The Survivor
Active member
OK I have a weight loss company that I've invested in many yrs for my gym. They (the weight loss company) have pretty much planet fitness morals (the bastards) and of course they go against the grain of the gym theories that many of us hold so dearly. That being said, my manager and I sometimes lock horns on the soft cores vs the hard cores. Maybe I'm wrong here and if so let me know....here are the points that we argue over the most:
*Cardio, my view is that yes its important to do, its great for the heart, for conditioning and for weight loss. BUT certainly do not go overboard on it. And its relative to a persons goals. For most, 4-5 times/week 30-40 min per is fine. Of the 3 keys, proper nutrition, weight training and cardio, cardio is the least important. If you can maintain a strict diet and resistance train, cardio is the one area that you could slack a bit (not skip but slack). Cardio in too much doses will likely burn muscle
*Back to cardio, most gyms are way cardio heavy with their equipment which is another reason I don't like the mainstream gyms. Too much emphasis on cardio, not enough on strength training. Back in the day, Golds never even had any cardio, it was done outside
*The flashy newer franchises are too cosmetic IMO. I like my house tidy, my eatery's nice and my hotels clean but my gym is a place to get down and dirty with. In most of the ones today, the trainers jackets match the plush carpet and the wall colors has me thinking of an art museum. Gag me....
*Calorie cutting, although applicable in weight loss, is foolish in the long run. I can get more cut on 4000 cal/day than 1K/day. But the mainstreams want people to think that losing muscle is akin to losing weight. Wrong.
*And the worst offense is the sub-maximal theories of low effort gyms is what the main issue is. These places have been ripping folks off for yrs and they continue to be the charlatans of the fitness industry. Does anyone really believe you can get optimal results by a light and easy workout? It would appear so. Why is it there are supposedly more people enrolled as members but yet our obesity rate is still climbing??
So do I have a point or do I have it wrong?? Opine please!
*Cardio, my view is that yes its important to do, its great for the heart, for conditioning and for weight loss. BUT certainly do not go overboard on it. And its relative to a persons goals. For most, 4-5 times/week 30-40 min per is fine. Of the 3 keys, proper nutrition, weight training and cardio, cardio is the least important. If you can maintain a strict diet and resistance train, cardio is the one area that you could slack a bit (not skip but slack). Cardio in too much doses will likely burn muscle
*Back to cardio, most gyms are way cardio heavy with their equipment which is another reason I don't like the mainstream gyms. Too much emphasis on cardio, not enough on strength training. Back in the day, Golds never even had any cardio, it was done outside
*The flashy newer franchises are too cosmetic IMO. I like my house tidy, my eatery's nice and my hotels clean but my gym is a place to get down and dirty with. In most of the ones today, the trainers jackets match the plush carpet and the wall colors has me thinking of an art museum. Gag me....
*Calorie cutting, although applicable in weight loss, is foolish in the long run. I can get more cut on 4000 cal/day than 1K/day. But the mainstreams want people to think that losing muscle is akin to losing weight. Wrong.
*And the worst offense is the sub-maximal theories of low effort gyms is what the main issue is. These places have been ripping folks off for yrs and they continue to be the charlatans of the fitness industry. Does anyone really believe you can get optimal results by a light and easy workout? It would appear so. Why is it there are supposedly more people enrolled as members but yet our obesity rate is still climbing??
So do I have a point or do I have it wrong?? Opine please!
