|
Workout Thread IV (pg. 487)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Gauss |
| quote: | Originally posted by chimera66
i'm confused, how is running fast on an empty stomach better for your knees than running? it's not a different exercise, you are still running. i don't doubt it's effectiveness but i don't like running and running plus going fast while you are hungry sounds like it sucks for me. |
Ah, damn it, sorry, I meant fast walking. :p My bad.
| quote: | Originally posted by Fledz
This is why you should do cardio as soon as you get up and have breakfast after. That way your body has no choice but to dig into the fat to fuel your muscles instead of any food you just ate. It's the best way to lose weight but you have to be careful not to overdo it.
I would never compete on an empty stomach. That's just a fail waiting to happen. |
Any intense activity should never be done on empty stomach. Like I said, fast walking (:p) is not intense enough to burn your muscle, but it's intense enough to burn your fat if you do it long enough (around 60 minutes), while running on empty stomach is more dangerous and causes muscle loss a lot easier.
Have you ever heard of HIIT (high intensity interval training)? It keeps your heart rate near its maximum all the time (that's 180-190+) and it should never be done if you haven't eaten at least 2-3 times that day, even then it can be catabolic and cause muscle loss, that's why it should be treated as weight training and you should dring post workout meal after it. It can even cause anabolism and make your legs actually grow if the circumstances are right (caloric sufficit).
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Well, it was a few years ago, but I had a test and that's what I was told. You're forgetting that distance runners also have very low body fat percentages. ;)
Perhaps now it would be higher. |
Trust me, it wasn't 3%. You would die if it were that low. Even professional bodybuilders that go as low as 4-5% keep it that low for few hours tops. I've had my body fat measured and supposedly it was 5%, but I know it was really around 10% at that time. |
|
|
| amp3 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Domesticated
Have you heard of Galen Rupp?
It's weird, I used to run with this guy as a junior who was beaten by Galen Rupp recently.
|
Mcneil is a beast, I have seen him running the trails around Flagstaff. Hope he does well in cross this year. Actually NAU as a team should do real well this year too. |
|
|
| Cpt.Cocaine |
wootwoot
I am back in business with a 3 mile run in 30 mins 30 secs. You really don't appreciate how much a little toe does for you until you lose one for two weeks. |
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cpt.Cocaine
wootwoot
I am back in business with a 3 mile run in 30 mins 30 secs. You really don't appreciate how much a little toe does for you until you lose one for two weeks. |
Something you did at moderate intensity, or were you going for time here? |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| Been doing middle distance rather than sprints lately, alternating slow and fast pace. Mmm, cardio-induced vasodilation. |
|
|
| Cpt.Cocaine |
| Wasn't trying to go for time, but this ended up being my best one yet. Maybe being out of it for a while made me lose my ability to pace myself. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
Found an interesting site recently:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/
One section of it has an interesting series of articles on high intensity intervals versus steady state cardio, mostly trying to put a brake on the recent Internet craze for interval workouts. He argues that (a) beneficial cardiovascular adaptations to hard interval training mostly plateau after a few weeks (b) the "afterburn" effect of interval training is too small to be very relevant when it comes to burning calories and losing fat (c) a lot of the enthusiasm for intervals is based either on misapplication of study results or serious delusions about what athletes actually do (e.g. some people claim that you can look like a pro sprinter by running intervals, when actually sprinters train mostly with high volume steady tempo work, weight training, and a few race-pace sets with huge amounts of rest in between reps). Here's one of the shorter articles on the topic:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fa...a-hot-body.html |
|
|
| basd |
| 5k in 23.30 yesterday, long run (approx 18k) tomorrow. First half marathon in six months coming up in two weeks, hoping for a sub 1.50 finish, but I'm happy with completing it without being sick and sore afterwards. |
|
|
| Silky Johnson |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
Found an interesting site recently:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/
One section of it has an interesting series of articles on high intensity intervals versus steady state cardio, mostly trying to put a brake on the recent Internet craze for interval workouts. He argues that (a) beneficial cardiovascular adaptations to hard interval training mostly plateau after a few weeks (b) the "afterburn" effect of interval training is too small to be very relevant when it comes to burning calories and losing fat (c) a lot of the enthusiasm for intervals is based either on misapplication of study results or serious delusions about what athletes actually do (e.g. some people claim that you can look like a pro sprinter by running intervals, when actually sprinters train mostly with high volume steady tempo work, weight training, and a few race-pace sets with huge amounts of rest in between reps). Here's one of the shorter articles on the topic:
http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fa...a-hot-body.html |
Hm, interesting. I like HIIT cause I'm lazy and would rather do cardio for 10 minutes instead of 20, lol. |
|
|
| chimera66 |
| yeah me too, i hate the idea of doing cardio for 40+ min i do my 26min of H.I.I.T and i feel like a star. |
|
|
| MrJiveBoJingles |
| I like HIIT as well but this dude has got me questioning the fitness value of doing more than a little of it. I am thinking I might be better off doing a combination of fartlek and some full-on sprints with lots of rest. |
|
|
| Paradox Lost |
| quote: | Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles
I like HIIT as well but this dude has got me questioning the fitness value of doing more than a little of it. I am thinking I might be better off doing a combination of fartlek and some full-on sprints with lots of rest. |
The HIIT regiment I was involved in was largely tailored to a predicted level of an enhanced fitness over an extended period of time, though it was always designed to supplement middle to long distance runs with their own intended levels of intensity. In that regard, I would have to contend that I continually reaped the benefits of HIIT throughout the unfolding of the season, though I suppose I have little empirical evidence to support these claims.
To give you an idea as to how it worked, the Cross Country season generally lasts about 3 1/2 to 4 1/2 months (not including the recommended base mileage you accumulate over the two and half months of the preceding summer period).
In terms of the HIIT we did on the track, it was basically divided into the beginning, middle, and ending periods of the cross country season. In the beginning, we would do moderate intensity intervals with moderate distances, in the middle we would do longer distance intervals with near maximum intensity, and by the end of the season, the distance would come down a lot, but the intensity would be at its maximum for the season. The reason for this is that you're not going to get in much better cardiovascular fitness over a couple of weeks, so it's much better to focus on speed, rather than distance.
So I would gather that if you're going to do interval training, it's best to structure it around an anticipated cycle of your fitness level growing, and then your inevitable need for an extended time away from interval training once you've peaked, rather thanb continuously increasing the distance and speed as your fitness improves; this is actually a major benefit of being involved in a structured seasonal sport. |
|
|
|
|
