PDA

View Full Version : P90X



ande
September 2nd, 2009, 08:23 PM
has anyone out there tried P90X (http://tinyurl.com/PNinetyX)
several guys on my team are doing it
the 90 day before and after transformations are impressive

ande

The Fortress
September 2nd, 2009, 08:25 PM
My brother is in the first 30 day phase. I'll be interested to see how he fares.

aquageek
September 2nd, 2009, 08:36 PM
I have four friends who have done this in the past 18 months, two this Spring/Summer. Here's my take on it based on their comments and observations:

1. They are sore as hell the entire time.
2. The results are impressive and fairly immediate (within 14 days).
3. They can't wait for it to be over by the end.
4. It is not a sustainable program but I'm not sure it is intended to be.

Fort - let me know if your brother experiences this as well, or parts of it.

Jazz Hands
September 2nd, 2009, 08:55 PM
No.

"Muscle confusion" seems to be the pitch? It's not new, and it's definitely not worth two hundred.

You're only going to get "ripped" in 90 days by doing some severe food restriction. People do it, but it's not fun and it doesn't last.

The Fortress
September 2nd, 2009, 09:07 PM
I have four friends who have done this in the past 18 months, two this Spring/Summer. Here's my take on it based on their comments and observations:

1. They are sore as hell the entire time.
2. The results are impressive and fairly immediate (within 14 days).
3. They can't wait for it to be over by the end.
4. It is not a sustainable program but I'm not sure it is intended to be.

Fort - let me know if your brother experiences this as well, or parts of it.

So far, he's sore as hell.

OK, I clicked on Ande's link. I didn't realize it was all DVDs. Ugh, I hate the concept of exercising to DVDs. From the reviews, it sounds like the workouts can kick your ass. Not very sport specific though, more about athleticism? Isn't this the knock against Cross Fit?

Are most people using this program to jump start weight loss, that's why the "transformations"?

Hoshi
September 2nd, 2009, 10:00 PM
I did it last summer and had amazing results. When I ordered it, I bought P90X Power Stands, the P90X Chin Up Bar, and Supplements (it came with the recovery drink, which only lasted the first month, I think..). The nutrition guide is easy to follow, too. I have to say, the first week was pretty much torture. Plyometrics.. Oh God, Plyometrics. It's probably my favorite workout, but it is BY FAR the hardest if you really push yourself. I think near the end of my second phase, I was just going non-stop. No breaks, doing more squats/faster circle runs/etc than the guys in the video. I think it's really helped give me a much more powerful kick, too.

As for my transformation: In the first 90 days, I went from 220 to 180. If those aren't results, I dunno what is. Then in round two, I went 180 to 165 and was much, much more cut than I was before. And in my final round, I went from 165 to 170. I've pretty much made P90X a routine thing for me to do in the morning before school. While still getting 7 hours of sleep, I can workout, go to school, swim, do homework, and have time for some leisure stuff.

So yeah, it's pretty much changed my life.

tomtopo
September 3rd, 2009, 12:50 PM
I bought the program, after it was introduced by one of my fitness colleagues last year, because I really liked it. My son's were on the program for only four weeks and I saw a terrific transformation. We use it in our high school physical education and fitness classes. My sons also followed the nutritional plan and are still doing it. My boys are now supplementing their weight training regime with only parts of the P90X series (they particularly enjoy the ab workout disk). I highly recommend the regime.

Zurn
September 3rd, 2009, 02:13 PM
Got a co-worker trying it. He's a few weeks in but was somewhat fit to start. He does say he is quite sore though. I haven’t asked him about weight loss yet. I was thinking about it as well, but don't know if I have time right now to fit it into my schedule. I barley have time to swim once a day, but I do need to add some weights…

orca1946
September 3rd, 2009, 04:30 PM
Hoshi, stay healthy during all the weight loss !

gull
September 3rd, 2009, 04:39 PM
several guys on my team are doing it
the 90 day before and after transformations are impressive

Are they swimming faster?

Chlorine
September 4th, 2009, 09:19 AM
In the vast sea of workout programs available, it's an option that works for some and not for others. The key to success is going to be in proper diet and finding a workout plan that you enjoy and can do without injuring yourself. My main beef with these DVDs are:

1) Cost. Alot of the exercises can be put together based on much more affordable material. For example, Ross Enamait has some great books that are a fraction of the price:

http://www.rosstraining.com/

2) Volume. It's alot of volume which I don't feel is necessary and can lead to injury. Its about working smarter, not necessarily harder.

3) Outdated. Muscle confusion is pretty much baloney. The diet is nothing new and not worth what they are charging. Plenty of information available out there for free or at an affordable price. I posted some links in the nutrition thread.

End of the day, if you feel you need these discs for motivation and they work for you, then go for it. But for my own needs, I wouldn't bother, based on the reasons above.

aquageek
September 4th, 2009, 09:25 AM
End of the day, if you feel you need these discs for motivation and they work for you, then go for it. But for my own needs, I wouldn't bother, based on the reasons above.

This is a good post. One thing I have always read and heard is that many adults will feel more of an obligation to keep up a program/go to the gym, etc if there is a substantial investment up front. It makes some sense.

Jazz Hands
September 4th, 2009, 09:37 AM
This is a good post. One thing I have always read and heard is that many adults will feel more of an obligation to keep up a program/go to the gym, etc if there is a substantial investment up front. It makes some sense.

Makes a lot of sense, and that's probably why it works so well. Might work even better if it was more expensive.

qbrain
September 4th, 2009, 11:16 AM
Makes a lot of sense, and that's probably why it works so well. Might work even better if it was more expensive.

I am selling an exercise program similar to P90X, which I have put my own mark on. It is called P90XQ and pricing starts at $1,000. The P90XQQ version, which I have devoted twice as much time too is currently priced at $10,000.

Based on psychological evidence, P90XQ works 5x as well as P90X, and P90XQQ works 50x as well.

Order now and order often. Supplies are limited.

dolf
September 4th, 2009, 11:28 AM
PM sent with my bank account details on.
I'll take 2 P90XQQ please

RachaelM
September 4th, 2009, 02:00 PM
I've seen the infomercial and was really intrigued, but as it appears to be a bunch of jumping/high impact things that one with injuries and/or joint issues should avoid, I've restrained myself from purchasing.

qbrain
September 4th, 2009, 07:39 PM
On a more serious note, after making fun of P90X here and in comments in the blogs, I have to say, ANYTHING that will help you make the necessary diet and exercise changes needed to meet weight and health goals is easily worth $200.

Will P90X work for you? Yes, if a strict diet and exercise plan is what you need. If business lunches/dinners are you weakness, and peer pressure will override your desire to follow the plan, than P90X is a waste of money.

Now I need to do some navel gazing to figure out what will motivate me towards my goals :)

aztimm
September 5th, 2009, 01:14 AM
A guy I work with bought this on e-bay. I'm sure if you follow it, the program works. But he obviously doesn't....

West
September 5th, 2009, 06:44 AM
Are they swimming faster?
This is what I want to learn.

FindingMyInnerFish
September 5th, 2009, 07:19 AM
I am selling an exercise program similar to P90X, which I have put my own mark on. It is called P90XQ and pricing starts at $1,000. The P90XQQ version, which I have devoted twice as much time too is currently priced at $10,000.

Based on psychological evidence, P90XQ works 5x as well as P90X, and P90XQQ works 50x as well.

Order now and order often. Supplies are limited.

LOL!

And yet already you got a customer! Now you can develop another cottage industry: How to make quick money on swimming forums. I need to know your secret so that I can afford to buy your exercise system! :)

Seriously, I have to admit I haven't checked out the link, but I was using a book last year (when I focused more on running) that included a lot of pylo and core strength exercises, but for which I paid less than a tenth of the price... Matt Fitzgerald's "Brain Training for Runners." It was helpful in improving my fitness and times in races. My problem was that I got too ambitious in jumping up my mileage (tried to progress faster than the schedule I was following) and developed plantar fasciitis. I still do some of the core exercises, although the pylo stuff is out for now until I'm well past my injury. Lesson--which a running coach friend had warned me about: whatever program you follow, follow it consistently. C'est la vie! On the upside, the injury forced me to up my swimming yards!

funkyfish
September 5th, 2009, 10:33 PM
No.

"Muscle confusion" seems to be the pitch? It's not new, and it's definitely not worth two hundred.

You're only going to get "ripped" in 90 days by doing some severe food restriction. People do it, but it's not fun and it doesn't last.
When bodybuilding I came across something called the anabolic diet. From what I gleaned off the literature the gist was to eat low carb, high protein for two weeks, then eat high carb, low protein on the weekend, then back to two weeks of low carb, high protein, and so on…

I used it for 12 weeks in preparation for a contest and had good results (body fat down to 1.9% at 181lbs). After the contest I experimented with the diet and did a moderately low carb/high protein for 5 days, then ate normally on the weekend, and followed this routine for about 4 months. This was much better than a strickly low carb diet as I was able to keep my body fat down to around 6%, but was able to get my weight up to 196 and was just as strong as ever. Obviously results will vary, but I was fascinated by how body composition could change so drastically through diet modification and calorie burning.

My diet currently is actually the best it's ever been quality-wise, but I eat however much I want thanks to swimming.
:banana:

Hoshi
September 5th, 2009, 11:51 PM
When bodybuilding I came across something called the anabolic diet. From what I gleaned off the literature the gist was to eat low carb, high protein for two weeks, then eat high carb, low protein on the weekend, then back to two weeks of low carb, high protein, and so on…

I used it for 12 weeks in preparation for a contest and had good results (body fat down to 1.9% at 181lbs). After the contest I experimented with the diet and did a moderately low carb/high protein for 5 days, then ate normally on the weekend, and followed this routine for about 4 months. This was much better than a strickly low carb diet as I was able to keep my body fat down to around 6%, but was able to get my weight up to 196 and was just as strong as ever. Obviously results will vary, but I was fascinated by how body composition could change so drastically through diet modification and calorie burning.

My diet currently is actually the best it's ever been quality-wise, but I eat however much I want thanks to swimming.
:banana:

Errr... With 1.9% body fat you'd be practically dead.

Charge
September 6th, 2009, 01:29 AM
I have taken 9 months off of swimming b/c of some nerve issues in my back, and have recently gotten back into working out and have done it with P90X

Some Qualifications:
1) I'm 34
2) I've always been in pretty good shape, with good muscle tone
3) I get up at 5 AM to do the workouts
4) I don't do diets. I don't give a squat if that's the key ingredient. I will eat sensibly and with a balanced diet, but life's too short to not eat desert or cut out certain foods altogether.

I love P90X. The workouts are varied, but at the same time incorporate alot of the same movements and routines so it is easy to learn.

I have not lost much weight, maybe 5 pounds, but that's b/c I've turned a ton of fat into muscle (I'm 5-11, 185 right now). I'm sire if I did the diet I'd look like the guys in the video with my shirt off. As it is I have great arms, back and legs, plus a "4-pack", but I've never been able to get a full 6. I have a little pudge on my waistline, but it is worth it to eat what I liek to eat. I plan to, as always, modify my diet a month before taper time.

I to am curious as to how well I will swim. My plan is to go back to workouts next week, swimming 2-3 days a week, p90X-ing 2-3 others, so I won't follow the recc'd workout, obviously, but will do arms/chest, ply or Kenpo, legs, and arms/back in a rotation.

My plan is to concentrate on sprints this year and see what happens, I have a few barriers I want to cross this year (lack of tech suits be damned) and I think working on strength, flexibility and explosion both with these workouts and with a concentration on sprint work in the water will help get me there.

"muscle confusion" is a term for the sake of a pitch line, but the workouts do work very well. I don't even lift weights, just bands, pull ups and push ups.

And I will say this. Every few weeks I take a week off and just do the stretch, yoga, core and/or kenpo videos.That's a great week.

Jazz Hands
September 6th, 2009, 02:12 AM
When bodybuilding I came across something called the anabolic diet. From what I gleaned off the literature the gist was to eat low carb, high protein for two weeks, then eat high carb, low protein on the weekend, then back to two weeks of low carb, high protein, and so on…

I used it for 12 weeks in preparation for a contest and had good results (body fat down to 1.9% at 181lbs). After the contest I experimented with the diet and did a moderately low carb/high protein for 5 days, then ate normally on the weekend, and followed this routine for about 4 months. This was much better than a strickly low carb diet as I was able to keep my body fat down to around 6%, but was able to get my weight up to 196 and was just as strong as ever. Obviously results will vary, but I was fascinated by how body composition could change so drastically through diet modification and calorie burning.

My diet currently is actually the best it's ever been quality-wise, but I eat however much I want thanks to swimming.
:banana:

I'm guessing you went off the Anabolic Diet because it's hard to train for swimming with low carbs? People like the diet, but the reasoning behind it is just pseudoscience. It has that name (actually I think it got renamed to the Metabolic Diet?) because it supposedly mimics the effects of steroids. Ummm, how? That part never seems to get explained. There's some talk about peaking or manipulating hormones, but if you read the actual published research on these hormones, the diets take quite a leap of imagination.

I'm not saying AD (or any other diet) doesn't work. But bodybuilders are often guilty of pretending they are much more precise and scientific than they actually are. Swimmers do this, too! Some things work or appear to work for completely different reasons from the ones you would suppose.

funkyfish
September 6th, 2009, 09:03 PM
Errr... With 1.9% body fat you'd be practically dead.
Errr…I felt like that. The measurement was based on a formula I had using skin-fold calipers. Obviously there would be some accuracy issues with the exact number, but that's what was measured. This did not account for internal organ fat, just subcutaneous fat. Also, bodybuilders do not maintain that degree of leanness for an extended length of time, it's more of a peak you hope to reach for 2-4 days if luck is in your favor. So, I don't know what the actual percentage was, but it was close enough for government work.
:D

funkyfish
September 6th, 2009, 09:20 PM
I'm guessing you went off the Anabolic Diet because it's hard to train for swimming with low carbs? People like the diet, but the reasoning behind it is just pseudoscience. It has that name (actually I think it got renamed to the Metabolic Diet?) because it supposedly mimics the effects of steroids. Ummm, how? That part never seems to get explained. There's some talk about peaking or manipulating hormones, but if you read the actual published research on these hormones, the diets take quite a leap of imagination.

I'm not saying AD (or any other diet) doesn't work. But bodybuilders are often guilty of pretending they are much more precise and scientific than they actually are. Swimmers do this, too! Some things work or appear to work for completely different reasons from the ones you would suppose.
Actually, I got off of it because for swimming it doesn't matter what you look like, what your body fat % is, etc. It is a bit of a hassle keeping track of what types of foods you eat and how much. Since resuming swimming, I just eat whatever I want when I want. Also wasn't worried about trying to gain lean muscle mass (which is nice because I've always been a beanpole with a little muscle).
:D

Chlorine
September 7th, 2009, 12:26 AM
Errr…I felt like that. The measurement was based on a formula I had using skin-fold calipers. Obviously there would be some accuracy issues with the exact number, but that's what was measured. This did not account for internal organ fat, just subcutaneous fat. Also, bodybuilders do not maintain that degree of leanness for an extended length of time, it's more of a peak you hope to reach for 2-4 days if luck is in your favor. So, I don't know what the actual percentage was, but it was close enough for government work.
:D

Yep, that caliper reading was way off. A reading of 1.9% is plain ridiculous and as already pointed out, reserved for dead people.

Chlorine
September 7th, 2009, 01:04 AM
I'm guessing you went off the Anabolic Diet because it's hard to train for swimming with low carbs? People like the diet, but the reasoning behind it is just pseudoscience. It has that name (actually I think it got renamed to the Metabolic Diet?) because it supposedly mimics the effects of steroids. Ummm, how? That part never seems to get explained. There's some talk about peaking or manipulating hormones, but if you read the actual published research on these hormones, the diets take quite a leap of imagination.

I'm not saying AD (or any other diet) doesn't work. But bodybuilders are often guilty of pretending they are much more precise and scientific than they actually are. Swimmers do this, too! Some things work or appear to work for completely different reasons from the ones you would suppose.

There are no diets that mimic anabolics in any way, shape or form. Certain hormones can be manipulated through diet, but these tend to be hormones that control metabolism, hunger, cravings, etc, so basically tricks to help you diet more effectively. The biggest mistake anyone can make, is to attempt to diet like a professional bodybuilder. What they do to get where they are, does not apply to the rest of the general population, for a variety of reasons that should be obvious (hint:they use drugs). If the average individual is looking to lose some fat, they have to cut calories, plain and simple.

qbrain
September 7th, 2009, 09:01 AM
Yep, that caliper reading was way off. A reading of 1.9% is plain ridiculous and as already pointed out, reserved for dead people.

I would love to hear the justification for this comment. Mathematically it seems possible to have a 2% bodyfat.

Chlorine
September 7th, 2009, 09:48 AM
I would love to hear the justification for this comment. Mathematically it seems possible to have a 2% bodyfat.

It's not about mathematics, it's about basic physiology. Men generally can't get below 3% before they start impairing essential organ functions. Read these articles:

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-1.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/set-points-settling-points-and-bodyweight-regulation-part-2.html

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/what-does-body-composition-mean.html

http://chetday.com/bodyfatindex.htm

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/id/QAA53794

qbrain
September 7th, 2009, 11:46 AM
It's not about mathematics, it's about basic physiology. Men generally can't get below 3% before they start impairing essential organ functions. Read these articles:


Essential body fat is made up of organs, connective tissue and bone marrow, right? These seem to be rather static, physiologically. So lets make up some numbers.

Mr. X just finished maturing (full bone development) and weighs a healthy 150lbs, 15% body fat, 3% of which is essential. Mr. X is tired of being picked on and starts on the Charles Atlas training program. He does very well with the help of his comic book friend, and balloons up to 220lbs with a 2% body fat. The question is, should he be dead?

150lbs * .03 = 4.5 lbs of essential body fat
220lbs * .02 = 4.4 lbs of total body fat

So he is border line in trouble. He is also only trying to maintain this level for 5 days. Seems possible.

What exactly is basic physiology without math? A collection of rules of thumb?

Chlorine
September 7th, 2009, 12:55 PM
Essential body fat is made up of organs, connective tissue and bone marrow, right? These seem to be rather static, physiologically. So lets make up some numbers.

Mr. X just finished maturing (full bone development) and weighs a healthy 150lbs, 15% body fat, 3% of which is essential. Mr. X is tired of being picked on and starts on the Charles Atlas training program. He does very well with the help of his comic book friend, and balloons up to 220lbs with a 2% body fat. The question is, should he be dead?

150lbs * .03 = 4.5 lbs of essential body fat
220lbs * .02 = 4.4 lbs of total body fat

So he is border line in trouble. He is also only trying to maintain this level for 5 days. Seems possible.

What exactly is basic physiology without math? A collection of rules of thumb?

Actually, since you are so fond of math, why don't we do the calculations based on an individual of the SAME WEIGHT, since that has a more logical bearing on the debate at hand:

150 * .03=4.5 lbs of essential fat
150 * .02=3.0 lbs of essential fat

A loss of 1.5 lbs of fat.

Now your 220 lb individual:

220 * .03=6.6lbs of essential fat
220 * .02=4.4 lbs of essential fat

A loss of 2.2 lbs of essential fat

That is a heck of alot when you are down to essential fat that is being used to protect important physiological functions. I will also add, that it's impossible to be 220 lbs and 3% unless you are using drugs, which takes into account most professional bodybuilders who are not in natural competition.

Furthermore, modern day methods of measuring bodyfat all carry a margin of error. So the chances of an individual saying they are 3% when they are in fact 5-6% are quite high. So truly hitting 3% is generally reserved for hardcore competitors with more than one trick up their sleeves. Anyone who has actually attempted to hit single digit bodyfat will tell you that it is a very, very difficult feat, as your hormones go south and your body fights you tooth and nail.

There is plenty of information about this in the links I posted, as well as all over the internet if you care to research it further. As far as I am concerned, I have said my peace on the matter.

Windrath
September 7th, 2009, 01:25 PM
Ande -

I have been doing the P90X since early summer and like most of it. I don't have access to the heavy hand weights and pull-up bars they use, so substituted lighter hand weights and stretch cords instead.

I like it for several reasons:

a) I like following the DVD because I don't have to remember anything or, at this point, create it myself (although I do in my job).

b) I did get stronger throughout the series - especially in shoulder stability - which did translate into swimming without shoulder pain.

c) The yoga and stretching and core synergistics are among the best parts of this series as well as any of the strength work. I did not get sore - took my time and had been lifting before this.

d) Don't need a gym anymore.

e) The core dvd is completely kick butt.

There are a couple of parts I thought were ineffective though - the Kenpo (kickboxing) and cardio. These were weak relative to the rest of the DVDs.

Yes, it is somewhat expensive, but easy to follow and can be modified and used by anyone. If you like it, who cares what the experts say...:blah:

Good Luck.

qbrain
September 7th, 2009, 01:45 PM
I will also add, that it's impossible to be 220 lbs and 3% unless you are using drugs, which takes into account most professional bodybuilders who are not in natural competition.

Furthermore, modern day methods of measuring bodyfat all carry a margin of error. So the chances of an individual saying they are 3% when they are in fact 5-6% are quite high. So truly hitting 3% is generally reserved for hardcore competitors with more than one trick up their sleeves. Anyone who has actually attempted to hit single digit bodyfat will tell you that it is a very, very difficult feat, as your hormones go south and your body fights you tooth and nail.


I specifically wanted to know if it was technically possible to inflate muscle mass enough to achieve 2% body fat without death. I read the articles you posted, and I did not find anything to lead me to believe that essential fat, in lbs, increases with body weight.

An anorexic guy (A) at 120 lbs who has an obese identical twin (B) at 300lbs. A has an essential body fat percentage of 5% and B has an essential body fat percentage of 2%. They both have essential body fat of 6 lbs, because they have identical insides. Makes sense to me.

I didn't ask if you thought it was easy.

qbrain
September 7th, 2009, 01:53 PM
b) I did get stronger throughout the series - especially in shoulder stability - which did translate into swimming without shoulder pain.


Was this a general result, or was there specific shoulder stability for swimmers dvd? :)

Chlorine
September 7th, 2009, 05:23 PM
I specifically wanted to know if it was technically possible to inflate muscle mass enough to achieve 2% body fat without death. I read the articles you posted, and I did not find anything to lead me to believe that essential fat, in lbs, increases with body weight.

An anorexic guy (A) at 120 lbs who has an obese identical twin (B) at 300lbs. A has an essential body fat percentage of 5% and B has an essential body fat percentage of 2%. They both have essential body fat of 6 lbs, because they have identical insides. Makes sense to me.

I didn't ask if you thought it was easy.

