Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Aerobic Exercise

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

You see, you do much higher intensity of actions than aerobics, and thats where you larger muscles come from. If you only do aerobics, your body becomes conditioned moreso than stronger/larger. Roughly, intensity refers to how long you are capable of performing the action based on how hard it is. Arthur Jones defined it as percentage of momentary muscular ability, or something along those lines.

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.
Of course not. Its a different type of action, and the body adapts differently to aerobics than high-intensity weight lifting.

By cardio, I mean pertaining to the heart.

Can you expand on that? Doesnt every action effect the heart?

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 )
HIT stands for high-intensity training. It doesnt pertain strictly to pumping iron. Do you understand what makes an exercise a certain level of intensity?

Do you mean 30 minutes a day, or week?

A week. Thats not an exact number though. There are variables one needs to consider to determine his recovery time.

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?
Its a different type of action, aerobic vs anaerobic. I dont quite understand what you mean by this. Do you think the body will lose all function suddenly after the amount of time you spend lifting weights is surpassed? Aerobic exercise is of much lower intensity and thus can be performed for much longer.

Are you saying that the most fit people at the Olympics are the body builders?

The bodybuilders are most fit for bodybuilding. Do you understand the specificity principle?

Convince me that a speed skater is only in good condition but not strong.

You said it yourself: speed. Its a high-intensity action, and thats what causes muscle growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.
Compared to barbell squatting more than your own weight, is running any more dangerous than walking or jumping jacks?

The metabolism will drop from the loss of weight, which would be exactly the same with exercise or diet induced calorie deficit.
On an exercise and sufficient diet plan, you can burn more calories than you take in without dropping your metabolic rate. Plus, a diet-induced caloric deficit more likely results in burning off muscle.

A 6-month structured Nautilus weightlifting program resulted in improvements in cardiocirculatory fitness to a degree traditionally considered obtainable only through endurance exercises...
  • The experiment's results apply to "physically unfit" people - an unfit person could probably increase their cadiovascular health with an equivalent amount of virtually any activity
  • It doesn't have comparable endurance exercise data - I suspect an equivalent amount of running or swimming would produce better numbers.

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.
Not necessarily. I'm (virtually :ninja: ) certain that doing 6-minute miles is of greater cardiovascular intensity than 6 minutes of HIT, and that it would also burn more calories.

Does anybody know when protein/muscle begins to be used as fuel in aerobics or other types of workouts?
There may be some exceptions for very long durations of exercise, but as long as "better" fuel is available, the body's not going to burn up muscle.

Squats should be performed slowly and smoothly, and for this reason it makes it a low-force exercise.
Tell that to Ronnie Coleman :lol:

Me, I don't do squats. But properly performed, yes.
Wha? You're missing out on all the fun :)

Are you saying that the most fit people at the Olympics are the body builders?
I'd go with the gymnasts :D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Compared to barbell squatting more than your own weight, is running any more dangerous than walking or jumping jacks?

Performed without error, squats won't injure you. And squats are among the most dangerous weightlifting you can do. Performed without error, aerobics can and will injure you. I have an aunt whose doctor told her to stop jogging. She was wasting away and her joints were getting pulverized. After time it takes its toll. Meanwhile, I've heard of people older than her who do Max Contraction and get stronger and healthier.

[*]The experiment's results apply to "physically unfit" people - an unfit person could probably increase their cadiovascular health with an equivalent amount of virtually any activity

True. But I've seen other experiments. I think there are some up on the sites I linked to.

Not necessarily. I'm (virtually :worry: ) certain that doing 6-minute miles is of greater cardiovascular intensity than 6 minutes of HIT, and that it would also burn more calories.
Oh, I don't know about that. I could put you through a Heavy Duty workout that was more intense. I'd have to have all the weights set up ahead of time and nobody using the machines so you had no rest in between exercises, but believe me I'd have you on the floor at the end. Your body doesn't care if you're doing weights or "cardio;" if your heart's going it's going to wear you out.

Wha? You're missing out on all the fun :)

Haha, Max Contraction only has isolation exercises, no compounds. But I have done squats before with Heavy Duty and yeah they are intense.

I'd go with the gymnasts :D

Heh, down boy! :P

But anyway, the point is that with these advanced training techniques and new discoveries about cardiovascular fitness, there is a lot of potential for using weightlifting to train for other sports.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

HIT is the acronym for High-intensity Training. It´s based on the ideas of Arthur Jones(check out http://arthurjonesexercise.com/), about "briefer, harder, more infrequent exercise". There are many different branches based on HIT-principles, for example Heavy Duty, SlowBurn/Super Slow, the IART etc. HIT is basically high-intensity low-volume training. When mentioning those 30 minutes it´s probably a standard full-body routine, one set to failure per exercise, around 8-12 reps and maybe a total of 8-12 exercises. It´s 30 minutes per session, which could be done maybe 1-3 times pers week depending on the individual. Often rest between sets is cut short, or almost completely removed. That will most certainly get ones blood running. But even with rest there is some cardiovascular conditioning.

It´s not continuous aerobics. It gives a great cardio effect, yes, but it´s strength training - anaerobic work.

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.

Oh, every one is skeptical. I have tried arguing this probably a hundred times(but not on this forum), noone wants to believe it. Anyway, the only research i´ve seen is the one I already posted. I don´t know if there is much research available on this. My view is based on some simple reasoning and my own observations.

The simple reasoning is that when working the muscles the heart(and lungs) must supply them with oxygen. The harder it gets, the harder the heart has to work. So working out tremendously hard in the gym, working the muscles much, much, much harder than what is possible with "cardio", does it not make perfectly good sense that the heart must get better at supplying the body with oxygen?

And the observations? Well, if I went through one of my workouts today, with the conditioning I had 1 ½ years ago, I would drop dead half way into it. I mean literally die. That is how much my conditioning has improved.

I have friends that have been doing lots of both cardio and weight training for many years. By any standard I think they could be called well conditioned, or athletic. Sometimes we get togheter to play some sports, which can get a little intense sometimes(some of us are a bit competitive). They are not easy to keep up with, but since I got in better shape i´m atleast damn close(and if my legs were better suited for long distance running they would probably struggle to keep up with me). That´s pretty good for training only for about an hour per week...

I have not always been in bad shape either. I have played soccer, ice-hockey and done some kick-boxing too. Still... now, with less exercise and after being in the worst shape of my life, i´m without doubt in my best shape ever.

I know "anecdotal evidence" is not much to come up with, but atleast I know what has worked for me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're free to be skeptical. How about following the links and maybe educating yourself?

Oh, I don't know about that. I could put you through a Heavy Duty workout that was more intense. I'd have to have all the weights set up ahead of time and nobody using the machines so you had no rest in between exercises, but believe me I'd have you on the floor at the end. Your body doesn't care if you're doing weights or "cardio;" if your heart's going it's going to wear you out

AH HA so it all comes out...yeah of course if you weight train at heavy intensity non stop you get a good workout...duh.....same as if you ran 30 minutes or equivalent. I totally agree with you that the workout you describe above is beneficial. When was the last time you were at the gym when noboby was using the machines and you could have the numbers set up exactly? Most lifters in real life, not theory, rest in between sets and let other people work in and have to wait.

You're saying Joe weightlifter is in better shape then me? What criteria are you using to determine the answer to this test? How can you prove it? I don't disagree that taking an unfit person and having them weight train 3x a week will impove their fitness, especially if diet is involved. If someones goals are just to maintain a minimal amount of fitness level and hates exercising then its probably a good idea. I don't agree that the same person is more fit and healthier then me. That person would not be able to compete in an olympic distance triathlon. I can. I can also go to the gym and pump iron at high intensity for 30 min.

I have and do read a lot on this topic.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

1. I think the observation is correct, weight loss would make the exercising easier. However, making it easier the subjects would have produced less heat.

2. Same thing here. But I don´t think they could have gained much transferable strength. Strength increases for beginners are mostly due to neurologic adaptations. So they would have gotten better att performing the lifts, but that is not the same thing as the muscles actually getting stronger. Such increases would not help them run better because a higher skill in squats does not make you a better runner, but bigger and stronger muscles could make them better at both. Making any significant increases in such a short time seems unlikely, especially considering that they lost weight and that some of them were women. Some gains, sure, but small ones.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

HIT is the acronym for High-intensity Training. It´s based on the ideas of Arthur Jones(check out http://arthurjonesexercise.com/), about "briefer, harder, more infrequent exercise". There are many different branches based on HIT-principles, for example Heavy Duty, SlowBurn/Super Slow, the IART etc. HIT is basically high-intensity low-volume training. When mentioning those 30 minutes it´s probably a standard full-body routine, one set to failure per exercise, around 8-12 reps and maybe a total of 8-12 exercises. It´s 30 minutes per session, which could be done maybe 1-3 times pers week depending on the individual. Often rest between sets is cut short, or almost completely removed. That will most certainly get ones blood running. But even with rest there is some cardiovascular conditioning.

I have friends that have been doing lots of both cardio and weight training for many years. By any standard I think they could be called well conditioned, or athletic. Sometimes we get togheter to play some sports, which can get a little intense sometimes(some of us are a bit competitive). They are not easy to keep up with, but since I got in better shape i´m atleast damn close(and if my legs were better suited for long distance running they would probably struggle to keep up with me). That´s pretty good for training only for about an hour per week...

I have not always been in bad shape either. I have played soccer, ice-hockey and done some kick-boxing too. Still... now, with less exercise and after being in the worst shape of my life, i´m without doubt in my best shape ever.

I know "anecdotal evidence" is not much to come up with, but atleast I know what has worked for me.

I understand and objectively agree with pretty much everything you said. What criteria are you using to determine that you are in the best shape of your life? And your best shape may or may not be in better shape then mine or your friends when put to the test, like a ball game. Too bad you gave up ice hockey. Its such a great sport.

My observation has been that I will still be standing when put to the test with the avergae weightlifter in my town :worry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AH HA so it all comes out...yeah of course if you weight train at heavy intensity non stop you get a good workout...duh.....same as if you ran 30 minutes or equivalent. I totally agree with you that the workout you describe above is beneficial. When was the last time you were at the gym when noboby was using the machines and you could have the numbers set up exactly? Most lifters in real life, not theory, rest in between sets and let other people work in and have to wait.

It does not have to be non stop. Maybe some rest could even be beneficial. It could be like working in intervalls.

You're saying Joe weightlifter is in better shape then me? What criteria are you using to determine the answer to this test? How can you prove it? I don't disagree that taking an unfit person and having them weight train 3x a week will impove their fitness, especially if diet is involved. If someones goals are just to maintain a minimal amount of fitness level and hates exercising then its probably a good idea. I don't agree that the same person is more fit and healthier then me. That person would not be able to compete in an olympic distance triathlon. I can. I can also go to the gym and pump iron at high intensity for 30 min.

Let´s focus on cardiovascular capacity instead. Then it´s more a question of how it´s measured, not a question of "who´s in better shape than who?". Discussing the "better shape" you need the "for what purpose?". You wont see a bodybuilder or weightlifter win a triathlon, no way. There´s too much muscle, and in some cases too much fat. On the other hand, you wont see a triathlete squat 400lbs. Cardiovascular conditioning is not only about for how long you can run. "Who can run for the longest distance?" could be one way of measuring it - a pretty bad way because it favours certain body types. Bodybuilders and weight lifters will never win that contest, but it´s not because all of them are in such bad conditions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand and objectively agree with pretty much everything you said. What criteria are you using to determine that you are in the best shape of your life? And your best shape may or may not be in better shape then mine or your friends when put to the test, like a ball game. Too bad you gave up ice hockey. Its such a great sport.

My observation has been that I will still be standing when put to the test with the avergae weightlifter in my town :worry:

I have less fat and more muscle and I can do things I could never do before. Of course my best might not be so good compared to others, and I know I can improve on everything, but the important thing is what improvements have been made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AH HA so it all comes out..

Pffft, who was hiding anything?

You're saying Joe weightlifter is in better shape then me?
No, I'm saying that if you had a twin and the twin trained with HIT the twin would be in better shape than you.

My observation has been that I will still be standing when put to the test with the avergae weightlifter in my town :worry:

The average weightlifter is ignorant and his health is a mess. So that's no surprise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It does not have to be non stop. Maybe some rest could even be beneficial. It could be like working in intervalls.

Let´s focus on cardiovascular capacity instead. Then it´s more a question of how it´s measured, not a question of "who´s in better shape than who?". Discussing the "better shape" you need the "for what purpose?". You wont see a bodybuilder or weightlifter win a triathlon, no way. There´s too much muscle, and in some cases too much fat. On the other hand, you wont see a triathlete squat 400lbs. Cardiovascular conditioning is not only about for how long you can run. "Who can run for the longest distance?" could be one way of measuring it - a pretty bad way because it favours certain body types. Bodybuilders and weight lifters will never win that contest, but it´s not because all of them are in such bad conditions.

hee hee Isn't squating 400 lbs bad for your knees. It would have to be an unbiased test, which might be hard to come up with, based on Heart rate recovery maybe and muscle to fat ratio, etc.

Edited by Alessa36
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm saying that if you had a twin and the twin trained with HIT the twin would be in better shape than you.

You're saying that if my twin did 30 minutes a week of HIT, just that, they would be in better shape then me right now?

How would you measure that? What test would you give us both?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2. Same thing here. But I don´t think they could have gained much transferable strength. Strength increases for beginners are mostly due to neurologic adaptations. So they would have gotten better att performing the lifts, but that is not the same thing as the muscles actually getting stronger. Such increases would not help them run better because a higher skill in squats does not make you a better runner, but bigger and stronger muscles could make them better at both. Making any significant increases in such a short time seems unlikely, especially considering that they lost weight and that some of them were women. Some gains, sure, but small ones.

I cant agree with you here. From my experience, the larger muscular gains I get are when I first start a new exercise. If only neurological adaptions happened at this time, then there would be no muscular gains, let alone large ones.

There is not a direct correlation between strength and size adaptions. If on a calorie-deficit diet like with these patients, they may have gotten very little muscular gains but still couldve become much stronger, which is what would help them the most on the treadmill. Again from my experience, I will state that even small strength gains from weight lifting can have big impacts on certain daily tasks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add that most of you guys are using the terms "fit" or "shape" too loosely. I dont even know what you mean by this exactly. I think you either need to clarify what you intend it to mean or choose a better concept. When you say "How good of shape are you in?", that consequently leads to the questions "For what?" Study the specificity principle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hee hee Isn't squating 400 lbs bad for your knees.

Yeah squats involve large weight putting direct stress on the joints. The most stressful point on the joints, I am told, is the position of full extension. Still, you don't do squats frequently and you don't do them for a long duration, and you certainly should never do them quickly. Slow and controlled is the way to go.

Not all weightlifting is equal in its merits, though. As I said I don't do squats. What I do, Max Contraction, is a lot safer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add that most of you guys are using the terms "fit" or "shape" too loosely. I dont even know what you mean by this exactly. I think you either need to clarify what you intend it to mean or choose a better concept. When you say "How good of shape are you in?", that consequently leads to the questions "For what?" Study the specificity principle.

This is true. I had a stress test once which is taken on a treadmill by a cardiologist. They hook you up to probes and have you run/walk depending upon your ability to the point of breathlessness and monitor your heartrate at various intervals to the peak. Then you stop, dead cold, lay down and they monitor your heartbeat recovery at different intervals. How fast your heart recovers is a definite measure of fitness.

There is a formula, if you're interested, which helps identify and measure your heart rate levels during activity. You will know what percentage of exertion, or zone, your body is working.

My resting HR is 51bpm. My max HR is 188bpm. Zone 5 (90%) for me is 173-183 Zone1(50%) is 133-143

Last sunday after a 10 mile run my HR recovery from 168bpm after 1 minute rest was 108.

60bpm recovery. After 2 minutes it was 88. That recovery number is a good way to measure fitness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all weightlifting is equal in its merits, though. As I said I don't do squats. What I do, Max Contraction, is a lot safer.

Could you describe the system, Inspector? Or walk me through what a typical training week is like for you?

Same goes for you, BaseballGenius. I'm curious to know what sort of things you do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you describe the system, Inspector? Or walk me through what a typical training week is like for you?

Same goes for you, BaseballGenius. I'm curious to know what sort of things you do.

I will give some details but bear in mind that I don't want to take business away from its creator by giving away so much that you don't need to buy his book.

I started doing about 11 different exercises, all of them isolation exercises, for a full-body workout. I was doing this every 4 days but this is no longer recommended as recovery times have since been discovered to be longer than previously thought. Now it is recommended to only do one high-intensity Max Contraction workout per week. After doing that for a while, the weights were getting heavy enough that I did not have enough energy to complete all 11 exercises at max effort. This is normal and from here it is recommended moving on to the advanced training that uses split routines and longer recovery times.

Actually, to tell the truth I've been doing it wrong for the last year or so. I should have been using heavier weights and shorter contraction times.

I can say that this is definitely the most efficient way to train your muscles. But there are disadvantages:

1) You do need to have a good gym because you need certain equipment in order to do many of the exercises.

2) You do need a training partner or personal trainer to help you get the weights into position and especially to help you do the Omega Set (which is a new technique that I haven't tried yet).

3) You will max out the weight on some exercises and be unable to add more weight, unless you have a particularly good gym with advanced Nautilus machines that have eccentric cam lobes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Could you describe the system, Inspector? Or walk me through what a typical training week is like for you?

Same goes for you, BaseballGenius. I'm curious to know what sort of things you do.

I do a weight lifting program thats specifically for baseball, and its to increase strength in those muscles used. I think front raises is the most important exercise for increasing bat speed, as I notice a remarkable difference in weight of the bat after each week. You need to use pretty light weights on this exercise though, otherwise other muscles take the load instead. Squats is the other extremely crucial exercise I use for baseball. For hitting, it builds stronger hips which is used as a rotational device, and stronger legs which give me better balance and control. Squats also help me run faster. To increase my arm strength, I do long toss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is true. I had a stress test once which is taken on a treadmill by a cardiologist. They hook you up to probes and have you run/walk depending upon your ability to the point of breathlessness and monitor your heartrate at various intervals to the peak. Then you stop, dead cold, lay down and they monitor your heartbeat recovery at different intervals. How fast your heart recovers is a definite measure of fitness.

There is a formula, if you're interested, which helps identify and measure your heart rate levels during activity. You will know what percentage of exertion, or zone, your body is working.

My resting HR is 51bpm. My max HR is 188bpm. Zone 5 (90%) for me is 173-183 Zone1(50%) is 133-143

Last sunday after a 10 mile run my HR recovery from 168bpm after 1 minute rest was 108.

60bpm recovery. After 2 minutes it was 88. That recovery number is a good way to measure fitness.

This sounds like a VO2 Max test - which seems to be the standard for testing cardiovascular conditioning. It expresses the volume of oxygen the body can consume per minute.

I can say that this is definitely the most efficient way to train your muscles

Now there´s a controversial statement! Based on what - why is it the most efficient way to train? Or do you just mean the most efficient way that you have tried? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now there´s a controversial statement! Based on what - why is it the most efficient way to train? Or do you just mean the most efficient way that you have tried? :huh:

The workouts can take as little as 60 seconds of contraction. Yes, I am teasing here. Go buy the book if you're interested. (that's the first book I linked to, $13.45 right now)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Haha, Max Contraction only has isolation exercises, no compounds.
Really? Hmm. I add in some other legwork, but for squats I'm going

195x16 305x8 345x6 375x3

Is a Max Contraction workout (without compounds) still work the big groups (e.g. quads, back) as well?

I'm always game for some new gym methods, so I'm going to look into this Max Contraction.

I can say that [Max Contraction] is definitely the most efficient way to train your muscles.
Do you mean time efficiency (with which I'd probably agree)? Or muscle-building efficiency? I'm trying to put on another 15 lbs (to ~225), so I don't mind spending a little more time working out if it means I'm going to get a little more growth from it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

for squats I'm going

195x16 305x8 345x6 375x3

Does that mean you do a set of 16 reps @ 195 lbs, then 8 reps @ 305, then... etc?

Is a Max Contraction workout (without compounds) still work the big groups (e.g. quads, back) as well?
Yes, it is big on working the large muscles. Quads, lats, and traps are all done. There are periodic specialization routines for the smaller muscle groups.

Do you mean time efficiency (with which I'd probably agree)? Or muscle-building efficiency? I'm trying to put on another 15 lbs (to ~225), so I don't mind spending a little more time working out if it means I'm going to get a little more growth from it.

Certainly time, and per the scientific arguments and recorded results I've seen, also muscle growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will give some details but bear in mind that I don't want to take business away from its creator by giving away so much that you don't need to buy his book.

Fair enough. Thanks for the info. I may look into the book as well. Does Max Contraction work on flexibility as well? Are there specific exercises- I've noticed that heavier lifting routines often negatively impact my flexibility, which is a problem as a martial artist. Obviously I cold just stretch more to counteract it, but I was wondering if the system had an individual take on it.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...