P90X

RE: P90X

jaadams1 — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 12:42:25 GMT

I just got started with the DVDs this last weekend, and have been having fun so far. The P90X program is definitely a killer, and it all depends on how much you push yourself. I'm not going to do the actual 90 day program, but will space things out with 4-5 of the workouts a week in addition to my 5 morning swims a week. My wife has been enjoying them also, and we will do weekends together. Just did the Chest and Back w/ Ab Ripper afterwards tonight, and I think I got more of a tricep workout, but can feel it in the chest too. I'll cut this off cold turkey as we get closer to Nationals, but for now...bring the pain!! :banana: :bliss: :banana:

RE: P90X

Former Member — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 07:32:14 GMT

I would LOVE to do the P90x program, but until they come out with a version for people with Rheumatoid Arthritis and completely fused joints, I am SOL. As someone stated before, there is so much high-impact activity going on in this program, that my joints can't take it. Geez, I suffered a fall in the front yard and am now looking at knee surgery, so P90x is so out of the equation. As for the debate about losing weight and swimming, well, it hasn't worked for me. Since really getting serious about my swimming in January, utilizing a HRM, maintaining a reduced-calorie diet by tracking calories in vs. calories out, and still trying to keep my RA at bay, I have lost about 5 lbs this YEAR! I swim 2500-3000 meters with 25-30 minutes of ab/core work done in the pool 5 days a week. I also use the pool dumb bells for strength training. I'm an IM swimmer, so everyday I focus on different strokes. Plus, I suffer from pool ADD, so I HAVE to have variety in my workout. All in all, with all of that swimming, 5 lbs in one year is highly depressing. I have about 40lbs to lose. Yet, I hear DAILY from people that say "with all that swimming, you should be skinny". Not so. I know I would probably lose more weight if I could incorporate other forms of cardio and/or weight lifting into my workout, but I have problems lifting pots and pans in the kitchen, much less lifting dumb bells in the gym! So, let the debate rage on as to how some people can shed pounds so quickly with swimming and others, i.e. ME, can still stay overweight.

RE: P90X

__steve__ — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 04:11:12 GMT

Would 30 or so all-out starts off the blocks be equivalent to a p90x workout?

RE: P90X

The Fortress — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 03:46:08 GMT

I recently purchased and started P90X and was curious if anyone who has been doing it has noticed any improvement in their swimming, or improvement they've seen generally. I've read a p90x blog that suggested not following the 90 day program but rather do 3 p90x workouts a week in addition to swim training to prevent yourself from burning out. Any thoughts on this? Right now, I'm just sore, everywhere. I have not done the 90 day P90X program, but I have the DVDs and have done most of the workouts. I can't really see how someone can do the 90 day P90X program and concurrently train at a high level for swim competitions. In my experience, you would just get too broken down. If your main goal is fitness and weight loss, by all means do the full program. If you want to swim fast, I think you need to modify it somewhat to prevent overtraining and burnout. Just my opinion, YMMV, especially if you're young and recover more quickly. BTW, I like the plyometrics, Kenpo and yoga DVD best. I've incorporated some of the exercises into my regular dryland routine. I think plyos are fantastic for starts and walls.

RE: P90X

RachaelM — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 03:09:59 GMT

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 06:17:46 GMT

Ande, I have looked more into P90X after you brought it up. I think the workout program would burn less calories than what you burn now, assuming you are working out with 6x/week in the pool and 3x/week in the gym, which I think is typical for you. The P90X diet is very strict and your diet is pretty lax, so that portion would be beneficial. The benefit of the P90X diet is that it has several cookie cutter meals and a guide on how to put them together. Other than that, the diet itself is just a healthy, high protein, low calorie diet. Any healthy diet that runs a calorie deficit would work in place of the P90X diet. P90X is probably not the program for you. Have you thought about working with a nutritionist?

