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 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

AceHIT

JamesT wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Who said exercise prevents CVD? Isn't it YOU that believes your big biceps indemnifies against the damage done by a deep fried doughnut?

But exercise esp cardio may help by improving endothelium function, reducing cholesterol and trigly, liver fat, improve heart and lung function, and reduce mortality.

What's the oppsite of fit... unfit. Can anyone that is overweight and unfit be healthy iyo? Someone that never exercises never gets off the couch is subject to sarcopenia.. is that a healthy state? Would say to them yes you are healthy?

If the simplistic notions presented above were actually true (which for the most part, they are particularly dubious), I STILL must ask...

...why RUNNING?

And the answer to the above question you asked, in my opinion is YES. Of course an overweight individual who doesn't exercise can be considered healthy. This should be obvious, but irrelevant.

Can a former runner with a heart condition, crumbling spine and two plastic knees be considered healthy?

Think about your posts before you "Lol" at your own words Yoga Boy. What time is the "Bums and Tums" on anyway? Is it before or after the ladies only pilates? Don't forget the pink hotpants cheeky!



Well, well, well!

If it isn't me ol'China, JamesT

Ignoramuses galore on this forum. It is fun watching them, though! I suspect this is why you and I keep coming back for more!

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

JamesT wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Who said exercise prevents CVD? Isn't it YOU that believes your big biceps indemnifies against the damage done by a deep fried doughnut?

But exercise esp cardio may help by improving endothelium function, reducing cholesterol and trigly, liver fat, improve heart and lung function, and reduce mortality.

What's the oppsite of fit... unfit. Can anyone that is overweight and unfit be healthy iyo? Someone that never exercises never gets off the couch is subject to sarcopenia.. is that a healthy state? Would say to them yes you are healthy?

If the simplistic notions presented above were actually true (which for the most part, they are particularly dubious), I STILL must ask...

...why RUNNING?

And the answer to the above question you asked, in my opinion is YES. Of course an overweight individual who doesn't exercise can be considered healthy. This should be obvious, but irrelevant.

Can a former runner with a heart condition, crumbling spine and two plastic knees be considered healthy?

Think about your posts before you "Lol" at your own words Yoga Boy. What time is the "Bums and Tums" on anyway? Is it before or after the ladies only pilates? Don't forget the pink hotpants cheeky!



Interesting that you think obesity is not an unhealthy condition. Just how do YOU define "health"?
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

And yet another potential benefit to aerobic training...

Aerobic Activity May Keep The Brain Young
http://www.sciencedaily.com/...90629132254.htm

ScienceDaily (June 30, 2009) ? New research from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine finds that aerobic activity may keep the brain young.

In the study published July 9 in the American Journal of Neuroradiology, physically active elderly people showed healthier cerebral blood vessels.

Researchers led by Elizabeth Bullitt, M.D., Van L. Weatherspoon Distinguished Professor of neurosurgery, used non-invasive magnetic resonance (MR) angiography to examine the number and shape of blood vessels in the brains of physically active elderly people, 7 men and 7 women, ages 60 to 80.

The study subjects were equally divided into 2 groups. The high activity group reported participating in an aerobic activity for a minimum of 180 minutes per week for the past 10 consecutive years, and the low activity group told investigators they had no history of regular exercise and currently spent less than 90 minutes a week in any physical activity. (The researchers did not know into which group participants were placed.)

This is the first study to compare brain images of elderly subjects who exercise with those that do not.

Aerobically active subjects exhibited more small-diameter vessels with less tortuosity, or twisting, than the less active group, exhibiting a vessel pattern similar to younger adults.

The authors, who were sponsored in part by the National Institutes of Health?s National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, identified significant differences in the left and right middle cerebral artery regions confirmed by more than one statistical analysis.

The brain?s blood vessels naturally narrow and become more tortuous with advancing age, but the study showed the cerebrovascular patterns of active patients appeared ?younger? than those of relatively inactive subjects. The brains of these less active patients had increased tortuosity produced by vessel elongation and wider expansion curves.

The pilot study lays the foundation for future research to determine whether aerobic activity improves anatomy, if older patients with ?younger? brains are more likely to engage in physical activity, and whether elderly adults who begin a program of aerobic activity can reverse the cerebrovascular, anatomic and functional changes associated with advancing age.

UNC co-authors along with Bullitt include Feraz N. Rahman, 4th-year medical student, Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia; J. Keith Smith, M.D, Ph.D., associate professor, neuroradiology; Eunhee Kim, PhD, biostatistician; Dong Lin Zeng, biostatistics graduate student; Laurence M. Katz, M.D., associate professor, emergency medicine; and Bonita L. Marks, associate professor, exercise & sport science.
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

You said overweight. I'm splitting hairs I know, how very pedantic of me.

Most people in the western world die overweight. Most people (still) don't partake in formal exercise. And guess what? Lots of these people are living to a ripe old age...in pretty reasonable health...otherwise they would die sooner! You really believe running can keep the diseases away? Even if it could, your knees will need replacing before your efforts are of any use. This is a HIT forum, we all know there are better ways of staying as lean, strong and functional as possible...don't we?

Health is basically an absence of disease.

Fitness is the capacity to carry out your daily tasks with a degree of efficiency.

As you've already been told, fitness is an individualised state with potential performance capacity being genetically mediated.

Anyway, why is it Ok for you to encourage low intensity, high force, highly repetitive short ROM efforts AKA RUNNING, whilst rubbishing blokes like John Casler and Tommo? I sense a contradictory approach to exercise - yet another who has no conviction in his preaching...

Do you wear leg warmers or do you prefer long socks?
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

southbeach wrote:
The pilot study lays the foundation for future research to determine whether aerobic activity improves anatomy, if older patients with "younger" brains are more likely to engage in physical activity, and whether elderly adults who begin a program of aerobic activity can reverse the cerebrovascular, anatomic and functional changes associated with advancing age.


More speculation! Where was the HIT group?!

So, does "fitness" lead to "health" or does the blessing of good "health" lead to an active lifestyle? We still haven't been told have we? More research needed...SHOW ME THE MONEY!

No conviction SB, none at all.

Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

JamesT wrote:
You said overweight. I'm splitting hairs I know, how very pedantic of me.

Most people in the western world die overweight. Most people (still) don't partake in formal exercise. And guess what? Lots of these people are living to a ripe old age...in pretty reasonable health...otherwise they would die sooner! You really believe running can keep the diseases away? Even if it could, your knees will need replacing before your efforts are of any use. This is a HIT forum, we all know there are better ways of staying as lean, strong and functional as possible...don't we?

Health is basically an absence of disease.

Fitness is the capacity to carry out your daily tasks with a degree of efficiency.

As you've already been told, fitness is an individualised state with potential performance capacity being genetically mediated.

Anyway, why is it Ok for you to encourage low intensity, high force, highly repetitive short ROM efforts AKA RUNNING, whilst rubbishing blokes like John Casler and Tommo? I sense a contradictory approach to exercise - yet another who has no conviction in his preaching...

Do you wear leg warmers or do you prefer long socks?


BRAVO! BRAVO!
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

JamesT wrote:
You said overweight. I'm splitting hairs I know, how very pedantic of me.


Obesity is overweight. So, are you saying obesity is unhealthy and anything less than that is still in the realm of healthy? What's the difference?

Most people in the western world die overweight. Most people (still) don't partake in formal exercise. And guess what? Lots of these people are living to a ripe old age...in pretty reasonable health...otherwise they would die sooner!
Heart disease is #1 killer. Almost everyone over 50 is on statins and BP meds. Are they healthy by your standard?

You really believe running can keep the diseases away? Even if it could, your knees will need replacing before your efforts are of any use. This is a HIT forum, we all know there are better ways of staying as lean, strong and functional as possible...don't we?[/quote

Running doesn't cause joint injuries anymore than does resistance training. INJURY causes joint problems. From either.

Health is basically an absence of disease.

Then, according to that definition NONE of us are healthy because each of us has at least some evidence of CVD in our arteries.

