I read the whole 5 day thing more as a means to get the newb into training as a way if life, a mindset thing, more than a must have physically
Nothing wrong with old school TBT 3x weekly, in fact that’s high frequency and good to learn basic compounds on but I can see advantages to the newbs making that step change in life
[quote]gswork wrote:
I read the whole 5 day thing more as a means to get the newb into training as a way if life, a mindset thing, more than a must have physically
Nothing wrong with old school TBT 3x weekly, in fact that’s high frequency and good to learn basic compounds on but I can see advantages to the newbs making that step change in life[/quote]
i would much rather see that newbs nail in their diet, as opposed to training more days.
the number one mistake beginners make is diet! just about any sensible training program will work in the beginning, although some are better than others. but imo a beginner would better served preparing good meals on their off days, making sure they hit their caloric and protein requirements everyday.
i just dont see anything scientific or anecdotal that indicates a newb gaining better on a 5 day split as opposed to training 3 days a week on a fullbody or 2 way split…
Just to take the training aspect a bit further, how soon would you introduce a trainee to the more advanced concepts (drop sets, supersets, rest pause ,etc.)??
[quote]flch95 wrote:
Just to take the training aspect a bit further, how soon would you introduce a trainee to the more advanced concepts (drop sets, supersets, rest pause ,etc.)??[/quote]
Those are intensity techniques used to extend sets and push yourself farther. Until a trainee has learned how to get the most out of each normal set and maximize those I see no reason to use intensity techniques
[quote]gswork wrote:
I read the whole 5 day thing more as a means to get the newb into training as a way if life, a mindset thing, more than a must have physically
Nothing wrong with old school TBT 3x weekly, in fact that’s high frequency and good to learn basic compounds on but I can see advantages to the newbs making that step change in life[/quote]
Well said. The most important aspect is literally making this a natural [part of your everyday life…and yes, I think more people will last longer in this if they learn to make it a NEAR DAILY part of their life before they try only training 3 days a week.
The routine is not what makes someone reach their full potential.
They motivation and drive is…and life does not exactly accommodate regular training without making it a priority.
That is why I don’t care to fuss about what routine someone thinks is better.
It doesn’t matter.
What matters is teaching someone to make this a constant and invariable part of their natural life.
[quote]gswork wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
What’s wrong with sticking with a fairly simple “track total calories” and “track total protein”, and just not worrying about the rest for now?
And then focus on two goals with that:
I think that strikes a good balance between being too analytical and just winging it. It also keeps things individualized, instead of relying on some calculation for what things “should” be.[/quote]
Sounds good enough, learn rough cals from their own regular meals with quick arithmetic, add a bit and reflect every 2-3 weeks on progress
As with their focus on the training it shouldn’t get bogged down with details at this early stage (for most - i think Dorian Yates didn’t take too long before logging everything, but he had competitive intent)
that way the newb could learn on the go and at least hit protein needs and possibly avoid creating a forum thread in which they struggle with gains before revealing the 6 egg whites & cup of oats type diet.
we haven’t decided on how long the newb is in this beginning stage either - 6 months? a year?
Still, some years back every gains question seemed to be answered ‘milk and squats’ which sounds cool (maybe) but probably could do with a teeny bit more thinking
[/quote]
In general, I think the main focus should first be on overall calories…then protein and then a general understanding of carbs for the newb.
Taking it much farther to “exactly 3,100cals” is a little silly considering the variability and constant change seen in a newb to start with.
It sounds good…to people who don’t understand how many variables there really are.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gswork wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
What’s wrong with sticking with a fairly simple “track total calories” and “track total protein”, and just not worrying about the rest for now?
And then focus on two goals with that:
I think that strikes a good balance between being too analytical and just winging it. It also keeps things individualized, instead of relying on some calculation for what things “should” be.[/quote]
Sounds good enough, learn rough cals from their own regular meals with quick arithmetic, add a bit and reflect every 2-3 weeks on progress
As with their focus on the training it shouldn’t get bogged down with details at this early stage (for most - i think Dorian Yates didn’t take too long before logging everything, but he had competitive intent)
that way the newb could learn on the go and at least hit protein needs and possibly avoid creating a forum thread in which they struggle with gains before revealing the 6 egg whites & cup of oats type diet.
we haven’t decided on how long the newb is in this beginning stage either - 6 months? a year?
Still, some years back every gains question seemed to be answered ‘milk and squats’ which sounds cool (maybe) but probably could do with a teeny bit more thinking
[/quote]
In general, I think the main focus should first be on overall calories…then protein and then a general understanding of carbs for the newb.
Taking it much farther to “exactly 3,100cals” is a little silly considering the variability and constant change seen in a newb to start with.
