Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Aerobic Exercise

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

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.

Yes, heavy lifting is known to hurt flexibility by stressing the joints. Max Contraction does not suffer from this because it does not stress the joints; weight is only used in the position where it is not the joint bearing the brunt of the stress. This is done to put it all on the muscle for maximum growth, but as you see it also takes it off the joint and so works very well for your purposes. PM me for details if you need to. Several of the people involved in it do Martial Arts and they occasionally talk about it in the books.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 160
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Oh, you know I almost forgot to mention: Mike Mentzer (creator of Heavy Duty) and John Little (creator of Max Contraction) were personal friends and both big fans of Ayn Rand. Mr. Little gives endorsements to Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff in his books and talks about the importance of a sound mind driven by reason.

Given that we're on OO.net, I probably should have mentioned that sooner... :nuke:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were some good points in this article, namely:

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

This is a point that I'm not sure whether I agree with.

By putting muscle mass on your arms, legs, back, etc, you're increasing the load that your heart must support. Someone pointed out that body builders often have heart problems. Steroids or not, it's worth considering.

By doing cardio (I'm not talking about the low intensity stuff everyone's arguing about), you are putting stress on your heart specifically, that is, its ability to pump blood through your body. It makes more sense to me that this would stimulate muscle growth in the heart and make it stronger, moreso than the secondary effects it would feel from high intensity weight training, which is anaerobic.

This is really the only reason I would consider cardio though. Weight training has been shown to be very effective for fat loss (not necessarily weight loss, but usually more pounds of fat are lost than muscle is gained), due to the extra calories that the extra muscle uses. Weight training has other benefits, such as how it makes the bones stronger. I also find it more enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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)

It just sounds a bit like the same mistake Mike Mentzer did, claiming that his Heavy Duty was superior to all other methods. Max Contraction is interesting though so I will take a closer look on it. Unfortunatley it doesnt seem that usefull to me since I don´t have someone to train with, and most of the machines in my gym are pretty bad(they do have a pullover machine though, which is why I continue to go there :D ). But maybe some of the ideas can be implemented in other ways - it´s always fun to experiment. :nuke:

By doing cardio (I'm not talking about the low intensity stuff everyone's arguing about), you are putting stress on your heart specifically, that is, its ability to pump blood through your body. It makes more sense to me that this would stimulate muscle growth in the heart and make it stronger, moreso than the secondary effects it would feel from high intensity weight training, which is anaerobic.

The stress put on the heart is just as secondary in running as it is in weight lifting. What gets the heart going, in both cases, is working the muscles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The stress put on the heart is just as secondary in running as it is in weight lifting. What gets the heart going, in both cases, is working the muscles.

Like I said, because the exercises are very short and intense, weight lifting is primarily anaerobic. It doesn't require the heart to go into overdrive to supply oxygen to the muscles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like I said, because the exercises are very short and intense, weight lifting is primarily anaerobic. It doesn't require the heart to go into overdrive to supply oxygen to the muscles.

While I agree there are differences(I have yet to experience a real lung burn fron weight lifting), geting the heart into "overdrive" is just a matter of intensity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I agree there are differences(I have yet to experience a real lung burn fron weight lifting), geting the heart into "overdrive" is just a matter of intensity.

I respectfully disagree.

The only thing calling upon the heart to do extra work is a need for oxygen. There are really only two ways that the body would need large amounts of oxygen due to weight lifting. The first would be to turn it into an aerobic exercise, which would require you to do sets of huge numbers of reps and tiny amounts of weight, like benching 1000 reps of 5 pounds, which is obviously impractical and pointless.

The other way is to saturate your muscles with lactic acid, which is what eventually happens with anaerobic exercises and is the cause of muscle fatigue. To remedy this, the body uses oxygen to metabolize the lactic acid. However, this happens gradually and doesn't demand nearly as much oxygen per minute as a cardio exercise such as running would. By increasing the intensity of a weight lifting workout, you will only cause the saturation to occur sooner.

Then again, if someone has evidence of an individual keeping their heart rate at over 160 or so bpm for the duration of a weight lifting workout, I'd happily shut my mouth :)

Edited by tnunamak
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then again, if someone has evidence of an individual keeping their heart rate at over 160 or so bpm for the duration of a weight lifting workout, I'd happily shut my mouth :)

This is from one of the links Inspector shared:

"Even if an elevated pulse is necessary for cardiovascular conditioning (we do not doubt that pulse elevation may be necessary, but we do not believe that it should be the emphasis of a conditioning program) remember that some of the highest heart-rates on record were achieved during Nautilus research performed at West Point. The West Point cadets commonly experienced heart rates in excess of 220 beats per minute during Nautilus exercise. These pulse rates were maintained for periods of 20-35 minutes."

http://mikementzer.com/aerobic.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I respectfully disagree.

