Ur back! Revolving door?
Gaining Muscle and Losing Fat (2015)
- Thread starter Baron
- Start date
- Status
Ur back! Revolving door?
after your big snatch why must you drop it strait down BIG BOOM for all the gym to take notice?
oh, i guess i answered my own question, thank god for bumper plates
Have you read Body by Science?
I realize it is somewhat controversial, and I don't really buy everything McGuff says (working out only once a week, for starters). But he is an MD so it's safe to say he knows more than I do. In any event, he rails against lengthy, moderate intensity cardio both because of the supposed wasted time and what he claims to be the ill effects that it can cause. He explains his rationale, and I'm wondering what is your take if you have read the book.
I've never read it. According to my exercise phys professors and a doctor who was doing a fellowship with us (post med school) MD's don't know shit about exercise. It's not really studied in medical school. At least according to the MD that was in my classes. This of course is one doctor and one medical school. The clients I've worked with most of their doctors gave them nothing but extremely general guidelines with regards to exercise. That being "walk at a moderate pace" and "listen to your trainer".
What would be the ill effects of lengthy moderate cardio? What's lengthy?
Generally I run bc I play basketball. If I don't run I notice a difference on the court for sure, but I suppose running isn't necessary to build a strong heart.
What would be the ill effects of lengthy moderate cardio? What's lengthy?
Generally I run bc I play basketball. If I don't run I notice a difference on the court for sure, but I suppose running isn't necessary to build a strong heart.
I don't remember off hand, but I suppose what most cardio devotees would consider a suitable duration. He goes into considerable detail, so I suggest you have a quick look when you're in a bookstore. In a nutshell, he claims that the health benefits of aerobic exercise to the cardiovascular system are overstated and potentially negative if taken to excess, that such exercise can actually make the muscles atrophy, and of course he remarked on the damage that running can do to ankles, knees and hips. Again, I won't say I swallow all of this whole, but it is music to my ears. (Did I mention I dislike conventional cardio?)
I understand. If cardiovascular exercise is intense enough and long enough you're essentially burning a greater percentage of calories from carbohydrate first, then protein, then fat hence why marathon runners have shitty physiques. A much lower intensity will burn a greater % from fat however fewer total fat calories overall when compared to longer more instense activity. If that makes sense. Respiratory exchange ratio would explain that if you're interested.
I think one needs to understand what they need to do in order to achieve their goals. You can't tell a pro athlete not to run. Any old Joe doesn't need to run countless hours. If I don't run 15-20 mins (about a half of basketball) I'm tired and shitty on the court.
I'll check that book out at some point.
I think one needs to understand what they need to do in order to achieve their goals. You can't tell a pro athlete not to run. Any old Joe doesn't need to run countless hours. If I don't run 15-20 mins (about a half of basketball) I'm tired and shitty on the court.
I'll check that book out at some point.
Since this is your field, I'd be curious to know what you think. So please let me know when you have a look. In the meantime, here's an article by Clarence Bass discussing the BBS author's views of aerobic exercise:
http://www.cbass.com/AerobicsNeedIt.htm
And from the BBS website, here's the thing I just can't wrap my head around -- the once a week workout:
http://www.bodybyscience.net/home.html/?p=199
On the plus side, having read the book, it did make me feel better (less guilty) about cutting down my workouts from 3x a week to 2x. And it prompted me to cut out the weekend augmented cardio of 500-600 bodyweight squats (with the previously noted 25off/25on speed intervals) that I began when I went to 2x a week.
Last edited:
I glanced at those articles but I'll take a deeper look in a bit. The big thing is what can someone actually perform regularly? For example when they say "all out sprint", who can really perform that? If I had a client do that they would probably never come back to train w me and possibly quit exercise altogether. I disagree as well with certain aspects such as the heart and lungs don't know line. The walls of the heart do strengthen/thicken however when a resistance is applied they tend to thicken towards the inside of the heart which isn't what you want. I don't know how heavy someone would leg press and how long for cardiovascular benefit but it's definitely not the same. I mean (not to sound whatever) but your heart can pound during sexual activity, is that the same? Also any movement where your arms are elevated to heart level or higher i.e. A row or pulldown etc. your heart rate is "falsely elevated". So if your heart rate reaches I don't know let's say 140bpm doing a pulldown it is not the same as running or biking. Again it's what is the purpose of exercise? You'll burn more calories in 60mins on the bike than a 4min squat tabata. Most people can't even squat correctly no matter how much instruction they get lol. This is due to a bunch of different reasons of course. Are you trying to burn more calories to help w weight loss? Are we trying to just get the strongest as far as heart/lungs/muscles go in the least amount of time? There's also the different energy pathways that can be trained depending on what ones goals are/daily life activities/ job requirements. That being ATP, glycolysis, and oxidation and becoming efficient in those pathways. If a marathon runner only sprints I doubt he or she would have any shot at winning the race.
McGuff, one of BBS's co-authors, does differentiate between performance-specific training and general conditioning to better prepare someone for performance-specific training or just for the sake of general health and fitness. But, as we discussed he has little good to say about traditional cardio for its own sake. I won't pretend to know the science and I'm not motivated enough to do research beyond what little I did. All I can say is that, thus far, my blood pressure, triglycerides and cholesterol levels are as good as they were before I gave up regular cardio. (Let's hope it continues.)
Regarding the calorie expenditure of conventional cardio as compared to HIIT (such as the Tabata protocol or the like), my understanding is that, although more calories may be expended during the longer regular cardio workout, the prolonged elevation of the metabolism using the HIIT approach will more than offset. Plus HIIT may add a bit of lean muscle tissue, whereas regular cardio, not so much. (As you may have noticed, I'm still selling the idea to myself.)
Regarding the calorie expenditure of conventional cardio as compared to HIIT (such as the Tabata protocol or the like), my understanding is that, although more calories may be expended during the longer regular cardio workout, the prolonged elevation of the metabolism using the HIIT approach will more than offset. Plus HIIT may add a bit of lean muscle tissue, whereas regular cardio, not so much. (As you may have noticed, I'm still selling the idea to myself.)
- Status