Can you explain that please?

I wouldn't waste your money.

This is contradictory.

You can't spot reduce fat but you can do situps and get cut?

I don't think so.

For those interested, this has far too much emphasis on spinal flexion and no focus on the core's primary roles of stability and anti-rotation. I would not make this your routine.

But that's just me.

Eventually if you keep on eating like that you will keep losing weight and get your flat stomack with exercise. The problem is that eventually you will also return to your normal eating behaviour and then everything you have done till now will be lost. I have been there, done that, and came back to the same shape in my body, till i realized that i needed to change my eating habits. I also tried a really good product, that i keep on taking till today that keeps me in total balance and I have to admit i have never looked better in my whole life. I bought this product throught this site: SPAM
goog luck. Check the Proactol section, thats the one I am on right now. You wont regret it.
maria

So what's wrong with eating more than two servings of fruit per day?

I normally eat two or more servings and I'm pretty sure that hasn't slowed my progress down any (if anything slowed it, it would be the occasional pizza, smores, starburst, or alfredo craving). I have an apple for a snack and some strawberries/blueberries with yogurt and granola for lunch at times.

Yesterday I had way more than two servings of fruit at a birthday party I was at...I figure it was probably better to load my plate with watermelow, canteloupe, grapes, pineapple, and strawberries than to pick at the chips and pretzels. Although I did have some dip with my fruit, not alot, but I believe it was cream cheese mixed with marshmellow creme...shouldn't have done it, but it won't kill me once in awhile.

You might need more protein. And you can't spot reduce...so in order to get rid of the belly fat you'll have to lose fat overall. But others have said this, so I'm just rambling.

I can't remember if Steve originally posted advice on this thread, but if he did, he knows what he's talking about...

This is presuming, inaccurately, that TS has no willpower or motivation whatsoever. And that doesn't sell the product you're spamming. Spoiler: There's no such thing as a weight loss pill. Ever.

Nothing.

(1)

OK Steve let me reply to the first point about intense lifting and training of large muscle groups. These exercises require a hugh amount of energy. They jack your heart rate and increase your metabolism. The more energy you use the more fat you will lose ... pretty simple. An hour of this every couple of days will really help you to lose weight. Also, like I mentioned .. gaining muscle will keep your MBR up because the muscle will require more energy to maintain. That's part of the reason why all experts reccomend a combo of weight training and cardio.

(2)

My point about doing ab exercises is not contradictory. Like me, knickerlas is trying to get rid of the "last bit" of belly fat. Surely, you can start to see your abs taking shape through that. I didn't say anything about losing fat .. just that I could see my abdominals building up through the fat and it gave me more confidence. So what the hell are you talking about?

(3)

Those abdominal exercises are just a few that I have picked out based on information I found on the internet. I read that bicycle chrunches are one of the most effective for training the rectus abdominis. Can you reccomend a good well rounded plan?

Me too, I'm confused. I don't have any metabolic issues that I'm aware of (such as diabetes) so I don't see how the sugar in fruit would hurt me or anyone like me. Fruit definitely has a LOT more calories per gram than vegetables, on average, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't eat it. It's TASTY.

1. I wouldn't label heavy, compound movements as fat burning. Muscle building or muscle maintaining... maybe. But fat burning, that doesn't fly in my book.

You're going to expend more energy doing moderate to intense cardio than you are doing heavy, compound weight training.

2. What is MBR?

3. How much do you believe muscle increases metabolism?

4. What percentage of metabolism is comprised of caloric expenditure from muscle mass, roughly?

5. Considering the OP is dieting, which means she's eating hypocaloric... how do you suggest she adds enough muscle to significantly alter her metabolism knowing what we know about the energetic cost of hypertrophy?

I think I was very clear and succinct with regards to what I was talking about.

I can, sure. It would contain a whole heck of a lot focus on spinal flexion and a lot more emphasis on stability. Things like planks, pallof presses, woodchops, rollouts, etc, would make my list long before the basic stuff you suggested.

I meant to say BMR not MBR. An increase in lean muscle mass of 3.0 to 3.5 pounds can increase resting metabolic rate by 6.8 to 7.7 percent (1). That might not sound like much ... but over time it really adds up. Besides, every little bit helps.

Your going to gain the most mass doing intense heavy lifting of large muscle groups. A lot of people have very underdeveloped legs. One can gain a lot of mass there. Increasing BMR in the long term from muscle gain was really just a side note of what I was saying. My main point there was that you are going to burn more calories doing intense heavy lifting. Venuto says, "Only high intensity exercise increases post workout energy expenditure substantially and weight training has the greatest effect of all". I'm not sayinig that's all you should do it but it's good to really focus on the intensity while training those areas.

I'm not completly convinced that you cannot lose fat while gaining muscle. I will have to read "Burn the Fat Feed the Muscle". With a really good diet and workout plan I think it can be accomplished. I was suggesting that the poster try to do that. 1500 is probably too few calories.

About the abdominal thing ... I think you misinterped what I was saying or didn't read it through. I made it pretty obvious that I wasn't saying you could spot reduce and I said that the abs were still covered with fat. So what were you talking about? Do you believe that you can't develop cut abs underneath fat?

Do you think reverse back exetnsions are a good exercise?


(1)http://www.ymcatwincities.org/assets..._confusion.pdf

(2)
Lift Weights to Lose Fat - Weight Loss and Bodybuilding

No, that's false.

My BMR is roughly 1800.

7% of 1800 is 126 calories.

That's about 40 calories per pound given a 3.25 lb gain in muscle. I've added that amount of muscle... more actually.... and my caloric allowance did not increase to this extent. Nor has it for my clients.

Real, peer-reviewed research puts it at much less than that.

actual research puts the number at 5.89kcal/lb/day

**source being -- Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2001 Mar;4(2):143-7. Links
Dissecting the energy needs of the body.McClave SA, Snider HL.
Department of Medicine, University of Louisville School of Medicine, 550 South Jackson Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40292, USA. samcclave@louisville.edu

I've seen other papers suggesting other amounts, but all have been similar to this. At most I'd say 15 kcal.

A lot of muscle gain in a dieting female that doesn't have that much fat to lose?

I doubt it.

.

Regardless of what was your major point and what was your secondary point... the facts are what they are. And I'm not trying to be a dick here... so hopefully you don't take it as such. Reevaluation and assessing your beliefs can be a good thing. It's an opportunity to look at the information you were given and either build a stronger case for it or learn something new.

In either event, it's a win win.

What percentage of caloric expenditure from muscle mass comprises BMR?

Tom's a good guy. He's a bud of mine; I'm actually interviewing him right now. That said, EPOC is overstated big time by many authors and knowing Tom, I'd be willing to bet he made that statement before the big meta analysis review came out highlighting all the available research on EPOC which showed it not being all that impressive at all.

If you're interested in learning about that, Lyle McDonald has an excellent review of it here:

Effects of Exercise Intensity and Duration on the Excess Post-exercise Oxygen Consumption | BodyRecomposition - The Home of Lyle McDonald

I'm not debating whether exercising with intensity is a good thing or not. I'm speaking more about the impact calorically speaking, is all.

And how much muscle is really going to be gained during hypocaloric feeding in an average sized female? That's my main point.

.

Rightfully so.

Because you can. I've been training people for nearly a decade and have witnessed it with my own two eyes more than I can remember. The primary factors are this though:

The more untrained you are and/or the more fat you are, the more likely concurrent body recomposition is going to take place.

The more trained you are and/or the less fat you're carrying, the less likely it is that you'll experience concurrent body recomp.

And a dieting female, especially one that is not carrying a significant amount of fat (due to hormonal disposition) will rarely if ever put on appreciable muscle mass.

Context is important when discussing this stuff.

I haven't read it in quite a long while and I believe Tom came out with a newer edition since I last read it. Plus he came out with his hard copy book which I thought was fantastic...

But I'm quite certain he will say concurrent fat loss and muscle gain is very much a real possibility. But that doesn't say anything to the major points I've made above in the given contexts.

No.

Cut abs are a function of fat loss.

Muscles don't get 'cut'.

They either adaptively respond to loading by growing or they don't.

No exercise is inherently good or bad without context.

Quit trying to burst my bubble LOL! Damn, yeah I guess I need to do some more research. I'm always interested in learing more about weight loss and bodybuilding. So, are you a hardcore natural "No drug" guy? I'd like to get your opinion on a few things but that's not appropriate for this post so i'll pm you later or something.

I'm glad you didn't view this as attack.

I'm no bodybuilder. And I'm definitely anti-drug... I've never used any sort of steroid or anything like that.

I've trained primarily for phsyique enhancement in the past but anymore I train pretty much for improved performance; absolute strength, power, endurance, speed, etc. My physique benefits from such a focus though so it's win win.

My door is always open for conversation though so you know where to find me!

I took another look at the studies I was looking at. They get the 7% by assuming that all the muscle uses approximatley 1.5 more calories per day after a 3-4 month strenth training program. Do you think that's accurate?

"strength trained muscle may use approximately 1.5 more calories per pound per day than untrained muscle (7.2 vs 5.7 calories per pound per day). Such an adaptation could account for the approximately seven to eight percent elevation in resting metabolism observed in the reported research studies."

I'd have to see the reported research studies they are talking about.

I didn't realize it but both studies were both done on older adults. It looks like Dr. Westcott believes that it holds true for all untrained adults. It would be cool to see the results of the same studies carried out on different age groups. Here are the references if you're interested.

Campbell, W., Crim, M., Young, V. and Evans, W. 1994.
Increased energy requirements and changes in body composition
with resistance training in older adults. American Journal of
Clinical Nutrition, 60: 167-175.

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/60/2/167.pdf

Pratley, R., Nicklas, B., Rubin, M., Miller, J., Smith, A., Smith,
M., Hurley, B., and Goldberg, A. 1994. Strength training
increases resting metabolic rate and norepinephrine levels in
healthy 50 to 65 year-old men. Journal of Applied Physiology,
76: 133-137.

Can't find the full study online .. would have to get it from the library