Like many overweight women I have tried to loose weight several time in the past 8 years, and succeeded only in gaining and extra 40 lbs from when I first started trying. I have accepted that this is due largely to poor consistency on my part and also a general lack of education about how weight loss and fitness work.
Almost a year ago now, the penny dropped for me on the difference between a diet and a lifestyle change. I finally accepted the idea that if I am really committed to getting my body into a physical condition that I can feel proud of that I need to find a healthy eating and exercise program that works for me for a long time in the daily grind and not something that is short term.
I went back to a site that I've used successfully for short term weight loss www.caloriecount.about.com and I invited members to join me on this challenge to really discover what a consistent effort to change our eating and exercising habits means and requires as opposed to short term diets.
In the last year we have learned a lot. We have identified triggers for why we don't follow through, we have exercised goal setting, and learned personal motivation and commitment.
NROLFW was introduced to the group about 6 months ago. One member has had significant success with it. I asked around and found three more of my friends who have also had significant success using NROLFW. Regardless of the questions I am asking below I am excited to try this out for myself.
One of our members seems to be completely stalled in her progress, and there are now several threads on the site that suggest that NROLFW is ineffective for women who want to loose weight....
Okay, I can see the weight loss point... muscle by volume weighs more than fat. So if you build muscle you may not see the scale go down.
I should mention at this point that I do think we are a group of women who are not focused on the scale are focusing on getting physically fit, that is loosing size and gaining muscle. This is commonly articulated as weight loss, but I do believe after a year that the numbers on the scale are not the primary motivator for these women. It is more likely the dress sizes and pant sizes.
The idea against NROLFW is that because you need to increase your caloric intake to build muscle that women who want to loose size / weight will not see the results they are expecting, further more that because (according to this poster and others on cc) to loose fat you need to be in a caloric deficit that the goals of muscle building and fat loss are mutually exclusive.
The general theme seems to be that if the women on the forum want to meet their size and weight goals then the only recourse is to return to a low calorie diet until the fat is lost. The thread author calls this fat stripping and advocates keeping weight lifting to ensure that fat is lost instead of muscle.
They would follow up the fatstripping with a bodybuilding / muscle building program.
This opinion seems to boosted by this article by Alwyn Cosgrove, although in my opinion I don't think he's actually advocating for fatstripping as opposed to muscle building.
Now, I'm not an expert by any stretch, but this seems to be completely against everything that I've just read in NROLFW and also on several fitness blogs that I trust.
My understanding is that on a low-calorie diet you will loose weight, and you may loose that weight in fat, but there is no way to control if you are loosing fat or muscle.
Also, the general problem with low-calorie diets are that they do slow down your metabolism, are very difficult to maintain and result in the kind of yo-yo dieting that I myself have been victim to for the past 8 years generally resulting in overall weight gain as opposed to weight loss.
Further more it's my understanding that muscle gain and fat loss are not mutually exclusive. Muscle if built, will increase the basal metabolic rate and make the body more efficient at using energy thereby actually helping to burn fat more effectively even when the body is at rest.
I have three questions based on my much too long introduction (thank you for your patience)
1. Am I on the right track with my thinking about low-calorie diet effects and the idea that muscle building and fat loss are not mutually exclusive?
2. If so, where can I get more concrete information to show that so that it's not just my opinion, and is at least backed up by someone who knows what they are talking about.
3. If the above is correct and building muscle is the best route to size loss and a healthy body, what would be encouraging to women who are not seeing results on the scale or on the tape measure? What initial indicators of success could they look for?
Hello there. Can I answer with an 'it depends' for the questions?
Weight loss happens in the kitchen. We all usually agree on that one. Controlling what you're eating is perhaps the most important things.
I'm not a fan of low calorie eating. It's never worked for me in the past. Of course, I'm one of the people who lost weight on NROL4W. For me, I've found the following:
low calories, I have less energy, I start doing less, I stop losing weight
higher calories, I have more energy, I do more, I lose weight
I think the biggest problem people will have on any program is finding the balance. As well, some people can't lift heavy and control their appetite. I could manage that, so it worked for me.
As for the muscle building, I think it's probably less possible when on a deficit, although I understand if you're new to weight lifting it's more likely that you might. However, if you can maintain muscle you'll be further ahead when you lose the weight - as it will most likely be fat you're losing.
I saw changes in both weight and measurements. However, the most encouraging thing is when I lift something that I could barely manage before. The first ones that come to mind are the big box of kitty litter and the filled propane tank. These were both items that I wouldn't be able to carry easily, and now I can.
It takes a lot of food to build muscle!! It's not an easy thing to do.
To lose fat, you need to take in less food. Can't build muscle on less food.
Moderate strength training while in a deficit, I believe, will allow you to maintain LBM. Probably not gain any muscle, unless a real newbie. I lost 30 lbs on NROL4W, but I maintained a deficit. I knew that this would be a time of maintaining LBM, not gaining LBM. I now am almost to the point where I can start bulking.
So, cut until you are at a lower bodyfat percentage and then start a bulk.
I really recommend the book "Fat Loss Troublehsoot" by Leigh Peele. You can read more about it on the Fat Loss Troublesheet forum on this site. It speaks to many of the issues you bring up.
The "experts" all seem to agree that the only people who can build muscle while on a calorie deficit are people brand new to lifting (and this effect doesn't last that long)
Like Ann said, some people can handle hard workouts on a deficit while others can't. Regardless though, fat loss is going to require a calorie deficit. Depending on where one's maintenance calories are (which is mainly a function of genetics) will determine how low in cals they need to go to lose weight/fat.
From what I understand, the metaboilsm boosting effects of having more muscle has been greatly exaggerated. It is quite hard to build enough muscle that is really going to impact the metabolism significantly. So attempting to lose fat by eating at or above maintenance and doing a program like NROLW with the hopes that the muscle you gain is going to make it easier to lose weight is wishful thinking. You are still going to have to cut calories at some point to get rid of the fat. Plan and simple.
1. Am I on the right track with my thinking about low-calorie diet effects and the idea that muscle building and fat loss are not mutually exclusive?
2. If so, where can I get more concrete information to show that so that it's not just my opinion, and is at least backed up by someone who knows what they are talking about.
3. If the above is correct and building muscle is the best route to size loss and a healthy body, what would be encouraging to women who are not seeing results on the scale or on the tape measure? What initial indicators of success could they look for?
NROLW does address this. I don't remember which page (I no longer have the book) but I think it was toward the end of the nutrition section. Basically, if your weight is staying the same and your clothing is looser on the bottom (may be tighter on top) the program is working. It does take awhile to work; this isn't a 6-week crash program. Alwyn's Afterburn and Warp Speed Fat Loss are quicker and much more strict.
Thanks for the comments, I think what I'm hearing is that some people have seen both size and weight reduction on NROLFW, however, this is likely for people who are new to weight lifting, otherwise building the required muscle to efficiently burn fat while eating at maintenance or above is a long shot.
mmmmm.....that wasn't what I was trying to say. Muscle doesn't burn THAT many more calories....you'd need a shitload of muscle to make any difference there.
...The general theme seems to be that if the women on the forum want to meet their size and weight goals then the only recourse is to return to a low calorie diet until the fat is lost...
...Now, I'm not an expert by any stretch, but this seems to be completely against everything that I've just read in NROLFW and also on several fitness blogs that I trust...
...My understanding is that on a low-calorie diet you will loose weight, and you may loose that weight in fat, but there is no way to control if you are loosing fat or muscle...
...Also, the general problem with low-calorie diets are that they do slow down your metabolism, are very difficult to maintain and result in the kind of yo-yo dieting...
Hi Beagle! I am trim4ever, the original poster that you are referring to! I can certainly relate to your uncertainty and questions about the best way to go about losing fat and getting in shape. However, I just want to clarify that I am in NO WAY recommending a LOW CALORIE diet as you referred to many times (my italics and bolding above). I stated that I am pushing my calories back to the 1550-1600 range which would be considered a very healthy, doable, sustainable level by any registered dietician, nutritionist, etc. Low calorie (at least in my mind) would be down around the 1200-1300 range or even lower. Keep in mind, however, that all of these numbers vary according to a woman's height, weight, frame size, metabolism, BMR, RMR, etc. A woman who is 5'0" with a small frame may have a very different caloric need than someone who is 5'8" with a large frame.
In fact, I am doing exactly what Lou Shuler recommends in the NROL4W book. He says if you aren't seeing fat loss in inches and the way your clothes fit, to go ahead and slash calories by 300. This is exactly what I'm doing since my normal maintenance is somewhere around 1800-1900. When I am in tip-top shape like I've been in the past, I can usually eat somewhere around 2200 calories, and this is the point I am hoping to get back to.
Everyone's response to the program is different. Some women will drop weight like crazy eating near their maintenance level and adding a new strength training regimen. Some women will stall. Some will bulk up quickly. Some will lean out quickly. The point is, you have to try each combination and note carefully what's happening with your body through careful measurements -- tape measure, calipers, the way your clothes fit, the way you look and feel, etc. Then adjust accordingly.
The best book I have ever read about fat loss is Tom Venuto's e-book, Burn the Fat, Feed the Muscle. You can visit his websites at www.burnthefat.com or www.tomvenuto.com. He basically says the same thing as Alwyn Cosgrove. The difference is, he doesn't lay out the nice lifting program like NROL4W does.
Sorry to ramble, but I really want to clarify that I am NOT advocating a low calorie diet. I wish you the best of luck with your fitness strategy! I can't believe how much a measly 10 pounds of fat has consumed my waking energy but I am determined to strip it off and replace it with 4-5 pounds of lean muscle.
I was also confused about this before I started reading up on it all.
What I have found; the bottom line is, research proves there must be a deficit to lose fat. I mean if you want to eat 2200 calories and be in deficit mode, you better be pretty darned active. For me, I only have time for so much dedication to the gym, so I have to find the balance that is right for me. Either way you look at it, fat costs 3500 calories per lb. If you want to lose a lb, you have to burn 3500 more calories than you consume. That is according to an email that Lou himself sent me. Keeping in mind that the smaller the deficit, the slower the fat loss, which studies show, stays lost longer.
Regarding the body's selection of what type of tissue it uses for fuel? I need to do a little more research, but IMO... I feel that if you are weight training, your body is trying to maintain the muscle, because of the necessary state of repair, that it will default to fat stores. Hence, the need for lifting to maintain LBM (lean body mass) while keeping a deficit.
It seems a lot of ladies are doing this program, but those who are looking to lose, are getting caught up in the "build muscle, boost your RMR", and not realizing that to lose fat a deficit is required....
As we have said time and time over in the CC group, not everyone doing NROL4W wants/needs to lose fat. Even you made reference to Alwyn's comments that NROL4W is not necessarily a weight loss program. YET, Lou, in the book, on page 71 states that if you want to lose, the calories should be "cut by no more than 300 per day." And while I don't believe for a second that he is talking about starvation dieting, his comment pretty much says "deficit" to me.
SO, regarding the facts that I have uncovered for myself, I have made the determination that my individual needs require me to cut down my energy consumption a bit. I am aiming for the 1600/day target, and adding a little more expenditure to increase my deficit. And... once I get to the BFP (body fat percentage) that I feel is right for me, then... and only then CAN I, I will begin to build muscle.
In the email from Lou, he also said that you should never see deficits greater than 700 per day, and that after several days of consistent deficits, you need a day to "shake it up", IOW, a cheat day.
"After a week or even two weeks of steady caloric deficits, you want to blow it out for one day to get the leptin-related metabolic boost working for you. It's anecdotal, but I've heard from a lot of people that they were unable to lose fat until they went to strict dieting broken up by weekly cheat meals. My coauthors and I have never recommended cheat meals, just because the data hasn't been there at the time we wrote the books, but a lot of people report that it's the only thing they've tried that worked."
I hope this helps everyone understand a little better. Feel free to also come on over to the Wagon Jumpers thread on CC and view the lively conversation on this subject.
May your healthgain be an adventure,
~Julie
Last edited by NannyGabber : 02-10-2009 at 11:29 AM.
Reason: Additional Information
Considering the rather intense workout that NR4W is, that's likely the reason for the rather small (relative to some other protocols) deficit. If you have too huge a deficit, you run the risk of it being too taxing on your system and either be prone to over-eating or under-moving in the rest of your life, esp for more sensitive systems, thereby not losing the weight/fat you want to.
The Calorie Question...
but I am determined to strip it off and replace it with 4-5 pounds of lean muscle.
Linear Mode
