I love Tabata! I usually use the "Tabata This" workout from Crossfit (one of the few workouts I use from that methodology). I break it up like this: Squats, Pushups, Pullups, Jump rope, situps. So the total routine is about 20 minutes including the 1 minute rests in between each round.
I have started people off on a single round of Tabata which is only 4 minutes (minus the warmup/cool down periods) and it leaves them laying flat on the floor if they push themselves to their limits.
Indeed. I completely understand feeling like there isn't enough time to do it.
Other than my 8-10 hour days at work, I have a teenage daughter, a wife and two dogs I have to attend to. I practice guitar daily, practice martial arts weekly, kayak regularly, read/study daily for my job, started learning more about F.A.C.S and Body Language and like to get in some gaming every now and then with the daughter.
I've found that I have at least 30 minutes I can spare even with that load. It's not much, but it's better than nothing sometimes. It's awesome you can find the time with your cycling! Keep it up!
Reminds me of something I read from Arnold Swazenegger:
"While on maneuvers, Schwarzenegger and his fellow soldiers would use the hot spots (areas of metal over the tank’s engine) as a makeshift cooking stove, grilling up steaks and frying eggs. The eventual Mr. Universe continued his bodybuilding training even while off base, having stowed his workout equipment (plate weights, barbells, and a collapsible bench) in the tank’s tool storage areas."
In his book he talks about getting up an hour earlier than everyone else so he could get a training session in during his military service. Talk about "making time" for something.
I've had a couple of trainers -- the kind with degrees in sports-medicine, not the kind that were selling cell-phones in the mall last week -- say that Arnie was the single worst thing to happen to modern fitness.
Their complaint was that his genetics are exceptionally rare. That very few people, like 1 out of 10,000, could ever hope to come anywhere close to achieving the same physique. That by becoming a sort of fitness idol he set up everybody else up for disappointment and often giving up because it is literally impossible for the rest of us to do what he did.
As an aside, if you ever watch his first movie, a documentary of sorts called Pumping Iron, he says that smoking pot was a part of his regimen. He even lights up on camera.
That's more than unfair. Arnie sparked a massive fitness craze that benefited many people. If you get disappointed, that is ultimately your fault. Arnie (as well as every other bodybuilder since the mid 60's) were on varying degrees of steroids. This is well known. They have to deny it, but ask anyone in the sport. Arnie's body is an ideal, a loooong term goal that is probably never going to be achieved naturally. But that great physique is what made a ton of people get off their butts and at least try.
If you want an achievable natty physique look up "Zyzz" on youtube. Dude teched as a shortcut, but his physique is easily attainable in 3-5 years, if you do it right. Like Arnie, he has inspired many people. And then to say that the people that are too weak-willed to follow through on workouts deserve to blame these men? That's just silly.
Arnie doesn't deny he was on steroids either. He "just" says he only used them while they were still legal. Whether that is true or not... Well.
But the impressive part of Arnie's physique from a modern standpoint is the symmetry and attention to detail, not really size. We have steroid-driven monsters like Ronnie Coleman that makes Arnie seem like a starving child these days...
I think the bigger problem with bodybuilders as an ideal is that most people don't understand that Arnie didn't look like what he looks like in most of his published photos for more than a few minutes on stage every year. E.g. at his peak shape, yet cut as much as possible, dehydrated, pumped, oiled, artificially tanned, and flexing to the max.
That's not what Arnie level bodybuilders look like if you meet the on the street, or in the gym...
I like to point people to Conan, as in the actual movie rather than the posters. That was Arnie in the kind of shape that let him win Mr Olympia in 1980, yet if you look at the movie rather than the posters and pictures most people are used to seeing of Arnie, his seems big but his shape doesn't seem all that unachievable - that's the difference that competition prep makes...
People also misjudge size of bodybuilders in pictures massively, I think, and seem to believe they're huge giants mountains of muscle. Consider that Arnie at his peak was roughly 105kg, at 6', and with a 34" waist. There's tons of untrained guys larger than that - bodybuilders like Arnie just looks massive because of their shape and low body fat.
Of course most people still won't achieve Arnie's physique, especially not without steroids, but you can get "close enough" to his day to day appearance much easier than most people think.
Zyzz had crazy genetics too AND he roided. I wouldn't call looking like that "easily attainable".
In fact that's one thing I find quite annoying about fitness these days, everyone tries to play down exactly how much work is involved in getting fit, especially if you start from a really bad position (massively over/under weight).
It's hard hard work and saying it's not devalues everyone who has made it.
“Everybody wants to be a bodybuilder, but don’t nobody wanna lift no heavy ass weight.” – Ronnie Coleman
Dont think Zyzz is a great example and shouldnt be mentioned in the same text as Arnie. Look at his youtube videos and meet a giant douche with mantras like "disregard females" and stuff like that. Sure, he motivated people, but he also died at 22 years old because steroids worsened his inherent heart problems.
Other great examples are the bodybuilders of the 50s like Steve Reeves, when aesthetic standards were a bit different (broad shoulders / thin waist, eg. look for the 'vacuum pose'.)
Frank Zane is also a really weird bodybuilder from the 70s. He won Mr Olympia 3 times I think. He's very "philosophical" about his workouts, brining in some kind of Zen philosophy to it. I like his physique the most of all bodybuilders, perfect V taper and king of the vacuum pose.
He seems very despondent about modern bodybuilding and the obsession of getting as BIG as possible without regard to the aesthetics (HGH/roid gut). He said they should make the vacuum pose a mandatory pose in all pro bodybuilding competitions to weed out this kind of crap.
In my opinion the physiques of the pro Bodybuilder in the 50 to 70ies really looked awesome. Personally still way too much for something i would want but still looking impressive. While todays pro Bodybuilders are just abominations caused by massive steroid consumption.
Meh this is kind of an irrelevant complaint in my opinion. It's not like everyone is out to look like Arnold in his prime - 99% of people would be thrilled to look 1/10 as good as he did (and they would look good).
Isn't physique, like, orthogonal to fitness? Bodybuilding may be a way to get fit, but working out in general does not require it at all. I think the lesson we all can take from Arnold is the mental effort, strength of will and so on, not necessarily the specific exercises he used to perform.
> If "physique" means "photogenic," then yes -- they're pretty much unrelated.
Where do you get your information? They couldn't be more related. I GUARANTEE you that any physique model you see on stage or in a magazine is far more "fit" than someone who sits around all day. No, having a great physique doesn't mean that you could run a 4 minute mile, but saying that they aren't related is just ignorant.
>Very true, and if people thought they had to build up muscle and look like Arnold, it would set the fitness movement back.
So, people trying to get in shape and look good at the same time is bad for the fitness/health movement? Are you trolling?
> > If "physique" means "photogenic," then yes -- they're pretty much unrelated.
> Where do you get your information?
You misunderstood me. I didn't mean that physical fitness can't lead to a photogenic appearance, only that they're not strongly correlated to a dispassionate third party, over all cases in the population. For example, there are any number of very highly paid, photogenic models who are not only unfit, but who suffer from anorexia and other ailments, and there are any number of people who benefit from a modest fitness regimen but who do not look any better because of it.
> So, people trying to get in shape and look good at the same time is bad for the fitness/health movement?
Ah, I just got it. You misunderstood me on purpose.
> Are you trolling?
I just demonstrated who's trolling. Being physically fit, and being photogenic, are unrelated, i.e. not correlated. That doesn't mean that one won't lead to the other, only that the absence of a photogenic appearance doesn't demonstrate a lack of fitness.
I can see you're not a deep thinker, so let me explain this more precisely. Let's call engaging in a fitness program X, and a photogenic appearance Y. The fact that X can lead to Y (and it certainly can) doesn't assure that outcome in all cases or even a majority, because the absence of Y by no means implies an absence of X.
It's proof that it worked for me. Somebody of average genetics and physique that had a lot of the same problems that others complain about and in turn try standing desks. Sometimes it's best to just give it a shot and see how it works for you instead of trying to find reasons not to try it. :)
If using a standing desk sounds like a good idea to you and you have the means to afford one or build one, it couldn't hurt to do both. My argument was that I did not feel like it was necessary considering my progress with sitting and doing regular exercise.
Can I recommend you also fix some gymnastic rings to your garage ceiling (or a branch of a tree outdoors, if the ceiling is too low)? They are cheap, and provide incredible challenging (and fun!) workouts.
Even basic things like push ups become challenging again on the rings. And you'll be so proud when you work up to your first muscle up.
I do this as well. I guess I should elaborate on my 8-12 hour days. It's rare now that I will sit in the chair for more than an hour at a time. Not only due to my awareness of the issues that it causes, but also because it just helps me clear my head to get up and go talk to some people, walk around the office, etc...
This should be done if you have a standing desk as well.
Clearing your head is important. Unfortunately, many people seem to forget that it is necessary. "The physiological effects of tiredness are well-known. You can turn a smart person into an idiot just by overworking him"[1].
Also: Getting out the door is good: Five minutes of "green exercise" turns out to be good for your mental health[2].
Then it's seems that it's working out for you and maybe that would be a "middle road" for us, desk-bound people. However we still cannot fully counteract the negative effects of sitting, to quote the article which I linked in my previous post:
"Adding to the mounting evidence, Hamilton recently discovered that a key gene (called lipid phosphate phosphatase-1 or LPP1) that helps prevent blood clotting and inflammation to keep your cardiovascular system healthy is significantly suppressed when you sit for a few hours. "The shocker was that LPP1 was not impacted by exercise if the muscles were inactive most of the day," Hamilton says. "Pretty scary to say that LPP1 is sensitive to sitting but resistant to exercise."
That's certainly possible. There is no way to tell other than to give it a shot for yourself.
However, I will mention, I'm not blessed with great genetics by any means. I would say I am an average/below average individual when it comes to "good genetics". My entire family is riddled with health issues. My father died at the early age of 56 due to heart disease, his brother at 60. His father at 52. When I found I had cholesterol issues, this is what made me start my exercise routine, so I didn't end up like them. So far, it has helped me tremendously.
The problem is that there is no evidence that suggest standing in front of a computer screen helps at all in those situations as well. You're still stationary. You aren't moving. Moving your feet around below you to adjust the weight on your legs does nothing for your cardiovascular system.
Unfortunately, as people who are tied to their computer screens for most of the day, we have very few options. One is to exercise. My story is one of being in better health than I was when I was in a job moving around all day just to give some perspective to this topic.
there is no evidence that suggests standing in front of a computer screen helps
From the last of the three links I posted:
"They found that standing up engages muscles and promotes the distribution of lipase, which prompts the body to process fat and cholesterol, independent of the amount of time spent exercising. They also found that standing up uses blood glucose and may discourage the development of diabetes."
I apologize, I skimmed through that article too quickly.
Nevertheless, I will still hold my position that I was once "Fat", with high cholesterol and could barely hold my own body up. With what I have stated in my post, I am now healthy and can do things that most 20 year olds can not do. So, I guess it works for me pretty well.
Standing helps over sitting in a couple of very specific ways.
Notably, if you have a tendency toward tension in your hip flexor muscules, standing rather than sitting for a few hours a day will really help that. It's less of an artificially compressed position than sitting.
Thanks for this. I'm not sure what has happened to my server all of the sudden, it has handled loads bigger than what I was getting from posting this article. However, it has literally taken a jump off of a cliff.
I have started people off on a single round of Tabata which is only 4 minutes (minus the warmup/cool down periods) and it leaves them laying flat on the floor if they push themselves to their limits.