I can swear by this - I've lost almost forty pounds since New Year's by cutting out the danishes, making my own lunches, and going to the gym regularly for weight lifting and cardio.
The only thing I'd add - working out is time-consuming, and getting started at a gym is both hard and intimidating. Gyms themselves are counting on you to stop going - that's how they make their money. If you're having trouble getting started, consider saving up your money and getting a personal trainer for a few months. The personal trainer will teach you how to use the equipment properly, get you more comfortable around the gym, and, most importantly, will be so godawful expensive you won't shrug it off and not bother to go to the sessions - the pain of wasting all that money will be too much.
Yes, I know this is silly - but I was getting chunkier and chunkier over the past couple of years and for me that was the only thing that worked. Personal willpower just wasn't getting it done.
Working out really doesn't take that long. Most studies have shown that a typical non-steroid using weight training session only needs to last 45 minutes to an hour. After that time period, unless you consuming calories during the session the results you can get drop off dramatically from diminishing returns.
I agree that the biggest hurdle with people going to a gym is the intimidation factor. I'm in the gym 4 times/week and love seeing people who start and keep going. I want to tell them how awesome it is that they are doing it, but am never sure if that's the right thing to do some stranger lol.
If you can afford it the personal trainer is a great idea. The only problem is that many PTs plain out suck. I would try to do a session with one before committing to anything long term with a particular person. There are personality and knowledge factors that as a client you want to find out early.
Your story is also very common and is why a friend of mine is opening a gym that will cater to people who need a PT and are generally intimidated about the process. Obviously it will be a smaller niche gym, but I think it will work out pretty well.
I go back and forth on things like lol. It's hard to convey in writing when something should be take lightly or as a joke. Without the standard facial cues of smiling it's easy to take something the wrong way.
And in general your heuristic is correct, but the gym is an odd place. I'm pretty social, but would prefer no one talk to me while working out. I'm usually so busy watching the clock and focusing on the task at hand that I don't want to seem rude to someone by having to eventually ignore them to finish my workout.
Your advice here is good. You might want to quietly watch a few trainers in action, if you can do so unobtrusively - I did, and it helped. I picked a female trainer over a male trainer because I saw a few of the male trainers at my gym barking drill-sergeant-style, and I knew I'd react poorly to that.
As for the complements to a stranger, I did have a couple of random people at the gym say 'you've been working your ass off' or 'you've lost a lot of weight' in a non-creepy way when I was in line at the juice bar and I definitely appreciated it. But everyone's different.
You picked a trainer the right way. If you know what you need to be pushed and motivated then look for that in a trainer. They each have their own styles and personalities just like anyone else.
When it comes to random complements it's really me projecting my anti-social tendency while at the gym. I'm there for one reason and it's to work out. I put headphones and generally don't talk or interact with anyone the entire time I'm there. I guess if the opportunity presents itself I'll try and offer a complement in a non-creep way :)
I think speaking to others at the gym is somewhat cultural.
In lower middle class neighborhoods of Jersey City (JSQ), you can talk to others. Ask for a spot or advice on form, tell them "bad form, watch out", whatever. In Manhattan gyms (at least the 2 or 3 I've used), no one talks to anyone else. Ever.
You might be onto something. In my old city I used to go to an older gym with mainly people who wanted to workout and get strong. The bars had rust on them and the crowd was all very friendly, not big family friendly but they would all say hey when you showed up.
My new gym is a big box gym. It's super nice, and I keep telling a friend of mine that really it's too nice. The people aren't very friendly, but I think that's because there are so many more people working out here that you rarely see the same person enough times to form any relationship. Plus, many people are there to just hang out and act like they are working out. One time I actually overheard a guy ask another guy for a spot and the guy told him no and then walked over to another bench and just sat down. I was stunned and in all my years of working out had never seen someone not help another when asked.
Even in their most competitive days I couldn't imagine Arnold telling Lou no if he needed a spot.
I've taken to printing out something I was going to read anyway (like lecture notes) and reading it on the treadmill while brisk walking at 4.5 mph or so. Going to the gym isn't time consuming anymore - I just get two things done instead of one. Obviously that wouldn't work for real running or weightlifting, but it's better than no exercise (which is what I was doing).
