Too much of a good thing? (Metabolically expensive workouts)

[stingo]

Espi's been posting about this in my log, but I'd figure I'd ask the question here. I've been in the 230-240 range for about a year and a half or so. The majority of my workouts since about May 07 were fat loss style programs (Fat Loss I, II and III from NROL, and programs in that style from my trainer), but even with that, my weight's remained about the same. I believe that Espi is suggesting (and correct me if I'm wrong) I should back off on the intensity of my workouts as that would make it easier for me to gauge my nutrition and let diet take the weight off. While I can see what she's saying, it seems a bit counterintuitive to me as well - but, either way, it'd be nice to cut off some more body fat. Any help/responses appreciated. Thanks.

[Aoife]

If I'm understanding correctly, having not read the mentioned conversation... That seems relatively lucid reasoning. I would figure that that's the reason that even for NR fatloss plan (the overall plan types) still have you switch it up and dive into the realm of strength training (low rep) and whatnot. I mean, if you've not really changed up how you're working out, even though you've changed the actual workouts, I can still see you adapting to it and losing progress to an extent...

I mean, it seems logical to me...

[JoshDunn]

If I follow correctly then you could just change the workouts more then you have been. Ie one TT program isn't that different from another TT program. Not sure what you've done but maybe find a different author and try their methods for a bit. Eg If you haven't done many of Chad Waterburys programs maybe try one of them as with the 10x3 will be somewhat different from the usual run of the mill fat loss workouts.

Have you been periodizing your diet over the year?

[gobbla]

It's a loaded question thats answer is going to be dependent on how much time your schedule allows. If you're using all the time you have now (say, 3-4 days a week x 1hr) then you're going to be well served keeping the intensity high. If you have hypothetically more time, then add low intensity (foot stomp) calorie burning exercise.

You need to ease off the intensity now and then (complete off week or deload) but if you back off too much then you're shooting yourself in the foot.

[Espi]

You are missing the point.

To lose weight you have to eat less than you need.. upon which the general advice then adds: and .. move more.

How much more one needs to move is up to debate.

This is what I've posted in his log and will repost here.

After years of spinning my wheels because I'd not be able to eat less calories.. I came to the horrible conclusion

losing fat =
1 DIET DIET DIET DIET
2 just enough HEAVY lifting to retain muscle
3 just enough extra cardio or metabolic work to burn more calories

Too much of 3 and I"m SPENT and not able to function properly.. unless I overeat. Hence why I mentioned spinning my wheels.
So, I really have really cut way back on doing tons of work in the gym and let my diet do the work for me.
I'm feeling more alive at home and get more work done.

Once in a while I disobey my own rules and tend to overdo it in the gym.. within 2 weeks I end up overeating or feeling like a zombie and get reminded why simply eating less , and doing FAR less in the gym but try to be more active with relatively easy activities (simple walking/cycling, even just going up & down the stairs for futile things)

No, it's not sexy. But it's what WORKS.

PS: recently there's a lot of people who are wearing a device, called a BodyBugg. They have come to the most 'horrific' conclusion, that simple household tasks and SS-cardio burns more energy than they had assumed. While OTOH, working out in the gym, be it lifting heavy weights, metabolic workouts or HIIT, burned LESS than they thought.

Most people wearing those devices, started changing their habits. They wouldn't necessarily do much less in the gym, though some of them cut out HIIT, but they would nearly always increase their non-strenuous activity level. Like paying more attention to cleaning their homes. Going for daily walks and making sure to walk over 10 000 steps a day. And they are actually seeing results from it.

So, it seems the pendulum is swinging the other way again. After years of damning SS-cardio and praising HIIT, it's back to the basics.
1 diet
2 heavy lifting
3 SS cardio
4 a very limited amount of HIIT cardio or metabolic work (complexes etc.) to prevent overtraining while underfed.

[fengshway]

I think different body types might respond differently. espi's approach is very much counter to the way alwyn cosgrove teaches. gobbla alludes to it in his post--if you google "the hierarchy of fat loss", he outlines what kind of training to do and how to prioritize.

I will just tell you my experience--higher intensity complexes ala cosgrove do NOT trigger me to overeat in the way that espi describes. since the challenge started, I have lost one pound of fat per month and have put on about a half a pound of muscle per month. now granted, I am not setting world records here for fat loss, and my pics do not really tell the whole story--my clothes fit better than ever, and I am running faster than ever at 44 years old!!!! but I am only doing a 100-200 calorie deficit per day--I am eating on average between 2400-2800 clean calories daily.

