Don't get me wrong, it's great as a sport but I feel like sprints and heavy lifting are better for losing weight fast and getting an athletic body. Most sports also do not involve sustained cardio but bursts of speed and strength.
Don't get me wrong, it's great as a sport but I feel like sprints and heavy lifting are better for losing weight fast and getting an athletic body. Most sports also do not involve sustained cardio but bursts of speed and strength.
Realistically Speaking wrote:
Most sports also do not involve sustained cardio but bursts of speed and strength.
I thought so too, but Usain Bolt proved that wrong in his first soccer match!
Getting "in shape" is 90% diet.
Hardloper wrote:
I thought so too, but Usain Bolt proved that wrong in his first soccer match!
Yes that's my point. He's a sprinter. I can't see a marathoner succeeding in most sports.
Running 10 miles in less than 85 minutes on an empty stomach before breakfast will burn many calories. Running ten to fifteen miles at a time forces your body to actually burn fat as a fuel. Weight training and sprinting does increase one's metabolism. Since one is burning muscle sugar while sprinting or lifting weights, one can over eat the training much easier than one can who runs ten to fifteen miles a day. See fat baseball players. See fat American football players. Do all three: sprint, weight train and ten mile runs.
Realistically Speaking wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
I thought so too, but Usain Bolt proved that wrong in his first soccer match!
Yes that's my point. He's a sprinter. I can't see a marathoner succeeding in most sports.
Bolt looked terrible fitness-wise.
Running .... wrote:
Running 10 miles in less than 85 minutes on an empty stomach before breakfast will burn many calories. Running ten to fifteen miles at a time forces your body to actually burn fat as a fuel. Weight training and sprinting does increase one's metabolism. Since one is burning muscle sugar while sprinting or lifting weights, one can over eat the training much easier than one can who runs ten to fifteen miles a day. See fat baseball players. See fat American football players. Do all three: sprint, weight train and ten mile runs.
+1
This also depends on how we define “in shape.”
Someone who has little background in physical activity is not going to be able to sprint or weight train enough to compensate for their likely poor diet. Aerobic activity is an “easy” way to get started in the right direction. Ever seen a non-athlete sprint.. it’s horrendous.
Personally I’d recommend a couch-to-5k thing and a martial art for the average non-athlete.
Realistically Speaking wrote:
Don't get me wrong, it's great as a sport but I feel like sprints and heavy lifting are better for losing weight fast and getting an athletic body. Most sports also do not involve sustained cardio but bursts of speed and strength.
It all comes back to goals and define what "getting in shape" means to you.
If an athletic body is muscular, then lifting weights should be included.
I was skeptical of HIIT at first, but I think for some folks it is going to work for them.
If you want to play "most sports" especially team sports then explosiveness has high value (although I would not underestimate aerobic capacity in sports like soccer and hockey either).
I think you missed the point. wrote:
Realistically Speaking wrote:
Yes that's my point. He's a sprinter. I can't see a marathoner succeeding in most sports.
Bolt looked terrible fitness-wise.
Bolt was never going to be call a workout fiend or a guy who was going the extra mile (pun intended).
Realistically Speaking wrote:
Hardloper wrote:
I thought so too, but Usain Bolt proved that wrong in his first soccer match!
Yes that's my point. He's a sprinter. I can't see a marathoner succeeding in most sports.
At the rec level for a sport like soccer or ultimate, I would take marathon fitness over 100m/weightlifting/xfit fitness or whatever you call it
Running is a great way to get fit, but most people want to look fit. Running just makes you look skinny.
Superficial wrote:
Running is a great way to get fit, but most people want to look fit. Running just makes you look skinny.
True but despite their wants most people who do other exercise don't look fit either.
Fitness is activity-specific. Jogging only gets you in shape to jog.
I don't see too many "joggers" who are in shape so I'd say yes. That is to say, I think there are a lot of people who show up at races who run 3-4 times a week for half an hour or less and the fitness benefits of that plan are minimal.
How does running 10 X less distance burn more calories?
It's big weights low reps as well. Also not burning much calories.
Bodybuilders lose body fat my meticulously watching their diet and calorie intake to s far greater extent the pro runners. The training is to build bulk not primarily to lose weight
Most sports are man made pastimes which make no sense. Kicking or runnng round with s ball!
Their are only 2 true sports boxing and runnng.
Fight or flight
iflyboats wrote:
Fitness is activity-specific. Jogging only gets you in shape to jog.
Professional boxers go for a 'jog' every morning. They are not doing it to get better at jogging!
To get fit in the cosmetic sense (and any other) the single best exercise is hill repeats.
most of the crossfitters i know are in pretty good shape
The only reason you see so many out of shape joggers is because it's a popular choice for out of shape people.
The important thing isn't so much what you do, but how good at it you get. You see tons of totally out of fhape people doing weights and HIIT, and not really getting anywhere. Because most people have no clue what they are doing.
Matthew99 wrote:
most of the crossfitters i know are in pretty good shape
Probably because of their culture of pushing hard. You'll only go so far with the everything max intensity attitude, but it'll be a lot further than people who half ass it.