Conference pasta::flex

    I glanced through the beginner notes - if I missed it, pointers would
    be appreciated.
    
    I have no interest in "body building" per se.  That is, I'm not
    interested in definition, strength training, competition, etc., etc. 
    However, I'm pretty much convinced from the literature that strength
    training is an essential part of weight loss and overall fitness.  I
    don't believe a strict aerobics program by itself will meet all my
    needs without factoring in strength training, possibly even some
    (non-strength-training related) anerobic training.
    
    So what I am looking for is something like strength training or weight
    lifting "for dummies".  I want to know some basic exercises, stretches
    and routines.  Something that doesn't outline XYZ specific program, but
    rather offers a range of choices with explanations for what the choices
    accomplish, and explains how to blend them together into a specific
    program to meet a specific set of requirements.
    
    I have a NordicTrack at home, my wife loves walking and biking, and we
    have access to a weight room with walkers, life cycles and stair
    climbers.  So the so-called "moderate", "weight-loss" and "aerobic
    zones" are pretty much taken care of.
    
    I'm now interested in expanding the program with new stretching, and
    strength training.  I have TONS of information on how to pace my
    aerobic and sub-aerobic programs, including a heart-rate monitor (can't
    be too careful at age 40).  I want to know how to pace my strength and
    weight training.  
    
    My experience with weight lifting is that, not only can you hurt
    yourself, but you may hurt yourself in a way that you won't be aware of
    it until much later.  I want to use free weights and machines safely,
    and to accomplish *my* goals, rather than the typical goals of a body
    builder.
    
    The workout room has a universal, so I can do some of the training
    there, but I need to understand what routines I can do, and avoid
    injury.
    
    Again, I'll state I don't care about physical looks, etc.  I am
    strictly interested in strength training for its contribution to weight
    loss and increased metabolism.  If I find myself getting into it, fine.
    
    Until then, when I look at the books in the store, most strike me as
    books for people that are heavily into body building as an end in
    itself.  I want something to explain how the "common" man (or woman)
    can build strength without injury.
    
    Is there anything like that available (other than hiring a full-time
    personal trainer?).
    
    jeb
    

    Jeb
    
    Based on what you wrote, I would suggest you go back and look at the
    books in the stores.  Even though those books look like they are
    focused strictly at real body builders, most of them have extensive
    sections on programs for strength building and general fitness.  Golds
    Gym Training Encyclopedia for instance has all the information your
    looking for.  But what is key to these types of books is that they show
    each type of lift and its correct form which will help you prevent
    injury and train right.Micheal Yessis also has a book out called the
    Kinesiology of Excercise which will describe programs to help you
    achieve what you want.  This book is not like the other body builder
    books but explains more on lift types, why they work and training tips
    on how to maximize each lift safely.
    
    I was kindof suprised by your statements you don't care how your body
    looks.  If thats the case why lift at all or excercise for that matter? 
    Your statement seems to be contrary to your goals.
    
    Brian

Jeb,

Brian has solid advise and an agreeable opinion: why not care what your body 
looks like?  I can only guess that 40 has tested your mental limits on 
invincibility and are now seeking a cure for longevity.  

Don't get me wrong, not criticizing, just curious about some of the statements.
a lot of lit out there as shown that through medical and scientific studies, 
aerobic work alone is not enough.  As we age and aerobicise, we lose muscle 
faster than fat as a goal of the human design is to acquire more fat as we age: 
an endless battle.  Thus, it's been show that by incorporating strength training
programs into your workouts, you may be able to circumvent some of the 
inevitable.

Men's fitness and Shape, Longevity, Prime, and a few other mags are geered 
towards the lifelong healthy lifestyle and doesn't concentrate too heavily on 
getting big (huge or monstrous).

I wouls say that any routine that included just the basics (bench press, bicep
curl, dips, dumbbell side and front raises, squat, lung, leg curl, calf raises, 
forearm/wrist curls (hammers) and a dumbbell row/low pulley pull) would give you
optimum results:  all that loose skin from aerobicizing (sp) will get more 
taught and even fill out a little more shapely without making one too huge 
(unless they start to use mega poundages).  any lifting routine will inevitable 
add muscle and howmuch you want will depend on how frequent you workout, how 
many sets/reps you do and how much weight you lift.

good luck in your goals, someone in here will more than likely give you a 
routine (i'm not a professional or certified, thus i decline), check out some of
those books you've looked over and scan a few mags at the newsstands to find 
what you want.

no matter how old one is, it's always a good time to start lifting. ;�) [after 
all, i'm pushing 40 myself]

reg.

