How to get abs

Sarah Jane wrote in
:


I did. And if you can't run, you can do intervals on any other
piece of cardio equipment. Elliptical trainers are zero impact
and very easy on the joints, and stationary bicycles are also no
impact. Stairclimbers are another option, although they can be
hard on the knees.

Treadmill is really the only thing I can do with consequences,
except a recombinent bike, and they're always in use. I can't
stair climbers because of knees and back, and regular bikes cause
pelvic numbness (which in men causes permanent nerve and prostate
damage). I will try the elliptical.


Where are you getting this information?

Virtually EVERYWHERE!! In fact I couldn't find one reference that
said anything less than 8-10 (usually 8-12) reps. The OLD myth was
high-weight, low reps for bulk and low weight, high reps for tone,
which has been preoven to wrong.

6-10 is the ideal

10, not 6

hypertrophy range.

Fitness.

What type of fitness? There are many different kinds.

That's evasive.



Multiple
sets gains you nothing, which is good for me because I hate
more than one set.

The research that shows that single sets are as good as
multiple sets was all done on beginners, who will make gains
no matter what they do. Therefore it's not very informative.
That may or may not be the case for intermediate and advanced
lifters, depending on goals. How long have you been lifting?

False. Do your research.

I have done my research, and I haven't found any that shows that
one set is as good as multiple sets for more advanced trainees.
Perhaps you could show me some.

The specific study I read was on paper, and haven't found it
online, but I will. A lot of gym-rat myths still persist and
that's one of them. This link is an industry trade mag with a lot
of good articles, though many are tought to read for us
"laypeople"! Anyway, some good research. One in particular is
about frequency is suprising: It's better to work out twice a week
than three times.

http://www.fitnessmanagement.com/FM/tmpl/genPage.asp?
=/information/articles/library/strength/strength.html



Two seconds up, four seconds down, controlled
movements and proper breathing.

That's fine. But you're wasting a lot of time with the long
slow cardio - you may not think it's slow, but if you can keep
it up for 45 minutes it's slow for you. You would get better
results in less time with 15-20 minutes of intervals. Also,
big compound free weight exercises work more muscles at once
than the machines do, and they also cause a greater elevation
in metabolism. You could hit your whole body with 3 or 4
exercises. And how many machines are you doing that one set of
each takes 45-60 minutes?

Probably about 15, though I vary the number and "line" that I
work each time.

So how does that take 45-60 minutes? Are you resting for 2 or 3
minutes in between sets? That doesn't sound like any circuit
training I've ever heard of, and it's certainly not necessary
with reps that high.

Are you reading this right? 6 seconds per rep times 12, plus a 1
second hold, roughly 90 seconds per machine. On average, 30 seconds
to get into the machine and adjust seat, etc, and another 30 to
disinfect (a requirment where I workout) and gfet to the next
machine 2.5 minutes time 15 = 37.5 minutes. Add a couple trips to
the water cooler, occasional wait time for a machine or a 1-2
minute breather (I'm not a kid anymore!). 45.
Just gotta do the math. Lately, it's taking closer to 30, because
I've been dropping a machine or two on a rotating basis.


Read my response to Dally. Heavy free weights are not an
option with my back.

If you can walk and do a whole Nautilus circuit, you can lift
free weights. And they don't have to be that heavy. No one is
telling you to do max singles.

I do some at home, but I wan to reach at least mid-point on all the
machines. I have joint problems with ALL major joints and the
machines minimize injury risk, at least until I can shore up the
supporting muscles.


I thought you wanted to know how to get better results in less
time. But if you'd rather make excuses and argue with perfectly
good advice, then I can't help you. No one can.

You're not giving good advice, you're giving outdated nonsense.

In Bingo wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:



Where are you getting this information?

Virtually EVERYWHERE!!

Could you be more specific?

In fact I couldn't find one reference that
said anything less than 8-10 (usually 8-12) reps. The OLD myth was
high-weight, low reps for bulk and low weight, high reps for tone,
which has been preoven to wrong.

Right, high reps for "tone" is wrong, because there's no such thing as
tone. High reps are good for endurance, and for depleting muscle
glycogen. Low reps are good for strength, and moderate reps for
hypertrophy. More than 10 is high.



6-10 is the ideal

10, not 6

That's the top of the range.


hypertrophy range.

Fitness.

What type of fitness? There are many different kinds.

That's evasive.

No, it's not evasive. There are many different types of fitness. You're
the one who stated that your workout was best for fitness, but you
haven't specified what kind. I'd say you're the one who's being evasive.




Multiple
sets gains you nothing, which is good for me because I hate
more than one set.

The research that shows that single sets are as good as
multiple sets was all done on beginners, who will make gains
no matter what they do. Therefore it's not very informative.
That may or may not be the case for intermediate and advanced
lifters, depending on goals. How long have you been lifting?

False. Do your research.

I have done my research, and I haven't found any that shows that
one set is as good as multiple sets for more advanced trainees.
Perhaps you could show me some.

The specific study I read was on paper, and haven't found it
online, but I will. A lot of gym-rat myths still persist and
that's one of them.

No, it's not. Depending on one's condition and one's goals, one set may
or may not be as effective as three. It also depends on what you mean by
one set. Is that one per workout, or one per week? And does it mean one
per exercise, or one per muscle/muscle group?

This link is an industry trade mag with a lot
of good articles, though many are tought to read for us
"laypeople"! Anyway, some good research. One in particular is
about frequency is suprising: It's better to work out twice a week
than three times.

Better for *what*? Different people have different goals, and for my
goals, twice a week is *not* sufficient. In fact, some powerlifters
train twice a day, 5 or 6 days a week.

http://www.fitnessmanagement.com/FM/tmpl/genPage.asp?
=/information/articles/library/strength/strength.html

File not found.


Two seconds up, four seconds down, controlled
movements and proper breathing.

That's fine. But you're wasting a lot of time with the long
slow cardio - you may not think it's slow, but if you can keep
it up for 45 minutes it's slow for you. You would get better
results in less time with 15-20 minutes of intervals. Also,
big compound free weight exercises work more muscles at once
than the machines do, and they also cause a greater elevation
in metabolism. You could hit your whole body with 3 or 4
exercises. And how many machines are you doing that one set of
each takes 45-60 minutes?

Probably about 15, though I vary the number and "line" that I
work each time.

So how does that take 45-60 minutes? Are you resting for 2 or 3
minutes in between sets? That doesn't sound like any circuit
training I've ever heard of, and it's certainly not necessary
with reps that high.

Are you reading this right? 6 seconds per rep times 12, plus a 1
second hold, roughly 90 seconds per machine. On average, 30 seconds
to get into the machine and adjust seat, etc, and another 30 to
disinfect (a requirment where I workout) and gfet to the next
machine 2.5 minutes time 15 = 37.5 minutes. Add a couple trips to
the water cooler, occasional wait time for a machine or a 1-2
minute breather (I'm not a kid anymore!). 45.
Just gotta do the math.

I did the math. And you original statement said nothing about a "one
second hold", or 1-2 minute "breathers". And not being a kid anymore has
nothing to do with needing longer breaks. You're just in poor condition.
With those light weights and isolation exercises, you shouldn't need
those breaks.

6 seconds per rep times 12 reps is 72 seconds per machine. For 15
machines that's 1080 seconds, or 18 minutes. Even with one minute in
between each machine, that's only 32 minutes. And resting that long is *
not* circuit training as it's meant to be done.

Lately, it's taking closer to 30, because
I've been dropping a machine or two on a rotating basis.

So dropping two machines cuts out 15-30 minutes? How does the math on
that work out?



Read my response to Dally. Heavy free weights are not an
option with my back.

If you can walk and do a whole Nautilus circuit, you can lift
free weights. And they don't have to be that heavy. No one is
telling you to do max singles.

I do some at home, but I wan to reach at least mid-point on all the
machines. I have joint problems with ALL major joints and the
machines minimize injury risk, at least until I can shore up the
supporting muscles.

That's another gym-rat myth that won't go away. Machines are not
necessarily safer than free weights. And how do you intend to shore up
the supporting muscles without making them work? The best way to get the
strength to do free weights is to use free weights - just start very
light until you get your form down, and get those stabilizers
strengthened.


I thought you wanted to know how to get better results in less
time. But if you'd rather make excuses and argue with perfectly
good advice, then I can't help you. No one can.

You're not giving good advice, you're giving outdated nonsense.

What was my outdated nonsense? Interval training for fat loss? Moderate
reps for hypertrophy? Free weights more effective and time-efficient
than Nautilus machines?

I'd say doing long slow cardio and a Nautilus circuit with 10-12 reps is
outdated. I was doing that 17 years ago, and I don't think it's any more
effective now than it was then.

"Sarah Jane" wrote in message
...
In Bingo wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:



Where are you getting this information?

Virtually EVERYWHERE!!

Could you be more specific?

In fact I couldn't find one reference that
said anything less than 8-10 (usually 8-12) reps. The OLD myth was
high-weight, low reps for bulk and low weight, high reps for tone,
which has been preoven to wrong.

Right, high reps for "tone" is wrong, because there's no such thing as
tone. High reps are good for endurance, and for depleting muscle
glycogen. Low reps are good for strength, and moderate reps for
hypertrophy. More than 10 is high.


Hi Sara i was wondering if you wouldnt mind posting a link
with information that would say 10 reps is concidered a high rep (
indurance ) work out.
most body builers i read about would do pyramid type work outs.
where many would do sets as high as 12 and maybe higher in some exercises
and people like boxers would do sets
as high as 50. also keep in mind most of the bocks i read are already
8 years old - a lot of changes could have taken place since. if so getting
back into wieght lifting myself - im curious to what changes happened
in wieght training. thank you
Tom

Sarah Jane wrote in
:

In Bingo
wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:

The file not found you tried so hard to find, you can find yourself
at www.fitnessmanagement.com in the unlikely event that you want to
learn something.

I'm not goint to respond to any more of your bull**** because you
can't teach a rock.

Plonk

"Extreme-cc's" wrote in
:


"Sarah Jane" wrote in message
...
In Bingo
wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:



Where are you getting this information?

Virtually EVERYWHERE!!

Could you be more specific?

In fact I couldn't find one reference that
said anything less than 8-10 (usually 8-12) reps. The OLD
myth was high-weight, low reps for bulk and low weight, high
reps for tone, which has been preoven to wrong.

Right, high reps for "tone" is wrong, because there's no such
thing as tone. High reps are good for endurance, and for
depleting muscle glycogen. Low reps are good for strength, and
moderate reps for hypertrophy. More than 10 is high.


Hi Sara i was wondering if you wouldnt mind posting a link
with information that would say 10 reps is concidered a high rep
( indurance ) work out.
most body builers i read about would do pyramid type work outs.
where many would do sets as high as 12 and maybe higher in some
exercises and people like boxers would do sets
as high as 50. also keep in mind most of the bocks i read are
already 8 years old - a lot of changes could have taken place
since. if so getting back into wieght lifting myself - im
curious to what changes happened in wieght training. thank you
Tom



Don't expect it from her. I'm sure she's still using a rotary phone
an B/W TV. At www.fitnessmanagement.com you'll find a lot of
research. There are many others as well, but that's a good start.

Sarah Jane wrote in
:

In Bingo
wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:



Where are you getting this information?

Virtually EVERYWHERE!!

Could you be more specific?

ACE (American Council on Exercise)
www.acefitness.com

ADA (American Dietetic Association)
www.eatright.org

American College of Sports Medicine
www.acsm.org

Dr. Koop’s Community
www.drkoop.com

Exercise Prescription
www.exrx.net

IDEA: The Association for Fitness Professionals
www.ideafit.com

National Youth Sport Safety Foundation
www.nyssf.org

The Sensible Nutrition Connection
www.sensiblenutrition.com



In fact I couldn't find one reference that
said anything less than 8-10 (usually 8-12) reps. The OLD myth
was high-weight, low reps for bulk and low weight, high reps
for tone, which has been preoven to wrong.

Right, high reps for "tone" is wrong, because there's no such
thing as tone. High reps are good for endurance, and for
depleting muscle glycogen. Low reps are good for strength, and
moderate reps for hypertrophy. More than 10 is high.



6-10 is the ideal

10, not 6

That's the top of the range.

12 is.



hypertrophy range.

Fitness.

What type of fitness? There are many different kinds.

That's evasive.

No, it's not evasive. There are many different types of fitness.
You're the one who stated that your workout was best for
fitness, but you haven't specified what kind. I'd say you're the
one who's being evasive.

*Still* evasive. Strength and endurance. You're either in shape or
not. I'm getting there.





Multiple
sets gains you nothing, which is good for me because I hate
more than one set.

The research that shows that single sets are as good as
multiple sets was all done on beginners, who will make gains
no matter what they do. Therefore it's not very informative.
That may or may not be the case for intermediate and
advanced lifters, depending on goals. How long have you been
lifting?

False. Do your research.

I have done my research, and I haven't found any that shows
that one set is as good as multiple sets for more advanced
trainees. Perhaps you could show me some.

The specific study I read was on paper, and haven't found it
online, but I will. A lot of gym-rat myths still persist and
that's one of them.

No, it's not. Depending on one's condition and one's goals, one
set may or may not be as effective as three. It also depends on
what you mean by one set. Is that one per workout, or one per
week? And does it mean one per exercise, or one per
muscle/muscle group?

One set per workout, genius.


This link is an industry trade mag with a lot
of good articles, though many are tought to read for us
"laypeople"! Anyway, some good research. One in particular is
about frequency is suprising: It's better to work out twice a
week than three times.

Better for *what*? Different people have different goals, and
for my goals, twice a week is *not* sufficient. In fact, some
powerlifters train twice a day, 5 or 6 days a week.

http://www.fitnessmanagement.com/FM/tmpl/genPage.asp?
=/information/articles/library/strength/strength.html

File not found.

Yup, you're a genius all right.



Two seconds up, four seconds down, controlled
movements and proper breathing.

That's fine. But you're wasting a lot of time with the long
slow cardio - you may not think it's slow, but if you can
keep it up for 45 minutes it's slow for you. You would get
better results in less time with 15-20 minutes of intervals.
Also, big compound free weight exercises work more muscles
at once than the machines do, and they also cause a greater
elevation in metabolism. You could hit your whole body with
3 or 4 exercises. And how many machines are you doing that
one set of each takes 45-60 minutes?

Probably about 15, though I vary the number and "line" that I
work each time.

So how does that take 45-60 minutes? Are you resting for 2 or
3 minutes in between sets? That doesn't sound like any circuit
training I've ever heard of, and it's certainly not necessary
with reps that high.

Are you reading this right? 6 seconds per rep times 12, plus a
1 second hold, roughly 90 seconds per machine. On average, 30
seconds to get into the machine and adjust seat, etc, and
another 30 to disinfect (a requirment where I workout) and gfet
to the next machine 2.5 minutes time 15 = 37.5 minutes. Add a
couple trips to the water cooler, occasional wait time for a
machine or a 1-2 minute breather (I'm not a kid anymore!). 45.
Just gotta do the math.

I did the math. And you original statement said nothing about a
"one second hold",
Yeah, that'll make the difference 2 minutes at least.

or 1-2 minute "breathers". And not being a
kid anymore has nothing to do with needing longer breaks. You're
just in poor condition.

WHat are you like 25? Only a 25-year old idiot would make a
statement like that. I started out in poor condition. I need
breaks after about half way through to maintain heart rate.

With those light weights and isolation
exercises, you shouldn't need those breaks.

What "Light weights"? You're really start to **** me off and
that's not why I came here. I want to fill in gaps in my knowledge
from people know ehat they're talking about and you DO NOT qualify!


6 seconds per rep times 12 reps is 72 seconds per machine. For
15 machines that's 1080 seconds, or 18 minutes. Even with one
minute in between each machine, that's only 32 minutes. And
resting that long is * not* circuit training as it's meant to be
done.

Lately, it's taking closer to 30, because
I've been dropping a machine or two on a rotating basis.

So dropping two machines cuts out 15-30 minutes? How does the
math on that work out?

15-30? You're insane.




Read my response to Dally. Heavy free weights are not an
option with my back.

If you can walk and do a whole Nautilus circuit, you can lift
free weights. And they don't have to be that heavy. No one is
telling you to do max singles.

I do some at home, but I wan to reach at least mid-point on all
the machines. I have joint problems with ALL major joints and
the machines minimize injury risk, at least until I can shore
up the supporting muscles.

That's another gym-rat myth that won't go away. Machines are not
necessarily safer than free weights. And how do you intend to
shore up the supporting muscles without making them work? The
best way to get the strength to do free weights is to use free
weights - just start very light until you get your form down,
and get those stabilizers strengthened.


I thought you wanted to know how to get better results in less
time. But if you'd rather make excuses and argue with
perfectly good advice, then I can't help you. No one can.

You're not giving good advice, you're giving outdated nonsense.

What was my outdated nonsense? Interval training for fat loss?
Moderate reps for hypertrophy? Free weights more effective and
time-efficient than Nautilus machines?

I'd say doing long slow cardio and a Nautilus circuit with 10-12
reps is outdated. I was doing that 17 years ago, and I don't
think it's any more effective now than it was then.

Do the reasearch. You;re living in the 50's

In Bingo wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:

In Bingo
wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:



Where are you getting this information?

Virtually EVERYWHERE!!

Could you be more specific?

ACE (American Council on Exercise)
www.acefitness.com

Where does it say anything about the optimal range for hypertrophy?
Digging around a bit I found an article, obviously aimed at beginners,
that said to do 8-12 reps, but that was it.

ADA (American Dietetic Association)
www.eatright.org

Nothing.


American College of Sports Medicine
www.acsm.org

Nothing.

snip other useless sites

Look, if you're going to tell me that these organizations are all saying
10+ reps is optimal for hypertrophy, then you need to show me where
they're saying it. Furthermore, even if I see it, it doesn't mean
anything without *references*. As in studies, none of which were cited
in the one halfway relevant article I did find.


In fact I couldn't find one reference that
said anything less than 8-10 (usually 8-12) reps. The OLD myth
was high-weight, low reps for bulk and low weight, high reps
for tone, which has been preoven to wrong.

Right, high reps for "tone" is wrong, because there's no such
thing as tone. High reps are good for endurance, and for
depleting muscle glycogen. Low reps are good for strength, and
moderate reps for hypertrophy. More than 10 is high.



6-10 is the ideal

10, not 6

That's the top of the range.

12 is.

Then what's the bottom? Are you seriously saying that the optimal
hypertrophy rep range for *everyone* has only 3 possibilities, and
they're 10,11, and 12?

hypertrophy range.

Fitness.

What type of fitness? There are many different kinds.

That's evasive.

No, it's not evasive. There are many different types of fitness.
You're the one who stated that your workout was best for
fitness, but you haven't specified what kind. I'd say you're the
one who's being evasive.

*Still* evasive.

What am I evading? The fact that you haven't got a clue what you're
talking about?

Strength and endurance.

But strength and endurance aren't the same thing, and a program that's
optimal for one won't help much with the other. You think one set of 10-
12 reps is optimal for strength as well as hypertrophy now?

You're either in shape or
not.

How about a marathoner who can't lift more than 100 lbs? Is he in shape?
How about a powerlifter who can lift 1000 lbs, but can't run more than a
mile? Is he in shape? If you think there's only one type of fitness,
then you're horribly misinformed.


Multiple
sets gains you nothing, which is good for me because I hate
more than one set.

The research that shows that single sets are as good as
multiple sets was all done on beginners, who will make gains
no matter what they do. Therefore it's not very informative.
That may or may not be the case for intermediate and
advanced lifters, depending on goals. How long have you been
lifting?

False. Do your research.

I have done my research, and I haven't found any that shows
that one set is as good as multiple sets for more advanced
trainees. Perhaps you could show me some.

The specific study I read was on paper, and haven't found it
online, but I will. A lot of gym-rat myths still persist and
that's one of them.

No, it's not. Depending on one's condition and one's goals, one
set may or may not be as effective as three. It also depends on
what you mean by one set. Is that one per workout, or one per
week? And does it mean one per exercise, or one per
muscle/muscle group?

One set per workout, genius.

Which is how many per week? You do realize there's such a thing as a
split routine, right? One set may be as good, but only if you do all the
exercises three times a week. You really don't understand the
distinction, do you?


This link is an industry trade mag with a lot
of good articles, though many are tought to read for us
"laypeople"! Anyway, some good research. One in particular is
about frequency is suprising: It's better to work out twice a
week than three times.

Better for *what*? Different people have different goals, and
for my goals, twice a week is *not* sufficient. In fact, some
powerlifters train twice a day, 5 or 6 days a week.

http://www.fitnessmanagement.com/FM/tmpl/genPage.asp?
=/information/articles/library/strength/strength.html

File not found.

Yup, you're a genius all right.

Because you can't properly post a link?


Two seconds up, four seconds down, controlled
movements and proper breathing.

That's fine. But you're wasting a lot of time with the long
slow cardio - you may not think it's slow, but if you can
keep it up for 45 minutes it's slow for you. You would get
better results in less time with 15-20 minutes of intervals.
Also, big compound free weight exercises work more muscles
at once than the machines do, and they also cause a greater
elevation in metabolism. You could hit your whole body with
3 or 4 exercises. And how many machines are you doing that
one set of each takes 45-60 minutes?

Probably about 15, though I vary the number and "line" that I
work each time.

So how does that take 45-60 minutes? Are you resting for 2 or
3 minutes in between sets? That doesn't sound like any circuit
training I've ever heard of, and it's certainly not necessary
with reps that high.

Are you reading this right? 6 seconds per rep times 12, plus a
1 second hold, roughly 90 seconds per machine. On average, 30
seconds to get into the machine and adjust seat, etc, and
another 30 to disinfect (a requirment where I workout) and gfet
to the next machine 2.5 minutes time 15 = 37.5 minutes. Add a
couple trips to the water cooler, occasional wait time for a
machine or a 1-2 minute breather (I'm not a kid anymore!). 45.
Just gotta do the math.

I did the math. And you original statement said nothing about a
"one second hold",
Yeah, that'll make the difference 2 minutes at least.

or 1-2 minute "breathers". And not being a
kid anymore has nothing to do with needing longer breaks. You're
just in poor condition.

WHat are you like 25?

I mentioned my age at the beginning of this thread, genius. And it ain't
25. I also mentioned in the last post that I was dong Nautilus 17 years
ago - you think I was 8 at the time?

BTW there are lifters in their 40's and 50's who lift 90+% of their
1RMds with shorter breaks than that. Care to try again?

Only a 25-year old idiot would make a
statement like that.

So now you're out of "facts" and on to name-calling?

I started out in poor condition. I need
breaks after about half way through to maintain heart rate.

Then you're still in poor condition. After doing a set with those light
weights, it should take no more than 10 seonds for your heart rate to
return to normal.


With those light weights and isolation
exercises, you shouldn't need those breaks.

What "Light weights"?

If you can lift it 10-12 times, then it's light for *you*. Do you really
not understand that?

Let me explain it again - see the number of reps you can do with a given
weight tells you how light or heavy it is for you. 1-5 is heavy. 6-10 is
moderate. More than 10 is *light*. Got it now?

You're really start to **** me off and
that's not why I came here.

How am I ****ing you off? You're the one who's getting personal. Why
would it **** you off when I point out that 10-12 reps has to be light
weights? That's nothing personal; any weight I could lift for 10-12 reps
would be light for me too. That's how that works.

I want to fill in gaps in my knowledge
from people know ehat they're talking about and you DO NOT qualify!

Yes, I do. You just won't admit it because what I'm telling you to do is
hard.



6 seconds per rep times 12 reps is 72 seconds per machine. For
15 machines that's 1080 seconds, or 18 minutes. Even with one
minute in between each machine, that's only 32 minutes. And
resting that long is * not* circuit training as it's meant to be
done.

Lately, it's taking closer to 30, because
I've been dropping a machine or two on a rotating basis.

So dropping two machines cuts out 15-30 minutes? How does the
math on that work out?

15-30? You're insane.

First you said you did 45-60 minutes of Nautilus. Now you say you've
been dropping a machine or two, and it's closer to 30. 60 minus 30 is 30,
right? 45 minus 30 is 15, right? So what were youu trying to say? I
think you're the one who's insane. Either that or you were lying about
how long you were working out in the first place.

Look, the whole reason you got into this thread was to complain about
how long you were spending working out. Then *you* started telling *me*
that one set was just as good as multiple sets, and that working out
twice a week was somehow *better* than 3 times or more. You're not
making any sense at all. You also say you want to fill in gaps in your
knowledge, but you won't listen to anything that's different from what
you think you already know. You'll never learn anything that way.

If you're such an expert on resistance training, why don't you go over
to misc.fitness.weights and share your expertise? I'm sure they'd be
thrilled to hear from you.



Read my response to Dally. Heavy free weights are not an
option with my back.

If you can walk and do a whole Nautilus circuit, you can lift
free weights. And they don't have to be that heavy. No one is
telling you to do max singles.

I do some at home, but I wan to reach at least mid-point on all
the machines. I have joint problems with ALL major joints and
the machines minimize injury risk, at least until I can shore
up the supporting muscles.

That's another gym-rat myth that won't go away. Machines are not
necessarily safer than free weights. And how do you intend to
shore up the supporting muscles without making them work? The
best way to get the strength to do free weights is to use free
weights - just start very light until you get your form down,
and get those stabilizers strengthened.


I thought you wanted to know how to get better results in less
time. But if you'd rather make excuses and argue with
perfectly good advice, then I can't help you. No one can.

You're not giving good advice, you're giving outdated nonsense.

What was my outdated nonsense? Interval training for fat loss?
Moderate reps for hypertrophy? Free weights more effective and
time-efficient than Nautilus machines?

I'd say doing long slow cardio and a Nautilus circuit with 10-12
reps is outdated. I was doing that 17 years ago, and I don't
think it's any more effective now than it was then.

Do the reasearch.

I did, and I certainly didn't do it at acefitness.org. Again, what was I
saying that was outdated nonsense? Interval training? Free weights?
Moderate reps?

Dally and I have both tried endurance cardio and a light Nautilus
circuit. Neither of us got fantastic results from that. We've also both
tried what we're telling you to do, and have gotten amazing results. Why
is that so hard for you to believe?

You;re living in the 50's

No, I'm living in 2004. You're living in the early 80's. Just please
tell me you don't wear legwarmers when you work out.

In Bingo wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:

In Bingo
wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:

The file not found you tried so hard to find, you can find yourself
at www.fitnessmanagement.com in the unlikely event that you want to
learn something.

I didn't try hard to find it. You're the one trying to show me something.


I'm not goint to respond to any more of your bull**** because you
can't teach a rock.

Oh, you're trying to teach me? Great! I've always wanted to learn
something from a FFID.


Plonk

In Bingo wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:

In Bingo
wrote:
Sarah Jane wrote in
:

The file not found you tried so hard to find, you can find yourself
at www.fitnessmanagement.com in the unlikely event that you want to
learn something.



Their home page proclaims that they have over 1500 articles. Was I
supposed to read all of them in the hopes that one of them was the one
you were talking about?

In Jimmy Naifeh sucks
wrote:

..............No, it's not evasive. There are many different types
of
fitness.
You're the one who stated that your workout was best for
fitness, but you haven't specified what kind. I'd say you're the
one who's being evasive.

*Still* evasive.

What am I evading? The fact that you haven't got a clue what you're
talking about?

Strength and endurance.

But strength and endurance aren't the same thing, and a program that's
optimal for one won't help much with the other. You think o...............

OK. Bingo seems kind of new to research. Bingo, you are saying what a
lot of mainstream people say and it is often wrong.

But Bingo says I'm the one who's spouting gym-rat mythology. BTW, Bingo
probably won't see this unless it's posted in asd, so there's no point
talking to him unless you post it there.

Sarah Jane seems
to know her stuff pretty well.

Nah, I just make this stuff up as I go along. But it almost sounds like
I know what I'm talking about, doesn't it?

While she is a little off with this 6-
10 reps is best for x stuff (because it was depends on muscle fiber
makeup or area x of the body of person y).

I realize that the optimal reps for hypertrophy won't be exactly the
same for everyone, but I'm pretty sure it's not 10-12. And surely, 10-12
isn't anywhere near optimal for strength for anyone.


Nevertheless, it is easy to tell the Sarah knows much more about the
real ****.

Nah, I'm just spouting outdated nonsense. Long slow cardio and Nautilus
circuit training are where's it at, d00d.

I got to give it to both of you, though. Y'all sure know how to talk
about this crap without actually shooting each other.

But he called me an idiot. I think I'm gonna go cry now.


"With an illegal smile
It don't cost very much
But it lasts a long while
Won't you please tell the man
I didn't kill anyone
No, I'm just trying to have me some fun"
John Prine from Illegal Smile

Defending all Americans
http://www.lp.org