Fitness Catch-All

aspect wrote:

I'll say something then.

I finally started tracking my eating a little better after feeling like I was plateauing a bit in my lifting and just reading so many sources saying to eat more. I don't eat a ton of junk food so that part has not been horrible, but JESUS CHRIST do I really have to eat that much? I haven't historically *struggled* with weight, per se, but I've never been in great shape, and always trying to lose a pot belly, so it's been a mental hurdle as much as a physical one.

I had also been anti-supplement up to that point, but I just could not hit my protein macros without eating two lunches and then some. So I started supplementing with protein shakes. About a month in, I think it's making some difference. I've gotten unstuck on some of my lifts, and weirdly enough, even though I've been eating more, I feel like my body shape is changing for the better.

Unless you are doing some type of cardio you are not losing fat. You are gaining muscle though. So your body fat percentage is going down.

Oh yeah, I totally get that. It just feels counterintuitive to be eating what I consider a lot and feeling like I look better for it.

Also, not freaking out about the scale numbers going up. ;P

I have been consciously eating less. Not going hungry, just not getting as full.

goman wrote:

Unless you are doing some type of cardio you are not losing fat.

This isn't true. Reduction in adipose tissue is a function of metabolism, both baseline and demand, as well as nutrition (obviously). Increasing muscle mass increases baseline metabolism and rebuilding muscle is metabolically expensive, both of which create a trend toward a reduction in adiposity. While cardio has traditionally been seen as the way to burn off fat, the reality is that you can't outrun your spoon, and sucking down a gatorade and a protein bar right after a cardio workout is usually enough to wipe out any caloric deficit incurred from that activity.

The preponderance of the evidence (and exercise medicine is a very hot topic right now) suggests that reduction in body fat is primarily a function of reduced caloric intake (interestingly, low-carb seems to be helpful, but not essential) and secondarily a result of baseline metabolism (either genetic or due to an athletic/muscular body habitus). Weight training and the subsequent alteration in body composition often results in reduced weight gain, but substantially lower body fat percentages.

Coldstream wrote:
goman wrote:

Unless you are doing some type of cardio you are not losing fat.

This isn't true. Reduction in adipose tissue is a function of metabolism, both baseline and demand, as well as nutrition (obviously). Increasing muscle mass increases baseline metabolism and rebuilding muscle is metabolically expensive, both of which create a trend toward a reduction in adiposity. While cardio has traditionally been seen as the way to burn off fat, the reality is that you can't outrun your spoon, and sucking down a gatorade and a protein bar right after a cardio workout is usually enough to wipe out any caloric deficit incurred from that activity.

The preponderance of the evidence (and exercise medicine is a very hot topic right now) suggests that reduction in body fat is primarily a function of reduced caloric intake (interestingly, low-carb seems to be helpful, but not essential) and secondarily a result of baseline metabolism (either genetic or due to an athletic/muscular body habitus). Weight training and the subsequent alteration in body composition often results in reduced weight gain, but substantially lower body fat percentages.

That was not a general statement. It was specifically for aspect. I didn't end it there either.

He said he is taking in more calories than before. This means he is gaining weight. But his weight he is gaining is muscle since he says most of his new calories are protein and he is doing strength exercises. Since he is not doing cardio he is not burning fat. (I know he might be metabolically but it is negligible compared to the muscle he is gaining and calories he is consuming).

Let me take this step-by-step.

goman wrote:

He said he is taking in more calories than before. This means he is gaining weight.

This will be dependent on caloric deficit/surplus. If you increase your caloric intake, but also increase metabolic demand through exercise and/or building muscle, you may very well lose weight or maintain.

goman wrote:

But his weight he is gaining is muscle since he says most of his new calories are protein and he is doing strength exercises.

You're very likely correct, although a caloric surplus while weight training would increase both muscle mass and fat mass. The fact that his intake is protein is largely irrelevant to whether the mass gain is muscle or fat, as the food is broken down into fundamental structures by the body and then routed via various pathways for either immediate use or long-term storage, regardless of what it is.

goman wrote:

Since he is not doing cardio he is not burning fat. (I know he might be metabolically but it is negligible compared to the muscle he is gaining and calories he is consuming).

Sorry dude, but this is still a false statement. As far as the body is concerned, energy is energy, and what you're doing to burn it makes absolutely no difference with respect how it's burned. Simply put, the body will use immediately available energy (glucose in the bloodstream), followed by glycolysis within cells to burn stored glycogen (major factor in muscle cells), followed by lipolysis to release free fatty acids (FFA) for use. So whether you're doing cardio on a treadmill, or half an hour of heavy weightlifting, if you exceed immediately available energy, you WILL burn fat. In fact, any time you're in a steady caloric deficit state, you will burn fat, irrespective of exercise regimen. Cardio is NOT the only way to burn fat, despite the fitness industry's insistence otherwise.

But that's not what the running shoe commercials tell me.

I'm no doctor, but all of my research puts my understanding firmly in line with what Coldstream is saying. Caloric deficit is key to burning fat, and it doesn't matter how you achieve that.

NSMike wrote:

I'm no doctor, but all of my research puts my understanding firmly in line with what Coldstream is saying. Caloric deficit is key to burning fat, and it doesn't matter how you achieve that.

Coldstream is a Doc, and what he's saying jives with what every Doc I've ever talked to has told me, so I'm gonna go with that too.

AnimeJ wrote:
NSMike wrote:

I'm no doctor, but all of my research puts my understanding firmly in line with what Coldstream is saying. Caloric deficit is key to burning fat, and it doesn't matter how you achieve that.

Coldstream is a Doc, and what he's saying jives with what every Doc I've ever talked to has told me, so I'm gonna go with that too. :)

I dunno, that avatar pic makes me question what *kind* of a Doc he is

Also, it freaks me out a bit

After 10 years of dealing with military docs, they're all like that really.

Thanks for that write up, Coldstream. What you're saying has been my experience over the past couple years (I rarely run but lift heavy 5 days/week) but I've never seen it expressed that succinctly before.

So, I decided to swap out my overhead presses for bodyweight dips. I can never seem to get into a solid groove with them, and no matter how much I work on my clean and rack technique, those damn kettlebells wreak havoc on my forearms. Since I started working out exclusively at home, bodyweight dips have been the one exercise that I really miss (aside from maybe deadlifts). Recently, I figured out a way to do them with with two chairs. The trick is to tighten my abs and tuck my legs up to my chest, while leaning slightly forward to keep me toes clear of the floor. This give me just enough clearance to get a good range of motion without sacrificing form or quality repetitions. I wasn't able to hold such a position long enough before to crank out 6 or so reps for multiple sets, but after weeks of L-Sit pull-ups, my core is noticeably stronger, and up to the task.

Other than that, my one-arm push-ups are coming along nicely. I still use a fairly wide leg stance for leverage, but my reps are slowly increasing and the movement itself is becoming more and more comfortable. My bent-over kettlebell rows are improving, and my L-sit pull-ups are smoking right along. I still have some balance issues with one-legged squats, but I'm using a support beam in the basement for assistance.

The trick is to just do negative dips after you fail with the regular ones, a couple or so, you'll be doing 8-12 in no time. If you don't have weight to add, just do them slower.

Mex wrote:

The trick is to just do negative dips after you fail with the regular ones, a couple or so, you'll be doing 8-12 in no time. If you don't have weight to add, just do them slower.

I'm at 6 now just to start, as it's been a while since I've done them routinely. I tend to avoid hitting muscle failure, though; muscle fatigue - where I feel that "burn" by the last rep - is where I aim. Anything additional and I get that nasty delayed-onset muscle soreness, which I actively try to avoid now. (Nothing like bending over to pick up a wiggly 8-month-old when your traps and lats feels like Jell-O to rethink your workout approach.)

And in case I haven't mentioned it before, Reddit's /bodyweightfitness community is pretty solid. I've been taking most of my tips and cues from their FAQ routine guide, and it's been working wonders.

Achievement Unlocked: Tough Mudder completed!

I'm not really in shape so it was tough! I actually hooked up with this other slow guy who had 2 bad knees and we were really able to help each other with all the walls!

The water was crazy cold! I got popped twice in the face during the Electric Eel and it did not feel good! I'm crazy sore today but hope I'll be better prepared next year.

I'm on the left in the pic below.

IMAGE(http://img7.imageshack.us/img7/8784/r0hb.jpg)

Congrats, karmajay! Always a good thing to hear about someone finish one of those I might try to tackle one of these (Warrior Dash/Tough Mudder) soon--they sound pretty cool.

Good job. Keep your face in the dirt on the electric eel next time, though.

They are fun. There are some differences. Tough Mudders, IIEC, don't time you. The goal is to finish and it works best as a team. Spartan races, OTOH, have a timing chip and you are timed. None of the Spartan obstacles require teamwork, whereas done of the Tough Mudder obstacles do.

Note - I have never done a Tough Mudder, only a Spartan Sprint.

I've done neither, but my Mom's done both; she and my sister are currently training up for doing a Trifecta next year. I talked with her after she did a Tough Mudder a few weeks ago, and could sum up her side of the conversation very simply: Never Again.

AnimeJ wrote:

I've done neither, but my Mom's done both; she and my sister are currently training up for doing a Trifecta next year. I talked with her after she did a Tough Mudder a few weeks ago, and could sum up her side of the conversation very simply: Never Again.

Why? I am considering signing up for the closest TM (2 hours away) next year instead of the local Spartan Sprint.

The long version is that she felt it was very, very disorganized and the waits for things was ridiculous. The race on the whole took her something like 4 hours to complete due to a combination of waiting at obstacles, waiting in the corral(something like 45 minutes). Additionally, she despised the fact that numerous obstacles are rigged; things like greased monkey bars and the shock obstacle. No real challenge to completing them at all.

With Spartan, everything had a purpose, a challenge, and there were spotters at obstacles that kept things moving well. No outrageous waits; take your turn or do your burpees. Beyond that, I think she liked the overall atmosphere at Spartan better; folks were friendlier, more motivating, things like that.

Personally, I can't really stand the idea of either; I'll stick to my road races, not that I'm going to be running any of those in the near future.

Of the big three obstacle race series out there (Mudder, Spartan, Warrior Dash), my favorite by far is Spartan. Yes, they time you, but the focus isn't really on winning or finishing fastest. The obstacles are more strength-based than the other two series', and there is a 30 burpee punishment for failing. What that adds up to is that it feels like more of a personal challenge to complete than Mudder. A lot of Mudder's obstacles aren't necessarily hard, just uncomfortable. That's fun and all, but I like the feeling of having accomplished something actually hard.

Like Anime mentions, the Spartan course designers have gotten VERY good in the years I've been running them. They design the courses specifically to avoid creating bottlenecks, so you usually don't wait for obstacles. They also do an excellent job of clumping obstacles in a challenging way. Spartans make better use of terrain too. Mudder courses tend to send you up and down ski trails, which is just boring. Spartan courses do that, but will send you on smaller trails through the woods where they're able, and that's a lot more fun.

Anime, where are your mom and sister planning on running their Beast next year? I'll be getting my second Trifecta when I do the Fenway sprint in a few weeks. The Killington Beast course was absolutely BRUTAL this year.

My reasons for doing Spartans and not Mudders is simple: I don't like being shocked. I don't trust it. I like the way my heart beats just fine without external impulses mucking up the works.

My Fitness Catch-All update is as follows: de-emphasizing running, emphasizing tone and strength.

Leading up to the (August) Spartan I had signed up for one of those boot camp style workout classes at the local gym. That went fine and I do think it helped in my prep. But there were a few things I didn't like: it cost extra (considerably... I pay $10/month for this gym, the class is $150 for 8 weeks) and it ended up being aerobically challenging more than muscularly challenging. I'd get winded during the workouts before I ever reached any kind of muscular failure.

After the boot camp ended and after the Spartan Super I decided to try a class they offer at the gym that's included in the membership called "body pump". It's a 60 minute directed, rhythm-based, tightly paced, weight-bearing class that does various routines that always involve the full body: warmup, squats, chest, back, triceps, biceps, lunges, shoulders, abs, then stretch. You grab a weight bar and load up the weight that challenges you for each track. The exercises go at various speeds, mixing up slow and fast, different ranges of motion, and different motions. I've found it to be quite frankly pretty amazing. I never leave there feeling I didn't just get my ass kicked, both aerobically and muscularly.

I've definitely seen results and, possibly more importantly, so has my wife ;). In terms of muscle tone I'm probably in better shape than I've ever been. Still chipping away at the fat layer overtop -- leveling off at about 200 from a low of 186, but I haven't put on any additional fat -- but the underlying stuff is getting surprisingly solid.

So, body pump M/W/F, running T/Th and sometimes a weekend run.

The TM we did last year was so disorganized that they cancelled the Sunday event altogether and gave partial refunds/discounts to everyone who ran on Saturday. This year, it did seem a bit more organized but a lot of the problems were still there. On the other hand, the size and scale of their events must make planning a nightmare. It seems like the only way to fix some of the issues is to stop selling tickets after x amount of people sign up...which will never happen.

Chaz wrote:

Of the big three obstacle race series out there (Mudder, Spartan, Warrior Dash), my favorite by far is Spartan. Yes, they time you, but the focus isn't really on winning or finishing fastest. The obstacles are more strength-based than the other two series', and there is a 30 burpee punishment for failing. What that adds up to is that it feels like more of a personal challenge to complete than Mudder. A lot of Mudder's obstacles aren't necessarily hard, just uncomfortable. That's fun and all, but I like the feeling of having accomplished something actually hard.

Like Anime mentions, the Spartan course designers have gotten VERY good in the years I've been running them. They design the courses specifically to avoid creating bottlenecks, so you usually don't wait for obstacles. They also do an excellent job of clumping obstacles in a challenging way. Spartans make better use of terrain too. Mudder courses tend to send you up and down ski trails, which is just boring. Spartan courses do that, but will send you on smaller trails through the woods where they're able, and that's a lot more fun.

Anime, where are your mom and sister planning on running their Beast next year? I'll be getting my second Trifecta when I do the Fenway sprint in a few weeks. The Killington Beast course was absolutely BRUTAL this year.

Mom lives in Southern MD, way down 301 on the Potomac if you're familiar with the area, so probably one of the central east coast ones. If you see a 52 year old badass lady knocking out burpees like a champ that's her.

I need to train myself for a beep test, should I just run as much as possible to train or is there something else I can do?

Hi. I didn't know there was a fitness catch all.

Anyhoo, I'm a sand runner. That's like a character class in Dune isn't it?

My usual run is six kilometres on the driest, deepest sand I can find. Sometimes I run with weights in either hand. I've been running on sand for almost a year now.

I plan to do a simple 6K run at Okanagan Lake beach in Penticton, B.C. tonight.

6km sand run completed in 51 minutes. Whoo! New record. Really booted it for the first 4km and felt it in the front of my thighs.

And it was dark. Not an ideal situation but I wasn't afraid of falling on beach sand. Even when it rains the sand is perfect to run on.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/9d8ITKa.jpg)