How about a permanent monthly fitness skills thread?

[woodstock31]

We have been alternating hanging knees to elbows with the ab roller and that seems to do the trick.

 

[mcjhrobinson]

ok this thread keeps coming up....i'll be moving (again) so i now need to trim off this winter weight i put on since i thought id be in the cold....

i have no clue what i weigh i think around 200-210.....hoping to get back down to 180.

my plan is to do tons of hiking and cut down on the beer. im also hoping to do more plyometrics and bodyweight workouts....id also like to try some yoga....

 

[DrivebyTrucker]

I have a question about cardio.

Two scenario's, and I want to know if there the same.

1. Running/elptical/biking/fighting ninjas/etc For set amount of time 10minutes,30minutes, whatever) that keeps your heart rate in a constant cardio zone (140-170, pick any number you like)

VS...........................................................................................

2.Hacky Sack! Yes Hacky Sack. For the same amount of time in example one. And keeping your heart rate at exactly the same as example one (assume your wearing a heart rate monitor)

Question....Are these the same?

I know some of those examples in example 1. also tone and strengthen. But......Is the cardio value the same?

Thank you.

 

[koyote]

I have a question about cardio.

Two scenario's, and I want to know if there the same.

1. Running/elptical/biking/fighting ninjas/etc For set amount of time 10minutes,30minutes, whatever) that keeps your heart rate in a constant cardio zone (140-170, pick any number you like)

VS...........................................................................................

2.Hacky Sack! Yes Hacky Sack. For the same amount of time in example one. And keeping your heart rate at exactly the same as example one (assume your wearing a heart rate monitor)

Question....Are these the same?

I know some of those examples in example 1. also tone and strengthen. But......Is the cardio value the same?

Thank you.

Hacky sack was invented to strengthen- it's originally a physiotherapy device.

Just so we all know

The answer is so tough I don't even want to start. There's cardio and there's cardio, then there's resistance cardio and sorta cardio- there's even aerobic and anaerobic cardio.

All I can say is I judge my own cardio by breaking a sweat and feeling a bit flushed in the cheeks. I tried to figure out all the various types of cardio (which all burn fat differently!) and gave up.

 

[sasha]

Koyote I do eat healthy and done so for a long time. I maybe have one can of soda in a month. No fast food unless its slowly made by me at home. But i do eat too much sometimes and too much of good food ends up not so good lol. Thats what kills me more then anything. For now im working out ever other day and about an hour each time. I do already feel the difrence

Sasha

 

[Sharp_newbie]

As of Monday me and my wife have bought gym memberships and i have started working out. I was always a big guy and 3 years ago i changed everything with this diet ( i went from being 270lbs waist 42 to 195 waist 34-36 in 3 months) and everything was looking good, then life got in the way. had to move, got a job where i was working 20 hours a day (operating a flush-by, basically sitting on my butt watching a pressure gauge.) and stopped working out all together. also got into drugs quite a bit and by about july last year i was eating only convinience store food. bad combo and the damage was that now im sitting at 310 lbs with a 46 waist. not good. moved again recently, Quits the drugs. getting my back on track and decided that i have had enough of being bent out of shape so my new years resolution this year (its a big one, and a two parter) was first to master eating properly, so far so good. and get back into my size 34 by the summer. also i bet my father a football jersey (loser buys) that i could lose more weight than he could before April.
Sorry that this turned into a bit of a rant, but what i am saying is that im in 100% this will be a good monthly checkup for me. so far so good. here are my stats as of monday

weight 310lbs
height 6'2
wait 46
belly 54

good luck to everyone andsee you guys on the other side.

 

[DrivebyTrucker]

Hacky sack was invented to strengthen- it's originally a physiotherapy device.

Just so we all know

The answer is so tough I don't even want to start. There's cardio and there's cardio, then there's resistance cardio and sorta cardio- there's even aerobic and anaerobic cardio.

All I can say is I judge my own cardio by breaking a sweat and feeling a bit flushed in the cheeks. I tried to figure out all the various types of cardio (which all burn fat differently!) and gave up.

Your answer sucks!
But no I figured it simply wouldn't be that simple. After all your rate becomes elevated when your stressed....but I don't think that counts as cardio. That would be like a fat guy sweating while taking a dump and then calling it a workout
But yeah I like hacky sack. I wear a wrist watch/heart rate monitor when I do it (Hacky Sack that is....although I'm sure my heart rate gets into cardio mode during ahem...other activities) and I do keep my heart rate up. Also I can sometimes feel sore on my legs and core if I get crazy on the hacky

Keep your exercise fun guys:thumbup:

 

[harkamus]

I have a question about cardio.

Two scenario's, and I want to know if there the same.

1. Running/elptical/biking/fighting ninjas/etc For set amount of time 10minutes,30minutes, whatever) that keeps your heart rate in a constant cardio zone (140-170, pick any number you like)

VS...........................................................................................

2.Hacky Sack! Yes Hacky Sack. For the same amount of time in example one. And keeping your heart rate at exactly the same as example one (assume your wearing a heart rate monitor)

Question....Are these the same?

I know some of those examples in example 1. also tone and strengthen. But......Is the cardio value the same?

Thank you.

I will answer this based on what I learned in my undergrad in exercise science.

The two are not the same. Your heart does go up for hacky sack, but you're not really using your body the same way you would during cardio. In order to burn fat you have to use large muscle groups over a prolonged period of time. To do that you have to propel the body forward, whether in running, biking, walking (fast enough), swimming, or what have you. You're not doing that with hacky sack. As such, I don't even believe you're using the same energy pathway during a bout of hacky sack.

For cardio, you're going to be utilizing the aerobig glycolysis pathway to utilize fat substrate as energy.

As an analogy, I can do a circuit weight training session and get my heart rate up just as much. Did that burn as much fat as if I ran? The answer is a definite no.

And please, no one site some foolish online weight lifting site that argues the opposite...that circuit training does burn substantial fat. My knowledge comes from textbooks and peer reviewed journal articles.

But with all things, take this with a grain of salt. If hacky sack were the only form of exercise you did, then definitely don't stop.

EDIT: If anyone wants to get serious about cardio, I will post metabolic calculations that you can use to calculate how much calories you're burning.

 

[retzius]

Well I have the opposite problem.

I can't put weight on.

I am 6'0" and 158 pounds. Very lean 4-6% body fat.

I have always done lots of cardio. I can run and swim for days but have a hard time putting any upper body muscle on.

When I was in the military, when I was training and they fed me like crazy, I was up to 175 and was solid.

Unless I eat till I feel like puking I can't put any mass on.

And I hate protein powder

 

[harkamus]

Well I have the opposite problem.

I can't put weight on.

I am 6'0" and 158 pounds. Very lean 4-6% body fat.

I have always done lots of cardio. I can run and swim for days but have a hard time putting any upper body muscle on.

When I was in the military, when I was training and they fed me like crazy, I was up to 175 and was solid.

Unless I eat till I feel like puking I can't put any mass on.

And I hate protein powder

You're an obvious ectomorph. Something else that is obvious is to not do so much cardio anymore. You don't need to be burning any more fat that you do have on your body. Protein powder isn't all that if you eat other protein sources. Just eat more food that has protein. I'm not gonna prescribe exercise for you since I don't have enough information, but I can suggest you try lifting shorter duration, but higher intensity for the large muscle groups. Don't go crazy with sets. 2 - 3 should be fine...for each muscle group, not for each exercise. In fact, I'll suggest the basics, some kind of bench (dbell or barbell bench), squats, deadlifts, and pullups. Do 2 - 3 days total body routines, or have a 2 day split that you do twice a week. Try that. For splits, your sessions shouldn't last more than 30 minutes.

EDIT: Let me quantify heavy: Some weight that you can lift to failure in 3 - 5 reps. The weights you lift may take some trial and error at first til you find out how heavy you can go for that rep range. Consider your first couple sessions experimental. Also, don't forget to progress once you hit 3 sets of 5 on everything. Then it's time to bump up weight.

 

[Moff8]

The previous posts did me the world of good too

started at

226 lbs
40" waist

as of 3/1/2010, put on 2 lbs over xmas

206 lbs
34" waist

trying to keep calorie intake at 1800/day and enough exercise to burn off 400 calories every day, mainly climbing stairs, squats and press ups. Doesn't always happen but it is what I aim for.

 

[HawGorn]

I will answer this based on what I learned in my undergrad in exercise science.

The two are not the same. Your heart does go up for hacky sack, but you're not really using your body the same way you would during cardio. In order to burn fat you have to use large muscle groups over a prolonged period of time. To do that you have to propel the body forward, whether in running, biking, walking (fast enough), swimming, or what have you. You're not doing that with hacky sack. As such, I don't even believe you're using the same energy pathway during a bout of hacky sack.

For cardio, you're going to be utilizing the aerobig glycolysis pathway to utilize fat substrate as energy.

As an analogy, I can do a circuit weight training session and get my heart rate up just as much. Did that burn as much fat as if I ran? The answer is a definite noAnd please, no one site some foolish online weight lifting site that argues the opposite...that circuit training does burn substantial fat. My knowledge comes from textbooks and peer reviewed journal articles.

But with all things, take this with a grain of salt. If hacky sack were the only form of exercise you did, then definitely don't stop.

You're sorta missing the point, though you are right about the heart rate, aerobic zone and energy pathways etc., any exercise burns calories. So you'd probably have to hacky sack way longer to burn the same amount of calories than some other "more standard" exercise. In the end all that matters is calories in vs. calories out. Whatever the way you make that deficit, at the end of the day the body has to compensate for the calories burned. At some point during the day (or whathave you for a timeframe) you are going be using the fat deposits for energy even if your exercise mode was anaerobic. And I'm not talking about EPOC (or whatever ppl are calling it today), "normal people" usually don't and can't induce enough EPOC for it to make an iota of difference. Ten minutes of HIIT or whatever results only in marginal rise in EPOC.

Very crude example:
Calories in 2000kcal
a) calories out 700kcal, running X minutes at a heartrate 140
b) calories out 700kcal, circuit training Y minutes at a heartrate 180

At the end of the day a) and b) will result the same fatloss even though a) used fat as primary fuel during exercise and b) used carbs.

As for hacky sack for option
c) calories out 700kcal, hacky sack. Do it for 24h straight?

If I misinterpreted what you meant, I'm sorry.

 

[idaho]

I believe it's not about size and weights, it's about fitness(but it's only because I never had problems with weight) and I personally HATE gym, and doing exercises in series and counting repetitions on course of training.
So I needed some kind of target to get myself to train and check my fitness.

And I found it. It is US army Physical Ability and Stamina Test.

1. Underwater swim: 25 Meters 1 breath (Pass/Fail) - 5 min rest
2. Surface swim: 1000 Meters 26 minute max time - 30 min rest
3. Run: 1.5 miles 10:30 max time - 15-30 min rest
4. Chin ups: 8 in 1 minute - 3 min rest
5. Sit ups: 50 in 2 minutes - 3 min rest
6. Push ups: 50 in 2 minutes - 3 min rest
7. Flutter kicks: 50 in 2 minutes - Test complete

It is nice complex test, and I still cannot pass it Need more workout.

 

[harkamus]

You're sorta missing the point, though you are right about the heart rate, aerobic zone and energy pathways etc., any exercise burns calories. So you'd probably have to hacky sack way longer to burn the same amount of calories than some other "more standard" exercise. In the end all that matters is calories in vs. calories out. Whatever the way you make that deficit, at the end of the day the body has to compensate for the calories burned. At some point during the day (or whathave you for a timeframe) you are going be using the fat deposits for energy even if your exercise mode was anaerobic. And I'm not talking about EPOC (or whatever ppl are calling it today), "normal people" usually don't and can't induce enough EPOC for it to make an iota of difference. Ten minutes of HIIT or whatever results only in marginal rise in EPOC.

Very crude example:
Calories in 2000kcal
a) calories out 700kcal, running X minutes at a heartrate 140
b) calories out 700kcal, circuit training Y minutes at a heartrate 180

At the end of the day a) and b) will result the same fatloss even though a) used fat as primary fuel during exercise and b) used carbs.

As for hacky sack for option
c) calories out 700kcal, hacky sack. Do it for 24h straight?

If I misinterpreted what you meant, I'm sorry.

True, but how feasible is it to burn calories playing hacky sack as opposed to doing cardio? Cardio is just that much more efficient.

It's like people that say sex is great cardio. Sure it gets your heart rate up...but really, at best you're burning maybe 10 calories during a marathon session in bed.

That's why I said in the end, if that was his only source of cardio, it's better than nothing. There's just way more efficient things out there.

I'll take this one step further. You mention calories expended. If you want to burn fat, the threshold has to be low enough to elicit the aerobic glycolysis pathway; this is why exercise scientists will prescribe cardio sessions that lasts 60 minutes or so (assuming the subjects has built up to that length of time). On the other hand, an all out sprinting session for 30 minutes, coupled with intervals to cool down (since no one can sprint for 30 minutes straight), can burn the same amount of calories but in half the time, but also works the heart much harder. Work capacity goes up this way, whereas doing the 60 minute session helps increase cardiovascular endurance. The flipside, is that many of the calories burned during the sprinting session come from carbs instead of fat. Needless to say, it's much safer to prescribe someone with high blood pressure the 60 minute bout versus the much more intense 30 minute bout.


EDIT: If I wanted to lose weight, I'd much rather it be fat that muscle mass, although a portion of muscle does get lost inevitably either way. I would just prefer to target actual fat loss more so than just calories for the sake for burning calories. Muscle has the added benefit of aiding in burning fat anyway, which is why if I were in that position, I'd prefer to hold on to as much muscle mass as possible. Then again, in that position, I'd stress cardio while also doing a moderate weight training session to help offset the muscle lost.

 

[C_Kyle]

I believe it's not about size and weights, it's about fitness(but it's only because I never had problems with weight) and I personally HATE gym, and doing exercises in series and counting repetitions on course of training.
So I needed some kind of target to get myself to train and check my fitness.

And I found it. It is US army Physical Ability and Stamina Test.

1. Underwater swim: 25 Meters 1 breath (Pass/Fail) - 5 min rest
2. Surface swim: 1000 Meters 26 minute max time - 30 min rest
3. Run: 1.5 miles 10:30 max time - 15-30 min rest
4. Chin ups: 8 in 1 minute - 3 min rest
5. Sit ups: 50 in 2 minutes - 3 min rest
6. Push ups: 50 in 2 minutes - 3 min rest
7. Flutter kicks: 50 in 2 minutes - Test complete

It is nice complex test, and I still cannot pass it Need more workout.

I've never heard of that while in the Army. I can tell you there are only push-ups, sit-ups, and 2 mile run that make up the PT test. Now, when you are in certain units or MOS's that require swimming, static-line jumping, etc, the PT becomes more varied and intense.

I just googled it, and it's not Army, it's Air Force. Not leg Air Force either, it's Combat Controllers, Pararescue, etc. These are special MOS's and special units.

 

[HawGorn]

True, but how feasible is it to burn calories playing hacky sack as opposed to doing cardio? Cardio is just that much more efficient.

It's like people that say sex is great cardio. Sure it gets your heart rate up...but really, at best you're burning maybe 10 calories during a marathon session in bed.

That's why I said in the end, if that was his only source of cardio, it's better than nothing. There's just way more efficient things out there.

Agreed on all accounts.

I'll take this one step further. You mention calories expended. If you want to burn fat, the threshold has to be low enough to elicit the aerobic glycolysis pathway; this is why exercise scientists will prescribe cardio sessions that lasts 60 minutes or so (assuming the subjects has built up to that length of time).

Yes, for fat to be the acute energy source. But for fat loss only the 24h (or some other vague timeframe) net calorie balance accounts, not the way it was achieved or what substrates were used for energy at one partcular time.

On the other hand, an all out sprinting session for 30 minutes, coupled with intervals to cool down (since no one can sprint for 30 minutes straight), can burn the same amount of calories but in half the time, but also works the heart much harder. Work capacity goes up this way, whereas doing the 60 minute session helps increase cardiovascular endurance. The flipside, is that many of the calories burned during the sprinting session come from carbs instead of fat.

And you'll burn the fat later at rest when filling the glycogen storages instead of burning the consumed carbs for energy. The end result is the same, fat loss.

Sure, if there are wants and needs other that a pure fat loss, then you have to consider the exercise mode; CV fitness, work capacity, strength, etc.

Needless to say, it's much safer to prescribe someone with high blood pressure the 60 minute bout versus the much more intense 30 minute bout.

Yes, I don't disagree.

 

[HawGorn]

EDIT: If I wanted to lose weight, I'd much rather it be fat that muscle mass, although a portion of muscle does get lost inevitably either way. I would just prefer to target actual fat loss more so than just calories for the sake for burning calories. Muscle has the added benefit of aiding in burning fat anyway, which is why if I were in that position, I'd prefer to hold on to as much muscle mass as possible. Then again, in that position, I'd stress cardio while also doing a moderate weight training session to help offset the muscle lost.

But you don't NEED to do cardio to lose weight (fat). All you need is to consume less calories than you expend. Keep protein up, get EFA's and lift heavy weights to preserve muscle mass, add desired amount of fats and/or carbs to get to target calories (maintenance minus X kcal). Do some conditioning or CV training if desired, but don't go overboard. You'll be burning the fats most of the day anyway(breathing is afterall aerobic ) It really is simple.

Sadly, contrary to popular belief muscle doesn't burn THAT much calories. A pound here or there doesn't really add that much to the overall picture at rest

 

[harkamus]

I wouldn't call it fat loss, but I see what you're saying. You're gonna be losing body weight over all, which includes fat, but also muscle.

The end result may be some form of fat loss, but IF the main source of energy was also fat, you're burning fat at a higher rate. After that bout is over, you're still gonna burn fat regardless if the glycogen stores are filling or not, for up to 24 hours according to the ACSM. So in the end, with cardio, you use fat for energy (meaning that fat gets burned), but after the session is over, you're still burning fat to a degree. This is all opposed to just burning fat while the glycogen stores fill up. You burn more fat with cardio. Weight loss will come either way, regardless which kind of exercise mode you fit. It's still something we consider in exercise prescription. Generally speaking, for overweight and obese individuals (and the two are not clinically the same), we want to target the fat predominantly as opposed to just losing body weight.

Just speaking for weight loss, yes, its all about calories. Put your body in a caloric deficit (through decreased food intake or exercise or both) and you will lose weight (and muscle).

But you don't NEED to do cardio to lose weight (fat). All you need is to consume less calories than you expend. Keep protein up, get EFA's and lift heavy weights to preserve muscle mass, add desired amount of fats and/or carbs to get to target calories (maintenance minus X kcal). Do some conditioning or CV training if desired, but don't go overboard. You'll be burning the fats most of the day anyway(breathing is afterall aerobic ) It really is simple.

Sadly, contrary to popular belief muscle doesn't burn THAT much calories. A pound here or there doesn't really add that much to the overall picture at rest

That does nothing for the former fat persons sad heart condition. There are people that look healthy that aren't healthy, like many bodybuilders for example. You can look healthy but your heart might not be just because you're now at a healthy weight.

Also, a pound of muscle burns around 40 extra calories. Pack on 10 pounds and that's 400 additional calories. That's substantial if you ask me.

 

[kr1]

But you don't NEED to do cardio to lose weight (fat). All you need is to consume less calories than you expend. Keep protein up, get EFA's and lift heavy weights to preserve muscle mass, add desired amount of fats and/or carbs to get to target calories (maintenance minus X kcal). Do some conditioning or CV training if desired, but don't go overboard. You'll be burning the fats most of the day anyway(breathing is afterall aerobic ) It really is simple.

Sadly, contrary to popular belief muscle doesn't burn THAT much calories. A pound here or there doesn't really add that much to the overall picture at rest

This is basically the plan that I keep hearing is the best. Less calories, light cardio with moderate weight training to keep muscle mass. I am actively looking an have been trying several things that I keep seeming to hit a plateau. Does anyone disagree with this method of weight loss? And more importantly is there a routine that someone has seen that works in weight loss and maintains or builds muscle mass? I don't mind not eating but I keep hearing you will go into starvation mode and your body will shut down only using muscle to sustain itself. I have seen 800 calorie diets that they claim work remarkably well with some caveats about electrolytes, etc. I can no longer separate the wheat from the chaff. Any help would be appreciated.

KR

 

[vector001]

good luck to you guys.

the best way to get in shape is not to let yourself get out of shape. - hammer that home to your kids so they don't have to deal with all the torn muscles and ligaments a lot of the recuperators run into.

- brother 'yote's account of his three pull-ups makes me pray for his rhomboid group's integrity. be careful. - stay on the low bar until you can do 40 clean, is my advice, brother. - that should translate to 10 clean on the pull-up high bar, and built-up back ligaments and tendons that will benfit you for a long time into old age.

......

i'm always shocked when i see fat Marines "...what did they teach you, brother?!!"

just be careful, brethren. i've told so many buddies that were on weight loss binges and exercise trips that they were going to get injured - they have all gotten injured. many needed surgery.

- you are going to have a lot of unfounded euphoria when you start losing fat and gaining muscle mass and you WILL get careless if you don't stick religiously to patient documented programs.

watch that back, neck, knees and elbows especially.


i hate to say this, and it is meant in a tone of love and respect for my brethren here;

most of you got out of shape because you were stupid, let's be frank. that should be a warning to yourself to not be stupid again and permanently injure yourselves.

if your waist is bigger than your chest, you should not be doing push-ups, you are going to have shoulder girdle issues soon, especially if you aren't doing other deltoid work. - you are probably cheating anyways - swim.

if you are obese, stay off the bike - you are just going to damage your prostrate and have some real fun later. - walk yourself thinner. the time it takes to recover your natural shape witha walking program is a small price to pay considering it took you so long to get out of shape in the first place.

there is much more.

remember, the Human Animal can get into shape without gadgets, if you really think you need all those things, then you are desiring an unnatural condition (obviously, because you can't get there without things that you don't have "onboard") - or - you are taking on too much too soon. - fat guys swinging Bells is a recipe for disaster - you need to hit the soft stuff first if you are a fatty. - swim, walk, period.

i have saved too many military careers when i got tasked (sentenced) to teaching the fatties in the Doughnut Brigade how to get in shape to change my mind about the routes that i have suggested here.

no gear (most of you are carrying the weight already).

no running shoes (as a composites guy i can remind you that the supports in those things are not meant for most folks over 170 pounds).

no fancy clothing (clothes can't fit anyone properly that have folds of flesh anyways - use your clothing as part of the resistance work-out).

if you are fat, no simple sugars. i think local honey is okay, it's got too many advantages to skip, especially when your body is tearing down and stressed.

keep carbs to a minimum until you get down to "bike tire" level and can use the energy - oatmeal and nuts are better than processed breads. - when i need some real work, i lay off carbs entirely, but it can affect your personal resolve if you are not a mad man disgusted with yourself. - i remind myself that treat-mentalities are what make us weak in the first place.

This is Sparta.

just observe consistency, folks - and no matter how hardcore you argue you are, you don't get fat by doing anything positive consistenly.

the first step to getting it all back, if you ever had it in the first place, is looking in the mirror and having absolutely no pity on yourself and manning up internally - but THEN, perhaps counter-intuitively, take it easy on your bodies when you first get going.


you can do it.

move.

mesomorph vec