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 15:12:36 GMT

This is what I originally said: If your essential body fat is 4lbs, then mathematically you can gain enough muscle mass to hit 2% body fat. Chlorine was stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight, but a function of total weight. This position was not obvious to me from his initial post. It was obvious that Chlorine was more interested in berating me for my stupidity than explaining his point. I don't have any research papers that state one way or another, but Exercise Physiology by McArdle does state that "The low fat levels of marathon runners, which ranges from 1 to 8% of body mass, probably reflect adaption to severe training for distance running." (p. 785) This would lead me to believe that attaining a body fat percentage of 2% is both mathematically and realistically possible. Online debates do have a tendency to get heated :D Chlorine was correct in stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight. It is a percentage of bodyfat that a human being requires to stay alive. This is commonly acknowledged as a minimum of 2% of your total bodyweight, whatever it may be. The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text. Unfortunately, it gets taken out of context as a result. What one would need to look at is the full study in order to see the conditions and methods used to determine bodyfat levels. Currently, there are no methods of measuring body fat in humans that is 100% accurate, short of dissection. For example, the following studies (abstracts available online): Costill, Bowers, et al (1970) coetzer et al (1993) Pollock, Gettman, et al Body composition of elite class distance runners (1977) Body composition of elite American athletes. Steven J. Fleck, PhD (1983) All measured marathon runners at between 3.5%-7%. A far cry from McArdles findings. Errors in body fat estimation are also addressed in the studies: Validity of "generalized" equations for body composition analysis in male athletes--SINNING, WAYNE E.; DOLNY, DENNIS G.; LITTLE, KATHLEEN D.; CUNNINGHAM, LEE N.; RACANIELLO, ANNETTE; SICONOLFI, STEVEN F.; SHOLES, JANET L. Effects of skin thickness and skinfold compressibility on skinfold thickness measurement: A. D. Martin 1, D. T. Drinkwater 2, J. P. Clarys 3, M. Daniel 4, W. D. Ross 4 Furthermore, I highly recommend any study by Ancel Keys, et al as well as the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment", also run by Ancel Keys. (If you are interested in this dry sort of stuff that is :D) I think the important thing that all of these studies prove in the end, is that when someone comes to a forum and claims they have hit 2% body fat, the chances are great that they really didn't. If not for the fact that it can cause serious health issues, then at the very least because it is really damn hard and has not been recorded with any certainty even by an elite athlete in a controlled study.

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 13:37:44 GMT

I know what essential bodyfat is. I just don't understand what your point has to do with the debate you were having? Unless I am wrong, you were both debating whether it is possible to reach 2% bodyfat (the scientifically defined minimum amount of fat a human needs to survive) without any health issues. So if a 300 lb man lost enough bodyfat to reach 2% bodyfat, would he survive without any serious injury to his health. The same question would apply to a person of any weight for that matter...would hitting 2% bodyfat hurt that person, perhaps even kill them. You said it was possible to do safely, which goes against anything I have ever read. So I have to ask: do you have research papers to support that claim? A link to anything for that matter that is outside your personal opinion? Or are you now agreeing with the original debate that hitting 2% can cause issues? This is what I originally said: Mathematically it seems possible to have a 2% bodyfat. If your essential body fat is 4lbs, then mathematically you can gain enough muscle mass to hit 2% body fat. Chlorine was stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight, but a function of total weight. This position was not obvious to me from his initial post. It was obvious that Chlorine was more interested in berating me for my stupidity than explaining his point. I don't have any research papers that state one way or another, but Exercise Physiology by McArdle does state that "The low fat levels of marathon runners, which ranges from 1 to 8% of body mass, probably reflect adaption to severe training for distance running." (p. 785) This would lead me to believe that attaining a body fat percentage of 2% is both mathematically and realistically possible.

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:46:20 GMT

Me. Weight lifting is more effective for weight control than swimming for me. Although the combination of both, is fabulous. Plus I enjoy both, and I work-out because I enjoy it, otherwise I would not. I found adding a weight lifting routine to my swim workout has really helped me hold onto more of my muscle mass as I lose fat. Besides, having some muscle is important to good health, especially the older we get! Sigh...old age is creeping up :afraid:

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 12:33:20 GMT

2% essential body fat. There is fat in the body, like bone marrow, that you cannot live without. When you start using it for energy, you die. The 300 obese man might have a 60% body fat, 58% of that could be used for energy safely, 2% is necessary for his body to work, thus essential. I know what essential bodyfat is. I just don't understand what your point has to do with the debate you were having? Unless I am wrong, you were both debating whether it is possible to reach 2% bodyfat (the scientifically defined minimum amount of fat a human needs to survive) without any health issues. So if a 300 lb man lost enough bodyfat to reach 2% bodyfat, would he survive without any serious injury to his health. The same question would apply to a person of any weight for that matter...would hitting 2% bodyfat hurt that person, perhaps even kill them. You said it was possible to do safely, which goes against anything I have ever read. So I have to ask: do you have research papers to support that claim? A link to anything for that matter that is outside your personal opinion? Or are you now agreeing with the original debate that hitting 2% can cause issues? Because what you just said seems to fall in line with: Yep, that caliper reading was way off. A reading of 1.9% is plain ridiculous and as already pointed out, reserved for dead people. Errr... With 1.9% body fat you'd be practically dead. Which I admit reads a bit dramatic, but seems to get the point across that I have read elsewhere, that such low level of body fat can cause serious injury and even death, since it is, you know, essential.

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:40:28 GMT

I was just reading through the thread and this caught my attention. Could you please explain to me how you figure a 300 lb man with only 2% bodyfat would be considered obese? 2% essential body fat. There is fat in the body, like bone marrow, that you cannot live without. When you start using it for energy, you die. The 300 obese man might have a 60% body fat, 58% of that could be used for energy safely, 2% is necessary for his body to work, thus essential.

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 09:15:13 GMT

OK, thank you. We have different definitions of essential. Hey no prob. See you around the forum. :)

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 07:52:56 GMT

No need to make it so complicated. It is what I said it was: a percentage of your total bodyweight. So 2% of whatever you weigh. OK, thank you. We have different definitions of essential.

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:37:50 GMT

Is this what you are claiming: - person has an essential body fat X (in lbs, not %) - person gains weight - person's essential body fat increases from X to X + Y - person looses weight - person's essential body fat stays X + Y No need to make it so complicated. It is what I said it was: a percentage of your total bodyweight. So 2% of whatever you weigh. This statement really irks me: "The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text." I quoted a source that is easily accessible and published 2 years ago, then you criticize it for being easily accessible, claim it is old, and then cite articles that are no newer than 15 yeas old to refute it. The most recent citation was "Superior fatigue resistance of elite black South African distance runners" wasn't a study about body fat. Sorry you feel I was attacking the age of the study, that really wasn't the case (although just to correct you, the book you quoted is about 15 years old. It's a reprint). I am simply stating that a random grab from a book you found online is not irrefutable evidence to support your stance and that there are studies which show otherwise. I also provided ample studies for you to research if you like, but apparently that isn't enough? The study on fatigue resistance in South African runners actually goes into detail on bodyfat percentages and such. I can't help you if you don't have access beyond the abstract, that is something you will have to pay for. I also find it funny how you make no mention of any of the other studies and just zero in on one you disagree with. I am not trying to prove or disprove funkyfish's statement. I just asked if it was mathematically have a 2% body fat, with the assumption that the person is still alive.You did more than ask. You pretty much claimed that it was possible and provided zero evidence beyond a quote from one book quoting one study. By all means, if you have more to back up your statements, feel free to post them. I am not afraid of being proven wrong..I just like cold hard facts.

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 05:04:04 GMT

Chlorine was correct in stating that essential body fat is not a fixed weight. It is a percentage of bodyfat that a human being requires to stay alive. This is commonly acknowledged as a minimum of 2% of your total bodyweight, whatever it may be. Is this what you are claiming: - person has an essential body fat X (in lbs, not %) - person gains weight - person's essential body fat increases from X to X + Y - person looses weight - person's essential body fat stays X + Y The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text. Unfortunately, it gets taken out of context as a result. What one would need to look at is the full study in order to see the conditions and methods used to determine bodyfat levels. Currently, there are no methods of measuring body fat in humans that is 100% accurate, short of dissection. For example, the following studies: Costill, Bowers, et al (1970) coetzer et al (1993) Pollock, Gettman, et al Body composition of elite class distance runners (1977) All measured marathon runners at between 3.5%-7%. A far cry from McArdles findings. Furthermore, I highly recommend any study by Ancel Keys, et al as well as the "Minnesota Starvation Experiment", also run by Ancel Keys as they give brilliant insight into what happens to the body as it starves. People tend to forget, that what we see as dieting, the body still sees as starvation and will react accordingly, based on the severity. So the last study was a real opener to the scientific community over 60 years ago. This statement really irks me: "The McArdle quote is a pretty common one that you see debated on forums everywhere, as it is widely available on google books preview and is from an old physiology text." I quoted a source that is easily accessible and published 2 years ago, then you criticize it for being easily accessible, claim it is old, and then cite articles that are no newer than 15 yeas old to refute it. The most recent citation was "Superior fatigue resistance of elite black South African distance runners" wasn't a study about body fat. I think the important thing that all of these studies prove in the end, is that when someone comes to a forum and claims they have hit 2% body fat, the chances are great that they really didn't. If not for the fact that it can cause serious health issues, then at the very least because it is really damn hard and has not been recorded with any certainty even by an elite athlete. I am not trying to prove or disprove funkyfish's statement. I just asked if it was mathematically have a 2% body fat, with the assumption that the person is still alive.

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:39:51 GMT

I specifically wanted to know if it was technically possible to inflate muscle mass enough to achieve 2% body fat without death. I read the articles you posted, and I did not find anything to lead me to believe that essential fat, in lbs, increases with body weight. An anorexic guy (A) at 120 lbs who has an obese identical twin (B) at 300lbs. A has an essential body fat percentage of 5% and B has an essential body fat percentage of 2%. They both have essential body fat of 6 lbs, because they have identical insides. Makes sense to me. I didn't ask if you thought it was easy. I was just reading through the thread and this caught my attention. Could you please explain to me how you figure a 300 lb man with only 2% bodyfat would be considered obese?

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 08:34:16 GMT

If you can swim for an hour daily with roughly half of that in the En2 training zone, I believe that you will lose weight. The problem is that this requires both technique and endurance that the typical fitness swimmer lacks. After joining USMS in 2003 I lost 20 pounds with no cross training other than 20 minutes of weight lifting 2 or 3 days weekly. Of course. I think the issue is twofold really. Firstly, I think some people just don't put the effort that they think they are putting into their swimming. This happens alot with beginners, who assume they are burning way more calories than they really are. Secondly, exercise works up an appetite. I know I am really hungry after I leave the pool. Some folks just don't adjust their calorie intake and end up overeating. Other than that, swimming is a great way to lose weight if you mind your food intake.

RE: P90X

Former Member — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 05:20:15 GMT

RE: P90X

Former Member — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 10:42:20 GMT

Yes I am...to show how easilly anyone who cares to look can find articles and/or research that shows strength training is more effective at weight loss than just cardio...and that combination of both is optimum (along with reduction of calories). Feel free to share more of your wonderful insights and any studies/articles you can dig up that disputes this.... Another viewpoint on swimming as a means of losing weight: www.healthguidance.org/.../Is-Swimming-Effective-For-Weight-Loss-And-Tone-Muscles.html Mr. Smith, it really was my fault that you quoted the wrong comment and defended the wrong guy, rendering your argument completely unintelligible. I will do my best to read your comments, figure out what you actually meant to say. I agree that strength training aides weight loss.

RE: P90X

Paul Smith — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 05:33:11 GMT

Are you citing random articles? That article has nothing about swimmers being cooled off which prevents hunger suppression. I do believe that every single study you have seen says the same thing, because you have not actually read any. Yes I am...to show how easilly anyone who cares to look can find articles and/or research that shows strength training is more effective at weight loss than just cardio...and that combination of both is optimum (along with reduction of calories). Feel free to share more of your wonderful insights and any studies/articles you can dig up that disputes this.... Another viewpoint on swimming as a means of losing weight: www.healthguidance.org/.../Is-Swimming-Effective-For-Weight-Loss-And-Tone-Muscles.html

RE: P90X

Former Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 16:15:33 GMT

I see that some of us are interested or curious about P90X as a way to directly improve performance, but at least as many seem more interested in it as a weight loss method. I guess I'm kind of surprised. Swimming is such a great way to stay slim and well-toned. It does great things for the body! Are that many swimmers truly in need of another way to take off weight?

RE: P90X

Former Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 13:03:58 GMT

Lucky masters! Personally, I'd really like this kind of workout, but it suits a sprinter's ADD mentality. And there's nothing wrong with minimizing swimming monotony with a little action! How long until mixing it up becomes monotonous? Most coaches aren't that creative to begin with. Hopping out of the pool and doing dry lands mid workout sounds fun if I am 16yo and it is a peak yardage time for an afternoon workout. But when I have 3 coached workouts available a week, and each workout is no more than 75 minutes, why would I want to give up water time? I am not against the idea, but I don't think it will work for most masters teams. It appears that there is just a dispute on the forum and elsewhere as to how much pure athleticism (Cross Fit, P90X, certain dryland or cross training) translates to fast(er) swimming. Yep, now that we have resolved the essential beer gut fat issue, only the pure athleticism dispute remains... and suits. :)

RE: P90X

Former Member — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:05:47 GMT

Actually he's 100% correct...every single study I have seen says the same thing. Here's just one: www.womenshealthmag.com/.../cardio-vs-strength-training-workouts Are you citing random articles? That article has nothing about swimmers being cooled off which prevents hunger suppression. I do believe that every single study you have seen says the same thing, because you have not actually read any.

RE: P90X

dorothyrde — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:56:29 GMT

www.tinajuanfitness.info/.../art041800.html runningdoctor.runnersworld.com/.../does-swimming-c.html Dang, too young to participate in this study: www.edb.utexas.edu/.../ Not about weight loss, but nice: www.medicalnewstoday.com/.../137549.php There are lots of articles about swimming not being good for weight loss. They all reference that single study in 1987, but because there are so many articles, it makes it look like there were multiple findings. I think there should be more studies done with better controls before it could be said as a fact that swimming is not good for weight loss.

RE: P90X

funkyfish — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 10:41:15 GMT

Swimming is probably 'the worst' way to get rid of fat because when you swim, your body temperature remains low unlike when running or biking. This lower body temperature doesn't suppress the appetite as much as a higher body temperature does. Thus, swimmers tend to overeat while burning about the same amount of calories in a similarly timed session of running or biking. I've managed to loose 20lbs over 4 months solely through swimming, and have maintained the same weight for the past 3 yrs. I also eat more now than when I was not swimming. For me, swimming has probably been 'the best' way to get rid of fat, because I enjoy swimming far more than I enjoy counting calories. Just saying. :bliss: