Help my wife choose

[DawsonsDada]

Originally posted by: brikis98
Ok, let's go over some basics. What people describe as "being fit" or "getting in shape" is really just the the body's adaptations to exercise or diet. These adaptations may include increased muscle-mass, loss of body fat, increased bone density, increased cardiovascular/respitory endurance, increased stamina, more strength, and so on. However, the key thing to understand is that the adaptations will match exactly & specifically the stimulus the body is presented with.

What that really means is that if you do "light" exercise - such as long, slow distance (LSD) walking, jogging, biking, etc (aka "cardio") - your body will make "light" adaptations. The only stimuli that LSD cardio really presents are the need for your body to deliver oxygen and energy to your muscles (usually just the legs) while in the oxidative (aka aerobic) metabolic pathway. Therefore, the primary adaptations that your body will make are those that increase stamina and cardiovascular endurance in the oxidative metabolic pathway. This form of cardio can also burn a decent amount of calories, which your body will respond to by burning up mass (see below). Finally, cardio is relatively easy to learn and low intensity enough that even the most out of shape people can do at least a little.

Now, obviously, all of the above points are beneficial for overall health and athletic performance. However, consider what's missing: training using LSD cardio alone neglects or even leads to decreases in strength, speed, flexibility, power, bone density and even muscle mass (weight lost during cardio consists of not just fat, but muscle too). It also completely ignores all the energy pathways besides the oxidative ones, including phosphagen and and glycolitic, both if which are important for health & performance. Finally, it often only trains a few parts of the body (the legs) while ignoring the rest and workouts typically take a very long time.

This makes LSD cardio an especially dubious choice when considering the alternative: anaerobic training. This includes weight training, gymnastics, plyometrics, and interval training, all of which present a wide variety of stimuli to the body, leading to numerous adaptations which improve strength, power, flexibility, speed, muscle-mass, coordination and so on. Anaerobic training also burns plenty of calories and is essential in maintaining muscle-mass, meaning that the weight lost will be primarily fat. Anaerobic training can also lead to increases in muscle-mass and the "afterburner effect", both of which effectively boost metabolism. Moreover, and this is essential to understand, properly structured anaerobic activity can lead to MASSIVE improvements in aerobic fitness (including stamina & endurance in the oxidative pathway) that typically rival and beat what you can achieve with just LSD cardio. Anyone who has done Tabata intervals, the CF workout "Fran", or 20 rep squats should know exactly what I mean.

In short, anaerobic training lets you achieve all the same goals that "cardio" does, usually in a shorter time and more effectively. It also provides numerous training adaptations that LSD cardio doesn't which are essential whether your goal is weight loss, athletic performance, or overall health. It's certainly not the only choice, but as we all have a finite time in which to exercise, it's probably one of the most effective ones. Of course, one big caveat should be mentioned: no matter what routine you do, diet is going to be an essential component. For more reading on all of this, make sure you read the excellent "What is Fitness?" article.

With all that in mind, a good strength training routine such as Stronglifts or Starting Strength are excellent choices. For overall fitness & health, an even better choice would be Crossfit. Yes, CF may seem extremely hardcore and difficult, but as explained in "What is Crossfit?":

The CrossFit program is designed for universal scalability making it the perfect application for any committed individual regardless of experience. We?ve used our same routines for elderly individuals with heart disease and cage fighters one month out from televised bouts. We scale load and intensity; we don?t change programs.

The needs of Olympic athletes and our grandparents differ by degree not kind. Our terrorist hunters, skiers, mountain bike riders and housewives have found their best fitness from the same regimen.

Of course, to do CF properly, you need access to the proper equipment, which typically means a gym membership. What is this traumatic gym experience she had that prevents her from going? I don't mean to sound like an ass, but it really just sounds like an excuse. Even so, if you really can't get access to any equipment, here is a PDF of CF workouts that use bodyweight or minimal equipment.

 

[DawsonsDada]

Originally posted by: brikis98
Ok, let's go over some basics. What people describe as "being fit" or "getting in shape" is really just the the body's adaptations to exercise or diet. These adaptations may include increased muscle-mass, loss of body fat, increased bone density, increased cardiovascular/respitory endurance, increased stamina, more strength, and so on. However, the key thing to understand is that the adaptations will match exactly & specifically the stimulus the body is presented with.

What that really means is that if you do "light" exercise - such as long, slow distance (LSD) walking, jogging, biking, etc (aka "cardio") - your body will make "light" adaptations. The only stimuli that LSD cardio really presents are the need for your body to deliver oxygen and energy to your muscles (usually just the legs) while in the oxidative (aka aerobic) metabolic pathway. Therefore, the primary adaptations that your body will make are those that increase stamina and cardiovascular endurance in the oxidative metabolic pathway. This form of cardio can also burn a decent amount of calories, which your body will respond to by burning up mass (see below). Finally, cardio is relatively easy to learn and low intensity enough that even the most out of shape people can do at least a little.

Now, obviously, all of the above points are beneficial for overall health and athletic performance. However, consider what's missing: training using LSD cardio alone neglects or even leads to decreases in strength, speed, flexibility, power, bone density and even muscle mass (weight lost during cardio consists of not just fat, but muscle too). It also completely ignores all the energy pathways besides the oxidative ones, including phosphagen and and glycolitic, both if which are important for health & performance. Finally, it often only trains a few parts of the body (the legs) while ignoring the rest and workouts typically take a very long time.

This makes LSD cardio an especially dubious choice when considering the alternative: anaerobic training. This includes weight training, gymnastics, plyometrics, and interval training, all of which present a wide variety of stimuli to the body, leading to numerous adaptations which improve strength, power, flexibility, speed, muscle-mass, coordination and so on. Anaerobic training also burns plenty of calories and is essential in maintaining muscle-mass, meaning that the weight lost will be primarily fat. Anaerobic training can also lead to increases in muscle-mass and the "afterburner effect", both of which effectively boost metabolism. Moreover, and this is essential to understand, properly structured anaerobic activity can lead to MASSIVE improvements in aerobic fitness (including stamina & endurance in the oxidative pathway) that typically rival and beat what you can achieve with just LSD cardio. Anyone who has done Tabata intervals, the CF workout "Fran", or 20 rep squats should know exactly what I mean.

In short, anaerobic training lets you achieve all the same goals that "cardio" does, usually in a shorter time and more effectively. It also provides numerous training adaptations that LSD cardio doesn't which are essential whether your goal is weight loss, athletic performance, or overall health. It's certainly not the only choice, but as we all have a finite time in which to exercise, it's probably one of the most effective ones. Of course, one big caveat should be mentioned: no matter what routine you do, diet is going to be an essential component. For more reading on all of this, make sure you read the excellent "What is Fitness?" article.

With all that in mind, a good strength training routine such as Stronglifts or Starting Strength are excellent choices. For overall fitness & health, an even better choice would be Crossfit. Yes, CF may seem extremely hardcore and difficult, but as explained in "What is Crossfit?":

The CrossFit program is designed for universal scalability making it the perfect application for any committed individual regardless of experience. We?ve used our same routines for elderly individuals with heart disease and cage fighters one month out from televised bouts. We scale load and intensity; we don?t change programs.

The needs of Olympic athletes and our grandparents differ by degree not kind. Our terrorist hunters, skiers, mountain bike riders and housewives have found their best fitness from the same regimen.

Of course, to do CF properly, you need access to the proper equipment, which typically means a gym membership. What is this traumatic gym experience she had that prevents her from going? I don't mean to sound like an ass, but it really just sounds like an excuse. Even so, if you really can't get access to any equipment, here is a PDF of CF workouts that use bodyweight or minimal equipment.

In answer to your question above, she was attacked/raped after coming out of a gym by an psychotic ex when she was in her mid 20's. He was caught but got off on a technicality. She was in the hospital from her injuries for about two weeks. The physical damage/scars faded years ago. The emotional has taken far longer. This is the primary cause of why she will not go to a gym of any kind right now. We have talked about it and it is just something she is not ready to do under any circumstances. I have told her that it is entirely her choice when it comes to that and I will support her decision no matter what.

 

[DawsonsDada]

I want to Thank all of you for your help so far!

We spent the weekend out walking some trails with our boys and packed some lunches to take along. She didn't really think of it as "exercise" but we managed to get our heart rate up a bit while doing it.

We will try doing some body weight exercises (Thanks CLite for the CF article and to KoolDrewl for the intial idea) as time progress's. A friend of hers from our church is a licensed personal trainer that said she would be willing to come over some time to show her how to do some body weight exercises too.

Changing our diet's/food intake also began this weekend with a grocery trip. No junk food for once but lots of fruits/vegetables and some whole grain crackers for snacks. A friend of hers from our church is a licensed personal trainer that said she would be willing to come over some time to show her how to do

Thanks for everything so far!

Please feel free to offer any other ideas suggestions you think of!

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: DawsonsDada
I want to Thank all of you for your help so far!

We spent the weekend out walking some trails with our boys and packed some lunches to take along. She didn't really think of it as "exercise" but we managed to get our heart rate up a bit while doing it.

We will try doing some body weight exercises (Thanks CLite for the CF article and to KoolDrewl for the intial idea) as time progress's. A friend of hers from our church is a licensed personal trainer that said she would be willing to come over some time to show her how to do some body weight exercises too.

Changing our diet's/food intake also began this weekend with a grocery trip. No junk food for once but lots of fruits/vegetables and some whole grain crackers for snacks. A friend of hers from our church is a licensed personal trainer that said she would be willing to come over some time to show her how to do

Thanks for everything so far!

Please feel free to offer any other ideas suggestions you think of!

I haven't linked an article in this thread, your thanks should probably be directed at another. Anyways, sounds like you both have a good start, and hopefully having a friend who is a personal trainer will help with the motivation factor. Best of luck!

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: DawsonsDada
In answer to your question above, she was attacked/raped after coming out of a gym by an psychotic ex when she was in her mid 20's. He was caught but got off on a technicality. She was in the hospital from her injuries for about two weeks. The physical damage/scars faded years ago. The emotional has taken far longer. This is the primary cause of why she will not go to a gym of any kind right now. We have talked about it and it is just something she is not ready to do under any circumstances. I have told her that it is entirely her choice when it comes to that and I will support her decision no matter what.

Understood. Consider my question withdrawn 🙂

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: CLite
Sociallychallenged, please link more than two books you base your research on (stronglifts/crossfit????). My experience is based on having been in track for essentially all my years of schooling excluding graduate school. I've known hundreds of cross country runners, Bucknell being a NCAA-div 1 school (albeit patriot league) they were damn good runners. Those cross country runners didn't have high body fat %, in fact they were far lower than any of us track guys who incorporated a lot of weight training and explosive power training (i.e. running with weights/etc.).

You guys sound exactly like people who have just read the Atkins book and run around screaming about how research has proven you don't need carbohydrates. Get a clue, and realize cardio is an exceptional part of a workout and will not leave you "skinny-fat" if you combine it with a healthy diet.

All this said, the OP should definitely have the wife do lifting, it's offers incredible protection against osteoporosis. However, clearly I would recommend against listening to the "strongfit" nuts who just like the Atkins people are steering your wife away from a very important part of a balanced fitness program.

So let me get this straight - you ask for others to post books as evidence (btw, "stronglifts" is a website and at best, an e-book, while crossfit is not a book at all), but for you, it's ok to post your own anecdotal stories as evidence? That is laughable.

For example, here's some anecdotal evidence to refute yours: I know a ton of people who are recreational long distance runners and train almost entirely using LSD cardio. No, none of them are elite college athletes as in your example, but then again, neither is the OP's wife or the average person, so this is more directly applicable. What's interesting to note about all of these runners is that, without exception, they are all skinny, scrawny and do NOT have particularly low body fat percentages. A couple of them look outright chubby, none of them perform well at high intensity tasks (e.g. constant stop & go of most sports, any CF workout, etc) and some of them are shockingly weak (struggle to do a 20" box jump, clean and press a 35lb dumbbell, deadlift 135lbs). Many of these folks are marathon runners (including several of the chubby ones), which used to confuse me, since I had believed marathons to be one of the pinnacles of "fitness". However, it now makes perfect sense to me: long bouts of LSD cardio had only offered them very limited adaptations while causing a lot of their muscle mass to waste away. Their "fitness" was extremely limited, both from the perspective of athletic ability and overall health. On the other hand, every time I set foot in a Crossfit gym, I can't help but marvel at the people I see around me. People of all ages who are incredibly strong, fast, flexible and have amazing work capacities. Most of them have far less body fat and more muscle mass than the endurance runners, spend < 30 minutes a day exercising, and are healthier by most measures. And here's the kicker: most of these CFers can do the LSD cardio just as well, and usually better, than the endurance runners! In fact, a number of the CFers I know have run half marathons with no extra training whatsoever and two others have done full marathons while training with less than 20 miles of running per week.

Of course, if you do want some non-anecdotal evidence on the benefits of weight training in regard to cardiovascular fitness, weight loss, and just about everything else, these links should get you started. There are countless more that turned up from google, so I grabbed just a few, but I'm sure you can find MANY more:

* Cardiovascular Adaptations
* Effects of additional resistance training during diet-induced weight loss on bone mineral density in overweight premenopausal women
* 'Resistance training' better for weight loss
* Does strength training have cardiovascular benefits?
* High intensity strength training: more aerobic than "aerobics"
* What is Fitness?

 

[CLite]

Hold the phone brikis98..........

I have never questioned the benefits of weight lifting, in fact I specifically recommended it for the wife due to osteoporosis preventative benefits. I am not the one here recommending people to ignore important parts of a fitness routine. If I was telling someone not to lift you'd have a point buddy, but it is other ignorant people in this thread that are making me reply in defense of cardio. If you are confusing that with a perception that I'm agaisnt weight lifting then you are very mistaken.

edit: Regarding the part about CF people doing better than endurance people with less than 20 mile/week workouts that is laughable arrogant. Since I was a 110m hurdle and high jumper (did 400's in HS), my whole routine was more or less what I see on CF website. I was far more explosive than the XC'ers on our team but they would kick my ass in a 5k/10k. You are sadly ignorant if you link someone strength trianing and light interval training is going to do better in endurance races than a 100 + mile/week runner.

 

[conorvansmack]

My wife used The Firm for about a year and really liked it. She had the "fanny lifter" (step gimmick).

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: CLite
Hold the phone brikis98..........

I have never questioned the benefits of weight lifting, in fact I specifically recommended it for the wife due to osteoporosis preventative benefits. I am not the one here recommending people to ignore important parts of a fitness routine. If I was telling someone not to lift you'd have a point buddy, but it is other ignorant people in this thread that are making me reply in defense of cardio. If you are confusing that with a perception that I'm agaisnt weight lifting then you are very mistaken.

You didn't question the benefits of weight lifting, but you did try to make it seem that it was an absurdly inappropriate choice for the OP's wife, where as cardio was a requirement for and the ultimate path to fitness. For example:

Originally posted by: CLite
Wow guys, we need a reality check in this thread. This woman is looking into getting back in shape and some of you are saying cardio is OPTIONAL? are you guys off your f'ing rockers? She doesn't need to do stronglifts/crossfit or whatever. If she just wants to get back in shape a good cardio workout with some light lifting for toning works great. My girlfriend personally does this, a ton of cardio with Pilates and very light lifting. She has a great body from doing this and has an incredible amount of energy throughout the day.

I think you guys have burning fat/building muscle to a science, but don't delude yourselves. Cardio workouts are impossible to replace in promoting your overall health, and a person can very easily get toned without doing stronglifts/crossfits/maxing weight.

Originally posted by: CLite
No, cardio is indeed NOT optional. She says she wants exercise, cardio is irreplaceable for that, period. It promotes far more cardiovascular benefit than doing 5 reps of barbell weight training. You are taking this weight lifting to the extreme by discouraging people from cardio and your shit straight stinks.

I used to hurdle and high jump in college and my coach was a huge fan of interval training / barbells/ medicine ball work outs. I think you guys have that stuff well covered and explain it to new people in great detail. It's of great benefit to people looking to get ripped and have full body strength. But you are taking it WAY to far if you are recommending to a grown woman looking to get exercise that cardio workouts are optional.

Both of your replies above are utter rubbish, especially the parts in bold. Some of them show a flat out lack of understanding of exercise adaptations (especially the "light lifting for toning" part). Hopefully from my two lengthy replies in this thread, you can see why. Traditional cardio workouts are typically going to be a suboptimal path to fitness for just about everyone, even for a "grown woman". A properly structured resistance training program will produce all the benefits of cardio, plus a ton more, while avoiding all of the drawbacks.

 

[CLite]

Your long replies have shown nothing but arrogance and ignorance based on googling and a couple books. I know for a fact on my experience with hundreds of athletes that a 100+ mile/week runner will beat a strength trainer in 5k + runs. I know for a fact that light lifting and cardio will produce toned bodies with low body fat %'s for women who follow healthy diets.

Your refusal to admit there are other paths to toned low body fat % bodies shows how blind you are to the whole range of fitness options. You base your observations on friends who do long distance on appearance, I base my observations on the fact that our coaches did seasonal tests on a lot of factors including body fat %. The XC'ers were ridiculously low compared to everyone else?s. That is fact.

You have convinced yourself of one aspect of fitness, just like the Atkins people do regarding diet. I feel sorry for you, but I know you will get results just like Atkins people do. Unfortunately you will remain arrogant and ignorant by believing any other fitness path will create unhealthy "skinny-fat" people.

 

[CLite]

Brikis98, just so we are clear looking at crossfit it seems fine to me. It includes a good amount of cardio in some of the workouts, that one with 1 mile, push/pull/crunches, 1 mile looks great.

The only reason I replied to this thread was.
1)

Originally posted by: dealmaster00
with optional cardio mixed in.

2) The "skinny-fat" references.

I apologize if I jumped the gun on callling out crossfit, but with everyone going off about strength training and skinny-fat cardio guys I felt inclined to get involved.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: CLite
Your long replies have shown nothing but arrogance and ignorance based on googling and a couple books.

Yes, my replies are based on books, scientific articles, and years of personal experience. I consider that far more credible than your anecdotal evidence. The fact that you shrug those other sources off as "ignorance" says more about you than about me.

Originally posted by: CLite
I know for a fact on my experience with hundreds of athletes that a 100+ mile/week runner will beat a strength trainer in 5k + runs.

I never disputed that. I have no doubt that someone who is an elite runner (you must be to do 100+ miles/week) - a specialist in long distances - is probably going to win a long distance running event over someone who does strength training. Of course, this is a completely hypothetical and baseless discussion without defining how the runner or strength athlete actually train, but I'd wager that the runner will probably lose in every other physical contest - anything that involves strength, power, coordination, flexibility, the need to perform at high intensities and so on. And as far as physical health, my money is still on the person that does strength training: more muscle mass, greater bone density, stronger tendons & ligaments, better metabolism, greater flexibility, etc. But even more importantly, while you keep harping about elite runners, the OP's wife is most likely an average person. So a far more appropriate comparison is how an average person who trains with only LSD running will fare against an average person who trains with a CF style routine. In that comparison, I'd say that the two would likely be equal in even the 5k+ runs, and the CF person would win in every other category.

Originally posted by: CLite
I know for a fact that light lifting and cardio will produce toned bodies with low body fat %'s for woman who follow healthy diets.

Following a healthy diet can produce a low body fat percentage in just about anyone, regardless of diet. Moreover, the question is not only of whether "light lifting and cardio" work - for they are certainly better than being sedentary - but whether they work as quickly/effectively as other alternatives. Again, we all have finite time to train, so it's important to pick the optimal routine for your goals. I submit that a routine that only uses LSD cardio and "light lifting" will be a much less effective way to become fit & healthy compared to properly structured anaerobic training.

Originally posted by: CLite
Your refusal to admit there are other paths to toned low body fat % bodies shows how blind you are to the whole range of fitness options.

Re-read my first reply in this thread. I clearly list the benefits of LSD cardio in the second paragraph. It's unquestionably better than doing nothing at all but once again, it's not going to be the most efficient option for most people. You have offered exactly zero evidence to dispute that.

Originally posted by: CLite
You base your observations on friends who do long distance on appearance, I base my observations on the fact that our coaches did seasonal tests on a lot of factors including body fat %. The XC'ers were ridiculously low compared to everyone else?s. That is fact.

Elite runners are not particularly relevant to this thread. I'm sure elite CFers have "ridiculously low" bf%, as do elite weight lifters, elite boxers, and just about elite everything else (heavyweight+ divisions aside). For the OP's wife, it's much more relevant to know what the average person achieves from the different routines available. In my experience, the average person who just does cardio cannot match the results of the average person who does something like Crossfit.

Originally posted by: CLite
You have convinced yourself of one aspect of fitness, just like the Atkins people do regarding diet. I feel sorry for you, but I know you will get results just like Atkins people do. Unfortunately you will remain arrogant and ignorant by believing any other fitness path will create unhealthy "skinny-fat" people.

What the hell does Atkins have to do with any of this?

 

[CLite]

Alright, once again I apologize for calling out CF, it looks like a great work out to me. In this thread I have not been promoting only endurance cardio, I have just been speaking about cardio being beneficial.

Secondly, my referal to Atkin's is a comparison of people who say strength training is the only way to get low body fat %, to Atkin's people saying their diet of choice is the only proper way to get a good diet. Both groups are woefully ignorant, and ignore an important part of diet in Atkin's example, and fitness in the strength training example.

My participation in this thread is really based on dealmaster00 saying cardio is optional and the people who are so convinced that endurance training will lead to skinny-fat. Both schools of thought based in complete ignorance.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: CLite
Alright, once again I apologize for calling out CF, it looks like a great work out to me. In this thread I have not been promoting only endurance cardio, I have just been speaking about cardio being beneficial.

Secondly, my referal to Atkin's is a comparison of people who say strength training is the only way to get low body fat %, to Atkin's people saying their diet of choice is the only proper way to get a good diet. Both groups are woefully ignorant, and ignore an important part of diet in Atkin's example, and fitness in the strength training example.

My participation in this thread is really based on dealmaster00 saying cardio is optional and the people who are so convinced that endurance training will lead to skinny-fat. Both schools of thought based in complete ignorance.

We were talking about OPTIMAL workouts here. I was speaking in reference to a situation in which the OP's wife only had enough time to do either cardio or weightlifting. Also, nearly everything you've said here has been based on anecdotal evidence on what you've seen. Look it up. The skinny-fat situation is real. You can find research on it. As you do cardio with no resistance training to stress the body to maintain muscle mass, you can lose nearly equivalent masses of fat and muscle. That results in a person who is slimmer, but whose body fat % really hasn't dropped. It realistically WILL lead to that situation unless genetics are good or unless there is a sort of resistance training involved. Have you ever looked at a half-marathon or marathon crowd? I sure as hell see a lot of people with fairly high body fat %.

Cardio is very beneficial. His wife said she wanted to look better. In starting out, a novice should jump into one thing at a time as to not get overloaded. I suggest weightlifting because the results will be more clear-cut and visual. Cardio will be great for overall heart, circulatory, etc health. Your comments here have been massively anecdotal, while what we say here is based on research and is noted in textbooks. And really, man, are you gonna call brikis "arrogant" for stating things that oppose your views? One CAN train for a marathon with shorter distances somewhat efficiently without the massive toll on joints and such. I've seen people run 3 hour marathons doing CF workouts. Is that their optimal time? Probably not if they would have run 15 miles every other day, but it's a good balance between strength and endurance.

You haven't dealt with people much it seems because if you try to throw someone into a weightlifting program, have them change their diet, and have them start cardio all at the same time, there is a high likelihood that they will fail. I train people. You start honing in their diet first, then you move to weightlifting. Once they start to see tangible changes, then cardio will be a breeze to introduce. However, a novice can't just jump in. It's a lot to deal with.

So in essence, my response is: cardio IS optional at these beginning stages because weightlifting will be more efficient and that endurance training without any resistance program will often times lead to the skinny-fat situation. I've read at least 5 journals on it. It happens. It's real. Your body doesn't need the big bulky muscle so it breaks it down into amino acids that it can use as energy. If you put a stress on that and make muscle retention a high priority for the body, then you body breaks it down much less. That's why a high protein intake is suggested during this process to maintain muscle mass.

 

[CLite]

SociallyChallenged, my anecdotal evidence is based on how people in track and field train. I am curious if your journals actually did case studies on control groups with people who all have the same basic body chemistry, measuring the progression of body fat % as they continue down their training path. If not then you and your journals are just as anecdotal.

If I were to recommend someone who wanted a cheap introduction to getting fit the following would be key points. Healthy diet, outdoors cardio, and overall strength training. The cheapest strength training would be making use of your body's weight and gravity. Pushups/Supermans/crunches/lunges, are excellent methods for doing this. If someone were to follow this routine they would get excellent results and not become skinny-fat. They don't need to be maxxing with barbells to avoid skinny-fat, it just isn't a requirement. You continuing to press that point just shows that you are taking your journals and books far too seriously.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: CLite
SociallyChallenged, my anecdotal evidence is based on how people in track and field train. I am curious if your journals actually did case studies on control groups with people who all have the same basic body chemistry, measuring the progression of body fat % as they continue down their training path. If not then you and your journals are just as anecdotal.

If I were to recommend someone who wanted a cheap introduction to getting fit the following would be key points. Healthy diet, outdoors cardio, and overall strength training. The cheapest strength training would be making use of your body's weight and gravity. Pushups/Supermans/crunches/lunges, are excellent methods for doing this. If someone were to follow this routine they would get excellent results and not become skinny-fat. They don't need to be maxxing with barbells to avoid skinny-fat, it just isn't a requirement. You continuing to press that point just shows that you are taking your journals and books far too seriously.

