the exercise & workout thread

[AntRobertson]

Seems like you've started with a conclusion (an incorrect one too: lifting weights makes you big and bulky) and are working backwards from there.

[Sumbitch]

Backward Logic:

Proofs are discovered by working backwards: we get clear first about what we want to prove; then consider next what we would need to show, to get that result easily; then consider after that what prior step is needed to show this; and so on, until we arrive at something we can show straightaway.

[Neverna]

Lifting weights can help increase punching power. The initial explosion to get speed comes from your muscles. Muscles can be trained to be fast even with weights. And the final impact with the technique he described (his "snapping") needs the muscles to be contracted. Weak muscles at contraction/impact will be less effective than strong muscles. But as has been said, technique is also important, and I'll add that all-over body conditioning can also help deliver powerful punches.

Better than lifting weight is plyometrics (exercises in which muscles exert maximum force in short intervals of time, with the goal of increasing power (speed-strength)- wikipedia).

Basic information here : Plyometrics Workout For Beginners | The Art of Manliness

Plyometrics are good, too. I recommend them and I have done them (they are good for runners - you'll notice that all but one of the plyometric exercises on the link you provided are for the legs). Plyometrics can be done in conjunction with weight training.

[Sumbitch]

Perota, cat, why are you so down on lifting weights? If you don't explicitly put down an exercise(s), you choose to pretend the logic used by the antagonist supports your conclusion anyway OR you simply flame your antagonist.

For lack of a better word, I'd call you stupidly stubborn.

[Sumbitch]

double post

[Perota]

Seems like you've started with a conclusion (an incorrect one too: lifting weights makes you big and bulky) and are working backwards from there.

Actually all my posts above are based on personal experience. Long story short I used to go to the gym and was lifting weights among other things as everybody else when I had the chance to join a boxing club managed by an old European guy. For a while I went to both places, the gym and the boxing club, but I was feeling something was not smooth. So I asked the coach what kind of lifting weight routine he would advise for a trainee boxer. He just laughed at me and explained what I just repeated in the previous posts.

And again from personal experience, losing 15 Kg in a 2 years period, going for being unable to run more than 500 m without getting dangerously close to apoplexy to routinely going through 2 hours boxing training sessions with people half my age, I can confidently tell you that lifting weight is by far the less efficient way to get in shape.

[Neverna]

It really depends on the "shape" you're in in the first place. If you're 15kg overweight, aerobic exercise like running will probably help you lose weight more easily than weight training - and it will also make you better at running, but if you're a skinny weak thing, doing some weight training will improve your "shape" and give you some strength - but running will make that skinny lad a better runner. Horses for courses. Depends where you are now, where you want to get to and how you want to get there.

[Sumbitch]

I can confidently tell you that lifting weight is by far the less efficient way to get in shape.

What you are telling people is "be like me b/c I had these issues and follow my routine to FTFY"

Your ego is unbearable.

[Perota]

I can confidently tell you that lifting weight is by far the less efficient way to get in shape.

What you are telling people is "be like me b/c I had these issues and follow my routine to FTFY"

Your ego is unbearable.

And you're a fucking retard whose opinion has no value whatsoever.

[Perota]

It really depends on the "shape" you're in in the first place. If you're 15kg overweight, aerobic exercise like running will probably help you lose weight more easily than weight training - and it will also make you better at running, but if you're a skinny weak thing, doing some weight training will improve your "shape" and give you some strength - but running will make that skinny lad a better runner. Horses for courses. Depends where you are now, where you want to get to and how you want to get there.

If you want to gain weight, yes lifting weight has benefits, as said before it is better to gain muscular mass than fat.

[AntRobertson]

Actually all my posts above are based on personal experience. Long story short I used to go to the gym and was lifting weights among other things as everybody else when I had the chance to join a boxing club managed by an old European guy. For a while I went to both places, the gym and the boxing club, but I was feeling something was not smooth. So I asked the coach what kind of lifting weight routine he would advise for a trainee boxer. He just laughed at me and explained what I just repeated in the previous posts.

And again from personal experience, losing 15 Kg in a 2 years period, going for being unable to run more than 500 m without getting dangerously close to apoplexy to routinely going through 2 hours boxing training sessions with people half my age, I can confidently tell you that lifting weight is by far the less efficient way to get in shape.

Well that's great and all but, you know, science. It doesn't agree with you.

And I've seen people lose in excess of 15kg in three months whilst lifting weights. Hardly less efficient.

[Sumbitch]

And you're a fucking retard whose opinion has no value whatsoever.

I don't hold any of my opinions close to heart either, which you repeatably do. Hence, you're a fucktard.

[Sumbitch]

It really depends on the "shape" you're in in the first place. If you're 15kg overweight, aerobic exercise like running will probably help you lose weight more easily than weight training - and it will also make you better at running, but if you're a skinny weak thing, doing some weight training will improve your "shape" and give you some strength - but running will make that skinny lad a better runner. Horses for courses. Depends where you are now, where you want to get to and how you want to get there.

Neverna, you're one person whose opinions I have deep respect for.