The only thing calling upon the heart to do extra work is a need for oxygen. There are really only two ways that the body would need large amounts of oxygen due to weight lifting. The first would be to turn it into an aerobic exercise, which would require you to do sets of huge numbers of reps and tiny amounts of weight, like benching 1000 reps of 5 pounds, which is obviously impractical and pointless.

The other way is to saturate your muscles with lactic acid, which is what eventually happens with anaerobic exercises and is the cause of muscle fatigue. To remedy this, the body uses oxygen to metabolize the lactic acid. However, this happens gradually and doesn't demand nearly as much oxygen per minute as a cardio exercise such as running would. By increasing the intensity of a weight lifting workout, you will only cause the saturation to occur sooner.

Then again, if someone has evidence of an individual keeping their heart rate at over 160 or so bpm for the duration of a weight lifting workout, I'd happily shut my mouth :)

I don´t know what you base this on, but something is wrong. I can give you a few observations that show this.

When doing a one rep max the heart rate will rise. Not much of an aerobic workout and it won´t produce much lactic acid.

One common reason that the muscles fail, when sets are taken to failure, is shortage of oxygen. By, sort of, hyperventilating it´s possible to get a few more repetitions.

The above is know and practiced when it comes to squats, the so called "breathing squats". The idea is to take ones 12-15 rep max and when it gets tough you start to take one extra breath between reps, then one more and so on, until you have done 20 reps. This is to provide the muscles with enough oxygen to keep them going when they would otherwise have failed. If you havent tried this it might be mentioned that it feels like your lungs are going to implode, and the heart explode. It´s easy to reach ones maximum heart rate.

A popular old Nautilus protocol was to make theese back-to-back with pullovers. You start with the breathing squats, then immediately jump into the pullover machine, and then you repeat it(no rest, of course). The pullover machine was called the upper body squat because it worked the whole upper body so hard and it managed to target the lats so well. The idea with doing the exercises like that was to first exhaust the legs, having lots of blood pumped into them, and then switch to the upper body which forces the heart to pump all that blood back up again - all the while the oxygen shortage is getting bigger. If they used this protocol in the West Point study i´m not surprised they recorded such high heart rates.

This is of course not "mainstream" weight lifting. The common practice is to rest plenty between sets and not work with a very high intensity. Nothing wrong with that, if they prefer it that way, but it´s not going to give the cardiovascular conditioning we "HIT;ers" here are talking about. That´s also one reason why so many people are so skeptical towards getting "cardio" from weight lifting. It migh be difficult to imagine if you have not experienced it.

Anyway, I think theese examples should show that the body needs large amounts of oxygen when weight lifting - without doing ridiculous amounts of repetitions. All forms of weight lifting will elevate the heart rate, and the more intense it gets with the more demanding exercises the higher the heart rate will get. There are also effects of transporting blood from one place to another to take into consideration, this could make it even more difficult on the heart. In som exercises, like squats, the lungs are also under alot of pressure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don´t know what you base this on, but something is wrong. I can give you a few observations that show this.

When doing a one rep max the heart rate will rise. Not much of an aerobic workout and it won´t produce much lactic acid.

One common reason that the muscles fail, when sets are taken to failure, is shortage of oxygen. By, sort of, hyperventilating it´s possible to get a few more repetitions.

The above is know and practiced when it comes to squats, the so called "breathing squats". The idea is to take ones 12-15 rep max and when it gets tough you start to take one extra breath between reps, then one more and so on, until you have done 20 reps. This is to provide the muscles with enough oxygen to keep them going when they would otherwise have failed. If you havent tried this it might be mentioned that it feels like your lungs are going to implode, and the heart explode. It´s easy to reach ones maximum heart rate.

A popular old Nautilus protocol was to make theese back-to-back with pullovers. You start with the breathing squats, then immediately jump into the pullover machine, and then you repeat it(no rest, of course). The pullover machine was called the upper body squat because it worked the whole upper body so hard and it managed to target the lats so well. The idea with doing the exercises like that was to first exhaust the legs, having lots of blood pumped into them, and then switch to the upper body which forces the heart to pump all that blood back up again - all the while the oxygen shortage is getting bigger. If they used this protocol in the West Point study i´m not surprised they recorded such high heart rates.

This is of course not "mainstream" weight lifting. The common practice is to rest plenty between sets and not work with a very high intensity. Nothing wrong with that, if they prefer it that way, but it´s not going to give the cardiovascular conditioning we "HIT;ers" here are talking about. That´s also one reason why so many people are so skeptical towards getting "cardio" from weight lifting. It migh be difficult to imagine if you have not experienced it.

Anyway, I think theese examples should show that the body needs large amounts of oxygen when weight lifting - without doing ridiculous amounts of repetitions. All forms of weight lifting will elevate the heart rate, and the more intense it gets with the more demanding exercises the higher the heart rate will get. There are also effects of transporting blood from one place to another to take into consideration, this could make it even more difficult on the heart. In som exercises, like squats, the lungs are also under alot of pressure.

At this point all I can do is refer you where I'm getting my information from, a professor I had for a physiology of exercise class, Dr. Robert Hockey (a description http://nbezpage.com/advisory.shtml). Also, a description of the processes I'm referring to can be found on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_exercise.

I'm not denying that weight lifting requires oxygen, just questioning whether it requires enough to make the heart do enough work to develop it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't explain the science behind it, I just know that it works. To explain theese observations would be the scientists work, but let me raise a few questions(and since you seem to have studied this much more seriously than I have, it would be interesting to know your thoughts on this).

My main question is regarding this line from the wiki:

"During anaerobic exercise, the muscles being exercised have insufficient oxygen to meet the demands of the activity, and thus must also(my emphasis) use alternate, non-oxygen-dependent processes to produce energy."

So, what is the function of oxygen during anaerobic exercise? Let me speculate a little bit here. Could oxygen be the primary source? In normal, everyday activities, it seems unlikely that we use much ATP. So what happens if we pick up a pair of dumbells and start exercising? At first it should be fairly easy, assuming we are able to do a few reps with the chosen weights. Maybe the body still likes to use oxygen at this stage? Then when it gets increasingly harder we end up at a stage where oxygen is not enough, so the muscles need a different source of energy. At this point we would then have a shortage of oxygen which the heart is trying to restore. Alot of blood is also going to the working muscles, and that means an oxygen shortage for the rest of the body. So maybe the heart is desperately trying to supply oxygen to the working muscles - failing that the muscles use ATP - and also trying to circulate the blood and supplying oxygen for the other parts. If i´m right here that sounds like a tough job, but I could be very much mistaken.

Another thing that has not been mentioned is that it will probably get pretty hard for the heart just to circulate the blood. The blood pressure gets very high when lifting weights, especially during val salva manuevers. If i´m not completely mistaken I think it´s a well established fact that the heart gets stronger from weight lifting, due to thickening of the walls or something like that(although that might not have so much to do with the hearts ability to supply large amounts of oxygen).

Anyway, regardless of how it works, it... well, somehow it does work. I know a few "HIT;ers" who have done stress tests with great results, without any cardio. Myself, I know I can perform pretty darn well in sports, and I don´t do cardio either. Atleast the way I train the heart does a hell of alot of work. I havent measured it, but I can´t be far from my maximum heart rate(I don´t know if the avarage heart rate is exeptionally high; usually it takes two exercises or sets before i´m up there, but the heart rate drops very quickly so only 10-20 seconds of rest results in a significant drop, and I can´t alway move that fast between exercises - I guess it becomes more like intervall training then).

If in doubt, try to find a HIT trainer in the area where you live and ask him to show you(if you live in the US it´s probably not too hard to find a good trainer). I think that would provide a very convincing argument(and, atleast in my opinion, a very fun workout). :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you arent able to perform a moderate running speed for very long, does that inevitably mean your heart is in poor health? For example, an advanced bodybuilder who tires quickly while jogging should have a strong heart and muscles from weight lifting, but to perform well at long distance jogging is to condition your muscles differently than in short intense bursts. So isnt performance of jogging more dependent on the physiology of the muscles; ie, conditioning your muscles to a certain type of stress, moreso than the health of the heart?. To improve long distance jogging skills, one needs to practice this movement. But because a weight lifter isnt good at jogging, just means his muscles arent conditioned to that movement, they are in shape for short intense lifts.

What makes a good marathon runner's heart in good health?

What makes an advanced bodybuilder's heart in good health?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For example, an advanced bodybuilder who tires quickly while jogging should have a strong heart and muscles from weight lifting, but to perform well at long distance jogging is to condition your muscles differently than in short intense bursts.

That's not how muscles work. Muscles are either "on" or "off," and it's a question of the number of fibres that are stimulated to contract, this controlled by the position of the joint and the amount of weight being lifted. (among other things)

Sure, neuromuscular control is needed to perform actions such as running. This needs to be trained by running. But the muscles themselves are not trained through running, nor is running required to do anything as far as the muscles are concerned.

Edited by Inspector
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Muscles are either "on" or "off," and it's a question of the number of fibres that are stimulated to contract, this controlled by the position of the joint and the amount of weight being lifted. (among other things)

Yes, but you can improve the ability at which the muscles and other physiological aspects work. When you train at the optimum levels of aerobic exercise, it causes a different adaption to take place than when you train with high-intensity.

Sure, neuromuscular control is needed to perform actions such as running. This needs to be trained by running. But the muscles themselves are not trained through running, nor is running required to do anything as far as the muscles are concerned.

So you are crediting neuromuscular changes as the sole beneficiary to improved running ability?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marathon runner's hearts might not be in such good health. Here´s an interesting article from the NY Times:

"Is Marathoning Too Much of a Good Thing for Your Heart?

By GRETCHEN REYNOLDS

HE had not expected to spend his 60th birthday in a hospital cardiac unit.

R. J. Turner, a commercial real estate broker from Frederick County, Va.,

had planned a robust celebration. "I was going to finish my 10th marathon,"

Mr. Turner said, "which isn't bad for a guy my age."

But near the start of the Marine Corps Marathon on Oct. 29, Mr. Turner

raised an arm to wave at bystanders, and "everything went black." Collapsing

violently, he gashed his head, chipped a tooth and bit a deep hole in his

bottom lip.

Mr. Turner, who had passed a stress test a year before, had just had a heart

attack.

This has been an unusual season for the cardiac health of marathoners. After

years in which almost no deaths were attributed to heart attacks at this

country's major marathons, at least six runners have died in 2006.

Two police officers, one 53, the other 60, died of heart attacks at the Los

Angeles Marathon in March. The hearts of three runners in their early 40s

gave out during marathons in Chicago in October, San Francisco in July and

the Twin Cities in October. And at the same marathon where Mr. Turner was

felled, another man, 56, crumpled near the 17th mile, never to recover.

This year's toll has sobered race directors and medical directors of

marathons. But, as Rick Nealis, the director of the Marine Corps Marathon,

said, "Statistically, maybe, it was inevitable."

Race fields have grown. In 2005, 382,000 people completed a marathon in the

United States, an increase of more than 80,000 since 2000, according to

marathonguide.com. Meanwhile, the risk of dying from a heart attack during a

marathon is about 1 in 50,000 runners, said Dr. Arthur Siegel, the director

of internal medicine at McLean Hospital in Belmont, Mass., and an assistant

professor of medicine at Harvard.

But some physicians, including Dr. Siegel, an author of more than two dozen

studies of racers at the Boston Marathon, wonder if there is more to the

deaths than mathematical inevitability: Does racing 26.2 miles put a heart

at risk?

A new study by Dr. Siegel and colleagues at Massachusetts General Hospital

and other institutions is at least suggestive. Sixty entrants from the 2004

and 2005 Boston Marathon were tested before and after the race. Each was

given an echocardiogram to find abnormalities in heart rhythm and was

checked for blood markers of cardiac problems - in particular for troponin,

a protein found in cardiac muscle cells. If the heart is traumatized,

troponin can show up in the blood. Its presence can determine whether there

has been damage from a heart attack.

The runners (41 men, 19 women) had normal cardiac function before the

marathon, with no signs of troponin in their blood. Twenty minutes after

finishing, 60 percent of the group had elevated troponin levels, and 40

percent had levels high enough to indicate the destruction of heart muscle

cells. Most also had noticeable changes in heart rhythms. Those who had run

less than 35 miles a week leading up to the race had the highest troponin

levels and the most pronounced changes in heart rhythm.

The findings, published in the Nov. 28 issue of Circulation, a journal of

the American Heart Association, were a surprise, and not least to the

runners. None had reported chest pains or shortness of breath at the finish.

All had felt fine, Dr. Siegel said (to the extent one can feel fine after

pounding through 26.2 miles).

Within days, the abnormalities disappeared. But something seemed to have

happened in the race. "Their hearts appeared to have been stunned," Dr.

Siegel said.

"Although the evidence is not conclusive, it does look like the Boston study

is showing some effect on cardiac muscle," said Dr. Paul D. Thompson, 59,

the director of cardiology at Hartford Hospital in Connecticut, and an

author of an editorial that accompanied the study. "It's far too early to

draw any conclusions," he added. "We'd be seeing lots more bodies piling up

if there were real lingering long-term cardiac damage" caused by running

marathons.

"Over all, the evidence is strongly in favor of the idea that endurance

exercise is helpful in terms of cardiac health," said Dr. Thompson, who has

run more than 30 marathons.

But questions do remain. Another new study, this one out of the University

of Duisburg-Essen in Germany, showed completely unexpected results in a

group of experienced middle-aged male marathoners. In the study, which was

presented in November at a meeting of the American Heart Association, the

subjects, each of whom had completed at least five marathons, underwent an

advanced type of heart screening called a spiral CT scan. Unlike

echocardiograms or stress tests, spiral CTs show the level of calcium plaque

buildup or atherosclerosis in the arteries.

More than a third of the runners had significant calcium deposits,

suggesting they were at relatively high risk for a heart attack. Only 22

percent of a control group of nonrunners had a comparable buildup.

The researchers scrupulously avoided suggesting that marathoning had caused

the men to develop heart disease. (After all, running may have kept them

alive when they would otherwise have keeled over years earlier.) But neither

did the authors rule out the possibility that in some baffling way distance

running had contributed to the men's arterial gunk.

What worries Dr. Siegel and some of his colleagues is that marathons present

an opportunity for silent symptomless heart disease to introduce itself

abruptly. The pulsing excitement, the adrenaline, the unpleasant process of

"hitting the wall" may trigger physiological changes that loosen arterial

plaques, precipitating a heart attack, Dr. Siegel said.

His advice to runners with any history of heart trouble is "train for the

race, getting the cardiac benefits of endurance exercise," then watch the

event on television.

The risk of going into cardiac arrest as a spectator, he said, is only about

one in a million. (The applicable studies of spectators involved Super Bowl

fans.)

Anyone considering joining the ranks of marathoners should undergo a full

medical screening, with a visit to a cardiologist for those over 40, Dr.

Siegel said. Spiral CT scans are desirable (the cost can range from $250 to

$850) and are covered by insurance if recommended by a physician.

Those with a family history of cardiac problems should be especially

cautious. "You can't outrun your genes," Dr. Siegel said, a reality that

marathon medical experts call the Jim Fixx effect, after the author of "The

Complete Book of Running," who died of a heart attack in 1984 at 52. His

father had also died young.

Still, the majority of cardiologists remain avid fans of marathons. "It is

an extraordinary event," said Dr. Frederick C. Lough, the director of

cardiac surgery at George Washington University Hospital in Washington. "But

you have to respect that distance. It's not something everyone necessarily

should attempt."

Dr. Lough, 57, was less than a block behind Mr. Turner when the older man

collapsed. He interrupted his own race to help revive Mr. Turner and

accompany him to the hospital, before completing the marathon. "It was a

vivid reminder that running does not make anyone immune to heart disease,"

Dr. Lough said.

Experts familiar with the new cardiac studies of marathoners urge caution

and perspective. The numbers of people studied were small, the findings

unexplained, and results have not yet been replicated.

Don't use the studies, in other words, to justify parking yourself smugly on

the couch. "There's not yet in my opinion cause for alarm," Dr. Thompson

said. "I would still tell people, run."

His words doubtless will cheer Mr. Turner. "You know the worst thing about

almost dying?" he said. "That I didn't finish." After having had a stent

installed in his heart to open an artery that was about 98 percent blocked,

he's now walking a mile a day and planning his comeback. "I want to get that

10th marathon in," he said.

But not before he gets a full medical screening, including a spiral CT scan."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but you can improve the ability at which the muscles and other physiological aspects work. When you train at the optimum levels of aerobic exercise, it causes a different adaption to take place than when you train with high-intensity.

I'm not sure that the "aerobic" aspect of running really does anything positive for you, in terms of adaptation, at least not anything that HIT doesn't also do (and do better or at least with less negative side-effects).

So you are crediting neuromuscular changes as the sole beneficiary to improved running ability?

No, running ability is enhanced by muscular fitness as well as neuromuscular changes. HIT, of course, helps with muscular fitness but does not develop the neuromuscular adaptation to running itself. That's how I figure it, anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure that the "aerobic" aspect of running really does anything positive for you, in terms of adaptation, at least not anything that HIT doesn't also do (and do better or at least with less negative side-effects).

Personally, I think the right aerobic workout can cause significant adaptions. Thats how people are able to reach the level of a marathon running ability.

Also, does this mean you think weight lifters who cant run for long distances dont necessarily have poor heart health?

No, running ability is enhanced by muscular fitness as well as neuromuscular changes. HIT, of course, helps with muscular fitness but does not develop the neuromuscular adaptation to running itself. That's how I figure it, anyway.

You admit then that aerobic work can cause physiological adaptions, because how would you explain marathon runners who only do aerobic exercise and nothing above that intensity?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Certainly time, and per the scientific arguments and recorded results I've seen, also muscle growth.
Max Contraction seems to be an effective workout, but I don't think it'd be best for me. I'd probably go crazy (and smaller?) if I couldn't deadlift :)

I've noticed that heavier lifting routines often negatively impact my flexibility, which is a problem as a martial artist.
I think that's just a matter of not stretching enough. Just about nobody lifts heavier than Ronnie Coleman (225+ lb lunges, 800 lb squats) , and he can do splits.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I think the right aerobic workout can cause significant adaptions. Thats how people are able to reach the level of a marathon running ability.

You admit then that aerobic work can cause physiological adaptions, because how would you explain marathon runners who only do aerobic exercise and nothing above that intensity?
I don't dispute that; I don't think anyone in their right mind could. Obviously, it causes some adaptions. But as I said, I'm not convinced that it is either the only way or the best way to achieve those adaptions. (aside, of course, from the neuromuscular ones I mentioned)

Also, does this mean you think weight lifters who cant run for long distances dont necessarily have poor heart health?

I suppose not necessarily. If a weightlifter weighs 300 lbs of pure muscle, I don't think it's an indictment of his health if he can't run a marathon as well as someone who has less bodyweight to push around.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah.

Wow. You do a LOT of volume. That's 33 reps! Your intensity is 1/10th of what it could be. Heavy Duty would have you do maybe 3 or 4 reps total and a LOT more weight. Max Contraction has even less volume and more intensity, although it doesn't do squats as such.

It has been proven that intensity is the key to muscle growth; all that volume is killing your potential.

Max Contraction seems to be an effective workout, but I don't think it'd be best for me. I'd probably go crazy (and smaller?) if I couldn't deadlift :)
You might consider starting with Heavy Duty. When that works for you and you are thus convinced that its principles are true, then you will want to do Max Contraction because it is an extension and refinement of the same principles.

I think that's just a matter of not stretching enough. Just about nobody lifts heavier than Ronnie Coleman (225+ lb lunges, 800 lb squats) , and he can do splits.

I'm always wary of citing champions in advice for people who don't have that kind of genetics. But absent injury of the joints, I don't see how a non-steroid bodybuilder is harming his flexibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big questions. I suggest Arthur Jones as a starting point to answering them.

I should note that Arthur Jones was the origin point from which Mentzer started his theories. (not to mention just about everyone else in the HIT world) And of course, Little expanded and built on these with his own. I'm not an expert in these matters, but I do agree with their reasoning on these matters, and their conclusions. (especially Little's; the most advanced)

I'd say that the answers are: Exercise improves health by stimulating growth and adaptation through progressive overload. I couldn't begin to list the number of diseases that are prevented, but suffice to say they are many. And I am sure that at least some causes of heart attacks are mitigated through the fitness that is gained through exercise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your intensity is 1/10th of what it could be. Heavy Duty would have you do maybe 3 or 4 reps total and a LOT more weight.
Yeah, but imagine how much weight that'd have to be, probably ~600+. That's IMO more hazardous than what I currently do, and not as fun. Plus, I do love volume, and I'd hate working out so infrequently.

It has been proven that intensity is the key to muscle growth; all that volume is killing your potential.
To me, it doesn't seem to be killing my potential. When/if I'm no longer making progress, I'll have to reconsider, though.

I've seen a lot of experiments, but none of them IMO conclusively prove that one highly intense set per body part per week (or similar programs) is better than a simple pyramiding of multiple sets per body part.

And from the gymrats I associate with, the HIT-ish people aren't the biggest of the non-steroid people. They're friggin strong, but they're not the biggest.

You might consider starting with Heavy Duty.
Once I hit my current goal, I'm thinking about incorporating it. I do see some advantages of 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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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