Honestly, I keep it all pretty simple with what I eat and it seems to work out well enough.
I'm more concerned about calories than the miligrams of sodium, fat, and proteins I'm taking. It's all about the calories.
existence is elsewhere
So how much does it cost to get a good personal trainer? Just to get the form on my lifts correct? I'm currently suffering major tendon damage in my upper back, cause unknown (really), but when I get back I want to have better form.
@ filc
Well that's good they start off slow, concentrate on form. Form's most important. Hands-on coaching for anything especially Olympic lifts is a big plus. Most people can't afford it.
There's no risk in lifting, including Olympic-type lifts (properly done) when compared to doing nothing at all as atrophy sets in raising risk of injury from bending over to pick up groceries or other everday activities. Using machines (if not prescriped by a PT) is more risky than free weights too.
Running or jogging I don't do. 10-50 yard spints are good with adequate rest in between. Can't maintain the intensity 50-200 yards, more like fast running, but still good. Swimming's good, but for cardio I prefer circuits with weights like this (I use much less weight):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJQBjcLhDD4
And Tabata Protocal or HIT whatever, basically 20:10 - 20 sec. work whatever like Squat Rows, 10 sec. rest for 8 sets; 4 min. total. Also KB's are great for Tabata. I also like using TRX suspension trainer for lots of stuff.
CoolUserName:There's no risk in lifting, including Olympic-type lifts (properly done)
Right so I guess my point is, there is no risk in doing crossfit (Properly done).
The video you linked is extreeeeemely similar to crossfit. In fact just not knowing any better I would have assumed thats what he was doing.
Tabata's are frequently used as well. I did a tabata last night after my WOD, doing situps.
So how much does it cost to get a good personal trainer? Just to get the form on my lifts correct?
Cost you 30 bucks for the book:
http://aasgaardco.com/store/store.php?crn=199&rn=312&action=show_detail
And/or $25 for the DVD:
http://aasgaardco.com/store/store.php?crn=210
Both are excellent. Book has much more.
EDIT: BTW, where will you find a COMPETENT trainer? The training world is as messed up as the economics world. Most are "Keynesians", with Rippetoe being one of the few "Austrians". Rest assured that the ones at Bally's and places like that are literally worse than useless.
A good rule of thumb is if you dont see them actually squatting say 300 to parallel and deadlifting say 400 then they won't know anything. Which means finding a powerlifting coach. [I don't know anything about olympic lifting guys].
My humble blog
It's easy to refute an argument if you first misrepresent it. William Keizer
Smiling Dave: Cost you 30 bucks for the book:
Smiling Dave:And/or $25 for the DVD:
No it won't.
I don't really feel like debating xahrx or parsing that long post, but I noticed one important mistake ("olive oil is magical" or something). Read here.
There are some dangerous ideas out there. One such idea is that saturated fat is dangerous. That is version 2.0 of Ancel Keys Lipid Hypothesis. (Version 1.0 was that dietary cholesterol was dangerous). Now what if we take an often helpful idea like low carbohydrate eating and combine it with this dangerous idea? Maybe we get an even more dangerous idea. An idea like, limiting both carbohydrate and saturated fat simultaneously. You can only eat so much protein, so a low carb diet is a high fat diet. If we try to eat low carb and limit saturated fat, or animal products, because there is something dangerous about "red meat" or whatever, we are doing something incoherent. If we are to eat more fats on low carb while limiting animals, guess what? We have just created a diet that maximizes total PUFA consumption. Any diet, to the degree it is low carb and says to limit sat fat to only 10%, will necessarily be a HIGH PUFA DIET. It's simple math. You have to eat something, and if you are foolish enough to limit carbs in general, and animal fats simultaneously, and even if you eat protein to the point of nausea, guess what's left? Plant fat. What predominates in plant fat? Linoleic acid. I don't care if you get it all from olive, canola oil and furniture finish (flaxseed oil), you cannot eat low carb and low SFA without eating more than twice as much PUFA as is desirable. Even if you ate 60% of total calories as olive oil, you are already at about 6% of kcal as PUFA, not counting any fish oil you would need to take to get a reasonable 6:3 balance. This, in my opinion, is more pro-inflammatory and very likely MORE atherogenic than a high carb diet without excess fructose and wheat, and may even result in more hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia via leaky gut/liver and hypothalamic inflammation. You have done this not-so-clever maneuver by replacing carbohydrate, a class of macronutrient that contains two of the neolithic agents (wheat and fructose), with PUFAs, which is a subclass of fat that in excess quantity is a neolithic agent. I cannot emphasize it enough. Avoidance of excess linoleic acid is far more important than being "low carb". It may, in fact, be the lead horseman in the post-industrial diet right now. You can't eat healthy in an evolutionarily concordant manner if you cling to the lipid hypothesis. SAT FAT or PUFA - only one is a neolithic agent. You already know which one.
