Fitness Catch-All

As a substitute for the prowler you could try walking dumbbell lunges. It fits in with the 100 rep theme if you do 100 reps.

EvilHomer3k wrote:

As a substitute for the prowler you could try walking dumbbell lunges. It fits in with the 100 rep theme if you do 100 reps.

I have new-found respect for dumbell work this year. I was squatting 185 just dandy about a year ago, and I switched out to dumbell walking lunges and bulgarian split squats, both with 2x20s, and they kicked my ass. And by "kicked", I mean, "carved into an oak paragon of assitude"

Jonman wrote:
EvilHomer3k wrote:

As a substitute for the prowler you could try walking dumbbell lunges. It fits in with the 100 rep theme if you do 100 reps.

I have new-found respect for dumbell work this year. I was squatting 185 just dandy about a year ago, and I switched out to dumbell walking lunges and bulgarian split squats, both with 2x20s, and they kicked my ass. And by "kicked", I mean, "carved into an oak paragon of assitude"

Try walking lunges while holding a plate overhead. Brutal.

Theres an area of the gym with about 30 yards of smooth flooring so I might put a towel down and stack weights on top. If that doesn't work I'll just stick with lunges.

mindset.threat wrote:

Try walking lunges while holding a plate overhead. Brutal.

Can confirm, these are bad.

Also bad (but not a prowler replacement) are bear crawls with a heavy sandbag on your back/shoulders.

Jonman wrote:
EvilHomer3k wrote:

As a substitute for the prowler you could try walking dumbbell lunges. It fits in with the 100 rep theme if you do 100 reps.

I have new-found respect for dumbell work this year. I was squatting 185 just dandy about a year ago, and I switched out to dumbell walking lunges and bulgarian split squats, both with 2x20s, and they kicked my ass. And by "kicked", I mean, "carved into an oak paragon of assitude"

How low were you squatting before? Butt to calf?

Interesting....

I did my normal leg workout on Tuesday expecting to be completely and utterly unable to walk one or two days later (squats, deads, split squats, romanian deads...) but also rode my bike into work and back. I thought for sure I would be feeling it in spectacular fashion at least today, but something about the 9 mile ride home must have loosened up my legs because I feel great. I even took the stairs all day (4 flights) and there is no soreness or cramping.

Anyone else have a similar experience?

boogle wrote:
Jonman wrote:
EvilHomer3k wrote:

As a substitute for the prowler you could try walking dumbbell lunges. It fits in with the 100 rep theme if you do 100 reps.

I have new-found respect for dumbell work this year. I was squatting 185 just dandy about a year ago, and I switched out to dumbell walking lunges and bulgarian split squats, both with 2x20s, and they kicked my ass. And by "kicked", I mean, "carved into an oak paragon of assitude"

How low were you squatting before? Butt to calf?

Parallel.

On Wednesdays, I do strength training in the morning, and then my training run in the evening, and I'm usually good for the run even with the double up. Like, yesterday was trap bar deadlifts for reps and heavy sandbag lunges, so my legs should be dead. Yet I felt awesome for the six miles last night, and other than some stiffness when I first got up, am fine today, and will be running when I get home from work.

I think working out and then sitting all day does bad stuff for the muscles. Working out, sitting, then getting the muscles moving again later seems to help a bunch, as long as it's a different type of work.

Paleocon wrote:

Interesting....

I did my normal leg workout on Tuesday expecting to be completely and utterly unable to walk one or two days later (squats, deads, split squats, romanian deads...) but also rode my bike into work and back. I thought for sure I would be feeling it in spectacular fashion at least today, but something about the 9 mile ride home must have loosened up my legs because I feel great. I even took the stairs all day (4 flights) and there is no soreness or cramping.

Anyone else have a similar experience?

When I was still AD, I was working out 3 days a week doing HIIT with my unit, then doing a ton of running on the sides. There was a week where they did this crazy leg day at unit PT where I was doing a bunch of longer runs(6-7 miles I think?), and after leg day was thinking I'd be skipping at least one run that week, but wound up being fine. Blood flow is good.

Jonman wrote:
boogle wrote:
Jonman wrote:
EvilHomer3k wrote:

As a substitute for the prowler you could try walking dumbbell lunges. It fits in with the 100 rep theme if you do 100 reps.

I have new-found respect for dumbell work this year. I was squatting 185 just dandy about a year ago, and I switched out to dumbell walking lunges and bulgarian split squats, both with 2x20s, and they kicked my ass. And by "kicked", I mean, "carved into an oak paragon of assitude"

How low were you squatting before? Butt to calf?

Parallel.

Ass to grass man. Gotta get that depth and hip drive.

Ass to grass is overrated. Especially for people over 40. You simply don't need to screw your knee up that badly.

EvilHomer3k wrote:

Ass to grass is overrated. Especially for people over 40. You simply don't need to screw your knee up that badly.

If you're knees hurt from deep squatting, its mostly likely because your form/flexibility is off. Strengthen your quads/hips/feet/calves/glutes/back, squat properly and the pain can go away.

mindset.threat wrote:

If you're knees hurt from deep squatting, its mostly likely because your form/flexibility is off. Strengthen your quads/hips/feet/calves/glutes/back, squat properly and the pain can go away.

Yeah, I get this (although I have pre-existing issues with damaged cartilage in one knee that means that it might not be "just form" that's the issue).

My problem is this - I know my squat (and deadlift for that matter) form isn't as good as it could be.

Thing is - I'm at somewhat of a loss for how to improve it. Any suggestions?

I mean, I have a very-well thumbed copy of Starting Strength, but I'm finding applying the book-learnin' to the power rack tricky. I'm not asking for what to improve, I'm asking how to improve - like, what's the process you guys use to tune your form?

Yes, box squats!. Safer and easier than a regular squat but outside of power lifters, not many people use them. Start with a box high enough to land above parallel and gradually lower it once you get used to the movement. The stance is different though so it'll probably feel awkward at first. Here's a really nice guide from stronglifts: http://stronglifts.com/build-explosi...

If you want more meathead details, the link at the bottom from Louie Simmons is a good read. He also has some youtube vids about deadlifting off of a chair that helped me improve.

Jonman wrote:

Thing is - I'm at somewhat of a loss for how to improve it. Any suggestions?

I mean, I have a very-well thumbed copy of Starting Strength, but I'm finding applying the book-learnin' to the power rack tricky. I'm not asking for what to improve, I'm asking how to improve - like, what's the process you guys use to tune your form?

Nothing beats real-time feedback from a knowledgeable coach. Here's a list of Starting Strength coaches in the Seattle area. They've all been through a pretty rigorous seminar, been tested, and know their sh*t:

http://startingstrength.com/index.ph...

Or for something a little easier (and free), take a video of a relatively heavy squat and/or deadlift set and post it here:

http://startingstrength.com/resource...

ZaneRockfist wrote:
boogle wrote:

OHP for weight.
Dips for endurance.

Unless your goal is endurance, there's no point to doing any exercise for endurance.

I could be reading your tone wrong, but why so dismissive on endurance? I'm all for explosive power and the ability to heave a million pounds anywhere you want, but endurance training seems much more widely useful and approachable.

If you want to improve your squat form practice without weight. Make your first set bar only or no weight. Then, drop your weight down by 50% and work on form. Video record your squats and look at them objectively.

mindset.threat wrote:
EvilHomer3k wrote:

Ass to grass is overrated. Especially for people over 40. You simply don't need to screw your knee up that badly.

If you're knees hurt from deep squatting, its mostly likely because your form/flexibility is off. Strengthen your quads/hips/feet/calves/glutes/back, squat properly and the pain can go away.