    I'm curious as to how you plan to measure weight loss. If you are using
    a scale, then you are going to be VERY disappointed if you add strength
    training to your weight-loss plans.  However, if you've done a lot of
    reading then you know that the scale is NOT your friend. You can use
    those bodybuilding books as guides, just don't go heavy. Free weights
    are a little more difficult to use because you need balance and proper
    form, in addition to chosing the right weight to challenge your muscles
    without hurting yourself. Choose the simplest movements out of those
    books (go to the library - don't spend your hard-earned cash on them).
    The old stand-bys can't be beat - bench press, bicep curl, French
    press, delt raises, seated row, lunges, squats, calf raises, ab
    crunches.  You can find these exercises in ANY book. Eliminate the
    modifications, and just do the basics. Add weight when you don't feel a
    challenge any more.  There are a LOT more exercises that target
    specific problems or areas, but if you aren't trying to get a specific
    shape then you don't need them.  If you go light, you can do ALL of
    these on one day. You'll see lots of stuff in this file about doing
    only one body part and it's opposer in one day, but we are usually
    going pretty heavy and targeting a specific goal - shape or size. You
    aren't interested in that, so you can do a full-body workout.
    Another little data point - if you plan to do some aerobic workout on
    the same day as the weight workout, do the weights first. This burns
    off the stored muscle energy so that by the time you get to the aerobic
    portion you are already in the fat conversion phase. I don't recommend
    doing both in one day unless you are really fit. And even then, the
    aerobic portion should be very easy - treadmill walking or slow biking.
    I commend your interest. I'm used to working with beginners or older 
    women who are paranoid about getting big muscles. You can't get big 
    muscles unless you train for hours and hours, and regulate your diet 
    to the nth degree, and go heavy heavy heavy and complain complain 
    complain about the discomfort for the next few days. Am I right folks? 
    However, you can add strength and tone and speed up that metabolism 
    slowly and comfortably. You'll be healthier, you'll feel better, and 
    you WILL look better, whether that is one of your goals or not.
    Good luck!  There are a lot of us in here who can help with questions
    or confusion. Some of us are miles apart on some issues (protein -
    don't get me started!!), but if nothing else the arguments will give
    you an idea of how inexact this science is. And it's all very
    good-natured. The basic rule is this - if it works for you, great! It
    may not work for someone else. And it may not work forever, so be
    open-minded about changes to your routine.
    Sarah

    Thanks for your tips and hints.  Looks like I might have to revisit the
    book store.  If reading and planning burned more calories, I wouldn't
    need to work out!  :-)
    
    When I say I don't care how I look, thats misleading.  I should say
    that about 90% of my reasons for beginning a routine is to increase my
    health and fitness.  Using the most conservative measures, for my large
    frame size and height (5'7") I'm at least 40-50 pounds over weight (ow! 
    hurt to admit that!). I may never see my college weight of 145, but I
    definitely need to get down for my blood pressure, energy level, etc. 
    Besides my own analysis, this was confirmed during the recent health
    fairs that were conducted at various Digital sites.  I have a history
    of heart disease on one side and stroke on the other, and my brothers
    and most of my uncles are on blood pressure medicine.  I know that I'm
    headed the same way unless my lifestyle gets healthier.
    
    Don't worry.  I'm starting very slow and easy.  And I won't factor any
    (or much) strength training in until I get into my aerobic target zone
    and increase my capacity a bit.  And when I say I'm starting slow, I
    really mean it.  With so many folks having heart attacks at 35, I don't
    need any more warnings.
    
    Now, of course, if I lose 40-50 pounds (over the next 1-2 years) then I
    will feel VERY good about how I look.  And if I tone up my muscles and
    flatten my belly, then I'll feel great!  And who knows?  We all go
    through phases, and bite different bugs at different times in our
    lives.  But I'm mostly interested in getting back into skiing, scuba,
    running, etc., which I have forsaken for a long time.  Looking good
    will just be a genuine perk.
    
    Does that explain things a bit better?  I have to admit, I feel like
    I've purged a bit, but I can't say I'm feeling real good about myself
    right now.  
    
    But in a few months... !!!
    
    jeb
    

    Jeb
    
    	I think everyone here has pretty much already answered your
    questions.  I'd just like to concur with them.  I guess all I can add
    is don't forget to watch your diet.  Cause for best results, you not
    only need a cardio work-out and a strength training work-out but should
    watch your food intake.  
    
    	Since I've gotten back into it, I've cut my junk food intake by at
    least 50%!  Instead of a chocobar, grab an orange.  
    
    	All in all, it sounds like your goals are realistic and you sound
    determined.  A great combo!  Good Luck to ya!
    
    	Jay

  Since I'll be 48 in about 3 weeks, I don't want to hear any more talk about 
  people over 40 being "Over the Hill". For example, the Olympic Marathon
  has been won by people in their 40's. In the bicycle race called "the Race
  Across America" (RAAM), a record was once set by a man in his mid 40's.
  In the Leadville Trail 100, a 100 mile foot race on trails through and over
  the Rocky Mtns, a man 54 years old once won the race and set a course record. 
  And, I don't think Arnie is that young any more and he still looks great.
  It's true that these are the exceptions but it also shows that people can
  be athletically fit longer than most people think.

  But I will agree that with age, it takes longer to recover from hard
  workouts and injuries take longer to heal. But with a good diet, consistent
  but sensible training, you can still do much more than you think.

  With all of that said, I think the most important thing for Jeb is to 
  to follow a good diet, one that's low in fat, sugar, salt and high in
  complex carbos(veggies, potatoes, whole grains etc). It doesn't matter
  how much you workout. If you have a bad diet, you will be at risk for 
  heart problems and other serious medical conditions. When you start
  training, start slowly and build up slowly. Don't try to do everything in
  one day, otherwise there will be a greater risk of injury. It's more important
  to be consistent and to use good form than it is to be fast, lift heavy
  weights etc.

  Everybody has given some good advise about weight/strength training.
  To simplify things, weight training is, for the most part, pushing and 
  pulling. In you training, don't do one without the other otherwise there will
  be a muscle imbalance which could lead to injuries. So, for example,
  if you do overhead press, you should also do lat pulldowns. You don't 
  neccessarily have to do them in the same day, just remember to exercise
  opposing muscles.

  Good luck, you're on your way to looking and feeling much better.

	Keith

who complains, sarah? not us, unhuh! no way....

jay- you blasphemer! an orange vs a chocobar?!?!?!?! lighting bolts rain your 
way! 

now now, keith: being 40+ comments are all in fun; i guess for me, it's: "hey, 
look how old i am and see what i can do!" [btw: anyone watch the ecochallenge on
the discovery channel? many many many 40+ participated to include 73 yr old 
helen klein [? i know i got that last name wrong], she is a mega marathoner to 
this day, also]

reg.

ps man, am i sore! i really worked legs hard, anyone want to watch me walk up 
and down stairs?  not to mention my low back is stiff and achy and arthritis in 
my hands is slowly getting worse.  ooops! does this count as complaining? 8^)

    Ever see Boyer Cole? Or Larry Scott or some of the older body builders.
    They don't look like a bunch of old men!

    The issue isn't whether you are too old at 40+ to be fit, the real issue
    is STARTING at age 40, and overdoing it.  If you've been moderately fit
    your whole life, then age 40 is just another number. But if you've been
    a sedentary individual most of your adult life, cranking out the squats
    and running marathons is not a very good idea. At best you'll hurt
    yourself, at worst you'll kill yourself. 
    Start with a physical. A lot of people miss this first step. If you
    have clogged arteries, flushing them out with diet and exercise is a
    really bad idea. If you have high blood pressure, weight lifting is a
    really bad idea. If you are diabetic (silent, otherwise you'd know by
    now) messing with your diet is a really bad idea.  Once all these and
    other health problems are identified and under control, then you can
    continue. Proceed with a good diet and moderate aerobic exercise, then 
    on to the weights.  There is no hurry. You can't add 10 years to your
    life by rushing the process, but you can easily subtract 30 years.
    Sarah

    >The issue isn't whether you are too old at 40+ to be fit, the real
    >issue is STARTING at age 40, and overdoing it.  
    
    EXACTLY!  Around '84 I was running five miles at an 8 minute pace,
    using Nautilus three times a week, and spending eight hours a day every
    Saturday and Sunday freezing and flying up and down the slopes at
    Killington in the winter, and chasing lobster in their native habitat
    in summer.
    
    I slacked off slowly, but I've been pretty much idle for close to seven
    years now.  I have had a complete physical, including an ECG, blood
    sugar, body fat, cholesterol screening, etc.  I'm safe on all counts,
    but I'm at the brink.  From this point on, I either eat a little better
    (I'm already mostly meatless) and become more active, or I'll cross the
    line, which means a come back is that much harder.  I have a lot of
    work ahead of me, but how much moreso if I wait for an attack of
    angina?
    
    However, I have one more beginner question.  It might be better asked
    in aerobics, or elsewhere, but I'll give it a try here first.
    
    With my handy dandy new heart monitor (which I'm beginning to feel is a
    really great idea) I got a book that explains heart physics, and the
    use of a monitor during training, written by a triathlon-er.
    
    It outlines five zones based on a percentage of maximal heart rate:
    
    		50-60% is called "moderate"
    		60-70% is called "weight management"
    		70-80% is called "aerobic"
    		80-90% is called "anerobic"
    		90-100% is called "red-line"
    
    Now, I know from my physical that I'm not about to drop dead.  I also
    know that I got real light headed on a life cycle one night (before I
    got the heart monitor).
    
    Getting a doctor (other than perhaps a sports medicine specialist) to
    recommend a program has been very difficult for me.  They will tell you
    what NOT to do, but won't give you much positive program information.
    
    With all the standard caveats, how fast is too fast?  How slow is too
    slow (meaning little or no improvement), etc?  Right now I'm using
    moderate (50-60%), waiting to see if my spikes even out, and my
    performance improves (meaning increased distance for the same heart
    rate and time interval).
    
    I haven't really measured my resting heart rate accurately (they
    suggest sleeping with the monitor and taking a reading upon awakening)
    but its around 78 while watching TV (nothing suspenseful) which means I
    have a pretty low reserve.  Without taking a stress test, my age-based
    maximal rate is 180, which makes my moderate rate peak 108 (105 since
    the monitor only does 5 beat increments).
    
    Its wicked hard to do much of anything and keep my rate below 105!  I
    find that relaxing, closing my eyes and deep breathing while on the
    NordicTrack helps keep the rate low, but it requires constant attention
    (which it will for a while, I'm sure).  My stretching tends to drive me
    over, and I'm sure that running up the stairs probably blows the peak.
    
    Now I understand that the REAL value is exercising continuously to
    maintain a sustained heart rate for a significant time period. But I'm
    wondering where a 40 year sedentary person should really start.  Is
    "moderate" too low? (knowing full well its better than nothing?).  Is
    "weight loss" too high?
    
    My wife is ecstatic.  She used to complain that I'd hop on the
    NordicTrack, start breathing heavy, get red-faced, sweat profusely,
    etc., and she really worried.  She likes the more sedate pace I'm now
    using with my pulse-based training.  But, though I want to play it
    safe, I also don't want to waste my time.
    
    Any thoughts (or pointers) appreciated.  You guys just seem like a
    knowledgable, helpful bunch so far, so I thought I'd push it!  :-)
    
    jeb
    
    (P.S. Also, where did these percentages come from?  Are they based on
    research and hard evidence, or a rule of thumb?  They seem awfully tidy
    to me.  Any good book titles out there that discuss them in more
    detail?)
    

    Heart rate, and safe zones, is not an exact science.  The rates you
    were quoted are ballpark, perfectly safe to use to estimate your heart
    rate.  I'd be more curious about your RECOVERY rate, i.e. how quickly
    your heart rate drops after easing away from an intense level. That's
    the true measurement of fitness, and a good way to measure if you can
    increase EITHER duration OR intensity. Never increase both. Choose one
    (e.g. 30 minutes on the Nordic Track as opposed to 20 minutes, OR level
    3 as opposed to level 2, etc.). If you felt lightheaded, you should
    have slowed down and eventually stopped.  Full stop is also not a good
    idea - you have a tremendous blood volume pumping at peak heart rate, 
    and stopping abruptly is too strenuous on your heart. Lightheadedness is
    a factor of poor nutrition, inappropriately high heart rate, improper
    breathing technique, any number of factors.  But it is a warning sign,
    and should be heeded. Starting at 50-60% MHR (Maximum Heart Rate) is a
    great start.  If your recovery rate improves (you should track that as
    well as tracking MHR numbers), increase intensity or duration. When you
    start to inch up into 70-80% range, you are talking about shorter
    duration activities (45 minutes of step class, etc.). But you can
    safely exercise at 50-60% for much longer periods of time.  
    There is another way of measuring heart rate, called "Perceived
    Exertion". It's essentially a measure of how you feel at different
    points of the activity.  If you can talk comfortably, without gasping,
    but can't exactly recite the Ghettysburg Address, then you are in a good
    zone. If you can't even puff out a few words, you are too high. If you
    can discuss complex family issues up too and including raising your
    voice to make a point, you are too low.  Heart rate is a good
    indicator of your exertion level, but try to listen to your body a
    little more so you aren't so dependant on a monitor. Sometimes we rely
    too heavily on technology. For example, you aren't REALLY burning off
    the exact amount of calories that readout is showing you. Sorry if I
    burst anybody's bubble with that one ; ) 
    I'm glad you saw a doctor. You're in pretty good shape for a couch
    potato!
    Keep the questions coming.  We're all glad to help out, and will try
    gently to convert you TO A REAL MUSCLE HEAD LIKE THE REST OF US!!!
    oooooops, sorry. Where's that Ogre guy? He suddenly popped up and typed
    that on the screen. I swear it wasn't me. I would never shout like that
    ; )
    Sarah
                                         

THAT BE ONE OF THEM TRANSCENDETAL THINGS! SWEAR, I NEVER LEFT CAVE!

OGRE

jeb,

s(h)arah's right on with her info; my 2 cents worth: if i'm going to be working 
aerobically, i make sure i've had my dose on complex carbs thru the day, 1 hr 
before a solid carb, not to complex, but not quick such that the boost is gone 
before the run, 1/2 before water, juice, and coffee (1/2 as it gives time for my
system to make sure it's 'safe' to run ;^), just before is mo' water and i chew 
on high sugar gum. [yeah, so maybe i get too much sugar in the diet, but i load 
like that only 2-3 times per week; you should me packing for a hike/climb!]

more than likely, you weren't carb'd up enough before you experienced the 
lightheadness, but getting the check up was right on, also.  if you used to be
an ethusiast [near extreme, by the sounds], you should find yourself coming back
up to speed soon [i.e. within a year from personal experience]; still, take it 
slow and get your walks in OUTDOORS [yes, even in the rain, snow, dark of night,
etc; i hate treadmills!].  increase the intensity of the walk when you feel 
real good by adding in a few sprints, eventually, you'll be running again.

diet is the key, prolly 75%+; unless you're converting [at which sarah will be 
able to help], don't cut meat out all together.  make it low fat, but get at 
least 3 servings of red a week. as we age, we lose muscle and build fat; if we 
keep active, we can at least maintain the muscle and and continue to promote fat
loss.  something else to think about as we age: if we work too aerobically, 
we'll definitely lose muscle faster. thus, more and more health care 
professionals are seeing the added benefits of weight training and maintaining 
the proper carb/protein/fat dietary balances along with cardivascular workouts.

the iron game is the best of all worlds; stonger athletes/people have more 
endurance and speed and age better [just don't be prone to physical diasater, 
like me].

keep up the good work, heart rate in check but i wouldn't be worried about those
sudden high jumps went you run up the stairs [unless you're medically at risk] 
as it's expected to increase from a cold start and only lasting a short burst.
gawd, if i jumped right into a run, i'd be dead [not literally, or ?] without a 
warmup period 1st.

later,
reg.