Printable View
Serious thread is Serious please.
I'm working on a training scheduele and I'm trying to work out which is better. Time spent training or kilometers traveled during training. I'm looking to increase my workout by 10% each week so I would favour distance but I'd use whatever is more effective.
Look at the distance and then work on some way to reduce the time taken to run between two points.
Can't help it, but how can you compare time spent training with kilometres travelled during training? Lifting weights for 10 minutes does not equal running for 10 kilometres.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanMc
.
Depends what you want to work. Faster speeds will result in more bulk in muscle whereas longer distances at a slower speed will result in leaner muscles.
What are you attempting to achieve?
Yeah... I should be more clear next time....
So the goal is to loose weight with tone over mass building, I'm quite a large fella, so muscle mass is not a main priority. As for training, I strictly mean. Jogging/Treadmill/Elliptical/Rowing. I train 4 times each week and do 1 of those four each day.
The current plan is like so:
X Kilometers each session, same amount each session for 1 week.
X secs slow then x secs steady for the duration of each session
Increase of X kilometers each week (equiv to 10% of the total)
Decrease of 5 secs slow and increase of 5 secs steady
Each month up the tension/speed of the slow steady (slow/steady cycle resets each month).
I would give yourself more than 1 week inbetween increases.
There is no proper way to do it, but I've always favoured time over distance. For example, set yourself the goal of running 30 minutes.
What I did when I started running was go up in 5 minute increments.
I started with running 4 sets of 5 minutes with 1 minute rest between each. Every 2 weeks I increased it two minutes.
The reason I say time is because it is much easier to know "OK, I have to make it another 5 minutes until I get a bit of a break" rather than "I have to make it 10km."
One seems much harder a goal than the other, but that's just MHO.
I would argue the opposite, I find it easier to cover the clock and look at the length. As for the increases, what sort of period to you recommend? every two weeks? More?
First thing, you should consult a physician/dietician or whatever cian it is, who will prescribe what kind of an exercise regime you should follow. (I am assuming you have already done this before asking the geeks here).
Second, how do you know the exercise schedule you are currently following is effective? Assuming your dietary and other habits (such as the amount of sleep, work, tension etc) are relatively stable, how much weight have you managed to lose so far by exercising four times a week?
For pure weight loss purpose, I don't know if varying the exercise rate (jogging for a minute and then sprinting for another) would help much. It may build up your heart muscles, but whether it will allow you to lose weight faster, I doubt.
Run, Forest! Run!
But seriously, planning, calculating calories, physicians/dieticians?! Workout doesn't/shouldn't have to be so complicated. Just work up a sweat. As you become more and more fit you'll need harder and harder workouts to achieve it, thus becoming even more fit.
Do what your body can take but avoid overdoing and over-stressing your body. Just a word of caution, if you have too much weight right now, make sure you do not harm your joints by placing too much stress on them, specially knees and ankles.
Thanks so far guys, some answers:
I've found no planning doesn't work, to many variable and ineffective workouts.
The slow/steady cycle has to do with fitness, I'm not fit enough to go the whole way steady.
Regarding results, i'm not sure yet as I have only started last week.
The amount of days different work outs are designed for different body targets and to rest my joints (elliptical and rowing).
Doc gave the all clear and thinks 2k as a start I a realistic target.
From my experience, your plan is going to run into a few problems. For one thing, you will plateau at various times, so a steady increase is probably pretty unrealistic. I also found that I was "training to the test" where the exercises I was doing became fairly routine, but I wasn't so good at different routines. As far as weight lifting went, I eventually realized that I'm getting old, so I switched to a versatile maintenance routine....for which I could write a program. So now I have an exercise program that has a list of all the exercises I have the equipment for, along with some ranges. When I start a routine, the program picks a number of exercises from about 13 up to 24, or so. It then randomly picks an exercise off the list (which numbers about 25), and selects a random number of repetitions from the range set for that exercise. Each exercise has its own range because I can easily do 20-30 pushups, but for something like curls, the range has to be 6-10. The nice thing about the routine is that I hit a mix of different muscle groups and don't have a fixed routine that I end up training to. Of couse, since random is random, there are some utterly grueling workouts, such as the time I ended up doing 50 or more bicep curls.
In addition to that, I built a workstation onto a treadmill, and walk either 6 or 12 miles uphill every work day (and some weekends), wearing a 30lb pack. The result of all that exercise has been: I eat like a bear, and am almost constantly hungry, but I haven't lost weight.
Our bodies can readily adapt to changes in exercise by increasing appetite, altering the efficiency of caloric uptake, and other means that offset weight loss. At this point, if I want to lose weight, I have to be constantly hungry to the point of distraction, because I can't realistically increase exercise all that much, and if I eat when I am hungry, I just maintain. Of course, my other alternative is going hiking. A few hundred miles with a pack on my back that weighs about the same as my exercise load, will cause me to shed 10-20 lbs, which is largely due to being unable to eat all that much. On the other hand, a hike like that causes me to become noticeably weaker in upper body strength, and getting back to the weights after a hike causes me to regain 5-10 lbs in the first two or three days, after which I hold steady for weeks.
Thanks Shaggy,
The overall input i'm getting is everyone has their own way of training and eventually I will mix and match things anyway due to boardom etc. It seems a good rule of thumb is to do as much as your able to without straining or overdoing it.
You've got to be kidding. 2k is barely a walk in the park, literally - unless you're a heavy smoker who's ridiculously out of condition. In any case, you're less likely to injure yourself walking rather than running. Get yourself out of the gym and take a camera with you to make it a pleasure rather than a chore. A minimum should be 2 miles each day for a start. Make it 4 miles after a week, and 6 miles a couple of weeks after that. Take a water canteen with you.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanMc
BTW, I'm an ex-smoking 57 year old and consider 6 miles of fell walking as no big deal. It does make you hungry though...
40 a day and 21stone, so I reckon I qualify for your "walk in the park". Yeah walking I agree and I tend to do that on my "off" days, I average about 3.5 miles if its a work day in terms of walking. Granted my numbers are a bit crappy but im getting there slow and steady.Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
Started this week, this is my progress so far :)
http://runkeeper.com/user/DeanMc/activities
That's not bad for a start, although you're not being "stressed" by hills. I notice you're jogging at times - you'd be surprised at the number of people that give up after a few days because it makes the leg muscles ache so much at first. Walking's far less painful although you've covered the same distance, which is why I suggested a walk with a camera.
What's next ? Extending the route via Donaghmore Lane to Proudstone Hill & along Proudstone Road ?
You need to lose 40 a day & 10 stone become a human being.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeanMc
This is the next route which is nearly 6 miles with a few hills:
http://runkeeper.com/routes/DeanMc/view/34664
The jogging is actually an elliptical so its not too bad, monday then is rowing to gain some training on my arms and body.
EDIT: Some of the roads are pretty bad here in terms of hard shoulders which is why my route goes by the town more!
I also bought a small camera bag to take a snack/water and camera on longer walks, id like to do a 10 mi walk as average on my day off. I was surprised by the level of calories that walking burns!
That has to be a Britishism. After all, if I fell walking, it would be followed by vigorous exercise of the English language.Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
Just for any namby-pamby southern flatlanders reading this:-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillwalking
Quote:
In Britain, the term hillwalking or fellwalking is normally used to describe the recreational practice of walking in hilly or mountainous terrain, generally with the intention of visiting the tops of hills and mountains.
The term hillwalking is used to describe activities which might be referred to as hiking, backpacking or mountaineering elsewhere, with the term hills being understood generally to include mountains, as these are referred to specifically using the term "mountaineering" only in specific circumstances.
Fellwalking is particularly used to refer to hill or mountain walks in the Lake District and Yorkshire Dales in Northern England as fell is the preferred term for both features in those parts of England.
I understood it lol!
I dont think that it particularly matters what measurement you use as long as it is something you are comfortable with and something you can increase, so as you improve you do more.Quote:
I'm working on a training scheduele and I'm trying to work out which is better. Time spent training or kilometers traveled during training.
One good way i find is to set a goal of something you cannot currently achieve, and work towards it. That way you have the motivation of trying to beat your target or Personal Best, and it will feel good when you do beat it. You just need to set tough but realistic targets.
How about the mountain climbing Yanks?Quote:
Originally Posted by schoolbusdriver
By the way, do you actually HAVE mountains?
We have the odd modest lumpQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker
Getting Better: http://runkeeper.com/user/DeanMc/reports/progress
in my personal experience, you can hit a wall with your muscle mass increase if you run too much. I was stuck at my bench until i took a week off running. (i ran 5 miles twice a day then, averaging 8 minute miles) I added 15% to my max lift in that week. Running is great for losing weight though. I dropped 30lbs in 2 months. I really need to get back to it. I am about 20 lbs heavier than i want to be right now, and it's all in the gut.
In my personal experience, your body will cannabalize your upper body muscle mass if you do too much endurance anything. I'll be off on a three week walkabout this summer. Before I leave I will be able to do between 40 and 50 pushups in one shot. When I get back, I'll be down below 30. With some concentration on weights, I will regain that lost strength and upper body endurance in a week or two, but my weight will jump 5-10 pounds in the first day or two of strength training, though I can hold it at that point for the rest of the year.
Hmm that's good to know, food for thought!
Over the last almost two years I have learned a little about losing weight.;) 175 to 145 and maintaining 145. It is pretty simple. To lose weight you have to burn more calories that you intake, and my advice, in hindsight, is watch what you put into your pie hole.
Minimum heart healthy exercise is elevated heart rate (resting + 20%) for 30 minutes. I walk three miles in 45 minutes and if I have any gas left I do weights.
You want to pick something you will not burn out on.
If you feel that you are exercising to lose weight then the first thing to be said is fat people can be fit. Exercise to become more fit. The first muscle you need to exercise is the heart. Cardio vascular exercises. I use a gym so it's difficult for me to describe the relevent exercises you need to complete daily to improve your heart and also improve your metabolism.
Running whilst overweight is not a good idea as the damage to soft tissues in the knees and hips will cause problems ten years down the line. Cycling would be preferable. You should complete thirty minutes of cardio vascular exercise per session but I find it works better if you merge these with toning exercises, such as weight lifting and the type of exercises that most armed forces expect of their recruits. Sit ups, push ups, squat thrusts, star jumps and exercises that force you to move as many muscles as possible.
You should stay at the same level of exercise for a good four weeks to acclimatise the body and instill in your system a level of accustomed metabolism. You will know when to step up to a new level.
Hydration and salt intake are extremely important to your health. Before rigorous exercise you must drink around two pints of a saline content solution. In the UK we can buy products known as squash. These contain salt and fruit sugars that you mix with water and drink. If you insist on drinking water only, your body will de-salinate and you risk dying due to multi organ failure. Your body needs salt, just not too much. Drink water AFTER you have finished exercising.
Diet will also need to change. Fat rich foods must be dropped from your diet. Vitamin rich foods must be increased. Fruit intake must multiply about twice. The stress on your body during exercise causes the immune system to retract in its ability to defend you. It is imperative you increase your vitamin rich foods on a daily basis. Your body does not store vitamins or minerals. Your body will probably communicate to the brain what it needs.
Finally. continuous exercise is something that will not work for you. Exercise severely in a single session. Approximately 750 calories and then wait for your body to recover, this should take 3 days. Carry out the same and rest. Carry out the same and rest. Your body will aclimatise and you will find that diet, hydration and routine will fall into place. You will become fitter and from this position will become more adept at knowing your level of exercise. Then you push yourself as far as you need to push.
Kind regards
Steve
Salt? In the US there is so much salt in everything there is hardly ever a need to add salt. Max RDA is between 1600-2400 mg / day, about a teaspoon. As I discovered, not adding salt was not enough to get below the max.
I agree with everything Sparbag said except for the salt part. I do extremely prolonged exercise with nothing but water to drink. Long before you end up with any organ damage, you will end up with some serious cramps. I was on one hike that started with a four thousand foot climb through sun in 90 degree temps. By the time I reached the treeline I was out of water and my thighs started to cramp. To put it mildly, when that muscle cramps, you have problems. As long as one cramped, I could limp along, but when both cramped at the same time, I just toppled. Eventually I reached a stream and stuck my head in it for a few minutes. Still, lots of water, and no salt. Salt might have helped with the cramping, but it wasn't really an issue.
As DB said, though, salt is ubiquitous in the US. Perhaps it is less common across the pond?
I think most western diets contain too much salt but that is not the point, the tiny amount of salt (a small pinch) and the glucose must be dissolved in the water. The key with drinking saline is that your body can absorb it much better than water alone. If someone is at a point of extreme dehydration (much more so than cramps on a steep walk) then water alone can be quite dangerous. Ironically high salt levels in the blood is symptomatic of dehydration.
I don't agree with the 'If you insist on drinking water only, your body will de-salinate and you risk dying due to multi organ failure.' I think that is an exaggeration, although I don't know what Steve means by rigorous exercise.
me neither and i personally think gatorade tastes like sweat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Milk
also you will burn more calories running/jogging over walking due to the vertical motion and increased metabolism. normal walking is cardio-free. perhaps speed-walking if you are strolling?
Cardio, as has been explained to me, is anything that causes your heart rate to be:
resting heart rate + (.20 * resting heart rate)