weight training and cycling- advice please

"G8RRPH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I am back in the saddle for about 6 months after about 5 years off, and
have been spinning quite a bit (until recently the only time I could
ride was midday, too hot in Fla, and yes I know it's hot every where)
and doing a pretty structured leg work out including squats and leg
presses. I was wondering what the rest of the group thinks, and if
this is not going too far too soon, what type of weight work out would
benefit the most. Thanks in advance.

D

I lift and ride, also. The only down side to doing both is that you will
never be excellent at either. Doing a serious leg day will rob you of some
power and "oomph". Of course, there is the whole issue of soreness. There
are days after lifting that getting on the bike for any distance is a no go.
That being said, doing squats and leg presses is overkill. Do one or the
other, preferably squats. Then do an isolation exercise for quads, one for
hamstrings, then finish with calves. You can do adductor/abductor if you
want but if you're squatting right you should be pretty beat.

G8RRPH said:

I am back in the saddle for about 6 months after about 5 years off, and
have been spinning quite a bit (until recently the only time I could
ride was midday, too hot in Fla, and yes I know it's hot every where)
and doing a pretty structured leg work out including squats and leg
presses. I was wondering what the rest of the group thinks, and if
this is not going too far too soon, what type of weight work out would
benefit the most. Thanks in advance.

D

I find that weight training and riding work well together. You don't really
provide enough information to give more specifics. How old are you, what's
your structured leg workout include, how heavy do you squat, number of sets
and reps. How far/long are you riding, how intense? Riding miles/week?

To work both basically just means that nutrition, sleep, rest and recovery,
and periodicity become more important.

Good luck and good on you for getting back!

G8RRPH said:

I am back in the saddle for about 6 months after about 5 years off, and
have been spinning quite a bit (until recently the only time I could
ride was midday, too hot in Fla, and yes I know it's hot every where)
and doing a pretty structured leg work out including squats and leg
presses. I was wondering what the rest of the group thinks, and if
this is not going too far too soon, what type of weight work out would
benefit the most. Thanks in advance.

D

I weight trained for years before my back went out on me. I agree with
Gooserider, squats and leg presses in the same workout is too much. For
me, the squat was the best single exercise because it works so many
different muscles in the body. I would suggest medium weights and high
reps and not too many sets. You don't want to burn your legs out for
bike riding.

Smokey

On 26 Sep 2006 00:02:58 -0700, "Smokey" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

G8RRPH said:

I am back in the saddle for about 6 months after about 5 years off, and
have been spinning quite a bit (until recently the only time I could
ride was midday, too hot in Fla, and yes I know it's hot every where)
and doing a pretty structured leg work out including squats and leg
presses. I was wondering what the rest of the group thinks, and if
this is not going too far too soon, what type of weight work out would
benefit the most. Thanks in advance.

D

I weight trained for years before my back went out on me. I agree with
Gooserider, squats and leg presses in the same workout is too much. For
me, the squat was the best single exercise because it works so many
different muscles in the body. I would suggest medium weights and high
reps and not too many sets. You don't want to burn your legs out for
bike riding.

Smokey

That sounds contradictory. High reps and med weights sounds like a
bodybuilder's pump workout. Would this not tend to "burn your legs out" if
taken to the extreme?

What's a 'medium weight' for you? When you say high reps, do you mean
10-12, or do you mean 25? Just asking.

I use heavy weights, 3-6 reps, 4-5 sets, twice a week. Hope to build
strength not pump or bulk, of course there's an important individual
component that's genetically determined. Try both types (high/low) and see
which suits you best, maybe.

Surprisingly riding hills and doing intervals has added an inch to my
quads/hams and half-inch to my calves in under a year. Not what I really
wanted - I was trying to lose weight and bulk (gained from years of weight
training) and be stronger and less muscular. Oh well.

Gooserider wrote:
:: "G8RRPH" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
:: news:[email hidden]...
::: I am back in the saddle for about 6 months after about 5 years off,
::: and have been spinning quite a bit (until recently the only time I
::: could ride was midday, too hot in Fla, and yes I know it's hot
::: every where) and doing a pretty structured leg work out including
::: squats and leg presses. I was wondering what the rest of the group
::: thinks, and if this is not going too far too soon, what type of
::: weight work out would benefit the most. Thanks in advance.
:::
::: D
::
:: I lift and ride, also. The only down side to doing both is that you
:: will never be excellent at either. Doing a serious leg day will rob
:: you of some power and "oomph". Of course, there is the whole issue
:: of soreness. There are days after lifting that getting on the bike
:: for any distance is a no go. That being said, doing squats and leg
:: presses is overkill. Do one or the other, preferably squats. Then do
:: an isolation exercise for quads, one for hamstrings, then finish
:: with calves. You can do adductor/abductor if you want but if you're
:: squatting right you should be pretty beat.

Also, you might do more leg work in the gym during the winter months when
there is less daylight, and do less leg work in the gym during the riding
season. That way, you get the benefits of both more fully and one can help
the other.

I have been squating 135#, 10 reps, 4 sets, then hitting the press
machine doing 300-360#, 10-12 reps, 4 sets, then leg extensions, 3
sets, 10-12 reps 120 pound, back to the leg press machine, 320# calf
raises, 12 reps, 3 sets, then seated calf raises, 90#, 3 sets, 10-15
reps, then lying leg curls, 110#, 10-12 reps, 3 sets. I also do biceps
on leg day. I do this once a week, usually Saturdays. I spin for 1
hour Monday, Thursday, Friday, 2 hours on Wednesday, Tuesday is chest
and lats, Thursday shoulders, traps and tris. Like some of you, I have
been having low back problems, so I have backed on on squats for the
last 2 weeks hitting the elliptical trainer for an hour instead of the
leg workout, and it seems to help. I thinnk I will back off on the
weight, only doing 115# squats, 12-15 reps, no leg presses. The one
thing I know I am missing is core exercises, and am adding them.

On an aside, I just picked up a used kurt kinetic with power meter, and
am going to ride that when I get home from workk whiile watching the
news. I work evenings now,, and am swithching to nights in November,
so it will be a challenge. As far as goals, ultimately I want to do
Paris-Brest-Paris, trying to attempt a Breve series this winter. I
like riding long distances, and want to improve this by dropping
weight. As always, all advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance

Dave

I have been squating 135#, 10 reps, 4 sets, then hitting the press
machine doing 300-360#, 10-12 reps, 4 sets, then leg extensions, 3
sets, 10-12 reps 120 pound, back to the leg press machine, 320# calf
raises, 12 reps, 3 sets, then seated calf raises, 90#, 3 sets, 10-15
reps, then lying leg curls, 110#, 10-12 reps, 3 sets. I also do biceps
on leg day. I do this once a week, usually Saturdays. I spin for 1
hour Monday, Thursday, Friday, 2 hours on Wednesday, Tuesday is chest
and lats, Thursday shoulders, traps and tris. Like some of you, I have
been having low back problems, so I have backed on on squats for the
last 2 weeks hitting the elliptical trainer for an hour instead of the
leg workout, and it seems to help. I thinnk I will back off on the
weight, only doing 115# squats, 12-15 reps, no leg presses. The one
thing I know I am missing is core exercises, and am adding them.

On an aside, I just picked up a used kurt kinetic with power meter, and
am going to ride that when I get home from workk whiile watching the
news. I work evenings now,, and am swithching to nights in November,
so it will be a challenge. As far as goals, ultimately I want to do
Paris-Brest-Paris, trying to attempt a Breve series this winter. I
like riding long distances, and want to improve this by dropping
weight. As always, all advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance

Dave

G8RRPH said:

I have been squating 135#, 10 reps, 4 sets, then hitting the press
machine doing 300-360#, 10-12 reps, 4 sets, then leg extensions, 3
sets, 10-12 reps 120 pound, back to the leg press machine, 320# calf
raises, 12 reps, 3 sets, then seated calf raises, 90#, 3 sets, 10-15
reps, then lying leg curls, 110#, 10-12 reps, 3 sets. I also do biceps
on leg day. I do this once a week, usually Saturdays. I spin for 1
hour Monday, Thursday, Friday, 2 hours on Wednesday, Tuesday is chest
and lats, Thursday shoulders, traps and tris. Like some of you, I have
been having low back problems, so I have backed on on squats for the
last 2 weeks hitting the elliptical trainer for an hour instead of the
leg workout, and it seems to help. I thinnk I will back off on the
weight, only doing 115# squats, 12-15 reps, no leg presses. The one
thing I know I am missing is core exercises, and am adding them.

On an aside, I just picked up a used kurt kinetic with power meter, and
am going to ride that when I get home from workk whiile watching the
news. I work evenings now,, and am swithching to nights in November,
so it will be a challenge. As far as goals, ultimately I want to do
Paris-Brest-Paris, trying to attempt a Breve series this winter. I
like riding long distances, and want to improve this by dropping
weight. As always, all advice is appreciated. Thanks in advance

Dave

I follow what you are doing on the weight training but one of the
problems with that is that you don't get a 2-3-4 hour cardio workout
like you would if you got on a bike and just went somewhere. There are a
lot of guys who look really fit from doing weights but have little more
than the average cardio conditioning. If you do it right you can have
the best of both worlds. Spinning indoors is just plain boring compared
to going out and finding hills, winds, and other things to vary the
challenge.
To each his own, I guess.
Bill Baka

G8RRPH wrote:
:: I have been squating 135#, 10 reps, 4 sets, then hitting the press
:: machine doing 300-360#, 10-12 reps, 4 sets, then leg extensions, 3
:: sets, 10-12 reps 120 pound, back to the leg press machine, 320# calf
:: raises, 12 reps, 3 sets, then seated calf raises, 90#, 3 sets, 10-15
:: reps, then lying leg curls, 110#, 10-12 reps, 3 sets.

IMO, that's way too many sets. Either do squats or presses, not both. Your
weights are rather light, but then you are doing a lot of sets. You'd be
fine with a good warm up, and then a warmup set, and the 3 sets of real
squats. You don't need leg extensions or curls, if you're doing your squats
correctly. Keep the calf raises. Set the weight so that rep 10 is starting
to get challenging. Either put time between the next set or move to another
body part and return to the squat/leg press afterward.

I also do
:: biceps on leg day. I do this once a week, usually Saturdays. I
:: spin for 1 hour Monday, Thursday, Friday, 2 hours on Wednesday,
:: Tuesday is chest and lats, Thursday shoulders, traps and tris.

Are you a bodybuilder? Why not just do a full-body workout 2 or 3x (at
most) per week, going 1 or 2 movements per group and 2 to 3 sets? Warm up
first and include a light warm up sets before starting. Weight selection is
important - going too light is wasteful of time, going too heavy could lead
to injury. Avoid lifting to failure, as there is little payoff. Learn to
approach failure safely.

What is your objective for such a split up routine? All of the
"specialization" training is promoted by professionals who have very
different objectives. Guys like you seem to think "more is better" when its
not. Workout smart. You should need to spend more than 45 mins lifting.

Like
:: some of you, I have been having low back problems, so I have backed
:: on on squats for the last 2 weeks hitting the elliptical trainer for
:: an hour instead of the leg workout, and it seems to help. I thinnk
:: I will back off on the weight, only doing 115# squats, 12-15 reps,
:: no leg presses. The one thing I know I am missing is core
:: exercises, and am adding them.

Bah. Nearly everything uses the core, you don't really need to do specific
movements for that, expect perhaps low back, but then you have back
problems.

::
:: On an aside, I just picked up a used kurt kinetic with power meter,
:: and am going to ride that when I get home from workk whiile watching
:: the news. I work evenings now,, and am swithching to nights in
:: November, so it will be a challenge. As far as goals, ultimately I
:: want to do Paris-Brest-Paris, trying to attempt a Breve series this
:: winter. I like riding long distances, and want to improve this by
:: dropping weight. As always, all advice is appreciated. Thanks in
:: advance

Why don't you spend some (as in 100%) of that spinning time riding! And if
you want to drop weight, eat less & ride, while lifting smart. Based on
your stated goals, riding is really what you need to focus on. Your gym work
is really way over the top. Are you overweight? From the sounds of it, you
can't weigh that much because your numbers are low in terms of weight.

For developing strength or muscle mass, more isn't necessarily better. And
from the sounds of it, you could spend some more time riding. Heck, you're
in the gym on Saturdays? Tell me you work your job on that day! Otherwise,
think "TIME WASTED" based on your stated goals. Now, if you want you win
your state bodybuilding competition in the 135lb division......

Quoted message said:

Bah. Nearly everything uses the core, you don't really need to do
specific movements for that, expect perhaps low back, but then you have
back problems.

::

my P.T.'s would disagree with you strongly here. most standard weightlifting
isolates the non-core muscles. one may use the core during any excercise
(psoas, quad lumborum, multifidus, obliques, transverse & rectus abdominal
layers) but we arent usually trained to do so (and it takes a little
training to learn how to use these). the one exception being squats and
pushups. to illustrate my point compare pushups with bench presses. pushups
are a core workout, bp's are definitley not. even crunches can be a core
exercise, but typically people are after the 6-pak look of the outers and
neglect the core. if you dont work your core & have a bad back i'd say no
wonder.

greggery peccary wrote:
::: Bah. Nearly everything uses the core, you don't really need to do
::: specific movements for that, expect perhaps low back, but then you
::: have back problems.
:::
:::::
::
:: my P.T.'s would disagree with you strongly here. most standard
:: weightlifting isolates the non-core muscles. one may use the core
:: during any excercise (psoas, quad lumborum, multifidus, obliques,
:: transverse & rectus abdominal layers) but we arent usually trained
:: to do so (and it takes a little training to learn how to use these).

The notion that we have to be "trained" to you central or "core" muscles was
just invented by people who need something to talk about.

:: the one exception being squats and pushups. to illustrate my point
:: compare pushups with bench presses. pushups are a core workout, bp's
:: are definitley not.

bp's are as much of a core workout has pushups, but you're not going to be
doing only pushups. That's the point, too. Most exercises end up using the
core, even cycling. For example, triceps pulldowns, lat pulldowns touch the
core as well. Many of the compound movements touch on the core muscles
because they are central to nearly all movements that humans can perform.

even crunches can be a core exercise, but
:: typically people are after the 6-pak look of the outers and neglect
:: the core. if you dont work your core & have a bad back i'd say no
:: wonder.

Many people who never end up in the gym don't get back problems, and they
get practically no exercise, So the notion that one needs core work to avoid
back problems is just that - a notion.

Most people who talk about "core" work are usually trying to sell you
something. Simply addressing the major muscle groups in the body will
address the so-called "core." Remember - muscles rarely work in complete
isolation. It is nearly impossible to be strong in anything with a truly
weak core, since that where most of your power comes from.

Here are my plans, please feel free to shred, then reconfigure.

More time on the bike, less in spin class. Yes, I know spinning is
second to riding, but my constraints include caring for my daughter,
working evenings (soon night shift, 7 on/7 off), so the only
opportunity for me to "ride" (I live in FL) was the heat of the day, or
around 2 am. Being out of shape (5'9", 200#, 25% fatnow, before, 225#)
I did not want to blow myself out and become discouraged too quickly
from alck of perfomring at my old standard. I think I have done well,
losing 25#, and increasing my aerobic capacity in the gym and increase
muscle mass. Now my goal is more saddle time on the road, and keeping
up the spinning, mostly fro simulating the hills, but that is where th
kurt kinetic will come in, hopefully. Any advice there will be
especially appreciated. My ultimate goal is to get down to 170# and to
ride long distances, not bodybuilding. As far as core exercises, I do
think there is something to building abdominal strength and having
those deeper muscles (tranverse and obliques, psoas major and minor and
internal spinal muscles, pelvic floor, etc.) aid in supporting the
lumbar spine. My back aches of late are more sacroilliac than lumbar
for now, so maybe the cause is poor cycle setup than anything else.

As far as the gym work outs, I will keep squats in there, but would
like advice as to the best way given the above. I plan on keeping the
muscle isolating exercises, and continue the upper body regimen, but
more to aid in cycling Here is where I need help. I do think I have
been on a body building routine, and need to edge off. So what is
best. Higher reps, lower weight to aid in slow twitch stimulation, or
less frequent heavier weight, to keep muscle mass up enough to "get er
done" when needed.

Thanks to all in advance, you all have helped put my regimen in
perspective. I know I need to stay on target, and off course, get on a
solid diet. But that is another story......

Dave

G8RRPH said:

Here are my plans, please feel free to shred, then reconfigure.

More time on the bike, less in spin class. Yes, I know spinning is
second to riding, but my constraints include caring for my daughter,
working evenings (soon night shift, 7 on/7 off), so the only
opportunity for me to "ride" (I live in FL) was the heat of the day, or
around 2 am. Being out of shape (5'9", 200#, 25% fatnow, before, 225#)
I did not want to blow myself out and become discouraged too quickly
from alck of perfomring at my old standard. I think I have done well,
losing 25#, and increasing my aerobic capacity in the gym and increase
muscle mass. Now my goal is more saddle time on the road, and keeping
up the spinning, mostly fro simulating the hills, but that is where th
kurt kinetic will come in, hopefully. Any advice there will be
especially appreciated. My ultimate goal is to get down to 170# and to
ride long distances, not bodybuilding.

If you are 5'9" then 170 is still a bit on the high side. I am 5'7" and
really got my peak bicycling at about 143#, albeit skinny on the top. In
your case I think 160 would be optimal. There is a health chart out
somewhere that gives a kind of health curve for height versus weight.
Once you go below the optimum your health risks start to rise, the same
as being too heavy, but a different set of health problems. It would be
nice to be back at my old 'standard' but 40 years makes a lot of
difference. What you can do is to minimize the effects of accumulated
years by setting a goal and sticking with it.

As far as core exercises, I do

Quoted message said:

think there is something to building abdominal strength and having
those deeper muscles (tranverse and obliques, psoas major and minor and
internal spinal muscles, pelvic floor, etc.) aid in supporting the
lumbar spine. My back aches of late are more sacroilliac than lumbar
for now, so maybe the cause is poor cycle setup than anything else.

Do you get back aches soon after cycling, like a few hours, or do they
come on days later? It makes a difference when you are looking for the
cause.

Quoted message said:

As far as the gym work outs, I will keep squats in there, but would
like advice as to the best way given the above. I plan on keeping the
muscle isolating exercises, and continue the upper body regimen, but
more to aid in cycling Here is where I need help. I do think I have
been on a body building routine, and need to edge off. So what is
best. Higher reps, lower weight to aid in slow twitch stimulation, or
less frequent heavier weight, to keep muscle mass up enough to "get er
done" when needed.

Thanks to all in advance, you all have helped put my regimen in
perspective. I know I need to stay on target, and off course, get on a
solid diet. But that is another story......

Dave

One thing I would advise you to do if you can is rather unorthodox but
it helps me, and that is doing a flat out sprint until you are totally
out of breath and your heart rate gets almost to the max. This is
something I do even in odd places like the Wal mart parking lot. The
occasional hard stress on the heart tends to keep it ready for whatever
comes next, and the sprints on the balls of your feet help to keep your
legs in shape. People may look at you like you are nuts, but you will be
helping yourself in the long run (oops, pun). Exercise need not always
be at the gym and sometimes you can just put out a burst of energy for
fun, and the knowledge you can still do it.
OK,
I am the oddball of the group (sort of), but I have grandchildren to
keep up with and being able to run my 15 year old grandson into the
ground is kind of it's own reward.
Work out, have fun, live long and prosper.
Bill Baka

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

G8RRPH said:

Being out of shape (5'9", 200#, 25% fatnow, before, 225#)
.... My ultimate goal is to get down to 170# and to
ride long distances, not bodybuilding.

Quoted message said:

If you are 5'9" then 170 is still a bit on the high side.

Personally, I think 170 might be unrealistically low.

If you're currently 200 lbs and 25% fat, that means a lean mass of
150lbs.

Assuming your additional exercise builds no additional lean mass, 170lbs
would mean only 12% body fat. That's an excellent target, but one that
many people's bodies will fight hard to avoid. Many people find it very
hard to get below 15% body fat -- with 150lbs lean mass, that would be
176 lbs. You could certainly ride long distances at that weight if
you're in shape.

On the other hand, if you lose lean mass as well as fat, you could get
down to 170 without unusually low body fat.

Do you want to lose lean mass, or just fat?

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

Joshua Putnam said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

G8RRPH said:

Being out of shape (5'9", 200#, 25% fatnow, before, 225#)
.... My ultimate goal is to get down to 170# and to
ride long distances, not bodybuilding.

Quoted message said:

If you are 5'9" then 170 is still a bit on the high side.

Personally, I think 170 might be unrealistically low.

If you're currently 200 lbs and 25% fat, that means a lean mass of
150lbs.

Assuming your additional exercise builds no additional lean mass, 170lbs
would mean only 12% body fat. That's an excellent target, but one that
many people's bodies will fight hard to avoid. Many people find it very
hard to get below 15% body fat -- with 150lbs lean mass, that would be
176 lbs. You could certainly ride long distances at that weight if
you're in shape.

On the other hand, if you lose lean mass as well as fat, you could get
down to 170 without unusually low body fat.

Do you want to lose lean mass, or just fat?

It's actually not a bad idea to lose some muscle mass if you are
transitioning from weight training/bodybuilder type to cyclist type
especially as you get over age 50.

You want to keep the important muscles in your legs and glutes and core,
but you don't want to keep the upper body mass, especially. Why? Well the
body has to work harder to supply blood, even to muscle. Also at lower
bodyweights (say under 180lbs for the average person) you're more agile.
For instance strong, bulked up bodybuilders can't climb trees to prune, or
climb ladders to do gutters, ime.

Joshua Putnam said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

G8RRPH said:

Being out of shape (5'9", 200#, 25% fatnow, before, 225#)
.... My ultimate goal is to get down to 170# and to
ride long distances, not bodybuilding.

Quoted message said:

If you are 5'9" then 170 is still a bit on the high side.

Personally, I think 170 might be unrealistically low.

If you're currently 200 lbs and 25% fat, that means a lean mass of
150lbs.

Assuming your additional exercise builds no additional lean mass, 170lbs
would mean only 12% body fat. That's an excellent target, but one that
many people's bodies will fight hard to avoid. Many people find it very
hard to get below 15% body fat -- with 150lbs lean mass, that would be
176 lbs. You could certainly ride long distances at that weight if
you're in shape.

On the other hand, if you lose lean mass as well as fat, you could get
down to 170 without unusually low body fat.

Do you want to lose lean mass, or just fat?

--
[email hidden] is Joshua Putnam
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/>
Braze your own bicycle frames. See
<http://www.phred.org/~josh/build/build.html>

I'm wondering about your info on a couple of points.
1) you seem to imply that losing lean mass is a poor choice. But not
necessarily. If there is a lot of upper body lean mass it may well be a
good idea to lose some of it as the activity moves from a stregth focus
to an endurance focus.
2) Why do you feel that 15% bf is such a great goal? I've always
thought that 15% was considered the upper limit of fit. I think you'll
find that fit cyclists of all agees are much closer to 10%. I agree
that at 15% you can be quite fit and cycle quite well but I don't see
that figure as typical for well trained endurance athletes.

Set said:

Joshua Putnam said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

G8RRPH wrote:
> Being out of shape (5'9", 200#, 25% fatnow, before, 225#)
> .... My ultimate goal is to get down to 170# and to
> ride long distances, not bodybuilding.
If you are 5'9" then 170 is still a bit on the high side.

Personally, I think 170 might be unrealistically low.

If you're currently 200 lbs and 25% fat, that means a lean mass of
150lbs.

Assuming your additional exercise builds no additional lean mass, 170lbs
would mean only 12% body fat. That's an excellent target, but one that
many people's bodies will fight hard to avoid. Many people find it very
hard to get below 15% body fat -- with 150lbs lean mass, that would be
176 lbs. You could certainly ride long distances at that weight if
you're in shape.

On the other hand, if you lose lean mass as well as fat, you could get
down to 170 without unusually low body fat.

Do you want to lose lean mass, or just fat?

It's actually not a bad idea to lose some muscle mass if you are
transitioning from weight training/bodybuilder type to cyclist type
especially as you get over age 50.

Actually I think anyone over about 30 should be shooting for the lower
level of body fat. I found a chart that showed the statistically healthy
curves for weight versus height and at 5'7" I came in at an optimum of
143 pounds. At that point most of my muscle mass was in my legs and my
ribs were showing almost to the point of looking anorexic. I had to gain
back about ten pounds to keep every one from thinking I had AIDS or
cancer. The catch is that I felt better at 143 than at 153. If I wanted
to go for the bodybuilder look then maybe the added ten pounds could be
muscle.

Quoted message said:

You want to keep the important muscles in your legs and glutes and core,
but you don't want to keep the upper body mass, especially. Why? Well the
body has to work harder to supply blood, even to muscle. Also at lower
bodyweights (say under 180lbs for the average person) you're more agile.
For instance strong, bulked up bodybuilders can't climb trees to prune, or
climb ladders to do gutters, ime.

It helps to have stronger arms to do the tree climbing. I can attest to
that since I climb trees with my grandkids, looking silly maybe, but the
kids enjoy having at least one adult that can indulge them. Why did I
get into this conversation? Because I turn 58 this week and know that
being on the thin side has its' advantages healthwise. It is so nice to
be able to outrun all the kids knowing that the other kids grandparents
can't even run anymore. Smokers and couch potatoes and then there are
those who want to maintain their grown up image and just stop running
and lose the ability.
Workout, do cardio on the bike and stay fit and feel so much better.
Bill Baka

Quoted message said: