Cardio and lifting (and "basic training")

I have tried for a moment to find my own post and somebody else's reply to
it on this subject, but, hey, I have a life, so I'm starting a new thread.
The gist of the exchange was that an OP wanted to both run and get big arms,
or something like that. I said it was do-able, and that I had had good luck
with running and lifting in the past. (Though I've never had big biceps,
the combination of running and lifting gave me about the best-looking body
I've ever had). Somebody else replied that my success with such a routine
was probably not the norm, and I probably, basically, had the right genes or
whatever to get strong and lean.

I've been thinking about that. Now, granted, simultaneous cardio and
strength-training do tend to work at cross purposes, and I myself tend to
alternate the two emphases from month to month. But I'm no mutant, as far
as getting lucky with the genes or whatever.

And it occurs to me that all those soldiers and Marines I see on the news
are not mutants either. I love seeing pictures of American troops; they
make the actors who play soldier on TV and in the movies look like such
sissies. Necks bigger than their heads, etc. Just regular, American-fed,
American boys (and girls, though I don't see them as often on the news).

So how did they get that way? My understanding is that basic training
includes a lot of running and calisthenics, to the point where new recruits
lose a lot of weight and develop stamina. *After* basic training comes the
strength training. So, it's basically, lean down, then bulk up. And, mind
you, these guys can still run circles around the average, fit civilian, even
if their arms are bigger than my thighs.

It occurs to me that the military has priorities besides making pretty
bodies, but maybe this lean-then-bulk paradigm is the best paradigm for
folks who want to run and bulk? And why do all these various (and often
dumb) websites say stuff about "don't do cardio" if you want to lift? What
if you actually just plain *want* to do both? This running-and-lifting
issue seems to come up from newbies a lot around here. Thoughts?

ep
(procrastinating getting back to work)

The benefits of running/cardio exercise are way to good to go as far as
say don't do it at all. I've always believed that you need to build
your wind first before you start pumping the iron. I guess it depends
on what you want though. I want functional fitness, ability not get
winded etc and still be bulky. If you cut out cardio to minimal or
nothing I would thing you would get bulky but your usefullness stamina
wise would be bad. To me it makes sense to build your hearts ability
to be more efficient so it can actually power the muscles you build
when they are put to moderate use. Nothing like a tweated out car with
racing slicks powered by a lawn mower engine.

On Jan 16, 12:43 pm, "Edna Pearl" <edna_pe...@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com>
wrote:
> I have tried for a moment to find my own post and somebody else's reply to
> it on this subject, but, hey, I have a life, so I'm starting a new thread.
> The gist of the exchange was that an OP wanted to both run and get big arms,
> or something like that. I said it was do-able, and that I had had good luck
> with running and lifting in the past. (Though I've never had big biceps,
> the combination of running and lifting gave me about the best-looking body
> I've ever had). Somebody else replied that my success with such a routine
> was probably not the norm, and I probably, basically, had the right genes or
> whatever to get strong and lean.
>
> I've been thinking about that. Now, granted, simultaneous cardio and
> strength-training do tend to work at cross purposes, and I myself tend to
> alternate the two emphases from month to month. But I'm no mutant, as far
> as getting lucky with the genes or whatever.
>
> And it occurs to me that all those soldiers and Marines I see on the news
> are not mutants either. I love seeing pictures of American troops; they
> make the actors who play soldier on TV and in the movies look like such
> sissies. Necks bigger than their heads, etc. Just regular, American-fed,
> American boys (and girls, though I don't see them as often on the news).
>
> So how did they get that way? My understanding is that basic training
> includes a lot of running and calisthenics, to the point where new recruits
> lose a lot of weight and develop stamina. *After* basic training comes the
> strength training. So, it's basically, lean down, then bulk up. And, mind
> you, these guys can still run circles around the average, fit civilian, even
> if their arms are bigger than my thighs.
>
> It occurs to me that the military has priorities besides making pretty
> bodies, but maybe this lean-then-bulk paradigm is the best paradigm for
> folks who want to run and bulk? And why do all these various (and often
> dumb) websites say stuff about "don't do cardio" if you want to lift? What
> if you actually just plain *want* to do both? This running-and-lifting
> issue seems to come up from newbies a lot around here. Thoughts?
>
> ep
> (procrastinating getting back to work)

Simply put - they have good strength endurance, but as strength athletes
the typical marine would suck big time. As speed/strength athletes -
probably even worse. For a strength or speed/strength athlete to be
world class you don't run if you can walk and you don't walk if you can
ride.

Put another way, I doubt if there is one marine coming out of basic
training who can squat 600+ or clean and jerk 300+.

OTOH - you can look good and get in great shape by doing
strength/endurance type training. Remember that hypertrophy tends to get
maxed by working more strength/endurance. OTOH you are really not seeing
too many marines with huge necks and large arms. They are just cut with
lower bodyfat levels.

In article <519rh.3542$Oe2.860@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:

> I have tried for a moment to find my own post and somebody else's reply to
> it on this subject, but, hey, I have a life, so I'm starting a new thread.
> The gist of the exchange was that an OP wanted to both run and get big arms,
> or something like that. I said it was do-able, and that I had had good luck
> with running and lifting in the past. (Though I've never had big biceps,
> the combination of running and lifting gave me about the best-looking body
> I've ever had). Somebody else replied that my success with such a routine
> was probably not the norm, and I probably, basically, had the right genes or
> whatever to get strong and lean.
>
> I've been thinking about that. Now, granted, simultaneous cardio and
> strength-training do tend to work at cross purposes, and I myself tend to
> alternate the two emphases from month to month. But I'm no mutant, as far
> as getting lucky with the genes or whatever.
>
> And it occurs to me that all those soldiers and Marines I see on the news
> are not mutants either. I love seeing pictures of American troops; they
> make the actors who play soldier on TV and in the movies look like such
> sissies. Necks bigger than their heads, etc. Just regular, American-fed,
> American boys (and girls, though I don't see them as often on the news).
>
> So how did they get that way? My understanding is that basic training
> includes a lot of running and calisthenics, to the point where new recruits
> lose a lot of weight and develop stamina. *After* basic training comes the
> strength training. So, it's basically, lean down, then bulk up. And, mind
> you, these guys can still run circles around the average, fit civilian, even
> if their arms are bigger than my thighs.
>
> It occurs to me that the military has priorities besides making pretty
> bodies, but maybe this lean-then-bulk paradigm is the best paradigm for
> folks who want to run and bulk? And why do all these various (and often
> dumb) websites say stuff about "don't do cardio" if you want to lift? What
> if you actually just plain *want* to do both? This running-and-lifting
> issue seems to come up from newbies a lot around here. Thoughts?
>
> ep
> (procrastinating getting back to work)
>
>

--
Keith

You and tsnyder are the perfect contrast to demonstrate how you can both be
"right," depending on the individual person's goals:

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-4098D4.14100516012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> Simply put - they have good strength endurance,

Right. I see what you mean.

> but as strength athletes
> the typical marine would suck big time. As speed/strength athletes -
> probably even worse. For a strength or speed/strength athlete to be
> world class you don't run if you can walk and you don't walk if you can
> ride.

Makes total sense. These big ole monsters we see at strength competitions
don't give a rat's ass, I daresay, about how fast they can run.

> Put another way, I doubt if there is one marine coming out of basic
> training who can squat 600+ or clean and jerk 300+.

Right, I agree. My understanding is that after *basic* you're very lean and
the strength phase of training has not even started. But even after "phase
2" strength-training, I'll bet most marines still wouldn't be terribly
competitive at strength competitions, because they have to maintain some
other skills, like speed, endurance, etc., about which a strength competitor
doesn't give a rat's ass.

> OTOH - you can look good and get in great shape by doing
> strength/endurance type training.

And I think that's what most of the newbies we see here, asking about this
issue, want as their goal. And I think tsnyder's post addresses that
particular goal.

> Remember that hypertrophy tends to get
> maxed by working more strength/endurance. OTOH you are really not seeing
> too many marines with huge necks and large arms.

I'm going to disagree with you there. Maybe "large" is relative :-) They
look pretty dang big to me.

> They are just cut with
> lower bodyfat levels.
--
> Keith
>

ep

In article <fabrh.3084$bp4.1396@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:

> You and tsnyder are the perfect contrast to demonstrate how you can both be
> "right," depending on the individual person's goals:
>
> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-4098D4.14100516012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > Simply put - they have good strength endurance,
>
> Right. I see what you mean.
>
> > but as strength athletes
> > the typical marine would suck big time. As speed/strength athletes -
> > probably even worse. For a strength or speed/strength athlete to be
> > world class you don't run if you can walk and you don't walk if you can
> > ride.
>
> Makes total sense. These big ole monsters we see at strength competitions
> don't give a rat's ass, I daresay, about how fast they can run.
>
> > Put another way, I doubt if there is one marine coming out of basic
> > training who can squat 600+ or clean and jerk 300+.
>
> Right, I agree. My understanding is that after *basic* you're very lean and
> the strength phase of training has not even started. But even after "phase
> 2" strength-training, I'll bet most marines still wouldn't be terribly
> competitive at strength competitions, because they have to maintain some
> other skills, like speed, endurance, etc., about which a strength competitor
> doesn't give a rat's ass.
>
> > OTOH - you can look good and get in great shape by doing
> > strength/endurance type training.
>
> And I think that's what most of the newbies we see here, asking about this
> issue, want as their goal. And I think tsnyder's post addresses that
> particular goal.
>
> > Remember that hypertrophy tends to get
> > maxed by working more strength/endurance. OTOH you are really not seeing
> > too many marines with huge necks and large arms.
>
> I'm going to disagree with you there. Maybe "large" is relative :-) They
> look pretty dang big to me.

I guess it is relative. And of course they are adapted for what they
have to do. I wouldn't want one of them big ol' weightlifters out on
patrol in Iraq either.

--
Keith

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:43:21 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
<edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:

>I have tried for a moment to find my own post and somebody else's reply to
>it on this subject, but, hey, I have a life, so I'm starting a new thread.
>The gist of the exchange was that an OP wanted to both run and get big arms,
>or something like that. I said it was do-able, and that I had had good luck
>with running and lifting in the past. (Though I've never had big biceps,
>the combination of running and lifting gave me about the best-looking body
>I've ever had). Somebody else replied that my success with such a routine
>was probably not the norm, and I probably, basically, had the right genes or
>whatever to get strong and lean.

He posted the question twice. Ignored him the second time since he
didn't bother to answer any of my questions the first time out. I was
doing cardio and lifting and my arms still grew enough that other gym
members where jealous. Some of that may have been my "newbie" gains.

>I've been thinking about that. Now, granted, simultaneous cardio and
>strength-training do tend to work at cross purposes, and I myself tend to
>alternate the two emphases from month to month. But I'm no mutant, as far
>as getting lucky with the genes or whatever.
>
>And it occurs to me that all those soldiers and Marines I see on the news
>are not mutants either. I love seeing pictures of American troops; they
>make the actors who play soldier on TV and in the movies look like such
>sissies. Necks bigger than their heads, etc. Just regular, American-fed,
>American boys (and girls, though I don't see them as often on the news).
>
>So how did they get that way? My understanding is that basic training
>includes a lot of running and calisthenics, to the point where new recruits
>lose a lot of weight and develop stamina. *After* basic training comes the
>strength training. So, it's basically, lean down, then bulk up. And, mind
>you, these guys can still run circles around the average, fit civilian, even
>if their arms are bigger than my thighs.
>
>It occurs to me that the military has priorities besides making pretty
>bodies, but maybe this lean-then-bulk paradigm is the best paradigm for
>folks who want to run and bulk? And why do all these various (and often
>dumb) websites say stuff about "don't do cardio" if you want to lift? What
>if you actually just plain *want* to do both? This running-and-lifting
>issue seems to come up from newbies a lot around here. Thoughts?
>
>ep
>(procrastinating getting back to work)

The military training is geared toward endurance. They need to be
able to climb a wall or carry someone on their shoulders. They need
to march long miles with heavy backpacks or run very fast. They
necessarily need to pick up something really heavy without the help of
other soldiers. So basically they need to get the most out of what
they already have. There is also some natural selection going on.
Those that don't make the cut can't become soldiers. I worked with a
guy who returned a few weeks after joining because he had asthma.

I get the impression that most people in this group and even most
weight lifters have a negative impression of cardio. They think all
their muscles are going to waist away until they look like one of
those marathon runners from Africa. I personally think it goes very
well with weightlifting. I tried stopping for 1 1/2 months and I
gained 2% bodyfat. On top of that I felt like crap all the time.

I think one important question is how much cardio do you need. The
false impressions from cardio may come from people doing way too much
or not enough. I found this article very useful:
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/betteru23.htm
It is from bodybuilding.com so that should piss of will, bully, and
JMW. They break the "How much cardio?" question down into key
factors. Most of the cardio figures thrown out there are by people
who don't lift weights and run at a low intensity.

Another key factor is timing of the cardio. I may have gotten better
results because I ran after I was done lifting weights. Then I sat
down to have my dinner within an hour later. I have seen a few
articles suggesting to run after the workout or in the morning before
breakfast. In both those scenarios you are carb depleted.

Yet another key factor may be a persons diet. I always ran cardio
without starving myself. I just cut the junk out of my diet but I
didn't try to live off only a few calories a day. By keeping my
calorie intake the same I may be increasing my resting metabolism.
Whereas cutting calories may actually lower it. The resting
metabolism occurs throughout most of the day and can account for a lot
of calories burned. I think eating post workout is the most
important meal there is. Cut back on that meal and you can definitely
limit your gains.

I think people also forget that weights are the only thing that can
make a person stronger or bigger. I know I said in other threads I
hadn't lost much muscle in the 20 years I didn't lift. I was thinking
about that after writing it. It maybe possible I put on muscle in my
early twenties just from doing heavy manually labor. Or I just put on
muscle when I added bodyfat. Or maybe that is just natural for men to
keep filling out through their 20's if they are active. Men where
putting on muscle long before weights where invented.

On 16 Jan 2007 11:40:19 -0800, tsnyder91@gmail.com wrote:

>The benefits of running/cardio exercise are way to good to go as far as
>say don't do it at all. I've always believed that you need to build
>your wind first before you start pumping the iron. I guess it depends
>on what you want though. I want functional fitness, ability not get
>winded etc and still be bulky. If you cut out cardio to minimal or
>nothing I would thing you would get bulky but your usefullness stamina
>wise would be bad. To me it makes sense to build your hearts ability
>to be more efficient so it can actually power the muscles you build
>when they are put to moderate use. Nothing like a tweated out car with
>racing slicks powered by a lawn mower engine.

I don't know how anti-cardio concept came about. People think all
their muscle is going to waste away if they do cardio. Maybe there
are just some lazy people propagating this belief.

I remember reading a book about Arnold Schwarzenegger as a kid. He
claimed to do cardio twice a week on his off days. His favorite was
running through the woods while jumping over logs and dodging trees.

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-A3DEDC.16090216012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <fabrh.3084$bp4.1396@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>
>> You and tsnyder are the perfect contrast to demonstrate how you can both
>> be
>> "right," depending on the individual person's goals:
>>
>> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:khobman800-4098D4.14100516012007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> > Simply put - they have good strength endurance,
>>
>> Right. I see what you mean.
>>
>> > but as strength athletes
>> > the typical marine would suck big time. As speed/strength athletes -
>> > probably even worse. For a strength or speed/strength athlete to be
>> > world class you don't run if you can walk and you don't walk if you can
>> > ride.
>>
>> Makes total sense. These big ole monsters we see at strength
>> competitions
>> don't give a rat's ass, I daresay, about how fast they can run.
>>
>> > Put another way, I doubt if there is one marine coming out of basic
>> > training who can squat 600+ or clean and jerk 300+.
>>
>> Right, I agree. My understanding is that after *basic* you're very lean
>> and
>> the strength phase of training has not even started. But even after
>> "phase
>> 2" strength-training, I'll bet most marines still wouldn't be terribly
>> competitive at strength competitions, because they have to maintain some
>> other skills, like speed, endurance, etc., about which a strength
>> competitor
>> doesn't give a rat's ass.
>>
>> > OTOH - you can look good and get in great shape by doing
>> > strength/endurance type training.
>>
>> And I think that's what most of the newbies we see here, asking about
>> this
>> issue, want as their goal. And I think tsnyder's post addresses that
>> particular goal.
>>
>> > Remember that hypertrophy tends to get
>> > maxed by working more strength/endurance. OTOH you are really not
>> > seeing
>> > too many marines with huge necks and large arms.
>>
>> I'm going to disagree with you there. Maybe "large" is relative :-)
>> They
>> look pretty dang big to me.
>
> I guess it is relative. And of course they are adapted for what they
> have to do. I wouldn't want one of them big ol' weightlifters out on
> patrol in Iraq either.

I dunno. The shock-and-awe value might be significant.

>
> --
> Keith

"Shute" <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:d3iqq2d0safeo47bcq6fb8v14uj1c9grs7@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:43:21 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
> I get the impression that most people in this group and even most
> weight lifters have a negative impression of cardio.

To the extent somebody wants to lift or body-build competitively, cardio is
not going to be part of the training, right?

> They think all
> their muscles are going to waist away until they look like one of
> those marathon runners from Africa. I personally think it goes very
> well with weightlifting.

Well, it does tend to work at cross-purposes, too. If you do cardio for,
what, longer than 20 minutes? -- you may be getting into an area where you
may be "burning" some muscle, right?

> I tried stopping for 1 1/2 months and I
> gained 2% bodyfat. On top of that I felt like crap all the time.

Yeah, the look-good/feel-good effect of cardio is probably not something the
competitive power-lifter is going to be experiencing during training and
competition.

> I think one important question is how much cardio do you need. The
> false impressions from cardio may come from people doing way too much
> or not enough. I found this article very useful:
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/betteru23.htm
> It is from bodybuilding.com so that should piss of will, bully, and
> JMW. They break the "How much cardio?" question down into key
> factors. Most of the cardio figures thrown out there are by people
> who don't lift weights and run at a low intensity.
>
> Another key factor is timing of the cardio. I may have gotten better
> results because I ran after I was done lifting weights. Then I sat
> down to have my dinner within an hour later. I have seen a few
> articles suggesting to run after the workout or in the morning before
> breakfast. In both those scenarios you are carb depleted.

And you're suggesting that's a good thing? It seems to me you'd be burning
muscle while you run?

That gets back to my initial question about "basic training" and how
efficient it is to just cardio the heck out of yourself (like boot camp)
before starting on lifting. Personally, on this latest training effort of
mine, I did the reverse: I started with weights for a few weeks before I
got serious about cardio, but I was *really* weak and sickly when I started
back in October.

> Yet another key factor may be a persons diet. I always ran cardio
> without starving myself.

Oh absolutely; I think you have to eat right if you're serious about
training for results.

> I just cut the junk out of my diet but I
> didn't try to live off only a few calories a day. By keeping my
> calorie intake the same I may be increasing my resting metabolism.
> Whereas cutting calories may actually lower it. The resting
> metabolism occurs throughout most of the day and can account for a lot
> of calories burned. I think eating post workout is the most
> important meal there is.

I'm glad to hear you say that. I have always operated on that assumption.
Sometimes I go hungry after a workout with the intention of "confusing" my
body -- it really does seem to help my results if I stay out of a rut, but
it's probably pointless to skip my post-work-out meal.

> Cut back on that meal and you can definitely
> limit your gains.
>
> I think people also forget that weights are the only thing that can
> make a person stronger or bigger.

It astonishes me that some people really do not seem to know this. I mean,
is there any debate about the issue? Not that I know of. Sure, walking is
going to make you stronger if you're weak, but only to the extent that it is
a resistance (in this case, weight-bearing) exercise, and the benefits are
going to max out verrrrreeee quickly. Gotta have weights.

> I know I said in other threads I
> hadn't lost much muscle in the 20 years I didn't lift. I was thinking
> about that after writing it. It maybe possible I put on muscle in my
> early twenties just from doing heavy manually labor. Or I just put on
> muscle when I added bodyfat. Or maybe that is just natural for men to
> keep filling out through their 20's if they are active. Men were
> putting on muscle long before weights where invented.

The older I get the more I realize how lucky the young are when it comes to
muscle, fat, skin, and bone. But, really, I'm not progressing strength-wise
any more slowly than I did when I was younger. Contrary to what some people
have warned me about. (Sissy nay-sayers, all.)

ep

In news:d3iqq2d0safeo47bcq6fb8v14uj1c9grs7@4ax.com,
Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> typed:

[...]

> I think one important question is how much cardio do you need. The
> false impressions from cardio may come from people doing way too much
> or not enough. I found this article very useful:
> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/betteru23.htm
> It is from bodybuilding.com so that should piss of will, bully, and
> JMW.

Have I ever said I have a problem with bodybuilding.com? Although that
article that you reference is pretty worthless.
Q: how much cardio?
A: blah, blah, body type, blah,blah. Conclusion: it depends.

> They break the "How much cardio?" question down into key
> factors. Most of the cardio figures thrown out there are by people
> who don't lift weights and run at a low intensity.

Ask me. I lift heavy weights and do very high-intesity cardio.

> Another key factor is timing of the cardio. I may have gotten better
> results because I ran after I was done lifting weights. Then I sat
> down to have my dinner within an hour later. I have seen a few
> articles suggesting to run after the workout or in the morning before
> breakfast. In both those scenarios you are carb depleted.

What's your point about being carb depleted, if in fact you are?

[...]

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

In news:nQcrh.3089$bp4.1629@bignews4.bellsouth.net,
Edna Pearl <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> typed:
> "Shute" <Shute@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:d3iqq2d0safeo47bcq6fb8v14uj1c9grs7@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 12:43:21 -0600, "Edna Pearl"
>> I get the impression that most people in this group and even most
>> weight lifters have a negative impression of cardio.
>
> To the extent somebody wants to lift or body-build competitively,
> cardio is not going to be part of the training, right?

Wrong!

>
>> They think all
>> their muscles are going to waist away until they look like one of
>> those marathon runners from Africa. I personally think it goes very
>> well with weightlifting.
>
> Well, it does tend to work at cross-purposes, too. If you do cardio
> for, what, longer than 20 minutes? -- you may be getting into an area
> where you may be "burning" some muscle, right?

Wrong!

>
>> I tried stopping for 1 1/2 months and I
>> gained 2% bodyfat. On top of that I felt like crap all the time.
>
> Yeah, the look-good/feel-good effect of cardio is probably not
> something the competitive power-lifter is going to be experiencing
> during training and competition.

Of course, they're hardly likely to raise their heart rate much lifting
those big old heavy weights, are they?

>
>> I think one important question is how much cardio do you need. The
>> false impressions from cardio may come from people doing way too much
>> or not enough. I found this article very useful:
>> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/betteru23.htm
>> It is from bodybuilding.com so that should piss of will, bully, and
>> JMW. They break the "How much cardio?" question down into key
>> factors. Most of the cardio figures thrown out there are by people
>> who don't lift weights and run at a low intensity.
>>
>> Another key factor is timing of the cardio. I may have gotten
>> better results because I ran after I was done lifting weights. Then
>> I sat down to have my dinner within an hour later. I have seen a few
>> articles suggesting to run after the workout or in the morning before
>> breakfast. In both those scenarios you are carb depleted.
>
> And you're suggesting that's a good thing? It seems to me you'd be
> burning muscle while you run?

Shute is sugggesting that you would be straight into fat-burning mode if you
are carb depleted.

[...]

>>
>> I think people also forget that weights are the only thing that can
>> make a person stronger or bigger.
>
> It astonishes me that some people really do not seem to know this. I
> mean, is there any debate about the issue? Not that I know of. Sure,
> walking is going to make you stronger if you're weak, but only
> to the extent that it is a resistance (in this case, weight-bearing)
> exercise, and the benefits are going to max out verrrrreeee quickly. Gotta
> have weights.

Shute and Edna make a great combo. Due to a typo[*], Shute states
completely the opposite of what he meant to say and Edna agreed!

* I'm giving Shute the benefit here.

[...]

--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

On Wed, 17 Jan 2007 06:12:47 -0000, "Bully"
<bully19@proteinbars.co.ok> wrote:

>In news:d3iqq2d0safeo47bcq6fb8v14uj1c9grs7@4ax.com,
>Shute <Shute@nowhere.com> typed:
>
>[...]
>
>> I think one important question is how much cardio do you need. The
>> false impressions from cardio may come from people doing way too much
>> or not enough. I found this article very useful:
>> http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/betteru23.htm
>> It is from bodybuilding.com so that should piss of will, bully, and
>> JMW.
>
>Have I ever said I have a problem with bodybuilding.com? Although that
>article that you reference is pretty worthless.
>Q: how much cardio?
>A: blah, blah, body type, blah,blah. Conclusion: it depends.
>
>> They break the "How much cardio?" question down into key
>> factors. Most of the cardio figures thrown out there are by people
>> who don't lift weights and run at a low intensity.
>
>Ask me. I lift heavy weights and do very high-intesity cardio.

That may be so, but *you* are not as other men, given that you are a
legend in your own mind!

>
>> Another key factor is timing of the cardio. I may have gotten better
>> results because I ran after I was done lifting weights. Then I sat
>> down to have my dinner within an hour later. I have seen a few
>> articles suggesting to run after the workout or in the morning before
>> breakfast. In both those scenarios you are carb depleted.
>
>What's your point about being carb depleted, if in fact you are?
>

Why?

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> schreef:

> And it occurs to me that all those soldiers and Marines I see on the news
> are not mutants either. I love seeing pictures of American troops; they
> make the actors who play soldier on TV and in the movies look like such
> sissies. Necks bigger than their heads, etc. Just regular, American-fed,
> American boys (and girls, though I don't see them as often on the news).

Regular fed?

I have my doubts.

Those pilots in B2 planes are not using sugar to help them stay focused.

The soldiers were using certain substances before the athletes did.

Testosterone is often used as an agression booster.

Several guys i spoke who attended the French "Foreign Army" all assured me
that they got shots with nandrolone.

> It occurs to me that the military has priorities besides making pretty
> bodies, but maybe this lean-then-bulk paradigm is the best paradigm for
> folks who want to run and bulk? And why do all these various (and often
> dumb) websites say stuff about "don't do cardio" if you want to lift?
> What if you actually just plain *want* to do both?

Did that when i was 23-24. Didnt gain mass or strength.

Started to make progress after i dumped the running. Gained about 20 pounds
within a few months, then bought a bike and rode it for about 30-45 min.
each day. Good results.

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:

> I guess it is relative. And of course they are adapted for what they
> have to do. I wouldn't want one of them big ol' weightlifters out on
> patrol in Iraq either.

Me neither.

The distances they would have to walk, combined with the bodyweight, would
it make it exteremely difficult for the body to keep temperature within
acceptable levels.

How about sending long distance runners?

The weigh about 140 pounds, long arms and legs, so the high temperatures
wont bother them. In fact, they are used to it when they run for 30 min-2
hours.

How much strength does it take to pull a trigger? And you sure as hell dont
need any body mass to absorb recoill from a .223. Or a .308.

Send the Ectomorphs to the fields, and let use "heavy guys" stay in the
headquarters, and think of new strategies.

Like sending long distanse runners. Whole new strategie

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink

"Shute" <Shute@nowhere.com> schreef:

> There is also some natural selection going on.

That one single sentence reminded me of T. Cruise and J. Nicholson.

"Did you, or did you not order the code red ?!?!?!"

"YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT I DID !!!!!"


"YOU FUCKED WITH THE WRONG MARINE !!!!!"

"I AM GOING TO RIP YOUR HEAD OFF AND PISS DOWN YOUR THROAT !!!!!"

I love that stuff. I say it all the time to my girlfriend.
After which she tappes me on the shoulder and give me one of them... pills.

To help me calm down.

> I get the impression that most people in this group and even most
> weight lifters have a negative impression of cardio. They think all
> their muscles are going to waist away until they look like one of
> those marathon runners from Africa.

Send them to Iraq.
They are used to both high temperatures and war.

> I personally think it goes very
> well with weightlifting. I tried stopping for 1 1/2 months and I
> gained 2% bodyfat. On top of that I felt like crap all the time.

Then you ate just a little too much.

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> schreef:

> Well, it does tend to work at cross-purposes, too. If you do cardio for,
> what, longer than 20 minutes? -- you may be getting into an area where you
> may be "burning" some muscle, right?

I think it takes at least 20 minutes to enter the fat burning zone.

>> I tried stopping for 1 1/2 months and I
>> gained 2% bodyfat. On top of that I felt like crap all the time.

> Yeah, the look-good/feel-good effect of cardio is probably not something
> the
> competitive power-lifter is going to be experiencing during training and
> competition.

I use multiple heavy sets as a mood enhancer. Works quite well.

>> Another key factor is timing of the cardio. I may have gotten better
>> results because I ran after I was done lifting weights. Then I sat
>> down to have my dinner within an hour later. I have seen a few
>> articles suggesting to run after the workout or in the morning before
>> breakfast. In both those scenarios you are carb depleted.

> And you're suggesting that's a good thing? It seems to me you'd be
> burning muscle while you run?

Or fat.

"I think people also forget that weights are *NOT* the only thing that can
make a person stronger or bigger."

Just guessing.

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink

In news:45adf858$0$302$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl,
Pete (New & Improved, Version 4.08a) <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> typed:
> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>> I guess it is relative. And of course they are adapted for what they
>> have to do. I wouldn't want one of them big ol' weightlifters out on
>> patrol in Iraq either.
>
> Me neither.
>
> The distances they would have to walk, combined with the bodyweight,
> would it make it exteremely difficult for the body to keep
> temperature within acceptable levels.
>
> How about sending long distance runners?

We already do. The Army takes yourg kids and turns them into long distance
runners through months/years of training over long distances!!!

> The weigh about 140 pounds, long arms and legs, so the high
> temperatures wont bother them. In fact, they are used to it when they
> run for 30 min-2 hours.
>
> How much strength does it take to pull a trigger? And you sure as
> hell dont need any body mass to absorb recoill from a .223. Or a .308.

Carrying all the kit might be problem!
>
> Send the Ectomorphs to the fields, and let use "heavy guys" stay in
> the headquarters, and think of new strategies.
>
> Like sending long distanse runners. Whole new strategie



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees
the opportunity in every difficulty." Sir Winston Churchill

"Pete (New & Improved, Version 4.08a)" <phoutstra@wanadoo.nl> wrote in
message news:45adfcd0$0$59529$dbd43001@news.wanadoo.nl...
> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> schreef:
>
>> Well, it does tend to work at cross-purposes, too. If you do cardio for,
>> what, longer than 20 minutes? -- you may be getting into an area where
>> you
>> may be "burning" some muscle, right?
>
> I think it takes at least 20 minutes to enter the fat burning zone.
>
>>> I tried stopping for 1 1/2 months and I
>>> gained 2% bodyfat. On top of that I felt like crap all the time.
>
>> Yeah, the look-good/feel-good effect of cardio is probably not something
>> the
>> competitive power-lifter is going to be experiencing during training and
>> competition.
>
> I use multiple heavy sets as a mood enhancer. Works quite well.

Sure, and I started to say something to that effect, but didn't. I can get
a great rush from lifting heavy. But it's a very different experience from
the sort of long-term floaty feeling I can get from cardio.

>>> Another key factor is timing of the cardio. I may have gotten better
>>> results because I ran after I was done lifting weights. Then I sat
>>> down to have my dinner within an hour later. I have seen a few
>>> articles suggesting to run after the workout or in the morning before
>>> breakfast. In both those scenarios you are carb depleted.
>
>> And you're suggesting that's a good thing? It seems to me you'd be
>> burning muscle while you run?
>
> Or fat.

Sure, but just to clarify, it's my understanding that it's easier for the
body to recruit energy from muscle than from fat. So at least some muscle
is likely to get burned. Which isn't a bad thing; it's a necessary trade
off if cardiovascular health and endurance are part of your training goals.
But if you're a competitive lifter, those things *aren't* a part of your
training goals, so you're not willing to make the trade-off.

I'm not arguing, I'm asking. Nattering on like this helps me clarify my own
thinking. And procrastinate on working. If I'm annoying anybody with this
shit, they certainly don't have to play along. Or they can flame the
daylights out of me for I care :-) I appreciate the dialogue though.

> "I think people also forget that weights are *NOT* the only thing that can
> make a person stronger or bigger."
>
> Just guessing.

Okay, so how can a person bulk up besides weights? (not that I personally
care about bulking up, but you seem to have something on your mind here, and
I guess I'm just curious :-)

ep

>
> --
> Pete, The New & Improved Version
>
> "Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
> Your turn dude" -- Will Brink
>
> "Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
> you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" --
> Will Brink
>

"Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote in message
news:519rh.3542$Oe2.860@bignews7.bellsouth.net...
>I have tried for a moment to find my own post and somebody else's reply
>to it on this subject, but, hey, I have a life, so I'm starting a new
>thread. The gist of the exchange was that an OP wanted to both run and
>get big arms, or something like that. I said it was do-able, and that
>I had had good luck with running and lifting in the past. (Though I've
>never had big biceps, the combination of running and lifting gave me
>about the best-looking body I've ever had). Somebody else replied that
>my success with such a routine was probably not the norm, and I
>probably, basically, had the right genes or whatever to get strong and
>lean.
>
> I've been thinking about that. Now, granted, simultaneous cardio and
> strength-training do tend to work at cross purposes, and I myself tend
> to alternate the two emphases from month to month. But I'm no mutant,
> as far as getting lucky with the genes or whatever.
>
> And it occurs to me that all those soldiers and Marines I see on the
> news are not mutants either. I love seeing pictures of American
> troops; they make the actors who play soldier on TV and in the movies
> look like such sissies. Necks bigger than their heads, etc. Just
> regular, American-fed, American boys (and girls, though I don't see
> them as often on the news).
>
> So how did they get that way? My understanding is that basic training
> includes a lot of running and calisthenics, to the point where new
> recruits lose a lot of weight and develop stamina. *After* basic
> training comes the strength training. So, it's basically, lean down,
> then bulk up. And, mind you, these guys can still run circles around
> the average, fit civilian, even if their arms are bigger than my
> thighs.
>
> It occurs to me that the military has priorities besides making pretty
> bodies, but maybe this lean-then-bulk paradigm is the best paradigm
> for folks who want to run and bulk? And why do all these various (and
> often dumb) websites say stuff about "don't do cardio" if you want to
> lift? What if you actually just plain *want* to do both? This
> running-and-lifting issue seems to come up from newbies a lot around
> here. Thoughts?
>
> ep
> (procrastinating getting back to work)

Let's not forget age in this equation. I could do a lot more 10 or 20
or 30 years ago than I can now, and 30 years ago I was still older than
most of those soldiers you're talking about. My own experience has been
that cardio of is ever-lessening value, and strength and
strength/endurance training of ever-increasing value as I get older.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

I was in Army infantry, and basic training had me doing aerobics and
calisthenics while feeding me, what, 5K calories a day, and I was
stronger, faster, and lighter than ever.

So yes, it does work, but the military men you saw most likely also
worked out at the gym.

We also had "natural" fat-bodies in the military, so looks truly aren't
everything. I know 'cause I lost a race to a sailor who looked like
the Philsbury Doughboy!

I ran a year of track in high school and did two years of tae kwon do
when even younger, so maybe I was "prepped" to be physically fit by the
time I saw service, but I was never a jock, so...what I'm saying is, I
don't know where the bulk-or-lean (either/or) mentality comes from. I
mean, it's said that there are scientific studies proving that it's
very difficult, but it sure worked for me in the military!

Another thing about the infantry: oftentimes, out in the field, folks
lost weight and maybe muscle mass (manuvers can be like for a whole
month -- though not having a shower in all that time is probably more
onerous), but once back in garrison, folks hit the gym and the pizza
parlor, etc., so maybe it is just doing the lean-then-bulk program
naturally, without realizing it....

Anyway, I don't think it's something to really worry about. My advice
to newbies is to always just do the work; if you have time to dabble in
"magic formulae" you're not busy enough (lifting)! Anyone who "works
out honestly" knows in his very bones that s/he did good. My own
suspicion is that only athletes (or those who maintain training regimes
like them) benefit from such hair-splitting.



Edna Pearl wrote:
> I have tried for a moment to find my own post and somebody else's reply to
> it on this subject, but, hey, I have a life, so I'm starting a new thread.
> The gist of the exchange was that an OP wanted to both run and get big arms,
> or something like that. I said it was do-able, and that I had had good luck
> with running and lifting in the past. (Though I've never had big biceps,
> the combination of running and lifting gave me about the best-looking body
> I've ever had). Somebody else replied that my success with such a routine
> was probably not the norm, and I probably, basically, had the right genes or
> whatever to get strong and lean.
>
> I've been thinking about that. Now, granted, simultaneous cardio and
> strength-training do tend to work at cross purposes, and I myself tend to
> alternate the two emphases from month to month. But I'm no mutant, as far
> as getting lucky with the genes or whatever.
>
> And it occurs to me that all those soldiers and Marines I see on the news
> are not mutants either. I love seeing pictures of American troops; they
> make the actors who play soldier on TV and in the movies look like such
> sissies. Necks bigger than their heads, etc. Just regular, American-fed,
> American boys (and girls, though I don't see them as often on the news).
>
> So how did they get that way? My understanding is that basic training
> includes a lot of running and calisthenics, to the point where new recruits
> lose a lot of weight and develop stamina. *After* basic training comes the
> strength training. So, it's basically, lean down, then bulk up. And, mind
> you, these guys can still run circles around the average, fit civilian, even
> if their arms are bigger than my thighs.
>
> It occurs to me that the military has priorities besides making pretty
> bodies, but maybe this lean-then-bulk paradigm is the best paradigm for
> folks who want to run and bulk? And why do all these various (and often
> dumb) websites say stuff about "don't do cardio" if you want to lift? What
> if you actually just plain *want* to do both? This running-and-lifting
> issue seems to come up from newbies a lot around here. Thoughts?
>
> ep
> (procrastinating getting back to work)

Shute wrote:
>
>
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
>
>
> The military training is geared toward endurance. They need to be
> able to climb a wall or carry someone on their shoulders. They need
> to march long miles with heavy backpacks or run very fast. They
> necessarily need to pick up something really heavy without the help of
> other soldiers. So basically they need to get the most out of what
> they already have. There is also some natural selection going on.
> Those that don't make the cut can't become soldiers. I worked with a
> guy who returned a few weeks after joining because he had asthma.

Yes, their training is about endurance, but unless you're combat arms
(and then, infantry at that, really), the level of endurance required
isn't particularly high. For example, official Army fitness standards
require 42 push-ups in 2 minutes (unless they've changed it in the
decade since I was in last). Of course, elite outfits like
paratroopers and Rangers require substantially more (try seventy,
eighty, ninety reps), but the average soldier needs only enough
strength and endurance to pass minimal standards. Remember, they want
to retain as many people as they can. The "weeding out the weak" myth
is just that, a myth. In practice, they try to keep everyone in. They
want to get some use out of the person, after all.

IME, speed is the thing. Well, dedication, then smarts, then speed.
Strength and endurance is actually not a focus of training, but assumed
(as in, if you're dedicated enough, you'll either make sure you're
strong or, almost magically, your level of dedication translates into
strength [adrenaline, perhaps?]).

> I get the impression that most people in this group and even most
> weight lifters have a negative impression of cardio. They think all
> their muscles are going to waist away until they look like one of
> those marathon runners from Africa. I personally think it goes very
> well with weightlifting. I tried stopping for 1 1/2 months and I
> gained 2% bodyfat. On top of that I felt like crap all the time.

I get the impression that most here concur with cardio, whereas in the
gym (particularly college gyms, with its younger users), it's
considered anathema.

> <SNIP>

Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I was in Army infantry, and basic training had me doing aerobics and
> calisthenics while feeding me, what, 5K calories a day, and I was
> stronger, faster, and lighter than ever.

Hi, PRISONER!

How are you?
It's me, dz.

Do you have an identical twin whose last name rhymes with his first
name? (because of that, I recall, once ago, I figured that he's an
Asian, although he might have said that he has a classic body of an
ancient Greek sculpture).

dz

DZ <30531@972422701.1457311270.8709.26583.4315> wrote:

>Prisoner at War <prisoner_at_war@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I was in Army infantry, and basic training had me doing aerobics and
>> calisthenics while feeding me, what, 5K calories a day, and I was
>> stronger, faster, and lighter than ever.
>
>Hi, PRISONER!
>
>How are you?
>It's me, dz.
>
>Do you have an identical twin whose last name rhymes with his first
>name? (because of that, I recall, once ago, I figured that he's an
>Asian, although he might have said that he has a classic body of an
>ancient Greek sculpture).

Ah, a keen observation. I had not noticed. But once see the common
elements, it's as easy as XYZ!

What, you haven't died of AIDS yet?

See, I told you, AIDS is just a myth for faggots to feel self-important
over. Such drama queens!



DZ wrote:
>
>
> Hi, PRISONER!
>
> How are you?
> It's me, dz.
>
> Do you have an identical twin whose last name rhymes with his first
> name? (because of that, I recall, once ago, I figured that he's an
> Asian, although he might have said that he has a classic body of an
> ancient Greek sculpture).
>
> dz

The funny thing is that you really think yourself so clever, as if
you've discovered WMDs! I mean, geez, you can google, but can you
read??



JMW wrote:
>
>
> Ah, a keen observation. I had not noticed. But once see the common
> elements, it's as easy as XYZ!

Dnia 2007-01-16 tsnyder91@gmail.com napisa³(a):
> The benefits of running/cardio exercise are way to good to go as far as
> say don't do it at all. I've always believed that you need to build
> your wind first before you start pumping the iro