Came across this video whilst searching youtube for fitness stuff (ladies, I just typed in "fitness videos", honestly, I wasn't being creepy).
Who thinks they're going to get a good workout and burn serious amounts of calories from that?
I'm sorry to be critical, but this is something I see in fitness classes in my local gyms regularly. Loads of efforts at kidding the lazy into doing a little work. Always trying to find a "fun" way of exercising that really means "easy". As if something hard can't be fun.
Well, I'm all for getting people up and moving about if they don't exercise at all. I'm all for starting off gently and progressing steadily, minimising the risks of injury and other problems.
But what I'm against is the fitness industry propagating the idea that people are going to see any significant fat burning from following this kind of routine long term.
What we need is intensity !! Challenge, a little suffering even, if we're going to aim high and want real changes.
So, who is tough enough for the hardcore challenge?
We are offering a 4 week Hardcore Workout programme for you, ABSOLUTELY FREE !! Just ** Click Here** for your FREE 4 week Hardcore Workout and download your copy.
Until next time,
Andrew and Alex
Saturday 21 February 2009
Friday 20 February 2009
Body Mass Index
Right, yesterday I touched on the topic of Body Mass Index and today you might have to excuse my rant, but this a topic that continues to frustrate me.
For those of you that don't know what this means, it's a simple calculation that the health services use to compare height to weight. All they do is take your weight, your height and then do a short sum, or use a table, to decide which range you fall into. The ranges are "Underweight" (below 18.5), "Normal" (18.5 to 24.9), "Overweight" (25- 29.9) and "Obese" (30+) and are used to suggest your potential health risks.
Now, these calculations don't take into account how much muscle the person has, and therefore how much of their weight is body fat. As far as I know, I haven't ever heard of increased cardiovascular health risks due to increased muscle mass. It's the fat that's the killer, right?
Most of us know now that the most effective way to burn fat and to keep it off is to increase your lean muscle mass, thus increasing your resting metabolic rate (simply put, you burn more calories, even at rest, if you have more muscle), combined with the right nutrition programme. It's inevitable that you are going to increase weight by increasing muscle mass, and the problem is that different people burn the fat at different rates. So, initially when someone starts doing weight training they might put on muscle before they lose much fat and even put on a little weight. If they persist, though, the increased muscle mass will have the desired effect of burning more fat, and often their weight will drop again (unless they're going for serious muscle building).
Now, to be fair to the health services they do state on their literature that the ranges don't take into account muscle mass. But what gets me is how many people are still using their weight as a guide to their progress.
I'll give you another example of the obsurdity of this weight/height comparison. Both Alex and I are keen Rugby fans (Alex, in fact, was a professional Rugby player earler in his career). Now, it's a sad time to be an English rugby fan at the moment, but watching those guys play 80 minutes at the intensity they manage is incredible. Their fitness is unreal. However, if you took their weight to height ratios, and used the BMI scale, I reckon 80% at least would be classed as "Overweight", whilst many of the forwards would be classed as "Obese". Admittedly, although the shape of Rugby players has become more athletic over the last few decades, some of them still carry a fair bit of fat round the middle. But even the fattest of those guys has fitness levels that would embarass most of us.
So, stop using your weight as a guide to your progress. Find someone who can analyse your body fat percentage (either a Bio-electrical impedence measurement, or Caliper measurements). Take pictures of yourself (the camera doesn't lie), or simply see how your clothes feel or dress sizes change. Test all areas of your fitness regularly and look at what you're eating. But please, don't use your weight as the only guide to how well you're doing in your fitness training.
Are you fit enough for "The Hardcore Workout"?
Andrew & Alex
For those of you that don't know what this means, it's a simple calculation that the health services use to compare height to weight. All they do is take your weight, your height and then do a short sum, or use a table, to decide which range you fall into. The ranges are "Underweight" (below 18.5), "Normal" (18.5 to 24.9), "Overweight" (25- 29.9) and "Obese" (30+) and are used to suggest your potential health risks.
Now, these calculations don't take into account how much muscle the person has, and therefore how much of their weight is body fat. As far as I know, I haven't ever heard of increased cardiovascular health risks due to increased muscle mass. It's the fat that's the killer, right?
Most of us know now that the most effective way to burn fat and to keep it off is to increase your lean muscle mass, thus increasing your resting metabolic rate (simply put, you burn more calories, even at rest, if you have more muscle), combined with the right nutrition programme. It's inevitable that you are going to increase weight by increasing muscle mass, and the problem is that different people burn the fat at different rates. So, initially when someone starts doing weight training they might put on muscle before they lose much fat and even put on a little weight. If they persist, though, the increased muscle mass will have the desired effect of burning more fat, and often their weight will drop again (unless they're going for serious muscle building).
Now, to be fair to the health services they do state on their literature that the ranges don't take into account muscle mass. But what gets me is how many people are still using their weight as a guide to their progress.
I'll give you another example of the obsurdity of this weight/height comparison. Both Alex and I are keen Rugby fans (Alex, in fact, was a professional Rugby player earler in his career). Now, it's a sad time to be an English rugby fan at the moment, but watching those guys play 80 minutes at the intensity they manage is incredible. Their fitness is unreal. However, if you took their weight to height ratios, and used the BMI scale, I reckon 80% at least would be classed as "Overweight", whilst many of the forwards would be classed as "Obese". Admittedly, although the shape of Rugby players has become more athletic over the last few decades, some of them still carry a fair bit of fat round the middle. But even the fattest of those guys has fitness levels that would embarass most of us.
So, stop using your weight as a guide to your progress. Find someone who can analyse your body fat percentage (either a Bio-electrical impedence measurement, or Caliper measurements). Take pictures of yourself (the camera doesn't lie), or simply see how your clothes feel or dress sizes change. Test all areas of your fitness regularly and look at what you're eating. But please, don't use your weight as the only guide to how well you're doing in your fitness training.
Are you fit enough for "The Hardcore Workout"?
Andrew & Alex
Thursday 19 February 2009
Relative Strength
Check out this video:
Now, that is a hardcore workout!! The core strength that guy has too - wow! Now, how many body builders do you think could do that kind of workout?
This got me thinking once again about relative strength (positive power to weight ratio)and how it's a much finer benchmark to aim for than absolute strength. I'll list a couple of reasons:
Firstly, it's more functional. By that, I mean it's more useful and transferable to everyday activities. If you only train to increase muscle size, then your ability to run or do chin ups will be decreased. What if you lift huge weights off the floor but can't haul your butt up a tree to rescue the cat or can't run around with your kids?
Secondly, and this is a personal opinion of course, the kind of body you're going to end up with is much more attractive. I'd far rather look like the dude in this video than a big and bulky meathead !! A RELATIVELY strong body is lean and ripped.
So, make sure you put bodyweight exercises into your programme (dips, chin, pull ups, press ups etc.) and use them as one of the bench marks, plus have a think about comparing your weight to what you're lifting. How soes your squat / deadlift weight compare to the scales?
This discussion also reminded me of another subject that I will be discussing in a different post, and that is BMI (Body Mass Index. I bet that guy would come out as overweight on the BMI scale, but that's just obsurd isn't it? I'll be back to discuss that later.
Until next time…..are you tough enough?
Andrew & Alex
Now, that is a hardcore workout!! The core strength that guy has too - wow! Now, how many body builders do you think could do that kind of workout?
This got me thinking once again about relative strength (positive power to weight ratio)and how it's a much finer benchmark to aim for than absolute strength. I'll list a couple of reasons:
Firstly, it's more functional. By that, I mean it's more useful and transferable to everyday activities. If you only train to increase muscle size, then your ability to run or do chin ups will be decreased. What if you lift huge weights off the floor but can't haul your butt up a tree to rescue the cat or can't run around with your kids?
Secondly, and this is a personal opinion of course, the kind of body you're going to end up with is much more attractive. I'd far rather look like the dude in this video than a big and bulky meathead !! A RELATIVELY strong body is lean and ripped.
So, make sure you put bodyweight exercises into your programme (dips, chin, pull ups, press ups etc.) and use them as one of the bench marks, plus have a think about comparing your weight to what you're lifting. How soes your squat / deadlift weight compare to the scales?
This discussion also reminded me of another subject that I will be discussing in a different post, and that is BMI (Body Mass Index. I bet that guy would come out as overweight on the BMI scale, but that's just obsurd isn't it? I'll be back to discuss that later.
Until next time…..are you tough enough?
Andrew & Alex
Thursday 12 February 2009
Fitness Tests You Can Do Yourself On A Treadmill
So in the final instalment of my articles on testing your fitness I’m going to outline 2 tests you can do on a treadmill.
The first is a sub-maximal test and one that I got from the American College of Exercise.
Sub-maximal means that you need to stay with in your comfort zone and certainly do not work at a level that would elevate heart rate any where near maximum.
It then uses a relatively complex calculation to workout a predicted VO2 max.
You need to walk on a treadmill and cover a complete mile, but you will also need some values to plug in to these calculations:
VO2 max = 132.853
- 0.0769 x (Wt, in lbs)
- 0.3877 x (age)
+ 6.315 x (gender) M=x1, F=x0
- 3.2649 x(time)
- -0.1565 x (Heart Rate at completion)
The second way of using a treadmill is too run on it.
In this fitness test you need to try and run a mile and a half in as fast a time as possible.
Then simply put the figures in to this calculation:
VO2 = Distance (m) / time x 0.2 + 3.5
This will give you a re pretty good indication – there are of course errors in both tests but you should only get an error rate of around 2-4%.
Whenever you use a treadmill you should have a gradient of 1 degree as a minimum (it better replicates out door running)
Let us know which type of test you’ve tried and what your score was.
Until next time,
Are you tough enough for the hardcore workout?
Andrew & Alex
P.S. Don’t forget to pick up your free 4 week hardcore workout training program by **clicking here**
The first is a sub-maximal test and one that I got from the American College of Exercise.
Sub-maximal means that you need to stay with in your comfort zone and certainly do not work at a level that would elevate heart rate any where near maximum.
It then uses a relatively complex calculation to workout a predicted VO2 max.
You need to walk on a treadmill and cover a complete mile, but you will also need some values to plug in to these calculations:
VO2 max = 132.853
- 0.0769 x (Wt, in lbs)
- 0.3877 x (age)
+ 6.315 x (gender) M=x1, F=x0
- 3.2649 x(time)
- -0.1565 x (Heart Rate at completion)
The second way of using a treadmill is too run on it.
In this fitness test you need to try and run a mile and a half in as fast a time as possible.
Then simply put the figures in to this calculation:
VO2 = Distance (m) / time x 0.2 + 3.5
This will give you a re pretty good indication – there are of course errors in both tests but you should only get an error rate of around 2-4%.
Whenever you use a treadmill you should have a gradient of 1 degree as a minimum (it better replicates out door running)
Let us know which type of test you’ve tried and what your score was.
Until next time,
Are you tough enough for the hardcore workout?
Andrew & Alex
P.S. Don’t forget to pick up your free 4 week hardcore workout training program by **clicking here**
Wednesday 11 February 2009
Gold Standard Fitness Test & Field Based Fitness Test (The Bleep Test)
Yesterday I told you how to do a really simple fitness test using a concept II rowing machine.
Well today you’re going to see two videos the first one depicts the Gold standard test, which is carried out in a laboratory on a treadmill with expired air samples being taken...
If you are wondering what the lady is doing, she’s taking a finger prick blood sample so that she can measure lactate responses.
And this video shows the world renowned 'Bleep' Test or multi stage fitness test which was developed at Loughborough University (where I did my undergraduate degree) and can be used in any setting where you have a 20m flat running surface....
In this test you’ll see two people running up and down as they have to continually run shuttles of 20 metres a progressively faster pace…also note the two different turning styles.
Later on this week I’ll share with you two treadmill tests you can do, one walking and one running.
Until next time,
Are you tough enough for the hardcore workout?
Andrew & Alex
P.S. Don’t forget to pick up your free 4 week hardcore workout training program by **clicking here**
Well today you’re going to see two videos the first one depicts the Gold standard test, which is carried out in a laboratory on a treadmill with expired air samples being taken...
If you are wondering what the lady is doing, she’s taking a finger prick blood sample so that she can measure lactate responses.
And this video shows the world renowned 'Bleep' Test or multi stage fitness test which was developed at Loughborough University (where I did my undergraduate degree) and can be used in any setting where you have a 20m flat running surface....
In this test you’ll see two people running up and down as they have to continually run shuttles of 20 metres a progressively faster pace…also note the two different turning styles.
Later on this week I’ll share with you two treadmill tests you can do, one walking and one running.
Until next time,
Are you tough enough for the hardcore workout?
Andrew & Alex
P.S. Don’t forget to pick up your free 4 week hardcore workout training program by **clicking here**
Tuesday 10 February 2009
How To Fitness Test Yourself
Measuring your fitness level is something you should be doing about once every three months (or more regularly if needed).
There are a number of ways you can measure your self and workout how fit you are, but what you may struggle with is what exactly does that data tell you.
Well whatever fitness test you are doing (we’re talking aerobic fitness tests here not strength, local muscular endurance or flexibility tests) you should end up with a number.
Now that number could range from as low as the teens to as high as the mid nineties (the highest ever recorded was by a cross country skier) but what does the actual number mean?
Try not to switch off here, but you are measuring the maximum amount of oxygen your body can utilise as a absolute value in Litres per minute or as is more commonly reported, as a relative value.
Yeah, I know what does all this really mean? Well you can measure yourself and class yourself at a level against the general population and sports stars.
Here’s a really simple one you can do first up:
(N.B. if you are suffering from a low back problem or shoulder problem you should avoid this)
Jump on a rowing machine and try and blast through 2000m as fast as you can (world record is held by Rob Waddell from New Zealand with a time of 5:36.6
http://www.concept2.com/us/interactive/calculators/vo2max.asp put in your time weight, sex and training level.
It even gives you some tables to class yourself against.
I have my own scale:
<30 Poor
30-34.9 Average
35-39.9 Above Average
40-44.9 Good
45-49.9 Excellent
50-54.9 Amateur Athlete
55-59.9 Athlete
60+ Elite Athlete
The UK average is 30 ml.kg-1.min-1…..Just so we’re straight here Average is not acceptable. The American College of Exercise states that a score of above 40 is need to maintain the level of fitness you have now for the rest of your life (maintain that is, not improve!!)
Anyway tomorrow more on other types of fitness tests, I’ll even show you a video of the gold standard fitness test.
Until then,
Are you tough enough for the hardcore workout?
Andrew & Alex
P.S. Don’t forget to pick up your free 4 week hardcore workout training program by **clicking here**
There are a number of ways you can measure your self and workout how fit you are, but what you may struggle with is what exactly does that data tell you.
Well whatever fitness test you are doing (we’re talking aerobic fitness tests here not strength, local muscular endurance or flexibility tests) you should end up with a number.
Now that number could range from as low as the teens to as high as the mid nineties (the highest ever recorded was by a cross country skier) but what does the actual number mean?
Try not to switch off here, but you are measuring the maximum amount of oxygen your body can utilise as a absolute value in Litres per minute or as is more commonly reported, as a relative value.
Yeah, I know what does all this really mean? Well you can measure yourself and class yourself at a level against the general population and sports stars.
Here’s a really simple one you can do first up:
(N.B. if you are suffering from a low back problem or shoulder problem you should avoid this)
Jump on a rowing machine and try and blast through 2000m as fast as you can (world record is held by Rob Waddell from New Zealand with a time of 5:36.6
http://www.concept2.com/us/interactive/calculators/vo2max.asp put in your time weight, sex and training level.
It even gives you some tables to class yourself against.
I have my own scale:
<30 Poor
30-34.9 Average
35-39.9 Above Average
40-44.9 Good
45-49.9 Excellent
50-54.9 Amateur Athlete
55-59.9 Athlete
60+ Elite Athlete
The UK average is 30 ml.kg-1.min-1…..Just so we’re straight here Average is not acceptable. The American College of Exercise states that a score of above 40 is need to maintain the level of fitness you have now for the rest of your life (maintain that is, not improve!!)
Anyway tomorrow more on other types of fitness tests, I’ll even show you a video of the gold standard fitness test.
Until then,
Are you tough enough for the hardcore workout?
Andrew & Alex
P.S. Don’t forget to pick up your free 4 week hardcore workout training program by **clicking here**
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
