Are Vegetarians Smarter than Non-Vegetarians?
VegesaurusRex
Posts: 1,018
0
Replies
-
I would say more aware as well
0 -
I would say more aware as well
Yes. Being aware is probably a function of intelligence.0 -
Not sure about smarter, but more educated and aware would come to mind. Less likely to submit to external pressure and societal norms as well.0
-
Not sure about smarter, but more educated and aware would come to mind. Less likely to submit to external pressure and societal norms as well.
Yes to all of that, and in addition, smarter. The study I cited is just one of many that show that IQs of vegetarians are statistically higher than those of non-vegetarians. There is also a chicken and the egg (or if you prefer, pumpkin and the seed) question: Are people attracted to vegetarianism because it is more rational and logical, or once vegetarian, do people become smarter because their arteries and veins are less occluded with fat and cholesterol?
I think it is a win-win situation.0 -
The study also notes that vegetarians were more likely to be female.
I guess I better keep eating meat, so I don't lose my penis.0 -
The study also notes that vegetarians were more likely to be female.
I guess I better keep eating meat, so I don't lose my penis.
Au contraire, Rocky! Because eating meat causes arterial occlusion, a very significant side effect of meat eating is the inability to make the little fellow stand up and be counted! Can you say, "little blue pill?"0 -
The study also notes that vegetarians were more likely to be female.
I guess I better keep eating meat, so I don't lose my penis.
Au contraire, Rocky! Because eating meat causes arterial occlusion, a very significant side effect of meat eating is the inability to make the little fellow stand up and be counted! Can you say, "little blue pill?"
I take you've never had sex after a porterhouse.0 -
The study also notes that vegetarians were more likely to be female.
I guess I better keep eating meat, so I don't lose my penis.
Au contraire, Rocky! Because eating meat causes arterial occlusion, a very significant side effect of meat eating is the inability to make the little fellow stand up and be counted! Can you say, "little blue pill?"
I take you've never had sex after a porterhouse.
You take it correctly. However, it is not just one porterhouse that causes the problem, but many of them over the years. At the age you appear to be, it would be highly unlikely that the problem would present yet. Give it a couple years.
http://www.menslifetoday.com/timesofindia/in/feature/health/live_healthy/index.html#.TzkwxrGvjDk0 -
The study also notes that vegetarians were more likely to be female.
I guess I better keep eating meat, so I don't lose my penis.
Au contraire, Rocky! Because eating meat causes arterial occlusion, a very significant side effect of meat eating is the inability to make the little fellow stand up and be counted! Can you say, "little blue pill?"
I take you've never had sex after a porterhouse.
You take it correctly. However, it is not just one porterhouse that causes the problem, but many of them over the years. At the age you appear to be, it would be highly unlikely that the problem would present yet. Give it a couple years.
http://www.menslifetoday.com/timesofindia/in/feature/health/live_healthy/index.html#.TzkwxrGvjDk
Low fat diets negatively affect sex hormone metabolism in men: http://www.ajcn.org/content/64/6/8500 -
The study also notes that vegetarians were more likely to be female.
I guess I better keep eating meat, so I don't lose my penis.
Au contraire, Rocky! Because eating meat causes arterial occlusion, a very significant side effect of meat eating is the inability to make the little fellow stand up and be counted! Can you say, "little blue pill?"
I take you've never had sex after a porterhouse.
You take it correctly. However, it is not just one porterhouse that causes the problem, but many of them over the years. At the age you appear to be, it would be highly unlikely that the problem would present yet. Give it a couple years.
http://www.menslifetoday.com/timesofindia/in/feature/health/live_healthy/index.html#.TzkwxrGvjDk
Low fat diets negatively affect sex hormone metabolism in men: http://www.ajcn.org/content/64/6/850
Fine, if you would rather have 13% more testosterone and then get prostate cancer. In any event, the abstract you referred to didn't say if the fat in the study originated with animals or plants. My guess is with animals. My guess is also that had they used Olive Oil, for example as the source of fat, they would have gotten totally different results. Bytheway, look at all the studies that cited this study. Almost all of them related to prostate cancer. That should tell you something.0 -
The study also notes that vegetarians were more likely to be female.
I guess I better keep eating meat, so I don't lose my penis.
Au contraire, Rocky! Because eating meat causes arterial occlusion, a very significant side effect of meat eating is the inability to make the little fellow stand up and be counted! Can you say, "little blue pill?"
I take you've never had sex after a porterhouse.
You take it correctly. However, it is not just one porterhouse that causes the problem, but many of them over the years. At the age you appear to be, it would be highly unlikely that the problem would present yet. Give it a couple years.
http://www.menslifetoday.com/timesofindia/in/feature/health/live_healthy/index.html#.TzkwxrGvjDk
Low fat diets negatively affect sex hormone metabolism in men: http://www.ajcn.org/content/64/6/850
Fine, if you would rather have 13% more testosterone and then get prostate cancer. In any event, the abstract you referred to didn't say if the fat in the study originated with animals or plants. My guess is with animals. My guess is also that had they used Olive Oil, for example as the source of fat, they would have gotten totally different results. Bytheway, look at all the studies that cited this study. Almost all of them related to prostate cancer. That should tell you something.
Contrary to what the name of this forum suggests, none of this is an either-or proposition. I personally eat plenty of meat and plenty of veggies (even more than most vegetarians I know), plenty of animal fat and plenty of fat from nuts/olive oil, plenty of fruit and plenty of carbs from non-nutrient dense sources. It all can be part of a healthy diet, if your diet is balanced properly.0 -
As far as I'm concerned, 15 years meat-free made me fat, depressed, and dumber. The improvement after eating meat again is just staggering. I wish I were the only one to say it, I wish I was some freakish one-off, but so many ex-veggies report feeling better after eating meat that I have to believe there's something in it.
I spent most of my adult life believing vegetarians were more compassionate, smart, and healthy. Now that I am a meat eater, I am more lively and engaged in the world, so able to act on compassion; I find my mind works better (things like math have gotten easier, even my balance is improved), and I feel so much better inside.
Vegetarians may well be smarter than non-vegetarians, but ex-vegetarians are the real geniuses! :P
0 -
Contrary to what the name of this forum suggests, none of this is an either-or proposition. I personally eat plenty of meat and plenty of veggies (even more than most vegetarians I know), plenty of animal fat and plenty of fat from nuts/olive oil, plenty of fruit and plenty of carbs from non-nutrient dense sources. It all can be part of a healthy diet, if your diet is balanced properly.
Rocky, as usual, you are somewhat right and somewhat wrong. You can be healthy eating meat, but just not very much of it. The most definitive study I know says that the MAXIMUM amount of meat you should eat each week is 500 grams, a little over a pound of meat per week.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1359027/Cut-red-meat-lower-cancer-risk-So-CAN-eat.html
More than that and you risk cancer. Protein from meat, unlike protein from veggies, does not come with protection against cancer such as anti-oxideants. A small amount of it can cause real damage. If you limit yourself to less than a pound a week, you should be okay, however.0 -
As far as I'm concerned, 15 years meat-free made me fat, depressed, and dumber. The improvement after eating meat again is just staggering. I wish I were the only one to say it, I wish I was some freakish one-off, but so many ex-veggies report feeling better after eating meat that I have to believe there's something in it.
I spent most of my adult life believing vegetarians were more compassionate, smart, and healthy. Now that I am a meat eater, I am more lively and engaged in the world, so able to act on compassion; I find my mind works better (things like math have gotten easier, even my balance is improved), and I feel so much better inside.
Vegetarians may well be smarter than non-vegetarians, but ex-vegetarians are the real geniuses! :P
Your experience is, to put it mildly bazarre. I can only guess that you were a junk-food vegetarian, i.e. that your main food group consisted of some forms of fried potatoes. I have been a vegetarian for 32 years, and during that time, I have skied around the world, got my black belt in Shaolin Kempo Karate, run marathons, half marathons and almost weekly 10ks for a long period, and have never been sick. I am now 68,. I run a business full time, have two teenage kids, and would desrcibe myself as generally active. I no longer run marathons,l but I do work out between one and two hours per day.
For vegetarians my age, I am fairly typical.0 -
More than that and you risk cancer. Protein from meat, unlike protein from veggies, does not come with protection against cancer such as anti-oxideants. A small amount of it can cause real damage. If you limit yourself to less than a pound a week, you should be okay, however.
Like I said before, it's not an either-or scenario. I eat meat AND still get plenty of anti-oxidants from fruits and veggies.
Are you aware of any studies of diets that are high in both meat and fruits & vegetables?0 -
More than that and you risk cancer. Protein from meat, unlike protein from veggies, does not come with protection against cancer such as anti-oxideants. A small amount of it can cause real damage. If you limit yourself to less than a pound a week, you should be okay, however.
Like I said before, it's not an either-or scenario. I eat meat AND still get plenty of anti-oxidants from fruits and veggies.
Are you aware of any studies of diets that are high in both meat and fruits & vegetables?
The only studies of diets that I am aware of, that are HIGH in meat show that meat kills, i.e., correlates with chronic diseases. The study I cited above has both meat and veggies, but strictly recommends no more than 500 grams of meat per week.0 -
More than that and you risk cancer. Protein from meat, unlike protein from veggies, does not come with protection against cancer such as anti-oxideants. A small amount of it can cause real damage. If you limit yourself to less than a pound a week, you should be okay, however.
Like I said before, it's not an either-or scenario. I eat meat AND still get plenty of anti-oxidants from fruits and veggies.
Are you aware of any studies of diets that are high in both meat and fruits & vegetables?
The only studies of diets that I am aware of, that are HIGH in meat show that meat kills, i.e., correlates with chronic diseases. The study I cited above has both meat and veggies, but strictly recommends no more than 500 grams of meat per week.
Correlational studies don't really prove anything.0 -
More than that and you risk cancer. Protein from meat, unlike protein from veggies, does not come with protection against cancer such as anti-oxideants. A small amount of it can cause real damage. If you limit yourself to less than a pound a week, you should be okay, however.
Like I said before, it's not an either-or scenario. I eat meat AND still get plenty of anti-oxidants from fruits and veggies.
Are you aware of any studies of diets that are high in both meat and fruits & vegetables?
The only studies of diets that I am aware of, that are HIGH in meat show that meat kills, i.e., correlates with chronic diseases. The study I cited above has both meat and veggies, but strictly recommends no more than 500 grams of meat per week.
Correlational studies don't really prove anything.
Rocky, they do. Sorry, but don't listen to Mutt. Correlational studies give us valuable information that can and should be acted upon. You cannot just disregard statistical correlations and assume the correlation was cause by something that wasn't looked at. In some, very few cases that is true, but in the case of meat and veggies, so many studies have been done, by so many people in so many countries that the similar results for all of them cannot be mere coincidence.
Bytheway, I don't know if that study I last referred you to wasn't a controlled cohort study.0 -
More than that and you risk cancer. Protein from meat, unlike protein from veggies, does not come with protection against cancer such as anti-oxideants. A small amount of it can cause real damage. If you limit yourself to less than a pound a week, you should be okay, however.
Like I said before, it's not an either-or scenario. I eat meat AND still get plenty of anti-oxidants from fruits and veggies.
Are you aware of any studies of diets that are high in both meat and fruits & vegetables?
The only studies of diets that I am aware of, that are HIGH in meat show that meat kills, i.e., correlates with chronic diseases. The study I cited above has both meat and veggies, but strictly recommends no more than 500 grams of meat per week.
Correlational studies don't really prove anything.
Rocky, they do. Sorry, but don't listen to Mutt. Correlational studies give us valuable information that can and should be acted upon. You cannot just disregard statistical correlations and assume the correlation was cause by something that wasn't looked at. In some, very few cases that is true, but in the case of meat and veggies, so many studies have been done, by so many people in so many countries that the similar results for all of them cannot be mere coincidence.
Bytheway, I don't know if that study I last referred you to wasn't a controlled cohort study.
I wouldn't say that we should disregard them completely, I think they provide some interesting food for thought. As far as "acting" upon them, that depends on the context.
I think we need to bring our other knowledge and experience to the table when analyzing these types of studies. For example, in a study linking high meat consumption to cancer, we have to consider what we know the diets of most people are like (low fruit and veggie consumption, lots of processed foods, etc.) We also have to consider that the average vegetarian is generally more "heath conscious" than the average meat eater.
It may be that if a person is eating an overall healthy diet, the difference in cancer rates disappear. It may be that there is no difference in any health markers between "health conscious" (however that might be defined) vegetarians and meat-eaters. These are questions that a correlational study simply can't answer. Which is why I say it's interesting food for thought, but it's quite a long way from conclusively proving that a particular amount of red meat increases cancer risk, regardless of the rest of your diet.0 -
I wouldn't say that we should disregard them completely, I think they provide some interesting food for thought. As far as "acting" upon them, that depends on the context.
I think we need to bring our other knowledge and experience to the table when analyzing these types of studies. For example, in a study linking high meat consumption to cancer, we have to consider what we know the diets of most people are like (low fruit and veggie consumption, lots of processed foods, etc.) We also have to consider that the average vegetarian is generally more "heath conscious" than the average meat eater.
It may be that if a person is eating an overall healthy diet, the difference in cancer rates disappear. It may be that there is no difference in any health markers between "health conscious" (however that might be defined) vegetarians and meat-eaters. These are questions that a correlational study simply can't answer. Which is why I say it's interesting food for thought, but it's quite a long way from conclusively proving that a particular amount of red meat increases cancer risk, regardless of the rest of your diet.
You certainly raise an interesting question. True, vegetarians are more health conscious than non-vegetarians IN GENERAL. Also true, that the health consciousness of individuals may impact the results of assessing the difference between meat eaters and vegetarians. And it also might be true that some populations are more prone to certain chronic diseases than others. As you know, George Burns lived to be over 100 and he smoked every day.
I am certainly not saying that EVEN in controlled studies the results are always what they seem to be. I don't know, for example, how you would control for genetic predispostion to colon cancer. However, the China study for a very good example gave us much evidence that considering the size of the population followed, such genetic factors were likely controlled for, simply by the size of the sample. It is also likely that the China study is more statistically accurate, since the populatioin followed wasn't vegetarian by choice, but rather by economics. They couldn't afford meat.
The mere repetition of results from study after study indicates to me that that the results actually mean something.
Now a question for you: I have read a few studies about protein and work outs. The studies seem to indiate that you should have protein before a work out and protein immediately after a workout. Do you agree? If so, what specific advice would you have. I do between an hour and two hours of workout a day.0 -
Now a question for you: I have read a few studies about protein and work outs. The studies seem to indiate that you should have protein before a work out and protein immediately after a workout. Do you agree? If so, what specific advice would you have. I do between an hour and two hours of workout a day.
I don't agree. There are 2 problems with the studies purporting to show that pre and post workout protein is beneficial:
1. They only *kitten* increased muscle protein synthesis for a short period of time. It is true that muscle protein synthesis is higher after a workout. But the studies that have actually measured it for an extended period of time show that muscle protein synthesis is elevated for at least a full 24 hours after a training bout.
2. The only studies showing a benefit of protein immediately before or after a workout were ones where the control group ended up taking in more daily protein. In studies where total daily protein amount is matched, there is no difference in results.
In my opinion, total daily protein is what matters. Timing your protein intake around your workouts is a theory that hasn't been proven. If it makes any difference at all, it's likely to be tiny and not worth worrying about. Of a far greater concern should be personal preference, i.e. do you perform better with some food on your stomach, and can you tolerate food after a hard workout.
As far as total daily amount, 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is sufficient for most people. If you don't know your bodyfat percentage, you can use target body weight instead, with TBW not necessarily being your long-term goal, rather a weight you can reasonably attain in 6-8 months.
The importance of adequate daily protein would be the maximum retention of lean mass as you lose weight. It's more difficult to get adequate protein while keeping calories low on a vegan diet, but it can be done. There are vegan bodybuilders that do it.0 -
Actually I don't think my experience IS that bizarre. There is some research that links vegetarian diets with depression, and plenty of ex-veg*ns (particularly ex-vegans) who anecdotally report a resurgence in health with a return to an omnivorous diet.
Yeah, I did eat junk sometimes, but in fairness my diet over 15 veggie years varied a lot, from junk food to health food, from strict vegan for over a year, to cheese-and-milk heavy. My exercise levels fluctuated too, from nothing at all to three times a week at the gym (not more than that, I've never been a fitness freak!). The only constants were obesity and depression. One thing's certain- meat was not the cause!
One key point is that I had no idea how bad I felt until I felt better. In other words, if you'd asked me last June, or in 2005 or 1999 whether I thought my veggie diet was negatively affecting me, I'd have been offended. I thought I was fine. It was only after eating meat again that I realised I wasn't well! That coincided with sudden rash of compliments about my skin, my hair, even the strength of my nails, none of which had ever garnered comment before.
Of course, neither your life story nor mine really means much, because we could both be outliers. It's also so hard to tease out the causation in any given observation. For all I know my increased health is to do with getting more sunshine, and yours based mostly on good genes! That either of us can live on a given diet is no proof that it is better that we do so. And I'm horribly off-topic. 0 -
Now a question for you: I have read a few studies about protein and work outs. The studies seem to indiate that you should have protein before a work out and protein immediately after a workout. Do you agree? If so, what specific advice would you have. I do between an hour and two hours of workout a day.
I don't agree. There are 2 problems with the studies purporting to show that pre and post workout protein is beneficial:
1. They only *kitten* increased muscle protein synthesis for a short period of time. It is true that muscle protein synthesis is higher after a workout. But the studies that have actually measured it for an extended period of time show that muscle protein synthesis is elevated for at least a full 24 hours after a training bout.
2. The only studies showing a benefit of protein immediately before or after a workout were ones where the control group ended up taking in more daily protein. In studies where total daily protein amount is matched, there is no difference in results.
In my opinion, total daily protein is what matters. Timing your protein intake around your workouts is a theory that hasn't been proven. If it makes any difference at all, it's likely to be tiny and not worth worrying about. Of a far greater concern should be personal preference, i.e. do you perform better with some food on your stomach, and can you tolerate food after a hard workout.
As far as total daily amount, 1 gram per pound of lean body mass is sufficient for most people. If you don't know your bodyfat percentage, you can use target body weight instead, with TBW not necessarily being your long-term goal, rather a weight you can reasonably attain in 6-8 months.
The importance of adequate daily protein would be the maximum retention of lean mass as you lose weight. It's more difficult to get adequate protein while keeping calories low on a vegan diet, but it can be done. There are vegan bodybuilders that do it.
Rocky, you not only write well and are clear and concise you really know your stuff. The reason I asked was because I work out very early in the morning, and I do NOT like to eat before or after a workout. I especially do not like to eat what to me tastes like a candy bar ( a protein bar) in the morning. Thank you. I will watch my daily protein intake, and not have candy for breakfast.0 -
Actually I don't think my experience IS that bizarre. There is some research that links vegetarian diets with depression, and plenty of ex-veg*ns (particularly ex-vegans) who anecdotally report a resurgence in health with a return to an omnivorous diet.
Yeah, I did eat junk sometimes, but in fairness my diet over 15 veggie years varied a lot, from junk food to health food, from strict vegan for over a year, to cheese-and-milk heavy. My exercise levels fluctuated too, from nothing at all to three times a week at the gym (not more than that, I've never been a fitness freak!). The only constants were obesity and depression. One thing's certain- meat was not the cause!
One key point is that I had no idea how bad I felt until I felt better. In other words, if you'd asked me last June, or in 2005 or 1999 whether I thought my veggie diet was negatively affecting me, I'd have been offended. I thought I was fine. It was only after eating meat again that I realised I wasn't well! That coincided with sudden rash of compliments about my skin, my hair, even the strength of my nails, none of which had ever garnered comment before.
Of course, neither your life story nor mine really means much, because we could both be outliers. It's also so hard to tease out the causation in any given observation. For all I know my increased health is to do with getting more sunshine, and yours based mostly on good genes! That either of us can live on a given diet is no proof that it is better that we do so. And I'm horribly off-topic.
Not at all. It is very interesting. I have heard many stories of ex vegetarians and ex vegans. I have also heard many stories of ex meat eaters. As you said, it's all anicdotal and doesn't mean a whole lot. I personally feel better as a vegetarian, and being a vegetarian has never interfered with an active life. As you also pointed out, there may have been concurrent changes going on that we each never paid attention to, as you said about yourself, for example, getting more sunshine. Generally, anecdotal information only means something to the person the anecdote is about.0 -
Rocky, you not only write well and are clear and concise you really know your stuff.
Not bad for a meat eater, eh? 0 -
Rocky, you not only write well and are clear and concise you really know your stuff.
Not bad for a meat eater, eh?
No, not bad at all. You know body building. But like you said, it can be done vegan, and doing it vegan avoids unnecessary risks of colon cancer and heart disease.
Anyway, I intend to follow your advice. I will not worry about gulping down protein prior to and immediately after a workout. Instead I will up my daily protein amount.
Let me also be specific on my situation and goals. Previously, I was getting good workouts every week. I did Karate twice a week plus ad hoc exercises, like bike riding, skiing. Then my Sifu left the state and my Karate stopped. I still got other exercises, but less than half of what it used to be. This lasted for a year and a half. Then, at the start of this year, I finally decided to get back into an exercise routine. I joined a health club and exercise at least 4 times per week there, plus I have a lifecycle and weights at home.
I am 68 years old, medium frame, muscular, especially the legs (I used to be able to leg press 340). My actual weight is 190 and I am 5'10" I am carrying extra fat, but am not grossly overweight by any means. I think 170 would probably be my ideal weight, maybe 175. When I was running marathons 15 - 20 years ago, I weighed 155, but looked really skinny.
My goal, considering my age, is muscle retention, and some weight loss. If I were 175 by summer I would be happy, particularly if it were all muscle. I am not a body builder, and am concerned about muscle loss because of age. My legs no longer permit me to do impact sports like running or skiing (other than cruising.) No steeps, no mogols. I intend to bike a lot this summer, as well as hike and continue to work out.
Your suggestions, if any, would be greatly appreciated.0 -
Rocky, you not only write well and are clear and concise you really know your stuff.
Not bad for a meat eater, eh?
No, not bad at all. You know body building. But like you said, it can be done vegan, and doing it vegan avoids unnecessary risks of colon cancer and heart disease.
Anyway, I intend to follow your advice. I will not worry about gulping down protein prior to and immediately after a workout. Instead I will up my daily protein amount.
Let me also be specific on my situation and goals. Previously, I was getting good workouts every week. I did Karate twice a week plus ad hoc exercises, like bike riding, skiing. Then my Sifu left the state and my Karate stopped. I still got other exercises, but less than half of what it used to be. This lasted for a year and a half. Then, at the start of this year, I finally decided to get back into an exercise routine. I joined a health club and exercise at least 4 times per week there, plus I have a lifecycle and weights at home.
I am 68 years old, medium frame, muscular, especially the legs (I used to be able to leg press 340). My actual weight is 190 and I am 5'10" I am carrying extra fat, but am not grossly overweight by any means. I think 170 would probably be my ideal weight, maybe 175. When I was running marathons 15 - 20 years ago, I weighed 155, but looked really skinny.
My goal, considering my age, is muscle retention, and some weight loss. If I were 175 by summer I would be happy, particularly if it were all muscle. I am not a body builder, and am concerned about muscle loss because of age. My legs no longer permit me to do impact sports like running or skiing (other than cruising.) No steeps, no mogols. I intend to bike a lot this summer, as well as hike and continue to work out.
Your suggestions, if any, would be greatly appreciated.
The key to keeping your muscle mass as you lose weight is incorporating resistance training and keeping your protein intake up.
At your age, it's difficult to recommend a general resistance training routine. Previous injuries, recover ability, etc. play a much larger role than when you're younger. I would think that a simple, full-body routine done twice per week would be plenty for your purposes. You could try something like this:
Leg Press
Leg Curl
Bench Press
Lat Pull Down
Hyperextensions
Curls
Tricep Extensions
Something for the abs (whatever your back can tolerate)
-Do each exercise for 3 sets of 8-10 reps. When you can complete all 3 sets for 10 reps, add a little bit of weight.
-For the arm exercises you probably don't need 3 sets, 1-2 sets is plenty.
-If any of the exercises cause pain, there is always a way to substitute it.0 -
The key to keeping your muscle mass as you lose weight is incorporating resistance training and keeping your protein intake up.
At your age, it's difficult to recommend a general resistance training routine. Previous injuries, recover ability, etc. play a much larger role than when you're younger. I would think that a simple, full-body routine done twice per week would be plenty for your purposes. You could try something like this:
Leg Press
Leg Curl
Bench Press
Lat Pull Down
Hyperextensions
Curls
Tricep Extensions
Something for the abs (whatever your back can tolerate)
-Do each exercise for 3 sets of 8-10 reps. When you can complete all 3 sets for 10 reps, add a little bit of weight.
Actually I do a lot more than you are recommending. First I do a lot of cardios, at least one hour per day elipticals, rowing machine, lifecycle etc per day 5 days per week
Then I do at least 5 times per week,
9 nine machne cicruit incorporating all that you suggested and more or
free weights - various sets of exercises.
For the machines I only do one rep of 12 each for the practical reason that these machines are busy and three reps would require three set ups. For the free weights I do two reps of 15 each, various weights trying to exercise every muscle group.
I rest two days per week, never usually the same days.
-For the arm exercises you probably don't need 3 sets, 1-2 sets is plenty.
-If any of the exercises cause pain, there is always a way to substitute it.
[/quote]0 -
Question for Rocky -
I am working out 5 days per week.
On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, I do Life Cycle (one hour ~550 cals), Rowing machine (10 min ~ 116 cals) and the Resistance Circuit - nine machines most muscle groups) Total work out one and one half to two hours
On Tuesday and Thursday, I do Elipticals (20 min ~ 206 cals) to warm up, and then freeweights, followed by whatever resistance machines I feel like doing. Total workout one to one and one half hours.
I am wondering how I can tell if I am doing too much. Some days I do feel tired, but some days I feel great. My resistance level with regards to everything is going up, and the calories I burn are going up. I am definitely getting stronger, but some days I feel tired.
What, if anything am I doing wrong?0 -
Question for Rocky -
I am working out 5 days per week.
On Monday, Wednesday and Friday, I do Life Cycle (one hour ~550 cals), Rowing machine (10 min ~ 116 cals) and the Resistance Circuit - nine machines most muscle groups) Total work out one and one half to two hours
On Tuesday and Thursday, I do Elipticals (20 min ~ 206 cals) to warm up, and then freeweights, followed by whatever resistance machines I feel like doing. Total workout one to one and one half hours.
I am wondering how I can tell if I am doing too much. Some days I do feel tired, but some days I feel great. My resistance level with regards to everything is going up, and the calories I burn are going up. I am definitely getting stronger, but some days I feel tired.
What, if anything am I doing wrong?
How much rest you need is highly individual, and changes based on other things that are going on in your life. Don't overthink it., if you feel like you need a day off, take a day off.0
This discussion has been closed.