Questions about workout

butthatsjustme

I've just started going to the gym, and I've been given the following workout:

Warm up: Ten minutes on treadmill

Chest press: 15 reps x 3
Lat pulldown: 15 reps x 3
Lunges: 15 reps x 3
Shoulder press: 15 reps x3

Crunches: 20 x 3 sets
Plank: 30s x 3

Cooldown:
15 minutes cross trainer

A bit about myself: Female, 22, 5 ft 5, 56kg

I bought myself dumbbells during the summer, and was able to get up to using 9kg weights fairly fast, during this time I also took up running.
Unfortunately I gave up on all this during September and October because I was busy with college work. But I've decided that since I have a free gym membership I'd better use it.
I wasn't sure how to make a program so I got the guys in the gym to make one, and the above is what I got.

I was just wondering how effective is it?
I'm finding that with sets of 15 reps, I'm having to use tiny weights (especially shoulder press) just so I can do the full 15. I've found that I can either do 15 and feel nothing or break these down further?
I was just wondering whether it would make more sense for me to do fewer reps? For the shoulder press I was using the lowest weight available, and I still had to break the last set into 10 and 5.

With regards to the core work, how can I make crunches slightly more difficult without not being able to do them?
I can currently do full minute planks, but couldn't do three, would it make sense to change to 45 sec, 30 sec, 45 sec or some other combo?
I like to do the ab ripper x video workout about every second day in my room when I can. Is it worth my while?

I also find the crosstrainer the most boring piece of gym equipment ever, and I feel like it's inclusion is purely because girls love crosstrainers... I'd prefer to get in a good run on the treadmill?

Today I left the gym feeling not much more tired than I went in, a little let down by the lack of challenge, and bored from my stint on the crosstrainer, albeit short enough). This was probably my fault as I stuck with weights I knew I could handle 45 reps of.

I have another meeting with the personal trainer in three weeks, but I was just wonder what tweaks I could make to the routine to add in more challenge, but that I could still handle? Is there anything I should ask him to add into my routine? I'm pretty sure it was a fairly generic program, but I don't want to give up on it, as they took my measurements and I'm excited to see if I can improve

To be clear, I asked for a program which would help me "get more muscle, and maybe get less fat", so the girl just wrote down tone. But I kinda meant losing inches on my waist, as opposed to lbs on the scale, is that the same thing?

I was just wondering, basically, if this is a sensible workout? And are there any tweaks I can make to make it more challenging? Would it make sense to lower reps so I can use heavier weights, or should I stay at 15 until I naturally get stronger?

Cill94

If you're able to finish the 15 reps of each set without struggling to get the final rep and feeling fatigued, then you need to use heavier weights. That will build more muscle. If the lunges are too easy you could hold dumbells or put a weight vest on.

For losing the body fat you should do low intensity cardio.

One thing to note though: I would use the cross trainer to warm up rather than cool down. Before you train you want to warm up in order to elevate your heart rate, warm up your muscles, loosen your joints, and get oxygenated blood to the working muscles. Cross trainer and some dynamic stretching will do all of that. For a cool down you should instead do static stretching of the muscles you've used to prevent feeling sore the next day.

Will Heffernan

Cill94 wrote: »

If you're able to finish the 15 reps of each set without struggling to get the final rep and feeling fatigued, then you need to use heavier weights. That will build more muscle. If the lunges are too easy you could hold dumbells or put a weight vest on.

For losing the body fat you should do low intensity cardio.

One thing to note though: I would use the cross trainer to warm up rather than cool down. Before you train you want to warm up in order to elevate your heart rate, warm up your muscles, loosen your joints, and get oxygenated blood to the working muscles. Cross trainer and some dynamic stretching will do all of that. For a cool down you should instead do static stretching of the muscles you've used to prevent feeling sore the next day.

That's a great post. Sincerely and honestly. The only thing I'd have any kind of an issue with is the low intensity cardio but in this case I think it is the right call. Not that you or anyone else here needs or wants my approval...just saying well done.

Kudos to you.

LivingInColour

I just briefly looked through that, but this is a great site that might help you out to start with http://www.stumptuous.com/category/training/workout_ideas.

butthatsjustme

Hey, that site looks awesome thanks!

Changed to doing 3 sets of 12 reps and just seemed to make it more challenging and enjoyable! Got up to doing five chin ups too

Dotcomdolly

I second stumptuous, great site. If you can do multiple chin-ups you must be pretty damn strong, kudos to you!
I personally prefer to go heavier for less reps, so I'd go as heavy as I can for 6-8.
Like Cill said it's probably best to do a dynamic full body mobility warm up before and then a series of static stretches after.

butthatsjustme

I just really like chin ups, I got my bf a bar for his door during the summer and after a few weeks I could do 3 sets of 7. But then I went back to college and got lazy Can't do pull ups though

Would it make sense to alternate between doing 8 reps heavy, then 12 reps other days?

butthatsjustme

Hi, just another question,

Is it better to do barbell squats or dumbbell squats?

I was doing 25kg barbell squats, but I've been told I should switch to 20kg dumbbell squats?
Supposed to do 3 sets of 15 reps, which I did today and seemed okay!

Is there any difference?

Doug Cartel

butthatsjustme wrote: »

Is there any difference?

The two big differences are that your centre of gravity is going to be very different and then there is the question of convenience. If you use a bar you can put a lot more weight on there but the problem is you need to get access to the bar and if it's busy someone might be using it. The bar also usually needs a stand/cage as you're not going to pick it up off the ground if it's got a lot of weight on it.

Roanmore

Cill94 wrote: »

For losing the body fat you should do low intensity cardio.

..

Is this correct, read a number of articles which say high intensity cardio is better for fat loss and it keeps your metabolism higher afterwards as well?

Will Heffernan

Roanmore wrote: »

Is this correct, read a number of articles which say high intensity cardio is better for fat loss and it keeps your metabolism higher afterwards as well?

Do we really need to have this talk again?

I need to store away my standard posts....the high vs low intensity cardio post, the 1 vs 3 vs 6 meals a day and which is best for fat loss/muscle gain post, the best supplementary training for my sport post.

In short hugh intensity cardio does burn more calories than low intensity cardio due to the fact that you are basically burning more calories

There is a post metabolic effect to all exercise but choosing an exercise modality because of what little it is going to do for you after you've finished and are no longer doing anything is what in the olden days I would have called retarded...I would never say that now...I would call it flawed thinking or something like that.

As with any exercise it all comes down to your goals, requirements and starting position....if you are 50kgs, overweight and out of shape....high intensity cardio and or intervals are not your jumping off point with regard fat loss. If you are doing a lot of high intensity strength training either for the purposes of strength or hypertrophy and by extension already putting a lot of demands on your body then high intensity cardio and or intervals are not your jumping off point with regard fat loss.

If however you are an individual who is in pretty good cardiovascular shape already with a bit of excess pudding to shift then high intensity cardio and or intervals might be just the thing for you with regard fat loss.

Hailhail1967

The good old "commercial gym program" i;d say every woman that goes into certain gyms gets given that exact program.

Out of curiosity does the program literally say "warm up - 10 minutes treadmill" "cool down 15 minutes - crosstrainer"?

Low intensity cardio is muck. Sure, when you are at the lower end of the intensity scale you are essentially relying on fat as a fuel source but in reality the amount of work (time) you need to do at that intensity to have any meaningful effect is huge.

Will Heffernan

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

The good old "commercial gym program" i;d say every woman that goes into certain gyms gets given that exact program.

Agreed.

Out of curiosity does the program literally say "warm up - 10 minutes treadmill" "cool down 15 minutes - crosstrainer"?

Low intensity cardio is muck.

Agreed....for some...unless of course it just happens to be exactly what you need...in which case...rather than being muck...it's absolutely perfect.

Sure, when you are at the lower end of the intensity scale you are essentially relying on fat as a fuel source but in reality the amount of work (time) you need to do at that intensity to have any meaningful effect is huge.

People need to stop saying stuff like this because they don't understand what they are actually talking about and it makes them look dumb....unless of course that's actually the idea here.

Hailhail1967

Not a whole pile of situations where low intensity cardio is of any use.

Do you not predominantly rely on fat as a fuel source at low intensity?

Will Heffernan

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

Not a whole pile of situations where low intensity cardio is of any use.

Other than maybe...health.....and maybe....fitness......and perhaps...fat loss.

Yeah, I get your point though....other than in situations regarding health, fitness and fat loss...there isn't a whole pile of situations where low intensity cardio is of any use. Thanks for bringing that up.

Do you not predominantly rely on fat as a fuel source at low intensity?

Fat is your primary source of energy while in a coma...I am not about to write the 'How to lose 50lbs in 28 days in a Coma' exercise manual though.

Fat is what you rely on at moderate and high intensities as well...let me say this once and then you can just leave it because I see you've posted a bit and it would be a shame for you to have to abandon your username out of embarrassment and shame as so many others have here trying to argue with me....take it as a given that fat is the bodies primary energy store and that it is also it's primary source of energy production.

People need to stop talking about stuff they don't understand and that is inconsequential. Anytime anyone talks about the relative contribution of methods of energy production in the human body with regard to choosing exercise modalities you can go right on ahead and just assume they don't have a clue what they are talking about....unless it's me.

gene_tunney

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Fat is what you rely on at moderate and high intensities as well..

No. High intensity exercise uses anaerobic metabolism to produce ATP from glucose, which is a carbohydrate. Not fat.

Hailhail1967

Are you having a bad day Will?

My point regarding fat and low intensity was an attempt to cut off the inevitable comment "do ya not burn more fat at low intensity". It was not an attempt to explain the complex nature of the body/energy system or otherwise. It was pointing to a simple fact that people get confused about. The mythical "fat burning zone".

Oh and ok low intensity is fantastic, unless of course you can work at a higher intensity in which case that's better :-)

Will Heffernan

gene_tunney wrote: »

No. High intensity exercise uses anaerobic metabolism to produce ATP from glucose, which is a carbohydrate. Not fat.

OMG.

I am taking deep breaths.

OK...before we do this how about we get everyone that only understands or has some idea of little bits and pieces of information and wants to propagate it all together here so we don't need to do this in every thread.

I will ask a couple of questions just for people to ponder.

Lets pick the most high intensity exercise possible...sprinting say...lets not even make it very far...lets say a 25m sprint....you are standing on the spot...you are a living breathing entity on the spot right? Your heart is beating? You are breathing? Your musculature is holding your body upright and erect...all the muscles in your body contracting and adjusting continually to maintain this posture...your brain is functioning (well not as significant for you guys but functioning all the same) away...your brain that consumes energy and oxygen in huge amounts...you are digesting food, creating new cell...you are basically undergoing all the process that sustain and manage life as we know it....you run 25m.....you seriously think that your primary source of energy for that 3 or 4 seconds was not fat...that it was anaerobically derived? That everything in the human body stops....your fat metabolism switches off like someone flicking a light switch and another switch is thrown to turn on your anaerobic metabolism and that when you arrive at your destination 25m and 4 seconds later....that anaerobic system is switched off and your fat metabolism is switched on again?

This is your understand of energy pathways and metabolism? I just want to get a starting point to I can work out what level I need to pitch this explanation at

Hailhail1967

Also if you tie your shes really fast, that is also anaerobic (insert dancing smiley here)

gene_tunney

Will Heffernan wrote: »

...

Are you honestly suggesting we don't use anaerobic metabolism in a short sprint? Please provide evidence. Thanks.

Here's a study that might give you the basics.

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/9889877

"The results indicate that oxygen was used from the beginning of sprint test, suggesting that the mitochondrial ATP synthesis was triggered after a surprisingly brief exercise duration."

Hope that helps.

Will Heffernan

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

Are you having a bad day Will?

My point regarding fat and low intensity was an attempt to cut off the inevitable comment "do ya not burn more fat at low intensity". It was not an attempt to explain the complex nature of the body/energy system or otherwise. It was pointing to a simple fact that people get confused about. The mythical "fat burning zone".

Oh and ok low intensity is fantastic, unless of course you can work at a higher intensity in which case that's better :-)

Why is it that when I tell people that they are wrong or don't know what they are talking about they always assume that I am having a bad day?

What you said was:

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

Low intensity cardio is muck. Sure, when you are at the lower end of the intensity scale you are essentially relying on fat as a fuel source but in reality the amount of work (time) you need to do at that intensity to have any meaningful effect is huge.

Which I disagree with.

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

Not a whole pile of situations where low intensity cardio is of any use.

Which I also disagree with.

You don't see people trying to explain that soccer is better than GAA or that GAA is better than rugby because of the preposed energy utilisation profile?

If you have a problem (i.e being fat, unfit or inexperienced) then you need to choose the right tool to fix it. Sometimes the perfect tool is low intensity cardio...that is all I am saying.

Will Heffernan

gene_tunney wrote: »

Are you honestly suggesting we don't use anaerobic metabolism in a short sprint? Please provide evidence. Thanks.

Here's a study that might give you the basics.

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/9889877

"The results indicate that oxygen was used from the beginning of sprint test, suggesting that the mitochondrial ATP synthesis was triggered after a surprisingly brief exercise duration."

Hope that helps.

OK...give me the distance over which all other metabolic processes cease and whatever pathways you wish take over in entirety.

As I said...you don't understand what you are talking about....I am trying to help you understand.

Pick a distance? Choose an activity?

Will Heffernan

gene_tunney wrote: »

Are you honestly suggesting we don't use anaerobic metabolism in a short sprint? Please provide evidence. Thanks.

Here's a study that might give you the basics.

http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/9889877

"The results indicate that oxygen was used from the beginning of sprint test, suggesting that the mitochondrial ATP synthesis was triggered after a surprisingly brief exercise duration."

Hope that helps.

LOL.

I just looked at that study....did you just google that? Did you even read it? I mean the actual study...not just the abstract?

Hailhail1967

Well I assumed with you getting so worked up you must be having a bad day.

I deal with overweight, inexperienced and unfit individuals on a daily basis, I very rarely suggest "low intensity cardio" to any of them, i wouldn't have a problem with it ether obviously. Although some heavily overweight/unfit/inexperienced individuals do get up to quite a high intensity by simply walking, so it can often be difficult to do any low intensity work.

gene_tunney

Will Heffernan wrote: »

...

I never said all other metabolic processes cease. Don't put words in my mouth, that's called a strawman argument.

Are you joking? The abstract summarises the results of the study. You can't read it all unless you have a subscription to the journal it was published in.

Will Heffernan

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

Well I assumed with you getting so worked up you must be having a bad day.

Again...why do you assume that I am 'worked up'?

I deal with overweight, inexperienced and unfit individuals on a daily basis, I very rarely suggest "low intensity cardio" to any of them, i wouldn't have a problem with it ether obviously. Although some heavily overweight/unfit/inexperienced individuals do get up to quite a high intensity by simply walking, so it can often be difficult to do any low intensity work.

I have no problem with this...good trainers need to have not so good trainers to compare themselves to. The industry needs people like you as much as it needs people like me.

Hailhail1967

You really do have a high opinion of yourself.

Sorry about the thread OP.

Will Heffernan

gene_tunney wrote: »

I never said all other metabolic processes cease. Don't put words in my mouth, that's called a strawman argument.

Are you joking? The abstract summarises the results of the study. You can't read it all unless you have a subscription to the journal it was published in.

Double LOL.

OK...so you agree that all metabolic processes don't cease then?

Do you also agree that metabolic processes don't act in isolation?

Do you also agree that when using energy anaerobically that there needs to be some energy system to 'repay' the energy debt induced in the less efficient method of energy production?

Will Heffernan

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

You really do have a high opinion of yourself.

Absolutely...so do heaps of other people.

Sorry about the thread OP.

This is a forum. It's purpose is discussion. People post stuff here and because they know a little bit more than others posting here their opinions go unquestioned. People get upset here when they post stuff that is wrong or misinformed and someone that just happens to know more point it out.

I am not trying to be an a-hole. I am trying to help people better understand an area that they have an interest in. I am trying to help people better assimilate all the information that is out there. There are lots of things I don't know....I don't give advice on the engineering forum or the car maintenance forum but if I think I can challenge people to learn a little more or to expand their understanding of a subject I really love I think that is important.

Someone just starting out in the gym and someone says to them that 'low intensity carido is muck' I think I have every right to say...I think you are wrong.

By all means like I said...have your opinions...I think I've the right to have mine and I don't think it hurts the thread and or the OP to see all sides of the discussion.

gene_tunney

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Double LOL.

OK...so you agree that all metabolic processes don't cease then?

Do you also agree that metabolic processes don't act in isolation?

Do you also agree that when using energy anaerobically that there needs to be some energy system to 'repay' the energy debt induced in the less efficient method of energy production?

If what you are getting at is that aerobic and anaerobic metabolism can run concurrently then yes I agree. What I'm saying is in high-intensity exercise our primary energy system is anaerobic, using carbohydrates.

Regarding your last point, yes fats are broken down afterwards to repat the debt. That is afterwards. Not during.

Nervous Wreck

Best thread.

Hailhail1967

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Absolutely...so do heaps of other people.



This is a forum. It's purpose is discussion. People post stuff here and because they know a little bit more than others posting here their opinions go unquestioned. People get upset here when they post stuff that is wrong or misinformed and someone that just happens to know more point it out.

I am not trying to be an a-hole. I am trying to help people better understand an area that they have an interest in. I am trying to help people better assimilate all the information that is out there. There are lots of things I don't know....I don't give advice on the engineering forum or the car maintenance forum but if I think I can challenge people to learn a little more or to expand their understanding of a subject I really love I think that is important.

Someone just starting out in the gym and someone says to them that 'low intensity carido is muck' I think I have every right to say...I think you are wrong.

By all means like I said...have your opinions...I think I've the right to have mine and I don't think it hurts the thread and or the OP to see all sides of the discussion.

Plenty people do indeed, with good reason too.

Anyway I'm off to bed, i'll make sure to go very slowly though. ;-)

butthatsjustme

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

The good old "commercial gym program" i;d say every woman that goes into certain gyms gets given that exact program.

Out of curiosity does the program literally say "warm up - 10 minutes treadmill" "cool down 15 minutes - crosstrainer"?

Low intensity cardio is muck. Sure, when you are at the lower end of the intensity scale you are essentially relying on fat as a fuel source but in reality the amount of work (time) you need to do at that intensity to have any meaningful effect is huge.

It says warm up-treadmill-10mins quick start
The cross trainer is listed as "fitness", but I was told to do it last to cool down?

As for intensity, for the last four workouts I have data from, my average heart rate from cross trainer was between 154 and 164?
At the start it would have been higher, but I've started to mix it up a bit, forwards, backwards no hands etc. Is that pointless? Pinterest told me to...

Will Heffernan

gene_tunney wrote: »

If what you are getting at is that aerobic and anaerobic metabolism can run concurrently then yes I agree.

No, what I want you to admit/agree with is that ALL energy systems DO run concurrently. Not that they may or that they might....that they do. That even when doing high intensity exercise your aerobic energy system is still producing energy at baseline/rest levels but that it is producing energy at the very limits of it's capabilities and that this energy production is massive and that in fact all that is happening is that you anaerobic system is trying to meet the additional demands of the exercise you are undertaking.

What I'm saying is in high-intensity exercise our primary energy system is anaerobic, using carbohydrates.

I know exactly what you are saying...and what I am trying to explain to you is that you understand the words you are saying but not the context. You are saying what you read in the book or online but that you don't really understand the subject and I am trying to help.

For example...I understand research...I understand the study you posted...what I want you to understand that for the purposes of research researchers attempt to isolate for the purposes of study....but in reality no activity happens in isolation.

Regarding your last point, yes fats are broken down afterwards to repat the debt. That is afterwards. Not during.

You were doing so well in this sentence right up until the end.

So fat oxidation ceases during high intensity exercise? That's your contention?

jigglypuffstuff

Will Heffernan wrote: »

In short hugh intensity cardio does burn more calories than low intensity cardio.

Im not out to argue here but for example if you did 20 HIIT and burned (700kcal) or 45 mins jogging and burned 700kcal youve still burned the same amount of kcal the only difference is time. 99% of people arent bb'ers so dont need to worry about being 5% bodyfat.. Ive never done HIIT as part of my training program and was once at 9% during a cut. So i think most of you are taking this out of proportion just a little bit 99% of the time low intensity is fine!!.

Will Heffernan

Hailhail1967 wrote: »

Plenty people do indeed, with good reason too.

In fairness...you're right...it's mainly just me.

Anyway I'm off to bed, i'll make sure to go very slowly though. ;-)

Perfect...when you get there be sure to read my book...."Optimising Fat Loss by induced coma'.

gene_tunney

Will Heffernan wrote: »

So fat oxidation ceases during high intensity exercise? That's your contention?

I merely pointed out fat oxidation does occur after exercise to repay the debt. It goes on during as well, but the emphasis during is on anaerobic.

I'm glad to see you have dropped your condescending attitude. It came across as try hard and didn't suit you.

Now that we've discussed all this rubbish, I will re-state my original statement:

High intensity exercise uses anaerobic metabolism to produce ATP from glucose, which is a carbohydrate. Not fat.

I didn't say it works to the exclusion of other metabolic systems. Do you still disagree? Don't cloud the issue with other irrelevancies. I actually believe you do agree, but just tried to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Will Heffernan

Oh here we go...nothing worse than a OP turning up in a thread and dragging it back on topic*.

butthatsjustme wrote: »

It says warm up-treadmill-10mins quick start
The cross trainer is listed as "fitness", but I was told to do it last to cool down?

Doing what you can....doing what you enjoy....are the most important things...if you like the cross trainer....do the cross trainer....if you prefer the bike....do the bike. What I am getting at is that you should do as much as you are able for and are comfortable with.

As for intensity, for the last four workouts I have data from, my average heart rate from cross trainer was between 154 and 164?
At the start it would have been higher, but I've started to mix it up a bit, forwards, backwards no hands etc. Is that pointless? Pinterest told me to...

Sounds great...mix it up...as for what you do on the cross trainer....enjoying it is the most important thing....don't worry too much about it....as far as I know there are no cross trainer competitions and it's unlikely to get entry as an event in the Olympics so forwards, backwards, intervals, hill climbs, steady state....it doesn't matter...get on and push yourself...the most important thing to get out of training on the cross trainer is 'work'.

So go as hard as you are comfortable with.









* =

I just didn't want to ruin the whole 'Will is such an angry a-hole vibe by realising I post here with a smile on my face at all times.

Will Heffernan

pone2012 wrote: »

Im not out to argue here

Why not?

but for example if you did 20 HIIT and burned (700kcal) or 45 mins jogging and burned 700kcal youve still burned the same amount of kcal the only difference is time.

Agreed.

99% of people arent bb'ers so dont need to worry about being 5% bodyfat.. Ive never done HIIT as part of my training program and was once at 9% during a cut. So i think most of you are taking this out of proportion just a little bit 99% of the time low intensity is fine!!.

Agreed.

That was the worst attempt at not arguing ever...very disappointed.

What I am getting at is this:
1. There is no 'best way' because the best way to do anything depends on what the individual is looking to achieve.

2. Choosing your exercise modality based on your understanding of energy substrate utilisation is retarded and completely flawed for 99% of the posters in this forum and the less it gets mentioned here the better off we'll all be.

Will Heffernan

gene_tunney wrote: »

I merely pointed out fat oxidation does occur after exercise to repay the debt. It goes on during as well, but the emphasis during is on anaerobic.

You can keep saying what you like but all you keep illustrating is that you know the words but that you don't really understand what they mean in the relevant context.

I'm glad to see you have dropped your condescending attitude. It came across as try hard and didn't suit you.

That's only because you don't really know me.

Now that we've discussed all this rubbish, I will re-state my original statement:

High intensity exercise uses anaerobic metabolism to produce ATP from glucose, which is a carbohydrate. Not fat.

You can state it as many times as you like and in the context of this forum and health and fitness you would still be wrong. So say it as many times as you like.

I didn't say it works to the exclusion of other metabolic systems. Do you still disagree? Don't cloud the issue with other irrelevancies. I actually believe you do agree, but just tried to make a mountain out of a molehill.

No, I've just tried to point out that you don't really understand the context of what you are saying...you can keep typing the words all you like.

gene_tunney

So you contend that the following statement is untrue?:

"High intensity exercise uses anaerobic metabolism to produce ATP from glucose, which is a carbohydrate. Not fat."

butthatsjustme

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Oh here we go...nothing worse than a OP turning up in a thread and dragging it back on topic*.

Doing what you can....doing what you enjoy....are the most important things...if you like the cross trainer....do the cross trainer....if you prefer the bike....do the bike. What I am getting at is that you should do as much as you are able for and are comfortable with.

Sounds great...mix it up...as for what you do on the cross trainer....enjoying it is the most important thing....don't worry too much about it....as far as I know there are no cross trainer competitions and it's unlikely to get entry as an event in the Olympics so forwards, backwards, intervals, hill climbs, steady state....it doesn't matter...get on and push yourself...the most important thing to get out of training on the cross trainer is 'work'.

So go as hard as you are comfortable with.









* =

I just didn't want to ruin the whole 'Will is such an angry a-hole vibe by realising I post here with a smile on my face at all times.

Haha, I'm such a drag going back on topic and all!
Thanks for all the advice, I tend to quit after a few weeks so just trying to throw myself into the whole thing in the hopes I won't this time!

(Fitocracy withdrawal tends to pull me back when I quit anyway! )

Will Heffernan

Here we go...I'll try to wrap this up quickly but if you really need me to keep pointing out you don't 'understand' what you are talking about I can do a long version.

I've said a lot of things in this thread and made a large number of points and observations.

I made the following point:
'Fat is what you rely on at moderate and high intensities as well.'

This was in the context of that no matter what you are doing with regard to activity that you are using fat to supply the human body with energy....and that as energy needs ramp far from using less fat for energy you use more right up and until you max out your capability to supply energy via that pathway.

Then you said:

gene_tunney wrote: »

"No. High intensity exercise uses anaerobic metabolism to produce ATP from glucose, which is a carbohydrate. Not fat."

Which is quite simply idiotic and completely ignores the fact that no energy system acts in isolation. The answer is not no. You are completely wrong...high intensity exercises actually forces your body to produce energy maximally from fat oxidation and then on top of this to utilise other pathways to supply energy needs in excess of what fat oxidisation can supply.

You can attempt to save face now and go back and say you meant sprinting....I actually tried to help out the other side of the argument by initially making it a 25m sprint or 4 second effort...but in that case your argument holds no water either because you are just using ready stores of ATP.

I was going to go ahead and explain why your argument is still flawed for longer sprint efforts but that will just ruin the suspense and I want to keep you and others in the game as long as possible.

So by all means...fire away.

Will Heffernan

butthatsjustme wrote: »

Haha, I'm such a drag going back on topic and all!
Thanks for all the advice, I tend to quit after a few weeks so just trying to throw myself into the whole thing in the hopes I won't this time!

(Fitocracy withdrawal tends to pull me back when I quit anyway! )

See this is why I make the effort to try and help.

I don't want you to quit. I want you to be happy, fit and healthy and enjoy your training and exercise.

The last thing you need to hear is that 'Low intensity cardio is muck' or that your not taking advantage of energy substrate utilisation...because it doesn't matter.

You need to be encouraged and helped to find the exercise style, mode and intensity that works best for you and to keep with it

I hope you do.

gene_tunney

Will Heffernan wrote: »

...

I know exactly what you mean. What irritated me was your obnoxious response that tried to suggest what I said was completely incorrect.

Will Heffernan

gene_tunney wrote: »

I know exactly what you mean. What irritated me was your obnoxious response that tried to suggest what I said was completely incorrect.

LOL.

If I had a $1 for every one of these discussions I've had here on boards.ie that ends exactly like this...I'd have $37.

I say something.

Someone says I am wrong and says something wrong.

I correct them.

It goes back and forth and back and forth.

Eventually it is clear than I'm right.

Then I just get told I am an a-hole....and we all just move on quietly.

gene_tunney

Will Heffernan wrote: »

LOL.

If I had a $1 for every one of these discussions I've had here on boards.ie that ends exactly like this...I'd have $37.

I say something.

Someone says I am wrong and says something wrong.

I correct them.

It goes back and forth and back and forth.

Eventually it is clear than I'm right.

Then I just get told I am an a-hole....and we all just move on quietly.

Keep believing that and it might just come true. Deep breaths now.

Mellor

Cliffnotes

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Do we really need to have this talk again?

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Fat is your primary source of energy while in a coma.
Fat is what you rely on at moderate and high intensities as well...

gene_tunney wrote: »

No. High intensity exercise uses anaerobic metabolism to produce ATP from glucose, which is a carbohydrate. Not fat.

Paraphrasing from here on ;

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Fat doesn't stop being used at high intensity.

gene_tunney wrote:

I didn't say that.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Yes you did.

gene_tunney wrote: »

I said;
High intensity exercise uses anaerobic metabolism to produce ATP from glucose, which is a carbohydrate. Not fat.

Will Heffernan wrote: »

There, you just said it again.

Will Heffernan

gene_tunney wrote: »

Keep believing that and it might just come true. Deep breaths now.

Well it kinda already did.

gene_tunney wrote: »

I know exactly what you mean.

This is you admitting that I was right.

What irritated me was your obnoxious response

This is you just saying I am basically an a-hole.

that tried to suggest what I said was completely incorrect.

This is you admitting that you were wrong....or at least partially so.

What your posts translates as is this:

gene_tunney wrote: »

I see now what you meant. What irritated me was that in pointing out to me that I didn't really understand the subject you made me look bad which makes me angry at you and makes me think that you are really an a-hole because even though what I said wasn't completely incorrect you could have been nicer about it.

gene_tunney

You need a hobby. Won't be wasting my time arguing with you again. Keep dreaming.

Will Heffernan

Just as an aside...it isn't actually an argument. That would tend to indicate that their were two opposing views. You were arguing that the world is flat because you could see the horizon. I was arguing that the world was round because I understand the horizon in context. I wasn't arguing that the horizon doesn't exist....just that it isn't what you think it is.

gene_tunney wrote: »

You need a hobby. Won't be wasting my time arguing with you again. Keep dreaming.

You need to calm down...argue slower...keep it aerobic. You argue at too high an intensity...you just go straight out anaerobic and it can't be sustained.

You don't need to be upset...you don't need a new username...you don't need to avoid boards.

In 6 months no one will even remember this....there are heaps of personal trainers here who are excellent who've tried to go down this pathway like you have and show me that they are smarter than me and that:

them + google > will

but everyone finds out that is a false equation when they try to solve it.

Lick your wounds...get a good nights sleep and hit the forum again tomorrow.

Keep your chin up.