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 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

N@tural1

mentzerfan wrote:
So what you're saying Natty, is that your very emotional problem with Landau is just down to the way he phrases his posts. Is that right?


No emotion. Just calling out Landaus bull shit as I see it. I've been patient enough for long enough and tolerated his insults numerous times before, you cry for him when he gets it back? Can't he defend himself?

mentzerfan wrote:
Is he outspoken? Yes he is but he isn't thrusting his views down people's throats.


No he just insults everyone that doesn't share his opinion.

mentzerfan wrote:
He doesn't tour the internet and post everywhere he can trying to annoy everyone who doesn't like HIT.


He would get owned big time on any other forum not dedicated to HIT. In fact, he gets owned here to!

mentzerfan wrote:
Is he opinionated? Yes he is, but he does make it very clear where he stands and what he believes. I appreciate that.

Opinions are one thing, closed minded obnoxiousness is completely another.

mentzerfan wrote:
Would you prefer to have a conversation with someone very open about their subject or would you prefer talking to someone just interested in argument and "scoring points" in some limp ego contest? I know what I'd prefer!


I'd rather talk to someone that can back up his claims. Being "passionate" about something doesn't make it right. Landau is beyond "passionate" about HIT. He makes outright false and outrageous statements. I'm more than happy to show him up. He has nothing but 'appeal to authority' and personal insults.

mentzerfan wrote:
Is he abrasive? Yes, sometimes. But then so are you in most of your posts.

Then you don't read many of my posts, I am being short and abrasive with David and David only due to putting up with his insults for long enough. It's time for some straight talking.

mentzerfan wrote:
if you dish it out then don't get upset if someone throws it right back at you!


Landaus been dishing out for months, now your crying because I'm dishing some back. Sad. Apply you're own advice here.

mentzerfan wrote:
If I were you I'd think about what it is that makes you so upset with Landau.


If I were you I'd think about what makes David get so upset with me and has been for months!

It's been time for some straight talking long enough, David had this coming. Is it ok for him to talk abruptly and harshly but for no one to retaliate? One rule for HITers one for everyone else huh?

mentzerfan wrote:
Is it his beliefs and his stance on training that upsets you so much? If so then I should remind you this is a specialist forum dedicated to HIT.


I'm all up for intense exercise!
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau has been abrasive, rude, insulting, obnoxious on this forum for ages yet for once he's on the end of some plain straight talking and already two other members come out the wood work to his "rescue" how freakin hilarious!
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

1. Cardio - Word form that refers to the Heart - Not an arbitrary activity's requirement for "Health."
2. Athlete's Heart has no apparent difference from a diseased heart
3. Marathon Hypothesis - was Proved Way Wrong from the get go 4. Accurate "Studies" Cannot be done or even taken seriously 5. Is the Body inherently healthier 1 or healthier as a result of said activity - IT IS THE FORMER - 6. It is very easy to get off the hook by acquiescing to generic mainstream fitness standards that are fraught with more negatives than they are worth, Sedentary Anyone? 7. Do you practice Religion 2 - 3 times a week for at least 30 minutes for your spiritual health?

Random thoughts not looked up on the Internet by some random garage trainee.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Landau has been abrasive, rude, insulting, obnoxious on this forum for ages yet for once he's on the end of some plain straight talking and already two other members come out the wood work to his "rescue" how freakin hilarious!



Rescue - Poison Darts
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Numpty wrote:
Vague at best. Are you talking about a triple figure mileage runners per week or some one that exercise sensibly 2-3 per week for the health/fitness benefits?


Hypothetical answer to your hy-PATHETIC-al question. The question is pure fantasy, what do you expect in return? The answer to the next silly question is EITHER or BOTH. Depends on the genetic limitations of the individual, inherent robustness if you will. NOTHING is fixed in stone. The formula you're after doesn't exist - mind the bumps in the road fat lad!

Numpty wrote:
Ok so, you have your trainees do cardio, you clearly are of the opinion that there are benefits to be had. 2-3 20-30 minute session of cardio sounds reasonable to me.


Yes, they go from one resistance exercise to another with little or no rest...they call it HIT...it's beyond your capacity.

Numpty wrote:
Where have I suggested running over any other cardio activity? The emphasis is on cardio, GETTING the exercise. Not everyone cares to lift weights.


Well there's your mistake, but it's Ok, we all make them. The key is to learn from them. The non-lifters...that's their mistake.

Numpty wrote:
Me personally, no. This has never been implied.


You advocated two or three cardio sessions weekly. Add this to your two or three weights sessions. The total is 4 to 6 weekly workouts. Do you need this written long hand?

Numpty wrote:
Again, personally no, however, not to say this is impossible for a drug free lifter.


But you wouldn't know. You've been training for...3 months now in your bedroom? Yes? And you train alone. Ok, you beat Landau and his 30 plus years of experience, with THOUSANDS of subjects hands down. Damn, we're "owned"...

Numpty wrote:
I only suggest staying within recovery when using single factor super-compensation, not when using DFT. DFT is planned over-reaching but that's a different topic.


More nonsense. SC, DFT, MI5...MILF. Get a grip Numpty! Run fat boy, run!

A great man once said - when it comes to exercise NOTHING is better than SOMETHING...because you can't get hurt doing NOTHING. If you are going to do ANYTHING, why not make it the best available? Running doesn't make the grade.

Why are you struggling with this very simple concept?

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
1. Cardio - Word form that refers to the Heart - Not an arbitrary activity's requirement for "Health."


Weight training, not an arbitrary requirement for health...

Landau wrote:
2. Athlete's Heart has no apparent difference from a diseased heart


References? Funny how my heart rate was way lower at rest when I was running in my teens/20's compared to now where lifting is priority. This applies even more to super fit athletes.

Landau wrote:
3. Marathon Hypothesis - was Proved Way Wrong from the get go


References? And anyhow, we're not talking necessarily about a 26 mile over 2 hours run. Do you lift for over 2 hours?

Landau wrote:
4. Accurate "Studies" Cannot be done or even taken seriously


Of course not. Not when they fly in the face of everything you hold dear huh.

Landau wrote:
5. Is the Body inherently healthier 1 or healthier as a result of said activity - IT IS THE FORMER


Well evidenced by the numerous studies that have been presented that statement would appear to be more horse shit. And I could FLOOD this thread with more.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

JamesT wrote:
Hypothetical answer to your hy-PATHETIC-al question. The question is pure fantasy, what do you expect in return? The answer to the next silly question is EITHER or BOTH. Depends on the genetic limitations of the individual, inherent robustness if you will.


Makes a huge difference James whether a runner is doing it sensibly for the benefits or over doing it competitively. I would had thought you would had understood this being an advocate of brief training. In your opinion, brief is obviously better than 2 hours sessions, doesn't apply to cardio huh?

