Exercise

[Gromnir]

"I'm not really interested in fat burning."

 

great, but you is kinda missing point. simple kinda conceptualization is that fat burns at higher temps than other kinds o' energy your body gots ... which is an oversimplification, but pretty accurate nonetheless. is at that point where fats burns (whether you is fat or not) that your body is sorta working optimum. you not care 'bout fat? great, but it ain't so much 'bout the fat as it is 'bout how your heart is working at point which you does burn fat.

 

again, you can always counteract benefits of good cardio with diet. you not care 'bout fat, but still want healthy body? well, sadly for men, belly fat is inherently unhealthy, but beyond that you can still exercise to point which you is helping heart and respiratory and all kinds o' stuff... and then eat back the fat. regardless, if you wants genuine benefits it is sorta gonna be occurring at fat burning stages regardless.

 

not care 'bout cardio neither? well then, that is okie dokie for wash too, 'cause it is your life. stretching gots all kinda benefits if he ain't really concerned 'bout cardio and fat burning.

 

am not sure where krez gets number like 90 minutes. got nothing to do with some specific long time period as to why oxygen starvation is bad. 20 minutes o' oxygen starvation burns loads o' calories, and you will sweat like a dog for the duration, but that 20 minutes has very little to 0 cardio health benefit. may not be all that dangerous if you is careful, but benefits is negatory. but see, most people not exercise like that, do they?

 

couple minutes o' warm up? well, that part is good for loosening up muscle, but it gots negligible cardio benefit.

 

30 minutes o' cardio in target range? is where real cardio benefits come... 'course a target range, while a scientific notion, is more art than science anyway. how many of us got access to the kinda equipment to let us know if we is genuine in target range? is not so simple as looking at some chart. as pointed out earlier, we is all different, and in point o' fact, you is probably different today than you was on monday. maybe you slept better last night than you did on sunday. maybe you is more stressed today. maybe that chili you ate last night seemingly hasn't settled. dunno, but there is literal thousands o' things that can probably impact what is your target range today.

 

20 minutes o' oxygen starved hi-stress cardio. feels good, but not so good for heart. will burn calories, but not fat. is not an efficient exercise activity, but is good for ego and sometimes it ain't 'bout efficiency, right?

 

10-5 minute cool down. some fraction o this portion we will glance past target cardio range, but is more 'bout avoiding injury than cardio benefits.

 

 

so, of a typical approx. 1 hour workout, how much o' that time is spent doing useful heart-healthy exercise?

 

*shrug*

 

again, the above is common and is sorta a typical approach that many o' us were taught in ages past, and it really ain't efficient. that 20 minutes o' hi-stress, oxygen starved time is useful for preparing if you is competing in some kinda hi-stress activity that will leave you oxygen starved, but those 20 minutes is actually affording you very few cardio health benefits.

 

now again, am talking cardio health benefits. muscle building is something different. you wanna build up muscle, then you gotta take a different approach. gotta tear muscle down to build muscle up... but for the average shnook who is more concerned 'bout long-term health benefits...

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Humodour]

stretching gots all kinda benefits if he ain't really concerned 'bout cardio and fat burning.

 

Actually, 'warm-up' style stretching is a contentious issue and it would seem the 'benefits' touted by conventional wisdom are more myth than fact.

 

am not sure where krez gets number like 90 minutes.

 

It was an example. Thought that was fairly clear.

 

got nothing to do with some specific long time period as to why oxygen starvation is bad. 20 minutes o' oxygen starvation burns loads o' calories, and you will sweat like a dog for the duration, but that 20 minutes has very little to 0 cardio health benefit.

 

Well that claim is almost contradictory. It's true fat-burning and cardio health are not one in the same, but their relationship is synergistic none-the-less.

 

may not be all that dangerous if you is careful, but benefits is negatory. but see, most people not exercise like that, do they?

 

No, they don't. So why you are bringing this up? Can't really tell what you're point, if any, is Gromnir, or if you're just spouting out random fact/opinion because you find it interesting.

[alanschu]

From what I have found Crash Girl, you are indeed correct that while exercising beyond the "Fat Burning Zone" means less percentage of calories being consumed from fat, you'll still burn a higher amount of fat. You'll just have to be careful to make sure you adequately replenish your glycogen stores and whatnot.

 

To Taks and his curls, weight training seems to be an alternate way to lose weight. When I first took Sports Medicine courses in the late 90s, it was generally believed that weight training had limited weight loss benefits, but was good at building muscle mass (obviously). However, when talking with a friend of mine about how he was suggested to do weights to help him lose weight, I investigated it. Looks like while the act of actually lifting weights does little for burning weight, the recovery time for your muscles is actually pretty decent for it. In addition, increased muscle mass will increase your basal metabolic rate, which can help keep the weight off. When I added some resistance training to my workout regimen, I found I shed a lot of the weight around my belly and in my face at a much faster rate than the pure aerobic exercises that I was doing. I'm just an anecdote, but seemed to work well.

 

And yes Krez, I have also heard that stretching information is probably more based on myth than fact. I've been meaning to look into it, but haven't had much time to do so.

 

On the other hand, I have never heard of anyone refer to the runner's high as being a symptom of oxygen deprivation. People can go for light jogs that don't even cause them to breath very heavily, but they can still get the endorphin release to cause the runner's high. Sniffing glue != runner's high.

Edited May 8, 2008 by alanschu

[theslug]

You shouldn't do bicep curls. Number 1, they are retarded, 2 they don't do anything for strength, 3 your triceps take up more space than your biceps. If you want to get bigger biceps curls is not the way to do it. You might seen some gains in the begining but you'll hit a plateau sooner or later. If you want to lift weights do the magic 3. Squats, deadlift, and bench press. They are (relatively) simple and can be done in all sorts of different variations to hit a whole bunch of muscle groups. If you want ripped arms do bent over rows, trust me. I used to do curls all the time when I was a beginner and saw barely any gain. Flash foward to a new routine that isn't retarded (no curls whatsoever) and my biceps are bigger than they've ever been.

 

Also if you want to maximize fat loss, cardio alone will not do that. I used to run 3-4 times a week and I lost a bunch of weight but I still had tummy fat and was weak. I started lifting, and now I'm much stronger and shaped much better, plus it keeps me at a decent weight. Like Alan said while weightlifting might not burn a whole ton of calories during (unless you make it aerobic - short rest times, less weight more reps), after you definitely will. The more muscle you have the more calories you burn from doing absolutely nothing. You can just look at body builders. They don't do much cardio becuase it'll hamper their muscle gains but how are they so lean? It's because they have an insane diet and an intense lifting regiment that promotes hypertrophy (muscle gain) so they are constantly burning tons of calories.

[Humodour]

Actually slug, bicep exercises are absolutely fine. You do hit on a point of interest though: if you ever do bicep curls, ALWAYS do another exercise for the triceps as well; never exercise one of these muscle groups without also exercising the other.

 

Your second point seems murky to me. Many studies have shown that weight loss does not occur in the area of the muscle exercised, but but as a distributed average over the body.

 

But it's true weight training is also a decent way to burn fat (in the way alanschu said). But anybody who supports it as a replacement for cardio is an abject fool; cardio is not only a superior fat burner has many other important benefits to general health, fitness and longevity not found in muscle training alone - a point I believe gromnir was trying to explain.

[theslug]

Actually slug, bicep exercises are absolutely fine. You do hit on a point of interest though: if you ever do bicep curls, ALWAYS do another exercise for the triceps as well; never exercise one of these muscle groups without also exercising the other.

 

Your second point seems murky to me. Many studies have shown that weight loss does not occur in the area of the muscle exercised, but but as a distributed average over the body.

I absolutely cannot disagree more. Bicep exercises are worthless becuase isolations are worthless. The best exercises are compound lifts. the ones that hit multiple muscle groups at the same time not to mention stabilizing muscles/etc, like the 4 I mentioned earlier. Isolations like curls focus mainly on one muscle and usually are done in such a way to not promote stabilizing/joint strength. Also, I'm not sure if you meant it but I never said anything about target training, ie doing sit ups and people correlating it to fat loss in the abdominal region.

[Humodour]

Actually slug, bicep exercises are absolutely fine. You do hit on a point of interest though: if you ever do bicep curls, ALWAYS do another exercise for the triceps as well; never exercise one of these muscle groups without also exercising the other.

 

Your second point seems murky to me. Many studies have shown that weight loss does not occur in the area of the muscle exercised, but but as a distributed average over the body.

I absolutely cannot disagree more. Bicep exercises are worthless becuase isolations are worthless. The best exercises are compound lifts. the ones that hit multiple muscle groups at the same time not to mention stabilizing muscles/etc, like the 4 I mentioned earlier. Isolations like curls focus mainly on one muscle and usually are done in such a way to not promote stabilizing/joint strength. Also, I'm not sure if you meant it but I never said anything about target training, ie doing sit ups and people correlating it to fat loss in the abdominal region.

 

Fair enough. Couldn't agree more that compound exercises are the way to go.

[Walsingham]

My objection is no t so much to optimising your time. I'm professionally and temperamentally keen on that sort of thing, being very lazy. But what I'm saying is that for people who are just starting out all this talk is very demoralising. And on a board like this I'd expect most of the lurkers to be rather unfit. The best plan in teh world is no fething use whatever if it never gets executed...

[Guest The Architect]

Hey, while life shouldn't be a rush job for you, it's always best to get things done in as short amount of time as possible, and exercise shouldn't be any different. If you want cardio, just keep running at least 3.5km 3-5 days a week and listen to your body. If you're feeling too sore, don't run. If not, go ahead and do it.

 

Take an mp3 player or an ipod with you and use the music to motivate yourself. Don't compare yourself to top shape athletes 'cause that'll just bring you down. Do it for you, make it a fun challenge for yourself and don't subscribe to the "not enough exercise is as pointless as no exercise at all", because that is bull crap. Any bloody exercise is better than none at all, just like a little bit of food is better than no food at all.

 

With weights, I agree with Sluggo and Krezack. You don't want to work out for too long, stress your body so much and bore yourself to death. Bench pressing, squats and that bent over rows would be best for you, because with those 3 exercises you're training all your muscle groups.

 

I can see how the deadlift would be good for your strength but that can be pretty dangerous, and for reps/sets and everything, just do whatever your body's comfortable with and remember, the purpose of a workout is to get a workout, to feel tired after your session, not as if you could keep going for another 10 or so minutes. And if you're like me and don't have access to a wide range of gym equipment for whatever reasons, then push ups are a great strength exercise. Do several sets of them per day or second day and you'll inevitably get stronger.

Edited May 9, 2008 by The Architect

[Walsingham]

Hear hear, TA.

[mkreku]

I was at a pub and had drunk three large, strong beers (6.9%) when a pretty girl came by and wanted to go running with me within 30 minutes. Dumb as I am I accepted. We ran six miles and I don't think I've ever had more of a stitch in my side than tonight. I was ready to die and welcome my eternity in hell.

 

Isn't that weird though? I didn't even get to sleep with her..