VeeshanVault

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 11:03 am**

If the goal is an aerobic workout, then the equipment's resistance should be low enough to maintain at least 20 minutes of smooth continuous motion. If the goal is muscle strengthening, then considerably more resistance is required. For this reason, it's difficult to obtain muscle strengthening benefits and aerobic benefits from the same piece of equipment. In most cases, machines that claim to do both are inadequate for strengthening beyond the initial level of sedentary beginners.

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 11:13 am**

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 11:27 am**

Makes sense to me

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 11:31 am**

Makes sense to me too.

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 12:03 pm**

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 12:15 pm**

If ya wanna get in shape, jog miles.

If you wanna build muscle, run wind sprints.

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 12:44 pm**

Avestan wrote:If ya wanna get in shape, jog miles.

If you wanna build muscle, run wind sprints.

Leg muscles, maybe.

In the end, be it muscle tone or mass, there is no substitute for free weights. Except steroids

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 1:39 pm**

Eating a Pop tart and Hot Tamales while readin this .. yet it makes perfect sense.

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 5:45 pm**

Aabidano wrote:
If the goal is an aerobic workout

If the goal is anaerobic workout

I just think it's funny how the removal of the space can completely change the meaning of the sentence.

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 7:33 pm**

Makes perfect sense to me.

As far as toning goes, free weights are only the best way if you know how much weight to use.

If you have a lot of body fat, and you've been sedentary for quite a while, aerobic cardio will do far more for toning you back up than any weight training program. Starting with a few months of just cardio will bring back your endurance, and if done aerobically, you'll burn fat almost exclusively.

If you do higher intensity cardio that is more anaerobic, you will burn less fat.

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 7:42 pm**

Avestan wrote:If ya wanna get in shape, jog miles.

If you wanna build muscle, run wind sprints.

What's the difference going to be over time, if you expend the same amount of effort on either one?

Posted: **July 26, 2005, 8:01 pm**

It has nothing to do with effort. It has everything to do with intensity.

Intensity should be monitored with a heart rate monitor.

Take a healthy male, age 25 max HR, 195.

He runs 1 hour with a heart rate between 140 and 150.

Take the same healthy male.

He runs 1 hour with a heart rate between 160 and 170.

In example A, the individual will burn mostly fat.

In example B, the individual will burn mostly carbohydrate.

Most likely, in example A the individual will build his aerobic base. In example B, it can be assumed that the individual will build more strength, but waste a lot of energy. If you train aerobically for the majority of your cardio workouts, you'll increase your aerobic base, and become far more efficient. If you do your cardio anaerobically, you won't get as much out of it as you could.

Posted: **July 27, 2005, 9:11 am**

I didn't have the terms right but that's what I was asking, thanks

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 9:16 am**

Back on this topic, I've read a couple places that once a week you should do an hour+, low intensity session @55-70% max heart rate. What for?

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 9:35 am**

All of my training is 2 hours plus and sometimes 6+.

I'd imagine that the hour plus statement is geared toward those who are more focused on building muscle, who mostly do 15-20 minutes of cardio prior to their 'real' workout with weights etc. Perhaps the 1 hour low intensity is for the additional fat burning, or to give more attention to the aerobic system.

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 12:40 pm**

Yes. Makes sense!

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 12:59 pm**

If you're running, particularly if preparing for a distance event (10k, half or full marathon), the idea is to have a long run somewhat below your race pace built into your weekly training. Its purpose is to develop your endurance, and its duration depends on what you're training for. Depending on your condition and ability, you can get your long run for 10k training in an hour easily, including warm up / cool down time. You'll need more time to cover your training distance you're training for half or full marathons, obviously (e.g. up to 12 miles for a half or 20 for a full marathon). If you're just running for fitness, and don't care about events, you don't necessarily "need" the long run for endurance, but I personally still like to have a varied training schedule including work for speed and endurance.

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 2:05 pm**

Aslanna wrote:Yes. Makes sense!

Begone troll!

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 2:13 pm**

What? I was answering the question!

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 3:51 pm**

I'm baffled by this heart-rate discussion, since I've heard very little on it. Where do you get the max heart rate from? Or is 195 just the average for the healthy 25 y/o male?

Also lower heart rate while exercising is preferred for burning fat? I'm just asking since I'm trying to be certain (need to lose weight and although the diet is good, I could use some exercise just to get further in shape.)

