|
Thanks, we'll try the assisted puilups next time.
The reason I'm using dumbbells is because my gym doesn't have barbells... 
It's the gym at the apartment I'm living in, can't really afford a gym membership at the moment. Do you think I should just slow down my right arm? As in just not move on to a higher weight when I finish the 5x7. Maybe have my left arm get another go at the 5x7 after I finish it (with the left) so it can get stronger? I know I'll be limiting the progress on my right arm, but if it can help the imbalance, it might be worth it.
|
On September 14 2012 05:13 ieatkids5 wrote:Thanks, we'll try the assisted puilups next time. The reason I'm using dumbbells is because my gym doesn't have barbells... It's the gym at the apartment I'm living in, can't really afford a gym membership at the moment. Do you think I should just slow down my right arm? As in just not move on to a higher weight when I finish the 5x7. Maybe have my left arm get another go at the 5x7 after I finish it (with the left) so it can get stronger? I know I'll be limiting the progress on my right arm, but if it can help the imbalance, it might be worth it.
I'd just do your left arm first, then match the left arm with the right for each set. It won't do much, though, unless you actively work to train yourself to be ambidextrous, as you'll still be inclined to do normal behavior favoring your right arm. It won't automatically be a big difference, but it will maintain the existence of a difference.
|
On September 14 2012 05:46 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On September 14 2012 05:13 ieatkids5 wrote:Thanks, we'll try the assisted puilups next time. The reason I'm using dumbbells is because my gym doesn't have barbells... It's the gym at the apartment I'm living in, can't really afford a gym membership at the moment. Do you think I should just slow down my right arm? As in just not move on to a higher weight when I finish the 5x7. Maybe have my left arm get another go at the 5x7 after I finish it (with the left) so it can get stronger? I know I'll be limiting the progress on my right arm, but if it can help the imbalance, it might be worth it. I'd just do your left arm first, then match the left arm with the right for each set. It won't do much, though, unless you actively work to train yourself to be ambidextrous, as you'll still be inclined to do normal behavior favoring your right arm. It won't automatically be a big difference, but it will maintain the existence of a difference.
time to start doing everything with my left hand then hahaha
|
Thanks for the advice on my form everyone. I'll try to incorporate everyone's advice and maybe in another month or two I'll post a new video for critique (with a better camera angle as well).
|
Hey haven't posted in this sub in a while. Looking for some advice.
I'm 5'10 200lb. Need to get down to 190, ideally 185. I got pretty much a month. It's for the air force.
I did ss mostly throughout the year, and still continue to do it. However, due to the accelerated need I'm now spending like 4 hours a day at the gym just wandering around doing random cardio like swim/cycle/treadmill. Is this good for the exercise portion? The airforce officer physicals are just situps, pushups, and a mile run. Normally I don't and wouldn't do treadmill but its training for the mile run I guess. I do some flutter kicks as well.
I literally only eat like once or twice a day. I eat 1.5 chicken breast with garlic chili sauce, spinach, and like half a handful of rice. It's usually a large portion of chicken, since its only once a day. Always the same thing. Using unsalted kerrygold to cook it. Tea, water, coffee only. Coffee rarely, its a parent thing.
I'm trying to lift as much as possible without failing obviously.
Any obvious holes or advice? Very much appreciated.
|
cardio + eating less will make you lose weight pretty easily, so your plan is pretty good imo.
|
On September 14 2012 11:08 Ack1027 wrote:
Hey haven't posted in this sub in a while. Looking for some advice.
I'm 5'10 200lb. Need to get down to 190, ideally 185. I got pretty much a month. It's for the air force.
I did ss mostly throughout the year, and still continue to do it. However, due to the accelerated need I'm now spending like 4 hours a day at the gym just wandering around doing random cardio like swim/cycle/treadmill. Is this good for the exercise portion? The airforce officer physicals are just situps, pushups, and a mile run. Normally I don't and wouldn't do treadmill but its training for the mile run I guess. I do some flutter kicks as well.
I literally only eat like once or twice a day. I eat 1.5 chicken breast with garlic chili sauce, spinach, and like half a handful of rice. It's usually a large portion of chicken, since its only once a day. Always the same thing. Using unsalted kerrygold to cook it. Tea, water, coffee only. Coffee rarely, its a parent thing.
I'm trying to lift as much as possible without failing obviously.
Any obvious holes or advice? Very much appreciated.
Diet is 85% of weight loss right there. Stick with just fruits, vegetables, meats, fish, and eggs. Rice is ok as long asyou don't eat too much.
4 hours at the gym is just a waste of time.
For PT running you only need to do about 30-45 maybe up to 60 minutes of running per day max. 4-5 days a week.
Do heavy lifting 1-2x a week, and then work on endurance the other 2-3x a week. 2 full days off is good as well.
Running + exercise should at most take 2 hours.
Flutter kicks are a waste. If you need to do well at situps then do situps. If you need something harder do NOT do anything on your back -- planks, L-sits, hanging leg raises, ab wheel are all way superior.
|
What are "gains" (not grains) and how can running be bad for your health, unless you have weak knees or something?
It seems to be some sort of internet-meme and I don't understand it.
|
On September 15 2012 02:38 kafkaesque wrote:
What are "gains" (not grains) and how can running be bad for your health, unless you have weak knees or something?
It seems to be some sort of internet-meme and I don't understand it.
Idea is that it burns calories that would otherwise go toward muscle growth, and also triggers your body to be trying to do 2 kinds of adaptations at once (at least assuming you're strength training as well) so for optimal results you can't really do both. That said, I do both and enjoy it, so it's all up to you 
|
Calories don't build muscle.
|
On September 15 2012 02:38 kafkaesque wrote:
What are "gains" (not grains) and how can running be bad for your health, unless you have weak knees or something?
It seems to be some sort of internet-meme and I don't understand it.
running isnt bad for your health.
"gains" usually refers to an increase in strength or muscle mass, as in: you gained strength/muscle mass.
|
On September 15 2012 06:04 Hanakurena wrote:
Calories don't build muscle.
Are you implying that energy is not conserved in the body?
I am confused.
Wikipedia:
Anabolism (from Greek ana, "upward", and ballein, "to throw") is the set of metabolic pathways that construct molecules from smaller units.[1] These reactions require energy.
Examples of anabolic processes include the growth and mineralization of bone and increases in muscle mass.
|
Everything the body does requires energy. So it's an absurd notion that I suggest energy isn't conserved. Calories build fat, not muscle. Training and recovery of the muscle build muscle.
|
On September 15 2012 22:47 Hanakurena wrote:
Everything the body does requires energy. So it's an absurd notion that I suggest energy isn't conserved. Calories build fat, not muscle. Training and recovery of the muscle build muscle.
Wouldn't a limited amount of energy limit how much muscle can be built?
|
On September 15 2012 22:47 Hanakurena wrote:
Everything the body does requires energy. So it's an absurd notion that I suggest energy isn't conserved. Calories build fat, not muscle. Training and recovery of the muscle build muscle.
Calories are a mandatory part of the process. At best you're being misleading and disingenuous, it's like saying you don't need wood to build a deck, you need nails. Your fasteners and your plans may be the things that bring all the wood together, but they don't turn into a deck on their own.
Also, you do know that "calories" come from multiple sources, including protein and fats? Calories is just a unit of measurement, and a broad one at that.
|
Lol, this agenda is getting ridiculous. Are we going into semantics here now? If so, calories very much build muscle mass.
Training and recovery do not let additional mass appear out of thin air.
Or you mean that all these calories build fat first, which then turns to muscle. But that is of course not true at all, at least not in its simplicity, and I assume you know that.
And what the hell, calling one guy's post "absurd", while just providing nothing but a provocative one-liner.
|
Every non-infinite number is finite. So there is always a limit to how many calories you are eating.
Calories are not a limiting factor on muscle development. Bodyshape-wise calories only affect how much fat you have.
Now unless your body is in starvation-mode and at extremely low body fat, you have the energy/protein/calories to respond to strength training.
A lot of people say otherwise but this is a very old and very stubborn myth unsupported by any scientific study. It actually goes back to the Greeks who throught muscle burned muscle(protein) and athletes performed as well as they did because of eating meat. Go read the Illiad. What are they eating all the time?
Then go read the historical accounts of what Greek Olympians ate. That's where this myth originates.
Muscle fibers only grow as fast as they do, which is very slow. The body isn't going to not recover from a training session when the body has ample energy reserves and protein. And it needs very little anyway.
You probably shouldn't be on a calorie-resticting diet (I believe calorie counting is a bad way to go either way) but the idea that more calories/protein stimulate muscle growth is silly. If you are getting fat you are doing it wrong. And if you are fat and not losing weight, you are doing it wrong.
Also, cardio doesn't burn muscle. Muscle fibers can't be burned anyway. They have to be broken down first, then in theory what is left can be burned. Overtraining burns muscle, not cardio.
On September 16 2012 00:07 Malinor wrote:
And what the hell, calling one guy's post "absurd", while just providing nothing but a provocative one-liner.
You didn't read what he posted, did you. Go read it.
Also, I have one agenda. That is to inform people properly and correct myths unsupported by science.
You people have a different agenda. That's to look cool, be part of the group, gain respect from the regulars and take a jab at anyone that isn't part of the cult.
Now which agenda you like better? Hypocrite.
|
So wait, are we coming back to your cardio obsession here, or your vegan diet thing? Or maybe both? I'm starting to have trouble untangling the web of insanity going on here.
Just out of curiosity, who the fuck is talking about "burning" muscle? If we're still talking about the guy joining the military, he should be much more worried about fat, although the tape test they did when I was in was always a bit bizarre.
Let's get some disclosure, what do you actually think is "ideal", so that we actually know what's being argued for a change.
|
Just responding to one-liners people make. Burning calories through cardio isn't going to take away from the calories needed to respond to strength training. Unless, you are 4% body fat and not replenishing your energy after working out.
Overtraining does destroy muscle. If you blow out your leg muscles from doing squats and cardio almost every other day, then the cardio is a problem.
|
At least you explained yourself now. But of course you still couldn't go without some low blows at the end.
You think we have a cult going on in here with eshlow as our leader, so be it. You just don't do your homework very well, you just assume. Eshlow, who tries to make all of us fat to gain a lot of muscle, is actually a ~135lb gymnast. And I have had my share of heated arguments with him in the past (paleo, running form i.e.). You are in a forum full of college educated people for crying out loud, If you believe that every regular here is just a blind follower to whatever some random internet-personality tells them to do, then I cannot help you. I'll just stop arguing with you now and just treat you as every other troll, ignoring you.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
