John, correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t the gist of the article, “Hey, this worked for me with my goals, so hopefully it’ll work for some of you.”? So her results (photo) are actually somewhat relevant here.
I would go into this more, but I just don’t care. It’s pretty easy to see where (and why) the sides are drawn, so debating this is pointless.
All this debate is simply to distract people from the fact that, we are actually from mars.
wow, you know the shit is stirred up when J.B. comes out of hiding!
here is my take:
this is T-mag. around here we strive for new and improved, effective techniques to improve body composition/performance. we also strive to debunk myths of the past, such as “working the inner pec.”
i think it is pretty clear to anyone that has hung around here long enough, that when you say things like “tone” your gonna piss some people off. we have graduated from that shit, we now know better.
im not trying to knock the individual who wrote this article but im pretty sure that patricia, or thunder, or tampa, etc… could have written a much more informatve article.
having a good physique doesnt mean you knwo what your talking about. usually the biggest guys in the gym are the most clueless. this is what Thunder was trying to get across. having a degree doesnt mean your a genius either.
the article wasnt what i would consider to be wortheless. imo it is still better than most training advice that women recieve from other sources. however i dont think it is T-mag material. it is sort of a step backward imo.
im not saying this program wont work, because almost any program will work for a period of time. im simply saying that this is not the most effective way to achieve ones fitness goals.
i had an argument with a fat lady one day, she told me that all her friends had lost weight at curves. i responded with this simple analogy: “i can lose weight by jacking off with enough frequency and intensity, that doesnt mean it is the most effective means!”
Oh really?
Who’s this directed to? I haven’t read a “personal attack” here. I’ve only posted and read questions on the program as depicted in this article.
Also, if I remember correctly, you had posted a few pictures of yourself here, JB. Wasn’t it to show that you indeed “walk the talk”? Isn’t that why a picture of the author is displayed? Shouldn’t that “physique” be allowed to be scrutinized; especially if said physique was built according to the protocols as described in the article?
Am I still being a “mental midget” here?
I"m walking, living proof that you won’t become a waif and sickly looking. And there are plenty others. “Preferabley interval…” and Yes, I perform HIIT. but not at 6-days a week and no long, steady state on top of that.
I still remember the “dangerously hardcore” under the banner of Testosterone. So, I take it, it’s now “Certainly Un-Hardcore” so that these women will be attracted to this site? Turning back the wheel, so to be speak. Eh?
Geez, I keep forgetting to add to a reply…
Here’s what I forgot:
“BTW, Cass you say this article was backed up by reputable sources; however THEN you say some “reputable” sources regarding low-fat/high carb diets have lately been shown to have been incorrect. Okay…so, the point is?”
As is often the case, John Berardi speaks volumes with his intelligent discussion of the topic. Thank you for the post John. Little wonder you’re considered at the top of the physical AND intellectual ladder in Canada.
Now, if that new “stripper” workout were to be discussed with specifics, and the author of that article said that those who do the workout will all be able to lift like Patricia, THEN we’d be able to do some name-calling. But I respect all those who post routines here because I’ve got the brains to figure out if it’ll work for me or not. Then again, I’m in Grade 25.
What workout do you s’pose that Kelis does? Her Milkshake certainly is better than yours.
i just have one question:
how do you guys get the quotes to be white???
P-Dog your right about the tone word, but, if you read the article more clearly she does use the tone word in quotes. As a generalization. Where I think posting this will bring more female readers to T-mag. Which is good for business. Kristen, you did stir up a lot of conversation. In t-mag which we haven’t had a good debate in a long time. I thought was great.
In Health,
Silas C.
If you don’t write an article that matches the way I lift or the goals I have, the article is no good.
That’s the attitude I’m seeing here.
I also find it telling how the picture of the author produced two responses:
One by halftrack:
And one by Patricia?s unknown PM:
Isn’t it obvious that both people see two different things? That the ideal physique may vary from person to person? That people may have different motivators and training goals?
I’m beginning to think this thread has hit a nerve with people because there is an unspoken hidden agenda? Why else are people objecting so passionately about offering an alternative goal to train for?
By some of the reactions you would think the author recommended jazz-er-cise and step classes! She didn’t! She put together a program for women who have her specific goals in mind. It’s okay if you don’t have those goals. Keep lifting and enjoy your training and let others enjoy theirs.
I thought it was a descently written article. Like p-dog said, it’s nothing special or ground breaking, but I thought it was an OK routine.
Her program is based on compound movements such as squats, bench presses, overhead presses, good-mornings, and dips. Last time I checked these are all considered compound movements. The only isolation exercises that I saw in the program are for shoulders. She wasn’t presribing tricep kickbacks with pink dumbells or leg extensions or any of the like.
I don’t necessarily agree with the 6 days of cardio or the added shoulder work but that’s my opinion. She also says this is not a program to be followed continously.
For all those that didn’t like the article, you could always write your own article if it bothers you that much. I don’t think there is anything wrong with a little criticism, but attacking her figure is going a little too far in my opinion.
lmao
P-Dog is the KING of comic relief.
My first post was simply to express my thoughts on this matter for the benefit of the group.
I was certain that some might agree and others disagree. At this point, I won’t drag my participation on.
If anyone wants to discuss this with me, feel free to email me and we can talk. Y’all know where to find me.
Patricia, my post wasn’t intended as a personal affront. I’m sure we could have an intelligent discourse on this subject so if you want to do so, email is where to begin.
Back to the dissertation with my butt.
JB
I’ll let you know, I registered merely to reply to this thread.
First, I was extremely surprised she completely neglected the diet aspect, considering her background. She said diet was important, and left it at that.
Second, she left out a couple of things, when talking about the differences between men and women’s anatomy. The female differences she focused on primarily had to do with cardiovascular capabilities.
Since she’s not a “strength-focused” athlete, I’m not surprised to see she failed to mention the cross-sectional fiber area of a woman’s muscle is just as strong as a man’s. This means woman can train with heavy loads, just like men can. Now, they may not want to, but that’s a whole other issue.
Second, she completely ignores the osteoperosis issue - a very hot topic these days, as well. The primary defense against osteoperosis (and bone fractures, etc) is heavy, weight bearing activity (i.e., resistance training). Women need to be made aware that just supplementing calcium is not enough to strengthen bones and prevent little issues like hip fractures. If women don’t want to go through hip replacement surgery at 70, they should be doing exercises like squats and deadlifts, and should be progressively increasing resistance, since bones only get stronger with progressive resistance.
Frankly, I was rather disappointed with this article. You have a chance to enlighten women on the benefits of sound training practices, and instead you throw out the typical “do cardio 6 days/week” and then find time to maybe lift in the evening, too. How many of you seriously advocate training twice a day, four days a week, cardio an additional two days, and only one rest day? If I threw that type of training program at anyone, they’d quit within one month or less (unless they were training for a comp).
"These hormonal changes in women during menstruation alter substrate utilization. For instance, during the early stages of menstruation when levels of estrogen are low, glucose uptake by skeletal muscle is at its highest since estrogen has an inhibitory effect on glucose uptake. As the menstrual cycle charges on, levels of estrogen and progesterone increase, so glucose uptake decreases and favoritism towards fat metabolism emerges.
Research has shown that women have a greater tendency towards fat metabolism over carbohydrate metabolism when exercising at a given percentage of their cardiac capacity as compared to men. (1, 2) This is also altered due to the visit of her monthly “friend.” "
What exactly is she getting at here? How about following through on this thought, and tell women how these factors influence their training? Nothing like throwing out random facts, but not drawing a conclusion from them.
jifigure,
I think what she is getting @ is that there simply are times when it can be more beneficial for women to perform cardio. That the females body will lean toward burning fat stores instead of glycogen @ certain times.
It was just meant for some food for thought, from my perspective atleast. She continued on to say. [quote] I?m not suggesting women should design their training around their periods. I am, however, trying to get across a point: women should train like women instead of defending and following their boyfriend?s program like it?s the Holy Grail.[/quote] Just that women and men are different, and some differences in training MAY be needed.
I think her holy grail point is a great one when looking at any program in general. I dont think she meant this as an end all be all program for women either. Just another choice some may want to try.
There are a plethora of training articles that have been published in the mag. I would venture to say that every one of them has ppl that dont agree with them. They are all just here for us to evaluate. If you like the plan, try it. If not dont.
Phill
"I think what she is getting @ is that there simply are times when it can be more beneficial for women to perform cardio. That the females body will lean toward burning fat stores instead of glycogen @ certain times. "
But she never actually draws that conclusion, does she? We may think that’s what she meant, but since she never expanded enough to tell us exactly where she was heading, we don’t really know. She throws out a couple facts, says women have to do cardio six days/week to get lean without a single dietary reference, and finally throws in what is essentially a “pre-contest”, impractical training routine.
And she’s getting praise over a well written article?
“Where I think posting this will bring more female readers to T-mag. Which is good for business.”
good for business? maybe. i dont think it is a good idea to dumb down training information to attract women. i would LOVE to see more women here but not because of dumbed down material.
"If you don’t write an article that matches the way I lift or the goals I have, the article is no good.
That’s the attitude I’m seeing here."
you are completely wrong! there are plenty of articles here that are not conducive to my goals but i still think they are great articles. for example i will probabaly never perform a box squat with bands or chains, that doesnt mean i think that west side sucks.
regardless of goals the fact remains that in order truly improve your physique you need to base your routine on the compound movements, a sound diet, and cardio if necessary. this goes for men and women alike.
just because a female doesnt have a desire to have 18 inch arms doesnt mean that she should abandon dips and close grip benches for pink dumbell kickbacks.
to say that women as a whole should perform more cardio, more leg work, and more shoulder and lat work is rediculous.
i train legs twice per week, does that mean that women should train legs four times per week? should women, abandon bench presses and rows and focus on bent over lateral raises?
oh and the real kicker is the “refer to ct’s fun with women article.” in other words this article is dumbed down and i didnt provide a real routine so if you want one go read ct’s stuff. well thats what i would have done in the first place.
the more i think of it the more i wonder what the point of the article is. i dont mean to sound harsh and disrespectful towards this woman, but this article flys in the face of what we are trying to accomplish on this site.
if you guys want to go spend 6 days per week doing cardio and doing bent over lateral raises for your shoulders, knock yourselves out.
Kristin- Nice article.
Welcome to T Mag…
JB- solid input as always.
“When are they going to realize that in the end, it’s not appearance (appearance is only a nice bonus “side effect”), but performance and quality in training and health that’s more important.”
Come on. Maybe for most of the women who read T-mag, but for 99% of women who workout appearance is what it’s all about.
I’m not much of a debater, so in the spirit of inquiry and greater insight, I’m curious about a few things.
Two camps, here: I liked the article vs. The article/approach sucks!
Patricia, Thunder and a few others would definitely approach things differently. CT’s girlfriend, “Ms Beast,” “The Divine Ms C” and JB have used a similar approach to Kristin’s with great success (either personally and/or with their clients).
There’s no doubt that Patricia’s approach (a lesser/limited amount of cardio & heavy basic, compound movements) gets the job done and gets it done magnificently. Kristin’s approach also gets some pretty darn impressive results. Kristin carefully researched, documented and supported the things she presented in her article. I’m sure there’s science that also supports all of Patricia’s core values. So what’s the problem? Can’t there be more than one way to skin a cat? Can’t there be more than one way to prepare for competition or to strip BF or to sculpt the perfect physique?
Ask CT, JB and CW to put together the be-all, end-all bulking program, and I’d be willing to bet money that each would approach the challenge differently – possibly in radically different and innovative ways! The goal might be the same, to put on slabs of muscle, but there would be different splits, different rep and set schemes, tempos and rest periods. One might recommend 20 minutes of low-level cardio PWO to help with recovery, while another might insist that all cardio is off limits. And there would defintely be different exercises presented to torture – er, make that “challenge” – us!!! (grin)
What would we do if T-Mag presented us articles from the three respected heavyweights above? We’d read it, consider it, evaluate it and either try it out or “pass on the opportunity.” But as part of “passing on the opportunity,” would we analyze and criticize the bodies of CT, JB & CW and then systematically find fault with their approach and beliefs? I’ve never seen it happen in all the time I’ve been on T-Mag. Why is Kristin not deserving of the same respect?
Kristin, I sure hope you didn’t disappear on us. You’ve had some of the most respected people on T-Mag weigh in on your behalf. Personally, I appreciate the time, effort and energy you put into writing an article that lays out your approach, beliefs and strategies.