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 4:06 pm**

Basically, to burn fat, you want steady, continuous exercise. You want to be working at an intensity that's got you breathing and sweating, but that is fairly comfortable and sustainable for some time.

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 4:21 pm**

Your true max heart rate can only be determined by measuring it in a controlled environment. This isn't a practical option for most people, and so it's generally estimated using one of a number of formulas to predict your MHR. The most common, but not terribly accurate method is 220 - your age. This is good for getting you "in the ballpark," but not much else. There are more accurate prediction formulas available, but ultimately none of them are accurate enough for competitive athletes. Here's a study that compares a number of the various formulas. For my own needs, I use the average of a few different methods. I've set the formulas into a spreadsheet that calculates everything based on my statistics (RHR, HRR, age, height, weight, etc.). My spreadsheet also lists my different training zones for low, moderate or high intensity workouts, as well as estimating my daily caloric requirements given my statistics and my planned workout.

Most trainers will tell you that lower intensity workouts are ideal for burning fat , while higher intensity workouts are better for developing muscle strength and speed. While this is true, it's not necessarily all that meaningful in many cases. If you're consuming 2200 calories a day, and burning 2800 through your normal activities plus exercise, you will burn fat regardless of the intensity of your workouts. You'll just burn through your body's stored carbs (glycogen) first. Since the body converts fat to energy less efficiently than carbohydrates, your performance will drop, though. The net result, however, is that you're still burning more calories than you're consuming, so the fat is coming off. To give this claim a bit of credibility, here's a blurb from Chris Carmichael saying essentially the same thing.

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 4:40 pm**

dibit_eq wrote:...lower heart rate while exercising is preferred for burning fat?

There's a couple ways to take a swag at determining your max heart rate.
http://www.veeshanvault.org/forums/view ... ar#p357906

As best I understand it, at 50% (ish) of you're max HR you're using mostly fat as fuel, as you increase to 70% (ish) the ratio of fat to carbs you're using shifts to about 50%, at very high exertion levels you're barely using any stored fat at all.

Getting the heart rate monitor did me a lot of good, I don't work as hard as I used to and have gotten much better results. My ski machine has one build in, but on the bike and such it didn't do me much good.

Edit - Xatrei hit the nail on the head, just for weight loss if you're burning more than you have coming in the fat has to go away. You need to watch your diet carefully doing that so you don't cause yourself problems.

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 5:24 pm**

Your edit is right, but it's slightly more complex than that.

The real question is... when exercising, are you burning energy that's stored as fat or carbohydrate.

Lower intensity aerobic exercise will burn fat prior to carbohydrate. Anaerobic exercise... high intensity efforts like sprinting, weightlifting, etc. will burn energy from carbohydrate prior to burning from fat.

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 10:41 pm**

noel wrote:Your edit is right, but it's slightly more complex than that.

The real question is... when exercising, are you burning energy that's stored as fat or carbohydrate.

Lower intensity aerobic exercise will burn fat prior to carbohydrate. Anaerobic exercise... high intensity efforts like sprinting, weightlifting, etc. will burn energy from carbohydrate prior to burning from fat.

This becomes less clear when you consider multiple muscle groups; the high intensity effort in long distance hurdles races is mixed with low(er) intensity running, for example. Football, American Football, Boxing and Martial Arts Sparring also have this effect.

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 11:39 pm**

archeiron wrote:
noel wrote: Football, American Football, Boxing and Martial Arts Sparring also have this effect.

Why did you put football in there twice? I think you meant to say soccer, but I'll forgive you for the sacrilege.

Posted: **June 25, 2007, 11:41 pm**

I assume you've heard of soccer referred to as football?

Also, you're quote is wrong, I didn't say that.

Arch: If you hook yourself up to an HRM and maintain a zone that's specific to low-intensity aerobic effort, it's actually pretty straightforward... no matter what sport you're doing.

Posted: **June 26, 2007, 12:21 am**

noel wrote:I assume you've heard of soccer referred to as football?

Also, you're quote is wrong, I didn't say that.

Arch: If you hook yourself up to an HRM and maintain a zone that's specific to low-intensity aerobic effort, it's actually pretty straightforward... no matter what sport you're doing.

Fútbol!

Posted: **June 26, 2007, 1:34 am**

noel wrote:I assume you've heard of soccer referred to as football?

Also, you're quote is wrong, I didn't say that.

Arch: If you hook yourself up to an HRM and maintain a zone that's specific to low-intensity aerobic effort, it's actually pretty straightforward... no matter what sport you're doing.

Well, yes and no. It is less than trivial to maintain any given heart rate while sparring; in my case my heart rate drops dramatically when I am not actively attacking. From my younger days it was bordering on impossible to maintain a steady heart rate while playing rugby, even with the best of intentions. Some sports just don't work that way.

Posted: **June 26, 2007, 2:26 am**

Thanks for all the feedback, probably going to seek out a heart rate monitor.

Posted: **June 26, 2007, 9:38 am**

Arch: I never said it was easy!

It's easy on a bike or when running until you get to the first hill!

Posted: **June 26, 2007, 5:39 pm**

noel wrote:I assume you've heard of soccer referred to as football?

Also, you're quote is wrong, I didn't say that.

Yah my statement was directed at arch, i hit the quote button and that's how it came out. They refer to soccer as football in the Motherland as well as most of the entire world. However, this is America and an American forum. People need to realize that we Americans don't like to conform to the rest of the world's nonsensical ways. That's precisely why we have our form of "football", our own system of measurements, and drive on the right side of the street with the steering wheel on the left side of the car. They are lucky we chose to keep the yearly calendar.

(I'm not officially an American citizen yet. I will be soon, so I'm practicing.)

Posted: **June 26, 2007, 6:07 pm**

Your domineering imperialism is a credit to us all. God bless America, and LETS ROLL.

Posted: **June 26, 2007, 6:40 pm**

masteen wrote:Your domineering imperialism is a credit to us all. God bless America, and LETS ROLL.

Seconded! Welcome to America!

Posted: **June 26, 2007, 9:29 pm**

My favorite thing to do is refer to football as "real football" when I'm around Euros. I don't fuck with the Aussies too much, as their local brew of foozball is every bit as brutal as ours, but more fast paced overall.

Posted: **June 29, 2007, 12:50 am**

Fucking lol Xyun.

You will be perfect for our system here in the eunited motherland starship of Jefferson.

Back to topeek:

If I run at say 6-8 MPH on the treadmill for .5-1 miles before going through regular weightlifting routine, am I helping or hurting? The idea was to get heartrate up and warm up a tad--as well as getting a few extra calories to burn away. When I blew up my shoulder last year, I lapsed a bit in the training. =/

I go 3 times/wk during lunch.

I have not worked racquetball back in yet either so wanted a little running beforehand.

Posted: **June 29, 2007, 9:08 am**

Canelek wrote:Fucking lol Xyun. You will be perfect for our system here in the eunited motherland starship of Jefferson.

Back to topeek:

If I run at say 6-8 MPH on the treadmill for .5-1 miles before going through regular weightlifting routine, am I helping or hurting? The idea was to get heartrate up and warm up a tad--as well as getting a few extra calories to burn away. When I blew up my shoulder last year, I lapsed a bit in the training. =/

I go 3 times/wk during lunch.

I have not worked racquetball back in yet either so wanted a little running beforehand.

You're certainly not hurting yourself.

What I can't answer for you, without knowing your max HR and what HR you're running at, is whether or not your treadmill work should be primarily burning fat stores first, or burning carbohydrate first, then fat.

Posted: **June 29, 2007, 11:12 am**

So I should eat a pizza before going to the gym. Good call and thanks!

I will get the HR shit figured out soon enough and get back to ye!

Posted: **June 29, 2007, 11:55 am**

This is intentionally overly simplistic and will vary greatly from person to person...

If you're doing cardio at a pace where you can breathe through your nose, and not increasingly becoming out of breath, you're likely burning fat instead of carbohydrate.

If an individual is totally out of shape, they'll be incapable of exercising at even a low level of intensity without becoming out of breath.

Posted: **June 29, 2007, 9:19 pm**

I understand what you are talking about in regards to intensity levels. It is just hard to picture until you are actually doing it. Today, I intentionally went at a slower pace--6MPH and kept heartrate around 165 for about a mile. Broke a small sweat and felt loose enough, but was not heavily strained.

The weights were more in the burst, higher weight/less reps so could certainly feel more exersion. Not a very good test, I know...

Either way, a better diet and regular exercise certainly feels pretty good. With my shoulder and all, I just have to be careful--I never had surgury on the rotator cuff/labrum, but the PT was good stuff last year.

Posted: **June 30, 2007, 3:50 am**

I got out of breath eating a taco tonight...

get your mind out of the gutter

Posted: **June 30, 2007, 11:39 pm**

Canelek wrote:I understand what you are talking about in regards to intensity levels. It is just hard to picture until you are actually doing it. Today, I intentionally went at a slower pace--6MPH and kept heartrate around 165 for about a mile. Broke a small sweat and felt loose enough, but was not heavily strained.

The weights were more in the burst, higher weight/less reps so could certainly feel more exersion. Not a very good test, I know...

Either way, a better diet and regular exercise certainly feels pretty good. With my shoulder and all, I just have to be careful--I never had surgury on the rotator cuff/labrum, but the PT was good stuff last year.

165 for me is right below my lactate threshhold. Mostly when I'm going for low intensity, I'm shooting for a ceiling of 145.

Every person is different... so just information.

Posted: **July 1, 2007, 9:16 am**

Lalanae wrote:I got out of breath eating a taco tonight...

get your mind out of the gutter

Posted: **July 1, 2007, 12:54 pm**

Lalanae wrote:I got out of breath eating a taco tonight...

get your mind out of the gutter

FISH TACO!?!?!

Posted: **July 1, 2007, 1:02 pm**

noel wrote:What I can't answer for you, without knowing your max HR and what HR you're running at, is whether or not your treadmill work should be primarily burning fat stores first, or burning carbohydrate first, then fat.

Good choice of words. I have noticed that as people learn more about physical training these last few words are overlooked: doing a high intensity routine doesn't mean that one won't burn fat at all, but you will do it less efficiently than during a lower intensity routine.

For example, I run 2.5-3 miles every morning on the treadmill followed by weights (3 days heavy - 2 days light circuits). While I am not burning fat at the optimal rate, running and building muscle is definitely burning fat (until I get back into peak shape and my body fat % stabilizes!).

Posted: **July 1, 2007, 1:04 pm**

Zamtuk wrote:
Lalanae wrote:I got out of breath eating a taco tonight...

get your mind out of the gutter
FISH TACO!?!?!

Mermaid sex?

Posted: **July 1, 2007, 3:56 pm**

archeiron wrote:Good choice of words. I have noticed that as people learn more about physical training these last few words are overlooked: doing a high intensity routine doesn't mean that one won't burn fat at all, but you will do it less efficiently than during a lower intensity routine.

That's exactly the point I made earlier in the thread too

My comment was specific to weight loss / fat reduction The important point to consider is that if you're working at a lower intensity for 1 hour, you might burn X calories of which 60% are fat, while during the same time a higher intensity workout will burn Y calories of which only 40% are fat. Because Y is a always a significantly larger number due to the higher intensity, the net result is more fat is consumed. In addition to this, an unfit person will exhaust their stored glycogen during this time and will be primarily burning fat (less efficiently) at some point as well.

Example: (25 year old male weighing 200 pounds, 25% body fat and MHR of 195)

1 hour of running / brisk walking at an average of 5.5 mph and THR of 137 (70%) will burn about 900 calories, of which only 40% are fat (360 cal)
1 hour of walking at an average of 3.5 MPH and THR of 88 (45%) will only burn about 360 calories, of which around 60% are fat (216 cal).

You're far better off with the higher intensity workout for your hour spent training both in terms of total calories burned (540 additional total calories) and fat calories burned (144 additional fat calories). Combined with a diet where you're burning more energy than you're consuming, the excess fat will come off faster than focusing on lower intensity / high fat burning training. Of course this example ignores the fact that it would be nearly impossible for an out of shape, 200 pound individual to stick to 3.5 MPH AND maintain a THR of 88. He'd actually have to walk much slower, and thus burn even fewer total calories in the process.

Note: Calories burned are calculated using the metabolic equivalents (METs) taken from The Compendium of Physical Activities Tracking Guide Y2000 METs and the following formula: Calories Burned == ((MET * 3.5 * Weight_Kilos) / 200)

Posted: **July 1, 2007, 11:10 pm**

With all the training and finance tips, VV has turned into a bit of a self-help forum. Not complaining though!

VeeshanVault

Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)

Re: Does this statement make sense? (exercise related)