JamesT wrote:
NOTHING is fixed in stone. The formula you're after doesn't exist - mind the bumps in the road fat lad!


Two posts directed at me and two references to being overweight/fat. What's Interesting is I have seen the pictures on Pure-HIT of you and 4 of your peers. I'm referring to the two guys on the left in that picture, both overweight, particularly the 2nd guy in from the left, proper fat. I won't mention names, we both know who I'm talking about. I have the picture shall I post it? A testament to HIT? Hypocrite anyone?

JamesT wrote:
Well there's your mistake, but it's Ok, we all make them. The key is to learn from them. The non-lifters...that's their mistake.


Opinion nothing more. Bias at that.

JamesT wrote:
You advocated two or three cardio sessions weekly. Add this to your two or three weights sessions. The total is 4 to 6 weekly workouts. Do you need this written long hand?


Where did I suggest for someone to perform cardio AS WELL as lifting? The debate as been about benefits/adaptations as a result of cardio/running. NOT combining running and lifting.

JamesT wrote:
But you wouldn't know. You've been training for...3 months now in your bedroom? Yes?


Assume all you like. Speculation - the HIT jedi's master trick. Think what you will facts are facts. "Appeal to authority" is your only argument, pathetic.

JamesT wrote:
Ok, you beat Landau and his 30 plus years of experience, with THOUSANDS of subjects hands down. Damn, we're "owned"...


Is the years spent training a guarantee that the knowledge/advice of the person is accurate? Are the trainers that completely disagree with Landau eg Charles Poliquin who actually trains upper level athletes wrong? More "appeal to authority" - pathetic.

JamesT wrote:
More nonsense. SC, DFT, MI5...MILF. Get a grip Numpty! Run fat boy, run!


Limited knowledge, VERY limited.

JamesT wrote:
A great man once said - when it comes to exercise NOTHING is better than SOMETHING...because you can't get hurt doing NOTHING. If you are going to do ANYTHING, why not make it the best available? Running doesn't make the grade.


Opinion.

JamesT wrote:
Why are you struggling with this very simple concept?


Good grief I lost count how many simple concepts you cannot grasp! CNS overtraining muscle undertraining anyone?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Joggers are significantly less likely than non-runners to die of any cause, according to Danish researchers.

Researchers collected data on more than 4,600 men aged 20 to 79.

Regular joggers were 63% less likely than other men to die over the course of 5 years.

Men who jogged only occasionally did not have a lower death risk than non-joggers.

Researchers note that while jogging has become increasingly popular over the past 30 years, there is some public concern over reports of people dying while jogging. However, despite public misconceptions, this study shows that regular joggers boast a significantly lower risk of dying.

The joggers' lower death risk could be a direct effect of the exercise or the men may have led more healthy lifestyles in general.

These findings support the current view in the medical community that, although light exercise seems to have some value, moderate to vigorous activity such as jogging is now considered more favorable for health.

British Medical Journal September 9, 2000;321:602-603

---------------------------

Walking is a popular form of exercise, but may not be enough to experience significant health benefits, a University of Alberta study shows.

"Generally, low-intensity activity such as walking alone is not likely going to give anybody marked health benefits compared to programs that occasionally elevate the intensity," said Dr. Vicki Harber, lead author on the Health First study, which was presented recently at the American College of Sports Medicine annual conference.

Dr. Harber and her colleagues, Dr. Wendy Rodgers, Dr. Gordon Bell and Dr. Kerry Courneya of the Faculty of Physical Education and Recreation at the University of Alberta in Edmonton, Canada, were concerned that while people with health issues are encouraged to increase their volume of activity such as walking, there didn't seem to be much focus on the effort that needed to go into the activity.

The University of Alberta study put the popularized pedometer-friendly 10,000-step exercise program to the test against a traditional fitness program which incorporated cardio-based activities on equipment such as treadmills and stationary bicycles. The traditional group was asked to complete exercise at a moderate intensity, a level allowing for one or two sentences of conversation with ease. Intensity was not set for the walking group; they completed their daily exercise at a self-selected pace.

"When we matched the two programs for energy expenditure, we found that the traditional fitness program improved aerobic fitness and reduced systolic blood pressure, more than the 10,000-step lifestyle program," Dr. Harber said. Of the 128 sedentary men and women who completed the six-month research program, those who took part in a more active traditional fitness regimen increased their peak oxygen uptake, an indicator of aerobic fitness, by 10 per cent. Those who took part in the walking program experienced a four per cent increase. Systolic blood pressure also dropped by 10 per cent for the traditional fitness group, compared to four per cent for the group who just walked.

"Our concern is that people might think what matters most is the total number of daily steps accumulated, and not pay much attention to the pace or effort invested in taking those steps," Dr. Harber said. "The 10,000-step or pedometer-based walking programs are great for people--they are motivating, and provide an excellent starting point for beginning an activity program, but to increase the effectiveness, one must add some intensity or "huff and puff" to their exercise. Across your day, while you are achieving those 10,000 steps, take 200 to 400 of them at a brisker pace."

"You've got to do more than light exercise and move towards the inclusion of regular moderate activity, and don't be shy to interject an occasional period of time at the vigorous level."

http://www.eurekalert.org/...a-wne092006.php

---------------------------

Although exercise is usually promoted for weight loss and better heart health, there is growing evidence that regular physical activity helps ward off mental declines as people age, and may even protect against Alzheimer's disease. A new study out of Canada suggests that exercise cuts the risk of Alzheimer's and less-devastating mental losses, particularly in women.

In a 5-year study of men and women aged 65 and older, researchers found that exercisers were less likely to develop Alzheimer's and other forms of dementia, and were less likely to see a drop-off in their mental abilities.

The more a person exercised, the greater the protection for the brain.

People with the highest activity levels were half as likely as inactive individuals to develop Alzheimer's, and were around 40% less likely to suffer any dementia or mental impairment, the report indicates.

Previous research has suggested exercise helps people retain their mental prowess as they age, and may even stave off Alzheimer's and other dementia. It has been suggested that because exercise helps maintain healthy blood flow and lowers high blood pressure and cholesterol, it may protect the brain just as it does the heart and other organs.

The investigators found that the more activity the nearly 5,000 study participants reported at the study's start, the less likely they were to suffer mental decline.

People who exercised vigorously at least three times per week were considered highly active and had the lowest Alzheimer's risk.

But those who engaged in light or moderate exercise also saw significant cuts in their risks for Alzheimer's and mental decline.

Women got the lion's share of these benefits. Although there was an association between exercise and lowered risk of mental decline among men, the researchers report, the link was not nearly as strong as that for women. The reasons are unclear.

Archives of Neurology March, 2001;58:498-504

---------------------------

While previous studies have linked exercise with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), a recent study found that running, weight training, rowing and brisk walking, along with increased levels of intensity, can reduce the risk for men even further.

