Body by Science Workout

Questions on how we spend our money and our time - consumer goods and services, home and vehicle, leisure and recreational activities
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by LadyGeek » Wed Sep 04, 2013 10:30 pm

Please stay on-topic.

Resolve this via PM, if needed.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:36 am

lightheir wrote:...I fail to understand why you're harping on it except to try and 'disprove' my ideas using some incorrect faulty logic.

Let me summarize why I am focusing on this (and hopefully show how this part of the thread is on topic):

1) the OP recommended trying out this particular exercise routine

2) you advised that one should run instead of doing the recommended workout, by saying "I'd actually argue the reverse of the authors' claims - as an adult in our calorie rich society, the priority should be on endurance training and not at all on strength."

3) you've made numerous inaccurate or illogical arguments to back up your premise--besides this one on VO2 max, you also cited evolution as proof that running is good (albeit using the same logic, the human appendix is also good), that knee problems for runners are a myth (and you still haven't replied to my rebuttal on that), and "that running is actually a very good activity ... with likely much more physiologic benefits to multiple systems (cardio, strength, bones, coordination) than 20 minutes of weight circuit training" (something that cannot be corroborated in the literature)

4) now, in your most recent post you state "So comparing ECGs between healthy individuals (such as athletes) on a Bruce protocol is essentially pointless..." Why in the world would then would you have brought this up in the first place? You first use the Bruce protocol as an indicator of CV health, and then you say here it is pointless.

So, I don't think I'm harping or going off topic. Just bringing intellectually honest debate to refute your position on this.

longview
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:26 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by longview » Thu Sep 05, 2013 8:54 am

Thanks for all the info and reqs guys. I'm in the process of "stocking" a home gym, and like this workout... and I've noticed the Nautilis machines of my youth are gone (the "best" machines back in the day). Now, from googling, it seems the company has transfered many hands and fallen into disrepute. And there doesn't seem to be a clear winner that has risen in its place.

What equipment are you guys using to do these machine exercises? (I'd like to avoid any kind of bowflex machine which requires switching things around and forcing breaks between sets -- I have space and budget for a fully-stocked home gym).

Thanks.
(To color my comments: my situation is ER trying to make a large portfolio that is 99% taxable last 45 years)

Rolyatroba
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:28 am

longview wrote:What equipment are you guys using to do these machine exercises? (I'd like to avoid any kind of bowflex machine which requires switching things around and forcing breaks between sets -- I have space and budget for a fully-stocked home gym).

The authors recommend something with a cam, so that you can equally stress the muscle through the entire motion of each exercise--this is crucial to being able to train each muscle group with just one exercise (can explain further if needed).

The MD author, McGuff, owns a small gym (http://www.ultimate-exercise.com) and uses MedX equipment (http://www.medxonline.com/exercise.php), but I think any equipment that uses well designed cams would be ok.

Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rodc » Thu Sep 05, 2013 11:14 am

Second BBS workout this morning.

Generally I am not in a hurry, but today I was so the short workout was appreciated.

I have trouble going from 0 to 60 mph when cold, so I did an easy round on all five machines to warm up.

Ok, you big guys, please laugh silently. And remember I only weigh 145lbs. :)

120lbs on pull down, 10 clean pulls, pulls 11 and 12 could not quite get it all the way down but kept pulling hard and easing back up before trying to pull down again. A fair approximation of working to positive failure I think. For comparison, I can do 5 normal reps at 160lbs and a standard pull-up grip which I think is harder than the chin-up grip used in BBS. Slow really makes a big difference in making things hard.

75lbs on seated chest press. 12 clean pushes, two partial. Worked hard, but not quite full out. I confess I don’t like the machine we have, the mechanics just feel weird and off to me. Seems like I should be able to use a higher weight given I can do 40 pushups at a pop. I’m having a little trouble with right shoulder due to an injury a couple of years ago bench pressing 135lbs with free weights, aggravated recently by too many pushups/pullups, but with the slow movement it seems ok.

120lbs row, (I need to take a little notebook as I might be wrong here). 10 clean pulls, then a couple partial pulls to failure.

