Fitness

I bought a pair of barefoot shoes recently. If you haven't heard about this type of shoe, it's kind of a loosely-defined category, but generally means:

1. It's wider than a typical shoe. Your feet should not be constrained by the "walls" of the shoe.
2. The materials are thin and flexible. It should not be very rigid or provide much support.
3. The sole should be flat, with no elevated heel.

Barefoot shoes have gained an almost religious following. I'm not a full convert, but I have enjoyed wearing mine at the gym -- for the most part.

I don't really need many features in a shoe; I do a pretty basic strength training workout. Like, the kind of workout that many people wear Converse for. And for that, they're great. Actually, really great. The sole is very thin and flat, which feels good for squats. And when doing things like lunges, I feel like they have forced me to improve my balance and stability, since the shoe itself is not helping you at all in that department.

I've also started running recently, after not doing that for many years. I have also enjoyed wearing these while running, but with the caveat that I'm running on a soft, rubber surface track. I think if I was running on pavement, I couldn't wear these. By design, they have very little cushion, and I think that would be painful if I wasn't running on a soft surface. In fact, even just walking down the street with them was a little jarring the first day, although I've gotten used to it now (and might have softened my stride a little, too).

The pair I bought are the Xero Dillon Canvas. I don't buy into all of the health benefits that the barefoot crowd often claims you get from this type of footwear, but I have definitely liked them for the gym. I'd buy them for the same reason that you'd buy a pair of Converse: they're thin and flat, but these are even thinner and flatter. I also like that they're easy to carry around. They take up very little space in the gym bag.

Aesthetically, at first they look strange because of their wider toe box, but that's just because they're wider than what you're used to seeing on your feet. That feeling soon wore off, and I think they look like just plain old sneakers now, especially when viewed from the side. I doubt other people would even notice anything different about them.

Specific to the pair I bought: I got the white ones, and the canvas material gets dirty very easily. But I found that they're easy to clean with soap and water. (See a before/after photo here.)

Has anyone else tried a pair of barefoot shoes before? What did you think?

I really like the town where my family lives, and I sometimes joke that there’s only one way I could think of to improve it.

That would be to pick the whole thing up and move it about 30 miles to the southeast, so that we’d be on the beach. While that’s really just my personal preference — and if you knew me in real life, you’d know it’s a pretty deeply felt one — it turns out there might be a significant benefit if we could ever pull it off.

Writing in the journal Environmental Research, researchers from the college of public health at The Ohio State University said they studied population data from 66,000 census tracts around the United States, and compared the life expectancy of people in each tract. Bottom line: Live near the beach

Then, they correlated the data based on how far each tract was located from “blue space,” which is the term used in urban planning to refer to areas dominated by surface water bodies (lakes, oceans, bays, etc.) or watercourses (rivers, streams, etc.).

Here’s what they found:

People who lived in urban areas near inland bodies of water — things like lakes and rivers — actually had lower life expediencies than those who weren’t near water at all. People who lived in rural areas near inland bodies of water had a life expectancy benefit over those who lived in urban areas. But people who lived within 30 miles of an ocean or gulf — regardless of whether they lived in urban or rural environments — had longer life expediencies than those who didn’t.

“Overall, the coastal residents were expected to live a year or more longer than the 79-year average, and those who lived in more urban areas near inland rivers and lakes were likely to die by about 78 or so,” lead researcher Jianyong “Jamie” Wu was quoted as saying in a statement accompanying the research. ‘Coastal residents tend to have longer life expectancy’

Theories as to why people who live near the coast live longer include:

Milder temperatures and better air quality than those who live inland. Better transportation options which is an advantage both in day-to-day living and in the ability to get medical attention quickly when needed. Less susceptibility to drought, which, along with very high rainfall, is associated with worse health in previous studies. Higher incomes. “Extensive research has consistently demonstrated the significant positive impact of higher income levels on life expectancy,” according to the study, “which effectively explains why coastal residents tend to have longer life expectancy.”

I acknowledge, of course, that the last cause — higher incomes — is a bit more problematic in terms of finding cause and effect; it’s likely that wealthy people are more likely to be able to afford to live near the coast than those who aren’t.

(I invite you to do a little bit of dream-searching on Zillow to see for yourself.)

“On the other side,” said Yanni Cao, a postdoctoral researcher who also worked on the study, “pollution, poverty, lack of safe opportunities to be physically active, and an increased risk of flooding are likely drivers of these differences.” Guess where we’re going?

We should point out here that the health and life expectancy differences between living near an inland body of water and living on the beach, so to speak, were something the researchers hadn’t expected to find.

“We thought it was possible that any type of ‘blue space’ would offer some beneficial effects, and we were surprised to find such a significant and clear difference,” Wu said in the same statement accompanying the research.

Also, we’re talking about one year of life expectancy, which is significant for statistical purposes but maybe not enough to prompt a stampede toward the shore.

Still, I’m glad I found the study — and that maybe not coincidentally, that I managed to come across it just before heading out on summer vacation.

Three guesses where we’re going.

Hey! Been reading a lot currently on how to create a routine and found this

https://www.aworkoutroutine.com/the-beginner-weight-training-workout-routine/

And read quite a lot on his side.

So the idea (if natural beginner) is basically to do Upper Lower (3-4x) or Upper Lower with PPL (5x) as a beginner.

My idea right now is doing PPL 5x a week but cycle through. So I start Pull, Push, Legs, Pull Push (weekend rest) and start my next week with Legs, Pull Push, Legs, Pull (weekend rest) and then go on with Push, Pull, Legs, Push Pull (weekend rest) and so on.

This should provide enough recovery for me as a beginner (7 months gym) or am I wrong?

I also should reduce volume from 6-7 exercises for better recovery.

So my new workout is basically:

Pull A: (Lat Pulldown + Wide Grip Focus)

1. V Bar Lat Pulldowns 3x6-8
2. Wide Grip T Bar Rows 3x8-10
3. Cable Face Pulls 3x10-15
4. Seated Dumbbell Curls 3x10-15

Push A: (Chest Focus)

1. Flat DB Benchpresses (3x6-8)
2. Bodyweight Dips (3 Sets to failure)
3. Cable Lateral Raises (3x10-15)
4. EZ Bar Skull Crushers (3x10-15)

Legs A: (Squat Focus)

1. Squats 3x6-8
2. Seated Leg Curls 3x10-15
3. Smithmachine Calf Raises 3x10-15 (each set different stance)
4. Decline Crunches 3 Sets to failure

Pull B: (Pull Up Neutral Grip Focus)

1. Pull Ups (2 Sets Wide Grip)
2. Pull Ups (2 Sets Neutral Grip)
3. T Bar Row (Neutral Grip) 3x8-10
4. Cable Hammer Curls (Rope) 3x10-15

Push B: (Shoulder Focus)

1. Seated DB Overhead Presses 3x6-8
2. Cable Lateral Raises 3x15-20
3. Machine Chest Press 3x8-10
4. Incline Bench DB Flys 3x10-15
5. Triceps Overhead Extensions (Cable) 3x10-15

Legs B: (RDL Focus)

1. RDLs 3x6-8
2. Seated Leg Ext. 3x 8-10
3. Bulgarian Split Squats 2x 8-10
4. Smithmachine Calf Raises 3x10-15
5. Hanging Leg Raises 3x to Failure

Any thoughts on this? Is volume "decent" or too low?

I know I should stick to a programm but I haven't found one I enjoyed and just changed a few exercises to what I like and matched the Set/ Rep range and reduced exercises to beginner level (8 months gym experience).

Is this okay?

Question would be: Is this allowing for enough recovery even if I go 5x a week? Should I just combine Pull/Push to Upper Day and do 8 Exercises on each upper day instead for an extra rest day? Upper Lower Rest Upper Lower Rest Rest?

What I like about 4-5 exercises is that I can easily do 20-30 minute low intensity cardio after each workout day?

So, I look at this bottle of lemonaid. 130 calories per 8fl oz.

That seems simple enough. But it's liquid. Why do the calories even metabolize at all? Why do they not simply get pee'd out? I understand with solid food, it's because your body takes the chewed up food, and puts it into your stomach, where it then decomposes.

But the liquid shouldn't even have time to decompose. It's liquid.

Also, I don't understand when you gain the calories. If I eat 3 of these snacks that say 100 calories, which is now 300 calories, do I gain the calories over the next few hours? Or is it delayed a day or two?

Because there will be days when I eat almost NOTHING, and then my scale says I gained 3 lbs. But then there's other days where I feel I ate like a slob, and somehow lost 2 lbs.

So I'm wondering if it's delayed as it decomposes.

Losing weight is hard, but it might be easier if I understood the rules of how this all works.

Also, do farts have weight? Like if I weigh myself, and then after that let out a massive fart, and weigh myself again, would there be any weight difference? Or is it just weightless air that FEELS like you're lighter afterwards?

I've been exclusively on Garmin watches since my interest in fitness started, my current Watch is a Forerunner 255s that I bought around 3 years ago. Thing is, it's been slowly starting to decline in battery life (one charge maybe lasts 5-7 days) and my height sensor started to really drift around, giving me that "You climbed 10 stories!" achievement like 7 times every day.

I was going to get a new Garmin when this one completely bit the dust, but due to a weird bundle deal at the Google Store, it was 300€ cheaper to buy a Pixel 9 and a Fitbit Charge 6 than it was to just buy the phone.

I can't sell the Fitbit for at least two years, since I bought the bundle as a "work expense" without paying taxes. So my options are to either use it myself or to give it to someone who I could quickly get it back from if the Tax Agency comes to check on whether I'm not reselling.

Sooo... does anyone here use Fitbit and could share their opinion on how it holds up? I'm especially interested in hearing how long the battery lasts and whether it works well with ANT+ devices (I use a Polar HR Strap and occasionally a bike cadence sensor)

Also, how annoying is it to listen to music on it? I bought the Music variant of the Garmin just to find out that it only really works with Spotify Premium... which I'm way too cheap to get. And manually transferring MP3s to it is really annoying haha

@klemptor@startrek.website got their first pullup. What about you?

I (40M) am new to this whole scene because I wanted to lose weight. This is the first time I have ever really gained weight because my metabolism was always stupid high, but its slowed down in middle age as expected.

I started intermittent fasting, immediately cut out snacks and started having a Slimfast shake for lunch, then a reasonable dinner.

Thats all been fine, and my weight is starting to come down.

I did read articles saying that Slimfast isnt particularly good because of the sugar content, but all the articles seem to be from the US (I am British) and the stuff I have is no added sugar, and all that seems to be carb based.

People have suggested skipping it for a protein shake instead, but a lot of that is conflicting!

People have said about making a shake with protein and peanut butter, people have said peanut butter is awful for it.

I just dont know what to do and I am going in circles.

What can I drink at lunch that is better than I am currently drinking? Do I just mix the protein as directed? Do I add things?

I don't know where else to share this, but I'm so proud of myself so I've gotta post it somewhere. I've finally got my first unassisted pull-up! It wasn't a goal I was working super hard toward, but I've noticed a lot of new muscle definition in my back, probably because I do a lot of rows, especially bird-dog rows and renegade rows. So I tried a pull-up and I was able to do one pretty easily! Not bad for a middle-aged lady! Now I've got a goal to do three. :)

Might be a question with an obvious answer, but I'd like some input.

I'm into Pilates recently (5 weeks), because it just feels so good and helps a few of my health conditions. But I've been experiencing issues with my hip and lower back ever since I started. The pain is significant, but according to my doctor, it's muscular.

Is this the typical "it gets worse before it gets better" situation, or should I consider to drop it?

Anyone with similar experience?

Crossposted from https://lemmy.today/post/31127120

27M. I have lost 5 BMI points, down to 30 from 35, in 5-6 months. I did simple CICO and resistance training (PPL split).

I am a bit exhausted of the caloric deficit now and want a break. I have felt like this before and taken a maintenance phase of 1 week and then continued cutting. Now that I am no longer obese, I feel less inclined to continue.

Should I recompose at my current weight or should I continue cutting? Ultimately I do want to get to at least 28 BMI or lower.

Any help and advice is greatly appreciated.

I've been maintaining my weight for a while now but lately it's been rising so I've adjusted calories accordingly, but I'm curious what you see as an acceptable "fluctuation" when you're maintaining?

So, I'm pretty new to working out. I'm deceptively strong, but I'm more into losing weight than strength building. Still though, I paid $600 for a year of gym membership, and I bought these things called Powerblock's, which are like dumbells, but you can customize their weight up to 50lbs (and you can expand them later up to 90lbs). So I figure I should just do some strength training anyways. Not like there's a downside, right?

So for the first month of this, I had a very wrong idea. I thought "go to the gym, every day, and just do whatever".

So most days were arm day. I'd go on a Monday, arm day. I'd go on a Tuesday, arm day. I'd go 4-5 days a week.

Since then, I've been told NOT to do that, and only do arm day once per week. As the muscles need time to heal between lifts.

Here's the thing I don't get. I've been doing curls, and another machine where you pull these pulleys downward, and set the weight. With Curls, I'm up to 30lbs for that. Sets of 12 is what I was told. I was doing sets of 20, but I was told that was too much.

When I got home, I tried doing this other exercise with my Powerblock. I'm sure there's a name for it, but bear with me. You stand straight up, with your arms at your sides, holding the dumbells. Then the exercise is, you raise your arms. Not forward, not towards you, but to your sides. So your body makes a T shape. Arms fully extended left and right at shoulder height, still holding the dumbells. and then you lower your arms back to your waist. It's kind of like flapping your wings, but in slow motion, and more stiff.

I can't do that at 30lbs. I can't even do it fully at 20lbs. I've been doing it at 17.5 lbs. But here's what's weird. Even from day 1 when I did curls, I could either do it, or I couldn't. Based on weight. My first attempt I tried a 50lbs dumbell. Mistake. On day 1 I kept sizing down until I got to the 10lbs, and then over the coarse of a week, moved up to a 20lbs, and now a 30lbs. But if I tried to do another weight that I couldn't lift, I just couldn't lift it. There's no pain.

But when I do my T arms exercise, even at 17.5lbs, there's pain. It's not a lot of pain, but there's pain.

There's no pain if I go down to 15lbs, which is the powerblock with no weight, and completely empty. So it's practically weightless. Which is what I don't understand. Why can I lift curls at 30lbs, but this T exercise not only causes pain, but I also can't even do 20lbs?

Am I doing something dangerous?

I usually plan on Sundays, adjusting based on how much time I’ll have. I always aim for at least 4 workouts a week, even when life gets busy.

I heard from a lot of people that it's not good too switch up routine too often, but to me it's actually feeling quite good swapping PPL with UL (if time is short) but going atleast 4x a week (UL - UL) or perhaps UL PPL.

I wanted to share my workout routine that balances flexibility and consistency. I use a mix of Upper/Lower and Push/Pull/Legs (PPL) depending on my time constraints each week.

Typical Week: 6x per week: PPLPPL (Push, Pull, Legs, Push, Pull, Legs) 5x per week: A mix of Upper/Lower and PPL 4x per week: Upper/Lower (always at least 4 workouts)

I made a few Upper, Lower, Push and Pull days to select from and alternate every now and then.

Upper A: Chest focus Upper B: Back focus

Lower A: RDLs Lower B: Squats

Push A: Chest focus Push B: Shoulder focus

Pull A: Back/Lat pulldown Pull B: Back/Pull-ups

Is it really that bad to change routine this often?

cross-posted from: https://lemm.ee/post/65417887

1. Push Pull Legs (6 days a week) Back can be sore after pull day and will limit leg day.

2. Push Legs Pull This ensures a good leg day but messes with pull day.

3. Pull Push Legs This feels like the most optimised of the three. Pull day is affected only once a week, as opposed to twice a week for the other two routines.