The Fat Loss TroubleshootThis is your place to troubleshoot your fat loss problems from nutrition to training. This section is led by Leigh Peele, author of "The Fat Loss Troubleshoot," the ultimate fat loss manual. If your results have slowed or stalled this is the place to come for advice for all your fat loss needs.
Hello I am new to this so please forgive my ignorance.
I need to lose somewhere in the neighborhood of 35-40 lbs.
After reading NROL it seemed that my best bet would be to engage the flux capacitor and increase my RMR via EPOC.
However the more I read the more it seems you really can't increase your metabolism much and the simple fact is that if you want to lose weight you need a calorie deficit, period.
I'm also reading the more I see that while you're in a deficit the best thing is heavy lifting which lets your nervous system know it needs to hang on to as much muscle as possible. Opposite of FLI in NROL which is promoting cortisol production as the great fat reducer when in fact calorie deficit is the only way to lose fat.
If all or most of the above is true than NROL is complete crap for getting me to my goals as fast as possible.
Maybe I just need to learn more but as of right now I am confused and I need confidence not confusion.
In my experience, it doesn't matter WHAT kind of lifting plan you embark on, if you want to lose fat, it's all about your diet.
I started on NROL and I GAINED a few pounds (not LBM). That's because I figured if I was working so hard in the gym the diet would figure itself out. Not so.
Once I zeroed in on my diet and concentrated on fat loss, it didn't matter what program I was doing. Througout my fat loss journey I've done NROL, NROL4W, Power Training, and back to NROL...you get the point. With each and every workout plan it all came down to diet....and I've done Fat Loss workouts, Strength workouts and Hypertrophy workouts, losing fat all along the way as long as my diet was in check.
You are correct about the EPOC and yeah there are a few things I personally disagree with in the book and even Alwyn has talked about as well from things he is learning now. However, the overall set up and structure is very solid even if some of the science and explanations are a little off and that is just because of how long it takes to get a book written, edited, and published so you can't really fault that.
Yes, it takes a decrease in calories to lose fat. Yes, this is the most important aspect. However, training has its place too.
Just find the program you like, keep the protein intake a priority, and keep moving.
Likely part of your confusion comes from applying one's personal, individual way of having to do the fatloss thing as across the board "how it has to be done." I, for one, don't get to do the "work out hard and often and with intensity and up your metabolism and burn more and eat more and lose weight" thing. That just makes me exhausted and needing to sleep the rest of the day, thereby losing all the caloric burn of activity for 23 hours a day to up my 1 hour workout's burn. Other people can work out a lot and intensely, "rev their metabolisms" and have more energy and still be spunky and eat decently (because maintenance went up) and lose weight.
New Rules and NR for Women are for the people that can manage to either have enough daily burn to let them eat, or for people who can manage intensity on low calories… or it's for people looking for body recomp (eating at a small deficit), or for people not looking to lose (and some even to gain).
For some people, that kind of exercise gives them energy for the rest of the day. So not only are they doing those killer workouts, but the rest of the day they're moving more and fidgeting more and burning more calories. For those, it seems like the EPOC thing works, that working more and eating more means they up their maintenance and can eat even more.
But still, they'd need to eat less than they burn to lose. If they've managed to "rev their metabolism" up to some 2000k or more, a 500 cal deficit still lets them eat 1500, and that's not so bad. If they're ending up with a higher maintenance, say 2300, then they can eat 1800 and still be at a 500 deficit and be on track for 1 pound a week loss (on paper, at least).
If that isn't how you are, and you try to eat that 1500 or 1800 but your maintenance is only 1600 or so, you have either very slow loss, none at all, or you gain. And if your maintenance is only 1600, if you don't get that "revving" from the workouts, and you want a 500 deficit, you're only eating 1100 cals, and that's tough to maintain the workouts on, let alone activity the rest of the day.
It's all rather individual, and so can be confusing. I mean, nearly everything that's "eat less, move more" works, but what is more movement isn't always exercise, and eating less is still a matter of knowing how much. So while a book is a great place to start, and NR works for many people and is a good book, if it doesn't work the way you do, you won't see the results and effects they talk about. If it does work the way you do, you will see great success and that'll be the way you tell your friends to do it to lose.
There's a reason everyone seems to have "tried everything." They try what people tell them works… but does it work with them or against them?
NROL: Effective?
Linear Mode
