Posts by mgosie

Original Post by helpless:

anyone have an ideas on exercises that can burn 100 in 10 minutes?

 if you CAN do it....jumping rope will do it.  jumping jacks will as well....most people can't last beyond a little bit, but if they could, its a solid way to burn off 100 calories!

techincally you'd only have to do it for about 8-9 mintues to burn 100 calories. :)  but you gotta do it fast.

i looked it up for you: gymnastics has a higher calorie burn than yoga.  244 an hour.  yoga: 214 -- pilates only has 153.

doesn't seem fair in the long run when you think about it, which is why investing in a heart rate monitor might be the best option for an activity like that.

with all the money you'd make from doing it -- i would think it wouldn't be a big deal to spend it! ;)

you get sarcasm when you post a lame ass video of a slow motion girl dancing around a pole...unless you think i have no right to have an opinion on it?

and also, if you are so experienced with martial arts/yoga/dancing/working up a sweat -- shouldn't YOU be the one to gauge what you are expending in a work out?  i mean, i can plug in "yoga"  in this website and see it comes up with XX calories just the same as you can... or martial arts or something else of the sort.

how about you think about what you posted, use your years of experience as you posted, and chalk it up somewhere in between?

....or get a heart rate monitor. 

Original Post by beautifullybroken:

I didn't feel any side effects from it or anything, but I don't even know if they did much. So just using the cream probably works just fine!

 i doubt its the cream -- more than anything its the tae bo and pilates - as your muscles developing, and getting defined has the largest part in reducing the appearance of cellulite.

i don't use a cream and the dimples in my butt have all but disappeared beacause of weight lifting and kickboxing for the last three month.

Original Post by spek:

i do a 30 min walk at 5km /hr and 2.5 km is that enough daily? thanks!

....if that's your current picture, you should be under the care of a competent doctor for an ED...and the recommendation would probably be that you NOT exercise very much right now. i'm not a dr, but i do have some common sense, and i'm going to suggest you worry more about eating food than exercising.

best of luck with gaining some weight, and finding support to become healthy!

20 bucks a month to a dirty little gym that has buckets for the vomit, no air conditioning and really great instructors for the classes.  :)

Original Post by caloriecountingme:

aha! there's your culprit! the "pushing thru w/the weight on [your] shoulders." when you do squats, you're using your legs to lower yourself and push yourself back up. you're definitely using your core to hold yourself steady; i won't deny that. but you're not "pushing" through; that comment makes me think maybe you're sort of "diving" up like a dolphin, arching your back to get momentum on the way up? maybe that's not the case, but it's what i'm picturing.

you know, i bet you are right -- while i always keep my weight in my heels, and curl my toes to make sure i've got the right weight bearing, this was so different, trying to keep my balance too. ill watch myself a little harder, maybe practice here at home without any weight, just to get the sensation right.  thanks for the advice. :)

Original Post by caloriecountingme:

i can't say i've ever felt my back muscles engaged when i do split squats. they're really hard, but it's definitely a leg exercise. maybe you're leaning forward when you're doing them? after stepping forward, your body should be moving vertically, so there'd be nothing for your back to do. also, were you doing 16reps per side? bec that's a lot a lot. you might want to try more like 8reps per side and double the weight you're using.

yeah it was 16 per side.  the first set i got through pretty well, the second set hurt, and the third i had to stop and start a few times.

its hard to imagine that i leaned forward, but if those muscles were engaged, i must have.  i was just wondering if the balancing act of putting my foot back was enough to trigger some core back muscle that doesn't get used alot, but when looked at the group of muscles, i didn't see anything that corresponded.  thanks for answering.   i'm not sure i could double the weight on that...ha.  i might fall over trying to get it up on my shoulders!  ;)  

but i'll up it next time by a bit and see how it works to do the reps you suggested.

Original Post by kashicat:

If you want a real challenge, try them on an upside down BOSU. WOW, do they get my butt good and work the core like you wouldn't believe

upside down BOSU?

also, is that area of your back normally sore after doing the one i posted?

Original Post by andybarc:

I am confused. If you can't gain muscle on a calorie deficit, what is the point of resistance training whilst dieting? Am I right in thinking that it is just a better way of burning calories than cardio?

 you DO gain muscle, its just not a considerable amount, but it does happen...just scroll up and read between the lines.  and READ FOR YOURSELF.  the blanket answers in this forum hardly touch the surface of what muscles are actually doing -- and its a diservice to beginners to suggest all their hard effort is useless if they are in a caloric deficit.  its simply not true.  though melkor has good links, as he supplied regarding how muscles attain strengh (motor units being used and fine tuning your brain)...just read for yourself, watch your own body change and grow and dont take the dogmatic view that is spewed out in this forum frequently.  a gain is a gain, and i don't care if its one lb in my caloric deficit to a 3lb gain if i were in a caloric surplus. 

Original Post by melkor:

Well, to repeat myself from a couple days back:

Check this metastudy from the Journal of American College of Nutrition on protein needs and muscle building for athletes.

You'll note that a consistent calorie surplus is a prerequisite for building muscle.

You body always balances anabolic and catabolic states. This is a good thing - if it didn't, you'd keep on growing muscle until you literally exploded. Barring any sudden and unforeseen rather messy incidents with exploding biceps though, what matters is which state predominates - and in a calorie deficit, that's the catabolic state. Which means that your body absolutely will not build muscle unless you have exceptional genetics like Duke or Jasontarin - and even for them it's much, much more efficient to build muscle in a calorie surplus.

Genetic superiors have newbie metabolisms or one step away from it for their entire athletic careers, so they can do things that aren't possible for the average human being, but no, apart from the insignificant (1-4lbs) muscle gains of the normal newbie and the very significant muscle gains of the steroid user, muscle gain in a calorie deficit mostly just doesn't happen.

For a drug-free male athlete in his late teens/early twenties muscle gain tops out at about an ounce a day assuming perfect training and nutrition, and a consistent calorie surplus. Once you start not eating excess calories you've essentially removed the prerequiste for muscle building - positive nitrogen balance. Add in not being in your twenties, male, and eating excess calories, and you're lucky to mostly retain what you have ;)

okay hon, heres where i'm telling you: you are contradicting yourself.  you yourself just said that in your first 3 months of training you had your most significant gains.  scroll up.   what gives.  this all sounds a bit hypocritical.  and wish washy.

you either can or cannot gain muscle in a caloric deficit.  i've gained something and if you dare tell me its not muscle, i might throw my protein shake at you.

read the first one.  for the record: the guy is not a good writer, and doesn't follow through with his "thoughts" very well.  but i guess he had to dumb down a bit for t-nation?!?  ;)  also hes got some misplaced humor, when he should be explaining things.  but that aside, i was reminded that "reapeating a movment is fine tuning your cerebellum" -- motor end plate/neurotransmitters.  yup yup.  oh and the three category's for muscles -- that was helpful, but sadly lacking because there was no link indicating what muscles fall into what category's.  [other than the absurd cancer looking runner and the genetically superior african american].  right so you can fine tune movements...got it.  ATP, myosin, calcium -- contraction.  cerebellum :)

NEXT ARTICLE!  [indeed the superior of the two!]

Let's say you're performing a set of squats with 80% of your 1RM. If your goal is size and strength I'll recommend a target number of total reps for each lift. In many cases that number is 25.

So you perform your first set. If you follow my principles, you'll terminate the set as soon as you notice the speed is slowing down, which means that the last rep will always be the slowest in the set. If you stop the set with the speed you start with, then you've stopped too soon. Don't stop until you actually notice the bar slowing down.

And you should never stop in the middle of a rep, even if you do notice that you're slowing down. Finish the rep, then stop. Got it?

GOT IT!

However, you should always attempt to lift all loads as fast as possible, even when the load is very heavy. If you do, you'll augment the descending neural drive from your brain to your muscles. This results in greater motor unit recruitment (force-generating potential).

...sounds like he'd be a fan of the tabeta hell. 

AND FINALLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR!!!

First is your motor unit recruitment threshold. For the last 30 years, research has clearly demonstrated that fast lifting tempos reduce your motor unit recruitment threshold. (1) This means you can train your nervous system to recruit your motor units sooner. That's great for strength and subsequent size gains.

Second, fast tempos will train your nervous system to recruit more motor units. There's always a reserve of motor units that, usually, can only be recruited in life-or-death situations. But with fast contractions, you can tap into this reserve.

alrighty.  got it.  motor unit recruitment is basically the fight or flight response...but its on a different level, its not exactly where i thought it was.  no wonder HIIT produces the best results. 

let me say this:  i've been training like this....for the most part, in the exercises i do engage in.  even if its not all weight lifting.  so no wonder i've seen gains in strength and speed.  besides fine motor tuning of my brainy mcbrain, i've been motoring my 4 cylinder engine to behave like a 6.

thanks for the links melkor...but, for the most part -- this forum should stop saying you can't gain muscle in a caloric deficit.  its simply not true.  for the long run -- you will max out, yes.  and of course, use it or lose it right?  so if you aren't in it for the long run, gaining muscle is pointless.  the body will use it for fuel at some point.

Original Post by melkor:

Easiest way is to send you to a real expert on the subject, Chad Waterbury: From Brain to Biceps and The Secret to Motor Unit Recruitment - it's what he did his Master's thesis on ;)

I started from the complete couch potato level myself back in the day - two years ago I got DOMS from simply walking. Granted, it was up a mountain, but still. It took me about 9 months of training to even get into shape enough to start lifting any appreciable weight, and to follow a proper strength training program. My gains through this whole process totals about 10lbs of muscle over 2 years, most of that in the first 3 months of training and I squat 231lbs, deadlift 341lbs and bench 206lbs as my training weights now, up from barely being able to do a few bodyweight squats and failing to do more than half a pushup.

So you tell me - I can now do handstand pushups and deadlift 1.7 times my bodyweight, when I could barely do 5 pushups from my knees and carry the groceries before, while going from 250 to 198lbs bodyweight. If it was possible for the average trainee without exceptional genetics to gain significant muscle in a calorie deficit, don't you think I would have done so by now?

My gains through this whole process totals about 10lbs of muscle over 2 years, most of that in the first 3 months of training

well now i can understand that -- and correlate that to building strength but here i was assuming that any significant muscle gain at all you get from weight training, somehow magically appears after you become this elite master lifting guru that eats protein till they explode -- but it makes more sense that in the first three months of training you get most gains and tweak the process from there, to gain more and more, or as much as you put it, your genetic potential will give you.  disrupt/adapt/recover. though, its a misnomer for the regulars in this forum to continue telling people that they don't gain muscle in a caloric deficit, they have too, esp if they are lifting weights.  i'm not talking cardio and they upped the resistance by three notch's either.

and i get what you are saying about strength, using yourself as an example, but i just don't understand how the fraking muscles work without gaining more mass on them.  the physics of it makes little sense to me.  and i aced physics. [just not spelling...] i mean i understand biological chemical reactions, say like adrenaline and it can cause the body to respond with super powers...etc. maybe its some similar biochemical reaction that gives our muscles the "power" to do more, without adding significant mass to them in the long run.  so i'll read some dudes "masters thesis" and see what i can figure out.

thank you for the links, and thank you for sharing your own story of fitness.

Original Post by vanessa_from_slc:

 

Are you asking why they say you "can't" build muscle in a calorie deficit?

My guess is this: building suggests adding to current volume (mass, whatever). Damaging a muscle through lifting while in a caloric deficit may force you to use your calories to get back to your starting point, but may not be able to add to your existing level. Thus no building.

I would guess that over time you add a little here and there, but it's slow growth.

The reason this may aid fat loss is that you don't get to put your calories into fat. Even with large amounts of cardio, at rest you still will store reserve calories.

 

thanks, though: that still doesn't really help me understand what my muscles are really doing, because if i get back to my starting point, how do i end up so much: stronger with more endurance -- as evidenced by being able to lift more, and engage in the same activites with quicker, faster, while my heart rate is slower.  

my muscles 'have' changed -- they've gotten alot stronger, and if they've gotten stronger because they had to "repair' themselves, then how have i not built them up to withstand what i'm doing to them?  i've increased my loads continually....so it wouldn't makes any sense at all that they repaired themselves back to the starting point. 

if beginner muscle gains give SUCH an advancement -- then its a viable way to gain muscle, and this whole "caloric deficit" and not gaining any muscle (strength) nonsense is just bodybuilders envy.  another way to stress to everyone that to get REAL muscles you have to do like they do.  i mean, if i can buy a luxury sedan for the same price as a compact...

i still don't get it.  and its not for lack of dullness of mind.  though it might be blamed on that.

wth have my muscles been repairing for 11 weeks?!  :)    ....i'm just waiting for melkor to see this.  *ahem*

Original Post by kashicat:

Melkor, you always say things in such a nice way....unlike Spiro and me who are just B*TCHY .

 ...thus hes the moderator, and you are just part of the peanut gallery.