I just wanted to throw out what I am doing, and see if people have some suggestions. I am working with multiple daily doses of protein powder...and tons of water.

I am lifting 6 days a week. Most of my lifts are 3 sets of increasing weights: 10x, 8x, 6x. I have not been worrying about 1 or 3 rep maxes because quite frankly they are no important to me. I have a good idea of where I should be lifting, and how quickly I am progressing.

I am also doing about 20 - 30 mins on the elliptical machine daily.

Monday Thursday- Bench, Curl, incline *mon*, decline *thurs*, tri-pulls, military, mid and low row

Tuesday Friday - Squat, Dead, leg press, extensions, leg curls, calf raises.

Wed Sat - Abs, torso, lengthy stretching session, back, and more cardio than usual.

I am very aware that there are lots of un-needed lifts in that mix, but is it really a problem to lift more? Is there a benefit in NOT doing them?

I do stretch after each session (after all my sets are done) for 15 mins or so, depending on the muscles worked.

Anyway, anyone that has insight, or comments....or wants to tell me I'm a dumbass...jump on it!

Chef Soli

I hope that you're eating more than just protein powder. Protein powder should be an alternative to whole food. A last resort, in most cases, if you will.

6 days per week. Wow, I'd hate that! And I love lifting.

Define "progressing" please?

I assume you do this after your strength training?

So you are only giving your body one day of rest?

Wow man, that's a lot of lifting. I was going to say to you originally that you can get away with 6 days of lifting if you structure things properly. But even then, I wouldn't do it very long.

And this is not structured in a way I'd advice a 6 day split.

Depending on how long you've been training, it might not be an issue. The stronger you get though, the more you are going to have to back off. Have you ever heard of *overtraining*?

It's a very real phenomena and it's the last state you want to find yourself in.

At this rate, you'll be there eventually.

Management of fatigue is a critical concept that most lifters overlook.

Besides, most trainers who are in the know have realized the best results for their clients, especially novices, with something like a 3 day per week full body split.

In a nutshell.... if you're in love with the idea of how you're training.... stick with it. Especially if you're making progress. Progress should be measured by weight lifted. If you are getting stronger, so be it.

But I wouldn't push this kind of programming very long.

That's good.

LOL yes Steve, I am eating more than protein powder, my daily intake is sitting right around 2800 very balanced high protein calories. I use protein simply because I am doing so much lifting.

As far as the 6 days a week workout go...If I don't get the gym; I cheat. It keeps my mind in the right place. Wed / Sat are very light days...abs mostly, with extra cardio.

Would it be enough to take out my Wed, Sat lifts? I usually feel like my legs / arms are ready to go with 2 days between...

If you have time Steve, toss me a breakdown of a 4 / 6 day split. I would be very interested in seeing what you have to say about it...honestly.

By progressing, I mean the amount of weight I can handle, and when to move up. I have lifted in the past, and have been through all of these weight brackets...so I know what it feels like to be ready to move on.

Chef Soli

That workout that you are doing reminds me of the workout I did when I was bulking up for my body building show. I have helped many people get ready for shows. It is not to say you cant lose weight doing a 10, 8, 6 routine but you can cut up the muscle alot more doing 10,12,15. I have helped a few people including myself get ready for a show. I would also suggest using a Stability ball for some of your exercises. The stability ball causes you to have to use more muscle to do the same exercise. For instance instead of using a bench to do a chest press use the ball and lay back on it and go to town you will feel a big difference plus you will build your strength alot more because you are getting the core activated. Ultimately you want your workouts to change often to prevent your body from getting accustom to the same workouts.

6 days a week hard lifting is tough. I am no professional by anymeans on fitness but I don't think your body can recoup that fast only eating 2800 cals a day. I am eating 4500-5000 and only lift 3 days a week and I am still losing weight 2-3 lbs a week. I started out at 354 in January and am at 260 now. I am eating more now than I have ever eaten and am dropping fat like melting butter. I only lift on Monday, Wednsday, and Friday. I use Tuesday and Thurday as Cardio Only days.

My schedule looks like this.
Monday- Chest, Back, and abs. Then follow up with 45 min cardio
Tuesday- 1hour treadmill-30 min bike (change it up though)
Wednsday-Legs( Squats, deadlift, Ext, Curls, ETC.) Followed by 30-45 min treadmill or bike
Thursday-Cardio only 1.5 hours
Friday- Arms, Shoulders, lats, and traps. ( followed by 45 min cardio)

Steve also correct me if I am wrong thinking my workout routine (above) is balanced.

Eric, I really have to disagree with your recommendations here.

1. Training a physique-minded competitor for competition is much different than helping an overweight person lose weight in the most efficient manner.

2. Are you saying that even with your competitors you've trained, you focus on high reps for the core of the routine (10-15)? That's really surprising to me if that's the case. I have some friends that are trainers for nationally ranked women and they'd certainly be interested in comparing *notes*. If this is the case, why? And are we talking about drug-free athletes?

3. You are suggesting higher rep training than what the original poster stated. Why? What will doing higher rep, lighter weight work do in terms of maintaining muscle while dieting opposed to heavy training, for the dieter?

Hmmm, maybe more muscles will be brought into play, but at what cost? You'll be giving up a lot of strength moving to a ball, when from all the literature I've seen, plus all the people I've helped lose weight, plus discussions I've had with some elite trainers in the industry, the heavier you train while dieting, the less likely you are to lose muscle.

Now this is flat out wrong.

Training specificity is one of the fundamental principles associated with training anyone. This recommendation and statement is flat our wrong. Here you are saying he will get stronger lifting weights on a ball. How exactly does strength increase when one obviously has use a much lighter working weight when using a stability ball compared with a stable surface? Are you suggesting lifting lighter weights improves strength compared with heavier training? Because your core is activated more so, he will become stronger?

This kind of blanket advice drives me up a wall when I see trainers spewing it.

Are you familiar with the average time it takes a novice to recover from a workout on all levels, primarily protein synthesis, which is obviously the most critical?

Can we agree on the very well-known concept that adding weight to the proverbial bar is the most critical concept for muscle growth/maintenance and strength gains?

If so, how does switching up a routine at random help?

Shouldn't routine alterations be based on the individual and his/her recovery rates coupled with their rate of progress or lack thereof?

I never understood the blanket recommendation to simply change up the routine to *confuse* your body. Some of the best trainers and strength coaches in the world will say, keep adding weight to the bar in the core, compound lifts for best results in strength and physique until that stops working. From what my experience indicates, I'd agree fully....

Certainly there are individual circumstances which must be taken into account. If switching up the routine every 4 weeks means the difference between a trainee sticking with a lifelong commitment to *moving iron* to lifting nothing, so be it. Some lifting is better than no lifting. If using a stability ball means the difference between a trainee loving the gym and hating it, by all means, use the stupid ball. Lifting on a ball is better than not lifting anything at all.

But to propose these supposed efficiencies in training by adding a ball and random change-ups, I'd really have to question the basis of these suggestions.

Okay, I am officially confused as to what exactly the advice between those two posts were guys...I got the info, but I just don't know what to do about it.

I have cut out two days of routines (the core / hard cardio days) and I am going to go with Monday arms, Tuesday legs, Wednesday off, Thursday arms, Friday legs, weekend off (minus a bit of cardio.)

I am also going to try to bump up my intake by another 500 calories...by adding more to my two non-traditional "snack meals" during the day.

Anyway...that's my changes for now...if you have anything throw it on there.

Wow... now this is a very interesting thread. I'm going to keep my eye out on this one...

-Sheryl

Sorry Chef, I should have added some usable info for you.

In a nutshell, I like to tell people to keep it simple until simple stops working. There's no need to muddy the waters if you don't need to. Plus, the simple approach tends to fall in line with the optimal approach for the novice trainee.

That said, 3 days of full body training per week using the big barbell lifts is usually the best bet, focusing on adding weight to the bar consistently each session. I recently created a thread that became a stickie titled "the basic lifts." That will give you an idea of the level of simplicity I'm speaking of, so check it out.

I don't know your stats or your background. I don't know your capabilities. Maybe these exercises will be beyond your capabilities at the moment. But there are better ways to reach the point of being able to follow something similar to this.

Having a day dedicated entirely to arms while you are dieting is pretty much pointless.

Ideally, you'll be training the major muscle groups at least twice per week.

Steve-

I removed my Wed / Sat workout based on what you said about more rest needed.

I have some sports based weightlifting background...and I am a generally athletic person (despite my being overweight these days, I am still fairly mobile and naturally strong) I know my forms, and I know the basics.

My stats are 360lbs 6'0" / already fairly strong as I said...benching 165, squatting around 200 (simply to maintain form...I can do more but not correctly) Deadlifts are somewhere in the realm of 250. All lift weights are middle of the 10,8,6 sets that I am doing.

Basically what I am doing is getting exactly what you said which is "Ideally, you'll be training the major muscle groups at least twice per week." After the removal of the 2 extra days.

I understand the need for core large muscle builds...It is just so boring to me...

If it is too much still..tell me please. The reason I am breaking it down to legs / arms-torso for now is because I am getting more rest days between...on the big muscle groups. (2 per with the exception of use for cardio).

Thanks for your continuing interest in this post, and the suggestions I keep asking for...I am very grateful.

Solon

Well it looks like you're doing this now:

That means:

Monday: Arms
Tuesday: Legs
Wednesday: Off
Thursday: Arms
Friday: Legs

The major problems that I see:

1. 50% of your training is dedicated to arms. That's completely inefficient, ineffective, and uncalled for when dieting. Hell, I don't train arms even when I'm bulking. They provide very little bang for your buck. And when you're in a caloric deficit, you aren't going to be building any appreciable amounts of muscle to begin with, so what's the point of concentrating on arms so much?

2. Chest. Back. Shoulders. Where are they in this routine? They're the major muscle groups I'm speaking of.

3. Focusing on one body part at a time simply isn't as effective, period. I don't really care at what level of conditioning you are. The more advanced you become, the more *specialized* you can become. However, I'm certainly closer to my genetic potentials than you are to yours. Yet, I'm still training full body 3-4x per week or something like an upper/lower or push/pull periodization. Never do I train one body part per day.

If you want 4 days in the gym, I'd stick with an upper/lower split. Something like:

Monday: Upper -- heavy horizontal pushing and pulling, light vertical pushing and pulling

Tuesday: Lower -- heavy squats, light posterior chain work

Wednesday: Off

Thursday: Upper -- Heavy vertical pushing/pulling, Light horizontal pushing/pulling

Friday: Lower -- Heavier posterior chain, light squat variation.

From what I remember, you were simply picking a bunch of exercises to *assault* each muscle group you train on a given day. That's old school bodybuilding training. And quite frankly, without *juice* or genetics, what you are doing is suboptimal for your goals.

Sorry I havent gotten around to replying to this one. I wish I saw it sooner. I have been occupied with some marketing issues. Ok, this gets me fired up. I love a good debate. I think some of the things I said were a little misconstrued. Let me clarify a little bit.

1. I never said this guy wanted to be a competitor, but what I did say is that he is training like a body builder.

2. I am certifed with the National Academy of Sports Medicine and Premier Training Sytems. Both of these organizations are pretty specific on where muscle growth happens with in a number of repetitions. Usually the 4-6 rep range is your strength development. Your 7-10 rep range is your Hytropephy (huscle growth) range. Your 12-15 rep range is your endurance range. The reason I recomended him to be in the 12-15 rep range is because he is trying to lose weight. He will expend more caloies in that range then any other. He is not going to get hytropephy in a 7-10 rep range when his diet is in a deficit to lose weight. You have to be in a surplus to get hytropephy.

3. Now as far as the ball. I am not saying to use the ball forever. Use it as a stage. For general fitness or athletic training it is highly recomended. You will see a great improvement in strength because it trains the core to activate in the exercise which in turn burns more calories. I have trained some power lifters by taking them away from what they do and putting them into stability training. They have seen as much as a 30% increase in their strength which ultimately helped them break that plato they had with their current program.

4. Now I agree with what you said about doing more weight will burn more calories, but you will only grow to a point doing the same program all the time. To get stronger you have to change what you are doing by challenging the muscle in different ways. It is obvious he has been on his current program a while it is time for a change. Also adding weight by the recommendation of the professional trainer is quite different then adding weight because someone recommended you doing it off the forum. I believe technique and form are most important in any lift. If you give up technique and form for an extra 5 lbs you are doing yourself a huge disservice. I may not have 25+ years as a trainer buy I do have 7 and that is long enough to gain quite an insite into how the body works to improve performance.

I hope I have been a little more specific in what I am talking about. If you questions what I say go and Talk to the national accademy of sports medicine. I hardly think anyone can disagree with they say. Thanks for the challenge. Keeps me on my toes.

Whoa there nelly, take it easy. It's simply a conversation.

What I stated in my original response to you wasn't misconstruing your point at all. You simply missed mine. Which is fine... probably my fault.

My point was, you were explaining how you trained your competitors.

You specifically said:

And my point was, you trained competitors this way. That shouldn't translate over to a 350+ lb guy trying to lose weight.

Haha, you use your certification material to explain hypertophy? I'm sorry, but you'll have to do better than that. I relate better to research papers.

I'm NSCA certified but if you do a search for my posts, you'll not once see me use it as an appeal to authority. EVER!

Reason being: there's not a certification in the world that goes into enough depth of information for me to use it as the backbone for a debate, argument, discussion, or whatever the hell you want to call this.

Yea, in very, very basic terms.

You haven't done much research on hypertrophy, have you?

And if you think getting stronger doesn't translate into getting bigger on many levels, you're sadly mistaken my friend.

Number one, there's more than one type of hypertrophy. For instance, structural vs. sarcoplasmic. Do you think your magical "hypertrophy" rep range satisfied the requirements for both of these forms of hypertrophy optimally?

Number two, if your magical 7-10 rep range is the "zone" for hypertrophy, do you not think that increasing overall strength using lower rep ranges such as 1-6 will have a carryover effect to your higher rep ranges, thus helping you move more weight in your "hypertrophy" zone?

Is this the basis of your knowledge of hypertrophy? A continuum scale found in your certification book?

I mean, it's pretty obvious around this forum that I don't spew misinformation on a daily basis. I thought you would have come to me with a little more than, "this is what my text book says."

I was looking for things like:

-the balance between protein synthesis and protein accretion
-the controls that govern protein synthesis... things like mRNA and mTOR

Not some arbitrary diagram from a book with no supporting literature.

We have VERY different opinions on the main role of strength training while dieting, you and I. I'm not saying I'm right and you are wrong, or vice versa. However, I think resistance training plays a very specific role in a weight loss program and that's primarily muscle maintenance, secondarily caloric expenditure.

And muscle maintenance is best served by lifting heavy.

And in terms of your given rep range and caloric expenditure, you really can't arbitrarily state that 12-15 reps burns more than 4-6 without putting things into context my friend. Things like total volume and tonnage come into play. Haha, leaving out context is ludicrous.

Still fired up?

Yea, you'll see those words come out of my mouth around this forum 5+ times per day.

I don't think anyone here was suggesting he's going to realize appreciable muscles mass gains while dieting.

