• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

Getting fit, when do you start to feel better?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #41
    Originally posted by JamJarST View Post
    Actually exercise that puts you in the fat burning zone is better than high intensity cardio, but normal walking doesn't raise the heart rate enough.
    The "fat burning zone" is a bit misleading. A higher intensity aerobic workout will actually burn just as much or more fat than a low intensity one of the same duration e.g. an hour of lower intensity exercise that burns 400 calories with 50% from fat doesn't burn any more fat than a high intensity workout that burns 600 calories at 30%. You also need to consider what happens to all those calories you didn't burn in the lower intensity workout. The overall amount of energy expended is higher at a higher intensity, and that is what actually counts because those calories you didn't burn are ultimately going to get turned into fat.

    If you exercise for longer, the percentage of calories that come from fat increases, so there is benefit to be had from lower intensity exercise if you are doing it for 2 or 3 hours at a stretch but for a typical hour in the gym higher intensity is better.
    While you're waiting, read the free novel we sent you. It's a Spanish story about a guy named 'Manual.'

    Comment


      #42
      Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
      But those people to whom you refer might have had muscle atrophy, but their motor units are re-activated very quickly, so their muscle fibres start on the hypertrophy much more quickly.
      Could be! It might partly explain why those even that have never set for in a gym can make such quick progress when they begin training, because the chances are that we are all not as strong as we once were, and hence can catch up to our motor units, which I gather you suggest degenerates less quickly than muscle. Re losing muscle mass. I found I could lose it pretty quickly, as with fat. Not that I've ever had visible floppy fat. When I was lifting heavy weights, I found I could lose or gain 1/2 stone with a week or so, depending on whether I was training with heavy weights or not training at all. I get warning twinges from heavy weights now, so avoid them, and heavy squats hurt my back now!

      Comment


        #43
        Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
        When I was lifting heavy weights, I found I could lose or gain 1/2 stone with a week or so, depending on whether I was training with heavy weights or not training at all.
        Yep, but that's primarily fluid build up in the muscles and turd build up in your gut. 1/2 stone is about 3 kilos; that's easily explained by some fluid build up, a couple of glasses of water and a typical MTT evening meal.

        You'd believe me if you saw my Olympic sized deposit this morning.
        And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

        Comment


          #44
          Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
          Yep, but that's primarily fluid build up in the muscles and turd build up in your gut. 1/2 stone is about 3 kilos; that's easily explained by some fluid build up, a couple of glasses of water and a typical MTT evening meal.

          You'd believe me if you saw my Olympic sized deposit this morning.
          I'm usually pretty regular, except in France, though granted meal sizes are markedly more massive subsequent to heavy weights sessions, and hence probably dumps would be more massive too. Never measured those. Muscles are 70% or so water, so not sure about the fluid build-up explanation, usually when people say that I'm left a bit sceptical.

          Comment


            #45
            Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
            It's simply that you don't lose the strength very quickly; you lose it at about the same rate you built it, and if you'd spent 20 years training before the break you don't lose all that in 2 years. My father is now in his 60s and still runs out for Old Wobblebellians 5th XV each week; his upper body strength is still very impressive despite doing very little training, but of course he trained hard for both rugby and athletics from age 7 to 40. He still tackles large men as if he's an All Black flanker in a bad mood. Just a shame he can't always catch them these days.
            Just looking at some pictures of the old timers, trying to find recent photographs to compare with old:

            Ferrigno still looks pretty big, but the chest has sunk.



            What's happened to Arnold's arms!

            Comment


              #46
              Originally posted by TimberWolf View Post
              pictures of men in speedos
              The first guy looks like he's still in pretty good shape. Arnie's probably still pretty strong but his age is showing.
              And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

              Comment


                #47
                Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                Arnie's probably still pretty strong but his age is showing.
                Yes, but budgie smugglers? FFS
                Just saying like.

                where there's chaos, there's cash !

                I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong!

                Lowering the tone since 1963

                Comment


                  #48
                  Originally posted by Arturo Bassick View Post
                  Yes, but budgie smugglers? FFS
                  They shouldn't really be worn by anyone not involved in a gay pride festival.
                  And what exactly is wrong with an "ad hominem" argument? Dodgy Agent, 16-5-2014

                  Comment


                    #49
                    Originally posted by Mich the Tester View Post
                    They shouldn't really be worn by anyone not involved in a gay pride festival.
                    So which is you?
                    Just saying like.

                    where there's chaos, there's cash !

                    I could agree with you, but then we would both be wrong!

                    Lowering the tone since 1963

                    Comment


                      #50
                      Originally posted by Arturo Bassick View Post
                      So which is you?
                      Looks like Churchy's day centre's annual charabanc trip.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X