Weight loss blast it off or gradual?

Squatman

well folks, heres the story,

last year i cut down to 88kilos for a PL comp. it took 4-6 hours a week, losing about a kilo a week, diet wasnt perfect but it was the best i could do at the time due to college,

so as it stands im now at 98 kilos approx (**** scales), so what I plan to do is bring my bench up to 140kilos as soon as possible, then start a weight loss program. should not be much more than a month away.

what i need to know is.
1) what is the best form of fat burning exercise. I want to either blast the fat away as fast as possible a (<2 months), burn the fat off gradually and without losing strength?
2) is metcons a good approach to this

last year i lost 9kilos and approx 10% of my strength.
I dont really need diet tips, as i have been researching this quite a bit over the last few days!

thanks

Squatman

just to elaborate on the above,

i want to either blast the fat away as quick as possible and take what ever strength loss comes with it,

or

gradual, whilst holding onto strength!

Hanley

1) the faster you lose weight, the faster you lose strength

2) telling people you've a good understanding on what to eat for fat loss and then asking if met cons are a good approach show you don't know as much as you think you do

Dermighty

I tried the Velocity Diet before, it really really works.

Hanley

Dermighty wrote: »

I tried the Velocity Diet before, it really really works.

That is probably the worst possible thing you could recommend for someone looking to maintain strength while losing weight.

Did you even read what he said?

Squatman

) telling people you've a good understanding on what to eat for fat loss and then asking if met cons are a good approach show you don't know as much as you think you do

iv a good understanding of diet, as iv lost 9 kilos in the past, plus I been reading through other peoples logs (yours included), including calorie counting and proportioning. however iv never done metcons ever! so thats why i was asking!

anyway, out of interest, hanley, how much strength would you say you lost during your 2 week period? i read this agess ago, and u started ~95kg ish?


i suppose what im looking for is a recommendation, on the ideal weight loss cycles, I want to have a well structured approach to the weight loss this time! thanks guys!

Hanley

Squatman wrote: »

iv a good understanding of diet, as iv lost 9 kilos in the past, plus I been reading through other peoples logs (yours included), including calorie counting and proportioning. however iv never done metcons ever! so thats why i was asking!

anyway, out of interest, hanley, how much strength would you say you lost during your 2 week period? i read this agess ago, and u started ~95kg ish?


i suppose what im looking for is a recommendation, on the ideal weight loss cycles, I want to have a well structured approach to the weight loss this time! thanks guys!

2 week period?

My weight's gone from 88kg in 2006, to 110kg in 2009 to 100kg in 2010, back to <90kg today. Which 2 week period we talking!?

When you're on reduced kcals, the last thing you want to do is impact recovery by demanding more of your body (ie avoid recovery intense metcons). The best thing you can do is eat sufficiently below maintenance without doing any additional work to allow for a slow gradual loss, if you're concerned with maintaining max strength. If you want it to come off a bit faster, get 2-3 hours of light intensity exercise in on top of it - walking, crosstrainer, bike, pads (if that's your thing) etc etc.

Squatman

what i was doing, diet was as close as i could get to 40-40-20 ( i was in college at the time and couldnt always get what i wanted, i hour lunch breaks, not enough time to go home)

any ways

in the latter stages of weight loss the last time, i was doing 5-6 hours a week, predominantely on the cross trainer, prob 90% of the time, cos it showed (on screen) to be the best calorie burner/ unit time so it made sense with regards efficiency.

however i always wondered is there a better way to achieve the same results, as regards intensity. i was doing a training routine on the cross trainer that cycled the resistence upwards, for 15 minutes, then dropped to almost nothing and cycled upwards for 15mins. my max for 30mins according to the machine was 450kcals, which is a good return for the time. (at this rate I was able to lose 1kg per week)

i suppose what might be important here is, the lenght of time after training is my metabolism increased using both methods.

sorry for all the block of writing!

Squatman

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=68130119

oh yea, and one more thing, would you support the idea of using fat burners?

i was talking to two people about this,
one guy promoted it, but said it only works if u take 2x the stated dosage,

the other guy said not to go near it, as it puts unnecessary/too much strain on the ticker?

Hanley

Squatman wrote: »

what i was doing, diet was as close as i could get to 40-40-20 ( i was in college at the time and couldnt always get what i wanted, i hour lunch breaks, not enough time to go home)

any ways

in the latter stages of weight loss the last time, i was doing 5-6 hours a week, predominantely on the cross trainer, prob 90% of the time, cos it showed (on screen) to be the best calorie burner/ unit time so it made sense with regards efficiency.

however i always wondered is there a better way to achieve the same results, as regards intensity. i was doing a training routine on the cross trainer that cycled the resistence upwards, for 15 minutes, then dropped to almost nothing and cycled upwards for 15mins. my max for 30mins according to the machine was 450kcals, which is a good return for the time. (at this rate I was able to lose 1kg per week)

i suppose what might be important here is, the lenght of time after training is my metabolism increased using both methods.

sorry for all the block of writing!

Any additional metabolic effect you get is going to have a recovery debt, which is likely going to effect your lifting. Don't fall victim to the grass being greener on the other side. You've done it before and had success, you don't need to reinvent the wheel to do it all again.

For PL/strength training you need a very minimal level of GPP/fitness and it's certainly not something to concern yourself with if you're actively dieting for a period of time and trying to maintain strength. There's times during the year you could justify HIIT, but training to do it while dieting and maintaing strength isn't one of those instances - KISS.

As for fat burners, I like Hydroxycut Hardcore. Not sure how much it worked for me, the appetite surpression qualities coulda just been a result of me being super attentive to meal times and the psychological effect of having them. But in that regard I worked harder on the smaller points of my diet because of it, and as a result they "worked".

Squatman

you don't need to reinvent the wheel to do it all again.

Sound advice! im not gone too far astray so, i suppose i was hoping for a quick fix!! might have to look into lipo

oh yea, so if i do decide to blast it off as quick as possible, do you think I would be wasting my time benching, squatting & DLing, or should i use this time to do more cardio, since id be losing strength anyway, and with the decreased calorie intake would it be worse as my bod wont have sufficient cals for proper repair, or am I trying to split the atom here?

your advice is much appreciated!

Mellor

Squatman wrote: »

in the latter stages of weight loss the last time, i was doing 5-6 hours a week, predominantely on the cross trainer, prob 90% of the time, cos it showed (on screen) to be the best calorie burner/ unit time so it made sense with regards efficiency.

That's may or may not be true regarding the CT being the best calorie burner. Firstly, the displays have various degrees of accuracy, you may or may not be burning that many. The rate at which your burn cals is directly proportional to the effort you put in.

I don't even think beinf the most efficient in terms of time is a major concern, if you can do something else for longer, or more often thne its cumalatively better.

haleylooper

It should be systematic if you're want to loose weight. Enroll in a fat farm to know what I really mean. You don't need to rush everything. You have to do it slowly and certainly you'll get what's the best.

<fake sig snip>

Squatman

Mellor wrote: »

That's may or may not be true regarding the CT being the best calorie burner. Firstly, the displays have various degrees of accuracy, you may or may not be burning that many. The rate at which your burn cals is directly proportional to the effort you put in.

I don't even think beinf the most efficient in terms of time is a major concern, if you can do something else for longer, or more often thne its cumalatively better.

yea, im definitely not taking the readings as gospel, but to avoid descrepancies between machines, I stick with the same CT, so that way it should not vary a huge amount from day to day, and also it gave me a target to aim to break every time!

Mellor

That's prob the best thing you can do imo.
think of it as a unitless number, if its higher on the same machine you've burned more. What you are actually burning isn't as important and constantly psuhing yourself and improving.