Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > Remember also that those measure your strength to body weight ratio and not > your strength. I'm small, but can do 50-60 pushups and have done more, and can > do about 15 dips and 12 wall pushups, which is much more than most other > people, but i bet a lot of the people that *can't* do that much are stronger than > me. but i don't have any fat to be lifting. That's a good point. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 8, 2003 Report Share Posted June 8, 2003 I wrote: > Pullups, on the other hand, are something most people can do only > 5-10 times, maybe 15 if they do them regularly. That puts them in your bulk > > range, but they don't do squat for bulk. Well, actually, 5 or 6 might be in your strength range, but anyone who does them somewhat regularly should be able to do 10 I never do them, and I think I can do 7-9 when I do them occasionally. -chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > It isn't widely known to be the truth because everything I've ever heard has > been the exact opposite. No one would do pushups or even pullups to put on > bulk, but they are absolutely fantastic for strength. So maybe there is an > alternative theory I'm unaware of and maybe it is true in certain situations, but > it certainly isn't universally accepted as truth, because I've never heard it > before today. Maybe what I said didn't come out right. Maybe I said in in another message (I don't have time to go through them). I didn't mean that pushups or pullups are good for building mass. > How does that support your point? " Building muscular SIZE " is achived with > few reps and heavy weight. That's what I'm saying, and the opposite of what > you're saying. Or am I missing something that is perhaps staring me in the > face? Both methods result in strength and mass gain. It's just each one is said to be somewhat better for strength or mass gain. I quoted to the article to show that ranges of reps are different from different sources. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > In a message dated 6/8/03 9:37:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, romeml@... > writes: > > >>Maybe what I said didn't come out right. Maybe I said in in another message >>(I don't have time to go through them). I didn't mean that pushups or >>pullups are good for building mass. >> > > > Oh, I know you didn't, but the implication of what you did say, at least as I > understood it-- that more weight, less reps, is good for strength, and less > weight, more reps, is good for mass-- is that those exercises are good for > bulk. It all came out confusing, Chris. What I said I still believe is true; although, I should've been more specific. Without specifics, things can be easily misinterpreted. I guess, it follows, from what I said, that lifting your bare arms would the most effective for bulking up, right? When I said that more weight, less reps, is good for strength, and less weight, more reps, is good for mass, I didn't mean doing 60 reps with very light weight that you get with pushups. I meant 3-5 and 8-10 reps, respectively. The difference is not that big, and both approaches build both strength and mass. It's just that the former one is said to be more effective for strength gain. >The opposite is true-- while it would be nealy impossible to do enough > pushups in a day to gain as much strength as is possible using weights, you can > certainly get a *lot* stronger while having next to no effect on the size of > your muscle. Pullups, on the other hand, are something most people can do only > 5-10 times, maybe 15 if they do them regularly. That puts them in your bulk > range, but they don't do squat for bulk. I wonder what would happen if you did pullups with one arm. > Well, when I read the quote, I didn't see *any* mention whatsover comparing > bulk- and strength-promoting exercises. In fact, the quote you offered, shown > again below, says exactly the opposite of what you've been saying-- that > smaller sets of heavier weight are good for muscle *size*, ie., bulk, or mass, if i > understand it correctly. I probably shouldn't have used that quote. I used it to show that these ranges are different depending on the source. These " smaller sets " that are good for muscle size are what I meant -- about 8 (the article says 6-8). For strength, I've been told, even shorter (3-5) sets with even heavier weights are better. I don't have a proof that there's much differences between 3-5 and 6-8 sets. I am sure both are good for both strength and size. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > I wrote: > > >>Pullups, on the other hand, are something most people can do only >>5-10 times, maybe 15 if they do them regularly. That puts them in your bulk >> >>range, but they don't do squat for bulk. > > > Well, actually, 5 or 6 might be in your strength range, but anyone who does > them somewhat regularly should be able to do 10 I never do them, and I think I > can do 7-9 when I do them occasionally. When I was in high school, I could do about 20. That definitely puts me beyond both ranges. So, I experimented a little to do pullups with weight on my feet. With about 30 or 50 lb, I could do about as much as other boys in my class did with no extra weight on average. I could even do one or two one-arm pullups. Have you tried one-arm pushups? Wouldn't they be good for building mass? Depending on position of my arm, I can from virtually 0 to 10 or so. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 In a message dated 6/9/03 3:01:22 AM Eastern Daylight Time, romeml@... writes: > Have you tried one-arm pushups? Wouldn't they be good for building mass? > Depending on position of my arm, I can from virtually 0 to 10 or so. I haven't. Sounds like they'd be good. Wall pushups, vertical against the wall, bring me down close to that range too. A little above it, but most people can do under 10 i think. -chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Roman, Still, I've gotten the opposite impression from what I've seen people doing, and what I've heard, but I have a greater chance of being wrong here than you ;-) -chris In a message dated 6/9/03 3:01:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, romeml@... writes: > ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > > >In a message dated 6/8/03 9:37:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > romeml@... > >writes: > > > > > >>Maybe what I said didn't come out right. Maybe I said in in another > message > >>(I don't have time to go through them). I didn't mean that pushups or > >>pullups are good for building mass. > >> > > > > > >Oh, I know you didn't, but the implication of what you did say, at least as > I > >understood it-- that more weight, less reps, is good for strength, and less > > >weight, more reps, is good for mass-- is that those exercises are good for > >bulk. > > It all came out confusing, Chris. What I said I still believe is true; > although, I should've been more specific. Without specifics, things can be easily > misinterpreted. I guess, it follows, from what I said, that lifting your bare > arms would the most effective for bulking up, right? When I said that more > weight, less reps, is good for strength, and less weight, more reps, is good > for mass, I didn't mean doing 60 reps with very light weight that you get with > pushups. I meant 3-5 and 8-10 reps, respectively. The difference is not that > big, and both approaches build both strength and mass. It's just that the > former one is said to be more effective for strength gain. > > >The opposite is true-- while it would be nealy impossible to do enough > >pushups in a day to gain as much strength as is possible using weights, you > can > >certainly get a *lot* stronger while having next to no effect on the size > of > >your muscle. Pullups, on the other hand, are something most people can do > only > >5-10 times, maybe 15 if they do them regularly. That puts them in your > bulk > >range, but they don't do squat for bulk. > > I wonder what would happen if you did pullups with one arm. > > >Well, when I read the quote, I didn't see *any* mention whatsover comparing > > >bulk- and strength-promoting exercises. In fact, the quote you offered, > shown > >again below, says exactly the opposite of what you've been saying-- that > >smaller sets of heavier weight are good for muscle *size*, ie., bulk, or > mass, if i > >understand it correctly. > > I probably shouldn't have used that quote. I used it to show that these > ranges are different depending on the source. > > These " smaller sets " that are good for muscle size are what I meant -- about > 8 (the article says 6-8). For strength, I've been told, even shorter (3-5) > sets with even heavier weights are better. I don't have a proof that there's > much differences between 3-5 and 6-8 sets. I am sure both are good for both > strength and size. " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 Roman, To clarify a tid bit, I've heard that smaller sets like 3 reps specifically build bulk in a couple places, but none of them were necessarily reliable and certainly not definitive. I was disputing what you said (particularly that it is universally known) primarily on this and what I see-- that the guys who do these small reps are the guys with massive bulk-- but this was mostly fueled by a misunderstanding of what you were saying. That is, I thought you were advocating a linear trajectory where more reps per set means more mass and less means strength, which is definitely not true as pushups do much more for strength than for bulk. Maybe it is a bell curve? -chris In a message dated 6/9/03 7:46:47 AM Eastern Daylight Time, ChrisMasterjohn@... writes: > Roman, > > Still, I've gotten the opposite impression from what I've seen people doing, > > and what I've heard, but I have a greater chance of being wrong here than > you > ;-) > > -chris > > In a message dated 6/9/03 3:01:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, > romeml@... > writes: > > >ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote: > > > >>In a message dated 6/8/03 9:37:25 PM Eastern Daylight Time, > >romeml@... > >>writes: > >> > >> > >>>Maybe what I said didn't come out right. Maybe I said in in another > >message > >>>(I don't have time to go through them). I didn't mean that pushups or > >>>pullups are good for building mass. > >>> > >> > >> > >>Oh, I know you didn't, but the implication of what you did say, at least > as > >I > >>understood it-- that more weight, less reps, is good for strength, and > less > > > >>weight, more reps, is good for mass-- is that those exercises are good for > > >>bulk. > > > >It all came out confusing, Chris. What I said I still believe is true; > >although, I should've been more specific. Without specifics, things can be > easily > >misinterpreted. I guess, it follows, from what I said, that lifting your > bare > >arms would the most effective for bulking up, right? When I said that more > >weight, less reps, is good for strength, and less weight, more reps, is > good > >for mass, I didn't mean doing 60 reps with very light weight that you get > with > >pushups. I meant 3-5 and 8-10 reps, respectively. The difference is not > that > >big, and both approaches build both strength and mass. It's just that the > >former one is said to be more effective for strength gain. > > > >>The opposite is true-- while it would be nealy impossible to do enough > >>pushups in a day to gain as much strength as is possible using weights, > you > >can > >>certainly get a *lot* stronger while having next to no effect on the size > >of > >>your muscle. Pullups, on the other hand, are something most people can do > > >only > >>5-10 times, maybe 15 if they do them regularly. That puts them in your > >bulk > >>range, but they don't do squat for bulk. > > > >I wonder what would happen if you did pullups with one arm. > > > >>Well, when I read the quote, I didn't see *any* mention whatsover > comparing > > > >>bulk- and strength-promoting exercises. In fact, the quote you offered, > >shown > >>again below, says exactly the opposite of what you've been saying-- that > >>smaller sets of heavier weight are good for muscle *size*, ie., bulk, or > >mass, if i > >>understand it correctly. > > > >I probably shouldn't have used that quote. I used it to show that these > >ranges are different depending on the source. > > > >These " smaller sets " that are good for muscle size are what I meant -- > about > >8 (the article says 6-8). For strength, I've been told, even shorter (3-5) > >sets with even heavier weights are better. I don't have a proof that > there's > >much differences between 3-5 and 6-8 sets. I am sure both are good for both > > >strength and size. > > " To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. " --Theodore Roosevelt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 It is my experience and belief that many reps at low weight increases muscle endurance (a cousin of " efficiency " ) that is, if you want really awsomely defined (but not bulky) forearms, take up house painting. If you want well-defined but not bulky legs, become a mail carrier. If you want well-defined but not bulky deltoids, romboids, trapesius, pectorals, and quads, join a rowing team. If you want well- defined but not bulky pectorals, biceps, romboids, and triceps, take up boxing--with a heavy bag--or become a professional masseuse. Since this group is called " native nutrition " why not " native exercise " ? Water carrying, hand-milling, sanding, grinding, mountain-climbing, etc.? I have seen plenty of heavy duty weight enthusiasts and body builders just turn to mush on long hikes because they don't have the endurance from training only on short intense sets. Such a regimen also increases the likelihood of injury as well as descreased flexibility, not to mention a hulking, ape-like posture. Whereas a brief but heavy workout almost surely builds bulk and less flexibility, which ultimately results in less usefulness in real life (i.e., useless for everything but muscle posing for photos and maybe arm wrestling and walnut crushing). Free weights tend to focus on isolated groups, whereas large sweeping weight-bearing motions increase muscle efficiency in a larger and more productive area. Large motion exercises include pullups (including assisted); upright tricep press (including assisted); hanging by your hands on a trapeze or bar doing leg lifts or whatever your strength and flexibility allow, using a lower body horse with free weights or simply doing very large arm and back movements; parallel bars, Versaclimber (slow and long with high tension), and machines with very long cables such as those new FreeExercisers or the old standby combination multiexercisers you see in gyms that let you do crosses, forward lunge, pulldowns, etc., or the sliding board type of exerciser with cables for arms and legs working against your own weight and gravity. Such exercises work the oft-neglected paraspinal muscles, increase lung capacity and oxygen utilization, increase flexibility, and strengthen and more importantly stabilize the abdominals and gluteals. Which reminds me: proper breathing is essential. Also helpful is rotating fast and slow reps. If you can train your muscle to work fast, you can react quickly to emergencies. A fast 30 reps takes the same amount of time as a slow 8. Whereas large muscles like abdominals and gluteals respond best to long, slow, and prolonged stress. That includes yoga. Stretching also increases muscle efficiency and is essential for maintaining flexibility and reducing injury. in Berkeley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2003 Report Share Posted June 9, 2003 , I couldn't disagree more with what you said. soynomore wrote: > It is my experience and belief that many reps at low weight increases > muscle endurance (a cousin of " efficiency " ) that is, if you want > really awsomely defined (but not bulky) forearms, take up house > painting. If you want well-defined but not bulky legs, become a mail > carrier. If you want well-defined but not bulky deltoids, romboids, > trapesius, pectorals, and quads, join a rowing team. If you want well- > defined but not bulky pectorals, biceps, romboids, and triceps, take > up boxing--with a heavy bag--or become a professional masseuse. Since > this group is called " native nutrition " why not " native exercise " ? > Water carrying, hand-milling, sanding, grinding, mountain-climbing, > etc.? I recently came across an article that said that muscle definition comes mostly from having little body fat, and it recommended essentially what you did for to achieve that. It is also a matter of having muscle tone (residual tension). Having this doesn't translate to strength. > I have seen plenty of heavy duty weight enthusiasts and body builders > just turn to mush on long hikes because they don't have the endurance > from training only on short intense sets. Such a regimen also > increases the likelihood of injury as well as descreased flexibility, > not to mention a hulking, ape-like posture. Would you say that they guy on http://www.dragondoor.com/v102.html has a hulking, ape-like posture (keep in mind that he's tensing his muscles in the picture)? One of his recommendation to build strength is to do very low rep sets with heavy weights. Another one is using kettlebells; training with these combines weight training with aerobic training. He says these exercises build great overall explosive strength. > Whereas a brief but heavy workout almost surely builds bulk and less > flexibility, which ultimately results in less usefulness in real life > (i.e., useless for everything but muscle posing for photos and maybe > arm wrestling and walnut crushing). Poor Heidi has been working out for nothing >Free weights tend to focus on isolated groups, whereas large sweeping weight-bearing motions > increase muscle efficiency in a larger and more productive area. I don't know what you are picturing yourself, but this is not true. Try lifting a barbell from the floor to beyond your head and tell me if there's a muscle in your body that is not involved. And if you do it the way Pavel Tsatsouline recommends (tensing all your muscles while doing that), even your facial muscles will be working. Perhaps, you are thinking of guys sitting in a chair working their wrists or biceps with little free weights. I'd agree that these exercises focus on isolated groups. But we are not talking about those. > Large motion exercises include pullups (including assisted); upright > tricep press (including assisted); hanging by your hands on a trapeze > or bar doing leg lifts or whatever your strength and flexibility > allow, using a lower body horse with free weights or simply doing > very large arm and back movements; parallel bars, <snip> Well, I am very good with those but need help to carry a 24 inch TV set for a short distance without getting injured. Talk about usefulness of exercises! > Also helpful is rotating fast and slow reps. If you can train your > muscle to work fast, you can react quickly to emergencies. A fast 30 > reps takes the same amount of time as a slow 8. I can move my arms very fast, but they don't have much power. Strength is built with resistance. Speed isn't a necessary condition for that. > Whereas large muscles like abdominals and gluteals respond best to > long, slow, and prolonged stress. That includes yoga. I have very, very strong abdominals, comparing to average people. I strengthened them with relatively infrequent, very short (just a few seconds a day once in a while), very high tension exercises, such as trying to maintain a right angle position (back is vertical, legs are horizontal, support with hands only -- the whole body is raised above the ground). I don't doubt that long, slow, and prolonged stress strengthens muscles too, but those exercises simply cannot compare with those I described in effectiveness and efficiency. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 >. Since > > this group is called " native nutrition " why not " native exercise " ? > > Water carrying, hand-milling, sanding, grinding, mountain-climbing, > > etc.? > >Poor Heidi has been working out for nothing LOL! I tell you, I DO carry water, and sacks of grain, and I push a wheelbarrow. And I walk all day, up and down stairs and up and down the hill. And it DIDN'T WORK until I started the heavy weights for a lousy 15 minutes. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Chris- >Maybe it is a bell curve? Just to complicate matters further, there's also the issue of motor memory and skill acquisition. You can get better at a particular task without any actual increase in strength measurable outside of that specific task because your body learns to do the task better and more efficiently. So how much of the strength gain from, say, pullups and pushups, is an actual strength gain, and how much is just skill at doing pullups and pushups? I have no idea how it breaks down, and it would probably be difficult to measure with any hope of true accuracy and precision. I'm looking to get into free weights in the next few months (aerobic exercise destroys my life, so I've given up on it completely, at least for now) so this is all of great interest to me. I suppose I wouldn't mind putting on muscle bulk, but all else being equal I'd like to develop more efficient and effective muscles, not just bigger ones. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Idol wrote: > I'm looking to get into free weights in the next few months (aerobic > exercise destroys my life, How does it do that, ? Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Roman- >How does it do that, ? When I do aerobic exercise, my blood sugar drops to unhealthy levels and stays there all day. I wind up sitting around in a stupor getting nothing done. I'm hoping that pure weight training won't do this. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 , I can't do aerobic exercise either without getting much worse (fatigue-wise). However, I have taken a gentle vini yoga class for the past 5 years and that has been the one exercise that consistently makes my body feel great. I've also been rebounding -- actually, barely bouncing (my feet don't leave the mat). I only bounce for a few minutes each day, but that also makes me feel better after I do it. Not as good as yoga, but as long as I do it gently enough, I don't have a problems later in the day. Don't know if either of those would apply to you, but I thought I'd share my experience since I can't exercise much. (I'm someone who loved to exercise in the past, so I've been glad to discover what I can do now.) > When I do aerobic exercise, my blood sugar drops to unhealthy levels and > stays there all day. I wind up sitting around in a stupor getting nothing > done. I'm hoping that pure weight training won't do this. > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Idol wrote: > When I do aerobic exercise, my blood sugar drops to unhealthy levels and > stays there all day. I wind up sitting around in a stupor getting nothing > done. I'm hoping that pure weight training won't do this. And eating protein doesn't help that? How long do you have to do aerobic exercises for this to happen? Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 > > >. Since > > > this group is called " native nutrition " why not " native exercise " ? > > > Water carrying, hand-milling, sanding, grinding, mountain-climbing, > > > etc.? > > > >Poor Heidi has been working out for nothing > > LOL! I tell you, I DO carry water, and sacks of grain, and I push a > wheelbarrow. And I walk all day, up and down stairs and up and down the > hill. And it DIDN'T WORK until I started the heavy weights for a lousy 15 > minutes. > > -- Heidi Here's my two cents...I think we need to use weights nowadays because we have come to glorify a certain body type that can only be achieved with weights (especially for women, since we naturally tend to store body fat for breastfeeding). I used to do free weights and cardio too, and it certainly will tone you up, but quite honestly, I am so much happier now that I don't have to think about grunting and sweating 3 or 4 times a week. I just hand grind my own flour, knead my bread, walk to the grocery store (and everywhere else, since I don't have a car), and I still seem to be in good shape. But hey, some people get a charge out of working out. I'm just not sure that straining to lift a heavy weight like that on a regular basis is good for you in the long run. Serious athletes are not that long-lived in general. Plus, you have to be really careful about your breathing while lifting or else you can really hurt yourself. As I said though, that's my two cents and certainly not the last word on the subject. To each his own. Dawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Roman- >And eating protein doesn't help that? How long do you have to do aerobic >exercises for this to happen? I've eaten loads of protein during every period in which I tried aerobic exercise. I'm not sure how long the minimum threshold is, but a half an hour definitely does it. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 >Here's my two cents...I think we need to use weights nowadays because >we have come to glorify a certain body type that can only be achieved >with weights (especially for women, since we naturally tend to store >body fat for breastfeeding). I used to do free weights and cardio >too, and it certainly will tone you up, but quite honestly, I am so >much happier now that I don't have to think about grunting and >sweating 3 or 4 times a week. I suspect some of it has to do with genes, and hormones, and age. In my younger years I NEVER worked out and was fine! Now, if I don't do yoga and weights etc., my joints start hurting. But mind you, I was in a health condition that SERIOUSLY messed up my cortisol levels and who knows what else. If you have too much cortisol (lack of sleep, health conditions, etc. all cause it) then you eat up your own muscle cells and gain fat. Exercise balances the cortisol. Getting enough sleep and living outside (no electric lights!) probably does too. That's one theory anyway. -- Heidi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2003 Report Share Posted June 10, 2003 Idol wrote: > I've eaten loads of protein during every period in which I tried aerobic > exercise. I'm not sure how long the minimum threshold is, but a half an > hour definitely does it. I've attended a lecture in which the lecturer said there's a certain physiologic process going on during aerobic exercise, and this process increases the number of mitochondria in our cell. He also said that this happens during the first 20 min (at each during this time different things happen), and effectiveness of an exercise beyond 20 min falls significantly. So, maybe you can try to exercise only for no more than 20 min and see if you get the same negative effect from it? I also remember reading about some Dr. Cook (or similar sounding name), whose latest research showed that doing aerobic exercises for more than 20 min or so is not good. I don't remember why. Maybe you could find more info on this. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 Roman- >He also said that this happens during the first 20 min (at each during >this time different things happen), and effectiveness of an exercise >beyond 20 min falls significantly. I don't know enough about the subject to know what to believe. The conventional wisdom is that you don't even begin to burn fat until after 20 minutes. I certainly didn't have more energy when I was doing aerobic exercise every other day (most of the time it was an hour on a treadmill) or a combo exercise (using a Trimax) except for what you'd expect from losing excess fat, and that was only available on non-exercise days, and sometimes only when I skipped a workout day and had two consecutive workout-free days. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 Idol wrote: > I don't know enough about the subject to know what to believe. The > conventional wisdom is that you don't even begin to burn fat until after 20 > minutes. He said that people erroneously do aerobic exercises to burn calories *during the exercises*. He said that the real benefit of such exercises is physiological changes that lead to increased number of mitochondria in our cells because that will lead to increased energy expenditure even during resting hours. I hope that you realize that we burn most of our energy (on normal metabolic processes) during resting hours. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 Roman- >He said that the real benefit of such exercises is physiological changes >that lead to increased number of mitochondria in our cells because that >will lead to increased energy expenditure even during resting hours. I >hope that you realize that we burn most of our energy (on normal metabolic >processes) during resting hours. Certainly, but I really don't see how someone who does 20 minutes of aerobic exercise is going to have as much success burning excess fat (i.e. losing weight) as someone doing, say, 60 minutes. And if you're trying to increase your resting metabolism, wouldn't building muscle by weight training be a far superior way to go? I'm not saying I'm completely closed to the idea, just that it has a high threshold to pass. I know I lost much less weight doing 30 minutes of exercise than I did doing 60. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 Idol wrote: > Certainly, but I really don't see how someone who does 20 minutes of > aerobic exercise is going to have as much success burning excess fat (i.e. > losing weight) as someone doing, say, 60 minutes. And if you're trying to > increase your resting metabolism, wouldn't building muscle by weight > training be a far superior way to go? I'm not saying I'm completely closed > to the idea, just that it has a high threshold to pass. I know I lost much > less weight doing 30 minutes of exercise than I did doing 60. But you also suffered some severe negative side effects! , I don't argue against that doing aerobic exercises longer will result in more energy spent and more weight lost. Of course, it will. But the point is that this is not efficient. It's not why you should be doing that. Roman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 11, 2003 Report Share Posted June 11, 2003 Roman- >But you also suffered some severe negative side effects! True, which is why I've completely given up on aerobic exercise, at least for now. Perhaps if I improve my health sufficiently it'll be an option again, but then again in such a scenario it might not even be necessary. >But the point is that this is not efficient. It's not why you should be >doing that. Perhaps it's not efficient, but 20 minutes of aerobic exercise was a good deal less than one third as effective as 60 minutes, which would tend to contradict that lecturer's mitochondria theory, at least in my case. At any rate, I'm currently looking much more into free weights. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.