Need some advice

wellmade2040

Okay fitness nube here- I'm looking to get in shape- I'd consider myself to be fairly fit already but looking to actually work out and improve muscle tone and all that -

So I'm early twenties male at 6' 2" and right at about 170 pounds.

I was just wondering what kind of weight. Need to lose before I can start working on abs and stuff- like what's the optimum weight for muscle building ?
And also can anyone recommend a exercise routine to suit a general beginner ?
Sorry if I sound like a moron- I know nothing about this kind of thing
Thanks

Mellor

wellmade2040 wrote: »

I was just wondering what kind of weight. Need to lose before I can start working on abs and stuff- like what's the optimum weight for muscle building ?

Are you asking what weight you should be lifting?
If so that's dependent on current strength more than anything else.

Stats are above. Do you have any idea what you can lift for squat/deadlift?
Failing that, How many pull ups can you do?

And also can anyone recommend a exercise routine to suit a general beginner ?

To clarify, your goal is to build muscle?
Then something like IceCream Fitness 5 x 5
https://www.muscleandstrength.com/workouts/jason-blaha-ice-cream-fitness-5x5-novice-workout

Personally, I'd swap the second bent over rows (-10%) for pull/chin ups. No point repeated horizontal pulling at the expense of vertical.

After a while when you are squating relatively heavy. I'd switch the day 2 into an light squat day, or even a squat variation.

wellmade2040

Thanks mate - I actually meant what is the ideal body weight to start at such stuff like- cause I know a few mates who had to lose weight to start working out and some that had to put weight on ?

Alf Veedersane

wellmade2040 wrote: »

Thanks mate - I actually meant what is the ideal body weight to start at such stuff like- cause I know a few mates who had to lose weight to start working out and some that had to put weight on ?

There's no ideal weight, per se. Anyone of any size can lift weights.

No one has to lose weight or put it on before they start lifting weights.

ThinkProgress

wellmade2040 wrote: »

Okay fitness nube here- I'm looking to get in shape- I'd consider myself to be fairly fit already but looking to actually work out and improve muscle tone and all that -

I'm confused about your goals here. Do you want to increase muscles or get fitter? Or both? Bigger muscles or more defined abs does NOT automatically mean you are physically fitter.

For general fitness, you might want to consider playing a sport or joining a club like crossfit for example. I know plenty of people with big muscles who are very unfit and get out of breath walking up some stairs! lol

Playing a sport would be my top advice for getting fitter. (and you'll look good too)

MartyMcFly84

I get the feeling its the aesthetic or athletic look you are going for?

Decent size muscles with low body fat, and hence more muscles viability.

Building muscle and loosing body are almost two contrasting processes. It is difficult to do both at the same time but not impossible, and the strength and muscle increases would be much less than if you did them seperately. Often people who focus on gym workouts would do this in different stages, a "bulking" phase and a "cutting" phase.

Would you be interested in getting involved in a sport or are you looking for a gym based exercises?

Zillah

wellmade2040 wrote: »

Thanks mate - I actually meant what is the ideal body weight to start at such stuff like- cause I know a few mates who had to lose weight to start working out and some that had to put weight on ?

You need to never listen to those friends for fitness advice ever again.

• Are you a great big fatty person? Start lifting weights immediately. Improve diet.
• Are you a scrawny underweight person? Start lifting weights immediately. Improve diet.
• Are you a normal lad with no significant muscle development? Start lifting weights immediately. Improve diet.

Mellor

wellmade2040 wrote: »

Thanks mate - I actually meant what is the ideal body weight to start at such stuff like-

There isn't one, you are 170lbs. But means little in terms of body fat.

Either way, the answer is start lifting weights now.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I'm confused about your goals here. Do you want to increase muscles or get fitter? Or both? Bigger muscles or more defined abs does NOT automatically mean you are physically fitter.

You are the first person to mention gettin fitter.

I know plenty of people with big muscles who are very unfit and get out of breath walking up some stairs! lol

I know people who are big and fat and unfit. But nobody id consider muscular (big and lean) would have trouble with stairs.

ThinkProgress

Mellor wrote: »

There isn't one, you are 170lbs. But means little in terms of body fat.

Either way, the answer is start lifting weights now.


You are the first person to mention gettin fitter.


I know people who are big and fat and unfit. But nobody id consider muscular (big and lean) would have trouble with stairs.

Did you read the OP? I've highlighted the relevant points below.

wellmade2040 wrote: »

Okay fitness nube here- I'm looking to get in shape- I'd consider myself to be fairly fit already but looking to actually work out and improve muscle tone and all that -

The OP talks about fitness, but then goes on to talk about muscles and abs. This is where I'm getting confused, because strength is only one aspect of physical fitness... there are numerous others.

If you focus on just lifting weights, you will neglect those other important aspects of fitness. You will not look as good and you will also not feel as good.

I know quite a few lean muscular types that have poor endurance, flexibility, speed etc... Their all-round fitness is poor, but they have big muscles.

Strength training on it's own won't build great fitness. It's a very one-dimensional approach.

Zillah

You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the muscly crowd.

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Did you read the OP? I've highlighted the relevant points below.



The OP talks about fitness, but then goes on to talk about muscles and abs. This is where I'm getting confused, because strength is only one aspect of physical fitness... there are numerous others.

If you focus on just lifting weights, you will neglect those other important aspects of fitness. You will not look as good and you will also not feel as good.

I know quite a few lean muscular types that have poor endurance, flexibility, speed etc... Their all-round fitness is poor, but they have big muscles.

Strength training on it's own won't build great fitness. It's a very one-dimensional approach.

If you genuinely found the OP's post confusing, maybe it's time to take a break from the internet.

On the other hand, if you want to lecture him about true fitness, just come out and say it. No need for false pretences.

MartyMcFly84

in 80-90% of cases (completely made up statistic) in my experience anyway.

When people say they want to be "fitter and be more toned and maybe have abs" , very few are talking about cardiovascular fitness or athletic performance , what they really mean is they want to look good or better with less clothes on.

So no need to get confused . Its quite easy to see this is what people mean, if people wanted to better sports performance they would normally mention their sporting back ground and have a clearer goal.

ThinkProgress

Zillah wrote: »

You really seem to have a chip on your shoulder about the muscly crowd.

Don't know where that's coming from? I just pointed out that strength training alone will not be effective for building good all-round fitness.

Mellor wrote: »

If you genuinely found the OP's post confusing, maybe it's time to take a break from the internet.

On the other hand, if you want to lecture him about true fitness, just come out and say it. No need for false pretences.

No lectures. His post was confusing to me.

I really don't understand what you mean about false pretenses? Maybe the OP is confused about what they want too... did you consider that?

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

in 80-90% of cases (completely made up statistic) in my experience anyway.

When people say they want to be "fitter and be more toned and maybe have abs" , very few are talking about cardiovascular fitness or athletic performance , what they really mean is they want to look good or better with less clothes on.

So no need to get confused . Its quite easy to see this is what people mean, if people wanted to better sports performance they would normally mention their sporting back ground and have a clearer goal.

His post was quite confusing.

I think perhaps the OP is a bit confused themselves about what they want.

