Can /fit/ settle a debate for me? My friend and I have recently started a routine that can be boiled down to mostly two things: running and lifting.
He says that we should run for distance and lift for time. I was always told to run for time and lift for sets.
We're both fat fucks so it's not like either of us is coming from a point of authority on the matter. Diet and everything else we've figured out well from the sticky and other sources, but this has got us in a deadlock. Anyone on /fit/ care to weigh in?
>>36670539
>we're both fat fucks so it's not like either of us is coming from a point of authority on the matter
Let me redirect you reddit /r/fitness and /r/weightloss
Bye OP
>>36670646
It's not like I skipped the sticky, I just want some clarification. I know what both exercises accomplish, but not much info on how to measure it. And researching online seems to be split down the middle.
you're both retarded
going for one or another is stupid
>running for time
>running for distance
If you run for time and go for ~30min but it's not even 3k then your run was absolute shit
If you run for distance and you go for 10k but it took you 2h then it's even worse shit
u understand
>>36670687
You can go ask reddit, they'll be happy to help you I'm sure
Now get the fuck out
>>36670748
Okay so run for a set distance in a set time. What about lifting? Assuming reps per set are the same, would it be a better objective to do as many sets as possible in a set time? Or should the goal be a certain number of sets (within a reasonable time, of course. I'm not talking about taking 6 hours to hit the number)?
>>36670539
If you're fat don't fucking run. You'll destroy your knees you stupid fucks.
>>36670774
>>36670646
>>36670748
Why so much hostility.
OP the point is to improve constantly, however running for greater distances will burn more calories than short sprints. Lifting weight is different the muscle growth consumes calories and makes you look better as well as shifting your metabolism.
TLDR; Run for distance and lift for strength gains (for fatties).
>>36670539
>He says that we should run for distance and lift for time. I was always told to run for time and lift for sets.
no. run for effort and lift for effort. to simplify:
measure load and progress by degree of activity, that is, measure your heart rate when running. just google.
in much the same way, lift by measuring % of (estimated) max effort
anything else is guesswork and will only take you so far
>>36670801
It's not like we're obese - would that same logic apply to muscular mass too? If you weigh X amount you shouldn't run or is it just fat?
>>36670883
>>36670839
Well I kinda figured the answer would be something like "you're both wrong, fuck off". Thanks for the advice - hopefully I'll be that much less ignorant on my next visit.
