Then do the NROL fat loss routines as prescribed. They're 12 weeks, right? If you're that much overweight, you could lose 20 lbs, and then you're halfway there. There's nothing magical enough to get you to lose 40 lbs over the course of the program unless it's a really long program designed specifically for long term massive weight loss.
Pick a fucking goal and stick with it. You eat enough protein and eat at a deficit you are not going to lose muscle on the NROL Fat Loss workouts. Book it.
What is your glitch? First you don't understand my goals, now you say I don't have one.
Either you don't understand english or you're just being an asshole on purpose. Welcome to my ignore list.
[EDIT] What a joke. You're an admin and I can't ignore you. Sad.
This thread either needs to be locked or LOLcat-bombed. Either way, there's some massive confusion/ignorance, hypocrisy, and/or trolling going on here, none of which is worth wasting all this time, space, and effort on. Move along, people.
__________________ No Magic Pill (the log)
My Movember page (yes, I'm slacking on pictures)
Thing is, you can create a deficit with your diet AND create a deficit with your exercise. There's no reason that you can't do both.
Of course, and you can also get out a knife and slice the fat off. So what? There's no REASON to use exercise to create the calorie deficit. Some people (women usually) with low TDEE may need to add some low intensity cardio but doing metabolic circuit training is retarded. Nobody with any experience in building mass and cutting fat uses that approach.
Quote:
Bringing bodybuilders into the equation is foolish as juice monkeys aren't going to open NROL to begin with. The book obviously isn't aimed at them.
So body builders take drugs? Some do, some don't. I'm talking about people who know what it takes to cut fat and preserve muscle. Nobody uses this sort of approach.
Quote:
IIRC, the NROL fat loss routines go from 15 to 12 to 10 over the course of the routine, do they not? 3x15 in a caloric deficit isn't going to magically cause you to lose muscle.
If you go from lifting heavy weights for lower reps, it most certainly will. Now, you COULD do the fat loss routines, and then maybe once a week do a low rep high intensity power style workout. That would be sufficient to send a message to your body to keep all the muscle. Of course diet needs to be able to support the body's response to the message you're sending. This gets back to why it's better to just use the routines of a proven expert like Lyle McDonald. His programs include diets that are tightly coupled with specific types of exercise. Doing NROL fat loss routines, and eating a calorie deficit, is shooting in the dark at best. Should you refeed? When? How often? It all depends on a lot of stuff. Blindly cutting calories and beating yourself into the ground with metabolic circuit training is silly.
Quote:
Your pure strength may go down, but that's nothing big. However, I'm assuming your diet was different than it was when you were doing Lyle's program? If it was, that's not a very valid comparison either, as there is no control to draw from.
My diet was different. I used the diet in Tom Venuto's BFFM book, and employed carb cycling as he describes it.
Regardless, no diet is going to save your lean mass when you suddenly reduce the intensity of your lifting.
Explain to me please why, when doing NROL fat loss routines, your body is going to keep around metabolically expensive tissue (muscle) when by every measure it has, it doesn't need it?
This thread either needs to be locked or LOLcat-bombed. Either way, there's some massive confusion/ignorance, hypocrisy, and/or trolling going on here, none of which is worth wasting all this time, space, and effort on. Move along, people.
I'm all about learning. Where do you see the massive confusion and/or ignorance?
I certainly hope you're not suggesting I am trolling as I've been a member on this forum for a long time.
Of course, and you can also get out a knife and slice the fat off. So what? There's no REASON to use exercise to create the calorie deficit. Some people (women usually) with low TDEE may need to add some low intensity cardio but doing metabolic circuit training is retarded. Nobody with any experience in building mass and cutting fat uses that approach.
I wouldn't go nearly as far as to say that the FL programs are metabolic circuit training. They're three groups of two supersets in a workout.
Quote:
So body builders take drugs? Some do, some don't. I'm talking about people who know what it takes to cut fat and preserve muscle. Nobody uses this sort of approach.
Just because one is a bodybuilder, it doesn't mean that they know what they're doing. And conversely, there are many ways to achieve a goal. I'm not the only one who would say that NROL is aimed at bodybuilders, so it's unfair to bring them into the discussion.
Quote:
If you go from lifting heavy weights for lower reps, it most certainly will. Now, you COULD do the fat loss routines, and then maybe once a week do a low rep high intensity power style workout. That would be sufficient to send a message to your body to keep all the muscle. Of course diet needs to be able to support the body's response to the message you're sending. This gets back to why it's better to just use the routines of a proven expert like Lyle McDonald. His programs include diets that are tightly coupled with specific types of exercise. Doing NROL fat loss routines, and eating a calorie deficit, is shooting in the dark at best. Should you refeed? When? How often? It all depends on a lot of stuff. Blindly cutting calories and beating yourself into the ground with metabolic circuit training is silly.