That's why I advised them to take up a sport of some kind. (and they could maybe do some strength training alongside this to compliment it)

That's good solid advise for anyone looking to get fitter and look good.

Being in better shape is not just about high level sports performance. Everyone can benefit from being fitter... so not really sure what you're getting at there.

And btw, taking up a sport will most likely help them look better with less clothes on. (I know it helps me)

MightyMandarin

ThinkProgress wrote: »

If you focus on just lifting weights, you will neglect those other important aspects of fitness. You will not look as good and you will also not feel as good.

I know quite a few lean muscular types that have poor endurance, flexibility, speed etc... Their all-round fitness is poor, but they have big muscles.

Strength training on it's own won't build great fitness. It's a very one-dimensional approach.

That's a rubbish statement. Lifting weights and getting stronger can absolutely make you feel as good as running. And if we're talking about looks and aesthetics, larger muscles along with a low bodyfat% will make for a better looking physique than running, cycling or any other sport will. I've no problem with runners, cyclists, football players etc. wanting to get fitter but purely in terms of looking better regular lifting and a proper diet is the quickest way to doing it.

I also know a few lean, fit runners who have poor strength and power, but none of that matters because it's not important to them. If you want to be an all-rounder, do crossfit, otherwise there's no need to compare and demean anyone's chosen activity or goals.

That's also a poor statement to make. Have you tried 20rep sets of squats? High rep lunges? They'll make anyone go out of breath. You can definitely increase your fitness with strength training, but obviously it's more efficient to do a form of cardio activity if a better fitness level is your goal, the same way running is not the most efficient use of one's time if a better physique is their goal.

ThinkProgress

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That's a rubbish statement. Lifting weights and getting stronger can absolutely make you feel as good as running. And if we're talking about looks and aesthetics, larger muscles along with a low bodyfat% will make for a better looking physique than running, cycling or any other sport will. I've no problem with runners, cyclists, football players etc. wanting to get fitter but purely in terms of looking better regular lifting and a proper diet is the quickest way to doing it.

I also know a few lean, fit runners who have poor strength and power, but none of that matters because it's not important to them. If you want to be an all-rounder, do crossfit, otherwise there's no need to compare and demean anyone's chosen activity or goals.

That's also a poor statement to make. Have you tried 20rep sets of squats? High rep lunges? They'll make anyone go out of breath. You can definitely increase your fitness with strength training, but obviously it's more efficient to do a form of cardio activity if a better fitness level is your goal, the same way running is not the most efficient use of one's time if a better physique is their goal.

There are many different types of cardio other than just running. (and there are many different types of running too)

Weight training is only one aspect of fitness. Someone who lifts weights, but also does many other types of workouts... will be fitter and look WAY better than a pure bodybuilder imo!

And I'm not demeaning anyone. Someone asked for opinions, and I gave mine! That's what this place is about. To get a perfect physique, you need great all round fitness. Not just one aspect like strength.

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

No lectures. His post was confusing to me.

I genuinely thought his post was fairly straight forward. I'm surprised that it could confuse you as you appear to be familiar with the topic.

He never said: "I want to be fitter"
If he did, and all round fitness approach would be best.

He asked specifically about building muscles and lifting weights. So he was given some info on weights. I also pointed out that his current condition really decides the best plan for him. But lifting weights should be part of every plan imo. How much of a part depends on all the variables.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

There are many different types of cardio other than just running. (and there are many different types of running too)

Weight training is only one aspect of fitness. Someone who lifts weights, but also does many other types of workouts... will be fitter and look WAY better than a pure bodybuilder imo!

There are many different types of weight lifting. Bodybuilding is only one aspect of weight lifting. Noboy has suggested he do bodybuilding.


Some people who do many types of training are in great shape. But not everyone does. Similarly with weightlifting, some look great, others don't.

The deciding factor is not how constantly varied your workouts are, but the effort you put in to whatever work out you decide to pursue

MightyMandarin

ThinkProgress wrote: »

There are many different types of cardio other than just running. (and there are many different types of running too)

Weight training is only one aspect of fitness. Someone who lifts weights, but also does many other types of workouts... will be fitter and look WAY better than a pure bodybuilder imo!

And I'm not demeaning anyone. Someone asked for opinions, and I gave mine! That's what this place is about. To get a perfect physique, you need great all round fitness. Not just one aspect like strength.

Yes there are, and lifting weights can also be a form of cardio. Crossfit is a prime example of this.

That is your opinion, but in terms of purely aesthetics and looks, you cannot tell how fit a person is just by looking at them. Obviously you can get a good guess when looking at a fat person vs thin person, but there are many skinny people with no fitness and many muscular people with high fitness levels. If we're talking purely about aesthetics and looks, bodybuilding (or weight training+ a good diet) is the most efficient way to improve them, because that is exactly what bodybuilding is about: trying to improve one's physique. Having good fitness levels and other attributes like flexibility etc. is always a plus, but if one simply wants to look better, weight training+ a good diet is the easiest and most efficient way to achieving this.

ThinkProgress

Mellor wrote: »

I genuinely thought his post was fairly straight forward. I'm surprised that it could confuse you as you appear to be familiar with the topic.

He never said: "I want to be fitter"
If he did, and all round fitness approach would be best.

He asked specifically about building muscles and lifting weights. So he was given some info on weights. I also pointed out that his current condition really decides the best plan for him. But lifting weights should be part of every plan imo. How much of a part depends on all the variables.

There are many different types of weight lifting. Bodybuilding is only one aspect of weight lifting. Noboy has suggested he do bodybuilding.

Some people who do many types of training are in great shape. But not everyone does. Similarly with weightlifting, some look great, others don't.

The deciding factor is not how constantly varied your workouts are, but the effort you put in to whatever work out you decide to pursue

He stated that he was already reasonably fit, but wanted to get into better shape. Clearly that could be interpreted as wanting to be "fitter".

So yes, their post was somewhat confusing. Not as clear as you seem to think.

Varied workouts bring better all-round results than just lifting weights. Better fitness and better aesthetics too.

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yes there are, and lifting weights can also be a form of cardio. Crossfit is a prime example of this.

That is your opinion, but in terms of purely aesthetics and looks, you cannot tell how fit a person is just by looking at them. Obviously you can get a good guess when looking at a fat person vs thin person, but there are many skinny people with no fitness and many muscular people with high fitness levels. If we're talking purely about aesthetics and looks, bodybuilding (or weight training+ a good diet) is the most efficient way to improve them, because that is exactly what bodybuilding is about: trying to improve one's physique. Having good fitness levels and other attributes like flexibility etc. is always a plus, but if one simply wants to look better, weight training+ a good diet is the easiest and most efficient way to achieving this.

Lifting weights is not a good form of cardio. Cardio is best when performed in full body movements... (ie - sprints/skipping rope/running etc)

Bodybuilders don't have the best physiques. They just think they do because that's THEIR preference for aesthetics. There are MANY people who think bodybuilders don't look good at all.

Jay cutler for example... (at his Mr Olympia peak) looks awful to me and many other people. He looks like there's a big fat dude trying to escape from inside him!

And even smaller bodybuilder types don't look good imo either.