35lb dumbbells (17.5 each) on over head lift. I really don’t like our overhead press machine. 12 nice lifts before starting to fail, then a couple partial to very close to full positive failure. This is another one where I have to watch my right shoulder.

200lbs seated leg press, 15 clean reps, not quite to full positive failure, though close. More weight would have been better.

I forget where, but somewhere in there my heart rate and breathing was noticeably up. Nothing like a hard run, but noticeable, maybe 120. Broke a pretty good sweat given the very short nature of the workout. Thought I could workout and just get dressed and into the office, but needed a shower. Felt like I had really done something, but certainly not wiped out. This felt like a better workout than try #1 so that is progress of a sort.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.

longview
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:26 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by longview » Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:36 pm

Rolyatroba wrote:
longview wrote:What equipment are you guys using to do these machine exercises? (I'd like to avoid any kind of bowflex machine which requires switching things around and forcing breaks between sets -- I have space and budget for a fully-stocked home gym).

The authors recommend something with a cam, so that you can equally stress the muscle through the entire motion of each exercise--this is crucial to being able to train each muscle group with just one exercise (can explain further if needed).

The MD author, McGuff, owns a small gym (http://www.ultimate-exercise.com) and uses MedX equipment (http://www.medxonline.com/exercise.php), but I think any equipment that uses well designed cams would be ok.


Thanks for the info. I've got the book on my kindle waiting. Any more info on the cam vs a normal pulley would be great.
(To color my comments: my situation is ER trying to make a large portfolio that is 99% taxable last 45 years)

longview
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:26 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by longview » Thu Sep 05, 2013 12:54 pm

Also, I just looked at some of the videos of the workout (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Txsd0rIsPR4). When did exercise machines stop caring about space at all? :oops: I remember the old Nautili was a brick in the center or edge of a room, with 4 stations -- 1 on each side. You could get 2 bricks and have 8 different exercises ready to go. These new machines take up a ridiculous amount of wallspace and all seem to be standalone.

What are you guys using?
(To color my comments: my situation is ER trying to make a large portfolio that is 99% taxable last 45 years)

Rolyatroba
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:52 pm

longview wrote:Any more info on the cam vs a normal pulley would be great.

Sure. It is well known and accepted in the exercise phys world that maximal available force in a strength exercise varies in different parts of the motion. For example, on a seated row, one can move a much higher load in the beginning part of the motion than at the end of the motion. So, if you are working a straight pulley in that motion, and you use a heavy weight that you want to take to failure, you will always get to failure at the end of the motion (the weak part of the motion). Hence, you likely worked the muscle group too vigorously at the end of the motion, and too lightly at the beginning of the motion.

Try this to prove it to yourself: find a seated row machine with no cam, and set the weight to a level that is very high, say to where you can only do 1-2 times. When you do that you'll find that you can't even fully complete the motion (the point that your hands are near your torso).

One way to overcome this with a straight pulley is to break up an exercise into two exercises, one with a lighter load. That's were the cam comes in for exercise efficiency--you don't need to do both exercises to fully exercise the muscle throughout the entire motion. Cams effectively change the load throughout the motion, usually according to known force profiles for different motions. Without them you'd pretty much have to do at least two exercises for each muscle group (not that there is anything wrong with that...it just takes more time).

I don't really know a whole bunch of bio-mechanical details beyond that, and I'd guess that force profiles will differ somewhat among individuals. But I don't worry too much about optimizing the equipment for that. If I do find that I'm always coming to failure in a specific part of the motion, I'll adjust the weight to accommodate for that.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:56 pm

longview wrote:What are you guys using?

I do this workout at a Y; some of the equipment I use is from Strive and most of the others from Cybex. All single-station machines, and most with cams.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by LadyGeek » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:26 pm

longview wrote:Any more info on the cam vs a normal pulley would be great.

