Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 04:27:28 AM

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 2 Guests are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 44 Go Down Print
Author Topic: So. P90X anyone? (Misery loves company)  (Read 477152 times)
MrHat
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7432

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.


Reply #210 on: March 19, 2009, 07:03:57 AM

In many ways, the weight gain I had a secondary negative impact as far as my personality went.  I became distant from friends, disliked going out to social functions, and it really sent me into a withdrawn state.  I had zero energy.  Rather than getting out and doing stuff - whether it was golf, fishing, working in the yard, I had developed a very bad couch potato syndrome - whether it was sitting on the couch or in front of my computer after work, and after everyone went to bed.  Staying up too late, not getting enough rest.  I had zero patience; even my 'online' persona became that of a complete asshole.  Bitter at everyone, hating everything.  The reality of it is, I hated myself, projected that outward to everyone and everything.  I was a tyrant at work.  Constant fighting with my wife.

That's the huge thing I noticed last year when I dropped about 40 (Thanks Nebu!).  All those little things had started spiraling so that I had become hugely withdrawn.

Really, I'm so happy that you are up and about and enjoying your life more.  Mad congrats!

Now, if I could find somewhere to hook up a pull up bar... :)
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #211 on: March 19, 2009, 07:27:54 AM

My own little mini update:  I've been cutting weight for about ten days.  Have lost about 9 pounds already - most of which within the first couple of days, due to all the excess water.  Still it's probably coming off a little too quickly, but I think that's because I became so proficient at shedding weight last year that I am struggling to figure out how to do it slowly.  An odd problem to have, I know.

The good news is that I believe my cutting phase will be much, much shorter than I expected and I do appear to be keeping the muscle for the most part.  I thought I was going to have to do it for a couple months, but it will be more like 2 or 3 weeks.  I haven't lost any strength so far, and I don't think I will.  That seems to be partly the result of the diet I'm on, which still keeps the protein and fat (good fat, duh) intake pretty high, but keeping the carb intake limited to around 100g a day.  Let me tell you - I know that there are more extreme low carb diets - but keeping it down to around 100g a day is fucking hard.  Even a lot of otherwise healthy snacks are just out for now. 

As far as the workouts go, I've essentially kept the same program of lifting weights (geared more for maintaining the strength rather than constantly increasing strength during the bulking phase) and added a little bit of cardio (kickboxing) every day to burn a few more calories.  And it's a good thing that I'm not trying to gain strength and size at the moment, because I have essentially maxed out my home gym, except for a few isolation exercises.  Yes, I've beaten my home gym.  Ah well...it served its initial purpose, and I surely didn't know how hard this bug was going to bite me.  There is a Power Rack on the horizon for when I begin my next bulking phase in a few weeks.  I really can't wait.  It's weird, because I used to be such a lazy fuck, but now I am going all OCD.

"...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
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #212 on: March 19, 2009, 07:37:28 AM

Quote
Let me tell you - I know that there are more extreme low carb diets - but keeping it down to around 100g a day is fucking hard.

Try keeping it to ~0G for 15 weeks when you weigh 300+. awesome, for real

I need to diet again, just because I'd love to drop 35 and hit 200.
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #213 on: March 19, 2009, 07:42:56 AM

0g carb diets may work, but they're terrible from a biochemical standpoint.  Your brain burns primarily glucose.  Forcing the body to manufacture glucose from fat and protein is asking for all kind of trouble unless you are smart about knowing EXACTLY what's going in the pie hole. 

Going on a diet is always a bad idea.  Permanently changing your diet is the key to long-term success. 

*Schild, you're an exception because you have some superhuman ability to stick with ridiculous denial diets. 

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #214 on: March 19, 2009, 07:46:17 AM

It helps that I fucking love meat and soy enough to just stop caring. As a gamer, I find it ridiculously easy to diet when I have the funds to support a diet. I have gained back a minimal amount of weight because I can't afford quality food. It sucks ass.
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #215 on: March 19, 2009, 07:50:42 AM

Yeah, the thing I like least about doing all this bulking and cutting is that I know it isn't great from a nutritional standpoint.  It's a rollercoaster ride for the body.  I'm going to try and take it easier for my next bulking phase, so that I can avoid too much of the fact gain and keep a more sensible diet.

But while we're on the topic, what would you say, Nebu, about the 100g carb approach?  I can see with my own eyes that it works, but is it still too few?  It seems like too few.  I wouldn't want to do it for long.  Can't even eat hardly any damn fruit, and I love me some fruit.  Not too mention my pretzel addiction.

"...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
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #216 on: March 19, 2009, 07:54:40 AM

Just think of it of not making it so hard on itself, foodwise, if you just do something to burn those carbs a little more. They're meant for burning, so there's no need to cut down to an intolerable level. In your case Cyrexx, then it sounds like you're being intense enough with exercise, then it's unnecessary. Besides, carbs go hand in hand with protein when lifting weights. They are a good thing. Honestly, I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish?
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #217 on: March 19, 2009, 07:55:56 AM

Here's the simple truth:  After a workout your body needs carbs.  The key is to deliver them in the right package.  Same goes for proteins.  Get to know and understand how your body deals with different carbs and proteins and you'll be able to eat better.  Complex carbs generate a slow release of insulin due to a slower delivery rate.  That makes them a great way to get the sugars your body needs (especially post workout) without creating a feeling that you crave more carbs.  Mono- and disaccharides will trigger huge insulin releases that last beyond carb intake making you crave more carbs.  This is where most people fall down.

Another thing I've learned that helps during the cut phase is that your body adjusts to caloric intake about every two weeks.  I've done some playing with high/low calorie diets and found that you can eat high calories for two weeks and become very anabolic.  After this, I would cut calories hard for two weeks and it would drive off the fat without crashing my metabolism.  The key is always maintaining high quality calories.  Lean proteins, complex carbs, and lots of water.  When you cut calories (say to the 1500 level), your body will slow your metabolism after 2 weeks to compensate for the fasting state.  If you can get calories back up after two weeks, the body never reaches fasting state.

Last tip: 5 - 6 small meals a day.  Regulates blood sugar and keeps metabolic rate more consistent.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 07:58:46 AM by Nebu »

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #218 on: March 19, 2009, 08:02:56 AM

I get all that, but some...."research"....seems to indicate that the best way to keep muscle and target the fat is to keep the carbs as low as possible, whilst continuing to keep relatively high levels of protein and (counterintuitively) fat consumption.  In my very short experience so far, it seems to be true.  I can feel that I have a bit less energy to burn during workouts, motivational willpower tends to make up for that.  OTOH, I seem to be so proficient at cutting weight that I could probably stand to eat more carbs.  In any event, consider it an academic discussion.  I am curious to hear Nebu's view on this more from a physiological stanpoint.

Fake edit:  posting this before reading Nebu's response.

Real edit:  thanks Nebu, that's a lot of great info.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 08:09:43 AM by Cyrrex »

"...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
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #219 on: March 19, 2009, 08:11:29 AM

If you cut carbs you will always lose 20-30% muscle in the process of burning fat stores.  Understanding basic catabolic metabolism will tell you this.  Carbs are the short term fuel source.  You want carbs.  The key is getting just the right amount and type of carbs.  Too much = bad.  Too little = bad.  Balanced carbs of the right type coupled to a low fat, high protein diet is the key.  There really are no shortcuts to this. 

Also, make sure that you are getting your B vitamins.  They are VITAL to metabolism.  Don't overdo it, but make sure you're getting 100% of what you need for supplements.  ADEK should be at 100% and the water solubles (B and C) can be a bit over since you'll just urinate off any excess.

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #220 on: March 19, 2009, 08:20:17 AM

Again, thanks for taking the time.

Without supplements, my diet seems to generally be giving me most of the vitams and minerals I need, so I'm less worried about that part.  It is essentially a healthy diet, with the possible exception that I'm being too anal about the carbs.  I probably cut more calories in general than I need to, for essentially the same reason.

My bulking diet on the other hand... awesome, for real

"...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
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #221 on: March 19, 2009, 08:41:35 AM

Yet another "Lee Anecdote" (I don't mean to sound like a broken record.. I'm just currently interested in how it worked out for him) - It's interesting that supposedly he was a big pasta and noodle eater. According to his wife at least. He didn't know shit about cooking or nutrition according to her, so she prepared his meals. Yet he maintained peak quality until he died. I doubt that he fluctuated any more than between 3 and 6 percent body fat when you look at his all his pics, and he did it for that long (it's one thing to get cut, it's another to maintain it... even Leonidas is complaining now about his beerbelly).
schild
Administrator
Posts: 60345


WWW
Reply #222 on: March 19, 2009, 09:08:44 AM

Yet another "Lee Anecdote" (I don't mean to sound like a broken record.. I'm just currently interested in how it worked out for him) - It's interesting that supposedly he was a big pasta and noodle eater. According to his wife at least. He didn't know shit about cooking or nutrition according to her, so she prepared his meals. Yet he maintained peak quality until he died. I doubt that he fluctuated any more than between 3 and 6 percent body fat when you look at his all his pics, and he did it for that long (it's one thing to get cut, it's another to maintain it... even Leonidas is complaining now about his beerbelly).
Bruce Lee, 1. Is asian, and 2. Worked out harder than anyone on this board ever will. He could probably eat any goddamn thing he wanted, so it's not particularly "interesting" as you put it. Heh.
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #223 on: March 19, 2009, 09:21:16 AM

True enough. Heh. He definitely worked out a shitload. As for the genetics, he used to be a little soft (relatively speaking.. he wasn't defined, I mean). The famous story where the chinese sent a representative to kick his ass for teaching white people kung-fu is supposedly what sparked his interest in fitness (fitness outside martial arts). He immediately gained an advantage in the fight with a blow, but had the guy running all over the place.. Until Lee finally caught up with him and made him submit. So he was already a top martial artist, just by technique alone. But the people there said he was pissed -- he was upset that it took him 3 minutes to take that guy out, and that he was winded from chasing him around. So this was a turning point or something. [edit] I'm gonna drive myself crazy looking for it, but there was a quote where he was complaining that he was really out of shape when he was younger and even had a belly himself.
« Last Edit: March 19, 2009, 09:24:58 AM by stray »
SnakeCharmer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3807


Reply #224 on: March 19, 2009, 11:03:41 AM

You're a 33 waist at 181? Wow. How tall are you? I was a 34 at 228. I need to lose some weight since my diet I gained back 10 quickly (inevitable) but I constantly hover around 235, still fit into all the 34s and 36 pants I bought along with everything else.

I'm 5'10" on a good day.  I'm very...what's the best word to describe my body type...compact?  It's like I should be about 6'2" or so, but someone squashed me down a bit.  I've also got freakishly big thunderthighs and calves, and carry a good bit of weight there.  Very little fat there now, but still.  I have a powerlifters physique.  Even when I was in the absolute best shape of my life back in college, I had a 31-32 inch waist.

There's no telling how much my watermelon head weighs.  And I've lost so much weight in my face, I'm seriously considering having plastic surgery done on my ears to make them lay back like they normally should.  Basically this:


I've always hated my ears, and wanted to have it done.

Also, that measurement is done where I wear my pants.  About one inch below the belly button.
Hindenburg
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1854

Itto


Reply #225 on: March 19, 2009, 11:48:44 AM

Do the surgery. Your ears are horrendous.

"Who uses Outlook anyway?  People who get what they deserve, that's who." - Ard.
SnakeCharmer
Terracotta Army
Posts: 3807


Reply #226 on: March 20, 2009, 08:19:03 AM

Your FACE is horrendous!
Hindenburg
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1854

Itto


Reply #227 on: March 20, 2009, 08:21:55 AM

And yet you lust for it.

"Who uses Outlook anyway?  People who get what they deserve, that's who." - Ard.
MrHat
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7432

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.


Reply #228 on: March 23, 2009, 03:10:40 PM

Ignore me.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 05:26:52 PM by MrHat »
Hindenburg
Terracotta Army
Posts: 1854

Itto


Reply #229 on: March 23, 2009, 05:09:12 PM

Your image link died.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2009, 05:23:24 PM by Itto »

"Who uses Outlook anyway?  People who get what they deserve, that's who." - Ard.
slog
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8232


Reply #230 on: March 23, 2009, 06:30:42 PM

Didn't read the thread, but did someone post a link to the study recently released that basicly said "it doesn't matter if you consume carbs, no carbs, fats, whatever.  All that matters is calories in and calories out"

If not, here you go http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/lowcarb-lowfat-study-find_n_170056.html




Friends don't let Friends vote for Boomers
MrHat
Terracotta Army
Posts: 7432

Out of the frying pan, into the fire.


Reply #231 on: March 23, 2009, 06:50:41 PM

Didn't read the thread, but did someone post a link to the study recently released that basicly said "it doesn't matter if you consume carbs, no carbs, fats, whatever.  All that matters is calories in and calories out"

If not, here you go http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/lowcarb-lowfat-study-find_n_170056.html





For weight loss.

It still matters what you eat though.
slog
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8232


Reply #232 on: March 23, 2009, 06:54:51 PM

Didn't read the thread, but did someone post a link to the study recently released that basicly said "it doesn't matter if you consume carbs, no carbs, fats, whatever.  All that matters is calories in and calories out"

If not, here you go http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/02/25/lowcarb-lowfat-study-find_n_170056.html





For weight loss.

It still matters what you eat though.

Sustainable weight loss in particular.  If you are training for something (I'm currently trying to build up to a marathon) then yes it matters.  I don't think that applies to 95% of the people here.

Friends don't let Friends vote for Boomers
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #233 on: March 23, 2009, 08:10:32 PM

It still matters what you eat though.

I'll qualify this. 

1) Nutrients matter. 
2) Fiber matters
3) Insulin release matters

Other than that, they are correct.  It's all about calories in vs BMR.

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #234 on: March 24, 2009, 04:15:55 AM

certain things are going to aid how you burn said calories. the right amount of carbs will keep you energetic.. and it's just good to cut down as much sodium and cholesterol as possible right now. not just because of the longterm ills, but also because it makes your blood volume increase, and in turn, makes your heart work harder. which in turn again, makes burning said calories and doing exercise harder than it needs to be.

i'm not even sure if it's possible without a complete "like makeover" to cut down sodium to "recommended" levels though - that's the sad thing about it. but we all could afford some cutting down. supposedly - the average american at least - we eat up to 5 to as much as 10 times more sodium than what is suggested. you'd be accomplishing something if you could even get it down to 2 or 3 times as much.  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

[edit] i've been recently thinking of "iife as an rpg". like if you were tweaking efficiency and stats and time dedication and shit. in that respect, most of us are extreme gimps.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 04:27:54 AM by stray »
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #235 on: March 24, 2009, 04:59:58 AM

I don't think this is going out on a limb (maybe it is), but I tend to think that women care a great deal more about simply shedding weight, regardless of body composition.  Men seem to care less about actual weight and more about composition.  I'm sure this isn't always true, but that has been my experience. 

Sodium and cholesterol are my bane.  With the cholesterol, I just seem to be genetically inclined to have high cholesterol.  On the bright side, I have managed to significantly increase my "good" cholesterol over the past year.  Sodium...damn you tasty salty snacks!  I don't that I'll ever win that paticular battle. 


[edit] i've been recently thinking of "iife as an rpg". like if you were tweaking efficiency and stats and time dedication and shit. in that respect, most of us are extreme gimps.

I'm just hoping to get my mount soon.

"...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
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #236 on: March 24, 2009, 05:16:54 AM

I have pretty shoddy armor. But my real problem is spending too much time in the auction house, buying pointless shit, and switching my classes too much. Very little mission completion and nothing to show for whatever hard work I've done. why so serious?
slog
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8232


Reply #237 on: March 24, 2009, 05:21:20 AM

certain things are going to aid how you burn said calories. the right amount of carbs will keep you energetic.. and it's just good to cut down as much sodium and cholesterol as possible right now. not just because of the longterm ills, but also because it makes your blood volume increase, and in turn, makes your heart work harder. which in turn again, makes burning said calories and doing exercise harder than it needs to be.

i'm not even sure if it's possible without a complete "like makeover" to cut down sodium to "recommended" levels though - that's the sad thing about it. but we all could afford some cutting down. supposedly - the average american at least - we eat up to 5 to as much as 10 times more sodium than what is suggested. you'd be accomplishing something if you could even get it down to 2 or 3 times as much.  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

[edit] i've been recently thinking of "iife as an rpg". like if you were tweaking efficiency and stats and time dedication and shit. in that respect, most of us are extreme gimps.

I think the whole point of the study was to say "No this isn't true" or "it doesn't really matter in the long term"
« Last Edit: March 24, 2009, 05:23:52 AM by slog »

Friends don't let Friends vote for Boomers
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #238 on: March 24, 2009, 05:33:05 AM

Um, that entire article says absolutely nothing of substance.  The only thing it even gets close to saying is what we already knew...consume fewer calories than you burn, and you will lose weight.  There is nothing even remotely remarkable about that.  But it doesn't tell the whole story.

