Let me nitpick
I watched a movie sometime back - The Chaser. Obviously, it had a chase scene but it appeared very realistic, as opposed to what they show in Bollywood movies. The guys ran fast initially, then slowed down, crawled for a bit and once they were able to catch their breath, they were back again on their feet. They collapsed shortly afterwards within a foot of each other. One was lean built and the other was a former police detective. Different background - but no difference in the running style.
This is how I have seen people behaving in real life too. Run/walk fast... slow down... rest... continue. Unless you train for it, you cannot just suddenly start running for couple of kilometers, albeit slowly. And that's what I intend to achieve by HIIT (high...). I run hardly for 6 mins at fast but sustainable pace and in-between, couple of times 10~15 seconds of very fast sprints. I take overall 16 minutes. Remaining time is all warm-up, cool-off time. BTW, what's the use of cardio if you can't strain your heart above a specific BPM*, for a short time?
And I log all the times/speed religiously, and improve during the next session.
Not asking rhetorically, but what do those slow-endurance-runners try to achieve by doing cardio, which is actually not cardio? I do not look at their machines to checkout their BPM. They looked quite relaxed to me... they could talk to their mates without huffing.
There was a famous guy who used to say that if you run everyday of your life, you cannot have a heart attack. He died of heart attack, probably while running. It could be because of his egg-whites
or liquor, but clearly his running didn't train his heart. And he ran for a long time.
Again, cardio for me is purely from the functionality standpoint. The way I try to teach road manners to just anybody, I believe it's going to save my life someday.
* It varies for everybody. Don't remember the recommended range.
Let me nitpick
Any method that burn more calories is more effective method. Weight training may be more effective for the exact duration it is being done.
It's okay, as long you accept that it burns more calories in each session... and also while resting afterwards, which cardio doesn't (I am not saying it, but people on the net are
... blame them). So, the net result over a week tilts in favor of lifting.
But the intensities employed in weight training typically doesn't allow one to increase the duration and frequency. e.g one can run 5 km everyday but imagine squatting everyday (only if you are olympics lifter with loads of "help")
Do you believe in the figures shown by those uber-costly treadmills (lifefitness and the likes)?
If yes, then I can safely say that my lifting routine used to burn more calories in a week (2~3 sessions) than day-in and day-out of cardio. I've tried it. I am no longer that gym's member, otherwise you could see the log online. I always tell people to not to believe me but try it out for themselves. So if you have access to such machines, you can find out for yourself. Also, pay attention to which method makes you feel more hungrier throughout the day.
But the intensities employed in weight training typically doesn't allow one to increase the duration and frequency. e.g one can run 5 km everyday but imagine squatting everyday (only if you are olympics lifter with loads of "help")
I strictly log weights/sets/reps and the rest period between sets. To increase the intensity, you just either increase the former or decrease the latter. I strive to do more in each subsequent session - if I can't, I mark it as a failed session.
I look at the functionality aspect also. I should be able to lift somebody in case of emergency, as opposed to run for miles all alone. Weight lifting is much more rewarding, at least for me.
Human body is designed for endurance runs.
I really have no idea about this. I've read both sides of the argument.
Yes, most of our activities are of endurance type. But we do show bouts of extra strength when needed (not adrenalin aided)... that slow-twitch, fast-twitch muscles debate.
Now that I have done the nitpicking, let me be clear - I hate endurance activities...
Nah, it's just a healthy* discussion (*pun intended
)
Even I hate it but I try to test my endurance periodically. I can climb 10 stories of stairs at a stretch. That's how high my office is. You know how ill-equipped NCR fire service is... though, I really should be worrying about getting down as fast as possible.
So my friend, I am not saying you are wrong. But you really need to convey the diet message properly.
How can I, when I don't follow it myself? For me ->
Practice what you preach.
I restrict my discussion to exercising only. My logbook tells me if I need to eat more. I've never asked anybody to eat less/more, shun rice/meat. If at all, I ask people to pay attention to EFAs and good fats. Everyone seems to hate fats but in reality, they are your friends.
I eat whole eggs but never stopped/corrected anybody who eats only egg-whites. I haven't tested egg-whites diet so how can I give my opinion on what works better?
Also, please highlight if I mention something wrong about the diet... I'll learn something in the process.
I have converted my dejected, cardio loving colleagues to weight training. They were about to quit. Though it's important but I didn't discuss about their diets even then. They were happy because they could see the results in less time. BTW, they had access to certified dietitians in the gym.
If you find it confusing to calculate calories try eating less portions of food, for example 2 rotis instead of 3, half a bowl of rice instead of 1 bowl etc.
I'll still be clueless as I don't track my diet. I simply review my exercise log and decide if I need to eat more/differently. I have plenty of recovery days between sessions, so I can really make out if the things are going in the right direction.
Imp things to keep in mind are have meals at regular times, be consistant in your diet...
And that's what I don't do
I apply
shock-and-awe method to my diet as well.
