Aerobic Exercise

[Inspector]

You were so skinny, you couldve died.

Sorry, I should be more clear: That's 137 of LEAN mass. 145 total. To be fully clear, I started with about 195 total and burned off a lot of fat to get down to 145. It’s possible I had even less lean back when I was 195 but I have no way of knowing.

That’s still quite skinny, but that’s the genetics I was born with.

What do you weigh now?

About 163, but with a little more body fat. In a month or so I should be back to near the same percentage.

Just as important, what have been your strength gains with Max Contraction.

I don't have my charts on me, but I've maxxed out the stack on most exercises and have to add weights. Some stuff, like my lats, have just about doubled in size. Others, like my deltoids, seem stuck. But I now realize where I've been doing it wrong and will hope to correct that and see where I go from there.

Do you expect someone to believe that that guy gained 9.3 pounds of muscle from one workout? Do you believe it? That alone makes me skeptical of the whole study. It seems like a marketing fraud.

I do believe it. But if you know Max Contraction theory, that makes perfect sense: you don't grow in the gym; you grow when resting. Have you considered that results of this kind are uncommon precisely because the high-volume high-freqency methods that are ubiquitous (even under the name "HIT") are not all they are cracked up to be. I guess you can disbelieve it if you want; there isn't really anything I can say to convince you otherwise. I mean, that is pretty amazing.

[Alfa]

You can't do MC with leg presses because the weight is on your bones at full extension and not on your muscles. Try it with a pec deck or with steep angle preacher curls or something like that, where the weight is actually on your muscles at the top.

Ah, sorry my bad. Yeah, I guess it could be done with a pec deck, curls and maybe triceps pushdowns or dips. I'll experiment a bit and see how it works.

[Inspector]

Ah, sorry my bad. Yeah, I guess it could be done with a pec deck, curls and maybe triceps pushdowns or dips. I'll experiment a bit and see how it works.

Yeah, those will work. Machine pushdowns more than dips, which are more tricky.

[Alfa]

It will do something, I imagine that would be the failure of individual fibres. To stimulate 100% of your fibres to grow, you would need to cause 100% of the fibres to fail. This is the goal of Heavy Duty and Max Contraction. That's why they go to failure.

Yes, that's true.

No, it can't. It is the intensity that is. Take all the volume you want of just sitting there and see how much growth you get. (haha)

Of course sitting around all day and doing nothing is not demanding, but in the context of exercise where you have intensity volume can add to the effort.

I'd like to put intensity as the "quality" of stimulus. In cases there are any sort of stimulus, like when exercising, volume determines the amount of stimulus. So what then is the right quality and right amount of stimulus?

Are you sure it isn't just that you aren't resting enough? By lowering intensity you lower the stimulus and the trauma. Thus you can recover more quickly but you will grow less. You can go to the gym 3-4 times like that but if you had more intensity and less frequency you would grow more, even though you spent less time in the gym. Instead of going to the gym, growing a little, and then going back in a few days, how about going once and then growing for weeks?

At least, that's how Mr. Little's theories go.

Yes, I am pretty sure.

Earlier I was going between rather low volume and specialization routines for a few weeks. Eventually it became too much so I felt the need to reduce the volume further, thus starting a Heavy Duty routine. Initially it worked good but now I need more volume and/or frequency. It's pretty obvious when i'm cutting weight and only getting softer. I've had a couple of weeks off without any improvement so more rest does not seem to work. On the other hand, fewer days between workouts have advanced progress a little bit. Also adding a couple of sub-maximal sets for squats and deadlifts have been productive, and only taking these exercises close to failure.

"Instead of going to the gym, growing a little, and then going back in a few days, how about going once and then growing for weeks?"

Looks like you are assuming which is the best.

You must be thinking of another study. The one I mean is here. Not just a few subjects took a while, but most of them. The average recovery/growth time recorded was longer then most recommend for rest.

They used the Body Pod. Here. Muscle is measured to within +/- 2% accuracy and measurements were taken daily.

Those are interesting claims. And it would take some real convincing to make me believe that anyone not on steroids could gain 9.3lbs of muscle in 6 days.

How well were the subjects monitored? It could be possible to gain that much water, which registers as lean mass. How were their diets checked?

Also, what did they measure to get an idea about recovery? How was recovery defined?

That contradicts what was shown by the above study. Mass change wasn't radically larger in the first 48 hrs.

The bodpod can't measure protein synthesis. Also a higher protein synthesis does not necessarily mean a high protein balance, diet and hormone levels play a big part here.

Of course. But the correct principles need to be found. That's where Mr. Little comes in.

Yes, but the question is whether he has found them or if there are other principles.

I suppose the first set could be considered warmups. And we don't know what other exercises he does. But I wouldn't recommend even half of that volume for even a beginner and I doubt he's a beginner. His volume should be 1/10 of what it is, at least. But obviously there is some reading for you to do before that will make any sense...

I would not recommend that either, but I don't know Hunter's training history and I don't know how he responds to different methods.

I might not have read any of Little's work but I have read quite alot on HIT philosophy. I even like it very much. I just think it's incorrect in some places and it does not always seem to work as well as many of it's proponents claim, although some truly amazing results have been achieved with it.

I'm sorry, but if Little is right and the studies he cites are right, then that Zone stuff isn't at all right. (I've seen the zone before.)

Contradictions cannot exist, so if they contradict each other at least one of them is wrong. I don't want to assume either one of them are right, though I think Andrew Shortt makes some good points.

[Inspector]

Contradictions cannot exist, so if they contradict each other at least one of them is wrong. I don't want to assume either one of them are right, though I think Andrew Shortt makes some good points.

I think he does, too, even if I think his approach is flawed. (my main problem is its lack of Principles; it's too pragmatic and eclectic) But there are some interesting ideas, like the protein synthesis thing you brought up. I would really like to hear Mr. Shortt's take on Mr. Little and vice versa. Perhaps they are both wrong and both right, in their own ways, and new and even more effecive methods can be developed. Hard to say.

Anyway, as for your personal progress, I think you have some issues that you haven't got a handle on yet. That's not uncommon in this thing we call bodybuilding. We're really hurting for a lack of a scientific approach. Groping in the dark, really. I hope you can find the source of why HIT type workouts haven't worked out for you, but I am very skeptical of your idea that different methods work for different people.

One thing I can recommend is that if you want to experiment, be scientific about it. You can't be sure a given method doesn't work for you if you aren't 100% sure that you're doing it in the way it is meant to be done. If you're going to "try" MC, then please just spend the $12, buy the book, and do it right. Then, if you reject it, you'll at least be rejecting the real MC rather than some half-hearted attempt to do "some" of it.

[Alfa]

I think he does, too, even if I think his approach is flawed. (my main problem is its lack of Principles; it's too pragmatic and eclectic) But there are some interesting ideas, like the protein synthesis thing you brought up. I would really like to hear Mr. Shortt's take on Mr. Little and vice versa. Perhaps they are both wrong and both right, in their own ways, and new and even more effecive methods can be developed. Hard to say.

Anyway, as for your personal progress, I think you have some issues that you haven't got a handle on yet. That's not uncommon in this thing we call bodybuilding. We're really hurting for a lack of a scientific approach. Groping in the dark, really. I hope you can find the source of why HIT type workouts haven't worked out for you, but I am very skeptical of your idea that different methods work for different people.

One thing I can recommend is that if you want to experiment, be scientific about it. You can't be sure a given method doesn't work for you if you aren't 100% sure that you're doing it in the way it is meant to be done. If you're going to "try" MC, then please just spend the $12, buy the book, and do it right. Then, if you reject it, you'll at least be rejecting the real MC rather than some half-hearted attempt to do "some" of it.

I agree Shortt seems a bit pragmatic and that´s where he goes wrong. I believe both are right on some things, and wrong on others. Myself i'm still looking for a perfectly consistent philosophy for training, but right now i'm only beginning to understand what works for me so there's a long way to go.

I would not say that HIT type workouts have not worked for me. I can't say for sure how well they have worked(to do that I have to cut some weight so I can get a better look at the progress), but I have made great progress. One and a half years ago I was fat, weak, my body hurt from doing manual labor, and I was in a pretty bad condition. Today, even though I have gained some of the weight back, i'm a lot leaner, stronger and I can survive workouts that would have killed me. Perhaps, I don't know, I could have built more muscle. It's a possibility at least. But I have produced good results by any standard(and to have produced the same results with any other method would have taken much more exercise).

So in that way I think HIT is great. And the changes i'm thinking of is not far away from any HIT method. I'm experimenting very much, changing routines often and trying to determine what my body needs to grow further. I'm also trying to be as scientific as I can; keeping a training log, taking pictures, measurments and also being aware of what I eat.

When I first started training it was with a good friend of mine. I knew pretty much nothing about exercise. And, actually, I think he knows even less then I did then. Still, he has managed to build an impressive physique so I figured if I do what he does I should get the samre results. A big mistake, of course. He did several sets per exercise, with great intensity - often with forced reps. He's the kind of guy that when he want's something he's ready to put down lots of hard work to get it, and that's what he also put down in the gym. I liked the idea of lots of hard work, but now in retrospect it's pretty obvious where it led me - overtraining.

The difference between me and my friend is. of course, genetics, and the fact that he had been training for years before me. He recovered much faster and was used to the workouts. So it seems logical that we also respond differently to different methods.

...

Regarding MC I won't reject it before I know more about the ideas and before I have tried it properly. As for now, I think it's interesting although I am a bit sceptical about some of the things mentioned.

[Maarten]

You were so skinny, you couldve died. What do you weigh now? Just as important, what have been your strength gains with Max Contraction.

Do you expect someone to believe that that guy gained 9.3 pounds of muscle from one workout? Do you believe it? That alone makes me skeptical of the whole study. It seems like a marketing fraud.

I feel bad now, I must be a walking corpse I weigh approximately 130 lbs at a bit over 5'10. That's total body mass, not lean, whatever that means. Do I have to start writing my will?

[hunterrose]

Plus I don't really know how close to my genetic limits I am.

You've got a lot of room to grow, I'd imagine. IMO most people who believe they have reached their best possible just aren't aware of an error in their routine that is holding them back.

How long have you been working out?

My college friends started me out in 1999, and I (think I was) 175 at that point. I didn't really get serious until the end of 2003, though.

I started with about 195 total and burned off a lot of fat to get down to 145.

That's an accomplishment in itself!

I don't have my charts on me, but I've maxxed out the stack on most exercises and have to add weights. Some stuff, like my lats, have just about doubled in size. Others, like my deltoids, seem stuck. But I now realize where I've been doing it wrong and will hope to correct that and see where I go from there.

Sweet. As long as your numbers are going up, I can't knock it.

I'm also trying to be as scientific as I can; keeping a training log, taking pictures, measurments and also being aware of what I eat.

Good stuff. Check out some of the magazines as well, if you aren't already. Flex helped me out a lot when I was starting out. It tends to cover all of the basics very well.

I feel bad now, I must be a walking corpse

Don't listen to BaseballGenius; we can't all be walking juggernauts like him

[Fireball]

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?

In my experience, it burns significant calories and aids in weight loss. After a decade of high-volume running, I was very lean. A few months before my 40th birthday my waist measured 28". This made it difficult to find pants and belts from the men's department because they were too big.

-Does it reduce the risk of heart disease?

In my case it did. After a decade of high-volume running, I did a complete physical exam and my blood labs were tremendous -- much better than normal -- and my stress test went well: I didn't fatigue so the nurses ended the test.

-Does it contribute to better psychological well-being?

It did for me. The endorphin rush or "runner's high" I enjoyed daily was a major boon to my well-being.

The only danger from running IMO is getting hit by a car. I'd recommend avoiding busy roads. OTOH, weightlifting is much more dangerous. People approach me in the gym and tell me about how they blew out their back, vertebrae, hip, elbow, etc. Even the founder of HIT ruined his spine to the point of not being able to stand fully erect. He also died prematurely in his 40s. My suggestion would be to include moderate aerobics & strength training to stay lean & muscular. Just my 2 cents.

[BaseballGenius]

I feel bad now, I must be a walking corpse I weigh approximately 130 lbs at a bit over 5'10. That's total body mass, not lean, whatever that means. Do I have to start writing my will?

Whats your explanation as to why youre only at 130 pounds? Whats your diet, exercise regime, etc?

Lean body mass is your body mass minus your fat.

Maybe you should write your will now. (just in case).

[BaseballGenius]

In my experience, it burns significant calories and aids in weight loss. After a decade of high-volume running, I was very lean. A few months before my 40th birthday my waist measured 28". This made it difficult to find pants and belts from the men's department because they were too big.

How do you know it was the aerobics that got your physical shape to where its at? Could your diet have been a major factor?

After a decade of high-volume running, I did a complete physical exam and my blood labs were tremendous -- much better than normal -- and my stress test went well: I didn't fatigue so the nurses ended the test.

How do you know the aerobics were the cause of your good physical exam scores? A lot of people have good genetics that can be attributed to their physical health.

The endorphin rush or "runner's high" I enjoyed daily was a major boon to my well-being.

What is runners high exactly? Dont you feel tired after youve completed your workout?

The only danger from running IMO is getting hit by a car. I'd recommend avoiding busy roads.

Brilliant idea.

OTOH, weightlifting is much more dangerous. People approach me in the gym and tell me about how they blew out their back, vertebrae, hip, elbow, etc.

I agree that weight lifting can be more dangerous than aerobics if you dont have much knowledge on the subject. Then again, you could always study.

Even the founder of HIT ruined his spine to the point of not being able to stand fully erect. He also died prematurely in his 40s.

Youre implying Mike Mentzer, but the founder of HIT was Arthur Jones. Youre right about the other two things though. Mentzer did have a bad back later on in his life, but that may have been because of steroid use, bad form on exercises, or even something outside of weight lifting. I think more cases of long term injuries from weight lifting is necessary to prove the cause. Also, Mentzer did die at the age of 49(I think 49). My expert opinion is that it was caused mainly from amphetimine use, poor genetics(towards longevity), or possibly from steroid use except his doctor said it wasnt because of this.

My suggestion would be to include moderate aerobics & strength training to stay lean & muscular.

I think if youre already weight lifting, then doing aerobics to stay lean would not make sense to me. Weight lifting alone increases your metabolism by quite a bit(from my experience). Also, you dont really want to have a low body fat if you are trying to gain muscle, you need to eat excess calories. Plus, aerobics will just use up a lot of energy, and this is while your body is still trying to recover the energy lost during your weight lifting session. Do you agree with this assessment?

[Inspector]

Alfa,

Good luck, and I hope it "works out" for you.

Just one minor quibble:

He did several sets per exercise, with great intensity

Several sets is not my idea of great intensity. Way too much volume to be considered intense, LOL.

[Inspector]

You've got a lot of room to grow, I'd imagine. IMO most people who believe they have reached their best possible just aren't aware of an error in their routine that is holding them back.

I hope so. I won't stop trying, that's for sure.

Sweet. As long as your numbers are going up, I can't knock it.

Yes, they do go up. I think I must have started, back at the beginning (2002), with maybe 30 lb arm curls. When I started MC (2004-05... took a break in the summer of '05 and resumed in the winter, but stayed on the beginner routine too long... going to correct that now) I could do a hold of 140lbs for 14 seconds. I don't have my recent notes (they're at the gym), but I know I'm either close to or above 200 for 40 seconds or so. For calf raises I started on MC with 140 for 44 seconds and now am doing over 400; we ran out of room to hang weight to the machine so I've switched to seated raises for the soleus.

Don't listen to BaseballGenius; we can't all be walking juggernauts like him

Yeah, seriously.

[Inspector]

What is runners high exactly?

This.

Also, Mentzer did die at the age of 49(I think 49). My expert opinion is that it was caused mainly from amphetimine use, poor genetics(towards longevity), or possibly from steroid use except his doctor said it wasnt because of this.

Considering that his brother died a few months later from the same heart condition, and his father died from it when he was the same age, I'm going to have to say that genetics is a likely culprit here...

[BaseballGenius]

Considering that his brother died a few months later from the same heart condition, and his father died from it when he was the same age, I'm going to have to say that genetics is a likely culprit here...

I think his brother, Ray, died from kidney failure. I read somewhere that they both died of the same heart disease, but I know Ray was going through treatment(dialysis) at the end of his life to keep him alive because he literally didnt have functioning kidneys any longer.

Also, Ray died about 3 days after Mike passed away.

Edited January 30, 2007 by BaseballGenius

[Inspector]

I think his brother, Ray, died from kidney failure. I read somewhere that they both died of the same heart disease, but I know Ray was going through treatment(dialysis) at the end of his life to keep him alive because he literally didnt have functioning kidneys any longer.

Also, Ray died about 3 days after Mike passed away.

Thanks for that, I learned something new. It's still a bit of a mystery, but the drug abuse does seem to be the most obvious culprit for Mike.

[Maarten]

Whats your explanation as to why youre only at 130 pounds? Whats your diet, exercise regime, etc?

Lean body mass is your body mass minus your fat.

Maybe you should write your will now. (just in case).

Well, I really don't exercise much, at all. As far as I can tell I have approximately the same build Inspector has, so part of the reason is just that I am naturally very slender. I guess the main reason I weigh so little is because I'm rather active, I ride my bicycle a lot, my work (waiting tables) has me running for hours at a time, and I have the tendency to skip meals at times. So even though I may get the required calories, I burn most of that with all the stuff I do during the day, which is probably why I'm stuck at this weight.

Is it safe to say that if I ever do start exercising for real, that I will need to greatly improve my diet? I don't think things like skipping breakfast and only eating like two (big) meals a day are very good for you if you're trying to put on some muscle.

[Inspector]

Well, I really don't exercise much, at all. As far as I can tell I have approximately the same build Inspector has, so part of the reason is just that I am naturally very slender. I guess the main reason I weigh so little is because I'm rather active, I ride my bicycle a lot, my work (waiting tables) has me running for hours at a time, and I have the tendency to skip meals at times. So even though I may get the required calories, I burn most of that with all the stuff I do during the day, which is probably why I'm stuck at this weight.

Is it safe to say that if I ever do start exercising for real, that I will need to greatly improve my diet? I don't think things like skipping breakfast and only eating like two (big) meals a day are very good for you if you're trying to put on some muscle.

I've also been known to "forget" to eat. No, it's not the best thing for building muscle. If/When (and it should be "when") you start exercising, I would definitely recommend the training methods that I've linked to. People like Hunterrose might have the genetics to "get away" with high volume training, but for people like us, that kind of thing just doesn't fly. Like Alfa's example where he tried his gonzo buddy's methods and quickly suffered overtraining.

[Maarten]

I've also been known to "forget" to eat. No, it's not the best thing for building muscle. If/When (and it should be "when") you start exercising, I would definitely recommend the training methods that I've linked to. People like Hunterrose might have the genetics to "get away" with high volume training, but for people like us, that kind of thing just doesn't fly. Like Alfa's example where he tried his gonzo buddy's methods and quickly suffered overtraining.

Well, right now I mainly do some exercises at home (mainly pushups and situps), and while I haven't read that much on HIT I am trying to follow at least the basic idea behind it, because it just makes a lot of sense. I generally do exercises like once a week, and I continue doing them until I can't do it anymore. It generally doesn't take very long to get the muscles completely maxed out this way, and it seems to work a lot better than what I used to do before (I usually did just a couple exercises, but then like every day, which didn't work very well, at all). When I finish this semester at university I will look into joining a gym somewhere, until that time I'm mainly focused on maintaining the status quo, so to speak. I'm actually getting a little stronger over time by doing this, but I am sure I am not doing it the most efficient way I could.

Hehe, the advantage of having very delicate wrists is that you can use your girlfriend's watch, and vice versa It's not very useful, but I think it's kind of amusing.

Edited January 30, 2007 by Maarten

[Inspector]

Hehe, the advantage of having very delicate wrists is that you can use your girlfriend's watch, and vice versa It's not very useful, but I think it's kind of amusing.

You take what you can get, I guess. On the converse of that, Mike Mentzer was not able to wear a wristwatch... ANY wristwatch, because his arm was just so friggin huge.

[Maarten]

You take what you can get, I guess. On the converse of that, Mike Mentzer was not able to wear a wristwatch... ANY wristwatch, because his arm was just so friggin huge.

Can your wrist get a lot bigger, then? I thought it was mostly limited to genetics. There are not very many muscles running through your wrist that you will be training with these exercises, I think, but I could be wrong about that.

[Inspector]

Can your wrist get a lot bigger, then? I thought it was mostly limited to genetics. There are not very many muscles running through your wrist that you will be training with these exercises, I think, but I could be wrong about that.

No, I mean his genetics were so favorable; his bones were gigantic.

[Fireball]

How do you know it was the aerobics that got your physical shape to where its at? Could your diet have been a major factor?

Both are equally important.

How do you know the aerobics were the cause of your good physical exam scores? A lot of people have good genetics that can be attributed to their physical health.

I think genetics play somewhat of a role, however I think at least equally important is a healthy lifestyle: regular aerobic exercise, a clean diet, no drugs/alcohol/etc.

What is runners high exactly? Dont you feel tired after youve completed your workout?

I don't know the scientific basis of runner's high. Yes I feel exhausted upon completing aerobic activity (in my case running). But after recovering, mild stretching & eating a balanced meal, I feel invigorated. Perhaps this is from glycogen stores being replenished along with the body releasing endorphins. It just feels good!

I agree that weight lifting can be more dangerous than aerobics if you dont have much knowledge on the subject. Then again, you could always study.

The people I was referring to are professionals in the field or weight lift for their work. One man is a football coach and has been coaching football for many years. Now he has an artificial hip from squatting and can't do much in the gym. Another is a police officer who trains for his job; one day his elbow popped out during a set and he was rushed to the hospital. Another is a bodybuilder whose vertebrae got crushed while squatting. He was disabled for 6 weeks. It is sad to see them now because they are strong & experienced but are strictly limited in their physical activity.

Youre implying Mike Mentzer, but the founder of HIT was Arthur Jones. Youre right about the other two things though. Mentzer did have a bad back later on in his life, but that may have been because of steroid use, bad form on exercises, or even something outside of weight lifting.

I didn't know Mike Mentzer personally, but my best guess from reading his own writings is that excessively heavy squatting permanently damaged his spine.

I think more cases of long term injuries from weight lifting is necessary to prove the cause.

I'd like to see such a study. I personally know several weightlifters that have permanent injuries from lifting. And Arnold went on the Howard Stern show a while back and listed several of his injuries/surgeries from weightlifting.

Also, Mentzer did die at the age of 49(I think 49). My expert opinion is that it was caused mainly from amphetimine use, poor genetics(towards longevity), or possibly from steroid use except his doctor said it wasnt because of this.

I'm not an MD but I'd guess Mentzer had a significant inbalance of eicosanoids due to his genetics, diet, high levels of cortisol, drug use, cigarette smoking and lack of aerobic fitness. IMO, this imbalance of too many bad eicosanoids ended his life prematurely somewhat akin to WWE wrestler Eddie Guerrero.

I think if youre already weight lifting, then doing aerobics to stay lean would not make sense to me. Weight lifting alone increases your metabolism by quite a bit(from my experience). Also, you dont really want to have a low body fat if you are trying to gain muscle, you need to eat excess calories. Plus, aerobics will just use up a lot of energy, and this is while your body is still trying to recover the energy lost during your weight lifting session. Do you agree with this assessment?

I think Mentzer would agree with you here, but I'm not qualified to answer this with any valid authority. I would say if you are in a bulking up stage, then keep aerobic activity to a minimum. But don't confuse anaerobic activity (e.g., weightlifting) with aerobic activity (e.g., running). Both activities are important for overall health (when performed wisely).

[BaseballGenius]

The people I was referring to are professionals in the field or weight lift for their work. One man is a football coach and has been coaching football for many years. Now he has an artificial hip from squatting and can't do much in the gym. Another is a police officer who trains for his job; one day his elbow popped out during a set and he was rushed to the hospital. Another is a bodybuilder whose vertebrae got crushed while squatting. He was disabled for 6 weeks. It is sad to see them now because they are strong & experienced but are strictly limited in their physical activity.

Yeah, some people do get injured. I dont know if these people trained properly(from my standard), or anything else. But I think nearly everyone who has uses a slow cadence(rep speed) and concentrates on proper form of all the exercises, the chances of injury are slim.

I didn't know Mike Mentzer personally, but my best guess from reading his own writings is that excessively heavy squatting permanently damaged his spine.

I guess Mike didnt come to the same conclusion as you, because he strongly advocated doing squats in his clients routine. Not that Im saying youre wrong.

I'm not an MD but I'd guess Mentzer had a significant inbalance of eicosanoids due to his genetics, diet, high levels of cortisol, drug use, cigarette smoking and lack of aerobic fitness.

Mike frequently did aerobics during most of his life. There are quite a few pictures in his books of him doing this. It was late in his life when he realized aerobics may be a waste of time and dangerous. He talks about that in a late interview.

I would say if you are in a bulking up stage, then keep aerobic activity to a minimum. But don't confuse anaerobic activity (e.g., weightlifting) with aerobic activity (e.g., running). Both activities are important for overall health (when performed wisely).

Why do you think aerobic exercise is necessary for health if one is already doing anaerobic exercise?

[BaseballGenius]

So even though I may get the required calories, I burn most of that with all the stuff I do during the day, which is probably why I'm stuck at this weight.

Well obviously if you ever got a burning desire to put on weight, then you just need to eat some more calories. You could eat larger meals when you get home from work, and since you wouldnt have eaten much during the day it will cause a large insulin spike at your evening mealtimes, causing your metabolism to slow and store calories more easily. Also, instead of skipping breakfast, just grab a protein shake. Rearrange your meals by however it fits in with your life. It becomes easy to manage your diet once it has become a habit.