Eat less, eat less often, eat better. That's what I do. Dinner becomes boring - one homemade burger and a salad for most days of the week.@Steve Freides - Do you have any good methods to getting rid of some muscle?
-S-
Eat less, eat less often, eat better. That's what I do. Dinner becomes boring - one homemade burger and a salad for most days of the week.@Steve Freides - Do you have any good methods to getting rid of some muscle?
Every time an article uses BMI, I do complain because they show misunderstanding of this indicator.Marlon Leon said:And whenever some article mentions the body weight index (ratio of height to weight) people start to complain that they are above the ideal, because they have so much muscle which is totally different than carrying to much fat.
Along the same lines, when I read Hypertrophy or Mass threads, I ask myself....... how much is enough?The non-competitive who puts health in first place may, or may not, need hypertrophy.
How much is too much? I would argue than many people would benefit of some hypertrophy.
... increase strength first ... Most of the time, if some hypertrophy is needed, and the student eats and rests appropriately, the body will make it happen. Not necessarily 20 kg. Sometimes, a 2 to 3 kg permanent increase is all that is needed.
They don't know that it takes a LOT of training before that even matters, that diet and other variables also play a part, or how hard you have to work to even begin to "get bulky."
I don't have to convince women as a personal trainer, but that's a topic that often comes up at parties or similar events.As a part-time personal trainer, I find that it somewhat challenging to convince women to really pursue strength. And I don't mean "do strength exercises" -- most are fine with this. I mean really pursue it, and progress. They really don't have a good understanding of how it will change their body or whether that will be within their acceptable range. I was there myself, 4 years ago. Even with what I know now about what works, I can't just say "kettebells do this" or "barbells do this". It's hard to explain that weights/reps/sets, rest, and exercises can be manipulated to have different effects over time and keep them on track towards their goals. They don't know that it takes a LOT of training before that even matters, that diet and other variables also play a part, or how hard you have to work to even begin to "get bulky." So mostly I try to focus on the benefits that everyone can be on board with: better movement quality, more stability and resiliency, more capability for life, and a bit more muscle for a more favorable body composition and metabolism. I just still wish I could find that magic explanation that would make them "get it" and really engage with the process of getting strong.
So mostly I try to focus on the benefits that everyone can be on board with: better movement quality, more stability and resiliency, more capability for life, and a bit more muscle for a more favorable body composition and metabolism. I just still wish I could find that magic explanation that would make them "get it" and really engage with the process of getting strong.
I would welcome any thoughts on the subject as it applies to women... even from the men!
I sustain that its extremely uncommon and unlikely for a normal person to be too muscular.
Most women do not have increasing strength as an internal goal, and might never. You have to give them an external reason. They don't see it as something to pursue without added context.
Agreed. Read is trying to sell himself as a badass (imo) and after that "can't run? Crappy human" meme, I lost all respect for him. There are tons of legitimate reasons as to why someone can't run (one person asked if they were a crappy human because they lost their legs in Afganistan and couldn't run, one was born missing a good part of their leg). He replied let the excuses begin.I generally like what Andrew Read has written but I don't like that one.
First of all, it sounds far too much like preaching to me. That's a question of taste, I suppose.
Secondly, I think he polarizes the issue far too much. I don't think anyone has supported the use of PEDs for hypertrophy in this discussion. And no, we are not talking about getting fat either. There is something in between the extremes.
I follow his work and articles for years now and he clearly has some issues. He acknowledges himself that he often "searches" for the quarrel, even in his private life.Agreed. Read is trying to sell himself as a badass (imo) and after that "can't run? Crappy human" meme, I lost all respect for him. There are tons of legitimate reasons as to why someone can run (one person asked if they were a crappy human because they lost their legs in Afganistan and couldn't run, one was born missing a good part of their leg). He replied let the excuses begin.
Like I said earlier in this post "Don't judge every little word or detail". At 71-72Kg you're still within that "ideal weight + 10%" range.The value in the article would put my ideal weight at 67kg. This is ridiculous. When I am at 68, I already have little fat (six pack) and could not lose more unless I starve or lose a bone. And I am very far for being muscular! When I do not pay extra attention to make weight, I naturally go around 71-72. Yes, this just anecdotal, but so are all the examples given so far.
Yes, the definition of adding mass is different from person to person. Adding 2-3Kg would be a good mass-gain for me personally, but for the bodybuilding.com crowd it probably wouldn't count as a good gain.Anyway, my approach is to increase strength first (how surprising...). Most of the time, if some hypertrophy is needed, and the student eats and rests appropriately, the body will make it happen. Not necessarily 20 kg. Sometimes, a 2 to 3 kg permanent increase is all that is needed.
I think if I were to pick a hundred or so women who seriously train for strength, hypertrophy, or both (not just StrongFirst methods, but all types of training methods), and another hundred women who aspire to be fit but are currently not, and asked the unfit group, "How many of these women are more muscular than you would want to be?" I think the answer from most of them would probably be close to half. So this might be the definition of "too muscular" to the general population. Part of it is that we have a skewed perception of what a woman should look like. But that's just my opinion. And my answer may be more like 5% of them, because my perception has been skewed towards strength. We all have our opinions and perceptions which become part of the issue of what is or is not "too muscular."
Just a quick question:I was about to write something about the topic today, but beginning to type, I erased that, because it rises so much opinions, answers and more questions in myself.
Last year I gained 10kg of mass-loss.
If you took the fit women and showed them on their day off, in jeans and a tshirt or thin hoodie the objection level would go way down.
IMO most of us who have a history of fitness can no longer can give a truly rational response to why we train so doggedly. In terms of longevity and general health we do several times more work than is needed. Once exercise becomes ingrained it is its own reason - it feels good. Many endeavors are like this.
The easy way to answer this question, to tout ones own horns, to show some betterment and or development would be "yes of course I do feel better now". Maybe I just feel the same but different. You can not step into the same stream twice.Do you feel better at your current weight Harald?
I feel better with this synergy of experience. I learned flowing locomotion again from a man who benched more, than I will ever deadlift, in synergy with strength work. I train, therefore I am.Do you feel better at your current weight Harald?
No. It ebbs and flows.And is it hard for you to stay there?