Thread: I need some guidance on what I should do next???

Michelle,

Like you said, get the fitness goals first. mean, you said Sculptured, lean, all over, where do you see what is needed more then others with your "desires", if you are wanting someone else's opinion, you'll need to state that as well. If you are wanting to lose fat, which I think that is what are you're meaning with lean, then you'll have to lose more body fat, and gain more muscle. You've got to do some sorting with the sort of fat you have. Some people have more brown fat then yellow fat.

For the sorting of fat and changing over the upcoming counts of calories into bulk:
You're best to move toward the diet board and then the beginning of macro counts (something, I've failed to do!) Then you're body fat is the other issue for many to then being able to respond to you with leaning/sculpturing or ridding certain areas (if that is indeed what you're are hoping for) you'll have to do a body fat measurement.

Go to the diet board, state your case here on it, and Built the beautiful; thus, my favorite may pick up MS. Sassy. Either one the best as well the beautiful one MRS. Gena Marie, (maybe busy) get more of your ideas of what parts of the body are bugging you *lower it sounds like to me. If you'd like to have more input on what they or others suggest, ask them to look at your photos and/or insert them there.

PS. Good Luck! You're looking Great!

Congrats on the good work. I think you look hot. Genetics has given you a big arse, that ain't a bad thing.

If you're thinking of heading over to Australia . . . .

You do look great. Nightowl is an angel. Build has a ton of great diet info. I eat more carbs early in the morning and a lot less in the evening. I have amazing upper body genetics, so I really have to focus no my lower body workouts. I lift less on my upper body and try and work my ass off on my lower body to get the look I want. Islandgirl says her weak part is her lower body, but by looking at her, holy cow, she has it going on. PM her and Paradisecup. They are a team and have transformed so many to getting to what they want out of their physique.
You look great and keep up the had work

Thanks everyone for the advice and the compliments ; ). I will have to check the other boards out and get all the advice I can. I honestly wasn't sure exactly where to post!

Michelle

Where are you in life - such as how old are you - have you had any children - etc. I understand what you mean my skinny fat! If you added some bulk to your upper body you might like that more proportion look better! And if you have only being working out a couple years, there is still much change to come. It took me about 5 years to really get close to what I wanted.

I wish I was that thin. I hit 50 years old and don't seem to be able to keep weight off. (of course it's more a matter of not being able to do those needed "push away" excercises!

Congrats on some fantastic progress! Now you want to focus on changing your body composition. People, esp women tend to freak out about what they should do because there's such a focus on "losing weight" and no one ever cares about muscle because they think in terms of "looking manly". The reality is that, unless you're running a steroid cycle (and I'm not even suggesting it - there's absolutely no reason you need to go there or even think of it), women don't naturally produce enough testosterone to "get manly". Therefore IMO you should focus on lifting balls to the wall and build your core via functionally correct training. The increase in muscle mass will result in your metabolism running more efficiently, thus producing fat loss. If anything you should see yoru clothes fitting differently, even if the scale doesn't move or even goes up some - you should see your waist & ass shrinking and your muscles - quads, hams, arms, getting bigger. Just keep at it. You will never lose by sticking /w the basics and just constantly working towards changing your body composition.

Michelle - first up, props to you, not only for the work you've put into this but for having the stones to post up pix.

Could I impose upon you to post up, in detail, your current training?

As a trainer and BB I can give you some good advice for your leg developement problem, which has worked for me and many of my clients. Instead of doing 5 sets of ten, do a combination of high reps and low reps. This is because ur quads are comprised of about equal fast twich and slow twitch muscle fibers which both have potential for developement. By staying in the 10 rep range, ur working almost all fast twitch. Start with a set of 22 reps then 18, 15, 12,10. And of course all should be done to failure. Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by Machine455

As a trainer and BB I can give you some good advice for your leg developement problem, which has worked for me and many of my clients. Instead of doing 5 sets of ten, do a combination of high reps and low reps. This is because ur quads are comprised of about equal fast twich and slow twitch muscle fibers which both have potential for developement. By staying in the 10 rep range, ur working almost all fast twitch. Start with a set of 22 reps then 18, 15, 12,10. And of course all should be done to failure. Hope that helps.

Apperantly the knowlege i aquired from a masters in kinesiology, 8 yrs as a PT, and 10 yrs of BB made this advice so bad It was rated highly neg and worth taking large rep points from me. Maybe someone can explain to me the flaws in my suggestion instead of blindly penalizing me. I'm here to help with what I know. If u disagree, have a discussion with me about it. I'm open to other methods and points of view.

Dunno. Maybe you can give us your rationale for such a workout - it's not what I would recommend but if it works, I'll try it myself.

Originally Posted by Built

Dunno. Maybe you can give us your rationale for such a workout - it's not what I would recommend but if it works, I'll try it myself.

What aspects would you like me to elaborate on?

Originally Posted by Michelle0720

Hi everyone!
Ok, so I am completely lost at this point what I need to do to reach my fitness goals. I have been working out for a couple of years now. I lost about 30lbs the first year and since then have been trying to attain that lean, sculpted look.
I am 5ft tall and weight about 110 lbs. My problem is that my upper body has some definition, but my lower body looks as if I never even work out. A friend told me that I should try bulking to build muscle because I was skinny fat. That seemed crazy to me since I lift quite a bit, but for the last couple of months that is what I have been doing. I have been eating between 1800-2000 calories and lifting heavy. I am doing an upper/lower body split using mostly compound lifts, hitting each body part with one exercise. I do 5 sets at 10 reps for major muscles and 3x10 for smaller muscles. I also try to eat as clean as possible. I do occasionally have a cheat here and there.
My starting weight was 107lbs and I was going to aim to bulk until April, but I gain fat very easily. This just feels like it is wrong because my lower body is already fat.
I have attached some pictures and would love to know what you all think. Should I be eating at a defecit or a surplus. I just feel so lost at what I should be doing at this point!
Thanks in advance!

Originally Posted by Machine455

As a trainer and BB I can give you some good advice for your leg developement problem, which has worked for me and many of my clients. Instead of doing 5 sets of ten, do a combination of high reps and low reps. This is because ur quads are comprised of about equal fast twich and slow twitch muscle fibers which both have potential for developement. By staying in the 10 rep range, ur working almost all fast twitch. Start with a set of 22 reps then 18, 15, 12,10. And of course all should be done to failure. Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by Machine455

What aspects would you like me to elaborate on?

Well, we can start with your recommendation of training to failure: "And of course all should be done to failure."
How come?

Originally Posted by Built

Well, we can start with your recommendation of training to failure: "And of course all should be done to failure."
How come?

Reping induces a greater training respose in the muscles during your recovery time. This is mainly due to the fact a greater degree of micro teers in the muscle are created. Dorian Yates attributed this training method to his amazing success as a BB. I've read stories of many other BB that found that increasing the intensity and decreasing the volume of their workouts resulted in more muscle development. Which translates to less over all sets because each set is done to failure. I'm not recommending this exact method for her, but a variation of it for her leg development. If she started with a weight she could max rep at 22, she would max out with the same weight at progressively less repetitions on every following set. The higher repetition sets will activate mostly slow twich fibers while the lower repetition sets use mainly fast twitch fibers. This can also be done in reverse by starting with a heavy weight with low repetitions and then reducing the weight while adding reps for each of the following sets. It works best if you periodically alternate these two routines. I personally train like Yates, which he stated best by saying if you are able to do a second set on an exercise you haven't done the first one right.

Originally Posted by Machine455

Reping induces a greater training respose in the muscles during your recovery time. This is mainly due to the fact a greater degree of micro teers in the muscle are created. Dorian Yates attributed this training method to his amazing success as a BB. I've read stories of many other BB that found that increasing the intensity and decreasing the volume of their workouts resulted in more muscle development. Which translates to less over all sets because each set is done to failure. I'm not recommending this exact method for her, but a variation of it for her leg development. If she started with a weight she could max rep at 22, she would max out with the same weight at progressively less repetitions on every following set. The higher repetition sets will activate mostly slow twich fibers while the lower repetition sets use mainly fast twitch fibers. This can also be done in reverse by starting with a heavy weight with low repetitions and then reducing the weight while adding reps for each of the following sets. It works best if you periodically alternate these two routines. I personally train like Yates, which he stated best by saying if you are able to do a second set on an exercise you haven't done the first one right.

Regarding the rep ranges - motor unit recruitment goes from small to large, and of course slow-twitch muscles are the smaller motor units. Repping out a weight gets more and more fibres firing, eventually bringing in the larger motor units but a 22-rep set is going to be primarily endurance. Cranking out successive failure sets will hit the fast-twitch with only a low-intensity activity. However, heavier weights can hit the fast-twitch with higher intensity, and a great deal more microtrauma will come from heavy compound work than you would get with the kind of work you'd need to do for progressive high-rep failure sets (I'd hate to use barbell squats or deads for this!). What you suggest is basically pre-exhaust work by any other name, yes?

Are you suggesting she does this at a caloric surplus or a caloric deficit? Either way, training to failure can be a real exercise in futility - eventually the CNS figures out what you're doing and saves you from yourself, in much the same way as a circuit breaker or a fuse protects an expensive component.

• Train to failure all the time, and you will fail before you hit muscular fatigue.
• Train to failure while cutting and you'll put yourself in an overtrained state, fast.

PS Yates wasn't natural. Even if he had been, he wasn't female - we have a lot less testosterone.

Originally Posted by Built

Regarding the rep ranges - motor unit recruitment goes from small to large, and of course slow-twitch muscles are the smaller motor units. Repping out a weight gets more and more fibres firing, eventually bringing in the larger motor units but a 22-rep set is going to be primarily endurance. Cranking out successive failure sets will hit the fast-twitch with only a low-intensity activity. However, heavier weights can hit the fast-twitch with higher intensity, and a great deal more microtrauma will come from heavy compound work than you would get with the kind of work you'd need to do for progressive high-rep failure sets (I'd hate to use barbell squats or deads for this!). What you suggest is basically pre-exhaust work by any other name, yes?

Are you suggesting she does this at a caloric surplus or a caloric deficit? Either way, training to failure can be a real exercise in futility - eventually the CNS figures out what you're doing and saves you from yourself, in much the same way as a circuit breaker or a fuse protects an expensive component.

• Train to failure all the time, and you will fail before you hit muscular fatigue.
• Train to failure while cutting and you'll put yourself in an overtrained state, fast.

PS Yates wasn't natural. Even if he had been, he wasn't female - we have a lot less testosterone.

I agree with your facts but let me explain my logic. Slow twitch fibers are the smaller motor units and also used for endurance. If u start with a weight u can rep 22 times, your body will only need to activate the smaller motor units to do the job. On the next sets you will start activating the larger motor units( fast twitch ) because the smaller motor units become fatiged and are no longer able to provide enough force. By the time u reach your last sets you will be activating primarilly fast twitch muscles. U could call it pre-exhaustion, but u can achieve similar results working in the opposite direction that i mentioned eairlier, which wouldn't bare that label. This second method would provide a better training respose for the fast twitch muscles for the same reason you mentioned, starting with heavy low repetion sets following lighter higher rep sets. Thats why a suggested alternating the two workouts periodically. As far as caloric deficit/surplus goes, she would need a descent amount of stored leg muscle glycogen to maximize the duration and contraction force her leg muscles can do. This will alow for more microtrauma and therefore more muscle development. When u spoke of ur CNS respose u were refering to muscle inhibtion, the mechanism that prevent injury by inhibiting the full activation of the muscles. I disagree that training to failure increases inhabition. Because your muscles continue to get stronger, inhibition levels remain the same. Instead of responding by increasing inhibition, your body adds more uninhibited muscle to handle the load without injury instead of increasing muscle inhibition. When i refered to yates i was addressing my training method, not hers.

Originally Posted by Machine455

I agree with your facts but let me explain my logic. Slow twitch fibers are the smaller motor units and also used for endurance. If u start with a weight u can rep 22 times, your body will only need to activate the smaller motor units to do the job. On the next sets you will start activating the larger motor units( fast twitch ) because the smaller motor units become fatiged and are no longer able to provide enough force. By the time u reach your last sets you will be activating primarilly fast twitch muscles.

I know, and that's what I said. The problem here is that you'll be using a very light weight, and you're not going to have much intensity left by this point. Put another way, I might be so trashed that all I can lift is a pencil, and I'll be digging deep to lift that pencil but when it comes right down to it, no matter how hard it feels, I'm not going to generate much microtrauma lifting that pencil, am I?

U could call it pre-exhaustion, but u can achieve similar results working in the opposite direction that i mentioned eairlier, which wouldn't bare that label.

How would going from very-high-rep to very-low-rep with the same weight give results that are similar to starting heavy and going lighter?

Starting heavy with lower-rep work, you're starting out anaerobic and rested before blasting the working muscles with lactate. Starting light with high-rep work, you're burning through glycogen and generating a ton of lactate - and then hoping to rely on muscles and nerves that are flooded with lactate while trying to coax a few fast-twitch fibres to fire.

I can see that there may well be a reason to do this, but I can't see how the results would be in any way similar.

As an aside, I do agree with using higher rep ranges for predominately fast-twitch muscles like quads, for the reasons noted above, namely motor unit recruitment by size, but I'd hate to see her doing high-rep deadlifts, for instance. This type of training pretty much dictates that machines are used, and this makes me a smidge nervous - but I'm still reading.

This second method would provide a better training respose for the fast twitch muscles for the same reason you mentioned, starting with heavy low repetion sets following lighter higher rep sets. Thats why a suggested alternating the two workouts periodically.

Why alternate between a method that doesn't work very well, and a method that does? I'm sure I'm still missing something.

As far as caloric deficit/surplus goes, she would need a descent amount of stored leg muscle glycogen to maximize the duration and contraction force her leg muscles can do.

This could still happen in a deficit, if she's eating a high-carb diet. Not the route I'd like to take, it would be miserable as hell, but many do this, and it surely does work, just like a lot of things work. But it's a moot point, this is clearly for a little bulk.

I'm worried about the alpha-2s though, which are thick as thieves in a bottom-heavy gal's thighs and which are upregulated with insulin. Lower carbs may be a safer alternative for a woman with leg fat, even on a bulk. Higher carbs - and the insulin it promotes - is likely to store too much fat on a woman's legs, particularly with high-volume work like this, as her body responds by storing fuel close to the muscles using it.
But there may be ways around this - carb cycling for instance. I'll drop this consideration for now and continue discussion of the training

This will alow for more microtrauma and therefore more muscle development. When u spoke of ur CNS respose u were refering to muscle inhibtion, the mechanism that prevent injury by inhibiting the full activation of the muscles. I disagree that training to failure increases inhabition. Because your muscles continue to get stronger,

They do for a while, yes. This training effect is dramatically reduced in females relative to males, and particularly in one who is already quite well-conditioned. Put this another way - I've been training my ass off for the last ten years. My heaviest squat is now 205 for a triple. Barring gear-use, I am NOT likely to get my squat up much higher than this, no matter how hard I try.

inhibition levels remain the same. Instead of responding by increasing inhibition, your body adds more uninhibited muscle to handle the load without injury instead of increasing muscle inhibition.

See above. A woman doesn't add much muscle, even over a long period of time. I've gained MAYBE 15 lbs of muscle in 10 years of really slogging it out, and that's the result of heavy training, deliberately bulking, careful cutting, and apparently good genes for muscle growth. The gains on a woman do NOT happen fast, especially once we're well-trained. From everything I've read in the last ten years, it would seem failure training is not a modality I would recommend to a friend for more than occasional interest.

I'm sure I need to do more reading though. Got anything to back up your assertion that muscle gains will outpace CNS inhibition? I'll admit, I should read more and I'd love a few good links on this topic.

When i refered to yates i was addressing my training method, not hers.

Sure, but you said Yates attributed this training method to his amazing success as a bodybuilder. Gear improves CNS function as well as recovery and reglycogenation. Very different playing field.

I'll await your next replies. Interesting discussion.

I'll await your next replies. Interesting discussion.[/QUOTE]


How would going from very-high-rep to very-low-rep with the same weight give results that are similar to starting heavy and going lighter?


Its a matter if u want to focus more on slow twitch or fast twitch fibers. Both methods train each type of fibers but to different degrees. They are similar but differ by their effectivness on the different muscle types. By starting withlow weight at high reps, only slow twich fibers will be used. They you wont be able to comlete the secound set with out the activation of some fast twitch muscles. Eventually the slow twitch fibers will be so fatiged, u'll be using only fast twitch muscles to perform the last couple of low rep sets This method is better at stimulating development of slow twich fibers To focus mainly on developing fast twitch fibers, start with a heavy set with low reps, then progresively lower the weight each set so u can up the amount of reps u can do. So each method works both muscle types, they just have a different area of most effectivness. This is why i suggested using both method, switching about every two weeks, to keep gains steady and propotional leg development



I can see that there may well be a reason to do this, but I can't see how the results would be in any way similar.

As an aside, I do agree with using higher rep ranges for predominately fast-twitch muscles like quads, for the reasons noted above, namely motor unit recruitment by size, but I'd hate to see her doing high-rep deadlifts, for instance. This type of training pretty much dictates that machines are used, and this makes me a smidge nervous - but I'm still reading.

Do not perform high rep dead lift sets. Your lower back and spinal erector muscles are composed of almost all fast twitch fibers. High rep ranges are only truely effective on muscle groups with large amounts of slow twich fibers. I only do high rep sets on calves and leggs which are typically 50% of each fiber type for the average person although training the muscles a certain way can completely change the propotion of these fibers. I read a study that found marathone runners couldn't jump high enough to get onto a phone book. Thats because their training caused there leggs to be composed of only slow twich fibers

Originally Posted by Machine455

How would going from very-high-rep to very-low-rep with the same weight give results that are similar to starting heavy and going lighter?

Its a matter if u want to focuse more on slow twitch or fast twitch fibers. Both methods train each type of fibers but to different degrees. They are similar but differ by their effectivness on the different muscle types. By starting withlow weight at high reps only slow twich fibers will be used. They you wont be able to comlete the secound set with out the activation of some fast twich muscles. Eventually the slow twitch fibers will be so fatiged, u'll be using only fast twitch muscles to perform the last couple of low rep sets This method is better at stimulating development of slow twich fibers To focus mainly on developing fast twitch fibers, start with a heavy set with low reps, then progresively lower the weight each set so u can up the amount of reps u can do. So each method works both muscle types, they just have a different area of most effectivness. This is why i suggested using both method, switching about every two weeks, to keep gains steady and propotional leg development

Thanks for expanding on this, it's appreciated.

Do not perform high rep dead lift sets. Your lower back and spinal erector muscles are compsed of almost all fast twitch fibers.

Lower back and erectors are fast-twitch? Really? I thought "core" muscles like these tended to be mostly slow-twitch. Dr. Squat thinks so, too.
http://drsquat.com/content/deadlifts-and-lower-back
It makes sense, really. You have to keep 'em firing all day to keep you upright.

High rep ranges are only truely effective on muscle groups with large amounts of slow twich fibers. I only do high rep sets on calves and leggs which are typically 50% of each fiber type for the average person although training the muscles a certain way can completely change the porpotion of these fibers. I read a study that found marathone runners couldn't jump high enough to get onto a phone book. Thats because their training caused there leggs to be composed of only slow twich fibers

Depends on the marathon runner. My buddy who ran last year's Boston squats two plates a side, and he's a buck sixty soaking wet. But in general, that's probably a fair assessment.

They do have some slowtwitch muscle fibers. All of our bodies have these muscles that provide long periods of static contraction. Have some other areas with slow twich fibers, but i didn't mention them because there not signicant enough to train and expect any noticable development. Now the legs and calfs are a whole nother story But theres no need in BB to train stm of our posture muscles.