Is this too much?

Options
2»

Replies

  • inertiadriftsc
    inertiadriftsc Posts: 29
    Options
    http://www2.gsu.edu/~wwwfit/index.html This is a great place to start if you want to build a workout schedule, they cover all the basics and its all information from the Dept. of Kinesiology at Georgia Tech, so it's backed by their study results!

    Good Luck and have fun!

    Edit: Sorry Georgia State.
  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    Options
    My bad for posting two links, didn't read what I had put up. Just quickly put it together so I could eat dinner. Was trying to find a better source for it all.

    Never said fat was not part of the cycle. It's not the main source though. Which was the point of the whole thing.

    Law of Thermodynamics plays a big part of biology

    http://www.csrri.iit.edu/~howard/biol403/thermodynamics.html
  • taso42_DELETED
    taso42_DELETED Posts: 3,394 Member
    Options
    Maybe your weights are too heavy.

    unless you can only do about 3 reps, the weights are not too heavy.
  • inertiadriftsc
    inertiadriftsc Posts: 29
    Options
    Im not disagreeing with you. Im just irritated at the method you chose to present your argument. As a PhD student this irritates me to no end. Also protein isn't the main source of the Kreb's Cycle either ;) Glucose is still the primary source :)

    It's more that the links don't illustrate the point that you are trying to make, they are just a mess of the explanations of the two cycles and then a link to macronutrients. They don't really form anything coherent about Cardio after Weight lifting being bad. I understand how Thermodynamics effects a lot of things at a very fundamental level lol. In chemistry especially, when you are referring to the energy cycles of the body and heat production and everything else. My issue still remains that you played a Oh you won't understand it's SCIENCE authority card without backing it up with anything other than links to the cycles you were saying we had to understand. This is remarkably obnoxious to those of us that understand a lot of this stuff, even if not at the research level.
  • mrphil86
    mrphil86 Posts: 2,382 Member
    Options
    I said in my original post that glycogen is the main source of energy.

    Ok, my point is if you burn through your glycogen, you're going to use one of two things. Amino acids or fat. More than likely you're going to use Amino acids unless you keep a sustained rate of burning. You're body doesn't adjust to this very quickly either. It makes marathon runners awhile before their body turns to fat while running. You're body can pull amino acids from your muscles.

    Now what I threw all that science around is because I got thrown the card. This dude said so. Well, there's no science or study that says he's right. No matter what I try to point at. Plus, if they really feel that I'm wrong, they can research it prove that I am wrong. They can do what any person who really wants to learn the stuff, find out what it all means.

    Here is in somewhat plain english study that shows a little at what im trying to get across.

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1748-1716.1967.tb03720.x/abstract
  • LovelySnugs
    LovelySnugs Posts: 389
    Options
    My issue still remains that you played a Oh you won't understand it's SCIENCE authority card without backing it up with anything other than links to the cycles you were saying we had to understand. This is remarkably obnoxious to those of us that understand a lot of this stuff, even if not at the research level.

    i just want you to know that i love your style!
  • NikkiDerrig386
    NikkiDerrig386 Posts: 1,096 Member
    Options
    Im not disagreeing with you. Im just irritated at the method you chose to present your argument. As a PhD student this irritates me to no end. Also protein isn't the main source of the Kreb's Cycle either ;) Glucose is still the primary source :)

    It's more that the links don't illustrate the point that you are trying to make, they are just a mess of the explanations of the two cycles and then a link to macronutrients. They don't really form anything coherent about Cardio after Weight lifting being bad. I understand how Thermodynamics effects a lot of things at a very fundamental level lol. In chemistry especially, when you are referring to the energy cycles of the body and heat production and everything else. My issue still remains that you played a Oh you won't understand it's SCIENCE authority card without backing it up with anything other than links to the cycles you were saying we had to understand. This is remarkably obnoxious to those of us that understand a lot of this stuff, even if not at the research level.

    Ok so with your level of education do you know or what do you suggest about the whole "cardio before/after weight training"?
  • johnwhitent
    johnwhitent Posts: 648 Member
    Options
    This poor lady posted a question about her workout plans and waded into a war over weights vs cardio first which has become a debate on physiology, chemistry, research protocols, etc. Wow. This really took on a life of its own. Yes I understand that it is pertinent, but it is perhaps more advanced than is necessary. There was a topic about all this yesterday with lots of articles and studies referenced.

    My question to the OP is why a rest day on Friday? You work out four days then rest a day, then work out one day and rest a day again. Seems like you would want to work out three, off one, then work out two, off one. It may just be that your life dictates this, but I scratched my head when I saw it. I think you have a great plan though. As you improve you will modify it to address needs, likes, capabilities, and desires. My own plan evolves continually. Good luck!

Categories