Huh? Since when did experiments with controls and experimental groups become anywhere close to anecdotal? There is statistic significance, which is undeniable. That's why they're experiments and they can elicit causation. Same body type? What? Everybody has a different body type. Random distribution of participants is one of the REQUIREMENTS of a true experiment. What you're trying to require is a quasi-experiment, which won't prove anything clearer than a true experiment in this case. Body physiology works the same in everybody unless they have a clear-cut disease. Your body mobilizes fat the same, breaks down muscle the same, etc. There are some universal biological laws that every body must succumb to. Have you ever taken a college course in this stuff? Your views are being stubborn in the face of fact. That's not a very reliable way to go about things.

Bodyweight is a sort of resistance. I have repeated that resistance training is necessary. Why do you think gymnasts can be so lean and strong? Leverage along with bodyweight. I'm saying that if somebody did only cardio that they would lose both muscle and fat (as I have said repeatedly). This often results in a similar body fat % at a smaller overall mass. This is how your body works. You can't argue it. Go read any exercise physiology book and it will explain to you how different stresses have different effects on the body. I have read those books. My major is exercise biology. What you're saying has no basis and you're trying to state that your opinion (which has been proved wrong many years ago) is right.

 

[CLite]

Please reread my post which you quoted, I said they are anecdotal if they did not perform experimental studies with control groups. You are the one being stubborn in the face of fact, millions of athletes across the world exercise almost exclusively with cardio and do not become skinny-fat. Your implication is that skinnny-fat is 100% biological fact, when the truth is that it isn't. Perhaps it could occur in some people, it ignores the fact that running to your maximum potential strengthens your core muscles which helps to inhibit their loss in your idealized fat/protein loss scenario.

I see you agree that bodyweight is a sort of resistance, however earlier you mentioned "light" lifting would produce no benefits. From that I assumed you were implying that barbell maxing was necessary, that is the point I strongly disagreed with.

My simple question for you is do you truly believe someone who is doing challenging cardio (fast-paced, hills... but still aerobic), is going to loss the same protein/fat ratio as someone who is just cutting via diet (i.e. no exercise)? There is a correct answer to this question, which also explains why you do not see masses of skinny-fat athletes.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: CLite
Please reread my post which you quoted, I said they are anecdotal if they did not perform experimental studies with control groups. You are the one being stubborn in the face of fact, millions of athletes across the world exercise almost exclusively with cardio and do not become skinny-fat. Your implication is that skinnny-fat is 100% biological fact, when the truth is that it isn't. Perhaps it could occur in some people, it ignores the fact that running to your maximum potential strengthens your core muscles which helps to inhibit their loss in your idealized fat/protein loss scenario.

I see you agree that bodyweight is a sort of resistance, however earlier you mentioned "light" lifting would produce no benefits. From that I assumed you were implying that barbell maxing was necessary, that is the point I strongly disagreed with.

My simple question for you is do you truly believe someone who is doing challenging cardio (fast-paced, hills... but still aerobic), is going to loss the same protein/fat ratio as someone who is just cutting via diet (i.e. no exercise)? There is a correct answer to this question, which also explains why you do not see masses of skinny-fat athletes.

See, the problem here is that I'm not talking about an athlete. Often times, endurance athletes put such a toll on their bodies that they lose a large amount of lean muscle mass and almost all of their fat. That is why olympic distance runners are so unhealthily lean. I'm talking about the average person just trying to look good. People could go through a skinny-fat phase while cutting. If they continued to increase intensity and length of workouts, eventually the body would have a default where it would refuse to break muscle down and would turn primarily to lipidolysis. I would imagine that they then would start to look more like endurance athletes. However, skinny-fat would be a phase if they started out overweight. I'm not exactly encouraging people to look like those endurance athletes either since what they do isn't exactly something that is great for their body either at times.

Also, at no point did I say that light lifting would produce no benefits. However, it may possibly produce lesser benefits due to putting a lesser stress on the body to retain and repair lean muscle mass.

 

[CLite]

I agree endurance athletes are unhealthy in that regard. Regarding the gauranteed skinny-fat phase, as I asked before do you believe an overweight person who is biking or running at intense aerobic levels is going to lose the same amount of muscle as someone who is cutting with the exact same diet and caloric deficiency (i.e. say 2000/2500, vs. 2500/3000, same protein/fat/carb ratios).

My point is that the cardio exercise does promote core muscle retention more so than just cutting via diet. It is great for stabilizing muscles if you run outside, and also for core stomach muscles if you incorporate hills in your run plan. I believe your hypothetical skinny-fat people are probably doing cardio workouts that are not intense enough, and also are not dieting correctly (i.e. not injesting enough protein after workouts).

Anyways, I'm NOT promoting a cardio-only workout, I never have in this thread. I responded in defense of cardio because of people promoting strength-training only workouts. My personal opinion is that you should balance everything.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: CLite
I see you agree that bodyweight is a sort of resistance, however earlier you mentioned "light" lifting would produce no benefits. From that I assumed you were implying that barbell maxing was necessary, that is the point I strongly disagreed with.

Something important to point out: just because you are using your bodyweight does not make it "light" lifting. You can say a lot of things about doing planches, l-sits, front or back levers, handstand push-ups, pistols or anything on the still rings, but you would never call them "light". And for the average woman, even push-ups, air squats, pull-ups, sit-ups are very far from "light".

The key thing to understand is that "light lifting" is about using high reps (12+) on each exercise, which is another way of saying you are using only a tiny percentage of your 1RM on that exercise. This is the kind of thing you see many women do at the gym: pick up a 5lb dumbbell and do a tricep extension with it 25 times, thinking it'll help them get rid of arm flab. This sort of light lifting has very few benefits. Sure, you can boost your muscular endurance, which does have some application in athletics and yes, you'll burn some calories. However, it's not nearly as effective as "heavy" lifting for maintaining or increasing muscle mass, strength, power, bone density, etc. Even more importantly, unless the weight used is constantly increased - that is, the light lifting progressively uses heavier and heavier loads - it will not have ANY effect after the initial adaptation period. As I've said before, the body adapts exactly and specifically to the stimulus it is presented with. If someone does the same exact "light lifting" routine over and over again, the body will make the light adaptations to handle that lifting and NO MORE.

Many people completely lack this understanding and end up doing the same exercise, with the same weight and same number of reps, over and over again. This is especially true of women because they fear using heavier weights, which means that after the initial adaptation period, their level of fitness and health does not improve AT ALL despite their valiant attempts to exercise. In other words, there is nothing wrong with using just bodyweight exercises: gymnasts are a testament to how effective this is. However, you MUST continue to increase the difficulty of the exercise in order to improve your fitness, which means eventually you will be doing things that are harder and harder. Moreover, most of the adaptations we want when getting in shape respond most efficiently when we train with relatively high percentages of our 1RM. Sure, you can maintain/build muscle, strength and power by doing sets of 50 reps, but you'll accomplish all of those MUCH faster using sets of 10 reps with an appropriate increase in weight.

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: CLite
I agree endurance athletes are unhealthy in that regard. Regarding the gauranteed skinny-fat phase, as I asked before do you believe an overweight person who is biking or running at intense aerobic levels is going to lose the same amount of muscle as someone who is cutting with the exact same diet and caloric deficiency (i.e. say 2000/2500, vs. 2500/3000, same protein/fat/carb ratios).

My point is that the cardio exercise does promote core muscle retention more so than just cutting via diet. It is great for stabilizing muscles if you run outside, and also for core stomach muscles if you incorporate hills in your run plan. I believe your hypothetical skinny-fat people are probably doing cardio workouts that are not intense enough, and also are not dieting correctly (i.e. not injesting enough protein after workouts).

Anyways, I'm NOT promoting a cardio-only workout, I never have in this thread. I responded in defense of cardio because of people promoting strength-training only workouts. My personal opinion is that you should balance everything.

No, I don't think that the aerobic participant will lose the same amounts as someone who is just focusing on diet. In fact, research shows that this is the case as well. However, I was talking optimal situation and heavy lifting is just that.

Skinny-fat people are not hypothetical. It happens. If you do intense enough cardio, it ceases to be aerobic at which point muscle retention becomes a dominant priority once again. Perhaps we should be talking in terms of aerobic and anaerobic for better clarification, but we've already made a mess of this thread anyhow.

 

[CLite]

Originally posted by: brikis98
Sure, you can maintain/build muscle, strength and power by doing sets of 50 reps, but you'll accomplish all of those MUCH faster using sets of 10 reps with an appropriate increase in weight.

To nitpick on one thing, having been reading up on Crossfit because of this thread. They incorporate tons of 50 rep exercises involving pullups/pushups/squats/etc. Clearly the creators of those programs don't believe sticking with just 10 reps will accomplish goals much faster.

With regards to SC's comment about anaerobic exercise I guess it depends on the threshold. I more or less began this thread discussing cardio, I would consider a run workout with hills and an ending 2+ minute sprint to be a good cardio workout, my 30 minute runs usually involve those 2 components. I apologize if I diverged to the aerobic designation incorrectly.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: CLite

Originally posted by: brikis98
Sure, you can maintain/build muscle, strength and power by doing sets of 50 reps, but you'll accomplish all of those MUCH faster using sets of 10 reps with an appropriate increase in weight.

To nitpick on one thing, having been reading up on Crossfit because of this thread. They incorporate tons of 50 rep exercises involving pullups/pushups/squats/etc. Clearly the creators of those programs don't believe sticking with just 10 reps will accomplish goals much faster.

There you go again babbling about Crossfit when you admitted yourself you know nothing about it. Fine, let me hold your hand and walk you through the explanation here as well:

1. Crossfit routinely includes "max effort" style workouts, such as "Front squat 3-3-3-3-3", "Deadlift 1-1-1-1-1-1-1", "Back squat 5-5-5-5-5", "Crossfit Total" (back squat 1RM, OH press 1RM, deadlift 1RM) and so on. These are low rep workouts where the goal is to lift as much weight as possible for the prescribed number of reps - in other words "heavy lifting". Although the order of workouts is constantly varied in CF, it averages out to about 2 max effort style workouts per week. Considering that CF is a GPP (general physical preparedness) routine, that should give you some idea of how important "heavy lifting" is to overall fitness.

2. Virtually all the high rep workouts are done "for time" or "as many rounds as possible in X minutes". Such workouts are referred to as "metcon" (metabolic conditioning) and are CF's version of "cardio" (which you would know if you had read the "What is Fitness" article I linked previously). The goal of these workouts is to develop your work capacity as much as possible. To accomplish this, CF uses tons of high intensity workouts, most often done in intervals and usually with anaerobic exercises (they are still anaerobic, even if done for high reps). We are not doing a set of 20 tricep extensions, chatting with friends for 15 minutes, watching TV, and doing another set of 15. The intensity of these workouts cannot be understood until you try them and you cannot underestimate the hormonal impact of such high intensity workouts, even if they are done for "high reps". Now, "work capacity" is a bit vague, but it primarily trains endurance & stamina and in many cases, does it far better than LSD cardio. Of course, at the same time, these anaerobic movements DO develop strength, power, help maintain/increase muscle mass and so on - and they do all that far better than LSD cardio - but that is not their primary goal and is why the "max effort" workouts are included.

3. The goal in every single CF workout is to beat your PR from the last time you did it. This means even if using the same weight (such as on the high rep workouts you referred to), you are pushing yourself harder each and every time. Translation: you are constantly increasing the difficulty from workout to workout. This allows your body to continue making adaptations and allows your level of fitness to continue increasing. Many people who do high reps - especially the average woman at the gym - do not increase the difficulty, so this mentality makes an enormous difference.

4. The weights used in many of the high rep workouts are not light in the way the average person defines it. That is, CF workouts aren't exactly saying "do 50 reps with a 5lb dumbbell". For example, this workout involved 21-15-9 reps of 225lb deadlift, this one included 155lb hang squat cleans, and "Mr. Joshua" includes 5 sets of 15 reps of 250lb deadlift. The weights are light enough that you can do high reps but still heavy enough to produce increases in strength/power/muscle mass/bone density/etc, even if the actual goal of these metcon workouts is work capacity. Also worth mentioning is that even these "light" weights are too heavy for many people, so a lot of folks scale the workouts down until they get strong enough to handle the workouts as Rx'd. This is VERY different than "high rep" and "light weight" the way most people approach it at the gym.

 

[CLite]

In following your list format.

1) stop posting walls of text

2) stop associating me with LSD-cardio. I posted to this thread to promote general cardio which dealmaster said was optional. My first post was that cardio is irreplacable for cardiovascular health. Please find the point in that post where I said LSD cardio is the only cardio for this. If people choose to do this via anaerobic exercise that is fine.

3) I only started started talking about LSD-Cardio when someone retardly said that a 100+ mile / week runner would be beaten in marathons by an interval/strength trainer. My contention was that is incorrect. I NEVER said the long distance runner was in better "fitness", I just pointed out he could beat a strength trainer in endurance runs.

 

[brikis98]

Originally posted by: CLite
1) stop posting walls of text

Well, if you stop posting inaccurate rubbish, I won't have to waste so much time and text correcting you.

Originally posted by: CLite
2) stop associating me with LSD-cardio. I posted to this thread to promote general cardio which dealmaster said was optional. My first post was that cardio is irreplacable for cardiovascular health. Please find the point in that post where I said LSD cardio is the only cardio for this. If people choose to do this via anaerobic exercise that is fine.

First of all, you're contradicting yourself in this post. You first say that "cardio is irreplaceable for cardiovascular health" but then go on to say "if people choose to do this via anaerobic exercise that is fine". Those two sentences are not compatible: if it's "fine" for people to improve their cardiovascular health through anaerobic exercise, then clearly, cardio IS replaceable.

One of the difficulties in this thread is that you never properly defined "cardio", possibly because you don't understand yourself what it is. The typical definition of "cardio" is simply "aerobic exercise", most frequently in the form of LSD walking, jogging, biking, etc. You keep harping about how "cardio" is irreplaceable for cardiovascular health, even though it has been shown numerous times that anaerobic exercise can produce all of the same benefits of traditional cardio (cardiovascular health, stamina, weight loss). However, anaerobic training can also offer numerous other benefits that cardio usually doesn't (strength, power, increased muscle mass, increased bone density, etc) and reduces many of the drawbacks of LSD cardio (loss of LBM). If for some stupid reason you could only do aerobic training or anaerobic training, the latter would be a better choice for most people. Of course, there's is no reason to arbitrarily limit yourself to one or the other, and a proper fitness routine (such as Crossfit) contains appropriate amounts of both.

Originally posted by: CLite
3) I only started started talking about LSD-Cardio when someone retardly said that a 100+ mile / week runner would be beaten in marathons by an interval/strength trainer.

Actually, you were the one who brought up the 100+ mile/week runner. Other people brought up examples of Crossfitters who have run half and full marathons with minimal LSD training as an example of how tremendous endurance, stamina and cardiovascular health can be built w/o resorting to traditional "cardio". And as I've said before, discussing elite runners in this thread is as useless as discussing elite weightlifters. Far more relevant is the average Joe who could train primarily via LSD cardio or via a program that includes a signficant anaerobic component, such as Crossfit. In that case, I again say that the latter will do just as well in the LSD cardio events and perform better in just about everything else.

Originally posted by: CLite
My contention was that is incorrect. I NEVER said the long distance runner was in better "fitness", I just pointed out he could beat a strength trainer in endurance runs.

Since the OP's wife is primarily concerned with overall fitness and health, then this statement simply agrees with what everyone else has been saying: cardio alone is not the optimal choice.