Posts by nameless_shape_shifter

Original Post by susiecue:

Original Post by nameless_shape_shifter:

There are plenty of 'peer reviewed' research on specific psychiatric drugs, very few of which point out their hazardous long term effects. There is, on the other hand, very little peer reviewed research on the effect of most herbal remedies for many of the problems we face. The reasons for this are obvious.

 Yes, they are.  Many herbal remedies, as marketed, are inconsistent from batch to batch.  So much so that one bought in July might work beautifully and the same thing bought in August might do absolutely nothing.  How do you study the effectiveness of something that's constantly changing?

I suspect what you're implying is that there's no financial incentive to study them, but that's not true.  Herbal remedies get patented all the time, and the companies who market them would *love* to be able to back up their product with scientific publications (real ones - not something someone made up and posted on a website). 

Despite how it might sound, I'm actually in favour of herbal remedies (but it sure would be nice if they were standardized better and therefore able to be properly studied).  I'm getting the distinct impression you're anti-science though.

1-The consistency of herbal products changes, not because the natural extract itself changes, it is because a lot of  herbal supplements are experimented with by replacing them with placebos, or with intentionally diluted concentrations of the product. And this happens solely in the western world, not in asiatic nations. Ask yourself why. 

2-I am not saying the financial incentive does not exist, but that that incentive is overshadowed by those of the pharmaceutical industry, similarly to how the incentive to market electric automobiles (especially those with decent ranges) is overshadowed by the oil industry. There is a lot more profit in keeping people sick than there is in curing them of their ailments. That is basic wisdom that everyone knows now. That is why it is important to shop for herbal supplements in health food stores that carry alternatives to what they sell in mass produced outlets like GNC.

3-You are getting the wrong impression. Just because I think one study cannot possibly yield results that are all encompassing, pertaining to every individual and every body-type, does not make me anti-science, it makes me pro-choice. And the problem is we do not have enough conscious choices to make as per the amount of research out there. Most 'studies' in this area are undertaken in controlled settings with controlled results, under the supervision of controlled study groups who are invariably the same body type and composition.

That is fine, if you are trying to ascertain the degree to which a specific exercise effects a specific type of individual, but make it clear that this is what you are doing instead of blanketing your results in the notion that they apply to all types, everywhere. That is not true science, that is lazy science. You can make it sound more clever by obfuscating calorie burn stats all you want, but those stats would not apply to someone with a completely different body-type and composition. No, I am not anti-science, I just think science is being misused when it only scratches the surface of something and then tries to pass this off as the holy grail of knowledge. Granted, it might be the holy grail for a specific group of people, but not for all groups of people. 

Original Post by octo-luv:

Original Post by nameless_shape_shifter:

Original Post by octo-luv:

Original Post by trhawley:

" I’ve noticed that people who say they workout and see no result…really don’t know what working-out is. When you workout…you need to FEEL it, I mean really feel it. Just going to the gym, and doing something is not going to get results."

Bingo.

well there's seeing no results & then there's seeing better, faster results. many women i know just can't put on enough muscle like you males, so some have to lift heavier.  & since their time is limited, less cardio & more weights tend to help. its hard for say someone like me, a pear shaped woman, to really get my body shaped. i didn't just want a smaller version of what i looked like before. im not saying that yoga can't shape ones body but it just takes longer for us average women that can't spend all our day exercising. anyway im just rambling here, never mind me.

I think the standards are lop sided with regard to what men must do to be considered physically fit versus what women must. To break it down simplistically, men must gruel over heavy weights at the gym at least 4-5 nights a week and becoming hulking muscle machines. All women have to do is not get fat. 

Okay that is just societies simplistic notion of male versus female criterion for being physically fit/attractive. But what it truly comes down to is stereotyping. I am not saying there are not inherent differences between male and female biology, obviously there is. One of which being reproductive health. It could be that the females reproductive system renders large muscle groups dormant enough to not lead to excessive muscle growth.

Or it could be that fertility has a lot to do with it. Maybe more fertile women, for whatever reason, and relative to estrogen production, cannot grow as much muscle as less fertile women. But then there is the anomaly of female body building, which I think warrants serious study in relation to these items. As I stated before, I have known a woman with arms as big as most men who had her diet completely monitored by her trainer, and was all natural. Either she, and other's like her, are genetic anomalies, or there is one or more correlation to be sought between the forementioned variables. 

