Oh yeah, goal for this year is 6000+ miles and a lot more elevation. I'm lucky to gain 300 feet per 20 miles around here, when I was in Arizona, I rode in Marana which is at the base of the Dove Mountains. In 23 miles, I got something like 1200 ft of elevation gain, at one point, I climbed for 5 miles straight. Here you can attack most hills since they are maybe .3 to .5 miles of climbing. When its 5 miles continuous, you have to sit and spin it out. Also looking to do the Texas Time Trails in September. They have 6, 12 and 24 hour timed events (ride as many miles as possible during that time) and a 500 mile ride, whoever has the fastest time wins. Probably start with the 6 hour event. I figure being older but having a lot of base miles (currently around 33,000 since 2007), endurance events are the way to go.
The Workout/Weight Loss Thread
- Thread starter boywonder
- Start date
Just want to throw out a thought. If you are crunched for time, controlling your diet is an easier path to losing weight than increasing your exercise. If you exercise fairly vigorously for one hour, you might burn 500 calories. Plus you need to dress, transport yourself to the location of the exercise, etc. Probably looking at 1.5 to 2 hours commitment. Or, you simply eat 500 calories less, which takes no time at all. Your body will be healthier if you work out, but just pointing out, if time is the main issue, consuming fewer calories does not take up a slot in your schedule.
Accumulator
Well-known member
Beemerboy (& Scottwax)- I just knew we'd hear from Scottwax when I saw your post! I bet your locale is great for a biking enthusiast.
chet31- A few thoughts (and again, I hope I don't come across as argumentative):
First, let met me say that if somebody can cut out a bunch of calories without depriving himself of some needed nutrients, then sure, oughta do that! Empty/excess calories just don't make sense any more than running an engine on an overly rich fuel mixture. So I don't think you and I are actually in disagreement at all. That said..
When a friend of mine claimed that "it's easy for you to be in shape, you're retired...", I thought of how I now exercise *FAR* less than I did when I was teaching, maybe one-third as much if even that. (Heh heh, I also thought how it's nice to not have to do a workout at 4AM any more!) To prove my point, I decided to keep track for a month and it turned out that I average just under 20 minutes/day over the course of a few of my ten-day cycles.
OK, that's just me- I have my routine all figured out and I have all my exercise facilities here at home. Guess that last part is a wildcard, huh?
But IMO you can get an effective workout done in far less than one hour or else you're not working out very hard- I mean, how long can you do max-effort 90-second Time Under Load sets with weights; how long can you run windsprints?
I'd hate for somebody to use my friend's excuse and think there's no point that that exercise stuff if there aren't hours available. If every sedentary person did five minutes of Burpees every other day the world would be a fitter place. Push ups, chins, body-weight squats (too easy? use one leg), there are a lot of effective exercises that can be done with virtually zero equipment.
My weight workouts don't take an hour any more, and I'm making better gains than when they did, and the most effective cardio workout ever studied (the Tabata Protocol, which is what I basically do on my "AirDyne day"), involves 3 minutes of both warmup and cooldown with only 4 minutes of actual "workout" in between them. At the end of that brief workout I absolutely couldn't do any more if my life depended on it. And yes, in the studies that workout resulted in better fat loss than longer, less intense, workouts.
IMO it's not about exercise *time*, but rather its *intensity*.
I guess I just kneejerk about even the slightest hint that somebody can get away with not exercising; as we age the body loses muscle unless it's worked pretty hard, and that leads to all sorts of, uhm...negative outcomes. I've known a lot of elderly people, and the "healthy but weak" folks weren't able to do a lot of things and seemed to suffer a lot more accidents. OTOH, I've known octogenarians who exercised that basically lived the same lifestyle as when they were younger.
Again, I think I'm not disagreeing with you so much as using your post as a springboard for discussing the "necessary time" topic.
chet31- A few thoughts (and again, I hope I don't come across as argumentative):
First, let met me say that if somebody can cut out a bunch of calories without depriving himself of some needed nutrients, then sure, oughta do that! Empty/excess calories just don't make sense any more than running an engine on an overly rich fuel mixture. So I don't think you and I are actually in disagreement at all. That said..
When a friend of mine claimed that "it's easy for you to be in shape, you're retired...", I thought of how I now exercise *FAR* less than I did when I was teaching, maybe one-third as much if even that. (Heh heh, I also thought how it's nice to not have to do a workout at 4AM any more!) To prove my point, I decided to keep track for a month and it turned out that I average just under 20 minutes/day over the course of a few of my ten-day cycles.
OK, that's just me- I have my routine all figured out and I have all my exercise facilities here at home. Guess that last part is a wildcard, huh?
But IMO you can get an effective workout done in far less than one hour or else you're not working out very hard- I mean, how long can you do max-effort 90-second Time Under Load sets with weights; how long can you run windsprints?
I'd hate for somebody to use my friend's excuse and think there's no point that that exercise stuff if there aren't hours available. If every sedentary person did five minutes of Burpees every other day the world would be a fitter place. Push ups, chins, body-weight squats (too easy? use one leg), there are a lot of effective exercises that can be done with virtually zero equipment.
My weight workouts don't take an hour any more, and I'm making better gains than when they did, and the most effective cardio workout ever studied (the Tabata Protocol, which is what I basically do on my "AirDyne day"), involves 3 minutes of both warmup and cooldown with only 4 minutes of actual "workout" in between them. At the end of that brief workout I absolutely couldn't do any more if my life depended on it. And yes, in the studies that workout resulted in better fat loss than longer, less intense, workouts.
IMO it's not about exercise *time*, but rather its *intensity*.
I guess I just kneejerk about even the slightest hint that somebody can get away with not exercising; as we age the body loses muscle unless it's worked pretty hard, and that leads to all sorts of, uhm...negative outcomes. I've known a lot of elderly people, and the "healthy but weak" folks weren't able to do a lot of things and seemed to suffer a lot more accidents. OTOH, I've known octogenarians who exercised that basically lived the same lifestyle as when they were younger.
Again, I think I'm not disagreeing with you so much as using your post as a springboard for discussing the "necessary time" topic.
Accumulator
Well-known member
OK, time to bump this thread, even if I'm just, uhm...posting to myself.
Still making great progress, better shape/health at 55 than at 54. I wouldn't say I'm an "outlier" but OTOH I don't know (i.e., really, personally, IRL, *know*) anybody else who stays in this condition 24/7/52, let alone at my age.
Qs:
Anybody else here doing "Tabata" intervals, or otherwise going anaerobic on their cardio?
Anybody else here using an AirDyne or a StairMaster?
Anybody else here using Resistance Bands in addition to freeweights/machines? (NEVER thought I'd find uses for those, boy was I wrong!)
Still making great progress, better shape/health at 55 than at 54. I wouldn't say I'm an "outlier" but OTOH I don't know (i.e., really, personally, IRL, *know*) anybody else who stays in this condition 24/7/52, let alone at my age.
Qs:
Anybody else here doing "Tabata" intervals, or otherwise going anaerobic on their cardio?
Anybody else here using an AirDyne or a StairMaster?
Anybody else here using Resistance Bands in addition to freeweights/machines? (NEVER thought I'd find uses for those, boy was I wrong!)
Tabata - I love it and hate it at the same time. Always seems like the workout is going to be a lot easier than it actually is.
I am a swim coach, and I use it for my swimmers sometimes also.
Accumulator
Well-known member
IbisA4- Ah, I was afraid nobody else uses it! yeah, I love the efficiency/effectiveness of it but it's the hardest, most unpleasant, thing I ever do, bar none. I see the term "Tabata" bandied about by a lot of people who apparently aren't doing it to the level of his original studies 
I can't bring myself to dial it back for fear of the "slippery slope effect", though the writings of Bass and Winnet have me questioning that (at least at my age).
That oughta be great for your swimmers, I'm guessing that they're the age where they can really do the "specific adaptation" thing with regard to cardiovascular fitness and the whole...eh, what's the term?...lactate level thing. It sure worked great for the speed skaters he first tested it on.
I can't bring myself to dial it back for fear of the "slippery slope effect", though the writings of Bass and Winnet have me questioning that (at least at my age).That oughta be great for your swimmers, I'm guessing that they're the age where they can really do the "specific adaptation" thing with regard to cardiovascular fitness and the whole...eh, what's the term?...lactate level thing. It sure worked great for the speed skaters he first tested it on.