Re: Physical training; was NT, weight gain, thyroid

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

,

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

[Guest guest]

>. 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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

,

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.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

>

> >. 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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

>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

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

-

[Guest guest]

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

[Guest guest]

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.

-