Ah cheers. Based on his posts, the way he draws conclusions, and the selectivity of the images, I thought he might be in the 16-26 age range the musclemags target. I was just trying to find out where we stand.
Here's a few more examples to add to the pics. These aren't anonymous randoms from google images though selectively picked to back up an argument, these are all people from this website who have walked the walk. And that's just 6 people over two chalenges. If you click around, you'll find many more.
(Although I do have plenty of selective pictures of random bodybuilders who train as little as once per week if you like. Just let me know if you want them too.)
In order posted:
RugbyAnt - lost 31 lbs and 4 inches from his waist. Trained 3 times per week with weights on his Summer of Buff plan.
JohhnyM - lost 28 lbs and 5½ inches from his waist. Trained 3 times per week with weights on his Summer of Buff plan.
Mexoclas - lost 12 lbs. Trained 3 times per week with weights on his Summer of Buff plan.
Jealer - lost 16 lbs and 2½ inches off his waist. Trained 3 times per week with weights on the Daniel Craig plan.
LAWilson - lost 13 lbs and an inch from his waist. Trained 3 times per weeks with weights on a standard HIT plan.
ScienceBoy - lost 18 lbs and 2½ inches off his waist. Trained 3 times per week with weights on the Lose Weight plan.
Again, no-one's taking away what you've acheived at all. No-ones going to argue that you did anything wrong either, because you didn't.
These people just choose to get the same results you did by spending less time working out. When we did another challenge for another magazine, I actually did a comparison to help explain the situation.
So you know, the other guy worked out to basically the same schedule as you and lost 14 lbs over 12 weeks.
Again, remember we're talking about efficiency here, or the participants return on investment if you like. Everything about the program is geared towards being efficient.
For example, as you said you've lost 14 lbs in 12 weeks and maintained your muscle mass.
BFG also lost a bit more than 14 lbs in 8 weeks while maintaining muscle mass, so now we have a like for like comparison rather than the previous hypothetical to try to illustrate the point again.
Using your example, assuming you stuck to the regime posted when I previously asked, you spent on average 57.6 hours in the gym for a loss of 14 lbs while maintaining your muscle mass.
BFG spent on average 10 hours in the gym to achieve the same goal, which is 17% of your gym time. Yes, he started out at a higher body fat percent, so based on experience, it would have taken him about 10-14 weeks to achieve the same results had he had the same starting point as you. But for arguments sake, let's say it took him twice as long as it did. It would still have taken him 35% of the gym time for the same results.
Hell, let's say it took him 3 times as long, he would still have only spent half the time in the gym.
I don't know what your supplement bill is, but again, BFG spent £0 on supplements in that fat loss period, and his bill continually increases by £0.
Your fat loss was excellent and something you should be proud of. We're certainly proud of you. And the same applies to BFG. The fact you took different roads to get to that end is irrelevant.
So again, it's not about the results, you've shown what you're doing works fine, as no-one has ever disputed. It's about efficiency, plain and simple. These people have lives they want to live. They don't want to get up at 6am to go to the gym when they could be getting extra sleep. They don't want to be going to the gym after work for over half of the week when they could be going home to their other half, or to a film, or (in BFG's case) clubbing! By also saving the money on supplements as well as the gym time, they have the money to do that as well.
Remember, we're not talking about bodybuilders or athletes. We're talking about average Joes, and the programs need to reflect that.
Ah cheers. Based on his posts, the way he draws conclusions, and the selectivity of the images, I thought he might be in the 16-26 age range the musclemags target. I was just trying to find out where we stand.
Cynical and 39 Ant! :-D Being almost 40 now I feel I have a right to go down the grumpy old man route and question everything 20 times. I very much appreciate you taking the time to join the discussion and contribute your thoughts.
Anthony wrote:
Here's a few more examples to add to the pics. These aren't anonymous randoms from google images though selectively picked to back up an argument
The pictures though were not wholly random. Every one of those people in the pics is a world leader in their athletic field. Ronnie Coleman obviously is 8 time Mr Olympia, the lifters are all Olympic level and then we had a prfoessional triathlete and two Olympic athletes. I was trying to show people who could not in any way be criticised for their performance level or their likely exercise regime.
Anthony wrote:
Again, no-one's taking away what you've acheived at all. No-ones going to argue that you did anything wrong either, because you didn't.
Thank you. Sometime though I feel as though I am being told the way I did it was wrong. You see any thread where someone mentions cardio and the response is basically 'You schmuck, cardio is evil!'.
Anthony wrote:
These people just choose to get the same results you did by spending less time working out. When we did another challenge for another magazine, I actually did a comparison to help explain the situation.
So actually your program is designed to ensure people reach their goals whilst minimising required gym time? This I understand. It makes sense.
I have more time available to me and am happy to use some of it in additional exercise and in a variation of exercises.
Anthony wrote:
So you know, the other guy worked out to basically the same schedule as you and lost 14 lbs over 12 weeks.
I lost 28 lbs in 12 weeks. Also during that time my BF% dropped to around 15%. As such it wasn't too high to begin with no matter what my bathroom scales were saying. I didn't have the 'advantage' of having huge amounts of fat to shift. I wouldn't want people saying I was lucky.
Anthony wrote:
Anthony
So on the whole it seems that there is a place for cardio in regimes and people who would like to do it should not be 'flamed' on the site for this.
Ant can you make some form of statement that says this as I feel part of a repressed minority of two... me and Tom!
To summarise: I appreciate that people can achieve great results without cardio but I would be happy for people to know they can incorporate it.
I am happy to be encouraging good quality debate on this subject.
No one should knock you for doing cardio - and I think Anthony's post says that, also stated above we all have different ways we like to achieve our results.
BC you fight your corner pretty well, and the nature of a public forum is that people will challenge your ideas, sometimes en-masse - people like to feel that their way of doing things is the right way, and pushing that experience onto others is just natural behaviour, but not necessarily right.
The pictures though were not wholly random. Everyone one of those people in the pics is a world leader in their athletic field. Ronnie Coleman obviously is 8 time Mr Olympia, the lifters are all Olympic level and then nwe had a prfessional triathlete and two Olympic athletes. I was trying to show people who could not in any way be criticised for their performance level or their likely exercise regime.
And this is half the problem. You're posting pictures of people who are in the genetic 1 in a million, who's job is training, and in some cases (like Colemans) is taking enough drugs to kill a baby elephant.
This is why I wondered if you was in the 16-26 age range, because that's what the muslce mags do because they know that age range is most likely to be drawn in.
No-one on this site falls into that category. The people you're preaching to aren't elite level athletes or bodybuilders. They're average people with average genetics, 9-5 jobs, and a social life they want to uphold.
The other problem was you were only posting examples of people that backed up your argument. You didn't post any of the millions of weight lifters who are in lower weight classes, or fat marathon runners. You specifically posted examples of fat powelifters and ripped sprinters.
Here's two strongmen. Both of them train in basically the same way. They do basically the same amount of weights (in the gym and strongman specific) and cardio. Both are elite level, having both won Worlds Strongest Man competing in the same competition.
One's ripped the other isn't. They're training routine isn't why.
Both are still irrelevant to posters on this site being elite athletes with their genetics, time to train, and drug intake, but if that's the population you were trying to aim your post at, they would be better examples.
In terms of your other points, you also have to remember that the weights routines carry all the fitness and health benefits of the cardio that you're doing, which is again something which wasn't mentioned but should be if you want a balanced argument.
My arguement is not one of saying 'Everyone should do cardio'
My arguement is 'People who do gym and cardio are not doing it wrong, cardio can be a valid part of an exercise regime'.
I do not mind other people not doing cardio, good on them. I understand they do not need to. However I find it annoying that cardio is treated nigh on with contempt by many members and that any time I syggest people give it a go I need put a sheild up to protect me from the incoming axe blows! :-D
In terms of your other points, you also have to remember that the weights routines carry all the fitness and health benefits of the cardio that you're doing, which is again something which wasn't mentioned but should be if you want a balanced argument.
Anthony
Do you have someone following you around poping 5 stars on each post?
Anyone would think I advocate cardio only... no way man! I advocate it as a compliment to gym as mentioned above.
My arguement is not one of saying 'Everyone should do cardio'
My arguement is 'People who do gym and cardio are not doing it wrong, cardio can be a valid part of an exercise regime'.
I do not mind other people not doing cardio, good on them. I understand they do not need to. However I find it annoying that cardio is treated nigh on with contempt by many members and that any time I syggest people give it a go I need put a sheild up to protect me from the incoming axe blows! :-D
I agree with your point, but it will depend more on how you put it across. If you take the confrontational tone out of all of your posts, you'll find people wont reply in the same vain. In fact if you look through the posts you'll notice how people go out of their way to explain their points with lengthy and in depth posts to help people.
As is pointed out by members alot, cardio can be a valid part of your routine, provided it's done for the right reasons. People do it to lose fat without being properly educated as to what cardio actually does, and that it's impact on fat loss is minimal.
If you're entering into the great north run, for example, you'll need to run.
But in terms of this thread, your point was weight lifters are fat, people that do lots of cardio are ripped.
That was wrong, and that was what needed to be properly balanced.
