We'll see if I keep up with this, but maybe it's a good idea to start logging my workouts as a motivational tool. I have let things slip a bit between being busy at work and all the stuff going on with my mom, so I need to get going again. I'm a big believer in cross training. My exercise routines generally falls in to three categories: weight based resistance training; cardio (typically cycling or running,sometimes swimming); group training classes that combine body weight resistance with cardio (eg calisthenics). Over the Summer I biked to work most days, lifted weights usually on 'Saturday, took a TRX class on Tuesday, and an obstacle racing course on Thursday. Right now I'm not in any classes because I'm too busy to make a fixed time/fixed day class. Anyway, here's what I did yesterday: biked to the gym, did a mix of weight lifting exercises, ran for 8 minutes, more weights, ran for 8 minutes, more weights, biked back home. It was a good, thorough workout, I varied my heart rate, pushed my muscles, and don't feel too sore this morning. I'll try for the same tomorrow, but with lighter weight/more reps. When the next round of classes start, I hope to get back in to them, too.
I didn't make the bike ride today -- it's kind of cold and I felt a bit lethargic. So I added another round on the treadmill. All told, I did 25 minutes of treadmill in three blocks, and three 10-15 minute blocks with weights. Less weight per rep, but twice as many reps per set as I did on Saturday. Total weight lifted was about 35% more than the previous workout. My upper body is feeling pretty warm and cozy right now!
I went to the gym yesterday for the first time in months. Did a 15-minute warmup on the Elliptical, then some bench presses (2 sets), heel raises (3 sets), a 1/4 mile on the track, then some situps on slant board (2 sets), shoulder raises & side bends (3 sets each), another 1/4 mile on the track, leg lifts (3 sets), back extensions (2 sets), tricep extensions (3 sets), and dumbbell curls (2 sets). Then another 1/4 mile on the track, some crunchers, and I was done. Was there an hour total. Took it rather easy on the weights....no use overloading myself right away. Better to ease into it a bit. I still got a decent workout in, although I realized later that I forgot to do my lats (pulldowns). I also purposely didn't work my upper legs, as I don't want them to be sore for racquetball on Wednesday. Overall, not too bad. A bit sore under my arms, due to the bench press, I imagine. Otherwise I feel OK. But I usually get the most sore 2-3 days afterward, so we'll see.
Soreness is good. It means that the muscles are stressed/damaged. Muscle repair is the key to getting stronger.
Isn't it better to do your cardio in increments of at least 20 minutes at a time rather than break it into smaller blocks? I know that mixing it with weight lifting is good but you're diminishing your returns if you don't get your heart rate up and maintain it for enough time to actually start burning the fat. Obviously it's still doing some good but it's not the same as it would be if you were to do something like a 20 minute run, lift for 30 minutes, then run or bike again just the last 10 minutes of the hour for one last burst of accelerated heart rate. The last 10 minutes would be more effective if you've had a hard workout leading into them because you would get to the higher heart rate faster. I am a runner so your mileage may vary, but I find that the first 8-10 minutes of my runs are usually not what I would consider intense. If I stopped then my heart rate would barely have climbed from what it's like when I walk. Usually about 1.5 miles into a run (depending on speed) I will begin to notice the increase in heart rate which will maintain throughout the rest of the run.
I'm generally not using my 1/4 on the track as a Cardio workout, per se, but more as a break between different sets of exercises. My cardio fitness sucks anyway, but I've got racquetball to take care of that. And hopefully my elliptical warmup extends to 20 minutes in the near future. But at 49 years old, *anything* helps. I can't be expected to keep up with you young pups, and I'm not trying to!
My heart rate is up already during the weight lifting. The cardio bumps it up further, then it drops down again during the next bit with the weights. It's essentially intervals training. My thought is that the weight training doesn't get me to the fat burning zone, so I bump my heart rate up with a burst on the treadmill that then gets me in that zone. By the time it's dropped down enough plus a bit of recovery, I get on the treadmill again. The key is that I'm moving my heart rate up and down, but regulating it by varying the exercises so that I never get too far above or too far bellow the peak fat burning heart rate. Also, I'm using the hill climbing mode on the treadmill, so it pushes my heart rate up faster than it would on a flat run.
One more thought Tex, about your point on how long it takes to get the heart rate up. You and Nautica both suggested it differs by person, for reasons of physique and age. I bike a lot, and pretty much need to bike up hill in to the wind for 10-15 minutes to get my heart rate up. Running gets it there much faster, as does swimming. It's possible that shorter burst will eventually not work, although I can probably do something with greater speed and incline. For now, it's good, though.
That's what people used to think. Recent studies are proving that the 20 minute thing isn't necessarily true. Intervals of shorter but extremely intense periods are actually better for your heart and save muscle as they burn calories. The inspiration from the studies came from sprinters. They have extremely low bodyfat (and a higher strength to weight ratio than distance runners) yet never exercise at a steady rate for 20 minutes straight. It's balls-to-the-wall then rest. Balls-to-the-wall, then rest.
Finally got back on track with the obstacle racing class. I missed the last session, so was a bit nervous about tonight. Fortunately, we took it a bit light for the first day. We did two workout rounds: Round 1 Each exercise is preceded by a 100 meter dash 10 pushups 10 squats 10 pullups 10 burpees 10 lunge jumps 30 crunches Early finish bonus! 30 Spiderman pushups Double skip jump rope until everybody is done Round 2 (no running) 25 box jumps 30 kettle bell squats Pushups to max Wide pushups to max Diamond pushups to max 50 knee ups Early finish bonus! 30 pullups 20 kettle bell lifts I did pretty well, considering it's been a while since doing this type of workout. Now I've got that nice post workout warm and mellow feel. I may not be able to walk tomorrow, and certainly won't have use of my arms. I was glad to have so many pullups -- my upper back has really been jonesing for a thorough workout.
Just got back from my first run of 2013! It has been a long time since I've done much in the way of running. I had been doing 5 minute sessions (see earlier posts) as a way to keep the heart rate up during strength training, but lately I've been leaning more toward jumping rope for that purpose. Anyway, I haven't done anything longer than 5 to 10 minutes at a time since Summer 2011. I like a hill program, because it's better for fat burning, but it also causes me to keep a slower pace. So for my first time out in a long while, I did 30 minutes + 5 minute warm down. During the 30 minutes, the incline varied but was present through most of the session. I mostly ran at 6.5 MPH, but had to take three walking breaks of 2 minutes each, so only 24 minutes of running. Hopefully I can keep this in the overall mix of workouts, we'll see whether time permits it.
Gul's November workout set is a great example of "functional fitness" I must say. Very well thought out!
Yeah, the trainers at my Y are really good, and put together great combinations geared toward both resistance and cardio training. That's a typical set, but by no means the only one. They put up a different sequence every week that gets your heart up, and keeps you working hard for the full hour. Not as obvious in that particular list, but often there is quite a bit of balance and other body coordination work thrown in too.
Here's an interesting article on weight and health: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/01/06/ditch-the-diet-and-live-longer-in-spite-of-the-experts/ Seems that it is actually healthier to be "overweight" if we go by CDC BMI guidelines. I've never been a fan of BMI as a measurement, and have generally speaking always been considered over weight by that standard. After reading the article, I decided to weigh myself, which I hadn't done in quite some time. I was shocked to discover that my BMI was 29, which is closing in on "obesity." I am without question leaner than I was back when my BMI was 26, so obviously I've traded fat for muscle, and gained weight accordingly. It's a stupid measurement, and I'm glad to see that yet another study backs the idea that we are looking at the wrong indicators.
Yeah, I read that. To me it sings "correlation does not equal causation" in spades. Because it doesn't take into account that healthy people are more likely to die in accidents while out being active. It is a lot harder to get hit by a car if you're sitting on the couch eating Cheetos and watching "Here Comes Honey Boo-Boo" than you are running a 10k.
Sure, that's a good point. If you are healthy because you ride a bike all over town, you also are at greater risk of being hit by a car and killed. But the point remains that weight is very often not a good health indicator.
BMI is for skinny ass no muscle Euroweenies. BMI doesn't take into consideration muscle mass. Myself and almost every soldier (especially NCO's) worth his salt is over BMI. But I wouldn't fuck with any one of us. And yes, the average soldier can catch you if you run away, and destroy you when they catch you.
I'm guessing that the Army guy pictured is in the "Wounded Warrior" program and is awaiting medical discharge due to combat injuries. Getting hit with an IED tends to take the wind out of your sails. Trust me, the Army bodyfat standards are not that much different than The Marines. I see a lot of guys on a daily basis that are blind, missing limbs, etc. that are at the gym at least trying to lead a normal life. If someone is extremely fat, they are probably on their way out. Just sayin'
Here's an article attempting to analyze the best places to live for achieving fitness goals. They looked at indicators like access to healthy food, gym proximity, percentage of walk/bike commuting, etc. http://www.theatlanticcities.com/ar.../01/best-cities-shed-those-extra-pounds/4360/ The best cities for fitness by these metrics were mostly expensive cities like San Francisco and Boston. The idea is that natural amenities (such as access to outdoor recreation) are high demand locations, pushing up the cost of living. Likewise, higher income types who can afford to live in these locations are more likely to spend money on gym memberships or recreational equipment. The map they create correlates closely both with income maps and with obesity maps. In general, it would seem that fitness levels are directly correlated with income levels. This is a shame, because it doesn't actually cost much to embrace a healthy lifestyle. It's possible to get a complete workout using just your body and a park, for example. [yt=Free Workout at a Park]Zmu5GiZI96Q[/yt]
Yup. I do a variety of pull-ups, ab exercises, push-ups, and I'm planning to dig the dumbbells back out too. Then I run in the neighborhood. Very minimal equipment. If I were really ambitious I'd work out a sort of "Fartlek" course to run. (I think the European definition of "Fartlek" is a bit different from the Marines'.) To do that I would plan a run in such a way that, at regular intervals, I would hit things like playground equipment/soccer goals that I could do pullups on, park benches to use for dips and incline push-ups, and then just landmarks to stop at to do things like mountain climbers, star jumps, and such. Run for, say, 4 blocks, stop and do strength training, run some more, do another calisthenic, run some more. It will kick your ass. And is relatively fun.
And here is my opinion on that. Most (but not all of course) people with low incomes have personality styles that aren't compatible with good fitness. That is to say they lack the discipline, intellectual curiosity, optimism and stick-to-it attitude. These are attributes that also factor into a successful career with a good income. Success breeds more success in other words.
I'm starting to mull the idea of doing the tough mudder. The instructors for the obstacle racing class I take have registered and are trying get people in the class to join them, the idea being that we'd run it as a group. The thing is, the course is 10-12 miles, and the furthest I've ever run is about 5. But people keep telling me the running isn't so hard because the physical challenges break it up in to manageable pieces. I'm not sure I buy this theory, but I decided to test it this morning. I went to do my normal weight lifting routine, which I typically break up in to 4 or 5 segments with a cardio routine intervening between each section. This time I broke it up so that there would be 10 cardio breaks, each consisting of a half mile run. The good news is that running 5 miles in this fashion wasn't too bad ( I haven't done anything more than a 5K in quite a while, and mostly I just do sprints). But when I got to the end, and thought about the concept of doing it all a second time, well, that doesn't sound so good at all. So we have the fact that I wasn't too put out by completing a simulated half course, but then there are two questions. Could I do half a mile 20 times? Could I do that along with the physical challenges which will likely be harder than the weight lifting I did today? I have run a shorter version of this, the Spartan Sprint, which was about 4 miles. It wasn't too hard, but I definitely took it quite slow, because about a third of the way through, my wife sprained her ankle (tore 2 ligaments) and I wasn't about to take off and leave her behind. So I don't know how that compares to longer and more aggressive, which is what the mudder would be with a group from the gym. I'm definitely closer to the idea of doing this, but still not quite ready to take the plunge.
The other day I went to for my annual physical. The doctor said my weight is okay, my BMI being slightly higher than recommended. He said I'm thin by American standards but not by European. I think BMI is bogus when you don't factor in muscle. More proof BMI doesn't tell the whole story: my blood analysis and blood pressure say I'm in tip-top condition. In the dirt bad cholesterol, through the roof good cholesterol, low blood pressure, low pulse rate, etc. etc. If I were put on a treadmill (don't have those facilities there, and I'm not using more vacation time for doctor visits) I'd blow that out of the water too. My point (and I've seen this a million times in the military) is "skinny" people are often outperformed physically by folks packing a little around the middle.
I still haven't registered for the Mudder, but am pretty certain that I'm going to give it a shot. Quite a few people from the class are going to run it, and I feel that my fitness level is probably in the top half of that group. We've started an informal Saturday group for practicing trail running, and last Saturday was the first time out. We ran 3.5 miles on a very hilly course that was muddy, icy, and on several sections still covered in a fairly deep snow. Tough running in snow, especially on a hill, but it was fun. The plan for this Saturday is five miles, but I'm not sure the trail conditions will be viable, considering the storm we are having. We'll see! On a somewhat related note, I did the most burpees tonight that I've ever done, which was 125. I hesitate to say I'm getting good at them, because they never feel quite right after the first 20 or so, but I'll settle for competent.
Thanks for rep bumping this, Vignette! Since the last post, I've done three more weekend trail runs: 5 miles 7 miles 4.5 miles The 5 and 7 both had ice and snow (in fact the 7 was basically all snow), but the 4.5 was on a nice, clear path. Running in the snow is really tough, especially when it's more than an inch or two on the ground. I wasn't at all sorry to see it gone this past Saturday. But without that challenge and a shorter distance, we decided to throw some other things in to the mix, stopping now and then to carry logs, do overhead squats with logs held above our heads, mid-trail pushups, etc. I'm going to miss the next few weeks for a variety of reasons. Hopefully I won't fall too far behind the rest of the group. We have two months before the mudder. Every workout is going to count.