Someone like conor mcgregor for example, has a FAR better physique than most bodybuilders. Yes he he does strength exercises... but he does many other things too. You can tell by looking at someone like him, that he has great all-round fitness - not just strength/muscles. He has the whole package!

Who decided that bodybuilders had the perfect physiques?? YOU? Your buddies in the gym? :rolleyes:

MightyMandarin

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Lifting weights is not a good form of cardio. Cardio is best when performed in full body movements... (ie - sprints/skipping rope/running etc)

Bodybuilders don't have the best physiques. They just think they do because that's THEIR preference for aesthetics. There are MANY people who think bodybuilders don't look good at all.

Jay cutler for example... (at his Mr Olympia peak) looks awful to me and many other people. He looks like there's a big fat dude trying to escape from inside him!

And even smaller bodybuilder types don't look good imo either.

Someone like conor mcgregor for example, has a FAR better physique than most bodybuilders. Yes he he does strength exercises... but he does many other things too. You can tell by looking at someone like him, that he has great all-round fitness - not just strength/muscles. He has the whole package!

Who decided that bodybuilders had the perfect physiques?? YOU? Your buddies in the gym? :rolleyes:

Do you even know what cleans, snatches, deadlifts, squats etc. are? They're full body movements....with barbells and plates. If you don't think that doing eg 50 cleans, 20 deads in a circuit is a form of cardio then you clearly don't know what cardio is. Top Crossfitters mightn't be the fittest athletes in the world as their organisation suggests, but they're certainly fitter than the vast majority of people despite working primarily with barbells, plates, rings, bars and other forms of resistance training.

Bodybuilding is not just Mr. Olympia or Jay Cutler, and I'd agree with you that those guys look horrible. Even other disciplines like physique mightn't appeal to you, but the idea of doing resistance training and eating well cannot be dismissed just because of this. McGregor's physique appeals to you, why? Because he has some muscle mass and a low bodyfat%. That is exactly what I am suggesting for the OP, because running or GAA will not do anything to help them get there, or at least it'd take them far, far longer to.

You can only tell that McGregor's physique is a 'sign of fitness' because of either his low bodyfat% (which is what bodybuilding is about) or the fact that he's Connor McGregor. There are dozens of lads in every gym who have very similar physiques to McGregor's and they don't do nearly the amount of training and fighting he does.

And I'm going to ignore the last part of your post because I don't need to make stupid ad hominem attacks to strengthen my argument.

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Varied workouts bring better all-round results than just lifting weights. Better fitness and better aesthetics too.

That's a ridiculously sweeping statement. There are plenty of people who do varied workouts, and aren't very fit or aesthetic. You used crossfit as an example, not everybody doing in a crossfit gym looks like Rich Froning.

Look at the olympic weightlifters in the middle divisions. All they do it full body weightlifting movements. Incredibly athletic, and look nothing like bodybuilders.

How somebody looks is decided a number of important factors. Not just how varied they workout.

Bodybuilders don't have the best physiques. They just think they do because that's THEIR preference for aesthetics. There are MANY people who think bodybuilders don't look good at all.

Jay cutler for example... (at his Mr Olympia peak) looks awful to me and many other people. He looks like there's a big fat dude trying to escape from inside him!

I agree. I don't think the bodybuilder looks good at all. That's my preference. But as I said above, nobody suggested bodybuilding. The fact you can't differentiate lifting weights from body building suggest you don't know much on the topic tbh.

Someone like conor mcgregor for example, has a FAR better physique than most bodybuilders. Yes he he does strength exercises... but he does many other things too. You can tell by looking at someone like him, that he has great all-round fitness - not just strength/muscles. He has the whole package!

Yeah Conor's in great shape, in all aspects. But I'm not sure that you are trying to say. If somebody wanted to look like that, they were only interested in the aesthetics, are you saying that training like Conor would be a good way to achieve it?

Do think it's not possible to achieve a similar look with strength training?
Do you think everyone who trains like that will have that physique?

For reference, here some other top level MMA fighters, who been training for a long time;
Daniel Cormier, the current LHW champ, US Olympic team captain.
Fedor Emelianenko - Consider by many to be the greater fighter of all time, judo blackbelt, sambo master of sport,
Roy Nelson UFC fighter, blackbelt in BJJ, fat as fook.

You Mirin?

Eat at a caloric surplus, start lifting with light weights for high reps/volume until you're comfortable in the gym environment. During this period, only do it for a few short weeks, do research on what kind of routine would suit you and how you should tailor your diet to suit yourself and your needs and then start lifting with the aim of gaining as much strength as possible and be sure to include the compound lifts in your split. Always be trying to add weight to your lifts, even if some weeks it's a tiny amount. Once you're decently strong and have your form perfected on all lifts you do start lifting for hypertrophy while still maintaining a caloric surplus. Just don't go on a complete dreamer bulk and keep your bodyfat at a decent, manageable % and then, whenever you want to, do a proper, slow cut until you're happy with the leanness. From here, continue lean bulking indefinitely (with maybe some small cuts along the way before any events which will include you being topless).


Lifting and getting 'aesthetic' is really very easy. It just requires some effort and most of all consistency and dedication...as long as your goals are realistic, of course. If you're expecting to look like Zyzz, Lazar, Ulisses Jr etc. then you'll need a lot more...

test, clen and tren

ThinkProgress

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Do you even know what cleans, snatches, deadlifts, squats etc. are? They're full body movements....with barbells and plates. If you don't think that doing eg 50 cleans, 20 deads in a circuit is a form of cardio then you clearly don't know what cardio is. Top Crossfitters mightn't be the fittest athletes in the world as their organisation suggests, but they're certainly fitter than the vast majority of people despite working primarily with barbells, plates, rings, bars and other forms of resistance training.

Bodybuilding is not just Mr. Olympia or Jay Cutler, and I'd agree with you that those guys look horrible. Even other disciplines like physique mightn't appeal to you, but the idea of doing resistance training and eating well cannot be dismissed just because of this. McGregor's physique appeals to you, why? Because he has some muscle mass and a low bodyfat%. That is exactly what I am suggesting for the OP, because running or GAA will not do anything to help them get there, or at least it'd take them far, far longer to.

You can only tell that McGregor's physique is a 'sign of fitness' because of either his low bodyfat% (which is what bodybuilding is about) or the fact that he's Connor McGregor. There are dozens of lads in every gym who have very similar physiques to McGregor's and they don't do nearly the amount of training and fighting he does.

And I'm going to ignore the last part of your post because I don't need to make stupid ad hominem attacks to strengthen my argument.

I am very familiar with bodybuilding workouts - I like to do them from time to time myself. But they certainly don't produce the same type of fitness or physique as certain cardio workouts. They're just not equal in effectiveness.

Someone who plays GAA and lifts weights will have better fitness and a better physique than if they only lifted weights. Any element of fitness done to excess, will create unbalanced fitness and a less aesthetic physique.

I like to do some middle distance running occasionally. But I know if I do too much of it, my body will not look and feel as good. It's the same with anything else. It's the same with doing sprints or calisthenics or agility/flexibility routines etc.

Jay Cutler is a great example of what happens to your body if you neglect every other type of fitness and focus solely on strength. Obviously I know he's an extreme example, but then so are marathon runners...

People who ONLY lift weights are the same as people who ONLY run. They both have unbalanced fitness and unbalanced physiques.

Mellor wrote: »

That's a ridiculously sweeping statement. There are plenty of people who do varied workouts, and aren't very fit or aesthetic. You used crossfit as an example, not everybody doing in a crossfit gym looks like Rich Froning.

Look at the olympic weightlifters in the middle divisions. All they do it full body weightlifting movements. Incredibly athletic, and look nothing like bodybuilders.

How somebody looks is decided a number of important factors. Not just how varied they workout.

I agree. I don't think the bodybuilder looks good at all. That's my preference. But as I said above, nobody suggested bodybuilding. The fact you can't differentiate lifting weights from body building suggest you don't know much on the topic tbh.

Yeah Conor's in great shape, in all aspects. But I'm not sure that you are trying to say. If somebody wanted to look like that, they were only interested in the aesthetics, are you saying that training like Conor would be a good way to achieve it?

Do think it's not possible to achieve a similar look with strength training?
Do you think everyone who trains like that will have that physique?

For reference, here some other top level MMA fighters, who been training for a long time;
Daniel Cormier, the current LHW champ, US Olympic team captain.
Fedor Emelianenko - Consider by many to be the greater fighter of all time, judo blackbelt, sambo master of sport,
Roy Nelson UFC fighter, blackbelt in BJJ, fat as fook.

Just because two people train in something like MMA, doesn't mean they both train the same way.

If you do a lot of full body movements at high intensity (like mcgregor does), then you will develop a lean muscular physique.

No, you could not achieve the same results by just lifting weights. It's not possible to do strength exercises at the same intensity or for the same duration as most full body cardio movements/workouts.

Lets take skipping rope as a good example. (I don't think mcgregor skips, but many boxers do and they also have very balanced fitness/physiques).

When you skip rope it's possible to vary the tempo and intensity from very slow to very fast. You can do this all during the same routine. Many boxers also use skipping to improve their agility and reflexes.... Skipping can be aerobic or anaerobic or BOTH.

Skipping works your entire body and burns massive amounts of energy. This is why so many boxers are lean and strong.

You can't lift heavy weights or do large compound strength movements involving multiple muscle groups at the same intensity or the same duration as something like skipping rope. (and if you try, you'll injure yourself).

I do deadlifts, squats, benchpresses and chin ups... I know from experience that it's simply not possible to reach the same intensity. Therefore naturally it's also not possible to achieve the same results.

It's the same with a lot of the muai thai and karate movements etc that MMA guys do. Those movements can be done over and over again at high speed... there simply is no comparison between those rapid movements and strength exercises.

They're completely different types of fitness!

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

If you do a lot of full body movements at high intensity (like mcgregor does), then you will develop a lean muscular physique.

So what full body movements do you think gave McGregor his physique? Specifically.
Because in my opinion his training is far too varied and dynamic pinpoint anything. And important it's also not remotely related to appearance. Most of it is technical rather than high intensity.

No, you could not achieve the same results by just lifting weights. It's not possible to do strength exercises at the same intensity or for the same duration as most full body cardio movements/workouts.

Skipping works your entire body and burns massive amounts of energy. This is why so many boxers are lean and strong.

A boxers strength has nothing to do with skipping. And his leanness very little. Neither of those are the reason boxers skip.

You can't lift heavy weights or do large compound strength movements involving multiple muscle groups at the same intensity or the same duration as something like skipping rope. (and if you try, you'll injure yourself).

Sure it's a completeMy different intensity. That doesn't mean you can't the result you are after.
Physique is much more dependant on diet.

MightyMandarin

ThinkProgress wrote: »

I am very familiar with bodybuilding workouts - I like to do them from time to time myself. But they certainly don't produce the same type of fitness or physique as certain cardio workouts. They're just not equal in effectiveness.

Someone who plays GAA and lifts weights will have better fitness and a better physique than if they only lifted weights. Any element of fitness done to excess, will create unbalanced fitness and a less aesthetic physique.

I like to do some middle distance running occasionally. But I know if I do too much of it, my body will not look and feel as good. It's the same with anything else. It's the same with doing sprints or calisthenics or agility/flexibility routines etc.

Jay Cutler is a great example of what happens to your body if you neglect every other type of fitness and focus solely on strength. Obviously I know he's an extreme example, but then so are marathon runners...

People who ONLY lift weights are the same as people who ONLY run. They both have unbalanced fitness and unbalanced physiques.

Ok, let's get one thing straight: Fitness and Physique are two completely different but somewhat related concepts. Someone can be fit, but not aesthetic and vice versa, and some can be both. Bodybuilding is purely focusing on one (physique), while running, cycling, swimming is completely focusing on the other (fitness). Other things like Crossfit focus on both.

Bodybuilding workouts will hands-down be the most effective type of session if you want a better physique. You can play as much GAA as you like, or run 10k every day, but if you want to look better you should do exactly what people whose sole aim is to look better are doing, aka bodybuilders.

GAA players have good fitness, yes, but so do crossfitters and other general athletes. You think Olympic lifters who train up to 10x a week don't have good fitness levels? 1hr of lifting barbells can certainly be as draining as 1hr of cycling or running. If you think that is impossible then you're doing it wrong, assuming you lift to increase your fitness.

Jay Cutler is a prime example of what happens to your body when you focus on bodybuilding for 10+ years, maintain a near perfect diet during that time, have supreme genetics, and of course take a boatload of drugs. As an aside, Jay Cutler and most other top bbers never focus on strength, but rather getting maximum contraction and stretches in each rep of each exercise. The amount of weight they lift is totally unimportant, because judges only care about how big, lean and symmetrical you are, not how much you bench.

Again with the outlandish and ridiculous, sweeping statements. The way you talk just screams of jealousy to be honest, as you're not as fit as distance runners, not as strong as weightlifters or powerlifters, and you're probably nowhere near as aesthetic as bodybuilders. You sound like you want to be an all-rounder; I'd suggest you take up crossfit but you should know that they're quite fond of barbells and plates so it's probably not 'balanced' enough for you.

ThinkProgress

Mellor wrote: »

So what full body movements do you think gave McGregor his physique? Specifically.
Because in my opinion his training is far too varied and dynamic pinpoint anything. And important it's also not remotely related to appearance. Most of it is technical rather than high intensity.





A boxers strength has nothing to do with skipping. And his leanness very little. Neither of those are the reason boxers skip.


Sure it's a completeMy different intensity. That doesn't mean you can't the result you are after.
Physique is much more dependant on diet.

Yes, his training is extremely varied. But non the less, there still are a few key things that help to build that physique.

Wrestling and jiu jitsu are excellent for building strength endurance. (many people don't realize this - or even realize that there is such a thing as power/strength endurance)

And then obviously there is the boxing, karate & capoeira movements which require the full body and give you that power/agility mix. (and again a decent degree of endurance/stamina too - esp when you do HOURS and HOURS of those repetitive movements)

It's impossible to replicate those movements with heavy weight routines, because lifting heavy weights causes too much deep muscle damage. You can't do anywhere near the same volume of work with heavy weights either. (volume is very important to get that lean muscularity)

The picture you posted of the weight lifter... he has a good physique, but still unbalanced in overall aesthetics and fitness. Leanness is not just about BF %, it's also about the size and proportions of the muscles.

Like I said, boxers skip for MANY reason. I never said they used skipping for strength. But did you know that greater cardio fitness also helps your muscles perform more efficiently when doing strength movements?

Physique is not mostly down to diet. It's influence by it - no doubt - but the workouts you do and the specific types of movements will have just as big an influence on how you look.

Slower exercises (like most of those done with weights) will build a very different physique/aesthetics compared with high speed, high volume and high intensity exercises!

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Ok, let's get one thing straight: Fitness and Physique are two completely different but somewhat related concepts. Someone can be fit, but not aesthetic and vice versa, and some can be both. Bodybuilding is purely focusing on one (physique), while running, cycling, swimming is completely focusing on the other (fitness). Other things like Crossfit focus on both.

Bodybuilding workouts will hands-down be the most effective type of session if you want a better physique. You can play as much GAA as you like, or run 10k every day, but if you want to look better you should do exactly what people whose sole aim is to look better are doing, aka bodybuilders.

GAA players have good fitness, yes, but so do crossfitters and other general athletes. You think Olympic lifters who train up to 10x a week don't have good fitness levels? 1hr of lifting barbells can certainly be as draining as 1hr of cycling or running. If you think that is impossible then you're doing it wrong, assuming you lift to increase your fitness.

Jay Cutler is a prime example of what happens to your body when you focus on bodybuilding for 10+ years, maintain a near perfect diet during that time, have supreme genetics, and of course take a boatload of drugs. As an aside, Jay Cutler and most other top bbers never focus on strength, but rather getting maximum contraction and stretches in each rep of each exercise. The amount of weight they lift is totally unimportant, because judges only care about how big, lean and symmetrical you are, not how much you bench.

Again with the outlandish and ridiculous, sweeping statements. The way you talk just screams of jealousy to be honest, as you're not as fit as distance runners, not as strong as weightlifters or powerlifters, and you're probably nowhere near as aesthetic as bodybuilders. You sound like you want to be an all-rounder; I'd suggest you take up crossfit but you should know that they're quite fond of barbells and plates so it's probably not 'balanced' enough for you.

Fitness and physique are NOT two different things. They are intricately linked on MANY levels.

All types of exercises produce certain aesthetic features (wether you're motivated by aesthetics are not). Just because BBs are motivated almost purely by aesthetics doesn't mean that other exercises don't produce appealing aesthetics as a by-product.

BB routines only focus on the aesthetics of muscularity. As I've explained there are many other types of fitness and aesthetics other than just muscles.

Just because aesthetics are the main aim of BBs, doesn't mean that they fully understand how to achieve a perfect physique. Or that their vision of the perfect physique is in line with what everyone else is looking for. (jay cutler probably thinks he has the perfect body, while many other people probably think he has a horrible looking physique)

Just because other sports sometimes develop good aesthetics almost by accident, doesn't mean you can't use those sports as a handy way to get the look you're after.

I'm not trying to compete at a high level in any of the workouts/sports that I do. My only aim is to have excellent all round fitness and an incredible looking physique. I feel like I'm doing a really good job achieving those goals... and I like to help other people who I know would really like to get the same results as me!

There's no jealousy in me. If someone is happy looking like Jay Cutler or some other BB... that's great for them! Good luck.

Imho, the majority of guys out there would rather look like conor mcgregor, cristiano ronaldo etc. (lean, toned, athletic with some muscularity). You don't get this look by just lifting weights... it's simply not logical.

But each to their own. If you think just lifting weights is the correct way to go... GO FOR IT. KNOCK YOURSELF OUT!! :cool:

Zillah

ThinkProgress wrote: »

(volume is very important to get that lean muscularity)

This makes no sense. Two qualities exist when it comes to visuals: muscle size and body fat. Low body fat will give you a lean look. If you think "lean muscularity" is a phenomenon that not only exists but can also be developed then you live in a fantasy land.

Honestly you sound like someone that has read enough to form some very strong but ill-conceived opinions about fitness, and who spends more time arguing about them than actually doing anything to do with fitness.

I don't know why so many people are spending so long arguing with someone that is willing to put out thousands of words of ignorant gibberish - you ruin every fitness thread you post in.

TRS30

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

Building muscle and loosing body are almost two contrasting processes. It is difficult to do both at the same time but not impossible, and the strength and muscle increases would be much less than if you did them seperately. Often people who focus on gym workouts would do this in different stages, a "bulking" phase and a "cutting" phase.

How long do you usually do each phase for?

MartyMcFly84

How long do you usually do each phase for?

There is no set time really. It depends on your goals , your diet, the individual etc

I would recommend doing it in steps though to minimise the amount of fat you gain in each bulking phase. If try bulking for a long time there is a risk you will also put on a considerable about of fat.

I would say for your first time no more than 10kg bulk then stop increasing calories and start a calorie deficit to lower your body fat %. You will have gained lean muscle mass during the bulk and lowering your body fat % is more to show it off.

Some people prefer to bulk during the winter time and do a cutting phase in the spring to get all sexy for the beach

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Wrestling and jiu jitsu are excellent for building strength endurance.

Jiu Jitsu has nothing to do with strength tbh, or strength endurance. It's technical before all else. If you are working out strength doing jiu jitsu, then you are doing it wrong.

If you want to look like Conor McGregor, taking up jiu jitsu is an extremely difficultly way to go about it imo.

And then obviously there is the boxing, karate & capoeira movements which require the full body and give you that power/agility mix. (and again a decent degree of endurance/stamina too - esp when you do HOURS and HOURS of those repetitive movements)

Hours and hours of repetitive movements is not how you build power.

(volume is very important to get that lean muscularity)

Lean muscularity isn't a thing. There is no such thing as lean muscle either.
There is muscle, and there is fat.

The picture you posted of the weight lifter... he has a good physique, but still unbalanced in overall aesthetics and fitness.

Unbalanced how? In what way is his fitness unbalanced? How do you know that from a photo.

As for aesthetics, surely that's subjective. To me that looks miles better than a bodybuilder. What do you find unbalanced?

Leanness is not just about BF %,

Yes it is, its the very definition of the word.

Like I said, boxers skip for MANY reason. I never said they used skipping for strength.

You said skipping is why boxers are strong.

But did you know that greater cardio fitness also helps your muscles perform more efficiently when doing strength movements?

Yes I did know that. Isn't exactly what cardiovascular fitness is;
The ability to supply blood/oxygen to the muscles, and the ability of the muscles to produce energy.
Local ATP stores run out in seconds, after than energy supply in some form is needed.

ford2600

I haven't a clue about any of this but I'm putting my money on the guy who gets his fibre from chicken being right....

He looks good to and he wants to help us all so I believe him.

I've no facts or anything so don't be asking

Alf Veedersane

Still got the lols from Liao Hui being unbalanced.

Mellor

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Still got the lols from Liao Hui being unbalanced.

Lacking fitness for sure

Transform

ford2600 wrote: »

I haven't a clue about any of this but I'm putting my money on the guy who gets his fibre from chicken being right....

He looks good to and he wants to help us all so I believe him.

I've no facts or anything so don't be asking

take a bow

Transform

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Still got the lols from Liao Hui being unbalanced.

this is getting off the charts silly now

I do stuff like this so I must still be unbalanced

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytwgMEIv71o

original poster - do a simple program and then build upon that over the years

Transform

wellmade2040 wrote: »

Okay fitness nube here- I'm looking to get in shape- I'd consider myself to be fairly fit already but looking to actually work out and improve muscle tone and all that -

So I'm early twenties male at 6' 2" and right at about 170 pounds.

I was just wondering what kind of weight. Need to lose before I can start working on abs and stuff- like what's the optimum weight for muscle building ?
And also can anyone recommend a exercise routine to suit a general beginner ?
Sorry if I sound like a moron- I know nothing about this kind of thing
Thanks

there are options given already -

Icecream fitness

Starting strength

Greyskull linear progression

Common thread with all options are - work on the basics and do some assistance work but not excessively

Add in mobility work, conditioning (metcons) and make sure you're eating enough

ThinkProgress

Zillah wrote: »

This makes no sense. Two qualities exist when it comes to visuals: muscle size and body fat. Low body fat will give you a lean look. If you think "lean muscularity" is a phenomenon that not only exists but can also be developed then you live in a fantasy land.

Honestly you sound like someone that has read enough to form some very strong but ill-conceived opinions about fitness, and who spends more time arguing about them than actually doing anything to do with fitness.

I don't know why so many people are spending so long arguing with someone that is willing to put out thousands of words of ignorant gibberish - you ruin every fitness thread you post in.

Jay cutler had very low BF % during his peak BB competition days, but he didn't have a lean looking physique. Like I said leanness is not just BF %. It's about the size and proportion of the muscles too. When you ONLY lift weights, your muscles can often be too bulky and make you look a bit bloated. (but obviously some people like that look)

My opinions are not ill-conceived. You just don't share them. (and/or possibly don't fully comprehend them either)

So because I have differing opinions and a different approach to fitness and physique, that means I'm ruining threads? lol Perhaps you should try to be a bit more open minded about different ideas in life and don't ridicule others for being different. :rolleyes:

Mellor wrote: »

Jiu Jitsu has nothing to do with strength tbh, or strength endurance. It's technical before all else. If you are working out strength doing jiu jitsu, then you are doing it wrong.

If you want to look like Conor McGregor, taking up jiu jitsu is an extremely difficultly way to go about it imo.

Hours and hours of repetitive movements is not how you build power.

Lean muscularity isn't a thing. There is no such thing as lean muscle either.
There is muscle, and there is fat.

Unbalanced how? In what way is his fitness unbalanced? How do you know that from a photo.

As for aesthetics, surely that's subjective. To me that looks miles better than a bodybuilder. What do you find unbalanced?

Yes it is, its the very definition of the word.

You said skipping is why boxers are strong.

Yes I did know that. Isn't exactly what cardiovascular fitness is;
The ability to supply blood/oxygen to the muscles, and the ability of the muscles to produce energy.
Local ATP stores run out in seconds, after than energy supply in some form is needed.

Jiu jitsu requires a great deal of strength. (many different types too)

His body is designed to do a small handful of things very well. By definition this means his fitness is very limited. And it shows in his physique because his body is very stocky and bulky. (perfect for short bursts of explosive power, but not much else)

I said skipping is the reason they are lean and strong, but I never said it was the only reason for their strength. Please read my comments more carefully next time!

ford2600 wrote: »

I haven't a clue about any of this but I'm putting my money on the guy who gets his fibre from chicken being right....

He looks good to and he wants to help us all so I believe him.

I've no facts or anything so don't be asking

Yeah, like all those irrefutable "facts" you're basing your current opinions on right? :rolleyes:

Transform wrote: »

this is getting off the charts silly now

I do stuff like this so I must still be unbalanced

Silly? Someone holds a different opinion and approach to you, so they're labelled as "silly"... hmmm closed-minded much?

Alf Veedersane

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Yeah, like all those irrefutable "facts" you're basing your current opinions on right? :rolleyes:

I'm sure there's a budding Nobel Laureate out there about to discover fibre in chicken and revolutionise nutrition.

Zillah

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Jay cutler had very low BF % during his peak BB competition days, but he didn't have a lean looking physique. Like I said leanness is not just BF %. It's about the size and proportion of the muscles too. When you ONLY lift weights, your muscles can often be too bulky and make you look a bit bloated. (but obviously some people like that look)

Literally nonsense.

So because I have differing opinions and a different approach to fitness and physique, that means I'm ruining threads? lol Perhaps you should try to be a bit more open minded about different ideas in life and don't ridicule others for being different. :rolleyes:

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. You are stating beliefs that don't match reality. It's not a question of opinion, you're just wrong and nonsensical, and want the same respect as people who make sense, which isn't go to happen and I suspect that is going to be an on-going source of frustration for you.

Transform

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Jay cutler had very low BF % during his peak BB competition days, but he didn't have a lean looking physique. Like I said leanness is not just BF %. It's about the size and proportion of the muscles too. When you ONLY lift weights, your muscles can often be too bulky and make you look a bit bloated. (but obviously some people like that look)

My opinions are not ill-conceived. You just don't share them. (and/or possibly don't fully comprehend them either)

So because I have differing opinions and a different approach to fitness and physique, that means I'm ruining threads? lol Perhaps you should try to be a bit more open minded about different ideas in life and don't ridicule others for being different. :rolleyes:



Jiu jitsu requires a great deal of strength. (many different types too)

His body is designed to do a small handful of things very well. By definition this means his fitness is very limited. And it shows in his physique because his body is very stocky and bulky. (perfect for short bursts of explosive power, but not much else)

I said skipping is the reason they are lean and strong, but I never said it was the only reason for their strength. Please read my comments more carefully next time!



Yeah, like all those irrefutable "facts" you're basing your current opinions on right? :rolleyes:



Silly? Someone holds a different opinion and approach to you, so they're labelled as "silly"... hmmm closed-minded much?

well my opinion is grounded in experience and what i clearly teach and do is no different that what everyone else here is recommending and im doing and my clients are doing OK for it

you may well be the great sage with all your advice but overall its YOU thats coming off as closed minded not the others

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

Jay cutler had very low BF % during his peak BB competition days, but he didn't have a lean looking physique. Like I said leanness is not just BF %. It's about the size and proportion of the muscles too.

Jay Cutler wasn't lean, lol, sure thing chief

Jiu jitsu requires a great deal of strength. (many different types too)

I've no idea what you are basing that on.
Strength helps with and physical activity, especially combat sports. But jiu jitsu, especially jiu jitsu training as opposed to competition, doesn't require a great deal of strength, or anything remotely like it.

Where have you gleamed this jiu jitsu insight from?

His body is designed to do a small handful of things very well. By definition this means his fitness is very limited.

So he is unfit because he does something well. Basically because he is aworld record holder. what definition of fitness is that?

My that logic, Usain Bolt is lacking fitness as he is designed to sprint very well.
And Conor mcGregor is lacking fitness, as he is dedicated to fighting well.


What are you measures of fitness?

I said skipping is the reason they are lean and strong, but I never said it was the only reason for their strength. Please read my comments more carefully next time!

I read it fully last time. I know you didn't say it was the only thing, that's not why is was stupid.
Skipping has nothing to do with strength. If you actually think it does, then I all hope is lost.

TRS30

MartyMcFly84 wrote: »

There is no set time really. It depends on your goals , your diet, the individual etc

I would recommend doing it in steps though to minimise the amount of fat you gain in each bulking phase. If try bulking for a long time there is a risk you will also put on a considerable about of fat.

I would say for your first time no more than 10kg bulk then stop increasing calories and start a calorie deficit to lower your body fat %. You will have gained lean muscle mass during the bulk and lowering your body fat % is more to show it off.

Some people prefer to bulk during the winter time and do a cutting phase in the spring to get all sexy for the beach

Thanks.

I was hoping for a more straight forward answer like a month of each!

I'm starting to realise that I need to put some serious time into working out my calorie intake, split across the different food group and weight myself!

Alf Veedersane

TRS30 wrote: »

Thanks.

I was hoping for a more straight forward answer like a month of each!

I'm starting to realise that I need to put some serious time into working out my calorie intake, split across the different food group and weight myself!

It really depends on what you're looking to bulk to but you won't do much in a month.

MyFitnessPal is your friend for tracking what you eat and drink. You enter the foods and it spits out the calories and breaks it down to carbs/fat/protein.

You can work out what your intake should be here

ThinkProgress

Zillah wrote: »

Literally nonsense.


Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, they are not entitled to their own facts. You are stating beliefs that don't match reality. It's not a question of opinion, you're just wrong and nonsensical, and want the same respect as people who make sense, which isn't go to happen and I suspect that is going to be an on-going source of frustration for you.

Great retort. lol ("I don't agree with this or have a worthwhile response, so I'll just label it as nonsense!") Always as strong sign that someone is struggling in a discussion!

Hate to break it to you, but those "facts" you think you're basing your current views on... are not as irrefutable as you think and most likely will have been disputed by other "experts".

There is plenty of evidence and studies to back up my claims too. I just don't go throwing references around to prove every point I make trying to satisfy skeptics on an internet forum. If you want research and studies, go do it yourself. (I have and I don't do other's research for them)

Nobody is forcing you to trust my methods or apply them. But you should try to respect other people's views and opinions. We can all disagree on things. But it's bad manners to ridicule others for holding alternative views to your own!

Transform wrote: »

well my opinion is grounded in experience

So is mine. (and many years of personal study and experimentation)

But I still would never claim to be working from perfect science or irrefutable "facts" like many seem to think on here. I'm always learning, and always open to new ideas and perspectives.

Very little in this industry can be regarded as irrefutable. Theories and methods are ever changing and evolving. Many people are simply incapable of truly thinking for themselves or questioning established practices.

There are many sheep in this industry, and the "groupthink" phenomenon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink) is a major problem and a huge barrier to progress.

Sometimes when you think differently, it can make you a lone voice in the dark for a while... but I don't worry about that.

I would worry more if I thought like a sheep!

Mellor wrote: »

I've no idea what you are basing that on.

And I fear you likely never will either.

If you are genuinely curious, please do some in dept analysis of BJJ and wrestling. They really are fascinating disciplines both from a technical and physical perspective.

So he is unfit because he does something well. Basically because he is aworld record holder. what definition of fitness is that?

My that logic, Usain Bolt is lacking fitness as he is designed to sprint very well.
And Conor mcGregor is lacking fitness, as he is dedicated to fighting well.


What are you measures of fitness?


I read it fully last time. I know you didn't say it was the only thing, that's not why is was stupid.
Skipping has nothing to do with strength. If you actually think it does, then I all hope is lost.

He's not unfit for what he does. His body is very well adapted to his chosen discipline of weight lifting. But by the very nature of specialized athletes they obviously have to sacrifice all-round fitness in order to attain higher levels in their chosen discipline.

A marathon runner must focus almost exclusively on stamina/endurance and neglect other areas because their sport requires specialization in that area. And it's no different for any other specialized discipline. (although some sports produce a greater imbalance than others)

Usain Bolt actually does more varied training than many other sprinters, partly because he also requires a degree of speed endurance for the 200m. He has also trained for and competed as far up as 400m, which has given him a much wider range of fitness than the average pure sprinter.

From observing many of his training videos, he also seems to favor more lung busting track workouts over lifting weights in the gym. He does value some strength training too, but he doesn't overdo it... he seems to strike a good balance there. (maybe that's why he's the best?)

I don't think you really fully comprehended what I was saying regarding the skipping. I was never trying to suggest that skipping was used as a primary workout for strength. It's great for creating a lean physique and it certainly aids the body in being more efficient when doing pure strength exercises.

It helps make boxers "lean and strong"... you'll notice I put the word lean first in that statement followed by strong. Are they strong primarily because they skip? No, Of course not! I would have thought that would be obvious to you.

But it does help with a huge variety different aspects of fitness - as I explained in more detail earlier in this thread. The fact you don't know or understand the potential anaerobic (and aerobic) benefits of skipping to strength and power is not surprising.

But the fact you are so quick to dismiss it is a bit disappointing. And it really does show a complete lack of intelligent curiosity on your part.

Again if you are curious about some of these things, do some research. They may seem alien or strange because you haven't heard them before. But some of the best methods are also often the least well known among the general public.

I do often use methods that are less widely practiced, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're BS or I made them up. Skipping has been a staple of boxers for generations. For a wide variety of different reasons!

Alf Veedersane

I'd like a couple of examples of staples of the fitness industry that have been 'debunked'. Where the models or hypotheses tested have had similar parameters and produced contradictory results.

It would at least give some context for your constant reference to "irrefutable facts". Otherwise it's just a baseless comment.

Mellor

ThinkProgress wrote: »

And I fear you likely never will either.

If you are genuinely curious, please do some in dept analysis of BJJ and wrestling. They really are fascinating disciplines both from a technical and physical perspective.

You fear I never will?? lol. Crazy thought here, but you could just answer the question.
What are you basing that on?
What in depth analysis of BJJ have you done?

He's not unfit for what he does. His body is very well adapted to his chosen discipline of weight lifting. But by the very nature of specialized athletes they obviously have to sacrifice all-round fitness in order to attain higher levels in their chosen discipline.

You said his fitness was unbalanced. I'm asking you to be specific. In what area is his fitness lacking?
I think the attributes you listed earlier were strength, endurance, flexibility, speed.

Usain Bolt actually does more varied training than many other sprinters, partly because he also requires a degree of speed endurance for the 200m. He has also trained for and competed as far up as 400m, which has given him a much wider range of fitness than the average pure sprinter.

It's pretty common for sprinters to do both 100m and 200m. While the demands are slightly different. They are both essentially sprinting/short distance events.
You could still describe Bolt as doing a small handful of things very well (short distance running). Which you said was the definition of limited fitness.
By your own definition, Bolt is lacking fitness.

From observing many of his training videos, he also seems to favor more lung busting track workouts over lifting weights in the gym. He does value some strength training too, but he doesn't overdo it... he seems to strike a good balance there. (maybe that's why he's the best?)

I imagine all sprinters favour sprinting over weights in the gym. :rolleyes:

It helps make boxers "lean and strong"... you'll notice I put the word lean first in that statement followed by strong. Are they strong primarily because they skip? No, Of course not! I would have thought that would be obvious to you.

The strawman is a weak arguement.
I never claimed you meant its the primarily source of strength. You said it was way they were lean and strong. In english irrelevant which word is before/after 'and'. I', not disputing the lean part.
Skipping is not why boxers are strong.

But it does help with a huge variety different aspects of fitness - as I explained in more detail earlier in this thread. The fact you don't know or understand the potential anaerobic (and aerobic) benefits of skipping to strength and power is not surprising.

But the fact you are so quick to dismiss it is a bit disappointing. And it really does show a complete lack of intelligent curiosity on your part.

This is the first time you've mentioned anaerobic. I've never said there wasn't an anaerobic demand. (it's undeniably if you've seen me skip).
The fact to have to take a subtle potshot at me, and the the attempt at moving the goalposts, highlights the fact that your argument is pretty weak.
FWIW its worth, I'm incredibly curious, to a fault. Probably why I waste time engaging with nonsense.

Skipping has been a staple of boxers for generations. For a wide variety of different reasons!

Again I never denied that. I know it has, and I also know why it has.
Do you simply forget what you said previously. Or do you try to waffle on about something similar and hope everyone else will forget?

Zillah

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

I'd like a couple of examples of staples of the fitness industry that have been 'debunked'. Where the models or hypotheses tested have had similar parameters and produced contradictory results.

It would at least give some context for your constant reference to "irrefutable facts". Otherwise it's just a baseless comment.

No, Alf, weren't you listening? There might be evidence either way so it is pointless to go throwing around references to your "science" and "facts" - which he totally could do but just doesn't want to. As stated earlier he is trusting his gut, which really is the same thing as objective evidence.

ThinkProgress wrote: »

But you should try to respect other people's views and opinions. We can all disagree on things. But it's bad manners to ridicule others for holding alternative views to your own!

Your views are ridiculous and deserve nothing but derision. Why on Earth you think your claims deserve respect when you live in a self-confessed fantasy land based on your instincts I don't know.

Alf Veedersane

Zillah wrote: »

No, Alf, weren't you listening?

Transform

Zillah wrote: »

No, Alf, weren't you listening? There might be evidence either way so it is pointless to go throwing around references to your "science" and "facts" - which he totally could do but just doesn't want to. As stated earlier he is trusting his gut, which really is the same thing as objective evidence.



Your views are ridiculous and deserve nothing but derision. Why on Earth you think your claims deserve respect when you live in a self-confessed fantasy land based on your instincts I don't know.

read this and though of this thread -

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

there are points we can all agree on but there are others that are indefensible from Think positive

Zillah

Transform wrote: »

It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like”

Oh it's much worse than that. It's "I can say or think whatever I like, and you have to show me the same respect as someone who has evidence to back up their position".

The false equivalence point is very good. We see it all the time with things like Intelligent Design and climate change denial.

Just because you are entitled to express a belief does not mean I have to respect that belief.

Alf Veedersane

Transform wrote: »

read this and though of this thread -

"You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

there are points we can all agree on but there are others that are indefensible from Think positive

Ha! I did dig out that Brian Cox piece the other day as well.

ThinkProgress

Alf Veedersane wrote: »

Otherwise it's just a baseless comment.

If you haven't seen the contradictory studies and research in the world of fitness and nutrition... you really need to pay closer attention.

And no, I won't be playing that game with you of dragging out studies and research to validate my opinions, just so you can desperately try to discredit anything I show you!

I've already told you I don't hang all my faith or trust in "expert" research. I read it and digest it, I take bits from it... but ultimately we must all strive to be experts on our own bodies. You have to learn to trust your own instincts, experience and constantly experiment.

Some people lack that ability to think independently. So they put all their trust and faith in other people's methods and ideas. And then aggressively defend those methods against anyone who dares to think differently.

There are a lot of people out there who don't really want to understand these things deeply or understand their body intimately either. They just want quick results.

I'm not saying it's completely wrong to take elements from what others do. But very few people (particularly in this country) have any interest in deeply questioning things... if something/someone is popular, then that's validation enough for the vast majority of people!

I've always thought completely different to that. I don't take a method or idea as gospel just because it happens to be popular. I see that as a major problem in this industry.

And I can see that mentality on this forum. The reaction to my opinions/ideas is the classic way most people react in this industry. But particularly in this country...

Unless it's popular or widely practiced... it's seen as nonsense. Unless it has countless academics endorsing it, it's boll**ks! :rolleyes:

I might understand that mentality if it were in some other industry. But this is an area that's not even remotely well understood by science.

It's fear of the unknown. Fear of anything unusual or not widely practiced by the herd... and it's a much bigger problem in this country than many others I've lived in.

Mellor wrote: »

In what area is his fitness lacking?

All the other things he doesn't do. (which is a lot of other things considering he's a highly specialized athlete)

But predominantly cardio-based fitness... I would guess that would be his biggest weakness. It's very hard to reach a high level of cardio fitness when you are being weighed down with such a large frame of heavy bulky muscle mass.

But he doesn't need well balanced fitness. That's not necessary for his chosen discipline.

By your own definition, Bolt is lacking fitness.

He has more varied cardio fitness than most pure sprinters, but yes it's correct to say that he would be lacking somewhat in stamina and agility/flexibility etc.

Your body develops uniquely depending on what movements you do. So if you rarely need to change direction at speed, for example... then your body won't be much good at doing that.

We are what we repeatedly do! So if you mostly run fast in a straight line... that's what you're body will be adapted to doing.

I imagine all sprinters favour sprinting over weights in the gym. :rolleyes:

Not every sprinter puts as much track work in as they should. Many are addicted to lifting in the gym... (just like many in the general populace)

Cardio is more important for us than having large muscles. Even for sprinters. And it also creates excellent aesthetics too, when practiced in an intelligent manner.

This is the first time you've mentioned anaerobic.

FWIW its worth, I'm incredibly curious, to a fault. Probably why I waste time engaging with nonsense.

No it's not. Take a look back, I've mentioned it several times... please try to show me the respect of actually reading what I write. I as I do you!

And if you were genuinely curious, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss other people's ideas as nonsense and ridicule them. It's a sign of a close-minded individual who fears the unknown!

Transform wrote: »

false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse.

Experts on what? Moving and eating? Because that's essentially what exercise and nutrition is when you boil it down, and we don't understand enough to really define in much more dept than that.

I have years of study and experience behind me, but I'm still not arrogant enough to think I'm working with perfectly understood concepts here. And I would never consider myself an expert - except perhaps on my own body!

(but even then, it's still a bit arrogant to use the word "expert" in this particular field of study)

If more people learned to trust their instincts, experiment with different things and question EVERYTHING... They would become "experts" on their own bodies and we wouldn't need all these so-called "experts" with their big egos and pseudo science masquerading as real science!

This stuff is mostly all opinions. Somewhat educated opinion perhaps, but still not irrefutable scientific facts!