Also, people struggle to lose weight mostly because people really aren't trying very hard.  And this just in:  people gain all their weight back because they have not changed their body composition (BMR, metabolism), and then they go right back to consuming too many calories. 

"...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
slog
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8232


Reply #239 on: March 24, 2009, 05:42:35 AM

Um, that entire article says absolutely nothing of substance.  The only thing it even gets close to saying is what we already knew...consume fewer calories than you burn, and you will lose weight.  There is nothing even remotely remarkable about that.  But it doesn't tell the whole story.

But it does tell us quite a bit.  It tells us the other stuff doesn't really matter. It's all about calories and nothing else.  To be successful, you have to consume less calories than you burn.  Period.  Everything else is BS.

Quote

Also, people struggle to lose weight mostly because people really aren't trying very hard.  And this just in:  people gain all their weight back because they have not changed their body composition (BMR, metabolism), and then they go right back to consuming too many calories. 

I disagree here.  I believe lots of people try hard and fail.  Here is my purely anecdotal theory:  People are idiots.  What's the first thing that most people I know do to lose weight?

The join a gym or buy Cardio exercise equipment.  And they lose 5 pounds for the first two weeks.  What they don't realize is that Cardio is fairly worthless by itself when it comes to losing weight in the long term.  Walk in any Gym, and look where the fat people are. 

They are almost always on the Cardio machines.  The fit people are doing resistance/weight training.  The problem with Cardio is that it gets too easy.  People actually believe those calorie burnt meters.  A fit person burns a lot less calories than a fatty on the elliptical.  And as they do it more, they will burn less and less.

And in the meantime, they still eat like idiots.

Friends don't let Friends vote for Boomers
stray
Terracotta Army
Posts: 16818

has an iMac.


Reply #240 on: March 24, 2009, 05:43:48 AM

certain things are going to aid how you burn said calories. the right amount of carbs will keep you energetic.. and it's just good to cut down as much sodium and cholesterol as possible right now. not just because of the longterm ills, but also because it makes your blood volume increase, and in turn, makes your heart work harder. which in turn again, makes burning said calories and doing exercise harder than it needs to be.

i'm not even sure if it's possible without a complete "like makeover" to cut down sodium to "recommended" levels though - that's the sad thing about it. but we all could afford some cutting down. supposedly - the average american at least - we eat up to 5 to as much as 10 times more sodium than what is suggested. you'd be accomplishing something if you could even get it down to 2 or 3 times as much.  Oh ho ho ho. Reallllly?

[edit] i've been recently thinking of "iife as an rpg". like if you were tweaking efficiency and stats and time dedication and shit. in that respect, most of us are extreme gimps.

I think the whole point of the study was to say "No this isn't true" or "it doesn't really matter in the long term"


Sorry, I'll admit to not reading it. I thought it was just a rule of thumb sort of suggestion about the primacy of exercise. Which is true. To say what we eat doesn't really matter though would be silly. They go hand in hand. It might be safe to say that too many people want all of their good results from just diet, and that they should just exercise more -- but exercise needs it's only kind of fuels too. You are doing a two steps forward, one step back deal by carrying on a typical (bad) diet, yet exercising. And depending on what kind of exercise we're talking about, it can vary greatly. High protein is needed to build muscle, for instance. You wouldn't be getting the results you wanted if you lifted all day, but didn't have enough protein in your diet. Or if you simply wanted to lose weight, you wouldn't be getting the results you wanted by consuming tons of carbs either. The amount of carbs in a typical diet is simply too much -- and if you kept eating them, even while exercising, some of them aren't going to get burned -- and in turn, converted to fat stores. That's just how physiology works. It's not a mystery.
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #241 on: March 24, 2009, 06:09:14 AM

When the article says it "doesn't really matter", it is true when it comes to simply losing weight.  My counterpoint is that it matters a great deal what kind of weight your are losing, and whether or not you want to keep it off.  Or for that matter, it doesn't even ask the question of whether or not weight loss should even be the goal.  A highly irresponsible article, all in all.

