Mythbusting the fitness files

Speed = Power + Co-ordination
Power = Strength + Co-ordination

So as long as you can control it the strength you gain from building up can either maintain or increase your speed.
From my boxing days I remember the lighter weights were generally faster, which serves to add to the myth. Reality this is marginal and often due to range of motion. It's easier to let your arm fly out fast when you haven't impaired your movement and don't have to push through muscle, that is literally it. There are some very fast heavy guys out there and they all have outstanding flexibility and co-ordination, meaning not only would they hit you before you knew it was coming but the shot would be exactly where they wanted it to land.
Olympic lifters have to be able to move fast and be incredibly strong, their movements are faster than many would be able to do with a broom handle and they are pulling serious weights.

The myth tends to come from the majority who do weights with little or no stretching or co-ordination work. The muscles become tighter, reducing range of motion, most commonly seen in the arms with the half bicep curl brigade, or the 'inability' to put arms at sides, from people who have more space between arms and lats than between George Bush's ears.
People doing this do become slower because they cannot co-ordinate or sometimes even complete a full range movement.
We all hear about touching toes etc. and my days of dance, especially ballet meant I was used to many who could lay down on their legs let alone touch toes, and the speed some of them can move is incredible, regardless of gender or build. I regularly see people excusing their lack of movement due to muscular size who are smaller than I am, and were it not for the injury potential coming with this it would be funny. I cannot make my wrist touch my shoulder by tension alone, 'cos my biceps and forearms is so huge man, but a tiny bit of pressure from the other hand and they meet, movement is still there due to stretching after every workout.

One of the scariest things I have used my speed to do recently was spar with my son. He wanted to do some proper sparring not just hit pads, I warned him this would involve being hit and as careful as I would be some of my shots were bound to hurt, he still wanted to do it. There is something deeply horrible and cowardly about hitting children and even with consent I hated it, but he wanted to learn so I did. trying to score hits on the body only and pull back as soon as contact was made involved speed, co-ordination and observation to avoid hurting him more than the bare minimum.
He showed no such qualms and for someone his age, can punch with force. He enjoyed it but has decided that he needs to be a lot bigger before doing that again, thankfully. Neither of us bruise easily, but I came away with more than him, and was happy with that.

Stretch a bit, move a lot, get fit and strong, be fast.
 
Fit = Healthy

Maybe not what everyone will want to see but striving for fitness will not automatically make you healthy. One doctor I spoke to years ago stated health fanatics will always fitter than fitness fanatics are healthy. Not convinced, go to the local hospital and ask how many people are admitted to the emergency section because of injuries from playing Dungeons and Dragons, oil painting or playing the piano. They will likely laugh at you before saying none. Then ask how many are admitted following accidents linked to sports, the number will be well into the thousands.
So does training make you unhealthy? No of course not, with one proviso and that is moderation. If you enjoy a bit of casual keep fit with a few friends you will likely have good health to go with it. However if you are always chasing bigger lifts, faster times, greater distances, more complex movements etc. you will be putting yourself at risk most weeks and likely ignoring imbalance in your training to the detriment of your health.

Men are great at building big arms to impress the ladies, mainly because it works. There are gyms full of guys with biceps to spare and heart and lungs barely able to carry them more than a few hundred yards at run or cycle, after all there is no visible benefit to this except vascularity and women really don't like bulging viens, unless they are nurses literally after your blood or plain weird. Back to the hospital, quick check with the quack, which causes more deaths, weak hearts or weak biceps, 'You are in the fertility clinic, but I would say that's easily the heart, now are you are you donating or not?' 'Sorry my biceps are worn out.'

Ladies don't get away either. On the whole women are more likely to train at lower intensities and be healthier than the men, but there are some stunning examples of when this isn't the case. One I saw recently would have been hilarious if it wasn't so downright dangerous. Lady who had recently had some batroom sealant injected and felt that everyone would want to see the results. Subsequently no proper support during a session involving running, suspension training etc. During which time she was so focussed on providing support her clothing didn't and being sure she didn't fall out her training form was hazardous to her and anyone nearby. Stuff like this could easily see her needing more surgery very soon.

Sorry to say it but the aesthetic crew are least likely to be healthy. Chasing the body beautiful often gives a healthy look with less health benefits than you would expect. Working the bits that show means training the superficial muscles and usually results in uneven sessions. Fat burning is usually more diet than activity and starving a body while it is training can cause direct problems or indirect when the brain doesn't have enough fuel to maintain concentration. Having trained someone down to body-building competition standard body fat I can say for certain that I saved him from injury more frequently the leaner he got. There is a reason the lowest healthy level of body fat is there, we do need to have it, unsightly as we may view it, the deeply carved six pack comes at a cost when fat % is in the single figures especially if low figures and female.

So us functional guys are OK then? Not on your life, we're just stupid in different ways. Football and horse riding are responsible for more hospital admissions than most other activities. Adrenaline sports result in high blood pressure, meaning many dying due to the sport are dropping of heart attacks. Many sports demand higher or lower bodyweight, lower I kind of covered, but higher is also dodgy. There is a limit on how much blood the human body will produce, it's not the inaccurate standard 8 pints many of us were told at school, on average we have a pint of blood for every 14 pound of body weight, up to a maximum of 14 pints. Now have a look at how many strongmen, shot putters etc are well over 196 pounds in weight, meaning their heart is having to work harder to use 14 pints of blood to feed too much body, not healthy at all.
That doesn't account for the postural damage from those taking part in sports where being uneven gives a marginal advantage or any of the other stupid things we 'functional' trainers do for kicks or competetive edge.

In case you are wondering I am not advocating stopping training to anyone, in fact I spend most of my time here encouraging people to train and enjoy it. Just keep your targets in mind, if beign fit and healthy is key, then it's balance and moderation all the way, if you want to finish faster, move more weight etc. and become obsessed with that, don't be shocked when the doctor is not as impressed with you as your training buddies.
My health is better than I deserve, but despite the running etc. my blood pressure has never been perfect, at best just above that band in the good section, at worst 140/90 from adrenaline sports. Body fat is now healthy level, for years was below it. Pulse rate is always low, and I work hard to keep it there. Many joints hold together despite me having damaged them, sometimes repeatedly. I do have arthritis, but luckily only in my toes, epilepsy wasn't my fault, insanity was. All in all if I was given a full MOT it could be a close call, either fail or pass with advisories. I will not be changing my obsession, I love training and really truly don't care if it damages my health as long as it doesn't mean having to stop training.
 
