PDA

View Full Version : Help me get less Confused about working out.


January 22nd 07, 05:32 PM
I have some "stupid" questions/thoughts about working out.
I hear one way and then I hear something else from someone else so Im
not sure whats true anymore, plus I have some weird theories on my own.
I hope some of you can shed some light on these things:

1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones
drop after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and theres
no 45 minute "limit". True?

2. I always heard that crash/starvation diets are not good because your
body goes into Survival mode, where it holds onto fat and starts
dropping muscle. So thats why you should not drastically cut your
calories.
But I was watching Surviver, and the people on there eat very little
(little calories) and at the end of the 2-3 weeks, they are ripped. Im
sure they lost muscle also, but it looks like they lost a ton of fat.
How come their body didnt go into the Survival Mode and start losing
muscle and gaining fat?
But I did notice that on the reunion shows a lot of thing are "puffy".
So they must have gorged on food when they got home.

3. Im confused about the rep scheme for hyperthrophy. I always heard
less than 5 reps is strength, 8-12 reps is for hyperthrophy.
But a lot of workout schemes seem to use the 5 rep range for
hyperthrophy these days.
German Volume workout, Pavel's bear workout, HST, a lot of Chad
Waterbury's workouts, etc...
Is 8-12 still the best range for hyperthrophy?
If so, then why do a lot of workouts for hyperthrophy use 5 reps these
days?

4. High intensity (sprints) vs low intensity (long walks) for weight
loss.
Heres what I know:
Low intensity - burns more calories from fat, after 20 min.
High intensity - burns more calories overall (because its a lot more
intense)...plus your body continues to burn more calories for hours
afterwards.
Now I think (am I wrong?) that high intensity is better for someone who
is overweight and wants to lose 10, 20, or more lbs.
But for someone like me (I am 175, 13% bodyfat) I have so little muscle
to begin with (and I dont have a problem of too much excess calories)
low intensity would be better for me?
I can't afford to lose extra calories because I am already a bit
underweight, so it would be best to lose mainly fat calories...?

Thanks everyone!

Prisoner at War
January 22nd 07, 07:47 PM
wrote:
> I have some "stupid" questions/thoughts about working out.
> I hear one way and then I hear something else from someone else so Im
> not sure whats true anymore, plus I have some weird theories on my own.
> I hope some of you can shed some light on these things:

Everyone's different. But my own personal philosophy is that working
out has got to be fun in some sense -- so I don't follow prescriptions
which don't "feel fun"...I am a big believer in tuning in to one's own
bodily rhythms and so forth.

> 1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
> workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones
> drop after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and theres
> no 45 minute "limit". True?

Good grief, that's a new one! I know I've gotten very good results
(once benched 315 for 3 sets of 3 reps) just working out as hard as I
can for as long as I can, provided it's all been "fun" in some way!
Some say work the muscles until exhaustion, others say save some for
whatever...some say go heavy, others say light but lotsa reps...since
you sound like a newbie, I think the main advice for you should be,
have fun!! Screw programs and whatnot, especially when you're just
starting out....

> 2. I always heard that crash/starvation diets are not good because your
> body goes into Survival mode, where it holds onto fat and starts
> dropping muscle. So thats why you should not drastically cut your
> calories.

Yeah, I heard that too, but I think it's okay if you gradually reduce
your caloric intake, so that even though "before and after" are indeed
drastic, your body is fairly gently weaned off excess calories over a
decently lengthy period of time....

> But I was watching Surviver, and the people on there eat very little
> (little calories) and at the end of the 2-3 weeks, they are ripped. Im
> sure they lost muscle also, but it looks like they lost a ton of fat.
> How come their body didnt go into the Survival Mode and start losing
> muscle and gaining fat?

I don't suppose they lose whole pounds and pounds of muscle. And they
may have had rather well-developed muscles underneath all the fat. And
of course, there's a big difference between looking strong and being
strong.

> But I did notice that on the reunion shows a lot of thing are "puffy".
> So they must have gorged on food when they got home.

It's amazing how much weight one can gain from the simplest little
snacks!

> 3. Im confused about the rep scheme for hyperthrophy. I always heard
> less than 5 reps is strength, 8-12 reps is for hyperthrophy.
> But a lot of workout schemes seem to use the 5 rep range for
> hyperthrophy these days.
> German Volume workout, Pavel's bear workout, HST, a lot of Chad
> Waterbury's workouts, etc...
> Is 8-12 still the best range for hyperthrophy?
> If so, then why do a lot of workouts for hyperthrophy use 5 reps these
> days?

I don't worry about that stuff, I just lift.

> 4. High intensity (sprints) vs low intensity (long walks) for weight
> loss.
> Heres what I know:
> Low intensity - burns more calories from fat, after 20 min.
> High intensity - burns more calories overall (because its a lot more
> intense)...plus your body continues to burn more calories for hours
> afterwards.
> Now I think (am I wrong?) that high intensity is better for someone who
> is overweight and wants to lose 10, 20, or more lbs.
> But for someone like me (I am 175, 13% bodyfat) I have so little muscle
> to begin with (and I dont have a problem of too much excess calories)
> low intensity would be better for me?
> I can't afford to lose extra calories because I am already a bit
> underweight, so it would be best to lose mainly fat calories...?

I honestly think you're worrying too much. Main thing is to learn to
listen to your body, which will take some time and practice, like
learning a new language. So don't overly worry about your verb
conjugations and noun declensions just yet -- as any foreign language
teacher will attest, the main thing is to try! Things will click in
over time.

Really, I think all that scientific minutiae (most of which is only
still "suggestive" at best) works more for elite competition-level
athletes more than anyone else -- by far.

Relax, and have fun!

> Thanks everyone!

And of course -- always -- your mileage may vary.

Tom Anderson
January 22nd 07, 08:27 PM
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 wrote:

> 1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
> workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones drop
> after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and theres no 45
> minute "limit". True?

Never heard of that.

Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that the
longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on, and the
less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other things being
equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60 min sounds fine.
However, and it's a big however, i think you'd struggle to get enough
volume from three 45-minute workouts a week (i certainly would); that
means you would probably need to go to a 2-way split and work out four or
six days a week or something. Still, six days at 45 min a day will work
out better than three days at 90 min a day.

> 2. I always heard that crash/starvation diets are not good because your
> body goes into Survival mode, where it holds onto fat and starts
> dropping muscle. So thats why you should not drastically cut your
> calories.
>
> But I was watching Surviver, and the people on there eat very little
> (little calories) and at the end of the 2-3 weeks, they are ripped. Im
> sure they lost muscle also, but it looks like they lost a ton of fat.
> How come their body didnt go into the Survival Mode and start losing
> muscle and gaining fat?

If you're eating less than maintenance, you'll lose fat. However, if you
wobble between eating way less than maintenance and over maintenance, then
if you're in survival mode, more of the surplus on over-maintenance days
will go to fat than otherwise. If you can consistently eat a starvation
diet, great, you'll lose tons of weight, but most people can't. Is what i
reckon.

> 3. Im confused about the rep scheme for hyperthrophy. I always heard
> less than 5 reps is strength, 8-12 reps is for hyperthrophy.
> But a lot of workout schemes seem to use the 5 rep range for
> hyperthrophy these days.

I've never heard of any science to back that up.

> German Volume workout, Pavel's bear workout, HST, a lot of Chad
> Waterbury's workouts, etc...

Fools and charlatans!

> Is 8-12 still the best range for hyperthrophy?

AFAIK, yes.

Although i came across some research the other day that suggested the best
was a combination of 8-12 type stuff followed by a 15-rep set. Maybe. It
wasn't exactly rock solid.

> If so, then why do a lot of workouts for hyperthrophy use 5 reps these
> days?

Because if they were saying 8-12, that'd be the same as what everybody's
already doing, and nobody would buy their books.

> 4. High intensity (sprints) vs low intensity (long walks) for weight
> loss. Heres what I know: Low intensity - burns more calories from fat,
> after 20 min. High intensity - burns more calories overall (because its
> a lot more intense)...plus your body continues to burn more calories for
> hours afterwards. Now I think (am I wrong?) that high intensity is
> better for someone who is overweight and wants to lose 10, 20, or more
> lbs. But for someone like me (I am 175, 13% bodyfat) I have so little
> muscle to begin with (and I dont have a problem of too much excess
> calories) low intensity would be better for me? I can't afford to lose
> extra calories because I am already a bit underweight, so it would be
> best to lose mainly fat calories...?

I think at 13% body fat and your alleged level of scrawniness, i wouldn't
worry about trying to lose it - lift and eat as much as you can, and worry
about the fat once you've got some decent muscle to show off.

NB i have no idea what i'm talking about, so don't take this as gospel.

tom

--
Formal logical proofs, and therefore programs - formal logical proofs
that particular computations are possible, expressed in a formal system
called a programming language - are utterly meaningless. To write a
computer program you have to come to terms with this, to accept that
whatever you might want the program to mean, the machine will blindly
follow its meaningless rules and come to some meaningless conclusion. --
Dehnadi and Bornat

Edna Pearl
January 22nd 07, 09:10 PM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
>I have some "stupid" questions/thoughts about working out.
> I hear one way and then I hear something else from someone else so Im
> not sure whats true anymore, plus I have some weird theories on my own.
> I hope some of you can shed some light on these things:
>
> 1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
> workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones
> drop after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and theres
> no 45 minute "limit". True?

Never heard of such a thing.

> 2. I always heard that crash/starvation diets are not good because your
> body goes into Survival mode, where it holds onto fat and starts
> dropping muscle. So thats why you should not drastically cut your
> calories.
> But I was watching Surviver, and the people on there eat very little
> (little calories) and at the end of the 2-3 weeks, they are ripped. Im
> sure they lost muscle also, but it looks like they lost a ton of fat.
> How come their body didnt go into the Survival Mode and start losing
> muscle and gaining fat?
> But I did notice that on the reunion shows a lot of thing are "puffy".
> So they must have gorged on food when they got home.

Well, I don't watch Survivor, so I can't help you out there.

I think you mean "starvation mode"? Try googling it; you'll come up with
all sorts of contradictory information. You can probably expect to get lots
of contradictory responses here, too :-)

My take on this is that it's probably reasonable for a typical person with a
typical metabolisim to expect their metabolism to slow down when they try to
eat fewer calories. And you can call this "starvation mode" if you want; it
seems to be the sort of lowest-common-denominator use of the term. But I
know of no research on how long this phenomenon lasts or anything else
conclusive about it.

The best diet I know is a good diet. Eat right, don't eat junk, and
exercise, including cardio and lifting. As you get fitter, your body does
everything better, including utilizing and reducing its fat stores. You
don't have to go hungry; in fact, it's probably counterproductive for the
typical person, whether you call it starvation mode or something else.

>
> 3. Im confused about the rep scheme for hyperthrophy. I always heard
> less than 5 reps is strength, 8-12 reps is for hyperthrophy.
> But a lot of workout schemes seem to use the 5 rep range for
> hyperthrophy these days.
> German Volume workout, Pavel's bear workout, HST, a lot of Chad
> Waterbury's workouts, etc...
> Is 8-12 still the best range for hyperthrophy?
> If so, then why do a lot of workouts for hyperthrophy use 5 reps these
> days?

Three sets of 8-12 is perfectly fine approach to lifting. The people who
exhibit the best sense here and talk about the details of hypertrophy seem
to agree. As you get nearer your best level of personal fitness, you may
find you learn some new programs and routines to target specific goals you
may have, but it sounds like you're more-or-less getting started, the three
sets of eight to twelve reps is a perfectly good paradigm for you.

Do complex lifts with free weights.

Change is a good thing, when it comes to training. Don't get stuck in a
rut, where your body knows what lifts to expect, when. Vary things up.

Listen to your body. If it hurts, don't do it. DOMS is a good pain (google
it if you don't know) and it's the only pain you should have.

Learn the basics if you don't know them already -- I can't tell from your
post whether you do. Learn what "overtraining" is, how often to train, how
to do complex lifts, etc.

>
> 4. High intensity (sprints) vs low intensity (long walks) for weight
> loss.
> Heres what I know:
> Low intensity - burns more calories from fat, after 20 min.
> High intensity - burns more calories overall (because its a lot more
> intense)...plus your body continues to burn more calories for hours
> afterwards.
> Now I think (am I wrong?) that high intensity is better for someone who
> is overweight and wants to lose 10, 20, or more lbs.
> But for someone like me (I am 175, 13% bodyfat) I have so little muscle
> to begin with (and I dont have a problem of too much excess calories)
> low intensity would be better for me?
> I can't afford to lose extra calories because I am already a bit
> underweight, so it would be best to lose mainly fat calories...?

I are confused. If you have so little body fat, why is :starvation mode" an
issue for you?

Whatever. Personally, I don't think it would make much difference at all to
your fat maintenance whether you do high or low intensity cardio because
you're underweight, and because you don't sound very sophisticated in these
matters, and thus you are probably nowhere near your maximal level of
fitness, but what do I know? Your first step should probably be to define
your goals -- which is a continuing process for many of us, but at least
define your initial goals for now. If you want to bulk up (which is what it
sounds like you want), eat and lift. Do enough cardio to maximize your
fitness/health while you're eating and lifting. Low intensity might be best
for the simple reason that it will probably leave you more energy for
lifting, but what do I know? Define your goals, listen to your body, and
keep reading.

Your questions sound to me like you're seeking the same holy grail of
fitness wisdom sought by all. If it existed and we knew where to find it,
you or I probably would have heard by now :-) so I kind of doubt anybody
here is going to give any definitive answers -- just ideas. YMMV.

ep

Prisoner at War
January 22nd 07, 09:26 PM
Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>
> Never heard of that.
>
> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that the
> longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on, and the
> less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other things being
> equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60 min sounds fine.
> However, and it's a big however, i think you'd struggle to get enough
> volume from three 45-minute workouts a week (i certainly would); that
> means you would probably need to go to a 2-way split and work out four or
> six days a week or something. Still, six days at 45 min a day will work
> out better than three days at 90 min a day.

I have read stories of how elite athletes regularly train "all
day"...for example, state-sponsored Olympic hopefuls in China.
Certainly there are hoofers (dancers [and I mean *real* dancers]) who
train and rehearse most of the day for five or six days a week.

I have had periods where I've worked out every single day for two to
four hours (counting many individual rest periods comprising, say,
forty-five minutes in all) and while I recall feeling very fatigued
sometimes, I also remember still being able to lift and run all the
same, without any real degradation in performance. A general rule of
thumb is that you can usually do more than you think you can. Just
remember proper form! One of my favorite things to do in the gym is to
return to an exercise I had done previously and do it again, that very
session, and see the difference some "rest" makes....

> <SNIP>

Stephan Carydakis
January 23rd 07, 04:27 AM
"Tom Anderson" > wrote in message
h.li...
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 wrote:
>
> > 1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
> > workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones drop
> > after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and theres no 45
> > minute "limit". True?
>
> Never heard of that.
>
> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that the
> longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on, and the
> less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other things being
> equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60 min sounds fine.
> However, and it's a big however, i think you'd struggle to get enough
> volume from three 45-minute workouts a week (i certainly would); that
> means you would probably need to go to a 2-way split and work out four or
> six days a week or something. Still, six days at 45 min a day will work
> out better than three days at 90 min a day.

I think that the overall length of your workout would have to take into
account how long you are resting for and how may sets you do. I am currently
doing a 5x5 (or was until I had these injuries) trial for my chest. I do 3
different exercises with 4 minute rests between each set. Thats 56 minutes
of resting! It takes me about 80 minutes to do chest and I still feel good
enough to do some abs and maybe one leg exercise. I'm in there for about
1:45 on chest day.

>
<snip>
>
> tom
>
> --
> Formal logical proofs, and therefore programs - formal logical proofs
> that particular computations are possible, expressed in a formal system
> called a programming language - are utterly meaningless. To write a
> computer program you have to come to terms with this, to accept that
> whatever you might want the program to mean, the machine will blindly
> follow its meaningless rules and come to some meaningless conclusion. --
> Dehnadi and Bornat

Steph.

joanne
January 23rd 07, 05:12 AM
On Jan 22, 9:32 am, wrote:
> I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
> workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones
> drop after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and theres
> no 45 minute "limit". True?


I've seen this mentioned before - cortisol inhibits HGH in the body and
depending on how stressful your workout was, it could then be
counterproductive to extend a workout beyond an hour. People who
workout for hours (like dancers) usually have breaks inbtwn to
eat/drink something which may help stop the cortisol response (?)
Personally I think if your workout takes more than an hour, you
probably arent putting your all out effort into it.

"Several things raise your level of cortisol - lack of food, lack of
sleep, prolonged high-intensity or high-impact exercise, and weight
lifting. This is why your workouts should generally not exceed about an
hour."
http://www.hussmanfitness.org/html/TLRagingMetab.html
"Endurance training however, when taken too far, can actually cause a
decreased effect on growth hormone release. When it lasts for longer
periods of time, and is performed for a long duration, growth hormone
decreases while cortisol (the hormone responsible for breaking down the
body's tissues) increases."
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sclark41.htm


joanne

Bully
January 23rd 07, 06:44 AM
In ,
Stephan Carydakis > typed:
> "Tom Anderson" > wrote in message
> h.li...
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
>>> workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones
>>> drop after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and
>>> theres no 45 minute "limit". True?
>>
>> Never heard of that.
>>
>> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that
>> the longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on,
>> and the less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other
>> things being equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60
>> min sounds fine. However, and it's a big however, i think you'd
>> struggle to get enough volume from three 45-minute workouts a week
>> (i certainly would); that means you would probably need to go to a
>> 2-way split and work out four or six days a week or something.
>> Still, six days at 45 min a day will work out better than three days
>> at 90 min a day.
>
> I think that the overall length of your workout would have to take
> into account how long you are resting for and how may sets you do. I
> am currently doing a 5x5 (or was until I had these injuries) trial
> for my chest. I do 3 different exercises with 4 minute rests between
> each set. Thats 56 minutes of resting!

It's not you know. Assuming 4 rest periods for each exercise, it's 48
minutes! Mind you, if you allow 2 mins to change exercise, that's a total of
52 minutes. Personally, I would drop the rest periods to 3 minutes and spend
the extra 12 minutes stretching!!!

> It takes me about 80 minutes
> to do chest and I still feel good enough to do some abs and maybe one
> leg exercise. I'm in there for about 1:45 on chest day.
>

[...]

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

Stephan Carydakis
January 23rd 07, 07:02 AM
"Bully" > wrote in message
...
> In ,
> Stephan Carydakis > typed:
> > "Tom Anderson" > wrote in message
> > h.li...
> >> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 wrote:
> >>
> >>> 1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
> >>> workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones
> >>> drop after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and
> >>> theres no 45 minute "limit". True?
> >>
> >> Never heard of that.
> >>
> >> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that
> >> the longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on,
> >> and the less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other
> >> things being equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60
> >> min sounds fine. However, and it's a big however, i think you'd
> >> struggle to get enough volume from three 45-minute workouts a week
> >> (i certainly would); that means you would probably need to go to a
> >> 2-way split and work out four or six days a week or something.
> >> Still, six days at 45 min a day will work out better than three days
> >> at 90 min a day.
> >
> > I think that the overall length of your workout would have to take
> > into account how long you are resting for and how may sets you do. I
> > am currently doing a 5x5 (or was until I had these injuries) trial
> > for my chest. I do 3 different exercises with 4 minute rests between
> > each set. Thats 56 minutes of resting!
>
> It's not you know. Assuming 4 rest periods for each exercise, it's 48
> minutes! Mind you, if you allow 2 mins to change exercise, that's a total
of
> 52 minutes. Personally, I would drop the rest periods to 3 minutes and
spend
> the extra 12 minutes stretching!!!

5 rests for first 2 exercises (after 5th set rest for 4 minutes still) then
4 for 3rd is 14 rest periods of 4 minutes no?

>
> > It takes me about 80 minutes
> > to do chest and I still feel good enough to do some abs and maybe one
> > leg exercise. I'm in there for about 1:45 on chest day.
> >
>
> [...]
>
> --
> Bully
> Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk
>
> "A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
> the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill
>
>

Pete
January 23rd 07, 07:36 AM
> schreef:

> 1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
> workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones
> drop after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and theres
> no 45 minute "limit". True?

No.

It depends on the intensity, the amount of sets, reps, and most important,
rest between sets and exercises.
And sugar consumption during the workout.

As long as you can do sets of 6-8 with 80-85% it doesnt really matter if
you train for 2, even 3 hours.

> 3. Im confused about the rep scheme for hyperthrophy. I always heard
> less than 5 reps is strength, 8-12 reps is for hyperthrophy.

Higher reps give a good pump, which is part of growth. A small part.

> But a lot of workout schemes seem to use the 5 rep range for
> hyperthrophy these days.
> German Volume workout, Pavel's bear workout, HST, a lot of Chad
> Waterbury's workouts, etc...

All marketing BS.

> Is 8-12 still the best range for hyperthrophy?
> If so, then why do a lot of workouts for hyperthrophy use 5 reps these
> days?

Anything between 4-20 with progressive weights will work.

I recommend 5-8, since this will give a long enough time under tension, but
it wont interfere much with the cardiovasular system/lungs. Do a controlled
negative. Do the concentric as fast as possible, but not explosive or with
momentum. Avoid momentum at ALL times.

--
Pete

Pete
January 23rd 07, 07:39 AM
"Stephan Carydakis" > schreef:

>> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that the
>> longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on, and the
>> less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other things being
>> equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60 min sounds fine.
>> However, and it's a big however, i think you'd struggle to get enough
>> volume from three 45-minute workouts a week (i certainly would); that
>> means you would probably need to go to a 2-way split and work out four or
>> six days a week or something. Still, six days at 45 min a day will work
>> out better than three days at 90 min a day.

> I think that the overall length of your workout would have to take into
> account how long you are resting for and how may sets you do.

Yes. Thats correct.

I trained 2 1/2 hours yesterday, and i ended the workout with 10 sets of
heavy rows.
Lots of socializing in between. But the muscles dont know that.

--
Pete

Bully
January 23rd 07, 08:55 AM
In ,
Stephan Carydakis > typed:
> "Bully" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In ,
>> Stephan Carydakis > typed:
>>> "Tom Anderson" > wrote in message
>>> h.li...
>>>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
>>>>> workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth
>>>>> hormones drop after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not
>>>>> true and theres no 45 minute "limit". True?
>>>>
>>>> Never heard of that.
>>>>
>>>> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that
>>>> the longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on,
>>>> and the less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other
>>>> things being equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60
>>>> min sounds fine. However, and it's a big however, i think you'd
>>>> struggle to get enough volume from three 45-minute workouts a week
>>>> (i certainly would); that means you would probably need to go to a
>>>> 2-way split and work out four or six days a week or something.
>>>> Still, six days at 45 min a day will work out better than three
>>>> days at 90 min a day.
>>>
>>> I think that the overall length of your workout would have to take
>>> into account how long you are resting for and how may sets you do. I
>>> am currently doing a 5x5 (or was until I had these injuries) trial
>>> for my chest. I do 3 different exercises with 4 minute rests between
>>> each set. Thats 56 minutes of resting!
>>
>> It's not you know. Assuming 4 rest periods for each exercise, it's 48
>> minutes! Mind you, if you allow 2 mins to change exercise, that's a
>> total of 52 minutes. Personally, I would drop the rest periods to 3
>> minutes and spend the extra 12 minutes stretching!!!
>
> 5 rests for first 2 exercises (after 5th set rest for 4 minutes
> still) then 4 for 3rd is 14 rest periods of 4 minutes no?
>

Ah, I see. I was assuming you didn't need the 4 mins rest between exercises
:)!


--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

Pete
January 23rd 07, 09:47 AM
"Edna Pearl" > schreef:

> The best diet I know is a good diet. Eat right, don't eat junk...

If you consume 4000 Kcal of the right foods, and burn 3000, you will end up
gaining weight.

Eat 3000 Kcal of hamburgers and pizza, and burn 4000, you will lose weight.

Eating "healthy" or not "healthy" has nothing to do with losing weight.

> and exercise, including cardio and lifting.

A person who exercises, both cardio and lifting, and as a result, burns 3000
kcals a day, but consumes 4000, will still get fat.

A person that doesnt lift at all but eats 2000 Kcal, while the body needs
2500 for maintainence, ends up losing weight.

--
Pete

Pete
January 23rd 07, 09:58 AM
"joanne" > schreef:

> I've seen this mentioned before - cortisol inhibits HGH...

I didnt knew that. Really.

> in the body and depending on how stressful your workout was, it could then
> be
> counterproductive to extend a workout beyond an hour. People who
> workout for hours (like dancers) usually have breaks inbtwn to
> eat/drink something which may help stop the cortisol response (?)
> Personally I think if your workout takes more than an hour, you
> probably arent putting your all out effort into it.

I doubt that.

When i do sets of 5 reps with 85% 1 RM and 3 minutes rest between sets, 5
minutes between exercises, i can go on for 3 hours if i have too.

And that last hour, i would still be using 85% 1RM.

That doesnt qualify as low intensity.

> "Several things raise your level of cortisol - lack of food, lack of
> sleep, prolonged high-intensity or high-impact exercise, and weight
> lifting. This is why your workouts should generally not exceed about an
> hour."

With that in mind, why not reduce it to 30 minutes, or 20 perhaps.

Less cortisol.

> http://www.hussmanfitness.org/html/TLRagingMetab.html
> "Endurance training however, when taken too far, can actually cause a
> decreased effect on growth hormone release. When it lasts for longer
> periods of time, and is performed for a long duration, growth hormone
> decreases while cortisol (the hormone responsible for breaking down the
> body's tissues) increases."
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/sclark41.htm

But thats a logical adaption.

Even LBM can get in the way for a long distance runner.

When fat AND LBM is lower, the performance will be higher.

--
Pete

Andrzej Rosa
January 23rd 07, 01:55 PM
Dnia 2007-01-23 Pete napisał(a):
> schreef:
>
>> But a lot of workout schemes seem to use the 5 rep range for
>> hyperthrophy these days.
>> German Volume workout, Pavel's bear workout, HST, a lot of Chad
>> Waterbury's workouts, etc...
>
> All marketing BS.

I think that it is a bit strong statement when it comes to this kind of
training. Waterbury did get himself up to 240+ lbs with low teens
body fat so it's not just marketing, supposedly naturally too. For
whatever it may be worth, I did something similar for several month
recently with my goal being to shut those stupid "Are you still
lifting?" questions, and I obviously succeeded there. I'm supposedly
getting bigger and bigger between the times I see my fellows in the
bar, so it's working for me too. Would I have better success with 8-12
reps? Possibly. But by using short rest periods one is able to train
within "hypertrophy zone" (you get what I mean, don't you?) also with
low rep sets.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Edna Pearl
January 23rd 07, 03:02 PM
"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> "Edna Pearl" > schreef:
>
>> The best diet I know is a good diet. Eat right, don't eat junk...
>
> If you consume 4000 Kcal of the right foods, and burn 3000, you will end
> up gaining weight.
>
> Eat 3000 Kcal of hamburgers and pizza, and burn 4000, you will lose
> weight.
>
> Eating "healthy" or not "healthy" has nothing to do with losing weight.
>
>> and exercise, including cardio and lifting.
>
> A person who exercises, both cardio and lifting, and as a result, burns
> 3000 kcals a day, but consumes 4000, will still get fat.
>
> A person that doesnt lift at all but eats 2000 Kcal, while the body needs
> 2500 for maintainence, ends up losing weight.

It is true, of course, that a calorie deficit is necessary to lose weight.
My remarks were addressed to an OP who says he's underweight.

ep

Tom Anderson
January 23rd 07, 06:58 PM
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Pete wrote:

> Avoid momentum at ALL times.

And TO HELL with the laws of motion!

tom

--
Hubo un vez, un gran rev que tenia muchas tierra un Castillo y tambien
un amor.

Tom Anderson
January 23rd 07, 07:01 PM
On Tue, 23 Jan 2007, Stephan Carydakis wrote:

> "Tom Anderson" > wrote in message
> h.li...
>> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007 wrote:
>>
>>> 1. I always heard that when you lift weights you should limit your
>>> workout to 45 minutes or less. Something like your growth hormones drop
>>> after 45 minutes? But someone else said thats not true and theres no 45
>>> minute "limit". True?
>>
>> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that the
>> longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on, and the
>> less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other things
>> being equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60 min sounds
>> fine. However, and it's a big however, i think you'd struggle to get
>> enough volume from three 45-minute workouts a week (i certainly would);
>> that means you would probably need to go to a 2-way split and work out
>> four or six days a week or something. Still, six days at 45 min a day
>> will work out better than three days at 90 min a day.
>
> I think that the overall length of your workout would have to take into
> account how long you are resting for and how may sets you do.

Also a good point. You also need to be getting carbohydrates into you over
that time for that work.

> I am currently doing a 5x5 (or was until I had these injuries) trial for
> my chest. I do 3 different exercises with 4 minute rests between each
> set. Thats 56 minutes of resting! It takes me about 80 minutes to do
> chest and I still feel good enough to do some abs and maybe one leg
> exercise. I'm in there for about 1:45 on chest day.

Sounds a bit like my upper body day - two sets of each of 8 exercises,
plus a warmup set here and there, and i don't get a lot of change from two
hours.

tom

--
Hubo un vez, un gran rev que tenia muchas tierra un Castillo y tambien
un amor.

Tom Anderson
January 23rd 07, 07:03 PM
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>
>> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that the
>> longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on, and the
>> less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other things
>> being equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60 min sounds
>> fine. However, and it's a big however, i think you'd struggle to get
>> enough volume from three 45-minute workouts a week (i certainly would);
>> that means you would probably need to go to a 2-way split and work out
>> four or six days a week or something. Still, six days at 45 min a day
>> will work out better than three days at 90 min a day.
>
> I have read stories of how elite athletes regularly train "all
> day"...for example, state-sponsored Olympic hopefuls in China. Certainly
> there are hoofers (dancers [and I mean *real* dancers]) who train and
> rehearse most of the day for five or six days a week.

That's not weightlifting though, is it? If you're training for an
endurance sport, then training all day is probably quite a good idea.

> I have had periods where I've worked out every single day for two to
> four hours (counting many individual rest periods comprising, say,
> forty-five minutes in all) and while I recall feeling very fatigued
> sometimes, I also remember still being able to lift and run all the
> same, without any real degradation in performance.

It would be interesting to make some measurements of this - we've all been
chucking a lot of anecdotal evidence around.

> A general rule of thumb is that you can usually do more than you think
> you can. Just remember proper form! One of my favorite things to do in
> the gym is to return to an exercise I had done previously and do it
> again, that very session, and see the difference some "rest" makes....

I sometimes do that - if i've failed miserably on the first attempt!

tom

--
Hubo un vez, un gran rev que tenia muchas tierra un Castillo y tambien
un amor.

Tom Anderson
January 23rd 07, 07:07 PM
On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Edna Pearl wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ups.com...
>
> The best diet I know is a good diet.

Well, there's plenty of stuff you could read that would put that right.

> Eat right, don't eat junk, and exercise, including cardio and lifting.
> As you get fitter, your body does everything better, including utilizing
> and reducing its fat stores.

Really?

> You don't have to go hungry; in fact, it's probably counterproductive
> for the typical person, whether you call it starvation mode or something
> else.

I don't think this is true. I'm not advocating a crash diet, but if you
eat to satiety, you'll eat a maintenance diet.

> Do complex lifts with free weights.

I'm assuming you mean compound lifts, rather than things like the double
backwards lying bench press with an overhead flick at the end.

> Change is a good thing, when it comes to training. Don't get stuck in a
> rut, where your body knows what lifts to expect, when. Vary things up.

I don't think there's any evidence for this. I'd suggest exactly the
opposite - stick with a few well-chosen exercises, so you can master the
form and the stability, and put your effort into getting stronger.

> Listen to your body. If it hurts, don't do it. DOMS is a good pain
> (google it if you don't know) and it's the only pain you should have.

Wise words.

> Your questions sound to me like you're seeking the same holy grail of
> fitness wisdom sought by all. If it existed and we knew where to find
> it, you or I probably would have heard by now :-)

Unless it's being kept hidden by A SECRET CABAL. SOMEBODY CALL DAN
BROWN!!!

tom

--
Hubo un vez, un gran rev que tenia muchas tierra un Castillo y tambien
un amor.

Chris Malcolm
January 24th 07, 01:45 PM
Tom Anderson > wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:

>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>
>>> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that the
>>> longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on, and the
>>> less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other things
>>> being equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60 min sounds
>>> fine. However, and it's a big however, i think you'd struggle to get
>>> enough volume from three 45-minute workouts a week (i certainly would);
>>> that means you would probably need to go to a 2-way split and work out
>>> four or six days a week or something. Still, six days at 45 min a day
>>> will work out better than three days at 90 min a day.
>>
>> I have read stories of how elite athletes regularly train "all
>> day"...for example, state-sponsored Olympic hopefuls in China. Certainly
>> there are hoofers (dancers [and I mean *real* dancers]) who train and
>> rehearse most of the day for five or six days a week.

> That's not weightlifting though, is it? If you're training for an
> endurance sport, then training all day is probably quite a good idea.

Taking groups of people off to backpack exhaustingly through jungles,
climb mountains, play at hunter gatherer in the wilderness, and so on,
is becoming a popular source of TV programmes, at least in the
UK. It's surprising how often the impressively big strong guys from
the weight lifting gyms simply can't keep going all day, day after
day, and how often professional dancers, who often don't look at all
strong, end up among the indestructable survivors.

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Bully
January 24th 07, 02:49 PM
In ,
Chris Malcolm > typed:

[...]

>
> Taking groups of people off to backpack exhaustingly through jungles,
> climb mountains, play at hunter gatherer in the wilderness, and so on,
> is becoming a popular source of TV programmes, at least in the
> UK. It's surprising how often the impressively big strong guys from
> the weight lifting gyms simply can't keep going all day, day after
> day,

Hardly surprising. Lifting big, heavy weights is not known for building
endurance!

> and how often professional dancers, who often don't look at all
> strong, end up among the indestructable survivors.

Whereas dancing for 60-90 mins at a time possibly *is* good for endurance.

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

Prisoner at War
January 26th 07, 05:08 PM
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, Tom Anderson > wrote:
> On Mon, 22 Jan 2007, Prisoner at War wrote:
> > Tom Anderson wrote:
>
> >> Andrezej did make a good point in a row the other day, namely that the
> >> longer you work out for, the more tired you'll be as you go on, and the
> >> less hard you'll be able to work. That means that all other things
> >> being equal, you should keep your workouts short - and 45-60 min sounds
> >> fine. However, and it's a big however, i think you'd struggle to get
> That's not weightlifting though, is it? If you're training for an
> endurance sport, then training all day is probably quite a good idea.
>
> > I have had periods where I've worked out every single day for two to
> > four hours (counting many individual rest periods comprising, say,
> > forty-five minutes in all) and while I recall feeling very fatigued
> > sometimes, I also remember still being able to lift and run all the
> > same, without any real degradation in performance.It would be interesting to make some measurements of this - we've all been
> chucking a lot of anecdotal evidence around.
>
> > A general rule of thumb is that you can usually do more than you think
> > you can. Just remember proper form! One of my favorite things to do in
> > the gym is to return to an exercise I had done previously and do it
> > again, that very session, and see the difference some "rest" makes....I sometimes do that - if i've failed miserably on the first attempt!
>
> tom
>
> --
> Hubo un vez, un gran rev que tenia muchas tierra un Castillo y tambien
> un amor.

Prisoner at War
January 26th 07, 05:19 PM
On Jan 23, 2:03 pm, Tom Anderson > wrote:
>
>
>
>
> That's not weightlifting though, is it? If you're training for an
> endurance sport, then training all day is probably quite a good idea.

Um, many of the weightlifters talk about lifting all day. It's like a
9-5 job for them, almost.

And using muscle is using muscle. I don't think the muscles
distinguish between contracting for weightlifting and contracting for
gymnastics. I know there's a difference between strength and endurance
(and hypertrophy, for that matter), but it also seems that Olympic
powerlifters train long and rigorously, frequently.

> It would be interesting to make some measurements of this - we've all been
> chucking a lot of anecdotal evidence around.

True. Which is why, in the end, I say just listen to your body, really
listen to it, to see between one's own ego and its hopes (NO
SURRENDER!) and fears (what if I tear a tendon??).

> I sometimes do that - if i've failed miserably on the first attempt!

I also like analyzing why I sometimes fail. Just last Sunday, my
spotter didn't show up until I was about to go home, having done
everything myself (resorting to machines when in fear of total muscle
failure)...well, lo and behold, I went on to do another six or so sets
of what I'd already done, yet thought I couldn't anymore...having a
spotter really gives me confidence and frees up my mind from worrying!

Part of what's so fun about the bench press is the "mind discipline"
aspects of it...275-lbs. looks a bit frightening sometimes! Other
times, it looks too easy...both views are illusions, often fueled by a
lack of oxygen! Breathing technique is, like, the first thing folks
overlook, myself included....

> tom
>
> --
> Hubo un vez, un gran rev que tenia muchas tierra un Castillo y tambien
> un amor.

Prisoner at War
January 26th 07, 05:27 PM
Indeed. But infantrymen can be both big and strong. You should visit
the Army's School of Infantry and see the Drill Sergeants, mostly
Rangers or Special Forces. They're built like Arnold but definitely
have the endurance 'cause they lead runs every morning!

(You'll see fatso Drill Sergeants too, even at Fort Benning, Home of
the Infantry, but those are National Guardsmen, not Regular Army, which
generally has much higher standards for its personnel.)

So no, I don't think there *has* to be this divide between being buff
and having cardiovascular endurance. You can always tell who the
"amateurs" are, not by how much they can lift, but by whether they also
do a good run or not. I hate it when dancer-prancers beat buff guys!
I feel like the meat-heads are making us look bad.



On Jan 24, 8:45 am, Chris Malcolm > wrote:
>
> Taking groups of people off to backpack exhaustingly through jungles,
> climb mountains, play at hunter gatherer in the wilderness, and so on,
> is becoming a popular source of TV programmes, at least in the
> UK. It's surprising how often the impressively big strong guys from
> the weight lifting gyms simply can't keep going all day, day after
> day, and how often professional dancers, who often don't look at all
> strong, end up among the indestructable survivors.
>
> --
> Chris Malcolm DoD #205
> IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
> [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]