It sounds good…to people who don’t understand how many variables there really are.[/quote]
If they arent getting in enough protein what is the point of eating a caloric surplus?
I dont get why you would want a noob to basically wing it on bro science when it comes to training, variables and diet as opposed to what science can prove to be the optimal way to do things?
Not trying to start an arguement, just a debate, but it seems really… whats the word… ‘easy’ and irresponsible to just tell someone to lift 5x a week and eat alot of food and simply ignore the science behind nutrition and training because it will confuse them. Dont you think blanket statements, lack of educating of the WHY and many shades of gray is what will confuse a noob?
I have seen it written that I am telling newbs to “ignore science”…which is by no means what was written or what I am stating.
Do NOT “ignore science”.
Understand that science doesn’t have everything about us even figured out yet…and what we do know is changing little by little daily…so adopting static unchanging views on misunderstood aspects of human biology or nutrition will hold someone back.
There is a saying…“A LITTLE knowledge can kill you”.
Thinking you know all without full understanding is setting yourself up for falling for anything.
Focus on the basics as a newb…calories, protein, carbs.
No one is telling anyone to avoid tracking calories or protein.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
In general, I think the main focus should first be on overall calories…then protein and then a general understanding of carbs for the newb.
Taking it much farther to “exactly 3,100cals” is a little silly considering the variability and constant change seen in a newb to start with.
It sounds good…to people who don’t understand how many variables there really are.[/quote]
What exactly are you advocating here?
You said you think the main focus should first be on overall calories.
Does that mean you believe a newb should be counting calories?
I posted my last post before your other post showed up professorX.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]gswork wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
What’s wrong with sticking with a fairly simple “track total calories” and “track total protein”, and just not worrying about the rest for now?
And then focus on two goals with that:
I think that strikes a good balance between being too analytical and just winging it. It also keeps things individualized, instead of relying on some calculation for what things “should” be.[/quote]
Sounds good enough, learn rough cals from their own regular meals with quick arithmetic, add a bit and reflect every 2-3 weeks on progress
As with their focus on the training it shouldn’t get bogged down with details at this early stage (for most - i think Dorian Yates didn’t take too long before logging everything, but he had competitive intent)
that way the newb could learn on the go and at least hit protein needs and possibly avoid creating a forum thread in which they struggle with gains before revealing the 6 egg whites & cup of oats type diet.
we haven’t decided on how long the newb is in this beginning stage either - 6 months? a year?
Still, some years back every gains question seemed to be answered ‘milk and squats’ which sounds cool (maybe) but probably could do with a teeny bit more thinking
[/quote]
In general, I think the main focus should first be on overall calories…then protein and then a general understanding of carbs for the newb.
Taking it much farther to “exactly 3,100cals” is a little silly considering the variability and constant change seen in a newb to start with.
It sounds good…to people who don’t understand how many variables there really are.[/quote]
I agree with a lot of this. I think newbs should get total calories and food selection (less crap, more good stuff) first. That seems to be the biggest problem with a lot of guys, they just don’t eat enough. Especially if they have never put a lot of effort into eating clean.
After they get the total calories thing down with some balance to their meals, then start learning to count protein. I think this can actually be held off on because it has been my experience that eating enough protein is really not a major concern for most guys because they just naturally choose protein rich foods when cleaning up the diet.
Finally you can start learning to balance ratios of carbs, fats and proteins. Also, I will probably get blasted by some for this but I think its kind of pointless to adjust calories in anything less than 500 cal a day increments unless you have been at it a while and are one of the .1% of people who has things that extremely fine tuned.
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Finally you can start learning to balance ratios of carbs, fats and proteins. Also, I will probably get blasted by some for this but I think its kind of pointless to adjust calories in anything less than 500 cal a day increments unless you have been at it a while and are one of the .1% of people who has things that extremely fine tuned.[/quote]
Well said.
Teaching all newbs to be extremely analytical before they ever actually learn anything about how their own bodies respond to training is a mistake in the making.
It leads to people following DOGMA and not real science.
It leads to “fan boys” and not independent thinkers.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]jbpick86 wrote:
Finally you can start learning to balance ratios of carbs, fats and proteins. Also, I will probably get blasted by some for this but I think its kind of pointless to adjust calories in anything less than 500 cal a day increments unless you have been at it a while and are one of the .1% of people who has things that extremely fine tuned.[/quote]
Well said.
Teaching all newbs to be extremely analytical before they ever actually learn anything about how their own bodies respond to training is a mistake in the making.
It leads to people following DOGMA and not real science.
It leads to “fan boys” and not independent thinkers.[/quote]
You don’t have to be analytical with the tracking. You do it so you know what you are eating so when then you go shit I am not gaining at least I know what I have been eating so I have a place to start. If you aren’t following what you eat you just don’t know so you are shootin in the dark.
IMO it’s better to know what you have been taking in so you aren’t blindly adding calories here and there. Just because you count cals doesn’t mean you are adjusting them daily
Emphasis on:
Thank you jbpick86.
I have seen newbs get told to use 200 calorie increments…which is a little misguided if you take this into consideration. The human body can not be “predicted” in all its actions especially as far as “super-recovery”.
That is why it really still comes down to trial and error…
I agree with jbpick86 on the 500 cal steps. 200 is so low it may not even do much. 500 seems like a good middle ground - its 3500 a week, about a lb of fat [not sure about muscle] according to the oft repeated idea (and i don’t believe that its any more than a rough guide anyway)
I think we’re all agreed on broad brush stroke tracking of total cals, step change adjustments as and when (I’d add it needs to be kept to for a while too), sensible protein choices and to avoid micro-analysis at the newb stage at least (but its ok if you’re Dorian Yates heading for a win!)
seems partly relevant
I like this guy, now i wouldn’t necessarily say this to a newb in case it scares them off but it is truth - especially about the need to make the commitment and live it not just do it
[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
i would much rather see that newbs nail in their diet, as opposed to training more days.[/quote]
Dan John has written about the idea of having people replace one or two days of training with a food day - a day specifically designated for shopping, cooking, prepping, and packaging meals. I think there’s definitely something to that, which reinforces the priority that nutrition deserves.
Maybe not specifically having a food day “instead of” a training day, but teaching a beginner to spend Saturdays at the supermarket in the morning and in their kitchen in the afternoon just like they’d hit the gym on leg day is a good habit to encourage.
I also agree with the importance of a beginner gradually learning the how’s and why’s of getting things done. That’s going to set them up to eventually take off the training wheels so they can develop their own BS filter and decide why some advice works and some doesn’t, what new stuff is worth “inventing”, and it’ll trickle down to improve pretty much every aspect of the game. If someone needs to be guided for a long time without ever developing their own instincts, they’re only going to slow themselves down.
[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
[quote]flch95 wrote:
Just to take the training aspect a bit further, how soon would you introduce a trainee to the more advanced concepts (drop sets, supersets, rest pause ,etc.)??[/quote]
Those are intensity techniques used to extend sets and push yourself farther. Until a trainee has learned how to get the most out of each normal set and maximize those I see no reason to use intensity techniques [/quote]
Agreed. Those techniques are pretty much on an as-needed basis, and certainly not necessary until a basic foundation’s been laid. I wouldn’t consider supersets on par with something like rest-pause though. Something like supersets/alternating sets is a much more basic and versatile principle that can streamline most routines (unless you’re talking specifically pre-exhaust supersets, which is a notch up).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
The human body can not be “predicted” in all its actions especially as far as “super-recovery”.
That is why it really still comes down to trial and error…[/quote]
While it can’t be predicted in a certain sense, charting your daily macros and how your unique body responds to higher and lower carb days, as well as guesstimating until you find the number of calories that produces a result is not only fairly common, but an approach that I have yet to see any successful coach not make use of in at least some manner.
Playing the “human body is unpredictable” card eliminates the need to actually pay careful attention, and in my opinion (I’ll repeat that, in my opinion, people can disagree with me all they want, my feelings will be just fine) learning to pay attention to how your own body reacts to specific variables, that you should take the time to understand in at least a rudimentary manner, is one of the first things I wish I had learned when I first started spending time in the gym. I have no doubt I would have made much better progress much quicker.
S
Why would a newb who maintains their weight with 1,500 calories need to bump things up by 500 cals minimum?
That’s a 33% increase (yep, I’m good at simple math)
That isn’t needed.
Everyone is different and should adjust their calories differently.
[quote]Smashingweights wrote:
Why would a newb who maintains their weight with 1,500 calories need to bump things up by 500 cals minimum?
That’s a 33% increase (yep, I’m good at simple math)
That isn’t needed.
Everyone is different and should adjust their calories differently.[/quote]
That’s really low, add in the demands of training and its difficult to think of someone in that bracket, maybe a very slight and small man or small woman (or someone with impaired metabolism), but yes if that was maintenance then maybe step to 300ish, maybe
At a guess I’d imagine an adult with such low maintenance cals to be a rare exception though, is the avg something like 2500 for men? (Is that inc an idea of average activity, not sure what that would be) ? So I guess if its like a bell curve there must be a few out there
Another point lets say mr newb starts training then his old maintenance may not be right, should they check over a few weeks before do you think or dive in and try to establish that further down the line?