Some of the workouts guys post here are knee intensive. I'm not one to tell another what kind of workout they should be doing, but If I was younger and had what hopefully would be years of hunts ahead of me, I would be looking at workouts that didn't maximally stress the knees or shoulder joints.
Ditto on the above. I'm not into "workouts" counting carbs, protein, etc etc. and if I had to spend time in a gym to be fit to hunt I'd put a bullet in my head and quit hunting...in that order. Having said that, different strokes for different folks applies. The only advice I feel qualified to give is in the quote above. You pound those joints you WILL LIKELY pay for it sometime after age 50, I don't care what kind of "shape" you're in.
Take care of your joints, you have no spares.
Not going to a gym (your garage or someone else's gym) isn't "taking care of your joints". That is called "neglect".
"The greatest danger from Crossfit movements, is from not doing them." Greg Glassman
Think you missed the point.
Gloria In Excelsis Deo!
Originally Posted by Calvin
As far as gear goes.. The poorer (or cheaper) you are, the tougher you need to be.
At 32 I have to strongly agree with snubbie about the joint care. I am a blue collar tradesman that enjoys what I do but have a physical job and am on my feet all day.I joined a crossfit gym with my wife for 3 months and neither of us wants to return. We are perfectly happy to follow a linear gains routine and then incorporate some conditioning work. We are both feeling stronger and healthier as opposed to feeling weaker, tired and rundown when we did crossfit. I am not saying crossfit sucks but for us we don't feel that it is sustainable in the long run.
fuzzy - I tend to agree with you on crossfit. Several local gyms have it around my town. The routine is 5 days per week for 30-60 minutes. I tried one that did heavy squats for 5 straight days, followed by a 440 run. I don't care how old you are, the body was not made for that kind of abuse.
I feel the same way about Mark Rippetoe's 5x5 workout. I did the Rippetoe workout for about 6-8 months religiosuly. A. it works for building strength, B. it is not sustainable past the age of 35 or so. I have a bump on my kneecap where the patellar tendon attaches. It is scar tissue and appeared during my Rippetoe workouts. I think a cycle or two of Rippetoe is a good idea but as a long term adventure, not so much. I've always been prone to over-use injuries and after working out for 30 years, have figured out what works, what doesn't, and what is painful.
Someone on here mentioned a cycle that is basically what I've been doing for the past 2-3 years - concentrate on strength training early in the year with some cardio, move into equal balance of strength and cardio in spring summer, then into weighted pack hikes with strength training in late summer/fall. I think this type of training for me is optimum because it keeps me from over-use nagging injuries, provides some variety, and is a good blend of strength and cardio. I think Rippetoe and crossfit fit into that equation, I just don't see either as a year around event.
Ah,yes, more junk science about diet. For example, "Low carb and higher fat diet will accelerate ketone production.' ?!? "When this occurs the body will adapt to using fats as fuel." Not really. The body burns glucose from carbs and fats all the time. The exception is when the body is short of oxygen. More. "However, it (fats) can't be used unless they have been on low carbs for a couple of weeks." Dead wrong. The consumption of fats slows down when the body's blood sugar level is reduced. Another. "Burning fat in place place of carbs generates less lactic acid." Not possibe. The nervous system runs on glucose, for instance, not fats. Latic acid is generated by converting proteins to glucose, however. And that happens when one's blood sugar gets too low from lack of carbs. I sure hope you aren't paying money for this junk science. None of this has been proven in accredited studies. E
We are both feeling stronger and healthier as opposed to feeling weaker, tired and rundown when we did crossfit. I am not saying crossfit sucks but for us we don't feel that it is sustainable in the long run.
Diet and rest plan?
Also, not all Crossfit gym owners are created equal. Some of their programming is a pale imitation of the main page workout. Pointer's posted workouts sometimes cause me to shake my head.
E, I really don't care what you believe but I don't want your views to influence people reading this that don't know better. Your drivel that totes the govt. Food pyramid is utter bullshit. The govt. First of all doesn't want anyone healthy and second of all wants you eating grain because they fund it. Take 100 people in their thirties or older. Have a group that eats Paleoish/Zoneish and another who eats from the "pyramid." Look at their blood work (and I don't mean the bull [bleep] from the docs of in range but optimum figures), look at what their bodies look like and asses their work out put abilities over a few tasks. Then come back and tell me who is healthier, fitter and able to do more work. I can take an obese person who is diabetic or prediabetic and make them fit with good labs in a short amount of time if they eat the way many of us are stating. Add to that a work out regimine of lifting heavy [bleep], sprinting, jumping, body weight tasks, some distance work and rucking and you will have a healthy, fit individual who can perform a variety of tasks and recover quickly.