196lb ain't so bad; bring in the 296lb lifters and we might be getting somewhere ;)

I often give people the advice when it comes to nutrition that if it's not poison, then it probably isn't as bad for them as they think (at least, this is what I'm inclined to say to people who write up super-strict ridiculous "healthy" but unrealistic diet plans). In truth, though, all food and all exercise is poison -- it's just dose-dependent. Eat a reasonable amount of something, exercise a reasonable amount, and good things tend to happen. Eat too little of something and you get malnourished. Train too little and your body doesn't develop much (and, as an adult, probably regresses). Eat too much of something and it becomes toxic. There are some things that are difficult to induce toxicity over, such as Vitamin C (because excess is excreted in urine), but on the whole, too much of any food can be bad for you. Even too much water can dilute your electrolytes, and then you're dead. Likewise, too much exercise breaks down the body more than it can repair, and shock-horror, that doesn't end too well. Not only are there bad effects of chronic overload, but excessive acute overload can have you dead in an instant.
 
Classic case I remember from a study from a woman in America proves that point nicely. Most of these types of study are from America as they are most likely to want to learn from stupidity and still have to allow it to happen.
In order to have a pure diet she had all fat removed from her food down to the last gram. Not a cheap process b all accounts.
Her dramatic diet lasted two days when she was admitted to the local emergency room in a critical state. She had been taking vitamins etc. but at no time had anyone mentioned that the majority of vitamins and minerals are fat soluble and without this fat in her diet they were simply passing straight through.
I would imagine her medical bill would have been higher than her diet.

I knew a guy who took so much zinc he messed up his ability to absorb other minerals, and had to supplement and time his intake for the rest of his life.

There is an old expression that which doesn't kill us makes us stronger. It's nonesense in most cases, but in diet it's not too far wrong. My weakness is sweet food and if I hadn't kept so fit I would pretty much guarantee having type 2 diabetes from years of eating too much sugar. I am better now than I was but I really needed to be. Not dead yet though, just smell that way on occasions.
 
I remember that case. Have a funny feeling I've heard it from you.

Low reps for bulk

I could talk about low reps for bulking and high reps for toning, but I just want to focus on the former part of that story right now. In particular, I want to talk about how a certain demographic who I affectionately refer to as Riptards tackle this concept.

So, a Riptard is someone who regards Mark Rippetoe (often referred to simply as "Rip") as a deity. Riptards believe that because lower reps allow you to use a higher percentage of your 1RM, something like 10 sets of 3 at 85%1RM is better for building muscle than, say, 3x10x75%. And so they consider max strength training to be superior for bodybuilding purposes than, well, actual bodybuilding training.

This is one of those things where there's an element of truth to it, but that element of truth doesn't hold weight in the context of a whole program. So, is 10x3x85% better than 3x10x75% for hypertrophy? In and of itself, yes. However, the former takes about an hour to complete, the latter takes about 10min to complete.

"Yeah, but just because something's quicker, doesn't mean it's better."

True, it doesn't. But you will stimulate a similar amount of hypertrophy either way. Given that we're talking about a 10% difference in load, we're probably not talking much more than a 10% difference in results.

"See! That proves it, 10x3 is better!"

On it's own? Sure. But here's the thing: after you do 3x10 in 10min, you can do that again on a bunch of other exercises for the remaining hour. 6 exercises for 3x10 each will put a huge stimulus on your body to build muscle.

"Yeah, well you could do that for 10x3 on everything else, too, couldn't you?"

Now we're talking about a 6-hour workout instead of a 60min workout. I'm a very boring person, so if I didn't have other commitments, I'd be cool with that. Most people aren't me, and chances are you're not, either, so it becomes hugely impractical to do that. Besides that, 10x3 on one exercise may not hammer the CNS and connective tissues, but 6 hours of training even half-heartedly will burn you out pretty quickly -- doing it at that intensity will probably destroy you. And I don't mean that in a good way.

"Yeah, but it'd still stimulate more growth!"

In theory, maybe, if you can maintain a high enough intensity for the work to do anything, keep your hormones in check and more. In practice, you probably can't handle it, you probably won't last long enough for it to be effective, and it's far from efficient. Use loads that you can actually work with in the context of a whole program. Don't just think about a single exercise.
 
I am going to go totally the opposite end of the spectrum to Goldie and attack some of my favourites.
The Cardio Files

First and foremost cardio exercise types. Standard belief cardio is pounding pavements or treadmills, cycling, random cardio machines nothing else.
Cardio is short for cardiovascular, most know this, but the part that gets missed is that unless you are challenging your heart and lungs aka cardiovascular system, it isn't cardio, and if you are it is. Running 50 yards or metres flat out, then sitting down for a couple of minutes before repeating 4 times is more akin to bodybuilding training than cardio so the fact it is running hasn't made it a cardio workout any more than a heavy squat session.
By contrast you can have a weight training circuit at a low enough intensity to keep going for 20 minutes, an hour or even longer without a break. This will have to be cardio as only the aerobic energy system will be able to keep you going for that duration.

Cardio is boring. Alright I have said that a number of times and will confess for many it is, hence the number of indoor cycles etc. with TV screens. Some of us enjoy long duration runs, cycling, etc. and despite this evident lack of sense or sanity we are allowed out in public. However there are alternatives that don't rely on being a bit strange, classes with variety and changes in tempo to keep them interesting while still keeping the heart and lungs in overload, along with games that keep you focused on fun while working out.

Cardio is/ isn't good for fat burning. Your both wrong and right. The most effective fat burning activity is a a mix of varied intensity, and diet is crucial. Subsequently doing low intensity cardio and changing nothing else will lose you more fat than changing nothing but if it doesn't use all the excess calories you are eating it will only slow the gain not burn the existing.
Your body will adapt to regular exercise of one type and intensity making it less effective over time. Combine this with the inescapable fact that fat is something the body wants to keep for lean times and you have the recipe for the body to react to predictable low intensity training in a way that will make fat loss slow to a crawl. Reducing the underlying metabolism to a point where it can keep you going and keep as much of it's precious reserves as possible. When this happens you will likely burn more lean mass and less fat than if your routine was more varied. This doesn't mean it stops working but does mean your losses slow down and many give up or binge due to feeling depressed, hence instant failure. This is the least efficient fat burning you can do.
If you are doing only low intensity because your health prevents you doing anything else and this is driving you into safe calorie deficit you will lose fat, slowly but safely. If there is no medical reason for you to only do low intensity aerobic work but you hate everything else and aren't in any hurry to lose weight, carry on and let no-one tell you otherwise. What you are doing is the only alternative to nothing for you, and it beats that hands down.
If you want a toned athletic (shot putters are athletes by the way) looking physique without 'ugly bulging muscles' and there are plenty of both genders wanting that, cardio at varying intensities will be your friend. Add in some training where you hit frequent oxygen debt and recover while still training aka intervals including HIIT and you are going to do well.

I don't need carido I just want to look good. If you truly don't want to do cardio your call but let me give you some reasons to reconsider.
When your cardiovascular system stops you die, simple inescapable fact. You may get brought back with a bit of defib action but if not that's game over.
That buff hunk or bouncy bunny you've been chasing will not be impressed if you need to stop for a breather half way up a set of stairs, because they know you'll be stopping for frequent breathers during later exercise too. Consider the following compliment 'It was incredble he pushed like crazy for 10 thrusts then stopped for a minute and did it again. It was heavenly.' Seem familiar, didn't think it would. Looking like you jumped out of a magazine may get you one night, but if there are to be repeats you will be judged on your stamina as much as technique, and that is where cardio really has no equal. It's base level and crude but if you are doing this for image that desire will be close to the front of your mind so it's relevant.

We all die of something so taking care of your heart and lungs doesn't equal imortality but it does mean your body has more efective transit of fuel and oxygen to your body and brain, meaning your life is more enjoyable for longer. If you don't feed your brain it will fail you earlier, there are numerous studies showing that cases of early dementia and other age related neurological disorders in those who do regular cardio are virtually unheard of despite the overall number of cases increasing worldwide. So if you want to keep your marbles cardio will help.
Many here are not at an age where the term age-related or old people matters much, trust me you are very likely to get old in today's world. Even moron's like me who spent years risking my life for the sheer hell of it often multiple times in a day suddenly realise I am looking at a strong liklihood of getting old someday and it will be sooner than I think even now. Invest a bit of time in improving your quality of life in years to come.
Personally I hear stories of people training into old age then just dropping dead and I like the idea. Rather go with a bang than a wimper and have enjoyed life to the very end than spend a few decades drinking meals through a straw not knowing what is going on around me. So yes I do cardio to improve my running pace, or at least try to (please ignore today's pathetic attempt), but I also do it ensure I can grow old disgracefully.
 
The classic expression I hear a lot and struggle to believe.
I hate fitness/ exercise

How can I declare this as a myth, is it proof that my arrogance has finally gone too far? We'll see.

Like most of us I hate a number of things I was forced to do when I was younger. For some that can mean eating their greans, tidying their room, and for many it is exercise.
When we were at school most of us were made to do PE and a lot of us, self included hated a lot of it. This stems a lot from the way PE is taught but also because it was compulsory for us and we will only have stopped it at the end of our most insecure time of life aka adolesence. There is nothing the average or under-developed teen needs less than being compared in a negative light to the elite few in front of their friends and more importantly people they fancy.
None of us were good at all sports at school, things don't change, but even the most competent and patient of teachers cannot stop it being humiliating to launch a javelin to the end of your shoes, send a cricket ball ridiculously wide of the wicket, swim like a brick etc. It also meant being dressed in clothes that showed how patheticly built or overweight we were and that was something many wanted kept under wraps, literally.
Subsequently for those who finish school and enter the real world of work, uni, socialising, etc. their last memory of sport is at school and accompanied by humiliation and shame at total failure to be the awesome figure they felt everyone wanted them to be. This for many is where they feel they hate excercise and fitness.

There is also the image portrayal, and as I have witnessed this can be a major cause too.
The fit look is very specific to many. There are not many uniquely shaped fitness models, or models in general, they could virtually be cloned or printed in 3D now, and that brings it's own issues. The desire to acheive the look we are beign told is the personification of fitness doesn't allow for any deviation from the magazine or hollywood ideal. Not all men are broad shouldered, square jawed etc. and not all women are rake thin with hints of muscularity, in fact there are plenty of square jawed broad shouldered women and rake thin men who are incredibly fit.
The pursuit of these designs of ultimate fitness often lead to people doing drastic workouts that they are not ready for and will either be too difficult, damaging or often both. The fact that 2 weeks on the supermodel diet and exercise program doesn't make them look like a supermodel whose entire body would dold up neatly into their ribcage makes them feel that they hate fitness, because it hasn't worked.

Watch a group of toddlers before they have learned to understand speach. They like nothing better than to charge around and act generally crazy. Most of them aren't the fastest, or the image of physical perfection, and not one of them cares, they just enjoy bombing around, waving toys, splashing etc. That only goes away when we as society start telling them it isn't safe or acceptable to do that all of the time, and in the end we find other things to do that are more acceptable like sitting with a computer game etc. being quiet and out of the way.
Even still when we do get the rare opportunities to run around like lunatics as adults without anyone passing judgement we tend to love it and most end up laughing and smiling just before they collapse of exhaustion. Games of tig etc. are not recognised sports and there are on adult fitness classes for it but they appeal to the child in us all even if our limit is a few seconds before we feel ready for a heart attack.

As adults we over-complicate and restrict exercise and fitness too much and that is why so many believe they hate it. I enjoy lifting defensless peices of metal and running to end up where I started, because I am more than a bit strange, I am also not alone, scary! Others enjoy football, tennis, and various other sports at various levels, and they are worse than I am. The problem is most of us are operating under the belief that unless we are doing some form of regulated activity we aren't doing exercise or keeping fit, in reality as long as you are moving and expending effort you are exercising and keeping fit, there are no gold medals in playing with the children/grandchildren, going for a walk with your friends, walking the dog, playing on the motion sensitive game station, but if you enjoy it and are keeping active then good for you.

The truth is most of us aren't Olympic medal material or particularly perfect to look at, but there is a form of exercise or fitness out there for everyone. Those of us who are perfect in everyway, or at least appear so will likely be very limited in what they do enjoy doing and that is fine.
 
As a woman, you don't have the same testosterone as men, therefore you don't have to worry about getting too bulky, because you couldn't even if you try.

Slightly paraphrased, but I actually saw this basic message posted on another forum just now by a woman who, if not for the vague hint of boobs, genuinely looks like a well-muscled man. That's officially my last straw on this one.

Like the best of lies, there's a strong element of truth to this one. Women have much lower testosterone levels than men (although individual levels vary greatly), so it does take a lot more work for women to grow the same amount of muscle as men. Women generally have lower starting points and lower genetic potentials for muscle size. The amount of muscle that a man can gain in any given period of time is generally less than what people think it is, and the amount of muscle than a woman can gain in the same period of time is generally less again. However, women certainly can gain muscle, and it can be enough to give them a masculinised appearance.

Furthermore, what those of us saying: "Nah, you'll never get bulky, not even if you try," tend to forget is that each person's definition of bulky is different. Generally, those of us who make this claim have the dumb idea in our head that you're not "bulky" until you could compete against Arnold at his peak, and we use this framework when talking to women who announce that they don't want to get bulky. But bulky isn't necessarily 100lb more muscle than what you've got. To the woman we're talking to, bulky might mean 10lb more muscle than she currently has. And guess what? That's entirely possible -- in fact, if you did hypertrophy training and ate appropriately for a year, as an untrained female it should be expected that you'd gain that much (10lb of muscle, not 100lb).

So why do we perpetuate this myth?

Our main motive is to oppose the opposite myth: that if a woman lifts more than 8lb her ovaries will drop and become testicles and she'll grow a beard and she'll become hulkzilla. It's good for women to lift heavy (according to their own abilities) weights. It helps them develop strength, improve skeletal health, improve body composition, improve ADLs, and can have positive influences on physique (depending on specifics of training, nutrition, and the standard of beauty being applied here). Unfortunately, we've gone too far and have overreached. We've taken: "You won't go to sleep tonight as a magical fairy princess and wake up as the Ox King," or even: "No one gets the body of a pro bodybuilder by accident," and transformed it into: "Try to look like a bodybuilder, I dare you -- you'll still wake up tomorrow as a magical fairy princess."

In one sense, we're pandering to her standards of beauty and desired outcomes while prescribing what may not necessarily be the best way to achieve the results she's after. In the same moment, we're also telling her that if her standards of beauty ever change and she thus wants to pursue greater levels of musculature, she doesn't have a say in the matter. If a leads to b (a --> b) and c leads to d (c --> d), in which a is aiming to be be perky, b is being perky, c is aiming to be bulky, and d is being bulky, we're basically saying that women should always do c and expect to get b.

Why does this irritate me so much? Maybe because I hate seeing bad advice given, especially from those who should know better. Maybe because I've perpetuated this myth over the years, with good intentions that still don't make it any closer to the truth.
 
What we train for is generally what we get. If we want to get stronger and dedicate our lives to this we will tend to gain muscle mass and strength along with it. If we do body building training we will build ourselves up, if we run 10 miles a day and do nothing else we become good 10 mile runners.
Our size is largely down to diet but there are other factors including genetics and of course hormonal levels.

Women do produce less testosterone than men in virtually all cases, so it is almost unheard of for a woman to be growing faster than a man due to their own natural testosterone, the percentage is too insignificant to bother with.
If you think this means a woman cannot gain muscle or strength by lifting weights you are way off. I have seen a number of female power-lifters, they are usually less lean than even off-season body-builders making them easy to under estimate. The covering of excess tends to make people see them as someone they are unsure of or a bit podgy if they don't know what they are looking at, until under load then the covering seems to melt away showing the mass of muscle which makes them capable of embarassing most men in a gym.

I also watched a full on endomorph woman who started dieting then decided she wanted to become a body-builder shortly after. She knew the very act of carrying her 25+ stone (approx. 150kg or 330pounds) body would have built muscle and the act of training while getting rid of it would build more. She didn't stay at the gym all the way to competition, finding the abundance of roid freaks too much of a temptation, but she did enter a competiton in the heavyweight class and was heavier on stage than I am now while slightly shorter. Obviously there was no sign of feminine curves at that low body fat but plenty of muscle on show, that she had trained for. She also wasn't the winner, that place was taken by someone larger than a good number of the men competing.

If there is a woman in the gym who is evidently designed to be big built and a scrawny man, the chances are that even with his testosterone boost he will struggle to build faster than she does. You can overcome your genetic tendancies with time and effort, but you will not beat someone more naturally gifted if they work as hard.

Decide what you want and train for it. If you are a woman who wants muscles, you can build them, by training the same way as a man wanting to. If the idea of gaining a few pounds of muscle fills you with dread, lots of moderation, careful monitoring of diet and you should be OK, though a few pounds may slip under the radar as such an amount is virtually invisible.

A quote from Dogma 'The thing that makes a woman a woman falls between two things, her legs.' The image of what makes a feminine body is totally personal, for some it is the Miss Annie Rexia look without any figure which some of both genders like, and if it's done safely there is no harm, for others it's more like the earth mother carvings from paleolithic dig sites, ample breasts, stomach hips and buttocks, hard to do this one safely but it can be done. Others feel the need for injections or implants of various substances into the body, like the previous two not my thing but not my call either, each is allowed to choose.
There is a growing desire among women to be able to see their muscles and even a bit of an interest in getting this by growing them rather than trimming away excess, this doesn't stop them being female or feminine. Women don't have to be smaller built than men if they don't want to be. The average female shot putter or javelin thrower is likely twice the build of a male marathon runner and has probably thrown things heavier than they are for fun, doesn't stop the throwers being female or runners being men.

Remember your own perception of what each gender should look like is your own, and will be shared with a number and disagreed with by a number too. I was admired by one woman at a previous workplace due to being muscular, another colleague sat opposite her found my appearance repulsive because I was too big and bulky. I have been in other situations at the same size being told I was too small to be a proper man. I don't please them all and even when I was single never wanted to.
In contrast I have seen women that friends have been oggling and thought, too fat, or thin, they have seen some I liked and not understood why. Perfection is very specific, look for what is perfect for you, and try not to judge others too harshly. If you manage that last you have done better than most, including me.
 
My fitness is the only kind

This one gets on my nerves as much as people who assume that beign able to quote from a book makes them intelligent.
We are in the very infancy of understanding what fitness and intellignce are. When I was studying fitness etc. there were 7 forms of fitness identified at that time and I was farily sure there were yet more we would learn about and I would hope there are a few to add already.

Stamina
This one is the form of fitness that supports any activty that works purely within the aerobic capacity. It is important to everyone in some way because the aerobic system is what keeps us alive and when we talk about oxygen debt it is stamina that pays the bills. We all have some of it, we'd be dead if we didn't, the difference is what we can do using stamina alone. For freaks like me it could be running etc. for someone else it could be as little as clapping or gentle walking, for the more motivated it could be marathons in barely over 2 hours. The best stamina athletes may not look like Odonis but they are fit.

Muscular Endurance
There is a lot of debate regarding the difference between stamina and eendurance. I was taught that the difference is one is limited by what the heart and lungs can feed the other is the ability of a specific muscle group. Doing bicep curls to failure on a low weight is not likely to put you at max age related heart rate or take 20 minutes or more but it will challenge the endurance of your biceps.
The military are very keen on encouraging endurance because the ability to recover fast is so important in combat situations. This is why there are so many of them who are outlifted by others there size but don't care. Being able to lift 3 friends is not as important as being able to carry one injured out of the firing line.

Strength
At it's core the ability to move large heavy objects under control. This is used a lot in power-lifting where momentum is not really a factor (the irony of this will be covered later). Press from bench has a pause at the bottom of the movement meaning only raw strength will get that bar back up from the chest.
This is used in many forms of training and becoming more valued as people realise strength is a useful thing to have or aesthetically appear to have. I have seen many comment on people who are incredibly strong dismissing their fitness with 'bet they couldn't run for a bus' first chances are they could and second they could likely bump start one too.

Flexibility
Simply stated the range of movement afforded by combination of joints and connective tissue. This is useful to be able to perform the movements we need to obviously but also to help prevent injuries. Most of us will have seen contortionists who can literally do what most politicians have been told to by having their head near their buttocks. They may not be able to lift their body weight over their head though some might, but again they are still fit.

Co-ordination
The ability to control the movements of your body. We all have some but the very dedicated take this to extremes. There are some incredible dancers, gymnasts, martial artists etc. out there who make the rest of us just marvel at how they have made their bodies move in such ways.
Snooker is an area where co-ordination may not be combined with many other forms of fitness but the perfection of movement required is still extreme, consider it is the most mathmatically difficult sport on earth. On it's own like this it may not look like fitness but it is.

Power
A combination of strength and co-ordination where strength will start a movement and co-ordination will provide control, the most obvious example is olympic lifting which uses a lot of momentum between bursts of strength to move impressive weights over the head and co-ordination to ensure the direction is controlled. Ironically power-lifting doesn't use much power.
The fact that an olympic lifter could likely not do a second rep doesn't mean a thing this is still fitness.


Speed
Usually a combination of power and co-ordination. A combo using a combo, but it makes sense when you get to grips with it. Without the power to get the movement going there is no speed and if not co-ordinated there is no continuation to enable this to continue.
Most commonly seen in martial artists, dancers and gymnasts again and honed to such extremes that sometimes the movements have to be slowed down for us to be able to see what they have done. This takes a lot of work to attain and is definately fitness.

Most of us have more than one of these forms of fitness, even if we don't always see it.
A body builder needs strength to be able to lift the weights required to build muscle, stamina enough to give the vascular look the judges insist upon and of course the co-ordination to show these off to best effect on stage.
Strongman competition is now so intense and varied that they daren't allow any area of fitness to slip. One of the UK's strongest men was at the gym my wife uses recently demonstrating that being enormous doesn't mean he can row like hell for 20 minutes, his PT was having to physically stop the rower jumping back with every stroke, and often failing. These guys are pushed hard in so many ways and obviously appreciate that they need to be able to get oxygen to their muscles for them to work.
Ironman triathletes need masses of stamina obviously but also co-ordination to be able to be uber-efficient and handle the change overs. If you think this is easy try cycling a couple of miles flat out then get off and run without falling over.

There are some lunatics out there who decide to go for all of them, like me. What we do is manage to be mediocre at a number of things and shown up as total hacks by the specialists. We become the Jacks of the world (of all trades variety), and even though we have slim to no chance of becoming world champions at anything we appreciate what it takes to be so and admire those who do.

Remember fitness is not how you look, it's what you can do. There is nothing wrong with looking fitter than you are or vice versa as long as you enjoy it. It is however always worth remembering others who are fit may have different aims, but be just as fit in their own way as you are.
 
Naughty words/ phrases

We're not talking genuine profanity here and if I haven't been guilty of doing at least one of these on this board I would be exceptionally surprised.
This is the habit of using terms as if they are something to be ashamed of when in truth they aren't.
Truth is it seems to come down to being happy with what we are even while seaking to improve. Long term trainers always want more but we need to accept what we are first and foremost.

Body Builder
I have seen a number on here declaring they don't want to be body builders, just gain a bit of muscle. This is similar to saying I don't want to breath pollutants just visit the local city.
If you want to gain muscle that means building more onto your body, therefore you are a body builder. You may not want to stand on stage in your briefest breifs having every imperfection judged but you are still wanting to build a better body.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to build muscle for aesthetic or other reasons, but we all need to accept what we are doing.

Fitness Fanatic
Not so much here as in real life, yes I do have one, I have heard this used as a derogatory term. It is expected from those with magnetic sofas and posteriors but I have heard it from a lot of trainers too.
The reason I find this such a hazardous thing to deny being is that those doing so have ended up stopping training to prove it. If you think this is stupid I agree with you but most seasoned and some younger trainers will have witnessed this more than once.
You may not consider yourself a fitness fanatic because x or y from the gym does far more but if you walk your dog a few miles a day that is more than average activity in the developed world so more than that will put you right up there in the ranks of fitness freaks and you should be proud of it.

Manly or Girlie
There are many people worried about looking too much like the wrong gender. Women worried that they will carry too much muscle or men that they aren't carrying enough.
There are 3 firmly recognised body types with scientific and various other names ectomorph (aka hard gainer, scrawny runt, super slim etc.), endomorph (aka fast gainer, lard butt, bulky etc.) and mesomorph in the middle. There is nothing to be ashamed about with any of these and reality is which of these you are is only part of the story, so don't worry.
This from someone who spent years building onto a pathetic frame to make himself look more like a man will seem more than a little hypocritical but it's true. I am the sort of person who in my office looks impressive and muscular, while I would walk into a real iron gym and look like one of the before posters. The scrawny little oik who was into dangerous sports and was so slim but toned that from behind, especially with my long locks, I was reliably informed I looked like the ideal woman, good reason to keep the facial hair, was far more successful with the opposite gender than I have been since despite looking far more masculine after.
A lot of it comes down to what you want to be and how you are within yourself. If you are a woman looking at curves you don't like there will be a super thin woman who wishes she could have some of them in the same way you wish you could be her. If you are an ecto man jealous about how the endo can have walked in and gained more mass than you in half the time he will be looking at how lean you are the same way.
If you want to battle your genetic advantages, potentially metabolism etc and do things you were never designed for go for it, many of us have. Ideally without worrying about being too girlie or manly, in truth it only matters if you care.

Effort or Hard Work
We all know this one. The easy option is sold to so many because effort is seen as a naughty word and the other option is 2 four letter words very naughty.
The simple truth is nothing worth having is going to come without work and likely patience. When thinking about training even if it is initially for a specific short term target like look good on the beach this or next summer, you want to have a long term plan in mind, otherwise the year after things may not be as you want them.
There is a wealth of misrepresented stuff out there selling the miracle of 4 minute workouts and wonder aids without mentioning that these are supposed to accompany not replace a more traditional training program.
If the idea of getting off the sofa fill you with dread and you only walk to your car because you can't park it in your living room I am being the bearer of bad news here, there is no shortcut that means you can do nothing and eat junk 99% of the time and still be or look incredibly fit, it takes effort.
Rather than finding things that promise quick results find stuff you like and stick to it. That way the effort and hard work will feel like a pleasure not a chore.

Patience
Kind of following on from the last really. If you are a teen and want to look like the pictures your hearts desire is drooling over, a long term inactive wanting to turn life around or anything in between you will need the most unpopular part in your training arsenal, patience.
The chances are the picutres you are looking at as your desired end product are people who have dedicated years to the cause. Those pictures showing the latest exercise product to hone your abs will have a model who is impecible everywhere else too and will only have seen that product when they walked into the studio. The look they have achieved will have taken a long time and a lot of commitement.
Once you have the fact in mind that this will take a while and be something you need to keep to you can start making smarter choices that suit you rather than trying to rush. This will help you a surprising amount and ironically those who aim long term tend to gain results faster than others in a mad rush.
 
Last edited:
I agree with all of this except the body builder point. I don't think that training to build muscle mass automatically classifies you as this. Training for hypertrophy is something that everyone from football players to runners to surgery rehab clients to "actual" body builders do. You could term the type of training as "body building-type" exercising, I guess, but I don't believe that it's fair to call anyone except for people who are trying to bulk up as much as they physically can a body builder, because the label doesn't really imply anything less than that.
 
I suppose I have known a lot of body builders who were into mass building and others into detailing, perfecting proportion etc. so don't automatically think of them as sheer bulk builders as many do.
I like to challenge stereotypes, always have. Comes from having held many in my youth, cold war kiddie, that I found so far off the mark. I tend to revert to the classic 'all generalisations are wrong.'
 
There's no point training hypertrophy until you've built a strength base first

Like any myth that I highlight here, this is one I know of quite well on account of having once perpetuated it myself, quite possibly on these very forums. Now, this myth doesn't seem to be rampant in the real world, but it is rampant on the internet, in places like the bb.com forums. A somewhat sophisticated version of the argument goes something like this:

"Beginners are unskilled, and their lack of skill prevents them from overloading their muscles enough to promote decent hypertrophy, therefore they need to improve their exercise proficiency so that they can overload their muscles. Strength is a skill. Therefore by building a solid strength base, they will develop the skill required for hypertrophy training."

A less sophisticated version of the argument goes something like this:

"Who do you think is going to be bigger? The guy who squats 300lb for 5 or the guy who squats 200lb for 10?"

Another rationale to support this idea is strength = muscle. Therefore train max strength and you'll get max muscle.

Why it doesn't hold up:

Like a lot of myths, there is an element of truth to this one, but max strength training, even for a beginner, is not going to be better for hypertrophy than actual hypertrophy training.

First argument: Skills.
In the first month (give or take) of training, most of the progress you'll make in strength performance will be from learning how to move, rather than from enhancing hypertrophy. That doesn't mean that there will be no hypertrophy in this time. Max strength is as much skill as it is having the muscles to work with. Hypertrophy training uses a lot of the same skills, but not all of the same skills. Maintaining form for 10 reps in spite of muscular and cardiovascular fatigue is a separate skill compared to holding good technique under a near-maximal load. Where these skills overlap is in having the same movement pattern (not necessarily the same technique, as form is what positions you get into while technique is how you get into them, which will be different under different %loads) and building mental toughness, however the skills do diverge outside of that, to the extent that unless you train both high and low rep ranges, one will not necessarily carry over very well into the other. Besides all that, max strength training focuses primarily on white muscle fibres, while hypertrophy training focuses primarily on pink muscle fibres, so, while there's some carry-over between the two styles of training, you're actually using and fatiguing different parts of the muscle when you do max strength vs hypertrophy.

Second argument: 300>200
This argument sounds compelling at first thought. That's about where it stops. Using the numbers given as an example, this is actually approximately how much I squat for 5 and 10, respectively, and it should be self-evident that I'm exactly as big as myself. I know that's anecdotal rather than lab tested, but you get the point. The fact that in one context a lifter lifts more weight than in another context does not mean that the lifter has more muscle in the context that allows him/her to lift more.

More importantly, the argument is a red herring. The implication is that the person lifting more weight has progressed further (even though, using myself as an example, I can demonstrate that that's not necessarily true). Now, if someone has progressed further, then yeah, they'll probably be bigger, all other things being equal. So what? Does that prove or even suggest that max strength training is better for hypertrophy, at least in beginners, than hypertrophy training? No, it doesn't. It proves that progressing is better than not progressing, not that using less reps so that you can move more weight is better than higher reps and less weight.

Third argument: Strength = muscle
Muscle is a component of strength, but the two are not equivocal. If I walk into a commercial gym setting, I can expect to see plenty of guys there who have bigger muscles than me. I can also expect to out-lift them a lot of the time. An increase in strength does not promote a linear increase in muscle, nor does an increase in muscle promote a linear increase in strength. Granted, if you put more meat on your bones, you will probably be able to move weight, and if you aren't putting more meat on your bones, you won't gain as much strength as you would otherwise, however you can measurably increase strength without measurably increasing muscle mass at the same time. This is actually because of the first argument: strength is a skill. As every male without highly enviable genetics will tell you (if for no other reason than self-assurance), it's not the size that counts, it's how you use it. That's what skill is -- it's not having the best tool, necessarily; it's using your tools (in this case your muscles -- get your head out of the gutter) effectively. Max strength training isn't about getting bigger, better tools, it's about getting really good at using your tools in the limited context of a 1RM.
 
I would say the weight I have put on lately has made less difference to my max strength than I would have like or expected, by contrast I seem to have improve on muscular endurance. So my weights have increased on the 8s and 10s far more than on the singles and doubles.
Again it's anecdotal because it's just my experience but it shows muscle gain doesn't always increase what you expect. With current targets set it will be a while before I am doing 1RM work again but it will be fun trying to convert some of the MSE to base power.
 
I've been thinking a lot lately about the factors that drive success with fitness goals, and am currently putting together a small book/report on these issues. It's something we don't talk about enough in the fitness community...and I plan to capitalise on this fact. In light of that...

New Year's Resolutions (NYR) are a great idea

It's we're a week out from everyone everywhere declaring on NYE how they're going to turn their lives around as of NYD, this one's timely enough.

Every year, countless people decide they should have a NYR. They're going to get a promotion at work or lots of 7's at uni, they're going to travel the world, and they're going to lose 10k and bench 100k and run 10k....

Well, that's what they say on NYE. But on NYD they have a hangover, so not today. The day after it's still holidays, so they'd better just relax and enjoy their time off while it lasts. Next day it's the weekend. You don't get to work on the weekend, come on! Next day is the same. Finally comes Monday, they're back to work, and with all this work to do, NYR? Ain't nobody got time for that!

A whole lot of NYRs are pipe dreams, which people were never really going to go ahead with anyway. And a very large number of NYRs that do get started on have people dropping out a couple weeks later. If we're going to be really serious, if something really is a goal for you, and you really do intend on doing it, you're probably not going to wait until next year to do it, you're going to start now.

New Year's Resolutions are a stupid idea

The other side of the situation is that while a lot of NYRs never actually get started, and of the ones that do, a lot have people quitting a couple weeks later, a large number of NYRs are actually successful. Here are some components that contribute to this:

1) The people involved have been thinking about it for a while, have been dwelling on whether or not they want to do this, and have been (deliberately or not) working through the pros and cons until the benefits of making their change far outweigh the costs in their mind. This just happens to have aligned well with the timing of the New Year.
2) NYRs are a call to action. Sometimes we're mentally prepared for something, but need a call to action before we'll actually take the next step and do it.
3) There's a lot of social support around NYRs. Why? Because everyone's doing it! Since everyone's doing it, you're bound to be able to find one or two people in your circles who have similar NYRs, are at about the same level of preparedness, and can keep you accountable (and whom you can keep accountable). The presence of social support is one of the key things that tends to help people stick to the plan and succeed rather than drop off when the going gets tough. It's not an exact science, but those who are in a group that encourages, enables and pushes them to succeed at a certain task are more likely to succeed at it.
 
Pack on Weight During Winter, Lose Weight Over Summer

Well, okay, that's not a myth in and of itself, but the idea that it's part of human nature to do so is. We have some kind of idea that bears get fat for winter and then hibernate and end up less fat when they're done, therefore we should do the same, right?

Firstly, bears fatten up in preparation for winter, so that their bodies have an energy source to use up during the winter. Being cold doesn't make them fat, being cold makes them sleep and slowly burn through fat to stay alive.

Secondly, the type of fat that's used for this job is brown fat. Hibernating animals have lots of brown fat, as do baby humans. But by the time we're old enough to speak, we pretty much have no brown fat left. So, that's out.

Thirdly, thermodynamics dictate that, because winter is colder, we need to generate more heat to stay alive. Generating heat uses up energy. Calories are energy. Brown fat is good at generating heat, which is why it helps keep bears alive. We can't use brown fat to generate heat, as we don't have brown fat, so we use the same processes available to us all year round: increase activity (even if that means shivering) or put more clothing on to capture our body heat, requiring less energy expenditure to ensure survival.

So then, why does the trend of gaining weight over winter happen? In the northern hemisphere (where this saying is said the most), autumn and winter include times such as Halloween (consume about 3 years worth of disaccharides, AKA sugar, in 4 hours), Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year's. These are times with lots of partying, and lots of sweet and/or fatty food, which means lots of calories being consumed. Being holidays, these are also times in which people are more likely to take time off from exercise. Combine these features, and give people thick clothes and fireplaces/heaters, and voila: people just got fatter. It's mmmagic!

Likewise, people tend not to lose fat around summer because the weather makes them lose fat. Instead, people tend to lose fat around summer because the weather means they won't be covering up as much and they'll be outdoors more often. Since they want to look good while so frequently exposed, people choose to lose weight during the summer.

As an aside, living in Australia, where we have all of the northern hemisphere's winter festivities during summer, the last couple years have taught me that this is a terrible time to cut. Bloody oath, it's a struggle just to maintain at this time of year, let alone getting rid of excess fat. My stomach is groaning at me. Grrr...
 
All I need to do is work on the weaknesses

Everyone who has ever trained has done this or similar in their time. At the very least we have all emphasised our training to make it uneven. What's worse is the number of training plans that are specifically tailored to encourage this style of workout, ladies being guided to legs, bums and tums, men being given chest, shoulders, abs and arms, I will abuse these sessions further down, they have it coming.
In case you hadn't guessed this is my homage to the uneven trainers and why they are destined to fail unless they do as any long termers who want results do and learn not to do this any more.

So what's wrong with specialising?
Short term or when you are training for a singular sport, not much, but long term is a different story. In fairness even sport specific trainers are now realising there is a benefit to making training more even, career lifespan of the competitor being just one. If you think uneven event specific training is a new thing ask an archaeologist how they identify a skeleton as an archer. And this brings us nicely to why we shouldn't train unevenly, archers damaged their bodies to such an extent the damage is still evident on their bodies hundreds or thousands of years after their death, so it is no exaggeration to say uneven training has an impact on the body.
I promised some abuse of the gender typical uneven programs above.
Legs, bums and tums, because of course every woman wants sagging arms, chest and bad posture, with some back pain thrown in for good measure. The abdominals are a major postural muscle, training these without the back will result in bad posture and likely back issues, it is also one of the most common forms of uneven training, after all who needs any strength in the back, no-one looks at your lower back after all. Not training trapezius, shoulders, chest and arms give a nice slouched posture and no tone in the upper torso and arms.
Chest, shoulders, abs and arms. Because there has never been a time when a woman looked below the waist for muscles, none of them care if you have a toned tush or legs. Same issues with posture but more likely to cause back problems because men will usually be training heavier and put more strain through areas they haven't built up properly.
Without exception everyone I have ever known who hasn't trained their lower back directly or as part of compound training and has been training for a couple of decades has a lower back issue, many of them chronically painful. If something isn't strengthened it becomes a weakness, it really is that simple, weak backs become bad backs and those are usually painful. Deadlifts, good morning exercise, hyperextensions or any alternatives you can use will prevent this, they are worth it.

What's to gain?
A surprising amount, especially when wanting performance, and even when just wanting to look prettier.
We'll look at the latter first, because aesthetic trainers are more likely to go this way. If you want to be admired from afar or up close you want to look good from every angle in any outfit especially the birthday suit. Lads with the most tempting arms from upper body only training will look fine in t-shirts and pathetic in shorts, and at some point you will be wanting the person impressed to see the rest of you. Ladies in the backless dress need to have a nice smooth toned back and good posture to receive the admiration they feel such a daring outfit deserves. Remember of course nudity takes no prisoners and we all have parts that are less than appealing but these can be minimised by whole body training.
Functional fitness or sport specific is very demanding and weaknesses will become the bane of your life. You want to be able to run so why bother training the upper body, apart from of course that there is drive and balance coming from your arms and core. You're a canoeist so your legs are useless obviously, unless the tension you are holding through your core with each stroke is supported by your legs. There is no activity that will allow you to choose not to train something unless you literally can't wheelchair basketball not needing calf training etc.

Summary time.
Train everything, ideally in balance, it will serve you well. If you need to do a bit of top up in one area having a hard time for a while do it but keep this short term only.
Doing this will pay you dividends, not doing it long term will be something you regret for years to come.
So when you want pretty abs or stronger arms make this a part of an all over body workout and keep it there.
 
In order to get fit I need to do lots of running

Correction: In order to get good at running, you need to do lots of running, and preferably do it well. "Fit" basically means "able to do a task," and so its definition might involve running, or it might not. Granted, there are plenty of good reasons to run, and to get better at running. Running offers intrinsic benefits, such as being meditative (depending on the person), getting a "runner's high," and getting to live instead of being inside the belly of a bear. It also offers extrinsic benefits, such as increasing bone density and, in the long term, reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease. But until we've defined the outcome that you're after, running may or may not be relevant to your goals.

I don't feel sore, am I training hard enough?

Soreness is not a strict indicator of how intense or effective your workout has been. Granted, an intense workout is both more likely to cause soreness than a light workout and likely to cause more soreness than a light workout. However, there's no direct correlation between effort and soreness, nor is there any direct correlation between soreness and results (unless the intended result is to be sore). Soreness seems to indicate more that something is unfamiliar than that it was at an appropriate intensity to produce desirable results. Incidentally, those who wait until they are no longer sore before training again tend to get sore much more often and to a greater severity than those who don't wait. I don't know the mechanics of why this is the case, but that is the trend.

[xyz] is the one and only program/method worth using

There are a thousand ways to skin a cat. And that's assuming that you want to skin a cat. Which you might not.

There are a lot of trainers about who think that everyone should train in the way that works for them, not taking into account that not all people are the same, not all people want the same things, and not all people should do the same things to get to the same place. In truth, what works brilliantly for you today might not have been so beneficial to you a while ago, and might not be beneficial in the future, either. And what works brilliantly for you might not work for someone else. And even if it does, it may be wholy inappropriate for that person, because it's leading them in a direction they don't want to go in.
 
Running, the one form of fast locomotion we are all literally designed to be able to do (disabled excluded, but if you needed to be told that please don't read on there are big words a coming), but there is a catch. I can run absurd distances, I haven't taken part in a marathon in decades but in all honesty I likely could do it again if I lost the final grain of sanity I have left. However in the running from the bear situation this is not as useful as covering 100 metres in 10 seconds or less, because that person will be able to recover while the bear is using my ribs for tooth picks.
I like running, as with millions of other mentally unstable people the world over, but it doesn't define fitness. I can run for the bus but Terry Hollands can run pulling one, not for as far of course but that's a form of fitness I don't have, or likely ever will.

Aching is the result of a number of things. Damage to tissue, that is the exercise part, toxins in the muscle fibres, these can be cleared out with proper cool down and stretch, the body calling out for the nutrients for repair, basically nutritional shortfall. So if you cool down and stretch properly you ache less, if you eat well you ache less, if you train in an unfamiliar manner or intensity level you ache more, note this last doesn't say harder. I find weight training really hard, always have done, that's why I enjoy it, the end of a workout is accompanied by me feeling like my body is totally dead and at least one part of my mind questioning the intelligence of what I have done. Running by contrast is easy for me, I run hard for me but it never feels as draining at the end as with weights. I run 3/4 days most weeks and still ache every day from it.
There is a certain element in my mind that says not sore train harder, that's the mental instability again. Stupid part is I stretch in part to reduce aching, eat constantly and balanced to minimise then try increasing intensity and variation to make me ache more, there is at least one name for that and I doubt they are complimentary.

Variation is so key to training. Power need recovery, recovery comes from endurance, so to optimise power you need to step back to endurance every now and then. Stamina is great on long events but the body still needs the strength to perform the movements and improving this makes you more efficient. Mobility is key so often, all the strength and stamina means nothing if you can't move through the range required to be at your best.
Changing the sessions regularly is part of why I have been able to continuously improve for decades. As I get older the improvements are slowing down but so are my other commitments so this could be as much about how committed I can be to training as my age, let you know after I retire.
There is no silver bullet session, in fact just using one will stunt your progression almost as well as doing none. In my dim and distant childhood I did a simple 10 exercise program 3 x 10 for 3 - 4 years, I got good at those exercises and that is about it. So yes I do know how ineffective this is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top