Fit, Strong and big

51 seconds? Wow, he’s a fast kid! I hope he’s running track somewhere.

And yeah, to give you an example of how to ease into an interval workout based on your speed, you might want to go out on Day 1 and do 3 quarter-mile intervals, all done in under 1:45. It should be pretty easy. Walk around for about 2-3 minutes in between intervals as your “active rest”. If you can complete all 3 under 1:45, consider adding a 4th interval on your NEXT workout. As long as you’re completing all of them in that time, work on lowering the time goal from workout to workout. (i.e, All 4 in under 1:42, then 1:40, etc. )…And eventually, the goal is to get ALL FOUR of your intervals near that 71 second time at some point. And along the way, you can add a 5th and 6th interval if you want, so long as its being done with quality. Obviously, this will take time (a few months at least) but just like with lifting, small steady improvements from workout to workout is the key. Why should conditioning be any different?

And again, this is just one example of an effective conditioning plan. Virtually ANY distance can work (200s, 100s, 50s), and ANY activity (rowing, stairmill, hill sprints, etc.) can be used in this interval-style plan. I personally like running because it’s just especially taxing, and there’s no way to cheat like on treadmills and other cardio pieces.

Zumba Core. Yes, you heard me - dance. no hard repetition on the joints cause of the hole lots of different movements, and keep muscle happy cause you’re most certainly not used to it (those moves). I do it with my roomy on X Box kinect and we have a lot of fun and a good laf. Still, very cardiovascular when you do it intensly and works the abs mainly and total core strenght. Oh, sometimes on friday night a just sit on the couch and look at my feminine friends givin it a try… wich make my happiness ramp up as much as my heart beat. :wink:

[quote]eddiealfano wrote:
51 seconds? Wow, he’s a fast kid! I hope he’s running track somewhere.

And yeah, to give you an example of how to ease into an interval workout based on your speed, you might want to go out on Day 1 and do 3 quarter-mile intervals, all done in under 1:45. It should be pretty easy. Walk around for about 2-3 minutes in between intervals as your “active rest”. If you can complete all 3 under 1:45, consider adding a 4th interval on your NEXT workout. As long as you’re completing all of them in that time, work on lowering the time goal from workout to workout. (i.e, All 4 in under 1:42, then 1:40, etc. )…And eventually, the goal is to get ALL FOUR of your intervals near that 71 second time at some point. And along the way, you can add a 5th and 6th interval if you want, so long as its being done with quality. Obviously, this will take time (a few months at least) but just like with lifting, small steady improvements from workout to workout is the key. Why should conditioning be any different?

And again, this is just one example of an effective conditioning plan. Virtually ANY distance can work (200s, 100s, 50s), and ANY activity (rowing, stairmill, hill sprints, etc.) can be used in this interval-style plan. I personally like running because it’s just especially taxing, and there’s no way to cheat like on treadmills and other cardio pieces.

[/quote]

Thanks for the advice on the 400m. I’ll forgo the shorter distances, a bit too stressful on the hamstrings. So run 1/4, walk 1/4 should do it? Do you think that will minimize any muscle breakdown? I know this sounds lazy but I do not want to be counterproductive; would twice a week be too little for heart health?

Yes my son is at a D2 college on a partial ride for track. He’s been to states in high school twice. He runs a 10.8 100m and a 22.2 in the 200m (FAT). I guess his mom must have been a speedster. :slight_smile:

[quote]Phil Rich wrote:
Zumba Core. Yes, you heard me - dance. no hard repetition on the joints cause of the hole lots of different movements, and keep muscle happy cause you’re most certainly not used to it (those moves). I do it with my roomy on X Box kinect and we have a lot of fun and a good laf. Still, very cardiovascular when you do it intensly and works the abs mainly and total core strenght. Oh, sometimes on friday night a just sit on the couch and look at my feminine friends givin it a try… wich make my happiness ramp up as much as my heart beat. :wink: [/quote]

Bro, I got my pride! lol I’m not doubting you because I can break a sweat doing “LET’S DANCE” on the Wii. Zumba reminds me of aerobics and all I can think of is Olivia Newton John in that video “Physical”. Sorry dude for the 80’s reference.

It sounds like you should be asking your son for some tips instead of T-Nation! Haha!
Here’s my thoughts on Conditioning and “muscle breakdown”: If being as strong as humanely possible is the goal, I would stick to Strongman-style work as my conditioning: The prowler, farmer’s walks, etc. will more often than not HELP your strength goals. But since you expressed an interest in running, that was why I suggested track work. Now, within the realm of track work, for someone who wants to remain as strong as humanely possible, I think shorter distances are best. Just look at the physiques of the track guys: There’s a drop off in muscle when you go beyond the 200m. So, if that’s your goal, I’d stick to 50s, 100s, and 200s.

Now, all that being said, the 400m is just an awesome conditioning tool. Again, no science here, but anyone who can do multiple 400’s at a good pace is in damn good shape. And you just feel great. Also, if we’re talking traditional distance running versus 400s, the 400’s will blow it out of the water for both conditioning AND keeping your muscle.

My suggestion to you would be TWO weekly conditioning workouts to start out. On one, do shorter distance stuff (100’s or 200s, or a mix of both) and on the other one, do 400s. I don’t think you’re going to lose strength on something like this. Taking BCAA’s before or during these workouts is a good idea. A
Oh, and for your rest periods, you probably won’t need to walk the entire 1/4. That might be too long of a rest. I usually just walk for 90 seconds and then turn back around, which will get you back to your starting point in 3 minutes, which should be a good rest period.

[quote]eddiealfano wrote:
It sounds like you should be asking your son for some tips instead of T-Nation! Haha!

since you expressed an interest in running, that was why I suggested track work. Now, within the realm of track work, for someone who wants to remain as strong as humanely possible, I think shorter distances are best. Just look at the physiques of the track guys: There’s a drop off in muscle when you go beyond the 200m. So, if that’s your goal, I’d stick to 50s, 100s, and 200s.

Now, all that being said, the 400m is just an awesome conditioning tool. Again, no science here, but anyone who can do multiple 400’s at a good pace is in damn good shape. And you just feel great. Also, if we’re talking traditional distance running versus 400s, the 400’s will blow it out of the water for both conditioning AND keeping your muscle.

Oh, and for your rest periods, you probably won’t need to walk the entire 1/4. That might be too long of a rest. I usually just walk for 90 seconds and then turn back around, which will get you back to your starting point in 3 minutes, which should be a good rest period. [/quote]

As an ex collegian sprinter, all I can say is it is true. I build my basics frame muscle with just sprints, way before doing any weight lifting and playing football (hey, I don’t just do zumba-core…). I like 200 m. cause you can sprint, wich I don’t think you can really do with 400 m. 200 is still very long for high speed running, so conditionning will definetly be there.

For those who don’t understand “the message” behind my saying “do dance” I’ll explain - do anything else, as a complemet to spints, that is not unfriendly to your knees, that may use less legs and more of everything else, that is different from what you’Re used to,and most of all that you have fun doing. It could be anything, burpees, weighted rope, etc.

For myself I DO do long run 1x a week, but still interval like (hills and stuff), cause I’ve started competing in obstacle running and if you whant to get good (or just resistant I should say) in running downhill without killing your tendons and joints (knees and stuff) on the distance, you have to practice same king of overload (linear periodisation - transforming your body adding from workout to workoht) so you’ll be good on competition day (10 miles -22 k) and you won’t be lying in a bed for the next 10 days…

[quote]eddiealfano wrote:
It sounds like you should be asking your son for some tips instead of T-Nation! Haha!
Here’s my thoughts on Conditioning and “muscle breakdown”: If being as strong as humanely possible is the goal, I would stick to Strongman-style work as my conditioning: The prowler, farmer’s walks, etc. will more often than not HELP your strength goals. But since you expressed an interest in running, that was why I suggested track work. Now, within the realm of track work, for someone who wants to remain as strong as humanely possible, I think shorter distances are best. Just look at the physiques of the track guys: There’s a drop off in muscle when you go beyond the 200m. So, if that’s your goal, I’d stick to 50s, 100s, and 200s.

Now, all that being said, the 400m is just an awesome conditioning tool. Again, no science here, but anyone who can do multiple 400’s at a good pace is in damn good shape. And you just feel great. Also, if we’re talking traditional distance running versus 400s, the 400’s will blow it out of the water for both conditioning AND keeping your muscle.

My suggestion to you would be TWO weekly conditioning workouts to start out. On one, do shorter distance stuff (100’s or 200s, or a mix of both) and on the other one, do 400s. I don’t think you’re going to lose strength on something like this. Taking BCAA’s before or during these workouts is a good idea. A
Oh, and for your rest periods, you probably won’t need to walk the entire 1/4. That might be too long of a rest. I usually just walk for 90 seconds and then turn back around, which will get you back to your starting point in 3 minutes, which should be a good rest period. [/quote]

LOL! Ya, my son is a freak, did I mention he also has a 300 lb bench at 180 BW. One thing I have shared with him is a complete hatred toward losing.

I thank you for your advice. I think I will try running 400s and walking 200s. Maybe adding some sled pulls as I go. Everything should be good for March, we will see.

Yep, I hate those fast guys! Tend to be strong, too. Not fair.
Good luck with everything, and i just want to reiterate: TAKE IT SLOW! You have plenty of time to build up to where you are running at a good speed. The last thing you want is a pulled hamstring on a blazing 400 your first day!

First those are some pretty good times for your weight.

What was your training like to get to that goal

Why can’t you lift heavy and just run easy 3 days a week.

I am 205 and run on trail 3-4 days a week.

[quote]tom1961 wrote:
First those are some pretty good times for your weight.

What was your training like to get to that goal

Why can’t you lift heavy and just run easy 3 days a week.

I am 205 and run on trail 3-4 days a week.
[/quote]

That time is ok. I have done 4 5k before doing the 10k, 3 races with my wife. It’s funny, every time, I mean every time I run a race I will have some 6’-0" 150lb guy come over and ask me, “Dude, what do you bench?”.

My, training in short was lift 4x a week (one body part a week) run on 2 of my days off and run on Sat after my leg training. I was already running 3-4 miles each time out so it was just a matter of adding 1/4 mile a week. The week before my race was 5 mile, a 6 mile and a 7 mile.

As for lifting heavy and running light, I cant do it. First off, there is no such thing as easy for me when it came to running. Second, I’m not programmed to go easy. Like a light switch, I’m off or on. Let me ask you, do you have a fast time or a heavy squat? It’s hard to achieve one, harder to achieve both and almost impossible to have both at the same time.

Trail running scares the shit out of me. Last thing I need is to twist an ankle. Another thing, since I live in a mountainous area, I seem to be going up or down. I like a flat course, lock in at a training speed of 9 min/ mile and go.

When I was in my 20’s I ran a 41 10k but could only squat around 300 and deadlift 425.

Now I am old fat guy trying to get back in shape. If I was as fast as you I would race.

Your 10k is well above average and with a 600 pound squat is crazy.

[quote]tom1961 wrote:
When I was in my 20’s I ran a 41 10k but could only squat around 300 and deadlift 425.

Now I am old fat guy trying to get back in shape. If I was as fast as you I would race.

Your 10k is well above average and with a 600 pound squat is crazy.[/quote]

You’re 53? That’s far from old. That was less then a year ago and I’m 47. You can’t do much about your age, but if you seriously think you’re fat, you can fix that.

Im voting also for the 400m. As the soccer season starts, most of my conditioning is done by 400m repeats, and there is nothing that gets me more ripped and feeling fit than this. I use 150m hill sprints pre-season to build up to these.

An another suggestion; do you have a trampoline centre in town?? Trampoline work outs are really fun and easier on the joints. Just something to consider.

tweet

[quote]magick wrote:
I don’t know. My morning resting heart rate a couple of weeks ago when I got back into lifting and doing conditioning work well and often was in the high 50s.

But I couldn’t run miles without feeling like utter shit. Made me decide that I’ll really have to get the miles in from now on.[/quote]

Now, magick tried his hand at running. But running would NOT have been the only activity in which he would’ve experienced a similar lack of results. It would have happened in cycling, swimming, rowing. etc.

There are several reasons for this. One of the more obvious would be the law of specificity. A less obvious reason is that the energy system involved was not properly trained when all he did was “lifting and conditioning work.”

To the above comment made by magick, your response was:

[quote]eddiealfano wrote:
Not sure what your conditioning work looks like, but I have no problem running 5 miles anytime I am doing consistent interval work. Try doing workouts of 4-6 timed quarter-mile sprints and see if running 3-5 miles is still difficult. I doubt it.

But more importantly, I don’t know why ability to run long distances is so high on people’s list for “health”. It’s a fairly unnatural thing and causes stress to the body. It elevates cortisol levels, is very hard on the joints, etc. I feel like we’ve been duped into believing distance work is so great the same way we were duped into believing cereal and processed carbs were healthy for us back in the 80’s and 90’s.

I personally enjoy distance running, and will go through periods where I do it from time to time, but over the course of the year, the main core of my workouts will always be lifting and various interval conditioning work. And that’s for health and aesthetics. [/quote]

I suspect that your background of running 5ks and 10ks (also a marathon as you stated in an earlier post) has built a fairly impressive aerobic base. So it’s no surprise that intervals give you a better response. And it’s also no surprise that when you do go on your occasional long runs, you don’t notice any decline in performance.

I theorize that you’ve simply maintained your aerobic base for middle to long distance activities with the interval work that you now perform.

Yet I very much doubt that you’ve expanded that aerobic base, regardless of how great you may feel.

Indeed, had you stayed a 5k or longer distance runner, I’d be very surprised if you continued to hit PRs by sticking to just intervals. Somewhere along the line, you’d realize the importance of training all THREE energy systems: the ATP/CP; Glycolytic; Aerobic.

Now you can argue this point. Whether or not I respond doesn’t change the fact I’ve seen and read too much overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

In fact, I’m not aware of any world-class endurance athletes in middle to long distance events (be it running, swimming, rowing, cycling, etc.) that utilize intervals to the EXclusion of lsd and steady-state work. If you have any valid studies to refute this, feel free to pass them my way.

Obviously, these athletes do incorporate interval work into the yearly programming. However, they spend a good deal of time building the base, year after year.

So I’m more than a little skeptical when you state that once someone reaches a certain level of fitness that individual no longer needs steady state work, as you imply:

[quote]eddiealfano wrote:
But once you’re in somewhat respectable shape, interval work is the way to go. [/quote]

And let’s not forget the restorative benefits of easy and steady state work.

You mentioned the cortisol involved in performing endless aerobic work. This is something I don’t deny.

From a pragmatic point of view, there are people who (regardless of the all the internet chest thumping) do NOT want to HIIT themselves into a sweaty, vomiting mess every single time they train. Yet they may not want to just sit around either. Well, it seems to me this is the ideal time to take the middle ground - as long as it’s intelligently executed. So for these occasions, what’s wrong with a 30-45 minute activity at a moderate to easy pace…? Nothing, as far as I’m concerned.

When I go for my rides along the beach, I know: 1) my joints and connective tissue are not taking a pounding; 2) the easy gearing and rpm gives my legs an active rest; 3) the pace is easy enough to take in the scenery; 4) my CNS is getting a nice break; 5)I am continuing to build my aerobic base withOUT going catabolic.

I’m NOT advocating endless hours of cardio. And I’m not anti sprinting (what I do best on a bike) or HIIT. Far from it. I am advocating that an objective individual will realize the importance of keeping a wide variety of tools in the box and knowing when to utilize a specific tool for a specific task.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Conditioning is a very specific thing: We get good at what we do and it’s at the expense of what we DON’T do. So, of course, if you wanna be good at 5ks or Marathons, you have to run 5ks or marathons! Running intervals can help support that, but at some point you have to run those distances to improve in them. I guess the question is, for general fitness and health, do we NEED to improve in those distances? I personally want am willing to sacrifice a few minutes on my 5k times in order to be better at running 100s, 400s, farmers walks, and prowler pushes.

But to be clear, I am not against steady state cardio. And like I said, I enjoy it. So I do it from time to time. I just wouldn’t make it the foundation of my conditioning unless I was out of shape to begin with.

I have concluded that prowler work may be the ticket. I have 2 months to build one and then hit it in March. Thanks for the input from everyone! What the hell, nothing venture… right?

[quote]doublelung84 wrote:
I have concluded that prowler work may be the ticket. I have 2 months to build one and then hit it in March. Thanks for the input from everyone! What the hell, nothing venture… right?[/quote]

I second the prowler choice. I’ve had my econo-prowler for 4 years now and love it during the summer. I wuss out during the winter and do incline tread pushes instead.