The study included nearly 45,000 men between the ages of 40 and 75. They were surveyed at 2-year intervals about physical activity and CHD risk factors. Over the course of the twelve-year study, 1,700 new cases of CHD were documented.

Findings suggest that of all exercise reported, running for an hour or more per week decreased the risk of heart disease the most. Men who reported running had a 42 percent risk reduction compared with men who did not run. This was followed by weight training for at least 30 minutes per week, which was found to decrease the risk by 23 percent. Men who reported rowing for an hour or more each week or brisk walking for at least 30 minutes per day, were both found to have an 18 percent risk reduction.

Exercise intensity also played a role. Men who exercised at a high level of intensity decreased their risk of CHD by 17 percent, while those who exercised at a moderate level had a six percent lower risk, as compared with men who exercised at a low level.

The Journal of the American Medical Association. October 23, 2002;288:1994-2000

---------------------------

That's another four in addition to the many previous studies that have been presented. I could go on and on.. I'm eager to see your references James/David.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

You would need Billions of Dollars and the willingness to be able to motivate people to "exercise" for years on end for a "reliable study" - this can NEVER be done. Research Studies are not Research Studies when the end result is already known, so if you have an agenda - statistics can be and are conveniently slanted, therefore you are stuck with something like a Fixed Horse Race, where the winner is already pre-determined. Are the subjects in "your" studies healthier because they "exercise" or do they exercise because they are healthier to begin with. Sounds like they conveniently Cherry Pick The Subjects. Cause or Effect? Definitions of Average, Intermediate, and Super Fitness relates to inherent ability that is therefore determined by accident of your fate. Somethings to think about, but like your Religious Fevor, you'll cotinue to ignore the obvious and that obvious is not Politically Correct, nor does it mirror mainstream thought that reflects a lack of therefore which. Health and Fitness?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
You would need Billions of Dollars and the willingness to be able to motivate people to "exercise" for years on end for a "reliable study" - this can NEVER be done. Research Studies are not Research Studies when the end result is already known, so if you have an agenda - statistics can be and are conveniently slanted, therefore you are stuck with something like a Fixed Horse Race, where the winner is already pre-determined. Are the subjects in "your" studies healthier because they "exercise" or do they exercise because they are healthier to begin with. Sounds like they conveniently Cherry Pick The Subjects. Cause or Effect? Definitions of Average, Intermediate, and Super Fitness relates to inherent ability that is therefore determined by accident of your fate.


The one and only reason you try and discredit these numerous studies some even performed over years is this - they fly in the face of your opinions. You've offered nothing but mere opinion to refute and nothing substantial. You'll ignore all research because you don't agree with it and base you beliefs on "philosophy"

Landau wrote:
Somethings to think about, but like your Religious Fevor, you'll cotinue to ignore the obvious and that obvious is not Politically Correct


Obvious? What's obvious is you have nothing to refute the ACTUAL research.

Landau wrote:
nor does it mirror mainstream thought that reflects a lack of therefore which. Health and Fitness?


Mainstream thought? Maybe that's because mainstream thought is based on actual research and not dogmatic bias opinion.
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Two weeks of high-intensity aerobic interval training increases the capacity for fat oxidation during exercise in women.

Jason L. Talanian,1 Stuart D. R. Galloway,2 George J. F. Heigenhauser,3 Arend Bonen,1 and Lawrence L. Spriet1

1Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada, 2Department of Sport Studies, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland; and 3Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Submitted 26 September 2006 ; accepted in final form 7 December 2006

Our aim was to examine the effects of seven high-intensity aerobic interval training (HIIT) sessions over 2 wk on skeletal muscle fuel content, mitochondrial enzyme activities, fatty acid transport proteins, peak O2 consumption (VO2 peak), and whole body metabolic, hormonal, and cardiovascular responses to exercise. Eight women (22.1 ? 0.2 yr old, 65.0 ? 2.2 kg body wt, 2.36 ? 0.24 l/min VO2 peak) performed a VO2 peak test and a 60-min cycling trial at ~60% VO2 peak before and after training. Each session consisted of ten 4-min bouts at ~90% VO2 peak with 2 min of rest between intervals. Training increased VO2 peak by 13%. After HIIT, plasma epinephrine and heart rate were lower during the final 30 min of the 60-min cycling trial at ~60% pretraining VO2 peak. Exercise whole body fat oxidation increased by 36% (from 15.0 ? 2.4 to 20.4 ? 2.5 g) after HIIT. Resting muscle glycogen and triacylglycerol contents were unaffected by HIIT, but net glycogen use was reduced during the posttraining 60-min cycling trial. HIIT significantly increased muscle mitochondrial beta-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase (15.44 ? 1.57 and 20.35 ? 1.40 mmol?min?1?kg wet mass?1 before and after training, respectively) and citrate synthase (24.45 ? 1.89 and 29.31 ? 1.64 mmol?min?1?kg wet mass?1 before and after training, respectively) maximal activities by 32% and 20%, while cytoplasmic hormone-sensitive lipase protein content was not significantly increased. Total muscle plasma membrane fatty acid-binding protein content increased significantly (25%), whereas fatty acid translocase/CD36 content was unaffected after HIIT. In summary, seven sessions of HIIT over 2 wk induced marked increases in whole body and skeletal muscle capacity for fatty acid oxidation during exercise in moderately active women.

----------------------------------

Landau. Where's these 'health professionals' that believe that exercise is of no benefit and where is their research/studies?
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1


Results of a large, 5-year study of older men show that exercise need not be time-consuming to provide benefit to cardiovascular health. Researchers found that breaking up exercise into short bursts of activity throughout the day strengthened the heart just as well as one long workout.

Collecting data on more than 7,300 men who reported their regular exercise habits, their heart disease risk was found to depend not on how long they exercised each day, but on how many overall calories they burned.

Men who burned 4,400 calories per week through exercise were nearly 40% less likely to develop heart disease than were men who used up only 1,100 calories per week. This effect held, regardless of whether the men walked, climbed stairs, or played sports.

Dr. Howard D. Sesso and his colleagues at the Harvard School of Public Health in Boston, Massachusetts, announced that it is "promising news" for sedentary people who want to take up exercise.

In a separate study, the same researchers found that intense exercise such as running or swimming laps cut heart disease risk to a greater extent than moderate activity did.

Among more than 12,500 middle-aged and older men, regular vigorous exercise reduced heart disease risk by up to 20%, while regularly walking was linked to only a 10% decline.

Circulation August 29, 2000;102

----------------------------

Still I await your references NOT mere opinion.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Larry T wrote:
Landau wrote:
entsminger wrote:
With all this back and forth talk I've lost the point of this late in the thread discussion. Landau, could you please restate the gist of what your point is here in laymrnd terms about cardio training and it's relation to the heart and lungs.

Thanks
Scott

Stressing those Organs for NO GOOD REASON - Human Biology - Heart and Lung Objectives


Hold on while I get my Jethro Bodine Double-Naught-Spy Decoder Ring to decipher that reply.


==Scott==

I'm sorry but I don't even know if the Ellie May Clampet Spy decoder ring would help? Come on Landau, I asked for a answer in Laymens terms. I still have no idea what your point is? Are you saying stressing the heart and lungs is for no good reason?
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

The Myth of Cardiovascular Health From Exercise
Exercise Doesn?t Prevent Heart Disease
Brian Scott Peskin


I warn you in advance that what you are about to read will both shock
and amaze you. The truth about exercise and cardiovascular health runs
contrary to public opinion and 20 years of government guidelines and
nutritional recommendations saying that massive amounts of exercise are
needed to prevent heart disease.
The great news is that you no longer need to be a ?rat on a treadmill? six
days a week; you no longer need to be out running in 100 degree heat or in
20 degree cold, rain and snow.
The great news is that you will be convinced, after hearing this
information, that correct nutrition, NOT exercise ? even though you
probably don?t know what correct nutrition means yet ? is the soundest
way to assure heart health.
The truth is that, at best, exercise slightly prolongs the time before a
heart attack ? it can?t and doesn?t prevent one.
We are all told constantly that exercise prevents heart disease. WRONG.
?The evidence is unassailable ? coronary heart disease develops and
progresses during training. Exercisers die of heart disease despite
exercise.?1
We are told that running to get the heart rate up is ideal exercise.
WRONG. ?Running injuries are especially common [particularly the knees].
If you weight 150 pounds then you endure over 100 tons of force per mile
[through the knees, etc.].?2
1, 2 The Exercise Myth, Henry Solomon, M.D., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Publishers,
New York, NY, 1984 (out of print).
4
We are told that everyone is becoming unhealthy due to inactivity.
WRONG. ??[Y]ou must be truly sedentary ? a slug who sits or lies about
all day long or barely crawls out of bed ? to be at any risk from inactivity.?
3 This is why house cats eating a proper carnivore diet maintain perfect
weight and perfect health despite little activity and often despite sleeping
virtually all day.
We are told that exercise makes you live longer. WRONG again. ?There
is no relationship at all between activity and lifespan ? none.?4
We are told to take a ?stress test? to assess our ?cardiovascular fitness.?
WRONG ? stress tests are inaccurate. ?Stress tests are not sensitive enough,
specific enough, or reproducible enough for anyone to be sure they are
telling you anything correct.?5
I?ll bet that you are thinking that this simply can?t be true. How can
America and the rest of the world have been misled so drastically for so long?
The problem is that opinion has replaced established medical science in
both the nutrition and exercise fields. Remember, for over 50 years we have
been told to make carbohydrates the basis of our diet, despite every medical
physiology textbook clearly stating that it is carbohydrates alone that create
a massive insulin (fat-storing) response. The medical biochemistry textbooks
clearly state that primarily fats rather than carbohydrates are burned for
fuel, and protein is not stored as fat, while almost all carbohydrates eaten
ARE stored as fat.
As the Textbook of Medical Physiology makes clear, 97% of the time (the
vast majority), muscles can?t use carbohydrates as fuel ? they need fatty
acids. These are obtained by metabolizing your own body fat. The science
is therefore opposite to the ?popular notions.? The carbohydrate diet that
everyone told us was so good ? and that most nutritionists and physicians
still maintain is best in spite of the science against it ? has put America and
the rest of the world at enormous risk for diabetes, heart disease, and
cancer. The number of obese people has skyrocketed and huge numbers
of kids in recent generations are growing up obese because those who
should know better have let opinion, rather than proven science, rule.
Dr. Solomon, a renowned cardiologist, was the first to expose in a
scientific manner the gross amount of misinformation being disseminated
3, 4, 5 ,4, 5 The Exercise Myth, Henry Solomon, M.D., Harcourt Brace Jovanovich
Publishers, New York, NY, 1984 (out of print).
5
concerning exercise and its supposed correlation to improved health. We
all owe him a great debt of gratitude.
I have always had a big problem with the notion that diet and
exercise needed to be tied together. What type of food is exercise? Is it
a carbohydrate, fat, or protein? Of course, the answer is that exercise is
none of them. Exercise DOES deplete the bloodstream of glucose (carbs),
meaning you won?t become AS fat eating carbs if you exercise as when you
don?t exercise at all. Exercise is also good for diabetics because it helps them
decrease their blood glucose levels.
The Textbook of Medical Physiology makes it quite clear that while a person
is on a high carbohydrate diet ? like those we have all been told to eat for
the past 50 years ? it takes 40 days of running an hour a day to lose just
one pound of bodyfat. (Most people have been incorrectly led to believe
that it takes just six days.) This real science is the reason that exercise has
completely failed us as a means for weight loss.
The high carbohydrate proponents were forced to make massive amounts
of exercise part of the ?dietary program? and lie about how effective the diet
alone was ? and nobody questioned it! They knew carbohydrates made you
fat but publicly couldn?t admit it ? lawsuits would have been immediately
forthcoming.
The Textbook of Medical Physiology states that exercise makes the stroke
of the heart larger and more powerful, making more blood flow per beat.
However, the heart then beats at a slower pace, so the overall difference
in oxygen transfer is virtually nonexistent. Artery size increases, too. You
would think that this would prevent the arteries from clogging. While it
does slow the rate of clogging, because it takes more time to fill a bigger
diameter, it doesn?t stop the heart attack ? it just delays it somewhat. More
mitochondria are produced in the cells, too, but this doesn?t increase oxygen
transfer, either. These reasons explain precisely why marathon runners die
of heart attacks. Arterial clogging still occurs during training.
I have never once heard or seen the truth of these facts published in the
popular press or media. But you will soon see numerous studies proving
this published in medical journals in numerous countries around the world.
They all have one finding in common: Exercise does not prevent heart
disease or increase lifespan.
6
Otherwise why, in spite of doing ?everything right? as taught to us by our
doctors and nutritionists, are two-thirds of Americans grossly overweight,
why do 50% of us die of a heart attack, 40% of us contract cancer, and nearly
everyone become diabetic (with one million new cases added a year)? We
aren?t told that pre-1940 there were no Type 2 diabetics. It must be that
the ?solution? (high carbohydrate diets) is actually the CAUSE of our
problems, and that exercise can?t help solve a nutritional deficiency.
The studies that clearly show that exercise doesn?t prevent heart disease
are listed in the next section. Nothing has changed since they were published
in the medical journals years ago. More recently, in April 2004, ironically,
the inventor of the carbohydrate-based ?Power Bar? died of a heart attack.
He was a marathon runner! Even massive amounts of exercise DO NOT
PREVENT heart attacks.
Years ago, Harvard University published the results of a massive
alumni study showing incidence of health in relation to level of exercise.
The results were conclusive, but at that time, in 1996, even I didn?t publish
their implication that exercise is essentially worthless for staying healthy,
because it was so ?politically incorrect? and the fear was that no one would
believe it.
Even the famous Dr. Cooper ? the ?father? of aerobics ? was forced to
admit that he was wrong with his recommendation that you exert yourself
to an extreme trying to reach his ?target zone? of increased heart rate. Yet
most people, including the exercise teachers and instructors, are unaware of
his monumental reversal, and still insist that you continue to ?kill? yourself
in an attempt to reach the ?target heart rate.?
Something always bothered me with the idea that one ?had to get the
heart rate up? and ?strengthen? the heart. How many times a day was
it already beating I wondered. This is an easy one: 70 beats/per minute
times 60 minutes/per hour) = 4,200 beats per hour = 96,000 beats per day!
Close to 100,000 times/day isn?t enough? Does the heart require more
?strengthening?? No. To require more beats borders on lunacy. It simply
makes no sense. I have never seen this simple calculation along with the
obvious conclusion: Your heart is already beating plenty and it is quite
strong, too.
7
THE STUDIES:
In 2004, Dr. Michael Weber, an editor at American Journal of Hypertension
(high blood pressure) published the results of a landmark study. The
conclusion? ?The investigators found a person does not have to spend
great amounts of time working out [an hour a week is sufficient].?
In spite of this finding, the researchers still wrote that people should still
exercise extensively on a daily basis. This recommendation is paramount
to say ?it doesn?t work; it doesn?t help, but do it anyway.? Unfortunately,
insanity never stops in the medical and nutritional fields. More wasted time
looking in the wrong place for better health.
We have all been told countless numbers of times that ?stretching
before running, doing aerobics, or bodybuilding? prevents injuries.
WRONG AGAIN. See the March 2004 issue of the American College of
Sports Medicine journal Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. Here?s
the statement from Stephen B. Thacker, director of the epidemiology
program office at the Center for Disease and Prevention: ?We could not
find a benefit [from stretching before exercise].? (Gymnasts and dancers
excluded). These are his exact words ? not mine. Once again, more wasted
time looking for improved health while missing what really works.
In April 2004, Harvard University found that people on a low
carbohydrate diet could eat 25,000 more calories than those on a highcarbohydrate
diet and at the end of the 12-week study they gained zero
pounds! That?s right, no weight gain. The director?s study was mystified
because they think ?a calorie is a calorie regardless of what food it comes
from.? We have been taught that ?calories in minus calories burned = how
fat I get.? Even they don?t know about Professor Fick?s finding that humans
are not heat engines so that the ?calorie theory? doesn?t apply. This was
known in 1893!
Our government, your physician and your nutritionist would all
maintain ?that it?s only about calorie consumption,? and it is even the law
that you had better address calories if you want to encourage lack of weight
gain, but they are all WRONG. This was disproved by Professor Fick in
1893, when he showed that the human body is NOT a heat engine, but
a chemical engine! If even Harvard professors don?t know this science,
what hope is there for the average person? None at all ? people are forced
8
to learn the science on their own. Despite its proof more than a century ago,
I have never heard or seen published the reason why the ?calorie theory? is
incorrect when applied to humans. Even the former head of the American
Heart Association was wrong. This is the reason that I?ve received calls
from vegetarians consuming as low as 800 calorie-a-day diets and they
still got fat! With all the insulin created you can rest assured they were
headed towards massive heart disease, too.
The fact of the matter is that contrary to popular belief and the belief of
many doctors, regardless of physical condition, the condition of the heart
remains essentially the same. The more that you exercise, the stronger you
would think that the heart should be, right? Well, just as the calorie guess
was incorrect, the idea that the heart ?gets stronger and becomes more
efficient? is incorrect, too. It is already in superb condition without ?extra?
stimulus.
In fact, the negative side-effects of excessive exercise are significant.
Naturally, they are not frequently discussed. Frequent abnormal
electrocardiograms (EKGs), an enlarged heart and joint disorders frequently
occur. Yes, athletes often have enlarged hearts ? which would lead physicians
to think they were ill, if they weren?t athletes!
Fitness is normally measured by the rate of O2 (oxygen) consumption,
yet this means nothing to your heart; it is related to essentially muscles
ONLY. Likewise, exercise does virtually nothing beneficial for your lungs,
either. ?Running, no matter what you have been told, primarily trains
and conditions the muscles.?6 This is from, Dr. George Sheehan ? the guru
of running. What increases in efficiency is the smooth muscle tissue in the
airways to the lungs. Columbia cardiologist Dr. Jonathan Moldover denies
there is even such a thing as ?cardiovascular fitness,? because fitness is
related to peripheral (secondary) changes only.7 Think about it. Fit people,
including marathon runners drop dead of heart attacks from clogged arteries
frequently. My publicist recently told me about a friend of his, an M.D.
bodybuilder, who trained in the gym with him yet died of a heart attack at
the age of 39. Dr. Moldover spoke of this in 1979 and few listened.
6 Sheehan, G.A., M.D., ?Take the Muscles and Run,? Physicians and
Sportsmedicine 9, no. 5 (May1981): 35.
7 Moldover, J.R., ?Fitness and Health,? Paper presented at the meeting of
the Medical Society of the State of New York, 17 September 1979.
9
Does a ?stress test? let you know if you have heart disease? NO. A normal
test is not firm evidence of absence of heart disease and the test may not
detect heart disease if you actually have it, either. You may have narrowing
(clogged arteries), even of a severe degree, and respond normally to a stress
test. If your cardiologist is truthful he will have to admit this fact. The stress
test itself can cause a heart attack ? why do you think there is always a
nurse AND a physician close by?
How accurate is a stress test?8 75% of the people who have heart disease
will be picked up. So the false negative rate (you really have the disease
but think that you don?t) is 25% ? quite high! It can even be much worse,
depending on which study you look at. 5% to as high as 30% of people
who don?t have heart disease will be picked up as though they do (a false
positive) ? a needless but brutal scare! You don?t believe this? You had
better believe the studies which show it, or risk delusion.9,10,11 The National
Institutes of Health and the United States Air Force both know of the test?s
shortcomings. Even heart rhythm outputs are not consistent between
consecutive tests [EKGs, etc.].12 The same heart can show different outputs
at different times under essentially the same conditions!
In 1967 the British Health Journal published the amazing and extraordinary
finding that ?sedentary clerks lived longer than the physically active fitters
? quite contrary to the conception of the protective role of exercise.?13
Amazingly, the highest levels of exercise were associated with the greatest
8 Froelicher, V.F., ?Exercise Testing-Screening: Positive Tests in Asymptomatic
Patients, Estimation of Severity of Heart Disease.? Paper presented at
meeting, Clinical Perspectives in Vascular and Ischemic Heart Disease, New
York, Nov. 1977.
9 Epstein, S.E. ?Utility of the Exercise ECG in the Diagnosis of Coronary
Artery Disease: The Dialogue Updated.? Paper presented at symposium, New
Techniques and Concepts in Cardiology, Washington, D.C., 2 Nov. 1978
10 Froelicher, V.F., et al., ?Value of Exercise Testing for Screening Asymptomatic
Men for Latent Coronary Disease,? Progress in Cardiovascular Diseases,
18 (1976): 265-276.
11 Faris, J.V., et al., ?Prevalence and Reproducibility of Exercise-induced
Ventricular Arrhythmias During Maximal Exercise Training in Normal Men,?
American Journal of Cardiology, 37 (1976): 612-622.
12 Sheps, D.S., et al., ?Decreased Frequency of Exercise-induced Ventricular
Ectopic Activity in the Second of Two Consecutive Treadmill Tests,? Circulation
55 (1977):892-895.
13 Malhotra, S.L., ?Epidemology of Ischaemic Heart Disease in India with
Special References to Causation,? British Heart Journal 29 (1967) :895-905.
10
death rates. Likewise in the 1976 Scandinavian study looking at Finnish
men, ?mortality was greatest for men doing the most physical activity.?14
The truth was known and published in the medical journals around the
world years ago but covered up. This report from Sweden looked at over
300 heart attack patients ? half of them were assigned to an exercise program
and the other half weren?t. The results? No evidence of influence on either
death rate or recurrence of heart attack with the exercise.
In 1981 Canada looked at the role of exercise, too. With over 700 heart
attack patients there was no difference in results between high- or lowintensity
exercise. In fact, more of the high-intensity exercisers had repeat
heart attacks.15 America did another study too. Again, no significant
difference between exercising and not exercising over a 3-year period!16
The results around the world are quite clear: exercise is worthless in
preventing heart disease and extending life, and too much of it appears to
actually be detrimental!
Increased blood flow from exercise is another myth. Exercise does not
increase collateral blood flow, either. New arteries form only in response to
your old ones getting worse (clogged).
In 1981, a study with 50 competitive distance runners titled, ?Distance
Runners as Models of Optimal Health,? was performed. The study noted
the occurrence of substantial elevated blood pressure increases ? not
decreases ? accompanying the runners? physical training. Forty percent
(40%) of the runners had a blood pressure minimum of 130/85 (120/80
is ideal). That?s right. 40% of the runners had higher blood pressures than
normal. Dr. Harold Elrick, director of the Foundation for Optimal Health
and Longevity stated ?? that daily vigorous exercise does not protect
people from hypertension (high blood pressure).?17
14 Punsar, S., ?Physical Activity and Coronary Heart Disease in Populations
from East and West Finland,? Advances in Cardiology 18 (1976): 196-207.
15 Rechnitzer, P.A., ?The Effect of Exercise Prescription on the Recurrence
Rate of Myocardial Infarction in Men,? American Journal of Cardiology, 47
(1981): 419.
16 ?The National Exercise and Heart Disease Project: Effects of a Prescribed
Supervised Exercise Program on Mortality and Cardiovascular Morbidity in Patients
After a Myocardial Infarction,? American Journal of Cardiology 48 (1981):
39-46.
17 Elrick, H., ?Distance Runners as Models of Optimal Health,? Physician
and Sportsmedicine 9,no. 1 (Jan. 1981): 64-68.
11
How many more times do the researchers have to state the truth that
exercise is worthless in preventing heart disease before the popular press
publishes it? Will our government ever admit the truth? Don?t count on it.
What about exercise and cholesterol? Dr. Elrick stated that vigorous
physical activity ?does not guarantee low total cholesterol or high HDL
(?good?) cholesterol values?.?18 In 1980, a group of 260 men were observed
over a 25-year timeframe. There was no difference caused by HDL levels
among those who died of heart disease and those who didn?t. The conclusion:
?The current enthusiasm for HDL cholesterol is ?unwarranted,?? and that
low HDL is not a significant risk factor for death by heart disease.19
If your HDL is considered ?low? by your physician, you can now rest
easier, because he is wrong. An article in the 1982 issue of New England
Journal of Medicine questions the notion that HDL increases heart health.
Here?s the statement: No one has shown that raising HDL cholesterol
reduces the risk of arteriosclerosis.20 In fact, Journal of Clinical Investigation
2001;108:843-850 reports that mice completely lacking in HDL had no
cholesterol-clogging issue. This incredible finding was never mentioned in
the popular press and most physicians are completely unaware of it.
Our Life-Systems Engineering analysis: In this case, the mouse study is
relevant to humans because both mice and humans have HDL. When their
HDL was totally removed, it was thought the mice would die immediately.
The mice neither died nor developed negative cardiovascular-related
conditions! In 2004, a major drug company committed to spending hundreds
of millions of dollars in an attempt to show that their drug, by increasing
HDL, decreases heart disease. The results are already clear ? it won?t.
Does anyone ever read and implement directions of research (research
paths) based on what was discovered in the past? NOT ENOUGH of them.
You may be aware that the ?prime cause? of cancer was discovered by Dr.
Warburg, but the result completely missed by today?s cancer researchers.
That?s why their cancer research is a complete failure. That?s why the
18 Londeree, B.R. et al., ?Effects of Increases in Training upon Blood Lipids
and Glucose Related Variables,? Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 14
(1982) 104.
19 Keys, A., ?Alpha-lipoprotein (HDL) Cholesterol in the Serum and the
Risk of Cornoary Heart Disease and Death,? Lancet 2 (1980): 603-606.
20 Lees, R.S., ?High-density Lipoproteins and the Risk of Atherosclerosis,?
New England Journal of Medicine 306 (1982): 1546-1548.
12
cholesterol emphasis is a complete failure, too. Now they?ve gone on to
inflammation, C-reactive protein, homocysteine levels, etc. They never
admit they were initially wrong ? it?s cholesterol?s structure and not the
amount; so there is always something ?in addition.? So don?t expect the
truth to rein supreme concerning HDL cholesterol?s relation to heart disease.
With hundreds of millions of dollars going for university studies, I expect
a ?positive result? ? true or not. Money talks. Unfortunately, I predict that
people taking the drug being tested in the study just mentioned will not
suffer fewer heart attacks.
That?s why the cardiologists? offices stay packed in spite of all the
patients on cholesterol-lowering drugs and the intense exercise ? they
don?t stop heart disease. The problem is with cholesterol?s structure ? not
the amount of it you have. Exercise alone can?t stop heart disease.
And it gets worse. Studies have now shown that there is both an increase
in blood platelet numbers AND the amount of platelet clumping (causing
clogs) during exercise.21,22
In sum, does exercise lower LDL cholesterol? NO! Does exercise raise
HDL? NO! Does high HDL even matter? NO! Does exercise lower blood
pressure? NO! Does exercise make the blood flow easier or ensure the
platelets are less sticky? NO! These are facts and do not require further
?studies.? Does confirmation of the law of gravity require monthly reconfirmation?
Certainly not. That?s why the field of physics progresses
while the fields of nutrition and medicine barely creep forward ? or worse,
travel backwards.
Injuries ? The Majority of Runners Get Them
Over a third of runners sustain serious injury. This is the lowest
percentage that is reported in surveys. However, the average percent of
runners who sustain serious injury while running is 60% to 90%. These
injuries include injury to the knee, foot, hip, and lower back. Dr. Cooper,
the ?father of aerobics,? was forced to admit that 60-70% of all runners are
hurt badly enough each year that they are forced to cut back or entirely stop
their training programs.23
21 Green, L.H., ?Platelet Activation During Exercise-induced Myocardial Ischemia,? New
England Journal of Medicine 302 (1980): 193-197.
22 Sarajas, H.S., ?Reaction Patterns of Blood Platelets in Exercise,? Advances
in Cardiology 18 (1976): 176-195.
23 Cooper, K.H., in Long C., ed. Prevention and Rehabilitation in Ischemic
13
Would runners continue with their running if they knew how worthless
it was in preventing heart disease? Probably not.
Pages 112-114 of the book The Exercise Myth are loaded with more
conclusive evidence detailing marathon runners who died while running
or shortly thereafter from clogged arteries. The finding that clogged
arteries was the leading cause of their deaths is there.

I will play your little game once - GET OVER YOURSELF YOU STUPID DREAMER.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Mentzerfan---
It's quite clear why Dave Landau posts here because he cares about the legacy of Arthur Jones. What is not so clear to me is why certain members like yourself post here.


==Scott==
Ok Mentzer fan or anyone else out there, if Landau or anyone else for that matter is really interested in Arthur Jones so much how come non of you come to the Arthur Jones message board where it's all about Jones and pretty much nothing else??????? I think alot of you guys just like to fuss and fume at each other more than just talking about Jones or Dardens principles or any other relivant HIT ideas for that matter.Just discussing issues in a calm and friendly manner and sticking to the intended posts point and finding a solution isn't quite as entertaining is it? It's the attacking each other aspect of this board that's really where it's at, isn't it?
Open User Options Menu

Benjamin Dover

Natty wrote:
Joggers are significantly less likely than non-runners to die of any cause, according to Danish researchers.


Err...it must be just me then. I can't do this Numpty!

They are less likely to die...?!


Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Key point here Landau

Landau wrote:
Pages 112-114 of the book The Exercise Myth are loaded with more
conclusive evidence detailing marathon runners who died while running
or shortly thereafter from clogged arteries. The finding that clogged
arteries was the leading cause of their deaths is there.


MARATHON RUNNERS! Where have I been talking about freakin marathon runners that abuse their bodies and run their selves into the ground!!

Re-read above you'll see I'm talking about SENSIBLE exercise. Hell even James has his clients do cardio 2 times per week!

Cardio/run yourself into the ground versus sensible exercise are two completely different things!

Were the studies I presented based on MARATHON RUNNERS? NO!

Marathon running vs healthy exercise chalk and cheese. Vitamin D is good for you too much dangerous!

Another thing, your post focused primarily on HEART health not the numerous other benefits that I have presented via studies/research. Where did I ever say running is a guarantee to avoid heart issues? If you have you have it! Never said anything different.

Landau wrote:
THE STUDIES:
In 2004, Dr. Michael Weber, an editor at American Journal of Hypertension
(high blood pressure) published the results of a landmark study. The
conclusion? The investigators found a person does not have to spend
great amounts of time working out
[an hour a week is sufficient].


Underline = WELL DUH!!

An hour per week is sufficient. Sufficient FOR WHAT?. It's BENEFITS! Sounds VERY much like my suggestion of 2-3 20-30 min session per week now doesn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Health benefits of tennis.

REVIEW
British Journal of Sports Medicine. 41(11):760-768, November 2007.
Pluim, Babette M 1; Staal, J Bart 2; Marks, Bonita L 3; Miller, Stuart 4; Miley, Dave 4

Abstract:
The aim of the study was to explore the role of tennis in the promotion of health and prevention of disease. The focus was on risk factors and diseases related to a sedentary lifestyle, including low fitness levels, obesity, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and osteoporosis. A literature search was undertaken to retrieve relevant articles. Structured computer searches of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were undertaken, along with hand searching of key journals and reference lists to locate relevant studies published up to March 2007. These had to be cohort studies (of either cross sectional or longitudinal design), case-control studies, or experimental studies. Twenty four studies were identified that dealt with physical fitness of tennis players, including 17 on intensity of play and 16 on maximum oxygen uptake; 17 investigated the relation between tennis and (risk factors for) cardiovascular disease; and 22 examined the effect of tennis on bone health. People who choose to play tennis appear to have significant health benefits, including improved aerobic fitness, a lower body fat percentage, a more favorable lipid profile, reduced risk for developing cardiovascular disease, and improved bone health.

(C) 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Key point here Landau

Landau wrote:
Pages 112-114 of the book The Exercise Myth are loaded with more
conclusive evidence detailing marathon runners who died while running
or shortly thereafter from clogged arteries. The finding that clogged
arteries was the leading cause of their deaths is there.

MARATHON RUNNERS! Where have I been talking about freakin marathon runners that abuse their bodies and run their selves into the ground!!

Re-read above you'll see I'm talking about SENSIBLE exercise. Hell even James has his clients do cardio 2 times per week!

Cardio/run yourself into the ground versus sensible exercise are two completely different thing you clown!

Were the studies I presented based on MARATHON RUNNERS? NO!

Marathon running vs healthy exercise chalk and cheese. Vitamin D is good for you too much dangerous!

Another thing, your post focused primarily on HEART health not the numerous other benefits that I have presented via studies/research. Where did I ever say running is a guarantee to avoid heart issues? If you have you have it! Never said anything different.

Landau wrote:
THE STUDIES:
In 2004, Dr. Michael Weber, an editor at American Journal of Hypertension
(high blood pressure) published the results of a landmark study. The
conclusion? The investigators found a person does not have to spend
great amounts of time working out
[an hour a week is sufficient].

Underline = WELL DUH!!

An hour per week is sufficient. Sufficient FOR WHAT?. It's BENEFITS! Sounds VERY much like my suggestion of 2-3 20-30 min session per week now doesn't it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



You Cherry Picking F - You read into what you want. Live in your "Super Health" I look like a Bobbie World. Cherry Pick and then show up somewhere where we can say oh the guy's a F. You and Cherry can get together for some Cardio Bonding/Bondage. You can't even define the terms you freely use wrong. "All the Studeis show this and that" Therefore you find your specious validity to hang your hat on and you can't even define research. Spout your shit somewhere else dreamer.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Natty wrote:
Health benefits of tennis.

