MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
2 Week Jump Start- Results?
Author
Rating
Options

bigjt_63

Hello,

About 3 weeks ago, I started doing the "2 week jump start" program detailed in the book The New HIT. Before that, I had gone through a rigorous 7 week program that managed to help me loose about 3 inches off my waist...

I basically ate only when I was hungry, avoided fast carbs, ingested a good amount of protein, and and followed the "Real Fast Fat Loss" program at T-Nation:
http://www.T-Nation.com/...c.do?id=1589845

I started to notice the results beginning to stagnate, and I was intrigued by the philosophy of HIT... So I picked up Dr, Darden's Book, and really enjoyed reading through it! So I started the 2 week jump start program.

I weighted 221lbs, had a 37 inch waist, and had a body fat of approx 17.5%.... Because I was not the qualified 6'2", 250lbs+ person, nor do I have an active job (I'm a software engineer inter =P), I followed the diet to a T (~1500 cals, TV dinners and all).

For training, because I was new to HIT, I followed the beginner's program from the workout regiment section (i.e. NOT the 5 exercise regiment assigned in the 2 week prog, as it seemed that, according to the HIT philosophy, this was "Too much" for a beginner, per say.). I also drank 1-2 gallons of water a day.

Now, I believe that I worked out quite well for doing HIT for the first time... I finished all 8 exercises in under a half hour, read how to do each exercise 2-3 times before actually going to the gym and performing them to get the proper form, an ALWAYS counted in my head 4 seconds positive, 4 seconds negative.

At the end of each workout I was always surprised at hour much I was sweating, and I did manage to become a little sick to my stomach, although I never really booted :).

I recorded my workouts and made some pretty good gains in terms of the number of reps i.e. I always managed to do more than the workout before.

However, after 7 days, I had to stop because I had lost 5lbs, but not an inch off my waist... In other words, I had lost 5lbs of hard-earned muscle.

Now, I'm not going to yell out "This program is useless and blah blargh blah"!, because It's obvious that it's worked for many people... But I'm curious to see if anyone else here has follow this program, and has either had success, or negative results such as the ones I had.

I'd also like to ask why this may not have worked (Other than the obvious, "Well, you ate only 1,500 cals a day, and little protein, what did you expect!" response) and any suggestions that could have improved my results.

Of course, if the fact that I ate so little is the only reasonable explanation, then fine...

-JT
Open User Options Menu

Butters

I'd also like to ask why this may not have worked (Other than the obvious, "Well, you ate only 1,500 cals a day, and little protein, what did you expect!" response) and any suggestions that could have improved my results.


Because you only ate 1500 calories and such little protein. What did you expect? Don't eat such a harsh deficit and get in your protein. I tried the two week kick start with similar results. I lost strength, lost muscle, and quit it after a week too.

I was getting all the sleep and rest recommended. All the current research says you need about .8g of protein per hound to gain muscle optimally and lose fat without risking muscle loss.
Open User Options Menu

bigjt_63


Thanks for the reply.

Did you continue doing the program using a different diet plan? Or did you abandon it completely? Do you have any suggestions (in addition to the .8g protein per lbs)?

-JT
Open User Options Menu

McNultyEssex

I don't believe it's possible to be sure you've lost muscle unless you have your body composition accurately assessed. It's been said that we lose fat off our bodies in a certain order, so you may well have lost fat in places other than your waist.
Open User Options Menu

TheDudeAbides

Michigan, USA

alexmac wrote:
I don't believe it's possible to be sure you've lost muscle unless you have your body composition accurately assessed. It's been said that we lose fat off our bodies in a certain order, so you may well have lost fat in places other than your waist.


dido.
Open User Options Menu

Butters

bigjt_63 wrote:
Did you continue doing the program using a different diet plan? Or did you abandon it completely? Do you have any suggestions (in addition to the .8g protein per lbs)?

-JT



I went back to my upper/lower split and doing about 6-9 sets per body part each session. I hit everything twice a week on a Mon/Tues/Thurs/Fri schedule usually. My best advice is to read some of the articles over at Lyle McDonald's site www.bodyrecomposition.com and checkout anything you can written by Kelly Baggett and Alan Aragon.
Open User Options Menu

Butters

alexmac wrote:
I don't believe it's possible to be sure you've lost muscle unless you have your body composition accurately assessed. It's been said that we lose fat off our bodies in a certain order, so you may well have lost fat in places other than your waist.


Losing strength is a pretty much a sure fire sign you are losing muscle on a diet.
Open User Options Menu

bigjt_63

alexmac wrote:
I don't believe it's possible to be sure you've lost muscle unless you have your body composition accurately assessed. It's been said that we lose fat off our bodies in a certain order, so you may well have lost fat in places other than your waist.


I do agree with this, but the fact that beforehand I was steadily losing inches off my waist makes me pretty confident that the weight loss was due to muscle loss.

On the other hand I was "gaining strength" because I was increasing my reps, but I'm pretty sure this was due to my CNS adapting to the workout as opposed to actually muscle being built.
Open User Options Menu

bigjt_63

My best advice is to read some of the articles over at Lyle McDonald's site www.bodyrecomposition.com and checkout anything you can written by Kelly Baggett and Alan Aragon.

Thanks for the link & advice, the info looks good.

I would like to see if anyone has had success with the 2 week starter program... Can anyone share their experience if they have (and body composition stats, if possible)?

Thanks for the replies everyone, I really appreciate getting other people's perspectives on this.
Open User Options Menu

RobT

I have found the slightly higher calorie intake of around 1900 calories, as in the Florida Dreaming' article works better to retain muscle mass and strength levels during a fat loss phase (but im only around 5'7, 170lbs, 8% BF and train martial arts 3x week)

At your bodyeight i think more like 2200 calories is better (abourt 10 kcal per pound of bodyweight is a good guide to start from)

Another important factor is when i have measured body comp imediatly at the end of a 6-8 week fat loss cycle and then 2-3 days later i will usually go back up 3-5 pounds with no increase in BF % - i assume from replensihing glycogen/water.

Also you may want to get more familiar with HIT training before trying the fat loss cycle - remember that the trainee in the book was being supervised by Dr. Darden and giving everything you've got into just that one set takes some practice.

i find that even experienced trainees often take maybe 3-4 weeks to get the form, one-set intensity, and especially conditioning down before they start making progress again.

Depending on your experince level the beginners HIT workouts may be too frequent and too long for you - if you've been training a while 4-5 times in two weeks on an A/B routine of 5-8 exercises may be better for you, especially in a fat loss phase.

Rob T

Open User Options Menu

bigjt_63

@RobT

Would you advocate doing cardio as well?
Open User Options Menu

Growl

bigjt,

I'm dieting hard now also. You may need to up your cals to about 2000 if your not doing well on the 1500. Slowly lower from there or if the fat is coming off nice, keep it there until it slows.

There are so many strategies that can work for fat loss. Dr. Darden's is a good one for those who are lifting and wanting to keep the muscle or even build muscle while losing fat. If you feel way too drained or like your losing muscle, maybe the cals are a bit too low for you.

Jeff
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

Well, IF you do the 2weeks quick-start with 1500 cals only then you should also do the 5 exercise routine.
That's plenty when you work with the required intensity 2-3x week.
Otherwise, like Rob said, take the Florida dreaming route.

Franco
Open User Options Menu

RobT

bigjt_63 wrote:
@RobT

Would you advocate doing cardio as well?


Not really - i tend to find other sports or intense cardio means you tread a fine line with overtraining and losing muscle especially on a restricted calorie diet - however if you are really inactive you may want to increase this with plenty of daily walking at any opportunity you get, take the stairs rather than the lift etc to increase you weekly calorie expentiture, but without stressing your body.

I save my intense cardio/sports conditioning for when im on a higher calorie (3000-3500 cals) diet.

Rob
Open User Options Menu

bigjt_63

Ciccio wrote:
Otherwise, like Rob said, take the Florida dreaming route.

Franco


I just read the Florida dreamin' article... Kinda wish I read it before I started the previous program =/.... Oh well

I am a little bit hesitant to start doing a similar program again, since I had such bad results after the first week in the New HIT book....

But then again the first guy in the article who had such good results (Tom Wykle) has body composition very similar to mine, and I wonder if doing the program would work well... Not to mention that, next week, I will have exactly 6 weeks until school starts (and it would be nice to have a 32 inch waist for the first time in my life, coming from 280lbs about 3 years ago)!

I was planing on starting either this program or the infamous Velocity Diet from T-Nation. I have actually done it in the past and yes, I've had GREAT results from it, but WOW is it miserable...

Not to mention that I'm currently doing a software engineering internship, and ketosis diets (especially low cal ones) tend to make me a little slow in the head & quite depressed, which I really don't want to affect my job performance...

But I'm afraid to lower my protein intake as much as it states in Dr. Darden's diet for reasons I mentioned previously.

I was thinking of following the Florida Dreamin' article, increasing the protein intake a bit (to at least 180g a day, ~.8g * my bodyweight), leaving the rest of the diet as intact as possible, and incorporating morning light jogs (Since my job involves sitting at a computer 8 hours a day) while following the HIT routine...

Would others think this is a reasonable plan?
Open User Options Menu

fantombe

I'd replace the morning jogs with evening walks. Dr Darden has used daily walks in his programs to great effect as he's explained these aren't high enough in intensity to burn the candle at both ends.

You may find if you add in jogging, you'll have the same results as you did in your original posts.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Losing fat and gaining muscles at the same time. Almost every program published promises more muscle and less fat. The more honest ones acknowledge that these two goals are nearly impossible to achieve at the same time.

Sum it up as a lesson learned.

Metabolism has 3 components:

1) Resting metabolism
2) Metabolism from activity
3) Thermogenic properties of food intake

Point A: increasing #2 & #3 will increase #1

Point B: decreasing #2 & #3 will decrease #1

Bigjt_63; you were doing Point B.

Clearly, Point A beats the heck out of Point B.

You got what you paid for.
Open User Options Menu

spud

I think you went too low on the calories personally.

1500 calories cannot work for everybody across the board.

The Florida Dreamin' article is one of the best on this website.
Open User Options Menu

seanoz


Metabolism has 3 components:

1) Resting metabolism
2) Metabolism from activity
3) Thermogenic properties of food intake

Point A: increasing #2 & #3 will increase #1

Point B: decreasing #2 & #3 will decrease #1

Bigjt_63; you were doing Point B.

Clearly, Point A beats the heck out of Point B.

You got what you paid for.


That is valid, but relative to what you are doing to component #1.

Resting metabolism is dependant on the total muscle and lean mass, and even to a slight degree the fat itself, they all require calories to survive, if the training is stimulating new changes to the system and building the systemic demand/resting metabolism, then in the case of point B, it is amplifying the effects of #2 and #3.

Therefore in the case of someone building strength and muscular size - when in a deficit - A PROVEN POSSIBILITY, it makes your point B invalid, and if it is invalid in that circumstance then there is a possibility that point A can be just as invalid under other conditions, and I can assure you IT IS, people are getting fatter are still heavily active, eat lots of 'theremogenic food' and are losing muscle mass over the long term, this means that something is missing from their activity that maintains or increases mass.

When the resting metabolic rate is raised then #2 and #3 can be positive effects REGARDLESS of the behavior of these two components or their composition.

Albeit this aspect is the most difficult to control if some care is not taken, proper nutrient to calorie ratio, proper macro nutrient ration and proper training stimulus/recover time, and is actually why so many are getting no or bad results, the western mindset of more is better, convenience foods and high carbs means problems problems.

But it's NOT impossible, and also NOT more difficult than the approach of losing overall weight through simple indiscriminate weight loss and then yo yoing back up and down over and over.

The KEY issue is WHAT influences #1 with the MOST efficiency, and this is where HIT entered the picture. It is obvious that no 'canned' HIT approach nor any 'canned HVT approach is ideal for everyone, but the issue is always going to be efficiency, people have to live, and they have to work and play, exercise nor any other aspect should dominate the landscape, and HIT wins in that regard.

Body mass, strength and the ratio of each take work and effort to maintain or improve REGARDLESS of genetics, the ratio of lean to fat mass are more pronounced in most people but not likely to be grossly affected by training be it HIGH VOLUME/LOW INTEWNSITY or HIGH INTESITY/LOW VOLUME or MID of both, genetics people!

And while all this seems less of an issue for the genetically gifted, (it is assumed the amount and intensity of work they can tolerate is often inversive to 'normal' people), it is really a matter of their genetics, they have a capacity for more in both. Age is the other factor and this contributes to both circumstances.

Granted it is likely that lean tissue will be sacrificed readily in a state nearing starvation and when calories are too low to ensure adequate brain and CNS function, but when was the last time you saw a person in that state?

If the training produces a negative effect and the diet adds to it it can be VERY negative, hence why many HIT'ers are realising that the combination of proper high intensity training when on a deficit diet CAN be destructive, but it is also a matter of degree.

I think NTF is the best approach 50-90% of the time on deficit calories, and 10-30% of training should be NTF on maintenance and surplus.

High Intensity training when on maintenance or surplus is supportive of point one, HIT can be destructive when taken to an extreme, as can HVT.

This is a question of relativity (as always), but the absolute issue is that the total Lean Mass is the driver of #1, and the driver of Lean Mass is DEMAND - overload.

The drama here is that we assume that ALL activity or movement is categorised as #2 which is simply not true, an injection of myotoxin will increase #1 and NO movement caused that, my point is that EXERCISE, the definitive effect of a PROPER stimulus AND the process allowing the desired change is NOT simply activity even though it exhibits the same actions of expending calories and involving movement.

It is the logical fallacy that when one is moving and producing force, whether in a HVT or HIT fashion, that one assumes they are 'exercising' which is WRONG, the key to wether they are stimulating the metabolism (over the long AND short term) is are they causing, allowing and testing for the changes and are they PROGRSSIVE from a previous known base?

It is also a logical fallacy that a decrease in calories only results in indiscriminate weight loss, it CAN happen that you can build at the same time, and for most people training properly and eating sensibly it SHOULD.

The true problem is having the eyes to spot what is really happening in either circumstance.

Sean.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

The truth about muscle and metabolism is that no one knows. Some say a pound of muscle will increase metabolism by up to 50 calories a day.
This would be a great concept if it were true. UAB university put out a study that suggested this, but the study had major flaws. Where are the studies that promote this idea?
I've seen the leanest physiques on people who are very active. It is not uncommon to see an overweight individual who had a job reassignment, which entailed more physical activity, lose 20-50 pounds in 2-3 months. I'm not advocating job changes here, but the BOTTOM LINE is:

It's the work you do, not the results of the work, that burns extra calories.
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

bigjt_63 wrote:
Ciccio wrote:
Otherwise, like Rob said, take the Florida dreaming route.

Franco


I just read the Florida dreamin' article... Kinda wish I read it before I started the previous program =/.... Oh well

I am a little bit hesitant to start doing a similar program again, since I had such bad results after the first week in the New HIT book....

But then again the first guy in the article who had such good results (Tom Wykle) has body composition very similar to mine, and I wonder if doing the program would work well... Not to mention that, next week, I will have exactly 6 weeks until school starts (and it would be nice to have a 32 inch waist for the first time in my life, coming from 280lbs about 3 years ago)!

I was planing on starting either this program or the infamous Velocity Diet from T-Nation. I have actually done it in the past and yes, I've had GREAT results from it, but WOW is it miserable...

Not to mention that I'm currently doing a software engineering internship, and ketosis diets (especially low cal ones) tend to make me a little slow in the head & quite depressed, which I really don't want to affect my job performance...

But I'm afraid to lower my protein intake as much as it states in Dr. Darden's diet for reasons I mentioned previously.

I was thinking of following the Florida Dreamin' article, increasing the protein intake a bit (to at least 180g a day, ~.8g * my bodyweight), leaving the rest of the diet as intact as possible, and incorporating morning light jogs (Since my job involves sitting at a computer 8 hours a day) while following the HIT routine...

Would others think this is a reasonable plan?


I believe, just like Ellington, that protein intake is way overrated.
But it may be that his diet has too much carbs and too little fat for you.
There seems to be folks who are quite sensitive to high carbs and don't do well with it.
For those the low carb-high fat approach might work better for fatloss.
But moderate protein is sufficient for both types (Low carb-high fat or High carb-low fat).

Franco



Open User Options Menu

seanoz


Metabolism has 3 components:

1) Resting metabolism
2) Metabolism from activity
3) Thermogenic properties of food intake

Point A: increasing #2 & #3 will increase #1

Point B: decreasing #2 & #3 will decrease #1

Bigjt_63; you were doing Point B.

Clearly, Point A beats the heck out of Point B.

You got what you paid for.


That is valid, but relative to what you are doing to component #1.

Resting metabolism is dependant on the total muscle and lean mass, and even to a slight degree the fat itself, they all require calories to survive, if the training is stimulating new changes to the system and building the systemic demand/resting metabolism, then in the case of point B, it is amplifying the effects of #2 and #3.

Therefore in the case of someone building strength and muscular size - when in a deficit - A PROVEN POSSIBILITY, it makes your point B invalid, and if it is invalid in that circumstance then there is a possibility that point A can be just as invalid under other conditions, and I can assure you IT IS, people are getting fatter are still heavily active, eat lots of 'theremogenic food' and are losing muscle mass over the long term, this means that something is missing from their activity that maintains or increases mass.

When the resting metabolic rate is raised then #2 and #3 can be positive effects REGARDLESS of the behavior of these two components or their composition.

Albeit this aspect is the most difficult to control if some care is not taken, proper nutrient to calorie ratio, proper macro nutrient ration and proper training stimulus/recover time, and is actually why so many are getting no or bad results, the western mindset of more is better, convenience foods and high carbs means problems problems.

But it's NOT impossible, and also NOT more difficult than the approach of losing overall weight through simple indiscriminate weight loss and then yo yoing back up and down over and over.

The KEY issue is WHAT influences #1 with the MOST efficiency, and this is where HIT entered the picture. It is obvious that no 'canned' HIT approach nor any 'canned HVT approach is ideal for everyone, but the issue is always going to be efficiency, people have to live, and they have to work and play, exercise nor any other aspect should dominate the landscape, and HIT wins in that regard.

Body mass, strength and the ratio of each take work and effort to maintain or improve REGARDLESS of genetics, the ratio of lean to fat mass are more pronounced in most people but not likely to be grossly affected by training be it HIGH VOLUME/LOW INTEWNSITY or HIGH INTESITY/LOW VOLUME or MID of both, genetics people!

And while all this seems less of an issue for the genetically gifted, (it is assumed the amount and intensity of work they can tolerate is often inversive to 'normal' people), it is really a matter of their genetics, they have a capacity for more in both. Age is the other factor and this contributes to both circumstances.

Granted it is likely that lean tissue will be sacrificed readily in a state nearing starvation and when calories are too low to ensure adequate brain and CNS function, but when was the last time you saw a person in that state?

If the training produces a negative effect and the diet adds to it it can be VERY negative, hence why many HIT'ers are realising that the combination of proper high intensity training when on a deficit diet CAN be destructive, but it is also a matter of degree.

I think NTF is the best approach 50-90% of the time on deficit calories, and 10-30% of training should be NTF on maintenance and surplus.

High Intensity training when on maintenance or surplus is supportive of point one, HIT can be destructive when taken to an extreme, as can HVT.

This is a question of relativity (as always), but the absolute issue is that the total Lean Mass is the driver of #1, and the driver of Lean Mass is DEMAND - overload.

The drama here is that we assume that ALL activity or movement is categorised as #2 which is simply not true, an injection of myotoxin will increase #1 and NO movement caused that, my point is that EXERCISE, the definitive effect of a PROPER stimulus AND the process allowing the desired change is NOT simply activity even though it exhibits the same actions of expending calories and involving movement.

It is the logical fallacy that when one is moving and producing force, whether in a HVT or HIT fashion, that one assumes they are 'exercising' which is WRONG, the key to wether they are stimulating the metabolism (over the long AND short term) is are they causing, allowing and testing for the changes and are they PROGRSSIVE from a previous known base?

It is also a logical fallacy that a decrease in calories only results in indiscriminate weight loss, it CAN happen that you can build at the same time, and for most people training properly and eating sensibly it SHOULD.

The true problem is having the eyes to spot what is really happening in either circumstance.

Sean.
Open User Options Menu
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy