The "300" Workout

[f4phantom2500]

IDK how much about it that article says, but I did read about their workout stuff a couple weeks ago because the movie has motivated me to start working out again lol. Basically only like half the guys were able to do the 300 workout, and they only had to do it once. They didn't follow a specific routine throughout their training, it was very mixed up. I decided to follow a program that I used to follow. I found it last year on a Navy website, basically it's the workout that they recommend you do when you're going to sign up for the Navy SEALS. I only got to like week 4 of the second phase when I seriously tried it last (sometime last summer), but I'm starting over from week 1 of phase 1 now.

http://www.globalspecialoperations.com/sealswccprep.html

What I want to do is to get to the end of it all and then when I get comfortable with the final week of phase 2 (I don't do the swimming, too much time and effort going to the pool), then try that 300 workout. My goal is to be in really good shape so I can dress up like one of those 300 guys for Halloween...although I'll have to be a skinny one cuz I'm like ~5'8 and weigh ~130 or so lol. The Navy thing definitely does help you get in shape, I was starting to get pretty cut before I quit.

 

[Corbett]

If I wwas getting paid buku ammounts of money to workout all day I would do it in a heartbeat.

But alas, I am not. And I will stick with my running 5miles a day 5x a week + abs/arms/chest on alternating days.

Though my body is nowhere even close to what those guys look like. Still working on cutting down the fat first.

5'10" - 178lbs.

 

[Kaido]

How would you stay motivated to keep that kind of routine up?

Edit: The average joe, not a movie star with a $5 mil incentive

 

[Jgtdragon]

The key is to be motivated... that is the hardest part too.

 

[TheVrolok]

Pretty cool.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why couldn't they get guys that were already buff? It's not like they all had speaking parts.

Because guys that are already that buff are uncoordinated meat heads? Nobody has abs like that just for kicks, you have to train it very specifically.

It's more of a function of low bf% (good eating) and decent ab training. Neither of which is 'that hard'. You just have to be CONSISTENT and to COMMIT time to doing it.

People who claim a bf% of 10% are a joke when they don't have any abs. It's because your not actually at 10% and or you have poor ab development.

Koing

That's me! 10% bf, and no abs. I've been working at them, though!

What does your ab workout consist of and how often?

I'm curious as well... I've been down to 3-4% body fat and I barely had a 6 pack at the time (cross country). Right now I'm probably 8%, and I have a 4 pack.

lol i strongly call BS on 3-4% bodyfat. i call shens that you are at 8% bf right now as well unless you are like 125lbs and 6 feet tall.

... Whatever. I bet you don't believe that my VO2 max was 72 either? I'm 6' 145 lbs.

Edit: I'm not going to be home until June, but when I get back I can redo my BF% for you. My mom has this as she's a dietitian. I presume it's pretty accurate. I'll try to remember to test it for you, I guarantee I'll be under 10%, and probably closer to 7%. If you want to put money on it, I'm all for it. I love how people know everything on this forum.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Corbett
If I wwas getting paid buku ammounts of money to workout all day I would do it in a heartbeat.

But alas, I am not. And I will stick with my running 5miles a day 5x a week + abs/arms/chest on alternating days.

Though my body is nowhere even close to what those guys look like. Still working on cutting down the fat first.

5'10" - 178lbs.

Buku? What the hell does that mean?

Do you mean beaucoup?

 

[HaxorNubcake]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Corbett
If I wwas getting paid buku ammounts of money to workout all day I would do it in a heartbeat.

But alas, I am not. And I will stick with my running 5miles a day 5x a week + abs/arms/chest on alternating days.

Though my body is nowhere even close to what those guys look like. Still working on cutting down the fat first.

5'10" - 178lbs.

Buku? What the hell does that mean?

Do you mean beaucoup?

You know precisely what he means. You're just being a spelling nazi

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why couldn't they get guys that were already buff? It's not like they all had speaking parts.

Because guys that are already that buff are uncoordinated meat heads? Nobody has abs like that just for kicks, you have to train it very specifically.

It's more of a function of low bf% (good eating) and decent ab training. Neither of which is 'that hard'. You just have to be CONSISTENT and to COMMIT time to doing it.

People who claim a bf% of 10% are a joke when they don't have any abs. It's because your not actually at 10% and or you have poor ab development.

Koing

That's me! 10% bf, and no abs. I've been working at them, though!

What does your ab workout consist of and how often?

I'm curious as well... I've been down to 3-4% body fat and I barely had a 6 pack at the time (cross country). Right now I'm probably 8%, and I have a 4 pack.

lol i strongly call BS on 3-4% bodyfat. i call shens that you are at 8% bf right now as well unless you are like 125lbs and 6 feet tall.

... Whatever. I bet you don't believe that my VO2 max was 72 either? I'm 6' 145 lbs.

Edit: I'm not going to be home until June, but when I get back I can redo my BF% for you. My mom has this as she's a dietitian. I presume it's pretty accurate. I'll try to remember to test it for you, I guarantee I'll be under 10%, and probably closer to 7%. If you want to put money on it, I'm all for it. I love how people know everything on this forum.

Considering you are a toothpick I believe you.

 

[crt1530]

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why couldn't they get guys that were already buff? It's not like they all had speaking parts.

Because guys that are already that buff are uncoordinated meat heads? Nobody has abs like that just for kicks, you have to train it very specifically.

It's more of a function of low bf% (good eating) and decent ab training. Neither of which is 'that hard'. You just have to be CONSISTENT and to COMMIT time to doing it.

People who claim a bf% of 10% are a joke when they don't have any abs. It's because your not actually at 10% and or you have poor ab development.

Koing

That's me! 10% bf, and no abs. I've been working at them, though!

What does your ab workout consist of and how often?

I'm curious as well... I've been down to 3-4% body fat and I barely had a 6 pack at the time (cross country). Right now I'm probably 8%, and I have a 4 pack.

lol i strongly call BS on 3-4% bodyfat. i call shens that you are at 8% bf right now as well unless you are like 125lbs and 6 feet tall.

... Whatever. I bet you don't believe that my VO2 max was 72 either? I'm 6' 145 lbs.

Edit: I'm not going to be home until June, but when I get back I can redo my BF% for you. My mom has this as she's a dietitian. I presume it's pretty accurate. I'll try to remember to test it for you, I guarantee I'll be under 10%, and probably closer to 7%. If you want to put money on it, I'm all for it. I love how people know everything on this forum.

You have no idea what 3% or 8% body fat looks like. Claiming to have been at 3% body fat just proves your ignorance of the subject matter. Bioelectrical impedance scales are NOT accurate. The measurements you get vary wildly depending on hydration levels, whether you've eaten or exercised recently and whether or not your feet are wet. To top it off, all of the calculations are based on theoretical averages which are accurate for just about 0% of the population.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: allies
... Whatever. I bet you don't believe that my VO2 max was 72 either? I'm 6' 145 lbs.

Edit: I'm not going to be home until June, but when I get back I can redo my BF% for you. My mom has this as she's a dietitian. I presume it's pretty accurate. I'll try to remember to test it for you, I guarantee I'll be under 10%, and probably closer to 7%. If you want to put money on it, I'm all for it. I love how people know everything on this forum.

Well I was going to ask how you got that 3-4% measurement, but you I guess you just answered it. Impedence is not very accurate. Find a dunk tank or a BodPod, or go get calipered with at least a 7 site measurement by somebody who knows what they're doing.

8% is believable. 3-4% is another story. It also seems to be a popular number for dumbass 15 year olds to claim on internet forums, hence the skepticism.

 

[SludgeFactory]

Originally posted by: HaxorNubcake

Originally posted by: jman19
Buku? What the hell does that mean?

Do you mean beaucoup?

You know precisely what he means. You're just being a spelling nazi

meh, some people have obviously never seen certain words in print based on some of the bizarre phonetic spellings you see on this forum. I don't see it as nitpicking, more like an educational service

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: crt1530
You have no idea what 3% or 8% body fat looks like. Claiming to have been at 3% body fat just proves your ignorance of the subject matter. Bioelectrical impedance scales are NOT accurate. The measurements you get vary wildly depending on hydration levels, whether you've eaten or exercised recently and whether or not your feet are wet. To top it off, all of the calculations are based on theoretical averages which are accurate for just about 0% of the population.

So a $2000 piece of equipment is horribly wrong? I've done it more than once (we have the piece of equipment in my home) and when I was in cross country shape it was in between 3-6%.

Edit: Hydration level will generally not cause BF to be reported lower than it is, only higher, btw.

Edit2: All you geniuses obviously know more than my mother, who has her PhD, is a professor, has been published, has helped olympic athletes, and about how she felt that I was pretty close to essential BF during my season.

And you know that I logged 40-75 miles a week for months while eating extremely healthy (hence my mom). There's obviously no way I know what 3-4% BF looks like, much less 8%. Just... give it a rest.

 

[purbeast0]

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: crt1530
You have no idea what 3% or 8% body fat looks like. Claiming to have been at 3% body fat just proves your ignorance of the subject matter. Bioelectrical impedance scales are NOT accurate. The measurements you get vary wildly depending on hydration levels, whether you've eaten or exercised recently and whether or not your feet are wet. To top it off, all of the calculations are based on theoretical averages which are accurate for just about 0% of the population.

So a $2000 piece of equipment is horribly wrong? I've done it more than once (we have the piece of equipment in my home) and when I was in cross country shape it was in between 3-6%.

Edit: Hydration level will generally not cause BF to be reported lower than it is, only higher, btw.

Edit2: All you geniuses obviously know more than my mother, who has her PhD, is a professor, has been published, has helped olympic athletes, and about how she felt that I was pretty close to essential BF during my season.

And you know that I logged 40-75 miles a week for months while eating extremely healthy (hence my mom). There's obviously no way I know what 3-4% BF looks like, much less 8%. Just... give it a rest.

since your mom is this supposed genius ... why hasn't she told you that being 6 feet tall and 145lbs is not healthy?

 

[Syringer]

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: crt1530
You have no idea what 3% or 8% body fat looks like. Claiming to have been at 3% body fat just proves your ignorance of the subject matter. Bioelectrical impedance scales are NOT accurate. The measurements you get vary wildly depending on hydration levels, whether you've eaten or exercised recently and whether or not your feet are wet. To top it off, all of the calculations are based on theoretical averages which are accurate for just about 0% of the population.

So a $2000 piece of equipment is horribly wrong? I've done it more than once (we have the piece of equipment in my home) and when I was in cross country shape it was in between 3-6%.

Edit: Hydration level will generally not cause BF to be reported lower than it is, only higher, btw.

Edit2: All you geniuses obviously know more than my mother, who has her PhD, is a professor, has been published, has helped olympic athletes, and about how she felt that I was pretty close to essential BF during my season.

And you know that I logged 40-75 miles a week for months while eating extremely healthy (hence my mom). There's obviously no way I know what 3-4% BF looks like, much less 8%. Just... give it a rest.

More importantly though, how big is your penis?

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: purbeast0
since your mom is this supposed genius ... why hasn't she told you that being 6 feet tall and 145lbs is not healthy?

I never said she was a genius - it's just her area of specialty. Everyone here gets on body building websites and think they've earned their degree.

And 6' 145 is not unhealthy at all.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: Syringer
More importantly though, how big is your penis

Uh...

 

[SociallyChallenged]

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why couldn't they get guys that were already buff? It's not like they all had speaking parts.

Because guys that are already that buff are uncoordinated meat heads? Nobody has abs like that just for kicks, you have to train it very specifically.

It's more of a function of low bf% (good eating) and decent ab training. Neither of which is 'that hard'. You just have to be CONSISTENT and to COMMIT time to doing it.

People who claim a bf% of 10% are a joke when they don't have any abs. It's because your not actually at 10% and or you have poor ab development.

Koing

That's me! 10% bf, and no abs. I've been working at them, though!

What does your ab workout consist of and how often?

I'm curious as well... I've been down to 3-4% body fat and I barely had a 6 pack at the time (cross country). Right now I'm probably 8%, and I have a 4 pack.

Just to call you out on one of your BS posts. This is 6.5% body fat. That guy is ripped up. That is from here, which is the Ultimate Sports Nutrition website, a website that helps people and body builders. You cannot be below 8%ish and not have a 6 pack. Those electro-tests are not correct. To get an accurate count of your body fat, you would have to do one of those tests where you are submerged under water and you have to push all the breath from your lungs, etc. I understand that cross country will trim you down, but 40-75 miles a week won't get you below 5ish. I was running ~40 miles a week and was probably at 8% and I looked like a skinnier version of the picture above. I'm an exercise biology student at UC Davis, and I've done ridiculous amounts of sports. Everyone who takes those body fat electro-tests and believes them should know that they aren't all that accurate. I had one, during track season, put me at 4% and then 6% the same day. At that time, I was probably around 8%. I maintain around 8% body fat when I'm really active. Olympic athletes usually have 7-8% wen they're in their best shape. Really, don't try to BS us telling your mom is a PhD. Even if she is, I've met doctors who have been wrong before.

 

[allies]

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: allies

Originally posted by: purbeast0

Originally posted by: GrantMeThePower

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: SociallyChallenged

Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Why couldn't they get guys that were already buff? It's not like they all had speaking parts.

Because guys that are already that buff are uncoordinated meat heads? Nobody has abs like that just for kicks, you have to train it very specifically.

It's more of a function of low bf% (good eating) and decent ab training. Neither of which is 'that hard'. You just have to be CONSISTENT and to COMMIT time to doing it.

People who claim a bf% of 10% are a joke when they don't have any abs. It's because your not actually at 10% and or you have poor ab development.

Koing

That's me! 10% bf, and no abs. I've been working at them, though!

What does your ab workout consist of and how often?

I'm curious as well... I've been down to 3-4% body fat and I barely had a 6 pack at the time (cross country). Right now I'm probably 8%, and I have a 4 pack.

Just to call you out on one of your BS posts. This is 6.5% body fat. That guy is ripped up. That is from here, which is the Ultimate Sports Nutrition website, a website that helps people and body builders. You cannot be below 8%ish and not have a 6 pack. Those electro-tests are not correct. To get an accurate count of your body fat, you would have to do one of those tests where you are submerged under water and you have to push all the breath from your lungs, etc. I understand that cross country will trim you down, but 40-75 miles a week won't get you below 5ish. I was running ~40 miles a week and was probably at 8% and I looked like a skinnier version of the picture above. I'm an exercise biology student at UC Davis, and I've done ridiculous amounts of sports. Everyone who takes those body fat electro-tests and believes them should know that they aren't all that accurate. I had one, during track season, put me at 4% and then 6% the same day. At that time, I was probably around 8%. I maintain around 8% body fat when I'm really active. Olympic athletes usually have 7-8% wen they're in their best shape. Really, don't try to BS us telling your mom is a PhD. Even if she is, I've met doctors who have been wrong before.

If anyone wants to talk about this anymore, PM me.

 

[alkemyst]

Originally posted by: Scribe
It's not very hard to get 'big'... I was big in college, I had nice sized biceps, big legs... but still a 'one pack'. It's not to say my abs weren't strong -- they were. Unfortunately, it's almost 80% diet that makes things like your abs 'show'. I never had that kind of dedication though now that I'm older, I'm naturually eating better and it's showing. I'll be in the gym hardcore next week (daylight savings is finally over!), so I'm going back to my 3 protein shakes a day routine with light meals between. I should be pretty ripped by summer if I keep it up right.

being big vs strong are usually not the same thing.

I know a lot of big guys that I saw as just well placed fat.

I am not Atlas, but at 35 I can use 100-110 dbs on reps for bench, curl 120 for reps, dl 300+ and squat about 225-240 for reps. Well anyway once I get back into the saddle after 8 months of downtime and 3 months of physical therapy for a blown out elbow due to trying to catch a 2.5 gallon water bottle that fell out of my trunk that I only caught with my finger tips.

Being ripped and being strong are also usually polar opposites. I prefer not ripped, but a bit cut and can accept losing some strength.

 

[chr6]

werent those guys mostly airbrushed

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: chr6
werent those guys mostly airbrushed

You can only airbrush on so much sexy before it starts to look fake