Monday, October 22, 2012

you can read my latest blog on my website as it covers several products from Team Beachbody (c):

or you can read it here:

The Insanity of Exercise videos
by request, i was asked to comment on the products of Team Beachbody(c) since they, having read some of my posts, believe i may have some noteworthy comments to make on their behalf. however, they neither asked that i speak highly of their products, esp the new ones that are coming out this fall, nor that i would get anything in return for having said anything good, bad or otherwise. so long as we - me and TB - are ok with honesty, i was ok doing this evaluation.
now, let me state for the record, i have never actually DONE any of their workout videos. this is not because i would not love the challenge - and believe me, they do look quite challenging for young, healthy people with no major cardiovascular or orthopedic risk factors. in my youth, when i would have relished the level of work, fatigue, muscle soreness/pain, and athletic challenges, it would have appealed to my competitive and self-destructive selves, both of which have led to my bad hip, knee, and shoulder:)
that is not to say the exercises within the few snippets i've seen are evil. on the contrary, for the most part, other than the pure vicious intensity of it, they are similar to what i and other trainers have been doing. it's that vicious intensity thing that would excite me, as a younger man, and could surely be as enticing to others, men and women alike, at nearly any age so long as one  is not hampered by chronic injuries. that one could/would lose weight, esp body fat, and develop muscles, relatively balanced in light of not having a full spectrum of equipment with which to hit body parts that often get overlooked by most programs (upper back in particular), is unquestionable. the mix of hi intensity cardio moves and body wt with or without added db exercises is counterbalanced by the stretching/yoga/pilates elements; and the periodized manner by which progressions are made is unique compared to videos of yesteryear which depended mostly on doing the same thing til the star came out with another video. so, i do think these have merit and validity...until you get to their trademarked 'muscle confusion' thing. i do a lot of reading and only recall ONE article in over 25 yrs of reading the professional literature that discussed anything close to confusion. it was by jose antonio, in NSCA's Strength & Conditioning Journal many moons ago, about variety in training for body building. it did not mention confusion so much as it was discussing whether or not you could influence hypertrophy via varying exercises and angles of contraction. theoretically, maybe, but no hard proof. 
so, when it comes to TB's Insanity program (, all i can say, again not having done it or seen the whole video, is that it could work but be real careful. know your limiits and limitations. for you ex jocks, know what the calendar says about your body, not your schedule. for you novices, follow ALL their advice and guidelines, and don't think you can skip a few levels. and for you hard core fanatics, know when to say stop. if you look at the trailers, you'll see fit people being driven to failure. sweat, hard breathing, muscle failure - cool; palpitations, arrhythmias, torn up joints - not cool. listen to your body; no one is in the room beating you up physically or emotionally making you do it. and that may be the best thing - it's up to you to self-monitor.

the former, about which i would have a strong opinion coming from a martial arts background, is hard to comment on simply because i have  not seen anything, not even a trailer of it. from my experience with the kickboxing phase of the early part of this century, it has some quality elements to it so far as a workout is concerned. BUT martial arts techniques are high intensity and very ballistic. without proper education AND supervision, the risks are higher than otherwise as in a class with a qualified instructor. so even the best video is in my mind suspect. so be careful.
the butt lift series is something, again without seeing it, that is easy to comment on. want a nice butt, not a solid or sore one - pick the right parents and lose body fat. if the video can help with the latter, then you can surely maximize the butt you were endowed with. is it possible to overwork it? sure, and maybe you're wasting your time compared to some quality squats, lunges, etc. will they tone you up, lift it, maybe even round it out? probably. the upside is, most westerners, esp women, because they sit and move less than men in general, the glutes need a lot of work. studies show their value in preventing and manageing and treating knee problems and maybe even back problems. so go for it. i don't see any reason to avoid this kind of work although you might, if you are able and willing, just go to the gym and do heavier wt lifting moves. that way, you get a nice butt, core, AND legs.
all in all, caveat emptor...and have fun.           

Tuesday, July 31, 2012

summer break?

it's always less busy in the gym during the summers so it's a good time to test the waters. that is, to see what else is out there. before i do, let me share my philosophy about fitness, exercise, and related issues.
it is my opinion that anyone who trains their body with physical activity is an athlete, despite the frequency, intensity or duration. that is,, if an athlete is someone who exercises to improve performance, prevent or rehab injuries, or just stay in shape for whatever playing she/he chooses, then what differentiates that athlete from the general fitness enthusiast or participant is simply data, not intent. in other words, just as the best hi school basketball player doesn't hold a candle to lebron james does not make him any less an athlete - he's just not as good an athlete. so, too, are most of my, and most trainers', clients. (in fact, for most of my clients, and myself, exercise - regular or inconsistent - is designed to extend a certain degree of continued function, mobility, pain management, overall health, etc. my athletic days are gone for now and maybe forever but i still think of myself as one.)
so how does this relate to the topic at hand? well, to get myself out of my gym, i decided two months ago to try yoga once a week. having been very flexible in my youth and still significantly more flexible than almost all males other than those in flexibility sports - martial arts, dance, gymnastics, diving - of any age but esp at this age, 59, i thought this might help me both maintain flexibility and get some stress reduction under the control of a yoga instructor away from my usual gym activities. and while i'm happy to report that it is challenging insofar as my bad knee and shoudler are concerned, it is nothing i couldn't do if i had good joints. it's good activity and if done a few times a week, i could see someone improving flexibility and maybe getting some core strengthening but i would not recommend it as a primary form of exercise for overall health, esp for bone or muscle strength.
this past weekend i went to a barre amp class, a fusion class of ballet, callanetics, yoga, and pilates. designed for women - i was the only male in the class of about 20, and was perhaps the second oldest - my friend/client is older and was a former dancer and found this to be a challenging class, so she challenged me to get my opinion of it. it was interesting and i did find some of the exercises potentially beneficial for those who want toning but at some point would no longer yield strength gains. again, flexibility is part of the routine and other than the instructor and my friend, i was substantially able to meet the flexibility demands. i can also tell you that i didn't break  a sweat but i know the others did. and for that alone, it was a great exercise modality. at some point one might be hard pressed to get stronger simply by doing barre amp tho if you did it several times a week, and watched how you ate, other than the fact that your cardio would not be improved, you could clearly get nnice toning from it.
but i want to go back to my philosophy and make it perfectly clear: every form of physical actiivty serves a purpose and for some folks may be all they really need in life. so for some, simple balance exercises may be primary; flexiblity for others; strength for someone else, etc. while a balance of exercise modalities is best for ovearll health and wellness, not everyone needs everything to the same degree. but we ALL need to be doing something, and something more than what most of us on a regular basis are doing. it's the basis for cross training principles, for triathloning, for circuit training, etc. embrace it, enjoy it, just try it. it all counts, esp, most especially if you enjoy it!!!

Saturday, July 28, 2012

the busyness trap

who hasn't made the claim - i'm just too busy to do xxxx? even my kids, out of school for the summer with no real job other than a few babysitting gigs, are just too busy to do xxxx. or too tired to do it, whatever it is - ilke look for a job, read a book, exercise even if it is at daddy's gym. in this poignant and somewhat funny essay, light is made of being too busy:
but i want to address it in another way.
when i get a new client, who usually states they want to make some change in their lives in order to get healthier, leaner, fitter, stronger, more this or that, i ask how can i help. before they answer, i usually state, esp if wt loss is their goal, that they know how to do most of what i can help with. they know to eat less of this, that or all things. they know to exercise, walk or move or go to the gym. they know that they have to take responsibility for many of the changes necessary in order to see the results they want. and still they tell me they don't have time. somehow work, play, kids, parents, other obligations, all get in the way despite the same 24 hrs in the day that you and i have. what they often don't know is that it really doesn't take a lot of time to make these healthful changes; it takes consistency, regularity, and a long term commitment to stick with it. what they want from me is not the total amount of effort necessary but the way to start off so they don't burn out, get hurt, or learn to hate exercise. and i give it to them in small doses. after that, it's really up to them to make it work, whether they come see me regularly or proceed on their own.
for the most part many still claim to be too busy, even when i suggest they simply do 10, maybe 15 minutes of some type of continuous movement each day. mostly walking which can be done with no equipment, at home or work, or even the mall, but non stop, and not too hard. initially it's about creating the habit; then adding minutes/walk, then intensity IF their goal and abilities allow. ultimately, it's about regularity, making a habit and maybe even making it an integral part of their psychic and spiritual well being. not to get too wishy washy here but if doing so makes you look forward to the short period of your day where you move your body simply because it feels good, then you've achieved a certain stage of nirvana, where for its own sake and not for the poundage on the scale or tightness of the dress or holes in the belt movement is desired and appreciated.
likewise, when folks come to me starting from scratch, with aches, pains, and chronic injuries that need to be overcome before regular movement is feasible, i start them with some bed-based exercises, things they can do when they awake and before they go to sleep, right in bed. simple sets of 10, 3-4 exercises, done in 4-5 minutes. while i know most won't do it twice a day, my goal is to get at least once a day and at least 4 times a week. we all have 40 minutes a week to do these simple steps to get strong enough to take more steps. eventually, i add more exercises, more challenges, and constantly manipulate the volume to keep it within the 10-15 minutes/day nearly every day or minimally every other day. i try adding things they can do any time of day so you don't have to retire to your workout space - push ups on the kitchen  counter, wall sits while talking on the phone - cell phones expedite fitness because you're not attached to a cord, or heel raises while waiting for the morning coffee to cool off. all in all, my job is to minimize the reality of 'too little time'.
now, admittedly, this won't get you ready to run a marathon, or lose 30# by christmas, or many other potential motivating goals. but you have to start somewhere. to go from 0 minutes a day to the idealized 60 minutes a day is like having your stock fund double by tomorrow - you can bet you'll see a bust very shortly thereafter. yes it's possible, and stories abound of people doing so out of total frustration with who or what they've become. but there's a lot to be said for finding the balance that comes with gradual effort and results that, over time, prove to you and others close to you that you've been plenty busy, taking care of yourself.

Thursday, April 19, 2012

exercise and food stimuli - how the brain responds

over a year ago, i gave a talk at the first Lifestyles Management meeting in Las Vegas. my presentation was on the science of weight loss via exercise. the results of my research were dim, esp for those who were wanting to believe the calories out part of the formula. of course, not that people don't lose weight via exercise, it's just that it takes a near monumental effort of intensity and consistency to do so; and long term success, tho dependent on some exercise, really comes from dietary changes mostly in the form of caloric restriction.

at the time, most of the research was pointing toward the hormonal effects of exercise and of eating on neurochemical signals to eat or stop eating. obesity alters many of our body's responses - insulin resistance is a common feature most of us have heard about - and may indeed alter the brain's response to hormones such as leptin and others that affect appetite. this NY Times piece discusses the latest in functional MRI research on the brain's response to exercise when enticed with pictures of foods. turns out some folks respond by getting ravenous, others with a blunted hunger and appetite. in fact, one study showed that lean, fit, young people were more apt to have the reduced appetite after exercise while less fit overweight people were hungrier after exercise. all, however, seemed to desire food more after a period (one hr) of quiet sitting. hmmm, there's a message there somewhere. could it be sitting is appetite stimulating? or that being fit and lean lends itself to and lean?

another study found that some exercisers who had weight to lose lost it as expected while others did not respond accordingly. the non-responders also had more brain temptation for food after exercise than did the responders. what's this tell you? that some are better designed to lose weight, by any means, than others. duh.

so, what do I think?

well i still hold that exercise should be done for health and function. eating proper foods in terms of amounts and types and even times is for health and function; taste and enjoyment really have nothing to do with amount. in fact, as a friend of mine noted when she got serious about weight loss, the first cookie tastes as good as the third; stop at the first. it's why fancy cuisine, esp continental style cooking, does not overload you with any one food, but spacing the dishes properly, and sizing them sanely, satisfies in ways that a giant serving of pasta and garlic bread do not: deliciously, without stomach upset that night or the next morning.

on that note, what i took from the article is that exercise is good for you and that some people will have to be more attentive to what they eat to lose weight. the other thing i took from it is that science is still trying to find out why so they can come up with a pill to substitute for the hard work that has to be done to live healthfully. i agree with the first sentence and abhor the second. even if we find a magic bullet, wouldn't it be a shame if people all over could control weight while being sedentary? they'd never get to appreciate who and what they are as human machines.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

on barefeet vs shoes

the pseudo claims of running efficiency and injury prevention as regards barefoot running are based on some faulty anthropological observations, as i've said before. the essence of these claims is that mankind has been walking/running barefoot for millenia if not longer until hard-sole shoes came about this last millenia. prior to that, most foot wear was light, thin soled, and more supple/flexible than modern shoes/boots. furthermore, cultures highly dependent on bipedal locomotion, such as nomads and hunters, tended to be very efficient and effective running in super-light sandals or totally-bare feet. and somehow these folks did it for miles on end, day after day, and all without injury.

but remember, we only test and measure those who can and still do run. we haven't evaluated all those who live in more urban environs/circumstances who cannot or will not run, some of whom made this choice not because they didn't want to be able to functoin in their respective tribes/cultures but because maybe it hurt to run when they were young, so they pursued other ventures. those who still walked and ran a lot were better built for doing so.

modern studies, some of which i have reported on, have concluded a variety of reasons to convert to light-wt, barefoot shoe designs: efficiency due to less weight and injury reduction due to re-education and strengthening of the intrinsic, smaller muscles of the lower leg and feet are two of the main reasons people promote and/or wear barefoot shoes. some of these studies are quite good; some are less so, and many have been abused by the media hype, probably as a result of press releases sent out by manufacturers of these shoes. this study, on the other hand, narrowed its scope and kept its focus on efficiency:

using runners who actually ran barefoot, so there was no adjustment period necessary, they had them run on treadmills with a variety of manipulations: barefoot with lead strips on the tops of their feet that were equal to the weight of a light-wt brand of running shoes, and other conditions, too. they found no significant difference bw going barefoot vs shod, with some small benefit to the shod conditions. the conclusions are tame - basically, if you are an elite racer wearing a lightwt shoe may benefit you. for the rest of us slow pokes, it probalby does not make much difference. (i've made similar claims about cycling equipment - other than possibly making for an easier ride, it probably won't make most of us that much faster; racers might benefit from hi priced equipment but the rest of would get equal health benefits riding a cheaper bike.)

but i must confess that i have been wearing merrel's brand of barefoot shoes for over a year and while i do not run, because of knee arthritis, i CAN run, even if only across the street, without pain in the knee or feet, something i could not do in hi priced new balance cross trainers. why? i think it's because barefoot shoes make you run on the ballls of the feet and avoid the heel impact, which shocks my knee real painfully. furthermore, as a trainer on my feet for several hours/day, my feet and legs don't hurt in barefoot shoes but within a couple hours, regular shoes cause my lower leg to ache. even my feet feel better despite having no arch support for my flat feet!

so what's my opinion on barefoot shoes, in light of this study? well, if you are interested in trying them even if only for walkng around your home or for other ADLs, see if going barefoot hurts....but enter this path gently. do an hour/day for a couple days, then two hrs/day, adding 30-60 minutes every couple days. after you've acclimated to them, try jogging, on flat, less dense - i.e. not on concrete or steps at first - surfaces, but start in 5 minute increments throughout the early accommodation runs, and keep them to short distance runs. gradually add distance, then start adding speed - this could take MONTHS but jumping into these kinds of shoes without accommodating them and the hard surfaces on which most people run, is asking for trouble. and nothing hurts a runner's overall psyche than foot and lower leg pain.

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

just to blog

sometimes you just have to write something that comes to mind. i could easily share personal life issues that would bore you almost as readily is it bores me, but this blog is about fitness and the news is always coming thru a mile a minute. so let's talk statistics - yes, that boring stuff most of us really don't understand but use when the numbers support our beliefs. btw, i don''t understand stats much either but i've had to make sense of some of the research in order to discuss issues with clients or lecture other fitness professionals for Exercise ETC programs.

let's start with this article in today's NY Times:

now, the gist of it is that a particular toxin - BMAA- that's often present in the brains of deceased humans with neurodegenerative diseases such as Lou Gehrig's or Alzheimer's is also present in shark cartilage. shark cartilage is sold and promoted as beneficial for joint degeneration and for cancer prevention, the latter of which has never been proven and has, when touted, received notice from federal authorities. the suggestion of the article, then, is that taking shark cartilage may cause neurodenerative diseases.

now, nothing in the referenced articles support this scare tactic. it is merely a hypothetical. but let me remind you that alzheimers has been around long before shark cartilage has been on the market or that shark has been in the american/western diet; and lou gehrig died many years ago, well before any american ever thought of consuming dessicated shark cartilage for bad knees. furthermore, tho one study referenced the hi rates of certain types of brain diseases in south pacific cultures that eat large amounts of sea food, there are so many other heavy metals in fish that to isolate this one amino acid is to pick at a defenseless protein when other causes can't be found.

let me suggest the following: correlation is not causation. we all learn this in stats and in classes where statistics are prominent features of the science of whatever. you may not have learned it in english 101 or philosophy 203 but even psych 100 or sociology 200 taught this principle. basically correlation means what it says - things are co-related; often one or more elements are found to some degree when one finds other elements of whatever it is one is studying. thus, as in my dissertation topic - leg length discrepancy, athletic injury, and strength imbalances - one might find that a leg length discrepancy is correlated at some statistical level worth considering when someone has an athletic injury but that it is not sufficiently correlated to any strength imbalances (that were studied); and that strength imbalances may be correlated to injury but that length discrepancies are not - making the overall correlation of the three elements so low as to say that it's hardly an issue. and my data indeed found insufficient support for my hypothesis that the three were related. BUT if the study did find them highly correlated, there would still be NO PROOF that discrepancies caused imbalances which then caused injuries. in other words, you may find them all in the same pot but not contributing to the end piece, the injuries themselves.

with that understood, shark cartilage may have an amino acid often found in the brains of people who have certain brain disorders but the amino acid itself may NOT have come from any outside source let alone shark cartilage. it may have come about as a result of some metabolic or physiologic function that went awry in the brain itself or elsewhere in the body and that it accumulated in the brain thereby contributing to the disease itself. BUT since they have yet to pinpoint the actual causes of most neurodegenerative diseases, esp the two mentioned in the article, there's also the chance that it just so happens that the amino acid itself is in the brains of some people as a result of some other more closely-linked biochemical disturbance that actually causes the degeneration.

in other words, don't be scared to use shark cartilage products; just know that they also may not work to reduce joint pain and most likely don't work to prevent or treat cancer.

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

so much to say, so little time

ypically, i read a great article, or two, or more, and feel compelled to write, either to share and expand or share and minimize. sometimes the article(s) in question are questionable - usually press-related summaries leave something to refute. occasionally there's just so much merit in these articles that i have to chime in and let the readers know that i'm a fan - somehow giving credibility to what is already written. most of the time, when i do this, it's to reassure the readers that the article is not a cherry-picked example of self-supported articles/data in order to sell to a publisher. this is the former: you gotta read about it.

first, some basics. there are two basic ways to do cardio training: continuous and discontinuous. the latter is often referred to as interval trainng, where you do a work bout and a recovery bout, either passively or actively. thus, you could sit and rest - as a cardiac patient may need to; or you would continue moving - walking/jogging - to dissipate lactic acid and allow sufficient recovery to resume the hard work ahead. both are healthful and helpful tho only the interval training will enhance anaerobic power and muscle mass to any great degree.

well, the ACSM newsletter has this piece to support it:

Active Voice: Is High-Intensity Interval Training a Time-Efficient Exercise Strategy to Promote Health?
By Martin Gibala, Ph.D.

Viewpoints presented in SMB commentaries reflect opinions of the authors and do not necessarily reflect positions or policies of ACSM.

Martin Gibala, Ph.D., is Professor and Chair of the Department of Kinesiology at McMaster University. He studies the regulation of energy metabolism from the molecular to whole-body level and also conducts applied research that examines the impact of nutrition and training on exercise performance. He and his colleagues published a research article related to this commentary that appeared in the Oct. 2011 issue of Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise� (MSSE). For more on the topic, see Dr. Gibala�s review in the April 2008 issue of ACSM�s Exercise and Sports Sciences Reviews (ESSR), titled �Metabolic adaptations to short-term high-intensity interval training: a little pain for a lot of gain?�

High-intensity interval training (HIT) describes exercise that is characterized by brief, intermittent bursts of vigorous activity, interspersed by periods of rest or low-intensity exercise. HIT is infinitely variable, with the specific physiological adaptations induced by this form of training determined by various factors including the precise nature of the exercise stimulus (i.e., the intensity, duration and number of intervals performed, as well as the duration and activity patterns during recovery). When compared on a matched-work basis, or when estimated energy expenditure is equivalent, HIT can serve as an effective alternative to traditional endurance training, inducing similar or even superior changes in a range of physiological, performance and health-related markers in both healthy individuals and diseased populations.

Less is known about the effects of low-volume HIT, but growing evidence suggests this type of training stimulates physiological remodeling comparable to moderate-intensity continuous training despite a substantially lower time commitment and reduced total exercise volume. The most common model employed in low-volume HIT studies has been the Wingate Test, which consists of a 30-second �all out� cycling effort against a supra-maximal workload. Subjects typically perform 4-6 work bouts, separated by approximately four minutes of recovery, for a total of 2-3 minutes of intense exercise during a training session that lasts approximately 20 minutes. As little as three sessions per week of this type of training induces skeletal muscle and cardiovascular adaptations comparable to several hours per week of continuous moderate training, as generally recommended by public health agencies.

Wingate-based HIT is, however, extremely demanding and may not be safe, tolerable or appealing for some individuals. We therefore sought to design a more practical model of low-volume HIT that is time-efficient while also having wider application to different populations. The new HIT model consists of 10 x 60 second work bouts at a constant-load intensity that elicits approximately 90 percent of maximal heart rate, interspersed with 60 seconds of recovery. The protocol is still time-efficient in that only 10 minutes of exercise is performed over a 20-minute training session. Importantly, this practical, time-efficient HIT model is still effective at inducing rapid skeletal muscle remodeling towards a more oxidative phenotype, similar to our previous Wingate-based HIT studies and high-volume endurance training. These findings are noteworthy from a public health perspective, given that �lack of time� remains one of the most commonly cited barriers to regular exercise participation.

Relatively high-volume HIT protocols that are comparable to traditional endurance training have been shown to improve cardiorespiratory fitness and other health status markers in a fairly large number of studies, including those conducted on people with coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, middle age adults with metabolic syndrome and obese individuals. In contrast, low-volume HIT studies in persons who might be at risk for cardiometabolic disorders or patients with chronic disease are very limited. Our group�s recent study (Hood et al. 2011), reported in the Oct. issue of MSSE, showed that six sessions of the practical HIT model over two weeks improved estimated insulin sensitivity in previously sedentary, overweight individuals. Insulin sensitivity was calculated based on single fasting glucose and insulin measurements and therefore primarily reflects hepatic as opposed to peripheral insulin sensitivity. We also recently showed that low-volume HIT was effective and well-tolerated in people with type 2 diabetes (Little et al. 2011). Two weeks of HIT reduced average 24-hour blood glucose concentration and the magnitude of glucose spikes after meals, measured via continuous glucose monitoring under standardized diet but otherwise free-living conditions. While the preliminary data from these small, proof-of-principle studies are intriguing, large-scale studies are clearly needed to resolve whether low-volume HIT is a safe, realistic and time-efficient exercise alternative to reduce the risk of cardiometabolic disease or improve health and wellbeing in patients with chronic disease.

and the NY Times had this one:

and so on and so on.........

if anything is to be gleaned from these articles it's this: intervals are good for you at any age and almost any stage of fitness. what they don't tell you is HOW to implement them. so that's my job.

first, even if you are totally out of shape, intervals work - simply. just do some activity for a brief period of time - a few minutes to 10 or more if so inclined. then, rest, do something else, or go about your day and repeat. in other words, nothng structured, just do brief periods of activity a couple to three times a day. that said, vacuuming the rug and later on cleaning the kitchen floor do not quite fit this model. i'm talking about taking a walk, climbing stairs, marching in place, etc -something specifically active by choice - if done a few times a day in small blocks, counts. for those accustomed to exericise, break up two of your weekly workouts into shorter segments of higher intensity, and allow for partial recovery - not full, so keep moving along the path of fitness even if not at your usual intensity. do x-number of repeats - the longer the work bout, the fewer the repeats, and the shorter the relative rest (so if you run faster for 3 minutes, you might just jog 3 minutes). the converse of this is if you run hard for 15 seconds you may need to jog light for 2 minutes. this is the difference between a 1:1 and a 1:8 ratio. and remember, hard is relative to you, not to an olympic athlete. if it gets you breathing harder than you normally would, it's an interval. how many to do? up to you, of course. but i'm conservative here: start with 3-5 cycles of this work:recovery, and shorten the overall workout. depending on how long you intend to work out, you may cut your overall time by half. i keep my workouts to 20 minutes and some are with very short bursts and longer recoveries, others are 1minute on, 1 easy. vary it. normally we recommend to do intervals 2-3/wk. but if you vary them so as to not overtrain in one setting - super fast, for ex - you are not likely to injure yourself.

and depending on what your trianing consists of , you may have to incur some alternative strength training to avert joint injuries. so i always suggest alternating modalities - run, cycle, elliptical, row, etc. save those joints - gotta hold you up many more years if you're gonna train consistently and vigorously.

and don't neglect nutrition and hydration, esp as the weather warms up beyond the unusually warmth of this winter.

finally, bring a sweat rag - you'll need it.