Mindset; less guns, less fat, more time in the gym.

[joffe]

If you have the opportunity, swimming is great cardio and doesn't tax your joints.

A more commonly available option is a rowing machine.

[chuckman]

Chuck, I feel like that pretty bad advice. While people don’t need to lift weights in order to see tangible benefits from physical activity, a good strength training program provides benefits far and above what can be achieved without. The only reason one should not lift weights is if they have a physical condition which precludes them from doing so. Pretty much every professional athlete in the world is on some sort of strength training program that involves weights, If the only reason to lift weights was because one wanted to then that wouldn’t be the case.

Telling someone that they don’t need to lift weights unless they want to is not only incorrect, but selling them short.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you want to disagree with me take it to a PM. Suffice it to say there are more ways to skin a cat and achieve overall health, some of those ways will never involve stepping into a gym or lifting a weight.

If a fitness routine includes lifting weights at the gym, that is fine, plenty evidence to support it. There is also evidence to support a fitness routine without it. So forgive me if I feel as disingenuous to try to sell gym memberships.

[Mr. Goodtimes]

If you want to disagree with me take it to a PM. Suffice it to say there are more ways to skin a cat and achieve overall health, some of those ways will never involve stepping into a gym or lifting a weight.

If a fitness routine includes lifting weights at the gym, that is fine, plenty evidence to support it. There is also evidence to support a fitness routine without it. So forgive me if I feel as disingenuous to try to sell gym memberships.

Chuck you came into my thread and contradicted pretty much everything I said, so, really it was you that disagreed with me, and this doesn’t have to go to PM. I would love for you to show me how never stepping foot in a gym can produce the same results as someone who follows a well programmed strength and conditioning program.

I specifically stated that one can achieve overall health without a weight room, but it’s not fair to tell someone that the only reason to lift weight is only “because they want to.” That would mean that there are absolutely no benefits whatsoever to strength training with weights, and that’s not only simply not true, but far from the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mr. Goodtimes]

Just completed what I call the, “Gimme a minute.” Workout, because that’s all anyone says when they do it with me:

5 minutes rowing at maximum resistance, keeping a 2:30/500m minimum pace the entire time.
25 36kg Kettlebell Swings
1/4 mile run.

Tonight I did 4 sets in 35min 47sec,

In college I would do 8 sets in 1:05. My main problem is walking over to the treadmill and having it spin up. In college there was a track so I could just run.

Try it out! Post your times! It’s a great workout.

What’s the standard metric? 4 rounds? 8 rounds? Or something in between? I’m assuming the workout is done “X rounds for time” and not “max rounds in X amount of time?”

The workout looks simple and good and I’d like to do it but first I’d like to know if there’s a set metric/standard.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[chuckman]

Chuck you came into my thread and contradicted pretty much everything I said, so, really it was you that disagreed with me, and this doesn’t have to go to PM. I would love for you to show me how never stepping foot in a gym can produce the same results as someone who follows a well programmed strength and conditioning program.

I specifically stated that one can achieve overall health without a weight room, but it’s not fair to tell someone that the only reason to lift weight is only “because they want to.” That would mean that there are absolutely no benefits whatsoever to strength training with weights, and that’s not only simply not true, but far from the truth.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Fair enough. I think I misunderstood you, you may or may not have misunderstood me. I should have clarified, I should have said one can get fit and lose weight without entering a gym. Yes I know the data, because most everything I do is driven by data and studies, so I am fully aware of the data surrounding weight training. My point is that to become fit and to lose weight can take many roads, if you want to use weight training to do that that is fine but you don't need to unless that is just part of what you want to do.

Again, I'm speaking about overall fitness and weight loss, and that is all....not weight-related strength training and its benefits/negatives.

In the spirit of declaring a modus vivendi, I will drive on, and wish you a good Christmas.

[JusticeM4]

I’m not missing your point, I completely understand it. Someone with MS obviously can’t be held to the same standard as an otherwise healthy adult. I understand genetics is a thing and people with debilitating diseases exist, all I’m saying is that as a percentage, not many people have these legitimate debilitating diseases, yet use “genetics” as a cop out.



Those standards are not the minimums for being considered fit. They are a general guidelines for someone to shoot for on their quest to getting better. You’re discussing sport specific training and specialization. These guidelines are general guidelines for a well rounded athlete, not a specialized athlete.




Those standards are mostly picked from a guide that’s posted on the wall of my gym which outlines standards for beginner, intermediate, advanced and elite level athletes. Most of those standards are from the intermediate to advanced portion. Some of the “advanced” standards I felt were a little low.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Coming back in here... thanks for the replies.

