GVT VS 5x5 For Cutting

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
high volume routines are definitely not optimal for fat loss.

When was this proven?[/quote]

When CT said it in an article and the Pope subsequently added it to the Bible.

BURN SINNERS BURN!

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
KombatAthlete wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
high volume routines are definitely not optimal for fat loss.

When was this proven?

I think it was proven along with the inherent superiority of full-body routines for everybody.

Heh. :wink:

I actually like That One Guy’s posts and think he generally knows what he’s talking about; so I am genuinely curious why he believes this.

I think that “use high volume because it increases GH is overblown.” But higher volume workouts a) burn more calories than a low-volume workout; b) deplete muscle glycogen more fully (this matters mostly when you’re on a low-carb diet); and c) increases post-exercise oxygen consumption more so than low-rep work.

Also, strength is largely a neurological function. So doing low-reps can also lead to some drama for someone on really low-carbs. I’m at a low-enough carbs that if I do not ingest l-tyrosine, I can barely function. Doing multiple low-rep workouts would tap me.

My own take is this: You really can’t go wrong doing one full-body workout with low reps and one full-body workout with high reps each week. (I only lift twice due to other activities.) Or, if you’re only lifting, one each of low-rep upper and lower, and one each of igh-rep upper and lower. This applies whether or not you are dieting. [/quote]

Arg i see i am outnumbered and being critiqued, that’s ok, that’s why i like this website, there’s not a bunch of sheep willing to follow the shepard.

ok here ya go just some references to support i guess. Scroll down like 1/8 for the first one.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1499282

ripped rugged and dense

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459419

[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
high volume routines are definitely not optimal for fat loss.

When was this proven?

When CT said it in an article and the Pope subsequently added it to the Bible.

BURN SINNERS BURN![/quote]

I just think it makes more sense to lift heavy to hang on to muscle, i don’t know i once heard a story too about like arnold that when he was a fledgling bodybuilder, he would use high reps to cut up for a competition and he would never look as impressive, once he learned that the other bodybuilders would lift heavy to cut, he tried it and started winning. It’s funny how you accuse me of being a little wagon boy for the authors, if you new anything about my posting history you would see that i’m not like that.

I think CT is talking about the whole “3 sets of 15 to get cut” mindset that a lot of the muscle and fiction readers tend to have.

Volume can be applied to training in several ways though. There is a world of difference between 3 sets of 15 and 10 sets of 10 or 6 sets of 8. Using both of these parameters, you have completed more total reps (100 and 48 respectively) with a higher weight (what you do for 10 and 8 reps will be higher than what you can do with 15). If you are using, say, 100 lbs(ten reps) or 105 lbs(eight reps) for the exercise, then you would have moved a total volume of 10000 and 5040 lbs, compared to if you did 3x15 with 75 lbs (3375 total lbs).

See what Im trying to say?

A lot of it also depends on how far into a caloric deficit you are moving. A lot of volume will require more calories, but it can still be done as long as you dont drop your caloric intake as drastically as some may.

Its all about finding the sweet spot, whichever way you go about it.

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
high volume routines are definitely not optimal for fat loss.

When was this proven?

When CT said it in an article and the Pope subsequently added it to the Bible.

BURN SINNERS BURN!

I just think it makes more sense to lift heavy to hang on to muscle, i don’t know i once heard a story too about like arnold that when he was a fledgling bodybuilder, he would use high reps to cut up for a competition and he would never look as impressive, once he learned that the other bodybuilders would lift heavy to cut, he tried it and started winning. It’s funny how you accuse me of being a little wagon boy for the authors, if you new anything about my posting history you would see that i’m not like that. [/quote]

Not accusing you of being a wagon boy, just making fun of the general mindset on this site.

I see your points though. Lifting heavy has its place, and it can be used very effectively for fat loss, but to say that you cant lose fat while on a higher volume program is a bit much.

[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
high volume routines are definitely not optimal for fat loss.

When was this proven?

When CT said it in an article and the Pope subsequently added it to the Bible.

BURN SINNERS BURN!

I just think it makes more sense to lift heavy to hang on to muscle, i don’t know i once heard a story too about like arnold that when he was a fledgling bodybuilder, he would use high reps to cut up for a competition and he would never look as impressive, once he learned that the other bodybuilders would lift heavy to cut, he tried it and started winning. It’s funny how you accuse me of being a little wagon boy for the authors, if you new anything about my posting history you would see that i’m not like that.

Not accusing you of being a wagon boy, just making fun of the general mindset on this site.

I see your points though. Lifting heavy has its place, and it can be used very effectively for fat loss, but to say that you cant lose fat while on a higher volume program is a bit much.[/quote]

never said not possible, note i said not OPTIMAL…wait scratch that. It is not optimal for KEEPING MUSCLE MASS while cutting.

good link
http://www.springerlink.com/content/u34762475r546952/

quoting “An analysis of variance indicated that exercise intensity was the major determinant of the EPOC since it explained five times more of the EPOC variance than either exercise duration or the intensity times duration interaction.”

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
high volume routines are definitely not optimal for fat loss.

When was this proven?

When CT said it in an article and the Pope subsequently added it to the Bible.

BURN SINNERS BURN!

I just think it makes more sense to lift heavy to hang on to muscle, i don’t know i once heard a story too about like arnold that when he was a fledgling bodybuilder, he would use high reps to cut up for a competition and he would never look as impressive, once he learned that the other bodybuilders would lift heavy to cut, he tried it and started winning. It’s funny how you accuse me of being a little wagon boy for the authors, if you new anything about my posting history you would see that i’m not like that.

Not accusing you of being a wagon boy, just making fun of the general mindset on this site.

I see your points though. Lifting heavy has its place, and it can be used very effectively for fat loss, but to say that you cant lose fat while on a higher volume program is a bit much.

never said not possible, note i said not OPTIMAL…wait scratch that. It is not optimal for KEEPING MUSCLE MASS while cutting.[/quote]

Exactly. It is entirely possible to lose fat while doing a high volume program. In most experienced trainees though, it sets you up for more strength and muscle loss in my experience/opinion.

There are really 3 major things that allow you to maintain strength and muscle mass. Eating enough (maintenance or above) calories (of course with nutrient timing and correct ratios of macros), heavy lifting, and extra recovery measures. Steroids being the most powerful of the latter.

When taking an average Joe off the street who has never worked out before and doesn’t have any strength or size to speak of, I say sure, go ahead and put him on a full body circuit type program. In fact, he’ll probably get stronger and put on a little muscle, even if he’s not eating many calories.

But when you get an experienced trainee trying to lose fat, it’s a different issue. They are most likely consuming below maintenance level calories. Unless they are using steroids or have superior genetics, they won’t be able to hold on to as much mass unless they are stimulating the muscle fibers with “heavy” weight. If you’re breaking the muscle down with all sorts of high volume advanced bodybuilding techniques, there is not enough calories to recover.

I can see an experienced trainee doing 2 strength workouts per week in addition to a couple weight training sessions used for energy systems work. But to attempt a program where you use weights/sets/reps that will be breaking down muscle fibers, on a below-maintenance diet, is just not a great idea.

Just my opinion.

-Matt

[quote]Matt McGorry wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
high volume routines are definitely not optimal for fat loss.

When was this proven?

When CT said it in an article and the Pope subsequently added it to the Bible.

BURN SINNERS BURN!

I just think it makes more sense to lift heavy to hang on to muscle, i don’t know i once heard a story too about like arnold that when he was a fledgling bodybuilder, he would use high reps to cut up for a competition and he would never look as impressive, once he learned that the other bodybuilders would lift heavy to cut, he tried it and started winning. It’s funny how you accuse me of being a little wagon boy for the authors, if you new anything about my posting history you would see that i’m not like that.

Not accusing you of being a wagon boy, just making fun of the general mindset on this site.

I see your points though. Lifting heavy has its place, and it can be used very effectively for fat loss, but to say that you cant lose fat while on a higher volume program is a bit much.

never said not possible, note i said not OPTIMAL…wait scratch that. It is not optimal for KEEPING MUSCLE MASS while cutting.

Exactly. It is entirely possible to lose fat while doing a high volume program. In most experienced trainees though, it sets you up for more strength and muscle loss in my experience/opinion.

There are really 3 major things that allow you to maintain strength and muscle mass. Eating enough (maintenance or above) calories (of course with nutrient timing and correct ratios of macros), heavy lifting, and extra recovery measures. Steroids being the most powerful of the latter.

When taking an average Joe off the street who has never worked out before and doesn’t have any strength or size to speak of, I say sure, go ahead and put him on a full body circuit type program. In fact, he’ll probably get stronger and put on a little muscle, even if he’s not eating many calories.

But when you get an experienced trainee trying to lose fat, it’s a different issue. They are most likely consuming below maintenance level calories. Unless they are using steroids or have superior genetics, they won’t be able to hold on to as much mass unless they are stimulating the muscle fibers with “heavy” weight. If you’re breaking the muscle down with all sorts of high volume advanced bodybuilding techniques, there is not enough calories to recover.

I can see an experienced trainee doing 2 strength workouts per week in addition to a couple weight training sessions used for energy systems work. But to attempt a program where you use weights/sets/reps that will be breaking down muscle fibers, on a below-maintenance diet, is just not a great idea.

Just my opinion.

-Matt[/quote]

you know whats sad, there’s a thread where a guy did your last sentence down a couple of threads the one about preserving arm size, he has already lost some hard-earned muscle…

I see what you guys are saying, and for the most part, I agree.

I kind of got caught in a bad mood earlier, so maybe I came off a bit argumentative, haha. I think I got a little miffed when you (mistakingly or not) equated GVT with a “high volume pump program” or that “3 sets of 15 to get ripped” nonsense.

As far as that other thread, I think that guy has some other problems…he spent 3 years working to gain 30 lbs, and then dieted all of that weight off?

I would go the GVT for cutting. My way of thinking is more work = more energy used = more weight lost.

I would be tempted to lower the volume a little though, but out of the choices you’ve given us, I reckon the higher volume one is the way to go for your goal.

[quote]That One Guy wrote:
ok here ya go just some references to support i guess. Scroll down like 1/8 for the first one.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1499282
[/quote]

Bro, do you know what German Body Comp training is? It’s not “Do sets of 8-12 for size and 15-20 for cuts.” Rather, it’s the lactate-inducing training that Christian Thib noted approvingly. (That CT might approve of something, of course, does not make it so! I will, say, however, he is second only to Poliquin among writers for this site; so his opinion does matter a great deal.)

Anywho, German Volume Training (which would be stupid to do on a diet for different reasons) also isn’t 15-20 reps. It’s ten sets of ten.

[quote]ripped rugged and dense
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459419

[/quote]

I have no idea what that article said. I just saw who wrote it. I’m not sure when Joel Marion became an authority on these issues. If he offered some proof or something, cool. But “Joel Marion said so” isn’t anything close to persuasive.

Just because someone writes for an online magazine (even T-Mag) doesn’t make him or her an authority.

[quote]Sxio wrote:
I would go the GVT for cutting. My way of thinking is more work = more energy used = more weight lost. [/quote]

Have you ever done GVT? If you are “doing GVT” while on a diet, you are not really doing GVT.

[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
I think I got a little miffed when you (mistakingly or not) equated GVT with a “high volume pump program” or that “3 sets of 15 to get ripped” nonsense.[/quote]

Yeah, I was pretty disappointed with that, too. It’s like people have no sense of history and are familiar only with what the latest articles on this site have written. Yes, this is a great site; but it’s hardly the entire world, and it’s seen it’s share of charlatans.

[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
I see what you guys are saying, and for the most part, I agree.

I kind of got caught in a bad mood earlier, so maybe I came off a bit argumentative, haha. I think I got a little miffed when you (mistakingly or not) equated GVT with a “high volume pump program” or that “3 sets of 15 to get ripped” nonsense.

[/quote]

Fair enough.

But to be honest, GVT was never marketed as a fat loss program, nor would I consider it a good one.

I would, however, classify it as a “high volume pump program.” The weights used on a 10x10 scheme are so minimal, I can’t imagine it being considered a strength program. I remember trying it twice a number of years ago and the pumps were plentiful. The strength was certainly not.

-Matt

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
Sxio wrote:
I would go the GVT for cutting. My way of thinking is more work = more energy used = more weight lost.

Have you ever done GVT? If you are “doing GVT” while on a diet, you are not really doing GVT.[/quote]

I certainly agree with CL.

Sxio, I have to disagree with you here. Is the original poster trying to lose “weight” or improve body composition and lose fat. It may seem like splitting hairs, but it makes the biggest difference in the world.

Want to lose weight? Use the grapefruit diet. I’m sure the pin on the scales will tilt far left, but you’ll probably end up looking a bit worse. Losing an equal amount of muscle and fat on a diet is the product of an ineffective diet and program.

What separates “us” T-Nation folk from most of the world is that we care about losing weight from the right places rather than just seeing a reduction in scale weight.