However, you'd be surprised what a properly structured strength training program can do in terms of body recomposition with the obese. It's a different playing field than your average competitor's.

I wasn't saying you were.

Honestly dude, I can't even comment on this. I mean come on.... stop saying he is going to increase strength by using a modality of exercise that dictates the usage of lighter weight than stable-surface training.

Now, if you simply said more musculature would come into play, I'd be satisfied with the comment.

And having more muscle mass at play isn't necessarily the be-all-end-all either. Getting stronger locally and neurally should be primary, IMO, and that will involved the focus of attention on adding weight to the bar.

The ball = magic to today's gurus and I highly disagree. It has it's use, place and time.... but I simply didn't see it's utility in the context of the OP's situation and your recommendation. I still don't.

Haha, it wasn't the ball that made them stronger.

It was most likely their retarded training prior to your shift to ball work. This decrease in loads lifted was enough to allow for some fatigue dissipation, thus allowing for some nice supercompensation and strength gains.

You are familiar with the fitness-fatigue models, single factor vs. dual factor I presume?

For the laymans, post-workout recovery (really any post-stress recovery, same goes for sickness, physical injury, and so on) occurs like a wave. There's an immediate decrease in the state, then an increase back to the original state, then a subsequent "supercompensation" where the body actually overcompensates for the stress. In this case, the desired outcome is more contractile proteins in the muscle and increased performance and strength.

This can be viewed from the acute or the chronic. A power-lifter at pretty much any level, unless he's knowledgeable, most likely overkills his system systemically.

Put him on a ball and allow for the accumulation of fatigue to subside by training with lighter weights, bring him back in a couple of weeks to power-lifting, and WALLA!, you've got increased strength and performance.

Not because of the ball. I could have simply done some deloading in his weights and used the same powerlifting exercises he was doing before and realized the same increase in performance.

It seems like you are lacking much of the basic physiology required to prove your point here. Trust me, you can use BIG words with me. I'll understand.

Explain to me in physiological terms, how training on the ball made him stronger on his big lifts.

Right, I think pretty much everyone knows this.

Although I find many people, and sadly many trainers that subscribe to bro-science rather than real science.

Bro, LOLZ, you got to blast the musckles from all da angles and get da pump if you want to be big. Ohz yea, and ya gotta confuse and shock da body too!!!!1111

I'm not saying this is you...

I'm saying most people lack the knowledge and understanding of the various adaptive responses associated with the stress imposed on our systems after lifting weights.

And these adaptive responses are what dictate program changes.

NOT some idea of muscle confusion or the like.

And this is obvious on what basis?

Up to the point of your original post, he made no mention of how long he's been following his current routine, unless I'm mistaken which is very possible.

Besides, it's not important.

The reason he should change his routine isn't b/c he's been on it too long.

It's b/c what he's doing doesn't really match his goals. Isn't that the real issue here?

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying here?

Can you explain please.

And most "professional trainers" are boobs. Honest to goodness, I find more competent people on web forums today than I do trainers in gyms. Being a trainer carries very little tout in my world.

Right, I think anyone will agree with this statement.

Nobody is saying to lift weights using heavy loads before form is learned.

Yup.

And if someone was suggesting this, I'd call them out for it.

But at this point, it's useless banter adding nothing to the conversation or topics at hand.

Ya know, this does absolutely nothing for the conversation now.

I don't care if you tell me you're Gandhi.

Your authority is established not by what you say you've done in the past. Rather, it's established by the words that come out of your mouth here; the manner in which your present yourself.

Ummm....

Ok.

I probably won't do this, simply b/c I'm already certified by the NSCA. The NSCA is probably the most reliable and well-respected agency in existence today. I think very highly of NASM. I think very highly of ACSM. But none of them cover each factor of fitness to warrant them the authority in debate. There's a sea of detailed information out there that isn't covered in these certification manuals and texts. Let's stop using an appeal to authority as a crutch please. I'd hoped you come to me with a better approach than this.