Fitness

[Kee]

Anyone seriously into fitness? I feel like i've been bitten by the bug and can't stop until my river of vanity runs dry!

Truth be told i was always somewhat overweight - never obese or excessively so to the point of unattractiveness (hahaha ) but the love handles were definitely there and the chubb was always a self-conscious weight on my shoulders (no pun intended). Recently however I've gone into discipline mode and ended up losing about 15kg and am currently in the process of getting ABS! However these are made usually through dropping body fat % to single digits (at least that's the goal!).

Anyway thought it would be cool if anyone on here was feeling motivated or wanted to chat or share their experiences with us

[Goldtop]

Yea dude exercise is great fun, i like nothing better then smoking a scooby and hitting the bag or doing weights Running or rowing smashes ya aswell, great way to tone up. Ive been a bit lazy lately tho, started to put on a bit, but it feels awesome to get back into it, ya start to feel better mentally aswell. Just gota work on me diet, never been a healthy eater good shit mate good on ya

[Kee]

I'd post pics if anyone can convince me that my hairy stomach is picture worthy..

this site is my bible too, so good: www.cronometer.com

gah!!

Edited November 28, 2011 by Kee

[Sheather]

I'm looking to put on maybe 10 kilos of muscle mass over the next three months, and after that, drop my body fat % a bit. If that's the wrong order of things then let me know

It's going to be tough eating enough though. Gonna have to consume loads of food. (good food that is)

[Seldom]

for making sure you get anough excess calories to get good gains i'd say do a half GOMAD for a month, it's hands down the best thing i've found for regaining strength

[SunChaser]

No point having muscle if you can’t see it from a layer of fat.

Best thing to do is strip the fat with a low calorie high protein diet, as well as doing light strength and cardiovascular training, which will tone you up as well as help strip fat.

Then once your slim and toned it should be far easier pack on muscle, without packing on fat as well.

btw,high protein low carbs is best for building muscle without gaining fat, imo.

Peace

[tripsis]

No point having muscle if you can’t see it from a layer of fat.

Right, because the only function of muscle is to make you look good?

[TheExplorer]

I'm looking to put on maybe 10 kilos of muscle mass over the next three months, and after that, drop my body fat % a bit. If that's the wrong order of things then let me know

It's going to be tough eating enough though. Gonna have to consume loads of food. (good food that is)

 

I don't think 10 kilos of pure muscle mass is realistic in 3 months. That's almost a kilo a week. Although if you want to get ripped, you are going about the right way: bulk up in overall mass and then cut down. Some people bulk with whatever food they can get their hands on, and probably end up bigger, but have a lot more work to do when it comes to cutting. Instead, you should follow a balanced diet and eat A LOT. This will increase mass but keep fat % down. Plus if you are working out you will be stripping fat anyways, and many professionals argue that strength training is more efficient at stripping body fat than cardio. Anyways, if you are serious, and have the money to invest, here's a sample diet that will get you to where you want:

•Meal 1 – 6 boiled Eggs, 2 cups of Oatmeal and a Protein Shake (and multivitamin)

•Meal 2 – 300g Chicken Breast (boiled) Broccoli and Brown Rice

•Meal 3 – 200g Tuna chunks in spring water, mixed with Spinach Leaves, and Wholemeal Pasta

Have your workout. Immediately post workout, consume your Whey Protein

•Meal 4 – Stir fry Beef/Kangaroo Mince with some vegetables

•Meal 5 – Steak or Kangaroo and Brussels Sprouts

•Meal 6 – 4 scrambled Eggs and some Salmon

•Meal 7 – One cup of no fat Cottage Cheese 10m before bed

At first you will feel sick eating this much, but you have to force yourself to eat if you want to gain mass fast (as it seems you do). Having said that, the above diet is a pretty full-on example; you could probably get away with only having 5 or 6 small meals to begin with and then working your way up if need be. At the very least, take what you would normally eat in 3 large meals and spread it out to 6 meals over the day.

In terms of training, if you are looking to gain overall size focus on the core compound exercises (squats, bench press and pull ups) and then use isolation exercises to work on weaker areas or areas that you want to gain more mass on. If you just want to look good so you can take your shirt off at festivals, only train upper body and completely disregard legs, as chicks do not care how big your legs are (and it's not like they support your frame or anything ).

