File :-(, x, )
Saigaguy !n87gAqL9/w
Hey /fit/,

I am running now mon/weds/fri. The goal is to lose weight. Fri I am gonna run 4 miles, mon 5, and from then on add 1 mile a week until I'm up to 10.

But I have a question. I used to do pushups/situps/arm curls on tues/thurs/sat. But since I'm trying to restrict my caloric intake, is it worth it? Will I gain any muscle, and is the exercise going to get my metabolism going enough to help lose weight?

Is there any exercise better to do than that when trying to lose weight?
>> Anonymous
Building muscle and burning fat on the same time is usually a big no-no.
>> Anonymous
>>26435

Disregard that, I am a fat blubbering faggot who knows fuck all about the metabolic rate.
>> Anonymous
>>26377

Keep doing those, otherwise you'll lose some muscle mass along with the fat
>> Anonymous
>>26535
How so? I've only seen like one routine that claims to be able to build muscles AND burn fat at the same time (rather than just burning both fat and muscles). Body haet wasting calories on building muscles when you're on reduced caloric intake.
>> Anonymous
I think running is pretty good for that job since you move your whole body.

it was my experience that since I do regularly sport I don't have to watch what I eat:
Try to abstain from things that do not fill your belly (chocolate and that highly processed food stuff)

and don't forget to drink lots of water
>> menchi !IgWlr3a0sk
you could add cycling to that. it's lower impact and causes much less damage to the knees than running if you get a properly fitted bike (proper crank arm length, stem length, seat tube height, top tube length for your body..)
any decent bike shop can help with the fit.
>> Anonymous
and don't overdo it on the miles:
the joints need time to get used to the strain
>> Anonymous
>>26580
maybe swimming would be better?
low impact and whole body exercise
>> Anonymous
>>26435
Terrible troll.

OP, it's a common misconception that cardio will "waste" muscle growth. A lot of the growth that people see is because of retained water in the muscles (creatine, NO2, and other supplements do this shit), and when that is stripped away, they think their bodies are weaker. Weight training will increase your muscle strength and your body's natural metabolism. Meaning that even at rest, your body will burn more calories than a runner that is not weight training.

That being said, 10 miles is a bit excessive. Do you really want to train for a 1/2 marathon or a marathon? Because that's what you're doing with that run right there. I believe you should keep your runs between 5 to 10k (3-6 miles), unless you are looking to compete in some distance running races. Instead of adding miles, increase intensity by adding hills and/or increasing your speed. It will help you improve your cardiovascular fitness greatly.
>> Anonymous
>>26592
Troll requires intent. I'm just ignorant at worst.
>> Anonymous
>>26592
a note on intensity:
get your knees checked.
I tried to get faster and faster until a "breakdown": my joints just couldn't do that much anymore. Since that I am adding distance (far slower than OP plans to)
>> Anonymous
>>26598
My bad, I thought you were trolling.

It's a very common myth, the whole cardio and lifting is like oil and water. I just try to dispel it when I can.
>> Saigaguy !n87gAqL9/w
Thanks Anonymous, I'll do some strength training tonight, then.
>> Anonymous
>>26623
Alright, so let's clarify stuff. I never meant to imply that cardio + reduced calories were bad in any way, only that reduced calories + muscle buildup were somewhat counterproductive.
This is somewhat based on that "serious" bodybuilders eat huge amounts of proteins when they're getting rid of body fat (in order to keep their current muscle mass).

Am I stupid/uninformed?
[Y/N]
>> Anonymous
>>26377
>>But I have a question. I used to do pushups/situps/arm curls on tues/thurs/sat. But since I'm trying to restrict my caloric intake, is it worth it? Will I gain any muscle, and is the exercise going to get my metabolism going enough

anyway. protein synthesis can happen even in states of caloric deficit. weightlifting/resistance training will actually help you loose weight, and i know that in the tnation body transformation clinics every fatty was lifting. so keep workin' it, work it good.

also, start doing chin-ups and drop the curls for the gurls. honestly.
>> Anonymous
I'm posting this in here so as not to start a new thread.

Anyways, I usually run everyday. Four days out of the week I do a long slow jog of three miles (building up to four hopefully) and the days in between I do a fast one mile run.

/fit/ is this bad for my body with the impact? Should I restrict it to three/four days. I don't push it too much and my body is recovering by the time the next day comes around for the run.

Also, is there any other cardio I could add into my routine? I'm mostly training for martial arts and self defense, so I'm focusing really on burst type energy.
>> Anonymous
>>26680
if you're focussing on burst type energy then the runs will be more detrimental to that, depending. apparently if you keep your heart rate below 70% then it won't have adverse effects on type ii fibres and will become a part of active recovery and cardio vascular health.

you might want to substitute the fast mile for sprints and definitely take up high intensity interval training.
>> Anonymous
>>26656
Once again, I apologize for calling you out as a troll. I'll try to clear everything up here...

You can lose weight (fat) and build muscle at the same time. In fact, that's what a lot of people do when they first start working out if they haven't done anything in a while, no matter if they just do cardio or just lift. But soon, your body will adjust to one or the other and start doing what you're training it to do (no matter you're intention, you'll see what I mean soon).

If you just do cardio, you'll build the muscles needed to perform the exercise you are doing (legs for running/biking, back also for swimming/rowing), but soon those muscles will only be trained for endurance and will show for that. They will be long and lean and will be able to push a moderate load over a long period of time. They will plateau quickly but your heart and lung health will improve dramatically over time (improving the ability of the body to feed oxygen and nutrients to your muscles and other tissues).

When you train for strength (not mass), your muscles will begin to learn how to push an extreme load in a short burst. You will tear the muscle time and time again, and it will need fuel to rebuild. It will rebuild and it will get stronger. If you are losing weight with cardio at the same time, you will not gain muscle as fast as if you were just lifting and eating to gain mass. But you will still gain some muscle and that muscle will improve your metabolism and cardio workouts.

Personally, I think lifting just to gain mass is vain and egotistical. You should only worry about becoming the best 'you' that you can be. Cardio and strength training together will do that.

If you want to develop mass only, don't do any cardio. You'll get plenty big, but who the fuck cares. Bench 400 and run a 10 minute mile, that's not an athlete.
>> Anonymous
>>26687
in complete agreement. thats how i've always done it. cardio + strength training = best, most efficient result results. it saddens me not to see a big gain in muscle mass but for me functional strength > cosmetic
>> Anonymous
>>26687
>>They will be long and lean

no they won't. goddamn. this board has people that should know better and yet we still get this crap.

please guys, you cannot tone, only reduce body fat. you cannot get long and lean muscles because the insertion and origin of a muscle and limb length is genetically predetermined.

also, cardio is energy system training, meaning in the end you're going to be doing the same work with less energy. so it's not that great for fat loss after a while.

most of what else you said was fine though. but please, no long lean toning anymore /fit/.
>> Anonymous
>>26684

Thanks. Just read up on HIIT. This is the method I'm going to try right now.

http://www.musclemedia.com/training/hiit.asp
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>26713
relevant.
>> Anonymous
>>26713

stop being an english-nazi. Long and lean is obviously referring to relative length and width...nobody is fucking claiming that your bones will grow longer if you ride a bike.
>> Anonymous
>>26729
relative length and width is still reliant on muscle insertion, origin and the individuals genetic body type. it's a stupid and misleading fucking term and is only fit for infomercials.

do you want to be an infomercial?
>> Anonymous
Then how would describe the muscles of an endurance runner (biker, swimmer, etc)? I never said anything about tone.

An avid runner that still eats shitty can have long, lean muscles under a layer of fat. Cardio will build your muscles, to a point. And that point is the amount that your body needs them for that specific exercise. So the muscles will be long (flexible, capable of taking a moderate load at a full range of motion), and lean (without excess water or muscle mass).

If I am fucking this up some way, please correct me, but I do think I have this right. A lot of people do fuck up muscle tone, in fact, most people don't even know what it really is. It's the muscles' contraction at rest, that's all. Nothing will change your muscle 'tone'. Look up hypertonia and hypotonia for more info about muscle tone disorders.
>> Anonymous
>>26737
>>Then how would describe the muscles of an endurance runner (biker, swimmer, etc)? I never said anything about tone.

maybe it would have something to do with, i don't know, the fact that you need a specific genetic legacy to be competitive in those sports and so the sport pre-selects those body types by default? what part of insertion/origin do you not understand?
>> Anonymous
>>26719

Holy balls, HIIT just fucking put me out.
>> Anonymous
>>26764
Christ, you're just trying to be a fucking dick, aren't you?

When did I say "world-class competitive athelete" in my posts? Of course genetics are going to come into play at that level. I was remarking on the human muscle's ability to adapt to it's environment, and the physical characteristics it will take on depending on that environment. Of course genetics play a big part in how your muscles are going to look and operate compared to everyone else, I never said they didn't. It's the old nature/nurture shit. Both will influence your muscles attributes. Just as your genes and your surroundings will build your personality.

In summary, go fuck yourself. You're not adding anything to the conversation. You're just being a dick. Go back to /b/ if you're going to act like that.
>> Anonymous
>>26798
no, i'm trying to get a concept through to you when you seem hell bent on not listening or changing your mind. here is a simplified example that should explain the idea, using the 'calve muscles'.

person a has high insertions for their calves. this means that, relative to limb length, the muscle insertion is well above the medium point for the limb, right at the top. the muscle is very short and has less mass. now, because it is proportionately small and at the top of the limb, this makes the limb look longer. it's accepted that people with high calve inserstions have higher vertical jumps; the shorter muscle length means longer tendons that can store more potential energy. they become spring loaded if you would.

person b has low insertions, closer to the mid-point of the limb. this means their tendons are also short, meaning they can't store as much potential energy and that to do the same amount of work the muscle has to generate more force. this makes the muscle larger to compensate for less favourable leverages. also, because the insertion is lower, the muscle has more area and for the same length of limb and is larger anyway.

so now you see a couple of reasons why it's a stupid term. one, insertion and origin dictates the length and apperance of the muscle. two, long mucsles are actually larger muscles and are more massive. to look long and lean you need shorter muscles and higher insertions. so it's contradictory. insertions, origins and limb length are genetic and can't be changed. so the idea of sculpting longer lean muscles is actually impossible to begin with. so it's misleading and contradictory in more way than one.

now do you understand?