As for crossfit workouts, as was stated above, not all the boxes are equal. Some are good some not so good. I'm 46 and follow crossfit football programming. I veg stronger, feel good and am not overtraining. I do listen to my body though and work around how I may feel and a past shoulder injury.
My best buddy is a medical doctor. My personal doctor is a friend of his. My gastro doc knows the other two well. As an added bonus, they all hunt out west and know what it takes to hunt well at altitude.
It won't come as much of a shock but I discussed my blood chemistry, workouts, and goals with all three at different times over a month period when I was figuring this out. Suffice to say all three more or less agree with what Battue wrote.
Keeping carbs to ~ 100-125 grams total per day, I've lost 15 lbs, only take my Prilosec once per day (versus twice for the past 5 years), and have retained most of my strength and increased my cardio workouts. I'll post my blood chemistry when I get it taken again. In the mean time, my heartrate is 56-58 beats per minute, BP is low 100's over low seventy's. There is something to eating low carb.
As an aside, my gastro guy put it very succinct - forget everything you think you know about eating. Throw out the food pyramid, and eat low carb, increase ratio of fats and protein. Lift heavy things and hike/jog/walk alot.
As an aside, my gastro guy put it very succinct - forget everything you think you know about eating. Throw out the food pyramid, and eat low carb, increase ratio of fats and protein. Lift heavy things and hike/jog/walk alot.
Bears repeating. The Zone isn't really "low-carb" though as you still get 40% of your calories from carbs. That is markedly less than the average American eats though. Grains should be avoided if you are trying to loose weight, and minimized if you are at an optimal weight. Wheat is likely the worst grain for most folks. Rice is probably the best.
Where E falls down is that he read something once and either didn't read the entire article or he forgot what he didn't want to remember.
Had to go back and dig into some studies on metabolism. While digging this quick discussion popped up. This is Kreps cycle stuff and there are dang few who understand it completely.
Hunting last time I looked was essentially an aerobic endurance activity and thus fat plays the roll of the primary energy source. Fat wins the long race.
E also said lactic acid is produced when the body runs out of carbs. Wrong, lactic acid it produced when the body runs low on oxygen.
Another article relating to the aerobic and anaerobic metabolic pathways.
Why does lactic acid build up in muscles? And why does it cause soreness? Jan 23, 2006 Stephen M. Roth, a professor in the department of kinesiology at the University of Maryland, explains. As our bodies perform strenuous exercise, we begin to breathe faster as we attempt to shuttle more oxygen to our working muscles. The body prefers to generate most of its energy using aerobic methods, meaning with oxygen. Some circumstances, however, --such as evading the historical saber tooth tiger or lifting heavy weights--require energy production faster than our bodies can adequately deliver oxygen. In those cases, the working muscles generate energy anaerobically. This energy comes from glucose through a process called glycolysis, in which glucose is broken down or metabolized into a substance called pyruvate through a series of steps. When the body has plenty of oxygen, pyruvate is shuttled to an aerobic pathway to be further broken down for more energy. But when oxygen is limited, the body temporarily converts pyruvate into a substance called lactate, which allows glucose breakdown--and thus energy production--to continue. The working muscle cells can continue this type of anaerobic energy production at high rates for one to three minutes, during which time lactate can accumulate to high levels.
A side effect of high lactate levels is an increase in the acidity of the muscle cells, along with disruptions of other metabolites. The same metabolic pathways that permit the breakdown of glucose to energy perform poorly in this acidic environment. On the surface, it seems counterproductive that a working muscle would produce something that would slow its capacity for more work. In reality, this is a natural defense mechanism for the body; it prevents permanent damage during extreme exertion by slowing the key systems needed to maintain muscle contraction. Once the body slows down, oxygen becomes available and lactate reverts back to pyruvate, allowing continued aerobic metabolism and energy for the body�s recovery from the strenuous event.
Addition: E may be a carb addict and seldom gives his body the chance to run on fat and thus thinks the way he does. Most of Americans today probably are addicted to the ups and downs of relying primarily on carbs for fuel. Carbs certainly play an important roll and I don't think carbs can be blamed for the obesity problem we have today. The problem is most don't move enough nor have control of the calories they consume.
There is much to dislike about the reality survival TV programs. However one thing to observe, is the amount of red meat and fats those who can stay out and keep going consume.
Well actually Battue, current thought is lactic acid has little to do with muscle soreness. It is the leakage of calcium from the muscle's "trigger", IE the sarcoplasmic reticulum. Calcium is the primary intracellular ion that allows muscles to contract. It has to be pumped via active transport back into the cells to allow the next contraction to occur. That is why most of us can't do this:
I left out a portion of that article and it agrees with what you mentioned with regard soreness, although it didn't specifically mention Calcium. However, calcium is essential for certain metabolic processes. Lactic acid is a trigger-the burning sensation-that tries to prevent us from damaging a muscle to the point that repair can only occur over a long period of time and not just a couple days.
The rest of the story:
"Contrary to popular opinion, lactate or, as it is often called, lactic acid buildup is not responsible for the muscle soreness felt in the days following strenuous exercise. Rather, the production of lactate and other metabolites during extreme exertion results in the burning sensation often felt in active muscles, though which exact metabolites are involved remains unclear. This often painful sensation also gets us to stop overworking the body, thus forcing a recovery period in which the body clears the lactate and other metabolites.
Researchers who have examined lactate levels right after exercise found little correlation with the level of muscle soreness felt a few days later. This delayed-onset muscle soreness, or DOMS as it is called by exercise physiologists, is characterized by sometimes severe muscle tenderness as well as loss of strength and range of motion, usually reaching a peak 24 to 72 hours after the extreme exercise event.
Though the precise cause of DOMS is still unknown, most research points to actual muscle cell damage and an elevated release of various metabolites into the tissue surrounding the muscle cells. These responses to extreme exercise result in an inflammatory-repair response, leading to swelling and soreness that peaks a day or two after the event and resolves a few days later, depending on the severity of the damage. In fact, the type of muscle contraction appears to be a key factor in the development of DOMS. When a muscle lengthens against a load--imagine your flexed arms attempting to catch a thousand pound weight--the muscle contraction is said to be eccentric. In other words, the muscle is actively contracting, attempting to shorten its length, but it is failing. These eccentric contractions have been shown to result in more muscle cell damage than is seen with typical concentric contractions, in which a muscle successfully shortens during contraction against a load. Thus, exercises that involve many eccentric contractions, such as downhill running, will result in the most severe DOMS, even without any noticeable burning sensations in the muscles during the event."
Given that delayed-onset muscle soreness in response to extreme exercise is so common, exercise physiologists are actively researching the potential role for anti-inflammatory drugs and other supplements in the prevention and treatment of such muscle soreness, but no conclusive recommendations are currently available. Although anti-inflammatory drugs do appear to reduce the muscle soreness--a good thing--they may slow the ability of the muscle to repair the damage, which may have negative consequences for muscle function in the weeks following the strenuous event."
Addition: E may be a carb addict and seldom gives his body the chance to run on fat and thus thinks the way he does.
Could it be that he doesn't have regular bowel movements and just gets full of sh**?
I think E is a big/tall/lanky dude. Many such folks are the 25% of the population that have a muted insulin response from a high carb diet, and can mostly eat them without gaining weight. It works for him and he can't understand why everyone isn't like him.
E can't conceive the knowledge base has broadened from what he learned 25 to 30 years ago. All fats where bad, you ran from cholesterol in any form and good carbs where all a person needed.
The science of exercise and how diet relates has advanced. If one needs proof then look at the athletes of today compared to those of 30 years ago.
E is partially correct. His mistake is in refusing to continue learning.
As an aside, my gastro guy put it very succinct - forget everything you think you know about eating. Throw out the food pyramid, and eat low carb, increase ratio of fats and protein. Lift heavy things and hike/jog/walk alot.
Bears repeating. The Zone isn't really "low-carb" though as you still get 40% of your calories from carbs. That is markedly less than the average American eats though. Grains should be avoided if you are trying to loose weight, and minimized if you are at an optimal weight. Wheat is likely the worst grain for most folks. Rice is probably the best.
Low carb is a relative statement for 99% of Americans.
Why is wheat the 'worst grain'? I've heard/seen that before and don't really know why.
For E, who wants studies. Mentioned will be the American Diabetes Assoc, Washington School of Medicine, Mayo Clinic and Purdue University.
Found with an easy Google search. Are they the final answers? Doubt it, but the old theories are being questioned and the answers are coming up different.
