Critique my workout/diet please.

Al_Fernz

tadhg1 wrote: »

i never said anaerobic exercise does not burn fat (that why i said u never realy train exclsively in one energy system) i just said that cardio/aerobic is more effecticent at burning fat

I never said that you were saying this. My point was that your quote does not back up the claim you made earlier that cardio is better for fatloss than weight training.

hypothetically....... if you had a guy come up to you asking of fatloss and you could only chose to give him cardio or resistance, which would you precribe????

and dont say i'd give him both. im talking about a hypothetical situation.

Stupid question, because the most important thing about fat loss is diet.

I certainly wouldn't give them an unbalanced training routine though.

Al_Fernz

tadhg1 wrote: »

difine "less than an hour" but i'll take it as 40 mins + weight training sessioni think is to much for a beginner, if you did one straight after the other i would be conserned about catabolism and if you split it say cardio in the morning and weights in the evening, this just does not suit most clients lifestyles, which mean they'd be less likey to keep at it.

You're adding 2 and 2 together and coming up with 5. Where you got that I was advising cardio and weights to be done in the same session I don't know?

I specifically said that doing cardio and weights on successive days will not lead to over-training.

amazingemmet

tadhg1 wrote: »

do u realy expect me to put pics of clients up on the internet...come on now ur having a laugh!

Every serious trainer I know has a portfolio of clients that shows the work they do and results they've achieved. I just want to see if there's method to your madness as some trainers I've written off completely have surprised me with their results.

Hanley

tadhg1 wrote: »

do u realy expect me to put pics of clients up on the internet...come on now ur having a laugh!

Nice work on ignoring everything of substance in Emmets post and just responding to his opening and closing statements. I assume this is because you know you don't have a leg to stand on (lol... maybe you should train them!!**) when it comes to disproving or refuting the study??











**I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I had to. It was just too easy!!

Hanley

tadhg1 wrote: »

difine "less than an hour"

Eh c'mon now. You can't expect to be taken seriously with statements like that.

utick

for overall health id have to say cardio is more advantageous.
also one hour of cardio can be a hell of alot, i only do about 10 minutes on a treadmill everyday at 10 miles per hour no way would i find an hour of that to be necesary unless you are going for marathons or something

amazingemmet

One thing that annoys me is people assuming lifting weights has no "cardio" benefit. Try do a 20 reps set of squats and then tell me thats not got your heart moving.

jaybee123

ive read a good few articals on cardio vs resistance and fat loss. all the ones i read that say resistance is better than cardio, only compare low intensity cardio to resistance and i have yet to find any articals that say mod or hi intensity worst than resistance for fat loss.

i aslo read a lot of stuff that said that hiit cardio is the best for fat loss.

for fat loss during exercise from what ive read i would say cardio is better because of the energy system your using.

as for "the after burn effect" i read stuff that says cardio raise it more and ive read stuff that says resistance raises it more

and when i did ncef 1,2, the tutors on the cousre left me with the impression that resistance and cardio are both good for fat loss but that cardio was better, particulary for just "weight loss" because of its catabolic effect.

as for the programme it seem fine to me , yeh the legs may have been a little bit under trained when it came to resistance but when designing a progamme it's give and take, and you have to prioritize this often means that some areas are less or more trained then others but its is only realy a major consernce when your talking about an agonist being more trained than an antagonist, agonists and antagonist where well balanced in this case, as for upper and lower body if the upper body was slightly better trained in resistance / cardio or vice versa than the lower body i wouldnt be that conserned, un less the imbalance was huge which i dont think it was in this case

tadhg1

source http://hubpages.com/hub/CardiovsStrengthTrainingWhichburnsmorefat


"The theory behind strength training burning more than cardio comes from the idea that one pound of muscle uses more calories per day than one pound fat does, while this is true, it is not enough to trim you down. Take a look at the numbers:

• 182 calories are burned per day for each pound of kidney your body houses.
• 110 calories are burned per day for each pound of brain that your body houses.
• 6 calories are burned per day for each pound of muscle that your body houses.
• 2 calories are burned per day for each pound of fat that your body houses.

During strength training you burn less calories, and the additional calories you burn due to the gain in muscle in your body is barely enough to make a difference, your time would be much better spend doing cardio where you would burn more calories during the workout (and less after).


If you're interested in boosting your metabolism to lose weight, aerobic training such as running and walking is a better investment than strength training. All you need to do is look at the numbers to see why:
40 minutes of moderate cardio (running 8:30 pace) vs. 40 minutes of moderate strength training-

Cardio: 522 calories burned during the activity, 30 calories burned in afterburn, 0 calories burned from gained muscle

Strength Training: approximately 136 calories burned during the activity, 20 calories burned in afterburn, 30 calories burned from gained muscle

Cardio leads by 366 calories."

Hanley

tadhg1 wrote: »

source http://hubpages.com/hub/CardiovsStrengthTrainingWhichburnsmorefat


"The theory behind strength training burning more than cardio comes from the idea that one pound of muscle uses more calories per day than one pound fat does, while this is true, it is not enough to trim you down. Take a look at the numbers:

• 182 calories are burned per day for each pound of kidney your body houses.
• 110 calories are burned per day for each pound of brain that your body houses.
• 6 calories are burned per day for each pound of muscle that your body houses.
• 2 calories are burned per day for each pound of fat that your body houses.

During strength training you burn less calories, and the additional calories you burn due to the gain in muscle in your body is barely enough to make a difference, your time would be much better spend doing cardio where you would burn more calories during the workout (and less after).


If you're interested in boosting your metabolism to lose weight, aerobic training such as running and walking is a better investment than strength training. All you need to do is look at the numbers to see why:
40 minutes of moderate cardio (running 8:30 pace) vs. 40 minutes of moderate strength training-

Cardio: 522 calories burned during the activity, 30 calories burned in afterburn, 0 calories burned from gained muscle

Strength Training: approximately 136 calories burned during the activity, 20 calories burned in afterburn, 30 calories burned from gained muscle

Cardio leads by 366 calories."

I'm sorry, but the conclusions drawn there are complete and utter bull****. I could go and run 5x a week for a year and do nothing else and I'd burn a massive amount of calories, but I'd look like complete and utter sh1t after it. I'd look like a skinny fat runner.

Or I could go to the gym for that year, lift weights, watch what I eat and do some LIT every now and again if my bodyfat levels weren't coming down. I could come out of this looking quite lean and have a muscular and "toned" body.

REAL hard decision on what anyone who wants to improve their appearance has to make there.

Al_Fernz

tadhg1 wrote: »

source http://hubpages.com/hub/CardiovsStrengthTrainingWhichburnsmorefat




"The theory behind strength training burning more than cardio comes from the idea that one pound of muscle uses more calories per day than one pound fat does, while this is true, it is not enough to trim you down. Take a look at the numbers:

• 182 calories are burned per day for each pound of kidney your body houses.
• 110 calories are burned per day for each pound of brain that your body houses.
• 6 calories are burned per day for each pound of muscle that your body houses.
• 2 calories are burned per day for each pound of fat that your body houses.

During strength training you burn less calories, and the additional calories you burn due to the gain in muscle in your body is barely enough to make a difference, your time would be much better spend doing cardio where you would burn more calories during the workout (and less after).


If you're interested in boosting your metabolism to lose weight, aerobic training such as running and walking is a better investment than strength training. All you need to do is look at the numbers to see why:
40 minutes of moderate cardio (running 8:30 pace) vs. 40 minutes of moderate strength training-

Cardio: 522 calories burned during the activity, 30 calories burned in afterburn, 0 calories burned from gained muscle

Strength Training: approximately 136 calories burned during the activity, 20 calories burned in afterburn, 30 calories burned from gained muscle

Cardio leads by 366 calories."

This article is a copy of an article by Amby Burfoot from Runner's World.
http://www.runnersworld.com/article/0,7120,s6-242-304--7753-0,00.html

The only purpose of the article is to promote running so they can sell more magazines. She is a nobody.

Her use of references is also quite poor. I would seriously challenge the validility of them because she seems to quote institutes like 'the authoritative "Compendium of Physical Activities."' and not specific papers.

Check out the following two criticisms that actually reference published papers.

jonnny says:
8 months ago

Well, I think you're wrong. Go to the gym. You will see at least two type of people: the skinny-fat ones walking one the threadmill, doing aerobic classes or cycling, and the big, muscular and lean ones, lifting heavy-ass weight. Some of them are not that lean, but most of them are. Your metabolism will also increase significantly more than you mentioned, both due to muscle gain and EPOC (excess post workout oxygen consumption).
I do both running and weightlifting, and in periods where I lift more(and do some sprinting), eat more and do less cardio, I am actually leaner and more defined than when Im doing a lot of cardio. Research has also shown that people who do weightlifting and short anaerobic interval training lose more fat than those doing traditional cardio.
Who has the best fat to muscle ratio of a sprinter, low weightclass weightlifter or a pole waulter compared to a 5k runner or a tour de france cyclist?
Read this article which actually contains research and sources, in contradiction to yours which only makes guesses and takes "facts" from nowhere.
http://www.t-nation.com/readArticle.do?id=1526539&


Shoua says:
6 months ago

Notice how the author has (and less after) in parenthensis following the statement, "your time would be much better spend doing cardio where you would burn more calories during the workout". People burn most of their calories throughout the day while they're doing their daily activities, not during their 1-2 hours of workout. Strength training has been shown to produce the greatest EPOC which is something we benefit from after our workouts so wouldn't it make since to make strength training more of a priority in your exercise routine if your goal is to have an increase metabolism.
Here is a study on strength training and cardio training in regards to EPOC:
Elliot et al. (1988) investigated the difference in EPOC between aerobic cycling (40 minutes at 80% heart rate max), circuit training (4 sets, 8 exercises, 15 reps at 50% 1RM) and heavy resistance training (3 sets, 8 exercises, 3-8 reps at 80-90% 1RM). Heavy resistance training produced the greatest EPOC (10.6 liters, 53 calories) compared with circuit training (10.2 liters, 51 calories) and cycling (6.7 liters, 33.5 calories). In a similar study by Gilette et al. (1994), resistance training (5 sets, 10 exercises, 8-12 reps at 70% 1RM) elicited a significantly greater EPOC response when compared to aerobic exercise (50% VO2 max for 60 minutes)
Full research article can be found here:
http://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article folder/epoc