Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions...

"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse.TakeThisOut@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5dd8e.erq.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2005-04-08, Kevin J. Coolidge <kcool.TakeThisOut@epix.net> wrote:
>
>> not weight training for lower body is going to affect lower body
>> muscularity
>> and upper body as well, though there's no need for workouts longer than
>> an
>> hour. My leg day is actually only 45 minutes, and it's enough. I do speed
>> training, specifically sprints. They are anaerobic and great for calves
>> and
>> hams. They don't do much for my quads. Sprints up hills should be good
>> for
>> glutes and quads, but I'd rather do squats.
>
> They might make those muscles feel sore, but they're not going to induce
> much
> hypertrophy. There are a lot of guys who "sprint" uphill a hell of a lot
> faster
> than you, and have thin legs.
>
>> I do sleep the 8 hours a night,
>> but I don't watch much tv or party much anymore. If you are only working
>> 8
>> hour days, I would think that possible, more and it gets harder. It isn't
>> always easy to do, but I manage most of the time. I hate jogging and I
>> think
>> that's hard on my knees, though sprints aren't
>
> Keep believing that if it makes you feel better, but it's not true. What
> you're
> calling "sprinting" is more likely to cause injury than what you're
> calling
> "jogging". The type of injury you'll get from this is *different*, but no
> less
> of a concern.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Look at sprinters, best hamstring development of any professional
athlete(yes, better than most bodybuilders too) and among the best for
calves
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

"Google Beta User" <majiin99.TakeThisOut@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1112978067.930565.271170@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> << not weight training for lower body is going to affect lower body
> muscularity
> and upper body as well, though there's no need for workouts longer than
> an
> hour.>>
>
> It's hard not to go over an hour when you take into account stretching.
> And unfortunately, sometimes there are too many people (yes, I go to
> Bally's). I'll try and start doing the 6 am thingy. Hey, I'll try.
>
> << My leg day is actually only 45 minutes, and it's enough. I do speed
> training, specifically sprints. They are anaerobic and great for calves
> and
> hams. They don't do much for my quads. Sprints up hills should be good
> for
> glutes and quads, but I'd rather do squats. I do sleep the 8 hours a
> night,
> but I don't watch much tv or party much anymore. If you are only
> working 8
> hour days, I would think that possible, more and it gets harder. It
> isn't
> always easy to do, but I manage most of the time.>>
>
> No offense, but I find it hard to have a profesional and social life
> PLUS some personal time and still find 8 hours a night to sleep.
>
> << I hate jogging and I think that's hard on my knees, though sprints
> aren't >>
>
> Do sprints/hills burn fat calories like running even though it's
> anaerobic?
>
> << I feel that hitting the big muscle groups once a week is enough like
> back, chest etc, but I like to hit my arms once directly and once
> indirectly. I don't know why you would train traps unless you are a
> specific strength athlete, such as a thrower or strongman competitor.
>>>
>
> Eh. It's just that if I'm working out my shoulders I might as well
> develop the traps too. I don't want to have that "look" in which only
> my chest and biceps are puffed up.
>
> << If you do heavy deadlifts or cleans, you can save time.>>
>
> Are deadlifts a back or a hamstring exercise?
>
> << I work out 4 times a week in the wt. room. about an hour. >>
>
> Mind posting your routines?
>
> << Oh, stretching before lifting is a waste of time and
> can limit strength. Warming up is a waste too. >>
>
> Saywha?? Seriously, that's the FIRST time I've heard that.

Deadlifts are great for back and hams. Actually, the work almost everything
except the pushing muscles like chest and tri and delts. They work rear
delts. Look up on stretching and warmup, or read Pavel. I don't warm up
anymore, I stretch between my sets to save time.
My routine
Day 1 Back and shoulder
day 2 chest and hams
day 3 quads and abs
day 4 arms, forearms, grip work

I do 3 to 4 times a week. I like to do tue and wed , fri sat. But there's
nothing that says you have to work it in the same 7 day period. The week is
a manmade concept, not your body's.
>
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

"Google Beta User" <majiin99.RemoveThis@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1112980130.618736.297970@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>>> 6 - Is giving up squats harmful?
>>
>>Yes, why not decrease the volume and just work on getting them
> stronger
>
> Hmm, let me modify for squats:
>
>> So my new routine would be:
>> M - Chest (8 sets) Tue - Lat (8 sets)
>> Thu - Traps (3 sets) Fri - Bis (3 sets)
>> Delts (3 sets) Tris(3 sets)
>
> How about adding 3 sets each of squats and calves on the 6 set days?
>
> Remember, my goal is to be in and out of the gym. Idealy Go in at 8.30
> p.m, stretch until 8:45, lift, stretch at 9:15, and then be OFF of the
> gym floor by 9:30....
so you are going to do 8 sets of chest in a week......how does that break
down?
" " lats..

Have you looked into abbreviated routines with more frequency?
What is your ultimate goal? Hypertrophy or strength gains? maybe primary
goal?
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

In rec.sport.football.college Google Beta User <majiin99.DeleteThis@cs.com> wrote:
> Hi.
>
> I'm considering giving up lower body weight training. I just need to
> find a way to keep myself motivated...I defintely do not want to be in
> the gym for more than 75 minutes per session (including pre and post
> workout stretching) nor do I want to have to go the gym for anything
> more than four days a week.
>
> I'm hoping doing something like hills, can work out my calves and quads
> well enough.
>
> Goal: Maintain lean mass.
> Lifestyle: 23 male, 185, 5'10".
>
> So my new routine would be:
> M - Chest (8 sets) Tue - Lat (8 sets)
> Thu - Traps (3 sets) Fri - Bis (3 sets)
> Delts (3 sets) Tris(3 sets)
>
> I'll throw in abs and 30 minute running sessions randomly.
>
> Thots:
>
> 1 - Is hitting one muscle group once a week enough?
>

YMMV. I find that my strength backslides if I only do a particular muscle
group once in a week. So, I go for two. One day I'll go heavy/few reps.
Then two to three days later (I never work the same muscle group with less
than 48 hours of rest), I'll go light/many reps.

Also, for a single muscle group, I will do a variety of movements, week-to-week.
For chest, one week on Monday I'll five sets of twelve reps of incline bench barbell,
followed on Thursday by three sets decline, five sets flat bench pyramid/set of negatives/
one set low-weight rep-out/negative on last rep, three sets incline bench. Next week,
I'll come back to do the same things, but with dumbells, then the following week,
I'll incorporate flies and maybe do some supersets. Variety is the spice of life.

>
> 2 - Is running really bad for your knees? I am defintely NOT doing any
> step machine or treadmill. That drives me nuts, I've got to be on the
> road to do my running. Two of my friends have given up running and
> switched to biking and swimming, because they said they were worried
> about their knees. My argument is that they're probably using shitty
> running shoes. I think running shoes are one of the things where you
> actually get what you pay for. A $120 shoe IS worth it.
>

Yes it is. Worth every penny, and then some.

>
> 3 - Does anyone actually get the recommended 8 hours of sleep? I find
> it impossible to do so in the modern world, what with 8 hour work
> weeks? 5-6 hours seems much more realistic.
>

Unfortunately, yes. Gotta have some downtime there somewhere, though.

> 4 - Are abs 'special' muscles that can be trained at will, or should
> they be treated like any other body part and worked out in regular sets
> infrequently?
>

You can do abs/forearms/calves every day.

>
> 5 - Are hills, or speed training (i.e. intervals) anaerobic or aerobic?
>

Anaerobic. If you can do hills/sprints two/three times a week, you will
get all the cardio you need.

>
> 6 - Is giving up squats harmful?
>

Depends. If you are doing a lot of running with upperbody weightlifting,
probably not. But its such a useful exercise, as it affects a *lot* of
muscles. Same with dead-lifts.

Try this workout sometime: set up two bars - one for squat/deadlift, one
for benchpress - with about 30-40% of your max lifting weights for both
movements. Then:
set of 10 deadlifts/squats, followed *immediately* by
set of 10 benchpresses, followed by
one minute rest, then
repeat five or six times.
You may need a spotter on your last set of benchpresses. And you will be
gasping for breath.

One thing I've learned the hard way is that its very easy to ignore core
back muscles. These are small muscles that run along the spine. While we
are pushing around all these big weights with squats and presses and such,
these little guys quietly do their work of supporting the back and spine.
Well, quietly most of the time. Eventually, especially with us old guys,
they tend to get sore and inflamed. Then they do unsportsman like things
like rubbing up against nerves, which causes all sorts of pain, which can
travel down your legs and feet. Don't neglect these muscles. They don't
require much attention, but they do require some attention. Some simple
stretches (lower back and hamstring in particular), and some weight-free
exercises (bridges, for example) is all it takes.

--Lee
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

2 - Is running really bad for your knees? I am defintely NOT doing any
step machine or treadmill. That drives me nuts, I've got to be on the
road to do my running. Two of my friends have given up running and
switched to biking and swimming, because they said they were worried
about their knees. My argument is that they're probably using shitty
running shoes. I think running shoes are one of the things where you
actually get what you pay for. A $120 shoe IS worth it.

Running is not bad for knee...except maybe for older people who has
previous knee problem or injuries. Other factor could be the shoes they
used for running. Running shoe is diffrent with cross-trekking shoe,
etc. i recommend you to look for Nike running shoe. probably the best
in market so far
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

On 2005-04-08, Kevin J. Coolidge <kcool RemoveThis @epix.net> wrote:

> calories burned is a moot point. It's excercises affect on your hormonal
> profile that has the big effect. Endurance excercise is fine if you like it,
> but short, intense excercise like sprints and weight lifting does fat loss
> better

Not true, at least not at the level of generality you're stating it.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

On 2005-04-08, Kevin J. Coolidge <kcool.DeleteThis@epix.net> wrote:

> Look at sprinters, best hamstring development of any professional
> athlete(yes, better than most bodybuilders too)

You can't infer causality from observation.

Look at basketball players. Tallest of most or all pro athletes.
Look at swimmers. Biggest feet of most or all pro athletes.

Why do top sprinters have good hamstring development ? There are a number of
possible explanations besides their sprint training.

Because of exceptional genetics ?
Because of the other training they do (such as heavy squats, and powercleans ?)
Because it's impossible to be really fast without very strong hamstrings ?

> and among the best for calves

Not true. Most of them have very high muscle bellies (not "full" muscles). But
this is genetic, and the reason they're like this is because it's a
biomechanical advantage (it means the lower leg has less torque). And most of
them don't have very big calves.

Take a look at Crawford's calves, compared with his upper body in this pic:

http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/050113/3/8gri.html

Crawford's upper body development is very impressive, but his calves aren't
exactly stunning.

This one has a better shot of Gatlin (and Crawford again) so you can see how
huge his calves are.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5788383/

Not saying they're terrible, but they wouldn't hold up terribly well in a
bodybuilding comp.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5dm4c.gdv.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2005-04-08, Kevin J. Coolidge <kcool RemoveThis @epix.net> wrote:
>
>> Look at sprinters, best hamstring development of any professional
>> athlete(yes, better than most bodybuilders too)
>
> You can't infer causality from observation.
>
> Look at basketball players. Tallest of most or all pro athletes.
> Look at swimmers. Biggest feet of most or all pro athletes.
>
> Why do top sprinters have good hamstring development ? There are a number
> of
> possible explanations besides their sprint training.
>
> Because of exceptional genetics ?
> Because of the other training they do (such as heavy squats, and
> powercleans ?)
> Because it's impossible to be really fast without very strong hamstrings ?
>
>> and among the best for calves
>
> Not true. Most of them have very high muscle bellies (not "full" muscles).
> But
> this is genetic, and the reason they're like this is because it's a
> biomechanical advantage (it means the lower leg has less torque). And
> most of
> them don't have very big calves.
>
> Take a look at Crawford's calves, compared with his upper body in this
> pic:
>
> http://uk.sports.yahoo.com/050113/3/8gri.html
>
> Crawford's upper body development is very impressive, but his calves
> aren't
> exactly stunning.
>
> This one has a better shot of Gatlin (and Crawford again) so you can see
> how
> huge his calves are.
>
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5788383/
>
> Not saying they're terrible, but they wouldn't hold up terribly well in a
> bodybuilding comp.
>
> Cheers,
> --
> Donovan Rebbechi
> http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

On the other hand, you're talking about appearance, and he was
just asking for strength. Unless you're a body builder, having
huge muscles is at best of secondary importance, whereas
strength is important for almost all sports and alot of other
areas of daily life. And though having huge muscles will definitely
mean you're strong, you can also become very strong without
huge muscles (look at olympic level wrestlers or weight lifters
in everything but the openweight divisions...well muscled,
but none of them are "huge").

-JS2
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

On 2005-04-08, Google Beta User <wanyikuli.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

> When I do deadlifts, I don't FEEL like they do anything, other than I
> kind of have to concentrate on keeping balance and on form. (I do all
> my reps one-two up, one-two down). Maybe I do them too light.

You don't feel deadlifts in any particular muscle -- the effort is more
distributed and less localised, which is generally the case with compound
movements. The localised muscle burn sensation has nothing to do with
effectiveness of an exercise though. Compound movements don't always provide
as much "burn" but that doesn't make them any less effective.

> movements. Then:
> set of 10 deadlifts/squats, followed *immediately* by
> set of 10 benchpresses, followed by
> one minute rest, then
> repeat five or six times.
> You may need a spotter on your last set of benchpresses. And you will
> be
> gasping for breath. >>
>
> That's cool...but does it fit in with my goals?

It will help you stay strong (a goal), and it is very time efficient (another
goal). Because it has a cardiovascular component, it helps you maintain a
good level of general fitness (another of your stated goals).

> More and more according to the advice in this thread, it seems like
> compound movements are the way to go.

Yes, because they are much more time efficient.

> Question: Is there a difference
> (in muscles worked) between a full military press* and a power clean?
> I'm trying to get something that will hit my traps hard.

Yes. The power clean will work several muscles including almost everything
below the waist, core stabilisers, "pulling" muscles in the upper body as
well as traps.

Miltary press mostly recruits "pushing muscles" in upper body but also core
stabilisers if you do it standing, and possibly antagonists if you do it
explosively with a light weight.

Both are good exercises.

I find barbell presses put shoulders in a very awkward position, so I prefer
dumbells. YMMV.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

"Google Beta User" <majiin99.RemoveThis@cs.com> wrote in message
news:1112976251.397798.200170@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi.
>
> I'm considering giving up lower body weight training. I just need to
> find a way to keep myself motivated...I defintely do not want to be in
> the gym for more than 75 minutes per session (including pre and post
> workout stretching) nor do I want to have to go the gym for anything
> more than four days a week.
>
> I'm hoping doing something like hills, can work out my calves and quads
> well enough.
>
> Goal: Maintain lean mass.
> Lifestyle: 23 male, 185, 5'10".
>
> So my new routine would be:
> M - Chest (8 sets) Tue - Lat (8 sets)
> Thu - Traps (3 sets) Fri - Bis (3 sets)
> Delts (3 sets) Tris(3 sets)
>
> I'll throw in abs and 30 minute running sessions randomly.

Thoughts, coming from the perspective of one who lifts weights because it
helps with rowing:

If you want to cut down gym time, then there are better things to drop than
leg weights. There's no need to do 8 sets of chest work, or lats (back?)
work. Furthermore, chest exercises will probably cover triceps too, back
exercises will probably cover biceps, and your delts and traps will get some
work too. So drop some of that work. Your legs are important.

> 1 - Is hitting one muscle group once a week enough?

Will probably be enough to keep strength up, assuming you're not
super-strong now. It'd cause me to be sore all the time, though, whereas 2
or 3 full-body sessions a week doesn't.

> 2 - Is running really bad for your knees? I am defintely NOT doing any
> step machine or treadmill. That drives me nuts, I've got to be on the
> road to do my running. Two of my friends have given up running and
> switched to biking and swimming, because they said they were worried
> about their knees. My argument is that they're probably using shitty
> running shoes. I think running shoes are one of the things where you
> actually get what you pay for. A $120 shoe IS worth it.

Yes, running is bad for your knees, to some extent. But good shoes will
minimise that, not being overweight will help (you don't say whether you're
185lbs of pure muscle or whether there's a bit of fat in there too, but for
a runner you are fairly heavy). In any case, if your knees aren't causing
problems now, then you probably don't need to worry now. For what it's
worth, road running (hard surface) is going to be less kind to your knees
than running on grass.

> 3 - Does anyone actually get the recommended 8 hours of sleep? I find
> it impossible to do so in the modern world, what with 8 hour work
> weeks? 5-6 hours seems much more realistic.

I try to, I usually don't manage either. If you're tired all the time, then
find a way to get more sleep.

> 4 - Are abs 'special' muscles that can be trained at will, or should
> they be treated like any other body part and worked out in regular sets
> infrequently?

You probably will get a fair bit of core work done with your squats and
deadlifts; but abs are just muscles, yes.

> 5 - Are hills, or speed training (i.e. intervals) anaerobic or aerobic?

Mixture. If you do short intervals with lots of rest, then it's mainly
anaerobic; if you're doing say 20s on, 2' off, then you won't work your
aerobic systems much. If you do longer intervals, or shorter rests, or both,
you will be working your aerobic systems more.

> 6 - Is giving up squats harmful?

Yes.

Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

On 2005-04-08, Peter Allen <peteronusenet DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

> Yes, running is bad for your knees, to some extent.

Without a lot of caveats, this is misleading (because most people
don't have a very good understanding of running injuries)

> But good shoes will minimise that,

True. Also having shoes that aren't worn out has been shown to reduce risk
of injury.

> not being overweight will help (you don't say whether you're
> 185lbs of pure muscle or whether there's a bit of fat in there too, but for
> a runner you are fairly heavy). In any case, if your knees aren't causing
> problems now, then you probably don't need to worry now. For what it's

Another important point to be made is that common knee injuries sustained
during running are temporary and are much like most other running or sports
injuries -- people get injured, take a lay off, and then go back to running
again. People recover from common knee injuries like patello-femoral syndrome
and ITB. Irreversible cartilage damage does not occur in recreational runners.

> worth, road running (hard surface) is going to be less kind to your knees
> than running on grass.

Not true. There is no evidence that increased cushioning on the running
surface or in footwear reduces landing forces at the knee joint (and it has
been studied to death). Leg stiffness adapts to the training surface.

Grass may bring additional risks, because it is a very uneven surface (but
I don't know of any studies that confirm this). Leading researchers who are
also running experts do not explicitly recommend training on grass in
preference to harder surfaces.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

On 2005-04-08, John Smith <someone_else.TakeThisOut@spamisevil.com> wrote:

> On the other hand, you're talking about appearance, and he was
> just asking for strength.

Who ? OP was generally interested in "preserving lean mass", and particularly
interested in preserving lean mass gained by way of weight training. No
running of any description will preserve the gains of a serious weight
regimen, otherwise, sprinters wouldn't need to do weights throughout --
they'd do weights for a year, then quit. Kevin was arguing that sprinters
have exceptional muscle development, and suggesting that this is a result of
sprinting.

In terms of general fitness, practicing running will certainly make you good
at jumping, and will probably transfer to some other movements (e.g. jumping)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions... 

"Donovan Rebbechi" <abuse.RemoveThis@aol.com> wrote in message
news:slrnd5dnll.gdv.abuse@panix2.panix.com...
> On 2005-04-08, John Smith <someone_else.RemoveThis@spamisevil.com> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, you're talking about appearance, and he was
>> just asking for strength.
>
> Who ? OP was generally interested in "preserving lean mass", and
> particularly
> interested in preserving lean mass gained by way of weight training. No
> running of any description will preserve the gains of a serious weight
> regimen, otherwise, sprinters wouldn't need to do weights throughout --
> they'd do weights for a year, then quit. Kevin was arguing that sprinters
> have exceptional muscle development, and suggesting that this is a result
> of
> sprinting.

Oops, my bad...I thought I was still reading the how to improve
strength thread. Sorry, shouldn't post from at work .
 >> Stay informed about: Running, Squats & Other Lifestyle Questions...