I asked for more assessment info to get an idea of what the quality of training you had received was, then you gave me all the information as well as some info on how you were trained and asked that we not discuss how your progress and program reflect on your trainer. I didn't mean you have to belong to a field to identify the absolute worst in said field. If your trainer made you fatter, weaker, and injured you then obviously you wouldn't have to be a great fitness professional to see that your trainer sucks. If we go to the other extreme, which I wasn't talking about, then it's obvious that the very best in the world are going to be better than people that aren't on that level. I wasn't comparing your trainer to Mike Boyle or Charles Poliquin, who are arguably the greatest coaches/trainers on earth. I imagine Crosby is like the Boyle of hockey, as I don't actually know anything about hockey. No, what I meant was if you have 20 trainers that are all minimally competent, only a really good trainer will be able to understand what makes some better than others. You have to know a lot of anatomy to know if someone is wrong when they talk about the rotator cuff, for instance. You have to know a lot about exercise programming to be able to look at a program and decide if it's very good or not, and what's good or bad about it. If you don't know what it takes to assess someone effectively, you can't judge the assessment methods of someone. You see what I'm getting at? Obviously if some techie tries to fix a computer and it goes "Fizzle... POP!" they suck. But what if they DO fix it, how do you know if they're a great techie? You have to know what CAN be done to know what the guy DIDN'T do, and only a good fellow techie knows enough to determine that. Maybe a better techie could fix it faster? Maybe one guy has to replace a part, whereas a better guy can figure out how to fix the issue without replacing anything. The laymen doesn't know the difference. The professional does. It takes one to know one. Do you still find this concept disagreeable?
Depends on what your goals are. You don't start burning fat until about 30 minutes into a cardio workout. The additional 30 minutes is about fat burning and it works for me. Why rush it? I actually enjoy the time on the bike.
Matt, where did you hear that you don't burn fat until half an hour into an aerobic session? Do you perhaps have some reading materials I could look into on that? That's counter to what I understand about exercise physiology.
Not sure you read my comment correctly. I never stated I had no desire to maintain my muscle mass. I did state that I was not interested in building it up. As an ex-football (not soccer, gridiron) and wrestler, I have enough muscle mass. I have managed to keep it by doing body-weight exercises over the years, like pushups, pull-ups, lunges, etc, and now yoga. I can still do over 25 pull-ups at 51, so it definitely has worked for me. You do not need to be big to be healthy, leaner is better.
I didn't get the impression you wanted to lose muscle Matt. I simply got the impression you didn't see any reason to build any. I think increased life span is a great reason to try to build muscle. I agree you don't need to be big to be healthy. I don't see being big and being lean as mutually exclusive though. By lean I mean having a low body fat percentage. Perhaps you mean something else by it? If two people are both 10% body fat, both are lean. If one has 20 more pounds of muscle than the other, that guy is healthier and is statistically more likely to outlive the slightly smaller guy. That's all. Do with that what you wish.
Somehow I think this has become a bit personal and I don't think it was intended... I would tend to agree that weight loss is generally faster by eating less and the right foods than exercise, though obviously the two together are best for improved fitness and health. I guess as the title of this thread 'So, I hate running...' others can equally hate rowers, or elipticals, or spinning/cycles. My standard weight is around 64kg. I probably should be a couple below this. About 6 years or so I got down to 52kg, the lightest I've weighed since secondary school. I only managed this by fairly intense cardio sessions 3 times a week and a diet that was below my daily calorie allowance. I probably train just as hard or harder now but am nowhere near this 52kg. I do some form of exercise 5 days a week. Apart from age I can only guess it must be that I just eat a bit more. The BBC reported this contentious opinion fairly recently in relation to the ongoing debate on quality food in schools and the lack of sports and playing fields. Alas my searching skills have let me down :google: The main goal is to get kids off the easy access to quick/junk food, difficult given our busy lifestyles, access to fresh ingredients vs quick/junk food in some areas, advertising, etc
Most of the materials I've read over the years state 20-30 minutes into the workout, but it definitely depends on the intensity. It is proven that the interval type workout is more effective at burning fat, because it also burns more fat after the workout. That's why I include it.:hat:
If you have any articles you could link me to I would appreciate it. As I understand it, the lower the intensity of exercise the larger the percentage of fat used as fuel. I'm burning almost 100% fat for energy now sitting on my couch surfing the internet. If I start working out aerobically at a low intensity, I will burn slightly less fat and a bit more glycogen, but I'm still burning almost completely fat for fuel. It's only as I start to get into my anaerobic energy systems that the amount of fat utilized drops to less than the amount of glycogen utilized. So I'm confused as to why one would need to work out aerobically for 30 minutes to start burning fat. By definition, if you're working out aerobically, then your body is using oxygen to primarily burn fat for energy. But like I said, I'd be interested in seeing any information that refutes that.
This article emphasizes the need for both aerobic and anaerobic types. The longer you exercise, the more calories you burn, simple as that. http://health.msn.com/fitness/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100138677
Thanks for the read Matt. I didn't see anything in there about having to go for 30 minutes before you start burning fat however. It's only true that the longer you exercise the more calories you burn if the activity is the same. But 15 minutes of high intensity anaerobic intervals in the form of barbell complexes is going to burn a megabillion times more calories than 60 minutes of aerobics. As I always tell my clients, work harder, not longer. I didn't see anything in there that said you need both aerobic and anaerobic training. The author stated it didn't matter what you do as long as you burn a lot of calories. I guess it really comes down to working at a lower pace for a long time or working at a harder pace for a short time. As a martial artist, one should always opt for the anaerobic workout, simply because fighting is almost entirely anaerobic; at least that's the idea behind the law of specificity. I can't think of any reason to do low intensity aerobics unless you can't handle anaerobic workouts, either physically (heart problems, severe obesity, etc.) or mentally (I can't stand sucking wind and burning everywhere!!) Since you seem like a fit guy who likes to push himself, what reason is there really to include aerobics?
The question posed to her in this article was, "why exercise aerobically for 60 to 90 minutes?', and she gave her reasons in the article. I do both Socrastein because I like the calorie burning aspect of aerobics, mostly due to my narcissistic desire to look good and not do the "black belt wobble" when I walk into the dojo. And yes, I do like to push myself. Sparring with my black belts stand up and especially rolling on the mat I find the aerobic benefits kick in, especially when I go one round after the other, sometimes for 20 minutes straight.
You're paraphrasing the question and I think it's skewing the context of her answer. The person said "My trainer told me I'd burn muscle if I did aerobics too long" and she said that's not a good reason not to do aerobics, which I agree with. There are other reasons not to do aerobics. I get that you want to burn calories. Anaerobic workouts burn more calories than aerobic workouts, so they should always be prioritized if you're looking for the most bang for your buck. Unless you're working out 8+ hours a week, there wouldn't be any reason to include low intensity aerobics for fat loss. Neither you nor the author of that article gave any compelling reasons. Sparring is not aerobic unless you are fighting at an incredibly low intensity. It's not nonstop either, there are short intervals of low or no activity during a fight, interspersed with intense force production. This is the job of the anaerobic system. These are just facts of human physiology. If you have evidence that aerobics burn more calories than anaerobics, or that aerobic endurance positively affects anaerobic endurance, then that would be a big reason to train aerobically. To take this from another perspective, if your goal is to be fast and agile then you need to be training your high threshold motor units. The more you train your slow twitch fibers, the more you will train your body to produce very little force slowly. In other words, you'll become slower over time. I'll happily explain this in detail if you desire. So even if we discard the low caloric expenditure and the lack of carry over to fighting endurance, we're still left with the fact that training aerobically makes you a slower athlete who cannot produce as much force as if you only trained anaerobically. Hardly a desirable outcome for anyone who practices MA.
I was reading through the article that was linked inside the one you gave me where she wrote that you need 60-90 minutes of cardio to lose weight. Here's her support for that: However she doesn't actually cite any studies whatsoever. Not one. I can't take the word of some MSN trainer when it conflicts with the words (and science to back it up) of the fitness industry's leaders (Cosgrove, Waterbury, Poliquin, Cressey, Gentilcore, Robertson, Rippetoe, etc.)
All I can say here is "why do boxers rely so heavily on putting in their roadwork?" Because it works. They are out there for a long time, and the heart and lungs keep pumping at an increased level. You need to establish the cardio base first.
I'm glad you brought this up, because "roadwork" among boxers is one of the most notorious examples of misunderstanding basic human physiology. It started long before we really understood how the body responds to exercise, and it kept going for no other reason than everyone was doing it! You're making the same error of reasoning I hear from skinny kids in the gym trying to get huge. "Arnold (or whichever beef cake they idolize) did this so it must have been a good thing". For years bodybuilders used high reps to "cut up" the muscle. It was believed that one could spot reduce fat through high repetition sets. Everyone did it because everyone else did it. We know now for a fact that it was completely wrong. A lot of people still do it anyway, because they haven't gotten the memo. Roadwork is the same thing. People go run for miles and miles straight to prepare for a fight that lasts 3 minutes at a time. It's an outdated practice. I've included 4 articles that tackle this myth, some in more detail than others. The last one goes into a lot of detail about the differences between our three energy systems. If you're doing aerobics to improve your fighting, you just don't understand physiology. That's not meant to be insulting in the least. It's just to say, this isn't just my opinion or some fringe idea. These aren't secrets. What I'm saying is found in any textbook you can find on human physiology. The Right Way to Train for Boxing! Boxing Training Myths Ten Training Myths Exposed (Look at #7) MMA Specific Endurance Let me know what you think after you get a chance to look through those.
That's only really applies to slow to moderate paced cardio. With interval training/high intensity the emphasis is more on burning the fat after workout (which can be up to 36 hours). I'm too lazy to look for all the sources tho :evil:
Schuenke MD, Mikat RP, McBride JM. Effect of an acute period of resistance exercise on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption: implications for body mass management. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Mar;86(5):411-7. Epub 2002 Jan 29. This study consisted of half an hour of circuit training. Basal metabolic rate was elevated significantly for 38 hours! I believe there are other studies that have shown up to a 48 hour effect. So far no study I'm aware of has tried to test the effect of accumulated EPOC, but there's a lot of reasons to believe that the effect can be compounded with a few hard anaerobic workouts a week, effectively keeping the metabolism permanently elevated. As is often said, worrying how many calories you're burning during a workout is like worrying about how much muscle you're building during a workout. Both muscle building AND fat loss occur primarily after the workout during the recovery period, if you're training right.
I gotta think that being on the bike for an hour burns more calories than 30 minutes. I include both interval and moderate speeds in my workout and have remained pretty lean and mean for my age, so it works for me. When I went from just doing the interval, to adding the additional 30-35 minutes, I found it much easier to drop weight. I don't honestly know the answer to the "burning fat after 30 minutes debate", but I have read it in more than one fitness magazine or online fitness site.
Socrastein, Those are pretty bold statements. I'm just curious.... what makes you the authority on what works and what doesn't? I find it a tad bit hard to believe that road work doesn't help athletes that have to go 10-12 rounds.
because they understand that aerobic training is important for recovery, that the more power you can produce aerobically means the less you have to go anearobic, helps with making weight, helps the anearobic system, they understand that the three energy systems work together not independently and that any sport that lasts up to 30minutes is going to be largely aerobic in nature
