thefonz on 21/7/2009 at 06:11

---

Sex is the best exercise*






*apparently
:erm:

Shayde on 21/7/2009 at 08:46

---

I'd rather gargle wasps than go to gym. I get my exercise from climbing. Once a week in an indoor climbing gym and on weekends we climb rock. Awesome fun, fresh air and a heavy workout without feeling like you are exercising.

http://i104.photobucket.com/albums/m176/LadyShayde/fb2.jpg

D'Juhn Keep on 21/7/2009 at 10:43

---

From your link

"Fat, however, is slightly less dense than muscle, meaning that a set volume of muscle will weigh slightly more than the same volume of fat."

Am I missing something or did the article you quoted to back your statement of "muscle weighing more than fat is a myth" contradict you?

DDL on 21/7/2009 at 11:43

---

Holy shit, that link answered an incredibly simple question with quite possibly the most unnecessarily long answer ever.

I guess the correct question should be "does an equal volume of muscle tissue weigh more than an equal volume of adipose tissue", to which the answer is an emphatic yes.

So a person of medium build but made largely out of muscle with next to no body fat will weigh a similar amount to someone of heavy build with next to no muscle but lots of body fat.

Which BMI ignores completely, because it's a raw height vs weight comparison.

Hell, if you solely rely on BMI, a fat arm-amputee is technically 'healthier' than an equally fat non-arm-amputee...

Of course, for body types within 'normal' muscle ranges (i.e. people who don't go to the gym for resistance training a lot), it's a decent measure, both for over- and under-weightedness.


EDIT: also, for healthiness it's worth noting that WHERE the fat lies is quite critical, again this is why height vs waist circumference is a better measure: women tend to have more body fat, but distributed around the backside and the thighs (these are healthier places to have fat). Men tend to have less body fat, but the fat they do have accumulates around the waist, both subcutaneously and around internal organs, which are BAD places to have fat.

BEAR on 21/7/2009 at 18:14

---

I've been working out moderately for a long time, but am only recently trying to step it up and actually do it close to right.

My brother and I have been doing the same routine way too long, so we've switched it up to a 8-6-4 (that is, 8 reps at one weight, 6 at higher and 4 on last barely able to get it unaided) rep routine and are trying to push it harder than usual (used to we would go for 3 sets of 10 on most exercises). Unsurprisingly we didn't really get that far (beyond fitness), but with the new routine I'm noticing pretty substantial strength gains and some mass (we're dieting at the same time trying to lose a little, so we're not gaining a lot of weight which is fine by me).

I gave up on long distance running years ago, so hard on the body and like lifting weights a long time, it doesn't really do you much good. We're doing interval training and swimming now as opposed to distance running and massive cardio, and it feels better and I notice the difference almost immediately, similar to if I push it hard for 5 reps lifting weights and barely get them as opposed to easily busting out 10 and doing that very often.

Good article on interval training here: (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/03/fashion/03Fitness.html)

I enjoy going to the gym every week and being stronger and having more endurance than I did the week before, so I highly recommend looking into it for anyone wanting to increase cardio capacity. Just be careful to warm up really well. And if anyone is working out and not noticing it, or wanting to get started, I suggest looking into some kind of medium rep/high weight routine unless you just want to tone.

Its funny to think how much time you can spend not getting anywhere with exercise, but its just like everything else I guess.