It’s no secret that there are a plethora of factors that might make your workouts less frequent. When you’re stuck juggling work, running errands and still trying to get to bed at a reasonable hour, there just aren’t enough hours in the day! Or, perhaps you simply haven’t grown fond of the whole fitness scene, and working out just feels like a daunting chore.
Working out, however, is an essential ingredient in maintaining a healthy body—mentally and physically. But, the best part is, you don’t have to devote hours every day to hitting the gym to see results. We spoke with celebrity trainer Ashley Borden, and YouTube fitness star and founder of Fit Strong and Sexy workout regimen Amanda Russell, to figure out the least amount of time you can work out and still transform your body.
It all comes down to quality over quantity. “It’s really not about the time at all—it’s about the quality of what you’re doing. So you could put in 80 hours a week and see no results, and you could but in three hours a week and see incredible results,” says Russell. In fact, working out for longer at a high intensity can bring you less-efficient results because the longer you work out, the more you have to lower the intensity, which completely changes the exercise. “If you’re doing [high intensity exercises] right, you physically couldn’t be able to do them longer,” Russell explains.
Borden is on the same page when it comes to intensity over time. Her 10-minute workout suggestion is to warm up for two minutes using a foam roller and doing active stretches, and then take eight minutes to do the following: 20 seconds of mountain climbers and 10 seconds of rest four times; 20 seconds of lateral bounds and 10 seconds of rest four times. “That is 10 minutes and you have worked out your entire body with just your body weight. Pushing your intensity and pace is what will dictate the speed of your results.” Her minimum recommendation, however, is full-body strength training and high intensity interval workouts three times each week.
The best part of using just your body weight is that you can do it anywhere, no equipment required. Russell, whose online platform is based on the idea of programs that take up less time, is a huge advocate of that workout technique. “You want something you can literally do in your hotel or bedroom. Your body is hands down the best tool you have.”
All that said, not everyone is built alike, which may be a factor in how often you need to hit the gym. As Borden explains, ectomorphs are on the leaner side and have narrow hips, mesomorphs have round and long muscles and a small waist and endomorphs have thicker bodies with wider hips. One is not better than the other, but it just means you have to work out differently. “An ectomorph would have to focus on eating and getting enough healthy calories in a day,” whereas an “endomorph body would like more of a mix of steady state cardio and short high intensity type of workouts.”
While you make your workouts less frequent, you can make some lifestyle changes to help out your health in the long run. Borden recommends focusing on your posture throughout the day, and emphasizes the importance of water. “Start with half your body weight in ounces of water. If you weigh 160 pounds, you would try to drink 80 oz daily.” Striving for a nutritional diet is also a huge factor, as the foods you put into your body are reflected on the outside. According to Russell, your diet is 90 percent of the deal.
So, luckily for all you busy-bees or gym foes, the overarching point is that, as long as you give it your all, you do not have to stress over the time commitment of exercising. “The busiest people on the planet will either say that they don’t have time to work out, or that they never skip a workout. That’s where it falls into the priority zone for them,” says Russell. No more excuses—grab your sneakers or your yoga mat, and get to it.
Originally Posted HERE
NOTE Last Sentence: “The burden, unfortunately, remains on you to think.”
An important new science article has been making the rounds, with apparently every newspaper and internet news aggregator in the world repeating the message: You don’t have to lift heavy weights to get stronger.
It’s important because it both seems to confirm what everybody wants to believe, and because it’s actually a pretty good technical study. But it is wrong, because it studies the wrong questions. Nonetheless, you now think that you don’t have to lift heavier weights to get stronger.
In short, the study compared two groups of young men who had been working out in the gym for a while — “gym bros” to us strength training professionals — and assigned them a largely machine-based exercise program, described as “full-body Resistance Training,” to be performed four days a week.
One group performed “low reps” which the study authors considered to be 8-12 reps per set with 75-90% of their 1-rep maximum weight. The other group performed “high reps,” 20-25 reps per set with 30-50% of their 1RM. Each group did three sets to muscle failure with only a one-minute rest between sets.
This was actually not “strength training” at all. It was circuit training.
The strength and conditioning professional will immediately recognize that neither of these groups is a “low-rep” group, and neither of these groups is a “heavy-weight” group.
In other words, there was no low-rep, heavy-weight test group in a study that claims to show that there is no benefit to low-rep, heavy-weight exercise.
From the text: “The loads were adjusted in between each set to ensure that the correct repetition range was maintained,” and the loads were adjusted, either down or up, so that “failure” was achieved within the prescribed rep range for each group. In other words, if you somehow happened to get tired, they lowered the weight, because they had to.
Strength was measured by testing the change in 1-rep max on the lifts. Body composition and muscle tissue changes were assessed by the best laboratory methods available to modern science. Blood was drawn and hormones were measured, and statistical analysis was correctly performed.
The study found no significant difference in either strength or muscle size, or in growth-related hormone levels at the end of 12 weeks between the two groups.
This is not particularly surprising, since:
1.) Heavy weights were not used (you simply cannot do either 12 or 25 reps with a heavy weight, especially if you have to do three sets).
2.) To the extent that the two groups did get stronger, the group doing 8-12 reps to failure got a little stronger than the high-rep group, because they lifted heavier weights for fewer reps.
5.) Since a muscle’s size is proportionate to its strength, if you don’t ask the muscle to lift heavier weight it won’t get bigger.
6.) Exercise-induced changes in blood levels of growth-related hormones, while possibly wonderfully lovely for your health, are already understood not to correlate strongly — if at all — with increases in strength or mass.
There are many other problems with this paper. In fact, because of the way the study protocol was designed, it would have been odd if a significant increase in either strength or muscle size between the two groups had been demonstrated.
Basically, the study compared the effects of two stupid, inefficient ways to get stronger and bigger, and then correctly determined that they are both equally stupid and inefficient.
No competitive strength athlete in the entire world will change training programs on the basis of this study — because they all know that to be stronger you have to lift heavier weights in the squat, press, and deadlift, usually for five reps or less.
Yet the mainstream media has restated this paper’s conclusions, and has made their version perhaps the most widely disseminated chunk of “exercise science” in many years: “Lighter Weights Just as Effective as Heavier Weights to Gain Muscle, Build Strength,” or some version thereof.
Because they know this is what people want to read.
I have detailed the problems with exercise science in other articles, and this is certainly an excellent example of those problems. My point here is that the MSM lives for things like this, so they can throw the hyperbole engines into overdrive. The paper is badly done — the standard deal for exercise and nutritional science — but it’s not this badly done. It simply doesn’t say what the New York Times and everybody else reported that it said.
Take bad journalistic habits like this and apply them to climate science, another area of recently reduced academic rigor, and you get statements from John Kerry about how climate change is as dangerous as ISIS.
Don’t assume that what you read in the MSM about science is true any more than you would assume that what you see on 60 Minutes is true.
The burden, unfortunately, remains on you to think.
Originally Posted HERE
NOTE: It really is all a matter of perspective
Sitting motionless in my kitchen, staring blankly and hopelessly at my pantry, I felt the onset of an anxiety attack.
As a complete and total omnivore (I truly eat all the foods), it was the first time I didn’t know what I was “allowed” to eat — and I was SO hungry. My doctor had just put me on the low FODMAPs diet, which is in my opinion the most confusing, unnavigable, impossible diet on the planet with conflicting information from so many sources. The list of things you can’t eat seemed infinite . . . no peaches, no wheat, no milk, no fruit juice or avocados or honey (there are quite literally hundreds of items). I focused so much on the “no” list that I had zero idea what to eat. I sat there paralyzed (and honestly, starving, with low blood sugar that probably exacerbated this situation). Panic started to creep in.
This made me realize how much we focus on what we can’t do vs. what we can and how much that word “can’t” paralyzes us in so many ways — especially when it comes to diet and exercise.
Have you felt this way with your food? So much anxiety and unnecessary stress stems from this idea of what we can’t do, can’t have, can’t eat. I have watched friends start their new lives as vegans, feeling their frustration of what they can’t eat without focusing on all the good, delicious foods they love that they can eat. Sure, you can’t eat Kraft Mac ‘n’ Cheese anymore, but you totally can eat that quinoa veggie bowl you love and also that fruit smoothie and that spaghetti dish. By focusing on what we can eat, we liberate ourselves from a crippling list of can’ts.
This also applies to fitness. For years I told myself (and others), “I can’t do that, I’m not an athlete” or “I can’t do that, I’m not fit” or “I can’t run, I’m slow.” So again, I was paralyzed. It was the opposite of empowering; I did no sort of physical activity for years upon years and never attended a yoga class or went to a gym. The second I stopped focusing on what I couldn’t do and focused on what I could — in this case, it was “I can actually move my body forward for several miles at a slow pace without dying” — I opened myself up to an entire world of healthy activity.
The “I can move my body forward” became “I can run a mile” (albeit a very slow one). That became “I can run three miles,” which eventually became “I can run a half marathon.” I stopped focusing on can’ts in other areas and started small with the things I could do — one thing led to another, and now fitness plays a central role in my life.
I needed a reminder of this the other day when I started the low FODMAPs diet. And honestly, I feel like I need a reminder of this in several areas of my life! When we only see what we can’t do, we miss out on so much of what we can, and it gets in the way of our everyday life — we end up shortchanging ourselves.
Don’t get in your own way, and don’t paralyze yourself with your words. Empower yourself! What can you do? What can you eat? What can you try? Go for it!
Originally Posted HERE
The perils of sitting all day aren’t good. Researchers have shown that remaining stationary for extended periods of time (like at your 9-to-5 desk job) can be detrimental to your health. While exercise is a big part of offsetting the harmful effects of sitting, it was unclear how many gym sessions were needed to help — until now.
A new study, published in The Lancet, shows the ideal formula for counteracting the negative effects of a sedentary job. Instead of a fixed number of hours spent exercising, the ratio depends on how much you sit: people who work a typical eight-hour day should spend at least one hour each day moving; if you sit six hours a day, you should spend half an hour exercising. The research also indicated that the exercise doesn’t have to be all at once — or rigorous. It can be spread throughout the day and be as simple as walking.
The team behind the study analyzed data from a pool of a million adults over the age of 45 in Western Europe, the United States, and Australia. Using previous data, the researchers examined data from 16 published studies and used it to determine how much exercise is required to compensate for sitting. Their recommended daily exercise goal is higher than previous advice but not necessarily less attainable, given it can be completed throughout the day.
Fitting in an hour of exercise a day sounds especially daunting if you have a desk job, but there are plenty of workouts you can complete before and after work. Even if it means taking a 10-minute walk during lunch, your body will thank you in the long run.
Originally Posted HERE
Here’s what you should do before you wrap a towel around your body. (Photo: Getty Images)
Does this sound familiar? The second you get out of the shower you immediately wrap a towel around your body before risking catching a glimpse of exposed flesh. If so, experts say you’re missing out on an important self-esteem booster.
Checking yourself out in the buff “desensitizes you to being so negative about your body,” clinical psychologist and body image expert Amy L. Flowers, PhD, tells Yahoo Health. “It normalizes the experience.”
It makes sense to do it — the mirror is usually right there — but most of us strain to avoid looking at our naked bodies.
Psychologist and body image expert Sari Shepphird, PhD, says there are two main reasons for that:
“We’re kind of trained in our society to think about the ways we can improve upon ourselves,” she says. “But the more we focus on our flaws, the more they’re magnified — and then we’re going to want to avoid looking at our bodies in general.”
The comparison instinct is also an issue, Shepphird says, because our minds naturally tend to go to the societal standards of perfection. And if you don’t look like a swimsuit model (because few people do), you feel as if you just don’t measure up physically.
Enter the mirror trick. To do it (and do it in a positive way), Shepphird recommends looking at yourself and naming five things you’re grateful for about your body or five things you like about your body on that day. It can be as small as liking the way your toenails are painted. Then, go about your usual post-shower routine. It seems minor, but it “can be very transformational,” Shepphird says.
If you struggle to come up with positive thoughts, Flowers recommends trying to remember any compliments or positive comments you’ve received about how you look. If you still don’t like what you see, you can also remind yourself that you’ve been exercising and eating healthy lately — both of which are good for your body.
Suffer from mirror anxiety? Start slow. Shepphird recommends trying the mirror trick once a week and building up to the point where you’re comfortable looking at yourself every day. Eventually, you won’t need to list out what you like about your body — you’ll just be more positive about it naturally.
Body-Peace Resolution is Yahoo Health’s January initiative to motivate you to pursue wellness goals that are not vanity-driven, but that strive for more meaningful outcomes. We’re talking strength, mental fitness, self-acceptance — true and total body peace. Our big hope: This month of resolutions will inspire a body-peace revolution. Want to join us? Start by sharing your own body-positive moments on social media using the hashtag #bodypeaceresolution
Originally Posted HERE
A happy couple eating in Stockholm, Sweden.
Every January, people making resolutions to lose weight are peppered with loads of free dieting advice. Most of it is absolutely terrible, or plain lies. Even worse, many weight loss hucksters over complicate the very simple truths we know about eating for health.
While American guideline makers are reluctant to urge the public to eat less of anything (lest they offend powerful industry lobby groups), the Swedes are clear about what people really need to cut back on: red and processed meat, salt, and sugar.
Likewise, while fad diet peddlers often suggest people eat a certain “superfood,” avoid some overly specific substance like gluten, or follow a fat-busting workout routine to stay fit, the Swedes keep it real: Just eat more plants and exercise. Instead of suggesting people do the impossible and banish fat from their diets, these Scandinavians are advised to seek out “fabulous fats” in vegetable oils and nuts. (Again, these findings jibe with what researchers have found.)