Critique my workout/diet please.

Malteaser! wrote: »

The 'after burn effect' DOES NOT happen with steady state low intensity cardio (which is what you seem to be suggesting?). It does happen to an extent with HIIT, but still to a lesser extent than with resistance training. If you're suggesting someone goes on a long hard run (as opposed to a long relatively easy one) then say hello to catabolism and a lowered BMR.

i was refering from mod to intense thats why i said "intense run verse intense weight training session" and about the catabolic thing this doesn't happen for 80-90mins according to "the complete guide to sport nutition" but i'll admit that ive read artical that say it happens after 60mins, i'll have a look round the house for the book and get u the quote

Malteaser! wrote: »

It'd be nice if you could back up your claims with some figures, they're some pretty bold and unusual claims that you're making

where are ur "figures" but like i said above i'll have a look round the house for the ol' text books and get u the quotes

Malteaser! wrote: »

When it comes down to it, this guy's looking to improve his appearance. Ignoring TEMPORARY quick fixes and looking at the long term picture, what is going to be the most effective method? I would suggest it is starting resistance training now. Training his legs with a lot of devotion since this will increase his overall muscle mass and improve his appearance AND help him to shift any remaining fat later on since his BMR is going to be higher.

his health takes priority over his apperence (not to say that his apperence won't improve on my programme also) hes gotta do some cardio

Malteaser! wrote: »

So why bother dieting, bulking and dieting when better results could be achieved through just concentrating on building some muscle, doing a small amount of LIT cardio to improve CV conditions and keep BF% in check (since it's gonna be hard to recover from HIIT if training legs hard) and THEN once all the ground work is laid down... start to diet.

i suppose you have to ask the op priorities size, strenght, speed,stamina ect so if ur reading this op please do so,

Malteaser! wrote: »

I still can't believe you suggested only training legs 2 out of 8 weeks. Heavy squats are the most anabolic thing you can do in the gym. And if you're doing them for high reps they can be incredibly metabolicaly demanding too.

i think you may have taken me up wrong wher when i said 2 weeks out of 8, i said resistance of the legs 2 weeks out of 8 and the other 6 weeks out of 8 he'd br focusing on more on carido running cycling ect which is where he would be get his leg training during those weeks hope this clarifies.

well its 12.15am and im up for work in the morning so i'll leave it there, nice chatin' to ya lads i'll get back to ya's over the weekend

donstavros wrote: »

Looks like you need to start putting on weight.... bulk up on red meat and pints. This can then be easily turned into muscle with a few visits to the gym.

Be a man.

I agree with this assesment more than most of the other stuff written on this thread. As an add on, I'd say also come home each evening and eat/drink a litre of whipped cream. For cardio, before you eat the red meat, rub it on yourself and run through a guard dog compound. If one of them catches you, wrestle it until one of you is dead, or gives up, which should be the same thing. Small cars can be used for leg development- you should be able to push a mini at first, and then work on to larger automobiles. The handbrakes should be on, and you DO NOT ask the owners permission first. If they come out complaining, show them your dog bites and pretend to foam at the mouth, then cheese it before the rozzers/animal welfare come. To develop phenomenal arm strength, masturbate furiously- FURIOUSLY- at least 6 times a day, and don't go swapping arms. One phenomenally developed arm is much better than two average ones. When the other one starts to wither, let it- that's Darwinism of the body, the strong arm survives.

After that, you will have many concubines.

Personally, I think that's as good as most of the advice you've been given thus far. BUt in all seriousness, everything you need to get strong is here www.startingstrength.net and there are lots of good ideas for weight loss here http://www.simplefit.org/. Reading this topic will only confuse most people, but I think from reading those two sites you'll be able to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Al_Fernz wrote: »

8 weeks
x8 chest/tri/delt days
x8 back/trap/bi days
x2 leg days

8>2 = a routine that isn't balanced.
?

what ur trying to prepose is that the guys programme would look more balanced like this

x8 resistance training of chest/tri/delt days
x8 resistance training of back/trap/bi days
x8 resistance training of leg days

this is resistance training 100% and cardio 0% of the time this is not the training programme of the well rounded individual,

the above programe would be more suit toward someone who's priorities are size or strength (and i'd split it differently if it was) and again is you read the op this guy is a beginner looking to put on some lean mass and lose some bodyfat.

Al_Fernz wrote: »

Doing cardio will not provide the same stimulus for muscular development as weight training. Therefore, trying to say that jogging and cycling compensate for the lack of leg training is not appropriate.

i agree that cradio eg running will not provide the same stimulus as resistance training in terms of size or strenght. but cardio eg running does provide a good work out of the leg muscles improving primarily speed, stamina and to a lesser extent size and strenght. all exercise have the strenghts and weaknesses.

resistance training will not provide the same stimulus of the ops heart and lungs that cardio will, so for this guy to be well round im gonna have to give him cardio which means if his doing cardio he's most likely gonna be doing running, jogging, cycling each cardio session will now also count as a leg training session because after the cardio session the muscles of legs will have worked hard and be fatigued which means he wont be able to do as many resistance training session on the legs (i'm not trying to that resistance training provides no stimulus of the heart just that cardio provides more of a stimulus)

Al_Fernz wrote: »

I'm confused. Was anything else that was recommended detrimental to his overall health?

most on the forum are saying the programme needs more resistane traing of the leg. if i give more resistance to the legs im gonna have to take away form the cardio. and not doing enough cardio could be detremental to his health. but in reality not trying to say "if the guy doesn't go running 3 times a week he will drop dead" that would be dramatic.

tadhg1 wrote: »

what ur trying to prepose is that the guys programme would look more balanced like this

x8 resistance training of chest/tri/delt days
x8 resistance training of back/trap/bi days
x8 resistance training of leg days

I propose is that the OP consider a weight training routine that provides equal growth stimulus to all body parts. I don't agree with the routine you provide because it is likely to create muscular imbalances.

this is resistance training 100% and cardio 0% of the time this is not the training programme of the well rounded individual,

Did I say the OP should drop cardio? I think your mixing up the issues here.

the above programe would be more suit toward someone who's priorities are size or strength (and i'd split it differently if it was) and again is you read the op this guy is a beginner looking to put on some lean mass and lose some bodyfat.

I never recommended that the OP follow an amended form of your routine. Its a joke - for all the reasons outlined earlier in this thread.

i agree that cradio eg running will not provide the same stimulus as resistance training in terms of size or strenght.

Yes and relying on it to produce the same muscular development as weight training is likely to leave an individual with muscle imbalances, increasing the risk of injury.

but cardio eg running does provide a good work out of the leg muscles improving primarily speed, stamina and to a lesser extent size and strenght. all exercise have the strenghts and weaknesses.

There's more forms of cardio than running and cycling. Boxing, rowing, skipping and swimming all use upper body muscles. Cardio doesn't always have to be leg intensive. Cardio exercise is exactly what it's name suggests -work for the heart and circulatory system. Its a poor substitute to weight training for any individual that wants to build muscle.


Would you be able to provide any reference to back up your claim that cardio is better for fat loss than weight training please?

before for i start, i know, u never work exclusivly in one energy system. but in terms of cardio/aerobic exercise "anaerobic exercise use only glycogen, where as aerobic exercise uses both glycogen and fat," quote from "the complete guide to sports nutrition"

Al_Fernz wrote: »

I propose is that the OP consider a weight training routine that provides equal growth stimulus to all body parts. I don't agree with the routine you provide because it is likely to create muscular imbalances.

Did I say the OP should drop cardio? I think your mixing up the issues here.

I never recommended that the OP follow an amended form of your routine. Its a joke - for all the reasons outlined earlier in this thread.

Yes and relying on it to produce the same muscular development as weight training is likely to leave an individual with muscle imbalances, increasing the risk of injury.

There's more forms of cardio than running and cycling. Boxing, rowing, skipping and swimming all use upper body muscles. Cardio doesn't always have to be leg intensive. Cardio exercise is exactly what it's name suggests -work for the heart and circulatory system. Its a poor substitute to weight training for any individual that wants to build muscle.


Would you be able to provide any reference to back up your claim that cardio is better for fat loss than weight training please?

ur right boxing swimming ect are forms of cardio that work the upper body but from my experence they can be a bit inpractical , boxing.....most gyms don't have bags and alot of ppl fell quite self contious when boxing , swimming some clients can't swim, most pools are heated and when swimming in them u become fatuged very fast because of the heat and its hard to get a good work out, you could argue well then swim in the sea but if i was training this guy i won't recomend training in the sea because of saftey issue because if he drown and i was the guy who told him to go swimming in the sea, i be up **** creek with out a paddle, lol, skiping and rowing are more total body as apposed just upper

tadhg1 wrote: »

he is training cardio and doing his legs

not enough by far.

ur right boxing swimming ect are forms of cardio that work the upper body

its no more just upperbody than running is just legs...

SorGan wrote: »

its no more just upperbody than running is just legs...

Just to clarify - I wasn't saying that doing cardio activity that incorporates the upper body is a sufficient substitute for weightlifting. I was saying cardio does not imply a leg intensive activity.

tadhg1- doing less than an hour of cardio the day after weightlifting is not likely to lead to overtraining.

Al_Fernz wrote: »

tadhg1- doing less than an hour of cardio the day after weightlifting is not likely to lead to overtraining.

difine "less than an hour" but i'll take it as 40 mins + weight training sessioni think is to much for a beginner, if you did one straight after the other i would be conserned about catabolism and if you split it say cardio in the morning and weights in the evening, this just does not suit most clients lifestyles, which mean they'd be less likey to keep at it.

amazingemmet wrote: »

I know that wasn't addressed to me but I'd give him resistance type training.

Also tadgh1 any before and after pictures of these clients you keep speaking about?

do u realy expect me to put pics of clients up on the internet...come on now ur having a laugh!

tadhg1 wrote: »

difine "less than an hour" but i'll take it as 40 mins + weight training sessioni think is to much for a beginner, if you did one straight after the other i would be conserned about catabolism and if you split it say cardio in the morning and weights in the evening, this just does not suit most clients lifestyles, which mean they'd be less likey to keep at it.

You're adding 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5. Where you got that I was advising cardio and weights to be done in the same session I don't know?

I specifically said that doing cardio and weights on successive days will not lead to over-training.

for overall health id have to say cardio is more advantageous.
also one hour of cardio can be a hell of alot, i only do about 10 minutes on a treadmill everyday at 10 miles per hour no way would i find an hour of that to be necesary unless you are going for marathons or something

ive read a good few articals on cardio vs resistance and fat loss. all the ones i read that say resistance is better than cardio, only compare low intensity cardio to resistance and i have yet to find any articals that say mod or hi intensity worst than resistance for fat loss.

i aslo read a lot of stuff that said that hiit cardio is the best for fat loss.

for fat loss during exercise from what ive read i would say cardio is better because of the energy system your using.

as for "the after burn effect" i read stuff that says cardio raise it more and ive read stuff that says resistance raises it more

and when i did ncef 1,2, the tutors on the cousre left me with the impression that resistance and cardio are both good for fat loss but that cardio was better, particulary for just "weight loss" because of its catabolic effect.

as for the programme it seem fine to me , yeh the legs may have been a little bit under trained when it came to resistance but when designing a progamme it's give and take, and you have to prioritize this often means that some areas are less or more trained then others but its is only realy a major consernce when your talking about an agonist being more trained than an antagonist, agonists and antagonist where well balanced in this case, as for upper and lower body if the upper body was slightly better trained in resistance / cardio or vice versa than the lower body i wouldnt be that conserned, un less the imbalance was huge which i dont think it was in this case