7/17/2008 10:31pm, #11Originally Posted by Bang!
7/18/2008 3:55am, #12Originally Posted by Sun Wukong
I was entirely serious about the Circuit training class. It will give you structure to your workout and you should only go at the level with which you're comfortable. When I first went to Circuits, I was badly out of shape (yet had run 8 miles in 42 mins during my lunch hour before I got out of shape so badly). The class was what I expected, small numbers, no music, fairly macho and I sweat buckets and feared the next morning expecting to be very sore and unable to get out of bed. In fact, I got out of bed and felt OK because the Instructor knew his job and had done: Warm-Up; Stretch: Work; Warm-Down; Stretch.
The second class was packed and with lovely girlies. It was an Aerobic warm-up and entirely alien to me. I also couldn't co-ordinate and was all at sea. I was about to walk out when I realised that I was a fat b*stard and needed to train and there were quite a few big blokes there as well so I thought it must be OK. In 10 mins, the Instructor had done the Warm-Up and Stretched us and demo'ed the Stations. Jeezus, but I found out how bad I was during the first set (16 Stations) and we had 2 more circuits to go plus the Instructor threw in an Aerobic section and a Plyometric section between those 2 circuits.
It was the start of an Education. I went on to do Circuits for some 12 to 15 years.
You will learn much and always remember to ask the Instructor for advice. It doesn't matter if the Instructor is Male or Female or a Dancer (he set out one of the hardest Circuits I've ever done) provided their qualified and in a reputable place, this should be axiomatic.
After my initial 3 months, I had lost 8lbs, which I then put back on. In my ignorance, I mentioned this to the Desk Staff and got the classic answer. "You've lost the fat and replaced it with muscle". It was true.
The tortoise wins the race not the hare. Train for yourself and don't compare yourself with others. Men are competitive especially when women are near and this can be OK to get the best from yourself. OTOH, although I am short, I used to do my training and it could embarrass the taller chaps (6ft 4ins one springs to Mind) but none of them could match me. Their fault, I was only competing against myself.
Remember, you can tailor the station to suit your fitness. When you're below your best, drop the intensity, when you're flying, go flat out.
Go easy to begin with and Good Luck.
7/18/2008 4:19am, #13
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Wrestling, MT
The most important thing when your are overweight is to gradually increase the intensity of the programme. Failure to do so will almost undoubtly result in injuries that will delay your progress and hinder your motivation.
In terms of weight training I think you need to rethink what you are doing. I dont like the idea of supersetting large compound movements because fo the intensity of the movements. Also factor in that you are doing high reps of the movements I can almost gurantee that your technique will degenerate towards the end of the sets. It is generally the norm to keep the reps low when performing compound movements. An option if you want to superset compound movements is to combine it with an isolation exercise.
I would recommend you avoid trying to create your own exercise programme currently as it is obvious you have insufficient knowledge of how to do so. Find a good programme online and follow that. I suggest a 5x5 programme or Westside for Skinny Bastards. In time you can start to modify the training to suit your changing needs.
With cardio there is still debate within the exericse community regarding interval training versus steady state cardio. The majority of coachs these days recommend high intensity interval training but there are still some very highly respected coachs who get great results using steady state cardio. My personal preference would be HIIT but that is influenced by my sport background.
No disrespect Eddie but I would strongly advise against circuit training. They are a ecclectic mix of training ideologies and there are far more efficent ways to go about body recomposition
7/18/2008 6:46am, #14
Sun :) - give me an example of how long you go for on the elliptical ('level', 'time')?
Some things I like to do when I use the elliptical machine once a week:
1. 30 second intervals on level 15-20 (20 being the highest on the machine), then 30 seconds on leve 1-5, repeat 10 times
2. Steady state training but jump off every 2 minutes and do one of the following before getting back on the elliptical for another 2 minutes aiming to maintain the same pace throughout the workout (find a comfortable yet challenging pace and 'level' - this will improve over time):
a) 1 min skip rope -
b) 1min bodyweight squats all the way down
c) burpees 1 minute
d) 1min push ups
There are so many exercises you can substitute on the interval with minimal equipment and minimal space requirements.
7/18/2008 7:01am, #15
You say you have a good diet, but that's not enough for us to know if that's true.
What's an average day of eating for you?"This is why we are here. Because the Martial Arts for too long have been cloaked in an unnecessary level of secrecy bordering on mysticism, and its in these shadows that the cockroaches love to hide. -Phrost"
Originally Posted by Squerlli
7/18/2008 9:17am, #16Originally Posted by TheRuss
Yeah, I know it's just one study, but it pretty much sums up what I'm trying to say. In this one, Martin Gibala at McMaster compared 20 minutes of HIIT (30 seconds sprint, four minutes rest) with 90-120 minutes in the "target heart rate" zone. Oxygen utilization improvement was comparable in both programs. "So they're equal, right?"
I'm not saying that steady state stuff is useless, but when you get the same results for 20 minutes of exercise (with only about two and a half minutes of intense work) as you do for one and half to two hours of work, it's clear that something is up.
The fact that duration of exercise magnifies all training errors is yet another log on the fire for me.
Some of the people here have been going, "No, that would surely kill me. I can't even eat a deep-fried Mars Bar without sweating." The thing is that your intervals don't have to be the same as those of a competitive athlete. You just need enough fitness to create a contrast between a hard push and a jog. If you can't do that, then yeah, work up from steady state. If you can and you still have a good argument for it, I would love to hear it.
7/18/2008 9:42am, #17
Yeah, fair one, it's like the benefit of running up stairs. Short bursts etc. I spent most of my early life (and beyond) playing Soccer. Short bursts par excellence - no wonder I was sso skinny.
In context, it's not much different from my earlier paragraph:
"For 275lbs you need to consider Heart Fitness as a factor in your Training. No point in going flat out and falling over. Cardio, steady pacing over a reasonable distance will be a good start. You can vary with Fartlek training: Walk-Trot-Sprint between lamp-posts or 100M distances. This is more long term after you've dropped some weight."
Obviously I was a bit glib with tongue-in-check but that's also because I was day-dreaming of the chocolate I ate last night before I ran Hampstead Heath ('cos I couldn't wait until after I'd finished).
Slightly more seriously, I thought that given the OP's weight, he would have to bear that in Mind and rather than embark on a personal programme (UK sp) which he might have gleaned from a book (so it must be true) he might be better off under a learned and qualified expert eye until he got to a position in which he could better decide for himself what would best suit him and his Intention (whatever they might be).
Especially as we now know that he is an ex-smoker.
Not living in Glasgow, the merit of a Deep-Fried Mars Bar is something I dream about at night.
Every good wish.
7/18/2008 11:16am, #18
too many of those delicious baoxi?
I suggest jumping in a nice boxing program, they'll fix whats broken. hitt w/ heavy bag would be worth your time.
Good luck buddy.
7/18/2008 12:37pm, #19Originally Posted by Bang!
-I liked the study
-It appears to be fairly well-done
-Thank you very much for pointing me to it
Something that caught my eye was this: "For the ET group, training consisted of 90–120 min of continuous cycling at an intensity corresponding to 65% of VO2peak". Note that with the SIT group, there were actually two progressions - the number of intervals performed, and the absolute power output (subjects' maximal effort should increase with training). The ET group had an increase in volume applied, but whether the power output went up or was maintained depends on the implementation of the statement I quoted above.
-It looks like they tested for VO2peak once, before training
-If they were monitoring the intensity level by wattage output, gains in efficiency and VO2peak would result in reduced effort through the course of the study
-If they were monitoring the intensity level by (whatever the fancy name is for) breath analysis, this would cut out the impact of efficiency (no reduction in absolute effort) but not changes in VO2peak (reduction in relative effort)
-If they were monitoring the intensity level through heart rate, that *should* ensure stable relative effort in in-shape individuals, matching the SIT group.
A few other hand-wavey unhealthily-skeptical points
-Two weeks isn't a long time, and eight subjects each aren't a lot of participants.
-I noticed that the people in the SIT group had an average of 6.5% better power output before the training. The statistical analysis "handles" this, but it seems a fairly large discrepancy to see in a randomized study.
And the one that's actually relevant to this discussion: They didn't measure body composition or related factors (changes in metabolic rate, etc). Based on your earlier response, "tone" is a four-letter word. Having been an elite-level athlete, I know where you're coming from... but on the other hand, having been borderline morbidly obese, I have to stress that body composition ("tone") is a legitimate training goal because, rightly or wrongly, the appearance of fitness has major implications in terms of quality of life.
Fortunately, in this case, there are some strong synergies between being fit and appearing fit that we may be able to exploit. After having done some reading, SIT appears to be useful for the former (in addition to the study you provided, see this study, kindly provided by Stigander here), may be useful for the latter as well.
ExRx refers to this study, which indicates greater subcutaneous fat loss from HIIT than from a greater caloric output of steady-state exercise. I don't have access to that particular paper right now, so I can't speak to how well the study was conducted, but if you have access to it, you might look it up and let me know what you think?
The main argument for steady-state aerobic exercise is really the thermodynamic argument for increased volume, rather than any particular pattern - the more exercise in terms of volume, the more energy required to perform it. The theory has been advanced that interval training boosts the post-workout metabolic rate to increase total calorie consumption, usually through some hormonal mechanism, but I'm skeptical about that.
In terms of risks, it seems to me that SIT (with a low-impact exercise) trades a significantly lower risk of chronic/repetitive-motion injuries (see this) for a higher risk of cardiovascular events, particularly in out-of-shape individuals. When I was doing the reading for the heart rate meter thread, I saw in one of the resources (can't remember which right now, sorry) that the relationship between beats per minute and blood volume circulated (and, it follows, VO2) becomes non-linear for out-of-shape people at high heart rates. This means that the stress placed on the heart (in terms of beats per minute) to deliver a given amount of oxygen may increase in a non-linear manner in these cases.
I honestly couldn't say whether SIT would increase or decrease the risk of an acute injury (pulls, tears, sprains, etc.) - higher intensity = more power = more force = more mechanical stress at any given instant, but lower volume reduces the time under stress. Time to strap some rats to treadmills.
7/18/2008 1:11pm, #20
-head asplodes from all the science-
My...son...will...avenge me........"This is why we are here. Because the Martial Arts for too long have been cloaked in an unnecessary level of secrecy bordering on mysticism, and its in these shadows that the cockroaches love to hide. -Phrost"
Originally Posted by Squerlli