One of the best articles by Mercola and Ori Hofmekler: The Pain to Power Principle The lack of food apparently triggers a survival mechanism that helped humans endure times of food scarcity. And along similar lines, intense exercise bouts benefit you by triggering a primal mechanism that enabled early humans to endure extreme physical hardship. These inherent mechanisms are part of the human survival apparatus. When triggered, they help you compensate by increasing energy production efficiency, improving body composition, increasing strength and increasing the capacity to resist fatigue and stress. Your survival requires challenge and action. The biological rule is as plain as it's bold: Actively Survive or Passively Die! It is now known that the human body evolved to better survive when challenged properly. Both your brain and muscle develop only when adequately stimulated. Yes, we often need to go through painful experiences to develop a skill. That's how soldiers, athletes, doctors and musicians are made. Pain comes with the territory. And the lack of mental or physical hardship can lead to stagnation and degradation. Indeed, when passive, sedentary or "moderately" challenged, your body goes into waste. And the consequences include muscle degradation, excessive fat gain, chronic disease and a shortened life span. http://fitness.mercola.com/sites/fi...ent-inevitable-muscle-wasting-as-you-age.aspx
Yeah, but Mercola is a quack. http://www.quackwatch.com/11Ind/mercola.html http://www.skepdic.com/mercola.html http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2012/02/01/joe-mercola-proof-positive-that-quackery/ Besides, he's a "doctor" of osteopathy, which is a synonym for quackery. http://www.quackwatch.com/04ConsumerEducation/QA/osteo.html So I would make it a point to validate whatever the good "doctor" may claim using a legitimate source. Sorry, just calling it as I see it. I'm not necessarily suggesting that what you posted isn't true or reasonable, just that the Mercola name adds more suspicion than credibility to any claim. So I would seek confirmation from a credible and legitimate source. As an aside, I recall having seen a segment on 60 Minutes on the increased longevity of underfed mice: http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-566593.html
Just from reading this thread ,I want to get back into working out 3-5 times a week, I've been slacking for the past year. I have about 10 pounds I need to shed to get back in shape. For a morning run and fat burning purposes, is it better to run before or after the first meal of the day or doesn't it matter? I've heard conflicting views. Thanks guys, great thread.
Then you`re not doing it correctly. Warm-up done properly sets you up for maximum performance on your first work set. If you go heavier or lighter on your subsequent work sets depends on your training philosophy. It is not uncommon to go as low as 1 repetition on your last warm-up set, although I rarely go below 3. I then have a good break and reap the effects of full muscle activation on my first work set. Here`s an experiment for you. Choose a weight you can lift for an approximate of 15 repetitions in bench press. Let us assume 60 kg/130 lbs. Warm up as normal and then take notes of how many repetitions you can perform within 1 repetition from failure (or failure if you get there). Next week, you will warm up differently. Lift 60 kg for 5 repetitions as a warm-up set (choose 55 if you lifted less than 15 repetitions last time). Then, put on 75 or 80 kg and perform 1 good repetition for your next and final warm-up set. Take a 2-3 minute break and then try lifting 60 kg for a maximum number of repetitions. Did you lift more? I have a hunch that you lift at least 3-4 repetitions more. Very hard to say for me. I have friends who do very well with twice the work load I`m doing. You simply have to listen to your body and adjust according to the feedback you are receiving. Unless you are at a very high level, you SHOULD be stronger from week to week, at least in the compound movements. Even if it is only one repetition or 2 lbs heavier weights. If not, you`re doing something wrong, unless you`re on a calorie deficit. Cycling different repetition ranges is probably a good idea.
LF, that sounds a bit too complicated for me and somewhat foreign compared to how I've always been working out. I really prefer to stick with a good warm up set just to get the joints, muscles and proper form ready for my heaviest set, after which I reduce the resistance to remain within the relevant rep range. On the plus side, I've reduced my volume compared to what I had been doing up until recently, and now I've even been persuaded to not go to ~failure every workout. Assuming these are steps in the right direction, that's a fairly new trick for this old dog.
You've fasted for 8 hours so it's an ideal time to do cardio, but somewhat catabolic. It's a good idea to drink some water with BCAAs while doing the fasted cardio. http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_gu...ism.topicArticleId-24594,articleId-24542.html
Hardly complicated at all, but by all means, do what works for you. I already explained it to Brass. It`s simple. Heavier weights activate more muscle fibres. Thus, if you go directly to your maximum set without having lifted heavy weights approximating your work set, you will not be able to perform at your potential because you have not activated your muscle fibres correctly. There is also the added risk of injury.