You only need 2 dumbbells and 6 moves to build full-body muscle and boost your metabolism
You're busy — there's work to do, chores to finish, social events to attend and families to look after. That's why you're looking for a short but very effective routine you can do at home to build muscle all over and raise your heart rate with just a set of dumbbells.
So, grab a set of the best adjustable dumbbells (these are expensive, but flexible and make a great home workout companion) and roll out a yoga mat, then you're ready to take on this session from YouTube fitness duo Juice & Toya.
There are just six exercises in total. You'll repeat the round three times, adding more weight into the mix each time The first round, it's body weight only. Then, one dumbbell, before ending the third round with two weights.
If you're not sure which load to lift initially, Toya uses 5 and 10lbs dumbbells for the routine, while Juice works out with 10 and 15lbs. You'll train for 25 seconds, take a 15-second break, then start the next exercise.
As there's not a long break between move (15 seconds), adjustable 'bells mean you can quickly switch loads before the next one begins, and you can gradually increase the weight as you get stronger over time, in line with the progressive overload technique.
Watch Juice & Toya's 30-minute dumbbell workout
I always love Juice & Toya's workouts because they're effective, easy to follow and the pair demonstration different versions of the same move (standard and with modifications). However, for this one, there are no modifications.
Instead, as Toya explains at the start, if you need to adjust the intensity of the exercise, either lower the load you're lifting or switch to using your body weight alone. There's a common myth that dropping weights is a 'failure', but it definitely isn't.
As someone that's trained with weights for years, the worst mistake I made when first starting out was to lift too heavy. This meant I arched my lower back (hello, back pain) and I didn't focus on my form enough, so I wasn't getting much from the moves either.
So, don't do what I did; if you need to drop the weight that's absolutely okay. You want to stick to the correct form to get the muscle-building effects of the routine. Plus, as it's arranged as a high-intensity resistance training workout, there are other benefits too.
Working your muscles hard in quick bursts and keep breaks to a minimum increases your heart rate, so you burn more energy than during an equivalent steady-paced routine. And, over time, this can increase your metabolism as well.
So, you end up with a muscle-building, core-strengthening, fat-burning, metabolism-boosting workout you can do in less time than it takes to watch an episode of your favorite TV show — and you only need two dumbbells to get started.
More from Tom's Guide
Forget the gym — this 30-minute kettlebell workout will sculpt a stronger core and boost your metabolism
I dared to exercise without music — what happened next surprised me
Forget sit-ups — build a stronger core and improve your posture with this 15-minute standing abs workout
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
It's a girl — again! And again! Why a baby's sex isn't random.
A baby's sex may not be up to mere chance. A study published Friday in the journal Science Advances describes the odds of having a boy or girl as flipping a weighted coin, unique to each family. It found evidence that an infant's birth sex is associated with maternal age and specific genes. Subscribe to The Post Most newsletter for the most important and interesting stories from The Washington Post. The findings challenge assumptions that birth sex is random. They mirror the results of similar studies in Europe that have also found that birth sex does not follow a simple 50-50 distribution. Scientists have long documented a global imbalance in which slightly more boys are born than girls. The new study examined the murkier patterns of birth sex within individual families. To do so, researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health analyzed data from more than 146,000 pregnancies from 58,000 nurses in the United States between 1956 and 2015. They found that some families were more likely to have children of the same sex than would be expected if each baby had an equal chance of being a boy or a girl. Moms with three or more kids were more likely to have all boys or all girls than expected by chance. The study suggests that sex at birth follows a weighted probability and that biological influences may sway the sex of the child. 'If you've had two girls or three girls and you're trying for a boy, you should know your odds are not 50-50,' said Jorge Chavarro, the study's senior author. 'You're more likely than not to have another girl.' Researchers estimated that families with three girls had a 58 percent chance of having another girl, while families with three boys had a 61 percent chance of having a fourth boy. Maternal age is a key factor. Women who started having children after age 28 were slightly more likely to have only boys or only girls. Chavarro said this could reflect age-related biological changes that influence the survival of the Y chromosome carried by boys, such as increased vaginal acidity. Paternal factors could also play a role because maternal and paternal ages are often closely linked. But the study did not include data on fathers, which was noted as a limitation. Researchers also identified two genes associated with giving birth to only boys or only girls. 'We don't know why these genes would be associated with sex at birth, but they are, and that opens up new questions,' Chavarro, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology, said. Iain Mathieson, a professor of genetics at the University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine who was not involved in the study, said the genetic associations should be viewed cautiously. He said the study's genetic analysis was based on a relatively small sample and may be influenced by other factors, making the results more speculative until confirmed by further research. 'I don't find the genetic factors identified here particularly convincing,' Mathieson said in an email. The researchers also found that parents were more likely to have one boy and one girl than would be expected by chance, a pattern they believe reflects a tendency to stop having children once both sexes are represented. To reduce bias from such family planning decisions, they analyzed data after removing each woman's final child. They also excluded women who had experienced miscarriages or stillbirths to test whether pregnancy loss changed the results. They still found the same pattern: The odds of birth sex did not follow mere chance. The study suggests it may not have been so improbable for the fictional parents in the TV sitcom 'Malcolm in the Middle' to have five sons or for the Bennet family in 'Pride and Prejudice' to have five daughters. Even in history, patterns like this have drawn attention. King Louis VII of France, for example, remarried after his first two wives each gave birth to daughters, depriving him of a male heir. Chavarro said it might take years to fully understand why some families consistently have children of one sex, but this research is an important place to start. His team said future studies should explore how lifestyle, nutrition and exposure to environmental chemicals might affect these patterns. Certain factors such as race, natural hair color, blood type, body mass index and height were not associated with having children of only one sex. But the study sample was 95 percent White and made up entirely of nurses, a group that may have different occupational exposures or health patterns compared with the general population. David A. Haig, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard University who was not involved in the study, said it offers evidence that the probability of a baby's sex varies by family. 'Different families are flipping different coins with different biases,' Haig said. 'It speaks to something very intuitive and personal, even if the underlying biology is complex.' Related Content Family adopts a shelter dog — then learns he's the father of their late dog Can the Fed stay independent? Trump-era adviser may put it to the test. The Hubble telescope zooms in on the galaxy next door Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Coke sugar switch 'nutritionally hilarious' according to food science expert
President Donald Trump is claiming that Coca-Cola will replace high fructose corn syrup with cane sugar in its flagship soft drink. Experts say they're equally unhealthy.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Your organs have their own age – and it may predict health risks better than your birthday
If you've always thought your birthday was the best way to define how old you are, think again. Your organs, it turns out, are aging on their own schedules. A growing body of scientific research is shifting focus from chronological age to biological age, where your body's roughly 30 trillion cells, tissues and organs each have their own 'clocks' that can tick at different speeds. According to a groundbreaking peer-reviewed study published last week in Nature Medicine, Stanford University researchers found that an organ that is substantially 'older' than a person's actual age is at greater risk of disease. Researchers tracked this hidden timeline by analyzing thousands of proteins flowing through our blood. The body's cells, tissues and organs all have different 'clocks' ticking at different speeds (Getty Images) 'With this indicator, we can assess the age of an organ today and predict the odds of your getting a disease associated with that organ 10 years late,' Tony Wyss-Coray, a professor of neurology and neurological sciences at the university's Wu Tsai Neurosciences Institute, said in a statement. Take the brain, for example: an older one increases your risk of death by about 182 percent within the next 15 years, compared with people whose brains are aging normally, researchers found. On the flip side, those with brains biologically younger than their chronological age are believed to live longer. The study's authors concluded that having an older brain increased the risk of dementia threefold, while those with youthful brains have just a quarter of the usual risk. 'The brain is the gatekeeper of longevity,' Wyss-Coray said. 'If you've got an old brain, you have an increased likelihood of mortality.' An older biological heart age was linked to a higher risk of atrial fibrillation and heart failure, while aging lungs signaled an increased likelihood of developing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). While your chronological age only goes up, the good news is that biological age can be slowed, paused or even reversed. Forty-year-old soccer star Cristiano Ronaldo has an estimated biological age of just under 29, according to data from the health tech brand Whoop. Bryan Johnson has documented his journey to reverse his biological age to that of a teenager (Dustin Giallanza) Kim Kardashian may be blowing out 44 candles on her next birthday but her biological age came in nearly a decade younger, according to results from an epigenetic clock test taken on The Kardashians last year. Meanwhile, Bryan Johnson, 47, the anti-aging tech guru and 'biohacker,' has documented his bizarre journey in an attempt to reverse his biological age to that of a teenager. You don't need to be into biohacking to change your organ's age — they can shift depending on a variety of factors, including your genes, how much you move, what you eat, your sleep habits and how you manage stress. Regular exercise, good nutrition and avoiding harmful habits like smoking all contribute to younger organ age and better health outcomes, according to Stanford University's research. Solve the daily Crossword
