[QUOTE=hazyjane;526831]Georgette, check out the Bar Method stuff we've been talking about (I mentioned that you can get the dvd's from Netflix to try). The isometric work does wonders for the inner and outer thighs and saddlebags. It also seems to work for ladies who other forms of exercise don't work for.[/QUOTE]
What exactly is the Bar Method? From what I'm gathering it seems to be dance related which for me well, my idea of dancing is head banging and mosh pits. I also don't have netflix and find workout dvd's to be tedious. Plus, I seem to lean towards the more natural bodybuilder type.
[QUOTE=geostump;526872]What exactly is the Bar Method? From what I'm gathering it seems to be dance related which for me well, my idea of dancing is head banging and mosh pits. I also don't have netflix and find workout dvd's to be tedious. Plus, I seem to lean towards the more natural bodybuilder type.[/QUOTE]
No, it's not dancing (I hate dancy stuff!) Some of the exercises are based on warmups that dancers do (plies and extensions). Most of the moves are isometric, meaning you hold the muscle tense for long periods and work it to exhaustion. This creates muscle density and it actually can raise your heart rate, too.
It targets muscles that just don't get targeted with weights (like the saddlebag area)- not that you can "spot reduce", but it's nice to work all the muscles from different angles. A lot of it is bodyweight, too as well as some actual weights. For most people, it delivers much faster results. I don't know why, but it does.
They use light weights in a way that makes you feel like your arms are going to fall off, lol! I'm actually developing my arms faster w/ Bar than I was with kettlebells and heavier weights (esp. my triceps!) My arms are more cut than they've ever been and I've only been doing it for about 6 weeks. I'm too lazy to waste my time with things that take forever to get results. That's why I like Bar (and related systems like Lotte Berk, Physique 57, Core Fusion, etc).
At least they have youtube videos of it. Right now, that's the only way I could even look into it.
[QUOTE=geostump;526778]You can can increase lean muscle mass while losing fat. The best way to lose fat is to lift weights on top of a lifestyle change. [/QUOTE]
+100000 My experience also.
[url=http://theleansaloon.com/2011/03/12/muscle-building-101/]Muscle Building 101 | The Lean Saloon[/url]
I took physique 57 classes for mos and didn't see much results. I enjoyed the classes at the time and yes they burn but they're certainly not getting rid of saddlebags. Only losing fat will do that. I am much happier now doing crossfit, weights, yoga, walking and sprinting. I guess different strokes!
I did my first round of barefoot sprints last week and OMG that was incredible. I've always been fairly muscular in the legs just from a ton of walking in my teens. The sprints seem to help my hips and thighs even out. In just that one sprint session, it seemed that the line on the outside of the thighs formed.
[QUOTE=Dragonfly;526921]+100000 My experience also.
[url=http://theleansaloon.com/2011/03/12/muscle-building-101/]Muscle Building 101 | The Lean Saloon[/url][/QUOTE]
This article is not about building mass while eating in deficit. It's about the role of progressive weight training. His point is that the average person stuffs his/her self with food/protein and thinks that's the key to lean mass gain when it's not. As he summarizes at the end:
Think of muscle-building like this:
Muscle volume is a result of either muscle protein retention, or muscle protein loss.
Mechanical stimulus “turns on” muscle protein retention — it knocks the protein recycling balance to favor retention rather than loss.
The stimulus that “turns on” retention is proper weight training.
Genetics determine the rest.
No where in that article does he say you can gain mass while in a deficit.
Again, I didn't say gaining mass while dieting was impossible, just that the chances of it happening were minimal to none, which is accurate.
[QUOTE=NDF;527083]No where in that article does he say you can gain mass while in a deficit.[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I should have been more precise.
If you read his first comment response he does mention some specific studies:
March 12, 2011 at 10:53 pm
Studies show that post-workout meals increase protein synthesis, but “protein synthesis” simply means uptake of consumed protein by muscle and whole-body tissue. No study has proven that this uptake leads to an increase in myofibrial content or contractile protein. That is… muscle.
Supplement companies have used “protein synthesis” to mislead people into thinking that it means muscle mass. Therein lies the discrepancy.
And we know it’s impossible to build muscle in 30 minutes, 1 hour, or one day after a workout or a post-workout meal. (Yet we continue to see all over the internet this tired cognitive dissonance — that you must eat right after your workout, or that you must eat above maintenance. Protein synthesis again DOES NOT mean myofibral elements.)
A study shows that, 9 hours post workout, protein synthesis is the same between groups that ate immediately post-workout or several hours post-workout.
Still two studies show that test subjects who weight train can grow (statistically significant) muscle mass even on a severely restricted dietary intake of 800 calories for 8 weeks!
We’ll continue to read — in magazines, on blogs, on forums, on boards — misguided bro-speaks regurgitating and perpetuating the myths that one must exceed caloric maintenance to build muscle. They’ll even claim that “hardgainers” fail to eat enough to support muscle mass, without giving consideration to poor workout design or genetics.
Countless people perpetuate the myth that one must eat immediately after the workout to gain muscle, while giving no thoughts to evidence that many athletes don’t do this (or need to)… like Herschel Walker.
There are many examples throughout history that follow the likes of Mr. Walker.
People, who cite studies they don’t understand or have been misinterpreted on a large scale, will continue to dispense myths in diet and exercise. The studies they cite may be interesting, if their conclusions were NOT fundamentally flawed — that “protein uptake” means end-point muscle mass, or that “positive nitrogen” means muscle preservation.
Ironically, these same people “demand” scientific research when they hear something that counters the bro-speak they believe as fact.
In much of the topic I write on The Lean Saloon, I have provided plenty of studies in the past. You are welcome to do a search.
I hope this helps.
[QUOTE=Dragonfly;527115][B]Still two studies show that test subjects who weight train can grow (statistically significant) muscle mass even on a severely restricted dietary intake of 800 calories for 8 weeks![/B][/QUOTE]
I'll see if I can dig them up, but I'm fairly certain he's referring to the same studies I have read wherein the test subjects that gained mass on 800 calories were significantly overweight, new to weight training and self reporting and self administering food intake. Ironic that he points out the flawed interpretation of studies and science and yet point to one himself...
As he points out, people are going to believe what they want to believe and I'm not about to force you to believe me nor do I want to be forced to believe anyone else. None of it matters anyway. Do what works for you. And if you can gain mass while dieting, then more power to ya.
[QUOTE]And if you can gain mass while dieting, then more power to ya. [/QUOTE]
Well, I can and so can Georgette! :)
I honestly don't see why it is so hard to believe--though [B]you[/B] don't need to! :)
If folks are getting their protein (100 gm = 400 calories) and some carbs (100 gm = 400 calories) and the [I]rest[/I] of their energy is coming from body fat stores, then sufficient resistance work is all that's needed to retain the necessary protein to grow the muscle mass.