Strength without weight gains, but no time...

[CD Lee]

Ford - Also, I am currently as I have stated, lifting weights again to build muscle and strength, not really mass. I am carrying too much fat around my midsection and back, and I want to get rid of that. Plus, I play competitive tennis, and bodyweight is very rough on my knees.

My question, is with the basic lifting (whole body, 12 reps - one workout, twice a week for now), and doing a Weight Watchers routine, what do you think will happen? I am losing weight right now, and gaining strength. Is it 'possible' that I am losing actual muscle, while continuing to make strenth gains? Or am I maintaining current muscle, and losing fat(I am losing fat at least).

The real thing here is that I am purposefully consuming fewer calories than it takes to maintain my body weight.

[IronFist]

Ford, nice posts.

IronFist

[Ford Prefect]

CD Lee,

Maintaining muscle mass while losing weight has been the bane of bodybuilders for years. When you lose weight, you'll sacrafice some muscle mass, but that doesn't mean that you can't continue to get stronger. Basing your program on neurological adaption rather than muscle hypertrophy should allow you to gain strength while reducing bodyweight. How often can you workout/week?

[BrentCarey]

This post has been removed because the people that are responding to it are not reading it thoroughly anyway.

[ElPietro]

Originally posted by BrentCarey


This is not good advice. This prescription is specifically indicated in a muscle gain program. Incidentally, there is very little reason to do as few as 1-5 reps - especially in a strength program.

-B

Sorry, I skipped most of what Ford posted after this, but I read this and absolutely had to comment. This is about as ass-backward a statement anyone could make. I think a 6 year old could pass an ACE certification given 3 days study time and a pamphlet. So please don't come here with a high and mighty attitude, because truly you are being judge for your statements, not your grade on some test, or some paper you may or may not have.

Your above statement is SO wrong, that it makes me wonder how any of your other statements were correct. I don't even know how I could correct you without having to explain the basics of muscle physiology, and neurology. But since you have a high and mighty attitude, and consider your GOOD time too valuable to waste on a forum of your betters, I won't waste my time either.

If you want to learn, do some more reading here, or ask some questions. If not, stfu.

[Ford Prefect]

Brent,

I see. So the emperical fitness knowledge you've gained is better than the empirical knowledge of the premier powerlifting club in the world (Westside Barbell), one of the premier strength training experts in the world (Siff), people that train olympic weight lifters & athletes/NFL/NHL/NBA/MLB (Davies, Poliquin, King, Medvedyev)? This stuff is only conseidered cutting edge in the States because people had been training bass-ackwards here for so long. Your posts prove it.

About diet... Please look up the word "contend" in the dictionary. It may help you in your understanding of the english language. In plain english, the sentence, "I don't contend that" means "I do not disagree with that".

[Robinf]

Brent,

I looked on your school's website and it gives a schedule to live by. I was wondering if you follow that? I'm just curious if all that works.

Ironfist,
I passed the ACE and found that fewer than three days is necessary to study for it--it's mostly common sense. I'm now a fairly popular cardiokickboxing teacher.

Ford (and/or Ironfist and/or....),
I've found that I've gained weight on the scale but my clothing still fits as it did when I weighed less on the scale. I'm assuming this is a good thing, for one. But, I have noticed that I've stalled in my chin up gains--stuck at 6-4-4, and my squat has stalled. Any help? Do I need, now to increase in size in order to make further gains? That would seem to make sense to me, but if there's a way around that..... Or do I need to change up for a while and get back to those exercises after some different routine? Any thoughts? What has worked for you (know that it might not work for me, but it might spark some ideas in me, right now I'm dead in the water).

[IronFist]

Certifications don't mean anything. When I got one, I didn't have to learn anything I didn't already know. I knew my **** before, I know my **** now, and the certification doesn't mean anything at all. The only reason I got it was because it was required to work at my univeristy's gym.

The point is, saying "I have X certification" doesn't make you any more credible than if you didn't have it. In fact, I've seen trainers that hold many certifications say things that are wrong, give bad advice, etc.

BrentCarey said:
Credentials don't impress me (referring to Siff post), empirical evidence impresses me

Credentials don't impress you, but you sure seemed to list off yours in a hurry. If empirical evidence impresses you, then go read a physiology book so you stop saying things like this:

Incidentally, there is very little reason to do as few as 1-5 reps - especially in a strength program

IronFist

[Merryprankster]

Guys,

Thank you. The advice I am getting here is consistent with my understanding of weighttraining for optimal strength to weight ratios--low volume, long rest, heavy weights. I was, of course, just looking for some ideas to go along with that basic understanding...

Now, what sort of percentages are we talking?

Secondly, I could only make it to lifting twice a week--maybe three times if I pushed it. I'd like to build my program around squats or deads.

[abobo]

Do you mean what percentage of your max constitutes "heavy" lifting? That's going to be ~85% 1RM. You can try out this calculator
for 1RM if you want. As you know, there are a number of loading schemes that let you ramp up to and beyond that percentage, some of which have been posted already. So it looks like you are ready to start putting something together. I don't think it's my place to do so, but with your goals, your schedule, and your preferred exercises, one of the others should be able to give you input on your program.

--

Edit: I starting to beat the dead horse about certain posts that were removed, but on second thought it was unecessary.

[CD Lee]

FordPerfect said:

Basing your program on neurological adaption rather than
muscle hypertrophy should allow you to gain strength while reducing bodyweight. How
often can you workout/week?

I can workout more times per week if need be, to achieve my goals. I just wanted to take it easy this time around, and not get going too heavy too fast. Also, I was sore at first longer than I used to be when younger, and had some cramps. But the cramps have left, and I am not getting sore like I was. I could do 3 times a week.

Could you go into more deatil about neurological adaption?

[stubbs]

i don't have time to write much, but off the top of my head, and bear in mind im still new to exercise science, i thought it might be worth to mention the different muscle fibres:

ST
FTa
FTb

from what i know doing different weights can target these muscle fibres to achieve the results you want,

ST (slow twitch) fibres are good for endurance but not so great for raw strength. these can be targeted by high reps (12+) of a low 1rep max percentage.

FTa (fast twitch a) are good for strength, fairly good at endurance but targeting these tends to lead to hypertrophy. these can be targeted with middling weights for middling reps (8-12).

FTb are good for high intensity work, good for building raw strength and also good for sprinters but have poor endurance. these can be targeted with a high 1rep max percentage of small reps (1-5).

when you target ST, you target ST alone, when you target FTa you also use your ST fibres, FTb has the maximum stimulation by using all three fibres.

after reading the above i've realised how crap it sounds but hopefully somebody with the knowledge can elaborate and correct me where needbe. anyone that does correct me, please be kind im still learning

cheers,
stubbs
________
Buy Mflb

[Knifefighter]

Originally posted by BrentCarey
This post has been removed because the people that are responding to it are not reading it thoroughly anyway.

What a surprise! Another training protocol about which BC is misinformed. Sorry, but you should enroll in a university level exercise science program if you are going to coach and train others.

People who have no formal education in the field of exercise science and are training/teaching others are an insult to those of us who busted our buns in college and are trying to teach our athletes correct training procedures.

FP, IF, EP-
Good, well-informed posts. MP- take their advice.

[Robinf]

Brent,

My question is an honest one. Please reply to it in my other post.

[ElPietro]

Originally posted by Knifefighter

People who have no formal education in the field of exercise science and are training/teaching others are an insult to those of us who busted our buns in college and are trying to teach our athletes correct training procedures.

I really have to disagree strongly with this statement. I think just because education is formal doesn't really mean anything to me. In fact, I feel that formal education is inferior in many cases.

Why do I say this? Because formal education relies on textbooks, and material that is often out of date, and it takes quite a bit of administrative effort, for the class material/curriculum to be updated/adjusted.

But I guess I don't understand why you would feel insulted. If you study this field as a career, you are doing it for money, and maybe because you also enjoy it. But once you are in the field, and making whatever you make, there isn't as much incentive to keep up to date with new findings.

While the amateur, who is debating others, researching, keeping an open mind, is up to date on leading edge research, is doing it for pure enjoyment, and may or may not have studied the exact same material a formaly educated student would have, but also may have had access to even more information. They could even be of a more expert opinion, in what they speak of, as they have persued it solely for personal interest, which means they could follow whatever education process that suited their interests best, versus a very rigid program.

I will be the first to say that I have no formal education, and yes I offer advice to others. Do I charge for it here? No. If someone asked me to train them and it would take up a significant amount of my time I would though. So I'm not sure how that would be an insult to you.

Maybe I misunderstood. You agreed with what I stated, and I have no formal education, so either you believe that I'm right, or I'm wrong, but regardless of where I received my information, should not change that fact.

Was just addressing that one statement, there are many clowns out there, formally and not formally educated in exercise science, so whether it's an ACE, NSCA, or college or university degree, it's the info provided, and not necessarily how it was arrived at, that's important to me. Hopefully you feel this way as well, and I simply misunderstood.