MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Is Running Really all that Bad?
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
NONE


2 questions for you.

1/ Is a HIT workout moving swiftly between exercises of benefit to the heart/lungs in your opinion?

2/ So identical twins, one goes jogging regularly the other is sedentary, which one will become better at running and why?

Curious as to your opinion.
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
NONE

2 questions for you.

1/ Is a HIT workout moving swiftly between exercises of benefit to the heart/lungs in your opinion?

2/ So identical twins, one goes jogging regularly the other is sedentary, which one will become better at running and why?

Curious as to your opinion.



I've seen sedentary people outrun runners in the 100m.
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

Twins!

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

I think alot depends on your body if running is going to be bad for you. Some folks can run till they drop for years and no problem and others get problems after only running a few times. Very heavy people can sustain leg and other damage as the weight they are carrying puts undue stress on everything.

Others have other isues like one leg longer than the other that can cause trouble and then doing too much running can wear out joints but doing to much of anything can be bad. I'm about 5.8 and 170 pounds and I've always run quite a bit for the last 30 or more years and have never had a leg injury or other injury from running except for shin splints when I would run too much too soon after not running for a while.

That's just from trying to run too much to soon before the shins get used to the pounding. I Know Jones an others seem to be against running and that may be waranted in some cases but by and large I feel running to be very fun and a great way to get a cardio workout.Most sports require some kind of running so not to run makes little sense if you do sports.

Lately I have found that rowing on a concept 2 rower to be the best overall body and cardio workout. If I went out and ran all out tomorrow for one mile every muscle in my legs would be sore and I'd get shin splints like crazy. If I jumped on the erg and rowed for the same time at a level I was breathing hard enough till I felt like I was going to pass out I'd be winded to the hilt for a short while but pretty much not sore at all later on.Great cardio, low impact.

Scott

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
NONE

2 questions for you.

1/ Is a HIT workout moving swiftly between exercises of benefit to the heart/lungs in your opinion?

2/ So identical twins, one goes jogging regularly the other is sedentary, which one will become better at running and why?

Curious as to your opinion.


1. Conditions Muscles - The Biological Functions of Your Heart and Lungs to keep you alive is literally a miraculous network - Be Careful not to get caught in a Cart before the Horse Understanding
2. Is Running a Necessary Function First of all? Your Question is frightening.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
2. Is Running a Necessary Function First of all? Your Question is frightening.

What I'm saying David is.. if one of the two identical twins runs 3x per week and the other does nothing, the runner is going to be better at running than the non runner right? WHY? if running does nothing for the heart and lungs? What adaptations have taken place that makes the runner better than the non runner?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
2. Is Running a Necessary Function First of all? Your Question is frightening.

What I'm saying David is.. if one of the two identical twins runs 3x per week and the other does nothing, the runner is going to be better at running than the non runner right? WHY? if running does nothing for the heart and lungs? What adaptations have taken place that makes the runner better than the non runner?


You elude to enslaving the Heart/Lungs to unnecessary exertional activity. What is your point? Momentary exertional capacity means nothing!
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
Natty wrote:
Landau wrote:
NONE

2 questions for you.

1/ Is a HIT workout moving swiftly between exercises of benefit to the heart/lungs in your opinion?

2/ So identical twins, one goes jogging regularly the other is sedentary, which one will become better at running and why?

Curious as to your opinion.

1. Conditions Muscles - The Biological Functions of Your Heart and Lungs to keep you alive is literally a miraculous network - Be Careful not to get caught in a Cart before the Horse Understanding
2. Is Running a Necessary Function First of all? Your Question is frightening.



You claim there is no health benefit to exercise esp aerobic exercise. The two studies I posted clearly refute your claim and all you can say in defense is don't trust research. What does that even mean?? ALL research is flawed? You can't be serious LOL

I could post a dozen more studies independently demonstrating the same result -improved function of aging arteries, reduced BP, improved dilation and blood flow in aerobically exercised arteries. Resistance trained arteries are stiffer.

Simply dismissing all research is unproductive and irrational. Those that claim they do should have something better to put in its place. What do you have that is better.. divine knowledge?? ;)
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

No, I'm Realistic and You're a Dreamer. You are Typical, but what else is new? SBR or FUBAR ("I posted a Study") Are you Fuking Kidding Me - Get Real, Laugh all you want Punk.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
No, I'm Realistic and You're a Dreamer. You are Typical, but what else is new? SBR or FUBAR ("I posted a Study") Are you Fuking Kidding Me - Get Real, Laugh all you want Punk.


I can post a DOZEN studies all performed independently and all arriving at the SAME conclusion. What do YOU have to offer in refutation? Your emotions?? Your shrill rants? Your belief? Your paranoia and general distrust of science?

Yes, I am LOL
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

You're a Dreamer - You Simply Pin Your "heart" on research. You turned down a Free Invitation to workout at my Facility. You are like many here (AceRimmer) - hide behind your computer - Cherry Boy. Confidence Value in Human Research is Specious Opinion. Quit Dreaming - Jim Jeffries Rocks!
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

What does this mean "Confidence Value in Human Research is Specious Opinion"?

All research on humans is specious? All research into disease and treatment is so flawed it's useless? Human physiology cannot be studied?

Then how do we have a body of knowledge called Human Physiology? A field of study called "Medicine"?

Do you see how ridiculous your position is?

So, what source of knowledge of physiology do you have in its place? Perhaps whatever collection of beliefs and prejudices that have attached to you over your lifetime?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
You elude to enslaving the Heart/Lungs to unnecessary exertional activity. What is your point? Momentary exertional capacity means nothing!

I agree 100% here with SB. You are voicing an opinion based on nothing, show us the research, studies, empirical evidence,, ANYTHING that backs up your claims because right now you're offering mere opinion.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

southbeach wrote:
What does this mean "Confidence Value in Human Research is Specious Opinion"?

All research on humans is specious? All research into disease and treatment is so flawed it's useless? Human physiology cannot be studied?

Then how do we have a body of knowledge called Human Physiology? A field of study called "Medicine"?

Do you see how ridiculous your position is?

So, what source of knowledge of physiology do you have in its place? Perhaps whatever collection of beliefs and prejudices that have attached to you over your lifetime?



No- your evident IGNORANCE is REEKED FULL OF BIAS towards the supposed relationship between one's "physical activity" and one's existing pathology. It is JUVENILE thought at best. Pathological Physiology is well understood in the Rational Study of Cardiology, where that relationship does not exist simply to serve both of your presumptions. The Consumption (key word) of this Belief, leads to the Specious "Research" that you hang your hat on. What you believe in is wishful thinking at best and if you tour around the Internet to fester your beliefs, you are part of the disservice and a Fountain of Piss Poor Misinformation. "Studies" for physical activity and the dream of improved Pathology is Empty Medicine at best - it ignores the Facts. Get Over It.
Open User Options Menu

gizmo

coachjeff wrote:
Virtually every runner I know has ZERO knee or hip issues. HIT folks of course tend to be very anti-running, but if it's really so horrible for you, I have to wonder where all the "wore out" joints are on runners? I sure don't see them.


Virtually every runner I know Has knee or hip issues, but what does that mean? Why not just run and see what happens?
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

coomo wrote:
coachjeff wrote:
Forgot to post the darn photo of Dean. Here it is.
13 inch arms,no traps.anyone with low bf can look like this.these two are lean, with 13inch arms, im pretty sure they dont do much "cardio" either

coomo,
I think you've made great progress since your Avatar pic; very cool you're a musician too. Is the other musician your training partner?

David,

What's with all the shouting? I agree weight training is a better option, but why would you be opposed to otherwise sendentary people following a walking or running program provided they're not overtraining?
With regard to the walking I think as Jones pointed out people can withstand any amount.
Open User Options Menu

coomo

Tomislav wrote:
coomo wrote:
coachjeff wrote:
Forgot to post the darn photo of Dean. Here it is.
13 inch arms,no traps.anyone with low bf can look like this.these two are lean, with 13inch arms, im pretty sure they dont do much "cardio" either

coomo,
I think you've made great progress since your Avatar pic; very cool you're a musician too. Is the other musician your training partner?

David,

What's with all the shouting? I agree weight training is a better option, but why would you be opposed to otherwise sendentary people following a walking or running program provided they're not overtraining?
With regard to the walking I think as Jones pointed out people can withstand any amount.

Unfortunately, as you well know , niether of those two are me.Im sure if i had their genetic advantages, lifting weights would be the furthest thing from my mind.

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

David.

If you ignore ALL research and studies on what do you base your understanding of training physiology on?
Open User Options Menu

Mr. Strong

Natty wrote:
David.

If you ignore ALL research and studies on what do you base your understanding of training physiology on?




What came first effective training or understanding of physiology?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
southbeach wrote:
What does this mean "Confidence Value in Human Research is Specious Opinion"?

All research on humans is specious? All research into disease and treatment is so flawed it's useless? Human physiology cannot be studied?

Then how do we have a body of knowledge called Human Physiology? A field of study called "Medicine"?

Do you see how ridiculous your position is?

So, what source of knowledge of physiology do you have in its place? Perhaps whatever collection of beliefs and prejudices that have attached to you over your lifetime?


No- your evident IGNORANCE is REEKED FULL OF BIAS towards the supposed relationship between one's "physical activity" and one's existing pathology. It is JUVENILE thought at best. Pathological Physiology is well understood in the Rational Study of Cardiology, where that relationship does not exist simply to serve both of your presumptions. The Consumption (key word) of this Belief, leads to the Specious "Research" that you hang your hat on. What you believe in is wishful thinking at best and if you tour around the Internet to fester your beliefs, you are part of the disservice and a Fountain of Piss Poor Misinformation. "Studies" for physical activity and the dream of improved Pathology is Empty Medicine at best - it ignores the Facts. Get Over It.


It's dificult to understand what the hell you're even saying here, is your problem with a result of a specific study or with scientific methodology in general?

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that exercise may favorably affect certain aspects of physiology, and that aerobic exercise such as running may exert some specific effects different than that of resistance exercise?

You say I place too much faith in the studies, believe everything i read. that's not true. I look for good studies with good design, and I look for patterns or trends where the results are similar in multiple independent trials.

You, on the other hand seem still stuck in 80's physiology and a few I-net kooks. :|



Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
southbeach wrote:
What does this mean "Confidence Value in Human Research is Specious Opinion"?

All research on humans is specious? All research into disease and treatment is so flawed it's useless? Human physiology cannot be studied?

Then how do we have a body of knowledge called Human Physiology? A field of study called "Medicine"?

Do you see how ridiculous your position is?

So, what source of knowledge of physiology do you have in its place? Perhaps whatever collection of beliefs and prejudices that have attached to you over your lifetime?


No- your evident IGNORANCE is REEKED FULL OF BIAS towards the supposed relationship between one's "physical activity" and one's existing pathology. It is JUVENILE thought at best. Pathological Physiology is well understood in the Rational Study of Cardiology, where that relationship does not exist simply to serve both of your presumptions. The Consumption (key word) of this Belief, leads to the Specious "Research" that you hang your hat on. What you believe in is wishful thinking at best and if you tour around the Internet to fester your beliefs, you are part of the disservice and a Fountain of Piss Poor Misinformation. "Studies" for physical activity and the dream of improved Pathology is Empty Medicine at best - it ignores the Facts. Get Over It.


It's dificult to understand what the hell you're even saying here, is your problem with a result of a specific study or with scientific methodology in general?

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that exercise may favorably affect certain aspects of physiology, and that aerobic exercise such as running may exert some specific effects different than that of resistance exercise?

You say I place too much faith in the studies, believe everything i read. that's not true. I look for good studies with good design, and I look for patterns or trends where the results are similar in multiple independent trials.

You, on the other hand seem still stuck in 80's physiology and a few I-net kooks. :|





Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
southbeach wrote:
What does this mean "Confidence Value in Human Research is Specious Opinion"?

All research on humans is specious? All research into disease and treatment is so flawed it's useless? Human physiology cannot be studied?

Then how do we have a body of knowledge called Human Physiology? A field of study called "Medicine"?

Do you see how ridiculous your position is?

So, what source of knowledge of physiology do you have in its place? Perhaps whatever collection of beliefs and prejudices that have attached to you over your lifetime?


No- your evident IGNORANCE is REEKED FULL OF BIAS towards the supposed relationship between one's "physical activity" and one's existing pathology. It is JUVENILE thought at best. Pathological Physiology is well understood in the Rational Study of Cardiology, where that relationship does not exist simply to serve both of your presumptions. The Consumption (key word) of this Belief, leads to the Specious "Research" that you hang your hat on. What you believe in is wishful thinking at best and if you tour around the Internet to fester your beliefs, you are part of the disservice and a Fountain of Piss Poor Misinformation. "Studies" for physical activity and the dream of improved Pathology is Empty Medicine at best - it ignores the Facts. Get Over It.


It's dificult to understand what the hell you're even saying here, is your problem with a result of a specific study or with scientific methodology in general?

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that exercise may favorably affect certain aspects of physiology, and that aerobic exercise such as running may exert some specific effects different than that of resistance exercise?

You say I place too much faith in the studies, believe everything i read. that's not true. I look for good studies with good design, and I look for patterns or trends where the results are similar in multiple independent trials.

You, on the other hand seem still stuck in 80's physiology and a few I-net kooks. :|







can you re-phrase that ;}

In the mean time...

Dave, read this! The prestigious Journal of Circulation!

Circulation. 2000 Sep 19;102(12):1351-7.
Regular aerobic exercise prevents and restores age-related declines in endothelium-dependent vasodilation in healthy men.

"CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that regular aerobic exercise can prevent the age-associated loss in endothelium-dependent vasodilation and restore levels in previously sedentary middle aged and older healthy men. This may represent an important mechanism by which regular aerobic exercise lowers the risk of cardiovascular disease in this population."



Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
southbeach wrote:
What does this mean "Confidence Value in Human Research is Specious Opinion"?

All research on humans is specious? All research into disease and treatment is so flawed it's useless? Human physiology cannot be studied?

Then how do we have a body of knowledge called Human Physiology? A field of study called "Medicine"?

Do you see how ridiculous your position is?


So, what source of knowledge of physiology do you have in its place? Perhaps whatever collection of beliefs and prejudices that have attached to you over your lifetime?


No- your evident IGNORANCE is REEKED FULL OF BIAS towards the supposed relationship between one's "physical activity" and one's existing pathology. It is JUVENILE thought at best. Pathological Physiology is well understood in the Rational Study of Cardiology, where that relationship does not exist simply to serve both of your presumptions. The Consumption (key word) of this Belief, leads to the Specious "Research" that you hang your hat on. What you believe in is wishful thinking at best and if you tour around the Internet to fester your beliefs, you are part of the disservice and a Fountain of Piss Poor Misinformation. "Studies" for physical activity and the dream of improved Pathology is Empty Medicine at best - it ignores the Facts. Get Over It.


It's dificult to understand what the hell you're even saying here, is your problem with a result of a specific study or with scientific methodology in general?

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that exercise may favorably affect certain aspects of physiology, and that aerobic exercise such as running may exert some specific effects different than that of resistance exercise?

You say I place too much faith in the studies, believe everything i read. that's not true. I look for good studies with good design, and I look for patterns or trends where the results are similar in multiple independent trials.

You, on the other hand seem still stuck in 80's physiology and a few I-net kooks. :|





1. There is NO SUCH THING AS AEROBIC EXERCISE - This is made up gobbledegook.
2. Studies that follow a "made up" concept are going to be in the least - FLAWED.
3. How in the Hell can you look for "good studies with good design?"
4. Definition, Reliable Observation, and Controls - something that REEKS INCONSISTENCY in "Exercise Physiology."
5. Again, If one's Agenda includes the facts that "Aerobics Research" (NOUN) lacks reliable measuring tools, poor statistical controls, and made up definitions. You then are stuck with traditional Myth couched conveniently in Classical Biology.
6. Let's Not Forget the "Aerobics" Valuable impact upon the Liver, Kidneys, and Pancreas?
7. I am not stuck in the 80s (although I would not mind being back there) I am realistic and know a Hoax when I see one.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
southbeach wrote:
What does this mean "Confidence Value in Human Research is Specious Opinion"?

All research on humans is specious? All research into disease and treatment is so flawed it's useless? Human physiology cannot be studied?

Then how do we have a body of knowledge called Human Physiology? A field of study called "Medicine"?

Do you see how ridiculous your position is?


So, what source of knowledge of physiology do you have in its place? Perhaps whatever collection of beliefs and prejudices that have attached to you over your lifetime?


No- your evident IGNORANCE is REEKED FULL OF BIAS towards the supposed relationship between one's "physical activity" and one's existing pathology. It is JUVENILE thought at best. Pathological Physiology is well understood in the Rational Study of Cardiology, where that relationship does not exist simply to serve both of your presumptions. The Consumption (key word) of this Belief, leads to the Specious "Research" that you hang your hat on. What you believe in is wishful thinking at best and if you tour around the Internet to fester your beliefs, you are part of the disservice and a Fountain of Piss Poor Misinformation. "Studies" for physical activity and the dream of improved Pathology is Empty Medicine at best - it ignores the Facts. Get Over It.


It's dificult to understand what the hell you're even saying here, is your problem with a result of a specific study or with scientific methodology in general?

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that exercise may favorably affect certain aspects of physiology, and that aerobic exercise such as running may exert some specific effects different than that of resistance exercise?

You say I place too much faith in the studies, believe everything i read. that's not true. I look for good studies with good design, and I look for patterns or trends where the results are similar in multiple independent trials.

You, on the other hand seem still stuck in 80's physiology and a few I-net kooks. :|





1. There is NO SUCH THING AS AEROBIC EXERCISE - This is made up gobbledegook.
2. Studies that follow a "made up" concept are going to be in the least - FLAWED.


"Many types of exercise are aerobic, and by definition are performed at moderate levels of intensity for extended periods of time."
http://en.wikipedia.org/...erobic_exercise


You don't understand the difference b/w aerobic and anaerobic processes?? Do a bit more reading is my advice to you.

3. How in the Hell can you look for "good studies with good design?"

How in the hell do you decide every study is flawed and invalid w/o even looking at it??

4. Definition, Reliable Observation, and Controls - something that REEKS INCONSISTENCY in "Exercise Physiology."

Reeks?? how the hell do you know you don't even read the studies. Is it rational to dismiss entire bodies of research based on a few bad study designs? Get rational dude. You sound like a 'it's really a flat world' crank :|

5. Again, If one's Agenda includes the facts that "Aerobics Research" (NOUN) lacks reliable measuring tools, poor statistical controls, and made up definitions. You then are stuck with traditional Myth couched conveniently in Classical Biology.

incoherent gibberish. the studies stand on their own merit the fact you are too lazy to read them doesn't change this fact.

6. Let's Not Forget the "Aerobics" Valuable impact upon the Liver, Kidneys, and Pancreas?

i have no clue what this means and i doubt anyone else does either. Do you have a specific verifiable claim to make or are you just in another of your 80's rant again?

7. I am not stuck in the 80s (although I would not mind being back there) I am realistic and know a Hoax when I see one.

Realistic??

You eat deep fried doughnuts while throwing up a fat double bicep pose and think they are healthy LOL

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

David. Please can you not ignore the question. Why does running make a person better.. at running, what adaptations take place to improve running performance?

When a person runs regularly, they get better at it... WHY?
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy