Complete 3 rounds OTC
20 squats
20 high step lunges (R+L=2)
rest 30 sec
Complete 3 rounds OTC
10 uni bent rows R 15/20
20 uni DB biceps curls R 15/20
10 uni bent rows L 15/20
20 uni DB biceps curls L 15/20
Rest 30 sec
Complete 3 rounds OTC
10 pushups (strict)
20 shoulder crushers R 15/20
10 pushups (strict)
20 shoulder crushers L 15/20
Post Rx, or reps missed to comments.
Workout Notes:
Workout notes:
We found that Vets did better when they used a couple of different weights for biceps. For example, if you aren't feeling those biceps curls, you'd do well to incr the weight of the bent row for a pre-fatigue then switch back to the Rx'd weight for the 20 curls. This works better (in general) than just going heavier altogether.
You might consider carrying a weight (anywhere really) during those squats to feel more from the lunges.
If you are breezing the triceps superset, consider doubling pumping the pushups. Yeeouch!
We are going straight at your muscle bellies with this workout. If you do it right, your hams, glutes, biceps and triceps will be good n sore. Also, by working unilaterally, you emphasize core development. It's a two'fer!
Finish all three rounds of each series of exercises before moving to the next series.
Make sure you put the rests in there. Put them where they are written. Only one rest per round (Three rounds per series).
This is a classic pre-fatigue workout. Pre-fatiguing is where you tire out auxiliary "helper" muscles (secondary movers and stabilizers) then isolate and blast the primary mover. This promotes better development. It's cool because you hit everything, so it's functional AND looks good ON!
I don't know how I stumbled onto this article.
10 Things I Want My Daughter to Know About Working Out
If I remember right, I think I read it first about a year ago. Since then, I've seen it posted a couple of dozen times in social media. I've also seen it talked about on other blogs. I've also heard interviews about it on the radio. I like talk radio - so what?
I loved it when I read it a year, or so ago. I still do. I re-re-re-read it again today.
Fine, it's a bit of a jumbled mess, but it has some really good points. Like, point number 1 - "Strength equals self-sufficiency." You can't argue with that, man. It's deep too. I'm not sure if the author was sounding the "double meaning alert" on purpose, or if she just stumbled into it - but it's there. And it's beautiful.
Maybe points which are as evocative as: "Health begets health" and "If you feel beautiful, you look beautiful," don't really belong in the same list as, "The bike is the new golf course." But still, it's a pretty good point about biking.
I'm good with it. What I'm not good with? Some of the comments. Most were entirely supportive. But these two got under my skin.
Shiloh Marie said, "This article is very ableist," She goes on to say she finds it "troubling" that it promotes "extreme fitness." She says, "it's almost a scare tactic" to imply that opportunities will be denied to those who don't mountain bike and etc. Then she ends this rather long epistle with:
"Short-sighted article, exclusionary tone, tying one’s self-esteem to what they are physically capable of doing. No thanks, not sharing that message with the kiddos in my life."
Wow! Not liking the article is one thing. Accusing the author of discrimination against people with disabilities is just malicious.
Leigh said, "... unless you have lived as a fit hard-exercising nature lover and then watched a chronic illness turn you into a couch potato utterly against your will, you may not ever realize that inactivity is not always a choice ..."
Comments like these are disappointing. Instead of taking the opportunity to build folks up, these commentators tear everyone down. By everyone, I mean, they tear the author down; they tear the reader down; and they even tear themselves down. There is NO good in these comments. NONE.
I'm not saying these commentators didn't make some good points. It would have been cool to see a tip of the hat to those who are less able. But it doesn't take away from anyone that the author didn't specifically acknowledge those with special needs/interests/affiliations. Nor could she have. It would have been impossible to include them all. Even more impossible to completely address the myriad of needs in even ONE of these.
That being said, I'd love to hear the author's thoughts on the needs of those with disabilities. The author seems particularly reflective and kind. I'll bet she'd write something great on this topic.
This girl put tons of thoughtful effort into constructing an essay which is obviously intended to help folks. Jumbled or not, it is a beautiful thing. Even if the advice was bad (it's not), the intention was pure. I'm sure of it. The reason I'm so sure is, it doesn't have all the normal self-aggrandizing (read: greased up half-naked pics and muscle flexing) that is so common in the health and fitness industry. Neither was it promoting a product, or a dogmatic way of life.
Her intentions were spot on. Her points were illuminating and valid. That someone would use her well-intentioned words to tear everyone down and to provide excuses for their own failures is offensive to the point of obscenity - to me. In fact, I've never met anyone with a disability who'd stand for either of these comments. My experience is quite opposite. Most folks whom I've met with physical, and/or mental disabilities are among the most able of us all. They'd be the first to condemn these comments.
I found a cool vid of folks who emphatically make this point.
WARNING at the end of this video the song rips off a couple of ROUGH swears. If your kids are watching with you, you might want to turn the volume down. Sorry.