Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 01:19:39 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Search:     Advanced search
we're back, baby
*
Home Help Search Login Register
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: So. P90X anyone? (Misery loves company) 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 44 Go Down Print
Author Topic: So. P90X anyone? (Misery loves company)  (Read 477189 times)
jakonovski
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4388


Reply #1365 on: March 04, 2015, 10:09:21 AM

Former fatty rapidly going towards hardcore cyclist. The real issue is that skills wise I could now do all sorts of shit with the bike, but my upper body can't keep up for long. It'll get better with time I'm sure but I'd like to speed the process up. I'll look into heavier kb's.
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #1366 on: March 04, 2015, 10:56:37 AM

...  but my upper body can't keep up for long.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

re: Kettlebells - see if you can get yourself a 12kg and a 16kg and that will probably do you fine for the most part given that I understand your stated goal is to lose fat and improve your cycling.  But don't ditch your 10kg one just yet - it'll be useful for building endurance or doing dynamic core work. You might well also find it useful for mastering swings and movements before you go up to heavier weights after a few sessions (and reduce the risk of injury).

I also think that you're far better off with KBs than rings because you can work the whole body with just a couple of moves and use them to really work on increasing your power and improve your cycling. A basic, two handed kb swing will work your glutes, your hamstrings, mobilize your hip flexors, work your core and your shoulders.

A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
jakonovski
Terracotta Army
Posts: 4388


Reply #1367 on: March 04, 2015, 11:41:54 AM

For example, pumping your bike on a dirt track or rolling through drops. Or even basic sprinting once you're tired enough. It's not like it's impossible, but the risk of falling goes up the more tired you are. You naturally get better by going to the limit, but I'd rather do some of it in an environment where you won't run into a tree or a pothole.

edit: also one thing is preventing aches from longer rides.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2015, 11:52:39 AM by jakonovski »
Bungee
Terracotta Army
Posts: 897


Reply #1368 on: March 06, 2015, 02:29:39 AM

For example, pumping your bike on a dirt track or rolling through drops. Or even basic sprinting once you're tired enough. It's not like it's impossible, but the risk of falling goes up the more tired you are. You naturally get better by going to the limit, but I'd rather do some of it in an environment where you won't run into a tree or a pothole.

edit: also one thing is preventing aches from longer rides.


That really is an issue of core strength or rather conditioning thereof. No need really for any weights to get that up, doing Pilates, abs workout, planking,... should do you wonders.

Freedom is the raid target. -tazelbain
NowhereMan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7353


Reply #1369 on: March 17, 2015, 09:17:32 PM

I've given up alcohol and sugary things for Lent and I'm actually surprised at 1) How easy it's been and 2) How much of an impact it's had on workouts and weightloss/body composition.

I'm actually a little worried because I'm seriously considering not really drinking any more at all. I am more worried about this than the period when I wasn't sure if I was an alcoholic or not  awesome, for real

"Look at my car. Do you think that was bought with the earnest love of geeks?" - HaemishM
brellium
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1296


Reply #1370 on: April 23, 2015, 04:56:03 AM

Put on a bunch of weight after a back injury, back on diet.

*whimper* cry

‎"One must see in every human being only that which is worthy of praise. When this is done, one can be a friend to the whole human race. If, however, we look at people from the standpoint of their faults, then being a friend to them is a formidable task."
—‘Abdu’l-Bahá
Shannow
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3703


Reply #1371 on: April 24, 2015, 12:01:07 PM

I have to lose another 5 pounds by Friday or I'll be running 4 miles in July in a wool suit.

We tend to go a bit overboard with our weight challenges at work.

Someone liked something? Who the fuzzy fuck was this heretic? You don't come to this website and enjoy something. Fuck that. ~ The Walrus
Miguel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1292

कुशल


Reply #1372 on: May 04, 2015, 06:45:36 PM

Question about aerobic training:  I'm trying to improve my aerobic conditioning:  to the point where I can work out at moderate intensity (60-70% of maximum HR) for 1 hour.  If I understand the AHA's HR charts, since I'm 40, my maximum HR should be 180 BPM, so to train in "Zone 3" (aerobic stamina) I should be looking for an average HR in the 125-144 range.

Right now I'm up to about 25 minutes, however I frequently hit anaerobic threshold, where I start huffing for breath and my legs accumulate lactic acid.  This is on a cycling machine, set to a level of 5 out of 10.  According to the AHA, I should be able to sustain at Zone 3, be breathing hard, yet be able to speak individual sentences.

I monitor my heartrate throughout the exercise, and it sits at between 115 and 125.  I'm wondering if I should reduce the resistance slightly to keep myself from anaerobic threshold?  Apparently if you push yourself too hard in aerobic training, you are actually training a completely different energy system.  However when I reduce the resistance (down to 4), my HR drops down to the 100-ish mark which tells me I'm not getting as good of a heart workout (plus I can sustain level 4 for much longer periods).

Right now I'm leaning towards just lowering the resistance slightly for periods to allow my legs to catch up, modulating between 4 and 5, while trying to maintain my heartrate above 120 BPM.  I'm guessing as my heart, lungs, and legs grow stronger I'll be able to sustain the workout for longer and longer.

Is the the right approach?

“We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We’re not just making shit up.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Miguel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1292

कुशल


Reply #1373 on: May 04, 2015, 06:50:28 PM

Question about aerobic training:  I'm trying to improve my aerobic conditioning:  to the point where I can work out at moderate intensity (60-70% of maximum HR) for 1 hour.  If I understand the AHA's HR charts, since I'm 40, my maximum HR should be 180 BPM, so to train in "Zone 3" (aerobic stamina) I should be looking for an average HR in the 125-144 range.

Right now I'm up to about 25 minutes, however I frequently hit anaerobic threshold, where I start huffing for breath and my legs accumulate lactic acid.  This is on a cycling machine, set to a level of 5 out of 10.  According to the AHA, I should be able to sustain at Zone 3, be breathing hard, yet be able to speak individual sentences.

I monitor my heartrate throughout the exercise, and it sits at between 115 and 125.  I'm wondering if I should reduce the resistance slightly to keep myself from anaerobic threshold?  Apparently if you push yourself too hard in aerobic training, you are actually training a completely different energy system.  However when I reduce the resistance (down to 4), my HR drops down to the 100-ish mark which tells me I'm not getting as good of a heart workout (plus I can sustain level 4 for much longer periods).

Right now I'm leaning towards just lowering the resistance slightly for periods to allow my legs to catch up, modulating between 4 and 5, while trying to maintain my heartrate above 120 BPM.  I'm guessing as my heart, lungs, and legs grow stronger I'll be able to sustain the workout for longer and longer.

Is the the right approach?  I suspect my heart may be stronger than my legs right now which is why my legs are struggling a bit to keep up.


“We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We’re not just making shit up.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Chimpy
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10618


WWW
Reply #1374 on: May 04, 2015, 06:57:38 PM

You need to actually do different types of cardio workouts on different days.

I worked with a trainer who set me up with a routine that was first day: 20 minutes sustained heart rate at ~70%, Second day: Intervals of 30 seconds at ~85% and 90 seconds at ~70%, Third day: ease up to 60%, then get up to ~90% as quickly as possible then slow way down (or even stop) until back down to ~60% repeated 20 times.

I am not sure on the exact percentages, but I know they are close. (He gave me heart rate numbers to use based on some calculator he used). After a couple weeks of that, it was amazing how much easier it was to keep my heart rate exactly where I wanted it and how much faster I returned to a resting rate.

Also, I am not a doctor or a licensed trainer, so you should talk to your doctor and/or work with a trainer to get a routine that will work best for you.
« Last Edit: May 04, 2015, 07:11:56 PM by Chimpy »

'Reality' is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #1375 on: May 06, 2015, 06:39:11 AM

Question about aerobic training:  I'm trying to improve my aerobic conditioning:  to the point where I can work out at moderate intensity (60-70% of maximum HR) for 1 hour.  If I understand the AHA's HR charts, since I'm 40, my maximum HR should be 180 BPM, so to train in "Zone 3" (aerobic stamina) I should be looking for an average HR in the 125-144 range.

Right now I'm up to about 25 minutes, however I frequently hit anaerobic threshold, where I start huffing for breath and my legs accumulate lactic acid.  This is on a cycling machine, set to a level of 5 out of 10.  According to the AHA, I should be able to sustain at Zone 3, be breathing hard, yet be able to speak individual sentences.

I monitor my heartrate throughout the exercise, and it sits at between 115 and 125.  I'm wondering if I should reduce the resistance slightly to keep myself from anaerobic threshold?  Apparently if you push yourself too hard in aerobic training, you are actually training a completely different energy system.  However when I reduce the resistance (down to 4), my HR drops down to the 100-ish mark which tells me I'm not getting as good of a heart workout (plus I can sustain level 4 for much longer periods).

Right now I'm leaning towards just lowering the resistance slightly for periods to allow my legs to catch up, modulating between 4 and 5, while trying to maintain my heartrate above 120 BPM.  I'm guessing as my heart, lungs, and legs grow stronger I'll be able to sustain the workout for longer and longer.

Is the the right approach?

I'm not personally a big fan of training by HR nor encouraging my runners or clients to use it as so many things can affect it (like caffeine, stress levels, how recently you've eaten, temperature etc.). For example, I can run the same pace in training as in a race but have my HR be higher in the race because of adrenaline and nerves etc.  That's not to say it's wrong to use HR but it might be that you could use a less variable metric (e.g. speed, rpm, time) to gauge your fitness levels. For example, how far can you cycle in an hour? Doing this one gives you a benchmark target that you can work on improving - or matching but feeling better or complete with a lower average HR etc. I personally feel that it's far easier to track progress too. Alternatively, RPE (rate of percivied exertion) is also a recommended guiding principle for exercising and you're already doing it by using the talk test etc.

That being said, HR is still a metric to use if you prefer it and you're current approach is in the right direction. Don't be concerned about pushing into the anaerobic threshold though - it will work a different energy system but doing this is not a bad thing because your body will adapt over time to working at higher levels and improve your overall aerobic fitness. Train enough and you'll increase your AT (because of increased heart strength, increased capillarization etc). This is the one of the principles behind interval training and why even marathon runners (or the good ones) will also do fast interval sessions too. Caveat: introduce interval sessions slowly and steadily, especially if your basic fitness is low and/or you have any issues or concerns with your heart.

If you feel you need to lower your work level to finish a session then do so - working at even 100 bpm is still working at ~60% MHR and you will still get benefit.

Chimpy is right though - doing different types of cardio workouts will help improve aerobic fitness overall. Generally these fall into one of three categories: interval, tempo or steady/easy.  My usual guidance to my runners is at least 1 interval and 1 tempo runner then any session beyond that is a steady/easy.  (This excludes any circuit or strength training they may also do).

Bear in mind that this is general thoughts as I don't know anything about your current status of fitness or recent exercise history.

A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
Miguel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1292

कुशल


Reply #1376 on: May 06, 2015, 10:11:52 AM

Thanks all this is very helpful.  I play hockey for fun, and I've always been limited by my general fitness level.  I do pretty well in the first period, however my legs are generally done towards the start of the second, and I coast for the third.  So hockey is about 95% an aenerobic sport, but several training manuals I have that are hockey specific say that good aerobic fitness is a good place to start, as it helps recover between shifts and increases blood volume, promotes mitochondrial formation, increases lung volume, strengthens heart, etc, etc.

I just started this program about two weeks ago (3 times a week), and I'm finding I'm still in the initial "rapid change" state, as my performance over the first 7 sessions is already drastically different:  my average HR has dropped and my time has doubled at the same resistance level.  My target is to be able to sustain 1 hour at 70% average HR before I switch over into interval training, which I'm on target to reach in about 3 more weeks!  The only reason I like HR is because it's a mode of my cycling machine, where I can focus on staying in a target HR range and the machine adapts the resistance to suit.

In terms of fitness, right now, I'm finding that I transition to heavy breathing / numbing (but not failing) legs at about 75% of maximum HR (for me, around 130 BPM), so if I can push this higher, I think I'll be better suited to interval training in the future.

 EDIT: to add, it's been 6 years since I've played, and I just started playing again about 1 month ago.  That first game was me spending 90% of my time gasping for breath, so I consider myself starting from scratch again.  awesome, for real
« Last Edit: May 06, 2015, 10:15:44 AM by Miguel »

“We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We’re not just making shit up.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #1377 on: May 06, 2015, 03:52:00 PM

That helps put things into perspective and it sounds like you're on the right track in terms of improving your aerobic fitness, certainly if you've only been at this for 2 weeks at 3 times a week.

Does the plan you're working to include running at any point?


A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
Miguel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1292

कुशल


Reply #1378 on: May 06, 2015, 06:15:43 PM

I would definitely consider it:  previously I found a trainer who specialized in hockey workouts, and he told me the cycle is better than running for hockey since it uses much more of the glutes, quads, and calves which are all used extensively in the skating stride.  However I've also read that interval running, like 40 yard sprints followed by 90 seconds stopped rests is also excellent, as are shuttle runs which mimic the rapid starting and stopping (plus running uses different muscle groups which would improve overall balance).

I'm also really interested in trying some plyometric stuff, like high jumping onto boxes, etc, as well as some whole-body weightlifting like deadlifts and power cleans.  We have staff at work to help with that, so that will come later. :)

“We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We’re not just making shit up.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #1379 on: May 07, 2015, 01:37:35 AM

I would definitely consider it:  previously I found a trainer who specialized in hockey workouts, and he told me the cycle is better than running for hockey since it uses much more of the glutes, quads, and calves which are all used extensively in the skating stride.  However I've also read that interval running, like 40 yard sprints followed by 90 seconds stopped rests is also excellent, as are shuttle runs which mimic the rapid starting and stopping (plus running uses different muscle groups which would improve overall balance).

I'm also really interested in trying some plyometric stuff, like high jumping onto boxes, etc, as well as some whole-body weightlifting like deadlifts and power cleans.  We have staff at work to help with that, so that will come later. :)

Ah... ice hockey. I thought you were talking field hockey, hence the running question. I don't know enough about the biomechanics of skating to comment but in terms of specificity, I can see either being suitable. Although the comment about the muscles seems a little off - if you're not engaging those muscles during running then you're either doing it wrong or walking. (Although, as an aside, a lot of people find running difficult because they have weak glutes and don't engage them properly - but that's a rant for a different time and probably a different forum.  awesome, for real )

A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
Miguel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1292

कुशल


Reply #1380 on: May 14, 2015, 08:22:21 PM

Thanks for the advice!

As of yesterday, I was up to 50 minutes with my HR pegged at about 70% intensity:  I think I could push myself to 1 hour tomorrow, then I can start ramping up and down the intensity while keeping the 1 hour time.

What is the thinking on mixing aerobic and strength workouts on the same day?  Is it better to do one before the other?  I wish I could spread it out somewhat throughout the week, but I've only been able to reconfigure my week to include a hockey game on Monday nights, aerobic for 1 hour on Wednesday and Friday mornings, and strength training with my wife on Friday afternoon.

“We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We’re not just making shit up.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Chimpy
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10618


WWW
Reply #1381 on: May 14, 2015, 11:01:15 PM

If you are trying to lose weight/get in shape in general and not training for an endurance race, do cardio for 20-25 minutes then do strength stuff at a high enough intensity to keep your heart rate up. You can also do them in reverse order though typically you will want to do 5 or so minutes of cardio (bike/elliptical/treadmill) at the beginning to warm up, thus why it is sometimes more time efficient to do that first.

'Reality' is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #1382 on: May 15, 2015, 05:20:04 AM

What is the thinking on mixing aerobic and strength workouts on the same day?  Is it better to do one before the other?  I wish I could spread it out somewhat throughout the week, but I've only been able to reconfigure my week to include a hockey game on Monday nights, aerobic for 1 hour on Wednesday and Friday mornings, and strength training with my wife on Friday afternoon.

Weirdly, I was asked pretty much this same question a couple of days ago so I suspect I'll have to write a blog about it.

Pretty much what Chimpy said (although not sure about the "unless you're training for an endurance race" bit) - yes, you can do both on the same day and the order doesn't really matter for your current stated goals. Naturally there are some caveats but it's a bit tl;dr

A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
Chimpy
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10618


WWW
Reply #1383 on: May 15, 2015, 05:33:54 AM

I just meant that the benefits of doing cardio workouts for longer periods of time vs. 20-30 minutes really doesn't have that big of an impact unless you are planning on doing something that requires hours+ of sustained exercise. I am not saying there is anything inherently wrong with hour+ cardio workouts, I ride my bike for an hour+ a couple of times a week. It is just that for general fitness you are almost always better off doing 20-30 minutes of cardio and mixing it with resistance training if you are time constrained.

'Reality' is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.
DraconianOne
Terracotta Army
Posts: 2905


Reply #1384 on: May 15, 2015, 05:45:26 AM

Gotcha - understand what you were getting out now.

In other news, I've just signed up for another stupidly long race and am now overwhelmed by that "Oh my god, what the fuck was I thinking?" feeling.  awesome, for real

A point can be MOOT. MUTE is more along the lines of what you should be. - WayAbvPar
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #1385 on: May 22, 2015, 10:57:45 PM

Starting a new 5/3/1 cycle.  For any of you that have never tried it, I very highly recommend giving it a go.  Of all the different stuff I have tried over the years, this is the program that seems to be the most effective overall.  Starting Strength might be better for relative noobs, but 5/3/1 seems to be better at breaking through plateaus.

Will either keep the deads light, or simply not do them according to the plan (see back explosion of 2014).  Really just hoping to get my squats back into what I consider acceptable territory, because I seem to have gotten stuck.


"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12002

You call it an accident. I call it justice.


Reply #1386 on: May 23, 2015, 04:09:55 AM

Starting a new 5/3/1 cycle.  For any of you that have never tried it, I very highly recommend giving it a go.  Of all the different stuff I have tried over the years, this is the program that seems to be the most effective overall.  Starting Strength might be better for relative noobs, but 5/3/1 seems to be better at breaking through plateaus.

Will either keep the deads light, or simply not do them according to the plan (see back explosion of 2014).  Really just hoping to get my squats back into what I consider acceptable territory, because I seem to have gotten stuck.

I am right now in week 6 of the starting strength. I'll definitely be looking into this once I stop progressing.

Does any one know where the love of God goes...When the waves turn the minutes to hours? -G. Lightfoot
Miguel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1292

कुशल


Reply #1387 on: May 24, 2015, 10:49:02 AM

Any hints / pointers about starting 5/3/1?  I've always shied away from barbells since I didn't want to injure myself (I typically work out without a spotter since I'm by myself except for Saturday when my wife can join), but I admit that limited workouts to a few whole-body large-movement exercises seems appealing.  Would this be a good program for women as well?

I've watched all of Mark Rippetoe's videos and I do have an empty 40 lb. barbell that our previous homeowner left at our house, so I can work on the mechanics /technique for a few weeks.

“We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We’re not just making shit up.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #1388 on: May 24, 2015, 10:42:18 PM

A question first:  do you have access to an actual gym, preferably one that has some kind of squat/power rack?  Simply having a barbell at home probably isn't going to cut it.

Anyway, assuming you do, I would probably begin with Starting Strength if you are a relative novice with the mechanics of the Big 4 lifts (bench, dead, overhead press, squat)...this program (and variations like madcow's) is probably the best for beginners for two reasons.  Number one, it really helps you get the mechanics down.  And I'd recommend perhaps filming yourself and comparing your form to some good online videos, because to be quite honest with you, fully 90% of the people I see doing squats and deads are just flat out not doing it right.  Maybe half get the bench right.  Most people get overhead pressing right, simply because it is hard to do it wrong.  The second reason for Starting Strength is that it is probably the best program there is to get your "noob gains" out of the way...this is the magical period where you start out and make great strides in strength and size before you hit the wall.  I'd say you can do this until you simply cannot progress further.  Or if you would like to switch to something like 5/3/1, then I would at least wait until you can:

- bench 90% body weight for 10 reps
- overhead press 60-70% of your BW for 10 reps
- squat at least 130% of your BW for 5 reps
- deadlift at least 150% of your BW for 5 reps

None of these figures come from any program, this is just my somewhat arbitrary estimate at what constitutes a lifter who is on the verge of escaping his noobhood. Of course, if Starting Strength is still working for you, then you should keep at it.  If you are still able to add 5 pound on the bar every week, don't take that for granted (because you will never see it again outside of your noob phase).

Another thing to consider is how to eat with this program.  Starting Strength and its ilk are primarily designed for strength/size building, and they kind of assume that you are of a relatively "normal" body composition, or even that you are a skinny hard-gainer.  And therefore they tell you to drink a gallon of milk every day and just generally eat a lot of calories.  Naturally, this would not be a good idea if you are significantly overweight to begin with.  On the bright side, being in the noob phase helps you here again if this applies to you - it is quite possible to progress Starting Strength while on a calorie deficit when you are a beginner.  Once again, take advantage of this time, because you will never see it again.

Anyway, if you decide to do this program, we can talk about some more specific advice.

Oh, and on the subject of spotters.  First of all, if you are doing Starting Strength, probably do not need one at all.  For one thing, you are probably not even strong enough to work with weights that are actually dangerous to you.  For another, the program generally works in a way that you are not really pushing to squeeze out that last, questionable rep, so you probably won't find yourself often on the verge of failing.  And finally, getting a spot is actually cheating the program, because it means you failed the lift.  That's how you need to look at spotting - these are all failed lifts, every one of them.  The paradox with spotting is the by the time you advance far enough to need a spotter, you will know yourself well enough that you won't need the spotter.  You will simply stop the set before you fail that last rep.  Also, because I like random made-up statistics, 99% of the spotting you see going on in the gym is either directly wrong or counter-productive to the lifter.  Personally, I also like the psychological impact of not having a spotter...it forces you to REALLY focus, and that makes you better.  If you have access to a real power rack, use that instead and set the safety pins to catch any failed lifts.  Feel free to bench in the power rack too.  There is a time and place for a good spot, but as with all things in the gym, most people do not understand it at all.


"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
NowhereMan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7353


Reply #1389 on: May 25, 2015, 04:39:33 AM

Counter point on spotters, I find on bench it gives me the confidence to go through with lifts that I'm able to do but feel things getting tough. If I don't have a spotter I start thinking about failing and either do a half rep or sometimes just kind of lose concentration and tightness on the push. Of course a spotter should be there for when you need them, if they have to help you with a rep the set's over. Finding someone who understands this concept though is a pain, especially trainers seem to think if they're spottin then they should be helping you while going 'It's all you buddy'. I know they think they're being motivating but it's really frustrating, always remember to tell someone spotting you that you only need help when you're really stuck. Usually I just yell.

"Look at my car. Do you think that was bought with the earnest love of geeks?" - HaemishM
01101010
Terracotta Army
Posts: 12002

You call it an accident. I call it justice.


Reply #1390 on: May 25, 2015, 06:19:22 AM

Yeah spotters are really necessary on bench. The rest you can get away without, but bench can kill a guy. My gym is a fitness center so no power racks, thus I get a spotter if I am starting to struggle. Besides, you get to meet some interesting people. Only issue is getting someone who actually knows how to spot like NowhereMan says.

Does any one know where the love of God goes...When the waves turn the minutes to hours? -G. Lightfoot
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #1391 on: May 25, 2015, 08:38:58 AM

If your spotter is more a training partner than an actual spotter, I agree.  As far as the safety goes...yes and no.  The bench can kill you if you drop it on your neck, but that is something your spotter won't be able to stop anyway, unless he is holding onto the bar at all times (which we all agree he should not).  It can also kill you if you can't get it off your chest, but that is only if you are in the 400 pound plus bench range, and that is exactly none of us.  The huge majority of people are in no danger that a spotter is going to be in position to prevent.

The other side of this, which is also highly debatable, is that if you are repping out and are using a spotter to get your last rep or two due to failure, then you are probably training wrong.  Which might explain why you think you need the spotter.  I can't think of any of the standard programs that calls going to absolute failure.  Even the heavy set of 5/3/1 (which calls for As Many Reps As Possible) is with the understanding that you actually complete the last rep just before failure.

I don't know.  I don't want to talk anyone out of using a spotter, because of course there is a time and place.  I am just dubious that most people know that time and place.

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
K9
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7441


Reply #1392 on: May 25, 2015, 01:27:13 PM

For me when I have a spotter I can actually go to failure, that last rep where I can barely press the bar off my sternum. Having a spotter to lift the bar off me is just a safety/convenience thing. It's not like I'm dropping 110kg on my chest, it's all controlled, but I do appreciate having a spotter. Also having someone yell at you a little on the hard sets just seems to bring an extra few percent out of me, but that might not be for all people.

I love the smell of facepalm in the morning
Malakili
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10596


Reply #1393 on: May 25, 2015, 02:26:08 PM

Yeah, spotters aren't just there to prevent literal death. There are lot of injuries they can help prevent and it allows you to max out, as K9 said.
Miguel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1292

कुशल


Reply #1394 on: May 26, 2015, 04:41:07 PM

To answer a question, then ask a few more:  yes, I have access to a gym at work, and they have a squat rack plus cardio, a selection of machines, etc.  I have not lifted any weights for the past 6 years or so.  Most of my workouts have been mostly stress up until recently.

I purchased Starting Strength and I'll start that program next week.  I've only had a chance to skim the book, but other than the sections on form, one thing that stood out are the eating requirements.  I'm really not that concerned with my actual weight, but I'd like to get my body fat percentage down into the 15% level as a goal.  Does weightlifting help in this regard?

In terms of diet, I had my resting metabolic rate tested at Kaiser as part of the completion of a weight loss program - my rate was 2,300 calories per day (I'm 6'5", and weight 235 pounds right now, and my scale lists my body fat at 22%).  I tend to eat 5 or 6 meals that are about 400-500 calories a piece.  Should I be looking to operate at a deficit and cut out a meal or two, or reduce portion size?  Will this impact gains with Starting Strength?

I'm trying to simplify the workout routine as much as possible as those are the programs I tend to stick with long term.

“We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We’re not just making shit up.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #1395 on: May 26, 2015, 10:23:16 PM

I don't know what the book says exactly about nutrition, having never read the actual book.  In general what I would say to you is that if you are not overly concerned about the number on the scale, then do not worry overly much about your total calorie intake at this point.  Just make sure you are getting enough protein (probably more than you think you need) and not going crazy on the bad carbs.  And then if I were you, I would keep this approach for as long as the lifting numbers keep going up.  If you are a bit impatient, you could try to cut out a few hundred calories, but only only only if your lifting numbers continue to improve exactly according to the program.  You are in that enviable state where it is possible to both lose weight and gain muscle easily at the same time.

If you maintain your current level of calorie intake and go through at least 12 weeks of this program, you will definitely see changes in the mirror if not also the scale.  As a noob, you will pack on muscle fast, and the more muscle you have, the more fat burning capability you have as well.  Strength training  - assuming you are doing it right - is superior to cardio for fat burning.  And with that big ass frame of a body you have?  Your muscle building capability is improved quite a bit, so it will just get easier and easier to burn fat.

What do you mean by "trying to simplify the workout"?  You do not mean to adjust the recommended Starting Strength program I hope, it is already about the most simplified program there is (whilst still being effective).

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
Miguel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1292

कुशल


Reply #1396 on: May 26, 2015, 11:24:16 PM

Horrible wording on my part - should have said "simplify my workout", by moving to something like Starting Strength. :). I'll do the program as written.

“We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We’re not just making shit up.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson
NowhereMan
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7353


Reply #1397 on: May 27, 2015, 05:57:08 AM

Starting Strength recommends a huge calorie intake but bear in mind it was originally designed for 18 year old novices that wanted to get in shape for American Football, more or less. It's aim is getting maximum strength gains in the minimum amount of time and aesthetic concerns are pretty much non-existent. That said, it's a brilliant new lifter programme and it's very effective at what it does. To give advice I'm really bad at taking, treat it as 12 weeks to build some muscle and get your strength up. If you're stalling on lifts then add an extra 100-200 calories a day, make sure you're getting sufficient sleep and protein.

That said I've been failing at this for like 3 years now, aside from a couple of good stretches where I did what I was meant to and watched my diet. Injuries, illness or holidays always seem to get me and I end up resetting, though I have actually made progress, just nowhere near where I would be if I was better about everything outside the gym. Also Military Press is like my anti-lift, I cannot get the form right on it I suspect as some weeks I can do 30kg x 8 comfortably and some weeks I'm failing on 25. I can feel the difference but can't figure out how to actually get the right form consistently. When I'm doing it wrong I end up using my front delts, arching my back a bit and turning it into a kind of semi-incline bench. At least I think that's what I'm doing.

"Look at my car. Do you think that was bought with the earnest love of geeks?" - HaemishM
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #1398 on: May 27, 2015, 06:33:06 AM

A lot of people have trouble with military presses/OHP.  And it is quite natural that it involves a lot of your delts, because it should.  Without the leaning, of course.

There are about a million pieces of advice I could think to give, but I would have to better understand how strong/weak you are with this versus your bench press.  So if we say that you can max OHP at 40kg (that's about what 30 x 8 comes out to), how is that compared to a max bench press?  Knowing this will help with understanding where your weakness likely is.

"...maybe if you cleaned the piss out of the sunny d bottles under your desks and returned em, you could upgrade you vid cards, fucken lusers.." - Grunk
Miguel
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1292

कुशल


Reply #1399 on: May 27, 2015, 01:33:28 PM

Thanks for all of the incredibly useful advice all: far better than any of the trainers I've spoken with at 24 hour Fitness (who seem to spend a lot of their time pimping their in-house programs).  

I'm all set to do my first Starting Strength workout this Friday, where I select my starting weight.  I've been using my empty bar in front of a mirror and checking my form against Rippetoe's videos, so I think I'll have a good place to start.  I'll follow the recommendations in the book (start with empty bar until speed/form falters, etc).  Since it will force me to stay on target I'll post results here over the coming weeks. :)

A more general question:  what is the current thinking on reps per set?  If the internet is to be believed, the ranges fall in to something like:

1) 1-5 reps = strength range
2) 6-12 reps = muscular hypertrophy (muscle mass) range
3) 12+ reps = endurance range

Starting Strength looks to be in camp #1, which is where I will focus for the time being.  I suppose being a newb means that any lifting is progress, so this question is mostly curiosity.  My last trainer (6+ years ago) had me operating mostly in range #3, doing 15+ reps and 3 sets.  It seems consensus is that strength doesn't increase much in this range which explains why I never progressed much in strength during that year.

EDIT: forgot to add: if I understand the book, the 5 reps should *NOT* be to failure...I should be selecting a starting weight where I just reach failure at the 5th rep of the final set, with proper form and no slow-downs of each set, with up to 5 minutes between sets.

Did I understand correctly?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2015, 01:36:29 PM by Miguel »

“We have competent people thinking about this stuff. We’re not just making shit up.” -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Pages: 1 ... 38 39 [40] 41 42 ... 44 Go Up Print 
f13.net  |  f13.net General Forums  |  General Discussion  |  Topic: So. P90X anyone? (Misery loves company)  
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.10 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC