Paleo Diet: Raw Paleo Diet and Lifestyle Forum
Raw Paleo Diet Forums => Exercise / Bodybuilding => Topic started by: svrn on March 04, 2013, 07:20:58 am
-
how often should one excercise. Iv read some articles that say once a month
http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/jamesst2.htm (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/jamesst2.htm)
-
I don't know that I'd space workouts out that far, but I certainly buy into the high-intensity/lower frequency ideology. I workout particular muscle groups about once each week, for up to 10 minutes (sometimes to failure, but not always). I'm not particularly big nor particularly ripped, but then being big and/or ripped really isn't my goal.
-
so each workout is up to ten minutes?
-
Yes, but not necessarily 10 minutes straight. Usually for about a minute, then rest for a minute, then more intense exercise, then another minute of rest... And not always for a full 10 minutes. Sometimes I reach failure, or a feeling of 'enough' before the 10 minute mark, and I honor either of those milestones.
-
define exercise? targeting muscle groups to failure?
i think people need to move and stretch all day long, especially just walking around, sitting, standing, pushing, pulling, climbing, dancing
-
So you're saying that you don't exercise frequently and you're not particularly big or ripped?
-
That is correct, I don't exercise frequently and I'm not particularly big or ripped. I stand 5'8" tall and my weight fluctuates around 150 pounds, sometimes up to 160, which gives me a moderate build. My body fat is probably around 10%, although it's been years since I bothered measuring it.
Relating to Jessica's comment though, I am very active. I don't own a car so walk pretty much everywhere, typically logging 3-5 miles per day between walking to and from my office and doing errands. When I need to cut trees for making bows it's common for me to walk the 3.5 miles to land I have permission to cut on then carry the 100+ pound log back over my shoulders, sometimes making two or three trips in a day if the tree I felled yields more than one usable 8-foot log. I also heat my home with a wood stove, so carry in 15-20 loads of wood in each week during the winter, with each load weighing 40-50 pounds. I have also been training in mixed martial arts since the mid-1990s, and continue training a couple days each week, for a little more activity. I also enjoy swimming, and try to swim in Lake Champlain near my home at least a couple times each week, even in winter. I also cold train (do a google search for Wim Hoff to learn about this), so that's part of my motivation for swimming throughout the winter.
I don't count anything in the above paragraph as 'exercise', since it all serves more utilitarian purposes than just working muscles. So when I say that I exercise about once each week for brief periods, please don't get the impression I spend the rest of my week sitting on the sofa scarfing pints of Ben & Jerry's. Not the case at all.
-
A good workout frequency is the time necessary for your muscles to fully recover from the previous workout. It may not be detrimental to workout before that but it will hinder growth and strength since you are not giving your body proper time to recover enough. This is especially true in the true HIT style of training. The higher the intensity of the workout, the more inroading you place upon the muscle, the longer recovery time you might need. Some people need as little as a week for recovery, some can need as much as a month.
I spend about 15-20 minutes training. 1-2 minutes on the machine, 1 set to complete failure (I cannot positively perform the exercise, positive being the first third of the exercise movement). I'll do 4-6 exercises. Sometimes it will take longer depending on whether I'm waiting for someone to finish with what I want but generally you want to accomplish it with as little rest as possible in between exercises. I've made amazing gains switching from "traditional bodybuilding routines" to this true HIT.
Keep in mind the stronger/bigger your muscles get the longer they will take to recover. The frequency will have to get more spread out. You will not lose strength/hypertrophy that fast. But diet will take an even more important role unlike exercise routines that can offset diet by performing them nearly every day (which I am in no way advocating). As for Jessica's comments I agree with Eric I don't consider them exercise but they are part of an active lifestyle.
-
I exercise every day, alternating one day upper body next day lower body.
-
where can I learn more about HIT?
-
where can I learn more about HIT?
Google
-
thanks for the sassy response but i was looking for a reccommended source of info not whatever happens to be on google.
-
thanks for the sassy response but i was looking for a reccommended source of info not whatever happens to be on google.
Lol I wasn't trying to be sassy. That's a great place to start. It's where I found out about paleo, raw paleo, the specific carbohydrate diet, how to treat schizophrenia... When ever I wanna learn something I go to google.
-
Well thank you but I knew about google already. what im looking for is a recommended source.
-
Yeah google is a very recommended source.
-
I do not know what your goal is with exercise, but assuming you want to build muscle than Id say.. train whenever you are not sore and train heavy, but dont push it too far. To make sure the body keeps natural proportions I have a simple workout "plan".
-Chest: Bench Press.
-Shoulders: Military Press.
-Back: Pull ups.
-Legs: Squats.
Now if your looking to "burn" fat than in my opinion this has nothing to do with exercise. But thats just me and my experience.
-
where can I learn more about HIT?
A book I've found useful is Body By Science, by Doug McDuff and John Little. There are also sections on high intensity training in Mark Sisson's Primal Blueprint and Art DeVany's The New Evolution Diet.
-
my goal is to become as strong as possible. Muscle size and fat burning are irrelevant to me.
-
I second Eric. Body by Science has kind of become the new bible of HIT. Any of Mike Mentzer's books are a good place to start (although they are a little out of date). Searching for Body by Science in Amazon leads to a few other books that cover the topic of proper HIT techniques. Ideally you're looking any literature that talks of slow repetitions and brief, intense exercise. Great for strength increases, nothing like taking an exercise to complete failure to where you can't even move the weight an inch to incite your muscles to get stronger.
-
my goal is to become as strong as possible. Muscle size and fat burning are irrelevant to me.
Then you simply need to exercise every day, but exercise smartly (not exhaust yourself). It should become your occupation essentially... Look at the Bulgarian system for Olympic weightlifting, these guys were as strong as possible and explosive.
-
Then you simply need to exercise every day, but exercise smartly (not exhaust yourself). It should become your occupation essentially... Look at the Bulgarian system for Olympic weightlifting, these guys were as strong as possible and explosive.
If you follow this advise you'll get strong eventually, but it's certainly not the fastest or safest way to strength. High intensity, low duration, low frequency exercise is both more effective and is certainly safer. But in the end, everyone has their preferences.
-
Then why wouldn't Olympic lifters just train occasionally instead of every day?
Or are you saying that if you don't want to spend that time but still be pretty strong you can train occasionally?
-
If you follow this advise you'll get strong eventually, but it's certainly not the fastest or safest way to strength. High intensity, low duration, low frequency exercise is both more effective and is certainly safer. But in the end, everyone has their preferences.
Any proofs that it's more effective? I'm not convinced at all. I've done the Body by Science to the letter for half a year, and more effective is not my experience.
"High intensity, low duration, low frequency" is certainly not safer. Not sure how can putting your body under tremendous stress once a week be safe. Moderate intensity, low duration, high frequency on the other hand is.
You want to master something -> you have to do it as often as possible. It's not different with becoming strong.
-
Any proofs that it's more effective? I'm not convinced at all. I've done the Body by Science to the letter for half a year, and more effective is not my experience.
Interesting, not my experience at all. Maybe there's something unique about me that makes it work. Who knows...
"High intensity, low duration, low frequency" is certainly not safer. Not sure how can putting your body under tremendous stress once a week be safe. Moderate intensity, low duration, high frequency on the other hand is.
You want to master something -> you have to do it as often as possible. It's not different with becoming strong.
I strongly disagree here. Moderate intensity, high frequency is a formula for repetitive stress injuries. I see this all the time with joggers, and weight lifters. These people spend so much of their lives dealing with chronic injury they don't even question why they're constantly hurt anymore. High intensity does push the body closer to it's edge, but this isn't necessarily unsafe as long as a person takes care of themselves and honors edges. Short duration and lower frequency gives the body more time to recover, and puts the body under much less strain overall, leading to fewer repetitive stress injuries. On a personal note, before I started using the methods outlined in Body By Science I had back, knee and hip problems from years of moderate intensity, high frequency exercise (jogging, weight lifting, bodyweight exercises). After a little over a year all of those problems are gone. But of course to each their own, and it's always possible there's something unique about my body that makes these methods work, where they wouldn't work for anyone else.
Then why wouldn't Olympic lifters just train occasionally instead of every day? Or are you saying that if you don't want to spend that time but still be pretty strong you can train occasionally?
That's what I'm saying. And that what the high-intensity gurus in general are saying. And this statement jibes with my experience, and with the sorts of activities that ancient people used to develop their strong, fit bodies. Paleo people didn't exercise every other day, the occasionally participated in intense, brief periods of activity (moving heavy objects, running from predators, taking down large prey animals), and that's how they got to be strong and fit.
-
Interesting, not my experience at all. Maybe there's something unique about me that makes it work. Who knows...
Could be.
I strongly disagree here. Moderate intensity, high frequency is a formula for repetitive stress injuries. I see this all the time with joggers, and weight lifters. These people spend so much of their lives dealing with chronic injury they don't even question why they're constantly hurt
High intensity does push the body closer to it's edge, but this isn't necessarily unsafe as long as a person takes care of themselves and honors edges. Short duration and lower frequency gives the body more time to recover, and puts the body under much less strain overall, leading to fewer repetitive stress injuries.
Note I also said short duration. Essentially you cut from the intensity of HIT which allows you to increase the frequency. Injuries happen due to overtraining; you have to be smart and patient with exercising just as with everything else. More or less like you said, "this isn't necessarily unsafe as long as a person takes care of themselves and honors edges".
Maybe a more extreme example would help illustrate my reasoning. What do you think would be more effective in cold training:
1. Training once a week at I don't know, let's say -50C, and then spending the rest of the time recovering from frostbite and similar issues, or
2. Training every day in the week at -30C at which (hypothetically) one day is perfectly enough to recover and be ready to train again the next day.
On a personal note, before I started using the methods outlined in Body By Science I had back, knee and hip problems from years of moderate intensity, high frequency exercise (jogging, weight lifting, bodyweight exercises). After a little over a year all of those problems are gone. But of course to each their own, and it's always possible there's something unique about my body that makes these methods work, where they wouldn't work for anyone else.
That's great that it worked so well for your problems!
That's what I'm saying. And that what the high-intensity gurus in general are saying. And this statement jibes with my experience, and with the sorts of activities that ancient people used to develop their strong, fit bodies. Paleo people didn't exercise every other day, the occasionally participated in intense, brief periods of activity (moving heavy objects, running from predators, taking down large prey animals), and that's how they got to be strong and fit.
Doesn't quite fit with scientific findings. Just a few days ago I read something rather different
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/ancient-humans-and-neanderthals-were-extreme-travellers-113031000220_1.html (http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/ancient-humans-and-neanderthals-were-extreme-travellers-113031000220_1.html)
It certainly wasn't brief periods of activity once a week.
-
Maybe a more extreme example would help illustrate my reasoning. What do you think would be more effective in cold training:
1. Training once a week at I don't know, let's say -50C, and then spending the rest of the time recovering from frostbite and similar issues, or
2. Training every day in the week at -30C at which (hypothetically) one day is perfectly enough to recover and be ready to train again the next day.
Bad analogy. Cold training is not about building muscle, it's about building the body's capacity to thermoregulate. Completely different issues.
Doesn't quite fit with scientific findings. Just a few days ago I read something rather different
http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/ancient-humans-and-neanderthals-were-extreme-travellers-113031000220_1.html (http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/ancient-humans-and-neanderthals-were-extreme-travellers-113031000220_1.html)
It certainly wasn't brief periods of activity once a week.
An interesting study, but I'm always skeptical of scientists who make extreme claims from comparatively weak and ambiguous evidence. I'm not inclined to read much into this. You're welcome to if you'd like to, of course.
-
Maybe people here are talking about different things, or have different ideas of what strength is.
I do not believe that paleo man was bench pressing 300+ lbs haha.
I do not believe that being able to carry 100lbs on your shoulder for a few miles is STRONG. Its stronger than your average person, you're going to be tired at the end of the day, but to say that you're one strong mo-fo.. I think we just have different ideas here.
You can get good results from infrequest HIIT training, but to say that its the most effective way to build massive strength is a bit of a stretch.
-
Maybe people here are talking about different things, or have different ideas of what strength is.
I agree. I don't think someone needs to perform extreme feats of strength to be considered strong.
And, for what it's worth, if you don't think carrying a 100+ pound log over your shoulders for a few miles would qualify someone as strong, I invite you to try it.
-
Bad analogy. Cold training is not about building muscle, it's about building the body's capacity to thermoregulate. Completely different issues.
I believe it's a generic enough principle that can be equally applied in many aspects of life. Why is it a bad analogy? Both are done with the goal to improve something.
An interesting study, but I'm always skeptical of scientists who make extreme claims from comparatively weak and ambiguous evidence. I'm not inclined to read much into this. You're welcome to if you'd like to, of course.
Don't tell me that the evidence for your claim is any stronger. The point is we can't consider such arguments as seriously supporting any claim.