If your resistance training is not to improve your health, because as you say "health is absence of disease", is it for vanity?

Fitness is the capacity to carry out your daily tasks with a degree of efficiency.

If you are unfit can you be healthy?



As you've already been told, fitness is an individualised state with potential performance capacity being genetically mediated.

Anyway, why is it Ok for you to encourage low intensity, high force, highly repetitive short ROM efforts AKA RUNNING, whilst rubbishing blokes like John Casler and Tommo? I sense a contradictory approach to exercise - yet another who has no conviction in his preaching...

Do you wear leg warmers or do you prefer long socks?


Prefer fishnet ;)
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Can anyone that is overweight and unfit be healthy iyo? Someone that never exercises never gets off the couch is subject to sarcopenia.. is that a healthy state? Would say to them yes you are healthy?

^^ I am very interested to read Landau's bias response to this.[/quote]

Yes - unfortunately, as Health basically refers to the freedom from disease, if you add the term fitness (be careful here), your references are simply non specific, in other words - "screw you and the horse you rode in on if you are going to call me unfit according to YOUR rules." (which you haven't yet - the other cardio dude did)

There are aspects of "fitness" that include metal, social, and emotional - if you have the ignorance to suggest what that entitles one to be, take a shot at it. By definition sedentary refers to people that have occupations (lives) that require very little physical effort or exertion - (many of these people again live Healthy lives according to the basic definition.)



Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
JamesT wrote:
You said overweight. I'm splitting hairs I know, how very pedantic of me.

Most people in the western world die overweight. Most people (still) don't partake in formal exercise. And guess what? Lots of these people are living to a ripe old age...in pretty reasonable health...otherwise they would die sooner! You really believe running can keep the diseases away? Even if it could, your knees will need replacing before your efforts are of any use. This is a HIT forum, we all know there are better ways of staying as lean, strong and functional as possible...don't we?

Health is basically an absence of disease.

Fitness is the capacity to carry out your daily tasks with a degree of efficiency.

As you've already been told, fitness is an individualised state with potential performance capacity being genetically mediated.

Anyway, why is it Ok for you to encourage low intensity, high force, highly repetitive short ROM efforts AKA RUNNING, whilst rubbishing blokes like John Casler and Tommo? I sense a contradictory approach to exercise - yet another who has no conviction in his preaching...

Do you wear leg warmers or do you prefer long socks?

BRAVO! BRAVO!


shake your pom poms ..ooooh
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
Can anyone that is overweight and unfit be healthy iyo? Someone that never exercises never gets off the couch is subject to sarcopenia.. is that a healthy state? Would say to them yes you are healthy?

^^ I am very interested to read Landau's bias response to this.

Yes - unfortunately, as Health basically refers to the freedom from disease, if you add the term fitness (be careful here), your references are simply non specific, in other words - "screw you and the horse you rode in on if you are going to call me unfit according to YOUR rules." (which you haven't yet - the other cardio dude did)

There are aspects of "fitness" that include metal, social, and emotional - if you have the ignorance to suggest what that entitles one to be, take a shot at it. By definition sedentary refers to people that have occupations (lives) that require very little physical effort or exertion - (many of these people again live Healthy lives according to the basic definition.)





How about "healthier"? Is everything black & white in your simple world?

According to your definition NO ONE is healthy. Ok, I AGREE YOU are not healthy! LOL

but can we be made HEALTHIER but following a good diet and exercise?
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Southbeach...

Why are you avoiding the really important question?

WHY RUNNING?

Most runner I know have to take pain killers before going out to "exercise"...healthy? Running destroys joints. This is a fact of life. HIT doesn't.

Is it simply that YOU like running and feel the need to justify the insanity?

If that's the case, I don't mind a bit - really.
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

southbeach wrote:
shake your pom poms ..ooooh


I thought that's what you did at Boxercise? Pastel yellow and baby blue?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
Can anyone that is overweight and unfit be healthy iyo? Someone that never exercises never gets off the couch is subject to sarcopenia.. is that a healthy state? Would say to them yes you are healthy?

^^ I am very interested to read Landau's bias response to this.

Yes - unfortunately, as Health basically refers to the freedom from disease, if you add the term fitness (be careful here), your references are simply non specific, in other words - "screw you and the horse you rode in on if you are going to call me unfit according to YOUR rules." (which you haven't yet - the other cardio dude did)

There are aspects of "fitness" that include metal, social, and emotional - if you have the ignorance to suggest what that entitles one to be, take a shot at it. By definition sedentary refers to people that have occupations (lives) that require very little physical effort or exertion - (many of these people again live Healthy lives according to the basic definition.)





How about "healthier"? Is everything black & white in your simple world?

According to your definition NO ONE is healthy. Ok, I AGREE YOU are not healthy! LOL

but can we be made HEALTHIER but following a good diet and exercise?


OK - according to your specific (non-specific) "exercise" recomendations with regards to "cardiovascular health," how one actually is "healthwise" and how one feels "healthwise" and thinking they go hand and hand is dangerous. Just because they feel better (taking on your "cardio") has likely nothing to do with their actual health. Puting people on your "exercise" program, just may add fuel to the fire. Diet is a different subject and according to your recs - a wreck waiting to happen. Leave people alone and don't tell them what you're doing, unless you want the people with the white coats to take you away.

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
Can anyone that is overweight and unfit be healthy iyo? Someone that never exercises never gets off the couch is subject to sarcopenia.. is that a healthy state? Would say to them yes you are healthy?

^^ I am very interested to read Landau's bias response to this.

Yes - unfortunately, as Health basically refers to the freedom from disease, if you add the term fitness (be careful here), your references are simply non specific, in other words - "screw you and the horse you rode in on if you are going to call me unfit according to YOUR rules." (which you haven't yet - the other cardio dude did)

There are aspects of "fitness" that include metal, social, and emotional - if you have the ignorance to suggest what that entitles one to be, take a shot at it. By definition sedentary refers to people that have occupations (lives) that require very little physical effort or exertion - (many of these people again live Healthy lives according to the basic definition.)





How about "healthier"? Is everything black & white in your simple world?

According to your definition NO ONE is healthy. Ok, I AGREE YOU are not healthy! LOL

but can we be made HEALTHIER but following a good diet and exercise?

OK - according to your specific (non-specific) "exercise" recomendations with regards to "cardiovascular health," how one actually is "healthwise" and how one feels "healthwise" and thinking they go hand and hand is dangerous. Just because they feel better (taking on your "cardio") has likely nothing to do with their actual health. Puting people on your "exercise" program, just may add fuel to the fire. Diet is a different subject and according to your recs - a wreck waiting to happen. Leave people alone and don't tell them what you're doing, unless you want the people with the white coats to take you away.



So, you agree according to your definition of 'health' none of us are healthy, right? We all have some amount of CVD into adulthood so we are all unhealthy, right?

If everyone is "unhealthy" according to this definition then the term "healthy" becomes meaningless. It describes no one.

Can we become healthier? Move away from the unhealthy state toward better function? Of course we can, proper diet is a way to get there. Improving the function of the endothelium with proper cardio is another tool in the toolbox.(i posted these studies go back look!)

Endothelium is just one facet of many from exercise to help us get back to a healthIER state, wouldn't you agree (now)? :)
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

Natty wrote:
DAVID.

Landau wrote:
"Cardiovascular Exercise" Research is CANNOT BE CAREFULLY MONITORED and IF THEY WERE ASSUMED TO BE, THERE WOULD BE MANY MORE FACTORS KNOWN AND UNKNOWN that would be conveniently glossed over. SINCE THE FORMULAS and DEFINITIONS are VAGUE at BEST.

Bullshit David. Exercise physiology is studied like any other aspect of biology/physiology. As SB has I have presented numerous studies where aspects of exercise were monitored and recored. You wish to attempt to discredit them because your mind is made up. I don't expect anything to change it but at least the board can see you for what you are. A dogmatic, stubborn and bias man.

Landau wrote:
Do you even know who's paying them - you don't - AGENDA, BIAS, POOR DEFINITIONS, POOR (SPECIOUS) MEASURING TOOLS, and a host of many other mistakes wait to happen - you have a mess, with many pigs following.

The words agenda, bias define you perfectly yet you throw it at everyone else open minded. Are you saying that because we may not know exactly who's funding the research then it's all null and void? Come now another logical fallacy. You could argue the same of ANY field of science. Fact is in 100 years time regardless of new advancements there will still me closed minded dogmatic fools like you who wish to discredit everything that proves their closed minded opinion wrong. If YOU don't know who's paying them then how do you know they are bias?

Landau wrote:
1. You Don't Need Scientific "Research" for something as Mundane as "Sustained Physical Activity."

Who says "Sustained Physical Activity" is mundane? You? Are you the ultimate definer of what's worthwhile or not? Dogma at it's finest. You really do have your heads stuck up your own arse. I guess you don't need research if you choose to reject it all and form opinions based on philosophy.

Landau wrote:
2. Being that you are a True Believer, it disqualifies you as having ANY Rational on the said Inane Subject.

Classic, the way you apply to others what actually applies to you. "True believer" does not apply to myself, I am always embracing new knowledge based on new discovery based on studies and research. The term "true believer" would apply to closed minded bias fools that believe they have all the answers based on speculative nonsense ignoring all actual hands on research in the field.

Landau wrote:
4. If for Instance there would be any Validity to your "beliefs" (and that's all they are), then Basketball Players would live forever.

WTF are you even on about? Why? Who's even made the claim that ANYONE that exercises live forever? What a stupid thing to say!

Landau wrote:
5. Anyone that believes the way you do, should be heavily censored.

More application of what applies TO YOU to others. How is basing knowledge from the results of research worthy of "censorship"? If anyone should censored it's those that choose to ignore any and all studies/research on the subject.. Anyone that wishes to close their mind to new information has nothing to offer but speculation and bias dogmatic opinion.

Landau.
You cannot negate science, studies and research based on hearsay and opinion. Please give as something substantial. eg..Do you have any studies where the results showed no change after a period of exercise? If not your views are purely speculative or based on other peoples bias and speculation. The fact that SOME studies may be bias or conducted poorly does NOT negate them all. If you have evidence against the numerous studies presented in this thread then please present it.

JAMES.

JamesT wrote:
They perform NO traditional cardio work. None. Nothing at all. Zero. Not a second. I see you still don't get it.

James, you seem to be having some problem grasping my point. I never said that you have your clients perform "tradition" cardio. My point is that you DO have them perform a FORM of cardio.

JamesT wrote:
Individuals who employ the "rush factor" may improve their "aerobic capacity", something which is subject to MINOR change via training stimulus. Key point - MINOR change.

It's good to see you at least acknowledge that aerobic capacity is something that can be improved but saying only by a tiny amount is speculative/opinion, may I see the research data for this claim?

JamesT wrote:
Such change is small and highly specific. I still don't mention health.

The studies presented by SB and myself DO mention health. May I see your references proving otherwise?

JamesT wrote:
Natty boy, how many runners have you had to rehab lately? More specifically, how many runners do you actually know personally (internet gurus/nutters don't count)? My guess is that you deal with about as many runners as you do "strength athletes"...NONE!

I used to run, a lot. In my teens to early 20's. I loved it made me feel GREAT and I was super fit and bloody fast. NO injuries.

JamesT wrote:
Fat carcass? That would be your friend Natty, you have the wrong bloke. By the look of him, he has trouble getting his lardy arse off the sofa.

Ad Hominem attacks only serve to highlight your lack of a substantial answer. Sad.


Well said N1 and southbeach.

Running is very good for you if not overdone, and most that overdo it are very fit.

Wayne

Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

God, will this stupid discussion go on forever? Why must it be either HIT or running? It's like saying that HIT is the only way to get muscles. There's many ways to build muscles. HIT works for some, high volume for others, power lifting for some etc etc.

Getting your cardio from no rest between intense sets of HIT is one way to get a good cardio workout and running or cycling or swimming or rowing are others. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Depending on your body both can work. Some will get knee problems from running ten feet while others can do it forever with no trouble. Some get joint trouble from lifting weights, some don't.

Of Arthur Jones failings I put his put down of jogging, walking or running at the top of the list.Yes, you can get a good cardio workout with his machines but a good cardio workout can be had in other ways as well.

Most people aren't lucky enough like me to have a set of Nautilus machines at home to workout on and even though I have just about all the basic machines made I still prefer to run or bike or swim to get my cardio workout. I leave the machines for muscle building. There's something more to exercise than just the end results.

There's the good feeling you get from actually enjoying something you are doing. Sometimes there's that something you won't get on a machine that you will get when running briskly down the wooded trail looking at the geese in the lake ,breathing hard,checking out the butt on that girl as you pass by, pushing for a new record ,enjoying nature and getting a cardio workout at the same time.

Scott
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

"Here are three studies off the top of a list that includes many dozens showing that even competitive endurance athletes on nothing more than a routine training regimen suffer heart damage from their workouts:

Cardiac drift during prolonged exercise with echocardiographic evidence of reduced diastolic function of the heart. Dawson, et al. Eur J Appl Physiol 2005 Mar 12.

Does four hours of cycling cause cardiac fatigue or cardiomyocyte damage? Damage! This study demonstrated damage to heart muscle cells as shown by reduced diastolic function of the heart. Diastolic filling had not fully re-covered after 24 hours of rest.

Furthermore, the heart damage was greatest in the cyclists who were best conditioned, i.e., had the highest maximal oxygen uptake.

Altered cardiac function and minimal cardiac damage during prolonged exercise. Shave, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Jul; 36 (7):1098-103.

This study measured markers of cardiac damage to highly trained triathletes in a half-triathlon. RESULTS: reduced left ventricular contractility, reduced diastolic filling, and elevated markers of inflammation and catabolic damage including creatine kinase, creatine kinase isoenzyme MB, and cardiac troponin.

Effect of Endurance exercise on autonomic control of heart rate. Carter et al. Sports Med 2003; 33(1):33-46.

Does the resting heart rate decrease in endurance athletes because the myocardium is stronger and the stroke volume increases? In other words, is the bradycardia a positive adaptation to the stress of training? No.

This myth has existed for many decades. ?Since he started running two years ago his resting heart rate has come down to 52! He is really in great shape!? Ha! Look at your BP-Pulse chart in your NUTRI-SPEC QRG if you want to know what the slow pulse indicates: over-stressed heart, dysaerobic, parasympathetic, or ketogenic.

This study showed that prolonged endurance training results in a non-physiological change in autonomic control of the heart such that parasympathetic activity dominates and sympathetic control is reduced. The parasympathetic stress and sympathetic weakness results in a decreased heart rate at rest, and in response to sub-maximal exercise."

Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

entsminger wrote:
God, will this stupid discussion go on forever? Why must it be either HIT or running? It's like saying that HIT is the only way to get muscles. There's many ways to build muscles. HIT works for some, high volume for others, power lifting for some etc etc.

Getting your cardio from no rest between intense sets of HIT is one way to get a good cardio workout and running or cycling or swimming or rowing are others. It doesn't have to be one or the other. Depending on your body both can work. Some will get knee problems from running ten feet while others can do it forever with no trouble. Some get joint trouble from lifting weights, some don't.

Of Arthur Jones failings I put his put down of jogging, walking or running at the top of the list.Yes, you can get a good cardio workout with his machines but a good cardio workout can be had in other ways as well.

Most people aren't lucky enough like me to have a set of Nautilus machines at home to workout on and even though I have just about all the basic machines made I still prefer to run or bike or swim to get my cardio workout. I leave the machines for muscle building. There's something more to exercise than just the end results.

There's the good feeling you get from actually enjoying something you are doing. Sometimes there's that something you won't get on a machine that you will get when running briskly down the wooded trail looking at the geese in the lake ,breathing hard,checking out the butt on that girl as you pass by, pushing for a new record ,enjoying nature and getting a cardio workout at the same time.

Scott



Well said Scott.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
"Here are three studies off the top of a list that includes many dozens showing that even competitive endurance athletes on nothing more than a routine training regimen suffer heart damage from their workouts:

Cardiac drift during prolonged exercise with echocardiographic evidence of reduced diastolic function of the heart. Dawson, et al. Eur J Appl Physiol 2005 Mar 12.

Does four hours of cycling cause cardiac fatigue or cardiomyocyte damage? Damage! This study demonstrated damage to heart muscle cells as shown by reduced diastolic function of the heart. Diastolic filling had not fully re-covered after 24 hours of rest.

Furthermore, the heart damage was greatest in the cyclists who were best conditioned, i.e., had the highest maximal oxygen uptake.

Altered cardiac function and minimal cardiac damage during prolonged exercise. Shave, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Jul; 36 (7):1098-103.

This study measured markers of cardiac damage to highly trained triathletes in a half-triathlon. RESULTS: reduced left ventricular contractility, reduced diastolic filling, and elevated markers of inflammation and catabolic damage including creatine kinase, creatine kinase isoenzyme MB, and cardiac troponin.

Effect of Endurance exercise on autonomic control of heart rate. Carter et al. Sports Med 2003; 33(1):33-46.

Does the resting heart rate decrease in endurance athletes because the myocardium is stronger and the stroke volume increases? In other words, is the bradycardia a positive adaptation to the stress of training? No.

This myth has existed for many decades. ?Since he started running two years ago his resting heart rate has come down to 52! He is really in great shape!? Ha! Look at your BP-Pulse chart in your NUTRI-SPEC QRG if you want to know what the slow pulse indicates: over-stressed heart, dysaerobic, parasympathetic, or ketogenic.

This study showed that prolonged endurance training results in a non-physiological change in autonomic control of the heart such that parasympathetic activity dominates and sympathetic control is reduced. The parasympathetic stress and sympathetic weakness results in a decreased heart rate at rest, and in response to sub-maximal exercise."



Your studies show alterations in heart function after HOURS of hard exertion. Even then these alterations are temporary and reversible with adequate rest. I'm certainly not suggesting hours of cardio .. those studies are largely irrelevant.

What's a "NUTRI-SPEC QRG"?
Open User Options Menu

Waynes

Switzerland

southbeach wrote:
Landau wrote:
"Here are three studies off the top of a list that includes many dozens showing that even competitive endurance athletes on nothing more than a routine training regimen suffer heart damage from their workouts:

Cardiac drift during prolonged exercise with echocardiographic evidence of reduced diastolic function of the heart. Dawson, et al. Eur J Appl Physiol 2005 Mar 12.

Does four hours of cycling cause cardiac fatigue or cardiomyocyte damage? Damage! This study demonstrated damage to heart muscle cells as shown by reduced diastolic function of the heart. Diastolic filling had not fully re-covered after 24 hours of rest.

Furthermore, the heart damage was greatest in the cyclists who were best conditioned, i.e., had the highest maximal oxygen uptake.

Altered cardiac function and minimal cardiac damage during prolonged exercise. Shave, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004 Jul; 36 (7):1098-103.

This study measured markers of cardiac damage to highly trained triathletes in a half-triathlon. RESULTS: reduced left ventricular contractility, reduced diastolic filling, and elevated markers of inflammation and catabolic damage including creatine kinase, creatine kinase isoenzyme MB, and cardiac troponin.

Effect of Endurance exercise on autonomic control of heart rate. Carter et al. Sports Med 2003; 33(1):33-46.

Does the resting heart rate decrease in endurance athletes because the myocardium is stronger and the stroke volume increases? In other words, is the bradycardia a positive adaptation to the stress of training? No.

This myth has existed for many decades. ?Since he started running two years ago his resting heart rate has come down to 52! He is really in great shape!? Ha! Look at your BP-Pulse chart in your NUTRI-SPEC QRG if you want to know what the slow pulse indicates: over-stressed heart, dysaerobic, parasympathetic, or ketogenic.

This study showed that prolonged endurance training results in a non-physiological change in autonomic control of the heart such that parasympathetic activity dominates and sympathetic control is reduced. The parasympathetic stress and sympathetic weakness results in a decreased heart rate at rest, and in response to sub-maximal exercise."



Your studies show alterations in heart function after HOURS of hard exertion. Even then these alterations are temporary and reversible with adequate rest. I'm certainly not suggesting hours of cardio .. those studies are largely irrelevant.

What's a "NUTRI-SPEC QRG"?



I was going to say the same, no one suggested hours and hours of running.

Wayne
Open User Options Menu

davise

Did the following today

Squats
Military Press
DB Rows
Dips
Curls
Shrugs
Calf Raise
Crunch

All to failure 1 set each and took a short break and ran a 10 minute 1 1/2.

I do not run for hours and hours nor do I want to. Each of these activities stresses you differently.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Damage or Waste of Time as per Cumulative Negative Effect - Take your choice, I'm sure I can find more to play your game - "Strength/endurance training vs. endurance training in congestive heart failure. Delagardelle, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Dec, 2002.

This study showed that low intensity, long duration endurance training (40 minute workouts, three times per week) gave only scant "specific" task related benefits in work capacity, peak torque, and muscular endurance. However, VO2 peak did not improve at all with conventional ?aerobic? ?cardio? workouts, and endurance training (gasp!) actually caused ventricular function to get weaker by three different objective criteria.

Oh my! Don?t let the word get out to the millions of people spending zillions on health club memberships so that they can tread on the mill to oblivion. The health club fraud would be over in a day.

Meanwhile, the second part of this experiment took an identical population of exercisers and cut the endurance training in half, while adding strength training for the other half of the workouts. The results? Cutting the endurance training in half and substituting strength training resulted in an increased VO2 peak.

These workouts also strengthened left ventricular function by all criteria, and gave greater improvement than the low intensity long duration exercises in work capacity, muscle strength, and muscle endurance."

Wayne - those Fast Reps are warping your brain even worse. Like Scott said - Let us see the Healthy Bodies Both of you "Lads" have or are you both built like shit and afraid to show it?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

"Running is very good for you if not overdone, and most that overdo it are very fit."

Wayne

WTF does that mean? Contradiction Totally - Get Real!

Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau wrote:
Damage or Waste of Time as per Cumulative Negative Effect - Take your choice, I'm sure I can find more to play your game - "Strength/endurance training vs. endurance training in congestive heart failure. Delagardelle, et al. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Dec, 2002.

This study showed that low intensity, long duration endurance training (40 minute workouts, three times per week) gave only scant "specific" task related benefits in work capacity, peak torque, and muscular endurance. However, VO2 peak did not improve at all with conventional ?aerobic? ?cardio? workouts, and endurance training (gasp!) actually caused ventricular function to get weaker by three different objective criteria.

Oh my! Don?t let the word get out to the millions of people spending zillions on health club memberships so that they can tread on the mill to oblivion. The health club fraud would be over in a day.

Meanwhile, the second part of this experiment took an identical population of exercisers and cut the endurance training in half, while adding strength training for the other half of the workouts. The results? Cutting the endurance training in half and substituting strength training resulted in an increased VO2 peak.

These workouts also strengthened left ventricular function by all criteria, and gave greater improvement than the low intensity long duration exercises in work capacity, muscle strength, and muscle endurance."

Wayne - those Fast Reps are warping your brain even worse. Like Scott said - Let us see the Healthy Bodies Both of you "Lads" have or are you both built like shit and afraid to show it?


This is a study on very sick people with heart failure. The conclusion was COMBINED endurance/strength training improved function and structure of their hearts. (i thought you said in a previous post that any change in the structure of the heart in response to exercise is "damage" ;)

Will you be adding cardio to your workouts in light of your newly found study? ;)
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Practicality, Call it what you want - the health problems in society have nothing to do with activity dreams - it's just plain old over eating and other issues. When in doubt about activity, lay down take a nap and hopefully the thought will go away. You understand that you are the problem, not the solution - get over it and go post your fantasies somewhere else. You only see that which won't let you be stripped of your fanatical illusions - pseudoscience. The Energy Conservationist - David Landau.
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy