EPTGeneral Training Recommendations - Page 4
| Forum Index > Sports |
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
phyre112
United States3090 Posts
On May 26 2013 11:38 Jerubaal wrote: This is probably a question just eliciting personal choice without any real hard boundaries, but are there any opinions on what a reasonable amount of weight gain is? If someone has a quote-unquote "baseline" weight of 150 lbs (68kg), it seems that gaining 30 lbs (13.6kg) of muscle, an increase of 20%, might not be completely desirable, especially if you want to stay active with a sport like basketball. Maybe the little guys can take on these weight gains better than the big guys, but has any thought gone into these considerations? It's mostly personal choice. A lot of people say "don't go over 15% bf at any given time" because after that, anecdotal experience says that it just gets easier and easier to get fat and never rain it back in. Most people freak out the first time they lose their abs, so going just up to the point you don't have them any more is a great cue/motivator to reign your diet back in. Then you cut the fat, and start all over trying to bulk up again. There's no reason not to gain 30 lbs over a long period of time though, no matter what you weighed to begin with. Just base it all on bf% and go slowly, in cycles. | ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
You can always gain ten pounds and see how you look, if aesthetics is all you're worried about. | ||
|
phyre112
United States3090 Posts
On May 26 2013 12:30 mordek wrote: I can't resist since there were two other homophones used, but I believe "rein" is the correct word :D You can always gain ten pounds and see how you look, if aesthetics is all you're worried about. it's reign I think. I'm posting from my phone and editing is totally not worth it. | ||
|
mordek
United States12704 Posts
 Like I said I couldn't resist, normally wouldn't have said anything.Related. I spent a good amount of time re-thinking an exercise routine since I need more structure to stick with it and get my goals, hopefully I'll post something this weekend for feedback. | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
Juice!
Belgium295 Posts
I kinda need strength AND endurance but how do i 'correctly' train both? People around me gave a few different examples like: - go to the gym, do your strength training and after the training run for X minutes on a treadmil. - run in the morning and gym in the evening, with a rest day in between. - ... Myself, i was thinking more in the line of: 1 day gym, 1 day running, 1 day gym, 1 day running, 1 day gym, 1 day running, rest. (with a 3 day split, leggs on saturday, so i have 2 days rest before i 'need' them again) But i'ld love to hear your view on this matter! | ||
|
ieatkids5
United States4628 Posts
- faster tempo for each movement (do each exercise movement quickly. explode into it.) - more weight (enough weight, but not so much that you cant finish your sets and be able to blast through each movement) - lower rep ranges per set (3 to 5 reps in each set) - higher numbers of sets (7 to 10 sets) - little rest in between sets and exercises (only around 30 to 45 seconds in between sets) | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On May 26 2013 11:38 Jerubaal wrote: This is probably a question just eliciting personal choice without any real hard boundaries, but are there any opinions on what a reasonable amount of weight gain is? If someone has a quote-unquote "baseline" weight of 150 lbs (68kg), it seems that gaining 30 lbs (13.6kg) of muscle, an increase of 20%, might not be completely desirable, especially if you want to stay active with a sport like basketball. Maybe the little guys can take on these weight gains better than the big guys, but has any thought gone into these considerations? Depends on your height. If you're super lightweight at 6'5" 150 then adding 30 lbs of muscle would only help you... If you're 5'0" then adding 30 lbs of muscle would make you the most ripped 5'0" on the face of the earth, but it probably wouldn't help you with basketball much. Keep in mind most of the NBA players are at least 6'0" or more and 220+ lbs. So yes, adding a substantial amount of muscle will likely only help and almost NEVER hurt. | ||
|
eshlow
United States5210 Posts
