- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Study of Biggest Losers finds that the body wants and will fight to be Fat
Posted on 5/3/16 at 11:47 am to lsu777
Posted on 5/3/16 at 11:47 am to lsu777
quote:
You will not build a good physique nor be strong by running long distance. You will be wasting time on an inefficient exercise. Realize that although we are the best animal in the history of the world at running long distance, we evolved sprinting and killing food. Eating large meals and then going long times without really eating and only snacking on berries and the such. Again we put forth 100% effort, ate like a king and rested for long periods without eating. Sound familiar?
Surely much of what you write is hyperbole?
My perspective is that of a retired elite (not Olympic qual class) distance guy. I knew very few elite runners with 10% body fat. The old wisdom was every pound equaled 2 seconds a mile. I stayed as light as I could. In season I usually had 4% or so with 6-8% being the offseason norm. I refused to lift weights because I didn't want the muscle mass. This was an ignorant position.
As I aged I learned I needed to lift in order to counteract muscle imbalances caused by all the miles. In my 40's I lifted light weights for a couple of seasons. I raced about 5-8 lbs heavier and my 5k times improved by 15-20 seconds despite aging. So, I recommend doing both.
Beyond that I was always very strong for my size - more of a miler build than a marathoner. I would not discount aerobic fitness in calculating practical strength. I may not be able to throw a hay bale as many times as a weight lifter, but I believe I could move a lighter weight far longer because I never fatigued aerobically. But that's an opinion based on practical experience not research.
At the end of the day chicks dig muscles. Some like meat heads, some like lean runner types, BUT they all love the endurance of an aerobically fit guy. I just happen to believe running gets you there better than lifting.
2
Posted on 5/3/16 at 11:55 am to runningdog
quote:
I usually had 4% or so with 6-8% being the offseason norm.
You sure about that?
Posted on 5/3/16 at 12:08 pm to runningdog
quote:
Surely much of what you write is hyperbole?
My perspective is that of a retired elite (not Olympic qual class) distance guy. I knew very few elite runners with 10% body fat. The old wisdom was every pound equaled 2 seconds a mile. I stayed as light as I could. In season I usually had 4% or so with 6-8% being the offseason norm. I refused to lift weights because I didn't want the muscle mass. This was an ignorant position.
As I aged I learned I needed to lift in order to counteract muscle imbalances caused by all the miles. In my 40's I lifted light weights for a couple of seasons. I raced about 5-8 lbs heavier and my 5k times improved by 15-20 seconds despite aging. So, I recommend doing both.
Beyond that I was always very strong for my size - more of a miler build than a marathoner. I would not discount aerobic fitness in calculating practical strength. I may not be able to throw a hay bale as many times as a weight lifter, but I believe I could move a lighter weight far longer because I never fatigued aerobically. But that's an opinion based on practical experience not research.
At the end of the day chicks dig muscles. Some like meat heads, some like lean runner types, BUT they all love the endurance of an aerobically fit guy. I just happen to believe running gets you there better than lifting.
please tell me one thing I was wrong about. Sure I can be a real arse sometimes and was with the whole "pussies" comment but nothing I said was wrong. In fact every single thing I said can be backed up by science and real world case studies.
quote:
At the end of the day chicks dig muscles. Some like meat heads, some like lean runner types, BUT they all love the endurance of an aerobically fit guy. I just happen to believe running gets you there better than lifting.
thats fine you believe this, but the data does not back this up at all.
quote:
My perspective is that of a retired elite (not Olympic qual class) distance guy. I knew very few elite runners with 10% body fat. The old wisdom was every pound equaled 2 seconds a mile. I stayed as light as I could. In season I usually had 4% or so with 6-8% being the offseason norm. I refused to lift weights because I didn't want the muscle mass. This was an ignorant position.
you were not 4%. Bodybuilders are 4% when on stage. This significantly effects performance and if for some reason you were that low, well then you aren't a very smart runner. You might have thought you were that low, but you were not.
4% is so rare its not even funny. Hell most bodybuilders are more than this on stage. A true 4% is a unicorn especially in natural trainies.
Now the 6-8% is absolutely within the norm. But I stand by my statement that despite having low bf% the vast majority of long distance runners have to muscle tone and are not muscular at all. atleast imo. But if you think 155% @ 6' while being 6% bf is muscular than we will never agree.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News