to tone up...dont do many reps of low weights??

jon1981

reading this article this guy reckons to tone up heavy weights is the only way to go...

http://http://www.articlesbase.com/weight-loss-articles/tone-up-your-muscles-with-heavy-weights-369076.html

any truth in it? i was always lead to believe if you want definition & tone but not arnie size proportions do lots of reps and lower weight.

Probably the biggest training fallacy that get’s under my skin the most is that to tone up, you should lift lighter weights and do more reps. This misconception, just like many others in the fitness industry have now become the gospel truth.

I would often hear people say “Oh I don’t want to do heavy weights I just want to tone up.” In this article, I’m going to show you why I believe this is completely wrong.

I am not going to force you my beliefs down your throat. I am just going to give you my honest opinion and I’ll let you make up your own mind. Cool?

My belief is that the fastest way to get toned is to lift heavy weights. Here’s why.

There is no such thing as a toned muscle or an un-toned muscle. A muscle is always toned and can never be un-toned. Sometimes they may look un-toned simply due to a layer of fat on top of them or not having enough muscle to give your body shape.

To achieve the toned look you simply have to have muscle and low body fat levels. This is why lifting heavy weights is much more effective. For one, they help you build muscle, and two; it speeds up your metabolism, making fat loss much easier.

Another great benefit of lifting heavy weights, especially the big lifts like squats, deadlifts, dips and chin ups, is that they stimulate two powerful hormones, testosterone and growth hormone. This makes losing fat and building muscle happen much quicker and easier.

Performing high reps with light weight achieve none of this. It doesn’t build muscle, which means it doesn’t increase our metabolism and is far from being the most efficient way to burn fat. It also fails to stimulate testosterone and growth hormone.

The only thing training with light weights does, is build up a lot of lactic acid which gives you that burning sensation. This gives you the false hope that what you are doing is actually toning up your muscles. This burning sensation does nothing to tone up your muscles. It doesn’t help you build muscle, nor does it help you lose much fat.

Many people choose to believe that the high rep stuff works simply because they don’t want to do heavy weights. That is understandable. But by when I say heavy weights, I mean lifting enough weight which will cause you to reach complete muscle failure in 6-12 reps.

This means you don’t have to do weights at all, if you don’t want to. There are many bodyweight exercises which are extremely tough to complete more than 6-12 reps. You could do stuff like parallel bar dips, chin ups and pistols (one leg squats.)

Basically to tone up, you want to push your muscles to the level of complete exhaustion in the 6-12 rep range. This rep range is perfect for building strength and muscle. Once you get over 15-20 reps you are now training more for endurance. This does little to build muscle or lose fat.

cowzerp

Totally agree with this, heavy weights work all your muscle, light weights only work the type 1 fibres meaning your only getting the same muscles that cardio cover anyway!! type 2 fibres need heavy resistance and thats throught exercises like weights and sprints etc.. explosive stuff!!

jon1981

cowzerp wrote: »

Totally agree with this, heavy weights work all your muscle, light weights only work the type 1 fibres meaning your only getting the same muscles that cardio cover anyway!! type 2 fibres need heavy resistance and thats throught exercises like weights and sprints etc.. explosive stuff!!

so for example if im doing squats of say 60kg am i best to explode up really quickly rather than slowly and holding it

aye

i think by explosive he means sprints and tuck jumps, clap pushups etc.

Colm_OReilly

Depends if 60Kg is a heavy squat for you.

If it is a heavy squat, you shouldn't be able to jump to extension, it will be a push.

EileenG

One of my favourite quotes is from Charles Glass: "A woman who wants to look toned should train as if she wants to be the biggest strongest bodybuilder in the world". Trust me, lifting heavy won't give a woman massive muscles. If it did, I'd look like Jay Cutler by now.

arybvtcw0eolkf

EileenG wrote: »

One of my favourite quotes is from Charles Glass: "A woman who wants to look toned should train as if she wants to be the biggest strongest bodybuilder in the world". .

Well Charles Glass is full of sh*t then, because to train to be the strongest woman in the world you must eat for that too.

I can be strong as hell at 20st and look like sh*t, or I can drop to 16st and look toned and fit. But I train differently for both.

Here's a pic of me at 20st - trained for pulling Tug-o-War and fought Judo at that weight for awhile too, it was horrible.



At that weight I was rep'ing 260kgs on my squat and benching 190's, my bench would have been bigger only for sore elbows and fooked up rotator cuffs.

And here's me at 16 1/2 st. Looking toned and fit.



Now although my muscle base is built on low reps, heavy weights and strong lifting. To 'get toned' I train to get toned so its diet, cardio (including circuit weight training - fantastic and vastly overlooked by most people) and lots of intensity in everything I do in the gym and outside.

So I believe for a 'toned' look that I think the OP wants you must train with intensity, lots of cardio - including circuit weight training and diet. It works the same for both male and female - newbie and advanced trainer a like.

DublinDilbert

jon1981 wrote: »

reading this article this guy reckons to tone up heavy weights is the only way to go...

http://http://www.articlesbase.com/weight-loss-articles/tone-up-your-muscles-with-heavy-weights-369076.html

any truth in it? i was always lead to believe if you want definition & tone but not arnie size proportions do lots of reps and lower weight.

Yep to build a muscle bigger you must damage it...

If you measure the max you can lift, then set the weight your going to lift as a percentage of the max you can lift...

If you want to build muscle do reps of 75->90% of the max you can lift, you will not be able to do many reps at this weight anyway.

If you want to build endurance do reps of 40->60% of the max you can lift, this will not damage the muscle, hence not build it any bigger.

arybvtcw0eolkf

DublinDilbert wrote: »

Yep to build a muscle bigger you must damage it...

I beg to differ.

You must NEVER damage anything on your body to make improvements.

I think your confusing DOMS and overload. DOMS is closely associated with muscle fatigue and overload but its not necessary is achieve muscle gains.

Just like your body adapts to increases in cardio by getting fitter and building stamina, your muscles will grow through overload, fatigue - rest and diet.

I break it down to nOObs like this.

We're all lazy, we have lazy bodies and our lazy bodies will always want to make things easier on itself. If we throw lots of work at it, and fatigue it, it 'switches on'. It grows fitter and stronger to make that work easier, so when the workload we place on it becomes easier - we increase our workload and the cycle continues.

But we should never set out to ''damage'' anything in that process.

Colm_OReilly

Mairt,

I think it's just a case of semantics here. When you exercise you are "damaging" your body. It repairs stronger than before if the "damage" was optimal. If the "damage" is too much, you've hurt yourself. If you replace damage with stress I'd say we'd fundamentally agree.

agentgreen

Mairt, do you have an example of the circuit weight training you used to do?

I'm training for strength at the moment but wouldn't mind giving it ago as I hate cardio.

Thanks.

JJ6000

yep, heavy weight training is the way to go when getting toned.

Toning is essentially 2 things -
1 - building a reasonable amount of muscle,
2 - Losing body fat so that muscle shows.

The best way to acheive number 1 is heavy weight training for hypertrophy. It is FAR more efficient than lighter weights for high reps and you will progress much quicker. The idea that high reps somehow "shape" a muscle or "tone" it is utter rubbish. This is a myth which appears to be constantly repeated in the media. A muscle cannot be "toned". It can not be shaped (your genetics determine an individual muscles shape - you can not change this). It can only be made bigger or smaller. Being toned refers to when someone has developed a decent amount of muscle and has reasonably low body fat to show it off.

Number 2, as Mairt said, is diet diet diet (and other fat loss regimens, like cardio, interval training etc etc). No matter how hard you train, you CANNOT out-train a ****ty diet. You can do all the heavy weight training and interval/cardio in the world, but if you eat like ****, you will look like ****. Anybody who has ever gone from overweight to ripped will tell you this.

t-ha

Mairt wrote: »

And here's me at 16 1/2 st. Looking toned and fit.

Stud.

I'd have to point out though, the muscle was there already from your previous training, which is what gives you your shape at 16.5 st. All you really had to do was lose bodyfat and get fitter without losing too much muscle and there you have it. For a girl starting out without any/much muscle mass it would be a good idea for her to build up as quick as possible to get to the point where she's carrying a shapely amount of muscle.

The quote from Charles Glass may also have a context that gives it more sense - he may have been talking about exercise intensity for example.

t-ha

JJ6000 wrote: »

Number 2, as Mairt said, is diet diet diet (and other fat loss regimens, like cardio, interval training etc etc). No matter how hard you train, you CANNOT out-train a ****ty diet. You can do all the heavy weight training and interval/cardio in the world, but if you eat like ****, you will look like ****. Anybody who has ever gone from overweight to ripped will tell you this.

I'd disagree with you there tbh. I've out-trained a super-****ty diet and I know plenty of others who have too. If you want to get ripped asap then examining your diet helps for sure, but it is possible to eat like crap and still look very good.

Hanley

t-ha wrote: »

I'd disagree with you there tbh. I've out-trained a super-****ty diet and I know plenty of others who have too. If you want to get ripped asap then examining your diet helps for sure, but it is possible to eat like crap and still look very good.

+1

celestial

Hanley wrote: »

+1

Yes I'd agree too, but with the caveat, as always, that you need to be training HARD - i.e above the average of your regular treadmill and a few free weights somewhat infrequent gym-goer. Hanley you are a powerlifter and t-ha I understand you train MMA so you're not in the average bracket. I would say that anyone who is really super fit, with muscle to burn can easily not have the best diet and still burn off all the bad stuff. Doesn't mean it's optimal, but I feel you can still do it and not have any aesthetic impact.

JJ6000

t-ha wrote: »

I'd disagree with you there tbh. I've out-trained a super-****ty diet and I know plenty of others who have too. If you want to get ripped asap then examining your diet helps for sure, but it is possible to eat like crap and still look very good.

Well I suppose it all depends on your definition of what constitutes "very good".

Can you eat a moderately ****ty diet and still look good. Well yes. 15-20% bodyfat, depending on how it's carried, and when theres a decent amount of muscle underneath, can still look pretty impressive.

I, however, would not consider 15-20% to be VERY good. I would consider it to be good, but VERY good would be more in the 8-10% range if you were to ask me. Anything much lower would be in the ripped/shredded category. You dont have to have your diet absolutley spot on to get to the very good level, but you DO have to eat well most of the time. You can still have the odd bit of crap and pints at the weekend. If you have a very s**tty diet, you wont get down to, or be able to maintain that level.

I would say that if you have out-trained a SUPER-****ty diet and gotten down to the very good level, then you are extremely genetically gifted. Of course, these genetically elite DO exist but they are VERY rare and train extremely hard. Mariusz is one example..he has a **** diet but is definitely in the very good category...but for 99% of other strongmen, their ****ty diet just result in them looking like muscular fat guys. Strongmen train like maniacs....but the fact that a huge amount of them eat quite badly, taking in massive amounts of calories and often from crappy sources, means they are, well, fat. The achievements of the genetically gifted just dont apply to 99% percent of people.

You cant consistently stuff your face with high-glycemic carbs, sugars, trans-fats etc etc and expect to get into great/very good shape. I would say, with a SUPER-sh*tty diet, it would be difficult for most to even get into the "good" category. Dave Tate from westside barbell club is an example of one person, who, by his own admission, had what truly was a "super sh**ty" diet. As a result, he just looked like a strong fat guy. Not what I would consider obese....but fat, yes.....and unhealthy, most definitely. After getting his diet in check, he's now in the VERY good category....still has a ton of muscle and bodyfat is down around the 8% or lower range.

t-ha

You said this;

JJ6000 wrote: »

No matter how hard you train, you CANNOT out-train a ****ty diet. You can do all the heavy weight training and interval/cardio in the world, but if you eat like ****, you will look like ****.

it doesn't matter what your definitions of anything are, what you said is 100% WRONG, mainly because you used too many absolutes.

JJ6000 wrote: »

I, however, would not consider 15-20% to be VERY good. I would consider it to be good, but VERY good would be more in the 8-10% range if you were to ask me. Anything much lower would be in the ripped/shredded category. You dont have to have your diet absolutley spot on to get to the very good level, but you DO have to eat well most of the time. You can still have the odd bit of crap and pints at the weekend. If you have a very s**tty diet, you wont get down to, or be able to maintain that level.

Well this depends on your definition of a very ****ty diet. What people don't really get is that how much muscle vs how much bodyfat is mainly a product of training and how many calories you eat. I've dieted down while eating 1 or 2 fast food meals a day, snacks/chocolate etc., pizza, beer and so on (pretty much the worst diet you can think of) and still gone the right direction because I was training and my overall calorie intake allowed it. I don't know what my BP, Cholesterol levels or so on were like but that's not part of the discussion (and one time I couldn't train for a month, kept eating crap & bad things happened ).

I also remember as a young lad i worked on building sites during the summer while playing rubgy and football as well. My diet was crappy cereal in the morning, massive breakfast roll at tea, sandwiches with wedges and mayo at lunch, a 20" pizza to myself frequently after work and maybe 2 - 3 litres of full sugar coke per day. And probably tonnes of crisps and snacks that i can't remember. I was very fit and lean by the end of that summer and I wasn't even trying.

I remember after that Super-Size Me film came out, a cyclist (I think) ate nothing but McDonalds for a month but kept an eye on how many calories he was eating and sure enough, at the end of the month he had gained muscle, lost fat and his cycling was fine. I couldn't find it again since this is going back a few years, but I did find this: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa115.htm

JJ6000 wrote: »

I would say that if you have out-trained a SUPER-****ty diet and gotten down to the very good level, then you are extremely genetically gifted. Of course, these genetically elite DO exist but they are VERY rare and train extremely hard.

Well then I don't think we're talking about the same group then 'cos I know quite alot of people who out-train crap diets, at least if you're using bodyfat vs muscle vs fitness as the only criteria. Take a bunch of guys who are in very good shape, from a sports team or something & have a look at their diets. Most of them eat like cr*p. Look at how many guys (in the past anyway) were fit and lean growing up but then got a belly in their twenties/thirties. Metabolic rates don't slow down that fast so that's not the cause & their diets probably didn't get that much worse so in my view alot of it comes down to a change in their activity level.

JJ6000 wrote: »

Mariusz is one example..he has a **** diet but is definitely in the very good category...but for 99% of other strongmen, their ****ty diet just result in them looking like muscular fat guys. Strongmen train like maniacs....but the fact that a huge amount of them eat quite badly, taking in massive amounts of calories and often from crappy sources, means they are, well, fat.

Silly argument. Strong-men need to be strong, not lean. Mariusz being pretty ripped is a personal choice but most strong-man competitors will not risk losing strength over trying to stay lean. Many are former bodybuilders and know exactly how to get ripped if they wanted but it's of no help to their sport.

JJ6000 wrote: »

You cant consistently stuff your face with high-glycemic carbs, sugars, trans-fats etc etc and expect to get into great/very good shape. I would say, with a SUPER-sh*tty diet, it would be difficult for most to even get into the "good" category. Dave Tate from westside barbell club is an example of one person, who, by his own admission, had what truly was a "super sh**ty" diet. As a result, he just looked like a strong fat guy. Not what I would consider obese....but fat, yes.....and unhealthy, most definitely. After getting his diet in check, he's now in the VERY good category....still has a ton of muscle and bodyfat is down around the 8% or lower range.

Same response as with the strong-men, in fact if you read Dave's stuff from back then it was pretty much a badge of honour to be fat. I have no doubt that Dave could've trained the fat off if he'd wanted to. The reason he switched up his diet was for health reasons, improving his blood-lipid profile, HDL/LDL ratio etc.

Incidentally, I was 20st a couple of years back (stopped training) and dropped 7.5st with a combination of exercise and good diet, so I know that value of watching what you eat. I know that even with a fairly shi**y training regimine you can lose fat through diet alone and obviously if you're looking to maximise retained muscle and minimise fat (i.e. competing bodybuilders) then it's very important, but the idea that you can't out-train a crap diet is just wrong, or at the very least you need to specify what you mean by a crap diet first.

Edit: and it's also possible to look like crap eating a perfect diet but eating too much of it. If bodyfat vs muscle is the criteria for success, then total calorie intake and training is going to be 90% of someone's success.

Hanley

t-ha wrote: »

You said this;
it doesn't matter what your definitions of anything are, what you said is 100% WRONG, mainly because you used too many absolutes.

Well this depends on your definition of a very ****ty diet. What people don't really get is that how much muscle vs how much bodyfat is mainly a product of training and how many calories you eat. I've dieted down while eating 1 or 2 fast food meals a day, snacks/chocolate etc., pizza, beer and so on (pretty much the worst diet you can think of) and still gone the right direction because I was training and my overall calorie intake allowed it. I don't know what my BP, Cholesterol levels or so on were like but that's not part of the discussion (and one time I couldn't train for a month, kept eating crap & bad things happened ).

I also remember as a young lad i worked on building sites during the summer while playing rubgy and football as well. My diet was crappy cereal in the morning, massive breakfast roll at tea, sandwiches with wedges and mayo at lunch, a 20" pizza to myself frequently after work and maybe 2 - 3 litres of full sugar coke per day. And probably tonnes of crisps and snacks that i can't remember. I was very fit and lean by the end of that summer and I wasn't even trying.

I remember after that Super-Size Me film came out, a cyclist (I think) ate nothing but McDonalds for a month but kept an eye on how many calories he was eating and sure enough, at the end of the month he had gained muscle, lost fat and his cycling was fine. I couldn't find it again since this is going back a few years, but I did find this: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa115.htm

Well then I don't think we're talking about the same group then 'cos I know quite alot of people who out-train crap diets, at least if you're using bodyfat vs muscle vs fitness as the only criteria. Take a bunch of guys who are in very good shape, from a sports team or something & have a look at their diets. Most of them eat like cr*p. Look at how many guys (in the past anyway) were fit and lean growing up but then got a belly in their twenties/thirties. Metabolic rates don't slow down that fast so that's not the cause & their diets probably didn't get that much worse so in my view alot of it comes down to a change in their activity level.

Silly argument. Strong-men need to be strong, not lean. Mariusz being pretty ripped is a personal choice but most strong-man competitors will not risk losing strength over trying to stay lean. Many are former bodybuilders and know exactly how to get ripped if they wanted but it's of no help to their sport.

Same response as with the strong-men, in fact if you read Dave's stuff from back then it was pretty much a badge of honour to be fat. I have no doubt that Dave could've trained the fat off if he'd wanted to. The reason he switched up his diet was for health reasons, improving his blood-lipid profile, HDL/LDL ratio etc.

Incidentally, I was 20st a couple of years back (stopped training) and dropped 7.5st with a combination of exercise and good diet, so I know that value of watching what you eat. I know that even with a fairly shi**y training regimine you can lose fat through diet alone and obviously if you're looking to maximise retained muscle and minimise fat (i.e. competing bodybuilders) then it's very important, but the idea that you can't out-train a crap diet is just wrong, or at the very least you need to specify what you mean by a crap diet first.

Edit: and it's also possible to look like crap eating a perfect diet but eating too much of it. If bodyfat vs muscle is the criteria for success, then total calorie intake and training is going to be 90% of someone's success.

That really is the definitive post on the whole topic of out training a sh!tty diet. Very well said and I'm in 100% agreement.

JJ6000

t-ha wrote: »

You said this;

it doesn't matter what your definitions of anything are, what you said is 100% WRONG, mainly because you used too many absolutes.

Well this depends on your definition of a very ****ty diet. What people don't really get is that how much muscle vs how much bodyfat is mainly a product of training and how many calories you eat. I've dieted down while eating 1 or 2 fast food meals a day, snacks/chocolate etc., pizza, beer and so on (pretty much the worst diet you can think of) and still gone the right direction because I was training and my overall calorie intake allowed it. I don't know what my BP, Cholesterol levels or so on were like but that's not part of the discussion (and one time I couldn't train for a month, kept eating crap & bad things happened ).

How can I be 100% wrong?? As I said already, and you said yourself above, it depends on your definition of a “very s*itty diet” and what constitutes looking “very good”.

Yes, you can diet down eating crap, but I still stand by my statement that 99% of people will not get to the VERY GOOD level if they eat crap. Can you diet from 20% to 15% eating crap? Sure…I’ve already said you can. Can the average person get to a toned 8% while eating burgers, chips and chocolate all day?…no, they cant.


I

also remember as a young lad i worked on building sites during the summer while playing rubgy and football as well. My diet was crappy cereal in the morning, massive breakfast roll at tea, sandwiches with wedges and mayo at lunch, a 20" pizza to myself frequently after work and maybe 2 - 3 litres of full sugar coke per day. And probably tonnes of crisps and snacks that i can't remember. I was very fit and lean by the end of that summer and I wasn't even trying.

I never said exceptions did not exist...in fact, I said they DO exist.

Also, many builders eat like you did and in spite of the large amount of heavy manual labour they engage in ALL DAY LONG, they still look like crap. They are, in effect, "training" hard all day but look bad because they eat very bad.

I remember after that Super-Size Me film came out, a cyclist (I think) ate nothing but McDonalds for a month but kept an eye on how many calories he was eating and sure enough, at the end of the month he had gained muscle, lost fat and his cycling was fine. I couldn't find it again since this is going back a few years, but I did find this: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/issa115.htm

Your example of an elite cyclist is a bad one to use when discussing the average person. I’ve already said, it’s possible, for a very small few.

Using examples of elite athletes to back up your case is wrong. They are not representative of the population. You are looking at an elite group who usually posess higher than normal physical attributes.

Even within these groups, however and despite the fact that they are usually physically gifted, eating very sh!t and still looking very good is rare.

Well then I don't think we're talking about the same group then 'cos I know quite alot of people who out-train crap diets, at least if you're using bodyfat vs muscle vs fitness as the only criteria. Take a bunch of guys who are in very good shape, from a sports team or something & have a look at their diets. Most of them eat like cr*p. Look at how many guys (in the past anyway) were fit and lean growing up but then got a belly in their twenties/thirties. Metabolic rates don't slow down that fast so that's not the cause & their diets probably didn't get that much worse so in my view alot of it comes down to a change in their activity level.

I would definitely disagree with you here. The average person on a sports team DOES NOT eat a “very s*itty diet” as I would consider it. Are there diets spot on? No, frequently not…they eat some crap and enjoy beers. However, I think that the amount of professional footballers who stuff their faces with burgers, chips and chocolates all day is EXTREMELY rare. Almost all footballers will have exercise some degree of consideration about what they eat. Rarely are they perfect, but it is very rare that they eat EXTREMELY badly. Within the group that do eat extremely badly, it is even more EXTREMELY rare that they would look “very good” (ie. 8%). And even if they do, we are talking about the elite of the elite. They are not really suitable examples to use as they are not representative, physically, of the general population. Their bodies do not respond the same as the vast majority of peoples as they are often genetically gifted.

Silly argument. Strong-men need to be strong, not lean. Mariusz being pretty ripped is a personal choice but most strong-man competitors will not risk losing strength over trying to stay lean. Many are former bodybuilders and know exactly how to get ripped if they wanted but it's of no help to their sport.

How is my argument a silly argument?? I never advised that they SHOULD get lean. I know that they value strength over low body fat and that’s fine. I simply said, they are not lean, because they eat so badly. You said it yourself, they frequently know how to get ripped. If they fixed their diets, they could. But they don’t fix their diets. They continue to eat extremely badly and consequently, they usually look fat. Mariusz is an exception because, if what I read in his interviews is true, he eats extremely badly but is nevertheless very lean. He also uses boatloads of drugs no doubt. the VAST majority of other strongmen, however, in spite of being elite athletes, training like maniacs and taking boatloads of drugs, still are not lean becasue they eat a huge amount of crap and/or massive amounts of calories.

Same response as with the strong-men, in fact if you read Dave's stuff from back then it was pretty much a badge of honour to be fat. I have no doubt that Dave could've trained the fat off if he'd wanted to. The reason he switched up his diet was for health reasons, improving his blood-lipid profile, HDL/LDL ratio etc.

I have read Dave Tate’s stuff. I know he wanted to be fat. I never argued that he did not want to be fat. Whether he intended to be fat or not is irrelevant. The fact is, he was fat because his diet was extremely bad. Not “sort of” bad, or “a little” bad. It was extremely bad. IF he was happy with being fat, then great. If you also look at some of Dave Tates stuff he expressly says that it isn’t possible to out-train a crappy diet. It is a huge presumption to say that you have no doubt he could have simply trained it off if he wanted, while eating the same.

Incidentally, I was 20st a couple of years back (stopped training) and dropped 7.5st with a combination of exercise and good diet, so I know that value of watching what you eat. I know that even with a fairly shi**y training regimine you can lose fat through diet alone and obviously if you're looking to maximise retained muscle and minimise fat (i.e. competing bodybuilders) then it's very important, but the idea that you can't out-train a crap diet is just wrong, or at the very least you need to specify what you mean by a crap diet first.

Like I said, you can out-train a moderately crappy diet….but not to the point that you reach 8% bodyfat....at least, not for 99% of people.

I don’t need to type out an exact replica of what an EXTREMELY crappy diet is. Most people are able to tell the diffrerence between a very good diet, a reasonable diet, a moderately crappy one and an EXTREMELY crappy one. If you want an example of an what I would consider extremely crappy diet, then look at what Dave Tate used to eat.

Edit: and it's also possible to look like crap eating a perfect diet but eating too much of it. If bodyfat vs muscle is the criteria for success, then total calorie intake and training is going to be 90% of someone's success

I agree….but calorie intake is also a factor in the quality of your diet. Just because a diet consists of clean food it does not automatically mean it is a good one. If you take in 12,000 calories and only use 2,500 of those calories per day, even if it all comes from whole food, then yes, it is an extremely crappy diet for the purposes of getting into very good shape.

JJ6000

Hanley wrote: »

That really is the definitive post on the whole topic of out training a sh!tty diet. Very well said and I'm in 100% agreement.

I find it hard to believe that people are talking about training on a very shi*tty diet being conducive to fat loss, as if it applies more than a very select few.

Like I said, if the average person eats moderatley crap, sure they can get to 15% or so if they train well.

If the average person eats EXTREMELY crap, it is very very unlikely that they will get to "very good" level as I have described it even while training hard.

Many powerlifters eat "sort of" crap, and still look good. An awful lot eat HORRENDOUSLY bad and look fat. That's fine, it's not part of their sport to be lean.

Of course, the exceptions exist. The 1% who eat very badly but still stay at 8%.

t-ha

I'm not out here telling people to fill themselves with crap to look great. I only responded to your post because you used absolutes where you shouldn't have. If you had said that it's tough to out-train a ****ty diet then I'd agree with you.

Hanley

JJ6000 wrote: »

Many powerlifters eat "sort of" crap, and still look good. An awful lot eat HORRENDOUSLY bad and look fat. That's fine, it's not part of their sport to be lean.
.

Your knowledge of good competitive powerlifting would seem to be quite lacking if that's what you think. In the SHW's and 308's alot of them will carry a large amount of fat. It creates better leverages. But when you look at the 275's and below, nearly all of the top tier lifters are gonna be <12-15% bodyfat. And quite often even lower than that. You know why? Because carrying too much bodyfat leaves you at a disadvantage when you're not in an unlimited weightclass.

JJ6000

Hanley wrote: »

Your knowledge of good competitive powerlifting would seem to be quite lacking if that's what you think. In the SHW's and 308's alot of them will carry a large amount of fat. It creates better leverages. But when you look at the 275's and below, nearly all of the top tier lifters are gonna be <12-15% bodyfat. And quite often even lower than that. You know why? Because carrying too much bodyfat leaves you at a disadvantage when you're not in an unlimited weightclass.

Yes, perhaps I should have been more clear that when I was referring to powerlifters I am referring to the heaviest weight classes. Same with strongman.

Doesnt make anything I said less true though and what you said just backs up my argument. It just means the heaviest weight classes eat as much crap as they can in order to pile on the weight (muscle AND fat). SUre, you can have lean powerlifters/strongmen. Look at Mariusz (although his ability to have a ripped physique while eating sh!t is due to his insane genetics). Look at Chuck Voeg in westside. It's a question of diet though. If they dont want to carry the same fat that the heaviest classes do, then they dont eat the same horrendously bad diets.

The lighter guys simply don't go as nut's on their diets as the heavier guys do, because they have the tighter weight restrictions.

I genuinely dont think we have disagreed about most of the fundamental points I was making.

JJ6000

t-ha wrote: »

I'm not out here telling people to fill themselves with crap to look great. I only responded to your post because you used absolutes where you shouldn't have. If you had said that it's tough to out-train a ****ty diet then I'd agree with you.

I actually did say that.

Perhaps not in my first post, which may have seemed to be an absolute statement....but I clarified it many times in my second post. In fairness, it was my first post that you reponded to, so fair enough.

I dont think we're really in disagreement about the fundamentals here.

I would say it's tough to put-train a moderately crap diet but far more than just tough to out-train a VERY sh!tty diet...but if we go back and forth with that argument we are both just going to be nit-picking on finer details. Our arguments are pretty well aligned and don't really conflict in my opinion.