Do you even lift?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Altair

Why is it ''Do you even lift?'' .

"Do you even lift" is like a slogan. It a sort of pop-colloquialism, like, 'do you even lift bro?' There's memes and everything!

Apart from the aesthetic value of a muscular physique, and the benefits of being fairly strong, we like to conceptualise training in context with the whole lifespan.

At the age of say 40 or 45, sarcopenia starts to set in. Sarcopenia is age related muscle loss. As we get even older that process accelerates. The majority of disability in the elderly is caused by sarcopenia, and the amount of muscle mass a person has directly correlates with longevity.

The most important reason to accrue muscle mass when you are young is that is the best way to mitigate the effects of sarcopenia when you are old.

I wrote an article about it, which I pasted in full (sans images) in post #29.

The gym I attend has a great community spirit, but most gyms don't have that. Lucky also said his gym has a fantastic community. I have a 'Chai of Friday' group at my gym. Just a few of the old blokes get together at a Ambi's Chai Bar on Friday morning every few weeks. We have a Whatsapp group and all.

[Altair]

Originally Posted by Gem

Apart from the aesthetic value of a muscular physique, and the benefits of being fairly strong, we like to conceptualise training in context with the whole lifespan.

Okay, I can understand the reason to at least have some strength left, although it depends on how you live your life. You can be fit and healthy and not be visibly muscular.

Disagree on ''aesthetics''. I believe 'fit' can look good, but having ridiculous muscles isn't attractive IMO, it can look unnatural, out of place.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Altair

You can be fit and healthy
being 'fit' can look good, but having ridiculous muscles isn't attractive IMO, .

Yes indeed. I have a saying that healthy is beauty.

Ridiculous musculature is only achievable with high doses of steroids, which actually defeats the purpose of training with a life-span context. All the photo fitness stuff is 'enhanced' by drugs and photo tricks, and those IG bodies and glossy mag poses are not achievable for most people. They are appalling. They claim to be 'natty', but they do the steroids to look the way they have to look to shill shonky supplements and apparel.

Only a small percentage of people have the genetics to pile on tons of muscle. The vast majority will look like the average person is supposed to, as opposed the average modern people who aren't how a person should look. People look right if they do some strenuous physical things, like a surfer or a carpenter - like most tradesmen look. Females especially have had strenuous activity taken from them in modern times.

The computer life and carrying paper, along with the 'convenient' diet, is behind most hospitalisations and disability in old age. Unfortunately, society normalises that and social systems perpetuate it. That's a travesty of unimaginable scales of harm across all age groups, and increasingly in young children. Something is going very seriously wrong there.

Most just want to do the minimum required for beneficial results, keep fit, look good, and feel great, so I try to fit maybe 8 to 12 sets per muscle group per week, which takes 3 hours without pushing all that hard. That is ample for significant gains. Some only train 2 hours a week, which is enough to make a huge difference - depending on how well the program is designed and how proficiently the exercises are executed.

If people want to train for muscle and strength or weight loss (same training) then I can probably share a few tips and/or direct you to quality info.

[batsy]

Originally Posted by Gem

The glutes are really strong, but for some mysterious reason, people often have a disconnect and can't fire them effectively. It often comes from a malfunctioning foot due to excessive shoe wearing, and people can't press properly through the first ray, which is the structure leading to the big toe, and if that isn't working right, the feet aren't steady, the tibia rotates internally, the knees fold inward and the glutes dont fire properly in atheltic movements.

It's interesting you say this. I think that's what's going on with me, but I do have bunions and I do notice that my legs rotate so that when I feel my feet are pointing forward, they are actually still pointed out. Pointing them so that they look straight makes me feel like I am knock kneed and my thighs push together. I do know that how I walk makes my foot roll in a different way than "normal," i.e. the pronation may be different.

I did the hip thrusts two night's ago with 2 plates (45ibs x 2) on each side, plus the bar (180+). It is the ONLY exercise that makes me feel like I have targeted my glutes.

Last night I did the leg press with 3 plates on each side (270). For calf raises I also do 270. Tonight I have Pull/chin ups, pallof press, rows, leg extensions, and shrugs. I'm a little sad that my gym doesn't have a tire for farmer's walks, but I am assuming I can do that with hand weights?

[Gem]

Originally Posted by batsy

I think that's what's going on with me I do notice that my legs rotate so that when I feel my feet are pointing forward, they are actually still pointed out. Pointing them so that they look straight makes me feel like I am knock kneed and my thighs push together. I do know that how I walk makes my foot roll in a different way than "normal,"

270 on calf raises sounds like a lot. It's way too much to work the foot stability I talk about. I can't be sure what's going on there, but I'd probably forget about added weight and just change to single leg runners calf raises for 20 reps or until failure. Push really hard into the contraction as if you're trying to get all the way up on your big toe, pause, 3 second eccentric. Repeat. Straight leg. Straight posture. One straight line. Within a few reps you should be able to feel it working in your sole, along the arch of your foot.

Imagine it as a foot exercise, not a calf exercise, and the calves will burn like flamin' hell as a mere aside because the whole kinetic chain is pushed to the max.

In this context, having a toe pressing exercise is a good idea. Toe pressure on the ground is essential for foot stability. The leg press isn't all that good for that, but the hack squat would work, and the single leg deadlift is an outstanding one if you remain conciouly aware of the big toe. Again, the hamstrings and glutes are the aside. Remain aware of the big toe pressure and feel how the foot does its work to keep the whole body in balance. Again, one straight line from head to the elevated foot just like the girl demonstrate. Imagine you're a glass drinking bird. Squat University has an in depth video which is certainly worth watching.

This how I program in foot training without special exercises, I just do the exercises in which the foot is supposed to be working and cue the client on getting the foot to the job it is supposed to to. Often the foot is not in conscious awareness and also hidden unutilised inside a shoe, so it forgets its job and no one notices. After a time it falls asleep, and we have to remember its there and wake it up. You also get the benefit of training the target muscles (hammies and glutes) much better because exercise execution is more conscious and kinetically proficient.

I'd probably also regress the hip thrusts to being unloaded to work on being aware of the muscles and doing deliberate hard contractions, pause, feel that they are both fully contracting the same, three second eccentric, repeat for 20 reps, just for say 3 or 4 weeks, and when you're confident that both sides are really firing fully and both the same, then progress to single leg hip thrusts using the same cues for 15 reps - with total control, full awareness and deliberate hard contraction of the target muscle. A bench is OK but I find it's just a little higher than ideal, so if you have access to those gym boxes or those step up platforms, I find those are a little bit better. I think if you regress like this and rebuild your way up, when you get back to barbell thrusts, it will feel a lot more proficient.

Pallof press is simply outstanding. Kettle bells are good for farmers carry

Do you have access to a hack squat machine?

Do you have flat feet?

How many days per week do you train?

Originally Posted by batsy

It's interesting you say this. I think that's what's going on with me, but I do have bunions and I do notice that my legs rotate so that when I feel my feet are pointing forward, they are actually still pointed out. Pointing them so that they look straight makes me feel like I am knock kneed and my thighs push together. I do know that how I walk makes my foot roll in a different way than "normal," i.e. the pronation may be different.

I did the hip thrusts two night's ago with 2 plates (45ibs x 2) on each side, plus the bar (180+). It is the ONLY exercise that makes me feel like I have targeted my glutes.

Last night I did the leg press with 3 plates on each side (270). For calf raises I also do 270. Tonight I have Pull/chin ups, pallof press, rows, leg extensions, and shrugs. I'm a little sad that my gym doesn't have a tire for farmer's walks, but I am assuming I can do that with hand weights?

If I had to guess I would say that your IT bands are to tight and this is pulling your toes/feel open like a duck and no amount of lifting will fix this , what will fix it though is foam rolling nice slow slow slow foam rolling to stretch that IT band back out about 30min every other day for a few weeks and you will see a massive change in your stance if done right .

I haven't read every page of this thread but what I have read I agree with, it's so nice to see a fellow trainer that actually knows what he's talking about �� nice to meet you

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Gem

These social influences - like the mad-woman and her fat loss drug,

It was a few pages ago when I criticised the new trend in medicalising bodies with the introduction of weight loss drugs.

I was just watching some commentary on this class of drugs, and as it turns out, the fantastic results they produce are misrepresented. The drugs work by reducing appetite, I.E. reducing the calories a person ingests. Of course, if you consume fewer calories you lose body weight.

The problem is, first of all, a significant percentage of people who take the drugs regain the weight they initially lose, and secondly, trials have shown that roughly 25% of lost weight is not fat loss, but the loss of lean mass including both muscle and bone. We already know that if calorie reduction is not combined with resistance exercise, a significant percentage of the weight lost will be muscle mass, so the above loss of lean mass outcomes of medicalising obesity are no surprise. It's exactly what we'd expect!

When muscle mass is reduced, so too is resting metabolic rate, which means you gain weight with even fewer calories than you did before. In addition, having a lower muscle mass tends to make people less active simple because they can't do the hard things they used to do. This is a disasterous spiral because if it goes to far it leads to metabolic disfunction that is very hard to rectify, and in the long run it leads to disability in old age.

The successful strategy is not just to eat less, as you would if simply medicated to reduce appetite, but to change the way you eat so that you at least get enough protein to maintain your lean mass, and use your muscles to signal the body that it needs its muscle, so it keeps as much muscle as it can - while it loses fat due to it burning more calories than it consumes.

I am alarmed because some the exercise scientists I follow and admire are advocating the use of these drugs without disclosing the negative impacts that are coming out in the research, let alone criticising the obvious fallacy that obesity is genetic or a brain disease. My view is there are circumstances under which weight-loss drugs would be of benefit, but unless resistance training and at least adequate protein quotas are incorporated, the drugs do not 'work' because if weight loss is muscle loss you're going backwards - especially for people over 45 who already experience age related muscle loss.

The medicalisation of obesity is leading to disaster.

Obesity is a social systemic problem. In short, they produce and market food that makes people sick, and drug companies 'come to the rescue'. Both the food and pharma industries are powerful lobbies. That's a nice way of saying they bribe politicians and pedigreed spokespeople, and produce a lot of propaganda. They have no interest in the health and well-being of humanity. The contrary is true. They are motivated to make people eat more and become sicker. That's where the profit is. The general population doesn't stand a chance against these giants.

Just had to say, because the information 'out there' is a misrepresentation of truth, and even the most prestigious fitness industry industry professionals are shilling the story.

As I say, there are individuals that could benefit by appetite reducing drugs as part of more comprehensive exercise and nutrition measures, but on their own, for the reasons above, the drugs don't work.

Watch this, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEU7qTWIkNc - it's starts with a lot of nonsense about 'addictive food', which is complete hokum, but then it gets good.

[JustBe]

Interesting read.

My intuitive sense with a lot of these types of drugs and quick fixes often gets the alarm bells ringing.

I know someone close to me, being injected by these drugs. They have lost a ton of weight, don’t seem to choose healthy choices to eat ( not entirely), but overall not too bad you could say. Because this person doesn’t like exercise or gym this was their option. The reason to go down this path was to reach a goal over twelve months, for an event in their life.

When I heard about this choice, i was thinking about their health long term ( I have no idea how long one can do this for?) on one hand your cutting back in food simply because you can’t eat as much, but I have to wonder if poor food choices in the suppressed appetite leads to depletion if nutrients the body needs as a whole.

If you choose to eat the small portions as healthful and beneficial to the body it might be less of an issue perhaps? But really, giving someone opportunity to see weight come off no matter what they might consume in those smaller portions, could be a disastrous approach.


I’m not sure what is going to happen after the event.. whether this is long term or short term. But the fallout of not changing your lifestyle means one would most likely, revert back without any change to patterns whatsoever..which means it’s just a Band-Aid really.

The person who told me, was in high praise and admiration for how good this person looks from this process. People only looking at the end result without noticing what else is going on..

I’m a bit like you. It just seems like an easy option with no long term health of the body..unless other things change one with it.

Anyhow it is their choice, which seems to be all part of our futuristic reptilian brain advancing..hehe

[BigJohn]

I notice at the place I sometimes work out, they use the word METS. When I work out, the METS go up but I have little idea what they are all about. I asked those working at the gym and they had no idea what it means. Any insight?