Should a woman do higher reps?

[Livingitup48]

More silly questions from me. The other day someone here posted a study that said weight training only leads to a 1.78 pound fat loss per year. Wouldn't focusing on fat loss this way be a waste of time compared to diet? Ya know what I've saying, or am I missing something? If you workout 4 times a week or 200 times a year that's only a net of 31 calories per workout of fat loss.

[Chillen]

Originally Posted by Livingitup48

More silly questions from me. The other day someone here posted a study that said weight training only leads to a 1.78 pound fat loss per year. Wouldn't focusing on fat loss this way be a waste of time compared to diet? Ya know what I've saying, or am I missing something? If you workout 4 times a week or 200 times a year that's only a net of 31 calories per workout of fat loss.

Look at this logically, for a second. Let us say one sets up their personal MT-Line at 2200 calories per day (Male), this is what is needed for a general day, no exercise, but just work, and living out the day. Next they set a deficit of -500 from the 2200. They just diet to lose the tissue.

First, let us understand that the body does not discriminate: It WILL (in the face of an energy shortage, and setting calorie deficits, creates a numerical energy shortage) take from muscle and fat---as a source of fuel, to meet its needs.

Second, look on the internet (reputable sources) and see (based on gender, height, weight, and age), just how many calories one actually burns when weight training..for one hour.....its more than the article you reference, and more than you may think. There are lot of factors such as (intensity, etc, etc), that play into this, but you will get an approximate. I read that article, I didn't hold a very high opinion on it.

Third, weight training provides a "stimulus" reason to hold to as much muscle as possible when dieting down (assuming post noobie gains), and will partition more to the use of body fat than muscle---though it does NOT totally eliminate it.

Fourth, adding in about 200+ calories an hour every other day (weight training, etc) can make a difference not only in physique (as compared to one that had not weight trained), but ADDS additional calories that are burned during the course of the week. This is always good, IMO.

[Ryano]

My thoughts on this thread:

I think there is some confusion on between strength gains vs. power. Sure you can get strength gains(ie. more reps, same weight) with high rep schemes.

More power gains(ie. 1 rep max increases) will come with low rep single lift overloads.

Men vs. Women gains??? I think the same rep scheme will work the same for both. Women will gain less due to less T in their system.

Don't try to overthink training. Lift often, lift alot, eat alot, sleep alot...you'll get gains.

I can't think anymore because I keep looking at Livingitup48's avatar. LOL

[Livingitup48]

Yes but doesn't exercise increase our appetites? I think I found it. It says:

That tri-weekly commitment to aerobics class? Almost worthless, as far as fitting into your bikini is concerned. The Mayo Clinic, a not-for-profit medical research establishment in the US, reports that, in general, studies "have demonstrated no or modest weight loss with exercise alone" and that "an exercise regimen… is unlikely to result in short-term weight loss beyond what is achieved with dietary change."

Why exercise won't make you thin | Life and style | The Observer

Wouldn't it make sense that exercise burns calories but just makes us more hungry and that diet is the most important thing? I can't really expect to tone from high rep sets can I?

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livingitup48

Yes but doesn't exercise increase our appetites? I think I found it. It says:



Why exercise won't make you thin | Life and style | The Observer

Wouldn't it make sense that exercise burns calories but just makes us more hungry and that diet is the most important thing? I can't really expect to tone from high rep sets can I?

Anyone who is serious about their diet and making changes to their body should be tracking their intake. You should know at least your total calories and macros. If someone is tracking their intake, exercises affect on appetite means very little.

Your also missing another part of resistance training when it comes to fat loss. First, as mentioned, lifting weights gives your body a reason to keep muscle and instead burn mostly fat. But lifting weights and more intense cardio like HIIT also produce an effect known as EPOC, or excess post-exercise oxygen consumption. What this means, in simple terms, is that the processes that take place when your body recovers from intense training takes a lot of calories, which means that you'll be using more calories for an extended period AFTER your training is actually over. This has been shown to last up to 48 hours, but peaks within 12 hours post-training. That's why resistance training and more intense versions of cardio are far more important for fat loss compared to just burning calories by dancing around for an hour.

There have also been studies that show that lactic acid inducing exercises can also help with fat loss. According to these ideas, the best way to train for fat loss is heavy and hard, with some higher rep work thrown in for lactic acid.

Of course, these are generalizations and different people will respond differently to certain rep ranges.

[Livingitup48]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Your also missing another part of resistance training when it comes to fat loss.

It's not me The Mayo Clinic did the study and it showed that exercise alone doesn't lead to any substantial fat loss. Weight training only lead to a 1.7 pound loss in a year. Cardio was about 4 pounds a year.

So I guess I don't understand what I'm missing? I said that diet was the most important ingredient in weight loss and resistance training doesn't lead to any substantial amount of toning. Where am I wrong? Help me understand.

[kitarpyar]

Originally Posted by Livingitup48

I said that diet was the most important ingredient in weight loss and resistance training doesn't lead to any substantial amount of toning. Where am I wrong? Help me understand.

Diet is the most important ingredient of weight loss. Agreed. If it is "toned" you want, then think fat loss, not weight loss.

Weight loss can be from fat loss AND muscle loss too (too strict a diet, without much resistance training). This however, wont get you "toned". It leaves you skinny fat, or plain skinny due to loss of significant muscle loss .

Use diet (cutting calories, staying on an appropriate macro) in conjunction with resistance training. One cuts the weight, the other preserves the muscle. Taken together you cut out the chub, retain the muscles and get the toned look. So yes, resistance training IS needed to get a "toned" look.

Just my $0.02.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Livingitup48

It's not me The Mayo Clinic did the study and it showed that exercise alone doesn't lead to any substantial fat loss. Weight training only lead to a 1.7 pound loss in a year. Cardio was about 4 pounds a year.

So I guess I don't understand what I'm missing? I said that diet was the most important ingredient in weight loss and resistance training doesn't lead to any substantial amount of toning. Where am I wrong? Help me understand.

I'm sorry, but in my last post I talked a lot about the benefits of resistance training when it comes to fat loss. I'm not really sure what else I can add. There's a lot more to it than the number of calories burned just while you're in the gym. There's also a lot more to it than weight lost. Right now I weigh the same thing I did a year ago, but I look VERY different because my body composition (fat:muscle ratio) has improved.

[5kgLifter]

Originally Posted by Livingitup48

It's not me The Mayo Clinic did the study and it showed that exercise alone doesn't lead to any substantial fat loss. Weight training only lead to a 1.7 pound loss in a year. Cardio was about 4 pounds a year.

So I guess I don't understand what I'm missing? I said that diet was the most important ingredient in weight loss and resistance training doesn't lead to any substantial amount of toning. Where am I wrong? Help me understand.

With the study, do you know what parameters they used? The parameters of studies can make or break a study and have often done the latter when exposed.

I ate a substantially increased amount of food when I started weight training and it wasn't uncommon for me to consume: 4 slices of bread, 4 slices of beef, and a full family sized lemon meringue pie...in one sitting. I gained 10 lbs but not in a bad way, since I also lost 2" around my waist. Yes, exercise does increase appetite but it depends on why that appetite is increased, for me, apparently the body needed more building material to get the muscle built...no complaints here from the increased food intake.

If a person is gaining bodyfat, then they adjust the intake. Labourers of yesteryear probably had great appetites but they were burning the calories up with their heavy work loads. If you end up building muscle, then that extra increase in appetite is a good thing. To say that exercise will, and does, invariably increase appetite does not show the entire picture...and that is what you need when reading articles.

[ElementalVirago]

Originally Posted by Livingitup48

It's not me The Mayo Clinic did the study and it showed that exercise alone doesn't lead to any substantial fat loss. Weight training only lead to a 1.7 pound loss in a year. Cardio was about 4 pounds a year.

So I guess I don't understand what I'm missing? I said that diet was the most important ingredient in weight loss and resistance training doesn't lead to any substantial amount of toning. Where am I wrong? Help me understand.

I think it would help to know where you're at now and where you want to be. It sounds like you want to lose weight but it's hard to advise you how to do that if we know nothing about your body now or where you want it be X time from now.

I caution you strongly against being hung up on your weight. I'm the heaviest size 6 I've ever met. Seriously. My weight and body type has fluctuated over the years. Ten years ago I was pretty darn chubby, chubby like people look at my pictures back then and go WTF...that's you? Shortly after that I went to a weight-loss clinic and lost 30 pounds. I was so thin that people thought I was terminally ill (I wasn't lifting at ALL, just running...running...and more running). But I was all flab. I looked good with my clothes on but honestly, if you would have seen me naked you would have still seen quite a bit of flab. Now I have packed quite a bit of muscle on me. I'm back up to my same weight that I was when I was chubby. But the way my body style is now, I don't look near the same as I did ten years ago. And I look pretty darn good naked.

So...ten years ago, I was about 155 lbs, a lot of fat. Got down to 125 lbs using diet modification and cardio, was thin but flabby. Now back up to 155 lbs but more muscular. Put me now next to me ten years ago, you wouldn't guess that we are the same weight.

My point kinda is this...I cringe when a woman says that her goal is simply to "lose weight". If you're a heavy girl looking to lose fat, we have a plan for you. If you're a muscular girl looking to lose fat, we have a plan for you. If you're a thin girl but flabby and need to "tone" (e.g. exchange the flab for muscle but stay pretty much the same size), we have a plan for you. If you're built like Arnold and want to get rid of 30 pounds of muscle, we won't like it but we'll help. If you're a 5'10", 108 lb girl who thinks she needs to lose weight...we can't help you.