Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Aerobic Exercise

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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 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.

First, with a BMP rate of 135-145, how intense was the exercise with these numbers? Im not very familiar with BMP.

Second, if you think youre using upwards of 800 calories an hour with a low intensity workout then Im almost certain you are including the resting metabolic rate in there as well, which is probably going to be around 60-75% of those calories. If our bodies are so inefficient to use 800 calories an hour on walking, Im surprised the human species was able to survive pre-civilization years(unsupported claim).

High rpm cycling IS low force. It is significantly lower impact that 10 minute mile running.
I think youre right about that, along with walking or other low intensity movements.

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.

You mean because the amount of resistance you used increased since your body is better conditioned? And with more resistance added, it would cause the body to use more calories during the exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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.

I always thought glycogen was the main source of fuel for aerobics initially until it becomes depleted. Then once glycogen is gone, fat becomes the main energy source. Thats why its recommended from a lot of people to perform aerobic exercise on an empty stomach, such as in the morning, in order to use fat as the primary energy source for the entire workout.

Here is a very interesting article on the physiological effects from aerobics:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vcFfYM...t=clnk&cd=1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I always thought glycogen was the main source of fuel for aerobics initially until it becomes depleted. Then once glycogen is gone, fat becomes the main energy source. Thats why its recommended from a lot of people to perform aerobic exercise on an empty stomach, such as in the morning, in order to use fat as the primary energy source for the entire workout.

Here is a very interesting article on the physiological effects from aerobics:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vcFfYM...t=clnk&cd=1

The ratio of fat to glycogen burned is different at different exertion rates. The higher the exertion rate the more you directly burn glycogen. The lower, the more the ratio shifts to direct fat. You won't force glycogen depletion by working out on an empty stomach. In fact, you don't want to force glycogen depletion at all (if you're trying to get rid of fat). The more you deplete glycogen daily, the more you risk overtraining and fatigue if you don't rest. This is one of the reasons diet becomes really important for endurance athletes, because without carefully planning diet, you can fail to recharge glycogen reserves adequately and suffer from overtraining.

My strongheaded wife has done this a couple of times prepping for her triathlons last year.

http://www.tri-ecoach.com/art3.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, with a BMP rate of 135-145, how intense was the exercise with these numbers? Im not very familiar with BMP.

I'm not sure what best to compare it to. 135-145 is about 65-75% of max heart rate. It's what I would call moderate exercise. It will make you sweat, but you can talk during, and you won't be gasping for breath. On a road bike on the open road (and out of shape) it's maybe 15-17 mph for me.

I've always found that running at almost any speed is higher effort than this (and much more impact too) so I don't include any form of running in the category.

Second, if you think youre using upwards of 800 calories an hour with a low intensity workout then Im almost certain you are including the resting metabolic rate in there as well, which is probably going to be around 60-75% of those calories. If our bodies are so inefficient to use 800 calories an hour on walking, Im surprised the human species was able to survive pre-civilization years(unsupported claim).

Yeah, I'm not really sure about that. I'm just reading the energy expenditure off of whatever the instrument in front of me says.

I think youre right about that, along with walking or other low intensity movements.

There is one caveat with cycling and that is knee injury. Mostly this is biomechanics and improper seat geometry.

You mean because the amount of resistance you used increased since your body is better conditioned? And with more resistance added, it would cause the body to use more calories during the exercise.

Exactly. It is one advantage of using heart rate monitoring. If you hold heart rate constant while you exercise then whatever "resistance" level you use becomes a relative indicator of your physical conditioning level. Same heart rate, higher resistance means you're getting in better shape. Also, as you conditioning gets better, the fat to glycogen ratio is pushed down for a given intensity level. That is, you become a "better butter burner."

Edited by KendallJ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a very interesting article on the physiological effects from aerobics:

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:vcFfYM...t=clnk&cd=1

By the way, that's a nice article. The section on "Aerobic Energy Sources" details the fat to glycogen relationship pretty well.

The "common errors" section read like my wife's "to do" list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 more likely due to the steroid abuse...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Okay, you got me there.

And for referring to a risk of injury right before it that is NOT for low intesity work.
Not true. Light jogging is low intensity and it doesn't risk injury; it pretty much inevitably causes it. That's the thing with aerobics: even if done properly, it will stress your body over time and injure you.

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.

And I suppose they want to spend hours and hours a week exercising instead of 12 1/2 minutes?

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".
Well, no, just uneducated. Are you going to tell me that the vast majority of people in the gym market are not grossly mistaken about things? Because if you don't think so, I've got piles of magazines hocking snake-oil supplements for you...

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.

Actually, I'd say it's the other way around. Here we have a form of exercise that is hocked by just about everybody, yet makes no medical sense. There's no scientific or physioliogical reason to engage in it. The only reason to engage in it, ever, is if you just so happen to be one of those people who gets a runners high.

Kendall, you just so happen to enjoy engaging in this inefficient and more risky form of exercise that doesn't make any sense except for on the basis that you happen to enjoy it. Why can't you just accept that? Why must you argue, against fact and reason, that it makes sense on any other basis than that one? There's nothing wrong with just enjoying it. I enjoy many things that are less efficient. But I don't try to tell people that my muscle car gets good gas mileage!

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.

Good point here: good diet is essential to any weight loss program and will be more important to it than any form of exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall, you just so happen to enjoy engaging in this inefficient and more risky form of exercise that doesn't make any sense except for on the basis that you happen to enjoy it. Why can't you just accept that? Why must you argue, against fact and reason, that it makes sense on any other basis than that one? There's nothing wrong with just enjoying it. I enjoy many things that are less efficient. But I don't try to tell people that my muscle car gets good gas mileage!

Sorry Inspector, this is my last post on the topic because you simply aren't reading my posts or my arguments. Either that or you continue to misunderstand the meaning of the term contextual. There are pros and cons to all exercise regimens, and those pros and cons do not just have to do with physiology. They must be weighed in the context of the objetive to be gained and specific desires of the person involved to spend time investing the particular requirements of the methodology used, whether that be time, education, or personal enjoyment of a particular activity. I have claimed nothing more than this.

Effectiveness has to be judged on the particular outcome contextually.

I specifically made no claim anything like the equivalent of "my muscle car gets good gas mileage". What I did claim over and over is that muscle cars are good for some people, and economy cars are good for others. You choose however to claim that the people who economy cars might be good for, even though they are the majority of people, don't deserve to have their contexts judged effective because they are uneducated, or idiots.

I'm not suggesting your claims don't have merit. I'm suggesting that they are simply too broad and fail to assess the whole context.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The ratio of fat to glycogen burned is different at different exertion rates. The higher the exertion rate the more you directly burn glycogen. The lower, the more the ratio shifts to direct fat.

I see. I made a mistake by thinking its either one or the other being used, and didnt consider there to be a ratio. At what point does protein/muscle begin to come into the ratio though? Can all three be used as fuel at the same time? All I know is that the body goes to protein as a last resort for fuel because its not very efficient at utilizing it for this effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what best to compare it to. 135-145 is about 65-75% of max heart rate. It's what I would call moderate exercise. It will make you sweat, but you can talk during, and you won't be gasping for breath. On a road bike on the open road (and out of shape) it's maybe 15-17 mph for me.

I understand. To maximize the use of fat for fuel during exercise, ones heart rate needs to be at a particular level, and that level is what you are describing here.

Yeah, I'm not really sure about that. I'm just reading the energy expenditure off of whatever the instrument in front of me says.

Thats what I thought. Im pretty sure most calorie expenditure counters on exercise equipment includes your resting metabolic rate in there as well. Its something to look into, because that would account for about half the calories, I think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is more likely due to the steroid abuse...

Well, it´s due to the steroids they can get so big, and of course the side effects from the steroid abuse are not healthy.

The way I see it our bodies are made to carry a certain amount of muscle, determined by our genetic makeup - some people are big, others are small, and so on. Muscle is pretty expensive for the body, so too much is not very good for survival, and our organs(i´m not sure but I guess liver, kidneys, heart etc) have their limits for how much they can support. For those of us who don´t take "special medications" our bodies have different ways to regulate how much muscle we can build, for example our endocrine system should produce just the right amount of hormones that is best suited for us. Pro bodybuilders on the other hand take a shitload of steroids allowing them to exceed their bodies natural limits. This, I believe, makes it pretty tough on their bodies(plus, of course, that the steroids can give dangerous levels of blood fats and elevates the blood pressure). So I think atleast one problem there is simply too much muscle, similar to people who carry too much fat.

For drug free people I don´t think there can be too much muscle. However, I do think that getting close to ones genetical limit it can put some added stress on the body. But theese are just my own speculations, not facts. :worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They must be weighed in the context of the objetive to be gained and specific desires of the person involved to spend time investing the particular requirements of the methodology used, whether that be time, education, or personal enjoyment of a particular activity. I have claimed nothing more than this.

I understand that, but what you're saying is that aerobics would be better for a person who is so busy that, while they are willing to invest hour after tedious hour into the activity itself, is unwilling to spend maybe one or two hours learning about an alternative which could have them in the gym for a half hour or less per week. That person I call an idiot.

I also said it is good for people who simply enjoy that kind of activity, just in the same way that double cheeseburgers are good: enjoyable but not exactly the best thing for your health.

Effectiveness has to be judged on the particular outcome contextually.

And I'd say it must also be judged in light of the alternatives.

Anyhow, I don't mean to keep you here if you don't want to stay. If you don't respond, I will just assume you disagree and I can agree to disagree.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For drug free people I don´t think there can be too much muscle. However, I do think that getting close to ones genetical limit it can put some added stress on the body. But theese are just my own speculations, not facts. ;)

They're fairly accurate speculations, though. Mike Mentzer wrote about this a bit; in his observation, the body's central systems and resources didn't really keep up with the output that muscles were capable of on folks that were very built. Now of course a lot of bodybuilders take steroids and over-train and both of those compound the problem. Mike was very big on exposing the problems of overtraining.

But one thing about HIT is that it has been proven to improve cardiovascular health and endurance. Even if it does make you strong enough to be able to lift heavy things that will exhaust you quickly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kendall, you just so happen to enjoy engaging in this inefficient and more risky form of exercise that doesn't make any sense except for on the basis that you happen to enjoy it. Why can't you just accept that? Why must you argue, against fact and reason, that it makes sense on any other basis than that one?

Here we have a form of exercise that is hocked by just about everybody, yet makes no medical sense. There's no scientific or physioliogical reason to engage in it.

I have to object to that. A program of weights + running isn't less efficient than HIT.

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.
If this were true, then why are drug-free runners consistently at lower fat levels than drug-free weightlifters or HITers??
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This interesting discussion is an ongoing debate between the Aerobic vs Weight Training school of thought. My 12 years of being an active athlete ie; runner, triathlete, gym member, weight trainer, etc. has taught me that each individual person's goals and fitness level are different. To answer your questions...

-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?

Your body needs a certain amount of energy (Kcal) a day to maintain its functions. Based on a persons weight and fitness level aerobic workouts burn calories. This creates a deficit and will result in weight loss provided you change nothing in your diet. You can also reduce caloric intake to create weight loss. Lifting weights build stronger muscles which continue to burn calories over time however it doesn't create the immediate caloric results. Link to Kcal burned during exercise...see for yourself.

http://www.nutristrategy.com/activitylist3.htm

Aerobic exercise makes the heart beat faster and pump more oxygen through the body. Over time your heart will create new blood vesssels to support this increase. Your body will remove the bi products and carbon dioxide through your lungs and kidneys (sweat) making you healthier. If you also remove foods like bacon and trans fatty foods, etc. you will reduce your risk of heart disease, however no one thing alone is the key to reducing heart disease. If you run a 5k everyday and eat junk food you might just cancel things out. Although if you create a caloric deficit you would still lose weight, you would have a lower weight but maybe high cholesterol(fat like waxy substance) You might be thin, but have a high risk of heart disease.

Whether or not someone feels better psychologically is a hard question to answer. I feel better when i exercise regularly. Science says that endorphines are released and our bodies natural "acetaminophen" is ignited as a result of exercise. (so is being chased by a pitbull but you wouldn't want that to happen for 30 mins 3x a week.) We can reduce the stress in our muscles and our minds which I think helps us feel good.

I enjoy running on the beach. It strengthens my heart, legs, abs and refreshes my mind and creativity. If somone hates being at the beach and can only think about the sand in their toes and the annoying seagulls then its not something they might continue to do. You may need to figure out how much time you're willing to spend and find a sport activity you like and will continue to do over time. Weightlifting is a good way to create stronger muscles which burn calories better , however training the heart muscle is better with cardio workouts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to object to that. A program of weights + running isn't less efficient than HIT.

For what goal? Building muscle? Running will cause you to lose muscle. Not being injured? Running will cause more injury. Losing weight? Well, you will lose more but it is not a good use of your time. If you really want to lose more weight then eat less. Don't waste your time with aerobics unless you happen to get off on it. (hehe, no offense, runners)

If this were true, then why are drug-free runners consistently at lower fat levels than drug-free weightlifters or HITers??
Because they don't want to be? Because runners are ectomorphs?

Weightlifting is a good way to create stronger muscles which burn calories better , however training the heart muscle is better with cardio workouts.

One correction, HIT weightlifting provides a better cardiovascular workout than aerobic exercise. Or at least as good while also building muscle and not injuring you as much.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to object to that. A program of weights + running isn't less efficient than HIT.

If this were true, then why are drug-free runners consistently at lower fat levels than drug-free weightlifters or HITers??

Because its what improves your results the best. A runner wants to be of light weight in order to run faster, so they choose to keep lower fat levels. Weight lifters, however, need more extra calories to build muscle, and putting on some fat for a weight lifter probably doesnt hurt his performance. I strength train and could easily get my body fat levels down to a marathon runners level, but I choose not to because I know I need to eat above my caloric maintenance level in order to build muscle, which is my goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I enjoy running on the beach. It strengthens my heart, legs, abs and refreshes my mind and creativity.

I dont think that will so much as strengthen those muscles, but more like condition them. Exercises that can be performed for a long time condition moreso than strengthen, and exercises that are of higher intensity that can only be performed a very short time strengthen the muscles.

Weightlifting is a good way to create stronger muscles which burn calories better , however training the heart muscle is better with cardio workouts.

First, what do you mean exactly by cardio? Second, how do you know cardio trains the heart better than strength training?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what goal? Building muscle? Running will cause you to lose muscle.
Only for long durations of runs, and you could just as easily lose muscle from long durations of HITx.

Not being injured? Running will cause more injury.
30 years of running is going to cause more injury than 30 years of squats?

If you really want to lose more weight then eat less.
That only works so much, particularly when your metabolism drops from reduced calories.

HIT weightlifting provides a better cardiovascular workout than aerobic exercise. Or at least as good while also building muscle and not injuring you as much.
I really question that "better" statement. I'd have to read the experiment, but I can't imagine that 30 minutes of HIT is going to be as cardiovascularly effective as running 5 miles in a half hour.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 years of running is going to cause more injury than 30 years of squats?

Yes, probably.

I think running produces about 2-3 times the bodyweight in impact forces for each step. Even if you squat that amount of weight, which is fairly strong, you are not likely to do thousands of repetitions in each session. Also that force would not come suddenly, but should be applied smoothly.

That only works so much, particularly when your metabolism drops from reduced calories.
The metabolism will drop from the loss of weight, which would be exactly the same with exercise or diet induced calorie deficit. Our bodies will not somehow drop the metabolism when calories are reduced - atleast not in any significant amounts. People who are starving, for example from anorexia, only drop their metabolism by around 10 percent. Something that might happen though is that leptin levels drop, making it more difficult to lose fat. I doubt that exercising or dieting makes any difference to that.

I really question that "better" statement. I'd have to read the experiment, but I can't imagine that 30 minutes of HIT is going to be as cardiovascularly effective as running 5 miles in a half hour.

http://www.einternalmedicinenews.com/

Feb 1, 2005

"Weight-Lifting Regimen Delivered Cardio Benefits

ORLANDO, FLA. — Pure weight training can markedly improve aerobic fitness, Erika Baum, M.D., reported at Wonca 2004, the conference of the World Organization of Family Doctors.

A 6-month structured Nautilus weightlifting program resulted in improvements in cardiocirculatory fitness to a degree traditionally considered obtainable only through endurance exercises such as running, bicycling, and swimming, said Dr. Baum, a family physician at Philipps University, Marburg, Germany.

“This opens up new possibilities for cardiopulmonary-oriented exercise besides the traditional stamina sports,” she noted. New exercise options are desirable because some patients just don’t care for endurance exercise, which doesn’t do much to improve muscular strength and stabilization.

Dr. Baum reported on 31 healthy but physically unfit 20- to 45-year-olds, including 8 women, who completed a Nautilus weight-training program involving two or three 30- to 40-minute sessions per week for 6 months.

Aerobic capacity, assessed on a graded treadmill exercise test, improved by 33% over the course of 6 months from a mean baseline of 55,475 watt-seconds. Women improved from a baseline of 47,253 wattseconds to 62,822 watt-seconds, while endurance performance in men increased from 58,335 to 77,741 watt-seconds.

Meanwhile, mean body weight declined from 77.8 to 67.7 kg. Resting heart rate dropped from a baseline of 68.5 beats/min to 65.6 beats/min. Heart rate measured 3 minutes after stopping a maximal exercise test declined from a baseline of 108.7 to 103.1 beats/min after 6 months of training, with a larger decrease in women than men.

—Bruce Jancin"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.einternalmedicinenews.com/

Feb 1, 2005

"Weight-Lifting Regimen Delivered Cardio Benefits

I have a couple questions and concerns with the study.

1) It mentions that the patients lost quite a few pounds during this trial. Could this not have been a major contributor to the improvement of aerobic function on the treadmill? Less weight alone on the body means the heart doesnt need to work as hard, therefore it would be able to handle aerobic exercise at least a little better, I think. So just because their aerobic function on a treadmill was improved, doesnt mean that weight lifting was the cause of this.

2) Im assuming there were strength gains in most of the patients, particularly in the legs. With greater strength in the legs, that would lower the intensity of the same aerobic workout on the treadmill. This is because the legs are stronger, not necessarily because the heart is stronger or more conditioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only for long durations of runs, and you could just as easily lose muscle from long durations of HITx.

But aerobics has to be performed for a long duration in order to have much of a beneficial effect, because its of such low intensity. HIT is the opposite.

Does anybody know when protein/muscle begins to be used as fuel in aerobics or other types of workouts?

30 years of running is going to cause more injury than 30 years of squats?

Running is high-force. Squats should be performed slowly and smoothly, and for this reason it makes it a low-force exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only for long durations of runs, and you could just as easily lose muscle from long durations of HITx.

Proper HIT, such as Mentzer's Heavy Duty or Little's Max Contraction do not do long durations. That would be an improper practice of the technique. You might as well say that HIT is not good if you beat yourself over the head with the weights instead of lifting them.

30 years of running is going to cause more injury than 30 years of squats?
Me, I don't do squats. But properly performed, yes.

That only works so much, particularly when your metabolism drops from reduced calories.

True, true. But you don't generally want to lose too much weight too quickly as it may cut into your muscle.

I really question that "better" statement. I'd have to read the experiment, but I can't imagine that 30 minutes of HIT is going to be as cardiovascularly effective as running 5 miles in a half hour.
It would be more intense, with the kinds of workouts I linked to. It theory it should be better. It's hard to test that, though. That's why I said "as good or."

Running is high-force. Squats should be performed slowly and smoothly, and for this reason it makes it a low-force exercise.

Yes, exactly. We're not talking about the way powerlifters do it; fast and jerky. That is a fast track to injury. Slow and smooth is the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont think that will so much as strengthen those muscles, but more like condition them. Exercises that can be performed for a long time condition moreso than strengthen, and exercises that are of higher intensity that can only be performed a very short time strengthen the muscles.

First, what do you mean exactly by cardio? Second, how do you know cardio trains the heart better than strength training?

I bike at times 40-60 miles and my legs are strong and conditioned. I bike or run up hills which I can only do for short periods of time is that what you mean by intense training? The difference I have always found to be true is that I can go to the gym the and pump iron, however someone who just lifts weight will not be able to go bike 40-60 miles. As your muscles become stronger from sports like cycling and running, you're able to improve your conditioning.

By cardio, I mean pertaining to the heart. If I use your rational that strength training is better for your muscles, then the way to strengthen your heart muscle is to increase its size and ability to perform. Cardio training increases the amount of oxygen your heart muscle receives forcing it to builds new vessels which increase the hearts size. When you say HIT do you mean pumping different body parts continually without rest in between sets, or just 3-6 reps of heavy weight without resting? (this would turn this weight session into 30 minute continuous aerobics ) Do you mean 30 minutes a day, or week? What will happen to your body when its in a physical situation beyond 30 minutes training you do like hiking down and up the Grand Canyon? Diet must play an important role in your fat loss. btw I weight train 2x a wk heavy, but not killer weights.

I am curious what criteria you want to use to test this out. Are you going to use heart rate, blood pressure, fat to muscle ratio, how often you get sick, sit ups, etc. Are you saying that the most fit people at the Olympics are the body builders? Convince me that a speed skater is only in good condition but not strong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For what goal? Building muscle? Running will cause you to lose muscle. Not being injured? Running will cause more injury. Losing weight? Well, you will lose more but it is not a good use of your time. If you really want to lose more weight then eat less. Don't waste your time with aerobics unless you happen to get off on it. (hehe, no offense, runners)

One correction, HIT weightlifting provides a better cardiovascular workout than aerobic exercise. Or at least as good while also building muscle and not injuring you as much.

This made me laugh. ( ever see a weight lifter try to run....they probably do hurt themselves ) I don't get injured. I didn't lose muscle. I like playing sports, so being aerobically fit enables me to do that and be competitive. I am strong, fit , healthy and in great shape. I'll wear my HR monitor next week when I weight train and see. I agree that eating less will help you lose weight. Weight lifting will help strenghten your muscles but I'm skeptical of the fitness level you achieve.

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...