Bodybuilding > Running

finnishguy wrote:

aerobic capacity IS necessary for me.

it's good for cardiovascular health and it's good for the brain.

Running or any kind of steady-state exericse primarily causes PERIPHERAL adaptions, not central ones. Running does not increase the "strength" of the cardiovascular system. Instead, it improves the ability of the muscles to utilize oxygen, thus reducing the demand on the heart. You don't wake up with a sore myocardium the day after a long run. Furthermore, your percieved need for aerobic capacity is irrational and emotional. You do not need a high aerobic capacity for anything other than endurance activity. You just need "adequate" aerobic capacity and this can be provided by weight training alone.

Mr. Arms wrote:

Doing one "HARD" full body workout a week is not bodybuilding. At best, it makes one a casual lifter. It's not a bad approach to weight lifting, but it's not bodybuilding.

False. There are different schools of thought on bodybuilding just as with running. The philosophy that I subscribe to holds that highly intensity, low-frequency training regimens are ideal. Every workout is like the hardest interval session of your life. It is a heterodox training ideology, not a lack of dedication to training.

You were never a competitive runner. No real runner use the word "cardio".

Unless you want to race. By the way, if you never run anymore, how do you know you can run a sub-6 mile?

I defy you to name one legitimate, top tier bodybuilder (someone who qualifies for the Mr. O) who subscribes to a method like that.

I agree that it's a perfectly acceptable approach to muscle mass gains, but there is no way it's maximizing muscle growth.

You would undoubtedly see additional gains (that is, if you want them) by altering your workouts.

I really believe that no matter how taxing your full body workout is, its not as taxing to your muscles as going to the gym twice a day, 5 to 6 days a week, and hammering one body part per workout.

Mr. Traps wrote:

Running or any kind of steady-state exericse primarily causes PERIPHERAL adaptions, not central ones. Running does not increase the "strength" of the cardiovascular system. Instead, it improves the ability of the muscles to utilize oxygen, thus reducing the demand on the heart. You don't wake up with a sore myocardium the day after a long run. Furthermore, your percieved need for aerobic capacity is irrational and emotional. You do not need a high aerobic capacity for anything other than endurance activity. You just need "adequate" aerobic capacity and this can be provided by weight training alone.

it increases the strength of your heart. your heart can pump more blood. it reduces the thickening and hardening of the arteries which happens with aging. it gets more oxygen to your brain which is beneficial to your brain. it makes the mitochondria perform better.

edumacator wrote:

Unless you want to race. By the way, if you never run anymore, how do you know you can run a sub-6 mile?

I went running a few months ago just for kicks. Ran three miles and covered the last mile in 6:03. I'm sure I could break 6:00 if I was fresh.

Mr. Arms wrote:

I defy you to name one legitimate, top tier bodybuilder (someone who qualifies for the Mr. O) who subscribes to a method like that.

I agree that it's a perfectly acceptable approach to muscle mass gains, but there is no way it's maximizing muscle growth.

You would undoubtedly see additional gains (that is, if you want them) by altering your workouts.

I really believe that no matter how taxing your full body workout is, its not as taxing to your muscles as going to the gym twice a day, 5 to 6 days a week, and hammering one body part per workout.

There were Sergio Oliva and Casey Viator in the 70s who trained according to this philosophy. In modern bodybuilding, Dorian Yates has used this method and has stated that he considers it the best way to train.

But that's irrelevant. The truth or falsehood of an idea is not established by the number of professional athletes who believe in it. The bodybuilding arena is mired in superstition and is very anti-intellectual in general; if you start quoting studies or scientific facts, most bodybuilders will just call you a geek and dismiss you because, in their minds, the winner of any argument is determined by who has the biggest muscles. On top of that, professional bodybuilders are genetic freaks who use freakish quantities of drugs. The nuances of training are almost irrelevant in relation to those two factors.

Mr Traps,

You are not a bodybuilder; you are a weight lifter.

Bodybuilders train nearly daily and do very specific movements, and not always with heavy weights. Bodybuilders aim to gain muscle and in the proper proportion. It is almost completely about diet. They are big. Way over your 190 lbs.

A powerlifter lifts only a few times per week and focuses on compound movements like the bench press, deadlift, and squat. The aim is to gain strengh, not to look a certain way. Powerlifters are not nearly as concerned about diet and tend to be fatter. The excess weight helps them move the heavy weights. Again, they are way bigger than you.

Weight lifters like to lift weights. They can be kind of a mix between the two. They want muscle and also strentgh. They tend to do cardio as well, as you do.

Most fall under the category of weight lifter.

fas wrote:

Mr Traps,

You are not a bodybuilder; you are a weight lifter.

Bodybuilders train nearly daily and do very specific movements, and not always with heavy weights. Bodybuilders aim to gain muscle and in the proper proportion. It is almost completely about diet. They are big. Way over your 190 lbs.

natural bodybuilders are not that big.

and there are weight classes in bodybuilding. many bodybuilders are under 190 lbs.

Your compartmentalizations are totally arbitrary and have no value whatsoever. Bodybuilders subscribe to an enormous spectrum of beliefs about training and diet, and although high-frequency regimens are more common, one does not have to go with the flock to be a bodybuilder. My correct definition of a bodybuilder is anyone who trains with the goal of maximize his muscular size and strength, even if his training methods are unorthodox. I know what powerlifting is and have never claimed to be one so I don't know why you would carry on about that other than to show off how much you think you know about the world of weight training.

Oh and BTW a "weightlifter" is someone who competes in olympic style lifting, i.e. the snatch, and clean & jerk.

Me > You

That's an Olympic weight lifter, douche.

Why don't you go to your gym and struggle to bench 225 2 times. If you can even lift it once.

sdafsda wrote:

That's an Olympic weight lifter, douche.

Why don't you go to your gym and struggle to bench 225 2 times. If you can even lift it once.

No, it's just weightlifting. "Olympic weightlifting" is a redundant term, but the qualifier is sometimes used to distinguish Olympic style lifting from what idiots like you consider "weightlifting," i.e. doing biceps curls with pink 5 lb. dumbells in a cardio blast aerobics class.

So much for being an expert.

1. Yates did not train like that. Maybe at some point he did, but it didn't make him the legend he is. Tons of food, drugs and a more traditional model like I referenced made him the best.

2. Are you denying that you would see additional gains if you adapted a higher frequency routine?

3. I agree with everything in your 2nd paragraph.

4. I guess this is really just a debate about the meaning of the word "bodybuilding", and debating the meaning of a word is generally pointless.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it..

Mr. Arms wrote:

1. Yates did not train like that. Maybe at some point he did, but it didn't make him the legend he is. Tons of food, drugs and a more traditional model like I referenced made him the best.

2. Are you denying that you would see additional gains if you adapted a higher frequency routine?

3. I agree with everything in your 2nd paragraph.

4. I guess this is really just a debate about the meaning of the word "bodybuilding", and debating the meaning of a word is generally pointless.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it..

1. I don't know how Yates trained throughout his career (it is certainly possible that he used different methods at different times), but he has associated with the "HIT camp and recently stated in an interview that he considers it the best way to train.

2. I might continue to see gains if I adapted a higher frequency routine, but I doubt that the gains would be superior to what my current regiment would produce. Meaning, I don't believe it is possible for me to gain muscle significantly faster than I am gaining it on my current program.

3 & 4. I agree.

Mr. Arms wrote:

Also, the amount of hostility here is hilarious. We can't go one day here without some emo distance runner wanting to lose muscle mass from his shoulders or legs or wang, all in the name of some ideal look that will maybe lower his 5k time.

So true. During my competitive running days, I weighed between 135 - 142 lbs at 5'9". Not super skinny for a runner but to the average Joe I was "way skinny". I didn't care, because I was all about running PR's 5Ks, 10Ks, etc. When I turned 40, I was still running in the low 33 min range for 10K and 16:20's for 5K. But after turning 42, it wasn't the same anymore, body started to betray me and realized I don't want to run 60-70 mile weeks anymore. I had my non-running friends tell me stop all this running (I was doing it since 9th grade). I joined a gym in early 2004 and never looked back. With weightlifting, I'm up to 165 lbs today. Granted, it's no big deal. I'm never going to have 20" biceps or bench 350, but I am happy with how my body has filled out. I run twice a week 15-20 runs each and lift 3x a week. I find that I'm doing a heck of a lot better with the ladies and when I tell them that I used to be 25 lbs lighter, they always say, "that's too skinny". I'm 48 yrs old, but look like I'm 38 and look a lot more buff and healthy than when I was running sub 32 min 10K's.

Who gives a crap. Body building, weight lifting, guys who have so much muscle it is hard for them to reach around to wipe there corn hole . . . WHO CARES what you call it or how you do it.

I run because it is a lot of fun. I get to be outside everyday. Sometimes twice a day. I get to run big marathons and other races. I weigh about what I did in college. My resting heart rate is around the upper 40s. Cholesterol is excellent.

I lift weights twice a week and it is like watching paint dry. I lift weights for the same reason I brush my teeth. It is good for me. But it is about as interesting as brushing my teeth. When was the last time 40,000+ amature weightlifters gathered at the foot of the Verazzano Narrows bridge to go lift weights in the five different borroughs of NY in front of hundreds of thousands of spectators?

Weightlifting has its place. But, get real. Better than running? No frickin' way.

slight correction: I run 2x a week 15-20 mins each (not runs)