I guess I really subscribe to the whole gflux theory. at least it seems to be true for me. restricting calories and working out hard definitely don't work for me. but restricting calories and working out less intensely NEVER worked for me either--it always resulted in compensatory weight gain.

the key for me has been the restricting part---there is a certain threshold of calorie restriction that triggers me---restricting more than about 300 calories under maintenance seems to send me into overeating.

my solution seems to be working--higher intensity cardio, intense weight training, tiny calorie deficits with long periods of maintenance at a lower body weight. it took me one year to lose this last 15 pounds. but I believe they are gone for good!

I also think that it is important for people who have lost a significant amount of weight to have periods of time where they simply work on maintaining before going for more fat loss. I am down 70 pounds from my heaviest, and I know tom is down even more. protecting the weight loss that you have already achieved is success in my opinion.

[JoshDunn]

Have a read up on Berardi's G-flux articles. I remember reading and doing hypertrophy programs that said to not do ANYTHING outside the gym as it burnt calories that were going to be muscle. G-Flux (my understanding) is do your structured gym and HIIT stuff but also do as much extra activity as you can manage.

[gobbla]

In agreement with espi with the caveat that HIIT\Metabolic work can be substituted for heavy weight training if that's what the person does anyway.

High Intensity work = Maintain current level of X while you're in a calorie deficit
Low Intensity work = Burn calories, shouldn't interfere with ^^

[Espi]

Heck, I've had a link to the G-flux article as my sig for over a year. And actually do subscribe to it.

The key thing here is exactly what Fengshway says: the deficit should not be too large in order to maintain optimal fitness.

Recently I've come to the conclusion after reading what Lyle McDonald had to say about what approach gives the best fat loss, that there are generally 2 apporaches that give good results
1 keep a tiny dietary deficit and work out hard
2 have a very large deficit, but don't work out hard (low volume heavy lifting, SS-cardio)

The 3rd approach : working out hard but creating in a too large dietary deficit mostly doesn't work well. It results in either overeating or overtraining and even sickness as your immune health also takes a back seat when food intake is limited but you're forcing yourself to be very active.

I happen to have a not so swell working immune system.
Following 1 year of severe undereating and overexercising, in early 2004 I even got hit by spondylodiscitis (bacterial infection in the lower spine) that kept me in hospital for 8 weeks and in a cast for 3 months. This should have cured me like forever for any ideas to be working out hard at a huge deficit.
Yet, it happened again in a very moderate way: late 2007 I got shingles while most people getting this, are in their late 50s /early 60s.

So really: if your desire is to work out LOTS , eat UP! If fat loss is your first goal, cut way back down in activity level. But don't try to do both.. you'll end up overtrained, ill or just annoyed because of overeating.

[sharsell119]

Ugh. This is all so confusing! I had one trainer months ago tell me I was probably doing too much cardio and thus eating up some of the muscle I was gaining by my weight training, so I backed off the cardio a bit. Now just this weekend I had a different trainer tell me that if I add just 5 minutes of cardio a day to my existing routine I could lose the last few bits of chubbiness around my middle that I'd like to get rid of.

Makes me just want to scratch my head.

[Bytsi]

Originally Posted by Espi

If fat loss is your first goal, cut way back down in activity level. But don't try to do both.. you'll end up overtrained, ill or just annoyed because of overeating.

Just to clarify - my understanding (and experience so far) is that you can train relatively hard (in my case, NROL4W) and eat SLIGHTLY (ie: 100 calories) under maintenance to achieve slow (healthy) fat loss, through the increase of muscle tissue, EPOC, etc... Are you saying that I should basically use only diet and low-intensity exercise to lose fat - and then increase food and work out hard after the fat is gone?

In my case, I did that for years and years and years - calorie restriction combined withe relatively low intensity (at least compared to NROL4W) weight-training, plenty of SS and aerobic interval (not anaerobic high intensity) cardio. And here I am needing to lose fat. I did keep the majority of my weight off (from 10 years ago), but my bf% has climbed back up (along with the scale) to an unacceptable level.

Maybe different bodies respond in different ways, or maybe it's just changing it up, but I feel like NROL-type workouts and diet can work for me and help me achieve my goal of getting stronger and not spending hour upon hour in the gym while being ALWAYS hungry and ALWAYS mad at myself for not being strong enough to keep starving.

I know I can lose pounds (not just fat, but pounds on the scale) through mainly diet. But that isn't the way I want to live - Wouldn't I be better off finding a lifestyle that I can maintain (be it diet, exercise, or the combination) that works for me?

[Espi]

Relying solely on low-intensity FORMAL cardio and doing it hours on end, won't lead anywhere. The body will adapt and become so used to it, that it will be able to do it, while expending very little energy.
As an example, back in the period between 1997 and 2003, when I would do 300+ K rides, about 200-300K into a ride, my heart rate would drop down to 125 bpm while cycling at the very same speed. During the week, rest rate would also drop back from the usual 40bpm for off-season to just about 30-32 bpm. One time it even dropped to 29bpm. I was freezing nearly all the time!

Fast forwards to 2008. I do no more SS cardio that lasts more than 45 min at the time, yet have managed to drop fat successfully and even gain LBM, especially in the upper body that used to have an emaciated look. The only thing I do is lifting HARD, but I do very little metabolic work, just low rep sets with heavy weights.

For SS cardio , I nearly solely rely on what I do outside the gym. Since I live in an urban area, I can go anywhere within town by bicycle. However, rather than take my bicycle, I've switched to walking everywhere if it's closer than 2 K (1-1.5mi) away. Takes more time, takes more effort , but burns more fat.
Groceries are invariably brought home on foot etc. etc.

All very small changes with an unexpectedly large impact. Somehow, stop & go activities, even when it concerns slow-motion non-formal activities seem to make a bigger dent than you'd expect. The best part is that it doesn't make me hungry and is easy to do.

[stingo]

Thanks for the comments everyone. I think I like option 1 best, even though it's a bit harder to implement. That is, like Wendy, to eat close to maintenance and maintain a higher level of working out. I think my principal problem is that I've lost weight, but I have yet to seriously sit down and recalibrate my nutrition. So what Espi is saying is correct. I have to pick what activity level I want to perform at and then pick the level of nutrition needed to support it as well as some sort of fat loss. I've asked my trainer for his input so hopefully we can meet on it soon.

[PowerManDL]

Espi's got it right (as odd as it is to say that, it took years of berating her before she finally got it :p )

Point of order: HIIT sounds good on paper. It does a good job of getting people "in condition". If used properly it can be a part of a fat loss program.

The reality of the situation? I've seen over and over again that people relying on HIIT and other high-intensity methods just don't get there.

Who does? Bodybuilders and figure girls that I've seen actually get into condition are relying on diet and SS cardio.

Simple as that. High intensity modalities are simply too much for the kind of diet that it takes to get someone in that kind of condition. You either eat too much to lose weight, or you get hurt/overworked because you weren't eating enough to support the activity.

If you use it correctly, which will mean sacrificing lower body strength training (assuming sprints or cycling), then it can be a part of a fat loss protocol.

But I doubt anybody's actually going to get there by relying on large volumes of this kind of training.

[fengshway]

powerman, what do you think of alwyn cosgrove's article here:

TESTOSTERONE NATION

[fengshway]

oh, here is a cross post from my log so you can all see how conflicted I am about restricting my calories. for me, leaning out will have to happen over a few more YEARS, lol:

I am just posting these things to my log to keep me motivated. I would love for my body to change dramatically over the 6 months, but it just might not happen. I am maintaining a 70 pound weight loss, so further loss of body fat would definitely require a significant eating change. I already eat clean most of the time, and I eat reasonable portions. while I am tempted to do something dramatic like TNT or other plans that are conducive to losing body fat, I know what happens with my history when I restrict like that--diets for me lead to compensatory overeating every single time I have done them. I wish I didn't have such messed up eating problems, but this is what happens when I restrict calories too much or restrict carbs too much.

so I am choosing to focus on athletic performance, while still being accountable to monthly pictures and measurements. I realize that losing body fat would certainly improve my running, but I have to be realistic. I refuse to do anything during a fat loss phase that I am not willing to do for the rest of my life on maintenance. and the only thing that has worked for me is painfully slow weight loss. it took me a whole year to lose 15 pounds over the past year. and the closer I get to