In the end I think we need to make it socially acceptable for women to be muscular if they see fit and for men to be more lean, if they see fit. There is a serious cultural Dilemma with regard to both sides of the equation. Even with regard to how much of this phenomenon is genetic versus social, in the end cultural assimilation is one of the most important factors involved in pushing the health of our species forward. Not everyone is going to reach optimum health through the same goals nor for the same reason. 

 well ok fine but my main point was that from my experience women are not really instructed or encouraged to lift heavy enough weights. therefore i think we are now seeing more encouragement (ok maybe to some a little more than they want) to lift heavier & do less cardio. its almost like a little backlash, but there are still women out there who have not really given lifting heavy a real shot.

but like you, its not my goal to be hulk either.

 

Yes but I am not a woman. therefor, according to conventional wisdom, my goal ought to be similar to other men who are working out hard 4-5 days a week. My point is that, while strength is very important, and it does contribute to cardio health, I think separate cardio training definitely yields results as a supplemental work out to other regiments. Basing an outlook on one study is really like basing ones view of drinking orange juice on one study that stated it was bad for you. Especially when that one specific study was geared, consciously or unconsciously, toward a specific outcome while using specific control groups to achieve it. Essentially, in the end, what i am saying is that there is a lot more going on in health and nutrition than any one study can ever claim to be the holy grail of. 

Original Post by octo-luv:

Original Post by nameless_shape_shifter:

Original Post by octo-luv:

He doesn't know everything. That's not to say he knows nothing, he obviously knows a great deal and it has been successful for himself, but this does not mean it is going to be successful for you. As I have stated before, I am 9% body fat, I dropped from 13% within 2 months by simply adding 90 minutes of cardio to my regiment weekly. That is, approximately 17-20 minutes of cardio to my regiment every other day, which adds to about 4 or 5 times weekly, depending on how the days are broken up.

I added this to my previously existing regiment, which consisted of resistance bands/ (30 minutes), endurance, yoga (25 minutes) and a basic ab work (20 minutes) out with some pilates (25 minutes) thrown in for variation. 

im not arguing with what you are saying. your first point, yes, melkor doesn't know everything. with that said, he has actually helped me fine tweak my routines for the last several months. that rffl plan he introduced me to did wonders as far as results & how i felt. but that's just my experience, im sure if you ask around you might find others who can say the same thing. and im not saying any of this to be like 'ooo melkor i wanna marry you' like some of these nutty people around here (who can take a teasing with good humour)

on your other point, um i've tried many programs. i've been into exercising from a very young age. and my initial point was that since getting interested in exercising, as a female, i & others have had the constant drilling of light weights/hi reps & cardio without such great results. the only thing is there are some of us, who, once we focused less on cardio & basically put away those light weights, got some pretty darn good results. sure you know some women that put on muscle easily...well, most that i know dont. and as a woman i personally know its hard.

hmm, first of all I never said I knew a woman who 'put on muscle easily'. That is just a miscomprehension of what I actually did say. Now, I am not saying anything about anyones personal results as per their set goals. I am saying that if someone has set goals and is not achieving them in an allotted time frame, then they ought to experiment with myriad other regiments to see if their results differ.

It was never my goal to be a hulk. I have small but compact muscle groups that I am comfortable with and maintaining, I am more interested in endurance and such and having just enough muscle to conquer my goals within this framework without becoming an egotistical machine in the process. 

As far as what that 'woman' said. That was actually aimed at me. It was her intent to use her female disposition to influence my, and every other mans, thoughts about this topic, which shows how condescending some 'women' can be with regard to the integrity of the male mind. Assuming they can influence thought by playing favoritism games. I am unaffected by such a person because I have no problems gaining respect from truly feminine/balanced females who respect thought models that are unconventional and/or challenging to the norm. One of which I am involved happily in a relationship at this time. I allowed this deviation to occur to put this silly attempt at mental/social manipulation on display, where it always ought to be. 

Now, if we can get back on topic...

Original Post by melkor:

Original Post by nameless_shape_shifter:

Original Post by melkor:

 When it comes to weight loss, nothing at all happens unless you take control of your diet. And once you do, diet+strength training beats diet+cardio in terms of fat loss - you might actually lose just about the exact same weight but it's not weight loss but fat loss that's important and strength training causes more fat loss than cardio (Kramer, Volek et al. Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss in men.)

 And cardio is still overrated.

Point number one, I am speaking from personal experience here, not relying on a statistical abstraction of one body type performing in the same series of tests, to confirm what is or is not good for me. Why should anyone look at a study that is not based on objective research but on a subjective conclusion based on subjective expectation? The feeling I get when I read the study and look into the background of the people involved? They have a personal bias against those who got where they are not using the same techniques as themselves.

Huh? What are you talking about personal bias in an American College of Sports Medicine study for? How much more objective than peer-reviewed research can you get? Just because you desperately want reality to be something other than what the science shows it to be to does not mean that your feelings reflect anything but your own lack of objectivity.

 You know, I'm going to give you one point - if you're looking at modern-day professional "bodybuilders" with their kamikaze drug use and monstrous steroid bloat it's hard not to be taken aback. Frank Zane was 178lbs when he won the Mr. Olympia bodybuilding competition, and competed at a maximum of 185-191lbs. Nowadays he couldn't have gotten a job as a towel boy with the likes of Coleman (292lbs contest, 330lbs offseason) and Cutler (265lbs, 310lbs offseason) and their similarly over-muscled and drug-bloated junkie brethren trying to move around the stage. When you get to the point where you've made yourself dysfunctional parody of maleness like a modern bodybuilder who can't even reach down to tie his own shoelaces for fear of tearing something...  well, that's frankly insane. If that's what your friend is doing, I can see why you're overreacting the way you are.

 And there's no excuse for not educating yourself on even the basics of health and nutrition like your friend is apparently doing - if he did, he'd know that most of what he's doing is counterproductive to his goals. Proper non-garbage food will support muscle growth and fat loss orders of magnitude better over both the short and long term than a diet consisting of industrial byproducts. If his body isn't stressed by crap food it will tolerate training better.

 But again - what are you talking about? "I think most of the people who claim hyper musculature to be the optimum sign of health are those who started training for appearance first and health, just as an added benefit" - which study would that be? 'Cause none of the ones I linked to had muscle growth as a goal.

*sigh*

 You're still doing it - attributing to your exercise what is adequately explained by your diet. 20 minutes of average-impact cardio would be - what, about 8kcal/minute, up from 0.9-1.1kcal/minute for a sedentary person, so about 7kcal/minute more than you'd have burned anyway, or 140kcal/day, 4 times a week, that's 560kcal/week extra, or about 5 weeks to lose 1lbs of fat. If you were to do sprint training or an unreasonably fast 6-minute mile that would be about 21kcal/minute, or 20kcal/minute above baseline - 400kcal/day or 1600kcal/week, on average 2.2 weeks to lose 1lbs of fat if you didn't increase intake to compensate.

Is that consistent with your rate of fat loss?

 Or did you change your diet at the same time?

 Reducing your calorie intake by about 300kcal/day, 7 days a week would give you a weekly calorie deficit of 2100kcal, or about 1.5 weeks to lose the same amount of fat, no cardio required.

 (If you're interested in developing fighting endurance I suggest you check out the Hammer Down Program from Chad Waterbury or just about everything Ross Enamait has up on his site. Training for a specific athletic function and eating properly to support your training tends to make your body look like you've trained for that specific athletic function. And though Glassman is an ass and the Crossfit workout of the day is only a marginally sane training system, their stated goal of developing reasonable competence in most physical endeavors without reaching competitive levels in any of them makes for a better, more versatile human being than the tendency towards overuse injuries and movement dysfunctions that results from sports-specific training without appropriate crosstraining.)

 And I would still like to know where you got that interesting notion of 40lbs being the maximum appropriate training weight for anyone.

I cannot take this conversation seriously when you assume you know more than I do on the topic of fitness and nutrition. I grant that there are things you know that I might not have studied yet, but you have to grant the converse proposal as well, otherwise you're just being egocentric and espousing your way as the only way. Just because something is 'peer reviewed' doesn't make it the only methodology to explore. And by the way all 'peer reviewed' means in this case is that someone outside the study group studied the study within its own bounds, with or without pointing out that studies inadequacies. 

You are otherwise obfuscating calorie burn statistics that have nothing to do with variation and everything to do with containing the observation to one study. There are plenty of 'peer reviewed' research on specific psychiatric drugs, very few of which point out their hazardous long term effects. There is, on the other hand, very little peer reviewed research on the effect of most herbal remedies for many of the problems we face. The reasons for this are obvious. I also find it presumptuous of you to state 'if you want to learn about fight endurance' as if you have learned about it, and I have not. 

The way you are coming across is as a presumptuous individual who thinks he is more healthy than me  for some reason or another. I do not presume I am healthier than you do I? I do not immediately condescend upon what you say and thus speak about it as if I hold the key to the knowledge of perfect health while you do not, do I? I am a very healthy individual with a low body fat, a vast knowledge of nutrition and who has experimented with many different exercise regiments and continues to do so. I never once suggested that I knew more than you. What I continue to remind people here of is the fact that each of us has something to learn and none of us is the be all, end all of health and fitness knowledge. 

Original Post by lunaripyros:

Umm actually I think your right on that last sentence.

I don't go for ripped or burley men.   To much muscle is kind if a turn off for me... and I'd imagine dating a body builder type guy would be hell on my self esteem.   I mean I'd feel like like a fat ass around him no matter what.  I have friends who are body builders, but I'm just not immediatly attracted to that body type.

I think this is a myth perpetuated by the media... I'm with you one hundred percent.   In fact.... my biggest body "requirement" for being attracted to a guy is that his belly not hang over his belt.   Not skinny, or ripped, or even toned... just not hanging over his belt.  of course most guys I'm attracted to are for reasons other then the physical so it doesn't come up much.

Thin women tend to be the ones I was referring to. It seems socially acceptable for females to merely be thin to be considered healthy, but for men, the criterion must be muscle mass, and lots of it. It is a lop sided perspective I think. That said, I do not condone anyone being overweight first and foremost for health reasons. 

Original Post by octo-luv:

ok melkor, just devil's advocate, from what i understand you can still have some what of an 'after burn' from doing cardio, am i correct? if so, even if its pretty marginal, wouldn't it add up over a long period of time of possibly burning a little more calories than just cutting back on calories & sitting on your butt? am i missing anything here?

He doesn't know everything. That's not to say he knows nothing, he obviously knows a great deal and it has been successful for himself, but this does not mean it is going to be successful for you. As I have stated before, I am 9% body fat, I dropped from 13% within 2 months by simply adding 90 minutes of cardio to my regiment weekly. That is, approximately 17-20 minutes of cardio to my regiment every other day, which adds to about 4 or 5 times weekly, depending on how the days are broken up.

I added this to my previously existing regiment, which consisted of resistance bands/ (30 minutes), endurance, yoga (25 minutes) and a basic ab work (20 minutes) out with some pilates (25 minutes) thrown in for variation. What is best for you will be a matter of your personal experience. Nothing him nor I tell you will contest that. It is best to try all our suggestions on a trial basis and see which works best for you or what you wish to accomplish. I never wanted to be a hulking muscle monster, so what I do has worked and is continuing to work toward my goal/s. 

Edit:

I wanted to also add that I am not trying to perpetuate an argument with anyone here. Merely stating that none of us here is the quintessential master of perfect health. We each have insight to contribute based on personal experience. And we each have more to learn. Now if I were a completely out of shape obese person I wouldn't dare share insights with anyone because my body would be evidence that I know absolutely nothing about the subject. I am in fairly decent shape, therefor I only speak as someone who knows what he is doing has worked to a degree and is continuing to work, at least for myself. Which is no different than anyone elses approach here. 

Original Post by melkor:

Original Post by octo-luv:

ok melkor, just devil's advocate, from what i understand you can still have some what of an 'after burn' from doing cardio, am i correct? if so, even if its pretty marginal, wouldn't it add up over a long period of time of possibly burning a little more calories than just cutting back on calories & sitting on your butt? am i missing anything here?

Well, it's not like Tom hasn't brought that up before either - weight lifting causes substantially more of an afterburn both in duration (38 hours for lifting vs. maximum 5 hours for cardio) and magnitude (60-80 kcal for lifting, vs 10-20 kcal for cardio) - but that's where things start to break down.

 Post-exercise is where the important metabolic and structural adaptations to the exercise happens, but the order of magnitude for EPOC observed is way, way too small to account for what is observed in terms of effect on body composition-
  EPOC: Maybe not all that it's cracked up to be:
Effect of an acute period of resistance exercise on excess post-exercise oxygen consumption: implications for body mass management, Eur J Appl Physiol. 2002 Mar;86(5):411-7.

Effect of acute resistance exercise on postexercise oxygen consumption and resting metabolic rate in young women, Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 2000 Mar;10(1):71-81.

 Even in the best-case scenario the cardio EPOC of  - what, 20 calories if you do HIIT - that's about the calorie content of 5 grams of sugar so it'd be wiped out if you had a coffee with one lump of sugar in it.

 For lifting, that would be three.

 Don't get me wrong, it does help move you in the right direction and it does add up over time but there's something missing in our understanding of what's happening. Over one week of 3xweekly lifting or HIIT, it would be - call it 15cal for HIIT and 70 for lifting per session, so 45kcal/week extra for HIIT and 210kcal/week for lifting, or about - 180kcal/month for HIIT and 840kcal/month for lifting, about the calorie content of one apple or a cheeseburger.

 Doesn't account for the famous interval training study that found an extra calorie burn outside of exercise of roughly 200kcal/week for the interval group vs. the steady state cardio group - that's the one that made people think EPOC was maybe the key variable, but when EPOC's measured directly the numbers doesn't work out.

 Eh, well - clearly there's something happening, but just what isn't quite clear. But that energy has to be expended somewhere, it doesn't just vanish - except when we try to pin it down with measurements, at any rate.

   And Nameless?

 Diet.

 While you were doing your not-really-strength training using light dumbbells and resistance bands training for muscular endurance you were not creating a sufficient calorie deficit through your diet to lose fat.  When you added in the extra calorie expenditure with cardio and didn't compensate with increased calorie intake, you were. 

 What part of "calorie deficit created through cardio does not lead to qualitatively different or greater fat loss than one created through diet." sounded like "cardio doesn't help in creating a calorie deficit"? Burn 500kcal through cardio or just not eat them in the first place leads to substantially the same result in terms of loss of body fat - if you think getting to eat 500kcal more a day is a net benefit independent of the impact on fat loss, (which I tend to think it is) - well, cardio can help you have a sensible deficit without going insane from restriction.

 However - was fat all you lost? Low body fat can look very different - here, here and here are examples of people with about 7-9% body fat but very different bodies. Two of those are doing completely insane things to their bodies to look the way they do, which is the nature of things when you're headed to the extremes...

 Anyway - as it says up top, in the FAQ: "exercise is part of a sucessful weight loss strategy, but it's definitely the junior partner to dietary change. Simply put, you cannot out-train your diet." - which I said even before Dr. Berardi came out with this study of the effects of exercise without dietary intervention. Berardi designed the workouts himself and the exercise sessions were overseen by qualified coaches. 12 weeks, 3 lifting and 2 group cardio/interval training sessions a week - and at the end of it participants had lost one pound of fat and gained 2 pounds of muscle on average.

 Which is just about no relevant change in terms of body composition.

 When it comes to weight loss, nothing at all happens unless you take control of your diet. And once you do, diet+strength training beats diet+cardio in terms of fat loss - you might actually lose just about the exact same weight but it's not weight loss but fat loss that's important and strength training causes more fat loss than cardio (Kramer, Volek et al. Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss in men.)

 And cardio is still overrated.

Point number one, I am speaking from personal experience here, not relying on a statistical abstraction of one body type performing in the same series of tests, to confirm what is or is not good for me. Why should anyone look at a study that is not based on objective research but on a subjective conclusion based on subjective expectation? The feeling I get when I read the study and look into the background of the people involved? They have a personal bias against those who got where they are not using the same techniques as themselves. 

I am not saying, nor was I ever saying, that some degree of musculature is not necessary for overall health. But the degree to which it is advocated by most people is that everyones role models ought to be body builders. It is possible to have far less muscle than someone else and be quite a bit healthier than them in overall body composition. Low body fat is low body fat, and this is always facilitated by some degree of muscle development and maintainence, but not to the extreme proportion advocated by most post-body building physical trainers. Such individuals would have us believe the only way to physical health is to look like the incredible hulk. 

My earlier reference to professional boxers was my attempt to illustrate that, as an example, in the Muhammad Ali, George foreman fight, the athlete with the better cardio disposition won, not the one who performed more strength training techniques. I would venture to say that Foreman was at least twice as strong as Ali at the time of their fight. In other words, the healthier athlete won the competition. And what determined that better health was cardio and endurance conditioning, not strength training, there are countless cases of this in martial arts as well, sometimes more mass leads to less performance. Again I emphasize that endurance does include strength training, otherwise such a person could not deliver a knock out shot to his opponent. 

But again, I emphasize individual experience. I concur that diet is important, but I know several body builders who have terribly unhealthy diets, because it is the only way for them to maintain their physiques, according to them and their physical trainers. As an example, I have an acquaintance whose basic diet consists of about nine eggs in the morning, 5 hamburgers at night, 3 servings of muscle milk, and a lot more garbage that raises his Glycemic index and his cholesterol levels. And it has been confirmed that his cholesterol levels are through the roof, despite his muscular physique. The point is, he is not the healthiest person in the world, even though conventional wisdom would say he appears to be. I mentioned to him that he would still be muscular if he replaced red meat with fish, and eggs with egg whites, and muscle milk with a more natural gainer, but he just shrugged and said 'but i'll lose mass'.

That, my friend, is pure ego. And if your work out and diet regiment consists, in the main, of what your ego wants, then you're setting yourself up for poor health, despite having muscles that rival your ego in size. Which brings me to another point. If you conducted a psychological interview with any of the test subjects involved, it is likely that most of them would have, by the end of the interview, revealed that there number one reason for wanting to be in shape, is appearance. I think most of the people who claim hyper musculature to be the optimum sign of health are those who started training for appearance first and health, just as an added benefit. But as my comments about my friend suggest, appearances can be quite deceiving, when the doctors report confirms it. Again, to the original poster, just experiment with all these suggestions and see which one/s work best for you. Do not base the outcome on some study, base it on your own first hand experience. 

Original Post by melkor:

 We've been over this before.

 The group that did cardio and weight training did 15 minutes of steady-state cardio- and do you seriously suggest that 15 minutes of cardio - about 100-150 calories above RMR for an average level of effort, (possibly 250cal if we were talking interval training, but we're not, we're looking at steady state cardio)

 Are you seriously suggesting that 300-500calories expended per week would explain why the strength-training group lost 10lbs of fat in the time the group that expended twice that number of calories through cardio lost 3lbs?

  I really don't know how many different ways I can tell you this man. Cardio doesn't have no impact, but it's seriously overrated for fat loss.

Is that why I stripped away 7% body fat in just a couple of months using endurance and Cardio? I am now at 9% Body fat mind you. Also, let it be clearly stated, and never understated, that prior to adding the cardio I was only doing the endurance resistance training in addition to Yoga. 

Studies are basically blanketed statistics. They take a group of people with the same body weight and subject them to the same measure of test and results. What you need are people of various backgrounds and body types to participate.

What you will then see is a major variance in the results, obviously per force of the diversity of genetics in people. We need to emphasize that when we speak of genetics we speak not of crippling peoples will, but of shaping it. You have to get grasp on your genetic make up before you can hope to achieve the exact results from the exact work out regiment someone else is doing

This is why only a few people benefit from this work out program, or that work out program, and why so many of them exist to begin with. It's not because all of them are scams, (granted, many of them are) it's because of the inherent genetic diversity within the human genome. I mean it's as simple as asking what came first sex or playboy? We have genetic variation, thus we have differences in results from different work out regiments.

No one should use a study or  statistic as their biblical absolute. Because statistics are an abstraction that cannot be upheld when it comes to something as diverse as the human race. 

Original Post by spirochete:

PFFT I wipe my butt with 40lb dumbbells

35 reps in a row slowly? 

And with regard to the 97 pound 'deadlifter'. The only girl i saw lifting dumbells in that video was a girl who had a bit more body weight than she did. Deadlifting is ergonomically quite similar to lifting one end of a heavy piece of furniture. And my 52 year old mother can do that with no training. just saying. 

Original Post by amethystgirl:

Actually, spiro is a pretty avid runner in addition to her weight lifting, and floggingsully, another lifter on this site, does triathlons.

My point is that in every paragraph of your verrrry long post, you talk about how important endurance is for certain activities. No question that if you are doing martial arts or swimming or running or anything like that, you need endurance. But the original post was about weight loss, not performing certain activities, and weight training with heavy weights is good for that. That's not saying that endurance training doesn't have its uses, but instead of going on a diatribe about how endurance is more practical, try considering the goals of the original poster, not your goals.

I am actually considering her goals. And I am doing so with alacrity and precision, not trying to convert anyone, just adding some possible alternative perspective here. To say that endurance training 'has its uses' is kind of a condescending statement, in all honesty. I don't think I have sounded as condescending once. I never once said ' strength training has its uses' as if to say that it is complete **** outside those uses. You have basically just implied that, outside its uses, endurance training is essentially useless. Which is a fallacious approach to all around physical health. 

Original Post by spirochete:

Original Post by amethystgirl:

But isn't the original post on lifting for weight loss, so isn't the entire discussion of what is best for performance moot? Or did I miss a subject change?

 This happens with every weights for fat loss discussion because the majority of people don't want to do weights because they are a lot of work. I'm sure that'll twist up some vaginas but it's the truth.

You're speculating as to why I am bringing this up. Furthermore you are implying that those who do resistance/endurance are not working as hard as weight lifters, which is an erroneous judgement to pass. Tell any number of heavy weight lifters to take a 10 mile jog, or a 5 mile swim, tomorrow, then tell me what the result is. Thanks. 

Original Post by melkor:

Well, at least you've found an interesting new point to argue, instead of the boring old cardio bunny argument that cardio isn't as useless as the science and practical experience shows it to be ;)

 If you're interested in health and longevity, get strong. Do some cardio as well for those health benefits, but as that cohort study shows, the stronger really do live longer. Possibly because strength training reverses the effects of aging.

 (Side note - I think that most people could do with taking a look at Mark Sisson's Primal blueprint as a starting point for their own experimentation.  Like all low-carbers he's a little nuts, but I think he's on to a way of thinking that's likely to be a productive direction to go. Even if he can only have my oats over my dead body :)

 I'm also intereded to know how your body would tell the difference in increased resistance from doing a regular squat with half your bodyweight on your neck and a one-legged unweighted squat? Resistance is resistance, up to a point. The only problem with bodyweight-based training is that at a certain point you need to modify the exercises to place yourself at a mechanical disadvantage to have them be strenuous enough to produce an adaptation response - and this mechanical disadvantage translates into inappropriate spinal shear forces and excessive joint loading. Bodyweight isn't a bad place to start unless you're way too heavy, and you should master your own body before adding external loading, but there are decided limits to how useful a pure-bodyweight regime is from both a (joint) health and (evolutionary) fitness perspecitve.

 Oh, yes, resistance bands - can be useful, especially if you get Jumpstretch bands or the equivalent, but do you have a link to the actual studies you say exist?

 I mean, I'm aware that most of the Westside Barbell guys are more than a little dysfunctional and prone to joint damage because their steroid use and mechanical carryover from their lifting assistance gear allows them to use weights that are far too heavy for the structural integrity of human joints and bones, but I have never seen peer-reviewed research that suggest any detrimental effects for anyone who isn't a crazy powerlifter and/or body builder on enough drugs to stock a small hospital. Kidney, liver and assorted circulatory damage is a well-known side effect of most oral steroids and a large part of why I think most of the modern "any drug I can get my hands on" bodybuilders are going to drop dead before they reach 55, but that's not exactly a side effect of strength training - and also fairly irrelevant to John and Jane Doe's moderate exercise regime.Or even a not-so-moderate one that doesn't include the excesses of powerlifting - anything taken to an extreme is bad for you.

 You know, the instinctive argument sounds plausible until you consider what your instinctive response to a sugar-laden glazed chocolate donut is - your instincts are not always a good guide. You need to temper them with reason even if your instincts are telling you that "Food with sugar and fat? Lots more, please!" - your instincs are not neccesarily adapted to the modern environment.

 I'll give you one thing - goals are individual and different goals require different training regimes. However, while genetic predispositions play a role in determining what sort of goal is easier for you to reach and makes a bit of a difference in determining the best way to go about it, it's a lot smaller than you seem to think. The difference in training and diet regimes are however not dictated by your genes, but by your end goals.

Adaptation exercises are not restricted to how much weight is applied. Amount of repetitions has a lot to do with it. 

So, if you are doing push ups for example (as someone recently reminded me on another thread) you would add to your repetitions to increase your adaptability resistance. 

This is how they train people in the military. By adding repetitions instead of weight. It increases endurance plus strength, by forcing your body to adapt to pushing one, two, three or more reps further. And without turning you into  the incredible hulk in the process.

Similarly, this is how a lot of martial arts schools teach their students physical endurance as well. Pushing beyond the limit in terms of duration of exercise as opposed to adding more weight. 

Either way you can only go so far, you can't lift 10 thousand pounds and you can't do 10 million push ups. But I still think weights are proven bad for the joints in the long term.

And this is from pure observation. Any middle aged guy I have ever met who'd been lifting weights most of his adult life had some sort of joint (and in some cases tendon) problems. Even my friends who are my age (early 20s) who've been lifting for only a couple of years complain of constant aches and pains from joint popping and stress. 

What I can recommend to those who continue to lift heavy weights is to offset any potential long term joint issues by practicing power yoga after each weight lifting session,  if you cannot then you may suffer long term joint pain and issues. 

There was one study, I cannot seem to find the link, I read it a couple of months ago, which pretty much tackled aortic separation in heavy weight lifters and how this undetected separation led to internal organ damage by restricting internal circulation due to aortic damage. 

In the end, none of us has all the answers. I am just trying to help people with whatever insights I have, just as anyone else here is attempting to do. We all have some insight to offer, we should keep an opened perspective and try what is suggested before passing ultimate judgement.

As for right now I suggest it unnecessary for anyone of any weight to exceed dumbells of 40 pounds in weight. That is my opinion based on observation. What should instead be employed, instead of adding weight, is adding reps. I think this is healthier in the long term in terms of resistance adaptation techniques. But I once again emphasize you can do this with your own body weight and/or resistance bands which cause little to no joint symptoms. 

Original Post by rarebookgirl:

You may find this difficult to believe, and all I can say is give it a try for at least a month, and then tell me you dont' see a difference - but you have to be honest about eating this every day...

Greens - greens will actually give you the protein you need, as protein is made from essential fatty acids, and not by eating meat that contains protien. However, the greens need to be eaten (protien or not) to build muscle. This will help to develop muscle around your rib cage as well, so you won't look so skeletal. PopEye really was onto something when he mentioned that spinach makes you stronger. If you don't believe the protien issue, you can add hemp seeds to your salads, or anymeal, as they are a complete protien, it allows you to remain vegan if you want.

If you consume a large salad everyday (uncooked greens are the best, if you cook them, you may not get the same results), you should start to see results fairly soon - eat as many greens as you can. It is also best to alternate the types of greens you eat, and to get organic greens, if possible. I know sometimes that is not really an option. I would also recommend that you do not use iceberg lettuce, it is the least nutritious out of all of the lettuces - which is normally OK, but if you want to build up those muscles around your ribcage, you need the nutrients - the darker green, the more nutritious it is. Herbs are also very nutritious and will serve the same purpose - such as cilantro, mint, etc.

To be honest, green smoothies are the best way to get in as many greens as you need a day, without having to eat so much. Fill your blender up with greens of your choice, add a little bit of water to get the blender going, then add any fruits that you want to use to sweeten it. I usually use banabas as a base, it makes all the difference in the world for the flavor - then add other fruits, if you want. I usually toss in some strawberries and maybe an orange - or other berries (frozen or fresh). Just be sure to get as many leafy green veggies in there as you can.

Original Post by rarebookgirl:

You may find this difficult to believe, and all I can say is give it a try for at least a month, and then tell me you dont' see a difference - but you have to be honest about eating this every day...

Greens - greens will actually give you the protein you need, as protein is made from essential fatty acids, and not by eating meat that contains protien. However, the greens need to be eaten (protien or not) to build muscle. This will help to develop muscle around your rib cage as well, so you won't look so skeletal. PopEye really was onto something when he mentioned that spinach makes you stronger. If you don't believe the protien issue, you can add hemp seeds to your salads, or anymeal, as they are a complete protien, it allows you to remain vegan if you want.

If you consume a large salad everyday (uncooked greens are the best, if you cook them, you may not get the same results), you should start to see results fairly soon - eat as many greens as you can. It is also best to alternate the types of greens you eat, and to get organic greens, if possible. I know sometimes that is not really an option. I would also recommend that you do not use iceberg lettuce, it is the least nutritious out of all of the lettuces - which is normally OK, but if you want to build up those muscles around your ribcage, you need the nutrients - the darker green, the more nutritious it is. Herbs are also very nutritious and will serve the same purpose - such as cilantro, mint, etc.

To be honest, green smoothies are the best way to get in as many greens as you need a day, without having to eat so much. Fill your blender up with greens of your choice, add a little bit of water to get the blender going, then add any fruits that you want to use to sweeten it. I usually use banabas as a base, it makes all the difference in the world for the flavor - then add other fruits, if you want. I usually toss in some strawberries and maybe an orange - or other berries (frozen or fresh). Just be sure to get as many leafy green veggies in there as you can.

What do you think of spirulina in powdered form? I have actually tried this once for a month, in conjunction with royal jelly, and it seemed to trigger something in me. There were times I felt as if I would turn into the incredible hulk (which would have been frightening for myself as well as other's).

I might start taking both again, in conjunction with my current diet and see what the result is. Do you know how nutrient rich spirulina powder is? If you do not, you should study it and/or try it out. The reason I actually opted to incorporate the spirulina into my diet as opposed to eating whole, leafy greens every day was simply economical.

One jar of spirulina powder costs approximately 20$ and it did induce a lot of nutrients into my body. The ratio compared to whole leafy greens I cannot say as I have not studied such comparisons, but I know I felt better with the inclusion of spirulina in my diet. Now, if you know anything about the nutrient availability in spirulina versus whole greens, please tell me. 

Also, if it turns out I must increase my calorie intake, or at least attempt to do so, what are some possible methods to employ? Bear in mind I do not and will not eat any sort of meat but fish, specifically tuna and shrimp but am opened to other possibilities with sea food. Also bear in mind I eat all organic dairy products and I pretty much stay away from cheese entirely. Protein intake is not calorie induction, I know this, and I want to add that I recently implemented the use of a zinc supplement to help regain my testosterone levels that were damaged from the phytoestrogens in the unfermented soy products I was consuming in large quantities. 

Original Post by melkor:

No, its isn't. There's less genetic variation and there's less physiological variation than people think. It's the calorie intake of the individuals in question that makes the difference in their regimes in each case - and in every studied case, proper strength training leads to 20%-300% more fat loss per hour spent training than cardio.

I have seen several studies which indicate that genetics and predisposition to certain regimens plays an even handed role. Like I said most marathon runners (who are not weight lifters) have lower body fat than your average weight lifter. And they get there a lot faster and keep their metabolism there a lot longer. Look I know a lot of americans are into the big brawny thing and I am fine with that, just know that different people have different dispositions to different work out and exercise regimens. Pushing yours on someone like it is the bible is just not cool man. If something else other than extreme heavy weight lifting works for someone, why try to convert them to your view/experience. Obviously their experience differs greatly, which is evidence of variation.