I like to tell my older gym pals that they have made a choice. They have chosen the pain of staying in shape over the pain of not. I have friends over 50 who are competing in amateur shows, and placing. They have mastered their diets. Speaking of diets, regarding this one: I've been on it 6 days, but fell off on thur (way off!), but managed to lose 6 pounds by today anyway, and lost no strength, (actually moved up on a couple of groups). Been taking a lot of BCAA's, especially pre workout. I'm currently timing my workouts to just prior to my window, with the cardio just prior to the workout. I'm currently increasing toward my max workout weights, and these are the workout cycles where I do well increasing mass, so the amount of weight I lose is less important than my actual body fat. I think that is the goal of this particular diet. Reducing body fat while retaining lean gains using the IF dieting technique(s).
Good luck, and please keep us posted. Speaking of supplements, I've never taken BCAAs. The only supplements I take are a regular multivitamin, some extra vitamin D, some fish oil and, for the moment, a prebiotic capsule. I have a banana and a homemade protein shake that includes whey immediately post full workout. So I'm a really low-tech guy in this area.
No one can argue, really, if you're comfortable with what you're doing, it's safe, and it's getting results.
So far, so good. I'm having some issues in the timing of the 8 hour window, though. I have to adjust it by a couple hours on some days, but overall, keeping my fasting 16 hours. I'm 198 today (started at 207 a week and a half ago), but now believe my fat loss will begin to slow. I've been monitoring my macros closely, and the 8 hour window makes it easy to stay within my effective limits that I know give me good results. I'm really liking the BCAA's. They seem to help drive through fasting workouts, which I stepped up this week, instead of doing them in the food window. No loss of strength, and plenty of energy. Baron (or anyone else following this thread), can you recommend a good, accurate way to measure body fat, other than the oblique caliper?
Nine pounds in 10 days is a heck of a start, wjk. I can't imagine that it was all due to calorie deficit, but it's impressive all the same, provided you're eating well and not overdoing the training. As you said, the results will slow (how can they not?!), but you should be feeling pretty good right about now. Some cake, perhaps?
Further to some links I posted recently about low volume training, here is a post I came across on another site a while back that cites a few studies: The ACSM Weight Training Guidelines state more than one set may elicit slightly greater strength gains but additional improvement is relatively small (ACSM 1995). Studies demonstrating marginal improvements in strength with more sets typically use one exercise per muscle. Split programs performed by experienced weight trainers typically incorporate two or more exercises per muscle group. Fleck and Kramer's review of the literature suggest the optimal number of total sets are between 2 and 5 sets (Fleck & Kraemer, 1997). Many scientific studies demonstrate one set is almost effective as multiple sets, if not just as effective in strength and muscle hypertrophy (Starkey, Pollock, et. al. 1996). By performing an additional set (50% to 100% more sets) only 0 to 5% more progress will be observed. Each additional set yields even less progress to a point of diminishing return. The time saved with an abbreviated weight training program can often be used more wisely elsewhere in a program Those who are used to a program implementing multiple sets and/or a many exercises are usually skeptical about performing so few sets. Veterans of the old school may not feel confident they will experience gains with less sets and exercises. They had been introduced and grown accustom to traditional training. Some may even react violently at the proposition of incorporating such a abbreviated method of training. They may defend their quaint methods to justify all the time and effort they had spent training at higher volumes throughout the years. If an individual is accustom to a high volume program it may be very difficult psychologically to perform only a warm up set and one workout set. It may take months until the veteran is use to the low volume, progressively intense training. The individual who is used to performing multiple sets and many exercises for each muscle group is initially unable to perform a workout set at a great intensity. They have taught themselves, almost unconsciously, to hold back since they are used to performing many exercises and sets. It may require months to teach the body to push itself more intensely. In addition, the type of fatigue experienced after the high intense, low volume training is different than the traditional high volume training. Until they are able to generate more intensity in their workouts, many may feel they are not achieving a productive workout based on this initial lack of fatigue. __________________ Studies that show lower sets do just as much benefit as high w/o carrying the risk of overtraining: Quote: (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S163, 1998) focused on increases in knee-extension strength in three different modes: one-rep max, isometric peak torque and training weight. Again, there was no significant difference between the one-set and three-set groups. One-rep max increased 33.3% and 31.6% for 1 set and 3 sets, respectively; isometric increases were 35.4% versus 32.1%; and training weight increases were 25.6% compared to 14.7% note that the one-set group gained slightly more strength in the first two modes and substantially more in training weight (25.6% versus 14.7%). (Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 11(3): 148-154, 1997) Thirty-five males, with one to four years weight-training experience, were assigned to one of three training groups: one-set, two-sets, or four sets. All participants did what I would call a periodized routine; they changed the rep range every few weeks. They did free-weight exercises four times a week for ten weeks using 12 reps maximum (week 1-4), 7 reps max (week 5-7) and 9 reps (week 8-10). All sets were performed to muscular fatigue with three minutes rest between sets. The only difference between the three programs was the number of sets. As in the Pollock group studies, no significant differences in results were found. The authors concluded: "...A low volume program ... [one set of each exercise] ... results in increases in muscle size and function similar to programs with two to four times as much volume." Significantly, regarding hormone output, they concluded: "High volume [four sets of each exercise] may result in a shift in the testosterone/cortisol (anabolic/catabolic) ratio in some individuals, suggesting the possibility of overtraining." In other words, high-volume training not only doesn't produce better results, it may also lead to overtraining. Quote: (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S115, 1998) addresses the training experience issue. As you'll recall, some have suggested that experienced trainers might benefit from higher volume. In other words, after you've been training for a while, you need increased volume to continue progressing - more is better. According to this study, those people should think anew. The researchers recruited 40 adults who had been performing one set to muscular fatigue, using nine exercises, for a minimum of one year; average training time was six years. The participants were randomly assigned to either a one-set or three-set group; both groups did 8-12 reps to failure three days per week for 13 weeks. Both groups significantly increased their one-rep maximum strength and endurance. There was no significant difference in the gains made by the two groups in the leg extension, leg curl, bench press, overhead press and arm curl. The researchers concluded: "These data indicate that 1 set of [resistance training] is equally as beneficial as 3 sets in experienced resistance trained adults." Quote: (Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Supplement 30(5): S274, 1998), also 6 months long, showed significant increases in circulating insulin-like growth factors (IGFs) in both one-set (34%) and three-set (30%) groups. Dr. Carpinelli, who teaches the neuromuscular aspects of strength training at Adelphi University (Long Island, New York), says, "IGFs are multifunctional protein hormones, whose production in the liver and other tissues is stimulated by growth hormones." They are important because, "They stimulate glucose and amino acid uptake, protein and DNA synthesis, and growth of bones, cartilage, and soft tissue." The researchers concluded: "The elevation of IGFs is no greater with high- than low-volume resistance training." That's noteworthy, because it's generally believed that high-set training results in more growth hormone secretion. (See Growth Hormone Synergism by Douglas M. Crist, Ph.D., 2nd Edition, 1991. Quote: THE EFFECT OF WEIGHT TRAINING VOLUME ON HORMONAL OUTPUT AND MUSCULAR SIZE AND FUNCTION 27 experienced male college-aged subjects three groups: a low volume group (3 sets per muscle group, each muscle group trained once a week) medium volume group (6 sets per muscle group, each muscle group trained once a week) high volume group (12 sets per muscle group, each muscle group trained once a week). The only difference in the training protocols between the groups was the number of sets per exercise Study lasted 10 weeks. All three groups significantly improved in all measures except for vertical jump, but there were no significant differences between groups for any measure. Urinary testosterone/cortisol ratio showed a trend towards overtraining as training volume increased. While the high volume group showed a hormonal trend towards overtraining, these results should be viewed with caution, because urinary concentrations of hormones were measured, which may not reflect blood levels. http://www.superphysique.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=4971&start=60 Also, have a look here: http://www.cbass.com/NEWEVIDE.HTM I still can't fully wrap my head around such low volume, but I think I will tinker a bit more with my already way-reduced volume routine just to see if it changes anything one way or the other (i.e., strength, size, sleep). Have any of you guys experimented with very low volume and, if so, how did you fare with it in comparison to your previously higher volume workouts?
The low volume method has had it's proponents at least since Arthur Jones, inventor of nautilus equipment, was pushing it. It usually involves extreme intensity. More than just going to failure, but rather beyond failure with negatives and anything else you can do to push the envelope. In most cases, i don't think it's a system to just do less sets at the same intensity level you were previously doing. There are also studies that show that if you do less intensity, but more sets, you can get the same strength gains. For instance, if you do three sets of ten reps to failure at a certain weight, change it to doing six sets of five reps with the same weight, and you can get the same strength gains, according to some studies. The advantage to this higher volume system is that it taxes the nervous system less. And you can walk out of the gym feeling refreshed instead of spent. So there are three methods in the above and i would guess that they all work, if the concomitant intensity level is used, and it's probably best to just use the one that feels best to the individual. I like the third method, myself. I prefer less intensity and more volume.