Can "taebo" be considered as WEIGHTLIFTING?

I know that taebo is definitely CARDIO, but after doing it, the next day I felt really sore!!

Can taebo be considered weight lifting, as well???

I know that it's not exactly lifting weights, but since you're moving so many parts of your body muscles and feeling all sore the next day.... can you?

Because like... I'm wondering whether it's ok for me to lift weights the next day, after doing taebo. If taebo is also considered working our your muscles, then it wouldn't be beneficial for me to lift weights the next day.

I don't know if Tae Bo qualifies as weightlifting any more than other cardio workouts like step or Turbo Jam weight lifting.  Sore muscles can just as easily be the result of repetitive and directional motion as resistance/weight bearing exercise.  Although I will say the Tae Bo "Fat Blasting Cardio" may qualify as both, as it includes work with resistance bands.

There are people here who are way more knowledgeable than I, but I typically skip weights if I think my sore muscles will affect form - if it could cause an injury, I do much better if I allow a little more recovery time.

Resistance is resistance, no matter where it come from.

Tae bo includes resistance like for example squat positions, lunges and all sort of kicks, lateral leg raises which creates resistance in the abdominal and glutes area
Even running creates resistance in the leg muscles and quadriceps.

The more complex a workout, the harder it is to define it as either cardio or resistance, the difference is not so neat and clear, just like for example a food is not either a carb or a protein except for few specific items.

Original Post by danielpiano:

Resistance is resistance, no matter where it come from.

I agree, but the OP asked about weightlifting - Tae Bo may have resistance, and will affect the muscles, but it is not the same as using a pair of dumbells for a deadlift.

Yes, there are varying degrees, but at some point exercises can be classified as primarily one or the other.

However, it's only useful as strength training if you're using a resistance over 65% of your 1RM, that's the minimum threshold stimulation for strength training as opposed to strength endurance training.

 In practice, if you can do more than 20 reps of an exercise it's not strength training. So unless you can't walk or run more than 20 steps, there's no useful training stimuli in that for the strength qualities in the resistance training space.

 Not to say that it isn't a useful physical quality but it's a different one from the strength training space of resistance training.

 So it depends - for boyweight exercises you'll find that upper body pushing/pulling like pushups and inverted rows, pullups, muscle-ups and the like will be strength training for far longer than lower-body exercises like squats and lunges.

 Single-leg lower body exercises like stepups, one-legged squats, and split squats of various stripes will also be strength training for longer.

 So it depends on where you are in terms of physcal development - can you do more than 20 reps of any of the exercises it's no longer strength training for you.

 Muscle soreness is more related to inflammation of the connective tissues than mechanical damage to the muscle fibres.

melkor

- Wow,, so when I'm weight lifting at the gym, if I can do over 20 reps for any time of exercise, then that means that I should use heavier weights??? But I hear about how doing many reps with moderate weights will help you get lean muscles, and not "bulky" ones... and .... I would much more prefer lean muscles than the 2nd one all over my body!! Could you explain this to me?

Okay, so my ultimate question is:

If I'm feeling sore the next day, should I still go to the gym to lift weights or just do cardio?? Does it depend on how sore I am; whether I'm feeling just a bit sore or can't even walk?

Because last time (&& the 1st time) when I did taebo.... the next day was...... "amazing".................................... ....... gah hahahahaha!!

 Well, the appearance of your muscles is determined by your genetics - you can make it larger or smaller but you can't change the shape or length.

 There's two kinds of muscle growth, you can increase the size of the muscle fibers themselves - this is technically known as myofibrillar hypertrophy. Some lucky gits also get to increase the number of muscle fibers which is known as muscle hyperplasia. Or you can pump up the volume of the cell itself; this is sarcoplasmal hypertrophy. Myofibrillar growth makes you stronger because you have larger muscle fibre, hyperplasia makes you stronger because you've got more of'em. Sarcoplasmal hypertrophy makes you bigger, but it doesn't do anything for strength. What it does help with is improve endurance - if the cell holds more cell plasm the nutrient and energy reservoir surrounding the fiber is increased.

 When you're doing light weight/high rep you're working on strength endurance and pumping up the cell volume. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, in other words.

 Not quite what you had in mind, one presumes.

 Myofibrillar growth and hyperplasia is very susceptible to the influence of testosterone, sarcoplasmic not so much. So when you're lifting heavy you're training hard with a training stimuli that's least likely to increase your muscle size, when you're pumping light weights you're doing a lot more to pump up the muscle.

 Strength has a significant neural component - you can grow a lot stronger by making the muscle fibers you do have more efficient and coordinated without adding much in the way of muscle mass

  People might get a litte tired of me posting this clip of 97lbs Suzanna who's about 50% stronger than me pound for pound, but she's such a perfect example. She's trained relatively heavier than me - I can't do a 2.5xbodyweight deadlift like she does - and anyone who can look at her and call her bulky needs new glasses.

Original Post by melkor:

However, it's only useful as strength training if you're using a resistance over 65% of your 1RM, that's the minimum threshold stimulation for strength training as opposed to strength endurance training.

 In practice, if you can do more than 20 reps of an exercise it's not strength training. So unless you can't walk or run more than 20 steps, there's no useful training stimuli in that for the strength qualities in the resistance training space.

I don't know, it seems that reality is less rigid than that.
I know studies which found that hypertrophy occurred in the legs muscles of runner, after two months of training running several miles.

And there are several strength trainers who do only body weight exercises and have developed a massive body, but while they can sure do more than 20 reps of whatever exercise they're doing, I'm pretty sure they were already able to do 20 reps of those body weight exercises, even when they were skinny before building their body. In fact even untrained newbies can do 20 push-ups and 20 squats.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy occurs, but not myofibrillar. Part of the ACSM position stand on strength training - I think you can find the whole paper on their web site somewhere.

 Now, using methods to place yourself at a mechanically disadvantageous position like decline pushups or one-arm pushups work to an extent, but once I'd worked my way up to doing handstand pushups strength developement pretty much stopped.

 If I'd had access to a set of rings and parallell bars or a pommel horse + a competent coach things might have continued for a while - just like the forces acting on your ankle and leg muscle while running is 3-6 times your body weight each ground contact, the forces acting on your muscles when you catch yourself again after a drop from handstand or one of the more complicated jumps and swings is several orders of magnitude higher than the minimum essential strain for both strenght and hypertrophy to occur.

 An Olympic gymnast will typically put up a double-bodyweight bench the first time he tries it, at least according to the coach of Englands' national team. Dunno, never been a gymnast, but it sounded plausible based on my experience - I didn't start with bench pressing until I could do 20 decline pushups (handstand pushups are mostly a shoulder exercise, it turns out) and my 5RM was about 80-85% of my bodyweight.

 'Course, this is assuming that you aren't a genetic anomaly like Nimrod King who used 30-50 rep sets for everything - he's what happens when a slow-twitch dominant individual takes enough steroids to kill a steer and then proceeds to do high-rep training ;)

 There's exceptions to everything it seems, but in the main I'm going to go with the ACSM position paper.

Melkor - I am confused a bit....   So what if I WANT bigger arm muscles?  Is less weight more reps good for that?  I am doing NROLFW and have seen nice results... but I am lifting heavy.  Are you saying that I would get bigger muscles using lighter weights?

 It's why the 8-12 rep range is considered a 'compromise range' - you have enough stimuli to get myofibrillar hypertrophy and enough volume to get sarcoplasmal along for the ride.

 It's never just one thing unless you only trained with singles at 100% of your one-rep maximum, but at any given rep range outside of 8-12 one or the other predominates. 

So if I don't care about getting stronger... only looking stronger (ie - bigger muscles)... light weights better?

 To a point - it still needs to be a weight that causes an adaptation of some kind.

 Back in the Arnold days, some of the builders used 20-25 reps as their "light" weights instead of 16-20 as today. They did look good while on stage, but only for the half-hour or so that they were 'pumped up' like inflatable life rafts. Oh, and then there's Nimrod King and Serge Nubret who also used higher reps almost exclusively - but both those guys were pro bodybuilders and used to eat dianabol by the handful and inject anything they could get their hands on, so the application of their training methods to real people is dubious.

Ok - thanks Melkor for clearing that up.   It is good to hear I am on the right track!  My workouts in NROLFW have ranged from starting at 15 reps.... to stage 5 with 4 reps... now doing 10 sets of 2 reps on one exercise (underhand grip lat pulldown) & some with 10 reps in stage 6.   I think the "final cut" stage goes back up to 15-20 reps.

melkor

- Oh my Lord, melkor.... you're really an expert... a dictionary.... I'm like.... LOST..... but let me try to get this right. Lifting lighter weights w/higher reps produces more of the "sarcoplasmic hypertrophy" muscle growth. Am I right? && this type of muscle growth makes me bigger???? i don't really... want that... I know that it's very difficult for girls to get bigger, but.... if that's what you're talking about...?

Ahhh..... so when you're lifting heavier weights, then you are least likely to increase your muscle size, but lighter weights (more reps) will cause my muscles to get bigger in size?

Oh and suzanna!!! I know herrrr...... && damn right she's strong!! So what does she do that makes her stronger but not bulkier? Does she do the heavy weights && fewer reps??

melkor *2nd*

- So you're saying that it's not hard for hypertrophy to occur? && hypertrophy is....... gaining muscle size (bulkiness?), but not necessarily strength, rather endurance?

fyi: that Nimrod King dude is ... just..... damn!!! Does he take steroids?

Okay I have another question in mind now: Even though girls dont bulk up, yogagirl8653 (who I believe is a female) wants to get bigger muscles.. and you just replied saying that 8-12 reps will compromise both types of muscle growth - myofibrillar hypertrophy = muscle strength & sarcoplasmal = muscle size. For girls.... would sarcoplasmal affect us a lot?? Are you saying that 8-12 reps of heavy weights (lifting 'til the MAX) would make even women increase the size of their muscles, thus making us look obviously bigger ??

"at any given rep range outside of 8-12 one or the other predominates."

= if I do less than 8 or more than 12 reps, then I would be either increasing muscle strength or muscle size???

Quick question: I used to chest press with two 16.5-lb dumbbells, 3-4 sets of 15-20 reps. It's not tiring for me, so I today I increased the weight. But our gym only has the 22-lb dumbbells!!! That's the very next one after the 16.5 lb... so I did 3 sets of 8 reps for that. Oh man was I tired!! Do you think what I did was alright? Should I continue lifting like this with these 22-lb ones?