets is move as little as possible. I think honestly Lyle get's it pretty perfect with PSMF, little too much activity for my liking with others, but still, you aren't suppose to really move. You have people trying to hit new max numbers on shakes, what the hell for? Makes no sense, you are just being a ass. Trying to hit a Deadlift max on the Velocity Diet is as stupid as trying to do a huge ramp jump on a rainy day. Yeah you might pull it off, but what the hell for? To show how bad you are, that is just ego, there is nothing about it that is smart training. Sadly some don't know any better, think that should be hitting max numbers because of other peoples logs or experiences and next thing you know you have threads devoted to checking out new 1RM's on the V Diet.

[Adam Campbell]

Some really good posts, Leigh. Your photo example was great--what was the time frame for the transformation?

[Chris Correia]

Adam, line up that woman for an article!

[Leigh P.]

Originally Posted by Adam Campbell

Some really good posts, Leigh. Your photo example was great--what was the time frame for the transformation?

Thanks Adam, here is some of the charted info for this client.

Male
Age:29
Height:5′11
Starting Weight with program: 137 pounds
Weight at time of picture:153 pounds
Total gain between pictures: 17lbs

This was a span of about 11 weeks. This client although they had practiced some weight lifting and routine work had never really done a solid training program prior to working with me so those reading do take into account the newbie factor in this.

There was a initial gain of about 5 pounds of muscle mass pretty quickly. Then it moved pretty steady from there. We worked at a bouncing surplus days for the most part to maintain leanness in correlation with training days. I would also like to note only one actual abdominal exercise was used during the course of this program and they weren't crunches As well some nice quad definition came about, overall definition increased in general but the abs and the quads for this trainee were their "golden spot" increases.

Meal timing was 4 meals a days.
Focus on quick post workout nutrition and slow digestion night meals.
A/B training program.
REAL HIIT practices once a week.

Really nothing to crazy or out there, just a focus on getting enough calories, lifting hard and in compound movements and proper rests. Some weeks 2 days a week. There was one week where we had to take 4 days in a row due to travel.

[banderbe]

Originally Posted by Leigh P.

I wanted to hit on this real quick as well.

If you notice a running theme with all real low calorie diets is move as little as possible. I think honestly Lyle get's it pretty perfect with PSMF, little too much activity for my liking with others, but still, you aren't suppose to really move. You have people trying to hit new max numbers on shakes, what the hell for? Makes no sense, you are just being a ass. Trying to hit a Deadlift max on the Velocity Diet is as stupid as trying to do a huge ramp jump on a rainy day. Yeah you might pull it off, but what the hell for? To show how bad you are, that is just ego, there is nothing about it that is smart training. Sadly some don't know any better, think that should be hitting max numbers because of other peoples logs or experiences and next thing you know you have threads devoted to checking out new 1RM's on the V Diet.

Hi Leigh. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Should a person not try for personal bests each time they go into the gym just because they're hypocaloric?

[kfisherx]

Hmmmm..... I have to jump in on this thread as a newbie to all of this because we are throwing numbers around without respect to a person's size it seems. I am weighing in at a whopping 135 pounds so my BMR is only in the 1400 calorie a day range. If I work out (I do mostly cardio right now) for 5 hours a week I am burning only 2400 cal a week. If I eat my 1400 cals a day only then at the end of the week I have a 2400 deficit which equals less than one pound of weight loss right?

So in the original post it was mentioned that 1400 cal a day was too low. Is it really for the type of workout and size that I do?

[Leigh P.]

Originally Posted by banderbe

Hi Leigh. I'm not sure what you're saying here. Should a person not try for personal bests each time they go into the gym just because they're hypocaloric?

No I am not saying that at all.

I am saying that if you are in a extreme deficit and not eating whole food or are eating a minimal amount of nutrients that this might not be the best time to test the water of your ultimate strength.

This is not a discussion about lifting and strength increase in a moderate deficit, this is a discussion about vigorous activity with lack of repair. I don't care if you are taking a few capsules of branched amino acids and some fish oil, if you are in a 40%+ deficit of daily caloric expenditure do a 1RM deadlift at your own unneeded risk.

[Leigh P.]

Originally Posted by kfisherx

Hmmmm..... I have to jump in on this thread as a newbie to all of this because we are throwing numbers around without respect to a person's size it seems. I am weighing in at a whopping 135 pounds so my BMR is only in the 1400 calorie a day range. If I work out (I do mostly cardio right now) for 5 hours a week I am burning only 2400 cal a week. If I eat my 1400 cals a day only then at the end of the week I have a 2400 deficit which equals less than one pound of weight loss right?

So in the original post it was mentioned that 1400 cal a day was too low. Is it really for the type of workout and size that I do?

Your BMR may be 1400 but your added activity level, whatever that may be makes it higher. Worst case scernio I would find it hard to believe unless dealing with a metabolic disorder that you are burning less than 1800 calories a day with normal activity, Throw in any sort of workout in a day of at least 200 calrories extra and you hit 2000. Eat at roughly a 500 caloric deficit daily and that is 3500 calories lost in a week through energy. This doesn't mean all that energy came from fat, but that is another thread.

Still you can lose at a relatively good rate even at a smaller size.
1400 isn't dangerous hell bouncing to 1200 or lower is even okay if you play your cards right and refeed and break smart.

If you go low calories, don't train so hard.
If you are going to train hard, eat more.
If you want to train hard and eat lower, take more breaks and refeed more.
If you are going to go low caloric for a extended period of time, take breaks and re-feed more.
If you are bigger, you can drop more faster.
If you are smaller, you have to lose it slower.
If you are smaller it may take 12-16 weeks before water balance alone will let you see anything.
If you are bigger you may drop dramatically at a fast weight and be perfectly fine to keep doing so.
The scale lies.
Measurements can lie.
Focus on healthy eating and repair, smart training, and having some patience.

[Lost Dog]

Originally Posted by Leigh P.

No I am not saying that at all.

I am saying that if you are in a extreme deficit and not eating whole food or are eating a minimal amount of nutrients that this might not be the best time to test the water of your ultimate strength.

This is not a discussion about lifting and strength increase in a moderate deficit, this is a discussion about vigorous activity with lack of repair. I don't care if you are taking a few capsules of branched amino acids and some fish oil, if you are in a 40%+ deficit of daily caloric expenditure do a 1RM deadlift at your own unneeded risk.

How does calorie cycling play into all this? In your latest plan, there were days at various calorie levels. Obviously, you're going to lose more fat on the low days, but strength and energy suffers on that day and sometimes the day after. Then you have a higher cal day, which brings energy levels back up. Overall (weekly), you are probably still at a deficit. How does all this play with a person's desires to go for those PRs, hit the high energy activities, etc.

Diet and exercise plans range from so simple to very complex. Unfortunately, the complex ones often seem to make people think that things are more complex than they really are or need to be (raises hand sheepishly).

At the simplest level, eat less and keep up your moderate activity levels.

To a point, the less you eat, the less activity you can perform and still recover?

To a point, the less time you have for activity, the less you should eat to continue the fat loss?

The reverse seems to be true, as well. Maybe. To a point. We look at people who are lean with very high activity levels and see how much they are eating. We want that (raises hand). But, how much is genetic? JB works with mostly naturally lean, athletic, and strong people. Eat more and workout more seems to work for them. Especially when many of those clients HAVE to workout/train a lot. It's their sport or job.

I'm rambling, but you guys are used to that by now, right?

How much of a special diet and exercise plan is designed to keep the client interested enough, motivated enough, to keep it up for the long haul? Put me on a plan where I eat 1466 calories a day and you're lucky to see my next week.

Is the calorie cycling to keep interest? Not just yours, but UD2.0, TNT Plans D and E, The Anabolic Diet, The Cheat To Lose Diet, etc. Is it primarily to keep one motivated and/or because of a person's desires for more than one goal at once? Get bigger or stronger and leaner, at the same time?

Ramble over.