Discussion in 'Sports and Athletics' started by Taco Tuesday, May 24, 2011.
seriously? soreness means nothing
old fat people workout plan: Start out with brisk walking for 30 minutes 4 days a week. If you can carry on a conversation while walking, you're not walking fast enough.
Probably more from working out wrong than anything, I had difficulty getting into a routine, because I was too sore to do anything again for days and days.
Wow you guys weren't kidding, I woke up today and can't bend my left arm without a bunch of pain/soreness.
Gonna start cutting the calories tomorrow. Might go down to 1500 but I wouldn't see any gains from any working out I do would I?
unless you are a small-framed female, please don't go to 1500kcals
I'll only lose about 2lbs a week from that. Don't see the problem.
so much facepalm in this thread...
Alright I'll bite. What's the problem? Too much to lose in a week or I would be losing more than I said?
how much do you weigh?
first of all, 1500 really is not sufficient for anyone. might as well eat what you can as that will actually help you lose from the thermogenic effect of food as well as allow you to give appropriate effort in the gym
Jazz, I said it in my original post, but for the first few weeks don't be too concerned about maxing out the weight, just focus on maintaining correct form and controlled movements. Once you feel like your body knows the routine THEN you try and see where your limits are. If you try to max out the weight while you don't have the correct form and your muscles are not ready you are likely to injure yourself.
Well I'm not going to be able to go to the gym for another 2 months or something so I was planning on going for a calorie deficit rather than working it off. Best I can do is load my school bag with books and do some hammer curls, squats, wide push ups, and sit ups I weigh around 84kg so I figure I'll probably need about 2700 to break even on a normal day.
so why not just do something like 2200 to start? going right to 1500 for one gives you less room to make adjustments further on, and dipping super low with calories has been shown greatly diminishing returns, though they're not sure exactly why. probably from metabolic slowdown
After some personal issues last week, I am finally back on the rotation. Feels great man.
QUESTION: for most machines, is it better to A) have a quick first motion and then a slower, controlled second motion (e.g. lat pulldown, pull down quickly and then let it back up slowly) or B) do the entire exercise in a slower, controlled motion?
It's preference, but I prefer a (relatively controlled) explosive movement followed by a slow release for most exercises.
I'm pretty shapeless as a guy, scrawny except for my legs, but love of beer has started to give me a little gut. I went for a run Saturday night, and other than pushups/sirups it was my only true exercise in three years. I ran 1.25 miles in like ten minutes before burning out and walking the next .25. I'm tracking a few stats (time, distance, speed, elevation, etc). I went again Sunday and my stats were almost identical, though despite it being the same temp I got way sweatier. Good? Bad?
When I run, what sort of speed should I be aiming for over a 1.5 mile stretch? Mine has been around 7.7 MPH but I burn out 1.25 miles in. I'm sure most of that is due to being out of shape but I don't have any relative speeds to work with here.
In terms of cardio, there are benefits to doing interval sprints, just as there are benefits to doing sustained endurance jogging/running. Ideally you're going to want to mix and match the two, but as you're just starting out I would advise you to put the emphasis on increasing the distance you're running each time.
Just to save you some time, hopefully you're aware that you can't "spot reduce" fat. In other words, you can do 2,000 situps a day and it's not really going to make that gut shrink unless your calories are square.
For your goal the most important thing is calories in/calories out. Burn more calories than you ingest each day, and eventually changes begin to show. Consistency is key. Distance running is a great way to get your calorie burn on, and get your body catabolic.
In regards to the sweating, it's been shown that as your body gets more used to exercise, it also learns to cool itself more efficiently. This is why some people barely sweat when they are skinny or skinnyfat, but after exercising consistently for a while, their body turns on the waterworks even when not vigorously exercising. I doubt this would noticeably surface after only two days of working out, but there you go.
Yet PimpB says 1500 calories is not enough calorie intake for a day. Burning 2000+ calories a day isn't easy.
don't generalize what i say
When I'm trying to drop weight fast, I eat varying amounts, between 1300 and 1700 a day, but I've never been able to keep off the 10 kgs or so that I manage to lose, so I'd have trouble recommending that approach.
When I lost a huuuuuuuge amount of weight like 6 years ago (like 20-30 kg), I was walking everywhere out of necessity and eating barely anything.
I guess what I'm trying to say is sell your car and become anorexic.
why not? You seem to be the expert. [sincere]
very little about working out/weight loss can be generalized
Do you still disagree about 1500 cal/day not being sufficient? Personally, I'd say that about right for wanting to lose weight but obviously not for a body-builder.
I lost 30 lbs whilst on a 1400-1600 cal/day diet on a 75% cardio, 25% weight training routine.
that completely depends on the person and many factors.
when 1500 was referenced earlier, i believe i warned against starting at that level because it was a vast drop to what the individual was consuming before and also that weight loss actually very rarely follows a predictable pattern of "if i have a deficit of [x] calories a week i will lose [y] pounds a week". please don't read further than that
To clarify, you don't need to "burn" 2000 calories a day. Everyone's individual body has a natural level at which they lose, maintain, or gain. Personally, I know that I maintain my weight around 2500 - 2750 calories a day, and need to eat more than that to gain. If I eat less than 2500 consistently I will lose weight.
It takes experimentation to understand where your own body is. Keep in mind that your body burns calories just by being alive, and that some foods, such as apples for instance, actually "cost" more calories to metabolize than you gain from eating the matter itself.
I don't eat many calories, though I suppose I should start eating a little more protein than I normally do. My biggest problem with food intake is that I work 11 hours a day so planning meals isn't exactly ideal.
As far as situps go, I know that's not burning much, but it is actually building a little muscle behind the fat, right? I figure if it's even building a little, and the cardio is burning the fat, then I'm in good shape (lulz). I spent about three minutes researching this for myself so I'm an expert.
working is no excuse for not eating.
goddamn this thread is making me angry in that "casual working out/weight loss" = being lazy
fuck off faggot
Remember what just happened the next time you want to insult me.
Do you disagree?
lol. absolutely i do. please stop reading articles on yahoo health entitled "THE 5 FOODS TO BURN BELLY FAT"
Brett ragin' in diz thread is
Nah, I'll do what I please, since you're nothing but an unhelpful, sociopathic troll with some pretty pronounced psychological issues.
lol u mad
this time, yeah I am because I've been nothing but nice and tolerant of you, but you still act like a bratty child in every single thread, it's really annoying. I can only imagine what in your life drove you to accumulate 17,000 of those types of posts.
And for the record, I was repeating information that my personal trainer gave me. At least I'm attempting to give actual advice instead of constantly belittling people for wanting to work out
read my exchange above concerning 1500 calories. seems like i was trying to explain/help and was not belittling. but, nah, clearly i have "pronounced psychological issues".
giving people wrong information is much more detrimental than giving them right information sprinkled in with a bit of shortness/callousness that butthurt faggots have to be "tolerant of" for some reason. grow up
you clearly do have some deep seated issues, believe me. and LOL at you telling me to grow up... pot, kettle, etc.
Also, thanks for being the arbiter of what's "wrong" and "right" information in a field that rarely has such black and white determinations
Good proof. "Believe me." Gonna whip that one out at the next NSCA convention?
You're right that many things aren't black and white. Comporting to 50-100 calories by eating a small item of food is a case of black and white.
That's fine, I was told differently by someone who went to school for this, and while I'm not saying that he's definitely right, what I am saying is that there's a way of stating your dissenting opinion without coming off as the most abrasive piece of shit in the universe. I really hope for your sake that your posting persona is just a persona, otherwise I might feel legitimately sad for you.
You took my Yahoo article remark way more harshly than it was intended. I also found "Do you disagree?" to be very condescending for what it's worth.
Regardless, I don't give a fuck what you think of me.
lol @ "do you disagree" being more condescending than "please stop reading articles on yahoo health entitled "THE 5 FOODS TO BURN BELLY FAT"
I know, right? Believe me.
Man, you're really struggling now huh? Why don't you just break out one of your go-to options like "die" or "shut the fuck up faggot"
Separate names with a comma.