Fitness is relative with each individual. So yes its good to have that standard/baseline of fitness. But in reality every person's fitness level and type will be different. One person might be able to do an Ironman, but can't shoulder press his own weight or do 20 pullups. That doesn't mean he isn't fit.

As far as genetics, I'm not just talking about genetic diseases but one's individual genetic makeup. E.g. a 6ft basktaball player may be able to easily dunk while a 4ft person cannot. This is plain genetics. No getting around that. when you're short, you're short. That was the point I was making.

Anyway, carry on.

[strambo]

Chuck, I feel like that pretty bad advice. While people don’t need to lift weights in order to see tangible benefits from physical activity, a good strength training program provides benefits far and above what can be achieved without. The only reason one should not lift weights is if they have a physical condition which precludes them from doing so. Pretty much every professional athlete in the world is on some sort of strength training program that involves weights, If the only reason to lift weights was because one wanted to then that wouldn’t be the case.

Telling someone that they don’t need to lift weights unless they want to is not only incorrect, but selling them short.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Great OP and thread! I started a similar one on another forum. Exercise being only seen as a means to help lose weight drives me nuts! (or to build muscle only for the sake of looks) If you are going to put any time in to doing any exercise, why not make it actually useful and improve your fitness and performance instead of mindless exercise machines?

I also disagree that lifting "weights" is needed. Our muscles don't know what is providing the resistance or why they are being forced to contract. One can develop world-class levels of functional strength without ever lifting a weight and certainly don't need a gym. Strength training=very important. "Weights," just a type of tool for strength training, there are others.

Until someone can do one arm pull ups for multiple sets/reps, pistol squats, one arm (strict form) pushups, handstand push ups etc. again for multiple sets of 5-10 reps....they haven't begun to explore the limits of just body weight.

[joffe]

Contrary to popular opinion, bodyweight training as a main form of training is for more advanced athletes such as gymnasts, rather than being an entry point. We can all blame gym class and military PT for this misconception, I guess.

The great thing about lifting weights is that you can start light and increase the load in a linear, incremental fashion.

There is no equivalent way of gradually increasing the load in, for example, a pullup unless you're already strong enough to do several weighted pullups, which very few people that are not already athletic can do.

Bodyweight training is great, though. It's just not as beginner-friendly, and especially not for those who still have a lot of body fat to shed. In that case it's just demoralizing rather than helpful.

[WillBrink]

Contrary to popular opinion, bodyweight training as a main form of training is for more advanced athletes such as gymnasts, rather than being an entry point. We can all blame gym class and military PT for this misconception, I guess.

The great thing about lifting weights is that you can start light and increase the load in a linear, incremental fashion.

There is no equivalent way of gradually increasing the load in, for example, a pullup unless you're already strong enough to do several weighted pullups, which very few people that are not already athletic can do.

Bodyweight training is great, though. It's just not as beginner-friendly, and especially not for those who still have a lot of body fat to shed. In that case it's just demoralizing rather than helpful.

End of the day, the goals dictate the training. Personally, I look to use all and any tools at my disposal to efficiently achieve the desired goals. Some thoughts on the current "functional training" thing via BBC:

Just What the Hell is ‘Functional Training’?
[What’s So Functional About It?]

[strambo]

Contrary to popular opinion, bodyweight training as a main form of training is for more advanced athletes such as gymnasts, rather than being an entry point. We can all blame gym class and military PT for this misconception, I guess.

The great thing about lifting weights is that you can start light and increase the load in a linear, incremental fashion.

There is no equivalent way of gradually increasing the load in, for example, a pullup unless you're already strong enough to do several weighted pullups, which very few people that are not already athletic can do.

Bodyweight training is great, though. It's just not as beginner-friendly, and especially not for those who still have a lot of body fat to shed. In that case it's just demoralizing rather than helpful.

It's extremely beginner friendly, just need some space, your body and a bar! Of course it can be made easier or harder, it is called a regression or a progression. My wife is doing "aussie" pull ups right now (under a hip height bar) as well as "assisted" pull ups, using her feet on a chair. She started with flexed hangs and active hangs for time.

Let's use the push up as an example. Regressions: push up standing against a wall. Push up on a counter. Push up from the knees. Regular push up. Progressions: Close hand push up. Offset push up (one hand on a basketball-favor the other side). Archer push up (one arm straight). One-arm push up. This list is by no means inclusive. There are many more variations as well as explosive ones. Clapping push ups, Supermans etc.

You can regress and progress any body weight exercise in the same way. They can all go from "grandma" to elite.

Check out "Convict Conditioning" and "Get Strong" as examples. https://www.dragondoor.com/shop-by-department/books/