You obviously don't have arthritis in your knees. My knees hurt from deep squats, running, lack of sleep, standing in one spot too long, etcetera.

The main problem I see with A2G is the stance. Most of what I have read about squats is to take a stance wider than your hips. That is fine for parallel. But when you squat below parallel in a wide stance your knees start to be pulled inwards. You can't physically have a stance wider than your hips and go A2G without your knees being pulled inwards. This will put pressure on your knees that isn't there when going parallel or when you take a stance that is the same width as your hips. So if you are going to go A2G you need a different stance than what many people suggest. A good reference for going low (IMO) can be found at stronglifts. I think your comment on incorrect form is partially right but I don't believe it is the "right" way to squat. As is pointed out on stronglifts it is a different way.

Second, I know plenty of physical therapists (my wife is one) and none of them advocate A2G squats. During my therapy for a torn ACL I was specifically instructed not to do them because of the pressure it puts on the knee. Every ortho pt I know said the same thing. Don't. Perhaps that is different if you haven't had reconstructive knee surgery or arthritis in your knees. Do I still do A2G? Sure. I just do it with a narrow stance and dumbbells (at a much lighter weight than parallel).

Squee9 wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:
boogle wrote:

OHP for weight.
Dips for endurance.

Unless your goal is endurance, there's no point to doing any exercise for endurance.

I could be reading your tone wrong, but why so dismissive on endurance? I'm all for explosive power and the ability to heave a million pounds anywhere you want, but endurance training seems much more widely useful and approachable.

Yeah, going to have to agree with Squee on this one. Explosive power is pretty cool for impressing people at the gym, but I think endurance is more useful for overall fitness.

CptDomano wrote:
Squee9 wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:
boogle wrote:

OHP for weight.
Dips for endurance.

Unless your goal is endurance, there's no point to doing any exercise for endurance.

I could be reading your tone wrong, but why so dismissive on endurance? I'm all for explosive power and the ability to heave a million pounds anywhere you want, but endurance training seems much more widely useful and approachable.

Yeah, going to have to agree with Squee on this one. Explosive power is pretty cool for impressing people at the gym, but I think endurance is more useful for overall fitness.

Depends on what you are training for.

If you are fight training, explosive power is a must. So is endurance, but you need power.

Squee9 wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:
boogle wrote:

OHP for weight.
Dips for endurance.

Unless your goal is endurance, there's no point to doing any exercise for endurance.

I could be reading your tone wrong, but why so dismissive on endurance? I'm all for explosive power and the ability to heave a million pounds anywhere you want, but endurance training seems much more widely useful and approachable.

Well, weight lifting for endurance is pointless. You would be better off doing something else, like swimming or running. I do, however, disagree that endurance is more useful than strength. The average person can easily get around and do what they need to do without additional endurance training; however, they are much more likely to run into scenarios where they are challenged physically that requires strength. In my work, which is construction, strength is hell of a lot more useful than endurance. Most physical activities in life are not sustained exercises of endurance, but short bouts that require high levels of intensity. And with greater strength there also comes an endurance of sorts. It was much easier for me to hold 100 lbs in my hands for long periods of time after I developed the strength to hold 150 lbs in each hand.

ZaneRockfist wrote:
Squee9 wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:
boogle wrote:

OHP for weight.
Dips for endurance.

Unless your goal is endurance, there's no point to doing any exercise for endurance.

I could be reading your tone wrong, but why so dismissive on endurance? I'm all for explosive power and the ability to heave a million pounds anywhere you want, but endurance training seems much more widely useful and approachable.

Well, weight lifting for endurance is pointless. You would be better off doing something else, like swimming or running. I do, however, disagree that endurance is more useful than strength. The average person can easily get around and do what they need to do without additional endurance training; however, they are much more likely to run into scenarios where they are challenged physically that requires strength. In my work, which is construction, strength is hell of a lot more useful than endurance. Most physical activities in life are not sustained exercises of endurance, but short bouts that require high levels of intensity. And with greater strength there also comes an endurance of sorts. It was much easier for me to hold 100 lbs in my hands for long periods of time after I developed the strength to hold 150 lbs in each hand.

For your overall health. Endurance/cardio is more important. But to be the most fit/healthy you can be strength is also important.

I like shoulder endurance because I like not waking up with pain in the shoulder I separated.
3x7 dips with BW+25lbs now.

ZaneRockfist wrote:
Squee9 wrote:
ZaneRockfist wrote:
boogle wrote:

OHP for weight.
Dips for endurance.

Unless your goal is endurance, there's no point to doing any exercise for endurance.

I could be reading your tone wrong, but why so dismissive on endurance? I'm all for explosive power and the ability to heave a million pounds anywhere you want, but endurance training seems much more widely useful and approachable.

Well, weight lifting for endurance is pointless. You would be better off doing something else, like swimming or running.

You're right, weight lifting for cardio endurance is not as effective as doing cardio endurance exercises like swimming or running. I am considering endurance lifting to be many reps or sets with a lower weight or body weight only. These exercises are very good at improving your ability to handle stress on your muscles for a longer period of time.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

I do, however, disagree that endurance is more useful than strength. The average person can easily get around and do what they need to do without additional endurance training; however, they are much more likely to run into scenarios where they are challenged physically that requires strength. In my work, which is construction, strength is hell of a lot more useful than endurance. Most physical activities in life are not sustained exercises of endurance, but short bouts that require high levels of intensity.

I think cardio--how we get around--is by far the most useful, and the thing most people need more of in their life, but that's not what we're comparing. We're a bit deep in to, "what is endurance" territory when it comes to activity level, but consider a guy who lifts something one time a day. Endurance training is not super useful to him, but does anyone who has picking up heavy things in their job only do it one time? Sounds like endurance would be useful.

ZaneRockfist wrote:

And with greater strength there also comes an endurance of sorts. It was much easier for me to hold 100 lbs in my hands for long periods of time after I developed the strength to hold 150 lbs in each hand.

So we agree? Maybe endurance training wasn't your workout goal, but it sounds like endurance training is quite useful.

At the end of the day, how successful any workout is depends on what the individual's goals are, and whether or not that workout meets their goals. You just seemed a bit dismissive of endurance workouts that weren't cardio, and I'm curious about that.

There is a thing called Specificity in sports and it basically says you get better at something by doing that thing, not different activities.

It just means that, for instance, the fastest way to improve your cardio for swimming, is to swim, not lift weights or run on a treadmill. Same with lifting heavy weights, or doing pull-ups. You can lift a lot of weight in machines that exercise the back, but the fastest way to improve pull-ups is to actually do them. The other exercises are tangential and may or may not improve your fitness in the activity you choose.

Just something I read a long time ago and empirically proved to myself. Don't do much outside of weight training, so if anyone finds it helpful, cool.

Mex wrote:

There is a thing called Specificity in sports and it basically says you get better at something by doing that thing, not different activities.

It just means that, for instance, the fastest way to improve your cardio for swimming, is to swim, not lift weights or run on a treadmill. Same with lifting heavy weights, or doing pull-ups. You can lift a lot of weight in machines that exercise the back, but the fastest way to improve pull-ups is to actually do them. The other exercises are tangential and may or may not improve your fitness in the activity you choose.

Just something I read a long time ago and empirically proved to myself. Don't do much outside of weight training, so if anyone finds it helpful, cool.

While this is definitely the case, there's benefits to crosstraining as well. So if you're running a lot of the time, then a day of swimming or biking or yoga is a good thing as well.

AnimeJ wrote:
Mex wrote:

There is a thing called Specificity in sports and it basically says you get better at something by doing that thing, not different activities.

It just means that, for instance, the fastest way to improve your cardio for swimming, is to swim, not lift weights or run on a treadmill. Same with lifting heavy weights, or doing pull-ups. You can lift a lot of weight in machines that exercise the back, but the fastest way to improve pull-ups is to actually do them. The other exercises are tangential and may or may not improve your fitness in the activity you choose.

Just something I read a long time ago and empirically proved to myself. Don't do much outside of weight training, so if anyone finds it helpful, cool.

While this is definitely the case, there's benefits to crosstraining as well. So if you're running a lot of the time, then a day of swimming or biking or yoga is a good thing as well.

There's definitely a carryover effect between different methods of training. If I do heavy kettlebell presses, my shoulders are going to get stronger, and be able to handle heavier loads when stressed. They can also handle lighter loads over longer periods of time, too, though perhaps not quite as effectively as if lower weight/increased reps/time was the training method. And the opposite is true, I think. I think of strength and endurance training as more of a spectrum rather than a binary choice. That's been my experience, at least, and some of the research I've read seems to (possibly) point to this.

Personally, I've found switching from high rep/light weight bodyweight work to heavy weight/advanced bodyweight work to have a greater net benefit based on my fitness goals (strength primarily, endurance secondary).

Kettlebell swings with a 50 pound bell are much different than swings with a 50 pound dumbbell. The shape of the bell and the way the weight is distributed makes it feel a lot heavier after 300 swings than the dumbbell. Had to drop to 45 for the last two rounds on Monday. I can't remember ever being that sore during an exercise. The next day, sure. Luckily I had yesterday off and I'm at home today so back to the dumbbells.

Coach Rippetoe on CrossFit: http://www.t-nation.com/training/cro...

Great read.

Interesting in parts, but in the end pretty much exactly what I'd expect to hear from someone like Rippentoe that has his feet planted firmly in the power lifting & body building world.

With some of my own snark added I could rephrase a lot of his paragraphs into three sentences: "Crossfit is a nice gateway drug to get people interested in real lifting." "Crossfit is merely exercise and cannot offer you the benefits of real training." "Dude, your gainz will stop soon!!"

What folks like Rippentoe always seem to overlook is that a huge percentage of the people that pursue Crossfit aren't looking for endless gains. Very few of them are looking to add another 10 inches to their biceps, or pick up another 300 on their deadlift. Most of the folks I've known who followed a Crossfit style program were looking to boost their daily functional fitness, and were frequently participating in combined cardio/strength activities like Spartan Run, Warrior Dash, etc. Events that I've seen dedicated weightlifters have a rough time even completing due to so many of them considering cardio to be the evil enemy of gains.

To say that Crossfit athletes aren't "trained" seems to me to be a silly semantic argument at best. If someone can't do 2 push ups before they start Crossfit, yet can do 100 after a few months it seems pretty ovbious to me that they have trained their body. The fact that they can't do the same number of pushups with another person standing on their back isn't a failure of the program, it's a choice to pursue different results.

In the end it's just the age old argument between the old establishment and the new kid on the block. There are plenty of rabid mouthy folks on both side of the fence, and the reality is that the only thing the two sides have in common is a few pieces of equipment and the desire to improve themselves. Considering that the latter is the most important and universally shared part, I just don't see why more aren't giving one another high fives instead of arguing over the methods.

And just for perspective, I'm not a "Crossfitter". I've got a personal gym based around an olympic bench and barbell set and I like to run for cardio. I've enjoyed the hell out of Crossfit style workouts in the past, especially my time with Boot Camp Las Vegas, but a lot of the high impact and explosive movements just aren't as suitable for many of us creeping our way through the 40's.

Well said Elycion. Rippetoe's assertions are firmly grounded in the hardcore aspects of strength training. Which applies to a slim percentage of folks. The whole exercise versus training bit in the article was really just an argument over semantics. Crossfit is really popular right now and that makes it an easy target for people who want to generate attention.