[quote]magick wrote:
Isn’t rucking bad for you depending on the load you’re carrying?
Sure, it’ll probably get you real strong and capable, but it doesn’t seem healthy to the joints in the long run.
[/quote]
I mean it’s really just walking. I’m not talking about carrying an 80lbs pack or anything. Like 20-30lbs for a 30-60 minutes a day.
[quote]56x11 wrote:
Rather than telling someone who is 50+ pounds overweight to jump straight into hard sprints, how about we use that rarest of commodity - common sense - and have him perform low to moderate intensity work in a low-impact manner first…? Perhaps because it’s just not sexy enough, and therefore doesn’t sell.
[/quote]
This right here. My fiance fell off the fitness wagon. I’m having her do two minute jog coupled with two min walk for seven rounds to start and gradually increasing the time jogged over the course of 30 minutes until she can do 30 minutes straight again. How people are told to endure grueling sprint workouts without even being able to remain in motion for twenty minutes is silly to me.
This thread makes me feel a lot better about the fact I’m signed on to do a half marathon in Autumn
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]56x11 wrote:
Rather than telling someone who is 50+ pounds overweight to jump straight into hard sprints, how about we use that rarest of commodity - common sense - and have him perform low to moderate intensity work in a low-impact manner first…? Perhaps because it’s just not sexy enough, and therefore doesn’t sell.
[/quote]
This right here. My fiance fell off the fitness wagon. I’m having her do two minute jog coupled with two min walk for seven rounds to start and gradually increasing the time jogged over the course of 30 minutes until she can do 30 minutes straight again. How people are told to endure grueling sprint workouts without even being able to remain in motion for twenty minutes is silly to me. [/quote]
Very good point
[quote]BrickHead wrote:
[quote]56x11 wrote:
Rather than telling someone who is 50+ pounds overweight to jump straight into hard sprints, how about we use that rarest of commodity - common sense - and have him perform low to moderate intensity work in a low-impact manner first…? Perhaps because it’s just not sexy enough, and therefore doesn’t sell.
[/quote]
This right here. My fiance fell off the fitness wagon. I’m having her do two minute jog coupled with two min walk for seven rounds to start and gradually increasing the time jogged over the course of 30 minutes until she can do 30 minutes straight again. How people are told to endure grueling sprint workouts without even being able to remain in motion for twenty minutes is silly to me. [/quote]
I think base level of fitness is an important assessment when telling/suggesting conditioning work/cadio to someone. The reason things like Couch to 5k are getting popular is because there are indeed people out there who literally do nothing, and they need a plan that caters to that. In the lifting world, we sometimes like to think that the weight room is that starting point, and that with small rest periods you’re getting that base conditioning, but jogging/running/sprinting are different movement patterns that some people have never stressed in their lives, so they need to be trained as well if they want to do things like sprint ladders/intervals as well as be solid in the gym.
I think diet is a huge key as well. I don’t have any personal anecdotes, but I do think there’s some reasoning behind not doing ‘moderate’ rate conditioning while in a particularly restrictive diet phase.
Good topic.
For me, my legs shrivel when i use jogging for fat loss even with strength training. They get downright skinny, while the midsection stays fat…hello skinny-fat ! So I eat up these anti-cardio articles.
I also frequent bb.com and the basic sentiment is you don’t need cardio to lose fat in the nutrition forums. Ate that up too. You know what, if you’ve been lean all your life and its time to shed some pounds from a bulk, sure for those guys a slight deficit will work. For me without cardio, id need to be around 1600 kcals a day to lose weight. With short intense cardio sessions I can at least go up to 2000-2100 and keep losing. So for ME, I need cardio or I’d be miserable.
Ultimately this is to say, short intense cardio (HIIT, intervals, circuits) has been way more beneficial for me than the steady state stuff by far.
[quote]giograves wrote:
I also frequent bb.com and the basic sentiment is you don’t need cardio to lose fat in the nutrition forums. [/quote]
While this is true, very true, it is not the norm. MOST people do not have the will, dedication, Knowledge , and understanding to get freaky lean without cardio. Depending on the starting point, it can take quite a bit of time, years even. Having said that, leanness aside, the cardiovascular benefits of running, sprinting, jogging, etc. etc. are great. You just have to have your goals in check and understand that serving 2 masters is almost impossible. Great thread. Its the “f**k it, I’m going for a run” thread.
[quote]giograves wrote:
Good topic.
For me, my legs shrivel when i use jogging for fat loss even with strength training. They get downright skinny, while the midsection stays fat…hello skinny-fat ! So I eat up these anti-cardio articles.
I also frequent bb.com and the basic sentiment is you don’t need cardio to lose fat in the nutrition forums. Ate that up too. You know what, if you’ve been lean all your life and its time to shed some pounds from a bulk, sure for those guys a slight deficit will work. For me without cardio, id need to be around 1600 kcals a day to lose weight. With short intense cardio sessions I can at least go up to 2000-2100 and keep losing. So for ME, I need cardio or I’d be miserable.
Ultimately this is to say, short intense cardio (HIIT, intervals, circuits) has been way more beneficial for me than the steady state stuff by far.[/quote]
No one who knows a thing about S/C will dispute the efficacy of hiit for fat loss.
It’s when various authors take a black or white approach to the subject, that common sense falls by the wayside.
You’re not overweight and out-of-shape. Therefore, hiit is a viable option for you.
For others, low intensity cardio is insufficient to elicit a positive response; and high-intensity cardio would be too traumatic. This is where a bridge - that middle of the road approach the OP mentioned - is the logical choice.
And don’t forget that, for some people, improving their overall conditioning is just as important. Therefore, it makes little sense, to anyone who understands all the pieces of the puzzle, to dismiss steady state work.
And what about, as I mentioned in an earlier post, the act of enjoying life? A client went to Vegas for the weekend with her friends. They wanted to enjoy the night life but also wanted to head outdoors.
There’s a trail about an hour’s drive from town that has spectacular views of trees that are several thousand years old. It requires about a 90 minute hike, uphill, at 9000+ foot elevation. For someone who lives at sea level this can be quite a challenge.
Fortunately, hiit wasn’t the only form of cardio she does so she had a proper base of fitness to actually complete and - unlike her friends - ENJOY the hike. As for preserving her lean muscle tissue, it was a simple matter of understanding things such as RER, gluconeogenesis, etc. and adjusting her caloric intake accordingly.
It comes down to knowing one’s long-term goal, the short-term goal, and knowing how to adjust the variables so there is little to no discord between the two.
[quote]56x11 wrote:
A client went to Vegas for the weekend with her friends. They wanted to enjoy the night life but also wanted to head outdoors.
There’s a trail about an hour’s drive from town that has spectacular views of trees that are several thousand years old. It requires about a 90 minute hike, uphill, at 9000+ foot elevation. For someone who lives at sea level this can be quite a challenge.[/quote]
I realized this is way off topic. But I’m curious where this trail is (I’m heading to Vegas myself in a month).
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]56x11 wrote:
A client went to Vegas for the weekend with her friends. They wanted to enjoy the night life but also wanted to head outdoors.
There’s a trail about an hour’s drive from town that has spectacular views of trees that are several thousand years old. It requires about a 90 minute hike, uphill, at 9000+ foot elevation. For someone who lives at sea level this can be quite a challenge.[/quote]
I realized this is way off topic. But I’m curious where this trail is (I’m heading to Vegas myself in a month).[/quote]
There are several. One of the most well-known ones would be the Mt. Charleston Bristlecone trail.
I know I said 90 minutes, but most people complete it in about 3 hours. I just have 90 stuck in my head because that’s what I used to do it in. It was a way to give my fingers and elbows a rest, see breath taking scenery, and stay fit.
There are a few other “secret” trails. I also remember another trail that came across the wreckage of a small plane. When I was spending a month climbing there, I befriended a retired gentleman who traveled across the country in his truck and custom-built camper/trailer. Great guy. He was the one who told me about them. This was many years back so these trails may not be so “secret” anymore.
Since you’re visiting for a short while, I’d recommend the more established trails, unless you want to hire a guide or get lucky and find a knowledgeable local.
when I was boxing along with lifting I was in much better shape. I did roadwork and sprints along with practices and my lifting still was shooting through the roof. Once I dropped it for two years due to other problems I was so out of shape. Now that I’m back into it and I sprint regularly again I have so much more energy and getting leaner while eating more. I still gain muscle and strength while feeling better.
A lot of guys on here in their logs will attest to the fact that its better to do much more activity and eat more to get lean then less of both
[quote]56x11 wrote:
Since you’re visiting for a short while, I’d recommend the more established trails, unless you want to hire a guide or get lucky and find a knowledgeable local.[/quote]
Thanks. I’m not sure we’ll make it out of the city/strip at all, but this probably won’t be the only trip out there.
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]56x11 wrote:
Since you’re visiting for a short while, I’d recommend the more established trails, unless you want to hire a guide or get lucky and find a knowledgeable local.[/quote]
Thanks. I’m not sure we’ll make it out of the city/strip at all, but this probably won’t be the only trip out there.[/quote]
No worries.
My previous post may have come across as dismissive with the ‘secret trails.’
The person who told me about them used the area as a high-altitude training ground away from the Vegas summer heat. He ran ultra marathons. How’s that for irony…? If I had approached him with a condescending attitude (due to his chosen past time) he never would’ve told me about these hidden gems. And they involved very specific instructions.
This was many years back so I don’t recall all the details; plus the trail system has most likely evolved which would make the info near obsolete. This is why I just tell people to stick to the established stuff.
One thing that hasn’t changed is the shock to the system many unsuspecting people experience. Vegas is at 2000 feet, most trail heads start at about 8000, the summit is over 9000. And if they’re hung over/dehydrated, you can see the misery etched into their faces.
At 53 I worry about my health as much as lifting.
Right now I am running 3-4 days a week mostly on trails.
I think the main problem with running when you are heavy is your joints
which is why I run on dirt and grass trails most of the time.
Most people including myself need to be doing more exercise not less.
My main goals are getting stronger and adding muscle and running doesn’t seem
to be hurting those goals.
I lift 3 days a week and train at my boxing gym for 3 days. My “cardio” during my lifting days consists of a fast mile. I have been trying to improve it every week by a little. I don’t go 100%, but hard. I’m at 6:30 now, and I think it’s perfect. I still have plenty of energy left for 45 minutes of weights, and the carryover in the boxing ring has been noticeable. I’ve dropped my long, slow runs and now have saved about 2 hours of my time a week.
[quote]56x11 wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]56x11 wrote:
A client went to Vegas for the weekend with her friends. They wanted to enjoy the night life but also wanted to head outdoors.
There’s a trail about an hour’s drive from town that has spectacular views of trees that are several thousand years old. It requires about a 90 minute hike, uphill, at 9000+ foot elevation. For someone who lives at sea level this can be quite a challenge.[/quote]
I realized this is way off topic. But I’m curious where this trail is (I’m heading to Vegas myself in a month).[/quote]
There are several. One of the most well-known ones would be the Mt. Charleston Bristlecone trail.
I know I said 90 minutes, but most people complete it in about 3 hours. I just have 90 stuck in my head because that’s what I used to do it in. It was a way to give my fingers and elbows a rest, see breath taking scenery, and stay fit.
There are a few other “secret” trails. I also remember another trail that came across the wreckage of a small plane. When I was spending a month climbing there, I befriended a retired gentleman who traveled across the country in his truck and custom-built camper/trailer. Great guy. He was the one who told me about them. This was many years back so these trails may not be so “secret” anymore.
Since you’re visiting for a short while, I’d recommend the more established trails, unless you want to hire a guide or get lucky and find a knowledgeable local.[/quote]
I’ll never forget a bunch of old ladies who lapped my then 34 year old ass walking up that mountain. Still is one of my top three favorite hikes. I’ll take kids there some day.
I’ve got a bit of a personal aversion to running owing to my previous experience with competitive distance running and the hole that that dug me into. But I still find that a 20-minute steady state session on the Concept 2 rower is one of the most effective means of improving recovery speed between heavy workouts.
I’m also all for walking more as part of one’s daily lifestyle. I’ve always been fairly active on foot and, even after not having really “ran” for about ten years, I still have a low RHR and good BP levels. I attribute a lot of this to just moving around in general.
It’s probably different for everyone, but I am doing 5/3/1 and calorie cycling between a small surplus on lifting days to a small deficit (+/- 300 to 500 k/cal per day) on non-lifting days. For conditioning, I am doing fasted morning walks more frequently (aiming for 3-4 days per week), and have started to throw in fasted 3 mile HIIT sessions that last up to 30 minutes 1-2 times per week.
I am leaning out and maintaining or seeing mostly positive strength gains, save for some fluctuations week to week on BW assistance work, so I think all of these worries about major muscle catabolism or other stress-related fears to avoid more intense cardio are either overblown or may be much more individualistic depending on the person. I am one who tends to store fat fairly easily, hence I can get away with longer durations of cardio without hindering body composition in the process.
[quote]JRT6 wrote:
[quote]56x11 wrote:
[quote]LoRez wrote:
[quote]56x11 wrote:
A client went to Vegas for the weekend with her friends. They wanted to enjoy the night life but also wanted to head outdoors.
There’s a trail about an hour’s drive from town that has spectacular views of trees that are several thousand years old. It requires about a 90 minute hike, uphill, at 9000+ foot elevation. For someone who lives at sea level this can be quite a challenge.[/quote]
I realized this is way off topic. But I’m curious where this trail is (I’m heading to Vegas myself in a month).[/quote]
There are several. One of the most well-known ones would be the Mt. Charleston Bristlecone trail.
I know I said 90 minutes, but most people complete it in about 3 hours. I just have 90 stuck in my head because that’s what I used to do it in. It was a way to give my fingers and elbows a rest, see breath taking scenery, and stay fit.
There are a few other “secret” trails. I also remember another trail that came across the wreckage of a small plane. When I was spending a month climbing there, I befriended a retired gentleman who traveled across the country in his truck and custom-built camper/trailer. Great guy. He was the one who told me about them. This was many years back so these trails may not be so “secret” anymore.
Since you’re visiting for a short while, I’d recommend the more established trails, unless you want to hire a guide or get lucky and find a knowledgeable local.[/quote]
I’ll never forget a bunch of old ladies who lapped my then 34 year old ass walking up that mountain. Still is one of my top three favorite hikes. I’ll take kids there some day.[/quote]
Back when I was a climbing bum, hiking for us was just something we did to get to a cliff or stay fit on rest days. We’d make jokes that you know it’s time to sell your rope and harness when you actually prefer that over climbing.
Amazing the things you learn to appreciate after the fact…
Many years later, looking back on my time there, my fondest memories are not sending hard routes at the nearby Mt Charleston, or meeting some international superstar traveling through. Now days, my prized memories are the sights I saw on those hikes.
You should definitely take your kids. They may not understand the significance right away; but eventually they’ll be grateful for the perspective they’ll acquire from seeing, in person, trees that are over several thousand years old.