Same to you, Ant.

[Perota]

Neverna, you're one person whose opinions I have deep respect for.

Same to you, Ant.

wjblaney, you're pathetic

[Steam]

Actually all my posts above are based on personal experience. Long story short I used to go to the gym and was lifting weights among other things as everybody else when I had the chance to join a boxing club managed by an old European guy. For a while I went to both places, the gym and the boxing club, but I was feeling something was not smooth. So I asked the coach what kind of lifting weight routine he would advise for a trainee boxer. He just laughed at me and explained what I just repeated in the previous posts.

And again from personal experience, losing 15 Kg in a 2 years period, going for being unable to run more than 500 m without getting dangerously close to apoplexy to routinely going through 2 hours boxing training sessions with people half my age, I can confidently tell you that lifting weight is by far the less efficient way to get in shape.

Well that's great and all but, you know, science. It doesn't agree with you.

And I've seen people lose in excess of 15kg in three months whilst lifting weights. Hardly less efficient.

I'd be interested to know the stats behind these people you have claimed to see pal.

How did they shed in excess of 1500 calories of fat weight per day in addition to any fat weight replaced by gained muscle weight by lifting weights.

Were they beginners or longtermers? Were they fit or unfit? Were they obese to begin with? Did they make any dietry changes?

[AntRobertson]

Where do you get '1,500 calories of fat weight per day' from?

Yes they made dietary changes, that's pretty much a given. And you can't/won't gain muscle at a calorie deficit - it's a physiological impossibility. Lifting weights is proven to be more efficient at 'fat burning' than cardio. You guys really need to get away from this notion that simply picking up weights equates to an automatic increase in muscle mass. It simply doesn't work like that.

As to the rest of your questions... How long is a piece of string?

[Steam]

Where do you get '1,500 calories of fat weight per day' from?

15 kilos of fat is 135,000 stored calories. To shift that in 90 days requires a 1500 calories per day deficit.

Yes they made dietary changes, that's pretty much a given.

So it's a wholly specious claim that you can attribute the "efficiency" of their weight loss to the weight lifting per your insinuation.

And you can't/won't gain muscle at a calorie deficit - it's a physiological impossibility.

This says you are wrong Building Muscle in a Caloric Deficit: Is It Possible? | Virtuagym Blog and I agree with it because I've done it.

Lifting weights is proven to be more efficient at 'fat burning' than cardio

Diet is more efficient than either. The only way that lifting weights is more efficient at burning fat than cardio is by building and maintaining calorie hungry unnatural muscle mass.

You guys really need to get away from this notion that simply picking up weights equates to an automatic increase in muscle mass. It simply doesn't work like that.

I've not said that or anything like it. If you are going to argue with someone who knows more about it than you at least argue with reality not your imagination pal.

[AntRobertson]

15 kilos of fat is 135,000 stored calories. To shift that in 90 days requires a 1500 calories per day deficit.

Those are some oddly specific numbers that you're coming up with.

Plus I think your math is off there.

The '1 lb bodyfat = 3,500 calories' is another of those widely held/spread myths (it's more like a range of about 2,800 - 3,700) at even at the high-end 33 lbs (15kg) x 3,700 is 122,100 not 135,000.

So it's a wholly specious claim that you can attribute the "efficiency" of their weight loss to the weight lifting per your insinuation.

Hardly, I just assumed that a concurrent calorie deficit/diet was a given. Clearly I've overestimated the audience. You're not going to be losing weight regardless or what you do eating KFC by the bucket load are you.

What is specious is attributing the "efficiency" comment to me. Perota stated that 'lifting weight is by far the less efficient way to get in shape' and I simply pointed out that weights are more effective than cardio for weight-loss and therefore "hardly less efficient". Because it isn't.

This says you are wrong Building Muscle in a Caloric Deficit: Is It Possible? | Virtuagym Blog and I agree with it because I've done it.

It also says:

"Is it possible to gain muscle when in a negative energy balance?” The answer is yes, but the context and the situation are extremely important!" and goes on to cite two studies: one involving overweight police officers; and the other obese women.

You can also drive your car when it's low on gas especially down a series of hills and declines. It's not very advisable though, particularly if you need to drive back up them.

Further: Can You Build Muscle in a Calorie Deficit?

"In summary, some people can and do build a decent amount of muscle while they’re in a calorie deficit.

But it’s a phenomenon that’s generally limited to people who are very overweight and have never lifted weights before, or those who are returning to exercise after a layoff, where muscle memory comes into play".

Were you a fat cop, an obese woman, or just a regular fatty?

I've not said that or anything like it. If you are going to argue with someone who knows more about it than you at least argue with reality not your imagination pal.

Er someone who knows more about what exactly??

Never mind I shall just bow to your self-declared superior knowledge there, my special little buddy!

[Perota]

.

So it's a wholly specious claim that you can attribute the "efficiency" of their weight loss to the weight lifting per your insinuation.

Hardly, I just assumed that a concurrent calorie deficit/diet was a given. Clearly I've overestimated the audience. You're not going to be losing weight regardless or what you do eating KFC by the bucket load are you.