You're not "losing" muscle. At all. Like I said, you may lose a bit of pure strength, but that's what happens whenever you train for a different goal, the other goal suffers. Someone who trains at a 5RM and lower for extended periods of time isn't going to be nearly as "good" (however you want to define that) as someone who trains in a 10-12 rep range for an extended period of time.
I'm not at all discounting Lyle's approach, or saying that it doesn't work. But there are many ways to approach fat loss, and someone could see (and have seen) appreciable results with a deficit created primarily by exercise. (and that also doesn't take into account the physiological benefits)
Quote:
My diet was different. I used the diet in Tom Venuto's BFFM book, and employed carb cycling as he describes it.
Regardless, no diet is going to save your lean mass when you suddenly reduce the intensity of your lifting.
Explain to me please why, when doing NROL fat loss routines, your body is going to keep around metabolically expensive tissue (muscle) when by every measure it has, it doesn't need it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by banderbe
I did. Again I will ask: Why should your body keep metabolically expensive tissue (muscle) when it doesn't need it?
If you reduce the intensity of your lifting, by definition you do not need all of the muscle you have.
Stuffing your face with chicken breasts and whey isn't going to make a bit of difference.
What's clear is that you don't see >8 reps as "intense." Intensity is not exclusive to lower rep ranges, as a workout can be exceptionally more "intense" employing higher rep ranges than a workout that used exercises that involved <5 reps. Why do you feel that way? (I'm not being antagonistic, I'm just not understanding the reasoning behind your definition)
__________________
Quoth David Banner: "Like a pimp"
It's not a beer belly. It's a gas tank for a sex machine.
This gets back to why it's better to just use the routines of a proven expert like Lyle McDonald. His programs include diets that are tightly coupled with specific types of exercise.
Exercise Sets Reps RI
Squat or leg press 2-3 6-8 2-3’
RDL or leg curl 1-2 6-8 2-3’
Bench press or 2-3 6-8 2-3’
Incline DB press
Rowing or chins 2-3 6-8 2-3’
Lateral raise 1-2 8-10 1-2’
Biceps 1-2 8-10 1-2’
Triceps 1-2 8-10 1-2’
Weighted crunch 1-2 6-8 1-2’
Back extension 1-2 6-8 1-2’
RI = rest intervals and the values are in minutes.
The only "magical" thing I can see about this is a low volume routine done twice a week would allow for better recovery on the extremely low calorie PSMF diet (this is not a knock on Lyle, I believe he is one of the smartest practitioners out there).
So therefore I am the troll is that it? Why because I don't feel like living with a 1000 cal deficit for the next 3 months and maybe lose 24 pounds when I could take a more radical approach and do it in 1?
The diet/exercise plan I started following today is a connect the dots approach. Works for me. I'm not an expert but I can follow step by step directions written by an expert.
Again, it is easy to say I am ignorant, trolling, confused, have no goals, etc. Thus far no one has said anything with merit, just attacking me because I've decided NROL is not for me.
Thus far no one has said anything with merit, just attacking me because I've decided NROL is not for me.
No, it's because you have completely opposing goals and want them both at the same time, and despite the appearance of a plan, half of what you've said is counterproductive to the other half. Hard to imagine that level of incompetence isn't just a show. People have offered help and asked questions in order to better understand your position, but your own explanations are circular and self-referencing without any progress, so after three pages of waste, there has to be a stopping point. If you're already set on what you're going to do, then go do it. I don't understand the need to defend your thoughts and actions if you're set on them anyway. If people here are supposedly attacking you--which hasn't happened, though it seems that any disagreement to any extent with you counts as attacking--then go away and you won't have to deal with it anymore. This IS just the Internet, after all. No one's forcing you to be here.
__________________ No Magic Pill (the log)
My Movember page (yes, I'm slacking on pictures)
No, it's because you have completely opposing goals and want them both at the same time, and despite the appearance of a plan, half of what you've said is counterproductive to the other half. Hard to imagine that level of incompetence isn't just a show. People have offered help and asked questions in order to better understand your position, but your own explanations are circular and self-referencing without any progress, so after three pages of waste, there has to be a stopping point. If you're already set on what you're going to do, then go do it. I don't understand the need to defend your thoughts and actions if you're set on them anyway. If people here are supposedly attacking you--which hasn't happened, though it seems that any disagreement to any extent with you counts as attacking--then go away and you won't have to deal with it anymore. This IS just the Internet, after all. No one's forcing you to be here.
I want to build muscle mass after I lose a lot of weight because as I understand it these two things cannot be done at the same time. This is what I've been saying since page one, perhaps not as succiently as this but yet thats what I've said.
How is that wrong? How is this difficult to understand? How is this circular? How is this incompetent?
I continue to post here because I am trying to see if anyone has any good points as to what I am doing is wrong and so far ... no one has said anything that makes sense. I feel like Alice in Wonderland. If you don't believe Lyle Mcdonald's Rapid Fat Loss program has merit let's hear why.
As for being attacked, maybe you have Oldman on ignore too which would be why you didn't see his posts in which the moderator edited the posts to remove his personal attacks. Maybe you don't think being called a troll is a personal attack?
Look, dude.
You came along and said NR was crap and you weren't doin it no more. People here on this board have done NR, and have had a lot of success with it. For weight loss. For fatloss/body recomp. For muscle gain. So, we know it is not crap for any of those goals. You want to do something else, and hey, whatever. Noone said Lyle's program is shit… we know it's not and that it also works.
People weren't necessarily trying to change your decision, we don't care… but perhaps point out that you're wrong about NR not getting you to your goal… either one of them. So that you can come away with the understanding that NR could work just fine for you as you'd want it to if you had wanted to do it… it has worked for many before, and will work for many more.
From my understanding, you're not really getting that you can do NR and lose, and then hell if you then want it to gain you can. But you *seem* to be under the impression that if you have not finished your fatloss in the amount of time the book has you on the "fatloss" phases, you're sunk - and that you wouldn't want to start the "hypertrophy" phases until you're ready to actually be shooting for hypertrophy. Which is weird thinking, and not terribly correct, but hey, whatever.
So I don't think you're really getting their point, and they're not getting your point because if your point is what I think it is, it makes no friggin sense.
And actually, we do tend to give a shit, at least in the beginning, of people's success who come here looking for direction… that's kinda mostly why we're here… to give a little… if for no other reason than to have more attractive people in the world to look at.
Now then… onto the LOLZ
(and remember, all good weightloss plans come with a healthy does of managing your fud and movement)
I've done most of the NROL programs. They all work very well. If you follow the FL programs and want to lose more fat, then do them all again. Seems pretty simple.
I also think there has bee a pretty large disconnect between the OP and others in the thread. I don't see NROL as a crash program of any sort. Its diet recommendations (very general b/c it's not a diet book) are more lifestyle than specific eat this or that. It's a book that you could design a life workout around and follow loosely for eating and meet and stay at many long term goals.
What the OP seems to be talking about are crash types of programs. Lose as much weight as fast as possible then add back as much lean mass as fast as possible. That's cool and all for the short term, but that's not what NROL is or has ever claimed to be.
Personally, I like the NROL way better. I don't want to ever be starving myself to the point where I have to only do 2 workouts/week with almost no volume. What if I want to play basketball a couple times that week? Or surf b/c the waves are good? I'm not a pro bodybuilder so those sorts of sacrifices just don't seem worth it to me. For the OP, they may be. To each his own.
__________________
"Only those who will risk going too far can possibly find out how far one can go." -- T.S. Eliot
"We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, therefore, is not an act, but a habit."-- Aristotle
I'm harking back to a conversation we had over a year ago: when you gain weight, you exercise more. That doesn't work for me. It never has. I've needed to control weight through diet and the horrible process of restricting calories.
That is, until I started lifting weights.
Holy hell, I can eat all I want and I'm still losing weight. Miracle of miracles!
Exercise does work, but the KIND of exercise matters a lot.
I'm harking back to a conversation we had over a year ago: when you gain weight, you exercise more. That doesn't work for me. It never has. I've needed to control weight through diet and the horrible process of restricting calories.
That is, until I started lifting weights.
Holy hell, I can eat all I want and I'm still losing weight. Miracle of miracles!
Exercise does work, but the KIND of exercise matters a lot.
Careful.....for many, lifting weights causes an increase in appetite and the need for more calories. This is why MANY do NOT lose weight when they start lifting. People think that they can out exercise a bad diet, and this just isn't the case.
It's still a matter of calories in vs. calories out. No matter what type of exercise you are or aren't doing.
Now, since this is a forum about NROL, I will assume that NACHO won't feel a need to post here to discuss NROL since it isn't giving him the results he is looking for as fast as he would like.
I'm sure that there are froums for devotes of the new program you are following where you will enjoy yourself, and be able to share valuable insights into how the program is going for you.
Good luck. I hope you are able to achieve everything you hope to with regard to your overall health. There are many good programs out there that will work, it's just a matter of personal preference.
Those of us that have discovered NROL will continue share our insights here and enjoy working with a program that meets our needs.
It’s all good.
Just posted today.. please read and learn. Here's a relevant excerpt:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle McDonald
As I’ve mentioned repeatedly on the site, the primary stimulus for muscle growth is progressive high tension overload (e.g. adding more weight to the bar over time). Without getting into a big old technical discussion of protein synthesis and breakdown here (you can read The Protein Book if you’re interested); I’ll simply say here that the high tension stimulus that builds muscle is the exact same high tension stimulus that will maintain muscle mass when you’re dieting.
So perhaps you can guess what happens to muscle mass when you reduce weight on the bar to use higher reps and shorter rest intervals. When you remove the high tension stimulus, you remove the signal to build (or in the case of dieting, maintain) muscle mass. What do you think happens next? Right, muscles get smaller.
And that’s the bad of metabolic type weight training: while it has certain benefits that I listed above, it is an insufficient stimulus, for maintaining muscle mass (with one exception). At least if used by itself.
That exception is beginners. Complete beginners, who haven’t built any real muscle mass in the first place don’t have to worry much about muscle loss while dieting (just about any training will maintain it).
Which is what Nacho is (if you don't think so go look at his pictures).
Quote:
But for trained individuals beyond the beginner stage, using metabolic type weight training exclusively on a diet is a recipe for disaster. Please note the use of the word ‘exclusively’ in that previous sentence. I’ll come back to this in a second.
Which is what you are.
Where's the disconnect?
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Which is what Nacho is (if you don't think so go look at his pictures).
Which is what you are.
Where's the disconnect?
If you look at one of my replies from a few days ago I said that it was okay for complete beginners. Don't you find it strange that NROL never says this? It would have been nice if they warned me before I wasted a couple months doing FL I, II and III.
I also do not think you can tell if someone is a beginner by looking at their pictures.
You can spend six months eating big and lifting heavy and build muscle while also putting on some additional fat and you won't look radically different. Bigger maybe, but there will be no definition whatsoever. To the untrained eye you'll just look a little fatter.
Instead of sticking your head in the sand, why not use science and your brain to confront me with facts and tell me why I am wrong?
Not everyone is attacking you…
Quote:
Originally Posted by banderbe
If you look at one of my replies from a few days ago I said that it was okay for complete beginners. Don't you find it strange that NROL never says this? It would have been nice if they warned me before I wasted a couple months doing FL I, II and III.
I also do not think you can tell if someone is a beginner by looking at their pictures.
You can spend six months eating big and lifting heavy and build muscle while also putting on some additional fat and you won't look radically different. Bigger maybe, but there will be no definition whatsoever. To the untrained eye you'll just look a little fatter.
Instead of sticking your head in the sand, why not use science and your brain to confront me with facts and tell me why I am wrong?
Because I’m not looking for an argument where one doesn’t need to exist. I’m very happy doing NROL. It’s working for me. I wouldn’t presume that there is only one protocol that will work for me or anyone else. There may be many. There may be hybrids of many.
I’m simply saying, if that protocol works for you, and you enjoy it, do it.
NROL is working for me, I’m enjoying it, I’m in much better shape at 50 than I was at 40, or even 30.
The only suggestions in NROL for starting with fat loss were "the eternal beginner" and "Serious about lifting but seriously overweight" (and this was FL2, where the rep ranges get lower), which may fit the higher rep range as Lyle indicated.
And no, I don't think NROL should have warned about muscle loss in the FL routines (seriously, how much muscle did you lose?). That's a mass market book not written specifically with Barry in mind.
__________________
"A government big enough to give you everything you want is a government big enough to take from you everything you have."
Seriously. You're taking things too personally, as in none of this was ever about you until you decided to take offense to something, or you're just looking to pick a retarded fight on the Internet (redundant, I know). Either way, go do a bong hit or something and unwind.
__________________ No Magic Pill (the log)
My Movember page (yes, I'm slacking on pictures)
This thread is a mess. I don't know if you have each other on ignore or something, but you're assuming that the talk is about you and getting defensive.
Banderbe, I think you mistook some of the comments as aimed at you when they were not. It may be a discussion where both sides don't agree, but that's it.
NACHO, you came to the forum seeming to know a lot about things, yet chose to bash a program that a lot of people here have done and make statements that are contradictory. It looked like you came here with a hidden agenda. Maybe not, but that's how it seemed. Maybe take a step back and start over.
A lot of the rest of you (but not all) are picking fights because it's fun. That hasn't been the spirit of our forum in the past. Give people a little benefit of the doubt or at least realize that you can also merely give up the discussion.
Many of us have had conflicting goals before, long and short term goals, and a desire to get done faster than is probably possible. Sometimes we read/find things that seem to be the answer to our prayers and run with them or get frustrated with one program and jump to another that looks better.
I suggest that you let this thread die and start the discussion elsewhere. At the very least, take things back a few notches.
Maybe you don't think being called a troll is a personal attack?
Linear Mode