REVIEW
British Journal of Sports Medicine. 41(11):760-768, November 2007.
Pluim, Babette M 1; Staal, J Bart 2; Marks, Bonita L 3; Miller, Stuart 4; Miley, Dave 4

Abstract:
The aim of the study was to explore the role of tennis in the promotion of health and prevention of disease. The focus was on risk factors and diseases related to a sedentary lifestyle, including low fitness levels, obesity, hyperlipidaemia, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, and osteoporosis. A literature search was undertaken to retrieve relevant articles. Structured computer searches of PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL were undertaken, along with hand searching of key journals and reference lists to locate relevant studies published up to March 2007. These had to be cohort studies (of either cross sectional or longitudinal design), case-control studies, or experimental studies. Twenty four studies were identified that dealt with physical fitness of tennis players, including 17 on intensity of play and 16 on maximum oxygen uptake; 17 investigated the relation between tennis and (risk factors for) cardiovascular disease; and 22 examined the effect of tennis on bone health. People who choose to play tennis appear to have significant health benefits, including improved aerobic fitness, a lower body fat percentage, a more favorable lipid profile, reduced risk for developing cardiovascular disease, and improved bone health.

(C) 2007 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd and British Association of Sport and Exercise Medicine.


Anyone on this site actually believe this PROPAGANDA. I'm seriously done with this F - I mean done. I've said my say - if you can't see the forrest for the trees, that's your problem. Suggestion: Study Zoology. Own????????????????????

Open User Options Menu

N@tural1

Landau wrote:
You Cherry Picking F - You read into what you want. Live in your "Super Health" I look like a Bobbie World. Cherry Pick and then show up somewhere where we can say oh the guy's a F. You and Cherry can get together for some Cardio Bonding/Bondage.


WTF are you even trying to say! Idiot! You just type such shit it comes natural!

Landau wrote:
You can't even define the terms you freely use wrong. "All the Studeis show this and that" Therefore you find your specious validity to hang your hat on and you can't even define research. Spout your shit somewhere else dreamer.


My shit? Erm.. they weren't actually MY studies bigshot! They were conducted by people with actual qualifications/health professionals. LOL @ "my shit"

Landau wrote:
Anyone on this site actually believe this PROPAGANDA.


Propaganda? You've stated the BIGGEST lump of horse shit I have EVER read from HIT jedi. That ANYTHING other than HIT isn't exercise.

I've asked you and you've refused to answer..

HIT = elevated heart rate and muscular tension.

Cardio = elevated heart rate.

All forms of weight training = muscular tension.

HOT THE HELL DOES THE HEART AND MUSCLE KNOW THE DIFFERENCES!!!!!!???????

Answer you clown.

Hell why do you even train? Of what possible benefits do you believe you're getting?

Landau wrote:
I'm seriously done with this F - I mean done. I've said my say - if you can't see the forrest for the trees, that's your problem. Suggestion: Study Zoology. Own????????????????????


You're done are you, more like owned and then some. Go on answer my above question or look even more pathetic.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Define Your Terms Troll
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Make Believe Definitions - You Need To Take First Grade Grammar Lessons
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

Owned?????? You ignore hard Sciences and quote "Exercise Physiology Studies" Sport/Exercise - different objectives - different definitions. James - slam this G. I'm not a DREAMER - you are G BOY.
Open User Options Menu

southbeach

Landau,

that article you posted is so much BS on so many levels. "800 calorie" vegetarians getting fat.. would YOU get fat(er) on an 800 calorie diet of ANY macronutrient ratio? I could eat 800 cals of deep fried doughnuts but still lose weight (but i wouldn't recommend it as a healthy choice)

that's just one absurdity, there's soo many others. give us a break ;)


join the 21st century.. it's a nice place to be,

read these (if you dare learn smthg new),

1)Kodama et al. Cardiorespiratory Fitness as a Quantitative Predictor of All-Cause Mortality and Cardiovascular Events in Healthy Men and Women: A Meta-analysis. JAMA The Journal of the American Medical Association, 2009; 301 (19): 2024 DOI:

Compared with participants with high CRF, those with low CRF had a 70 percent higher risk for all-cause death and a 56 percent higher risk for CHD/CVD events. Compared with participants with intermediate CRF, those with low CRF had a 40 percent higher risk for all-cause death and a 47 percent increased risk for CHD/CVD events.

CRF was estimated as maximal aerobic capacity (MAC) expressed in metabolic equivalent (MET; measured via oxygen consumption) units. Participants were categorized as low CRF (less than 7.9 METs), intermediate CRF (7.9 ? 10.8 METs), or high CRF (10.9 METs or greater).

The analysis also indicated that a 1-MET higher level of MAC (corresponding to 0.6 mile/hour higher running/jogging speed) was associated with a decrease of 13 percent in risk of all-cause mortality, and a 15 percent decrease in risk of CHD/CVD.

2)Rector et al. Cessation of daily exercise dramatically alters precursors of hepatic steatosis in Otsuka Long-Evans Tokushima Fatty (OLETF) rats. The Journal of Physiology, 2008; 586 (17): 4241 DOI:

?Physical activity prevented fatty liver disease by 100 percent in an animal model of fatty liver disease,? said Frank Booth, a professor in the MU College of Veterinary Medicine and the MU School of Medicine and a research investigator in the Dalton Cardiovascular Research Center. ?In contrast, 100 percent of the group that did not have physical activity had fatty liver disease. This is a remarkable event. It is rare in medicine for any treatment to prevent any disease by 100 percent.?

3)http://www.theheart.org/article/971885.do

Ibaraki, Japan - A higher level of cardiorespiratory fitness is associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD) events, according to a meta-analysis of 33 trials comprising more than 187 000 healthy men and women published in the May 20, 2009 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association [1].

Dr Satoru Kodama (University of Tsukuba Institute of Clinical Medicine, Ibaraki, Japan) and colleagues found that participants with the lowest level of cardiorespiratory fitness had a 70% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 56% higher risk for CHD/CVD events compared with participants with the highest level of cardiorespiratory fitness. Participants with intermediate levels of cardiorespiratory fitness had a 40% higher risk for all-cause mortality and a 47% higher risk for CHD/CVD events than participants with the highest cardiorespiratory fitness.

Because the study showed cardiorespiratory fitness to be such a strong predictor of mortality and CVD/CHD risk, Kodama and colleagues suggest that it be made a part of routine CVD/CHD risk assessment. "It is possible that prediction of CHD risk could be improved by including cardiorespiratory fitness with already established risk factors for CHD," they write.



Am I cherry-picking, i don't think so. I could do this all day!

I'll ask you again, do you train for health benefits or vanity? Why do you train others? Why is your whole life devoted to physical exercise if it has no health benefits?


ps Natty, good job man!
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy