Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Now you're talking about backpacking which is not necessarily the same as hiking. The op sounded like their goal was toward casual day hiking without a heavy pack.
Also, if you're backpacking with 50-100 lbs you need to seriously lighten your load unless you're winter camping, hunting big game or in the military.
It sounds like you're trying to speak with some level of expertise about things you haven't actually done. Namely: marathons, triathlons and extended backcountry hiking expeditions. Is that correct?
LOL are you for real?! in response to my direct comparison between modern athletes in their prime focused on muscular endurance vs. shorter term strength/explosiveness/speed, you post modern day pictures of two people from the 70's, the dark ages when it comes to our knowledge on exercise? I don't understand what your point is or how that contributes at all. It's not just my opinion that training differently produces different results physiologically, it's common knowledge at this point. Unless you want to look like a marathon runner (and who would want that) or are trying to become one, why would you train like them? Strength/explosiveness is much more handy in day to day life and most activities, and looks/feels a lot better.
I love how you ignored my truthful statement about how lots of slow reps train endurance and slow twitch muscle fibers, neither of which are particularly useful for the modern human unless they are specifically doing stuff like marathons. And yes, I've run/hiked/backpacked long distances. Hiking involves humping a tent, cooking supplies, clothes, etc, and it all adds up. If your doing a day hike then that's different, you just have to be able to walk a few miles. No real training required hopefully, old out of shape men walk golf courses without too much difficulty.
LOL are you for real?! in response to my direct comparison between modern athletes in their prime focused on muscular endurance vs. shorter term strength/explosiveness/speed, you post modern day pictures of two people from the 70's, the dark ages when it comes to our knowledge on exercise?
What does that term 'are you for real' mean? Were you asking if I'm writing satirically? I've been known to do that from time to time but in this case I'm not.
I posted images of two contemporary athletes at opposite extremes to make a point, which is the same thing you did, right? That point is that if you just go by two images slanted toward whatever idea you already believe, you're not really learning anything. So now that we've seen the extremes, where is the median? (I'm asking, not baiting)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tofur
I love how you ignored my truthful statement about how lots of slow reps train endurance and slow twitch muscle fibers, neither of which are particularly useful for the modern human unless they are specifically doing stuff like marathons. And yes, I've run/hiked/backpacked long distances. Hiking involves humping a tent, cooking supplies, clothes, etc, and it all adds up. If your doing a day hike then that's different, you just have to be able to walk a few miles. No real training required hopefully, old out of shape men walk golf courses without too much difficulty.
You loved that? Really? Because it kind of sounds like you were annoyed by it. You were starting to sound more credible by citing facts about skeletal muscle structure. You should probably continue that trend by saying what you mean elsewhere.
What did you WANT me to say about that? That hundreds of pushups aren't the right exercise for everyone and not right for anyone all the time? Will you then understand the basic points I've made or will you just think I'm sensing some kind of defeat and back-pedaling? What can I even say that you won't just argue with based on some preconceived ideas about endurance athletes? (one of which I am not anymore, BTW)
I don't draw a distinct line between strength training and cardiovascular exercise. They both have a place in my life because they are both beneficial, and there are many exercises and fitness plans that involve plenty of both with a lot of overlap. That said, mass is not really a goal of mine and I don't go to a public gym to pump iron thinking it's making me strong in an absolute sense. I see endurance as a very important component of strength. I also see flexibility, speed, core stability and technique as important components of strength. The maximum amount of weight which I can thrust up in one quick movement is the very least important component of what I consider to be strength. I can understand why a power-lifter, or perhaps an iron worker, would see it otherwise, but I think for the average person all those other things say a lot more about strength and fortitude than 'howmuchabench'.
One other thing before we call a truce... why are you backpacking with a 50-100 lb load? It makes me think either you don't know how to pack or that you went backpacking approximately once with people who didn't know what they were doing and you all brought way too much gear. Or maybe they all had really light loads because they duped you into carrying all their group stuff by promising it'd make you super strong?
Last edited by otterprods; 03-18-2014 at 12:31 PM..
LOL are you for real?! in response to my direct comparison between modern athletes in their prime focused on muscular endurance vs. shorter term strength/explosiveness/speed, you post modern day pictures of two people from the 70's, the dark ages when it comes to our knowledge on exercise? I don't understand what your point is or how that contributes at all. It's not just my opinion that training differently produces different results physiologically, it's common knowledge at this point. Unless you want to look like a marathon runner (and who would want that) or are trying to become one, why would you train like them? Strength/explosiveness is much more handy in day to day life and most activities, and looks/feels a lot better.
I love how you ignored my truthful statement about how lots of slow reps train endurance and slow twitch muscle fibers, neither of which are particularly useful for the modern human unless they are specifically doing stuff like marathons. And yes, I've run/hiked/backpacked long distances. Hiking involves humping a tent, cooking supplies, clothes, etc, and it all adds up. If your doing a day hike then that's different, you just have to be able to walk a few miles. No real training required hopefully, old out of shape men walk golf courses without too much difficulty.
While I agree with most of what you have said, I have to disagree with the last part of the statement I bolded above. I doubt that any marathon runner would do lots of slow reps or any kind of reps of any particular exercise. A marathon runner needs to train his entire cardiovascular system. He will do different types of running workouts such as long runs, intervals, lactate threshold runs and tempo runs. A marathon runner might or should do cross training such as weightlifting. Some people might think that training at high reps would be beneficial for an endurance athlete. It is not beneficial since doing 100 or 200 reps of a leg exercise does not help the runner with his endurance or speed in the marathon. High rep exercises help you to do more reps of that exercise.
A marathon runner should do a similar weight training workout to any other type of athlete. Exercises with 8-12 reps will be much more beneficial than 100 reps.
High rep exercises help you to do more reps of that exercise.
Good point, and one I have to agree with. But then you could also say that lifting heavy weight helps you lift heavier weight with that exercise, right? So it's really the ultimate benefits of either approach we're looking at. If we agree that increasing weight makes your muscles able to bear even more weight as you progress, then shouldn't we also agree that repeating set motion more times also makes your muscles able to bear more of it? It's just that the amount of weight lifted is divided differently. Call it what you want, but if I can get up to 100 slow and controlled pushups (or even 50) in a row, whereas I could only do 5 before, now I'm stronger, right? I may not be bulkier (which I don't want), appear any more muscular (which I don't care about), or beat Tofu in a deadlift contest (now that would be a bummer), but in that sense I'm stronger. Why are people not understanding that approach, whether they think it's right for them or not?
Quote:
Originally Posted by villageidiot1
A marathon runner should do a similar weight training workout to any other type of athlete. Exercises with 8-12 reps will be much more beneficial than 100 reps.
I agree with that too, but I'm still trying to make a point here. It all started when I challenged the OP to curl 20 lbs a hundred times and see how that feels by the end even though it seems like a really easy level of resistance. I never prescribed that sort of workout as a philosophy or a continuous approach. I just wanted him/her to think outside the box and see that 'strength' manifests itself in various ways and that great things may come in small packages.
Would this all be any more palatable if I used the number '300' instead and in the context of abs?
Last edited by otterprods; 03-18-2014 at 02:39 PM..
Good point, and one I have to agree with. But then you could also say that lifting heavy weight helps you lift heavier weight with that exercise, right? So it's really the ultimate benefits of either approach we're looking at. If we agree that increasing weight makes your muscles able to bear even more weight as you progress, then shouldn't we also agree that repeating set motion more times also makes your muscles able to bear more of it? It's just that the amount of weight lifted is divided differently. Call it what you want, but if I can get up to 100 slow and controlled pushups (or even 50) in a row, whereas I could only do 5 before, now I'm stronger, right? I may not be bulkier (which I don't want), appear any more muscular (which I don't care about), or beat Tofu in a deadlift contest (now that would be a bummer), but in that sense I'm stronger. Why are people not understanding that approach, whether they think it's right for them or not?
I agree with that too, but I'm still trying to make a point here. It all started when I challenged the OP to curl 20 lbs a hundred times and see how that feels by the end even though it seems like a really easy level of resistance. I never prescribed that sort of workout as a philosophy or a continuous approach. I just wanted him/her to think outside the box and see that 'strength' manifests itself in various ways and that great things may come in small packages.
Would this all be any more palatable if I used the number '300' instead and in the context of abs?
There is a difference between strength and endurance. There is a concept in weightlifting called 1-rep max, which is a measure of strength. See any of these sites:
For these calculations, the repetitions are typically between 1 and 10, but some calculators go up to 20 reps. The point is that you can increase endurance without increasing strength.
There is a difference between strength and endurance. There is a concept in weightlifting called 1-rep max, which is a measure of strength. See any of these sites:
For these calculations, the repetitions are typically between 1 and 10, but some calculators go up to 20 reps. The point is that you can increase endurance without increasing strength.
When I started working out, I was struggling to bench 25lbs dumbbells. haha oh man was I embarrassed. But nowadays, my bench is up to 105lbs dumbbells. We all start somewhere, you just have to stay true to yourself and be consistent with it. You can also do pushups at home to build up your muscle on your off days.
You can also do pushups at home to build up your muscle on your off days.
I always wondered about this and I now think that your off day should consist of nothing except a quick jog on the treadmill. Your muscles need to rest in order to rebuild and get stronger.
Great job losing the weight. No one that matters is paying attention. Others around you are probably worried in their own heads about whatever image issue they have or are thinking about nothing at all, lol.
I managed to lose about 25 pounds (from 230 down to 205) just from diet and basic exercise (decreasing soda and walking more often, mostly) but then I seemed to plateau, so I decided to finally join a gym and get a bit more variety in my exercise regime. I go to the gym 5 days a week, trying for 1 raquetball day, 1 swimming day, 1 weight lifting day, and 2 general cardio days (stationary bike, treadmill, elliptical, stair climber)
My problem is when I try to lift weights I always have to greatly decrease the weight stack. Like I'll get up to the machine and see it set to like 110 pounds and I'll have to lower it to 50-65. Today I tried the seated incline press and it had been set to somewhere near 200 pounds, but I needed to drop down to 50 to have any chance at actually lifting it.
I know that I have to start small and work my way up, and that more reps at a lower weight is better, but are there any machines that are easier to use with a higher weight? I just get really self-conscious when I sit at a machine and have to lower the weight stack from about middle to the second or third rung.
My primary goal is weight loss and more energy for activities like hiking this summer.
you're going to the gym for your personal goal not comparing yourself to the person who used the machine before you. that person could be training for an iron man competition, or training for a 5K or have gone to the gym years longer than you. do what your body prefers and stop comparing because that's how you get yourself injured.
i lower my weights all the time and i don't care - probably because no one is watching me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
