2 hours of workout straight. Good or bad?
Options
Replies
-
As i said, if you stall out weight won't be increasing, hence the only optoin is add more sets and reps. e.g. increase volume.LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time
It depends how we define "intensity". I am defining intensity as near your max effort. Using something like RPE(Rate Of Perceived Exertion) Where a 1 is like laying in bed, and a 10 is giving every last thing you have at the task at hand. When i am talking about intensity I am talking about the upper limits of RPE around 8-10.
Those higher end athletes, they are in good physical condition. A great indicator of conditioning is recovery ability. James Loehr PhD is a sports psychologist who's main focus is on tennis, he also works with olympic athletes, he has helped some win the gold medal. He was curious why some athletes performed better than others with similar abilities. He eventually discovered after 2years of analyzing the players that, the difference was their rest period.The ones who performed better are the ones who got the most recovery out of their rest period.
The way those athletes you mentioned trained is kind of similar to doing interval training. Imagine running at your on time interval pace for 20mins, can be extremely difficult, assuming you can finish it. But you can do it in a interval fashion in a 1 to 1 ratio for 40mins. You won't be able to run at your on time pace for 40mins. The difference is more work in less time or less work more time. e.g. "You can work out hard and intense, or long and soft."
You realize that even though a session might take a full two hours, you're not actually performing movements or actions during that entire time block right? Programs like Smolov, Sheiko, etc do not have to be geared towards elite level lifters and can still be highly effective (a fairly high RPE and quite a bit of volume).
I boxed for 3yrs, My workouts where 3-4hrs 4-5 days a week. It was a long time ago, but what i do recall was like, warm up with shadow boxing maybe 30mins, hit the big for 1hr(3mins on 1 min off as an actual boxing match). Rest about 15mins, speed bag for about an hour. Rest 15-20mins, Mits for about an hour, rest and some actual sparing.
But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli.
But progressive overload is increasing volume...
0 -
What?? I don't get it, maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. Assuming a hypertrophy program, where adequate nutrition and rest is met. To increase strength and muscle size workload has to increase. Workload being reps * sets within a given unit of time. e.g. doing 5 reps with 1 set, resting 10hrs and doing 1 set 5 reps again, is more time compared to 1 set 5 reps with a 1 minute rest in between sets. Hence time is important.brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
workload = reps * sets * weight
To improve workload has to increase. If you stall out, the given situation above. Reps and weight will be a constant. Lets say you do 8 reps 3 sets with 50bs and you're not improving.
workload = 8 * 3 * 50
1200 = 8*3*50
Since weight and reps aren't improving, the only option is to increase sets, lets say 4 sets now
workload = 8 * 4 * 50
1600= 8*4*50
Workload has increase, a greater stimuli is provided now, more potential for growth now. If you want to call this "progressive overload" then ok. As long as I can remember from bodybuilding(1997), "progressive overload" was adding "more weight to the bar over time." But in the situation provided, you can't add more weight to the bar, since you're stalled.
First you must have quoted the wrong post.
Second assuming again. When will you stop assuming?
0 -
What?? I don't get it, maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. Assuming a hypertrophy program, where adequate nutrition and rest is met. To increase strength and muscle size workload has to increase. Workload being reps * sets within a given unit of time. e.g. doing 5 reps with 1 set, resting 10hrs and doing 1 set 5 reps again, is more time compared to 1 set 5 reps with a 1 minute rest in between sets. Hence time is important.brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
workload = reps * sets * weight
To improve workload has to increase. If you stall out, the given situation above. Reps and weight will be a constant. Lets say you do 8 reps 3 sets with 50bs and you're not improving.
workload = 8 * 3 * 50
1200 = 8*3*50
Since weight and reps aren't improving, the only option is to increase sets, lets say 4 sets now
workload = 8 * 4 * 50
1600= 8*4*50
Workload has increase, a greater stimuli is provided now, more potential for growth now. If you want to call this "progressive overload" then ok. As long as I can remember from bodybuilding(1997), "progressive overload" was adding "more weight to the bar over time." But in the situation provided, you can't add more weight to the bar, since you're stalled.
Quoting the right person before going on another tangent helps a lot.0 -
You are probably the only person I see bring so much book theory into lifting. I know why though.
What am I assuming? All i see is blank statements, explain to me what i am assuming.yopeeps025 wrote: »
What?? I don't get it, maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. Assuming a hypertrophy program, where adequate nutrition and rest is met. To increase strength and muscle size workload has to increase. Workload being reps * sets within a given unit of time. e.g. doing 5 reps with 1 set, resting 10hrs and doing 1 set 5 reps again, is more time compared to 1 set 5 reps with a 1 minute rest in between sets. Hence time is important.brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
workload = reps * sets * weight
To improve workload has to increase. If you stall out, the given situation above. Reps and weight will be a constant. Lets say you do 8 reps 3 sets with 50bs and you're not improving.
workload = 8 * 3 * 50
1200 = 8*3*50
Since weight and reps aren't improving, the only option is to increase sets, lets say 4 sets now
workload = 8 * 4 * 50
1600= 8*4*50
Workload has increase, a greater stimuli is provided now, more potential for growth now. If you want to call this "progressive overload" then ok. As long as I can remember from bodybuilding(1997), "progressive overload" was adding "more weight to the bar over time." But in the situation provided, you can't add more weight to the bar, since you're stalled.
First you must have quoted the wrong post.
Second assuming again. When will you stop assuming?Assuming a hypertrophy program
Every time you post about lifting I question if you have ever really done it. You seem clueless in the topic.0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
What?? I don't get it, maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. Assuming a hypertrophy program, where adequate nutrition and rest is met. To increase strength and muscle size workload has to increase. Workload being reps * sets within a given unit of time. e.g. doing 5 reps with 1 set, resting 10hrs and doing 1 set 5 reps again, is more time compared to 1 set 5 reps with a 1 minute rest in between sets. Hence time is important.brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
workload = reps * sets * weight
To improve workload has to increase. If you stall out, the given situation above. Reps and weight will be a constant. Lets say you do 8 reps 3 sets with 50bs and you're not improving.
workload = 8 * 3 * 50
1200 = 8*3*50
Since weight and reps aren't improving, the only option is to increase sets, lets say 4 sets now
workload = 8 * 4 * 50
1600= 8*4*50
Workload has increase, a greater stimuli is provided now, more potential for growth now. If you want to call this "progressive overload" then ok. As long as I can remember from bodybuilding(1997), "progressive overload" was adding "more weight to the bar over time." But in the situation provided, you can't add more weight to the bar, since you're stalled.
Quoting the right person before going on another tangent helps a lot.
You're more than welcome to tell the people who keep quoting me and asking me questions about my "examples" to stop. Due out of respect, I answer them.
This statement from you has what to do with your quoting the wrong person?0 -
1nspiredgirl wrote: »Because I am super obssessed and first day of school is in a month. I am exercising both cardio & strength(toning muscles) (jillian michaels workout videos & others mix) in 2 hours straight(in the morning) but with rest time of 5 mins each workout. Is it just okay? Or super bad?
I'm eating 5-6 small meals a day because it's getting me really hungry throughout the day. Need your thoughts and experiences. - obssessed 21y/o(5"1) girl here. Thank you so much!
P.S. Super hate my fat thighs & muffin top!!!! >.<
(((((
It sounds like your obsession is borderline unhealthy. Time in the gym doesn't not necessarily correlate to results and in regards to fat-loss; your nutrition is going to dictate that more than anything. If that's not on-point then the exercise matters less.
Meal frequency: There is not much evidence supporting the use of 5-6 meals per day for weight-loss, but from a behavioral standpoint it can be an effective method of managing your hunger. As long as your nutrition supports healthy fat-loss and the 5-6 meals helps you manage your hunger without binging and getting off course, then stay with it.
Time in the gym: Exercise length should also be related to how frequent your are training and how that training relates to your physical goals. I train roughly 2 hours when I'm in the gym, but I also only train 3 times per week and then I have 4 days to recover. If you're training every day, then it's probably way unnecessary. Find yourself a structured strength training program that supports your fitness goals, again; exercise matters less if your nutrition is not on-point. Set some physical goals, be it run a mile faster, get stronger in certain lifts, do "x" number of push-ups and pull-ups, whatever it might be; just find a goal not related to weight-loss. In doing this it will help you set a program that works towards those goals and is more effective for your overall health. Working hard doesn't matter if you're not also working smart! - Cheers!0 -
I just can't even.....0
-
LolBroScience wrote: »
As i said, if you stall out weight won't be increasing, hence the only optoin is add more sets and reps. e.g. increase volume.LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »OP if you're trying to create a massive deficit through exercise, that simply won't work. I am not familiar with the workout routines you're doing, but they might be light workouts, that's the only situation I'd find it workout out 2hrs a day reasonable. For example walking 2hrs a day is ok.
If you don't eat enough calories various issues can arise. Big deficits can cause hormonal issues, slow down weight loss, increase fatigue.If you do what you're suppose to do the way you're suppose to do it, working out 2hrs a day does nothing in terms of weight loss.
For example, your TDEE is 2000 a day, you set your goal to lose 1lbs a week. This will give you a daily intake of 1,500 calories. You eat 1,000 calories, workout for 2hrs and lets say you burn 1,200 calories. Your diary would read 300 net calories, and give you 1,200 calories to eat back. 300 + 1200 = 1,500 net calories. Back to 1lbs weight loss. It's pretty pointless from a weight loss perspective. You can get the same results doing a moderate to high intensity workout about 1hr a day.
Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both.
There is a caveat, low intensity exercise, for example walking doesn't produce such hormonal stress, thus you can do it for a long time, and it doesn't have such a big impact on appetite.
What about sport specific training? Weightlifting, MMA, Boxing, etc.
What about programs based around higher volume or intensity - Smolov, Sheiko, etc.
In a large deficit, it could pose an issue. However, there are programs and indivduals out there training at high thresholds for longer periods of time
It depends how we define "intensity". I am defining intensity as near your max effort. Using something like RPE(Rate Of Perceived Exertion) Where a 1 is like laying in bed, and a 10 is giving every last thing you have at the task at hand. When i am talking about intensity I am talking about the upper limits of RPE around 8-10.
Those higher end athletes, they are in good physical condition. A great indicator of conditioning is recovery ability. James Loehr PhD is a sports psychologist who's main focus is on tennis, he also works with olympic athletes, he has helped some win the gold medal. He was curious why some athletes performed better than others with similar abilities. He eventually discovered after 2years of analyzing the players that, the difference was their rest period.The ones who performed better are the ones who got the most recovery out of their rest period.
The way those athletes you mentioned trained is kind of similar to doing interval training. Imagine running at your on time interval pace for 20mins, can be extremely difficult, assuming you can finish it. But you can do it in a interval fashion in a 1 to 1 ratio for 40mins. You won't be able to run at your on time pace for 40mins. The difference is more work in less time or less work more time. e.g. "You can work out hard and intense, or long and soft."
You realize that even though a session might take a full two hours, you're not actually performing movements or actions during that entire time block right? Programs like Smolov, Sheiko, etc do not have to be geared towards elite level lifters and can still be highly effective (a fairly high RPE and quite a bit of volume).
I boxed for 3yrs, My workouts where 3-4hrs 4-5 days a week. It was a long time ago, but what i do recall was like, warm up with shadow boxing maybe 30mins, hit the big for 1hr(3mins on 1 min off as an actual boxing match). Rest about 15mins, speed bag for about an hour. Rest 15-20mins, Mits for about an hour, rest and some actual sparing.
But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli.
But progressive overload is increasing volume...
Wait, what? So... you only implement progressive overload when you stall?
Haha, I just caught this part of the conversation. What's this progressive overload you speak of? LOL! The absence of progressive overload is called CrossFit.0 -
It depends...2 hours of training when you know what you're doing is completely different than two hours of training when you don't
In general, it is unnecessary and generally the only time I do two hours or more of training is when I'm actually training for an event, and I do enjoy a longer bike ride on weekends when I can. To that end, I would also add that when I'm actually training, I'm also eating like a mo-fo.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »I just can't even.....
As i mentioned before, blank statement don't provide much, if you can elaborate... It sounds to me like you're disagreeing with workload has to increase to make gains...
Nope. I understand increasing workload and how it impacts changes in neural adaptations, muscle size etc.
However, progressive overload isn't only implemented once you've stalled. It should be a consistent component of any programming if you are looking to improve. Everything you have written to this point has been about stalling with a particular weight on the bar with the only work around being adding in additional sets or reps. Why you even mention that is beyond me, because not one person made mention to stalling.
This was your original quote which spawned this whole conversation "But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli."
Do you see why this makes me go "wtf"?0 -
I do 40 minutes of cardio and 90 minutes of weights plus streaching and I'm 58 love it 4 days 1 day off, 4 days 1 day off0
-
I heard too much of a good thing is not good. Also I read that our bodies only need about 30 -40 minutes of exercise to lose or maintain and that any thing after that puts strain on our bodies.So why kill yourself if you pretty much end up with the same results.
0 -
brianpperkins wrote: »
What?? I don't get it, maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. Assuming a hypertrophy program, where adequate nutrition and rest is met. To increase strength and muscle size workload has to increase. Workload being reps * sets within a given unit of time. e.g. doing 5 reps with 1 set, resting 10hrs and doing 1 set 5 reps again, is more time compared to 1 set 5 reps with a 1 minute rest in between sets. Hence time is important.brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
workload = reps * sets * weight
To improve workload has to increase. If you stall out, the given situation above. Reps and weight will be a constant. Lets say you do 8 reps 3 sets with 50bs and you're not improving.
workload = 8 * 3 * 50
1200 = 8*3*50
Since weight and reps aren't improving, the only option is to increase sets, lets say 4 sets now
workload = 8 * 4 * 50
1600= 8*4*50
Workload has increase, a greater stimuli is provided now, more potential for growth now. If you want to call this "progressive overload" then ok. As long as I can remember from bodybuilding(1997), "progressive overload" was adding "more weight to the bar over time." But in the situation provided, you can't add more weight to the bar, since you're stalled.
Quoting the right person before going on another tangent helps a lot.
You're more than welcome to tell the people who keep quoting me and asking me questions about my "examples" to stop. Due out of respect, I answer them.
Let me help you out. You quoted brian. Brian wasn't talking to you - he was talking to Needing. Ergo, you quoted the wrong person.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I just can't even.....
As i mentioned before, blank statement don't provide much, if you can elaborate... It sounds to me like you're disagreeing with workload has to increase to make gains...
Nope. I understand increasing workload and how it impacts changes in neural adaptations, muscle size etc.
However, progressive overload isn't only implemented once you've stalled. It should be a consistent component of any programming if you are looking to improve. Everything you have written to this point has been about stalling with a particular weight on the bar with the only work around being adding in additional sets or reps. Why you even mention that is beyond me, because not one person made mention to stalling.
This was your original quote which spawned this whole conversation "But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli."
Do you see why this makes me go "wtf"?
ha, okay yes, I see the problem. Now we're getting some where. I thought progressive overload would be implied. I came across a great system, but not going to talk about it. For a hypertrophy program, I would recommend 6-8 reps at RPE(which we talked about before) at a 9 3 sets for a beginner. YOu hit about a 9 on the last set. As you get stronger, your 9 will turn in to an 8 or 7. So yes, obviously you increase the weight. Hence progressive overload. But As I said, if you done things properly, with deloads, or taking a week off or whatever, with proper nutrition, and you been stuck at the same weight with RPE of 9 on 8 reps and 3 sets for a while. Then add sets. Hence you have progressively overload through the entire training, but reps/weight aren't going up. So you can add more sets.
Yes, but what does this have to do with anything? It's completely off topic to the OP, and completely off topic to your assertion that you cannot perform for two hours. Nothing was ever said about stalling by anyone other than yourself. It came out of no where, for no reason. I don't even know what or who you are trying to convince.
Beyond that, why are you discussing RPE based programs for someone like a beginner? It makes things much more unnecessarily complicated than it has to be, and not to mention most beginners cannot even accurately assess an RPE based scale.0 -
if you just stopped talking- we couldn't quote you and then we'd all be happy. No one would disagree with you- so you could silently be right all the time.
About you mentioning tangents, the tangents wouldn't exist if people didn't quote me. So as mentioned, you should mention it to them, not to me.brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
What?? I don't get it, maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. Assuming a hypertrophy program, where adequate nutrition and rest is met. To increase strength and muscle size workload has to increase. Workload being reps * sets within a given unit of time. e.g. doing 5 reps with 1 set, resting 10hrs and doing 1 set 5 reps again, is more time compared to 1 set 5 reps with a 1 minute rest in between sets. Hence time is important.brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
workload = reps * sets * weight
To improve workload has to increase. If you stall out, the given situation above. Reps and weight will be a constant. Lets say you do 8 reps 3 sets with 50bs and you're not improving.
workload = 8 * 3 * 50
1200 = 8*3*50
Since weight and reps aren't improving, the only option is to increase sets, lets say 4 sets now
workload = 8 * 4 * 50
1600= 8*4*50
Workload has increase, a greater stimuli is provided now, more potential for growth now. If you want to call this "progressive overload" then ok. As long as I can remember from bodybuilding(1997), "progressive overload" was adding "more weight to the bar over time." But in the situation provided, you can't add more weight to the bar, since you're stalled.
Quoting the right person before going on another tangent helps a lot.
You're more than welcome to tell the people who keep quoting me and asking me questions about my "examples" to stop. Due out of respect, I answer them.
This statement from you has what to do with your quoting the wrong person?0 -
About you mentioning tangents, the tangents wouldn't exist if people didn't quote me. So as mentioned, you should mention it to them, not to me.brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
What?? I don't get it, maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. Assuming a hypertrophy program, where adequate nutrition and rest is met. To increase strength and muscle size workload has to increase. Workload being reps * sets within a given unit of time. e.g. doing 5 reps with 1 set, resting 10hrs and doing 1 set 5 reps again, is more time compared to 1 set 5 reps with a 1 minute rest in between sets. Hence time is important.brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
workload = reps * sets * weight
To improve workload has to increase. If you stall out, the given situation above. Reps and weight will be a constant. Lets say you do 8 reps 3 sets with 50bs and you're not improving.
workload = 8 * 3 * 50
1200 = 8*3*50
Since weight and reps aren't improving, the only option is to increase sets, lets say 4 sets now
workload = 8 * 4 * 50
1600= 8*4*50
Workload has increase, a greater stimuli is provided now, more potential for growth now. If you want to call this "progressive overload" then ok. As long as I can remember from bodybuilding(1997), "progressive overload" was adding "more weight to the bar over time." But in the situation provided, you can't add more weight to the bar, since you're stalled.
Quoting the right person before going on another tangent helps a lot.
You're more than welcome to tell the people who keep quoting me and asking me questions about my "examples" to stop. Due out of respect, I answer them.
This statement from you has what to do with your quoting the wrong person?
When you post incorrect things or make assumptions people call you out on it. Then you move the goal posts and start talking about irrelevant stuff. If you want people to stop quoting you stop posting.0 -
-
About you mentioning tangents, the tangents wouldn't exist if people didn't quote me. So as mentioned, you should mention it to them, not to me.brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
What?? I don't get it, maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. Assuming a hypertrophy program, where adequate nutrition and rest is met. To increase strength and muscle size workload has to increase. Workload being reps * sets within a given unit of time. e.g. doing 5 reps with 1 set, resting 10hrs and doing 1 set 5 reps again, is more time compared to 1 set 5 reps with a 1 minute rest in between sets. Hence time is important.brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
workload = reps * sets * weight
To improve workload has to increase. If you stall out, the given situation above. Reps and weight will be a constant. Lets say you do 8 reps 3 sets with 50bs and you're not improving.
workload = 8 * 3 * 50
1200 = 8*3*50
Since weight and reps aren't improving, the only option is to increase sets, lets say 4 sets now
workload = 8 * 4 * 50
1600= 8*4*50
Workload has increase, a greater stimuli is provided now, more potential for growth now. If you want to call this "progressive overload" then ok. As long as I can remember from bodybuilding(1997), "progressive overload" was adding "more weight to the bar over time." But in the situation provided, you can't add more weight to the bar, since you're stalled.
Quoting the right person before going on another tangent helps a lot.
You're more than welcome to tell the people who keep quoting me and asking me questions about my "examples" to stop. Due out of respect, I answer them.
This statement from you has what to do with your quoting the wrong person?
When you post incorrect things or make assumptions people call you out on it. Then you move the goal posts and start talking about irrelevant stuff. If you want people to stop quoting you stop posting.
He doesn't. He loves derailing threads, spewing nonsense and then feeling superior when no one understands what he's talking about.0 -
About you mentioning tangents, the tangents wouldn't exist if people didn't quote me. So as mentioned, you should mention it to them, not to me.brianpperkins wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »
What?? I don't get it, maybe you're not understanding what I am saying. Assuming a hypertrophy program, where adequate nutrition and rest is met. To increase strength and muscle size workload has to increase. Workload being reps * sets within a given unit of time. e.g. doing 5 reps with 1 set, resting 10hrs and doing 1 set 5 reps again, is more time compared to 1 set 5 reps with a 1 minute rest in between sets. Hence time is important.brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »brianpperkins wrote: »Need2Exerc1se wrote: »The time spent working out isn't the problem here. It's OP's attitude toward her body and what her goals are. The workouts are fine, if she's eating enough to compensate for them.
remember, exercise is for fitness. How much she's eating is what's important for her weight. Her goals are frightening. The fact that she says, at 115 lbs, that she thinks she has a muffin top and fat thighs, is frightening.
When I could, I worked out for 2 hours a day, every day. It wasn't a problem, because I ate an extra 1,000-1,500 calories per day to make up for it.
OP, you need to work on your self-image first, and how you see yourself. Your health is of the utmost importance.
She's 21 and very short. 115 lbs is not underweight at 5' 1". And, if her profile pic is recent, she does have a muffin top. When I was 21, I weighed about that and I'm 5'6", and I'm never been unhealthy or suffered from an ED. If asked, I'd probably have said my thighs were too big then too (though I'd kill to have those big thighs now).
While I agree that it would be lovely if all young women loved their bodies, her post doesn't sound frightening to me. It sounds fairly normal.
Multiple use of the word "obsessed", expressed self hate, and a goal weight of 90 pounds doesn't combine to a frightening end state to you?
Without knowing her, not really. It certainly could be problematic, but not necessarily. I raised two girls to successful and healthy women. They tend to be dramatic at that age.
Odds are, problematic.
She's looking at 2 hours of exercise to get in shape in a month ... with an unhealthy goal weight ... the word "obsessed" has meaning ... her profile says she wants to get in shape so she can love herself, not exactly the most healthy self relationship.
How many red flags does she need to display before the likeliness of "problematic" is evident to you?
Clearly you know her better than I.
I simply read her posts and profile. What in her post and profile combines to indicate her desire to exercise two hours per day is based on a healthy plan?
workload = reps * sets * weight
To improve workload has to increase. If you stall out, the given situation above. Reps and weight will be a constant. Lets say you do 8 reps 3 sets with 50bs and you're not improving.
workload = 8 * 3 * 50
1200 = 8*3*50
Since weight and reps aren't improving, the only option is to increase sets, lets say 4 sets now
workload = 8 * 4 * 50
1600= 8*4*50
Workload has increase, a greater stimuli is provided now, more potential for growth now. If you want to call this "progressive overload" then ok. As long as I can remember from bodybuilding(1997), "progressive overload" was adding "more weight to the bar over time." But in the situation provided, you can't add more weight to the bar, since you're stalled.
Quoting the right person before going on another tangent helps a lot.
You're more than welcome to tell the people who keep quoting me and asking me questions about my "examples" to stop. Due out of respect, I answer them.
This statement from you has what to do with your quoting the wrong person?
When you post incorrect things or make assumptions people call you out on it. Then you move the goal posts and start talking about irrelevant stuff. If you want people to stop quoting you stop posting.
You have yet to tell me where I was incorrect... so you're just quoting me.
I told you that you were making assumptions. You assumed she was working out for the calorie burn. You assumed she's exercising for hypertrophy reasons. I called you out on assumptions. LolBroScience called you out on other things.0 -
LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »LolBroScience wrote: »I just can't even.....
As i mentioned before, blank statement don't provide much, if you can elaborate... It sounds to me like you're disagreeing with workload has to increase to make gains...
Nope. I understand increasing workload and how it impacts changes in neural adaptations, muscle size etc.
However, progressive overload isn't only implemented once you've stalled. It should be a consistent component of any programming if you are looking to improve. Everything you have written to this point has been about stalling with a particular weight on the bar with the only work around being adding in additional sets or reps. Why you even mention that is beyond me, because not one person made mention to stalling.
This was your original quote which spawned this whole conversation "But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli."
Do you see why this makes me go "wtf"?
ha, okay yes, I see the problem. Now we're getting some where. I thought progressive overload would be implied. I came across a great system, but not going to talk about it. For a hypertrophy program, I would recommend 6-8 reps at RPE(which we talked about before) at a 9 3 sets for a beginner. YOu hit about a 9 on the last set. As you get stronger, your 9 will turn in to an 8 or 7. So yes, obviously you increase the weight. Hence progressive overload. But As I said, if you done things properly, with deloads, or taking a week off or whatever, with proper nutrition, and you been stuck at the same weight with RPE of 9 on 8 reps and 3 sets for a while. Then add sets. Hence you have progressively overload through the entire training, but reps/weight aren't going up. So you can add more sets.
Yes, but what does this have to do with anything? It's completely off topic to the OP, and completely off topic to your assertion that you cannot perform for two hours. Nothing was ever said about stalling by anyone other than yourself. It came out of no where, for no reason. I don't even know what or who you are trying to convince.
Beyond that, why are you discussing RPE based programs for someone like a beginner? It makes things much more unnecessarily complicated than it has to be, and not to mention most beginners cannot even accurately assess an RPE based scale.
Yes, a solid foundation has to be built i believe before engaging in a hypertrophy program. They must know how to lift with proper form and things of that sort. So what i meant was a beginner in to hypertrophy(once a foundation has been built). And about your other comment.
You quoted me about my intensity vs time. e.g. workout longer at lower intensity or harder at shorter intensity. We discussed that for a while. You talked about 2hr training sessions, I said, "But we're talking about sports, not weight loss of muscle building. The only time I would suggest increasing volume with weights if you stalled out for a while. Assuming you had the adequate rest, e.g. deloading taking a week off every 3 months thing like that. If you're training properly, and no progress, then Yes I'd suggest more volume, but at this point your conditioning would be better, you need more stimuli. "
This is about workout time, more sets = more time in the gym = longer workouts. Hence workouts time increases which is related to what the Op said. Meaning, experienced people can workout more intensely for a longer period of time. Obviously this went in to our discussion about workload.
Yes, the bolded I will agree with since a handful of people (myself included) mentioned this on page one and two, with several examples and particular programs. However your generalization was that lengthy workouts are pointless.
"Generally, in most situations, working out for more than a hour a day at a moderate to high intensity is pointless. The thing that brings results is "intensity". You can either workout hard and short, or workout soft and long. Can't do both."
Why you spiraled off into a handful of other tangents I don't know, when you could've just said "Intermediates and advanced lifters can handle more and subsequently can work out longer, but OP you are not one of those" way earlier. Instead, you tried to go about it in a much more long winded way to demonstrate your book knowledge and failed to convey things in any sort of understandable or digestible way.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.9K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.4K Fitness and Exercise
- 403 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 983 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions