So I understand fat loss is a matter of diet as much as anything else. I've also heard that while dieting, to maintain muscle it's better to do low reps.
So why does the fat loss program have so much high rep work?
I haven't looked at the FL to closely, so this is all off the top of my head.
My thoughts on it would be that Alwyn is trying to get you into an interval type state to cause your body to shift gears as much as possible to create as large an EPOC as possible.
__________________ 2009: No races, No times. Slow year. So, now you're 96 cals short. You're now in starvation mode. Doomed. - LostDog
Blog entry: November 1, 2009, Pancakes LiveSTRONG daily plate log
That's right og. He calls it "metabolic disruption." (I actually think that's code for puke factor!) Fat loss will come faster, but possibly at the cost of some lean mass loss.
So how you do it depends on your body. If you want fat loss faster, then metabolic disruption with calorie deficits will get you there.
If you want to preserve lean mass, even at the cost of slower fat loss, then another program might be the best choice for you. These choices are very individual.
That's right og. He calls it "metabolic disruption." (I actually think that's code for puke factor!)
At the summit I called the Fat Loss workouts "vomitastic".
And the best way to keep from losing muscle while in a fat loss phase is simply to keep the muscles challenged, which Alwyn's program do amazingly well. If you keep working those muscles, the body won't want to let them go.
__________________ Megaloi -- My Blog
"Every society honors its live conformists and its dead troublemakers."
- Mignon McLaughlin
On a very low calorie diet or very low carb diet, you might not have the higher levels of energy required to do a NROL FL routine. Shorter sets (like in a strength routine) take less glycogen, for instance, to perform.
I think FL routines, like the Alwyn's FL in NROL and CB's TT probably work better at more of a slight caloric deficit than an extreme one.
On a very low calorie diet or very low carb diet, you might not have the higher levels of energy required to do a NROL FL routine. Shorter sets (like in a strength routine) take less glycogen, for instance, to perform.
I think FL routines, like the Alwyn's FL in NROL and CB's TT probably work better at more of a slight caloric deficit than an extreme one.
LD, I agree completely. I didn't mean to imply that there should be an extreme calorie deficit, especially for a woman. Like Jonathan Fass talked about in this last FitCast, women need only slight calorie reductions so that fat loss occurs slowly and muscle mass is not compromised.
ljk, I just took a look at the pictures in your log. I had not seen them before or taken a look at your log before. I think you are lean enough that additional fat loss programs would not be in your best interest right now. I think your body composition would best be improved by the addition of lean muscle mass.
What kinda rep ranges does FL have anyhow? Since I am away from my book
x15 range? Thats what I get from ljks log.
On side with what Lisa is saying, what is your current BF%, as you look pretty lean to me as well.
__________________ 2009: No races, No times. Slow year. So, now you're 96 cals short. You're now in starvation mode. Doomed. - LostDog
Blog entry: November 1, 2009, Pancakes LiveSTRONG daily plate log
a) I don't believe in the "muscle loss" theory assuming your diet and other training isn't completely idiotic. I just don't see it.
b) look at Mahler's log for proof. He gained muscle.
c) Here's a study supporting my recommendation (from my soon to be released fat loss manual:
Bryner RW, Ullrich IH, Sauers J, Donley D, Hornsby G, Kolar M,Yeater R.
Effects of resistance vs. aerobic training combined with an 800 calorie liquid diet on lean body mass and resting metabolic rate.
J Am Coll Nutr. 1999 Apr; 18(2):115-21.
This was a significant finding.
The authors split the subjects into two groups: an aerobic training group and a resistance training group. The aerobic group performed 4 hours per week of aerobic exercise. The resistance training group performed 2-4 sets of 8-15 reps. 10 exercises, three times per week (the resistance program was very basic, but began with 2 sets of each exercise and progressed to 4 sets of each exercise).
The findings showed that V02 max increased equally in both groups.
Both groups lost weight, however the resistance training group lost significantly more fat and did not lose ANY lean body mass, even at only 800 calories per day. This is significant as this type of extreme diet, one would assume, would result in a loss of lean tissue. Indeed, fat loss programming in general has been criticized for the possibility of lean muscle loss. This study shows that even on a paltry 800 calories muscle mass, (and therefore metabolism) can at the very least be maintained as long as a resistance training program is followed.
Additionally, the resistance training group actually increased resting metabolism compared to the aerobic group which decreased metabolism.
Tomorrow is my last FLI workout, and I have definitely gained muscle while on a caloric deficit. I'm sure I benefit from the whole newbie advantage though.
__________________ 2009: No races, No times. Slow year. So, now you're 96 cals short. You're now in starvation mode. Doomed. - LostDog
Blog entry: November 1, 2009, Pancakes LiveSTRONG daily plate log
Very interesting! What a cool study! Do we know what level those people were, were they beginners or did they have a background in lifting? I wonder what the same study would show comparing different intensities and volumes.
Have you observed differences in nervous system recovery if one were doing a high intensity/lower volume workout vs. the FL workouts from NROL.
I have only done FL1 and cannot support my opinion with longer experiences with it but I seem to recover much better with higher intesities/lower volumes at the same caloric intakes.
Thanks for contributing to this!
In general Galya, you will always recover better from lower volume work.
As my athletes move into the competition season we cut volume by 50% and try to increase intensity so you are on the right track.
However, I don't want to get off topic - when we are talking about fat loss, volume of work done is still a key factor.
Additionally when training for fat loss, nervous system recovery is off less of a concern as the CNS load is low. You tend to see nervous system fatigue with lower reps in general. Higher reps have more of a metabolic factor.
I am trying to imagine myself on an 800 calorie liquid diet and working up over time to 4 sets of 15 reps of 10 exercises. If those exercises stood me on my feet, I think I'd faint. I don't know about the test subjects, but my compliance would not be so great!
This study really goes against what I've learned in the past. It does make me think. My questions are similar to Galya's. It is hard comprehend how RMR could go UP with such a low calorie intake.
The studies Alwyn cited illustrate what bodybuilders and other lifters have experienced for years. Funny that so many of us fear losing muscle while "cutting", when the reality doesn't show that as a big threat, as long as resistance training continues.
fwiw I weigh 15st 11 (obUS: 221lbs) up 5lbs over the last few days.
I tend to hover around the 1000kcals mark when dieting and don't notice a big drop
in strength. besides, it'll [muscle] come back very quickly once the diet is done.
The other thing is that good definition makes one look bigger anyway. For those that are bothered about size of course.
I am trying to imagine myself on an 800 calorie liquid diet and working up over time to 4 sets of 15 reps of 10 exercises.
It's a blast
What's with the working up lark? Get in there girl!
Be careful though if you aren't used to it it can be a bit dodgy. Don't forget plenty of fibre and vitamins and essential oils.
If you like your drugs you could try an EC stack. It compartmentalises fat loss and curbs hunger. Or you could give clenbuterol a try. Both help with the low kcals.
I remember Lyle McDonald was saying that the lowest recorded decline in RMR on a VLCalD was like 30%. In that case it would make sense, no?
And from what I remember this was with starvation camp victims? i.e. they were BEYOND very low cals!! Not sure though.
I think the myth came from this type of scenario:
Typical bodybuilder - eating 3000 calories per day working in the 6-8 rep range doing 12-18 work sets.
Starts his pre contest diet.
Goes to 1500 calories with very little carbs.
Starts taking thyroid meds and/or clenbuterol etc
Starts cardio at an hour per day.
Switches training to supersets of 15-20 reps and does 36 sets per workout.
In other words his caloric deficit goes to 2500 per day!
Now that's a recipe for disaster.
But as long as you are sensible I don't really see the muscle loss that everyone talks about. Sure there is some water loss, which could be recorded as a loss in lean mass.
Incidentally, if you were REALLY concerned about muscle loss, adding in one to two heavy sets of 4-6 reps of 1-2 exercises at the start of a fat loss lifting routine would be more than enough stimulus to maintain muscle for the average person.
Thanks for your comments Alwyn. I can see what you're saying and agree that it would be true. Sometimes it's hard to let go of old paradigms!
I assume that what would be "sensible" for a calorie deficit would depend on a person's starting condition? Do you think that women need to have a somewhat smaller calorie deficit while trying to loss fat and preserve muscle? Do you think that women have a harder time retaining lean muscle mass than men?
Thanks for your comments Alwyn. I can see what you're saying and agree that it would be true. Sometimes it's hard to let go of old paradigms!
I assume that what would be "sensible" for a calorie deficit would depend on a person's starting condition? Do you think that women need to have a somewhat smaller calorie deficit while trying to loss fat and preserve muscle?
Well typically they eat a smaller amount of calories than men, so it's hard to make a big deficit from intake. This is one of the reasons why females seem to respond to increased cardio work - it's easier to increase caloric burn than reduce the intake.
But as a percentage? I think a similar deficit to a male is fine - just not as a total amount
e..g a male can cut 500 cals from a 3000 cal diet.
a female shouldn't try to cut 500 from a 1500 cal diet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lisa~
Do you think that women have a harder time retaining lean muscle mass than men?
In my experience - no. However, most of the dieting women I meet are under my instruction - so we don't get into light weight pink dumbbell stuff or hours and hours of cardio - so my viewpoint is skewed.
I think it's more of a practical application to fat loss programming that causes the problem. The majority of females (present company excluded) simply do not know where to begin when training for fat loss.
Alwyn, whenever you post we learn something. You challenge me to reconsider how I think, and that's a good thing. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us.
Alwyn, whenever you post we learn something. You challenge me to reconsider how I think, and that's a good thing. Thank you for taking the time to talk to us.
Thank you for listening !
My new manual "Real World Fat Loss" will be about exactly whay ou just described - challenging our beliefs about trainign and diet in relation to fat loss.
You'll be surprised how much junk there is that is recommended by trainers.
Question everything.
Here's my question, as long as Alwyn is hanging in here. Can fat loss be acheived without weight loss? I'm currently 175 @ 20% BF and would like to get to 175 @ 15%. I don't have a time frame for this but would like to avoid going through the cutting and bulking cycles most people do. They never seem to work for me. So, eating a good clean diet which would allow me to maintain weight and an appropriate lifting program could I drop that 5% fat while maintaining my weight?
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
fat loss confusion
Linear Mode
