posted
If your goal is weight loss, your best route is cardio. Cardio Cardio Cardio.
I doubt you're gonna do much weight loss through whatever muscle you will gain through weight training.
That aside, the rule is, if you are looking for bulk, less reps, more weight. If you are looking to define your muscles, less weight, more reps.
Jerk suddenly = bad. Lifting slowly isn't bad, but it's only a good idea if you have enough control over yourself that you are targeting and isolating the muscle you are working on. If you can't maintain control that long, then a faster movement would be better.
As for your last question: Dips hit chest, triceps, and shoulders.
The back is a big area that you'd probably need to hit a number of ways...
And Legs are a big one if you are trying to increase metabolic function. Working out your legs can increase the flow of testosterone and help your muscle development throughout the rest of your body.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most weight training is done with three sets comprised of a number of repetitions. So say I am doing a bicep curl. If I wanted a bigger bicep, i would do 3 sets of curls, each set comprised of 6 repetitions.
If I wanted more defined biceps, I would 3 sets of 8-12 repetitions each.
The idea behind ALL weight training is to lift until your muscle fails. As such, the less reps you do, the more weight you will need to lift to bring your muscle to failure. If you are concentrating on defining your muscle, and you thereby are doing less reps, in order to enable you to do more reps before your muscle goes to failure, you need to lower the weight you are lifting.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Of course, a lot of that is probably more genetic than due to differences in regimen. But just to define terms, maybe that'll help.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Weight loss is tricky through putting on muscle, if your goal is to lower the actual number on the scale, and you aren't massively overweight, then putting on muscle won't nudge the number, but if you want to put on muscle in more of an effort to lower your body fat, then you're fine because the more muscle you have, the more calories you are constantly burning. Besides, lifting weights can burn more calories than cardio, it all depends on what you are doing.
If you really aren't trying to bulk up but are going for a more lean toned look, then higher reps are the ticket. How much weight you use will vary depending on the results you want to achieve. Doing too little weight won't put on enough muscle. You might want to consider doing something in the middle of the high rep/low weight vs. low rep/high weight argument and do middle/middle, which will tone and build, but a little less dramatically than in either direction (unless you really want to pack it on, in which case go ahead with high weight and low reps). For me, when I start switch to a new exercise (which you'll want to do every month or two for muscle confusion), I see what the maximum weight I can do 12 reps at is. If I can do 12 reps, I add 5lbs and try again until I can't do it. When I hit a weight I can't do 12 reps at, I'll start at 6, then do 8, then 10, then 12, then add five pounds and start back at 6. You should always be adding either weight or reps to up the difficulty level, otherwise it'll take forever. I'd consider bulking territory to be more 90-100% of your one rep max (the most you can lift at one time) with 4-6 reps. Definition territory I'd say is 14 to even 18 reps. I think 12 is a nice solid middle territory that'll help achieve both goals. But if you find that it's not doing what you want, you can adjust accordingly.
Don't jerk suddenly. You want controlled movements in both directions. You never want to let momentum carry your movements. If you're using a lot of weight I'd be wary of VERY slow movements, but I'd just say smooth and controlled in both directions, but don't try and whip the weights around or you're just asking for injury and slower results. To slightly edit what Armoth said, if you don't have the control over the weights you're using to use evenly controlled movements, faster isn't better, it might mean you are using too much weight and you should lower the weight until you CAN use a more controlled motion. If you're using too much weight, you're going to end up cheating and maybe hurting yourself.
If you want to work every muscle group, I'd say, especially for just starting out, try and do something akin to a full body workout all in one day (or at least split them up into upper and lower body workouts) using exercises that target multiple muscle groups. A row for example will target all the major muscles of your back; your traps, rhomboids, lats, and even your posterior delts. You can do a row either on a machine, or with the cables, or either with dumbbells doing one arm rows or silmultaneous, or you can use a barbell, but I'm not a fan of that one. I actually just switched from using the machine to the cable, and it's a nice change.
A bench press works the chest good, as well as the anterior delts and triceps. A row also works your biceps by the way, but as a less synergistic muscle, so if you want to work on your arms, you'll still want to target them with a good old dumbbell or barbell curl.
The easiest way to work your abs, which are another major muscle group, is a simple crunch, but you'll want a weighted crunch to build them up. Personally I prefer the weight machines for this, as I haven't gotten comfortable doing it with larger weights, but if you wanted to try it starting out on a decline, that'd at least up the difficulty level.
For your lower body, the leg press is probably the simplest way to work your quads, glutes and hamstrings all at the same time. If you'd prefer, you could probably just do cardio either with a stairstepper or a treadmill with a really high incline to work your lower body, but that's the easiest way to work all the muscles at once unless you want individual muscle exercises which is more time consuming.
If you do it that way and go to the gym say four times a week, you can hit every muscle group in the body twice. Most experienced people (of which I'm not yet one of) will breakdown their days into Chest/Arm and Back/Shoulders and what not (complementary muscle groups) and do them on different days, but if you're just starting out (personally I'm about five months into a workout program, and I'm seeing some good results in muscle growth) you don't need to do that many exercises per muscle group, and if you DO separate them out, you only end up hitting them once a week when you include rest time and all the in between time.
One last word, is to keep an eye on your form when doing free weights, especially if you're doing a lot of weight on some of what I consider to be the riskier moves like a deadlift. If you aren't positioned right, you really can hurt yourself, which will put a serious crimp in your workout schedule. Also if your form is off, you might be mistargeting your muscles, and you'll end up losing a lot of valuable effort by not working the right muscles. There are a few websites I could point you to if you want to look up exercises for different muscle groups, and actually, YouTube has a lot of instructional videos on it if you know what to search for. Or temporarily getting a personal trainer just to show you the ropes wouldn't hurt either (except your wallet).
I'll admit that I learned 90% of that through research rather than people at the gym. I didn't have the money to get a personal trainer so I spent a lot of time reading up on different exercises and exercise plans, and there is a LOT of conflicting information out there. Eventually I took what I learned to a friend of mine who works out a lot and he told me what was good and what was garbage, and with that I built my own little workout plan. It works for me pretty well, so long as I actually keep to my schedule.
Oh, and one last, last word. Keep a "diary" of sorts of your exercises and what you did each day. Logging your progress helps in a multitude of ways. 1. You know what you did that day, so the next day you can plan out what you'll do and don't repeat the same thing, plus if you get hurt, you might have an idea as to what you did wrong. 2. It's a confidence booster to look back a couple weeks and see the progress you made.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, A lot of guys do well in the gym and end up with blobs for muscles on their arms and chests. Only after spending some time defining them does it look more cut, toned and stuff...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Additionally, we have a few exercise threads here that are a repository of good information on nutrition and exercise (including several detailed posts from me and other about weight training).
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know that the Official Exercise Thread (I think that's what it's called) has a lot of good nutrition and exercise information in it on a variety of different subjects, including weight lifting I believe.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks Lyrhawn, that was very informative. "Weight loss" was perhaps not the phrase I was looking for, let me say "fat loss" instead. I don't care so much how many kilos there are, but I do care about the distribution. So it sounds like bulk buildup is my best bet.
Same question, different exercise: For cardio, am I better off doing high intensity and low duration, or vice-versa? At the moment I'm jogging three miles; perhaps running one would be better?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: For cardio, am I better off doing high intensity and low duration, or vice-versa? At the moment I'm jogging three miles; perhaps running one would be better?
The short answer is both. For people I have trained the most dramatic results comes from interval training. If you jog 3 miles then at every mile (or half mile down to a 1/4 mile as you get better) you should sprint as fast as you can for 25 yards or 50 yards. This should be an all out everything you have effort. Then slow back down to your jog and focus on having your heart rate and breathing recover. You might only be able to do one intervals or two your first time out. Basically an interval is all out effort followed by activer recovery followed by another interval.
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I find the best results for me in Cardio during endurance. I generally pick a speed and push myself to run 20 minutes of that speed. (Run to movie soundtracks, and it will amaze you how much more you are capable of).
If I can do 20 minutes, i push for 21. Etc.
But just one point about the fat loss. The only way, in my opinion, to lose fat - is dieting and CARDIO exercise. Muscle gain is cool and all, but I don't think it will reduce the fat.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You miss an important point, though: muscle burns more calories at rest than does fat. So building muscle is an excellent way to boost your metabolism.
In addition to being an excellent way to burn calories in general.
So you opinion is, frankly, wrong.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Nice. Real nice. From experience though, I have yet to see someone really lose fat by gaining muscle. They generally just build muscle under their fat, and have big belly's over their rock-hard six packs.
Wrong as my opinion may be...
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:The easiest way to work your abs, which are another major muscle group, is a simple crunch, but you'll want a weighted crunch to build them up. Personally I prefer the weight machines for this, as I haven't gotten comfortable doing it with larger weights, but if you wanted to try it starting out on a decline, that'd at least up the difficulty level.
I just want to add emphasis here, because your core strength really improves the effective strength of other muscle groups. Crunches are great, but I find they don't hit my lower abs, so I supplement with decline sit-ups.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: Nice. Real nice. From experience though, I have yet to see someone really lose fat by gaining muscle. They generally just build muscle under their fat, and have big belly's over their rock-hard six packs.
Wrong as my opinion may be...
Ah, now you seem to have either memory or reading-comprehension problems in addition to faulty understanding of human physiology.
Read your opinion again, and then read my post again. Ask questions if you get confused.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Look. I understand the science. It's just that I've done this myself, and seen many do the same, and the results don't come out as formulaic as you are making it seem. Perhaps you took issue with the absolutism of my opinion. Fine. My point remains the same: Muscle gain is a poor way to lose fat. You disagree? Cool.
Your condescension is not appreciated.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here is my opinion at the moment as a layman. There are 3 components to any good fat loss plan; resistance training (building muscle), cardio, and diet. I believe you will not achieve optimal results leaving off one or two. For resistance training the best exercises are the ones that are compound multi-joint (which means free weights, not machines). A basic program could be just 3 exercises; squat, deadlift, and brenchpress. The most important thing is they have to be intense and progressive. In “The Ketongenic Diet” it is stated that for each pound of muscle gained 30 to 40 additional calories a day are required by it. Cardio is important for improvement of the respiratory and circulatory system. To make gains the heart rate has to be sustained at a high level over time. There are 3 approaches to cardio; steady state, interval, and hybrid. Steady state is just setting a heart rate zone and staying in it for a length of time. Interval is mixing high heart rate periods with rest; work at 90% or better of your heart rate max and then rest until it drops down to 70% and repeat. The hybrid system is a mixture of cardio and resistance; for example, doing high speed weight circuits with rope jumping between sets.
The hybrid method is my favorite because it has a high ratio of value to time spent. My instrument of torture is the kettlebell. You can both generate high heart rates and work against resistance. It is one of the best devices for improving core strength and most exercises are compound multi-joint. It is also fairly low impact and with my knees that is a big plus.
The body responds the best when it faces change so the best thing to do is vary your workouts over time. Spend 6 to 8 weeks doing one thing then change it up. For example, do a basic free weight workout with steady state cardio or intervals for 2 months; then do a kettlebell workout for 2 months.
For diet the best thing to do is eat on the low end of the glycemic scale and remember that the equation is calories in vs. calories out.
An excellent source for this approach is “The Purposeful Primitive” by Marty Gallagher. After all the years I have been exercising this approach makes the most sense to me. As far as kettlebells are concerned, I wish I had discovered them 20 years ago.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:The easiest way to work your abs, which are another major muscle group, is a simple crunch, but you'll want a weighted crunch to build them up. Personally I prefer the weight machines for this, as I haven't gotten comfortable doing it with larger weights, but if you wanted to try it starting out on a decline, that'd at least up the difficulty level.
I just want to add emphasis here, because your core strength really improves the effective strength of other muscle groups. Crunches are great, but I find they don't hit my lower abs, so I supplement with decline sit-ups.
Yeah, the abs are actually worked in some way shape or form through a great many different exercises. There are a few different exercises that'll I'll flex my abs out (well, what's there to flex anyway), because the movement and the flexing causes a little extra bonus that makes your abs just the tiniest bit stronger. Working a muscle group directly is the best way to build muscle I'd say, but with a muscle group like abs especially, they get worked or tapped to help out in so many different exercises that A. Having them strong will help out in many other exercises, and B. Those exercises will also make them stronger.
I like to do more of my exercises standing rather than sitting also because it works the core muscles more and engages them.
Armoth -
I think methodolgy plays a huge role in the debate between Cardio and Lifting. Yes you can often see a lot of guys who have big abs but you can't see them because they have a layer of fat over them that ruins definition, but belly fat is also the hardest type of fat to lose. To get real good definition in the abs you have to have pretty low body fat, which also inolves a diet portion. But like JT says, having more muscle increases the amount of calories you burn at rest, and for that matter, your body continues to burn calories for hours after a good lifting workout, whereas most of the work after cardio is done when you leave the gym. After lifting, your body continues to burn calories as it works to repair the damage you've done to muscle fibers all through the night.
Anywhere I've read about people trying to buff up, it seems to include a variety of bulking/cutting phases, where they spend some time bulking up to increase muscle mass and then spend some time using lighter weights with more reps with some cardio mixed in to burn off the excess fat and reveal the muscles they just worked on getting. Personally I'm taking a middle road that I expect will probably take longer but will produce hopefully the same results.
But it also depends on the results you want. If the number on the scale is more important, or if it's your body fat percentage, or just some personal value of what you think looks good. That can change the type of workout that is best for each person.
Personally I do a mix of the two. When my upper body isn't sore, I work it out, when it's sore, I do light cardio, but nothing heavy. I'm not a big fan of running; it's too hard on my knees, too much impact, so I usually either do the elliptical or a treadmill walk but on the highest elevation.
I think the difference between weight loss, bulking, slimming down, low vs high body fat and lean muscle and what not is part of where the disagreement lies. Lifting big heavy weights might cut down your body fat, but it'll make you LOOK just as fat if you don't do it right.
KoM -
The rule I see for cardio that's thrown around is light intensity for long durations burns fat, whereas high intensity for shorter durations is better for your general cardiovascular fitness. I'm not sure how true that is in the sense of net calorie burn, since higher intensities burn more calories, but you have to keep up the endurance to make them last long enough. I think at the end of the day it's six of one really. I've also read that most of the real fat burning comes after 20 minutes or so of exercise. In the first 20 minutes your body is using stored ATP and glycogen (I think I'm getting the names right, it's been awhile since AP Bio) as it's fuel source, but after 20 or 30 minutes, your easy stores of energy are all used up and then your body has to switch into fat burning mode to come up with more energy. So I guess in that respect, the longer duration really is better.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
On that last bit: Those are the right tems (ATP and Glycogen) but you don't start getting to the fat-burning stage until some significant energy has been used. The point when you have to switch to this fat energy source is "the wall" marathon runners and the like experience. Granted I have not run a marathon, but it sounds like the epitome of exhaustion, and I think for most workout regimens you would never be reaching that point.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Then how do regular exercises manage to lose weight ever? I don't mean that combatively, I'm just curious as to how it works. Realistically it all comes down to a number of calories. If you burn/underconsume however many calories it takes to lose a pound, then you lose a pound, though this is more and less difficult in different kinds of people (that's where genetics kicks in).
But if I do everything I normally do, but then introduce an hour of cardio every day, I WILL lose weight, because there's a net reduction in calories which, however long it takes will result in fat loss.
Unless fat loss occurs without going past this "wall" you speak of, I don't understand how it works then.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I remember my AP Bio teacher talking about the wall too. I thought she was talking about the wall in the context of the release of endorphins, a "runner's high" - How some runners are addicted to running because they break that wall and the endorphins are released...
I don't remember it having to do with calories, but honestly, i have no idea.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you expend more calories than you take in you will lose weight but are you sure that the weight you lose is fat? The only way to really tell is to measure your body fat percentage. Some suggest that the body will rid itself of the high maintenance but low energy providing muscle before it rids itself of the high energy providing but low maintenance fat. It is believed that prolonged high-volume aerobic exercise will cause muscle loss. Think about how many muscular long distance runners you see and compare them to sprinters. The long distance runners do a lot of low intensity/long duration exercise and sprinters typically do a lot of high intensity/short duration exercise.
Posts: 87 | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the ability to lose weight while not "hitting the wall" is probably because you, I'd really assume... if it's like everything else I've learned about, don't move from one energy source to another distinctly, but in a continuum. So, you can be starting the use of some fat before you get to the point of being completely dependent on it for energy.
Baduffer, I don't think it's quite right to say that doing endurance aerobic things makes you lose muscle, because I bet all those guys in the tour de france etc etc are pretty well ripped compared to your average joe. I do agree that they don't tend to have the strong arms you see in sprinters or the overall... heft of a weightlifter, but I'd say it's not because they run long distances, but because they don't do lots of upper body exercise(because it's unnecessary for endurance(at a point)).
As far as runner's high I don't think the wall is necessary to get that sort of feeling. For me the Runner's high I think is more psychological than anything (I probably don't exhaust myself enough most of the time for the real runner's high) in that I feel awesome after I'm done (just proud of myself?) or I feel like a badass while running because I agree with what I'm doing. Hm.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I live in the dorms at college and a bunch of guys from my hall(including myself) are attempting to learn to do handstands(well/be able to walk etc) because it's cool, mainly. It is also a good workout in its own way, especially if you do pushups while hand-standing... or just focus on holding core tense to help the handstand be stable/gmynastic-like.
Progress has been remarkable. In just a few days everyone is far more stable than they were. sweet. Our goal is to be able to walk down our whole hall at least on our hands by the end of the school year.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Weight loss" was perhaps not the phrase I was looking for, let me say "fat loss" instead. I don't care so much how many kilos there are, but I do care about the distribution. So it sounds like bulk buildup is my best bet.
Same question, different exercise: For cardio, am I better off doing high intensity and low duration, or vice-versa? At the moment I'm jogging three miles; perhaps running one would be better?
For fat loss, especially when 'distributed' in common places like the gut, the most important element is to pair the exercise with a fat reduction diet, which will usually entail a recommendation that you step off the red meat.
The diet and the cardio strip off the fat layers, which is the most important part. Of secondary importance is the increase in muscular tone through working out the involved areas.
For cardio you want to prolong your target heart rate, which is usually age determinated. I just sit down on a cardio machine and it does all the calculations for me, HAL style.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Then how do regular exercises manage to lose weight ever? I don't mean that combatively, I'm just curious as to how it works.
Not a biologist, but intuitively, if you burn ATP and whatnot, it has to be replaced. The obvious place to get the replacements, assuming energy from your diet won't do it, is the fat deposits.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I recommend Clarence Bass's site. It has a large number of articles on weight training, cardio, fat-loss, etc. The articles discuss various studies and approaches to these subjects and attempt to answer many of these questions. Clarence is a legend in the bodybuilding world and you should see his picture at age 70.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
