attempts to stay fit

[that-god-chick]

so i do dance as a subject for school so that means i do 3 70min leassons a week, i also run most afternoons after school, and do sit ups in my room every afternoon... but it seems with all this im still not fit and i cant get skinny no matter how hard i try...

[Nellerin]

Some people are simply unable to get "fit" fast but no matter what you can eventually attain it.

Diet is the biggest part of losing fat and getting leaner and fit so focus on healthy foods and a good macro split.

And, doing sit ups every day is not something that is necessary either as it is technically resistance/strength training for abs and no strength training for a specific body part should be done more than 2-3 times each week.

[that-god-chick]

i have to do the sit ups for dance as i have to work alot on my core and im already behind in my class so this is slowly getting up to there fittness... i eat pretty healthy i dont really eat alot of junk food only on a rare chance

[dontfiguremeout]

You need to work on your full body! Working on your abs only won't really do the trick! You need to do cap, legs, abs, shoulders, triceps, biceps, and much more! Evening out your body exercises to include all these, will help you become more fit, because all help, and one doesn't really do the trick!

[that-god-chick]

haha thanks for the advice :)

[Nellerin]

i have to do the sit ups for dance as i have to work alot on my core and im already behind in my class so this is slowly getting up to there fittness... i eat pretty healthy i dont really eat alot of junk food only on a rare chance

Working core is fine but sit-ups are one of the least effective exercises for abs. Doing crunches or leg raises are much better overall so try those to get a stronger core.

[TigerBoy]

For general weight loss and your capacity to keep goiing, personally I'd focus on Seth's original advice of DIET and increased cardio.

Having done ballet, I can see why you might want a stronger core, but that is about the whole girdle of muscle, not just the front. That way you support your spine (which I injured doing ballet because I hadn't got the muscle development at that time).

Working core is fine but sit-ups are one of the least effective exercises for abs. Doing crunches or leg raises are much better overall so try those to get a stronger core.

So this will improve the variety of muscle groups you hit but mainly at the front of the torso. You could also add medicine ball passes (and/or bicycle crunches) or something to get the obliques (side of the abdomen) which can get underworked in normal situps etc. You may also want to look at some reverse sit ups or 'lat pull downs' or similar to work the muscles round the back of the torso (latissimus dorsi).

[Nellerin]

For general weight loss and your capacity to keep goiing, personally I'd focus on Seth's original advice of DIET and increased cardio.

Having done ballet, I can see why you might want a stronger core, but that is about the whole girdle of muscle, not just the front. That way you support your spine (which I injured doing ballet because I hadn't got the muscle development at that time).



So this will improve the variety of muscle groups you hit but mainly at the front of the torso. You could also add medicine ball passes (and/or bicycle crunches) or something to get the obliques (side of the abdomen) which can get underworked in normal situps etc. You may also want to look at some reverse sit ups or 'lat pull downs' or similar to work the muscles round the back of the torso (latissimus dorsi).

Ya balancing out lower back (lats and below) is really important because almost all of your core strength is abs and low back. That is why the low back muscles are called erectors because they literally are in charge of keeping you standing up and they work with your abs.

Lat pull downs are OK for hitting them but if you want to really build lower back muscles then do hyper extensions for erectors( of course deadlifts are also good but you do not need to do them), and then bent over barbell/dumbbell rows bringing the bar to your ab area on the pull are best for lats (this will really hit the lat muscles.)

[Zenos]

so i do dance as a subject for school so that means i do 3 70min leassons a week, i also run most afternoons after school, and do sit ups in my room every afternoon... but it seems with all this im still not fit and i cant get skinny no matter how hard i try...



working you're abs is strength training and you do need more varity then just ab ab ab work.

And to the remark that would should only traing 3 days a week:



Matt Furey -- In his 'Combat Conditioning' book he responds to the question, "How often should I train?" -"Follow animals in the wild. They don't exercise once or twice a week ... My advice is simple: Do a few of the exercises in this book every day. Work harder some days than others, but do something every day." When asked whether one can do the squats, push-ups, and bridging every day, he replies, "Yes, you can ... Combat Conditioning is not like bodybuilding, where you train certain body parts one day and others the next. Take monkeys and other primates ... They do the same type of exercises each day and they're far stronger than human beings." In response to the question, "How long should my workout last?", Matt states that it all depends on your goals and how much time you have. "You might train 15 minutes and you might train for a couple hours or more."


In Defense of Frequent Training

Kurt J. Wilkens





http://www.dragondoor.com/articles/in-defense-of-frequent-training/default.aspx



Whne i myself first started exercising I did bodyweight stuff 5 days a week and got awesome results,but I didn't try to do more then I was capable of doing,and i took my time with a hand full of exercsies and built up.

[Nellerin]

working you're abs is strength training and you do need more varity then just ab ab ab work.

And to the remark that would should only traing 3 days a week:



Matt Furey -- In his 'Combat Conditioning' book he responds to the question, "How often should I train?" -"Follow animals in the wild. They don't exercise once or twice a week ... My advice is simple: Do a few of the exercises in this book every day. Work harder some days than others, but do something every day." When asked whether one can do the squats, push-ups, and bridging every day, he replies, "Yes, you can ... Combat Conditioning is not like bodybuilding, where you train certain body parts one day and others the next. Take monkeys and other primates ... They do the same type of exercises each day and they're far stronger than human beings." In response to the question, "How long should my workout last?", Matt states that it all depends on your goals and how much time you have. "You might train 15 minutes and you might train for a couple hours or more."


In Defense of Frequent Training

Kurt J. Wilkens





http://www.dragondoor.com/articles/in-defense-of-frequent-training/default.aspx



Whne i myself first started exercising I did bodyweight stuff 5 days a week and got awesome results,but I didn't try to do more then I was capable of doing,and i took my time with a hand full of exercsies and built up.

Dude just like on the bent press thread, please try and learn the basics of the training effect before sharing what anyone has to say.

No body part should ever be trained more than 2-3 times a week and that is a fact.

Let me explain to you in slightly scientific but layman terms.

Protein synthesis (AKA how you build muscle) is above normal levels for 36-48 hours after going through a workout meaning that training within two days of a workout such as doing a bicep workout monday then doing it wednesday as well is not good for the body.

If you do out the math... guess what that comes out to only being able to train a body part 2 times a week and 3 times for certain muscle groups like abs or calves.

Performing a workout for any body part more than at that frequency will result in a loss of gains and eventually a loss of strength, an increase in overall fatigue and a loss in muscle mass.

If you somehow think this is false then you are taking the stance of many training-ignorant people that think you build muscle in the gym. Guess what, you actually lose/break down muscle in the gym and then the muscles adapt to that stress by getting bigger or stronger. Therefore if you work a muscle too soon after a training session you will be re-working a muscle that is not even repaired yet.

People will always come out with their own theories and plans but in the end, basic science shows what works and what does not. Your ideas and whomever you are getting them from could just as easily say eating mcdonalds for all your meals results in faster weight loss because it somehow worked in one person but guess what, that theory just like saying you can train as much as you want is not true and never will be.

[TigerBoy]

Dude just like on the bent press thread, please try and learn the basics of the training effect before sharing what anyone has to say.

No body part should ever be trained more than 2-3 times a week and that is a fact.


Quite right. Recovery time is vital.

Agree 100% with everything else but ...

you actually lose/break down muscle in the gym and then the muscles adapt to that stress by getting bigger or stronger. Therefore if you work a muscle too soon after a training session you will be re-working a muscle that is not even repaired yet.


While your point about recovery time is spot on, I don't agree with the description of loss /breakdown of muscle fibre. The primary mechanism I've been taught both in Biology and Sports Studies is hypertrophy - an increase in the size of existing muscle cells through increase in proteins, division of some mycrofibrils and (if I remember correctly) some skeletal muscle hyperplasia (new cell growth). This takes time because the body has to metabolise proteins to make these changes.

Too much training is specifically bad because:

it is very likely to lead to injury,
may cause reduction in strength due to microtrauma in the muscle fibres
can actually put a hold on or undo ongoing hypertrophy from a previous session
Available amino acids (proteins) may not be sufficient to build new muscle if you've over trained, so recovery can then be delayed considerably.
you can also lose muscle function through short term damage to the nervous system.


Also, cardio training doesn't so much promote muscle growth as an increase in blood flow through new the formation of new blood vessels and the ability to store carbs within the muscle: all of which also takes time for the body to achieve, so the recovery period is still vital.

[Nellerin]

Quite right. Recovery time is vital.

Agree 100% with everything else but ...



While your point about recovery time is spot on, I don't agree with the description of loss /breakdown of muscle fibre. The primary mechanism I've been taught both in Biology and Sports Studies is hypertrophy - an increase in the size of existing muscle cells through increase in proteins, division of some mycrofibrils and (if I remember correctly) some skeletal muscle hyperplasia (new cell growth). This takes time because the body has to metabolise proteins to make these changes.

Too much training is specifically bad because:

it is very likely to lead to injury,
may cause reduction in strength due to microtrauma in the muscle fibres
can actually put a hold on or undo ongoing hypertrophy from a previous session
Available amino acids (proteins) may not be sufficient to build new muscle if you've over trained, so recovery can then be delayed considerably.
you can also lose muscle function through short term damage to the nervous system.


Also, cardio training doesn't so much promote muscle growth as an increase in blood flow through new the formation of new blood vessels and the ability to store carbs within the muscle: all of which also takes time for the body to achieve, so the recovery period is still vital.

What you said is true. Going deeper into it shows that you are completely correct but I was just generalizing it.

I think a good general and easy-to-read source on muscle growth is here http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%20folder/musclesgrowLK.html

Basically that source says the same thing that you said and I said but more in-depth.

[Zenos]

Dude just like on the bent press thread, please try and learn the basics of the training effect before sharing what anyone has to say.

No body part should ever be trained more than 2-3 times a week and that is a fact.

Let me explain to you in slightly scientific but layman terms.

Protein synthesis (AKA how you build muscle) is above normal levels for 36-48 hours after going through a workout meaning that training within two days of a workout such as doing a bicep workout monday then doing it wednesday as well is not good for the body.

If you do out the math... guess what that comes out to only being able to train a body part 2 times a week and 3 times for certain muscle groups like abs or calves.

Performing a workout for any body part more than at that frequency will result in a loss of gains and eventually a loss of strength, an increase in overall fatigue and a loss in muscle mass.

If you somehow think this is false then you are taking the stance of many training-ignorant people that think you build muscle in the gym. Guess what, you actually lose/break down muscle in the gym and then the muscles adapt to that stress by getting bigger or stronger. Therefore if you work a muscle too soon after a training session you will be re-working a muscle that is not even repaired yet.

People will always come out with their own theories and plans but in the end, basic science shows what works and what does not. Your ideas and whomever you are getting them from could just as easily say eating mcdonalds for all your meals results in faster weight loss because it somehow worked in one person but guess what, that theory just like saying you can train as much as you want is not true and never will be.



:rolleyes:When it's comes to you it's usless to meantion anything are even try to explain it because you'll come back with something trying to prove you're way is the only way,that you're right and i'm totally wrong.

But then it's like my dad said "you're 15 and at that stage where you think you know everything".

So i'm just going to put it like this you're ideas are not the only ones that work:

No matter how much you want to deny it Pavel Tsatsouline's,Matt Furey's, Steve Justa's,Henry Higgins,Arthur Saxons,George Hackenshcmidts,George F.Jowett,and Thomas Inch's training ideas work,just as good as a 2-3 day a week workout.

No body has to conform you you're ideas on training though you seem hell bent in my case on arguing the point until I do.

You say no one can workout daily and grow either bigger or stronger,and yet I have seen people use the above mentioned peoples training methodologies to become strong and better conditioned and fitter.


So just because you might not agree with something don't go argue to point with a person in an effort to get them to se things you're way because even if you're not trying to do that,thats what it seems like.

Try studing and applying the methods touted by these guys instead of automatically shooting it down,just because big time magazine brand x says such and such because to qoute Brooks Kubik from his seminal tome Dinosaur Training:


page 192:

Confusing Art and Science:

One of the biggest mistakes that trainees make is confusing art and science.Strength taining is an art,not a science.This is why there is no one way to train and no one training system that everyone shjould follow.

[Nellerin]

:rolleyes:When it's comes to you it's usless to meantion anything are even try to explain it because you'll come back with something trying to prove you're way is the only way,that you're right and i'm totally wrong.

But then it's like my dad said "you're 15 and at that stage where you think you know everything".

So i'm just going to put it like this you're ideas are not the only ones that work:

No matter how much you want to deny it Pavel Tsatsouline's,Matt Furey's, Steve Justa's,Henry Higgins,Arthur Saxons,George Hackenshcmidts,George F.Jowett,and Thomas Inch's training ideas work,just as good as a 2-3 day a week workout.

No body has to conform you you're ideas on training though you seem hell bent in my case on arguing the point until I do.

You say no one can workout daily and grow either bigger or stronger,and yet I have seen people use the above mentioned peoples training methodologies to become strong and better conditioned and fitter.


So just because you might not agree with something don't go argue to point with a person in an effort to get them to se things you're way because even if you're not trying to do that,thats what it seems like.

Try studing and applying the methods touted by these guys instead of automatically shooting it down,just because big time magazine brand x says such and such because to qoute Brooks Kubik from his seminal tome Dinosaur Training:


page 192:

Confusing Art and Science:

One of the biggest mistakes that trainees make is confusing art and science.Strength taining is an art,not a science.This is why there is no one way to train and no one training system that everyone shjould follow.

I've not once stated any thing false or something not proven by science. Despite what you think,I do not ever read magazines on training nor listen to people touting supplements and their careers.

I just love your statement saying that somehow it is possible to train a body part 2-3 times in a week is OK and that me saying it isn't is wrong. ME SAYING THAT IS PROVEN BY SCIENCE EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING HAS NO BACKING IN IT AND IS THEREFORE NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED.

I hate to hate and I was trying to be respectful but I just looked up a few of the people that you mentioned and guess what modern day exercise has shown that all of their training methods are unhealthy and counter-productive to the body.

Many of them say you should train everyday and train the same body part almost everyday, showing that they know NOTHING about how the body works and shows even more that you do not know how it works. So before criticizing stuff I say (AKA the truth) how about you learn up on actual science like go to the NCBI.gov website and look at real modern scientific research to figure out how our body should be trained to produce safe and big results.

[TigerBoy]

@Zenos ...
Strength taining is an art,not a science.
That is the most patently stupid statement you could have referenced. You have a guy trying to be all Yoda about his technique so he can sell books and T-Shirts (ffs): its called marketing, not art, and certainly not science.


There is a big difference between a theory being published and a theory being accepted after peer review.

I am formally studying Biology and Sports Science (PE) - all the science I am being taught is the result of consensus within the scientific community: i.e. other experts in your field check your work for errors in data and method and interpretation and discuss the results where needed in the open forum of scientific journals.


I have seen people use the above mentioned peoples training methodologies to become strong and better conditioned and fitter.
And what method did you use to establish a meaningful comparison to other training programs? What was the injury rate compared to other programs? What was your sample size of individiuals in your study? I.e. can you substantiate this in any way? Anyone showing commitment to pretty much any sort of training has the potential to improve over doing nothing, and that is where these commercially marketed programs gain fans, rarely through science.

No matter how much you want to deny it Pavel Tsatsouline's,Matt Furey's, Steve Justa's,Henry Higgins,Arthur Saxons,George Hackenshcmidts,George F.Jowett,and Thomas Inch's training ideas work,just as good as a 2-3 day a week workout.

Has there been a study that has demonstrated this statement to be FACT which is accepted by even a significant number of the scientific community (let alone a consensus)? Until there is, it isn't a case of 'denial' it is a case of not accepting the latest training or diet fad on face value, of which there are an abundance and most of which are pseudo-scientific garbage aimed at making an individual rich.

[Zenos]

sfsethfitz,tigerboy the problem with you're science is this they have said over various times in various studies that a muscles needs 6-8 hours full recovery before it can be worked,then theres been studies that say 48 hours,even 6-8 days,and some have even said up to 2 weeks before a muscle is fully recovered.

SO which Bodybuidling Magazines SCIENTIFIC STUDY (i.e article)do we go by?


Look at the Russian Olympic weightlifters they train 5-6 days a week but according to you that's wrong thinking amnd wrong training.


Something both you guys failed to spot in my original post was the remark "need more VARITY then just ab ab ab work."

Key word there VARITY,yes LOTS of the old timers lifted daily,got strong and muscular from it,but most did a "varity" of exercsies and or lifts though out the week, yes in some cases the same muscles where still being hit but from a diffrent angle.






Ok i'll also take and use some old timers as examples:

(if instead of running to your bodybuilding magazine Science/studies and automatically decrying the stuff I have posted,why not try reading...no no STUDYING the books found on the following links,and ask you're self how they where able to develp the muscle and level of strength they had without the aid of science and research articles...

trust me most so-called studies are slanted in favor of the desired results due to yes money,plus these studies are always refuted nearly month after month in the magazines citing new findings)


George Hackenschmidt advocated and did workouts 6 days a week,look how muscular he got:

http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/Competition/Hackenschmidt/hack-intro.htm



Take Eugen Sandow he workedout every other day and while he was only 180 pounds he was still muscular:


http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/sandowindex.htm


Take Arthur Saxon not a beautifully built man but he was rugged built and strong and he trained 6 days a week:

http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/Competition/Saxon/saxon.htm


W.A.Pullums book How To Use a Barbell


http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/Competition/Pullum/Barbell/bb-intro.htm


Hermann Goerner

http://www.sandowplus.co.uk/Competition/Goerner/goernerintro.htm


this is one program Mr.Goerner is known to have used:

http://ditillo2.blogspot.com/2009/11/goerners-training-terry-toddcharles.html


Monday –

1.) Two Hands Snatch: After loosening up with calisthenics he would work up in 8 or 10 sets of between 1 and 3 reps from around 125 to 300 lbs. on a good day.

2.) Two Hands Clean & Jerk: Beginning with 220 lbs. he would work up slowly to near his limit, which was almost 400 lbs. It should be noted that he used a very shallow split style on both the snatch and the clean & jerk, barely dipping under the weight.

3.) Two Hands Continental to the Shoulders: When he felt really well, he would put more weight on the bar after his heaviest clean & jerks and do several single continental lifts. He did them by taking the weight from the floor to his belt, then boosting it from there up to his shoulders. His best was around 450 lbs.

4.) Two Hands Curl: Goerner usually did 4 or 5 sets of this, working up to a maximum super-strict rep or two with 220 lbs.

5.) If the weather permitted, he usually ended his sessions with either some slow running or some swimming.


Tuesday –

1.) Curl & Press with Kettlebells: Approximately 10 sets, going from 55 lbs. to 110 lbs. in 5½ lb. jumps (2½ kilo) jumps. These were done very strictly – usually only 1 or 2 reps with each arm, working up quickly to the 110 lb. bells.

2.) Clean & Military Press: Approximately 8 sets of 3 to 5 reps, going from 198 to 264 in 22 lb. jumps, doing 2 sets with each weight.

3.) One Hand Swing with Kettlebells: Approximately 8 sets (4 with each arm) beginning with 110 and sometimes going as high as 254 (using two kettlebells grasped in one hand).

4.) Deadlift: Usually 6 to 8 sets, never exceeding 3 reps. He usually began with 440 lbs. (200 kilos) and worked up to almost 800 lbs. Often he would do his lighter sets without a hook, or with only three fingers on each hand, or two, or only one.


Wednesday

Rest


Thursday

1.) Curl & Press with Kettlebells: Same as Tuesday.

2.) One Hand Snatch: Usually, he would work up slowly in this lift, going from 110 to 220 with each hand.

3.) One Hand Clean & Jerk: As in the snatch, he would do quite a few sets, always using low reps (usually just one), working up to a best of 265.

4.) One Hand Deadlift: Alternating hands, Goerner would work up gradually in poundage from around 220 to over 700 lbs. on his good days, doing 10 to 12 sets.

5.) Squats: During this period, he usually squatted once each week, never more, and he would begin with around 220 and work up to approximately 600. He never really concentrated on this lift. Again, he favored low reps, 3 to 5.


Friday

1.) Clean & Press: Same as Tuesday.

2.) One Hand Swing: Same as Tuesday.

3.) Muscle-Outs with Kettlebells: He usually did these with “light” (up to 65 lbs. in each hand) weights and higher repetitions as a shoulder developer.

4.) Grip Work: Often, Goerner would practice lifting heavy barbells and dumbells with one, two or three fingers.


Saturday

1.) Curl & Press with Kettlebells: Same as Tuesday.

2.) Two Hands Snatch: Same as Monday.

3.) Two Hands Clean & Jerk: Same as Monday.

4.) Front Squat: From time to time he did these, going up to a best of over 500 lbs.

5.) Two Hands Curl: Same as Monday.


Sunday

Rest.

[Zenos]

:yes:

[TigerBoy]

sfsethfitz,tigerboy the problem with you're science is this they have said over various times in various studies that a muscles needs 6-8 hours full recovery before it can be worked,then theres been studies that say 48 hours,even 6-8 days,and some have even said up to 2 weeks before a muscle is fully recovered.

You've missed the point about peer review and consensus then. Whatever studies these are you are talking about, the consensus view is drawn from study(/studies) that are deemed to be the most authoritative and reliable.

SO which Bodybuidling Magazines SCIENTIFIC STUDY (i.e article)do we go by?

'We' don't, because hobbyist magazines are not the same thing as a scientific journal. They are just another example of someone making money through subscriptions and advertising from those interested in selling you the latest miracle program or whatever.

Look at the Russian Olympic weightlifters they train 5-6 days a week but according to you that's wrong thinking amnd wrong training.
Training so many days a week doesn't have to be a problem if managed correctly, but this assumes a degree of expertise and monitoring someone just trying to 'stay fit' like the OP isn't going to have. Even with specialist personnel looking after them, overtraining is still a very real and serious risk for athletes, as anyone with the inclination to type the word into google will soon see.

Something both you guys failed to spot in my original post was the remark "need more VARITY then just ab ab ab work."

I spotted it, I happened to agree with it. Variety is good.

(if instead of running to your bodybuilding magazine Science/studies and automatically decrying the stuff I have posted,why not try reading...no no STUDYING the books found on the following links
Why on earth would I want to? You've just made an assertion that bunch of guys did some stuff and got strong. Great for them. If you feel this somehow contradicts the points made about recovery times and risks of overtraining, then please do your own homework and show how this is so.

Please remember OP simply wanted some basic advice about losing a bit of weight and keeping fit for dance - this thread has really become derailed by you taking issue with some very simple and established advice.

[Zenos]

You've missed the point about peer review and consensus then. Whatever studies these are you are talking about, the consensus view is drawn from study(/studies) that are deemed to be the most authoritative and reliable.


'We' don't, because hobbyist magazines are not the same thing as a scientific journal. They are just another example of someone making money through subscriptions and advertising from those interested in selling you the latest miracle program or whatever.


Training so many days a week doesn't have to be a problem if managed correctly, but this assumes a degree of expertise and monitoring someone just trying to 'stay fit' like the OP isn't going to have. Even with specialist personnel looking after them, overtraining is still a very real and serious risk for athletes, as anyone with the inclination to type the word into google will soon see.


I spotted it, I happened to agree with it. Variety is good.


Why on earth would I want to? You've just made an assertion that bunch of guys did some stuff and got strong. Great for them. If you feel this somehow contradicts the points made about recovery times and risks of overtraining, then please do your own homework and show how this is so.

Please remember OP simply wanted some basic advice about losing a bit of weight and keeping fit for dance - this thread has really become derailed by you taking issue with some very simple and established advice.


It was an assertion backed by their own words though.


Why would you want?

Are you afraid their words and methods might challenge you're way of thinking?

[TigerBoy]

Are you afraid their words and methods might challenge you're way of thinking?
On what point? Listing a bunch or sources and saying "go read" isn't a meaningful debating technique: if it was clear what your point was I could then simply respond by listing some other sources. It's more useful to state a point and illustrate it with targeted quotations and interpretation.

And as far as challenging my thinking, its not an issue. I'm not arguing my position because of ego, I'm arguing it because as a student its educational for me, I find it interesting to discuss, and I'm concerned the OP doesn't get incorrect advice.

It's also not just 'my thinking' in as much as it is what I've been taught as the consensus view of biology and sports science. That view only changes where opposing views are presented with facts and evidence, which is all I'm asking you to provide in support of your opposition to Seth's post.