Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Aerobic Exercise

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am having trouble finding any significant studies that prove aerobic exercise stands up to the common claims of several multiple health benefits. Im looking for answers to some questions that seem to be accepted on assumption by most people, like:

-How well does it burn calories;aid in weight loss?

-Does it reduce the risk of heart disease?

-Does it contribute to better psychological well-being?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

-Does it contribute to better psychological well-being?

Just on this last point: exercise in general will make you feel better in general. So yes, in that way. Also, some people get a "runner's high" from extended exercise. I am not one of those people, although I do get it from brief, intense workouts.

If someone wants to work out in an "aerobic" fashion because they enjoy it, then that is fine. But medically speaking it isn't all that great. Especially considering there are other, much better, ways to work out.

Very interesting, thanks for the links Inspector!

No problem. Here's the relevant bit from the first one:

FITNESS INDUSTRY FALLACIES

JOHN: I want to now pick your brain a bit on some of the fallacies that are rampant in the fitness industry. I can throw out topics for you to comment on, but I want to start by asking you what is your biggest beef that you encounter now as one of the world’s leading personal trainers? What’s the biggest misconception that people have regarding exercise?

DREW: The absolute biggest misconception that I come across with clients – it’s almost everybody – is the belief that you “have to do” some sort of steady-state activity to improve cardiovascular sufficiency. And it amazes me that it has persisted this long for I would have figured it would have been put to rest in the mid 1970s with Project Total Conditioning at West Point. And even more recently, I think it was in 2004, there was an announcement at the World – I think it was some sort of physician’s conference, actually right here in Orlando, where they presented the results of a study showing that six months of Nautilus style, high intensity training produced the same or better results in aerobic conditioning than an equivalent amount of time doing traditional aerobic exercise. I mean, you can get cardiovascular benefits from going out and jogging and doing all these other activities, but you can actually do it with the strength training without all the risks inherent in all those other activities. You know, the pounding of the joints and the overworking the body and losing muscle. From a bodybuilding standpoint, a lot of people still believe that you absolutely need to do cardio to “get ripped” – which absolutely isn’t true. The first time I competed I was doing just one high intensity workout a week and no cardio – none. No, actually, scratch that – no “aerobics.” Technically, high intensity training is cardio. In fact, it is the safest and most effective and most efficient form of cardiovascular conditioning. But I got absolutely shredded with no aerobics. The guys that work at our headquarters up in Ohio also competed in natural bodybuilding contests and they were also shredded when they competed – and they also do not do aerobics. What people don’t get is that it’s really just a matter of calories in versus calories out and that just going and doing the additional activity doesn’t really burn enough calories to make enough of a difference and it certainly doesn’t make it worth the amount of time expended. You figure if somebody is just doing activity for the sake of burning calories their time probably isn’t worth very much, especially when you can simply achieve the same effect by not taking in those calories in your diet and preserving more muscle mass in the process because you’re now not out overstressing your body with all that extra activity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector, I challenge you to show up at my wife's Muay Thai class and tell me cardio is bunk. She had a regular training boxer show up last night, and he was puking 20 minutes into the 1 hr workout.

Pulease.

Your links are so far out of context to the original question, I'm stunned.

Can other forms of exercise also function, yes, but that doesn't mean that cardio can't do what the poster is referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector, I challenge you to show up at my wife's Muay Thai class and tell me cardio is bunk. She had a regular training boxer show up last night, and he was puking 20 minutes into the 1 hr workout.

Kendall, you have your terms wrong and are therefore throttling a straw man.

The question was about "Aeorbic Exercise" not "cardio."

read it again, especially this part:

The first time I competed I was doing just one high intensity workout a week and no cardio – none. No, actually, scratch that – no “aerobics.” Technically, high intensity training is cardio.

Somehow, I doubt that Muay Thai is considered low intensity steady-state aerobics.

I'm going to have to throw your "Pulease" back at you. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-How well does it burn calories;aid in weight loss?

Any form of exercise will be insignificant in energy expenditure compared to the amount of calories contained in food. The human body is quite efficient that way. It is not very productive to try to "burn" calories with exercise. Instead, proper diet is critical.

However, there is one caveat: putting on muscle mass will raise your base caloric requirements and can do quite a bit to help you, diet wise. This, however, is not from "burning" calories with the exercise itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somehow, I doubt that Muay Thai is considered low intensity steady-state aerobics.

I'm going to have to throw your "Pulease" back at you. :)

Well, back at you then. The poster was not so specific as "low intensity" ;)

I just think your answer is a bit to contextual to draw the sorts of broad conclusions such as aerobic exercise being "bunk" from it.

Aerobic, both high and low intensity exercise, as well as strength training are all appropriate in different contexts. If you wish to say "low intensity" is bunk, then please produce some references that say that it cannot do what it claims to do. You produced something that said there are other ways to do the same thing. This hardly makes aerobics "bunk", just optional.

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aerobic, both high and low intensity exercise, as well as strength training are all appropriate in different contexts. If you wish to say "low intensity" is bunk, then please produce some references that say that it cannot do what it claims to do. You produced something that said there are other ways to do the same thing. This hardly makes aerobics "bunk", just optional.

You are mistaken.

1) Aerobic means low-intensity steady-state exercise. Jogging, exercise bikes, stairclimbers, etc. Sprints, boxing, and martial arts are not aerobics.

2) That is bunk. It is not optional; to be that, it would have to be the best for at least one kind of thing, physiologically speaking. Inducing runner's high doesn't count.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aerobic exercise is bunk.

http://mikementzer.com/aerobic.html

There were some good points in this article, namely:

-the heart functions in order to support the muscles, not the other way around. So, I take it the more muscle mass one puts on, the better his heart functions also. This can be obtained with a proper strength training program, not aerobics. If one does only aerobics, I think it would be difficult to improve the hearts ability because it mostly focuses on respiratory function and doesnt put much stress on the muscles.

-And another seriously negative consequence of aerobics is that there is a good chance of losing muscle in the process, which inevitably slows down ones metabolism and makes it harder to lose fat in the long run. A proper strength training program, however, builds muscle and increases metabolism. That means a strength training program is more efficient in aiding with fat loss than an aerobic workout. Why do aerobics then if your goal is to lose fat? -it wouldnt make sense.

-Also, he pointed out that aerobic exercises like jogging, dancing, or similar type "high-force" exercises can cause severe damage to the body later on in life, and this is one of the main so-called benefits of aerobics: to increase longevity. But once your mobility is permenently hindered(from aerobics), then it may actually be a cause to shorten one's life, or at least decrease the pleasure of ones life. Strength training again, however, focuses on increasing muscle mass and therefore increasing ones ability to function, especially in the later years of life it would be beneficial.

-An elevated pulse is not an indicator of a beneficial workout. A person can experience an elevated pulse when he is merely nervous or in a dramatic situation with no movements at all, but it doesnt mean its causing any meaningful physical adaptions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

-How well does it burn calories;aid in weight loss?

-Does it reduce the risk of heart disease?

-Does it contribute to better psychological well-being?

* Not very well. It can help, somewhat, but the difference is not very big. Say for example that you can burn 1000 calories in a day, and that´s quite a lot of running etc, in a week that energy loss would be equivalent to about 2lbs of fat. Just trying to give you a better picture of how much or little it aids. Now also consider that exercise makes most people hungry, so after alot of exercise you would probably want to eat alot of food.

Some bodybuilders claim that aerobic exercise helps when getting into contest shape. I don´t know if they are just fooling themselves or not, but if you´re not aiming for very low bodyfat levels I don´t think you need to concern yourself with that.

My aproach to this whole issue is that don´t sit on your ass all day, be active; if you are going to add any additional exercise, make it (high-intensity) strength training. HIT is the way to go for cardiovascular conditioning, increased strength, more muscle and the health benefits theese things give you.

I might add that I have lost around 60-70lbs on diet and HIT alone. So you absolutley do not need aerobic exercise to loose weight. And I would have no trouble keeping up with KendallJ´s wife´s Muay Thai class(although I could get my ass kicked), without practicing any aerobics. :D

* Yes, and no. Meaning that, in general it will reduce the risk of heart disease, but in more extreme cases(marathoners for example) it could do the opposite.

* Yes. Unless you are like me and hate doing aerobic exercise. In my opinion high intensity strenght training is more rewarding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are mistaken.

Kendall,

In your defense, however, "aerobic" is a bit of an anti-concept. Notice how the article on mikementzer.com puts it in scare quotes.

# You will notice that the word "aerobic" has been set off in quotation marks when it refers to an activity performed for exercise. There is a good reason for this emphasis: There is no such thing as aerobic exercise! We have all heard that activities such as jogging and cycling are "aerobic" while those such as weight training and sprinting are "anaerobic". These distinctions are not 100% correct. The words aerobic and anaerobic refer to metabolic pathways which operate continuously at all times and in all activities. You cannot "turn off" either of these pathways by merely increasing or decreasing the intensity of an activity.

# A word on intensity: Few of the "experts" who promote aerobics will debate our last statement. What they do say, however, is that gentle low-intensity activities use the aerobic pathway to a greater degree than they use the anaerobic pathway. We agree with this statement completely and feel that it should be taken to its logical conclusion: The most "aerobic" activity that a human being can engage in is sleeping!

# Consider this: Dr. Kenneth Cooper (author of Aerobics, The New Aerobics, Aerobics for Women), the US. Air Force Cardiologist who coined the term "aerobics" (meaning a form of exercise) and has promoted their use for over 25 years now admits that he was wrong! According to Dr. Cooper, further research has shown that there is no correlation between aerobic endurance performance and health, longevity, or protection against heart-disease. He will admit, however, that such activities do carry with them a great risk of injury. Further, he admits that gross-overuse activities such as running may be so damaging to the body as to be considered carcinogenic.

# Irving Dardik, MD, former vascular surgeon, contends that: "The basic concept of aerobics conditioning is wrong." He also contends that the best way to train the vascular system is to build flexibility into its response by using short bouts of elevation followed by sudden recovery, then demanding activity again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspector. My experience is the opposite. In fact, I have at times lost 25 lbs on nothing but long duration, low-intensity aerobic exercise (BPM of 130-140). It takes a long time, but for people who are just beginning physical conditioning, it is a perfect context to use this type of exercise. I also used to be a biathlete so I understand the difference between intervals or high intensity exercise and low intensity exercise.

The problem with a newbie and higher intensity exercise is that they usually don't understand how this type of exercise can break down muscle tissue over time, and without recovery periods, it can lead to overtraining in those who are low in physical conditioning.

Low intensity aerobic however does not result in that, and so can be started and maintained for long durations early in the training regimen without causing the "overdoing it" syndrome.

Note, this was without any change in diet. I charted the weight loss and can send you the graph if you'd like.

I don't necessarily think its the best for all situations, but for the person just getting on a physcial conditioning regimen it does acheive results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Less time than you think becuase there were never any hiccups of injury or overtraining. And the nice thing is if you have the time to commit to it, you can quickly begin with very long workouts without threat of injury. I've at times in my life been in very good shape and at time been very out of shape. I am familiar with what overtraining feels like.

I'll have to see where I stashed the chart. I was thinking somewhere in the range of 4-6 weeks.

At times? Does that mean you didn't keep the weight off?

No I did. We're talking within the last decade or more so my activites and priorities get to change. I don't have the time to do competitive running or biking any more and so depending on my goals at the time I have to commit will determine what shape I'm in at the time.

My bigger issue is with diet, not exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the nice thing is if you have the time to commit to it, you can quickly begin with very long workouts without threat of injury.

I dont understand why someone would choose aerobics, which needs to be done frequently and for a long duration, as opposed to a workout that needs to be done a lot less frequently and for a lot less shorter duration - (thats pretending they both give equal results as well, which they dont even do that).

If youre implying someone is likely to get injured with a strength training program, then I dont agree fully. The people who usually do get injured are the ones who dont do their homework and perform exercises in bad form or dont warmup properly or something else that is caused by ignorance. But with aerobic exercise, I think one is bound to injure themselves even if they are performing the exercise correctly. This is because long, tedious, physical stress on the body such as walking places a lot of stress on the lower back(and knees) and can make that part of the body very sore(and not in a good way). Also, I mentioned earlier why aerobic exercise is dangerous to the body in the long term, when I summarized Inspectors link.

I don't have the time to do competitive running or biking any more
So your aerobic workout was training for competitive running or biking?

My bigger issue is with diet, not exercise.

Whats your issue with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Less time than you think becuase there were never any hiccups of injury or overtraining.

Aerobic exercise has more risk of injury, not less. Overtraining is improper; nobody is recommending it.

# "Aerobic" activities are dangerous! Running is an extremely high-force activity that is damaging to knees, hips, and back. Aerobic dance is probably worse. And so-called "low impact" classes or activities like stationary cycling are not necessarily low-force. Don't be fooled by the genetic exceptions who protest that they have never been injured-- overuse injuries are cumulative and we are often not aware that we have them until it is too late. In time, the enthusiastic aerobic-dance participant or jogger will probably pay the price for all that "healthy" activity. If that price is a decrease or loss of mobility in one's later years, then "aerobics" have effectively shortened the individual's life-span. Loss of mobility is often the first step toward loss of all biological competence.

I don't have the time to do competitive running or biking any more and so depending on my goals at the time I have to commit will determine what shape I'm in at the time.
HIT can take as little as 1/2 hour a week, unlike aerobics, which will take a large committment of time. I have completed HIT workouts in as little as 12.5 minutes.

Meanwhile, aerobics will decrease your muscle mass and therefore thwart your attempts to diet.

# The most important contribution that exercise makes to a fat-loss program is the maintenance of muscle tissue while fat is lost. Strength training is the only reliable method of maintaining muscle tissue. Aerobics can actually cause you to lose muscle tissue!

# On the subject of metabolic rate: Every pound of muscle added to the body of an adult female will require an additional 75-100 calories per day just to keep it alive. The average person, through a program of proper strength training can add enough muscle to burn an additional 3500 calories per week (1 lb. of fat = 3500 calories). The amount of strength training required to effect such a change is less than one hour per week.

In fact, I have at times lost 25 lbs on nothing but long duration, low-intensity aerobic exercise (BPM of 130-140). It takes a long time...

Let's examine your claim that you did this with no dieting. Each pound contains 3500 calories. That's 87,500 calories you burned. One hour of light bicycling burns about 387 calories. That's 226 hours of cycling. I don't know how much free time you have, but that really adds up. You weren't kidding that it takes a long time!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aerobic exercise has more risk of injury, not less. Overtraining is improper; nobody is recommending it.

Meanwhile, aerobics will decrease your muscle mass and therefore thwart your attempts to diet.

Let's examine your claim that you did this with no dieting. Each pound contains 3500 calories. That's 87,500 calories you burned. One hour of light bicycling burns about 387 calories. That's 226 hours of cycling. I don't know how much free time you have, but that really adds up. You weren't kidding that it takes a long time!

Whoa there Inspector. I'm happy to debate this with you, but let's stay consistent. The quote you gave at the top of your post referred to running which is pretty much always a high intensity workout. You yourself chided me about the difference between cardio and aerobics and now you cross that line to borrow a point that doesn't apply.

Then in the second half of your post you presume to analyze my actual workout regimen, knowing nothing about me, or what actually happened. I find that a bit presumptuous, but lets just say you wanted to do this and stay consistent with your statement above about the potential for injury. Let's pull up the running list shall we.

Running, 10 mph (6 min mile)

Running, 10.9 mph (5.5 min mile)

Running, 5 mph (12 min mile)

Running, 5.2 mph (11.5 min mile)

Running, 6 mph (10 min mile)

Running, 6.7 mph (9 min mile)

Running, 7 mph (8.5 min mile)

Running, 7.5mph (8 min mile)

Running, 8 mph (7.5 min mile)

Running, 8.6 mph (7 min mile)

Running, 9 mph (6.5 min mile)

Oh yes, and I'm in the 180 to 200 range rather than the svelt 150 you assumed about me. So the corresponding calorie burn is:

1380

1553

690

776

863

949

992

1078

1165

1208

1294

Your math is highly suspect....

I referenced a BMP rate on my heart monitor of 135-145 I believe. That corresponds in my world to an hourly calorie burn of about 800 calories, not the 347 you claim (which is the moderate stationary cycling for a 190lb person - or about 10 minute miles if you're running) Also, the post-workout increase in calorie burn exists (for both HIT and aerobic exercise) and so this cuts the number of hours of direct exercise.

High rpm cycling IS low force. It is significantly lower impact that 10 minute mile running.

I looked up one of my charts last night and it's about 8 weeks for a 25 lb drop (~12 lb/month). Assuming 70-80% of that is from direct exercise that's more like 9-11 hrs/week of workout. That's 1 hr/evening, and 2 2hr workouts on the weekends, which is about what I put in - without dieting (but also without increasing my intake in response to increased hunger). Also, the calorie burn intensity that I could sustain at 135-145 bpm INCREASES over time so what might have started out as 800 cal/hr increases to 900 or higher as conditioning increases, cutting down total time more.

Look, I'm not making the claim that aerobics is the end all be all. You're the one who is trying to make the reverse claim. And you're pulling from different parts of the spectrum to try to build a case that is simply not the absolute you claim it to be.

It is highly contextual. I've used strength training at times, as well as high intensity interval training. If someone came to me who was significantly overweight, and out of shape, and they had some time to commit to it, I would highly consider such a regimen. For others its not the best mix.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If youre implying someone is likely to get injured with a strength training program, then I dont agree fully. The people who usually do get injured are the ones who dont do their homework and perform exercises in bad form or dont warmup properly or something else that is caused by ignorance. But with aerobic exercise, I think one is bound to injure themselves even if they are performing the exercise correctly. This is because long, tedious, physical stress on the body such as walking places a lot of stress on the lower back(and knees) and can make that part of the body very sore(and not in a good way). Also, I mentioned earlier why aerobic exercise is dangerous to the body in the long term, when I summarized Inspectors link.

So your aerobic workout was training for competitive running or biking?

But you see, the average Joe who shows up at a health club is just that sort of person you mention. They jump into a high intensity class or start doing a bunch of strength training and end up 2 weeks later having injured themselves. When there is technique and form and all sorts of cautionary notes about how something is done, and you need to be "educated" then the risk does go up that someone wont put in the necessary time to educate.

Yup lower intenstiy aerobics is longer duration. It can be flippin' tedious, but its brainless.

a. 135-145 bpm

b. 90 rpm (if you're on a stationary bike)

c. Adjust resistance to keep bmp in range.

d. 1 hr

No other education needed.

The other aspect is you can dial it up and down immediately without waiting for conditioning or strenth to kick in, by changing the time factor. The reason for this is that low intensity exercise shifts the energy form burned to fat. with high intensity work, you burn both glycogen and fat, and so have to manage diet more closely. Overtraining and listlessness come from muscle stress without appropriate recovery time and failure to restock glycogen supplies. This is less of an issue when you shift to burning more fat, hence you don't have to keep an eye on your diet as much.

Only got 1/2 hr? then add some caloric management to it.

As Inspector already pointed out, the "dangerous" forms of "aerobic" exercise are really cardio (running or dance aerobics), not low intensity, low impact forms.

I learned about most of this sort of stuff by doing training for competitive running and cycling, but no, my regimen for those goals used a mix of various forms of exercise, including high intensity intervals and strength training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall, you're criticizing me for analyzing your workouts based on the information that you gave: that it was low intensity aerobics. 350cal/hour type stuff is what I think of when someone says that. Now, you've given your cals per hour and number of hours. You've shown that you can burn calories with aerobics. Great. But that has only opened the door to my pointing out how much time and tedium must be put into such things. In other words, you don't have to show that it is physically possible to lose weight with aerobics; everyone knows that is possible. What you need to show is that it is better than HIT.

No other education needed.

Okay, so it is better for idiots?

I will grant you that, aerobics may be better for idiots. :thumbsup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were some good points in this article, namely:

-the heart functions in order to support the muscles, not the other way around. So, I take it the more muscle mass one puts on, the better his heart functions also.

No, I think that is incorrect. An extreme example, but look at some of the Mr. Olympia contestants. Some of them are just like severly obese people, they get winded from normal everyday activities. Their hearts seem to have a hell of alot trouble supporting the muscle, just like obese peoples hearts have trouble supporting the fat. This is obviously not a problem for normal people, but I think it shows that additional bodyweight can actually put an extra stress on the heart.

Now i´m not saying more muscles equals bad, only that it takes more resources to support - so it´s not helping the heart either. Although exercising the muscles will make the heart adapt and function better, which I think was Mike Mentzer´s point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall, you're criticizing me for analyzing your workouts based on the information that you gave: that it was low intensity aerobics. 350cal/hour type stuff is what I think of when someone says that.

No, I'm criticizing you for not taking the less presumptuous path: simply asking.

And for referring to a risk of injury right before it that is NOT for low intesity work.

Now, you've given your cals per hour and number of hours. You've shown that you can burn calories with aerobics. Great. But that has only opened the door to my pointing out how much time and tedium must be put into such things. In other words, you don't have to show that it is physically possible to lose weight with aerobics; everyone knows that is possible. What you need to show is that it is better than HIT.

Okay, so it is better for idiots?

I will grant you that, aerobics may be better for idiots. :)

You forgot one other group. People who don't want to expend the effort to educate themselves to be elite athletes but still want to utilize exercise effectively. These are people who have other things to do than learn the details of exercise physiology. I konw lots of people like this who have a hell of a lot of other things to think about in their day and frankly don't need or want to learn the minutea of exercise physiology to lose a couple of pounds. This is the majority of the market for gyms. Thank god you don't run one or you'd end up looking down your nose at most of your customers as "idiots".

Look, it's pretty obvious that what works for you works, but if you can't put yourself in anyone else's shoes, then making claims about what is bunk or not really just applies to your little world. If you can't imagine a context where the benfits of one form are more appropriate than others, then imposing your view on the rest of the world is still a bit presumptious.

If 80% of the world are "idiots", and aerobics works for idiots, then it can't be bunk can it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm criticizing you for not taking the less presumptuous path: simply asking.

And for referring to a risk of injury right before it that is NOT for low intesity work.

You forgot one other group. People who don't want to expend the effort to educate themselves to be elite athletes but still want to utilize exercise effectively. These are people who have other things to do than learn the details of exercise physiology. I konw lots of people like this who have a hell of a lot of other things to think about in their day and frankly don't need or want to learn the minutea of exercise physiology to lose a couple of pounds. This is the majority of the market for gyms. Thank god you don't run one or you'd end up looking down your nose at most of your customers as "idiots".

Look, it's pretty obvious that what works for you works, but if you can't put yourself in anyone else's shoes, then making claims about what is bunk or not really just applies to your little world. If you can't imagine a context where the benfits of one form are more appropriate than others, then imposing your view on the rest of the world is still a bit presumptious.

If 80% of the world are "idiots", and aerobics works for idiots, then it can't be bunk can it?

But theese people don´t need to educate themselves much at all. If they just want to lose a couple of pounds all they really need to do is eat less. Not much less, just a little bit. If they are more serious about their weight loss they just need to learn how to count calories fairly acuratley. Of course it helps to also know something about proper nutrition.

The time investment here is very small, so I think everyone can afford it. Learning a little something about nutrition is also a good investment for a healthier life. And the thinking required for losing weight is simple adding and subtracting.

Exercising for fat loss is, on the other hand, much more time consuming. It also takes a higher effort than to just eat a little less food, so people are more likley to quit the aerobics.

For those who are willing to put in some more time and effort however, I think strength training is a better way to go. I think most people who do exercise do it for the health benefits(feeling better) and to look better. That is more effetively achieved with strength training than anything else.

30-60 minutes per week to gain all the benefits. Although you have to work out pretty hard. That will give cardio-vascular conditioning and stronger and bigger muscles - something that is more than just aesthetically pleasing later in life. Now I agree with you that this takes a little more knowledge than aerobics, but knowing alot about exercise physiology is not necessary. All that is needed is basically knowing how to perform the exercises, learning to workout hard and progressively, and having a few good routines to perform. I think you can get this by either investing in a good book or having a couple of sessions with a personal trainer. Not a very big investment. Although I do understand if some people would like to find an easier way - aerobics can provide that, but for a much smaller benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...