# Stair master of disaster



## jhawkin1 (Sep 26, 2007)

For those of you who have not read my journal, I am trying to loose some body fat.  My diet is pretty well laid out, no problems with that, but i'm just looking for some feedback on my cardio plan.  One of the football trainers at the University I go to gave me a workout plan that he gives his football guys that need to burn body fat effectively.  I have been doing this for a few days now, and it seems to be working fine.  I do the stair master at level 10 for approx. 45 minutes (which burns about 550 calories).  My only goal at this point is focused on cutting access body fat, so I can achieve my overall goal of gaining that nice 6-pack that I've been longing for.  Diet comes first obviously, but it's a good one.  I have been training as an athlete for a number of years, so I know my body, and I will not burn out.  I know for all you body builders out there, this seems to be an outrageous plan, for I will probably lose quite a bit of muscle, but I'm willing to take that, and once I reach my goal of around 5-7% body fat, I will focus on putting back on the right amount of muscle mass needed.  I've done HIIT, but I simply want something new, and the stair master not only sheds fat, but it also is a good leg strengthener also.  Any suggestions/comments are greatly appreciated.


----------



## NordicNacho (Sep 26, 2007)

Stairmaster to me is the best form of cardio in the gym just look at the lakes of sweat under them.  Im losing weight right now by swimming 45 minutes a day and using the stairmaster for 45 min a day plus 20 min working on abs. the fat is flying off


----------



## jhawkin1 (Sep 26, 2007)

NordicNacho said:


> Stairmaster to me is the best form of cardio in the gym just look at the lakes of sweat under them.  Im losing weight right now by swimming 45 minutes a day and using the stairmaster for 45 min a day plus 20 min working on abs. the fat is flying off



I haven't done any abs yet besides maybe planks.  Maybe I will start up with core training too (besides just lifts).


----------



## buening (Sep 26, 2007)

Good luck with getting down to 5-7%. Thats at a shredded point, which is damn hard to maintain even with strict dieting.


----------



## jhawkin1 (Sep 26, 2007)

buening said:


> Good luck with getting down to 5-7%. Thats at a shredded point, which is damn hard to maintain even with strict dieting.



I think a good time frame to shred would be for next summer.  I'll go hardcore till December, try to bulk a bit, then go back to my original cardio plan that I am doing now till May or June.  Another goal not related to training, but dieting, is to limit my cheating.  When I cheat, I usually go for sweets.  I rather cheat with a reg. meal (burger, pizza, etc) rather than cookies, or ice cream.  I need to limit cheating, and rid of it all together at some point.


----------



## ALBOB (Sep 26, 2007)

jhawkin1 said:


> Any suggestions/comments are greatly appreciated.



Yeah, ditch the 5-7% target.  Why choose an arbitrary number to use as your goal?  Have you ever been that low?  You don't even know if your body is capable of getting that low.  (Everybody is different.)  You may be setting yourself up for failure for no reason at all.  Instead, choose how you want to look and set that as your goal.  Take pictures of yourself now and then every month or so to track your progress/provide motivation.  

Secondly, killing yourself on the stairmaster may very well be counter-productive.  If your heart rate gets too high there's not enough oxygen in your blood stream to support fat burning.  Just because you're burning a ton of calories doesn't mean they're the CORRECT calories.  You could easily be putting yourself into a catabolic state in which you're burning muscle tissue instead of fat.  When you do that you actually RAISE your BF percentage.  Look at marathon runners, most of them have much higher BF percentages than you'd think.  Not because they're fat, but because they have so little muscle tissue.  That's another reason not to use an arbitrary number such as 5-7% as your goal.


----------



## buening (Sep 26, 2007)

I think BF% is highly overrated/exaggerated. When you think of 5-7%, in actuality it's probably 10% or so.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 26, 2007)

ALBOB said:


> Yeah, ditch the 5-7% target.  Why choose an arbitrary number to use as your goal?  Have you ever been that low?  You don't even know if your body is capable of getting that low.  (Everybody is different.)  You may be setting yourself up for failure for no reason at all.  Instead, choose how you want to look and set that as your goal.  Take pictures of yourself now and then every month or so to track your progress/provide motivation.
> 
> Secondly, killing yourself on the stairmaster may very well be counter-productive.  If your heart rate gets too high there's not enough oxygen in your blood stream to support fat burning.  Just because you're burning a ton of calories doesn't mean they're the CORRECT calories.  You could easily be putting yourself into a catabolic state in which you're burning muscle tissue instead of fat.  When you do that you actually RAISE your BF percentage.  Look at marathon runners, most of them have much higher BF percentages than you'd think.  Not because they're fat, but because they have so little muscle tissue.  That's another reason not to use an arbitrary number such as 5-7% as your goal.




huh???

that is not a very good interpretation of physiology at all.


----------



## jhawkin1 (Sep 26, 2007)

is that true that some people simply cannot reach their goals based on their body type?  I eat right, i burn tons of cals, i work hard, should i stop working so hard?


----------



## P-funk (Sep 26, 2007)

jhawkin1 said:


> is that true that some people simply cannot reach their goals based on their body type?  I eat right, i burn tons of cals, i work hard, should i stop working so hard?



reaching goals is dependant on many factors, one of which is "how realistic are your goals?"

If you stop working hard, then what do you expect to happen?  You would definetly NOT reach your goals.


----------



## Delusional (Sep 26, 2007)

kinda a little off topic n stuff..but uh. im interested in buying a stairmaster, might not be able to for a while unless i can get some sorta layaway going. but how much do they generally run and are there a couple decent sites to order one from? wana compare prices, get an idea of what i want, etc etc. stairmaster looks really cool and better than anything ive ever seen, and my treadmill and i have a pretty dull relationship


----------



## P-funk (Sep 26, 2007)

stairmill's are really expensive and take up a huge amount of space.

they are awesome though.  One of my favorites for cardio.


----------



## jhawkin1 (Sep 26, 2007)

I changed my routine up from instead of going straight 45 minutes on level ten I did intervals, 3 minutes on level 10/3 minutes on level 6 for 45 minutes.  I felt better.


----------



## jhawkin1 (Sep 26, 2007)

I figure this:  I'll keep working my ass off, switching routines on the stair master for 45 minutes; 5 days a week for about 3-4 weeks and see if I get results.  If not; then I know I need some other form of cardio.


----------



## ALBOB (Sep 27, 2007)

P-funk said:


> huh???
> 
> that is not a very good interpretation of physiology at all.



Why?  He chose an arbitrary number that he doesn't even know is possible to reach and set that as his goal.  I contend he'd be better off choosing a certain "look" to set as his goal.  What's wrong with that?  

I also warned against putting himself into a catabolic state.  How in the world could he get into single digit BF levels by burning muscle instead of fat?

No slam, I'm honestly want to know if I'm missing something.


----------



## jhawkin1 (Sep 27, 2007)

ALBOB said:


> Why?  He chose an arbitrary number that he doesn't even know is possible to reach and set that as his goal.  I contend he'd be better off choosing a certain "look" to set as his goal.  What's wrong with that?
> 
> I also warned against putting himself into a catabolic state.  How in the world could he get into single digit BF levels by burning muscle instead of fat?
> 
> No slam, I'm honestly want to know if I'm missing something.



What do basketball players, football players, soccer players do?  Is their heart rate constantly at a high rate?  Are they high in BF?  I'm doing interval training on the stair master, I don't see how I would be gaining BF from that.  College basketball teams practice for 2 and a half hours sprinting up and down the court, are those guys fat?  I just can't correlate what you're saying to what im trying to accomplish.


----------



## P-funk (Sep 27, 2007)

ALBOB said:


> Why?  He chose an arbitrary number that he doesn't even know is possible to reach and set that as his goal.  I contend he'd be better off choosing a certain "look" to set as his goal.  What's wrong with that?
> 
> I also warned against putting himself into a catabolic state.  How in the world could he get into single digit BF levels by burning muscle instead of fat?
> 
> No slam, I'm honestly want to know if I'm missing something.



I wasn't referring to you interpretation of his goals or setting them at a certain bf%...to that I agree with you.

I was referring to your interpretation of physiology with regard to heart rate, beats per minute, and the "types" of calories you burn.

One does not just _slip_ into a catabolic state.  A diet, is infact a catabolic event.  WHen we perform cardio at higher intensities, and elevate our heart rates, our body just burns calories.  At these higher work rates, our bodies burn MORE calories then they do at the lower heart rates.  At the end of the day, the only thing that is important is calories in and calories out (ie, how much of a caloric deficit have you created).  Interval work is great because it (a) raises the heart rate and metabolism to a rate that burns MORE calories and (b) places the muscles in a situation in which they need to fire at a maximal rate to keep up with work output (especially as we are pushing deep into our interval workout).  If we used your example of the marathon runnner and the sprinter....the marathon runner trains at the lower heart rate of the two, in order to sustain the work rate for a longer period of time.  Where as the sprinter trains at a much higher work rate, but can only do it for a short period of time (watch guys at the combines run the 40....40yrds and they are totally out of breath!  In order to perform that again at a maximal effort, they would need maximal rest).


Now, the idea of the diet is to walk that catbolic line and prevent losing lean tissue.  I will agree that to many people probably do more interval work than necessary on a diet, and the amount is contigent upon the amount of leg training they are doing within the training week (ie, total body workouts, legs 3x's a week basically, and 3 days of interval work is going to fry the shit out of you).  This is were structured planning comes into play....as well, not all interval work has to be HIIT, it can be longer duration intervals.  But, that is getting more into program design.......to which I would agree with your statement on going "catabolic".....however, I was mainly commenting on the physiology of working at higher work rates during cardiovascular exercise.

hope that helps.


----------



## ALBOB (Sep 27, 2007)

jhawkin1 said:


> What do basketball players, football players, soccer players do?  Is their heart rate constantly at a high rate?  Are they high in BF?  I'm doing interval training on the stair master, I don't see how I would be gaining BF from that.  College basketball teams practice for 2 and a half hours sprinting up and down the court, are those guys fat?  I just can't correlate what you're saying to what im trying to accomplish.



Go back and read what I said very carefully.  I never said you'd gain body fat.  I said you could potentially gain body fat PERCENTAGE.


----------



## ALBOB (Sep 27, 2007)

P-funk said:


> I wasn't referring to you interpretation of his goals or setting them at a certain bf%...to that I agree with you.
> 
> I was referring to your interpretation of physiology with regard to heart rate, beats per minute, and the "types" of calories you burn.
> 
> ...





Okay, it's obvious I may be operating under some misconceptions.  

I thought catabolism meant your body was using muscle tissue as fuel.  Based on what I'm reading here catabolism is your body using ANY of it's tissue as fuel, even fat.  Is that correct?

My other possible misconception is that when you go above about 80% heart rate, you're in the anerobic zone.  In that condition there's not enough oxygen in the blood stream to support fat burning.  Is that correct or incorrect?


----------



## P-funk (Sep 27, 2007)

ALBOB said:


> Okay, it's obvious I may be operating under some misconceptions.
> 
> I thought catabolism meant your body was using muscle tissue as fuel.  Based on what I'm reading here catabolism is your body using ANY of it's tissue as fuel, even fat.  Is that correct?
> 
> My other possible misconception is that when you go above about 80% heart rate, you're in the anerobic zone.  In that condition there's not enough oxygen in the blood stream to support fat burning.  Is that correct or incorrect?



Catabolism is the breakdown of larger molecules into smaller molecules.  This can be anything....amino acids, fatty acids, glucose, etc....So, dieting (or being in a caloric deficit) is a catabolic episode in a sense that you are consuming less than you burn so larger molecules (stored energy) are going to need to be broken down to provide energy for the daily tasks.

You seem to be ascribing to the whole "fat burning zone."  I wrote a piece in blog a long time ago about this myth, so I wont re-hash it here.  Just read this, here

Hope that helps.


----------