40 lbs in less than 6 months represents a massive drop in your weight. Anytime you're losing more than 5lbs a month you're asking for trouble, especially when there isn't some kind of significant and readily identifiable reason for previous weight gain (e.g., hypothyroidism, limb injury, etc).
While sudden drops of weightloss right at the start of a major lifestyle change are pretty normal, if you continue at this rate you should talk to your doctor.
I disagree. Anything up to 2 lb per week is a reasonably healthy rate of weight loss, especially if you're quite overweight to start with. Losing 40 lb in six months is both perfectly healthy and a damn good achievement.
Agreed. I think 1 lb per week is more in line with the doctor recommended rate, but 2 lb per week is the threshold you're not supposed to cross. 8 lbs per month in 5 months is right at that. That is a damn good achievement.
I'm not saying it's not great, but it's not a sustainable rate of weight loss if your goal is to lose a lot of weight.
When I cut soda from my diet I lost 10lbs in a month. In a month! And then it tailed off and I was depressed because I couldn't sustain it, I had unreasonable expectations. And if you're losing 2lbs a week for a very long period of time, it can be an indicator of underlying medical issues.
I have to disagree. Most doctors will agree that losing up to two pounds per week for a healthy adult is acceptable and normal during the course of intensive exercise.
Much like matwood, I was ~205 at 6' with an athletic build. I wasn't overly fat, but hefty (ok, kinda fat). Running and working out six mornings/week and basketball in the evenings allowed me to drop 2 lbs/week, to a much leaner 165. Coincidentally, I had a doctor visit or two during that time and the doctors never expressed any concern over it.
Fortunately, and I believe this generally for healthy adults, you will reach a plateau. I did so at 165 and never fell below that, even when I increased my running, lifting and other recreational activity.
You can't sustain any weight loss no matter how little for the simple mathematical reason that body weight is nonnegative. I do agree that 2 lbs/week which is about 8000 calories, or about 3-4 days worth of calories, is a lot. For an average weight person. If you weigh a lot then it may be ok because you naturally burn more calories per day so 8000 calories may only be 2-3 days worth. You shouldn't look at the lbs/week figure but at how many percent fewer calories you're consuming than you need to sustain body weight.
At some point though you shouldn't want to lose anymore weight. Unless you start out really overweight, simply losing weight shouldn't be the goal anyways. Lowering BF% is a much better goal that reflects your overall body composition. I'm 6' 1" and almost 200lbs and weight wise I could be considered overweight, but my BF% was 11% the last time I had it checked and I've since gotten leaner.
In short, don't get depressed about the scale. Look in the mirror and keep making body composition changes.
Are you a doctor or otherwise qualified to make the above assertion? Not trying to be confrontational, but very tired of continually seeing people spout information they read somewhere as if it was written-in-stone-fact, even though they have no expertise in the given field.
If personal willpower isn't getting it done, I'd suggest team sports. I got into rowing a few years ago, and it's been great. Basketball, soccer/football, tennis can be great sports for consistent quality workouts.
Diet: Eating grains. Gluten is pretty much evil for everyone, including non-Celiacs. Google for "paleo diet" or "gluten autoimmune" to get a sense of gluten's impact.
Also check out the "Save my Life" HN thread for more info about gluten-free/paleo.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1399450
Exercise: Cardio, long slow distance is pretty much useless. High intensity intervals, 200m, 400m repeats will have a much bigger impact.
If you really love endurance, check out http://crossfitendurance.com/ and google for "tabata intervals"
Those two points seem to me like fringe advice. I'm sure if I googled "gluten autoimmune" and "tabata intervals" I'd find a bunch of people agreeing with you, but no more than I'd find with any number of other fad diets or exercise regimes.
It'd take a helluva lot of evidence to persuade me that eating grains is bad, because... heck, grains are tasty, and the vast majority of humans who have lived over the last five thousand years have had grain-based diets with no obvious ill effects. Likewise, if you think long slow-distance cardio is pretty much useless, go watch long-distance runners for a while.
My advice to anyone who is unfit and wants to be fit is to ignore everybody who's trying to sell you some very specific idea of what you have to do, and just concentrate on doing the lowest-common-denominator stuff: eat less junk, do more exercise.
People have different tolerances to the amount of grains they can eat, but, if you want optimal health, you'd stop eating grains. Grains are not a nutritional necessity. There's nothing in grains that you can't get in meat, vegetables, fruit, or seeds/nuts.
Again, some people can be in good shape and eat grains. But if you want to be as healthy as possible they need to be avoided. Or if you're overweight/out of shape, removing them from your diet will definitely speed up the process of improving your health.
I know for my own body, it's best for me to avoid them completely. They have a very addictive quality for me, more so than anything sweet. Forget the ice cream, give me a roll!
Again, some people can be in good shape and eat grains. But if you want to be as healthy as possible they need to be avoided.
Find me a professional athlete on a grain-free diet.
Maybe they're out there somewhere, but I'm pretty sure if you find me one I'll find you a better professional athlete who eats grains.
With so much effort put into finding optimal diets for athletes nowadays, if cutting out grains would improve fitness in any meaningful way then we'd know about it by now. If Lance Armstrong or Usain Bolt could go faster with a grain-free diet they'd be doing it.
edit: I found a link about Usain Bolt's diet. Turns out he eats quite a lot of rice:
I see where you're coming from, but I think we have a different definition of "health." Athletes are not necessarily the definition of "healthy" to me. They have usually specialized in one aspect of performance. In fact a lot of what they put their bodies through can be detrimental in the long run.
For the normal person who works out a few times a week and then sits at a desk 40 hours, I think removing grains would be very helpful.
A professional marathoner is a different story. Grains might make sense because of their carb density.
Find me a professional athlete on a grain-free diet.
Maybe they're out there somewhere, but I'm pretty sure if you find me one I'll find you a better professional athlete who eats grains.
Find me a (former) professional athlete who lived in perfect health till their 90s.
Maybe they're out there somewhere, but I'm pretty sure if you find me one I'll find you multiple (former) professional athletes who died from CVD, cancer etc.
if cutting out grains would improve fitness in any meaningful way then we'd know about it by now. If Lance Armstrong or
Um, the guy who got cancer when he was 25 years old?
Phenomenal athlete, but hardly a good example of a perfectly healthy person.
If you Google for "tabata research", you'll find a number of studies -- including the original paper by Dr Tabata [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8897392] -- showing that bursts of very high intensity exercise can have a greater effect on endurance than long, steady workouts.
On the one hand, I find it counterintuitive (how can sprinting on-and-off for 5 minutes help my endurance more than running for an hour??). On the other hand, it kind of makes sense, since your body improves most when you really challenge it, and sprints are generally more challenging than a steady pace.
For your last sentence, I think that you have never trained track and field. While 30-40 minutes of jogging is usually done by athletes, the core training is done by series of shorter distances that you have to compete with.
As an example, I have been training for 400m the last years. Being a short distance (although when you reach 300m you feel that is way too long) it is basically trained by repetitions of shorter distances (150/300). And by basically I mean that sometimes there will be longer distances (specially off-season) and tempo.
In general, people that train for 5000, 10000m don't run 1h to train their endurance. They will do, for example, 25x400m r:30", or shorter distances like 3000, 2000 or 1000.
There is no secret on that, you are using your body to run a higher pace that is used to, while running 1h will make your body be used to this slower pace and thus you will not improve your endurance.
If you ask me, I would say that endurance training is not worth it, and that training high intensity is better for your body.
Yeah, I agree it's plausible that they might do a bunch of good. I was mostly disagreeing with the grandparent's assertion that long-distance training is "pretty much useless".
Maybe I'll try incorporating some sprinting into my workouts.
I understand your viewpoint and opinion, as I've run into it before.
I'm going to disagree that gluten has had "no obvious ill effects" because I've seen the changes in my clients lives, experienced it my self (gluten-intolerant) and my mother (Celiac). And your argument that eating grains is not bad because they taste good is preposterous.
As for LSD, can you tell what appeals to you about the physique of a marathoner?
Changing peoples eating and exercise habits is like getting people to quit smoking, they need to have the impetus to start, outside advice/encouragement only goes so far.
"eat less junk, do more exercise." I guess we differ on what "junk" is.
Ah, so you're someone who makes a living by selling diet plans? I'm afraid that if you're a professional x salesman that makes me somewhat less likely to trust your testimony on the advantages of x.
experienced it my self (gluten-intolerant) and my mother (Celiac)
Well obviously if you're gluten-intolerant then gluten is bad for you.
And your argument that eating grains is not bad because they taste good is preposterous
I'm not saying they're not bad because they taste good (cf cheesecake), I'm saying that it would take a lot of evidence to get me to stop eating 'em because they taste good. Basic price/benefit calculation: I'm not gonna give up bread and rice without a damn convincing reason.
As for LSD, can you tell what appeals to you about the physique of a marathoner?
Y'see now you're sounding like a salesman.
Changing peoples eating and exercise habits is like getting people to quit smoking, they need to have the impetus to start, outside advice/encouragement only goes so far.
True. I think crazy diet advice can really do a lot of harm, though, by making people think that getting fit is a lot harder than it actually is. Cutting out ice cream and cookies is easy, cutting out grains is very hard.
I run a CrossFit gym in Toronto. I get no money/compensation for anything regarding nutrition. We get people to try paleo for a month, book-ended by body composition tests and benchmark workouts. If life gets better and they stick with it, great, if they want to quit, they quit.
"Y'see now you're sounding like a salesman."
You didn't answer the question, you just accused me of something that's not true.
I think the best thing to do is end this conversation. We disagree on all the points up for discussion, and I'm guessing that nothing I type will convince you, and I'm certain that nothing you type will convince me.
Certainly not. You just stop eating them. I stopped about half a year ago and never looked back. Well, my health was reasonably good so I can't say it improved dramatically since. However, I had some digestion issues before, these have been eliminated. This alone is enough for me to justify dropping grains, as digestion issues may become annoying and embarrassing at times. :)
The problem with "just stop" is that it interferes with a conventional lifestyle where you can tolerate other people's choices of food(which, the vast majority of the time, will contain grains or dairy).
I lean towards the paleo style myself, but I tolerate a little bit of compromise, and a little bit more when I'm with a friend. But I know intuitively how bad it is now - the effects I feel 15-30 minutes after consumption are mild but predictable.
It'd take a helluva lot of evidence to persuade me that eating grains is bad, because... heck, grains are tasty, and the vast majority of humans who have lived over the last five thousand years have had grain-based diets with no obvious ill effects.
Well, sugar, ice cream, cola - they are all tasty too.
Anyway, if you're interested in looking into ill effects of grain-based diets, there's a couple of links with some evidence.
Ross Enamait's "Never Gymless" - this guy will turn you into a freak of nature ... without a gym. Also be sure to check out "Infinite Intensity" and his other programs as well.
Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe - one of the best books as far as learning the basics of barbell movements and how to apply them successfully. Also check out "Practical Programming" which will help you scale your workouts to beginner, intermediate, and advanced programs as you progress.
And finally, if you're looking for a way to get a quick and brutal (did i mention brutal??) cardio workout, I highly suggest high intensity interval training (HIIT) in the form of barbell complexes.
I highly suggest Cosgrove's Evil 8 complex, you'll be entirely gassed in about ten minutes. Complexes are GREAT for people looking to build mass and continue doing high intensity cardio without the catabolism (muscle breakdown) associated with slower, long duration cardio.
I agree with the author's recommendation to focus mainly on compound movements (squats, deadlifts, military presses, etc.) I stopped training arms directly and still packed on substantial muscle mass just by training back, chest and shoulders. I'd also point out that in my experience, training legs accounts for 50% of upper body growth due to the specific hormones released.
> I'd also point out that in my experience, training legs accounts for 50% of upper body growth due to the specific hormones released.
I couldn't agree more with this statement. It always pains me to see guys at the gym who spend 2 days a week on chest and another 2 days on back with a day for arms and never train their legs.
It's our legs that often break down first when we're older. You've got to take care of them:)
The one advantage of machines over free weights is that the machine will enforce your form. If you are able to maintain form with free weights, the effort exerted to do so is an added bonus, but if you aren't, it's not good. I started with machines, and every couple workouts replaced a machine exercise with a free weight exercise. This helped me get started, and let me concentrate on the form on one new exercise at a time.
The problem with machines and that most enforce 'bad' form. Every person has their own natural motion that a machine simply cannot match.
The best way to learn a free weight exercise is to simply start doing it without any weight. Start squatting and dead lifting with just your body weight (use a broom handle to simulate the bar). Once you get that down start adding weight. There is a very little that a machine will do to help you with exercises like that and in fact it could end up enforcing bad habits.
TAKE VIDEOS. If you're hesitant to bring a point and shoot to the gym, go later at night or before noon when the gym is relatively empty. Share your videos on any of the big lifting forums and ask for opinions. Sure, you can ask a trainer, but if you're lifting at any of the major chain gyms I wouldn't trust a lot of those guys to critique a squat as far as I can throw them.
If you're doing a lift with improper form, you might as well not do it at all. The point of maintaining proper form is to not only remain injury free, but to also point out any strength imbalances you might have (weak quads in a deadlift, weak lower lumbar in a squat, etc etc).
(example vid, i switched to sumo-stance for deadlifts and wanted to make sure i was doing it right before moving back up in weight -- http://www.imperial.org/~jd/deads275.wmv )
I can respect -anybody- that posts videos and asks for help on form. The amount of weight you're moving is trivial - the fact that you want to focus on your form and perform the lift correctly speaks volumes. I respect the guy squatting 95lbs correctly infinitely more than the guy squatting 405lbs to 25% depth any day of the week.
Great advice! The 2 angles you generally want for a video are the front or back and the direct side angle.
Luckily I haven't had to post and vids because I have a trainer friend who is very good at form and correction. He just adjusted a few things in my DLs and I'm closing in on 500lb DL again.
I've tried sumos off and on, but I don't they are right for my body type. I have long arms and legs and I just get so much more leverage with the traditional DL. I do sumo holds though as accessory work to keep my glutes firing properly.
And yea, the guy quarter squatting is generally a dumb ass. There are times to quarter squat, but for most people they should never need to.
As you and others have mentioned, deadlifts, squats, presses, and bench press are the most effective and time efficient. Don't waste time on bicep curls and other isolation exercises.
Good form is vital though, so get 'Starting Strength' by Mark Rippetoe. There are plenty of exercise books available, but this is the only one I know of which will spend 50 pages explaining the proper form for the squat. There's even a companion video for the book.
I also got the "Starting Strength" book. It's very thorough on the technique of all the basic lifts (squat, bench press, deadlift, overhead press, power clean).
It doesn't they very much about programming (i.e. how to and how much to increase the weights you lift), but you can get advise on these from other sources.
Yes, and I may even get it, now that I have probably started reaching the end of the beginner stage where a super simple program suffices. (I squat 1.5 my body weight.)
To clarify, I meant that I replace the machine workout with the free weight workout permanently, so that eventually my workout is entirely free weights.
Exactly. Good form on free weights > Using a machine > Bad form on free weights. For me, introducing free weights gradually let me concentrate on the form for each one as I first did it.
I think it's also important to make a distinction about the weight difference between machine and free weight exercises. It's not a 1:1 ratio. It's easy to grunt it out when you don't have to worry about a large, blunt object falling on your face.
It's also about how fast you can go through a work out. I would do a lot less lifting if I used free weights; machines let me change weight fast.
Of course, I'm 48, and when I was 18 I would have laughed at what I just said, because I was powerlifting. But my needs are different now. I do 30 minutes of interval training cardio, and 20 (or so) minutes of weights. I do 2 (maybe 3) sets. The first one is about 12 reps, where I do 4 warm-up reps, 4 at medium weight, at 4 at just-below-what-I'm-lifting-that-day weight (depends where I am in my cycle). I need machines to be able to change the weight "on the fly." Then I do a second set to failure (again, how many reps depends on how much weight I am pushing that week). This quick routine gives me the workout that I am looking for at this point, and I can get it done in the time I am willing to commit (4 days/week).
If you don't know what I mean by "where I am in my cycle" (I'm male so it's not that) check out this link:
The only problem is I may be running out of weight on some of the machines. I'll deal with that problem when I get there, though. The more likely result is that I'll lay off the weightlifting for a while and have to "rebuild" before that happens (if, say, I start sailing alot).
This is why you go slow and use easy weights when starting a new free weight workout. Having bad form can be dangerous (for example, the deadlift), but in general I find that it's just not as effective and that bothers me enough to make my form better.
Ah, the dead lift. The single most effective exercise ever invented. I don't remember where I read it, but the quote goes like this:
"A kid walked up to me in the gym while I was dead lifting and asked 'what muscle does that work.' I responded by asking the kid 'have you ever watched a football player run across the field and tackle the player with the ball?' The kid responded 'sure.' To that I said 'that muscle.'"
The deadlift is great, as is the squat. I certainly feel like the squat is more effective for me because I find it harder! I'm not sure if there's an objective standard on this but I highly recommend both of them.
Definitely a great resource. I had never seen that site today, but it agrees again and again with my personal experience and what I've learned from reading.
Eating healthy has to just become how you eat most of the time. Exercise has to become a habitual thing you do every day or two, like mowing the lawn or taking out the trash.
Yes! Yes! Yes! This is the key, "the secret," to fitness.
For those of us who have enjoyed running the past or would like to start up, I highly recommend getting Nike+ (http://nikeplus.com). It connects to your ipod, and via a sensor in your shoe gives you feedback about your run. You can join challenges and make friends on their site. Having graphical feedback of your run is pretty cool too. Being able to visualize your progress is very motivating.
This is a great article, makes me want to get off my bum and do some exercise :) One thing I'd like to know is, for women, yoga and pilates and all that seems to be quite fashionable these days, but they don't tend to be either cardio or weightlifting -- what sort of effect do they have on the body?
FWIW (very little): I think weightlifting is one of the keys to looking youthful, especially for women. A strong upper body accentuates the hourglass figure, and the cues that go with muscle tone (in the arms, usually) also contribute immensely to an overall impression of beauty and vitality.
I think women tend to be afraid of really weightlifting (ie heavy weights that make you struggle), either because it is so weirdly testerone-ish or because they are afraid of "bulking up". However, if you don't lift heavy weights nothing happens (women and five pound barbells are a pet-peeve of mine), and bulking up is really, really hard, for both men and women -- if you work out 3 days a week and stay away from the protein drinks (and steroids), you won't see any bulk at all, just tone and reshaping.
I think Pilates and Yoga are cool, too, but there is a little bit of the Oprah's book club thing going on ...
Thanks, it's these sorts of comments that help drive the will to actually go and do something -- I am scared of weights, and for precisely the reasons you and the article said. Especially since in some gyms the weights areas are overrun with really really hefty people... it's very intimidating!
It actually takes a significant amount of "functional" strength to do even just basic Yoga poses. The common myth is that Yoga is all about flexibility, but in fact a lot of the time "inflexibility" is actually just weak core strength.
Having a good core is one of the easiest ways to maintain your health as you get older too and if you're active you will feel a great benefit having that balance and strength. Until I tried Snowboarding I had no idea my core was as weak as it was.
The test I always like to give myself is being able to put my socks on in the morning whilst standing up, without wobbling all over the place or leaning on anything :)
Thanks! I've done some yoga in the past, and it can be quite tricky to do, but apart from the breathing and stretching it did I was never quite sure whether it was as good for me as, say, a run/cycle.
Since I don't have access to a gym with weights and only a small set of dumbbells I'm not sure how much of the weight training side of this I can do, but I might try the running thing and perhaps some simpler weights that I can do with dumbbells. Maybe pick up a yoga class again too :)
Plyometrics are an excellent substitute if you can't get to weights. These are basically calisthenics with explosive movements. For instance, squats where you explode upward into a jump and try to bring your knees to your chest, or push-ups where you explode upward and clap before catching yourself build strength (and stress the bone, which seems to be beneficial in preventing osteoporosis). Also, adding sprints to the end of your run is beneficial (I really like interval training in general, actually).
In an earlier post of mine, I made reference to the Cosgrove Evil 8. If you're looking for something that you can do inside, these would be great for a beginner to do with a broomstick. It would give you an opportunity to learn a majority of the most important (and basic) compound lifts without being intimidated by a gym atmosphere. It would also give you one hell of a workout in a relatively short amount of time, something great for doing at home.
Being able to perform each of these lifts properly would make you more knowledgeable than MOST people at your average ballys or 24 hour fitness, and that should give you plenty of confidence to start busting your ass at the gym.
Things like yoga will stimulate the body and build strength to a degree, but that is a much less efficient way to get in shape, in my opinion.
One of the reasons compound lifts moving heavy weight are so important is the effect they have on your entire body. Doing heavy squats recruits nearly every muscle in your body. But it doesn't just stimulate those muscles, it also stimulates your central nervous system.
Doing something hard enough to get the attention of the CNS is important to making progress, since, for example, the CNS will respond by releasing more hormones such as growth hormone.
Doing full squats with your bodyweight on the barbell 15 times (3 sets of 5) is like screaming at your body to get in shape and it will respond. Doing yoga might be like gently asking.
This isn't to say yoga isn't beneficial, it's just not the most efficient way to get in shape.
Yoga is perfectly good for "getting into shape" and there are several varieties with emphasis on strength, especially static strength.
(Of course, "in shape" means different things to different people. I prefer endurance/cardio, many others think more in terms of strength/musculature.)
As a gross oversimplification of the body types attained, yoga == Bruce Lee, weights == Arnold Schwarzenegger.
That's an ironic comparison considering Bruce Lee was a serious weight-lifting fiend. (He just went for strength rather than bulk.) That said, I'm a big fan of yoga, more for the fitness than for appearances. It's hard to overstate the functional change yoga makes.
Edit: IIRC, Lee described running as the best exercise.
And doing full squats with your bodyweight on the barbell 20 times (1 set of 20) is like hollering at your body with all of your lung capacity to get in shape.
Dunno if this is really a useful line of thinking for a beginner. I wholeheartedly agree with the advice of not overdoing it from the article.
Particularly squats. Nothing better to wreck your knees or back than squats done with too much weight and/or poor technique.
Excercise causes muscle damage which rest heals up (and results in stronger muscles). Aside from the obvious over- or understimulation, you do have some control over the type of stimulation…the two archetypes are the high-rep/low-weight and low-rep/high-weight with slightly different results.
Possible, sorry if I lumped you with what warpwoof said above:
> Doing full squats with your bodyweight on the barbell 15 times (3 sets of 5) is like screaming at your body to get in shape and it will respond.
I do not think (very-)high-resistance training is a good approach for people wanting to be "in shape" but, then, I make a distinction between that and bodybuilding.
To me, "in shape" means whatever conditioning I think I need for the activity I want to do. That kind of strength training makes sense considering the demands of my sport.
There is nothing wrong with yoga or pilates, but they are not a replacement for good old fashioned weight training. If you really enjoy yoga mix it in with weight workouts. Do weights a couple times a week and yoga a couple times week.
Also, as someone else mentioned, don't be afraid of doing weights. The only way to gain weight and thus more muscle is by eating a surplus. So many women shy away from weights because they don't want to get 'bulky', when it's the food that makes you bulky not the training.
Obviously yoga and pilates are gentler (and thus less dramatic in their results), but for me it comes down to a question of what's sustainable for me. For whatever reason, I'm far more comfortable and excited to spend several hours a week doing pilates than weightlifting, so I think I see a better result (because I would find excuses not to do weightlifting). Not that they have to be substitutes for one another, either.
I know that this is only anecdotal, but I've noticed the results women get with pilates, more so than with weightlifting or even yoga. I recommend it to any woman that asks.
How much does smoking pot affect your health and fitness? Is it in same category as bad food (i.e. you can smoke a joint a couple times a week and get away with it) or is it worse?
Weed's good friend alcohol gets a brief mention in the article, but it doesn't say how much the drug itself affects your fitness. It only says that many alcoholic drinks are bad for you because they have high calories from the sugar and alcohol.
For some people, especially college students like me, weed and alcohol are part of their lifestyle. Yes, they're bad for you, but my question is how bad?
The only thing I'd add - working out is time-consuming, and getting started at a gym is both hard and intimidating. Gyms themselves are counting on you to stop going - that's how they make their money. If you're having trouble getting started, consider saving up your money and getting a personal trainer for a few months. The personal trainer will teach you how to use the equipment properly, get you more comfortable around the gym, and, most importantly, will be so godawful expensive you won't shrug it off and not bother to go to the sessions - the pain of wasting all that money will be too much.
Yes, I know this is silly - but I was getting chunkier and chunkier over the past couple of years and for me that was the only thing that worked. Personal willpower just wasn't getting it done.