PDA

View Full Version : question about weight training


heycal
10-05-2008, 09:30 AM
Here's something that confuses about weight training: If one wants to make gains in muscle size, one must gradually increase the weight they are lifting, right? Yet at the same time, I hear that one must change their workout routines every 6-12 weeks in order to see good gains or whatever.

So how can I significantly progress in the amount of weight I'm lifting in a particular exercise if I'm supposed to switch to a new exercise after a while?

This concept of switching routines/bugs me: I want to keep keep track of my progress on a given exercise and increase the weight I'm using -- not have to abandon it after 8 weeks to start a brand new exercise. And then have to abandon THAT exercise after 8 weeks in favor of something else...

Why can't I pick a machine/exercise, start at 10lbs or whatever, and see if I can get up to 100 lbs in six months? Why must I stop and switch to something new and start all over again every few weeks?

Gmedlo
10-05-2008, 11:26 AM
I've never heard that you should switch after 6-12 weeks. If the program you're on is still giving you good results, why would you switch? I would be stupid to stop doing squats and deadlifts after 8 weeks because someone on the internet told me my body has already adapted to them.

Right now I'm doing Rippetoe's, and I have a feeling I'll still be seeing the gains I want all the way through high school (I'm a junior), so there's no way I'm switching until I stop seeing gains.

heycal
10-05-2008, 11:34 AM
I've never heard that you should switch after 6-12 weeks.

The advice to switch exercises around is widespread and has been for years, so I'm surprised you've never heard it before.

Gmedlo
10-05-2008, 02:55 PM
The advice to switch exercises around is widespread and has been for years, so I'm surprised you've never heard it before.

6-12 weeks seems very extreme. I don't think there would be a point to doing that unless you're an experienced weightlifter (say 10+ years) that has plateaued. No one else really needs that kind of shock to stimulate gains.

If switching like that was the standard, compound lifts would not exist.

D. Dokas
10-05-2008, 03:00 PM
for chest do bench press for 3 months
then the next 3 do dumbel press

you dont want your body to get into a rithym (how ever u spell it)

if u run 5 minutes a day, after 3 months does the 5 minutes bother u that much, it shouldnt so u mix it up by skipping for 5 minutes, or sprint for 5 minutes.
keeping your body to be alert and not expect things.

well thats the theory

heycal
10-05-2008, 03:56 PM
6-12 weeks seems very extreme. I don't think there would be a point to doing that unless you're an experienced weightlifter (say 10+ years) that has plateaued. No one else really needs that kind of shock to stimulate gains.

If switching like that was the standard, compound lifts would not exist.

As you can see below, I'm not inventing this notion:


for chest do bench press for 3 months
then the next 3 do dumbel press

you dont want your body to get into a rithym (how ever u spell it)

if u run 5 minutes a day, after 3 months does the 5 minutes bother u that much, it shouldnt so u mix it up by skipping for 5 minutes, or sprint for 5 minutes.
keeping your body to be alert and not expect things.

well thats the theory

auzzieizm
10-05-2008, 04:45 PM
You should always vary your exercise routines, but you don't necessarily have to wait 6-12 weeks to do so. I keep a rotation of 5 different weight training routines- all working different muscle groups with the goal of getting a total body workout during each session. I just do a different routine each time I go lifting.

heycal
10-05-2008, 05:22 PM
You should always vary your exercise routines, but you don't necessarily have to wait 6-12 weeks to do so. I keep a rotation of 5 different weight training routines- all working different muscle groups with the goal of getting a total body workout during each session. I just do a different routine each time I go lifting.

But I don't want to vary my routines unless I really have to, so it not about not wanting to wait six weeks to do so.

Gmedlo
10-05-2008, 05:51 PM
But I don't want to vary my routines unless I really have to, so it not about not wanting to wait six weeks to do so.

waaaiiittt a minute. Are you saying that you do the exact same routine every time you lift?

heycal
10-05-2008, 06:20 PM
waaaiiittt a minute. Are you saying that you do the exact same routine every time you lift?

More or less, yes. I try and go up in weight when I can, but I'm doing the same exercises every time, in whatever order the machines/weights happen to be available. (I'm not going to wait around ten minutes doing nothing just so I can make sure I do curls after tricep extensions or begin my workout with squats or whatever.)

Gmedlo
10-05-2008, 06:59 PM
More or less, yes. I try and go up in weight when I can, but I'm doing the same exercises every time, in whatever order the machines/weights happen to be available. (I'm not going to wait around ten minutes doing nothing just so I can make sure I do curls after tricep extensions or begin my workout with squats or whatever.)

Okay, nooooooow I get what you're saying (or said what others were saying). If you're doing the exact same routine every time you go into the gym you will have to vary it quite often. That's why most routines follow a week 1: ABA week 2: BAB scheme, or work different muscle groups each day– that's how you avoid having to switch your routine every few months. But you will still have to switch when you plateau.

heycal
10-05-2008, 07:05 PM
Okay, nooooooow I get what you're saying (or said what others were saying). If you're doing the exact same routine every time you go into the gym you will have to vary it quite often. That's why most routines follow a week 1: ABA week 2: BAB scheme, or work different muscle groups each day– that's how you avoid having to switch your routine every few months. But you will still have to switch when you plateau.

But why must I do this? Why can't I just keeping do the same exercise and gradually adding more weight when I can? Maybe if I reach a plateau it's time to switch, but until that time, why must I vary things?

Gmedlo
10-05-2008, 07:10 PM
But why must I do this? Why can't I just keeping do the same exercise and gradually adding more weight when I can? Maybe if I reach a plateau it's time to switch, but until that time, why must I vary things?

If you can, do. Don't try to fix it if it ain't broke.

auzzieizm
10-06-2008, 05:45 AM
But why must I do this? Why can't I just keeping do the same exercise and gradually adding more weight when I can? Maybe if I reach a plateau it's time to switch, but until that time, why must I vary things?

Increasing weight is a natural form of variation. Adding weight makes an exercise load different on your body.

As far as varying exercise, it is a matter of increasing the effectiveness of a workout. For example, bench pressing is a great way to strengthen your pectoralis muscles as well as other accessory muscle groups like triceps, etc. Those muscle groups are large, so doing the bench press lying flat on a bench focuses on a specific part of that muscle. To promote more uniform muscle growth, it is good to vary doing a press on a flat bench, an incline bench, and a decline bench, etc. You will increase strength and mass more effectively. You will be building musculature more evenly- which will also aid in tendon and ligament strengthening. And as far as motivation, varying a workout helps to prevent monotony- which could lead to a burnout.

And to answer your question. You can just do the same workout. You can do the same workout and try to increase weights every so often. It is not bad. However, it is definitely not the most effective way to workout and strengthen. I always found that the biggest factor with exercisers trying new things is unfamiliarity. If you are not comfortable trying a new exercise or using a different piece of equipment, then you will likely just stick to what you are comfortable with. This basically limits your workout possibilities and workout gains. Don't be afraid to try new things, and don't necessarily worry about changing your whole program all the time. Just do something different each time, or try something new. Rotate through different exercises to target different parts of each muscle group you are trying to work. It will help you in the long run to achieve better results.

heycal
10-06-2008, 07:15 AM
It's not that I'm afraid to try new exercises or ever do something different, and it's not an issue of being unfamiliar with other machines/exercses, it's that:

1) I don't like the idea of having to do so to a degree where it's a drag. I don't want to have to constantly think of new things regarding my workout: "I did this exercise last time, so I have to do that one this time" or "On Tuesday I started with legs, so today I'd better start with arms", etc. I just want to get a routine down and follow it without having to think too much.

2) Nor do I want to constantly 'start over'. I'd like to start at one weight on a machine and try and gradually increase that weight and chart my progress over time. I don't want to switch so often that I can't even remember how much weight I can lift on that machine or bother keeping track of it since I'm just going to switch to something else in a week anyway.

I'm happy to make little changes and little variations every few months or so, I just don't want that aspect to become burdensome: "Oops. 8 weeks have passed! Time to abandon this machine I was making progress on and switch to some new contraption and start from scratch on that one."

I want get a routine down, memorize it, and do it a few times a week for several months. Is that so wrong?

Phil
10-06-2008, 07:50 AM
I think you're just lazy, heycal. You want to get the quickest results in the shortest amount of time, with minimal effort. Don't we all...But that's not the way it works, unless, of course, you go the steroid route.

Just do the workout you have, put some effort into it and stop whinning about it. And then, come back in 12 weeks and let us know how you're coming along with your two-set per body part routine.;-)

heycal
10-06-2008, 07:58 AM
And then, come back in 12 weeks and let us know how you're coming along with your two-set per body part routine.;-)

Do you have some objection to the 2 sets per exercise routine? I've seen studies that suggest 1 set is all that's needed, so am I doing too much?

Phil
10-06-2008, 08:07 AM
Do you have some objection to the 2 sets per exercise routine? I've seen studies that suggest 1 set is all that's needed, so am I doing too much?
There are a lot of studies out there. Hell, maybe there's one that found that sitting in a gym and just LOOKING at weights will cause significant muscle growth. Mike Mentzer said that working out 15 or 20 minutes per WEEK would result in amazing growth. He died young, so go figure.

Honestly, I want to see what two sets (or one, if you want) per body part can do. If you put enough effort into it, it should produce some results. I will anxiously await your 12-week progress report.

SlapShot
10-06-2008, 08:10 AM
It's not that I'm afraid to try new exercises or ever do something different, and it's not an issue of being unfamiliar with other machines/exercses, it's that:

1) I don't like the idea of having to do so to a degree where it's a drag. I don't want to have to constantly think of new things regarding my workout: "I did this exercise last time, so I have to do that one this time" or "On Tuesday I started with legs, so today I'd better start with arms", etc. I just want to get a routine down and follow it without having to think too much.

2) Nor do I want to constantly 'start over'. I'd like to start at one weight on a machine and try and gradually increase that weight and chart my progress over time. I don't want to switch so often that I can't even remember how much weight I can lift on that machine or bother keeping track of it since I'm just going to switch to something else in a week anyway.

I'm happy to make little changes and little variations every few months or so, I just don't want that aspect to become burdensome: "Oops. 8 weeks have passed! Time to abandon this machine I was making progress on and switch to some new contraption and start from scratch on that one."

I want get a routine down, memorize it, and do it a few times a week for several months. Is that so wrong?

IMO, there's nothing wrong with having a routine, but tossing in new/different exercises is a key way to build true functional strength. Personally, I alternate exercises in an effort to build strength in both. For example, one day I'll barball bench. The next, I'll dumbell bench. Same with legs - I'll alternate freeweight squats and leg press.

You are going to see gains on multiple exercises if you're truly getting stronger.

Also - I believe that it is strongly encouraged to mix freeweights and machines when weight training - freeweights stress the supportive muscles as well as the ones focused, and machines isolate and encourage growth.

heycal
10-06-2008, 09:18 AM
Personally, I alternate exercises in an effort to build strength in both. For example, one day I'll barball bench. The next, I'll dumbell bench. Same with legs - I'll alternate freeweight squats and leg press.

^^^
This is the kind of stuff I want to avoid. It just doesn't appeal to me on any level. I guess I'm a creature of habit. If it's shown to me conclusively that this is by far the best way to make gains, then I'll consider it, but until then I'd rather avoid it for now.

There are a lot of studies out there. Hell, maybe there's one that found that sitting in a gym and just LOOKING at weights will cause significant muscle growth. Mike Mentzer said that working out 15 or 20 minutes per WEEK would result in amazing growth. He died young, so go figure.

Honestly, I want to see what two sets (or one, if you want) per body part can do. If you put enough effort into it, it should produce some results. I will anxiously await your 12-week progress report.

I can already tell I'm seeing some progress after 6 weeks, so you don't need to wait any longer.

Some people recommend 1 set, some 2 sets, some 3 or more. I personally do not have a strong opinion on this matter. But from what I've read, the trend seems to be moving towards less not more, ala this Mentzer guy you mentioned.

You are in the camp that recommends multiple sets, I take it?

Phil
10-06-2008, 09:25 AM
I can already tell I'm seeing some progress after 6 weeks, so you don't need to wait any longer.
Oh, goodie!

You are in the camp that recommends multiple sets, I take it?
Not a ridiculous amount. Three to four at most. One or two doesn't work for me.

Rickson
10-06-2008, 09:35 AM
Cal, the truth is that you're not going to gain a lot of muscle in a short amount of time anyway so don't stress. You can try a few new things, but trying new things doesn't have to be the staple of your workouts. Try adding weight because something as simple as a heavier weight stimulates muscle growth. Changing your routine every now and then is ok, but don't expect to be Jay Cutler size just because you do a different workout every single time. I've seen it all and I have to hold back laughter when I see some fat guy in the gym talking about how he changes his routine and gets quality muscle out of it. I'm not massive nor have I ever claimed to be because I work out for strength. Noone's ever going to accuse me of training for size, but I'm still stronger than most gym rats. My point is that unless you invest in some serious drugs, you won't get huge no matter what kind of different routines you do so just keep on doing what you're doing and don't worry.

heycal
10-06-2008, 09:36 AM
Three to four at most. One or two doesn't work for me.

So let me get this straight: 3 sets is perfect, but 2 sets is worthy of derision?

Rickson
10-06-2008, 09:44 AM
One set of 15 reps is for beginners and 2 sets is for beginner to intermediates. I don't recommend anything over 3 sets anwyay, but you can do 3 sets if you're an advanced weightlifter. Anything more than 3 sets trains muscles for endurance and not hypertrophy so I wouldn't bother, but many people insist on doing multiple sets because they just don't feel the "pump" at that moment. This is a mistake. It's like the guy who wants to get drunk, but doesn't feel the buzz just yet or the girl at the beach who gets sunburned because she doesn't feel the "tan" after 30 minutes. Don't get me wrong, your body can adapt to doing more than 3 sets, but that just means you'll be doing extra sets for nothing in the future unless of course your goal actually is endurance.

heycal
10-06-2008, 09:51 AM
Thanks, Rickson. I'm just a normal guy about to turn 46 years old who likes junk food and playing some tennis and looking reasonably in shape for vanity purposes. If anyone got the impression that I would be tempted to get pumped up on steroids so I could look like Arnold Schwarznegger, they are mistaken.

Rickson
10-06-2008, 10:00 AM
Cal, I never thought you actually wanted to be like Arnold of the 1970s, but I did think you were taking that change up crap too seriously. Changing up will stimulate a little growth, but let's be for real, how much bigger will you really get? If you take 2 weeks off from the gym, you'll get more growth stimulus than changing your routine and that's a fact. It depends on you and how you like to work out. Personally, I don't train often enough to need a changeup anyway.

heycal
10-06-2008, 10:27 AM
Cal, I never thought you actually wanted to be like Arnold of the 1970s, but I did think you were taking that change up crap too seriously.

I was asking about it seriously, because I didn't know the answer. Did I need to change often or not to achieve reasonable gains? It looks like you are saying No, I don't need to.

Regarding overall weight training and fitness issues, I do have an overall philosophy I follow, which is: design a realistic fitness program you can envision yourself having the time and motivation to follow for a couple of decades, and that you can envision your body being able to withstand for a couple of decades as well.

For me, that means hitting the gym/weights every 3 or 4 days and getting out of there in under 45 minutes. Plus maybe 30 minutes of light cardio three times a week on top of that. THAT is a plan I can imagine having the motivation, time, and discipline to be able to follow for many years to come. Ergo, I will start doing that now, instead of getting all excited about getting into great shape, and trying hit the gym every 48 hours and doing 4 sets of each exercise and working out for an hour each time, AND running 5 miles a day 5 times a week. Because while I can almost imagine that being doable right now while I have the time and motivation, I can't imagine me doing that for years to come, or my body being able to withstand that for years to come.

So that's my take on that. Do only what you can envision being able to do long term based on your own personality and physical traits, and then adjust your diet accordingly so you can try and stave off getting too fat.

heycal
10-06-2008, 05:18 PM
If you take 2 weeks off from the gym, you'll get more growth stimulus than changing your routine and that's a fact.

Where do I sign up for this "take 2 weeks off to see better gains" program? Seems easy to follow.:)

JakeHCoker
10-06-2008, 05:21 PM
I know for mine, I just follow what needs improving. And during tennis practice, I use leg and wrist weights. Seems odd at first, but it's actually pretty easy after a while.

Rickson
10-06-2008, 05:33 PM
Cal, you silly boy, I was talking about when you come back to your routine after taking 2 weeks off, but I think you knew that, at least I hope you did (j/k). At the end of 2 weeks, your muscles will be so relaxed that when you give it the old workout again, you'll get even more sore than if you stayed at the gym and switched from the barbell to dumbbells. Even the most experienced bodybuilders use the time off strategy although it may not be quite 2 weeks. Most of them take just a week off, but the principle's still the same.

superman1
10-06-2008, 05:38 PM
Anything more than 3 sets trains muscles for endurance and not hypertrophy so I wouldn't bother

I don't know about this. High reps = endurance training, but if you're doing 5 sets with a really heavy weight for 5 reps, that's not endurance training, that's just beating the hell out of your muscles. I would advise beginners to just stick with cookie cutter programs like Starting Strength and 5X5. 5X5 is pretty cool because even though it's 5 sets, the first 4 sets are just like a warm-up.

Phil
10-06-2008, 11:27 PM
So let me get this straight: 3 sets is perfect, but 2 sets is worthy of derision?
3 sets is 50% more than 2 sets. The numbers may be small, but there is a difference that I've seen (and I'm not alone). Anything is better than nothing, but there has to be a line between not enough, moderate and too many sets. Don't feel bad: ten sets is more worthy of derision than two-I've seen too many gym rat jerkwads hog the flat bench and pump out bench presses for 30 minutes.

equinox
10-07-2008, 03:47 AM
I've been lifting since late july.

I'm certainly no expert and just came off my 1st week long reset, 3 weeks ago.

I've went from unfit 78-80kgs to 66kgs by cutting out cola and regular junk food. I've moved back up to 70-72kgs.

I do standard 4 day split and vary the exercises.
3 sets 8-12 reps / 12+ bump .5-1kg.

I'll drop a set if my body tells me to do so.

I'll admit training by oneself is hard because of the motivation aspect. I have to eat like mad to keep weight.

Excuse me , my scheduled meal is ready. sigh.

r2473
10-07-2008, 10:39 AM
The advice on how to lift really means nothing if you don't also state what your goals are. All of the programs offered will be effective at producing different results.

It would also be helpful if those offering advice would state how long they have been doing the programs they suggest and what type of results they have achieved.

Even providing all of the above won't tell the whole story. If "mass" is your goal, I would also want to know your eating habits (i.e are you taking in enough calories).

I would like to know your intensity (are you cranking out brutal hard sets or are you easily completing the last rep).

I would also need to know how strict you are with your form. If you are sloppy, then any program you have been using is sure to produce less than good results.

Certainly 2 people can follow the exact same program but do it so differently that their results are not comparable.

zacinnc78
10-07-2008, 05:03 PM
Excuse me , my scheduled meal is ready. sigh.
i dont know why ,but that was hilarious lol

heycal
10-14-2008, 11:22 PM
What do we think of the value of doing tricep exercises for intermediate/non hard core weight trainers like myself?

I keep hearing compound exercises are the best, and that's mostly what I do, but I also do bicep curls and tricep extensions.

Are those last two exerices worth doing, particularly the triceps, or is that time better spent doing a couple of more sets of one of the compound exercises like bench presses, etc?

maleyoyo
10-15-2008, 08:56 AM
What do we think of the value of doing tricep exercises for intermediate/non hard core weight trainers like myself?

I keep hearing compound exercises are the best, and that's mostly what I do, but I also do bicep curls and tricep extensions.

Are those last two exerices worth doing, particularly the triceps, or is that time better spent doing a couple of more sets of one of the compound exercises like bench presses, etc?

I'd say it would depend on what your ultimate goal is. If mass is your goal then compound exercises and heavy weights are the way to go, so instead of doing one separate exercise for triceps, you can do close-grip bench press to focus on your triceps AND inner chest. Instead of bicep curls, you can do reverse grips pull-up. To me it's more effecient unless you plan to spend more time at the gym.

The same boring routine that I stick with for years is 3 different exercises and 3 sets (12,10,8 reps with increasing weights) pyramid for every major body part. The keys for me to get good results besides diet are workload and intensity. For workload, Arnold once said that if his goal that day is to do x lbs bench press or y reps pull-up, then he will do just that no matter how many sets it would take him. As for intensity, your last rep of every set should be a struggle. That's why I used to work with the Smith machine a lot.
Going to the gym 3 times a week, 1.5 hrs each time including 20 min cardio is more than enough for me.

Rickson
10-15-2008, 11:12 AM
Cal, shapers are ok once in a while because you hit a part of the body you normally miss during compound movements. I wouldn't do shapers as part of my normal routine, but doing them once a month is fine. Overhead dumbbell extensions are great for getting the upper triceps which we often miss when simply doing presses. Like I said, once in a while, but not as a routine.

Kevin T
10-15-2008, 11:54 AM
Yo Rickson,

Since you and I are big bodyweight exercise (pullups, dips) proponents, I was wondering if you could talk a little about your routines when you were going at it hard. My routine for a while now has been pullups, perfect pushups, dips and lunges in various intensities, with or without weight, etc. Just looking to mix it up a little. Thanks homie!

Rickson
10-15-2008, 11:58 AM
If I take off from training for a while, I only do 1 set for as many reps as I can bang out on pull ups and the standard 15 for dips because my presses never seem to get weak. If I get back in the groove, it's usually 2 sets of 8-10 on pull ups and 15 x 2 on dips. When I get in a really good groove, it's 3 sets of 10 on pulls and 3 sets of 20 on dips.

heycal
10-21-2008, 10:29 AM
I'd say it would depend on what your ultimate goal is. If mass is your goal then compound exercises and heavy weights are the way to go, so instead of doing one separate exercise for triceps, you can do close-grip bench press to focus on your triceps AND inner chest. Instead of bicep curls, you can do reverse grips pull-up. To me it's more effecient unless you plan to spend more time at the gym.


I guess my ultimate goal is more muscle so I can burn more fat, and doing so as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Cal, shapers are ok once in a while because you hit a part of the body you normally miss during compound movements. I wouldn't do shapers as part of my normal routine, but doing them once a month is fine. Overhead dumbbell extensions are great for getting the upper triceps which we often miss when simply doing presses. Like I said, once in a while, but not as a routine.

What would be the point of doing an exercise only once a month? Seems to make more sense to either do it on a regular basis or not do it at all. I don't see how targeting the triceps once a month is going to doing anything at all.

r2473
10-21-2008, 10:47 AM
..........

heycal
10-22-2008, 09:48 PM
Here's another question about exercise: A few years back, it seemed like the advice when it came to aerobic exercise was that moderate/light intensity jogging etc. was the way to go, the ideal way to shed excess fat/burn calories. Lately it seems like the it's swung back to going faster is better and higher intensity is the best way. (The latter seem theory seems obvious to me. Run like hell, and you will see better results!)

Can someone summarize the evolution in thinking in the last ten years or so about the ideal speed for jogging type activities if one wants to burn fat?

Rickson
10-22-2008, 10:06 PM
Here you go, Cal. Many years ago, it was discovered that the "fat burning zone" was done at a slower pace than running. The slower you went, the more "fat calories" you burned even though you burned fewer total calories. Later on, these same geniuses realized that total calories burned meant much more than burning "fat calories" so they scrapped the whole concept of doing cardio at a slower pace.

heycal
10-22-2008, 10:28 PM
Here you go, Cal. Many years ago, it was discovered that the "fat burning zone" was done at a slower pace than running. The slower you went, the more "fat calories" you burned even though you burned fewer total calories. Later on, these same geniuses realized that total calories burned meant much more than burning "fat calories" so they scrapped the whole concept of doing cardio at a slower pace.


I knew that junk seemed fishy at the time. Go slower? Come on! Common sense says if you run your *** off instead of waltzing around, you're gonna lose more weight.

heycal
11-13-2008, 02:58 PM
Question of the day: Years ago, I read somewhere that if your goal is to keep off the fat/loss weight, it's actually good to pig out once a week or so. I think the theory is that if you allow your body to get used to eating X number of calories every day, your body soon adapts to that and you quit losing weight. But if you pig out once in a while and keep your body guessin, you'll actually see better results.

It's obviously an alluring theory. But do we buy it? Discuss.

Rickson
11-13-2008, 03:11 PM
A big, fat no to that one, cal. If you plan on doing the old let it loose day, once a week, you'll get poor results because you'll put back everything you lost for the week in just one day. If you plan on doing it once a month, you can go for it if you like, but don't go overboard. You see how tough it is, cal? Even when you do it just once a month, you still have to be careful.

heycal
11-13-2008, 03:12 PM
A big, fat no to that one, cal. If you plan on doing the old let it loose day, once a week, you'll get poor results because you'll put back everything you lost for the week in just one day. If you plan on doing it once a month, you can go for it if you like, but don't go overboard. You see how tough it is, cal? Even when you do it just once a month, you still have to be careful.

Can you back that up with any links, Rickson, or is it just your hunch?

EDIT: Just found this. This guy sides with you mostly, but does open the door a crack.

http://www.mens-total-fitness.com/cheat-days.html

More on the topic:

http://74.125.45.104/search?q=cache:Q3mDguPypqwJ:ezinearticles.com/%3FThe-Importance-of-Diet-Cheat-Days-For-Weight-Loss%26id%3D1623850+diet+cheat+days&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=6&gl=us

Rickson
11-13-2008, 04:15 PM
Do the math, cal. You lose 500 calories a day x 6 days = 3000 calories lost. You have a cheat day and go over by 3 or 4000 calories and you put back everything you lost.

Let me simplify this:

You take in 2500 to maintain and 2000 to lose = 500 calorie deficit

After 6 days, you lose 3000 calories

Day 7, you take in 6000 calories which is 3500 above your maintenance level

End result, you gained 500 calories for the week.

heycal
11-13-2008, 04:34 PM
Do the math, cal. You lose 500 calories a day x 6 days = 3000 calories lost. You have a cheat day and go over by 3 or 4000 calories and you put back everything you lost.

Let me simplify this:

You take in 2500 to maintain and 2000 to lose = 500 calorie deficit

After 6 days, you lose 3000 calories

Day 7, you take in 6000 calories which is 3500 above your maintenance level

End result, you gained 500 calories for the week.

Math doesn't always explain dieting, Rickson. And here's an example to prove it:

If you cut out 500 calories a day, you may lose 1 pound a week, correct? Three weeks later, you may lose 3 pounds this way, right?

So... Does that mean that you will lose 52 pounds in a year by cutting out those 500 calories, and 102 pounds in two years?

Rickson
11-13-2008, 04:39 PM
More or less. For most people, it's less and for me, it's definitely more. It depends on your exercise habits and muscle mass as well. Keep in mind that most people wouldn't diet for 2 years.

bet
11-13-2008, 05:01 PM
Math doesn't always explain dieting, Rickson. And here's an example to prove it:

If you cut out 500 calories a day, you may lose 1 pound a week, correct? Three weeks later, you may lose 3 pounds this way, right?

So... Does that mean that you will lose 52 pounds in a year by cutting out those 500 calories, and 102 pounds in two years?


No of course it does not. Man, I can't believe I go away for a couple years and people now look at RICKSON as an "expert" in anything?! What a clueless guy. By the way Rickson, still playing with the 3.0's who literally volley better than Roddick? LOL

Anyhow, you are absolutely right Cal. This kind of simplistic math, while rampant in dieting/personal training domains is not accurate. FOR so many reasons. It doesn't take einstein to figure that out....just slightly more thank rickson...

Rickson
11-13-2008, 05:18 PM
Who is this pee on? Go away, you mental midget. Nobody knows you.

heycal
11-13-2008, 07:25 PM
More or less. For most people, it's less and for me, it's definitely more. It depends on your exercise habits and muscle mass as well. Keep in mind that most people wouldn't diet for 2 years.

You're saying it's more or less true that one would lose 52 lbs in a year and 102 pounds in two years if they cut out 500 calories a day from their diet?? Come on, Rickson. Use your head. If some 200 pounder goes from eating 3500 calories a day to 3000 calories a day and sticks with that for 2 years, he ain't gonna weight 98 lbs two years later. If this were true, he'd end up weighing Negative-4 lbs in four years.

How many - 4 lbs guys do you know out there?

Rickson
11-13-2008, 07:29 PM
Didn't you read the last part, cal? I said most people won't diet for 2 years.

heycal
11-13-2008, 07:45 PM
Didn't you read the last part, cal? I said most people won't diet for 2 years.

Yes, I saw that. And I said, but what if they do?

Even dieting for one year at this rate would result it very unbelievable 52 lb weight loss. Heck, even Losing 26 pounds in six months of going from 3500 to 3000 calories for that time period sounds HIGHLY unlikely.

Gmedlo
11-13-2008, 08:02 PM
Yes, I saw that. And I said, but what if they do?

Even dieting for one year at this rate would result it very unbelievable 52 lb weight loss. Heck, even Losing 26 pounds in six months of going from 3500 to 3000 calories for that time period sounds HIGHLY unlikely.

Why does that sound unlikely?

heycal
11-13-2008, 08:19 PM
Why does that sound unlikely?

Because I was using a normal person for a frame of reference, say a 200 lbs man, maybe 6' feet tall. Not some 450 pound man. And I'm telling you, a normal 200 lb guy is not going to lose 52 lbs in a year by switching from 3500 to 3000 calories a day. Doesn't pass the smell test.

Rickson
11-13-2008, 08:59 PM
He won't if 3500 isn't his maintenance level and for most people, it's not. Perhaps his maintenance level is 2800 KCal so a 500 KCal deficit would be 2300 and not 3000. Did you consider those variables, big boy?

bet
11-13-2008, 09:36 PM
Yes, I saw that. And I said, but what if they do?

Even dieting for one year at this rate would result it very unbelievable 52 lb weight loss. Heck, even Losing 26 pounds in six months of going from 3500 to 3000 calories for that time period sounds HIGHLY unlikely.

Actually that kind of permanent calorie drop happens to thousands of people every year. Various lifestyle changes. For example, many people who switch to vegetarian diets find themselves dropping 500 calories a day.

In fact there are people out there who are permanently dropping 1500+ calories per day for the rest of their lives (well that is the plan anyways and many have now gone for years), they lost A LOT of weight but of course, do not disappear as they should within a few months with Rickson's child thinking.

bet
11-13-2008, 09:38 PM
Why does that sound unlikely?

Yes, I was going to give the example of a 2000 calorie 130lb woman who drops to 1500 calories a day. Strict but more than doable. According to this idiotic model, she'll be quite the runway model envy in a year.

bet
11-13-2008, 09:42 PM
He won't if 3500 isn't his maintenance level and for most people, it's not. Perhaps his maintenance level is 2800 KCal so a 500 KCal deficit would be 2300 and not 3000. Did you consider those variables, big boy?

ROFL. So he drops to 2300 calories (hardly unheard of) and becomes a 100lb man in 2 years? OMG. I see you know nearly as much about exercise as you do tennis Rickson!

bet
11-13-2008, 10:25 PM
I knew that junk seemed fishy at the time. Go slower? Come on! Common sense says if you run your *** off instead of waltzing around, you're gonna lose more weight.


This is quite true Cal and I have never been a fan of this both during my training and in my clients. However, bear in mind that this is not nearly as simple as it sounds either. It is of course far harder to sustain the faster pace for the same length of time. I can jog easily for 2-3 hours at a slow pace but if switch to fast run, 1 hour can be exhausting. There is the metabolic after-affect of the running to consider as well as the systemic load you are incurring on your recovery systems. One thing to note, when talking about longer distance jogging(not anaerobic activities) is that, you will often hear fitness sheep now saying that "hey, you burn more calories running faster!". They will then show figures showing that you do burn more calories per mile at a faster pace. HOWEVER, the amount is TRIVIAL. Thus, it is true that if you run 30min. in both cases, you will burn a fair amount more at the faster pace. If you run say, 3 miles at either pace, calories burned during activity will be about the same. It will just take an extra 5-10 min. at a significantly slower pace. Thus, there are many factors to consider, in exercise programd design. Faster= better is thus not always true.

bet
11-13-2008, 10:28 PM
Oh and CAl in regards to your question regarding the "idiot math weight loss formula". There are MANY factors which are involved, many of which I'm sure most people can see with a bit of common sense. I'd say that 2 of the most important are obviously homeostatic mechanisms in the body primarily through basal metabolic rate and/or hormonal balances. Both are HUGE factors in weight loss and will be altered by changes in diet/exercise.

heycal
11-13-2008, 10:41 PM
"hey, you burn more calories running faster!". They will then show figures showing that you do burn more calories per mile at a faster pace. HOWEVER, the amount is TRIVIAL. Thus, it is true that if you run 30min. in both cases, you will burn a fair amount more at the faster pace. If you run say, 3 miles at either pace, calories burned during activity will be about the same. It will just take an extra 5-10 min. at a significantly slower pace. Thus, there are many factors to consider, in exercise programd design. Faster= better is thus not always true.

But it sounds like you are saying faster IS better. If you run for X amount of TIME fast instead of slow, you will burn more calories. Ok. But if you run a SET DISTANCE, you will burn the same amount of calories regardless of your pace-- 3 miles is 3 miles and going to burn Y number of calories regardless of your speed, right? Ergo, faster IS better because what's the advantage of having to run for 10 minutes longer just to burn the same amount of calories you would have if you ran faster and finished in less time? Am I understanding all this right?

bet
11-13-2008, 11:00 PM
But it sounds like you are saying faster IS better. If you run for X amount of TIME fast instead of slow, you will burn more calories. Ok. But if you run a SET DISTANCE, you will burn the same amount of calories regardless of your pace-- 3 miles is 3 miles and going to burn Y number of calories regardless of your speed, right? Ergo, faster IS better because what's the advantage of having to run for 10 minutes longer just to burn the same amount of calories you would have if you ran faster and finished in less time? Am I understanding all this right?

Right! so in this sense it is...more efficient! But what I'm saying is, sometimes if I have a person for whom running at a higher speed for that distance is impossible or simply WAY too taxing (which might lead to overtraining and/or less training in coming days - although note, the longer distance could be just as taxing on the body in slightly different ways), then it might be better to go for a lower intensity experience.

In highly trained athletes, it doesn't matter quite as much as the faster speed is relatively less intense for them and they are used to higher workload demands anyways(though personally I think the workload capacity is highly individual regardless of conditioning). BUT, even in these individuals, I might choose to have them run 2 or 3 or 4x farther at the slower pace, a distance even they could not do at all at the faster pace! It just depends on them, what they're training for and what their goal is. Obviously, if we are going just for sheer calories burned during exercise, the slower for much farther can do much, much more. (some would argue that the metabolic afterburn is not as high with slower activity, I think this true to SOME extent but this to, has been oversimplified).

So, yes, definitely more efficient and this to can be important in limited time workouts. On the other hand, slowing by 1min. per mile is a huge difference in perceived exertion.....let alone say....3 min. per mile. If you're running even a fairly long distance, let's say 5 miles....that is only a grand total of 15 min. or so that you "gain" in your life. So, I tend not to worry terrible much about the "efficiency" gain.

So don't get me wrong, I'm not saying slower is better, only that there are pros and cons to both and the sheeplike "fitness" experts (mail-in, attended some "seminars" certificates in hand) have probably swung too far towards the "fast" idea right at this time. I was advocating "fast" before fast was cool ;-) But I also see that slow has some VERY appropriate usages for quite a lot of people!

heycal
11-13-2008, 11:11 PM
Yeah, but it still seems like you're saying all else being equal, faster is better, correct? For a normal healthy person just looking to stay in shape and lose a few pounds of fat maybe, and running 30 minutes three times a week, going a bit faster is going to burn more calories than going slower.

bet
11-13-2008, 11:15 PM
Yeah, but it still seems like you're saying all else being equal, faster is better, correct? For a normal healthy person just looking to get in shape and stay in shape and running 30 minutes three times a week, for example, going a bit faster is going to burn more calories than going slower.

yes, definitely. Particularly if you are going to set up your workout by time. ie. I'm running 30 min.

If you set up your workout this way, not only are you more intense during that 30 min but naturally, you will of course, have "gone farther".

To give you one real-world example of when I might go the other way, say I have a client who isn't going to run a fixed 20 min. but wants to run 3 miles. He can do this comfortably in 30 min. He can also really, really push and do this 24 min. Ok, fine, we saved 6 min. AND he will see improved aerobic performance from his intensity AND he might get a slightly higher metabolic boost after. On the other hand, this shaving of 2min. per mile is hardly a trivial difference! Now he's too tired to do...say the weight training or tennis he was supposed to do (or can't do them with the same intensity). Maybe he also needs an extra day off a week to handle this demand. Now, I might well choose to taper back and do the 30 min pace, depending on what we're after!

Rickson
11-14-2008, 07:37 AM
This guy clearly doesn't know what he's doing. This guy is an idiot, but it's clear in his spelling and grammar. Be responsible and stay away from this section because someone might get hurt reading your anecdotal advice.

bet
11-14-2008, 11:03 AM
This guy is an idiot, but it's clear in his spelling and grammar. .

ROFL! Perfect. The irony....

Rickson, you were the absolute joke of this board a couple years ago. I can't think of another poster who regarded more poorly by...well everybody. I am glad to see you've hung in there so long, but of course, it's troubling that somebody might think you know what you're talking about. You're a total fraud and WE both know it. How's your buddy Gino? Volleying better than Federer, if not Mcenroe, by now. Right?

PS. Don't try taking me on Rickson. I will come after you and you will lose. You can't match knowledge with me on any area of tennis or fitness. In addition, I REMEMBER all the stupid things you've said. LOL

Gmedlo
11-14-2008, 03:29 PM
bet, even though I haven't seen any of your posts in any thread other than this one, I already see you as a joke, simply because of the way you carry yourself in your posts.

Oh, and I think you're stupid if you believe that someone that cuts 500 calories a day from their diet, and keeps all other factors consistent in comparison to their old diet and lifestyle, won't lose a significant amount of weight. You're also trying to argue against something that was never inferred; the notion that someone would be reduced to nothingness if they continued on a restricted calorie diet was never mentioned by Rickson. It's obvious that you have some previous beef with him that makes you unable to pull your head out of your ***, but please, use a little common sense before posting.



Oh, and your last example is really cracking me up, since you argued that the amount of calories you burn in a 24 minute, 3 mile run is trivially larger than that of a 30 minute, 3 mile run, yet after the 24 minute run, you say the client might be "too tired to do the weight training or tennis he was supposed to do." Where does all this energy go, and what does the body use to get the energy?

heycal
11-14-2008, 03:47 PM
Oh, and I think you're stupid if you believe that someone that cuts 500 calories a day from their diet, and keeps all other factors consistent in comparison to their old diet and lifestyle, won't lose a significant amount of weight.

Sure, they will lose weight. But they will not continue to lose 1 lbs a week. Common sense says a normal 200 lb, 6 foot man will not lose 26 pounds in six months simply by sticking with that diet, and certainly not 52 lbs in a year.

Gmedlo
11-14-2008, 03:51 PM
Sure, they will lose weight. But they will not continue to lose 1 lbs a week. Common sense says a normal 200 lb, 6 foot man will not lose 26 pounds in six months simply by sticking with that diet, and certainly not 52 lbs in a year.

A 200lb, 6ft man with 25% bf very well may lose 26 pounds in six months if he cuts 500 calories a day, and I really fail to see what common sense this goes against.

bet
11-14-2008, 05:08 PM
Sure, they will lose weight. But they will not continue to lose 1 lbs a week. Common sense says a normal 200 lb, 6 foot man will not lose 26 pounds in six months simply by sticking with that diet, and certainly not 52 lbs in a year.


Indeed. That poster obviously did not even read my posts or was unable to understand them. I already explained this fully. Nor did anybody claim that they wouldn't lose weight! lol

heycal
11-14-2008, 05:19 PM
A 200lb, 6ft man with 25% bf very well may lose 26 pounds in six months if he cuts 500 calories a day, and I really fail to see what common sense this goes against.

So in a year this same man would lose 52 lbs? And in two years 102 lbs? What is your common sense telling you now?

bet
11-14-2008, 05:22 PM
bet, even though I haven't seen any of your posts in any thread other than this one, I already see you as a joke, simply because of the way you carry yourself in your posts.

Oh, and I think you're stupid if you believe that someone that cuts 500 calories a day from their diet, and keeps all other factors consistent in comparison to their old diet and lifestyle, won't lose a significant amount of weight. You're also trying to argue against something that was never inferred; the notion that someone would be reduced to nothingness if they continued on a restricted calorie diet was never mentioned by Rickson. It's obvious that you have some previous beef with him that makes you unable to pull your head out of your ***, but please, use a little common sense before posting.]?

It's obvious you didn't read my previous posts. I never claimed they wouldn't lose a significant amount of weight and I explained some of the many factors involved in the equation. Please re-read and if you have questions, quote directly and I'll try to address them if you leave out the insults.




Oh, and your last example is really cracking me up, since you argued that the amount of calories you burn in a 24 minute, 3 mile run is trivially larger than that of a 30 minute, 3 mile run, yet after the 24 minute run, you say the client might be "too tired to do the weight training or tennis he was supposed to do." Where does all this energy go, and what does the body use to get the energy?

I am not sure what you are defining as "energy". This could be taken many ways, both colloquially or in a pure physics sense. I didn't use the term so when you ask "where does all the energy go?", you'll have to be more specific or define your terms.

If you are confused by what I was explaining with the running, I'll clarify a bit. The intensity of the workout, makes quite a difference in it's effect on the body. Even though the same amount of "work" is done, when the body must deliver this work in a shorter time frame, the effect is quite different. In a physiological sense, the energy systems that are called to fuel the workout are used in different proportions.

In an every day sense, you can try an experiment for yourself, run 3 miles as fast as you possibly can. A few days later, walk 3 miles. Note which one you feel more tired after. Hopefully most people can understand this, even if you can't. I think most people who have worked out or played tennis before(at a high level) will find this pretty intuitive. If you ever do any demanding aerobic exercise, you'll probably find that experienced people, in whatever the activity, will talk about "pacing". This is due to the basic process I'm explaining. The WAY you travel the distance makes quite a difference in your fatigue even if it is the same distance.

It seems like you might be confusing "calories burned" with "tired". Certainly there is a general correlation between the 2 but they are NOT the same, nor is the correlation perfect!

Gmedlo
11-14-2008, 08:21 PM
bet: Oh my god, it's like Japanese Maple created another account. I'll solve the problem earlier this time around.

Heycal, they don't have 102 pounds of body fat, and why would anyone that somehow dips to fatally low body fat levels continue to restrict their calories? I mean, if they really wanted to, they could cut down to 98 pounds, assuming they want the majority of their muscle to atrophy and their bones to be as thin as paper.

If you want to be as uselessly hypothetical as you are then you have to think about why they couldn't continue to lose weight by restricting calories. It's because they would DIE. DIE. DEATH. GET IT?

heycal
11-14-2008, 08:35 PM
bet: Oh my god, it's like Japanese Maple created another account. I'll solve the problem earlier this time around.

Heycal, they don't have 102 pounds of body fat, and why would anyone that somehow dips to fatally low body fat levels continue to restrict their calories? I mean, if they really wanted to, they could cut down to 98 pounds, assuming they want the majority of their muscle to atrophy and their bones to be as thin as paper.

If you want to be as uselessly hypothetical as you are then you have to think about why they couldn't continue to lose weight by restricting calories. It's because they would DIE. DIE. DEATH. GET IT?

It's not a useless hypothetical, but a very useful one to illustrate the limitations of using math formulas in the field of dieting. The point I was trying to make, in case you haven't figured it out yet, is that I'm certain the body will adapt and change to the new calorie count after while, and you will not continue to lose 1 pound a week for as long as you dieted. Switching from 2300 to 1800 hundred calorie a day or whatever and staying there will certainly cease taking off the pounds after awhile.

Come on, use your head here...

r2473
11-14-2008, 09:07 PM
A big, fat no to that one, cal. If you plan on doing the old let it loose day, once a week, you'll get poor results because you'll put back everything you lost for the week in just one day. If you plan on doing it once a month, you can go for it if you like, but don't go overboard. You see how tough it is, cal? Even when you do it just once a month, you still have to be careful.

I don't have any links to back this statement up, but it worked for me. When I would get stuck at a weight, I would eat most of an entire large pizza. It would unstick me.

Nothing scientific. It simply worked for me. (It may or may not work for you. Everyone is different).

heycal
11-14-2008, 09:10 PM
I don't have any links to back this statement up, but it worked for me. When I would get stuck at a weight, I would eat most of an entire large pizza. It would unstick me.

Nothing scientific. It simply worked for me. (It may or may not work for you. Everyone is different).

So the occassional pig out actually helped you lose weight?

r2473
11-14-2008, 09:25 PM
So the occassional pig out actually helped you lose weight?

Yup.

Two years ago I lost (I believe) 17 pounds of fat and gained 1.5 pounds of muscle in around 16 weeks. I got my stats measured on the University "bod-pod" before and after my diet.

Here is all I did:

1) Determine my maintenance calories (13 - 15 * body weight). Use 13 multiple if you have a slow metabolism. 15 multiple if high metabolism.

2) Eat no less than 80% and no more than 90% of maintenance calories.

3) Do HIIT training. This training must be increased throughout the diet.

4) Weight train so the loss is fat and not muscle

5) Expect to lose about an average of 1 pound / week in a non-linear fashion.


I got stuck 2 or 3 times. I was really starving and felt weak. To unstick myself, I had "gorge days". But, only 2 or 3 in a 4 month period. I had read about this. I don't know if it is scientific, but it worked for me. But, I was really run down and fatigued. I was hitting the cardio hard and probably was dipping below the 80% of maintenance calories at times.

I am not saying that gorge days are a silver bullet. They may or may not work for you. I am only saying that in a test case of 1 (me) it worked.

Take it for what it is worth.

I will definately side with Rickson in saying that doing a gorge day every week would be a disaster. Once a month may even be too often. For me, it was only when I was really stuck. It was one day (well, actually just one very large meal). And, I never let up on my cardio or my weight training. That stayed consistent.

Rickson
11-14-2008, 10:35 PM
Better than Federer? I said Gino volleys better than Roddick, like that's so hard to believe. It's clear to me that Gmedlo is far more knowledgeable about weight training and nutrition than this clown who calls himself bet.

bet
11-14-2008, 10:58 PM
bet: Oh my god, it's like Japanese Maple created another account. I'll solve the problem earlier this time around.

Heycal, they don't have 102 pounds of body fat, and why would anyone that somehow dips to fatally low body fat levels continue to restrict their calories? I mean, if they really wanted to, they could cut down to 98 pounds, assuming they want the majority of their muscle to atrophy and their bones to be as thin as paper.

If you want to be as uselessly hypothetical as you are then you have to think about why they couldn't continue to lose weight by restricting calories. It's because they would DIE. DIE. DEATH. GET IT?

Apparently you still don't understand despite all the info I've given. I see by your posts that you are a 17 yr old who has often been accused of being a bratty kid who thinks he "knows it all". You've proven this once again. I also see you're interested in studying kinesiology. After a couple years of university, I think you'll understand what we're talking about here.

Incidently, your own "model" is again, astonishingly simplistic. They don't lose the weight because they don't have that much body fat and thus they will choose not to continue calorie restriction? :)

1.the body has homeostatic machanisms that can do a great deal of compensating for calorie restriction
2.weight loss will NOT come only from adipose tissue, sadly.
3. As I pointed out, you can easily find documentation of severe, extended calorie restriction, in many cases WELL over 500+ calories per day. And this is in "science"! In the real-world there are innumerable examples, you just have to think about it.

PS. This attitude is not going to cut it in univerisity. You are short-circuiting your own learning by not reading/listening to others and/or using critical thought. Just saying "OMG, I don't get it! What a joke!" is shameful.

bet
11-14-2008, 11:02 PM
Better than Federer? I said Gino volleys better than Roddick, like that's so hard to believe. It's clear to me that Gmedlo is far more knowledgeable about weight training and nutrition than this clown who calls himself bet.


I see you are indeed, the same as always. If you disagree with anything I've said, just specifically quote it and state your reasoning. I can elaborate on it. Not able to do that? That's what I thought.

And yes, individual who calls themselves "Rickson Gracie", it is hard to believe your 3.5 friend volleys better than Roddick but of course, seeing that requires:
1.knowledge/experience in tennis
2.common sense

Rickson
11-14-2008, 11:09 PM
Listen, betty. If I told you I shoot foul shots better than Shaq, would you say it was impossible because he's a pro? I make 85% of my foul shots and the last time I checked, Shaq wasn't even close to 80%. Just because he's a pro doesn't mean he's good at all facets of the game. Roddick is a pro tennis player, but that doesn't mean an amateur can't volley better than he can, but perhaps you're too simple to understand that.

bet
11-14-2008, 11:16 PM
Listen, betty. If I told you I shoot foul shots better than Shaq, would you say it was impossible because he's a pro? I make 85% of my foul shots and the last time I checked, Shaq wasn't even close to 80%. Just because he's a pro doesn't mean he's good at all facets of the game. Roddick is a pro tennis player, but that doesn't mean an amateur can't volley better than he can, but perhaps you're too simple to understand that.

Wonderful! It could not be anymore plain than this! Don't change the argument though! We're not talking about finding any amateur in the world. It's your buddy Gino. The 3.5 you hack around with who cleans your clock!

I am certain Gino would do very well at the net against a serious Federer, and by that I mean he'd succeed well in hurting his neck watching balls go by him and using his face his as a backstop...

Rickson
11-14-2008, 11:21 PM
Is that why Gino plays in 5.0 tournaments? If you don't know what you're talking about, and you clearly don't, just shut your trap.

Moz
11-15-2008, 01:31 AM
One thing to note, when talking about longer distance jogging(not anaerobic activities) is that, you will often hear fitness sheep now saying that "hey, you burn more calories running faster!". They will then show figures showing that you do burn more calories per mile at a faster pace. HOWEVER, the amount is TRIVIAL. Thus, it is true that if you run 30min. in both cases, you will burn a fair amount more at the faster pace. If you run say, 3 miles at either pace, calories burned during activity will be about the same. It will just take an extra 5-10 min. at a significantly slower pace. Thus, there are many factors to consider, in exercise programd design. Faster= better is thus not always true.

This seems to be a relatively common fallacy. We are all individuals but with regard to the calories burned at various running speeds there are 2 important issues:

1) When you perform a continuous exercise, you apparently burn five calories for every liter of oxygen you consume. You will burn more calories at faster running speeds, according to US Army:
Running at 5 MPH burns .064 calories per minute per pound of body weight
Running at 6 MPH burns .079 calories per minute per pound of body weight
Running at 10 MPH burns .10 calories per minute per pound of body weight
Running at 12 MPH burns .13 calories per minute per pound of body weight

In "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking.

The University of Texas found that running at 50% of your maximum heart rate burned 7 cals per minute while the same group at 75% of their mhr burned twice that.

2) Where the issue is complicated is where the calories actually come from. The University of Texas found that between 50 and 60% of your MHR 90% of calories were burned from fat whereas at 75% of your MHR only 60% of calories were burned from fat due to the body switching to carbs.

The implications should be obvious here.

bet
11-15-2008, 04:23 AM
Is that why Gino plays in 5.0 tournaments? If you don't know what you're talking about, and you clearly don't, just shut your trap.


OH! Now he plays 5.0 eh? LOL. Well you've changed the story and just a post ago you were claiming there is nothing unbelievable about a 3.5 outvolleying Roddick, Gino must have practiced a great deal inbetween those 2 posts!

bet
11-15-2008, 05:09 AM
This seems to be a relatively common fallacy. We are all individuals but with regard to the calories burned at various running speeds there are 2 important issues:

1) When you perform a continuous exercise, you apparently burn five calories for every liter of oxygen you consume. You will burn more calories at faster running speeds, according to US Army:
Running at 5 MPH burns .064 calories per minute per pound of body weight
Running at 6 MPH burns .079 calories per minute per pound of body weight
Running at 10 MPH burns .10 calories per minute per pound of body weight
Running at 12 MPH burns .13 calories per minute per pound of body weight

In "Energy Expenditure of Walking and Running," published last December in Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, a group of Syracuse University researchers measured the actual calorie burn of 12 men while running and walking 1,600 meters (roughly a mile) on a treadmill. Result: The men burned an average of 124 calories while running, and just 88 while walking.

The University of Texas found that running at 50% of your maximum heart rate burned 7 cals per minute while the same group at 75% of their mhr burned twice that.

2) Where the issue is complicated is where the calories actually come from. The University of Texas found that between 50 and 60% of your MHR 90% of calories were burned from fat whereas at 75% of your MHR only 60% of calories were burned from fat due to the body switching to carbs.

The implications should be obvious here.

Which implications Moz? I think your #2 issue is actually way to complex to be answered at this point, in terms of ultimate fat burning.(since that seems to be the most common goal). That one does, as you mention, get VERY complicated and at this point, I don't think we have a sophisticated enough physiological model to make a definitive statement on that one. Do you have a take on that?

The data you listed were interesting, a couple notes:

1.I wonder what the army's testing procedure was and how much data they got beyond the ones you listed. In the categories you listed, the 6mph runners were in the maximum calorie burning range per mile.

2. the syracuse university study does not sound good for our purposes. while running at various speeds may indeed entail biomechanical differences affecting energy expenditure, walking undoubtedly does, dramatically! A very qualitatively different movement as it's usually defined.

3.do you happen to have a link to the university of texas study you cited? Wouldn't mind taking a peak at that and seeing if they found any substantial differences in calories burned per mile.

Rickson
11-15-2008, 07:00 AM
Betty, find any post where Gino was said to be a 3.5. You really are dense, betty.

bet
11-15-2008, 07:30 AM
Betty, find any post where Gino was said to be a 3.5. You really are dense, betty.

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=8166&highlight=rickson+gino

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=9189&highlight=rickson+gino

In the first 3 threads I looked at, it seems you were asked repeatedly for Gino's credentials and never ever supplied them. Still, they were well worth reading if only to highlight the hilarity of your judgment! RECOMMENDED :)

"Forget about the fact that he's a pro and that he's improving his net game, can you volley better than one of the worst volleyers in men's pro tennis? I play with someone who is immensely better than Roddick at the net, but like every other amateur out there, he'd get demolished by Roddick in a match. How many of you volley better than Roddick? I don't think it's the most difficult task to accomplish."

"Gino has volleyed back some shots I've seen Roddick loop at best."
LOL

Gmedlo
11-15-2008, 08:31 AM
It's not a useless hypothetical, but a very useful one to illustrate the limitations of using math formulas in the field of dieting. The point I was trying to make, in case you haven't figured it out yet, is that I'm certain the body will adapt and change to the new calorie count after while, and you will not continue to lose 1 pound a week for as long as you dieted. Switching from 2300 to 1800 hundred calorie a day or whatever and staying there will certainly cease taking off the pounds after awhile.

Come on, use your head here...

I thought you were actually taking into account the decreased BMR with the lower weight, so you just sounded like a stickler to me :lol:

I guess it's partly my bad, sorry.

Rickson
11-15-2008, 09:49 AM
Don't worry, Gmed. You've proven that you're much more intelligent than this clown who calls himself bet.

Moz
11-16-2008, 05:52 AM
Which implications Moz? I think your #2 issue is actually way to complex to be answered at this point, in terms of ultimate fat burning.(since that seems to be the most common goal). That one does, as you mention, get VERY complicated and at this point, I don't think we have a sophisticated enough physiological model to make a definitive statement on that one. Do you have a take on that?

The data you listed were interesting, a couple notes:

1.I wonder what the army's testing procedure was and how much data they got beyond the ones you listed. In the categories you listed, the 6mph runners were in the maximum calorie burning range per mile.

2. the syracuse university study does not sound good for our purposes. while running at various speeds may indeed entail biomechanical differences affecting energy expenditure, walking undoubtedly does, dramatically! A very qualitatively different movement as it's usually defined.

3.do you happen to have a link to the university of texas study you cited? Wouldn't mind taking a peak at that and seeing if they found any substantial differences in calories burned per mile.

Hi Bet

Agreed it's complicated - made worse by the fact that everyone has different optimal fat burning zones. Here's an interesting article on them:

http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0690.htm

I guess all you can do is use the averages and, to burn fat, try and train at that level.

The implications from my point of view are you must firstly have a clear purpose for the workout. Once you have that you could work out the best intensity for you. The quote at the end suggests a higher intensity burns the same number of fat calories but more carb calories to increase the overall calorie burn. I would think you are better off at the slower speed - BUT ONLY BECAUSE IT ALLOWS YOU TO RUN FOR LONGER.

1. Yes, I'm not sure how detailed the study was. It would be interesting as you would hope that the army is the organisation with the best motivation to find out the real answer as I would assume it would feed into MRE's for soldiers in the field etc....

2. Agreed on that - just thought I'd throw it out there.

3. I got those figures from a training book that referred to the study and the author didn't put in a bloody reference to the name of the study. I have managed to track down this which mentions a book (bolded) which it infers contains the data:

"Professors Jack H.Wilmore (University of Texas at Austin) and David L. Costill (Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana) expose the fat burn fallacy in their beautifully designed textbook Physiology of Sport and Exercise (Human Kinetics, 1994): "Low-intensity aerobic activity does not necessarily lead to a greater expenditure of calories from fat. More importantly, the total caloric expenditure for a given period of time is much less when compared with high-intensity aerobic activity."

To illustrate they give the example of a 23-year-old woman who exercised for 30 minutes at 50% of her VO2 max on one day, and for 30 minutes at 75% on another. The total calories from fat were the same - in both sessions she burned 110 calories of fat. Most importantly, however, in the higher intensity workout she expended about 50% more calories for the same time period, 220 total calories for the 50% intensity workout and 332 for the 75% session."

http://www.cbass.com/FAQ.HTM

bet
11-17-2008, 05:05 AM
Hey, thanks Moz. Yes, it is complicated. Agree with much of what you said.

I'll never understand a "prof" who can say things like that last example! Like he's debunking some myth with his really nonsensical comparison and obvious insight. If your only goal is directly burning fat from exercise, (I am NOT a big fan of this paradigm/goal), it's hardly an even trade to exercise at 75% vs 50%! ;-)