Couple of Questions About Working Out...

Post Reply New Topic

Mmkay.

So I've been really shocked at how much stronger I've gotten, and the things I'm able to do at the gym now.
I can powerwalk 3.6 miles an hour, which would have killed me to attempt a month ago...only now I do it on a 15 degree incline.

My question, and forgive me if this sounds silly...
as it's gotten easier, I'm wondering if I'm still burning the same number of calories- the treadmill says 729 an hour doing the above, but I don't feel anything like I would have before...it's gone from ZOMG I'm gonna die, to This is challenging to Meh. I don't feel much.

Is it the case that I'm burning fewer calories because I'm not working as hard
or
I'm working just as hard, but it's a piece of cake for my body now?

Also,
will doing this 4 hours a day cause a discernible increase in muscle, volume-wise?
I'm primarily doing it for weight loss, and I struggle enough as it is to be able to fit into things just because of my curvy shape, and that's when I'm at my thinnest. >.<

I don't think walking will cause an increase in muscle volume. Muscle volume mostly comes down to eating, really. So if you don't eat to repair the muscles with protein, you won't really gain too much volume. That said, to quote Mark Rippetoe, popular strength trainer...

As far as calories, that's something I wonder about, too. When I first started ice skating, I dropped like 5 pounds a week some weeks, mind you I did diet a bit, too. But, now I'm WAY faster of a skater, way more powerful, etc, and now I can skate way faster while using much less effort. I wonder about the calories, too. I kinda think it's offset by your muscle mass getting more efficient, your metabolism speeding up, etc, because now I can basically eat anything in site without gaining weight, with my workout program of "skate an hour a day and lift weights whenever you feel up to it" some weeks I'd be especially lazy and like eat taco bell everyday (terrible of me) and still manage to not gain. I also need a lot more calories now, to not feel tired, I guess the muscle mass is using more calories in general.

I'd say, if it's getting easier, just up the intensity of your workout, just for the sake of feeling like a superhero being fun.

Also, don't be scared of weights. As long as you keep your bodyfat at relatively normal feminine levels, you'll look just fine for like 99% of guys, or better rather. Maybe there's 1% who like stick figures, but that 1% is probably dumb anyway. Seriously, some of the female powerlifters and Olympic lifters look wonderful.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ng1rkNXyh0g[/youtube]
Lydia Valentin, Spanish Olympic weightlifter, she's in the 75kg class, so she hovers at 160 pounds, so she'd be a heavyweight by most women's standards, and even for male classes, that's like middleweight. But, she's pretty great looking. And she's strong enough to lift almost 300 pounds over her head. But yeah, if you wanna feel like a superhero, do lift some weights. My favorites are the Olympic overhead lifts like that, please read this article here, it's all about women and strength training. This article too says, the most confidence building lifts are the Olympic lifts, and I'm inclined to agree.

But yeah, congrats and keep trying to get stronger, it's awesome.

Oh, I'm definitely "skinny fat", but I'm not exactly looking for excuses for anything.
Those bodybuilders are super amazing, but I'm just looking to be a certain size,
and switch out some fat for some muscle as far as that goes.
Appreciate the advice.

EDIT: Someone I'm talking to is telling me about "latent" calorie burning- that you burn a bunch FOLLOWING a workout/an increased workout regimen because of the muscle activity? That sounds pretty intriguing.

I started working out again after 3 years, I managed to strain my triceps right away!

Don't get so pumped you got veins sticking out.

I already look like that, shrox.
My feelings are hurt.

If you really looked like that, I think escaping from beneath your cat's paw would be easy.

there are to many variables to tell easilly if you are burning more or less, It also depends what your metabolism is like on the day which in turn is influenced by hundreds of factors. That is why i would not trust the calorie counter on a treadmill. just keep pushing yourself but be careful to avoid injury.

I personally pursue fitness and health so i can partake in activities. I feel too many people (not saying you do) train for fitness with no real pleasurable activity in mind. i have no idea if this is right but i am assuming that if you have an activity that involves a skill then you are more likely to make a permanent change in your lifestyle which is what is really needed rather than yo yo dieting. beyond the buzz they get. For me it is about using my fitness to cycle, climb, fly kites, anything really. I'm not keen on gym stuff beyond preventing injury

Your muscles adapt to your routine not just in terms of getting stronger, but also in terms of adapting to the specific movements of your routine. This is called the confusion principle. You should try both working out harder and changing your routine up every few weeks.

As for 4 hours, that's excessive. Not only are you overtraining which completely exhausts you and suppresses muscle growth, but you are also more prone to injury that way. You should try doing it for 20-40 minutes, which is fine because in order for cardio to be effective you have to consistently keep your heart rate elevated by 50-85% of your maximum heart beat rate.

So for the average 20 year old, the average maximum heart rate would be 200 bpm. So that means the average 20 year old would need to keep it consistently beating at 100-170 bpm during cardio. If you're 25, then the average max is 195 bpm, which means you need to keep it consistently beating at 98-166 bpm.

Consistently means you can't just sprint and then take a break for 30 seconds. Within those 30 seconds, your heart rate will drop to its baseline rate. You actually have to keep your heart rate elevated throughout the entire 20-40 minutes.

Last edited by AceOfSpades on 12 Feb 2012, 7:32 pm, edited 2 times in total.

No no, they're not bodybuilders. Bodybuilding is quite a different animal than weightlifting, bodybuilding is entirely about looks, whereas weightlifting is entirely about strength. And as far as weightlifting goes, it's efficient strength, too, to some extent, you can't pack on a ton of mass, as then you get moved up to another weight class full of bigger people.

I PERSONALLY don't care for bodybuilding much as a sport. I find it just...weird. As it's all about looks, and for competitions, the people are at their weakest, for competitions, you limit fluid intake to make the veins pop out, etc. Plus, I just don't like the proportions of bodybuilders, it just looks weird to me. I initially wouldn't even touch weights, as all I knew about was bodybuilding, as it's just in general what the public knows about. But lifting for strength is really fun to me, though. Obviously, most girls don't care about becoming strong, but as this anime opening says "If one is born as a male, at least once, he'll dream of becoming the strongest man alive." I think that's 100% accurate. Personally, too, Olympic lifting and powerlifting, as long as you keep the bodyfat levels on you reasonable, you look the best, your proportions just look more natural, imo.

Anyway, if looks are your priority, there's always fitness figure modeling. That could be up your alley, it's like bodybuilding, but not about muscle size, it's about muscle "tone." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_an ... ompetition You might however, if you wanna get "toned" like that, be able to find more information on that sorta thing and find a routine/diet to copy. http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/fitness ... aining.htm Here's a fitness model routine, that's probably more what you're aiming for.

One thing, too, lastly, try not to worry about the scale too much. Instead just have a trainer figure out your bodyfat levels and work from that angle. For example, my weight is currently 195 at 20% bodyfat. Height is 5'9, so that puts my BMI at 28.8, which is overweight. http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/library/b ... charts.htm Here's a chart of healthy bodyfat ranges. So assume then, I were to lose weight, and that weight is fat, if I were to get down to 9% bodyfat, I'd probably be "ripped," my weight would be 173 pounds...and I'd still be overweight according to that BMI calculator, at 25.5. So for me to even be at the bare minimum "healthy" weight category for that BMI, I'd have to drop down to 6% bodyfat.

Sorry if it's going around the answers to your questions a bit, but yeah, you probably got a lot of reading to do.

At the point you are walking 4 hours a day, I'd say that is pretty exetreme. You need to start running. Don't you miss your life?

i have a question too, but it's not important enough for it's own thread so please forgive me for trying to crash this one....

when doing exercises is it generally better to do more sets with less reps in, or fewer sets that consist of more reps?? or does it not make any difference?
for example, if you wanted to do 100 of something, would it make any difference if you did 25reps x4 or 20reps x5? is one more effective than the other?

less reps= strength
more reps=endurance

which is best

Whatever you want, really. One thing is, more reps will generally build more muscle, so if you don't care about strength, but just want more muscle growth, then more reps is better. As far as 20vs25 reps per set, at that level, it's more like you're splitting hairs. People have all kinds of ideas of what reps per set works best, it sorta comes down to what works best for you and gives you the results you want. Many many books have been written on the subject, and there's not really much consensus.

Nobody's found some "master plan" regarding this, and a random magic number of reps and sets that'll be perfect for everyone's goals. So yeah, basically imagine a formula of sorts, if it were an algebra problem, you have more reps=more endurance, then more reps=more muscle mass, but then you have the variable of weight lifted per rep. The endurance too is influenced by the strength, too, as obviously having more strength will make your body use less energy. You can't expect to get stronger and get more muscle mass by lifting your max one time and just going home, but at the same time, you can't expect to get stronger and gain more muscle mass by lifting like 1% of your max 100 reps either. So somewhere in the middle, they meet, and usually for strength, less reps with more weight, and then for mass alone, you use less weight, and more reps. There's also the equation of muscle mass and strength, too, obviously more muscle mass will equal more strength usually, but it's not an assuredness of strength either. For example, the Chinese record setting female Olympic weightlifters in the 48KG class can snatch and clean and jerk about double what I can, and they weigh half as much as me, and are girls no less. They're certainly stronger by a large margin, but I still have more muscle mass, but at the same time, the people in the higher weight classes in the Olympics obviously can lift more than the people of the lower weight class. So sorry there's not really a straight yes or no answer to your question, as first off, I don't know what you want, and second off, people's bodies all work and respond differently to a point. But, food for thought. If you're really serious for specific routines, you'd have to at least look at routines people post up and get some influence from them, even if you don't use them outright.

That said, generally the consensus of the closest thing to a "master plan" for reps is 5x5 programs, it's usually best balance of strength and muscle mass gained. But, there's no like, real scientific analysis regarding it all, as people's bodies are just different, people's goals are different, etc.

i never knew this was all so complicated. thanks for the help