Fat people on the cardio machines are people who are still consuming too many calories and not burning enough of them.  When I say they aren't trying hard enough, I mean it.  They would probably also be better served working their muscles as well as working their cardio....cardio burns calories RIGHT NOW.  Muscles burn calories ALL DAY LONG.  Also, muscle weighs more than fat, which is more than just hyperbole...it literally means that you can appear leaner than you currently are while maintaining a similar body weight....it has a secondary benefit of wrapping itself close to your body, unlike fat.  Shit, it it makes the question of how much you weigh to be moot.  People should worry more about body composition, and less about absolute weight totals. 

"...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
slog
Terracotta Army
Posts: 8232


Reply #242 on: March 24, 2009, 06:48:01 AM

When the article says it "doesn't really matter", it is true when it comes to simply losing weight.  My counterpoint is that it matters a great deal what kind of weight your are losing, and whether or not you want to keep it off.  Or for that matter, it doesn't even ask the question of whether or not weight loss should even be the goal.  A highly irresponsible article, all in all.

Fat people on the cardio machines are people who are still consuming too many calories and not burning enough of them.  When I say they aren't trying hard enough, I mean it.  They would probably also be better served working their muscles as well as working their cardio....cardio burns calories RIGHT NOW.  Muscles burn calories ALL DAY LONG.  Also, muscle weighs more than fat, which is more than just hyperbole...it literally means that you can appear leaner than you currently are while maintaining a similar body weight....it has a secondary benefit of wrapping itself close to your body, unlike fat.  Shit, it it makes the question of how much you weigh to be moot.  People should worry more about body composition, and less about absolute weight totals. 

I think we are saying the same thing here (you are just saying it better)

Friends don't let Friends vote for Boomers
Cyrrex
Terracotta Army
Posts: 10603


Reply #243 on: April 13, 2009, 07:22:02 AM

Mini update.  Bought a Power Rack (for safe squats), a 300 lb Olympic bar/weight set and a bench.  I've simply outgrown the cheap little single station I bought, and it wasn't letting my do anything to mimic the squats.  And holy fuck did I need it...the first day I did squats in my new rack had me hobbling like an old geezer for almost five days afterwards.  Getting better now, but damn...I was neglecting my legs a little more than I thought.  Rack is real good for all kinds of bench press exercises, military presses and pull-ups/chin-ups.  Very happy.

I don't really know what my goal is, at the moment.  I didn't quite cut all the body fat I wanted to cut, but with the new weight set I don't think I can resist starting another bulking phase.  Right now I'm kind of hovering a little.

"...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
Nebu
Terracotta Army
Posts: 17613


Reply #244 on: April 13, 2009, 08:18:30 AM

Mini update.  Bought a Power Rack (for safe squats), a 300 lb Olympic bar/weight set and a bench.  I've simply outgrown the cheap little single station I bought, and it wasn't letting my do anything to mimic the squats.  And holy fuck did I need it...the first day I did squats in my new rack had me hobbling like an old geezer for almost five days afterwards.  Getting better now, but damn...I was neglecting my legs a little more than I thought.  Rack is real good for all kinds of bench press exercises, military presses and pull-ups/chin-ups.  Very happy.

I don't really know what my goal is, at the moment.  I didn't quite cut all the body fat I wanted to cut, but with the new weight set I don't think I can resist starting another bulking phase.  Right now I'm kind of hovering a little.

Another thing about a good squat rack:  It's VERY versatile.  You can easily build a dip station using the safety bars and if you have a top bar, you can use it for pullups with a variety of grips.  Get yourself a 2x4 and you can also work your calves.  If I had a better home gym I'd have a four things: a good incline bench that can be used for abs/decline work, a squat rack, a stationary bike, and a treadmill that can get to a 15 degree incline. 

If you want to build muscle mass, make sure that you gear your workouts for intensity.  I lift 4 times a week and my workouts are short (30-40 mins).  The goal is to have a short, high-intensity abuse of targeted groups (M/Thurs = Chest, shoulders, calves; Tues/Fri = Arms, back, quads).  I never do more than 5-6 reps of any exercise and I typically do 4-5 sets.  The key is to work to failure in 5 reps.  Any more than that and you're building muscle stamina, not mass.

I'm going to try something radical for the 12 weeks this summer.  I'm going to abandon my strength training for an all natural program.  Dips, pullups, pushups, etc.  with a lot of mileage.  I want to see how my body adjusts to a more utilitarian workout regiment.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2009, 08:24:18 AM by Nebu »

"Always do what is right. It will gratify half of mankind and astound the other."

-  Mark Twain
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 9 ... 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