Edited November 28, 2011 by TheExplorer

[Kee]

[Sheather]

I like your plan. At the moment I don't really have money to invest in protein shakes etc, hopefully I will have a job soon and can get some stuff then. As is, the meal plan looks cool, and I was planning on doing 3 different work-out days, twice a week, with sundays off. I'd alternate upper body, legs, and core, though obviously there will be some overlap in exercises. As far as I know this will give me enough time for my muscles to heal, but not so much that I will be wasting it sitting around like an idiot.

Oh, and I probably wouldn't go for boiled chicken breast. If anything it's less nutritious than frying.

I think I'm fortunate in that I have the kind of body that is more prone to putting on muscle than fat. Humm perhaps I will be able to post results at the end. Would suck if I didn't stick to it, perhaps some pressure will help

[Sallubrious]

All this focus on gaining muscle mass is unsustainable and unrealistic.

Most of the gains you see will not even be real muscle with a typical body building approach, most of it will be sarcoplasm.

Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is in many ways useless (unless you are keen on perving on yourself in the mirror)

Russian Kettlebells are arguably the best way to put on functional muscle mass and achieve a high level of cardiovascular fitness at the same time.

People who train for a specific sport solely with a Kettlebell regularly outperform people who train for the same sport conventionally with sport specific exercises.

With a kettlebell you can get a cardio workout and build functional strength at the same time and also develop explosive power.

If you want to make a bodybuilder puke - give him a small kettlebell (16kgs) and ask him snatch it 100 times in less than 5 minutes -he won't get past 60 or 70 max. Many women can easily do 100 reps in that time.

If you want to make a bodybuilder look like a weakling - give him a competition weight Kettlebell (24kg) and ask him to press it over his head with one hand or do a Turkish get up. Actually don't do this he would probably get hurt.

Pavel Tsatsouline (the evil Russian) took his kettlebells to a bodybuilding show in L.A. and set up a stall. He dared all the passers by to press a 40 kg Kettlebell over their head with one hand and most people were too scared to try, he even offered to pass it to them so they didn't hurt their back lifting it up, most bodybuilders were too scared to look him in the eye as they scurried past, it's something some Russian housewives can do.

There is a saying commonly heard with kettlebells - is your strength functional or fictional?

Edited November 28, 2011 by SallyD

[ThunderIdeal]

just offering my opinion.

i went to the gym when i was younger, primarily for the group yoga/pilates sessions but after being warmed up i usually did some weights. i put on muscle pretty fast, it helps if you're a pig but it also helps just to be not too skinny and not too fat.

i didn't even get very big before i realised, hey, i'd rather not be this big, i'd rather focus on other things. in summary, having a bit of muscle tone is admirable but if i could be fucked going to all of the effort to get big muscles, i'd instead funnel that effort elsewhere.

[CβL]

I used to go to the gym and train heaps. (but then student debt got the better of my money and now I have to train at home )

What I would highly recommend is the book 'Starting Strength' by Mark Rippetoe. It's for people who want to be strong and able, not jersey shore cast members. It's basically a biomechanical manual to the 4 main exercises (SQUATS, deadlifts, bench press, overhead press). These 4 are compound exercises, and should generally take up a very large chunk of your energy. The book basically explains the posture and movements down to a T. It's basically so you don't crack your back doing deads.

Don't get sucked into gym product hype. The golden rule is that the bigger the writing, the shittier the crap they're peddling.

You need food, you need comfortable clothing, and 97% of people need to create a schedule of some form. If you go in and muck around, you will get better, but you are likely to plateau early on. With a schedule, it's plainly evident when you aren't advancing and need to change tactics. It also gives much greater confidence, because you can write down what you have accomplished, and then you can be sure if you have gotten stronger or not. My personal preference was to basically ignore 1-rep maximum weights, and only "count" 5-rep maximum weights. But probably more people just count both.

In terms of food, I would say that low-fat cottage cheese is not worth the extra effort. It tastes rank and has less protein. Secondly, it's quite possible to gain a shit-ton of muscle mass without having any carbs (e.g. a state of ketosis). That's what I was did, and it was great. The benefit of ketosis is that you don't get hypoglycaemic. Meaning you can work out even if you haven't eaten as recently. When you're carb-fuelled, if you exercise too hard you'll feel dizzy and stumble home slurring words and missing steps. I know because I switched a few months after to including carbs and used to get savage headaches and the shakes after working out too hard.

I never tried kettlebells, but they're not "better" than normal barbells. They're simply different (e.g. better in some respects, worse in others), and it's best to use a mixture of both for absolute strength. It's the common mindset of "If it's ancient and asian, and somewhat effective, then it must automatically be a secret that trumps anything we can come up with in the west."

Lastly, just remember to have fun, and BE SAFE. There are too many stories (myself included) of idiots who lifted too much or did something careless and put themselves out for months. I stepped on a stair awkwardly and twised (maybe fractured) my ankle, and it's seized up every morning I wake up and lost a few degrees of motion. It also cracks and feels different.

[Sallubrious]

I never tried kettlebells, but they're not "better" than normal barbells. They're simply different (e.g. better in some respects, worse in others), and it's best to use a mixture of both for absolute strength. It's the common mindset of "If it's ancient and asian, and somewhat effective, then it must automatically be a secret that trumps anything we can come up with in the west."

 

How can you comment on something you've never tried ?

A lot of coaches on the web push that philosophy because they have a gym full of sissy machines or they endorse products themselves.

For me Kettlebells are much better than anything I've ever tried, I get to work every muscle in my body in much less time than I ever could with barbells, dumbells and machines. You can try to emulate Kettlebell movements with dumbells but they just don't work in the same way because of the angles at which the weight acts so the efficiency of the workout doesn't even come close. Many coaches read about Kettlebells and try the movements with a dumbell and find it easy and then kid themselves that they know what a Kettlebell feels like.

I've worked out for almost 30 years and after I got my first kettlebell I've used all my other gym equipment less and less and now the other stuff doesn't get used at all except the chinup bar.

I went next door where some of the local under 22 football team come to do their weights with conventional dumbells, barbells and machines.

Most of them are bigger than me and I smoked them all in every excercise they do, in both no of reps and weight lifted Except for a 6 foot 4 pacific islander kid that out squated me. I haven't done a squat since I had the cartilage taken out of my knee (22 years ago)

I also have a much higher V02 max and can outperform all of them (easily) in a torture test (the one hand Kettlebell snatch or a 2 handed Kettlebell swing - heartrate and V02 max are the limiting factors here it is not a simple matter of being conditioned to the exercise) and I am almost twice their age. I don't run,ride, swim or do any cardio except for Kettlebell work.

They are supposed to be at their physical peak and I'm a short arse grandpa (5'7") that uses nothing but kettlebells and I made them all look like unfit weaklings.

I'm not bulky and disproportionate, I am on the muscular side of what you'd call athletic and now I'm more flexible than many 20 year olds.

I believe in terms of efficiency that Kettlebells shit all over anything else around. Kettlebells build a body that is strong and capable and works all muscles (heart included) in a synergistic fashion that nothing else can come close too.

[SunChaser]

As a general rule I’ve always had better stamina than most big blokes. I’m only about 162 cm and usually weigh around 53 to 56 kg and my body leans towards naturally being slim and toned.

Years ago when I was only 16 I used to work with a few big blokes (over 6 foot) who used to workout, they were packed with muscle and were mostly in there mid twenties. Seriously, although they could have picked me up and thrown me over there shoulder if they wanted, when it came to stamina they were completely hopeless. Half way though a hard day of hanging plaster board, these big blokes would always be staggering around like stoned teenagers, whinging about how tired and hungry they were, well I was running circles around them. Not only that, but half of them had shoulder and knee injuries and all the rest.

I think it’s the same as cars. Those big blokes were big arse SUV’s, they look intimidating and have a heap of power, but are completely inefficient for endurance. Where I was a little 4wd Subaru, which can zip though busy traffic and roar down a sandy dirt road with ease and can also run forever on an oily rag.

Being lean and toned is the best body type if you’re looking for endurance, imo. But packing on a heap of muscle you don’t need would probably come in handy for standing over people at the pub, I suppose.

Peace

[ThunderIdeal]

maybe somebody like ballzac could explain it better, but people with a shorter frame are a bit like a diesel in low range. they're nuggets of torque and i think if a short and tall person can complete the same feat in the same way, the tall person will need to use more energy to do it.

don't forget to take into account that being longer means that a rep is a bigger task eg the weight has to be lifted further.

[SunChaser]

Right, because the only function of muscle is to make you look good?

 

Probably should have been a little clearer, it’s obviously a sensitive topic for someone. I was actually more referring to the psychological effect, rather than how you look to other people.

Personally, if I see myself in the mirror and can see some decent muscle developing, then it gives me motivation to workout harder.

But if I’m just going hard working out and eating a really high calorie diet, it doesn’t matter how physically strong I’ve become, if I see myself in the mirror with a bloated stomach (from all the extra calories) and a layer of fat where my abs are supposed to be, then I just lose all motivation and stop putting in my best effort. Then I end up with less muscle and more fat than when I started.

That’s just what works for me. I mean, each to their own! I think you’ll find that everyone’s different and there’s no one right or wrong way when it comes to gaining a better fitness level.

Don’t really think it was necessary to give me a negative point for giving my opinion on what works for me. But whatever, it’s all good.

Peace

[Seldom]

thats a fair call. i'm a fraction under 2m and fairly lean, i'm lucky with my body type that it's impossible for me to put any substantial amount of fat on no matter what i do, but it means i'll never be huge without serious time in the gym. i've gotten to the point where as long as i can do at least 100 correct posture pushups in a session (reps of 20 not all at once) then i'm happy with the shape i'm in. it may not be that good for bulking but imo there's alot to be said for the humble pushups and pullups/chinups

[Slybacon]

LJ - 100

&

Mucana Priens Extract

Perfect for Bulking up and energy to excersise. I put on 10kg in 2 and a half months with just this and excersice no change in diet. LJ 100 is an absolutely fantastic suppliment.....

http://www.lj100.com/

Body Building Benefits:

Greater Testosterone Bioavailability—Unbinds BT and increases FT, without increase in aromatization into estrogen. Approx 80%-150% improvement in serum testosterone in athletes in 2 weeksIncreases 4-Androstenedione - responsible for lean body mass, fat decrease, and muscle building

Does not increase Dihydrotestosterone - responsible for hair loss and prostate swelling associated with Prostate Cancer.

Average Testosterone Increase of 100% in less than 2 weeks—seen in healthy men under age 50.

Increase in cGMP and cAMP by 60%

Increase in ATP production by 80%

DHEA will rise by about 45%

SHBG suppression reduces fat formation

Effective even for those with hormonal damage—Studies show positive results in individuals with hypogonadism

This translates to:

More testosterone for Muscle Build

Improved Work-Out, Endurance, Strength & Energy

Improved Recovery After Work Out

Significantly reduce decreased Body Fat

 

Do it, you will not regret it!

Edited November 30, 2011 by Slybacon

[ballzac]

maybe somebody like ballzac could explain it better, but people with a shorter frame are a bit like a diesel in low range. they're nuggets of torque and i think if a short and tall person can complete the same feat in the same way, the tall person will need to use more energy to do it.

don't forget to take into account that being longer means that a rep is a bigger task eg the weight has to be lifted further.

 

If you're performing a task that requires torque, then the amount of energy expended does not depend on the length of the lever (the arm in this case) if the torque required is the same. BUT, if you are talking about lifting a free weight, then the torque is proportional to the length of the arm for a given mass, so if the arms are longer then the energy expended is greater. In fact, both of your statements above are equivalent, because the torque required is related to the force required. You only really need to take into account the vertical component because you are pushing against gravity. Essentially, the energy require is E=mgh, where m is the mass, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and h is the change in height.

Having said all that, it depends so much on physiology, of which I know very little. If you just look at the equation I gave above, it means the you actually absorb energy rather than expending it as you lower the weights (i.e. when h is negative). This is absurd, and the solution lies in the fact that most of the energy we use when lifting weights is converted into heat of the muscles rather than potential energy in the weights. That means that the efficiency of the muscles themselves probably has a much bigger effect on how much energy we expend when lifting.

Edited November 30, 2011 by ballzac

[Sallubrious]

If you're performing a task that requires torque, then the amount of energy expended does not depend on the length of the lever (the arm in this case) if the torque required is the same. BUT, if you are talking about lifting a free weight, then the torque is proportional to the length of the arm for a given mass, so if the arms are longer then the energy expended is greater. In fact, both of your statements above are equivalent, because the torque required is related to the force required. You only really need to take into account the vertical component because you are pushing against gravity. Essentially, the energy require is E=mgh, where m is the mass, g is the acceleration due to gravity, and h is the change in height.

Having said all that, it depends so much on physiology, of which I know very little. If you just look at the equation I gave above, it means the you actually absorb energy rather than expending it as you lower the weights (i.e. when h is negative). This is absurd, and the solution lies in the fact that most of the energy we use when lifting weights is converted into heat of the muscles rather than potential energy in the weights. That means that the efficiency of the muscles themselves probably has a much bigger effect on how much energy we expend when lifting.

 

The amount of contractile force required to lift a weight is not just a simple product of the length of the lever and the mass being lifted. That method applies to a normal moments calculation where torque = force * distance when applied to a first order lever.

For most of the musculoskeletal system the levers involved are second order levers where the force is applied between the load and the fulcrum.

The contractile force is complicated by the the muscles' (or its connecting tendons') insertion/attachment point. Someone with what's known as long insertion where the muscle/tendon attaches further away from the fulcrum than someone with short insertion will have more mechanical advantage (technically less mechanical disadvantage) and the contractile force will be less to lift the same weight, if the bones are the same length.

Many people of African heritage (negros) have typically long muscle insertion points making their entire body more efficient.

That's why many African athletes can perform remarkable feats with lanky frames and seemingly not much muscle mass.

In general being small is an advantage in endurance events as there is just less tissue to feed oxygen and glycogen etc.

[ballzac]

The amount of contractile force required to lift a weight is not just a simple product of the length of the lever and the mass being lifted. That method applies to a normal moments calculation where torque = force * distance when applied to a first order lever.

 

Very true, but I was talking about energy, not force. With long insertion, the muscle is further away from the fulcrum so the force required is less, but this force must act over a longer distance, so the energy required is the same.

[tripsis]

Don’t really think it was necessary to give me a negative point for giving my opinion on what works for me. But whatever, it’s all good.

Just for the record, it wasn't me who gave it to you. I merely thought your comment vain.

Edited November 30, 2011 by tripsis

[Sallubrious]

Very true, but I was talking about energy, not force. With long insertion, the muscle is further away from the fulcrum so the force required is less, but this force must act over a longer distance, so the energy required is the same.

 

Sorry I took that statement about torque out of the context you were referring to ie energy

Really it all comes down to this

That means that the efficiency of the muscles themselves probably has a much bigger effect on how much energy we expend when lifting.

 

[nothinghead]

No point having muscle if you can’t see it from a layer of fat.

 

Probably should have been a little clearer, it’s obviously a sensitive topic for someone. I was actually more referring to the psychological effect, rather than how you look to other people.

Personally, if I see myself in the mirror and can see some decent muscle developing, then it gives me motivation to workout harder.

 

Nice try, jabez. If you aren't working out to improve your self-image you wouldn't be so concerned about the mirror. And you were clearly indicating that looking 'better' is your motivation for exercise.

Personally when I exercise with the intention to improve myself in the activity i'm exercising for, I rely on my progression in the activity rather than my body image or visible gains. Otherwise I judge my success by how good I feel from the exercise. In any case I find the pleasure of exercise more important than the perceived physical gains in my/others' eyes.

I think exercise is most beneficial when you do it because it enhances your life in some way and allows you to feel energised and capable.

Take up a form of exercise you're interested in. Try a bunch of stuff out, there are lots of ways to expend energy apart from getting sick squats on Starting Strength (boring). Go swimming, rock climbing, hiking, jogging, cycling... there are so many options, don't limit yourself to vanity and fitting in with the Fitness First marketing team.