How did we get to comparing 5% with 2% :confused: I thought the initial argument was if an individual could reach 2% bodyfat without getting seriously ill or dying?

120 lbs * .02= 2.4 lbs fat
*.03= 3.6 lbs fat

Loss of 1.2 lbs fat

300 lbs * .02= 6 lbs of fat
*.03= 9 lbs of fat

Loss of 3 lbs fat

So once we get the numbers back on track, it's obvious you cannot compare the two. The amount of fat each would have at a given bodyweight will vary. Therefore, you have to look at what would happen when an individual at a certain bodyweight drops a percentage point. As you can see, quite a bit of fat is lost, which is detrimental when you are down to your last few lbs of fat. You cannot compare a 300lb man to one weighing 120 lbs..it's apples and oranges and whether or not they are twins is meaningless.

Furthermore, you cannot gain muscle mass without gaining fat mass. What do you think visceral fat is? It's the fat wrapped around your organs. It's what causes a beer belly, for example. Your entire body composition changes the larger or smaller you get. The stress on the organs of a 300 lb man is considerably more than that of a 120 lb individual. These are all common sense basics when discussing basic physiology, easily researched online if you took the time.

This is the last of my say on this, as we are just going around in circles here, and I almost think you must be trolling, because what you just wrote is plain silly. I highly recommend you take the time to read up on some of these subjects if they interest you, as there is alot of info you are misunderstanding for whatever reason.

dorothyrde
September 7th, 2009, 06:41 PM
someone mentioned they turned their bodyfat to muscle with P90X. Not happening, you may have reduced bodyfat, and gained muscle, but the are two different tissues, one cannot turn into the other.

I have been working out to videos since 1996, because my daughter was sick a lot and going to the gym was not an good option. At first I too thought videos....ugh. But then I found advanced videos, that kick my behind, and now I like the fact I can get up and work out whenever, without traveling to a gym. It is like having my own personal trainer telling me what to do at 5am, when I don't necessarily want to think.

I have not done P90X, but know many who have and love, love, love it. I personally do not care for Tony Horton's style, so would not buy it. I have done other 3 month series that are comparable, and they are fantastic. To have someone lay out a plan for you, well you would pay a personal trainer the equal amount.

As for the constant soreness, I find splits tend to do this to me. When you work a body part to the max, it makes it sore. Then the next day, you work a different body part, and it gets sore. It is like the soreness revolves around the body and never stops. I find modifying the time frames of this type of program helps me. It keeps the soreness down, and also allows me to add in things like, well, swimming, without out getting over fatigued.

qbrain
September 7th, 2009, 08:33 PM
How did we get to comparing 5% with 2%

The essential body fat percentage in males is 2% to 5%.


I thought the initial argument was if an individual could reach 2% bodyfat without getting seriously ill or dying?

It was. If you lose bodyfat, or gain muscle mass, does your weight stay constant? Mine does not.




Therefore, you have to look at what would happen when an individual at a certain bodyweight drops a percentage point.


No, this is wrong. A body builder does not maintain weight while altering body composition. Weight is not a constant.


You cannot compare a 300lb man to one weighing 120 lbs..it's apples and oranges and whether or not they are twins is meaningless.

It is not apples and oranges. It is essential body fat. Bone marrow, connective tissue and organs. Do you have more bone marrow when you gain weight? I am saying each fully developed adult has a constant essential body fat in lbs, kilos, whatever. Not a fixed percentage.



Furthermore, you cannot gain muscle mass without gaining fat mass.


Really? I must be impossible, because I have dropped my bodyfat percentage while maintaining my body weight.



What do you think visceral fat is? It's the fat wrapped around your organs. It's what causes a beer belly, for example.

Your entire body composition changes the larger or smaller you get. The stress on the organs of a 300 lb man is considerably more than that of a 120 lb individual. These are all common sense basics when discussing basic physiology, easily researched online if you took the time.

Thank you for pointing this out in an informative and non-condescending manner. Your whole point this entire time was that essential body fat is a function of body weight and is not static?

Thank you Chlorine, I learned a lot from this discussion. In the future, you can be sure I will never bother you with another argument.

Chlorine
September 7th, 2009, 09:20 PM
It was. If you lose bodyfat, or gain muscle mass, does your weight stay constant? Mine does not.

No, this is wrong. A body builder does not maintain weight while altering body composition. Weight is not a constant.

Really? I must be impossible, because I have dropped my bodyfat percentage while maintaining my body weight.


So tell me...which one is it :confused: Sorry, I know I said I would stay away from this debate, but you seem to be contradicting yourself. So I figure I would give you a chance to clarify your misinformation.



Thank you for pointing this out in an informative and non-condescending manner. Your whole point this entire time was that essential body fat is a function of body weight and is not static?

Thank you Chlorine, I learned a lot from this discussion. In the future, you can be sure I will never bother you with another argument.

I really don't think you learned anything actually, because you were so caught up in trying to be right about a subject that you know very little about. That being said, I appreciate the fact that this conversation is over, as you have just resorted to spouting nonsense and it really is a waste of my time giving you anymore of my attention. Sorry I took you seriously in the first place.

Paul Smith
September 8th, 2009, 03:29 PM
I'm curious how many people have ever used this concept (muscle confusion) in their "in-water" training? If you look at some of the more creative training out there (Race Club) you see this happening...

I've been watching the senior age groupers training under Brad Hering here at MAC and its awesome to see them doing this type of "cross-fit" training...they have a strength coach from Sweden who worked with the national hockey team and is doing a lot of very cool stuff...and the kids are getting killed...but loving it. Lot's of fast swimming up onto deck into plyo work, core work...

Jazz Hands
September 8th, 2009, 04:02 PM
I'm curious how many people have ever used this concept (muscle confusion) in their "in-water" training? If you look at some of the more creative training out there (Race Club) you see this happening...


I dunno. The idea with muscle confusion is that the nervous system isn't completely efficient at the "confusing" or new movement, so (in theory) the muscles have to work harder to make up for this lack of coordination. It's actually kind of similar to unstable training, like slosh pipes. The first time anyone bench presses, it's kind of funny because they look like they are pressing a slosh pipe.

But the main point of pool work is to get extremely efficient at certain movements. It's actually the opposite of muscle confusion. So anytime you switch to confusion mode in the pool, you're straying from the desired technique, and working more on muscular factors. Which isn't totally bad, but you don't see strength coaches from other sports doing much pool time, do you? It's not the best place to work on that stuff. Kind of the reason we use weights.

aquageek
September 8th, 2009, 04:26 PM
...Which isn't totally bad, but you don't see strength coaches from other sports doing much pool time, do you? It's not the best place to work on that stuff. Kind of the reason we use weights.

Yeah, but Jazztard, you don't see football players playing baseball or baseball players playing basketball or track and field athletes doing rowing either as training. Seems most sports focus on their one main sport and then add in a weight program to compliment it.

I see a lot of strange and interesting moves done by our strength and conditioning coach, along with Paul.

JimRude
September 8th, 2009, 05:31 PM
I'm curious how many people have ever used this concept (muscle confusion) in their "in-water" training? If you look at some of the more creative training out there (Race Club) you see this happening...

I've been watching the senior age groupers training under Brad Hering here at MAC and its awesome to see them doing this type of "cross-fit" training...they have a strength coach from Sweden who worked with the national hockey team and is doing a lot of very cool stuff...and the kids are getting killed...but loving it. Lot's of fast swimming up onto deck into plyo work, core work...

FWIW, I think that if you are able to improve muscle strength, flexibility and core strength it will help your swimming. However, I remain to be convinced that kick-boxing, etc translate into greater pool speed.

I think there is no substitute for doing the right things in the water.

YMMV.

Chlorine
September 8th, 2009, 05:43 PM
A more logical approach would be along the lines of undulated and conjugated periodization. Muscles don't get "confused", people burn out or get injured because they don't cycle their training around periods of full intensity followed by periods of reduced workload. It is also ideal to train specific qualities in intervals in order to be a more well rounded athlete. For example, a period of speed training, followed by a period of endurance training, etc, etc. Has nothing to do with muscle "confusion" That is simply an outdated term.

Jazz Hands
September 8th, 2009, 05:50 PM
Periodization is ********.

The Fortress
September 8th, 2009, 06:07 PM
I'm curious how many people have ever used this concept (muscle confusion) in their "in-water" training? If you look at some of the more creative training out there (Race Club) you see this happening...

I've been watching the senior age groupers training under Brad Hering here at MAC and its awesome to see them doing this type of "cross-fit" training...they have a strength coach from Sweden who worked with the national hockey team and is doing a lot of very cool stuff...and the kids are getting killed...but loving it. Lot's of fast swimming up onto deck into plyo work, core work...

Maybe they're excited because it breaks up the monotony of a 7-10,000 yard workout ...

Are they really doing the drylands throughout the practice rather than just at the beginning or end like most teams?

The Fortress
September 8th, 2009, 06:09 PM
Periodization is ********.

I don't really periodize either.

And if my workouts could somehow be construed that way, I'd have shorter "periods" than typical.

Chlorine
September 8th, 2009, 06:18 PM
Periodization is ********.

:blah:

aquageek
September 8th, 2009, 06:35 PM
Maybe they're excited because it breaks up the monotony of a 7-10,000 yard workout ...

I honestly think this has as much to do with it as anything.

Paul Smith
September 9th, 2009, 07:06 PM
FWIW, I think that if you are able to improve muscle strength, flexibility and core strength it will help your swimming. However, I remain to be convinced that kick-boxing, etc translate into greater pool speed.

I think there is no substitute for doing the right things in the water.

YMMV.

Hmm...I'm inclined to think Nathan Adrian and Michael Cavic may disagree.

qbrain
September 9th, 2009, 07:30 PM
Hmm...I'm inclined to think Nathan Adrian and Michael Cavic may disagree.

Com'on Paul, who cares? They didn't win. Nothing to learn there.

Why don't you tell us about the bong and sandwiches slathered with mayonnaise of one of the winners? This obviously provides an advantage over kick boxing, wouldn't you say? Or was it the suit?

Or maybe it is a complex combination of things...

Paul Smith
September 9th, 2009, 07:44 PM
Com'on Paul, who cares? They didn't win. Nothing to learn there.

Touche'

Same goes for the entire Auburn program and Brett's Hawke's training philosophy...

YouTube - Faster Fast Sprint Freestyle Training for Explosive Speed & Power with Richard Quick, Brett Hawke and Bryan Karkoska

Paul Smith
September 9th, 2009, 07:48 PM
Maybe they're excited because it breaks up the monotony of a 7-10,000 yard workout ...

Are they really doing the drylands throughout the practice rather than just at the beginning or end like most teams?

Possibly...but I coached their workout yesterday and was really impressed with the level of enthusiasm these kids have developed about training.

Yes...they have yoga mats on deck that they pull out and go into stretching routines, core work, etc., really cool stuff. We are going to have a group of our masters swimmers join in sometime in the next few weeks (we did an impromptu version of this last Saturday when we had to get out of the pool because of lightening, Laura psoted some photo's on our Facebook "group" site.)

ande
September 9th, 2009, 10:06 PM
I remain convinced that:

1) improving swimming technique,
2) training for speed in the water, &
3) strengthening the muscles that apply power to the water while remaining light and lean

translate into greater pool speed.



However, I remain to be convinced that kick-boxing, etc translate into greater pool speed.

I think there is no substitute for doing the right things in the water.

YMMV.

The Fortress
September 9th, 2009, 10:42 PM
Yes...they have yoga mats on deck that they pull out and go into stretching routines, core work, etc., really cool stuff. We are going to have a group of our masters swimmers join in sometime in the next few weeks (we did an impromptu version of this last Saturday when we had to get out of the pool because of lightening, Laura psoted some photo's on our Facebook "group" site.)

Lucky masters! Personally, I'd really like this kind of workout, but it suits a sprinter's ADD mentality. And there's nothing wrong with minimizing swimming monotony with a little action!

It appears that there is just a dispute on the forum and elsewhere as to how much pure athleticism (Cross Fit, P90X, certain dryland or cross training) translates to fast(er) swimming.

Jazz Hands
September 9th, 2009, 11:29 PM
It appears that there is just a dispute on the forum and elsewhere as to how much pure athleticism (Cross Fit, P90X, certain dryland or cross training) translates to fast(er) swimming.

Or to what extent "pure athleticism" is a coherent concept or just an excuse to play hopscotch instead of actually training.

spell_me
September 10th, 2009, 12:15 AM
I see that some of us are interested or curious about P90X as a way to directly improve performance, but at least as many seem more interested in it as a weight loss method. I guess I'm kind of surprised. Swimming is such a great way to stay slim and well-toned. It does great things for the body! Are that many swimmers truly in need of another way to take off weight?

qbrain
September 10th, 2009, 09:03 AM
Lucky masters! Personally, I'd really like this kind of workout, but it suits a sprinter's ADD mentality. And there's nothing wrong with minimizing swimming monotony with a little action!

How long until mixing it up becomes monotonous? Most coaches aren't that creative to begin with. Hopping out of the pool and doing dry lands mid workout sounds fun if I am 16yo and it is a peak yardage time for an afternoon workout. But when I have 3 coached workouts available a week, and each workout is no more than 75 minutes, why would I want to give up water time?

I am not against the idea, but I don't think it will work for most masters teams.


It appears that there is just a dispute on the forum and elsewhere as to how much pure athleticism (Cross Fit, P90X, certain dryland or cross training) translates to fast(er) swimming.

Yep, now that we have resolved the essential beer gut fat issue, only the pure athleticism dispute remains... and suits. :)

The Fortress
September 10th, 2009, 09:25 AM
How long until mixing it up becomes monotonous? Most coaches aren't that creative to begin with. Hopping out of the pool and doing dry lands mid workout sounds fun if I am 16yo and it is a peak yardage time for an afternoon workout. But when I have 3 coached workouts available a week, and each workout is no more than 75 minutes, why would I want to give up water time?

I am not against the idea, but I don't think it will work for most masters teams.


Yep, now that we have resolved the essential beer gut fat issue, only the pure athleticism dispute remains... and suits. :)

True enough. If you've only got 75 minutes, there's not enough time for serious drylands and you should probably do them separately. For USA swimmers, these are usually done in the context of a 2-3 hour workout.

Did we really resolve the beer gut issue?

JimRude
September 10th, 2009, 01:04 PM
I remain convinced that:

1) improving swimming technique,
2) training for speed in the water, &
3) strengthening the muscles that apply power to the water while remaining light and lean

translate into greater pool speed.

We agree then.

dorothyrde
September 10th, 2009, 02:03 PM
I see that some of us are interested or curious about P90X as a way to directly improve performance, but at least as many seem more interested in it as a weight loss method. I guess I'm kind of surprised. Swimming is such a great way to stay slim and well-toned. It does great things for the body! Are that many swimmers truly in need of another way to take off weight?


Me<waving hands>. Weight lifting is more effective for weight control than swimming for me. Although the combination of both, is fabulous. Plus I enjoy both, and I work-out because I enjoy it, otherwise I would not.

Hoshi
September 10th, 2009, 04:17 PM
Swimming is probably 'the worst' way to get rid of fat because when you swim, your body temperature remains low unlike when running or biking. This lower body temperature doesn't suppress the appetite as much as a higher body temperature does. Thus, swimmers tend to overeat while burning about the same amount of calories in a similarly timed session of running or biking.

aquageek
September 10th, 2009, 04:46 PM
Swimming is probably 'the worst' way to get rid of fat because when you swim, your body temperature remains low unlike when running or biking. This lower body temperature doesn't suppress the appetite as much as a higher body temperature does. Thus, swimmers tend to overeat while burning about the same amount of calories in a similarly timed session of running or biking.

Well, that's about the craziest thing I've ever read. Maybe you should swim a little harder to give that theory a full test. What is your data source on this?

dorothyrde
September 10th, 2009, 05:27 PM
Swimming is probably 'the worst' way to get rid of fat because when you swim, your body temperature remains low unlike when running or biking. This lower body temperature doesn't suppress the appetite as much as a higher body temperature does. Thus, swimmers tend to overeat while burning about the same amount of calories in a similarly timed session of running or biking.

This has been debunked many times over.

aquageek
September 10th, 2009, 05:36 PM
This has been debunked many times over.

I thought debunked was when Wookie's beloved goat "Sheeba" kicked him out of bed.

qbrain
September 10th, 2009, 06:09 PM
Did we really resolve the beer gut issue?

Well yeah. Since a beer gut is essential fat, if I lose it, I will die. I am happy with that conclusion, especially since I can stop worrying about my beer consumption.

Paul Smith
September 10th, 2009, 06:31 PM
This has been debunked many times over.

Actually he's 100% correct...every single study I have seen says the same thing.

Here's just one:
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/cardio-vs-strength-training-workouts

An interesting read on strength training from the cycling world:
http://www.epicidiot.com/sports/weights_cycling.htm

The Fortress
September 10th, 2009, 06:49 PM
An interesting read on strength training from the cycling world:
http://www.epicidiot.com/sports/weights_cycling.htm

I think the Costill-study-toting-Mr. Thornton needs to read this. Special attention to:

"The main problem with this study is the length of the training - 12 weeks. This is not enough time for someone beginning a strength program to actually gain any significant muscle."

The related articles at the end of the link look interesting as well.

qbrain
September 10th, 2009, 07:05 PM
Actually he's 100% correct...every single study I have seen says the same thing.

Here's just one:
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/cardio-vs-strength-training-workouts


Are you citing random articles? That article has nothing about swimmers being cooled off which prevents hunger suppression.

I do believe that every single study you have seen says the same thing, because you have not actually read any.

SLOmmafan
September 10th, 2009, 07:19 PM
I don't really see how doing P90X is that much different then doing any intensive exercise regiment while limiting intake of food. Go join the Marines - basic boot camp will do the same thing and they actually pay you to do the workout.

aquageek
September 10th, 2009, 07:23 PM
Actually he's 100% correct...every single study I have seen says the same thing.

Here's just one:
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/cardio-vs-strength-training-workouts

An interesting read on strength training from the cycling world:
http://www.epicidiot.com/sports/weights_cycling.htm

OK, Smart Guy, where in these articles does it support the assertion that swimming is done at a lower body temperature which causes less fat burn AND that swimmers tend to overeat as a result. I haven't seen an article that supports the notion of body temperature and fat burning. However, maybe this has been proven.

And, it's not exactly new information that different sports burn calories at different rates based on exertion level.

This whole body temp thing is silly. What if you run on a 40 degree day versus swimming at the Y in an 87 degree pool? I don't get it. Teach me, Mr. Miyagi.

dorothyrde
September 10th, 2009, 08:53 PM
Actually he's 100% correct...every single study I have seen says the same thing.

Here's just one:
http://www.womenshealthmag.com/fitness/cardio-vs-strength-training-workouts

An interesting read on strength training from the cycling world:
http://www.epicidiot.com/sports/weights_cycling.htm


The top article says nothing about swimmers not losing weight because of cool water. I think there was a study done with a very small group back in the 80's and it was concluded that you could not lose weight swimming because of the cool water. I recall that because it was one study, and the group was very small(I think less than 100 people), that it should not have been used as the be all end all.

This happens a lot in the news though. A study will get reported, and snippets will be used, and then you go read the actual study and find that the facts have been skewed a bit.

I think the weight loss thing is more reliant on what goes in your mouth than how you move your body.

I also believe fitness has lots of facets, strength, cardiovascular training, flexibility. You need them all do perform your best. P90X may work for some, not for others, but people just need to find what works for them, and be consistent.

The Fortress
September 10th, 2009, 09:13 PM
Well yeah. Since a beer gut is essential fat, if I lose it, I will die. I am happy with that conclusion, especially since I can stop worrying about my beer consumption.

I wouldn't mind being slightly closer to death. But it isn't going to happen if all I do is swim.

I didn't see anything about swimming and body temp either, but the articles were likely more interesting without that discussion.

funkyfish
September 10th, 2009, 10:41 PM
Swimming is probably 'the worst' way to get rid of fat because when you swim, your body temperature remains low unlike when running or biking. This lower body temperature doesn't suppress the appetite as much as a higher body temperature does. Thus, swimmers tend to overeat while burning about the same amount of calories in a similarly timed session of running or biking.
I've managed to loose 20lbs over 4 months solely through swimming, and have maintained the same weight for the past 3 yrs. I also eat more now than when I was not swimming. For me, swimming has probably been 'the best' way to get rid of fat, because I enjoy swimming far more than I enjoy counting calories. Just saying.
:bliss:

dorothyrde
September 10th, 2009, 10:56 PM
http://www.tinajuanfitness.info/articles/art041800.html

http://runningdoctor.runnersworld.com/2008/07/does-swimming-c.html

Dang, too young to participate in this study:

http://www.edb.utexas.edu/education/news/2009/swimming/

Not about weight loss, but nice:

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/137549.php

There are lots of articles about swimming not being good for weight loss. They all reference that single study in 1987, but because there are so many articles, it makes it look like there were multiple findings. I think there should be more studies done with better controls before it could be said as a fact that swimming is not good for weight loss.

Paul Smith
September 11th, 2009, 05:33 PM
Are you citing random articles? That article has nothing about swimmers being cooled off which prevents hunger suppression.

I do believe that every single study you have seen says the same thing, because you have not actually read any.

Yes I am...to show how easilly anyone who cares to look can find articles and/or research that shows strength training is more effective at weight loss than just cardio...and that combination of both is optimum (along with reduction of calories).

Feel free to share more of your wonderful insights and any studies/articles you can dig up that disputes this....

Another viewpoint on swimming as a means of losing weight:
http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/4173/1/Is-Swimming-Effective-For-Weight-Loss-And-Tone-Muscles.html

qbrain
September 11th, 2009, 06:42 PM
Yes I am...to show how easilly anyone who cares to look can find articles and/or research that shows strength training is more effective at weight loss than just cardio...and that combination of both is optimum (along with reduction of calories).

Feel free to share more of your wonderful insights and any studies/articles you can dig up that disputes this....

Another viewpoint on swimming as a means of losing weight:
http://www.healthguidance.org/entry/4173/1/Is-Swimming-Effective-For-Weight-Loss-And-Tone-Muscles.html

Mr. Smith, it really was my fault that you quoted the wrong comment and defended the wrong guy, rendering your argument completely unintelligible. I will do my best to read your comments, figure out what you actually meant to say.

I agree that strength training aides weight loss.

gull
September 12th, 2009, 01:20 PM
If you can swim for an hour daily with roughly half of that in the En2 training zone, I believe that you will lose weight. The problem is that this requires both technique and endurance that the typical fitness swimmer lacks. After joining USMS in 2003 I lost 20 pounds with no cross training other than 20 minutes of weight lifting 2 or 3 days weekly.

Ricki
September 12th, 2009, 04:34 PM
If you can swim for an hour daily with roughly half of that in the En2 training zone, I believe that you will lose weight. The problem is that this requires both technique and endurance that the typical fitness swimmer lacks. After joining USMS in 2003 I lost 20 pounds with no cross training other than 20 minutes of weight lifting 2 or 3 days weekly.

Of course. I think the issue is twofold really. Firstly, I think some people just don't put the effort that they think they are putting into their swimming. This happens alot with beginners, who assume they are burning way more calories than they really are. Secondly, exercise works up an appetite. I know I am really hungry after I leave the pool. Some folks just don't adjust their calorie intake and end up overeating. Other than that, swimming is a great way to lose weight if you mind your food intake.

Ricki
September 12th, 2009, 04:39 PM
I specifically wanted to know if it was technically possible to inflate muscle mass enough to achieve 2% body fat without death. I read the articles you posted, and I did not find anything to lead me to believe that essential fat, in lbs, increases with body weight.

An anorexic guy (A) at 120 lbs who has an obese identical twin (B) at 300lbs. A has an essential body fat percentage of 5% and B has an essential body fat percentage of 2%. They both have essential body fat of 6 lbs, because they have identical insides. Makes sense to me.

I didn't ask if you thought it was easy.

I was just reading through the thread and this caught my attention. Could you please explain to me how you figure a 300 lb man with only 2% bodyfat would be considered obese?

qbrain
September 13th, 2009, 07:40 AM
I was just reading through the thread and this caught my attention. Could you please explain to me how you figure a 300 lb man with only 2% bodyfat would be considered obese?

2% essential body fat. There is fat in the body, like bone marrow, that you cannot live without. When you start using it for energy, you die.

The 300 obese man might have a 60% body fat, 58% of that could be used for energy safely, 2% is necessary for his body to work, thus essential.

Ricki
September 13th, 2009, 08:33 AM
2% essential body fat. There is fat in the body, like bone marrow, that you cannot live without. When you start using it for energy, you die.

The 300 obese man might have a 60% body fat, 58% of that could be used for energy safely, 2% is necessary for his body to work, thus essential.

I know what essential bodyfat is. I just don't understand what your point has to do with the debate you were having? Unless I am wrong, you were both debating whether it is possible to reach 2% bodyfat (the scientifically defined minimum amount of fat a human needs to survive) without any health issues. So if a 300 lb man lost enough bodyfat to reach 2% bodyfat, would he survive without any serious injury to his health. The same question would apply to a person of any weight for that matter...would hitting 2% bodyfat hurt that person, perhaps even kill them. You said it was possible to do safely, which goes against anything I have ever read. So I have to ask: do you have research papers to support that claim? A link to anything for that matter that is outside your personal opinion? Or are you now agreeing with the original debate that hitting 2% can cause issues? Because what you just said seems to fall in line with:


Yep, that caliper reading was way off. A reading of 1.9% is plain ridiculous and as already pointed out, reserved for dead people.


Errr... With 1.9% body fat you'd be practically dead.


Which I admit reads a bit dramatic, but seems to get the point across that I have read elsewhere, that such low level of body fat can cause serious injury and even death, since it is, you know, essential.

Ricki
September 13th, 2009, 08:46 AM
Me<waving hands>. Weight lifting is more effective for weight control than swimming for me. Although the combination of both, is fabulous. Plus I enjoy both, and I work-out because I enjoy it, otherwise I would not.

I found adding a weight lifting routine to my swim workout has really helped me hold onto more of my muscle mass as I lose fat. Besides, having some muscle is important to good health, especially the older we get! Sigh...old age is creeping up :afraid:

qbrain
September 13th, 2009, 09:37 AM
I know what essential bodyfat is. I just don't understand what your point has to do with the debate you were having? Unless I am wrong, you were both debating whether it is possible to reach 2% bodyfat (the scientifically defined minimum amount of fat a human needs to survive) without any health issues. So if a 300 lb man lost enough bodyfat to reach 2% bodyfat, would he survive without any serious injury to his health. The same question would apply to a person of any weight for that matter...would hitting 2% bodyfat hurt that person, perhaps even kill them. You said it was possible to do safely, which goes against anything I have ever read. So I have to ask: do you have research papers to support that claim? A link to anything for that matter that is outside your personal opinion? Or are you now agreeing with the original debate that hitting 2% can cause issues?

This is what I originally said:



Mathematically it seems possible to have a 2% bodyfat.

If your essential body fat is 4lbs, then mathematically you can gain enough muscle mass to hit 2% body fat.

Chlorine was stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight, but a function of total weight. This position was not obvious to me from his initial post. It was obvious that Chlorine was more interested in berating me for my stupidity than explaining his point.

I don't have any research papers that state one way or another, but Exercise Physiology by McArdle does state that "The low fat levels of marathon runners, which ranges from 1 to 8% of body mass,
probably reflect adaption to severe training for distance running." (p. 785) This would lead me to believe that attaining a body fat percentage of 2% is both mathematically and realistically possible.

Ricki
September 13th, 2009, 11:12 AM
This is what I originally said:

If your essential body fat is 4lbs, then mathematically you can gain enough muscle mass to hit 2% body fat.

Chlorine was stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight, but a function of total weight. This position was not obvious to me from his initial post. It was obvious that Chlorine was more interested in berating me for my stupidity than explaining his point.

I don't have any research papers that state one way or another, but Exercise Physiology by McArdle does state that "The low fat levels of marathon runners, which ranges from 1 to 8% of body mass,
probably reflect adaption to severe training for distance running." (p. 785) This would lead me to believe that attaining a body fat percentage of 2% is both mathematically and realistically possible.

Online debates do have a tendency to get heated :D Chlorine was correct in stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight. It is a percentage of bodyfat that a human being requires to stay alive. This is commonly acknowledged as a minimum of 2% of your total bodyweight, whatever it may be.

The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text. Unfortunately, it gets taken out of context as a result. What one would need to look at is the full study in order to see the conditions and methods used to determine bodyfat levels. Currently, there are no methods of measuring body fat in humans that is 100% accurate, short of dissection. For example, the following studies (abstracts available online):

Costill, Bowers, et al (1970)
coetzer et al (1993)
Pollock, Gettman, et al Body composition of elite class distance runners (1977)
Body composition of elite American athletes. Steven J. Fleck, PhD (1983)


All measured marathon runners at between 3.5%-7%. A far cry from McArdles findings. Errors in body fat estimation are also addressed in the studies:

Validity of "generalized" equations for body composition analysis in male athletes--SINNING, WAYNE E.; DOLNY, DENNIS G.; LITTLE, KATHLEEN D.; CUNNINGHAM, LEE N.; RACANIELLO, ANNETTE; SICONOLFI, STEVEN F.; SHOLES, JANET L.

Effects of skin thickness and skinfold compressibility on skinfold thickness measurement: A. D. Martin 1, D. T. Drinkwater 2, J. P. Clarys 3, M. Daniel 4, W. D. Ross 4

Furthermore, I highly recommend any study by Ancel Keys, et al as well as the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment", also run by Ancel Keys. (If you are interested in this dry sort of stuff that is :D)

I think the important thing that all of these studies prove in the end, is that when someone comes to a forum and claims they have hit 2% body fat, the chances are great that they really didn't. If not for the fact that it can cause serious health issues, then at the very least because it is really damn hard and has not been recorded with any certainty even by an elite athlete in a controlled study.

qbrain
September 13th, 2009, 01:04 PM
Chlorine was correct in stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight. It is a percentage of bodyfat that a human being requires to stay alive. This is commonly acknowledged as a minimum of 2% of your total bodyweight, whatever it may be.


Is this what you are claiming:
- person has an essential body fat X (in lbs, not %)
- person gains weight
- person's essential body fat increases from X to X + Y
- person looses weight
- person's essential body fat stays X + Y


The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text. Unfortunately, it gets taken out of context as a result. What one would need to look at is the full study in order to see the conditions and methods used to determine bodyfat levels. Currently, there are no methods of measuring body fat in humans that is 100% accurate, short of dissection. For example, the following studies:

Costill, Bowers, et al (1970)
coetzer et al (1993)
Pollock, Gettman, et al Body composition of elite class distance runners (1977)

All measured marathon runners at between 3.5%-7%. A far cry from McArdles findings. Furthermore, I highly recommend any study by Ancel Keys, et al as well as the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment", also run by Ancel Keys as they give brilliant insight into what happens to the body as it starves. People tend to forget, that what we see as dieting, the body still sees as starvation and will react accordingly, based on the severity. So the last study was a real opener to the scientific community over 60 years ago.

This statement really irks me: "The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text."

I quoted a source that is easily accessible and published 2 years ago, then you criticize it for being easily accessible, claim it is old, and then cite articles that are no newer than 15 yeas old to refute it. The most recent citation was "Superior fatigue resistance of elite black South African distance runners" wasn't a study about body fat.


I think the important thing that all of these studies prove in the end, is that when someone comes to a forum and claims they have hit 2% body fat, the chances are great that they really didn't. If not for the fact that it can cause serious health issues, then at the very least because it is really damn hard and has not been recorded with any certainty even by an elite athlete.

I am not trying to prove or disprove funkyfish's statement. I just asked if it was mathematically have a 2% body fat, with the assumption that the person is still alive.

Ricki
September 13th, 2009, 01:37 PM
Is this what you are claiming:
- person has an essential body fat X (in lbs, not %)
- person gains weight
- person's essential body fat increases from X to X + Y
- person looses weight
- person's essential body fat stays X + Y


No need to make it so complicated. It is what I said it was: a percentage of your total bodyweight. So 2% of whatever you weigh.




This statement really irks me: "The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text."

I quoted a source that is easily accessible and published 2 years ago, then you criticize it for being easily accessible, claim it is old, and then cite articles that are no newer than 15 yeas old to refute it. The most recent citation was "Superior fatigue resistance of elite black South African distance runners" wasn't a study about body fat.
Sorry you feel I was attacking the age of the study, that really wasn't the case (although just to correct you, the book you quoted is about 15 years old. It's a reprint). I am simply stating that a random grab from a book you found online is not irrefutable evidence to support your stance and that there are studies which show otherwise. I also provided ample studies for you to research if you like, but apparently that isn't enough? The study on fatigue resistance in South African runners actually goes into detail on bodyfat percentages and such. I can't help you if you don't have access beyond the abstract, that is something you will have to pay for. I also find it funny how you make no mention of any of the other studies and just zero in on one you disagree with.



I am not trying to prove or disprove funkyfish's statement. I just asked if it was mathematically have a 2% body fat, with the assumption that the person is still alive.You did more than ask. You pretty much claimed that it was possible and provided zero evidence beyond a quote from one book quoting one study. By all means, if you have more to back up your statements, feel free to post them. I am not afraid of being proven wrong..I just like cold hard facts.

qbrain
September 13th, 2009, 03:52 PM
No need to make it so complicated. It is what I said it was: a percentage of your total bodyweight. So 2% of whatever you weigh.


OK, thank you. We have different definitions of essential.

Ricki
September 13th, 2009, 05:15 PM
OK, thank you. We have different definitions of essential.

Hey no prob. See you around the forum. :)

qbrain
September 26th, 2009, 02:17 PM
Ande,

I have looked more into P90X after you brought it up.

I think the workout program would burn less calories than what you burn now, assuming you are working out with 6x/week in the pool and 3x/week in the gym, which I think is typical for you.

The P90X diet is very strict and your diet is pretty lax, so that portion would be beneficial. The benefit of the P90X diet is that it has several cookie cutter meals and a guide on how to put them together. Other than that, the diet itself is just a healthy, high protein, low calorie diet. Any healthy diet that runs a calorie deficit would work in place of the P90X diet.

P90X is probably not the program for you.

Have you thought about working with a nutritionist?

RachaelM
November 3rd, 2010, 03:09 PM
I recently purchased and started P90X and was curious if anyone who has been doing it has noticed any improvement in their swimming, or improvement they've seen generally.

I've read a p90x blog that suggested not following the 90 day program but rather do 3 p90x workouts a week in addition to swim training to prevent yourself from burning out. Any thoughts on this?

Right now, I'm just sore, everywhere.

The Fortress
November 3rd, 2010, 03:46 PM
I recently purchased and started P90X and was curious if anyone who has been doing it has noticed any improvement in their swimming, or improvement they've seen generally.

I've read a p90x blog that suggested not following the 90 day program but rather do 3 p90x workouts a week in addition to swim training to prevent yourself from burning out. Any thoughts on this?

Right now, I'm just sore, everywhere.

I have not done the 90 day P90X program, but I have the DVDs and have done most of the workouts.

I can't really see how someone can do the 90 day P90X program and concurrently train at a high level for swim competitions. In my experience, you would just get too broken down. If your main goal is fitness and weight loss, by all means do the full program. If you want to swim fast, I think you need to modify it somewhat to prevent overtraining and burnout. Just my opinion, YMMV, especially if you're young and recover more quickly.

BTW, I like the plyometrics, Kenpo and yoga DVD best. I've incorporated some of the exercises into my regular dryland routine. I think plyos are fantastic for starts and walls.

__steve__
November 3rd, 2010, 04:11 PM
Would 30 or so all-out starts off the blocks be equivalent to a p90x workout?

FireRox21
November 5th, 2010, 03:32 PM
I would LOVE to do the P90x program, but until they come out with a version for people with Rheumatoid Arthritis and completely fused joints, I am SOL. As someone stated before, there is so much high-impact activity going on in this program, that my joints can't take it. Geez, I suffered a fall in the front yard and am now looking at knee surgery, so P90x is so out of the equation.

As for the debate about losing weight and swimming, well, it hasn't worked for me. Since really getting serious about my swimming in January, utilizing a HRM, maintaining a reduced-calorie diet by tracking calories in vs. calories out, and still trying to keep my RA at bay, I have lost about 5 lbs this YEAR! I swim 2500-3000 meters with 25-30 minutes of ab/core work done in the pool 5 days a week. I also use the pool dumb bells for strength training. I'm an IM swimmer, so everyday I focus on different strokes. Plus, I suffer from pool ADD, so I HAVE to have variety in my workout. All in all, with all of that swimming, 5 lbs in one year is highly depressing. I have about 40lbs to lose. Yet, I hear DAILY from people that say "with all that swimming, you should be skinny". Not so.

I know I would probably lose more weight if I could incorporate other forms of cardio and/or weight lifting into my workout, but I have problems lifting pots and pans in the kitchen, much less lifting dumb bells in the gym! So, let the debate rage on as to how some people can shed pounds so quickly with swimming and others, i.e. ME, can still stay overweight.

jaadams1
March 1st, 2011, 12:42 AM
I just got started with the DVDs this last weekend, and have been having fun so far. The P90X program is definitely a killer, and it all depends on how much you push yourself. I'm not going to do the actual 90 day program, but will space things out with 4-5 of the workouts a week in addition to my 5 morning swims a week. My wife has been enjoying them also, and we will do weekends together.
Just did the Chest and Back w/ Ab Ripper afterwards tonight, and I think I got more of a tricep workout, but can feel it in the chest too. I'll cut this off cold turkey as we get closer to Nationals, but for now...bring the pain!! :banana: :bliss: :banana: