I specifically waited until TT weighed in on this so I could say, “I agree with her.”
I’m with P-dog too: how the hell do people get the quotes in white?
I agree with her,
Ryan
here is a proposed work out plan form her site:
DAY 1: Legs
Leg extensions - 3 sets of 12-15 reps
Leg Curls - 3 sets of 12-15 reps
Lunges - 3 sets of as many reps a side as you can do! If you can do up to 20 reps then increase the resistance by holding dumbbells – start with 10 lbs. in each hand and progressively add more as this exercise becomes easier. Decline Leg Press - 3 sets of 20 reps (Try different foot positions of this exercise to target different areas – toes pointed in, pointed out and straight forward).
Glute Kickbacks - 3 sets of 15-20 reps – really concentrate on getting a good squeeze at peak contraction by maintaining a moderate speed through the whole range of motion and holding at the top for a second or two.
DAY 2: Back, Biceps and Abdominals
Seated Row - 3 sets of 12-15 reps
Lat Pulldown - 3 sets of 12-15 reps
Back Extensions - 3 sets of as many as you can do (extend through the whole range of motion and squeeze the glutes and hams together to kill two birds with one stone!)
Seated Bicep Curls - 3 set of 12-15 reps
Hammer Curls - 3 sets of 12-15 reps
Crunches - 3 sets of 25 reps
Decline Reverse Crunches ? 3 sets of 25
DAY 3: Shoulders, Chest and Triceps
Push Ups - 3 sets of as many as you can do – and not the knee on the floor style!
Shoulder Press (Dumbbells or machine) - 3 sets of 12-15 reps
Lateral Raises - 3 sets of 12-15 reps
Front Raises - 3 sets of 12-15 reps
Single Bench Dips - 3 sets of as many as you can do!
Rope Pulldowns (or with a straight bar) - 3 sets of 12-15 reps
nuff said!
Patricia,
The point was that ONE diet has been found to not be of any benefit for certain people with CVD, but it does show results with others. Therefore, just as we are not a homogeneous population, we can’t expect a homogeneous diet to work for all individuals. The Atkins diet has been proven to work for those people that don’t respond to the AHA guidelines and it can now be safely recommended to treat/prevent heart disease.
But, lets put heart disease aside and focus on the topic being discused here.
After I wrote my first reply here, I figured someone would call me out and argue that I’ve advocated heavy training for women and I’ve often mentioned that women become ‘cardio obsessed’. Well, I still support these statements, and they still apply to what I’m saying (and to what Kristin has said). Many women tend to only do cardio and never venture beyond the five pound dumbells. The purpose of the T-vixen roundtable, the article I wrote on JB’s site, and the article that Kristin wrote here was to that in order for women to ever reach goals of weight loss/ muscle gain/ or functional athleticism, they need to train more like men, and less like waifs. Kristin did advocate compound movements and heavy resistance training, but she recommended that women shouldn’t avoid cardio entirely in exchange for the aformentioned exercises. Maybe the six days a week of cardio is a little excessive for the most part of the year(unless it is pre-comp) for most people. And plus, some people don’t have the time to do two-a-day sessions a training. When I competed last year I did do more cardio, but I didn’t have the time (or the energy near the end of the dieting) to do six days a week. So my point is that perhaps Kristin recommended too much cardio in her program, but look past this and see that she did stress the importance of multivariate resistance training and she did throw an idea out there that went against the grain of most t-members beliefs. That took balls.
The bottom line is that maybe this article was just not appropriate for a magazine called Testosterone, and rather it would have benefited more women by being published somewhere else. But still, I stand behind my original statement that I enjoyed her work, and I’d love to see more of it here in the near future.
Cass
I have to say that I am pretty disappointed with the position this article took. I am fairly new to this site but I have spent numerous hours reading various threads and articles, and have trained as an athelete on and off for 13 years. Most of the information that I have come across has been extremely helpful. Especially the t-vixen roundtables, and the “fun with women” article.
However, this article basically goes against everything else I have read with regards to the way women should work out. Even training as a college athelete I did not do cardio six days per week. No thanks!
She also stated that all women basically have the same shape. That’s the funniest thing I have heard in a long time. If that is the case then I guess I am a woman trapped in a man’s body. My shape is definately not that of the dainty make up wearing cardio bunnies that adorn the stairmasters at my gym. Which is exactly why I have had far better results training the same as men.
I also was under the impression that this was a site for those interested in building muscle. I have to say that her pictures did not reflect the physique of someone doing serious lifting with the goal of increasing lbm. If in fact that is a woman’s goal I think it would be safe to assume that she probably would not be drawn to a magazine named “Testosterone”.
Yes it’s obvious that she is well educated and that the article was well written. Yet, well written is not defined as good advice. She made too many generalizations, and I agree with Patricia in that women have worked so hard to get away from that approach and that article has managed to turn back the clock.
Seems like classic fitness girl workouts…too much cardio, too much volume.
Check out her web site. It was great. In more than one article she advices readers to steer away from doing cardio 30-40 mins per day and also suggests lifting heavy weights to get the best results. So, which is it?
Oh yeah…if that is what a t-vixen is all about than I’ll pass.
P-dog, I see your point, but think about this: I know many girls in my gym who train in a similar manner, and I would dry hump all of them.
Isn’t that what really matters?,
Ryan
Anybody remember a little while back when some loudmouth by the name of Big Conan came on this site and said that anybody that didn’t have his goals and didn’t lift his way wasn’t hardcore and shouldn’t be posting on a site called Testosterone?
Can anybody see a parallel here?
Patricia… when are we going to see an article on your training methods? I’d be up for that!
andersons, i already addressed your goals issue.
and ryan, you got me there bro. my argument just went down the tubes!
I like p-dogs take on this. It’s dumbed down “Muscle & Fiction” material which is better kept off of t-mag. To even present it as an option for women just reinforces all the other training b.s. thats promoted by other “fitness” mags. A lot of the replies in favor of the article said something like “six cardio sessions per week is maybe a little too much but other than that…” A little to much? waaaaaay to much! Less than half of what she recommends (if any) would be more than enough. Of course anyone could get results using her program, but the results would be much better with most any of the other BB programs on this site.
Ericka,
To respond to your ?, I dont think she ever says either way of training is the way to train year round. It is based on your goals at the time. I know I dont train/eat the same when cutting as when bulking.
This one article was based toward a woman wanting to shed BF% down to competition levels, and laid out an approach that has been successfull for her and many of her clients. Just one way. If you reread her post she says that she doesn’t think that this is the only way to accheive this goal either.
[quote]Regarding the training… There’s an infinite amount of ways for one to train whether you’re a man or a woman. I present one. The strategy I propose I KNOW for a fact works. It has worked for me… it has worked for many of my clients. It is information I have gathered through the years from other figure and fitness athletes. I don’t profess that it will work for all women… but for many. As Anderson states, it really does depend on the goal of the woman. I assume in writing the article that many women DO want a physique like mine and that is who this piece is for. It is not for women who want a more muscular, bodybuilder-esque physique.
As for cardio that often… If a typical woman wants to get lean, she is more often than not going to have to do a significant amount of cardio. I’ve had great results with the exact program outlined. And yes, it can “slow progress down” if you’re in a building phase, but keep in mind here I’m talking about a woman trying to lean out and sculpt what she has. The program I propose is not an anabolic program by any stretch of the imagination nor is it a program to be followed 12 months out of the year.[/quote]
Take the article for what it is. One single way in which you may employ to reach a specific goal. Not the only way, and not a program for your year round fitness goals. Like all other training articles on the site, she is simply giving yet one more option that some people might find helpfull in reaching like minded goals.
Phill
No disrespect meant, since the next quote will be comparing two totally different individuals, goals, methods and results.
The author looks like Cass, without the muscle.
So on one side you have Ectomorph+Cardio+Some Lifting workout results. On the other side, you have Ectomorph+Heavy Lifting+Some Cardio. The choice is obvious. So are the results.
the article is OK. just an opinion.
As for :
“look at the woman giving the advice. Wow! That should speak for itself”
I know of women (not many, but several none the less) who never do any exercise, drink, smoke do various illict drugs and look like that. thats surley doesn’t mean we should advocate their lifestyle.
P-DOG said:
[quote]
here is a proposed work out plan form her site … [/quote]
I obviously didn’t quote your whole post, but nice post.
[quote]Anybody remember a little while back when some loudmouth by the name of Big Conan came on this site and said that anybody that didn’t have his goals and didn’t lift his way wasn’t hardcore and shouldn’t be posting on a site called Testosterone?
Can anybody see a parallel here?[/quote]
What’s funny is that Big Conan wasn’t completely wrong. This wasn’t supposed to be a site for fitness bunnies. That is what this article is for. If that’s the direction this site wants to go in, then fine. I’m sure Richard Simmons will be editor pretty soon.
Kristin,
You look fantastic in the picture. Your hard work is evident.
Most of what needs to be said has been said here I think, but this is my two cents.
TT and JB-- great posts, right on the money as usual.
I think that in trying to be “Dangerously Hardcore,” some of us have only succeeded in being Dangerously Intolerant, or maybe Dangerously Pigheaded.
If you direct your attention to the title of the forum you will see the words “Looking Good Naked.”
There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that Kristin looks good naked, and moreover, that her clients utilizing her prescribed methods also look good naked. If these things were ineffective, Kristin would not survive as a trainer and nutritionist. The simple truth that you are reading an article by Kristin Reisinger on T-mag is proof that she is the real deal.
What should be realized here is that there is a difference between “successful trainees” and “successful trainers” - at least generally speaking. Successful trainees identify a select modus operandi and manipulate it to their full advantage. Successful trainers on the otherhand, develop an appreciably greater repertoire of exercise methodologies and manipulate these approaches in order to meet the inherent differences (and wants/needs) of their given trainees.
I give this distinction to open the eyes of those “successful trainees” on this board to the fact that there is no universal “best way.” One simply has look at the array of diverse training (or nutrition) programs that the equally dissimilar yet equally competent contingent of t-mag contributors(of past and present) produce. One can even restrict their observation to this post as the “successful trainers” of t-mag have come in to defend this program from the “successful trainees” of t-mag.
Now this isn’t a condemnation of the trainees or their approaches so please don’t take it as such. What works for you may work for a number of others but not everyone. Furthermore one’s definition of “work for” is highly individual. While your physique may be what you’ve decided to be the standard, anothers view and thus aspirations may be entirely different.
As John (Berardi) mentioned in his post, we’re open to further discussion of this via email at Science Link so feel free to contact us.
So, those of you who are supporting this article would actually prescribe a program involving training twice/day, four days/week, plus two cardio only days, and only one rest day?