On May 27 2013 17:25 Juice! wrote: I'm going to start playing Handball and i was wondering, since it's offseason now I want to prepare for the start of the season. I kinda need strength AND endurance but how do i 'correctly' train both? People around me gave a few different examples like: - go to the gym, do your strength training and after the training run for X minutes on a treadmil. - run in the morning and gym in the evening, with a rest day in between. - ... Myself, i was thinking more in the line of: 1 day gym, 1 day running, 1 day gym, 1 day running, 1 day gym, 1 day running, rest. (with a 3 day split, leggs on saturday, so i have 2 days rest before i 'need' them again) But i'ld love to hear your view on this matter! In the off season you should focus mostly on strength gain. About a month or two before the season starts that's when you should start ramping up sessions of work with handball and running and just aim to maintain strength. So basically, run about 2x a week to maintain your aerobic base (longer running at around lac threshold) or so... and train strength 3-4x a week. If you're already pretty fit you should be able to handle something like: Mon: Strength Tu: Run W: Strength Th: Rest F: Strength Sat: STrength + Run Sun: Rest Focus mostly in the 5-8 rep range if you want to gain strength and muscle mass.... mostly in about 3-6 if just adding strength with no muscle gain. Focus diet towards these accordingly | ||
|
rEalGuapo
Germany832 Posts
Cardio is pretty damn good for your body. Even some bodybuilders say, if you only have 20-30 minutes to work out, do cardio. And the example of someone "eliminating cardio" was the example of someone changing his diet 100% AND eliminating cardio. Cardio does help losing weight more than you say/possibly know, that is because of the "afterburner effect" (I have no idea what the medical term might be) But 20 minutes of cardio actually "burn more calories" than you burn due to those 20 minutes, because the metabolic system will be working harder for a certain amount of time, once you get up to 40 or 50 minutes of cardio you get more out of the "afterburner" than during the actual cardio itself. Yes, diet is more important in weight loss and working on strength/muscle mass can be more effective. Also, if you just want to look better, packing on some bigger muscles under your fat will improve your physique very very fast. HOWEVER cardio is still important especially to improve your health. If you live on the fifth floor and take an elevator to get down on your way to the gym you are exactly the kind of person I despise. And a lot of people do that, because the neglect cardio. Just wanted to say that I think your points are valid but it would help A LOT to also write how and why cardio still is important for one's body. This is HEALTH and Fitness, is it not? | ||
|
Jerubaal
United States7684 Posts
| ||
|
ModernAgeShaman
Norway484 Posts
my conclusions were that high intensity strength workouts + sprinting helped my ability to do steady state cardio if i ever chose to, but steady state cardio did not help my fitness in other aspects. | ||
|
Komei
50 Posts
It has been difficult do study into how much exercise and what type of exercise is best for the human body. But if you read the studies there is starting to appear a convergence. Our bodies evolved, as did all animals, with 'exercise' build-in to our bodies. Our bodies expect to have to preform a certain amount of 'work'. Sitting behind a desk, computer or tv for most of the day is not what evolution molded our bodies to do. Studies show that people who cycle to work live significantly longer. This is a statistical observation. In the mean time we know how the mechanism works. Better heart and lungs and less overweight, etc. This exercise at very low intensity, honestly it is recovery intensity at like 60% of max heart rate, is very important for our human bodies (and for many pets as well). And in fact it would be better that we do a whole lot of it. And yes, it doesn't improve our performance in sports much. So most people consider it to be a waste of time. Our bodies also require some exercise of more intensity. Let's call this aerobic intensity. Say 70 to 80% of max hr. Debate is up about how much is too much. There are some studies that show that doing more of this than 3x a week 30 minutes can be harmful. Especially if it is in the upper range intensity-wise. But this research is still not widely accepted, partially because many people just have problems accepting our bodies don't benefit from doing intense effort marathons and triathlons and that even 10k races might be overdoing it. The details about this are that heart muscle gets damaged and the question is if the recovery from this, which it does, helps long-term health and age expectancy or not. Third is anaerobic cardio. This is the stuff that can get you overtrained really easily. (which is different from weight lifting where overtraining is quite hard). Many beginners actually start doing cardio mostly in this range. Their aerobic engine is not very big or they are overweight and thus they exercise with high intensity. Surely some anaerobic activity is something the human body 'likes' to deal with. A 100m sprint or a football match with short bursts of intensity and then recovery. But the question here again is how much is too much and how little is too little. Obviously more is not always better. When running a 5k race most people will be running anaerobically for most of it. And that's often a 20 minute effort. The big problem here seems to be people with small aerobic engines always training like they race. Call them weekend warriors, or people who buy into the 'HIIT is good for beginners' group. Training anaerobically trains the anaerobic system. It makes you deal better with having lactate build up in your body. But improvements to the anaerobic system come at the cost of less improvements to the aerobic system. Almost all professional endurance athletes train at low intensity 'steady state cardio' for the most part. This has actually been the old paradigm. You see it a lot in running where runners are trained by doing more and more miles. Same in cycling where long slow rides are considered to be the foundation of a training plan. This is because in endurance your aerobic engine determines most of your performance. Improving your mitochondria, getting more capillaries, conditioning the body to burn fat as efficiently as possible, they are key. But all this is as slow if not slower than 'building muscle'. Beginners seem to have the 'no pain no gain'-mentality and they see improvements by training at high intensity. Maybe they see increase in performance because they adjust mentally and manage to push their bodies more. In running you always see people think there is a need for speedwork, that doing sprints improves their 5k time, that they need to do strides or that they need to run at a certain pace to train speed into their mind. But in the end a 5k performance all comes down on the oxygen management of the body and speedwork is unimportant. Interval training and intense workouts surely have their place in certain training programs. For a professional dealing with lactate build-up is an important factor in winning races. But for beginners and amateurs they are overrated in their ability to improve endurance. As for losing weight, the calories you burn doing a long bike ride can never come close to the cardio burned by the max no. of sprints you can do. Running fast and sprints are a big risk factor for getting injured. And nothing harms your health and fitness more than being injured. Sprints are pretty cool as they are full body strength workouts for your muscles. But cardio-wise, they don't do much. Someone like Usain Bolt will almost never do sprints as training. What he will do is squats etc for muscle strength, low intensity cardio for more endurance (at the end of the 100m every sprinter will be slowing down because of fatigue) and technique drills for better running form. Same is true for someone like Michael Phelps. Same is true for almost every running distance. If you run 400m, you never run 400m in training. You run either less or more. If you run 1k you never run 1k in training, either less or more. If you run 5k, same. Also, anecdotal 'evidence' from people's experiences with some cardio training plan are fine and all, but they don't mean anything. If someone tells me 'steady state cardio never helped me' then that doesn't mean anything to me because unless he measured it he can't know it. Both the training plan he actually did and the effect it had on his body are two unknowns unless they are carefully measured. Another factor, I see some people do 'I did treadmill running a lot'. But isn't that extremely boring? And you live in Norway. It's summer right now. I'd be touring around every third day on my bike if I could. Exploring, enjoying the weather, the scenery and the nature. Do you know every nice place to go to within 50 km of your place? How many places are there around your city&town where you have never been? If it isn't fun to do 'exercise' how are you going to last? Maybe there's a reason why most people are unhealthy and out of shape. Having fun and being consistent are more important then the theoretically most perfect way to improve performance. On June 08 2013 11:34 Jerubaal wrote: Give me a reason why I should do steady state cardio over sprinting or other aerobic calisthenicy things. So to be short: 1) Less risk of injury 2) Improves different systems of your body which are more important for everyday fitness and health 3) Able to absorb more volume 4) Able to burn more calories 5) Builds your aerobic engine faster, for better performance 6) Less risk of overtraining/burnout 7) It's great for recovery from training or injury (better blood flow to damaged tissues). 8) During everyday activity you never feel winded, feel like you have a big overhead of oxygen 9) You feel great afterways rather than exhausted (assuming HIIT). 10) It's a lifestyle, not an exercise regime. | ||
|
Vitruvian
United States168 Posts
| ||
|
GunSec
1095 Posts
But I have a problem right now, I recently bought new shoes to prevent pronating. I have been trying it out now 2 days and I still get some pain in my legs while I run, is it because of the shoes and that I am now using muscles I didn't use before with the old shoes? I am also little bit overweight but I will go hardcore now, planning to jog every single day and last week I ran 4 times. | ||
|
Komei
50 Posts
Also, there is a lot of confusion and misunderstanding about running and no one yet has all the answers. Pronation is such a thing. By definition, one has to pronate. It is over-pronation that has been considered bad. But even that is up for debate. And for shoes preventing over-pronation, there has never been any evidence to show that shoes can actually do such a thing. If you are a bit overweight, already have pain, have shoes that attempt to correct your gait and you want to go hardcore running, that is a problem. Could be a recipe for disaster. Even if you are completely pain-free, even if you used to run a lot as a child and teenager injury-free, going into a hardcore running problem is not advisable. Anyone, anyone has to slowly build up the distance. Ligaments and tendons have to toughen up and that is a slow process. You run to toughen up your tissues, not to improve fitness. Getting in shape through running doesn't work for many people. Maybe we are all born to run, but if it is not developed early in life, it may be impossible to become a 'runner'. Based on what you say, I would recommend cycling for building cardio. It also helps with weight loss but only with a proper diet. There are other types of low-injury rate forms of cardio. The elliptical is really good but it's mind-numbing to me. Swimming is of course great. Once weight is lost you can try to go for a run. But take babysteps and try to only run pain-free. In case of pain, stop. I normally recommend neutral shoes to anyone, over-pronating or not. I personally don't believe in the stuff shoe manufactures made up. Also, adjusting your gait all on your own usually means you get even more problems. You get injured trying to make yourself run with a more proper running form. On June 11 2013 06:03 Vitruvian wrote: My [citation needed] key broke. This isn't a research paper. To which can't you find the studies? Rather than attempt to ridicule, try to have a more constructive and less negative attitude? Most people that follow the research already so it is obviously a waste of time to act like this is indeed a scholarly article. Also, no one post references on casual forums. Also, bad meme. | ||
|
Vitruvian
United States168 Posts
On June 11 2013 09:23 Komei wrote: This isn't a research paper. To which can't you find the studies? Rather than attempt to ridicule, try to have a more constructive and less negative attitude? Most people that follow the research already so it is obviously a waste of time to act like this is indeed a scholarly article. Also, no one post references on casual forums. Also, bad meme. "Critical" and "Constructive" are not antonyms. Why make unsupported assertions if you don't have the emotional fortitude to handle the inevitable dissent? "No one post references on casual forums" is one such unsupported (and wildly inaccurate) assertion. Let me list more below: "Health and fitness are two different things and sometimes they can work against each other." "It has been difficult do study into how much exercise and what type of exercise is best for the human body." "Studies show that people who cycle to work live significantly longer. This is a statistical observation." <-- This one is hilariously ironic "There are some studies that show that doing more of this than 3x a week 30 minutes can be harmful." "Someone like Usain Bolt will almost never do sprints as training. What he will do is squats etc for muscle strength, low intensity cardio for more endurance (at the end of the 100m every sprinter will be slowing down because of fatigue) and technique drills for better running form." "Same is true for someone like Michael Phelps." | ||
|
Komei
50 Posts
So what do you have to contribute again? It's up to you to show that you are constructive. | ||
|
Vitruvian
United States168 Posts
On June 11 2013 11:04 Komei wrote: It is 'nice' that my posts were 'good enough' to be 'hilarious', but that was sadly not my intention. Also, copy&pasting my text that had this unintentional effect seems quite useless. Not sure what you hope to achieve with that since I can hardly respond to a copy&paste of my own text. So what do you have to contribute again? It's up to you to show that you are constructive. You're seriously challenging my assumption that people actually read posts before responding to them. Or maybe you did read it, and simply chose to ignore the part where I said "unsupported assertion." Twice. If you are so confident in your claims that you don't feel the need to support them with any evidence, your response to someone calling your bullshit should be a simple matter of providing that evidence, not whining about "constructive" and "negative." Here, I'll play along. I will be constructive, Komei style. 1.) Sprinting and other high-intensity cardio burns exactly 8.475x more calories than steady state per unit of effort invested. 2.) Studies show that Olympic weightlifting lowers your risk of contracting syphilis. 3.) Someone like Ilya Ilin will almost never do full snatches or clean & jerks as training. What he will do is leg extensions for the ladies, hammer curls for the bros, and bosu ball pushups for his Gold's Gym personal trainer. 4.) Same is true for Liao Hui. | ||
| ||
