hannukah harry

off topic, i cleaned up your formatting, makes it easier to read. could you use the quote format in the future? it really does make going through this a lot easier.

if you'd really like to play the credential game... i've got a bachelors in exercise science, i'm an ace certified personal trainer (ace = american council on exercise) and run a corporate fitness center. i also have minor experience in cardiac rehab, orthotics/prothetics (even if i can't spell them right), physical therapy and exercise physiology.

mark allen's being a "prove athelete" doesn't mean he knows jack or shit. it means he done did good. have you ever known a good athelete who never trains or practices and still performs very well? look at most body builders. if you go by a lot of what they do, adn what they tell you, you'll end up with a lot of misinformation and half-truths. if i have the right genetics, i could lift with horrible form and too much weight and with the wrong number of sets, reps, and choices of lifts and still get a massive physique. mark allen trained really damn hard and dumb and still out performed what most people could do. it wasn't until he started training smart that made him a champion. and if you read his page, he's generally wrong about how the body works, etc. so i'll go over this one more time for you. by the way, a link to a pdf from a gym is hardly documentation. especially when a) it says that his formula (which he claims is the way to do it) is the least accurate of the three methods of determining your lactate threshold and b) is far from a scientific backing.

uhm... you just did basically go point-by-point. and i didn't say that his heart rate training program wouldn't work, it will. there's a smarter way then his (the method he gives in the last 1 or 2 paragraphs), but it'lld efinatly work. you are also welcome to your opinoins, but the part we've been debating hasn't really been opinion, it's been fact...

the widget analogy was in reference to my previos post (the last part of post #13). i was trying to make an analogy about how the cell makes energy that hopefully you would understand. appearantly, i failed in that. it is possible that i may have taken you too literally when you said "A heart monitor - if you learn to use one right - will help you train your body to process fat more efficiently as fuel. (#12)" but based on the previous posts, i don't think so... if we are just arguing semantics, then i apologize. anyways, let me start over with how fat is processed for energy and why training with (or without a HR monitor) does not make your body more efficient at processing fat as fuel.

1. your heart pumps oxygenated blood through your arteries into your capallaries where the oxygen and glucose, fatty acids and nutrients in the blood are transported into cells. from the cells, waste products of the metabolic pathways are dumped into the blood which is then passed into the veins which are then filted, put through the lungs to get reoxygenated and sent back trhough your circulatory system.

2. fat and pyruvate (by-product of glycolysis) are turned into energy in the mitochondria (powerplant) of cells. they are turned into atp through the krebs/citric acid cycle. they are not burned anywehre else in the cell except the mitochondria.

now, you can not make the krebs cycle more efficient. it's impossible. in a widget factory, you can make the production line more efficient by combining two tasks into one, removing redundant steps, etc. you can not do that in the krebs cycle. it is what it is and that's all that it is. you skip a step and from that point on the molecules in the cycle don't yeild any energy. you can not make your body more effiecient as processing fat as a fuel. through cardio exercise, you can make it so that there are more blood vessels that come and go from your muscles so that more blood (and therefore more O2 and nutrients) can get to and from the cells. with exercise you can increase the number of mitochondria in your cells. that does not make it more efficient. otherwise a factory could just a 2nd widget line and claim that the new output of the two lines is more efficient. it's not. its that you've got more people (mitochondria) doing the work. that's not efficiency. the transportation of O2 and nutrients/waste will be more efficient because they'll be able to get into and out of teh cell more easily.

does that help? if not then someone else will have to explain it, because i can't think of another way to describe efficiency.



did barry bonds surpass ruth's homerun count because of good trainers or steroids? yes mark allen had good trainers. otherwise he'd still be stuck at his idiotic "no pain no gain" workout full time. if he wants to post about things he doesn't seem to quite understand, he should let the trainers do it for him.

it's very easy to overtrain when you're planning on riding 100 miles, run 25+ and swim several more. our bodies are not very good at staying uninjured when putting that much strain on them. most marathon runners do not run a full marathon each day, each week. most will maybe do a full practice marathon every 2-4 weeks. they train hard one day and then light the next to give their body time to recover. that's why his "no pain no gain" training didn't work for him. he worked himself so hard that at some point his body just did not have the time to fully recover and adapt to his workouts. and he was only training one energy system. by mixing them up, you can recover from the previous days workout and see good results. that part of what his trainers had him doing.


no, if they hook a normal person up at lifetime, the normal persons LT will be less than 80% their maxHR. A trained athelete will have a LT in the 80-90% maxHR range. most people do not. everyone has the ability to get theirs up there, but that takes lots and lots of training, which most people don't do.


did he? we weren't told that. according to his story, his buddy just told him to work at a much slower pace. and then we're given an equation that's an estimation of your lactate threshold. now, i'd assume also that his trainers did test him, but i'm very curious as to why he leaves out what seems to be rather important details.

good for you (no sarcasm). but doesn't that tell you how that chart isn't quite right? just like you can't say that someone who weights 240lbs is obese (they could be michael jordan), you can't use a little chart like that as more than a mere guideline. and that estimation does not take into account nearly as much for it to be worth a whole lot in my opinion. you know those little charts on treadmills and what not that tell you whether or not you're in the "fat burning zone" or "cardio zone"? those aren't worth a whole lot.

not really. they both started at 30min but then the endurance group ended up doing 45min sessions while the HIIT group stayed at a duratoin of 30min. but what i really meant was "why bother running for 60 minutes when you can get the same fatloss from a shorter exercise session?" why spend 60 minutes on a treadmill when you can spend 30 doing HIIT? Hell, since the subjects lost 3 times more bodyfat doing HIIT, one could extrapolate that they could do 1/3 of the time that the endurance people did and still lose the same amount of fat as the endurance people.

no, you didn't. to quote you, in post #16, "I consider 89-90% of max to be the AT, or anearobic threshold (see the pdf file in my previous post). Below that and you're burning equal amount of fat and sugar until you get to 80% of max." that is wrong. it doesn't matter what you consider to be the AT. each persons is different. for a highly trained athelete, they'll have an AT at 89-90% of their maxHR. but the lactate threshold isn't defined by a heart rate. it is defined by the inflection point on a graph where the lactic acid being generated is greater than that being removed. until that point, you are removing the lactic acid at a rate equal to or greater than it is being created. it is not based on a specific heart rate or percent of your maxHR. you can improve your LT by training around the HR that corresponds to that inflection point.

warm-up, cool down and stretching are not part of the "workout." when someone talks about doing 60 minutes on the bike, they don't generally mean from the time they get on to the time they get off, they mean the time working in their target HR zone. and fyi, 1) cool down is a lot more important than the warmup, 2) stretching after working out isn't that important (unless you're participating in a sport that requires lots of flexibility).

a chart from a health club and an article from an athelete is not supporting documentation.

warning: you might want to use IE to look at these sources. i was having problems doing it with

firefox.

on stretching (to preempt responses)


is that enough citing for you? if not, i'll do more...







heya... welcome! you're right i didn't include sourced material. but i didn't think some of the basics (like how a cell makes energy) needed sources. and i'm still gonna let you google that one, even though i explained it for you (general you, not you you). now don't get me wrong, i'm a fan of HR monitors, i have and use one. and if you're training for competition, they're an important tool to have. but they aren't absolutely necessary. a good pair of shoes are. get crappy shoes and you'll be getting nice little stress injuries soon enough. proper clothing is also important. on a warm day you need to be wearing clothes that don't overheat you and on cold days you need clothes that will keep you warm but also wick away the sweat.

__________________
shabbat shalom, mother fucker! - the hebrew hammer