Volume training to support fat loss or high weight low rep?

[Shale]

Ok, when dieting you are supposed to lift heavy to preserve muscle, something along the lines of 3x6 etc...
But then I keep hearing of different kinds of low weight/ high rep routines with minimal rest periods, German Volume training for example...

[PowerManDL]

Yes, you do see that.

What's your question?

[Chris Correia]

. . . so what kind of volume or set/rep schema should you use during fat loss???

[PowerManDL]

Lift heavy to preserve muscle as much as possible.

Do the pumpntone jamboree as another form of calorie-wasting.

[GqArtguy]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Do the pumpntone jamboree as another form of calorie-wasting.

But not so much that it is muscle wasting.

[Shale]

It seemed that it would contradict itself...
Lift heavy and then high volume?

[bcbarnes]

I have read in several places that strength training to lose fat is no different from strength training to gain muscle. The difference is in your diet. If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight. Strength training "simply" insures that the weight you lose will be fat, and the weight you gain will be muscle. In either case, the strength training is the same.

The reason for low rep high weight some times and high rep low weight at other times is simply to give you variety in your workout, and keep your body from getting to adapted to one thing - which would otherwise cause any progress to slow down.

Brian.

[StuWard]

Instead of "strength training to lose fat is no different from strength training to gain muscle", it would be better to say " strength training while trying to lose fat is no different from strength training while trying to gain muscle".

The distinction is that strength training is the same but strength training is not all that's required. When trying to build muscles, you need a combination of strength training and hypertrophy training. While trying to lose fat you need a combination of strength training and metabolic training.

Therefore, in my opinion, the ideal fat loss workout would have heavy sets for the main movements followed by a significant amount of high volume, low weight training, perhaps barbell complexes, bodyweight circuits, etc, designed to get the heart pumping and generating post workout calorie burning.

Stu

[PowerManDL]

You might want to clarify "significant amount"

Some, sure. But a lot?

The calorie burn from exercise tends to be a bit overstated. The amount of activity you do is entirely contingent on your diet.

[Jean-Paul]

Originally Posted by PowerManDL

Do the pumpntone jamboree as another form of calorie-wasting.

[Bytsi]

If you eat less calories than you burn, you will lose weight. If you eat more calories than you burn, you will gain weight.

Yes... but... calorie restriction (the kind often undertaken by women like myself who did weights but also aerobics and tried to eat 1200-1400 cal/day) does NOT necessarily lead to weight loss. You may lose pounds (not necessarily fat), but at a certain point you're working against your own goals and not losing weight OR building muscle. The old "eat less than you burn" advice also, unfortunately, shuts down the metabolism and the RMR if taken too far below maintenance calories (which it often is). At that point, cutting calories doesn't lead to weight loss because the body refuses to let go of any more weight - it goes into starvation mode.

I'm finding that I can eat a LOT more doing NROL4W without gaining an ounce, because I'm increasing my RMR with the exercise (specifically, strength training and HIIT, no more aerobics). If you haven't read Lou and Alwyn's explanations of this (which are more eloquent than mine, I'm sure), please check them out.

[bcbarnes]

Originally Posted by Bytsi

Yes... but... calorie restriction (the kind often undertaken by women like myself who did weights but also aerobics and tried to eat 1200-1400 cal/day) does NOT necessarily lead to weight loss.

If you calculate your caloric needs once and never again, I would agree. If, however, you recalculate your caloric needs based on your CURRENT metabolic rate, then I stick by what I said. As your metabolism slows down, your caloric needs drop, and so to be in a deficit your caloric intake must also continuously drop.

Your body will eventually adapt (it is very good at that) unless you force it to keep the metabolism up by doing exercise.

This is why ANY diet that depends ONLY on a calorie deficit is doomed to failure - you continue to cut calories until you eventually either give up, or starve to death.

Brian.

[Lost Dog]

The phenomenon of slowed metabolism in women is caused from chronically undereating, usually in cycles, for many years. It doesn't just happen from eating too little on a diet. It takes a long time and a lot of bad exercise and eating habits to get to that point.

[Bytsi]

If you calculate your caloric needs once and never again, I would agree. If, however, you recalculate your caloric needs based on your CURRENT metabolic rate, then I stick by what I said. As your metabolism slows down, your caloric needs drop, and so to be in a deficit your caloric intake must also continuously drop.

Your body will eventually adapt (it is very good at that) unless you force it to keep the metabolism up by doing exercise.

This is why ANY diet that depends ONLY on a calorie deficit is doomed to failure - you continue to cut calories until you eventually either give up, or starve to death.

I agree with you, but I also think that an important point here is the weight/strength training aspect. I did weights, and worked hard at it, for years. But eating at a deficit AND doing tons of aerobics really kept me from getting anywhere. Weight-training did help, it did change my body, I did get stronger - but I still think undereating and aerobics were keeping me overly fat and preventing growth or maintenance of muscle...

The phenomenon of slowed metabolism in women is caused from chronically undereating, usually in cycles, for many years. It doesn't just happen from eating too little on a diet. It takes a long time and a lot of bad exercise and eating habits to get to that point.

If you go to the National weight-loss registry and read, it's scary... From what I remember, the average weight-maintenance for women is around 1200 cals... and that is HARD to live on (I know, I've tried!!!). Luckily, a metabolism can be revived even after years by eating right and doing enough of the right kinds of exercise (as in NROL4W, in my case). Not that I'm "there" yet, but I know I'm going in the right direction!

[rixatrix]

If you're a believer in Dr. John Berardi's principle of G-Flux, then wouldn't that pendulum swing both ways? If metabolism can be improved by eating more/exercising more, doesn't it then make sense that metabolism could be slowed by eating less/expending less energy?

And if metabolism can be improved in a matter of weeks/months, what makes us think that metabolism can't also be slowed in a matter of weeks/months of undereating?

Sorry to jump in, but it's an interesting conversation...

[Lost Dog]

Yes, but it also depends on the level of speeding or slowing that you think is realistic. Most of the increases in metabolism immediately stop as soon as you go back to "normal" eating levels and drop the exercise. There will likely be some boost that continues for a while, but that part doesn't seem to be huge.

Your metabolism (well mine, anyway) increases in very close to a linear progression along the lines of food intake and energy expenditure. The difference is what it does with the surplus or deficit.

At any given time, you are in a surplus or deficit (there's really no such thing as staying at your maintenance intake). The degree of the surplus/deficit, the length of time that you're in it, and what your body has been recently "primed" for determines what happens during that time.

With the G-Flux principal, you are creating an environment where you create many, many more anabolic opportunities for muscle growth vs fat gain (while in a surplus) and have primed your muscle for repair and recovery (for those times when you are in a deficit). As a result, your body is putting priority on repairing and sparing muscle (to protect you, since it "thinks" you desperately need to gain muscle to survive). Since the priority is to build muscle, when you are in a deficit, it uses body fat, rather than muscle to provide energy when possible.

Also, the TEF (Thermic Effect of Feeding or Food) can make you think some magic is happening. It takes up to 35% of the calories in P just to digest it. G-Flux has you eating a lot more P, but 35% of those cals are used to digest what you just ate. Free food! No wastage (body fat).

Also, while the P+C and P+F thing is (or used to be) highly overrated, there is a tiny bit of partitioning that does help (just a bit, though). Without the C, it's less likely that fat will be stored as body fat (it's not huge, overall). But, in my own experience, what ends up happening for many is that P+F meals tend to be smaller in caloiries. P+C meals (after a workout), tend to be more calorie dense. But, since you just worked out (when your body actually boosts the TEF even more) you tend to put those extra calories to good use vs bad (muscle vs fat).

So, in the end, you CAN end up eating in what appears to be a much greater surplus of food. It is, but if we could do the math, we'd see where TEF of the extra food and TEF caused by the workouts were playing tricks on us (with the hidden calorie burn). But, it's not really a greater surplus, it's just that we don't see that part of the math.

All these things play together in a cascade of goodness. But, if you're not disciplined, you can see that it takes one thing to slip to put the kibosh on one thing, which can lead to another, and another. G-Flux takes discipline.

And, even with discipline, you still have to figure out how much you can eat and workout without gaining fat or running out of energy. The laws of thermodynamics still apply, and the actual deficit or surplus that you can work with is still about the same after all that crazy math is done.

That's G-Flux.

Slowed metabolism is caused by a survival instinct. You're starving and working really hard. Time to slow things down so you have enough energy to make it to the next meal.

In long term dieting terms, it slows and you keep dieting, dropping cals more and more as your diet stops working again. Repeat.

You could fix it or keep it from getting semi-permanently slow by going back to maint levels again, but the women we're talking about, typically don't go back to non-starvation levels at all OR long enough to snap the body out of survival mode. Then, they want to lose more weight and they drop cals even further. Repeat.

[rixatrix]

What would be considered a starvation level for women? And how long would you have to raise calories to non-starvation levels to reinstate normal metabolism?

This is all very interesting. I do think a lot of women tend to chronically under eat, a