What training are you doing/have done today?

[mcelliott]

Wednesday night - league football, Thursday - an hour and a half on the bike - gorgeous evening. Just over 22mph average for a lumpy ride. Today my gym is closed and moving premises so pressups at home off the stairs - 10 sets of 50. Chest well pumped now, and some work on my resistance band. From there straight into a 10km hilly run.

[balders118]

Hoofy said:

balders118 said:

A collegue of mine is a PT and a crossfitter. I overheard him the other day saying "If you want to lose weight and reduce your body fat % the one and ONLY way to do this is with weight training. Pick up heavy stuff and put it back down". Its so misguided it was funny, but I've had a lot of confused people that I've had to correct because of him!

How old is your colleague? I do know of some people who never do cardio and are ripped from just lifting heavy... but they're all early twenties. And probably have a very high metabolism.

He's 26. He's not ripped. Or particularly strong.

On another note, I'm 24, fairly lean. 5ft 8, 87kg and about 10-14%bf and I only ever do heavy lifts. Very very litle cardio (the odd 1000m row to warm up). That's a slightly different thing though, that's a high metabolism, training hard and eating (relatively) well. I could definately lose some dough from the middle if I needed to though, I wouldn't call myself ripped. What he was referring to was people losing weight, i.e. getting from 25% to 15% bf. Obviously cardio and diet is going to be far more effective than picking heavy things up.

[Lost_BMW]

As a quick, bored mess about did 100 strict shoulder presses per arm, half standing with, wait for it...



... a 5kg hex plate!


Sounds like nothing, but it bloody hurt!


Silly Billy that I am, another 100 per arm - shoulders and triceps now sore.

And now 100 side laterals per arm.

Did I mention that I hate high rep sets!

And just finished off with 32 + 22 pushups

Edited by Lost_BMW on Saturday 13th October 00:15

[ViperPict]

balders118 said:

Hoofy said:

balders118 said:

A collegue of mine is a PT and a crossfitter. I overheard him the other day saying "If you want to lose weight and reduce your body fat % the one and ONLY way to do this is with weight training. Pick up heavy stuff and put it back down". Its so misguided it was funny, but I've had a lot of confused people that I've had to correct because of him!

How old is your colleague? I do know of some people who never do cardio and are ripped from just lifting heavy... but they're all early twenties. And probably have a very high metabolism.

He's 26. He's not ripped. Or particularly strong.

On another note, I'm 24, fairly lean. 5ft 8, 87kg and about 10-14%bf and I only ever do heavy lifts. Very very litle cardio (the odd 1000m row to warm up). That's a slightly different thing though, that's a high metabolism, training hard and eating (relatively) well. I could definately lose some dough from the middle if I needed to though, I wouldn't call myself ripped. What he was referring to was people losing weight, i.e. getting from 25% to 15% bf. Obviously cardio and diet is going to be far more effective than picking heavy things up.

Cardio is VERY inefficient at burning fat. Metabolic tissue is much more effective at using up calories. It's how big (muscular) folk can be lean while doing no cardio and eating 4,000+ kcals per day. And the most effective type of training to get matabolic tissue is to lift heavy things. I'm with your mate on this one I'm afraid...

[balders118]

ViperPict said:

Cardio is VERY inefficient at burning fat. Metabolic tissue is much more effective at using up calories. It's how big (muscular) folk can be lean while doing no cardio and eating 4,000+ kcals per day. And the most effective type of training to get matabolic tissue is to lift heavy things. I'm with your mate on this one I'm afraid...

You're wrong too then

Building more muscle mass does increase your base metabolic rate which means you can burn more calories at rest, and is beneficial at helping keep weight off because of that. Cardio however simply burns more calories in a given time compared to weight training so you will lose more weight than if it was a weight session. It also takes a long time to build a lot of muscle to get to the stage you are talking about, and not the quick weight loss that fat people want.

Ultimately a combination of cardio and weights is the most effective way to lose weight from a training perpective. There was a study done a few years ago that looked at pure cardio vs cardio plus weights. Initially the cardio only group lost more weight, but after a period of time off training the cardio plus weights kept the weight off much better - due to the inreased BMR.

However at the end of the day, it's all about diet! You can run or throw weights around 'til the cows come home but if you're eating a donner kebab and profiter rolls three times a day you're still gunna be fat.

[Halb]

Lost_BMW said:

As a quick, bored mess about did 100 strict shoulder presses per arm, half standing with, wait for it...... a 5kg hex plate!
Sounds like nothing, but it bloody hurt!
Silly Billy that I am, another 100 per arm - shoulders and triceps now sore.
And now 100 side laterals per arm.
Did I mention that I hate high rep sets!
And just finished off with 32 + 22 pushups

Edited by Lost_BMW on Saturday 13th October 00:15

As another utiliser of high rep stuff, I know that anything in those numbers is gonna hurt, doesn't matter if you're pressing a mouse.

[Lost_BMW]

Halb said:

Lost_BMW said:

As a quick, bored mess about did 100 strict shoulder presses per arm, half standing with, wait for it...... a 5kg hex plate!
Sounds like nothing, but it bloody hurt!
Silly Billy that I am, another 100 per arm - shoulders and triceps now sore.
And now 100 side laterals per arm.
Did I mention that I hate high rep sets!
And just finished off with 32 + 22 pushups

Edited by Lost_BMW on Saturday 13th October 00:15

As another utiliser of high rep stuff, I know that anything in those numbers is gonna hurt, doesn't matter if you're pressing a mouse.

Too true, folk on here who think we're mad - "how can a mouse hurt?" - and haven't done it should try some! Even a high rep set of lateral raises with no weight gets to be a challenge to complete once the reps get v. high.

I regularly used to do 300 non-stop a session when I was travelling and stuck in hotels, occasionally up to 500. You get less than half way and think there's no way you'll hit the target and by the end it is really hard just to lift your own arm out.

Probably a waste of time mind!

[Hoofy]

Lost_BMW said:

Probably a waste of time mind!

That's what I wonder. Is there any point if it achieves nothing but the ability to mimic a flightless bird for longer than your friends.

Last weekend I remembered that I was going to experiment with body-weight exercises so my new training plan is one day at the gym with gym buddy using heavy weights and one day doing:
-"no-hands" push ups (3x10)
-wide push ups (3x10)
-plyometric push ups (3x15)
-V push ups (6x10)
-Bulgarian hops (3x15) (or plyometric split squat raised jumps if you're being anal about it; I just like "Bulgarian hops" because it makes me think of beer)

Everything hurts today.

Small print: I still do normal Bulgarian squats with lighter weights than on gym day, though, plus front squats as I want to maintain the size/shape of my legs. I was going to do T2B leg raises and pull ups but I'm only doing "plank straight arm tricep kickbacks" as a test of how effective weighted planks really are. For some reason, PSATKs really work the lats as well as the triceps and core. It's a bit like renegade rows but seems to work not just the upper back but the lats. I'm not going to do normal planks as frankly I'm not paid to just "lie" there for as long as I can beyond the point of boredom. I am experimenting with planks (I know it's cooler to experiment with drugs but I'm old) because whenever someone says "what can I do to tone up my abs?" someone always answers "planks!" so with my PSATKs I'm doing a tougher kind of planks. If there's no significant increase in size, then I will consider anyone who recommends planks in future a berk.

I mean, yes, planks are hard to hold for a great deal of time but so is watching paint dry without turning your head to look at something more interesting. Will doing planks build up abs more than watching paint dry? I will let you know.

Edited by Hoofy on Saturday 13th October 12:50

[Lost_BMW]

Hoofy said:

Lost_BMW said:

Probably a waste of time mind!

That's what I wonder. Is there any point if it achieves nothing but the ability to mimic a flightless bird for longer than your friends.

Yes... I was being ironic.

At least for me and people with similar needs rather than bodybuilders or powerlifters. I wouldn't (or in my case, shouldn't) do this style of work out for too long and will get back to a more pragmatic periodised approach once these niggles/injuries are sorted, but this very high rep approach does have some benefits. Especially, like I noted, if just part of a periodised cycling through different weight ranges & % of 1rm.

Number one is it builds lactic tolerance, getting the body ready for/primed to go through the lactic build period and be able to buffer this and replenish/alternate sources of energy. There is loads of research now to point to the chemical changes that aid this, like the amount of enzymes produced and the ability of cells to buffer as well as flush and replace some of the nasties of anaerobic force production. As well as the anecdotal, which I'd concur with from extensive past experience of what happens to my body and its ability to perform in different ways at different points of a training cycle.

If I don't include such work for a few months and then come back to it I can't cope with putting out force/work for nearly so long even if I grit my teeth and bear it; the body just can't handle the demands. Look at boxers or mma fighters who haven't trained right and 'gas'. They simply can't keep their hands up even when they know the alternative is to get repeatedly smashed in the face!

Doing this for a while I will lose some (but not a lot) of absolute strength (static or slow speed strength production) but I can deploy what's left for longer and, possibly faster - especially if I go to a cycle of moderate weight explosive work and plyometrics. I was talking to a boxer last week who had hit the weights, gone up quickly from 80 to 90Kg but then found the strength gains stopping with weight still creeping up and his fitness down. He stopped/cut way back on the weights got back to 80kg and is convinced he's punching harder now as well as being way fitter.


So, not just pain tolerance - which it does also help with; sets of 5 or 3 do not hurt anywhere near as much so you really do have to get used to putting up with the mind game of going through the point you want to stop but can carry on with the right determination, where with a 5 rep set to failure you get there and just "can't", similar to forced reps/drop sets in some ways.

After all these years I also think it's added to my muscle density - after a few weeks of including very high rep shoulder work my delts are like rock even though other bits of me are softer and flabby. So harder, not just big/round but 'squiggy'. High rep push ups have also put more size, a deeper cut and brought striations back into my long lost pecs (not trained much for a decade) and with legs my thighs are bigger and much tighter now after hundreds of 'sissy squats' per week.

It also produces less of a demand on the cns, so could be a useful shift to anyone who has gone too heavy, too far into failure for too long and is burning out.


So, probably not a complete waste actually!

Edited by Lost_BMW on Saturday 13th October 15:24

[ViperPict]

balders118 said:

ViperPict said:

Cardio is VERY inefficient at burning fat. Metabolic tissue is much more effective at using up calories. It's how big (muscular) folk can be lean while doing no cardio and eating 4,000+ kcals per day. And the most effective type of training to get matabolic tissue is to lift heavy things. I'm with your mate on this one I'm afraid...

You're wrong too then

Building more muscle mass does increase your base metabolic rate which means you can burn more calories at rest, and is beneficial at helping keep weight off because of that. Cardio however simply burns more calories in a given time compared to weight training so you will lose more weight than if it was a weight session. It also takes a long time to build a lot of muscle to get to the stage you are talking about, and not the quick weight loss that fat people want.

Ultimately a combination of cardio and weights is the most effective way to lose weight from a training perpective. There was a study done a few years ago that looked at pure cardio vs cardio plus weights. Initially the cardio only group lost more weight, but after a period of time off training the cardio plus weights kept the weight off much better - due to the inreased BMR.

However at the end of the day, it's all about diet! You can run or throw weights around 'til the cows come home but if you're eating a donner kebab and profiter rolls three times a day you're still gunna be fat.

It is very much to do about diet. You burn off next to no fat doing cardio. You will lose WEIGHT by using up glycogen stores and, mainly, losing moisture (respiration and perspiration). There are also physiological processes within the body that try and hold onto body fat. Short but intense bursts of exercise that have a high engery demand or short term and extreme diets will put the body into fat storing mode. Slow and steady is the effective (natural) way to lose bodyfat. Through a sensible but not drastic diet and through longer term muscle gain - gaining muscle is much more effective at burning extra calories than cardio due to its positive effect on your basal metabolic rate and that it does not induce your body's fat storage mechanism.

[balders118]

ViperPict said:

It is very much to do about diet. You burn off next to no fat doing cardio. You will lose WEIGHT by using up glycogen stores and, mainly, losing moisture (respiration and perspiration). There are also physiological processes within the body that try and hold onto body fat. Short but intense bursts of exercise that have a high engery demand or short term and extreme diets will put the body into fat storing mode. Slow and steady is the effective (natural) way to lose bodyfat. Through a sensible but not drastic diet and through longer term muscle gain - gaining muscle is much more effective at burning extra calories than cardio due to its positive effect on your basal metabolic rate and that it does not induce your body's fat storage mechanism.

In any given gym session you will burn more energy doing cardio than doing weights. You just can't argue that. Your sentance that I have bolded just isn't true. If it was, runners would be chubbier than your average beach boy lad in the gym, both putting in similar hours to their training, which just isn't the case. On top of that to get a high metabolic rate you need to put on a reasonable amount of muscle, which is not the look everyone is going for.

Of course what you're saying has some truth, but saying that its more effective than cardio at losing fat just isn't true.

[HonestIago]

balders118 said:

I'm 24, fairly lean. 5ft 8, 87kg and about 10-14%bf

Are you natural? I'm not being funny but if you have those stats and are legitimately under 14% bf you're doing very well!

[ViperPict]

balders118 said:

ViperPict said:

It is very much to do about diet. You burn off next to no fat doing cardio. You will lose WEIGHT by using up glycogen stores and, mainly, losing moisture (respiration and perspiration). There are also physiological processes within the body that try and hold onto body fat. Short but intense bursts of exercise that have a high engery demand or short term and extreme diets will put the body into fat storing mode. Slow and steady is the effective (natural) way to lose bodyfat. Through a sensible but not drastic diet and through longer term muscle gain - gaining muscle is much more effective at burning extra calories than cardio due to its positive effect on your basal metabolic rate and that it does not induce your body's fat storage mechanism.

In any given gym session you will burn more energy doing cardio than doing weights. You just can't argue that. Your sentance that I have bolded just isn't true. If it was, runners would be chubbier than your average beach boy lad in the gym, both putting in similar hours to their training, which just isn't the case. On top of that to get a high metabolic rate you need to put on a reasonable amount of muscle, which is not the look everyone is going for.

Of course what you're saying has some truth, but saying that its more effective than cardio at losing fat just isn't true.

No because runners will eat much less than someone who has managed to build an appreciable amount of muscle. A lot of runners are light in bodyweight but they are not all that lean with little muscle definition. Cardio is just not good at burning fat, for the reasons I stated before. The physiology of fat burning is a lot more complicated than energy used. You will lose WEIGHT doing cardio but little fat. I also have empirical evidence of this from 20+ years of dieting/ bulking - adding in three 45 minute sessions of 60-70% max heart rate cardio before breakfast (i.e., with minimnal glycogen stores to be best allow fat utilisation for energy) over 10 weeks resulted in no statistically significant difference in fat loss compared to the same length period doing no cardio but the same weights and diet regime (but I lost some lean tissue doing the cardio!).

And to say that you will burn more energy with cardio or weights weights depends on a multitide of factors (time training, resting regime, rep range, weight used, exercises executed). For example, you use a prodigeous amount of energy doing a 20-rep squat routine that will last only a couple of minutes. Say you're using 180kg and the vertical range the weight moves is 1m - that is a LOT of 'work' done (in the physics meaning of the word, i.e., W = F.d).

[BenM77]

@Lost_Bmw

Thanks for the write up on high reps mate, I enjoy the high rep workouts and circuits I do for a few reasons and it is good to read some of the benefits from someone who knows

There are plenty of ways to train and everyone has different goals but personally I like to think I have fairly good stamina through the type of training I do, I like the boxer reference you used regards not keeping his guard up, surely the ultimate in high rep endurance training is a full boxing match !

[Lost_BMW]

BenM77 said:

@Lost_Bmw

Thanks for the write up on high reps mate, I enjoy the high rep workouts and circuits I do for a few reasons and it is good to read some of the benefits from someone who knows

There are plenty of ways to train and everyone has different goals but personally I like to think I have fairly good stamina through the type of training I do, I like the boxer reference you used regards not keeping his guard up, surely the ultimate in high rep endurance training is a full boxing match !

Yep, it's amazing to see how hard boxers and mma fighters train, how much they put up with and how fit they are and then see them die on their feet after a few minutes! Hard to imagine how demanding it is unless you've been there. I used to find I'd get a second wind after 10 or 15 mins and then didn't want to stop, esp if my partner showed signs of flagging (amateur/hobbyist level only btw). I've sparred good level bodybuilders, strong as the proverbial, who've had no staying power at all. I'd far rather have to fight a non boxing lifter than a non lifting boxer!

The training I've been doing again for the past few months, or more, has helped get my endurance back up and I deliberately make sure I throw in some punches as hard as I can at the end of a series, even when it's one of those 20 min non stop rounds, so that even if I was knackered I'd still have a chance of hitting hard when needed.

[Lost_BMW]

Change is as good as a rest!

Knee eased a lot yesterday despite thinking on Thursday it was never going to get better so went to do a back workout. Had a few digs at the bag with feet square, avoiding any twist, coped so changed the plan to 20 rounds of out and out power shots (various combinations), 30 seconds on 30 off. Realised how much I've missed it. Managed a number of rounds back in a proper stance but concentrating hard to avoid any knee twist.

Then 1 min rest and seated cable pulldowns @ 180lb - 136 reps (with wraps on - felt like fat gripz and has fried my forearms), then slipped them off and did 29, 12 and 8 rest pause style.

Shaking like I've got some condition now, holding a cup and my arm judders by inches! getting old

[Halb]

Vis high reps, I have referenced Bill Starr before on this, how it is useful for strength retention/gains when forced (he was in a place over winter with a limited weight stack, 100lbs I think).
Haven't been able to refind the essay, but it lies somewhere in the tight tan slacks of Dan Debezo I think.

[Hoofy]

Lost_BMW said:

Yes... I was being ironic.

At least for me and people with similar needs rather than bodybuilders or powerlifters. I wouldn't (or in my case, shouldn't) do this style of work out for too long and will get back to a more pragmatic periodised approach once these niggles/injuries are sorted, but this very high rep approach does have some benefits. Especially, like I noted, if just part of a periodised cycling through different weight ranges & % of 1rm.

Number one is it builds lactic tolerance, getting the body ready for/primed to go through the lactic build period and be able to buffer this and replenish/alternate sources of energy. There is loads of research now to point to the chemical changes that aid this, like the amount of enzymes produced and the ability of cells to buffer as well as flush and replace some of the nasties of anaerobic force production. As well as the anecdotal, which I'd concur with from extensive past experience of what happens to my body and its ability to perform in different ways at different points of a training cycle.

If I don't include such work for a few months and then come back to it I can't cope with putting out force/work for nearly so long even if I grit my teeth and bear it; the body just can't handle the demands. Look at boxers or mma fighters who haven't trained right and 'gas'. They simply can't keep their hands up even when they know the alternative is to get repeatedly smashed in the face!

Doing this for a while I will lose some (but not a lot) of absolute strength (static or slow speed strength production) but I can deploy what's left for longer and, possibly faster - especially if I go to a cycle of moderate weight explosive work and plyometrics. I was talking to a boxer last week who had hit the weights, gone up quickly from 80 to 90Kg but then found the strength gains stopping with weight still creeping up and his fitness down. He stopped/cut way back on the weights got back to 80kg and is convinced he's punching harder now as well as being way fitter.


So, not just pain tolerance - which it does also help with; sets of 5 or 3 do not hurt anywhere near as much so you really do have to get used to putting up with the mind game of going through the point you want to stop but can carry on with the right determination, where with a 5 rep set to failure you get there and just "can't", similar to forced reps/drop sets in some ways.

After all these years I also think it's added to my muscle density - after a few weeks of including very high rep shoulder work my delts are like rock even though other bits of me are softer and flabby. So harder, not just big/round but 'squiggy'. High rep push ups have also put more size, a deeper cut and brought striations back into my long lost pecs (not trained much for a decade) and with legs my thighs are bigger and much tighter now after hundreds of 'sissy squats' per week.

It also produces less of a demand on the cns, so could be a useful shift to anyone who has gone too heavy, too far into failure for too long and is burning out.


So, probably not a complete waste actually!

Edited by Lost_BMW on Saturday 13th October 15:24

Oh, right. Well, I can understand the idea that the muscle becomes harder as going back to my more intense climbing days, it'd be like gripping and releasing hundreds of times in a session to the point where you're pumped... and you keep going. My forearms didn't match the rest of my body.

Also, I suspected it would benefit endurance... if that's important for the person doing the training.

Interesting what you say about how it has defined your muscles.

[balders118]

ViperPict said:

No because runners will eat much less than someone who has managed to build an appreciable amount of muscle. A lot of runners are light in bodyweight but they are not all that lean with little muscle definition. Cardio is just not good at burning fat, for the reasons I stated before. The physiology of fat burning is a lot more complicated than energy used. You will lose WEIGHT doing cardio but little fat. I also have empirical evidence of this from 20+ years of dieting/ bulking - adding in three 45 minute sessions of 60-70% max heart rate cardio before breakfast (i.e., with minimnal glycogen stores to be best allow fat utilisation for energy) over 10 weeks resulted in no statistically significant difference in fat loss compared to the same length period doing no cardio but the same weights and diet regime (but I lost some lean tissue doing the cardio!).

And to say that you will burn more energy with cardio or weights weights depends on a multitide of factors (time training, resting regime, rep range, weight used, exercises executed). For example, you use a prodigeous amount of energy doing a 20-rep squat routine that will last only a couple of minutes. Say you're using 180kg and the vertical range the weight moves is 1m - that is a LOT of 'work' done (in the physics meaning of the word, i.e., W = F.d).

One persons training over 20 years does not make any kind of proof. Especially without and control etc.

We're not going to agree, so I won't carry on

[balders118]

HonestIago said:

Are you natural? I'm not being funny but if you have those stats and are legitimately under 14% bf you're doing very well!

Yeah natural. I wouldn't say they are that impressive tbh, always trying to improve! I'm definately closer to 14% than 10% atm.