310 pounds to 169 pounds

Page 1 of 7 1236 ... Last
  1. New Member
    SarahLou's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  157 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Power
    63187
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    59.12%

    310 pounds to 169 pounds


    310 pounds to 169 in 14 months.







  2. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    Way to go!
  3. New Member
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Age
    25
    Posts
    174
    Rep Power
    41644
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    Absolutely amazing work, good job, great dedication!
    OBSESSED is a word the LAZY use to describe the DEDICATED.
    Beast Mode RECOMP: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/224356-beast-mode recomp.html
    •   
       

  4. Elite Member
    Celorza's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  150 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Age
    23
    Posts
    9,552
    Rep Power
    2428709
    Level
    76
    Lv. Percent
    42.7%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Fascinating and absolutely wonderful. This is a true inspiration and something to show people to drop the excuses and just seize their goals!

    I clap, applaud, celebrate and salute this! You are an inspiration .
    >SNS-Glycophase<
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Rep
  5. Diamond Member
    LiveToLift's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  185 lbs.
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    13,905
    Rep Power
    10638364
    Level
    106
    Lv. Percent
    54.04%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranActivity RoyaltyPosting Pro

    Incredible work! Very inspiring.
    PES Representative
    http://pescience.com/insider http://facebook.com/pescience
  6. Professional Member
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,664
    Rep Power
    703728
    Level
    55
    Lv. Percent
    47.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    wow, lets hear how it was done!

    Also, you don't look 169 in those pics, you look 120 at most.
  7. New Member
    beastybean's Avatar
    Stats
    6'3"  260 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    360
    Rep Power
    4720
    Level
    16
    Lv. Percent
    20.33%

    Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    wow, lets hear how it was done!

    Also, you don't look 169 in those pics, you look 120 at most.
    She might be tall?
  8. New Member
    SarahLou's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  157 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Power
    63187
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    59.12%

    Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    wow, lets hear how it was done!Also, you don't look 169 in those pics, you look 120 at most.
    120? i wish! 120-130 is my goal.. working progress. I'm at a massive plateau right now, when I first started I was a strict cardio bunny, but educated myself towards weight training, and body building.. so muscle mass weighs more than fat, sucks on the scale. I've worked out for the last year to presently, six days a week- 1 1/2 hours a day- or twice a day.I have not, eaten bread, pasta, rice (only basmati rice) etc. in approx a year. When I explain it- I cannot stress enough how It's not a diet. It's a lifestyle change, and everyday is a battle.And thank-you everyone! You're all wayyy too kind!
  9. New Member
    SarahLou's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  157 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Power
    63187
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    59.12%

    Quote Originally Posted by beastybean View Post
    She might be tall?

    5"5-Short
  10. Professional Member
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,664
    Rep Power
    703728
    Level
    55
    Lv. Percent
    47.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by SarahLou View Post
    5"5-Short
    And I would know - I'm 5'5" too and weigh 162lbs. I know what my scrawny butt once looked like when I was 117lbs (in high school) and 125lbs (in college).
  11. Senior Member
    Cary K's Avatar
    Stats
    6'2"  240 lbs.
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Age
    38
    Posts
    1,392
    Rep Power
    360854
    Level
    36
    Lv. Percent
    74.12%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Great job! I agree that you are an inspiration
    After a year off, I'm back
  12. Professional Member
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,664
    Rep Power
    703728
    Level
    55
    Lv. Percent
    47.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by SarahLou View Post
    120? i wish! 120-130 is my goal.. working progress. I'm at a massive plateau right now, when I first started I was a strict cardio bunny, but educated myself towards weight training, and body building.. so muscle mass weighs more than fat, sucks on the scale. I've worked out for the last year to presently, six days a week- 1 1/2 hours a day- or twice a day.I have not, eaten bread, pasta, rice (only basmati rice) etc. in approx a year. When I explain it- I cannot stress enough how It's not a diet. It's a lifestyle change, and everyday is a battle.And thank-you everyone! You're all wayyy too kind!
    You are right about it being a lifestyle. My diet changes when I want to gain or lose muscle but to keep the fat off it takes an entire lifestyle of change. For plateau-busting, my suggestion to you is this:

    -Eat more clean food for about a week. Actually go into a surplus for a few days (maybe 8-10 days)
    -After ramping up the metabolism on a higher calorie diet, you can cut it back down to about 10% below your maintenance level or about 200 calories.
    -Stop eating carbs after 4-5 PM every day
    -Do light to moderate intensity cardio in the AM pre-breakfast, about 45-60 minutes will do

    You should start cutting fat again with this setup. Eat like a horse during morning and afternoon and just live on proteins and a little fat (not too much) in the evening. The likely reason you have hit a plateau is because your body's metabolism is shutting down due to caloric restriction. If this is the case, you are actuallyat a stabilized weight which means you need to ramp your metabolism up again, then start performing fat-specific cardio ( before breakfast ) to help burn the fat off.

    Regardless, I congrats you 100%! You look amazing and I'm proud of you, even thoug I don't even know you.
  13. New Member
    SarahLou's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  157 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Power
    63187
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    59.12%

    Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    You are right about it being a lifestyle. My diet changes when I want to gain or lose muscle but to keep the fat off it takes an entire lifestyle of change. For plateau-busting, my suggestion to you is this:-Eat more clean food for about a week. Actually go into a surplus for a few days (maybe 8-10 days)-After ramping up the metabolism on a higher calorie diet, you can cut it back down to about 10% below your maintenance level or about 200 calories.-Stop eating carbs after 4-5 PM every day-Do light to moderate intensity cardio in the AM pre-breakfast, about 45-60 minutes will do You should start cutting fat again with this setup. Eat like a horse during morning and afternoon and just live on proteins and a little fat (not too much) in the evening. The likely reason you have hit a plateau is because your body's metabolism is shutting down due to caloric restriction. If this is the case, you are actuallyat a stabilized weight which means you need to ramp your metabolism up again, then start performing fat-specific cardio ( before breakfast ) to help burn the fat off. Regardless, I congrats you 100%! You look amazing and I'm proud of you, even thoug I don't even know you.
    Yes, that makes a lot more sense... a lot different from what i'm doing, thats for sure. I'm also using T3/Clen right now, today is week two.. I've dropped about 7 pounds in the last two months.. which isn't a lot, well not what i'm used to. I never honestly thought of doing a pre-breakfast cardio. Thanks so much! I'm 'new" so generally just do my own thing, and not much educated, but love to pick peoples brains to further my intelligence in the gym! Again.. thank you!
  14. New Member
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Age
    25
    Posts
    174
    Rep Power
    41644
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    ^ This website will then be the perfect place for you to expand your knowledge base and pick peoples brains haha i've already done much of that myself
    OBSESSED is a word the LAZY use to describe the DEDICATED.
    Beast Mode RECOMP: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/224356-beast-mode recomp.html
  15. Professional Member
    Mack411's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  182 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Age
    26
    Posts
    3,814
    Rep Power
    7275604
    Level
    89
    Lv. Percent
    27.34%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityActivity VeteranPosting Pro

    Don't even know what to say but wow!True inspiration as everyone has said!Great work!
    SERIOUS NUTRITION SOLUTIONS
    mack @ seriousnutritionsolutions.com
    "Revolutionizing Sports Nutrition, One Product At A Time"
  16. Professional Member
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,664
    Rep Power
    703728
    Level
    55
    Lv. Percent
    47.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by SarahLou View Post
    Yes, that makes a lot more sense... a lot different from what i'm doing, thats for sure. I'm also using T3/Clen right now, today is week two.. I've dropped about 7 pounds in the last two months.. which isn't a lot, well not what i'm used to. I never honestly thought of doing a pre-breakfast cardio. Thanks so much! I'm 'new" so generally just do my own thing, and not much educated, but love to pick peoples brains to further my intelligence in the gym! Again.. thank you!
    You are a tuff good looking woman to reach such goals, in so little time, and you can handle your T3/Clen too! Clen puts me in the hospitalized state when I take even a small 20mcg dose lol.
  17. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    Quote Originally Posted by SarahLou View Post
    Yes, that makes a lot more sense... a lot different from what i'm doing, thats for sure. I'm also using T3/Clen right now, today is week two.. I've dropped about 7 pounds in the last two months.. which isn't a lot, well not what i'm used to. I never honestly thought of doing a pre-breakfast cardio. Thanks so much! I'm 'new" so generally just do my own thing, and not much educated, but love to pick peoples brains to further my intelligence in the gym! Again.. thank you!
    One thing to keep in mind is that muscle does weigh more than fat, as you mentioned earlier.

    A more accurate goal than scale weight might be a body fat percentage goal. Weight itself doesn't matter for a lean, sculpted, genuinly curvy body.

    I don't see 170 pounds on you either, you either carry it well or have some fairly dense muscle mass. Either way, great job so far and keep at it, the last stretch of basically any physique goal is the toughest.
  18. Professional Member
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,664
    Rep Power
    703728
    Level
    55
    Lv. Percent
    47.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    One thing to keep in mind is that muscle does weigh more than fat, as you mentioned earlier.

    A more accurate goal than scale weight might be a body fat percentage goal. Weight itself doesn't matter for a lean, sculpted, genuinly curvy body.

    I don't see 170 pounds on you either, you either carry it well or have some fairly dense muscle mass. Either way, great job so far and keep at it, the last stretch of basically any physique goal is the toughest.
    so true, so true.
  19. Board Sponsor
    Rodja's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    23,545
    Rep Power
    1213212
    Level
    93
    Lv. Percent
    58.27%
    Achievements Activity RoyaltyActivity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    Truly amazing transformation that you've made. I agree that it doesn't look like you weigh as much as you say you do, but, remember, the scale is only a number and lies many times. Don't worry too much about that number and focus on maintaining your health.

    Also, muscle does not weigh more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat, but a pound will always weigh a pound regardless of form.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys
    Performax Labs Product Specialist

  20. Pro Virili Parte
    JudoJosh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Age
    30
    Posts
    8,989
    Rep Power
    2644376
    Level
    80
    Lv. Percent
    75.82%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Re: 310 pounds to 169 pounds


    Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post

    Also, muscle does not weigh more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat, but a pound will always weigh a pound regardless of form.
    Was just about to type this



    Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S™II using Tapatalk 2
    "The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance." - Socrates
  21. Elite Member
    tyga tyga's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  170 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    7,169
    Rep Power
    2723694
    Level
    84
    Lv. Percent
    29.73%
    Achievements Activity AuthorityActivity ProActivity VeteranPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    Also, muscle does not weigh more than fat. Muscle is more dense than fat, but a pound will always weigh a pound regardless of form.
    Was waiting for someone to mention this. 3lbs is 3lbs whether its fat or muscle doesnt matter.
    MYOKEM ATHLETE & REP
    BJOHNSON15 @MYOKEM.COM FOR 15% OFF

    PSALMS 62:1- 62:2
  22. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    Jesus. Within a given area muscle will take up less room, creating the illusion of being lighter than the scale shows compared to someone weighing the same amount with a higher fat content, assuming all other variables are the same.


    Either way, a body fat percentage is most likely a better goal than a particular scale weight.
  23. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    And just to be super technical, as long as we are discussing density, volume must be accounted for as well.

    It requires a greater quantity of fat to reach one pound than muscle so yes, technically, muscle is heavier.

    To say otherwise is like comparing motorcyles to a pick up truck. A truck is definitely heavier than a motorcycle (a standard cruiser, I'm sure somebody has a link to a world record sized bike or something) but if you stack up enough motorcycles, you could technically say motorcycles weigh as much as a truck.

    The problem with fat and muscle each being a pound is that you are really comparing 1 lb-1 lb, not muscle volume to fat volume within the given pound.

    Edit: To be clear, one cubic foot of muscle will weigh more than the exact same quantity of fat. It is heavier.
  24. Board Sponsor
    Rodja's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    23,545
    Rep Power
    1213212
    Level
    93
    Lv. Percent
    58.27%
    Achievements Activity RoyaltyActivity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    And just to be super technical, as long as we are discussing density, volume must be accounted for as well.

    It requires a greater quantity of fat to reach one pound than muscle so yes, technically, muscle is heavier.

    To say otherwise is like comparing motorcyles to a pick up truck. A truck is definitely heavier than a motorcycle (a standard cruiser, I'm sure somebody has a link to a world record sized bike or something) but if you stack up enough motorcycles, you could technically say motorcycles weigh as much as a truck.

    The problem with fat and muscle each being a pound is that you are really comparing 1 lb-1 lb, not muscle volume to fat volume within the given pound.
    Density, volume, and weight are different. Muscle is more dense than fat and will occupy less volume, but one pound of each will weigh the same amount.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys
    Performax Labs Product Specialist

  25. Elite Member
    Celorza's Avatar
    Stats
    5'6"  150 lbs.
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Age
    23
    Posts
    9,552
    Rep Power
    2428709
    Level
    76
    Lv. Percent
    42.7%
    Achievements Activity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    Density, volume, and weight are different. Muscle is more dense than fat and will occupy less volume, but one pound of each will weigh the same amount.
    Let's see if the Bro-science master of Texas understands it from an Engineer:

    -Mass = the amount of MATTER , a measurement of inertia in mechanics.
    -Volume = three dimensional space occupied by said matter, be it in liquid, solid, gas form (3 of the states of MATTER)
    -Weight = UNIT OF FORCE , not the same as mass kg are NOT equal to Newtons and Pounds are NOT equal to SLUGS. Forces are MASS TIMES ACCELERATION , the acceleration of this particular FORCE is GRAVITY.
    -Density = the amount of VOLUME (three dimensional space) occupied by said MASS (meaning matter) thus an example: kg/m^3

    1 kg of fat = 1 kg of muscle , their densities will NOT be the same but their WEIGHT (meaning force) will still be 9.8 kg*m/s^2 (NEWTONS). Density is different as the APF (atomic packaging factor) within muscle cells and fat cells is different...thus they need more volume.

    That should make it easier to understand, in case Mr. TexasGuy doesn't get it or tries to refute it with a "study" one can always quote simple Newtonian Physics...
    >SNS-Glycophase<
    Serious Nutrition Solutions Rep
  26. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    Density, volume, and weight are different. Muscle is more dense than fat and will occupy less volume, but one pound of each will weigh the same amount.
    Which is again comparing a pound to a pound.

    A cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. When quantified, muscle is heavier. I don't disagree that a pound weighs a pound, however.
  27. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    Quote Originally Posted by Celorza View Post
    Let's see if the Bro-science master of Texas understands it from an Engineer:

    -Mass = the amount of MATTER , a measurement of inertia in mechanics.
    -Volume = three dimensional space occupied by said matter, be it in liquid, solid, gas form (3 of the states of MATTER)
    -Weight = UNIT OF FORCE , not the same as mass kg are NOT equal to Newtons and Pounds are NOT equal to SLUGS. Forces are MASS TIMES ACCELERATION , the acceleration of this particular FORCE is GRAVITY.
    -Density = the amount of VOLUME (three dimensional space) occupied by said MASS (meaning matter) thus an example: kg/m^3

    1 kg of fat = 1 kg of muscle , their densities will NOT be the same but their WEIGHT (meaning force) will still be 9.8 kg*m/s^2 (NEWTONS). Density is different as the APF (atomic packaging factor) within muscle cells and fat cells is different...thus they need more volume.

    That should make it easier to understand, in case Mr. TexasGuy doesn't get it or tries to refute it with a "study" one can always quote simple Newtonian Physics...
    Lol, I post studies when they are called for by people telling me I'm wrong and don't have a study to back up things I say. Then the studies are either ignored, as in the most recent protein conversation, or disregarded as the conversation takes a semantical twist.

    I appreciate the text book definitions of weight, volume et cetera.

    We are again on a semantical twist, however.

    A cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. The gravitational pull on a cubic foot of muscle will be greater than the gravitational pull on a cubic foot of fat.

    Failing to quantify amounts doesn't give an accurate comparison given that a human body requires volumetric measurement in context.

    I'm not going to go down a semantical tangent again. We are discussing the subjects of volume and weight from opposite sides of the fence. Yes, 1 lb is 1 lb though more of one substance is required to reach one pound but that isn't the point I'm making. It's an unqualified comparison.
  28. Board Sponsor
    Rodja's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    23,545
    Rep Power
    1213212
    Level
    93
    Lv. Percent
    58.27%
    Achievements Activity RoyaltyActivity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    Which is again comparing a pound to a pound.

    A cubic foot of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat. When quantified, muscle is heavier. I don't disagree that a pound weighs a pound, however.
    I didn't realize the saying was, "a cubic foot of fat of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat." Volume is not being discussed; you're the one that brought that in to try to save face saying that muscle weighs more than fat.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys
    Performax Labs Product Specialist

  29. New Member
    LikeClockwork's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"   lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    38
    Rep Power
    11703
    Level
    8
    Lv. Percent
    9.87%

    This argument is ridiculous. You're all saying the same thing when you get down to it. If volume was treated as a constant than of course muscle would weigh more than fat due to its density. If you had equivalent masses then fat would take up more space. This isn't even really worth a discussion.
  30. New Member
    Russianog's Avatar
    Stats
    5'9"  190 lbs.
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Age
    25
    Posts
    174
    Rep Power
    41644
    Level
    14
    Lv. Percent
    75.13%

    ya'll hijacked her thread... lol
    OBSESSED is a word the LAZY use to describe the DEDICATED.
    Beast Mode RECOMP: http://anabolicminds.com/forum/workout-logs/224356-beast-mode recomp.html
  31. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    Quote Originally Posted by Rodja View Post
    I didn't realize the saying was, "a cubic foot of fat of muscle weighs more than a cubic foot of fat." Volume is not being discussed; you're the one that brought that in to try to save face saying that muscle weighs more than fat.
    No, I clarified my misunderstood comment. Now you know.
  32. Board Sponsor
    Rodja's Avatar
    Stats
    5'10"  220 lbs.
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Age
    30
    Posts
    23,545
    Rep Power
    1213212
    Level
    93
    Lv. Percent
    58.27%
    Achievements Activity RoyaltyActivity VeteranActivity ProActivity AuthorityPosting Pro

    Quote Originally Posted by TexasGuy View Post
    No, I clarified my misunderstood comment. Now you know.
    You still don't understand density and mass; they are not interchangeable.
    M.Ed. Ex Phys
    Performax Labs Product Specialist

  33. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    Quote Originally Posted by LikeClockwork View Post
    This argument is ridiculous. You're all saying the same thing when you get down to it. If volume was treated as a constant than of course muscle would weigh more than fat due to its density. If you had equivalent masses then fat would take up more space. This isn't even really worth a discussion.
    Now put that in the context of a human body where volume is a constant.

    I agree though, this is even more ridiculous than usual.

    For the record, I thought about not replying but couldn't help myself. There was context to clarify and all. But I agree, one pound equals one pound.

    To the OP, I am sorry your thread was hijacked. Great progress. The point I was making was that on a scale you will show a certain weight, but because muscle weighs more with volume (body size) in mind, you still look fantastic at 170 pounds, where an untrained 170 pound woman wouldn't, because she would be carrying around more fat, would have a bigger, lumpy body as more fat is required to reach the same weight as muscle et cetera.

    This is why scale weight isn't the best idea for a goal. Body composition is. Hopefully the weird challenge on vernacular will at least go to some use where goals are concerned.
  34. Board Sponsor
    DAdams91982's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Age
    32
    Posts
    7,473
    Rep Power
    997456
    Level
    64
    Lv. Percent
    14.6%
    Achievements Activity ProActivity AuthorityPosting ProPosting Authority

    45pound barbell plates weight more than 45 pound dumbells.

    /Fixedthread
    The Historic PES Legend
  35. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    Quote Originally Posted by DAdams91982 View Post
    45pound barbell plates weight more than 45 pound dumbells.

    /Fixedthread
    No, but a 45 pound barbell plate weighs more than a 15 pound dumbell, unless you put 3 dumbells together which is what we are doing in this thread.

    The context is a human body though, and volume was being accounted for when I made a comment that was misunderstood and spun in to an out of context argument, an argument where I don't disagree a pound is a pound.
  36. New Member
    SarahLou's Avatar
    Stats
    5'5"  157 lbs.
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    59
    Rep Power
    63187
    Level
    13
    Lv. Percent
    59.12%

    Well Gentlemen, Thank-You for clarifying the muscle mass vs body fat.. Makes sense regarding density wise.Now for a question: I want to continue building muscle but yet I want to lose body fat- Doing more reps at a light weight would result in fat loss, correct? Impossible to gain more muscle on a light weight, for a like to challenge myself to fail when in comes to weight lifting, how would I go about this one?OFF TO SMASH JIM.
  37. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    Quote Originally Posted by SarahLou View Post
    Well Gentlemen, Thank-You for clarifying the muscle mass vs body fat.. Makes sense regarding density wise.Now for a question: I want to continue building muscle but yet I want to lose body fat- Doing more reps at a light weight would result in fat loss, correct? Impossible to gain more muscle on a light weight, for a like to challenge myself to fail when in comes to weight lifting, how would I go about this one?OFF TO SMASH JIM.
    It's all kind of grey and there will be more arguments based around these questions.

    Ultimately, bodies are not all made the same and what works best for one person may not work best for another.

    You can build muscle with light weight but generally speaking lifting heavier will produce better results.

    Lifting heavy requires energy of course, which will burn calories. I realize I'm setting myself up for a potential argument with the next comment but I am speaking in very general terms: compare light weight work with high reps to endurance cardio activities and heavy weight sessions to sprints. Both will build muscle (though extensive cardio can become catabolic, just throwing this in here to head off a senseless tangent), cut fat et cetera, but sprints hit particular muscle fibers conducive to your goal endurance cardio won't, and so will heavy lifting. Google Olympic gold medalist sprinters and long distance runners and compare bodies, both trained to run, yet run differently.

    Not only will lifting heavy burn calories and stimulate beneficial fibers for growth, it will cause significant damage to your muscles which will require energy to repair. And as your muscles repair, they grow, requiring additional energy for upkeep, all of which leads to a faster metabolism that will eat away at your fat, assuming your diet is in check and designed to preserve muscle.

    Lifting heavy will also give you much faster strength gains, which will in turn allow you to work out with heavier weight sooner, burning more calories as more energy is required to lift more weight.

    High volume (relatively light weight) routines build muscles and burn calories too but won't increase your strength as quickly, slowing your ultimate progress.

    Most of the arguments that may or may not come will center around volume doing the same thing heavy weight will do with your particular goal in mind which is true, with the exception of rapid strength gain that will essentially expedite everything else.

    You can train to failure where both volume and heavy sets are concerned.

    Jim sounds awfully lucky in the middle of the afternoon.
  38. Professional Member
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,664
    Rep Power
    703728
    Level
    55
    Lv. Percent
    47.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    You'll burn more calories with higher volume and you'll also trigger a larger growth hormone response as well. Both equate to more success in cutting down. You can have some heavy lifting in there as well, but honestly the 12-20 rep range with short breaks in b/w sets would maximize the intensity and increase your likelihood of success.

    On a side note, it is absolutely sad that there is always someone who comes onto a thread being a smart aleck rather than just making a simple, educated assumption when another person makes a mistake in regards to a post. EVERYONE KNEW what he meant about muscle and fat. There ought to be mandatory grace-oriented classes offered on this board for the members who are always controversial (regardless of their accuracy or experience in something). Too many people feed off controversy on this board. If someone is wrong, prove it in a professional and courteous way. Your degree doesn't qualify your opinion any more than my experience qualifies me. Plus, stop high-jacking a thread and take OT arguments to PM instead.

    I also reserve an agreement with Texas' previous post however, there is a specific uniqueness to lactic acid build-up - causing continuous aerobic metabolism, which causes more calories burned in the long run which is why I would strive for higher volume with high-intensity training.

    Go to failure or near failure at every set = lactic acid build-up
    Lactic Acid build-up = aerobic activity
    aerobic activity = hard breathing
    hard breathing = oxidation
    oxidation = more fat burning

    yeah it is over-simplified for all you phys ed majors. I realize there are a host of other more details that could be included but for simplicity sake the reasoning does add to up to a basic fact.
  39. Advanced Member
    TexasGuy's Avatar
    Stats
    6'0"  238 lbs.
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    804
    Rep Power
    188240
    Level
    28
    Lv. Percent
    34.69%

    I agree that volume will ellicit a better hormonal response and is very effective for body recomp purposes. Weight training is effective for body recomposition in general. And most bodybuilders and fitness models utilize high volume routines for what it is worth to the OP. That said, they most likely did build strength to a certain level allowing decent gains first.

    The following is in no way an argument from me and I'm not speaking directly to fueledpassion, only using his post to further a constructive conversation:

    People see excellent results with a variety of training protocols as mentioned in the discussion point that best practice for one person may not be for another.

    I personally respond well to routines built to capitalize on frequency and heavy loads. I get the best gains from DoggCrapp training, Big Beyond Belief et cetera. High volume traditionally doesn't deliver as well for me. Hitting a muscle group hard and fast 4 times per week as opposed to once or twice just gives me the best results.

    My recommendation for strength gains is based on an assumption though, so it could be completely debased. You, the OP, may be at a strength level you are comfortable with and willing to work with, which is fine. As long as you are lifting and progressing you will see favorable recomp results. My only tip would be that repping out at 400 pounds as opposed to 200 on a given lift provides more benefits within the same routine.

    Regarding the drama queens, volume must be considered in the context of a human body. I'm only sorry context had to be reiterated when it should've been assumed. I still agree that one pound equals one pound, for the record. I have no contention with the obvious.

    For the OP, this board seems to be pretty dramatic. I've only been here a few months myself but what I've noticed is a handful of people will argue dogmatically until they are wrong, or more accurately are shown their stance isn't the only correct stance, in which case they either go out of context or dissappear from a conversation they can't "win" because it isn't winnable for anyone really (usually both, in that order) but show up later with a personal vendetta they try to avenge on some other topic where they see a potential opening; often leading to more out of context and misquoted tangents that derail more threads. Over all though, you can learn a lot here if you stay objective and realize that while various body building methodologies carry many cross over benefits to all, best practice is often unique to each individual. This includes training, diet, supplement and recovery methods. Be leery of anyone pushing a "one and only" solution for anything, there isn't one as variables are so wide that best practice usually boils down to the individual.

    Quote Originally Posted by fueledpassion View Post
    You'll burn more calories with higher volume and you'll also trigger a larger growth hormone response as well. Both equate to more success in cutting down. You can have some heavy lifting in there as well, but honestly the 12-20 rep range with short breaks in b/w sets would maximize the intensity and increase your likelihood of success.

    On a side note, it is absolutely sad that there is always someone who comes onto a thread being a smart aleck rather than just making a simple, educated assumption when another person makes a mistake in regards to a post. EVERYONE KNEW what he meant about muscle and fat. There ought to be mandatory grace-oriented classes offered on this board for the members who are always controversial (regardless of their accuracy or experience in something). Too many people feed off controversy on this board. If someone is wrong, prove it in a professional and courteous way. Your degree doesn't qualify your opinion any more than my experience qualifies me. Plus, stop high-jacking a thread and take OT arguments to PM instead.
  40. Professional Member
    fueledpassion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    3,664
    Rep Power
    703728
    Level
    55
    Lv. Percent
    47.11%
    Achievements Activity ProPosting Pro

    Texas, I think I just learned something from your last post. I'm speechless, lol.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-04-2012, 05:29 PM
  2. My Quest to 1000 Pounds
    By Ryno703 in forum Workout Logs
    Replies: 49
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 12:57 AM
  3. New Member, wanting to loose 5 pounds
    By Wendy21 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-08-2007, 02:11 PM
  4. Trying to loose 20 pounds of flubber
    By nidan in forum Anabolics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 01-23-2005, 08:41 PM
  5. I have started to cut, 5 pounds down and more to go....
    By windwords7 in forum Weight Loss
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-02-2003, 07:32 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Log in
Log in