|
fyyrefly
Mar 10, 2005, 4:48 AM
Post #1 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 9
|
I started climbing this past summer, and I love it, thing is, I used to be a competative mid distance runner, and i bike a lot. The problem with this is that while the rest of me is pretty lean my quads and hamstrings are still really built (heavy). I would like to do some kind of cardio that won't bulk me up. Running doesn't seem to work. Any suggestions?
|
|
|
|
|
anykineclimb
Mar 10, 2005, 4:54 AM
Post #2 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 3593
|
I haven't seen too many runners with big legs. Sounds like you've got big thighs from cycling, not running.
Try laying off the bike if you're concerned about the bulk.
You could do something like rowing. the concept2 rower is a great machine.
|
|
|
|
|
korntera
Mar 10, 2005, 5:00 AM
Post #3 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 14, 2004
Posts: 422
|
Yeah cycling will give you legs more so than running, and the rowing will bulk you up a bit BUT it is the same muscles that you will use for climbing(back and lats for pulling yourself up)
|
|
|
|
|
xprompt
Mar 10, 2005, 5:06 AM
Post #4 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2004
Posts: 159
|
swimming is good cardio and probably the best because your joints get very little stress.
|
|
|
|
|
epic_ed
Mar 10, 2005, 5:19 AM
Post #5 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 17, 2002
Posts: 4724
|
epic_ed moved this thread from Beginners to Technique & Training.
|
|
|
|
|
montaniero
Mar 10, 2005, 1:13 PM
Post #6 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 1, 2004
Posts: 238
|
As said, quit the bike (at least for a while) and keep running longer distances. That will increase your cardio without bulking your Quads. Also (of course) avoid any weight lifting exercise like squats, leg press.
|
|
|
|
|
fyyrefly
Mar 12, 2005, 6:40 AM
Post #7 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 9
|
Thanks guys!
I might try the rowing, and/or swimming. I know running is supposed to give lean muscle, it does with my roommates but i have a weird body :? (i was an 800m runner anyway) i might try rowing? I hear thats pretty much leg power too though?
i kind of use my bike to get around...
i was thinking about making a habit of keeping it on a really easy gear and just letting it spin, insetad of powering my way around, maybe?
|
|
|
|
|
ron_burgandy
Mar 12, 2005, 8:10 AM
Post #8 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 186
|
go with the swimming, i have found that for me it has given the me the best cardio workout (out of swimming, running, biking), and not only that but it works on your building long muscle (full range of motion).
|
|
|
|
|
naw
Mar 12, 2005, 10:52 AM
Post #9 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 13, 2004
Posts: 192
|
The only type of running that's going to cause you to put on any bulk is sprinting...if you were an 800m runner there's a possibility you could have put on a little bulk from that but I doubt very much if that's what caused you to have beefy quads. You should probably look into distance running. Keep in mind, however, that whatever type of cardio you do should be low intensity. You burn more fat by working out longer at lower intensities than shorter at higher intensities. Some new reports are indicating a positive benefit to running interval sprints; although you don't burn as many calories from the sprints themselves, your metabolism remains increased for 3-4 hours afterwards which may arguably burn more calories than a longer distance run would have. Also, if you're getting into longer distance running, be careful not to push it too quickly. Distance running is the only sport other than climbing where I've managed to get overuse injuries regularly. Swimming is a great alternative, but consider this; swimmers generally retain a body fat percentage 3-5 percent higher than other male atheletes. The reasoning behind this is all of the time they spend in cold water; their body naturally retains more fat for better insulation. Unless you were a highly competitive, elite climber you probably wouldn't see any negative effect from this, but it's something to consider. Make sure that you keep it low intensity, whatever you do. The more you damage other muscles that are not used in climbing (and by damage here I mean the routine damage caused by intense exercise), the more your body is going to pull intake of protein and nutrients away from your climbing muscles to compensate elsewhere.
|
|
|
|
|
mmiller
Mar 12, 2005, 11:53 AM
Post #10 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 8
|
What you need to do is during your exercises, figure out what is causing you to stop. If it is because your quads and hamstrings are burning, then thats probably a bad thing. If it is because your tired or out of breath, thats better. Also, don't worry about how many calories you burn during your exercise. A fast paced exercise will increase your metabolism for the next few hours causing you to burn much more. Also, dieting and eating a little less protein can make it hard for your body to bulk up.
|
|
|
|
|
anykineclimb
Mar 12, 2005, 12:55 PM
Post #11 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 3593
|
In reply to: i kind of use my bike to get around... i was thinking about making a habit of keeping it on a really easy gear and just letting it spin, insetad of powering my way around, maybe?
If your bike is your main mode of transport, that sounds like a great idea.
You know, I have to tell ya, having thick quads and hams isn't Necessarily a BAD thing you know :wink:
|
|
|
|
|
microbarn
Mar 12, 2005, 3:39 PM
Post #12 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2004
Posts: 5920
|
In reply to: The only type of running that's going to cause you to put on any bulk is sprinting...if you were an 800m runner there's a possibility you could have put on a little bulk from that but I doubt very much if that's what caused you to have beefy quads. You should probably look into distance running. Keep in mind, however, that whatever type of cardio you do should be low intensity. You burn more fat by working out longer at lower intensities than shorter at higher intensities. Some new reports are indicating a positive benefit to running interval sprints; although you don't burn as many calories from the sprints themselves, your metabolism remains increased for 3-4 hours afterwards which may arguably burn more calories than a longer distance run would have. Also, if you're getting into longer distance running, be careful not to push it too quickly. Distance running is the only sport other than climbing where I've managed to get overuse injuries regularly. Swimming is a great alternative, but consider this; swimmers generally retain a body fat percentage 3-5 percent higher than other male atheletes. The reasoning behind this is all of the time they spend in cold water; their body naturally retains more fat for better insulation. Unless you were a highly competitive, elite climber you probably wouldn't see any negative effect from this, but it's something to consider. Make sure that you keep it low intensity, whatever you do. The more you damage other muscles that are not used in climbing (and by damage here I mean the routine damage caused by intense exercise), the more your body is going to pull intake of protein and nutrients away from your climbing muscles to compensate elsewhere.
Naw has it right. Wish I could rate today. :)
|
|
|
|
|
eastvillage
Mar 12, 2005, 4:37 PM
Post #13 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 14, 2004
Posts: 262
|
All the advice, re running etc seems good. One question; Have your strong legs held you back from climbing something? If you haven't been able to make a certain number or move, maybe its about technique, flexibility, upper body or mind strength, rather than being theoretically held back by aditional weight in your legs.
|
|
|
|
|
fyyrefly
Mar 12, 2005, 4:37 PM
Post #14 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 9
|
thanks again guys, looots of good advice, all around.
well, the reason i stopped running (and started climbing) was because of a retroverted hip that had caused a muscle imbalance that had started to cause inflamation in my lower back when i tried to up my mileage two summers ago. It was just taking too much physio to be worth it. I can still run for fun but i try and keep it minimal. It never bothered me before that, so basically it was an overuse injury. actually, kind of a neat side effect of climbing is that the increased core stability seems to be fixing the problem a bit.
I always had hardcore butt and hamstring burn, after short workouts and races, and stiffness in the same area the day after long runs. Its my posture im pretty sure, you know how michael johnson always pulls his hamstrings? he also runs really upright, which means hes pulling instead of pushing, I run really upright too. its a really hard thing to kick though, just the way you run.
Naw, i noticed that before about swimmers, but i never knew why. interesting. You really know your stuff eh? :) thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
godawgs
Mar 12, 2005, 6:32 PM
Post #15 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 21
|
If you used to be a competitive runner, I would guess that the reason you aren't burning off the bulk is because you are running at too high of an intensity. I am collegiate swimmer and in training to shed weight the coaches will have us go essentially continuosly at a heart rate below 120/min, and to build muscle we swim at about 180+/min for short durations.
I would say you still have the competitive runner mind set in you, and when you go running you are pushing yourself to hard. Try to go easier. Swimming is a good workout to shed muscle if you approach it correctly...but whatever activity you do just go easy for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
fyyrefly
Mar 14, 2005, 2:19 AM
Post #16 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 9
|
godawgs, i think you may have it there!
I was on a stationary bike the other day, and it had this feature where you see what your heartrate should be based on certain criteria, im sure you know the type, anyway, it said that my max was 180, so i biked to keep it there for 20 minutes, and that felt quite normal (like, hard, but normal). I think you are right. 120, is that kind of an easy jog?
thanks for the advice!
|
|
|
|
|
fyyrefly
Mar 14, 2005, 2:21 AM
Post #17 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 26, 2004
Posts: 9
|
also, godawgs, what would be the right way to approach swimming to reduce muscle?
|
|
|
|
|
godawgs
Mar 14, 2005, 3:17 AM
Post #18 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 21
|
Pretty much if you swim continuosly for about an hour on weekdays, I would guess that you will shed muscle. I don't know exactly what to tell you because I don't know physiology very well but there is a certain intensity level that burns muscle most efficiently as opposed to burning fat, maybe someone can help out with this. It is has to do with intervals and intensity...
Pretty much if you swim slow and easy you will burn muscle; thats the best answer I can give. I would say swim 1-2 miles a day for a few weeks would do it. Sorry I can't give more precise info, but thats all i've got. If you get into it, swimming with a pullbuoy is a great way to build upper body strength which carries over pretty much directly to climbing.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Mar 14, 2005, 3:36 PM
Post #19 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
::A very annoyed fshizzle grabs naw by the hair and smacks him silly whilst preparing a rant::
Ok kids, it's mythbusters time. You DO NOT burn more calories at moderate exercise than at hard exercise.
Lets say at 120 bpm your body is utilizing 80% fat and 20% carbs to produce energy. This is easy enough to measure using a metabolic cart and these #'s are about right. You should be burning about 300 to 600 calories (depending on fitness and type of exercise) an hour in this mode.
Now lets say you bump it up to 180bpm, at this point (depending on fitness) the numbers may reverse 20% fat and 80% carbs. But are you burning fewer calories? HELL NO, at this intensity you may burn as many as 1500 or more calories an hour. I've burned (on a metabolic cart to measure expelled gasses accurately) 2000 in an hour of hard running.
Do the math, the amount of fat burned in each situation is similar but total calories is much higher in the more intense workout. Stored carbs (glycogen) can be turned to fat if they never get used. Harder exercise keeps the metabolism higher for longer after the workout, harder excercise strengthens muscles - muscle is metabolically way more active than fat = you burn more calories even when you aren't exercising.
The only benefit to moderate exercise is duration, most people can't handle several hours at 80-90% but they can handle that much time at 55-60%. So if the difference is between a 20 minute workout and a 2 hour, obviously the 2 hour workout wins. If you've only got 1/2 an hour though, get that intensity up. Also, intervals (farklet, spinning, etc) allows you to hit those intensities and recover and do it again. Possibly the best of both worlds.
Good luck, don't believe the hype.
|
|
|
|
|
altelis
Mar 14, 2005, 4:07 PM
Post #20 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 2168
|
i have a kind of odd suggestion, and it does require a little equipment, a partner, and a gym, but it will do everything you are looking for (keep you lean, keep you fit, and get you a good cardio workout):
play squash
if you make sure to keep the game going, and not diddle around between points, it works amazingly. my heart rate is basically never below 60% max and after long intense points it probably gets up to 75% max. and you can play pretty much constantly for up to like 3 hours if you want to. it definitely keeps you lean (how many bulky squash or tennis players do you know, they are all LEAN) but keeps you strong, and if you use your wrist a lot, well, that keeps fore-arms up (well, a little...kinda like other activities... :roll: )
|
|
|
|
|
godawgs
Mar 14, 2005, 7:43 PM
Post #21 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 21
|
Altelis has got a good idea...Fshizzle has no grounds to speak because he didn't read the question properly. He isn't trying to burn calories, he is trying to burn muscle off, which takes a different approach. If you work out at a high intensity you deplete the glycogen in your musclse and break the muscles down causing muscle growth THE OPPOSITE of what is desired. Granted you will burn more calories, for a short time period.
|
|
|
|
|
andrewbanandrew
Mar 14, 2005, 8:07 PM
Post #22 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 441
|
Rowing will make your legs much larger...two of the guys I live with are on college crew and their legs got much much larger after they joined.
|
|
|
|
|
acacongua
Mar 14, 2005, 8:25 PM
Post #23 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 14, 2003
Posts: 657
|
I'm a runner/climber/cyclist (well, I didn't get the bike out last year). My FAVORITE cardio though is the stepmill (continuous escalator). Sure it's boring as hell but I bring a mag and music. Over time, I was able to increase my speed and time (45-60 min) and that has been the best cardio of anything else I've done. Plus, it seems to work better than running and cycling for weight loss.
|
|
|
|
|
angry
Mar 14, 2005, 10:38 PM
Post #24 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 22, 2003
Posts: 8405
|
Godawgs, you jackass
In reply to: I don't know exactly what to tell you because I don't know physiology very well but there is a certain intensity level that burns muscle most efficiently as opposed to burning fat, maybe someone can help out with this
You write that you don't know physiology very well, you freely admit that you are assuming stuff and do not actually know anything.
Here is a fact people, if you eat fewer calories than your body requires, no matter how much you lift, you cannot, will not, and it has never happened to anyone, put on more muscle.
On my first post I was correct, re-read it. Do exactly what I said and still watch what you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Mar 15, 2005, 3:22 AM
Post #25 of 27
(4642 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
physiologically cardio and muscle building work against each other.
you don't need fancy research. just go to the gym for a month. lift weights but dpn't do cardio. then keep up the weights but add intense cardio. you'll notice a drop in your weight lifting output. thats why muscle heads don't ever set foot in the cardio section of a gym.
as for the research, well, it confirms my little anecdote. If your interested in getting stronger but still keeping cardio fit you can lift first and then do the cardio. It has less impact on your body that way. You will still notice a drop in body mass and mass you can lift.
The big thighs thing is possibly genetic. It's unfortunate and seemingly no no one on this site wants to admit to it but it's true. I can lift with my legs more than guys literally twice my size (in muscle) without working out with weights in months (or years). if thats not genetics I have no clue as to what to call it, but if I don't run constantly my cardio tanks in a few weeks.
That said, the thighs are probably from cycling. By middle distance I assume you mean 800m+ runner. I was at the outside range of 800m size for a runner so most are quite small. If you were a sprinter 400, 200, 100 you would expect to have fairly big quads and hams.
when you look at triathletes you can often tell who your competition is on the bike and the run based on the leg build. Cyclist are bigger, runners are smaller.
honestly running is probably the best weight loss there is and distance typically shrinks the legs. possibly try swimming instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