There are some dangerous ideas out there.
One such idea is that saturated fat is dangerous. That is version 2.0 of Ancel Keys Lipid Hypothesis. (Version 1.0 was that dietary cholesterol was dangerous).
Now what if we take an often helpful idea like low carbohydrate eating and combine it with this dangerous idea?
Maybe we get an even more dangerous idea. An idea like, limiting both carbohydrate and saturated fat simultaneously.
You can only eat so much protein, so a low carb diet is a high fat diet. If we try to eat low carb and limit saturated fat, or animal products, because there is something dangerous about "red meat" or whatever, we are doing something incoherent.
If we are to eat more fats on low carb while limiting animals, guess what?
We have just created a diet that maximizes total PUFA consumption.
Any diet, to the degree it is low carb and says to limit sat fat to only 10%, will necessarily be a HIGH PUFA DIET.
It's simple math.
You have to eat something, and if you are foolish enough to limit carbs in general, and animal fats simultaneously, and even if you eat protein to the point of nausea, guess what's left?
Plant fat.
What predominates in plant fat?
Linoleic acid.
I don't care if you get it all from olive, canola oil and furniture finish (flaxseed oil), you cannot eat low carb and low SFA without eating more than twice as much PUFA as is desirable.
Even if you ate 60% of total calories as olive oil, you are already at about 6% of kcal as PUFA, not counting any fish oil you would need to take to get a reasonable 6:3 balance. This, in my opinion, is more pro-inflammatory and very likely MORE atherogenic than a high carb diet without excess fructose and wheat, and may even result in more hyperglycemia and hyperinsulinemia via leaky gut/liver and hypothalamic inflammation.
You have done this not-so-clever maneuver by replacing carbohydrate, a class of macronutrient that contains two of the neolithic agents (wheat and fructose), with PUFAs, which is a subclass of fat that in excess quantity is a neolithic agent.
I cannot emphasize it enough. Avoidance of excess linoleic acid is far more important than being "low carb".
It may, in fact, be the lead horseman in the post-industrial diet right now.
You can't eat healthy in an evolutionarily concordant manner if you cling to the lipid hypothesis.
SAT FAT or PUFA - only one is a neolithic agent. You already know which one.
These quotes from Rippetoe are pretty funny. A weightlifting book that mentions division of labor on the first page? I was wondering why he's "Austrian".
Democracy means the opportunity to be everyone's slave.—Karl Kraus.
Snowflake:Taubes isn't advocating an athlete's diet, he's just exploring how you lose fat.
And the paper you posted showed that an athlete's diet can help you get physically fit.
Snowflake:Anyway, the point of linking that article was to lend support to the idea that insulin might supress other hormones. Its a mixed bag.
That article stated the following: 1. That insulin suppresses test, but the author(s) believed it was because of higher intake by skeletal muscle. That sounds like a good deal if you're working out. 2. Insulin increases levels of GH and IGF-1. 3. Insulin is an anabolic hormone.
Political Atheists Blog
I was wondering why he's "Austrian".
I meant that he knows what what. As opposed to most trainers who have it all backwards. So that he is the Austrian of lifting, and they are the Keynesians.
krazy kaju:1. That insulin suppresses test, but the author(s) believed it was because of higher intake by skeletal muscle. That sounds like a good deal if you're working out.
Anyway, whoever is following this thread has the raw information and can make up their own minds. It seems kind of pointless to ingest carbs after a tension workout. If you're doing a volume/pump workout, your glycogen stores will be depleted and so, depending on your P ratio, a larger % of the carbs will go to refilling those stores. But if you've done a tension/strength workout, it might not be of much benefit.
Yeah I get it now Dave. Those quotes really made me chuckle.
I was driving home the other night, listening to the radio, and the guy filling in for Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM was talking to some other guy about Nazis, UFOs, the Kennedy Assassination, time travel, and George Bush, and how it all relates to OneWorldGovernment. This, of course, made me think about barbell training... ... On the possibility of a failure to deadlift resulting in stroke: Deadlifts that are too heavy to pull generally don't take very long; the bar just kinda lays there. So if trying to move immovable objects was dangerous from the standpoint of stroke, the history of the human race would be littered with stupid people's corpses. ... A Rip Anecdote: My favorite happens to be the tale on supplementary equipment. A man insisted on wearing straps for exercises he probably could have gotten away without having worn them. Rip, in classic Rip fashion, decided to start wearing straps to do all sorts of things, including opening doors and going to the bathroom (he would wear one on his "holding" hand, gotta have wrist support for that) until the guy stopped wearing straps completely.
I was driving home the other night, listening to the radio, and the guy filling in for Art Bell on Coast to Coast AM was talking to some other guy about Nazis, UFOs, the Kennedy Assassination, time travel, and George Bush, and how it all relates to OneWorldGovernment. This, of course, made me think about barbell training...
...
On the possibility of a failure to deadlift resulting in stroke:
Deadlifts that are too heavy to pull generally don't take very long; the bar just kinda lays there. So if trying to move immovable objects was dangerous from the standpoint of stroke, the history of the human race would be littered with stupid people's corpses.
A Rip Anecdote:
My favorite happens to be the tale on supplementary equipment. A man insisted on wearing straps for exercises he probably could have gotten away without having worn them. Rip, in classic Rip fashion, decided to start wearing straps to do all sorts of things, including opening doors and going to the bathroom (he would wear one on his "holding" hand, gotta have wrist support for that) until the guy stopped wearing straps completely.
[QUOTE="filc"]Xharx I don't think you could possibly be any more antagonistic. It's hard to tell if your interest here is generally to help people learn or to shout down at them and belittle them. Your definately not accomplishing anything positive here with such a tone.[/QUOTE]
Trust me, I can be way more antagonistic. And 'help' in this case would be getting some of the people here clued into reality as opposed to the mythical world they live in where human bodies are magical space time warp machines that can violate the laws of physics.
Lets assume for a second your right, and Snowflake is wrong. How receptive do you think his learning is going to be when you say things like
I don't much care. I've already tried to postively explain that human bodies can't violate the laws of physics as politely as I can without wondering if snowflake is actually insane or otherwise mentally ill. And the rejection of the energy balance equation is on a level with that; it is a rejection of reality. This is not a debatable point, unless of course you want to rewrite every physics text known to man and take on Einstein, et al. Otherwise it's time to rethink the human digestive system / black hole alternate universe theory.
All hormones do is allocate energy when it comes in, they can't create it or magically make it go away. So it doesn't matter how high or low your insulin or testosterone or any other hormone is; calorie excess will lead to stored energy which is an increase in mass, calorie deficit will lead to burned energy in the form of lost mass. The adjustments your body can make via shifts in composition and resting metabolism are limited. As I said before insulin will not all of sudden make a 4000kCal a day person be able to maintain their mass at 15kCal. In the adjustments controlled by genetics, it's almost fully out of your control no matter what you eat. Which means the end result, as physics would predict, is energy in vs energy out.
Imagine if your instructor/professor/ or teacher addressed you like that everytime you were wrong(Or even right but had a disagreement in opinion.
If I had said something nearly as insane, they would have, and for good reason.
Besides, do you have credentials to backup your heightened level of arrogance?
Years of training people, an unfinished degree in kinesiology and a partially finished CSCS cert from the NSCA that I'm thinking of testing for. Otherwise, that's it, and all I need because just as the laws of thermodynamics don't give insulim a mulligan, neither does my possession or lack of certification change that fact.
Amazing that even in a discussion not about politics you cannot be shown to control your emotions.
Controlling emotions is for Vulcans. I'm a human being with a brain and someone is telling me, and others, to disregard the laws of physics and how they apply to the human body. Perhaps your lack of education in this area is hindering your ability to realize that if you took what he's saying and applied it to another area of physics, that little pause Willy Coyote used to take advantage of before falling to hold up a sign communicating his feelings to the audience is actually something you can count on having in reality. Because gravity has wiggle room, so go ahead, walk off that cliff...
Like what workout specifically? I fail to see how it's any more or any less dangerous then general weight lifting. Crossfit is just a form of HIT, incorporating weight lifting into it. They don't do anything "New" or "different" from anyone else. They just do it really fast.
The timed nature of some of the workouts leads some people to sacrifice form for speed, leading to danger. Check the wiki on CrossFit, there's some criticisms referenced in there. It's not inherently bad, some of the workouts are ill thought out given the target audience.
[QUOTE="Snowflake"]You can't give effective advice if you and your audience have a different understanding of what "energy in" means.[/QUOTE]
Then you correct them, as opposed to let them continue to believe in BS.
This is simply an intellectual cop-out. There might be some individuals out there who are so hypersensative to insulin that they wouldn't be able to get their carbs low enough, but the majority of people are not in this category. Its a little rich that you rant about everyone else ignoring scientific laws when you can't even discuss insulin. You have no argument.
This is not a cop out, this is reality. And as someone who has actually done this before, I'll take my opinion over yours. The only thing you can determine from a simple "I want to lose slabs of fat" statement is that a person is eating way more than they should. Without assessing their individual circumstances, not the least of which is their current health condition, recommending a diet is premature. Get off of insulin for God's sake, what about his schedule of all things? Availability of food during the day and what types? There's a myriad of questions and individual circumstances that could limit and/or recommend a diet for him to follow that would serously impact his chances of success. Telling someone to go low carb when they're only realistic choice of food around doesn't allow that isn't smart.
During the first few days, sure. But once you get into Ketosis the majority of people feel just fine.
So say low carb activists. Reality is a bit different, especially when people aren't in an environment friendly to sucking down nothing but protein and fat. I've worked with many a person who couldn't maintain their daily activity levels on a low carb diet. It's amazing what a little oatmeal can accomplish.
I've been over why this isn't good advice. Again, you are just making baseless assertions. You have no argument.
Yes, and I've been over why your rejection of the laws of physics ain't exactly sound advice.
Sorry. Let me clarify to all who are reading that if you have Diabetes, AIDS, or have had an operation to surgically remove your digestive track, a low carb diet may not be a good idea.
Or perhaps you could also recommend a multi vit/mineral supp while your at it, and maybe some fiber so his ass doesn't clog like someone rammed a cork in it? Not everyone 'adjusts' to the diet so easily, not in the least because the lethargy continues and/or the availability of low carb food is problematic. And, also, not in the least because people like you lead them to believe that calories don't matter, so in some cases they do in fact make up for their carb loss with enough fat and protein to maintain and even up their calorie intake, in which case they actually stay the same or gain weight after the initial loss of water weight. And, if you actually gave a damn about the person in question you'd take the time to find out what their circumstances are before getting involved in recommending diets. The first I always did was make people go for a physical if they haven't already. Because the last thing I needed was some putz stroking out on me while trying to pinch a loaf because his new low carb diet lead to constipation because his fiber intake dropped like a rock.
These would all help, but the basic advice would stay the same. Low carb.
Basic and wrong. Eating less is the overall goal. Low carb is one way among many to accomplish that goal.
I already explained why eating less might not help. Your body could simply increase the % of dietary nutrients it absorbs.
Which means you need to eat even less. Going low carb can help a little with this, it can't rewrite the laws of physics such that you can maintain a 400lb behemoth on 1200kCal a day. For all you know this guy is sucking down 4 or 5 Krispy Kremes a day. Now, while going 'low carb' would technically eliminate that, I'd say if this were the case his problems are deeper and simply cutting the donuts out and leaving other carbs would be simpler, enough to make a massive difference, and perhaps easier to maintain than cutting almost all carbs. But, since we know jack about his circumstances...
Was my energy balance incorrect? I thought it made a lot more sense, because you can see all the dynamics we're talking about in it. As opposed to yours where hormones are entirely hidden. :/
I never said hormones are hidden, I said all they do is affect variables in the equation. Your the one with the 'calories don't matter philosophy', not me.
No. You just walked into the conversation with all these preconceptions about your relative quality of knowledge on the subject, and are now suffering cognitive dissonance. The only thing you can say about a low carb diet is that people might get tired if they're on it. You don't have to reduce the amount that you eat because the amount 'in' is reduced by virtue of lower insulin. You also completely ignore all my conciliatory remarks about how I support GOMAD if it works and etc... indicating that you're just frothing at the mouth.
You also completely ignore all my conciliatory remarks about how I support GOMAD if it works and etc... indicating that you're just frothing at the mouth.
My preconceptions are the laws of physics. Yours are that calories don't matter, Taubes is in perfect agreement with McDonald, and insulin isn't just a hormone, it's amagic elf that can add or remove fat at will and cast it into another dimension. And again we have magic in GOMAD. You know why people gain weight on a gallon of milk a day? Because they're drinking a gallon of milk a day. A gallon of whole milk would be around 2300 kCal, a gallon of skim would be around 1400 kCal. That's why people put weight on fairly easily with GOMAD, because they're taking in 2/3 to a full day's worth of calories on top of their normal diet. If there's one thing people are universally shitty at when it comes to diet, it's estimating calorie intake properly. Fat people think they're eating very little, people who want to gain weight swear they're eating tons. Funny, how almost every successful strategy is just a convoluted way to either make them eat significantly less or more without having to count the details in terms of kCal, like by cutting carbs (fully 1/4 to 1/2 of modern Americans' calorie intake) or adding a gallon of milk respectively.
[QUOTE="Giant_Joe"]I followed the "bullshit" advice of Taubes and lost about 50 pounds of fat in 3 months. I stuffed my face twice a day with big meals. I was and still am a sloth with respect to exercise.[/QUOTE]
Mistake correlation with causation much? Low carb diets can be and often are effective. That doesn't mean the dipshit espousing them, Taubes, has a clue as to how or why they are effective. And when he has made statements such as "Calories don't matter," well all I can say at this point is if you're willing to accept that statement uncritically, I have a few bridges to sell you.
[QUOTE="krazy kaju"]In defense of Taubes, what he's saying is that cutting down on carb consumption would lower insulin levels, thereby preventing fatty acids from entering your fat cells. That makes sense.[/QUOTE]
Where do they go instead then? Once more, it's in your blood, hence energy in. And her's crux; if you're still in a calorie surplus, they're going to go straight to your ass. If you're in a calorie deficit, you'll burn them. And if you're on a low carb diet, your body will have some preference for burning them over muscle tissue. But you still didn't accomplish magic. All you did was engage in a diet strategy that manipulated the variables in the energy equation to help you preferentially burn stored fat as a fuel source IF AND ONLY IF you stay in a calorie deficit. Meaning: calories DO matter...
[QUOTE="I. Ryan"]No, that is just one of the symptoms. Eat only unprocessed, natural food, and see whether you eat excess amounts of food. Believe me; you will not.[/QUOTE]
In my experience it can help appetite, but I've also seen people throw down metric assloads of unprocessed food to no avail. Because processed or unprocessed, excess calories are excess calories. If you want to you can lose weight eating donuts as long as you keep the overall calories below maintenance. You'll probably be screwed health-wise for other reasons, but you'll be skinny, if not healthy.
[QUOTE="Wilmot of Rochester"]Honestly, I keep it all pretty simple with what I eat and it seems to work out well enough.[/QUOTE]
Some of the best advice, ever. Keep it simple. Often people can make pretty startling changes to their bodies with one or more simple changes to their diet regimen. One guy I trained a long time ago was all over the place in terms of work, and ate a crap load of fast food. Just skipping the fries saved him about a thousand calories a day. Next knock the cheese off the cheeseburger. Next switch your coke to an unsweetened tea. Etc., etc., etc., etc. And wowzer, losing weight without cutting carbs out. Must be magic.
[QUOTE="Snowflake"]So how much does it cost to get a good personal trainer? Just to get the form on my lifts correct? I'm currently suffering major tendon damage in my upper back, cause unknown (really), but when I get back I want to have better form.[/QUOTE]
Get someone with a cert worth a damn by an org that publishes a journal on a regular basis. Otherwise you're going hit or miss with the weekend certification crowd. What lifts are you doing? My routine is simple:
Day 1 Squat 5X5 Bench 1X5 Row 1X5
Day 2 Deadlift 5X5 Clean and Press 5X5 Lat Pull Downs 5X5
Day 3 Squat 1X5 Bench 5X5 Row 5X5
Talk about reading comprehension difficulties...
The point about olive oil was sarcasm. Advocates of the mediteranean diet often bring up it's high olive oil content as the reason for it's success. And that's just as much BS as Taubes et al. claiming low carbs are the key. All successful diets have one common denominator: calorie control. So once more, in complete oppossition of wha Taubes preaches, calories do matter.
PS, I don't mean to be an asshole. It is, I admit, more than a little bit in my nature though.
Alright folks, anymore meta-discussion about who's insane and who's an asshole needs to be "taken outside" to the Member Issues foum.
xharx:Otherwise you're going hit or miss with the weekend certification crowd. What lifts are you doing? My routine is simple: Day 1 Squat 5X5 Bench 1X5 Row 1X5 Day 2 Deadlift 5X5 Clean and Press 5X5 Lat Pull Downs 5X5 Day 3 Squat 1X5 Bench 5X5 Row 5X5
What do you think of HST programs? I'm planning on using one after I recover from my tendinosis. Maybe. Low volume is nice, and the strategic deconditioning has been pretty much forced on me.
Oh, and i forgot. Smaller muscles like the rear delts don't seem to be worked by any of the major lifts (maybe I am mistaken). Your workout routine, as well as many others, seem to neglect these kinds of muscles. Is there a consequence to this?
Snowflake: Oh, and i forgot. Smaller muscles like the rear delts don't seem to be worked by any of the major lifts (maybe I am mistaken). Your workout routine, as well as many others, seem to neglect these kinds of muscles. Is there a consequence to this?
The posterior deltoids contribute to every pull just like the anterior deltoids contribute to every push. His routine included two pulls: (1) rows and (2) lateral pull downs. They also are prime movers in keeping the bar close to you in deadlifts. So his routine doesn't neglect them.
If I wrote it more than a few weeks ago, I probably hate it by now.
Thanks. I checked and you're right. They're listed under synergists at exrx.net's db.
Snowflake:Smaller muscles like the rear delts don't seem to be worked by any of the major lifts (maybe I am mistaken).
You are mistaken. The rear delts are worked by bent-over rows and deadlifts (the top portion of the pull) as a secondary muscle.
EDIT: Looks like I was late replying. Sorry.
What do you guys think of the different routines here? I've only been lifting sporadically, and I know now that when I used to more regularly (quite a while ago) I was doing lots of stuff wrong. I'm confused about this post too. For one thing, I feel like my bar weights more like 30 pounds, but I guess I could try to weigh it on a body scale.
If I do something like this...
For example (weight x reps x sets) Squat 45 x 5 x 2 95 x 5 x 1 135 x 3 x 1 185 x 2 x 1 225 x 5 x 3 <--Work Sets Bench Press 45 x 5 x 2 85 x 5 x 1 125 x 3 x 1 155 x 2 x 1 175 x 5 x 3 <--Work Sets Deadlift 135 x 5 x 2 185 x 5 x 1 225 x 3 x 1 275 x 2 x 1 315 x 5 x 1 <--Work Set Press 45 x 5 x 2 75 x 5 x 1 95 x 3 x 1 115 x 2 x 1 135 x 5 x 3 <--Work Sets Power Clean 45 x 5 x 2 75 x 5 x 1 95 x 3 x 1 115 x 2 x 1 135 x 5 x 3<--Work Sets
What order am I doing the Work Sets in? Is it all one exercise at a time or rotating? Probably this is a stupid question, but I have no clue what I am doing. Also, I am a weakling, so I guess I should try first today to find what weight I can do 5 reps, but not 6 at then try to proportionally scale down the warmup weights?
xahrc: krazy kaju:In defense of Taubes, what he's saying is that cutting down on carb consumption would lower insulin levels, thereby preventing fatty acids from entering your fat cells. That makes sense. Where do they go instead then? Once more, it's in your blood, hence energy in. And her's crux; if you're still in a calorie surplus, they're going to go straight to your ass. If you're in a calorie deficit, you'll burn them. And if you're on a low carb diet, your body will have some preference for burning them over muscle tissue. But you still didn't accomplish magic. All you did was engage in a diet strategy that manipulated the variables in the energy equation to help you preferentially burn stored fat as a fuel source IF AND ONLY IF you stay in a calorie deficit. Meaning: calories DO matter...
krazy kaju:In defense of Taubes, what he's saying is that cutting down on carb consumption would lower insulin levels, thereby preventing fatty acids from entering your fat cells. That makes sense.
You piss and shit calories. That's why it's generally recommended that you consume less than 30g of protein in a meal, since any additional protein will be wasted.
Drinking water hasn't been mentioned yet. What about drinking water? Should I do more of it?
Also, in regards to the low-carb diet, what happens to the fat that doesn't get stored as fat? Does it get burned off or does it get pooped out? I image it has to go somewhere.
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Daniel:Drinking water hasn't been mentioned yet. What about drinking water? Should I do more of it?
A lot of the HIT guys propose you drink a lot of water. Read this.
Also, when and why would the fat that is already stored be burned off if the body if more fat is eaten?
You do the warm ups for the squat, and then the work sets for the squat. Then you warm up for the bench and do the work sets for the bench . Etc. [Notice that you do Squats Bench Deadlift on say Monday, then Squat Press Power Clean on Wednesday, then Squat Bench Dead on Friday, then Squat Press Power clean next Monday, and so on til you are no longer a beginner]
Squatting 3 times a week is doable IF IF IF you remember a few vital things.
First, "Most people don't eat enough. This means you." You really have to eat like there's no tomorrow. Meaning at least a gram of protein every day for every pound of bodyweight, and probably double the calories you are consuming daily now. Sleep of course goes without saying.
Second, you have to get into this gradually. Most people, and we are talking healthy teenagers, use a work set of 80 pounds first workout. Even though they might be able to squat much more. Yes eighty. Not more. Don't be ashamed to start with much less. Don't worry, it will be plenty challenging very very soon.
The thing is, you should NOT be doing a "weight I can do 5 reps, but not 6" on your first day. That is way too much. You will burn out almost right away. The body has to acclimate to this new regimen, then find in itself reservoirs of strength to keep going up.
Third, better to be conservative in how much you add. Say Monday you squatted 80, then Wednesday you do 90. After a short while 10 pounds each workout will be too much, so you add only 5 each workout.
Fourth, you gotta use proper form.
Although it is not rocket science, the more you know the better off you are. If you can afford the book, buy it. If you can't, read here. The guy who set it up did a great job, better than kethnaab.
"What do you think of HST programs? I'm planning on using one after I recover from my tendinosis. Maybe. Low volume is nice, and the strategic deconditioning has been pretty much forced on me." - Snowflake
The principles are sound, don't get caught up in the cookie cutter workout Haycock has laid out at his site. That's a one size fits all template to give a basic idea how the program works. All successful programs follow HST principles, even if they look nothing like the cookie cutter workout. For example, 5X5 does follow HST principles itself. My last HST run was divided into 8s, 5s, and 3s, and instead of negatives after the 3s I followed the Max Stimulation protocol for those workouts. I found that dual factor 5X5 as laid out at MadCow's site was better for me than anything else. Seems like my sweetspot for reps is 8 and below. Other people seem to need more volume. But as long as your load is progressing and your frequency is 2 to 3 times a week, you're basically doing HST. Take a break whenever you plateau and you've sealed it. But the standard 15-10-5-negatives setup, while a good starting place, isn't usually where most people end up. They either need more load or more volume, and so compromise on the other variables. And Haycock recommends doing just that.
If you're coming back from injury though, starting with the 15s is a good idea.
"Oh, and i forgot. Smaller muscles like the rear delts don't seem to be worked by any of the major lifts (maybe I am mistaken). Your workout routine, as well as many others, seem to neglect these kinds of muscles. Is there a consequence to this?" - Snowflake
Trust me, your rear delts will get a workout with 5 sets of full rep clean and presses. Full rep clean and press is like full rep deads, people rarely do them and for good reason. You clean the bar off the floor to your collar bone, press, lower, return the bar to the floor, stand, breathe, repeat. 25 of those, no matter how you set them, are a hard workout. It's during the clean portion of the lift on the positive, and on the negative when you're returning the bar to the floor, that your rears seem to engage the most.
"You piss and shit calories. That's why it's generally recommended that you consume less than 30g of protein in a meal, since any additional protein will be wasted." - krazy kaju
Which is another myth. It's a rule of thumb that's been passed down, and for body builders eating 5-6 meals a day it's not a bad option. However, when in a calorie surplus most studies show no difference in nitrogen balance despite varying meal frequency and protein intake. It's possibly an issue when dieting. But, then again, protein takes a long time to digest anyway. Of course, if it were really necessary to get a certain amount of protein at a certain time in order to be HOOGE, one has to wonder why it didn't matter so much in the old days. even before steroids, when people just ate a lot and lifted heavy. Amazing how they got so far without all this essential knowledge of diet minutiae...
And the number you can supposedly digest at any given time changes regularly, usually with the highest value of grams per serving in the latest and greatest protein bar or shake. Odd that.
xahrx:"You piss and shit calories. That's why it's generally recommended that you consume less than 30g of protein in a meal, since any additional protein will be wasted." - krazy kaju Which is another myth. It's a rule of thumb that's been passed down, and for body builders eating 5-6 meals a day it's not a bad option. However, when in a calorie surplus most studies show no difference in nitrogen balance despite varying meal frequency and protein intake
Which is another myth. It's a rule of thumb that's been passed down, and for body builders eating 5-6 meals a day it's not a bad option. However, when in a calorie surplus most studies show no difference in nitrogen balance despite varying meal frequency and protein intake
So you're saying that you can consume as many calories and as many protein as possible in a single meal and your body will digest most of it?
Here's a good diet tip: Eat a pound of Frito Pie 5-7 times per day. lol
"So you're saying that you can consume as many calories and as many protein as possible in a single meal and your body will digest most of it?" - krazy kaju
No, I am saying that with regard to maintaining a positive nitrogen balance that protein intake, so long as it's adequate, can be spread out or concentrated depending on preferences and as circumstances allow. Which for most people means it doesn't matter. For a pro body builder who is verging on 300 pounds, routinely taking steroids and GH and insulin and whatever the hell else they're jamming into their veins or popping pills for these days, the spread out 30 gram rule might be more significant. But since very few people have the genetic capability nor the tolerance for hormone use necessary to reach that level and maintain it, that's kind of a moot point. And it's a perfect example of what I called wanking in another thread. Hypothesizing on the minute details of what might give a slight edge to someone who is already pushing the boundries of physical development and who is already way out from the normal distribution of the population with respect to body composition is irrelevant to the vast majority of people who would be lucky to even notice, much less be able to measure and confirm, the 'advantage' that eating in such way confers to them, if any.
I think this is essentially correct. It is much akin to shooting: 99.9% of rifles shoot better than 99.9% of shooters, it's only that upper fraction of a percentile that gets any benefit out of 'customized' and expensive routines.
“Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.” - Benito Mussolini"Toute nation a le gouvernemente qu'il mérite." - Joseph de Maistre
"I think this is essentially correct. It is much akin to shooting: 99.9% of rifles shoot better than 99.9% of shooters, it's only that upper fraction of a percentile that gets any benefit out of 'customized' and expensive routines."
Which is also why increasingly complex diet regimens don't add up to results for people who can't get the basic idea that eating an entire bag of doritos in one sitting isn't a good idea. Or, more commonly, for people who can't consistently estimate calorie intake accurately. By far the biggest problem facing the obese today is a lack of portion control, not carbs or processed this or that, or this kind of fat vs that kind of fat. All of that fades to nothing when someone is slamming a day's worth of calories or more down during each meal.
I have been lifting for three months. I work out about 4 times a week. I use half a scoop of syntha 6 before, then another half of syntha 6 after my workout. My workout contains a total of 1 hour and a half of cardio and 1 hour and a half of lifting. I also use the shakes as a meal replacement. It's been great so far. I'm about to run out, and have been considering buying a 5 pound container of the stuff. Before I do, I was thinking of trying new stuff (like no explode), I was looking at other BSN products, any suggestions?
Freedom has always been the only route to progress.
Libertyandlife: any suggestions
any suggestions
Quit supplements.
Do it the natural way!
LibertyandLife:I have been lifting for three months. I work out about 4 times a week.
LibertyandLife:I use half a scoop of syntha 6 before, then another half of syntha 6 after my workout.
libertyandlife:My workout contains a total of 1 hour and a half of cardio and 1 hour and a half of lifting.
5 whole food meals? How many calories do you take in per meal? So if I weigh 165 pounds, I want to be eating 165 grams of protein a day? Are raw unprocessed nuts good protein, because I eat and a lot of those. I could just bring those anywhere. I would separate my cardio if I could, but my gym is my college gym, and I only stop by campus 4 days a week (it's 30 minutes away), so I have to kind of do everything together. I do cardio for 45 minutes, then stop lift for 45 minutes, I repeat this twice. I take the protein shake after my first cardio session, then after my last lifting session. Once I cut down this extra weight I've gained recently, it's going to be mostly lifting by itself. I'm trying to do what I can, with what I have, thanks for the advice.
I can always try workouts that don't need machines on the side, perhaps in the morning and night.
My goal is to gain simply a noticeable amount of muscle mass, and then just maintain it, for example a 6 pack. I'm starting to get there, I was very scrawny a few months ago.
As for the workouts themselves, my cardio consists of running and elyptical, I do hike on the side. Each 45 minutes lifting workout is lifting 50 times per machine (6 or 7 machines). I increase my weight for every 10 lifts by 5 to 10 pounds. I also increase the general weight as I see fit, I try to push what I can lift.
5 whole food meals? How many calories do you take in per meal? So if I weigh 165 pounds, I want to be eating 165 grams of protein a day?
Are raw unprocessed nuts good protein, because I eat and a lot of those.
I would separate my cardio if I could, but my gym is my college gym, and I only stop by campus 4 days a week (it's 30 minutes away)
. I do cardio for 45 minutes, then stop lift for 45 minutes, I repeat this twice. I take the protein shake after my first cardio session, then after my last lifting session. Once I cut down this extra weight I've gained recently, it's going to be mostly lifting by itself. I'm trying to do what I can, with what I have, thanks for the advice.
^Well, I really didn't do much research . I just thought of starting some type of routine recently. I started lifting out of curiosity and with no overall goal, I was going to the gym simply for cardio for about 8 months prior (which is was for weight loss only, I lost about 70 pounds). I've been doing it just for fun, sort of a hobby, a nice overall goal. I've been doing the cardio like that, just because I did not want to cut cardio out of my routine, I really like running. That and, switching between cardio and lifting gives another part of my body rest, while I continue working out.
So animal protein, more meals, separate cardio and lifting? Would it be worth just lifting straight 2 days a week, and straight cardio 2 days a week, or is my current routine more optimal?
Sieben: No. Plant protein is biologically unavailable. Don't count protein from plant sources. Most of it is destroyed in your gut. Chicken, tuna, egg whites, ground turkey, etc.
No. Plant protein is biologically unavailable. Don't count protein from plant sources. Most of it is destroyed in your gut. Chicken, tuna, egg whites, ground turkey, etc.
Where did you get that idea?