I think that there are other, more effective ways to create that “more energy used” situation.

-Matt

[quote]Matt McGorry wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
I see what you guys are saying, and for the most part, I agree.

I kind of got caught in a bad mood earlier, so maybe I came off a bit argumentative, haha. I think I got a little miffed when you (mistakingly or not) equated GVT with a “high volume pump program” or that “3 sets of 15 to get ripped” nonsense.

Fair enough.

But to be honest, GVT was never marketed as a fat loss program, nor would I consider it a good one.

I would, however, classify it as a “high volume pump program.” The weights used on a 10x10 scheme are so minimal, I can’t imagine it being considered a strength program. I remember trying it twice a number of years ago and the pumps were plentiful. The strength was certainly not.

-Matt

[/quote]

If youre doing it correctly, then youre not always doing 10 reps for every set. You select a weight that you can get fairly easily for 10, and you do 10 reps for as many of the sets as you can. When you are able to do all 10 sets with 10 reps, you up the weight and start over. If the premise were “do ten sets of ten reps with a weight that you are confident that you will be able to complete every set with fairly easily” then I would say it is a “pump program”.

I don’t think anyone would be so ignorant as to say you can’t lose fat on a high volume workout, it is just not the optimal way to lose fat. You can lose fat pretty much doing anything if you do it enough, granted you may not be preserving muscle but you can lose fat still doing just about anything.

Right now I’m worrying about cutting down too much, I’ve gone from 185 to 177 in 12 days on GSD, and 5x5 3 days/week with some cardio sessions thrown in. So I’m not sure if this is typical for GSD and I’m just losing water/glycogen stores as well as fat and still holding on to muscle or if I’m losing significant amounts of muscle as well. Any thoughts?

My strength is going up it seems in squat/deadlift/rows. My bench has always been my weak point and moves much slower comparatively.

[quote]fightingtiger wrote:
Matt McGorry wrote:
fightingtiger wrote:
I see what you guys are saying, and for the most part, I agree.

I kind of got caught in a bad mood earlier, so maybe I came off a bit argumentative, haha. I think I got a little miffed when you (mistakingly or not) equated GVT with a “high volume pump program” or that “3 sets of 15 to get ripped” nonsense.

Fair enough.

But to be honest, GVT was never marketed as a fat loss program, nor would I consider it a good one.

I would, however, classify it as a “high volume pump program.” The weights used on a 10x10 scheme are so minimal, I can’t imagine it being considered a strength program. I remember trying it twice a number of years ago and the pumps were plentiful. The strength was certainly not.

-Matt

If youre doing it correctly, then youre not always doing 10 reps for every set. You select a weight that you can get fairly easily for 10, and you do 10 reps for as many of the sets as you can. When you are able to do all 10 sets with 10 reps, you up the weight and start over. If the premise were “do ten sets of ten reps with a weight that you are confident that you will be able to complete every set with fairly easily” then I would say it is a “pump program”.[/quote]

For anyone beyond a beginner, I wouldn’t consider multiple sets of 10 to have much benefit at all in terms of strength except in rare cases.

For the beginner, I’d say it’s absolutely possible to gain strength on a set/rep volume such as in GVT. But beyond that, for the most part, I haven’t found that to be the case.

-Matt

[quote]CaliforniaLaw wrote:
That One Guy wrote:
ok here ya go just some references to support i guess. Scroll down like 1/8 for the first one.

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=1499282

Bro, do you know what German Body Comp training is? It’s not “Do sets of 8-12 for size and 15-20 for cuts.” Rather, it’s the lactate-inducing training that Christian Thib noted approvingly. (That CT might approve of something, of course, does not make it so! I will, say, however, he is second only to Poliquin among writers for this site; so his opinion does matter a great deal.)

Anywho, German Volume Training (which would be stupid to do on a diet for different reasons) also isn’t 15-20 reps. It’s ten sets of ten.

ripped rugged and dense
http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=459419

I have no idea what that article said. I just saw who wrote it. I’m not sure when Joel Marion became an authority on these issues. If he offered some proof or something, cool. But “Joel Marion said so” isn’t anything close to persuasive.

Just because someone writes for an online magazine (even T-Mag) doesn’t make him or her an authority.[/quote]

yeah but i just brought up these to support my argument. It was a Document Supported argument, i didn’t base my knowledge from the articles, but supplemented it.