Alternative to weight training for muscle maintenance?
Replies
-
Carlos_421 wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Looks like I need to double up on my current amount of protein, then. I thought I was doing well by eating the MyFitnessPal recommended amount (I'm normally a carbs person) but even using the most modest calculation suggested in these comments (1g per lb) would double that amount.
I think I'm going to purchase the Convict Conditioning book and I'll check out that nerdfitness.com site as well. I do try to make the exercises I currently do more difficult by holding the positions for longer. Basically I'm trying to feel like I exert the same amount of effort each time, so as I get fitter I will be doing more and more actual work.
Thanks to all for the replies – you've been very helpful!
MFP by default gives to you double or even triple the recommended protein, at least based on what most medical organisations recommend to eat. So, unless you are in need of a high protein diet for whatever reason, then the MFP numbers are already too high, not too low. The 1 gram per lb as minimum intake is an old myth, the recommended protein for the average person is half that if not less. This is recognised as a myth even by bodybuilders. Check here for example: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/maki1.htm
It is an upper limit that might be of help when bulking (eating at a surplus and following an appropriate strength trainign program) but it is by no means a minimum recommended number.
Everything you just said is entirely incorrect.
And a myth recognized by bodybuilders? Did you read the article you linked? It blows everything you said out of the water, denying the "evil" of a high protein diet and affirming that a diet higher in protein than the RDA is beneficial to those involved in strength training.
I think she thinks the heading of the article is all that matters. Especially since basically the entire article contradicted her. I still can't get over how funny it is that she used that article as her evidence when that is a very well known and go to one to recommend the stuff she's trying to say isn't valid.
Yup.
Unfortunately, google only works for those who read the search results before posting links.
ETA: I wonder if they titled the article that way just so people trying to prove what she is would google "protein myth" and find it. lol0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »I noticed you are using 1200 calories per day in your settings - is that a bit low? You may find this of interest - http://iifym.com/iifym-calculator/.
Thanks – I tried it and it's giving me a TDEE of 1606 calories a day, so I don't think 1200 is too low.
No it's not.
It's telling you that your BMR is 1606.
I ran it with your numbers, 47yo female, 5'6", 210#
According to the iifym calculator, you should be eating about 1870 cals a day.0 -
lishie_rebooted wrote: »
No it's not.
It's telling you that your BMR is 1606.
I ran it with your numbers, 47yo female, 5'6", 210#
According to the iifym calculator, you should be eating about 1870 cals a day.
Oh – I see. I was looking at the wrong number! Thanks for the correction... 1870 sounds good to me! (:-)0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Looks like I need to double up on my current amount of protein, then. I thought I was doing well by eating the MyFitnessPal recommended amount (I'm normally a carbs person) but even using the most modest calculation suggested in these comments (1g per lb) would double that amount.
I think I'm going to purchase the Convict Conditioning book and I'll check out that nerdfitness.com site as well. I do try to make the exercises I currently do more difficult by holding the positions for longer. Basically I'm trying to feel like I exert the same amount of effort each time, so as I get fitter I will be doing more and more actual work.
Thanks to all for the replies – you've been very helpful!
MFP by default gives to you double or even triple the recommended protein, at least based on what most medical organisations recommend to eat. So, unless you are in need of a high protein diet for whatever reason, then the MFP numbers are already too high, not too low. The 1 gram per lb as minimum intake is an old myth, the recommended protein for the average person is half that if not less. This is recognised as a myth even by bodybuilders. Check here for example: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/maki1.htm
It is an upper limit that might be of help when bulking (eating at a surplus and following an appropriate strength trainign program) but it is by no means a minimum recommended number.
You say its a myth then give a link to a website saying its not?
"CONCLUSION
Hopefully you've been convinced that a high protein intake is not "evil." Protein intake ranging from 1.4 grams of protein per kilogram of bodyweight to one gram per pound or more can be beneficial for an individual involved in an intense training program. Protein has been typecast as something that will make you big and strong, but muscle growth is not controlled by the level of protein one takes; rather it is the growth demand caused by intense training or stress that will ultimately determine how much protein one should take in."
Thanks you letting me know your advice should be ignored.0 -
OP you asked about double checking your exercise calories... https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/home
You should probably adjust for your own body (https://sites.google.com/site/compendiumofphysicalactivities/corrected-mets) and don't forget that everything is an estimate!0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Looks like I need to double up on my current amount of protein, then. I thought I was doing well by eating the MyFitnessPal recommended amount (I'm normally a carbs person) but even using the most modest calculation suggested in these comments (1g per lb) would double that amount.
I think I'm going to purchase the Convict Conditioning book and I'll check out that nerdfitness.com site as well. I do try to make the exercises I currently do more difficult by holding the positions for longer. Basically I'm trying to feel like I exert the same amount of effort each time, so as I get fitter I will be doing more and more actual work.
Thanks to all for the replies – you've been very helpful!
MFP by default gives to you double or even triple the recommended protein, at least based on what most medical organisations recommend to eat. So, unless you are in need of a high protein diet for whatever reason, then the MFP numbers are already too high, not too low. The 1 gram per lb as minimum intake is an old myth, the recommended protein for the average person is half that if not less. This is recognised as a myth even by bodybuilders. Check here for example: http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/maki1.htm
It is an upper limit that might be of help when bulking (eating at a surplus and following an appropriate strength trainign program) but it is by no means a minimum recommended number.
That entire post is just wrong. Wrong, MFP's default protein is not high. It's actually in line with what sedentary people require. People that train will require a higher amount.
When you're bulking you actually don't even need as much protein as when cutting. Less on a bulk is perfectly fine. So what you said was wrong.
Protein alone is not going to ward of muscle loss. If you don't put your muscles through some kind of tension/resistance it won't see the need to keep them as big. You know what increases MPS? Training, not protein intake overload.Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Like most people on MFP, I would like to maintain as much muscle as possible while losing fat (I have 80+ pounds to lose).
2g per kg protein (minus fat). Eating that much protein gives your body no reason to catabolic itself (my diary is open if you want to see an example of this).
Also, lower the weights if you have trouble getting into a position needed for lifts. The shaking could also be an indication of too much weight. It is also a sign that the smaller muscle groups are too weak. Dont just focus on biceps, triceps, and thighs. you should focus on your back muscles, shoulder, etc as well.
eg, try 8lbs instead of 20lbs for lateral raises (common mistake I see and read about others doing). lateral rises will help condition smaller muscle groups that support larger muscles when doing exercises such as a military press.
More protein = full longer = you end up eating less = you don't notice that you ate less. its all about satiety.
If you set calories to 1400 and eat 1.4g (minus fat) protein you end up eating less carbs after fats. If youre 90kg with 30% bf = 63kg lean. 63 * 1.4 = 88g protein. If you use 2g = 126g protein. Notice how these are not massive numbers?
protein = 4 cal
fat = 9 cal
carb = 4 cal
88g protein = 352 calories
you should eat 50-60g fat a day. 50g fat = 450 calories.
= 800 calories
1400 - 800 = 600 remaining calories
600 calories of carbs = 150g carbs.
you end up with:
1400 calories
88g protein
50g fat
150g carbs.
If you dont lose some weight after three weeks, lower the carbs to 125g. its that simple. if you end up lowering the carbs to 80g and you still don't lose weight then you are either eating more than you think or you have some medical issue that a doctor needs to address.
btw,
Just sitting around all day uses around .4g protein a day (look the studies up yourself). When you exercise, you end using more protein. This is why its recommended to eat at least 1.4g per kg (minus fat) when exercising. The more intense your workout, the more protein gets used by your body (not just the muscles). Every scientific paper on this agrees that 2g per kg (minus fat) is enough for heavy exercising (at least 2 hours lifting weights). You can lower it down to 1.4 if you exercise less than that. I didnt say that more protein = ward muscle loss, I said it prevents it from catabolizing itself with no specific words saying it was muscles that are catabolized (you assumed this, so I assume you have no idea what you are talking about and just spewing nonsense you half-assed read somewhere). I was keeping it simple w/o explaining what happens as it was not needed to answer the OPs question. As for the big muscle part, you need to eat a caloric surplus for that to happen. If you are eating a caloric deficit, the best you can hope for is that you lose no muscle mass.
Also your profile 'about me' makes me think no one should ever listen to you.
"Staple foods for me: Pizza, Count Chocula Cereal, Bagels with cream cheese, Egg whites, whole eggs, bacon, chicken breast, cookies, sirloin, tacos, pizza, Peanut Butter & Co. Dark White Chocolate Wonderful, Ice cream & Gelato, pizza "
Bottom line, you can listen to my advice or you can sit there all day starving and eventually gorging yourself back to your starting weight.0 -
[. . . snip . . .]
Also your profile 'about me' makes me think no one should ever listen to you.
"Staple foods for me: Pizza, Count Chocula Cereal, Bagels with cream cheese, Egg whites, whole eggs, bacon, chicken breast, cookies, sirloin, tacos, pizza, Peanut Butter & Co. Dark White Chocolate Wonderful, Ice cream & Gelato, pizza "
Bottom line, you can listen to my advice or you can sit there all day starving and eventually gorging yourself back to your starting weight.
Oh dear me.
-1 -
OP: I just read an "edit" by someone who double checked your stated goals.
So, to confirm, you want to weigh less than 98% the women who are the same age and height as you. AND when you weigh 124lbs you would like to maintain the muscles you used to propel your current 210lb body.
Setting goals is great, and "technically" you are not trying to move below what is medically acceptable. Assuming it is truly medically acceptable to weigh less than 98+% of your peers.
Your stated goal makes me uncomfortable, so I will move on.
If you want to re-evaluate, check out this cheesy, yet informative, site: www.halls.md and http://halls.md/body-mass-index/bmi.htm
Best of luck.0 -
[. . . snip . . .]
Also your profile 'about me' makes me think no one should ever listen to you.
"Staple foods for me: Pizza, Count Chocula Cereal, Bagels with cream cheese, Egg whites, whole eggs, bacon, chicken breast, cookies, sirloin, tacos, pizza, Peanut Butter & Co. Dark White Chocolate Wonderful, Ice cream & Gelato, pizza "
Bottom line, you can listen to my advice or you can sit there all day starving and eventually gorging yourself back to your starting weight.
Oh dear me.
you say oh dear me, but fail to realize what I just stated is the same as the last 15 posters....
0 -
[. . . snip . . .]
Also your profile 'about me' makes me think no one should ever listen to you.
"Staple foods for me: Pizza, Count Chocula Cereal, Bagels with cream cheese, Egg whites, whole eggs, bacon, chicken breast, cookies, sirloin, tacos, pizza, Peanut Butter & Co. Dark White Chocolate Wonderful, Ice cream & Gelato, pizza "
Bottom line, you can listen to my advice or you can sit there all day starving and eventually gorging yourself back to your starting weight.
Oh dear me.
you say oh dear me, but fail to realize what I just stated is the same as the last 15 posters....
No sir. I worked my way through what you were saying. And I've been posting in this thread for a bit, and referring to a number of serious discussions and published research. I am uncomfortable with your declarative and odd sentences like "Every scientific paper agrees . . ." and "it prevents it from catabolizing itself" and my favorite is of course the bolded part at the end of your post. Magnificent!
Mostly I was responding "dear me" because you don't really know MrM at all (presumably); you looked at his profile and walked away with entirely the wrong end of the stick. I mean, entirely the wrong end.
Thanks for the flag, too!
-1 -
Setting goals is great, and "technically" you are not trying to move below what is medically acceptable. Assuming it is truly medically acceptable to weigh less than 98+% of your peers.
Your stated goal makes me uncomfortable, so I will move on.
I'm not sure why anyone would be uncomfortable with my goal being to weigh less than my 'peers' when 60% of women my age (in the UK) are overweight or obese. And as you say, my goal of 9st is well within the medically accepted healthy weight range.0 -
I just want to know if eating 2g of protein per kg of bodyweight will turn my face into a white square.0
-
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »
Setting goals is great, and "technically" you are not trying to move below what is medically acceptable. Assuming it is truly medically acceptable to weigh less than 98+% of your peers.
Your stated goal makes me uncomfortable, so I will move on.
I'm not sure why anyone would be uncomfortable with my goal being to weigh less than my 'peers' when 60% of women my age (in the UK) are overweight or obese. And as you say, my goal of 9st is well within the medically accepted healthy weight range.
OP, I totally get wanting to weigh what you did when you were younger. However, if your lean mass really is 138#, unless you lay in a hospital bed and let your muscle atrophy, you will not achive that goal.
I'm 5'7" and weigh 150lbs. I've got approximately 115lbs of lean mass Which means my body fat is about 23%. For me to weigh what I did in high school (128#) and keep all of my lean mass, I'd have a body fat of about 10%. Which is possible for women for very very short periods of time and I risk many things.
When I was 128# in high school, I wore a size 5. At 150#, I can still wear a size5. Because I have muscle.
If you truly have 138# of lean mass, you will look better at a higher weight. I highly suggest that you make your goal weight 160lbs. Which I know is overweight for your height. But get to 160lbs and reevaluate. You may find that you like how you look at a higher BMI due to your lbm.
This is me about a month ago. 150ish lbs.0 -
lishie_rebooted wrote: »I highly suggest that you make your goal weight 160lbs. Which I know is overweight for your height. But get to 160lbs and reevaluate. You may find that you like how you look at a higher BMI due to your lbm.
Yes, I will do that. If I can feel good and wear the clothes I like at 160lb, so much the better! But I was recently (3 years ago) at 138lb and exercising regularly and was still flabby, so...
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lishie_rebooted wrote: »I highly suggest that you make your goal weight 160lbs. Which I know is overweight for your height. But get to 160lbs and reevaluate. You may find that you like how you look at a higher BMI due to your lbm.
Yes, I will do that. If I can feel good and wear the clothes I like at 160lb, so much the better! But I was recently (3 years ago) at 138lb and exercising regularly and was still flabby, so...
Were you doing a progressive resistance program?0 -
lishie_rebooted wrote: »
Were you doing a progressive resistance program?
Yes, I was practicing Ashtanga Yoga 4-5x per week, which as you may know includes a lot of positions where you have to lift and hold your bodyweight. The routine is progressive in that you keep adding more difficult postures and holding the positions for longer as you progress.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lishie_rebooted wrote: »
Were you doing a progressive resistance program?
Yes, I was practicing Ashtanga Yoga 4-5x per week, which as you may know includes a lot of positions where you have to lift and hold your bodyweight. The routine is progressive in that you keep adding more difficult postures and holding the positions for longer as you progress.
Sorry but that is not resistance training.
Sorry, but it IS progressive resistance if you move to increasingly challenging poses. The amount of strength needed to lift and support your body in certain positions is phenomenal. What is progressive resistance? It's increasing the overload consistently to facilitate adaptation, and that can happen through many things, Ashtanga Yoga is one of them. If OP keeps challenging their muscles they are essentially practicing progressive resistance.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lishie_rebooted wrote: »
Were you doing a progressive resistance program?
Yes, I was practicing Ashtanga Yoga 4-5x per week, which as you may know includes a lot of positions where you have to lift and hold your bodyweight. The routine is progressive in that you keep adding more difficult postures and holding the positions for longer as you progress.
Sorry but that is not resistance training.
Sorry, but it IS progressive resistance if you move to increasingly challenging poses. The amount of strength needed to lift and support your body in certain positions is phenomenal. What is progressive resistance? It's increasing the overload consistently to facilitate adaptation, and that can happen through many things, Ashtanga Yoga is one of them. If OP keeps challenging their muscles they are essentially practicing progressive resistance.
Sorry but it is not. You can tell yourself it is. But it isn't.
How do you define it then?0 -
In your yoga is there slow/fast twitching muscle fiber recruiting?amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lishie_rebooted wrote: »
Were you doing a progressive resistance program?
Yes, I was practicing Ashtanga Yoga 4-5x per week, which as you may know includes a lot of positions where you have to lift and hold your bodyweight. The routine is progressive in that you keep adding more difficult postures and holding the positions for longer as you progress.
Sorry but that is not resistance training.
Sorry, but it IS progressive resistance if you move to increasingly challenging poses. The amount of strength needed to lift and support your body in certain positions is phenomenal. What is progressive resistance? It's increasing the overload consistently to facilitate adaptation, and that can happen through many things, Ashtanga Yoga is one of them. If OP keeps challenging their muscles they are essentially practicing progressive resistance.
Sorry but it is not. You can tell yourself it is. But it isn't.
How do you define it then?
Is there really tension overload?
Is yoga weight training?
Yes, yes and yes, though not to the extent of weight training - provided you advance the pose progressively.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
In your yoga is there slow/fast twitching muscle fiber recruiting?amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lishie_rebooted wrote: »
Were you doing a progressive resistance program?
Yes, I was practicing Ashtanga Yoga 4-5x per week, which as you may know includes a lot of positions where you have to lift and hold your bodyweight. The routine is progressive in that you keep adding more difficult postures and holding the positions for longer as you progress.
Sorry but that is not resistance training.
Sorry, but it IS progressive resistance if you move to increasingly challenging poses. The amount of strength needed to lift and support your body in certain positions is phenomenal. What is progressive resistance? It's increasing the overload consistently to facilitate adaptation, and that can happen through many things, Ashtanga Yoga is one of them. If OP keeps challenging their muscles they are essentially practicing progressive resistance.
Sorry but it is not. You can tell yourself it is. But it isn't.
How do you define it then?
Is there really tension overload?
Is yoga weight training?
Yes, yes and yes, though not to the extent of weight training - provided you advance the pose progressively.
Lol. Yea okay. You keep telling yourself that. And to say that yoga is weight training that's just absurd.
The human body is weightless?0 -
Please. By that logic walking is weight training because when you walk around your legs are holding up the rest of your bod . Yoga being weight training Lol.amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »
In your yoga is there slow/fast twitching muscle fiber recruiting?amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »lishie_rebooted wrote: »
Were you doing a progressive resistance program?
Yes, I was practicing Ashtanga Yoga 4-5x per week, which as you may know includes a lot of positions where you have to lift and hold your bodyweight. The routine is progressive in that you keep adding more difficult postures and holding the positions for longer as you progress.
Sorry but that is not resistance training.
Sorry, but it IS progressive resistance if you move to increasingly challenging poses. The amount of strength needed to lift and support your body in certain positions is phenomenal. What is progressive resistance? It's increasing the overload consistently to facilitate adaptation, and that can happen through many things, Ashtanga Yoga is one of them. If OP keeps challenging their muscles they are essentially practicing progressive resistance.
Sorry but it is not. You can tell yourself it is. But it isn't.
How do you define it then?
Is there really tension overload?
Is yoga weight training?
Yes, yes and yes, though not to the extent of weight training - provided you advance the pose progressively.
Lol. Yea okay. You keep telling yourself that. And to say that yoga is weight training that's just absurd.
The human body is weightless?
Eating a hamburger is weight training to. Every time you pick it up off the plate and take a bite that's a bicep curl right? Because a hamburger has weight.
Walking is resistance training if you are re-learning to walk again after a long period of injury and muscle atrophy. Once it stops adding strength to the muscles it stops being progressive resistance training. Body weight training has been around for ages and is known to increase strength.
Edit: in fact I'll add, there is a reason why inactive obese people tend to have more muscle mass than inactive non-obese individuals.0 -
Lol. Yea okay. You keep telling yourself that. And to say that yoga is weight training that's just absurd.
Ha ha ha – I must say, that's a typical comment from someone whose knowledge of yoga is limited to some imagined stereotype of ladies lying on the floor or chanting 'ohm'. (:-)
Ashtanga yoga is similar in ways to calisthenics or gymnastics training – it builds core strength, functional strength and power using the bodyweight as resistance, and this is an example of the kind of physique it can build when one has worked up to the advanced poses:
(These photos aren't of me, obviously, that is Kino MacGregor.)
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Lol. Yea okay. You keep telling yourself that. And to say that yoga is weight training that's just absurd.
Ha ha ha – I must say, that's a typical comment from someone whose knowledge of yoga is limited to some imagined stereotype of ladies lying on the floor or chanting 'ohm'. (:-)
Ashtanga yoga is similar in ways to calisthenics or gymnastics training – it builds core strength, functional strength and power using the bodyweight as resistance, and this is an example of the kind of physique it can build when one has worked up to the advanced poses:
(These photos aren't of me, obviously, that is Kino MacGregor.)
I am not saying that is not difficult..but that does not make it the same as lifting progressively heavier things. Your body weight is your body weight and once you adjust to putting it in different poses you have maxed out any benefit that you were getting.
In a progressive lifting routine you can continually add weight so, in essence, you never max out...
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Lol. Yea okay. You keep telling yourself that. And to say that yoga is weight training that's just absurd.
Ha ha ha – I must say, that's a typical comment from someone whose knowledge of yoga is limited to some imagined stereotype of ladies lying on the floor or chanting 'ohm'. (:-)
Ashtanga yoga is similar in ways to calisthenics or gymnastics training – it builds core strength, functional strength and power using the bodyweight as resistance, and this is an example of the kind of physique it can build when one has worked up to the advanced poses:
(These photos aren't of me, obviously, that is Kino MacGregor.)
I am not saying that is not difficult..but that does not make it the same as lifting progressively heavier things. Your body weight is your body weight and once you adjust to putting it in different poses you have maxed out any benefit that you were getting.
In a progressive lifting routine you can continually add weight so, in essence, you never max out...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22240547
It's not a direct comparison to yoga, but is to body weight training - compared to progressive weight training.
0 -
Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Lol. Yea okay. You keep telling yourself that. And to say that yoga is weight training that's just absurd.
Ha ha ha – I must say, that's a typical comment from someone whose knowledge of yoga is limited to some imagined stereotype of ladies lying on the floor or chanting 'ohm'. (:-)
Ashtanga yoga is similar in ways to calisthenics or gymnastics training – it builds core strength, functional strength and power using the bodyweight as resistance, and this is an example of the kind of physique it can build when one has worked up to the advanced poses:
(These photos aren't of me, obviously, that is Kino MacGregor.)
I am not saying that is not difficult..but that does not make it the same as lifting progressively heavier things. Your body weight is your body weight and once you adjust to putting it in different poses you have maxed out any benefit that you were getting.
In a progressive lifting routine you can continually add weight so, in essence, you never max out...
That's where goals come in play. For some people they just want to be strong enough to do certain things (advanced poses in this case - which takes years), others are happy to maintain their current muscle mass while others just want to look good. Even progressive lifting hits a wall after a long while because the human body has physical limits. Granted it's does build much more lifting strength than body weight training (which builds greater functional strength and balance), but lifting strength is not everyone's goal and that's alright.0 -
It's cute because you're assuming I don't do yoga.
Yes, I am assuming you don't do yoga. Not ashtanga yoga, anyway. Am I wrong? (:-)
I am not saying that is not difficult..but that does not make it the same as lifting progressively heavier things. Your body weight is your body weight and once you adjust to putting it in different poses you have maxed out any benefit that you were getting.
In a progressive lifting routine you can continually add weight so, in essence, you never max out...
You never max out in ashtanga yoga because the poses increase in difficulty (there are seven series in total; most people never master the first series), so for example the angles at which you're supporting your body weight can make it more/less difficult. Plus, the length of time you hold each pose increases. (Theoretically one could also increase the number of repetitions although this isn't strictly part of the formal Ashtanga practice.)
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Lol. Yea okay. You keep telling yourself that. And to say that yoga is weight training that's just absurd.
Ha ha ha – I must say, that's a typical comment from someone whose knowledge of yoga is limited to some imagined stereotype of ladies lying on the floor or chanting 'ohm'. (:-)
Ashtanga yoga is similar in ways to calisthenics or gymnastics training – it builds core strength, functional strength and power using the bodyweight as resistance, and this is an example of the kind of physique it can build when one has worked up to the advanced poses:
(These photos aren't of me, obviously, that is Kino MacGregor.)
I am not saying that is not difficult..but that does not make it the same as lifting progressively heavier things. Your body weight is your body weight and once you adjust to putting it in different poses you have maxed out any benefit that you were getting.
In a progressive lifting routine you can continually add weight so, in essence, you never max out...
That's where goals come in play. For some people they just want to be strong enough to do certain things (advanced poses in this case - which takes years), others are happy to maintain their current muscle mass while others just want to look good. Even progressive lifting hits a wall after a long while because the human body has physical limits. Granted it's does build much more lifting strength than body weight training (which builds greater functional strength and balance), but lifting strength is not everyone's goal and that's alright.
you kind of just moved the goal posts.
You tried to say that yoga = progressive overload, and now you are saying it depends on goals..
I agree that it depends on goals..
but you will have a hard time convincing me that yoga = progressive lifting...0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Lol. Yea okay. You keep telling yourself that. And to say that yoga is weight training that's just absurd.
Ha ha ha – I must say, that's a typical comment from someone whose knowledge of yoga is limited to some imagined stereotype of ladies lying on the floor or chanting 'ohm'. (:-)
Ashtanga yoga is similar in ways to calisthenics or gymnastics training – it builds core strength, functional strength and power using the bodyweight as resistance, and this is an example of the kind of physique it can build when one has worked up to the advanced poses:
(These photos aren't of me, obviously, that is Kino MacGregor.)
I am not saying that is not difficult..but that does not make it the same as lifting progressively heavier things. Your body weight is your body weight and once you adjust to putting it in different poses you have maxed out any benefit that you were getting.
In a progressive lifting routine you can continually add weight so, in essence, you never max out...
That's where goals come in play. For some people they just want to be strong enough to do certain things (advanced poses in this case - which takes years), others are happy to maintain their current muscle mass while others just want to look good. Even progressive lifting hits a wall after a long while because the human body has physical limits. Granted it's does build much more lifting strength than body weight training (which builds greater functional strength and balance), but lifting strength is not everyone's goal and that's alright.
you kind of just moved the goal posts.
You tried to say that yoga = progressive overload, and now you are saying it depends on goals..
I agree that it depends on goals..
but you will have a hard time convincing me that yoga = progressive lifting...
That's not really what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that there are different ways to preserve and strengthen muscles with progressive muscle adaptation. The way a person chooses depends on their goals. Yoga is not lifting, no. I never said that. What I said is that some kinds of yoga can be a strength and resistance exercise. Strength training is not limited to conventional weight lifting.0 -
So what you are saying is that if some doesn't do Ashtanga yoga then the yoga they do does not count because the yoga they are doing doesn't count?
Uh... no, what I said was that I assumed you didn't practice Ashtanga yoga; my assumption was based on the fact that you are apparently unaware that it is a vigourous practice that builds strength and incorporates a form of progressive resistance training.
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Chrysalid2014 wrote: »Lol. Yea okay. You keep telling yourself that. And to say that yoga is weight training that's just absurd.
Ha ha ha – I must say, that's a typical comment from someone whose knowledge of yoga is limited to some imagined stereotype of ladies lying on the floor or chanting 'ohm'. (:-)
Ashtanga yoga is similar in ways to calisthenics or gymnastics training – it builds core strength, functional strength and power using the bodyweight as resistance, and this is an example of the kind of physique it can build when one has worked up to the advanced poses:
(These photos aren't of me, obviously, that is Kino MacGregor.)
I am not saying that is not difficult..but that does not make it the same as lifting progressively heavier things. Your body weight is your body weight and once you adjust to putting it in different poses you have maxed out any benefit that you were getting.
In a progressive lifting routine you can continually add weight so, in essence, you never max out...
That's where goals come in play. For some people they just want to be strong enough to do certain things (advanced poses in this case - which takes years), others are happy to maintain their current muscle mass while others just want to look good. Even progressive lifting hits a wall after a long while because the human body has physical limits. Granted it's does build much more lifting strength than body weight training (which builds greater functional strength and balance), but lifting strength is not everyone's goal and that's alright.
you kind of just moved the goal posts.
You tried to say that yoga = progressive overload, and now you are saying it depends on goals..
I agree that it depends on goals..
but you will have a hard time convincing me that yoga = progressive lifting...
That's not really what I'm saying, what I'm saying is that there are different ways to preserve and strengthen muscles with progressive muscle adaptation. The way a person chooses depends on their goals. Yoga is not lifting, no. I never said that. What I said is that some kinds of yoga can be a strength and resistance exercise. Strength training is not limited to conventional weight lifting.
I believe you said it's progressive resistance training, which implies that there is an increase in "resistance". I don't do yoga because it hurts my body, but I have no doubt it has many benefits. It just doesn't seem to fit into progressive resistance training because there is no increase in body weight.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.1K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 419 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions