4 ms·

[citation needed] Here's another anecdote: No lifting weights, only running & cycling and lately swimming. Pretty much the opposite of what the article is argu

by jules 16y ago

[citation needed] Here's another anecdote: No lifting weights, only running & cycling and lately swimming. Pretty much the opposite of what the article is arguing. Since I started this I'm doing I'm doing fairly well, six pack included. I went to the gym once, and saw bulked up guys getting 5 pull ups. So I tried that and could easily do 30. Lifting weights may make you look like a bodybuilder, but are you really fit?

mzl 16y ago
You do realize that the bulked up guys probably weigh a lot more than you do so the number of achieved pull-ups is not an interesting measure? The really bulked-up ones most likely train for muscle mass, not for any useful activity.
- jules 16y ago
  Sure, they do weigh a lot more than I do. Isn't that part of the fair comparison? You don't give a cyclist or runner a backpack with weights in it because it's "unfair" that he weighs less than the other cyclist/runner. These guys were probably training pull ups every week at least, so it's on their home territory. Yet their training is less effective than running & cycling. For the vast majority of activities, performance relative to body weight is the interesting measure, not absolute weight lifted. I'm just saying that if lifting weights is so much better than other forms of training, why weren't they able to do pull ups much better? My second point is that yes, this is an anecdote. So is the article. Don't take either as a scientific inquiry.
  - scott_s 16y ago
    You also arbitrarily decided that number of pull-ups was going to be your metric for determining who was more fit.
  - tensor 16y ago
    And in a rock lifting competition they would win easily. I don't see your point. You pick an arbitrary metric that you happen to be good at and declare victory. As it stands, all you've done is point out that there are different tasks and depending on your target task the ideal body composition and training routine differs. If you want to be good at pullups you should probably let all your leg muscles atrophy and just build lats and biceps.
    - jules 16y ago
      If you should do that then I am certainly doing it wrong by running and cycling and letting my arm muscles atrophy. Sure, they'd win a rock lifting competition. And if weight lifting is so good, then they should win a pull-up competition, since that's also what they're training for and it's not what I'm training for by virtually only using my legs. My point being: take this article with a huge grain of salt and train for real fitness not for how much kg you can lift. The easiest way to improve that is to become very fat.
scotty79 16y ago
When I was going to the gym (old school) three times a week I couldn't do a single pull up. Once I quit in two weeks or so I could do my usual slack ass five pull ups. Funny thing is that I still could only do 10-20 pushups but they were effortless, completely different then at the time I was slacking.
ciupicri 16y ago
The article mentions the four basic muscular aptitudes: strength, power, muscle mass, and muscular endurance. In your case it's about muscular endurance, while in the case of those bulked up guys it's probably about strength and muscle mass. What I'm trying to say is that you're comparing apples to oranges.
scott_s 16y ago
"Fitness" is defined relative to the task you want to accomplish. For most sports and athletes, if you are fit for that sport, you are "fit" in the sense that you are healthy. But athletes training for different sports may have vastly different abilities. I think it's also worth noting that not all weight training has the goal of "looking like a bodybuilder."
fagballs 16y ago
Are you just taking this sample from a random time you looked at someone in the gym? There's a very good chance that these "bulked up" guys were near the end of their workout or have already heavily fatigued their back somehow. Either that, or they probably had a lot of bodyfat in which case obviously body weight exercises for reps wouldn't be their strong suit.

by jules 16y ago

mzl 16y ago

You do realize that the bulked up guys probably weigh a lot more than you do so the number of achieved pull-ups is not an interesting measure? The really bulked-up ones most likely train for muscle mass, not for any useful activity.

jules 16y ago
Sure, they do weigh a lot more than I do. Isn't that part of the fair comparison? You don't give a cyclist or runner a backpack with weights in it because it's "unfair" that he weighs less than the other cyclist/runner. These guys were probably training pull ups every week at least, so it's on their home territory. Yet their training is less effective than running & cycling. For the vast majority of activities, performance relative to body weight is the interesting measure, not absolute weight lifted. I'm just saying that if lifting weights is so much better than other forms of training, why weren't they able to do pull ups much better? My second point is that yes, this is an anecdote. So is the article. Don't take either as a scientific inquiry.
- scott_s 16y ago
  You also arbitrarily decided that number of pull-ups was going to be your metric for determining who was more fit.
- tensor 16y ago
  And in a rock lifting competition they would win easily. I don't see your point. You pick an arbitrary metric that you happen to be good at and declare victory. As it stands, all you've done is point out that there are different tasks and depending on your target task the ideal body composition and training routine differs. If you want to be good at pullups you should probably let all your leg muscles atrophy and just build lats and biceps.
  - jules 16y ago
    If you should do that then I am certainly doing it wrong by running and cycling and letting my arm muscles atrophy. Sure, they'd win a rock lifting competition. And if weight lifting is so good, then they should win a pull-up competition, since that's also what they're training for and it's not what I'm training for by virtually only using my legs. My point being: take this article with a huge grain of salt and train for real fitness not for how much kg you can lift. The easiest way to improve that is to become very fat.

scotty79 16y ago

When I was going to the gym (old school) three times a week I couldn't do a single pull up. Once I quit in two weeks or so I could do my usual slack ass five pull ups. Funny thing is that I still could only do 10-20 pushups but they were effortless, completely different then at the time I was slacking.

ciupicri 16y ago

The article mentions the four basic muscular aptitudes: strength, power, muscle mass, and muscular endurance. In your case it's about muscular endurance, while in the case of those bulked up guys it's probably about strength and muscle mass. What I'm trying to say is that you're comparing apples to oranges.

scott_s 16y ago

"Fitness" is defined relative to the task you want to accomplish. For most sports and athletes, if you are fit for that sport, you are "fit" in the sense that you are healthy. But athletes training for different sports may have vastly different abilities. I think it's also worth noting that not all weight training has the goal of "looking like a bodybuilder."

fagballs 16y ago

Are you just taking this sample from a random time you looked at someone in the gym? There's a very good chance that these "bulked up" guys were near the end of their workout or have already heavily fatigued their back somehow. Either that, or they probably had a lot of bodyfat in which case obviously body weight exercises for reps wouldn't be their strong suit.