Following Rolytroba, here's the engineering part. From Nautilus, Inc. (Wikipedia):

Wikipedia wrote:The name Nautilus refers to a mollusc whose shell is in the shape of a logarithmic spiral. Nautilus exercise machines use a logarithmic-spiral cam, around which a chain is wrapped, connected to a series of weights, to control the resistance the user feels as he/she uses the machine. Nautilus, Inc., had a patent on this cam, which allowed the company to expand considerably. The patent expired; and several companies are now making similar machines.

Nature has a habit of taking a successful design and repeating it everywhere. In this case, the Nautilus cam is named after the Nautilus sea animal. The curve of its shell makes a logarithmic spiral. The shape presents a variable lever arm. Combined with the natural lever arm (you), the total effect results in a constant resistance over the full range of motion. Here's the picture: Patented Nautilus Cam

I got addicted to Nautilus machines very early on.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rodc » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:34 pm

I forget what my gym used to use, I liked it fine. Now we have: http://www.hoistfitness.com/commercial which I do not like at all. The motion simply does not work well for me. One of their gimmicks in many of their machines is in addition to lifting a weight you lift yourself (so how do you really know what you are lifting?) and the motion is weird to me.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.

longview
Posts: 354
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:26 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by longview » Thu Sep 05, 2013 4:50 pm

Ipad ate my message 2 times. So now I'll just say thanks for the great info.
(To color my comments: my situation is ER trying to make a large portfolio that is 99% taxable last 45 years)

protagonist
Posts: 4953
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:11 pm

BBS workout #5- 8 days after last workout with one 20 mile bike ride in between.

No change in weights or number of reps I could do to positive failure since last workout. HR 116-118 immediately after leg press. No subjective change in strength. My form is not perfect, but it is pretty good.

Still too early to evaluate program- I said I would give it at least 3 months. So far, I certainly have not experienced the dramatic gains experienced by others in this forum. I want to work out more often, but I am sticking to the program.

Tigermoose
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:02 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Tigermoose » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:23 pm

I've always heard that compound free weights are better for weight training. Using machines so far has been a pleasant surprise because I have been able to exhaust my muscles without having a spotter. When doing free weights, I would rarely if ever fully exhaust the muscle due to safety concerns.

I too am to early in this to really get a handle on any strength gains. I am not doing the pure core five, but am instead doing a 2 day split:

Tuesday: Lower body machines -- leg press, calf extensions on the leg press, leg curls, abductions, adductions, machine abs, machine ab twist
Thursday: Upper body machines - chest press, shoulder press, curls, triceps, lat pulldowns, chest row

I've been working out pretty consistently with free weights for the past 6 months, so this added workload isn't beyond what I should be doing I think. I think its appropriate given my level of previous training.

Instead of doing a bunch of cardio on M-W-F, I tend to sleep instead of waking up early. I think that getting adequate sleep is probably more beneficial (its a trade-off given my time constraints).
Institutions matter

Rolyatroba
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:25 pm

protagonist wrote:So far, I certainly have not experienced the dramatic gains experienced by others in this forum.

I didn't go back thru the thread to see if this is answered in one of your earlier posts, but had you already been doing strength training prior to starting this program?

If so, you shouldn't be expecting much in the way of strength gains. You should if you are doing new exercises (for example, if you hadn't done shoulder presses before), but not if you've already been strengthening in these motions.

protagonist
Posts: 4953
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:43 pm

Rolyatroba wrote:
protagonist wrote:So far, I certainly have not experienced the dramatic gains experienced by others in this forum.

I didn't go back thru the thread to see if this is answered in one of your earlier posts, but had you already been doing strength training prior to starting this program?

If so, you shouldn't be expecting much in the way of strength gains. You should if you are doing new exercises (for example, if you hadn't done shoulder presses before), but not if you've already been strengthening in these motions.


No, as I posted earlier, I fell off the wagon.
I was doing regular strength training (8-10 exercises about 3x/wk, 3 sets of 6-8 to failure, mostly free weights mixed with some machines, plus regular cardio) up through December, 2012. Then I went to the Caribbean and windsurfed almost every day all winter, but did not do any gym training. I got home early May, 2013, and aside from fairly frequent bike rides and occasional windsurfing, I pretty much fell off the exercise wagon. The month I was in Europe (mid-July through early-mid August) I essentially got no exercise (other than lifting wine glasses to my lips). I got back into working out when I started this program upon my return about a month ago.
Last edited by protagonist on Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Tigermoose
Posts: 549
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2012 5:02 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Tigermoose » Wed Sep 11, 2013 3:44 pm

protagonist wrote:
No, as I posted earlier, I fell off the wagon.
I was doing regular strength training (8-10 exercises about 3x/wk, 3 sets of 6-8 to failure plus regular cardio) up through December, 2012. Then I went to the Caribbean and windsurfed almost every day all winter, but did not do any gym training. I got home early May, 2013, and aside from fairly frequent bike rides and occasional windsurfing, I pretty much fell off the exercise wagon. The month I was in Europe (mid-July through early-mid August) I essentially got no exercise (other than lifting wine glasses to my lips). I got back into working out when I started this program upon my return about a month ago.


Man. You live a rough life! :beer
Institutions matter

Rolyatroba
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:13 pm

protagonist wrote:I was doing regular strength training...up through December, 2012.

Well, that's only 9-10 months off. I don't know how quickly people typically decondition in strength after a prolonged layoff, but for me, I had a rather surprising experience: earlier this year I took 10 weeks off due to a dislocated shoulder; when I came back I was shocked to learn that I had only lost about 5% of my strength, and was back to normal strength after 3 weeks.

Being as active as you were, especially with the windsurfing, I wouldn't be surprised if you lost only 10% or so of your strength (implying that gains from starting backup up with BBS might be marginal).

protagonist
Posts: 4953
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Wed Sep 11, 2013 4:20 pm

Rolyatroba wrote:
protagonist wrote:I was doing regular strength training...up through December, 2012.

Well, that's only 9-10 months off. I don't know how quickly people typically decondition in strength after a prolonged layoff, but for me, I had a rather surprising experience: earlier this year I took 10 weeks off due to a dislocated shoulder; when I came back I was shocked to learn that I had only lost about 5% of my strength, and was back to normal strength after 3 weeks.

Being as active as you were, especially with the windsurfing, I wouldn't be surprised if you lost only 10% or so of your strength (implying that gains from starting backup up with BBS might be marginal).


I can only give you a subjective appraisal....I FELT out of shape when I started up again last month. I also gained about 5-6 pounds, which doesn't sound like much, but I don't have a tendency to gain weight so it was a big deal for me.

protagonist
Posts: 4953
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:21 am

BBS workout #6, 7 days after last workout- 20 mile bike ride on Sunday.

Increased performance by one rep on two of the five exercises (pulldown and chest press). No change on other three exercises. No weight increases (Target- 6-8 reps per exercise- I add 10 lb when I can do 8 reps). HR 120 after completing leg press.

User avatar
gatorman
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:35 am
Location: The Swamp

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by gatorman » Sat Sep 21, 2013 8:40 am

protagonist wrote:BBS workout #6, 7 days after last workout- 20 mile bike ride on Sunday.

Increased performance by one rep on two of the five exercises (pulldown and chest press). No change on other three exercises. No weight increases (Target- 6-8 reps per exercise- I add 10 lb when I can do 8 reps). HR 120 after completing leg press.


When I was starting out, after the first 18 weeks or so, I took a week off every six weeks. Also, if you are having a problem going up in any given exercise, perhaps you should consider rotating it to the first exercise you perform so that you can do it while your muscles are fresh.

I was wondering how sore you are after the workout and how long the soreness persists? When I am following the bbs workout and am lifting heavy, I usually am pretty sore for the next 3 days and then start to feel much better.

gatorman

protagonist
Posts: 4953
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:14 am

gatorman wrote:
protagonist wrote:BBS workout #6, 7 days after last workout- 20 mile bike ride on Sunday.

Increased performance by one rep on two of the five exercises (pulldown and chest press). No change on other three exercises. No weight increases (Target- 6-8 reps per exercise- I add 10 lb when I can do 8 reps). HR 120 after completing leg press.


When I was starting out, after the first 18 weeks or so, I took a week off every six weeks. Also, if you are having a problem going up in any given exercise, perhaps you should consider rotating it to the first exercise you perform so that you can do it while your muscles are fresh.

I was wondering how sore you are after the workout and how long the soreness persists? When I am following the bbs workout and am lifting heavy, I usually am pretty sore for the next 3 days and then start to feel much better.

gatorman


Sore for 3 days or so, but not so severe. Fairly mild really. I'll try your advice and start with overhead press next workout....I haven't made any progress on that exercise.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Sep 22, 2013 9:06 am

How do you know when you've reached your maximum capacity? I'm concerned that you may be overdoing it and trying to go further will do more harm than good.

Once you hit maximum capacity, then you should go into a maintenance routine to keep at that level. At least that's what I used to do when I had my Bowflex.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

stoptothink
Posts: 3780
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by stoptothink » Sun Sep 22, 2013 10:21 am

LadyGeek wrote:How do you know when you've reached your maximum capacity? I'm concerned that you may be overdoing it and trying to go further will do more harm than good.

Once you hit maximum capacity, then you should go into a maintenance routine to keep at that level. At least that's what I used to do when I had my Bowflex.


Maximum capacity? That idea goes against the first principle of physiological adaptation: progressive overload. Your body will continue to adapt infinitely, progressing or regressing, depending on the stress you put on it.

protagonist
Posts: 4953
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:26 pm

stoptothink wrote:
LadyGeek wrote:How do you know when you've reached your maximum capacity? I'm concerned that you may be overdoing it and trying to go further will do more harm than good.

Once you hit maximum capacity, then you should go into a maintenance routine to keep at that level. At least that's what I used to do when I had my Bowflex.


Maximum capacity? That idea goes against the first principle of physiological adaptation: progressive overload. Your body will continue to adapt infinitely, progressing or regressing, depending on the stress you put on it.


I think what L. Geek was trying to ask, though I don't want to put words in her mout, is what happens when you bump up against your upper threshold of capability. We all DO have an upper threshold of strength,,,,we are all incapable of lifting skyscrapers like Superman or running a one minute mile, no matter how hard we work. We each have a different threshold. I think that what happens if you continue to work is you just don't progress further. The fail-safe against "overdoing it" is that it is impossible to overdo it to any significant extent....you just can't lift the weight or do another rep or run any faster. People injure themselves through bad form, not by trying to push their limits (though when you push your limits it is easier to slip into bad form....you have to be cautious....)

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 41651
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by LadyGeek » Sun Sep 22, 2013 12:44 pm

That's basically what I was getting at. I stopped my strength training because I didn't see much improvement, while simultaneously noticing that my aerobics and flexibility were decreasing. I like running and being in shape to do heavy physical labor - like moving a pile of cinder blocks from Point A to Point B (which I just did this morning). The definition of "heavy" is based on knowing where my limits are. I adjusted my form to move those blocks in safe manner (a wheelbarrow also helped). To answer in advance - I carried them one at a time. :)

As stoptothink alludes, I'm adapting to my optimum point where strength, flexibility, and aerobics meet. It's a never-ending search and it's based on what I want as a priority.

My original point was also for safety. You do indeed break form when trying to push your limits and caution is indicated.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.

stoptothink
Posts: 3780
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2010 9:53 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by stoptothink » Sun Sep 22, 2013 1:16 pm

LadyGeek wrote:That's basically what I was getting at. I stopped my strength training because I didn't see much improvement, while simultaneously noticing that my aerobics and flexibility were decreasing. I like running and being in shape to do heavy physical labor - like moving a pile of cinder blocks from Point A to Point B (which I just did this morning). The definition of "heavy" is based on knowing where my limits are. I adjusted my form to move those blocks in safe manner (a wheelbarrow also helped). To answer in advance - I carried them one at a time. :)

As stoptothink alludes, I'm adapting to my optimum point where strength, flexibility, and aerobics meet. It's a never-ending search and it's based on what I want as a priority.

My original point was also for safety. You do indeed break form when trying to push your limits and caution is indicated.


In that sense, then you will hit that point when you are no longer making progress (as fast as you would like to see it). It all depends on your priorities and goals. I've been a competitive athlete my entire life, including several years when I was a competitive powerlifter; I think a lot of "normal" people would see how I train every single day and fear that I will injure myself. In nearly 20yrs of daily training (and the goals have changed many times, from maximum strength to endurance to now GPP) I've had exactly 1 injury that I can directly attribute to lifting.

rayout
Posts: 366
Joined: Tue May 19, 2009 11:30 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by rayout » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:15 pm

LadyGeek wrote:That's basically what I was getting at. I stopped my strength training because I didn't see much improvement, while simultaneously noticing that my aerobics and flexibility were decreasing. I like running and being in shape to do heavy physical labor - like moving a pile of cinder blocks from Point A to Point B (which I just did this morning). The definition of "heavy" is based on knowing where my limits are. I adjusted my form to move those blocks in safe manner (a wheelbarrow also helped). To answer in advance - I carried them one at a time. :)

As stoptothink alludes, I'm adapting to my optimum point where strength, flexibility, and aerobics meet. It's a never-ending search and it's based on what I want as a priority.

My original point was also for safety. You do indeed break form when trying to push your limits and caution is indicated.


Try bodyweight based training (yoga, pilates, gymnastics etc.). This type of training develops primarily lean muscle and encourages flexibility rather than impairs it.

4stripes
Posts: 122
Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2011 3:53 pm
Location: New York

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by 4stripes » Sun Sep 22, 2013 2:51 pm

Reaching your upper threshold of strength and maximum capacity???

A competitive athlete whose full time job is training is entitled to this consideration. For the rest of us only ego or inadequate education would allow us to consider such a thing. The rest of us are as strong as our level of commitment allows for, but we'll never find our 90%.

If you haven't done reps at 1.25x bodyweight below-parallel squat, 1.3x bw deadlift, or even 1/2 bw press, or 8 chest to par chinups, you probably haven't touched even 60% of your max strength capability. You're greatly underestimating yourself. These numbers are low and easily attainable with real training in less than 9 months, but not through 'hard random exercising' like what this program is.

If you're not making progress on your 6th workout, it's probably an ineffective program. And of course, progress will end sooner on small, weak muscle groups like a lat pull down, which most strength trainees would consider an ancillary assistance exercise--ie done dead last if at all.

Rodc
Posts: 13601
Joined: Tue Jun 26, 2007 9:46 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rodc » Wed Oct 02, 2013 8:45 am

Report

I have been more or less following the Body by Science methodology for strength training for a month. I have dropped much of my running, stairmaster and biking, but have not managed the level of inactivity the book advocates – I just can’t be that inactive. FWIW, age 56, weight 145lbs, built for endurance not strength.

I am getting stronger, while at a modest pace I suppose I should not expect too much in one month especially as I am not wired for building strength:
Pull down 10@120lbs -> 13@125lbs
Bench press 12@75lbs -> 14@80lbs
Row 10@80lbs -> 11@85lbs
Overhead 14@35lbs -> 12@49lbs
Leg press 15@200lbs -> 15@260lbs
Dead hang 75 -> 90 secs (forearm strength for climbing)

While I am getting stronger at the lifts I am doing, I do not feel the big five alone is really quite enough in the strength department and have begun to work in more core, calf, and hamstring. That said if one is starting out as a couch potato, or a pure runner, etc., the big five is probably plenty for general strength and is a whole lot better than nothing.

I do not think this strength training supports a decent level of endurance or at least not the level I desire. I am working more running, stairmaster, etc., back into the work out. I suspect that really effects the leg strength training recovery time more than upper body and leg strength is not a short coming for me.

I also do not think in and of itself it is optimal for burning fat. I am starting to put on a little belly fat I presume due to the large reduction in endurance training. Putting more endurance training back in the mix should fix that.

Lifting modest weights at a modest pace, to complete muscle failure, as opposed to rapid lifts of maximum weight does seem to be a very good way to get a good level of strength training with a lower level of injury risk. I hurt my right rotator cuff a couple of years ago training in a more conventional way (and very stupidly pushing through sharp pain trying to get to a personal best) which completely derailed training for a long time. After many months I very slowly started back with pushups. Over last winter doing pull-ups and pushups 100 each every couple of days and a couple of days a week working hard at the climbing gym aggravated that injury. I have dropped the push-ups, pull-ups and I have done very little climbing this month. Even while lifting the Body by Science way the shoulder is healing, so that is a good thing.

So in summary, at this point my opinion is the Body by Science approach is very good for basic strength training (no opinion on how it works for high end needs), but the claims for total fitness seem overblown.
We live a world with knowledge of the future markets has less than one significant figure. And people will still and always demand answers to three significant digits.

protagonist
Posts: 4953
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 12:47 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by protagonist » Tue Oct 08, 2013 10:53 pm

Update after BBS workout #8. I have been following the program pretty much as recommended, with the exception of taking one 20-25 mile bike ride (on average) in between workouts....it's been close to two months since my first workout.

Strength training....my results have been fairly similar to Rodc's....actually his progress is a bit more rapid than mine. I stick with a weight level until I can do 8 reps in good form and then add 10 pounds (or go up to the next level). Out of the five core exercises, typically I can do one more rep per session on an average of two of the five. So my progress is relatively slow, but I am getting stronger, and it is certainly not much of a time commitment. I'm not genetically the kind of guy that gets strong quickly. It will be interesting to see if I plateau. When I do I will go back to a conventional workout for awhile. Perhaps switching back and forth like that is the best strategy.
I may switch back to a more conventional routine in another month or so, depending on how it goes.

Aerobic fitness-As per Rodc's report, the benefits for me so far are minimal, and I think the book far exaggerates them (at least from my own experience).The workout does not get my heart rate up over about 120 (resting for me is around 60-64, and when I push myself doing sprints or lactate threshold blocks I generally get it up to 160-170). I haven't noticed any appreciable difference in speed or level of fatigue during my bike rides than before I started the program. I will give it until the beginning of November, at which time I will re-introduce more frequent and vigorous aerobics into my routine if I do not see progress.

User avatar
tc101
Posts: 2937
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta - Retired in 2004 at age 54

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by tc101 » Thu Jul 24, 2014 3:59 pm

Is there any research on how this works as you age? I am 64.
In related articles on line they also talk about High Intensity Interval Training, in which you do an activity like cycling as fast as you can for 30 seconds, then rest, then repeat. Is there research about how that works for someone my age?
. | The most important thing you should know about me is that I am not an expert.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Thu Jul 24, 2014 5:47 pm

tc101 wrote:Is there any research on how this works as you age? I am 64.
In related articles on line they also talk about High Intensity Interval Training, in which you do an activity like cycling as fast as you can for 30 seconds, then rest, then repeat. Is there research about how that works for someone my age?

Adding exercise to one's lifestyle is generally good at any age (albeit sometimes prohibited for certain medical reasons--like the disclaimer goes, check with your doc before starting any exercise program).

But to answer your question, there is plenty of research that shows engaging in exercise, aerobic and/or strength conditioning, improves health and fitness for middle-aged and older adults. Google "sarcopenia" and "strength training". You'll find plenty of sources there.

On the aerobic side, high-intensity aerobic training, has lately proven to be pretty much as effective as traditional, sub-maximal aerobic exercise (with the caveat that high level endurance athletes still need a lot of the sub-maximal "base" training). Lots of research to find there on Google as well.

I am coming up on 54, and generally only do one 20 minute weight session per week, and two or three HIT aerobic workouts (20-30 minutes with only 6-12 min. of very intense effort). I am about as fit as I've ever been (having been an amateur bike racer for about 20 years), and am fairly certain I could be back in racing shape in less than 6 weeks time if so desired.

User avatar
tc101
Posts: 2937
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta - Retired in 2004 at age 54

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by tc101 » Thu Jul 24, 2014 8:52 pm

Thanks for your response Rolyatroba. I am already a regular exerciser. I do weights twice a week and aerobics 2-3 times a week. This seems to work pretty well. The thing I am wondering about is if I will get better results by shifting to a super hard but brief weight workout just once a week, and replacing the regular aerobics with HIT training.

I guess I could just try and see.
. | The most important thing you should know about me is that I am not an expert.

Rolyatroba
Posts: 191
Joined: Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by Rolyatroba » Thu Jul 24, 2014 10:46 pm

tc101 wrote:Thanks for your response Rolyatroba. I am already a regular exerciser. I do weights twice a week and aerobics 2-3 times a week. This seems to work pretty well. The thing I am wondering about is if I will get better results by shifting to a super hard but brief weight workout just once a week, and replacing the regular aerobics with HIT training.

I suppose the effect of changing to an HIT style workout will largely depend on how intense your current workout regimen is. Doing the Body by Science workout likely won't give you any additional strength over a conventional strength training workout (i.e., several sets of x reps at 80% of 1RM). The main benefit of HIT for strength training is the time savings.

The same doesn't exactly carry over to the aerobic realm, however. To increase aerobic capacity beyond the point you can achieve with steady-state cardio in zone 2 or 3, you have to incorporate some high intensity. So if you are already doing work in zones 4 or 5, HIT aerobic exercises (like Tabata or the Timmons approach) won't give you much in the way of increased capacity. Again though, it can be a time saving thing, as HIT aerobic exercise gives you benefits approaching or equaling traditional aerobic training with much less volume.

But yeah, give it a try. My wife is somewhat obsessive about working out, and had been putting in ~12 hours a week. I've convinced her to add intensity and lower volume (now only 6-8 hours a week--and half of that is Yoga) and she doesn't notice any decrease in her fitness and is quite happy about the extra 4-6 hours she has every week.

User avatar
tc101
Posts: 2937
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta - Retired in 2004 at age 54

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by tc101 » Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:14 pm

One more thought on this. I realize I like to exercise and would miss doing it every day. I may switch to weights once a week, but I think I will keep swimming and walking every day.
. | The most important thing you should know about me is that I am not an expert.

User avatar
HomerJ
Posts: 10481
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 12:50 pm

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by HomerJ » Fri Jul 25, 2014 4:25 pm

Which kind of post do I hate more??

I also gained about 5-6 pounds, which doesn't sound like much, but I don't have a tendency to gain weight so it was a big deal for me.


or

I have $15 million at age 40. Think I can retire?


Envy is not a pretty emotion :)

User avatar
telemark
Posts: 2092
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:35 am

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by telemark » Fri Jul 25, 2014 5:52 pm

Clarence Bass has a good site on the benefits of exercise at older ages. Lots of information and he keeps up with the research.

http://www.cbass.com

User avatar
gatorman
Posts: 2493
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:35 am
Location: The Swamp

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by gatorman » Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:50 am

Rolyatroba wrote: The main benefit of HIT for strength training is the time savings.


I think Dr. McGuff would also claim that it is a good way to avoid overuse injuries as the number of repetitions is so limited. That said, I'll admit to reaggravating an old shoulder injury by lifting very heavy. I've since backed off and now use a bowflex machine and lift at a level which my shoulder can tolerate. I also think McGuff may overstate the aerobic benefit, but it's hard to tell as I can't replicate the intensity level of the workout as described in the book because I've always had to change weights myself, which adds rest time.
gatorman

User avatar
tc101
Posts: 2937
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 3:18 pm
Location: Atlanta - Retired in 2004 at age 54

Re: Body by Science Workout

Post by tc101 » Sat Jul 26, 2014 8:20 am

telemark wrote:Clarence Bass has a good site on the benefits of exercise at older ages. Lots of information and he keeps up with the research.

http://www.cbass.com


Thanks. There is a huge amount of good info there. Some of it is overly wordy. I find myself skimming through the articles looking for the meat, but the meat is there.
. | The most important thing you should know about me is that I am not an expert.

Post Reply