Here is the main point of contention, at least for me. Don't forget the fitness industry is big business and their main objective is to sell their products, gym membership or food supplement. And, as you Ant, they "assume" that you will read the small prints that say if you want to lose weight the first and most important thing you should do is go on diet.

Then when you "scientifically" compare cardio and lifting weight, you (and the fitness industry) "assume" that you will lift weight continuously for a period of one hour or more when in reality people sit on bench, do 12 reps, take a rest, do 12 more, move to the next machine ... if they work 20 mn in a one hour period it is the absolute maximum *. When you run one hour, you run one hour.

The problem is the science behind the "weight lifting is good for you" is the same as the science from the tobacco industry showing that smoking is not addictive and good for your health. It's not science, it's marketing,


* If you insist on lifting weight I suggest you do 12 reps, one minute push up, rest one minute, 12 reps, one minute burpees, rest ... then continue by following the same pattern alternating reps with abs crunch, plank, rope jumping ... That really works.

[AntRobertson]

And, as you Ant, they "assume" that you will read the small prints that say if you want to lose weight the first and most important thing you should do is go on diet.

It's not small print, it's plain common sense and logic.

The problem is the science behind the "weight lifting is good for you" is the same as the science from the tobacco industry showing that smoking is not addictive and good for your health. It's not science, it's marketing,

Complete, utter, egregious codswallop.

[kmart]

Seems like you've started with a conclusion (an incorrect one too: lifting weights makes you big and bulky) and are working backwards from there.

Actually all my posts above are based on personal experience. Long story short I used to go to the gym and was lifting weights among other things as everybody else when I had the chance to join a boxing club managed by an old European guy. For a while I went to both places, the gym and the boxing club, but I was feeling something was not smooth. So I asked the coach what kind of lifting weight routine he would advise for a trainee boxer. He just laughed at me and explained what I just repeated in the previous posts.

And again from personal experience, losing 15 Kg in a 2 years period, going for being unable to run more than 500 m without getting dangerously close to apoplexy to routinely going through 2 hours boxing training sessions with people half my age, I can confidently tell you that lifting weight is by far the less efficient way to get in shape.

Unless you're training to be a competitive boxer within a specified weight class, (ie; younger than 35 yo), you can easily do both.
I boxed all my life from amateurs as a kid, to still training and sparring with younger guys at 50yo, and I use weights to maintain core and joint / tendon strength -without losing any flexibility.

[Steam]

15 kilos of fat is 135,000 stored calories. To shift that in 90 days requires a 1500 calories per day deficit.

Those are some oddly specific numbers that you're coming up with.

Plus I think your math is off there.

The '1 lb bodyfat = 3,500 calories' is another of those widely held/spread myths (it's more like a range of about 2,800 - 3,700) at even at the high-end 33 lbs (15kg) x 3,700 is 122,100 not 135,000.

So it's a wholly specious claim that you can attribute the "efficiency" of their weight loss to the weight lifting per your insinuation.

Hardly, I just assumed that a concurrent calorie deficit/diet was a given. Clearly I've overestimated the audience. You're not going to be losing weight regardless or what you do eating KFC by the bucket load are you.

What is specious is attributing the "efficiency" comment to me. Perota stated that 'lifting weight is by far the less efficient way to get in shape' and I simply pointed out that weights are more effective than cardio for weight-loss and therefore "hardly less efficient". Because it isn't.

This says you are wrong Building Muscle in a Caloric Deficit: Is It Possible? | Virtuagym Blog and I agree with it because I've done it.

It also says:

"Is it possible to gain muscle when in a negative energy balance?” The answer is yes, but the context and the situation are extremely important!" and goes on to cite two studies: one involving overweight police officers; and the other obese women.

You can also drive your car when it's low on gas especially down a series of hills and declines. It's not very advisable though, particularly if you need to drive back up them.

Further: Can You Build Muscle in a Calorie Deficit?

"In summary, some people can and do build a decent amount of muscle while they’re in a calorie deficit.

But it’s a phenomenon that’s generally limited to people who are very overweight and have never lifted weights before, or those who are returning to exercise after a layoff, where muscle memory comes into play".

Were you a fat cop, an obese woman, or just a regular fatty?

I've not said that or anything like it. If you are going to argue with someone who knows more about it than you at least argue with reality not your imagination pal.

Er someone who knows more about what exactly??

Never mind I shall just bow to your self-declared superior knowledge there, my special little buddy!

Do you always talk down to people when they make a fool of your words?

Anyway get back to me on that when you've finished losing an argument with yourself about how much you know about other people's nutrition and exercise.

I'm an expert and world authority on nutrition and exercise... When it comes to my body. Anyone else, largely no idea.

[PlanK]

Your blood pressure must be through the roof.

Can I get an online diagnosis too?

Blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides.


TIA

[Sumbitch]

Can I get an online diagnosis too?

Blood pressure, cholesterol, triglycerides.

What about PSA, HIV, blood oxygen, BMI?

[PlanK]

^

Good thinking, them too.