How To Exercise & Lose Weight / Slim Down & Get Rid Of Love Handle Aka Spare Tyre? (Compiled)

[Guest Guest]

 

the guys in this video are very sexy...they look different from those bulky big muscles men. theirs more of a lean muscular types....i like this kind of size.

[bluerunner]

the guys in this video are very sexy...they look different from those bulky big muscles men. theirs more of a lean muscular types....i like this kind of size.

He looks amazing. Yes he is not overly bulky. Very beautiful lean muscles.

[xydboy]

 

the guys in this video are very sexy...they look different from those bulky big muscles men. theirs more of a lean muscular types....i like this kind of size.

Each to his or her own i guess.

[Steve5380]

the guys in this video are very sexy...they look different from those bulky big muscles men. theirs more of a lean muscular types....i like this kind of size.

 

After seeing this video I have started to practice his abs exercise instead of regular crunches. It feels good and will try to do it with correct form.  If I can get some abs even half like his... wow!

Edited December 20, 2014 by Steve5380

[SeannyShortcake]

After seeing this video I have started to practice his abs exercise instead of regular crunches. It feels good and will try to do it with correct form.  If I can get some abs even half like his... wow!

 

Using different variations for any muscle groups inclusive of abs will be good for muscle growth.

 

Regular crunches just aren't enough by themselves.

 

The shape of the abs is determined by genetics though. So don't be too disappointed if your abs don't look exactly like his.

 

And a good diet never hurts

[xydboy]

Using different variations for any muscle groups inclusive of abs will be good for muscle growth.

 

Regular crunches just aren't enough by themselves.

 

The shape of the abs is determined by genetics though. So don't be too disappointed if your abs don't look exactly like his.

 

And a good diet never hurts

Yes that is right, in fact now, the move is no longer just abs/core exercise in one direction, but more of other direction as well. Many people just work on the simple trunk flexion which is essentially what crunches do. What the exercise do is anti-flexion, where the body has to go against a resistance in the flexed movement. Other exercise which should be done is also the movement in the other planes: anti-lateral flexion, anti rotation, anti extension, and not forgetting hip flexion itself. Many people often neglect compound exercises like the squats and deadlifts, which are also beneficial for the core. And yes, diet is important. Like they always said, abs are built in the kitchen, not in the gym. 

[Steve5380]

Using different variations for any muscle groups inclusive of abs will be good for muscle growth.

 

Regular crunches just aren't enough by themselves.

 

The shape of the abs is determined by genetics though. So don't be too disappointed if your abs don't look exactly like his.

 

And a good diet never hurts

 

Yes, I think you are absolutely right about variety.  This is also what I have been made to believe.  What surprised me is that the Dane guy said that this is his only exercise!   I don't know if he can be trusted,  but I have found before that absolutes in training don't hold too well, and this idea that one must "attack the muscles from all possible angles" may be more a dogma in a system of beliefs than reality. 

 

So far I have done a good variety of abs exercises.  I have been able to do sets with a thousand of mixed straight and crossed crunches (the left elbow touching the right knee and vice versa) but I don't do them with added weights because they are uncomfortable. But the Dane guy's exercise can add to the movement all the resistance one wants. This is what I like about. 

[Steve5380]

Yes that is right, in fact now, the move is no longer just abs/core exercise in one direction, but more of other direction as well. Many people just work on the simple trunk flexion which is essentially what crunches do. What the exercise do is anti-flexion, where the body has to go against a resistance in the flexed movement. Other exercise which should be done is also the movement in the other planes: anti-lateral flexion, anti rotation, anti extension, and not forgetting hip flexion itself. Many people often neglect compound exercises like the squats and deadlifts, which are also beneficial for the core. And yes, diet is important. Like they always said, abs are built in the kitchen, not in the gym. 

 

Now that you mention it, one of my favorite exercises besides the squat is the stiff-legged deadlift, great for the lower back and hip.  Highly recommended.

[xydboy]

Now that you mention it, one of my favorite exercises besides the squat is the stiff-legged deadlift, great for the lower back and hip.  Highly recommended.

Yes that is a good exercise as well, hope that the form is good otherwise its detrimental for the spine.

[Steve5380]

Yes that is a good exercise as well, hope that the form is good otherwise its detrimental for the spine.

 

You know what you are talking about.  Good form here means coming down in the movement trying to look forward as long as possible, to keep the spine from bending forwards in an attempt to come down with minimum discomfort to the locked knees. This is why good flexibility is helpful in this exercise, especially hamstring stretches.

[xydboy]

You know what you are talking about.  Good form here means coming down in the movement trying to look forward as long as possible, to keep the spine from bending forwards in an attempt to come down with minimum discomfort to the locked knees. This is why good flexibility is helpful in this exercise, especially hamstring stretches.

Actually the crux of the dead lift is essentially the hip hinge. Whether one performs the exercise well, can see from the hips. The muscle balance between the posterior chain (gluts and hamstrings) plus the hip flexors (frequently tight), abs and erector spinae must be present, and more often than not, people with tight muscles in these aspect "disrupt the balance" and do not perform their hip hinge well.

[Guest Guest]

u r still fat until u see ur ABS showing naturally...u have succeeded!

[Guest Guest]

u r still fat until u see ur ABS showing naturally...u have succeeded!

The whole purpose of exercising is health and masculinity, not abs.

Does abs guarantee you a longer life? Does abs make you more masculine than a strong stout male?

[Nipoet]

I gain weight drinking plain water.

 

lol Sadness. xD

[Guest Guest]

The whole purpose of exercising is health and masculinity, not abs.

Does abs guarantee you a longer life? Does abs make you more masculine than a strong stout male?

 

 

yes it does. abs makes u more attractive. no abs = fat.

[bodybuildMLY]

yes it does. abs makes u more attractive. no abs = fat.

 

 

Not actually. It requires super low amount of bodyfat (ard 3-4%) to see a ripped body. Having such a low body fat may not be healthy in the long run. There is a chart circulating in Facebook which states the different levels of body fat corresponding to the different lifestyle which you have to embraced. A healthy body has around 10-12% body fat. You may still see a bit of abs...not that obvious....but you are still healthy. 

 

Attractiveness depends on individual tastes. For me, I prefer my man to be a muscle stout. 

[SeannyShortcake]

yes it does. abs makes u more attractive. no abs = fat.

 

A good example of someone brainwashed by fitness magazines.

[xydboy]

The whole purpose of exercising is health and masculinity, not abs.

Does abs guarantee you a longer life? Does abs make you more masculine than a strong stout male?

Well said!

[Steve5380]

The whole purpose of exercising is health and masculinity, not abs.

Does abs guarantee you a longer life? Does abs make you more masculine than a strong stout male?

 

No, the purpose of strong abs is not to show them off by starving to single digit body fat.

 

Strong abs help to keep good posture, increase capacity to lift heavy objects keeping everything in place, make it improbable that the tummy will start bulging out in later years, and add mobility for example by lifting up from lying down without using the arms. It adds a feeing of well being and satisfaction when driving a car with an internal belt under the skin instead of relying on the safety belt to hold all the guts and the body slumped on the seat.   In short,  strong abs add to the quality of life.

[koolkai]

He looks amazing. Yes he is not overly bulky. Very beautiful lean muscles.

 

The guys in the video look really great. Not only do they have good lean muscles but their skin seems rather flawless. I also notice that they are very smooth overall. Lean muscles, good skin and smoothness make a person look attractive?

[Guest Guest]

No, the purpose of strong abs is not to show them off by starving to single digit body fat.

Strong abs help to keep good posture, increase capacity to lift heavy objects keeping everything in place, make it improbable that the tummy will start bulging out in later years, and add mobility for example by lifting up from lying down without using the arms. It adds a feeing of well being and satisfaction when driving a car with an internal belt under the skin instead of relying on the safety belt to hold all the guts and the body slumped on the seat. In short, strong abs add to the quality of life.

yep, those strongmen participating in "Strongest Man On Earth" has no visible abs. Yet they can each lift 10 of those skinny men with abs. LOL

[xydboy]

No, the purpose of strong abs is not to show them off by starving to single digit body fat.

 

Strong abs help to keep good posture, increase capacity to lift heavy objects keeping everything in place, make it improbable that the tummy will start bulging out in later years, and add mobility for example by lifting up from lying down without using the arms. It adds a feeing of well being and satisfaction when driving a car with an internal belt under the skin instead of relying on the safety belt to hold all the guts and the body slumped on the seat.   In short,  strong abs add to the quality of life.

Abs is not the indication of total core capability, the core involves other muscles. Moreover visible abs doesn't equate to strong abs as well, thin people have very low body fat and visible abs but it doesn't mean their core muscles are strong. 

[Steve5380]

Abs is not the indication of total core capability, the core involves other muscles. Moreover visible abs doesn't equate to strong abs as well, thin people have very low body fat and visible abs but it doesn't mean their core muscles are strong. 

 

I find that abs (straight and crossed) for the front and stiffed-leg deadlifts for the back do a complete core workout.

 

About the abs,  I have been doing for a while the exercise done by the "Great Dane" shown on the video by "Guest" and I like it every time more.  Not only does it work the abs with much resistance but it seems to even work the chest, widening it like a pullover. 

[lovehandle]

Ex is for masculinity? women do ex too....

 

 

Whose new year resolution is to have a v abs, 人鱼线，鲨鱼线 etc?

[Guest Guest]

I find that abs (straight and crossed) for the front and stiffed-leg deadlifts for the back do a complete core workout.

 

About the abs,  I have been doing for a while the exercise done by the "Great Dane" shown on the video by "Guest" and I like it every time more.  Not only does it work the abs with much resistance but it seems to even work the chest, widening it like a pullover. 

 

 

i tried that too. its called abs pull down.  sometimes i can get the 'posture' correct n it works my abs alot. sometimes i just feel the strain on my lumbar rather than my abs.

[xydboy]

I find that abs (straight and crossed) for the front and stiffed-leg deadlifts for the back do a complete core workout.

 

About the abs,  I have been doing for a while the exercise done by the "Great Dane" shown on the video by "Guest" and I like it every time more.  Not only does it work the abs with much resistance but it seems to even work the chest, widening it like a pullover. 

The chest is meant to be acting as a stabiliser, not an agonist in that exercise, therefore the effect in terms of working the chest muscle wouldn't be that great for that exercise.

[xydboy]

i tried that too. its called abs pull down.  sometimes i can get the 'posture' correct n it works my abs alot. sometimes i just feel the strain on my lumbar rather than my abs.

There are many other good abs work out, just because someone hunky is doing that workout doesn't mean that everyone who does it will turn out to be the same. This fallacy is pretty common in the industry. Then again, if the posture isn't right, change the exercise or work on the form with lighter resistance. I rather do that than to workout with a poor form.

[Steve5380]

There are many other good abs work out, just because someone hunky is doing that workout doesn't mean that everyone who does it will turn out to be the same. This fallacy is pretty common in the industry. Then again, if the posture isn't right, change the exercise or work on the form with lighter resistance. I rather do that than to workout with a poor form.

 

Yes indeed, good form is important. But not only my personal experience but what I have read about this "pull-down abs" indicate that it is an excellent exercise.  It can be done not only kneeling down but also standing if one has something to lean the back against.  And I find that it nicely works the rib cage, the chest, like it pulls it from below like the pull-overs do it from above. You should try it !

[Guest fatty]

I think the topic is how to get rid of spare tyre, belly fat etc not how to get abs. Please give advice on how to get rid of them and not what to do to get abs. That's for another stage.

[Steve5380]

I think the topic is how to get rid of spare tyre, belly fat etc not how to get abs. Please give advice on how to get rid of them and not what to do to get abs. That's for another stage.

 

Fatty, it is very simple.  You unscrew the valve (carefully) and let all the air escape from the spare tire.  Then you just let it fall down and step out of it.

 

The abs are one of the muscles that make up the mid section. Very important, because it keeps the tummy tucked in. The goal with the mid section is to feel like you have under the skin a very thin and strong corset that keeps your guts nicely in place.  The "spare tire" you get rid of through healthy nutrition, with small frequent meals.  If some fat on the sides is reluctant to go away, you can have liposuction (expensive, drastic) or you just leave it alone, a little fat on the sides doesn't make one Fatty.

[xydboy]

Yes indeed, good form is important. But not only my personal experience but what I have read about this "pull-down abs" indicate that it is an excellent exercise.  It can be done not only kneeling down but also standing if one has something to lean the back against.  And I find that it nicely works the rib cage, the chest, like it pulls it from below like the pull-overs do it from above. You should try it !

I've did it before, but i usually don't do them (isolation exercises) because i try to integrate them into the compound movements that I do, like squats, etc. They engage the core as well. My abs are pretty decent though not fabulous.

[xydboy]

I think the topic is how to get rid of spare tyre, belly fat etc not how to get abs. Please give advice on how to get rid of them and not what to do to get abs. That's for another stage.

Proper diet and proper workout regime. Try to move around more and sit around less. Hitting the gym also builds muscle which in turns increases your metabolic rate. Usually this is why i encourage people who are fat to hit the gym and workout, even without cardio, it's still an efficient way to keep yourself healthy. I think many people have the misconception that fat loss are in stages, i beg to differ. When you workout, your body doesn't go through step 1 do this, step 2 do that, it's not a computer. What it does is they do it concurrently, where fat loss and strength gains are done at the same time. many scientific studies have also demonstrated this results after a period of training regime implemented to the subjects.

[bodybuildMLY]

Proper diet and proper workout regime. Try to move around more and sit around less. Hitting the gym also builds muscle which in turns increases your metabolic rate. Usually this is why i encourage people who are fat to hit the gym and workout, even without cardio, it's still an efficient way to keep yourself healthy. I think many people have the misconception that fat loss are in stages, i beg to differ. When you workout, your body doesn't go through step 1 do this, step 2 do that, it's not a computer. What it does is they do it concurrently, where fat loss and strength gains are done at the same time. many scientific studies have also demonstrated this results after a period of training regime implemented to the subjects.

 

You are right......I heard advices such as "do cardio first, and lose the weight, then you start with weights training..." and similar as such. Cardio and weights training should be done hand-in-hand to attain the best shape ever!

[SeannyShortcake]

Don't need to post questions.

 

Just use Google.

 

People have been posting ways to burn the fat,gain muscle,work the abs,enlarge pecs and shoulders,e.t.c throughout this thread.

 

Stop fucking the dead horse.

[Guest Guest]

You are right......I heard advices such as "do cardio first, and lose the weight, then you start with weights training..." and similar as such. Cardio and weights training should be done hand-in-hand to attain the best shape ever!

 

thats what i did. alot of cardio then proceed to weight. i feel more motivated that way cos i can see muscle defination faster n easier, so more motivation to gym.

 

i have seen ppl who cant lose the fat, gym n run but still look fat muscle hybrid.

[Steve5380]

Stop fucking the dead horse.

 

Shortcake,  how come you see here a dead horse?  Why not pose questions?

Yes, the internet is full of information about thousands of topics.

This thread is for conversations among AJs about something that is important to us.

In these conversations one can always learn something new, no matter how "expert" one is.

Edited January 4, 2015 by Steve5380

[Steve5380]

You are right......I heard advices such as "do cardio first, and lose the weight, then you start with weights training..." and similar as such. Cardio and weights training should be done hand-in-hand to attain the best shape ever!

 

You are right.  And it even goes further:  weight training can be good 'cardio' too, although not aerobic, but excellent for the heart. After doing heavy squats the heart beats strong, the breathing is deep, a sign of the exercise received.

 

It seems that for the control of weight it is more important an adequate nutrition than any amount of aerobic exercise, and for the fitness of the body the weight training is superior to the aerobic "cardio".

 

To get the most out of the time invested, it seems that instead of endless running, the best value is to eat good food in moderation and to do heavy weight training ('heavy' is relative to each person's body)

[Steve5380]

I've did it before, but i usually don't do them (isolation exercises) because i try to integrate them into the compound movements that I do, like squats, etc. They engage the core as well. My abs are pretty decent though not fabulous.

 

I agree.  Compound exercises are the bread and butter of the weights training.  Isolation exercises are more an accessory to make one feel that one is doing something good.

[xydboy]

You are right.  And it even goes further:  weight training can be good 'cardio' too, although not aerobic, but excellent for the heart. After doing heavy squats the heart beats strong, the breathing is deep, a sign of the exercise received.

 

It seems that for the control of weight it is more important an adequate nutrition than any amount of aerobic exercise, and for the fitness of the body the weight training is superior to the aerobic "cardio".

 

To get the most out of the time invested, it seems that instead of endless running, the best value is to eat good food in moderation and to do heavy weight training ('heavy' is relative to each person's body)

Actually it kind of differs when we talk about weight training being a form of cardio. I get where you are coming from but for aerobic or cardio, the movements have to be repetitive and last for a decent duration. Moreover the metabolic pathway that occurs in aerobic and anaerobic differs as well. Saying weight training is good for the heart is akin to saying taking roller coaster is a form of good cardio workout. The effects are not long enough to sustain any benefits in terms of strict cardiovascular improvements. 

[xydboy]

thats what i did. alot of cardio then proceed to weight. i feel more motivated that way cos i can see muscle defination faster n easier, so more motivation to gym.

 

i have seen ppl who cant lose the fat, gym n run but still look fat muscle hybrid.

Depending on the kind of workout you adopt. I would say that concurrent training is still possible and has reap pretty decent benefits across many training studies.

[macronized]

It does matter actually, especially for those who are pre-disposed to obesity. Hence the two have to complement one another. 

Agree. It's a meticulous task but this will keep you on track with your goals.

[Steve5380]

Actually it kind of differs when we talk about weight training being a form of cardio. I get where you are coming from but for aerobic or cardio, the movements have to be repetitive and last for a decent duration. Moreover the metabolic pathway that occurs in aerobic and anaerobic differs as well. Saying weight training is good for the heart is akin to saying taking roller coaster is a form of good cardio workout. The effects are not long enough to sustain any benefits in terms of strict cardiovascular improvements. 

 

Well, not exactly.  'Cardio' and 'aerobic' are not synonymous.  While 'cardio' or cardiovascular means the heart and circulatory system, 'aerobic' means the provision of oxygen to the body.  So a "cardio exercise" is whatever is good for the heart and blood circulation, even if it is not sustained to the point that it improves the steady supply of oxygen to the body.  A set of a heavy compound exercise like squats puts a sudden load on the heart and lungs that exercises them too.

[xydboy]

Well, not exactly.  'Cardio' and 'aerobic' are not synonymous.  While 'cardio' or cardiovascular means the heart and circulatory system, 'aerobic' means the provision of oxygen to the body.  So a "cardio exercise" is whatever is good for the heart and blood circulation, even if it is not sustained to the point that it improves the steady supply of oxygen to the body.  A set of a heavy compound exercise like squats puts a sudden load on the heart and lungs that exercises them too.

I agree with the first line, what I meant previously will be elaborated as follows. Firstly, the maximum oxygen uptake equation doesn't have a "lung" component to it. It is essentially just the heart. Secondly, yes the heavy compound exercise like squats puts load onto the heart, but do you dare say that you get someone to keep doing squats, he would be able to have a good endurance or aerobic stamina? According to ACSM guidelines in cardiorespiratory fitness (and to cite it directly), frequency of 3-5 days/week of 55-90% of maximum heart rate or 40-80% of VO2max reserve, 20-60mins of continuous or intermittent aerobic activity that involves large muscle groups which can be maintained rhythmically and continuously and aerobic in nature (From journal article:ACSM Position Stand: The Recommended Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and Maintaining Cardiorespiratory and Muscular Fitness, and Flexibility in Healthy Adults). I guess its spelt out clearly and its evident that the adaptations of cardiorespiratory is brought out significantly through aerobic training. Putting a person just on a squat regime would not allow the person to run well for a 2.4km.

[Steve5380]

I agree with the first line, what I meant previously will be elaborated as follows. Firstly, the maximum oxygen uptake equation doesn't have a "lung" component to it. It is essentially just the heart. Secondly, yes the heavy compound exercise like squats puts load onto the heart, but do you dare say that you get someone to keep doing squats, he would be able to have a good endurance or aerobic stamina? ..... I guess its spelt out clearly and its evident that the adaptations of cardiorespiratory is brought out significantly through aerobic training...... Putting a person just on a squat regime would not allow the person to run well for a 2.4km.

 

Putting a person on a squat regime would not improve his running for 2.4 km,  and putting a person to run for long distances will not improve his squats ability. The two exercises involve different qualities of muscles. But the two seem to be good for THE HEART.

 

My first information about heart and weight training came a long time ago from a classic book "Power, a Scientific Approach" by Fred Hatfield, where he has a whole chapter "Your heart and weight training" describing the benefits to the heart.

Hatfield is a champion and training guru, "Mr. Squat",  you can read about him in  

 

http://drsquat.com/who-is-drsquat

 

In this website you can find good books from him that are free, like "ABSolutely ABS" (for the abs, of course)

 

You may also like to read this article:

 

http://www.mensfitness.com/training/get-heart-healthy-by-lifting-weights

[xydboy]

Putting a person on a squat regime would not improve his running for 2.4 km,  and putting a person to run for long distances will not improve his squats ability. The two exercises involve different qualities of muscles. But the two seem to be good for THE HEART.

 

My first information about heart and weight training came a long time ago from a classic book "Power, a Scientific Approach" by Fred Hatfield, where he has a whole chapter "Your heart and weight training" describing the benefits to the heart.

Hatfield is a champion and training guru, "Mr. Squat",  you can read about him in  

 

http://drsquat.com/who-is-drsquat

 

In this website you can find good books from him that are free, like "ABSolutely ABS" (for the abs, of course)

 

You may also like to read this article:

 

http://www.mensfitness.com/training/get-heart-healthy-by-lifting-weights

If it was indeed significantly good for the heart,then why would people not be able to improve their cardio events after the squats? I would like to cite a study by Pollock, et. al., 2000, titled "Resistance Exercise in Individuals With and Without Cardiovascular Disease Benefits, Rationale, Safety, and Prescription An Advisory From the Committee on Exercise, Rehabilitation, and Prevention, Council on Clinical Cardiology, American Heart Association" (http://www.bodyquestfit.com/images/press/resistance_exercise.pdf). This has been highly regarded as recommendations on the usage of resistance training for people with or without cardiovascular diseases. As mentioned in the table of the article,there is not much impact on the resting heart rate, stroke volume, as well as systolic blood pressure at rest. The effects of better performance in the walking test or any other test administered to these populations suggest that the person completed the trial faster, not because their cardiovascular characteristics have improved, but rather the body got fitter to cope with the task, as such, allowing the individual to complete the timed test quicker.

Another study by Deschenes & Kraemer, 2002, titled "Performance and Physiologic Adaptations to Resistance Training" (http://digby.tamu.edu/213%20%20Fall%202013/G4%20Neuromuscular/Adaptation%20to%20Resistive%20Training%20Deschenes%202002.pdf) concurred with this finding and to cite the article,"In particular, it is quite conceivable that improving one’s strength results in a muted cardiovascular strain when performing a given task requiring muscular exertion. If so, resistance training may convey a positive cardiovascular adaptation during the execution of normal daily activities. In fact, it has been demonstrated among older individuals that strength training lessens the cardiovascular stress heart rate and blood pressure increases—during tasks such as walking, weight-loaded walking, and stair climbing, even in the absence of increases in maximal oxygen uptake."

Another older study by Fleck, 1988, titled "cardiovascular adaptations in resistance exercise"(http://europepmc.org/abstract/MED/3057314) also mentioned similar findings where "Resistance training causes increased absolute left ventricular wall thickness and left ventricular mass. These increases are not as evident when expressed relative to body surface area or lean body mass. There is little or no change in left ventricular internal dimensions, in absolute terms or relative to body surface area, resting heart rate, resting blood pressure, and diastolic function of the left ventricle due to resistance training. No change or slight positive effects are noted in systolic function of the left ventricle with training."

And so if it was indeed good for the heart, then how about people with cardiac issues? Looking from an evidence based practice point of view, where strong studies/meta analysis have been examined, it has been suggested by Bartlo, 2005, titled,"Evidence-based application of aerobic and resistance training in patients with congestive heart failure," (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18197070) that "Aerobic exercise was shown to have significant (P < .01) clinical importance in the outcomes of VO2 max levels, dyspnea, work capacity, and left ventricular function. Resistance exercise was shown to have clinical importance in improving left ventricular function (P = .0085), peak lactate levels (P = .064), muscle strength (P = .05), and muscle endurance (P = .001)."

 

What I'm trying to say is to seek an appropriate means for improvement. Like you said that the two exercises involve different qualities, but it seems to be that aerobic is better for the heart and the heart seems to be more responsive in terms of cardiovascular adaptations to aerobic training than resistance training.

Just FYI, the first link you posted isn't working. Might have been down at this point in time upon access. Nevertheless thanks for sharing both links.

[Steve5380]

If it was indeed significantly good for the heart,then why would people not be able to improve their cardio events after the squats? I

--------

What I'm trying to say is to seek an appropriate means for improvement. Like you said that the two exercises involve different qualities, but it seems to be that aerobic is better for the heart and the heart seems to be more responsive in terms of cardiovascular adaptations to aerobic training than resistance training.

Just FYI, the first link you posted isn't working. Might have been down at this point in time upon access. Nevertheless thanks for sharing both links.

 

Well...  a good heart is not only good for 'cardio' but it is also good for weight training.  I would not try to improve my running by doing squats, nor trying to improve my squats by running.  And the issue here is that the heart improves both with aerobic (cardio) and anaerobic (squats and other weight lifting) exercising.

 

And the articles you quoted confirm this.  For example, in the first you quoted it says:

 

"The rationale to support resistance training as an adjunct to an adult fitness or exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program stems from several lines of evidence. Moderate-to-high intensity resistance training performed 2 to 3 days per week for 3 to 6 months improves muscular strength and endurance in men and women of all ages by 25% to 100%, depending on the training stimulus and initial level of strength.14 Furthermore, many leisure and occupational tasks require static or dynamic efforts, often involving the arms rather than the legs.15 Because the pressor response to resistance exercise is largely proportionate to the percent of maximal voluntary contraction (% MVC),16 as well as the muscle mass involved, 17 increased muscle strength results in an attenuated heart rate and blood pressure response to any given load, because the load now represents a lower percentage of the MVC."

 

So if we do heavy weight exercises, the heart copes better when we have to exert ourselves, like climbing stairs.  The claim here is NOT that weight training is better for the heart than 'cardio'.  The claim is that weight training IS ALSO GOOD for the heart.

 

The link http://drsquat.com/who-is-drsquat works fine, at least hear in the US.  You may also find the place by googling "Fred Hatfield"

Edited January 7, 2015 by Steve5380

[xydboy]

Well...  a good heart is not only good for 'cardio' but it is also good for weight training.  I would not try to improve my running by doing squats, nor trying to improve my squats by running.  And the issue here is that the heart improves both with aerobic (cardio) and anaerobic (squats and other weight lifting) exercising.

 

And the articles you quoted confirm this.  For example, in the first you quoted it says:

 

"The rationale to support resistance training as an adjunct to an adult fitness or exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation program stems from several lines of evidence. Moderate-to-high intensity resistance training performed 2 to 3 days per week for 3 to 6 months improves muscular strength and endurance in men and women of all ages by 25% to 100%, depending on the training stimulus and initial level of strength.14 Furthermore, many leisure and occupational tasks require static or dynamic efforts, often involving the arms rather than the legs.15 Because the pressor response to resistance exercise is largely proportionate to the percent of maximal voluntary contraction (% MVC),16 as well as the muscle mass involved, 17 increased muscle strength results in an attenuated heart rate and blood pressure response to any given load, because the load now represents a lower percentage of the MVC."

 

So if we do heavy weight exercises, the heart copes better when we have to exert ourselves, like climbing stairs.  The claim here is NOT that weight training is better for the heart than 'cardio'.  The claim is that weight training IS ALSO GOOD for the heart.

 

The link http://drsquat.com/who-is-drsquat works fine, at least hear in the US.  You may also find the place by googling "Fred Hatfield"

The link doesn't work in chrome and mozilla here in singapore. Anyway the paragraph you cited what it meant was essentially what I've said. If the person can perform the workload, its not because his heart got better, but because the body is able to cope the load better due to greater strength and thus performance increases. In the first article, table 1, it's evident that the improvements in weight training is not going to bring about significant improvements in the heart. No change in resting heart rate, no change in stroke volume, no change in systolic blood pressure at rest, lower diastolic blood pressure at rest, and in terms of VO2max, there is only a slight improvement, not even close to what aerobic training can bring about. So with all these variables measured, how is it that weight training can also be good for the heart? cardiac output (indicator of the amount of blood circulated through the system) = heart rate x stroke volume. Both the variables for heart rate and stroke volume remains unchanged through adaptations. Another formula is the maximum oxygen uptake, where it is a good measurement or by far the best measurement for cardio fitness, little to no improvement. By looking at these 2 indicators, and looking at what was presented, it boils down to the point that the resistance training helps strengthen the muscles, allowing a reduction or less taxing of the cardiovascular system, allowing the person to perform the task effectively. Its not because the person's heart got better that's why he or she can work efficiently.

[Guest Guest]

So in conclusion does it mean do more cardio for a good heart workout?

That's my conclusion after reading so many chim articles from both of you. Haha

[Guest Shay]

How long to see the effects like the shape of ur body being more muscular and toner when u gym 3 times a week 1.5 hrs each time

[Steve5380]

How long to see the effects like the shape of ur body being more muscular and toner when u gym 3 times a week 1.5 hrs each time

 

The results won't be noticeable very fast.  Progress in body building is done over years, not over months.

It is a training where patience pays off.