Re: Aerobics is not necessary for cardiovascular fitness

[Guest guest]

Bruce Jancin wrote:

" Aerobics is not necessary for cardiovascular fitness. "

and referred to Baum study:

" Aerobic capacity, assessed on a graded treadmill exercise test, improved by

33% over the course of 6 months from a mean baseline of 55,475 watt-seconds.

....Meanwhile, mean body weight declined from 77.8 to 67.7 kg. "

***

My first comment is about loosing weight. I think the basic situation is

that with weight training you gain weight if your energy consumption is in

balance. But in this study test group was loosing weight? They were on a

diet?

Would just loosing weight 10 kg be enough to show as 33% improvement in a

treadmill?

I think that is very close. If you are overweight, you carry to much fat. 10

kg is a lot to carry.

My second comment is about weight training - aerobic training.

If you do weight training so that your heart rate is more than 110, it's an

aerobic training!

I think you need aerobic training to improve your cardiovascular fitness -

BUT it can be anything that makes your heart rate go up.

AND it does not even have to be an exercises. Anything goes, if it is

regular enough to have an impact.

Hannu Leinonen

Jyväskylä, Finland

[Guest guest]

Hello Drew.

If you're sedentary and you do some exercise you will increase

cardiorespiratory fitness, no doubt. I would need to see the full

published studies to comment adequately, but here is what occurs to

me from your first example:

1. An average decrease in resting heart rate " from 68.5 beats/min to

65.6 beats/min " is welcome but hardly notable. I would be wanting to

see these RHRs under 60 for that amount of training -- although

people respond differently to some extent.

2. " Heart rate measured 3 minutes after stopping a maximal exercise

test declined from a baseline of 108.7 to 103.1 beats/min after 6

months of training, with a larger decrease in women than men. " Again,

not too remarkable for that amount of training -- in fact, a poor

result.

3.Overall I would estimate that the group only improved aerobic

fitness very modestly based on those results.

4.From the second study you quote: " level of at least 145-150 beats

per minute; this rate should be sustained for a minimum of 10-12

minutes; and the participant should engage in such exercising 3-4

times a week " .

That sounds like aerobic exercise to me. You will not normally

achieve this level of heart rate consistently lifting weights with

intervals between sets. If you do circuits maybe, but you have to

keep going and not rest. Try it, measure it.

If you read my previous post, I did not say it was impossible to get

a degree of aerobic fitness from weight training. I did imply that it

takes some commitment to work at it -- probably with circuit type

programs and some interval work -- and that other forms of aerobic

training are probably more efficient. Nevertheless, I accept that

running or cycling does not suit everyone.

I think the nub of this issue is that you can't do a few minutes of

high-intensity exercise and expect it to create aerobic fitness

higher on the continuum. It won't work.

Gympie, Australia

>

> Aerobics is not necessary for cardiovascular fitness.

>

> Weight-Lifting Regimen Delivered Cardio Benefits

>

> ORLANDO, FLA. — Pure weight training can markedly improve aerobic

fitness,

> Baum, M.D., reported at Wonca 2004, the conference of the

World

> Organization of Family Doctors.

>

> A 6-month structured Nautilus weightlifting program resulted in

improvements

> in cardiocirculatory fitness to a degree traditionally considered

obtainable

> only through endurance exercises such as running, bicycling, and

swimming,

> said Dr. Baum, a family physician at Philipps University, Marburg,

Germany.

>

> " This opens up new possibilities for cardiopulmonary- oriented

exercise

> besides the traditional stamina sports, " she noted. New exercise

options are

> desirable because some patients just don't care for endurance

exercise,

> which doesn't do much to improve muscular strength and

stabilization.

>

> Dr. Baum reported on 31 healthy but physically unfit 20- to 45-year-

olds,

> including 8 women, who completed a Nautilus weight-training program

> involving two or three 30- to 40-minute sessions per week for 6

months.

>

> Aerobic capacity, assessed on a graded treadmill exercise test,

improved by

> 33% over the course of 6 months from a mean baseline of 55,475 watt-

seconds.

> Women improved from a baseline of 47,253 wattseconds to 62,822 watt-

seconds,

> while endurance performance in men increased from 58,335 to 77,741

> watt-seconds.

>

> Meanwhile, mean body weight declined from 77.8 to 67.7 kg. Resting

heart

> rate dropped from a baseline of 68.5 beats/min to 65.6 beats/min.

Heart rate

> measured 3 minutes after stopping a maximal exercise test declined

from a

> baseline of 108.7 to 103.1 beats/min after 6 months of training,

with a

> larger decrease in women than men.

>

> —Bruce Jancin

>

> Maisch B, Baum E, Grimm W. Die Auswirkungen dynamischen

Krafttrainings nach

> dem Nautilus-Prinzip auf kardiozirkulatorische Parameter und

> Ausdauerleistungsfähigkeit (The effects of resistance training

according to

> the Nautilus principles on cardiocirculatory parameters and

endurance).

> Angenommen vom Fachbereich Humanmedizin der Philipps-Universität

Marburg am

> 11. Dezember 2003

>

> Also, consider the following section from a case study from Athletic

> Journal, Vol. 56 September 1975 by Dr. from West

Point

> Military Academy

>

> CARDIOVASCULAR FITNESS

>

> Cardiovascular fitness is an integral component of both an

individual's

> level of overall physical fitness and individual's capability for

sustained

> athletic performance. A brief review of the basic function of the

> circulatory system can clarify these basic assumptions. The primary

function

> of the circulatory system may be stated in one simple word -

" transport. " It

> transports essential like oxygen and glucose to the cells, and

byproducts,

> such as carbon dioxide, from the cells. As would be expected, the

> circulatory system is called upon to increase its transport of

essentials to

> the cells and of waste products from the cells during muscular

exertion.

> This need, of course, is directly related to the intensity and

duration of

> exertion. It follows that one of the limiting factors in athletics

and sport

> is the ability of this system to meet the demands imposed by the

body during

> competition. Therefore two of the benefits which can be derived

from a

> functionally efficient circulatory system are an improved capacity

for work

> (exercise) and an increased ability to perform the transport

function.

>

> Traditionally, physicians and exercise physiologists have held that

> participation in strength training does not increase an individual's

> capacity to meet the " transport " (oxygen-in –CO2-out) requirement of

> strenuous exercise. Although this capacity is collectively known by

various

> names, this section refers to it by one of its most common

designations-

> " cardiovascular (C.V.) fitness. " * Numerous researches have found

that the

> individual who wishes to improve his C.V. capacity by means of an

exercise

> program must incorporate several factors into his efforts. The

program must

> be of sufficient intensity to have the heart rate of the

participant reach a

> level of at least 145-150 beats per minute;** this rate should be

sustained

> for a minimum of 10-12 minutes; and the participant should engage

in such

> exercising 3-4 times a week (the literature is equivocal on the

exact number

> of times).

>

> • *Cardio refers to the " heart " and the vascular portion consists

of the

> large arteries, the small arteries, the arterioles leading to the

tissues,

> and the capillaries within the tissues.

>

> • **In general, the more of the body's large musculature involved

in the

> exercise, the easier it will be to reach a heart rate of 145-150

beats per

> minute. Note: (picture not present) Subjects using a Nautilus Led

Curl

> Machine during the study.

>

> Note: (picture not present) Subjects using a Nautilus Neck and

Shoulder

> Machine.

>

> Conventional strength training practices have prevented C.V.

improvement

> from occurring because even on those occasions when a sufficiently

higher

> heart rate higher heart rate is attained by a participant, such a

rate is

> typically not sustained for more than a brief period. In the

present study,

> an attempt was made to train the wholebody subjects in such a

manner that

> improvement in their overall level of cardiovascular fitness would

occure.

> By limiting the rest period between the exercises to a few seconds

and by

> preventing the subjects from resting during the actual training, a

high

> degree of intensity was achieved and maintained for the duration of

the

> workout.

>

> In order to ascertain the effects of the training, several tests

were

> administered on a pre-post-training basis - to both the wholebody

and the

> control group members. Differences on the initials test date were

determined

> by a T-test for each variable. If there were no initial significant

> differences, then the T-test was applied to the post-training data

to

> determine the effects of the training. If there were significant

differences

> on the initial data, then analysis of covariance was used to

determine the

> relative degree of any changes which occurred between the two

groups as a

> result of the training.

>

> Three different states of the cardiovascular function were

examined: 1) C.V.

> capacity at rest; 2) Responses to sub-maximal work; and 3)

responses to

> maximal work. The tests for the resting state consisted of

measuring each

> subjects heart rate (HR), systolic (blood is being forced out of

the heart),

> blood pressure (SBP), diastolic (the chambers of the heart are

filing with

> blood), blood pressure (DBP), and systolic tension time index - an

accepted

> measure of coronary circulation which is calculated by multiplying

heart

> rate x systolic blood pressure (STTI).

>

> An evaluation of the effects on the sub-maximal state was achieved

by having

> each subject perform on a bodyguard model 990-bicycle ergometer. An

> ergometer is a basic research instrument which allows a subject to

pedal

> against a resistance (load) which can be predetermined and adjusted

(when

> necessary) by the experimenter. The sub-maximal tests required each

subject

> to perform a continuous, progressive ergometer ride with increasing

work

> loads (360 kpm/min increase) every two minutes until the subject

could no

> longer sustain the rate (60 rpm) or wanted to stop. This was

followed by two

> minutes at the initial light load (360 kpm/min), then three minutes

of rest.

> At each condition, the HR, SBP, DBP, SITTI, and a subjective rating

(by the

> subject) of his perceived exertion (RPE) were obtained. Cardiac

feedback was

> provided by means of a continuous EKG which was obtained on each

subject

> while on the ergometer. The maximal state was evaluated by means of

two

> measures: total riding time and 2-mile run performance.*

>

> The results of the testing were conclusive. On NONE of the 60

indices

> purporting to evaluate the effects of the training on the

cardiovascular

> function was the control group better on the final testing period

(or on the

> change from initial to final) than the wholebody group. The

following

> significant differences (.05 level**) were caused by the training

afforded

> to the wholebody group: Lower HR at 360, 1080,1260,1620, and 1800

kpm/min;

> lower SITTI at 360, and RPE at 1260; a higher amount of work

necessary

> before the subject achieved a heart rate of 170; a longer ride

time; and a

> lower time required to run 2 miles. These calculations mean that the

> training caused the players to work more efficiently (lower HR) at

light,

> moderate and near maximal levels. They could also do more work

before

> reaching a heart rate of 170, as well as more total work. Their

improvement

> in their 2-mile run performances also indicates that they were less

stressed

> at maximal levels. For the coach and the athlete, the implication

is clear:

> these subjects could perform at more efficient rate for a longer

period of

> time. In the athletic arena, where contest are frequently decided

by inches

> or other fractions, such training could play an important role.

>

> • *With the exception of administering the 2-mile run test, all

> cardiovascular testing was conducted by outside consultants. In

light of the

> fact that these individuals were not informed until after all

testing had

> been completed about which subjects were a member of which group –

control

> or wholebody, their efforts can be accorded an additional degree of

> legitimacy.

>

> • **Many researches frequently use .05 as the level of

significance. It

> means that the differences can be accepted with 95% degree of

certainly as

> having occurred as a result of the special training.

>

>

> Drew Baye

> Orlando, FL

> High Intensity Training

> HYPERLINK " http://www.baye.com/ " www.baye.com

>

> ===================

> _____

>

> From: Supertraining

[mailto:Supertraining ]

> On Behalf Of sregor99

> Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 7:45 AM

> To: Supertraining

> Subject: Re: VS: Weights or running or both?

>

> What I don't understand is why, at the mention of `running', X

> number of people on training forums such as this suddenly cross

> themselves, hang garlic around their necks and proceed to place

small

> wooden crucifixes around their bedrooms.

>

> But we can have it all to some extent. I really admire the guys and

> gals who can deadlift or squat big numbers and still run a mile

under

> 6 minutes. The Olympic decathletes have to be in this sort of

> condition. (Some will go under 5 minutes of course.)

>

> Okay, we've had fun with the bar-room jokes, but the question was

> about running and weight training at the same time. To sum it up,

> here is my view.

>

> If you're worried about being healthy, do some aerobic training

while

> you weight train because it is known to improve cardiovascular

health

> and quite a bit more. This has nothing to do with Powerlifting

> competition or running marathons. That's sport, and you do it

because

> you like it even if it may not be optimal for health. Running is the

> easiest and most productive form of aerobic exercise for most

people.

>

> Mel (Siff, the author of Supertraining and the basis of this forum)

> was openly sceptical of the advantages of aerobics beyond the

> endurance sports. He seemed to be at odds with , the

> aerobics guru, most of the time in relation to the benefits of

> aerobic exercise for health.

>

> In fact his comment on the Kingwell study on poor arterial

compliance

> in weight trainers (ref 1 below) in a post I saw elsewhere, was more

> or less dismissive.

>

> However, with the weight of evidence now available I am sure Mel

> would have to review his position on aerobics and health. The

> evidence really is overwhelming that the higher your VO2, the

> healthier you can be across a range of parameters and health

> conditions. The bottom line is that if you are going to be really

fit

> for health, you need to be aerobically fit. How fit do you have to

> be to be aerobically fit?

>

> Check out this site for the norms for age:

>

> HYPERLINK

> " http://www.aerobictest.com/AerobicFitnessImportance.htm " http://www.

aerobict

> -est.com/AerobicF-itnessImportance-.htm

>

> How you get there is another matter. Try 20RM squat reps, dragging

> Kettlebells around, running track intervals and sprints – it's all

> great stuff and you will build anaerobic power and fitness for sure,

> but you have to do it consistently and in some volume to build

> aerobic fitness. To get really aerobically fit, steady-state 70-80%

> max heart rate stuff for several hours a week consistently is the

> aerobic running option. In any case, a VO2 test is the ultimate

> reference.

>

> Here are some interesting references.

>

> Bertovic DA, Waddell TK, Gatzka CD, Cameron JD, Dart AM, Kingwell

BA.

> Muscular strength training is associated with low arterial

compliance

> and high pulse pressure. Hypertension. 1999 Jun;33(6):1385--91.

>

> Kullo IJ, Khaleghi M, Hensrud DD. Markers of inflammation are

> inversely associated with VO2 max in asymptomatic men. J Appl

> Physiol. 2007 Apr;102(4):1374--9.

>

> Colcombe SJ, kson KI, Scalf PE, Kim JS, Prakash R, McAuley E,

> Elavsky S, Marquez DX, Hu L, Kramer AF. Aerobic exercise training

> increases brain volume in aging humans. J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med

> Sci. 2006 Nov;61(11):1166--70.

>

> ==================

>

[Guest guest]

,

You certainly should be able to create aerobic fitness " higher on the continuum "

with a few minutes of high intensity exercise.

Short term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar

initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance. J.

Gibala, P. Little, van Essen, Geoffrey P. Wilkin, Kirsten A.,

Burgomaster, Adeel Safdar, Sandeep Raha and Mark A. Tarnopolsky. J. Physiol.

2006;575;901-911; originally published online Jul 6, 2006;

HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/575/3/901 " http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/conten\

t/full/575/3/901

" Brief, intense exercise training may induce metabolic and performance

adaptations comparable to traditional endurance training. However, no study has

directly compared these diverse training strategies in a standardized manner. We

therefore examined changes in exercise capacity and molecular and cellular

adaptations in skeletal muscle after low volume sprint-interval training (SIT)

and high volume endurance training (ET). Sixteen active men (21 ± 1 years,

HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/content/vol575/issue3/images/medium/tjp_1692_mu1.gif " Formu\

la ) were assigned to a SIT or ET group (n = 8 each) and performed six training

sessions over 14 days. Each session consisted of either four to six repeats of

30 s ‘all out’ cycling at HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~250% HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/content/vol575/issue3/images/medium/tjp_1692_mu2.gif " Formu\

la with 4 min recovery (SIT) or 90–120 min continuous cycling at HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~65% HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/content/vol575/issue3/images/medium/tjp_1692_mu3.gif " Formu\

la (ET). Training time commitment over 2 weeks was HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~2.5 h for SIT and HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~10.5 h for ET, and total training volume was

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~90% lower for SIT versus ET (

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~630 versus HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~6500 kJ). Training decreased the time

required to complete 50 and 750 kJ cycling time trials, with no difference

between groups (main effects, P HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/math/le.gif " ≤0.05). Biopsy samples obtained before and

after training revealed similar increases in muscle oxidative capacity, as

reflected by the maximal activity of cytochrome c oxidase (COX) and COX subunits

II and IV protein content (main effects, P HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/math/le.gif " ≤0.05), but COX II and IV mRNAs were

unchanged. Training-induced increases in muscle buffering capacity and glycogen

content were also similar between groups (main effects, P HYPERLINK

" http://jp.physoc.org/math/le.gif " ≤0.05). Given the large difference in

training volume, these data demonstrate that SIT is a time-efficient strategy to

induce rapid adaptations in skeletal muscle and exercise performance that are

comparable to ET in young active men. "

So, it isn't too far of a stretch to figure the same is possible with resistance

training if similar HR elevation is achieved, which it most certainly can be

with heavy multi-joint exercises. It is not difficult to achieve that high of a

HR during resistance training or to maintain it for the duration of the workout,

provided exercises are performed with a high level of effort and rest between

sets is minimized. I often have clients perform a workout consisting of three

circuits of three multi-joint exercises (deadlifts, squats or leg press, an

upper body pushing movement, and an upper body pulling movement) with only a few

seconds of rest between exercises, and although I do not have them wearing HR

monitors or checking their pulse, I have no doubts the HR elevation is more than

adequate to provide significant cardiovascular benefits. I'll take strength

training over running for cardiovascular conditioning any day, and I'm sure I'll

be glad I did in another 30 years when unlike most joggers my age I'll still

have healthy knees.

Drew Baye

Orlando, FL

High Intensity Training

HYPERLINK " http://www.baye.com/ " www.baye.com

============================

_____

From: Supertraining [mailto:Supertraining ] On

Behalf Of sregor99

Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:56 AM

To: Supertraining

Subject: Re: Aerobics is not necessary for cardiovascular

fitness

Hello Drew.

If you're sedentary and you do some exercise you will increase

cardiorespiratory fitness, no doubt. I would need to see the full

published studies to comment adequately, but here is what occurs to

me from your first example:

1. An average decrease in resting heart rate " from 68.5 beats/min to

65.6 beats/min " is welcome but hardly notable. I would be wanting to

see these RHRs under 60 for that amount of training -- although

people respond differently to some extent.

2. " Heart rate measured 3 minutes after stopping a maximal exercise

test declined from a baseline of 108.7 to 103.1 beats/min after 6

months of training, with a larger decrease in women than men. " Again,

not too remarkable for that amount of training -- in fact, a poor

result.

3.Overall I would estimate that the group only improved aerobic

fitness very modestly based on those results.

4.From the second study you quote: " level of at least 145-150 beats

per minute; this rate should be sustained for a minimum of 10-12

minutes; and the participant should engage in such exercising 3-4

times a week " .

That sounds like aerobic exercise to me. You will not normally

achieve this level of heart rate consistently lifting weights with

intervals between sets. If you do circuits maybe, but you have to

keep going and not rest. Try it, measure it.

If you read my previous post, I did not say it was impossible to get

a degree of aerobic fitness from weight training. I did imply that it

takes some commitment to work at it -- probably with circuit type

programs and some interval work -- and that other forms of aerobic

training are probably more efficient. Nevertheless, I accept that

running or cycling does not suit everyone.

I think the nub of this issue is that you can't do a few minutes of

high-intensity exercise and expect it to create aerobic fitness

higher on the continuum. It won't work.

Gympie, Australia

[Guest guest]

Hi ,

Actually, intensity is the key to increased cardiorespiratory

fitness, not necessarily duration.

See Winnett, R.A. and Carpinelli, R.N. (2000). Examining the

validity of exercise guidelines for the prevention of morbidity and

all-cause mortality. ls of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 237-245.

In this article (p. 241), the authors refer to research by Otto

comparing 4 minute with 20 minute aerobic exercise protocols (70-85%

MHR). Both groups significantly increaesd their aerobic capacity,

but the groups did not differ significantly from each other in the

magnitude of the increase.

For increasing aerobic fitness, we've known that short high-intensity

bouts--what we term " intervals " --work at least as well, if not better

than steady state.

Also, there is discussion in the literature about the limitations of

VO2 max as an indicator of real-life outcomes.

Merrick. M.A.

Bellevue, NE

>

> Hello Drew.

>

> If you're sedentary and you do some exercise you will increase

> cardiorespiratory fitness, no doubt. I would need to see the full

> published studies to comment adequately, but here is what occurs to

> me from your first example:

>

> 1. An average decrease in resting heart rate " from 68.5 beats/min to

> 65.6 beats/min " is welcome but hardly notable. I would be wanting to

> see these RHRs under 60 for that amount of training -- although

> people respond differently to some extent.

>

> 2. " Heart rate measured 3 minutes after stopping a maximal exercise

> test declined from a baseline of 108.7 to 103.1 beats/min after 6

> months of training, with a larger decrease in women than men. "

Again, not too remarkable for that amount of training -- in fact, a

poor result.

>

> 3.Overall I would estimate that the group only improved aerobic

> fitness very modestly based on those results.

>

> 4.From the second study you quote: " level of at least 145-150 beats

> per minute; this rate should be sustained for a minimum of 10-12

> minutes; and the participant should engage in such exercising 3-4

> times a week " .

>

> That sounds like aerobic exercise to me. You will not normally

> achieve this level of heart rate consistently lifting weights with

> intervals between sets. If you do circuits maybe, but you have to

> keep going and not rest. Try it, measure it.

>

> If you read my previous post, I did not say it was impossible to get

> a degree of aerobic fitness from weight training. I did imply that

it takes some commitment to work at it -- probably with circuit type

> programs and some interval work -- and that other forms of aerobic

> training are probably more efficient. Nevertheless, I accept that

> running or cycling does not suit everyone.

>

> I think the nub of this issue is that you can't do a few minutes of

> high-intensity exercise and expect it to create aerobic fitness

> higher on the continuum. It won't work.

>

>

> Gympie, Australia

>

[Guest guest]

Perhaps, as was suggested in a previous post on

another topic, somebody should attempt at defining

the terms aerobic and intense.

I will put forth my ideas on aerobic work based on

what I have learned in my training over the years.

According to Wilmore and Costill's Physiology of Sport

and Exercise - << " Anaerobic metabolism is the

production of energy in the absence of oxygen "

" Aerobic metabolism a process occuring in the

mitochondria that uses oxygen to produce energy

(ATP); " >>

You will notice there is no mention of weights or

running in either definition.

<< " Your ATP and PCR stores can sustain your muscles

energy needs for only 3-15 seconds during an all out

sprint. Beyond that point he muscles must rely on

other processes for ATP formation; the glycolytic and

oxidative combustion of fuels. "

Wilmore and Costill pg 124.>>

<< " The ATP-PCR and Glycolytic systems :These two

systems are not capable of sustaining all of the

energy needs for an all out activity lasting more than

2 minutes. Wilmore and Costill pg 125 " .>>

I believe that it is pretty much accepted by exercise

physiologists that any activity lasting more than 2

minutes requires aerobic energy whether it be

circuit training with weights or running or cycling.

Both the 4 minute intervals and the 20 minute

intervals quoted in another study in a previous post

are aerobic intervals albeit with different intensity.

I have read a number of posts today in which the

author of the post was giving examples how a certain

regimen was superior to aerobic work and each of the

examples given appeared by their own description to be

in fact aerobic work.

Anaerobic intervals are short (less than 2 minutes) of

maximum intensity and require full recovery to 50-60%

maximum HR. Shorter rest periods evoke aerobic not

anaerobic work.

You don't need weights to do anaerobic intervals and

yes you can do aerobic work using weights.

Circuit training is in fact aerobic work. It was

specifically designed to evoke an aerobic response.

Just because an individual uses weights to stimulate

their muscles does not mean that they are not doing

aerobics.

Unfortunately the term aerobics has come to mean, in

the minds of many, a bunch of people doing jumping

jacks in leotards in a gym.

Performing multiple sets with a short rest in between

each, is in fact aerobic work.

An all out 100 meter sprint (running, cycling or

swimming) will elicit an anaerobic response just as

maximum set which lasts just 10-20 seconds.

We seem to be mistaking the mode of exercise with the

metabolic response.

Aerobics is necssary for cardiovascular fitness. You

may decide to perform your aerobic work using weights,

running, cycling, swimming etc. Or you can even try

to mix and match and try all of the above activities

at different times.

As they say " different strokes for different folks "

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Actually, intensity is the key to increased cardiorespiratory

> fitness, not necessarily duration.

I wouldn't call it the key, only an option. High levels of CRF are

achievable with moderate aerobic exercise. Anyway, it's a matter of

time X intensity isn't it? If I run 'steady state' for an hour for

5/days/week at 80% heart rate - and many endurance athletes train at

this level and race higher (I did) -- you would have to do some

decent interval sessions to achieve a similar level of aerobic

conditioning. And interval training alone is not going to work for

serious endurance CRF by the way. It won't build sufficient aerobic

capacity. You have to put in the miles on the road. That's a no-

brainer and in that context your statement above is false.

Interval training will produce a good mix of aerobic and anaerobic

fitness for team sports that require high aerobic and anaerobic

capacity -- like football (soccer). They get hammered with intervals

for a few days a week and achieve good VO2 and high lactate

thresholds. I've done the same thing training for field hockey and

for 100m track. When you do intervals until you throw up and your

glutes ache for two days you know you've worked hard. I'm talking

about an hour or more of intervals - 200s, 400s, 100s, 50s, 25s,

starts, recoveries. You can't get fit doing 4 minutes of training.

'What we term " intervals " ' eh? <g>.

I don't think we can tell much from that study below but I didn't say

that CRF could not be achieved with higher intensity training, but

you do have to put the time and work in, and running is the option

most accessible for most people.

Actually, by chance I found this article by Staley. Pretty

much says it all.

'Why You Need Cardio'

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/staley11.htm

Cheers,

Gympie, Australia

> See Winnett, R.A. and Carpinelli, R.N. (2000). Examining the

> validity of exercise guidelines for the prevention of morbidity and

> all-cause mortality. ls of Behavioral Medicine, 22, 237-245.

>

> In this article (p. 241), the authors refer to research by Otto

> comparing 4 minute with 20 minute aerobic exercise protocols (70-

85%

> MHR). Both groups significantly increaesd their aerobic capacity,

> but the groups did not differ significantly from each other in the

> magnitude of the increase.

>

> For increasing aerobic fitness, we've known that short high-

intensity

> bouts--what we term " intervals " --work at least as well, if not

better

> than steady state.

>

> Also, there is discussion in the literature about the limitations

of

> VO2 max as an indicator of real-life outcomes.

>

> Merrick. M.A.

> Bellevue, NE

>

>

> >

> > Hello Drew.

> >

> > If you're sedentary and you do some exercise you will increase

> > cardiorespiratory fitness, no doubt. I would need to see the full

> > published studies to comment adequately, but here is what occurs

to

> > me from your first example:

> >

> > 1. An average decrease in resting heart rate " from 68.5 beats/min

to

> > 65.6 beats/min " is welcome but hardly notable. I would be wanting

to

> > see these RHRs under 60 for that amount of training -- although

> > people respond differently to some extent.

> >

> > 2. " Heart rate measured 3 minutes after stopping a maximal

exercise

> > test declined from a baseline of 108.7 to 103.1 beats/min after 6

> > months of training, with a larger decrease in women than men. "

> Again, not too remarkable for that amount of training -- in fact, a

> poor result.

> >

> > 3.Overall I would estimate that the group only improved aerobic

> > fitness very modestly based on those results.

> >

> > 4.From the second study you quote: " level of at least 145-150

beats

> > per minute; this rate should be sustained for a minimum of 10-12

> > minutes; and the participant should engage in such exercising 3-4

> > times a week " .

> >

> > That sounds like aerobic exercise to me. You will not normally

> > achieve this level of heart rate consistently lifting weights with

> > intervals between sets. If you do circuits maybe, but you have to

> > keep going and not rest. Try it, measure it.

> >

> > If you read my previous post, I did not say it was impossible to

get

> > a degree of aerobic fitness from weight training. I did imply

that

> it takes some commitment to work at it -- probably with circuit type

> > programs and some interval work -- and that other forms of aerobic

> > training are probably more efficient. Nevertheless, I accept that

> > running or cycling does not suit everyone.

> >

> > I think the nub of this issue is that you can't do a few minutes

of

> > high-intensity exercise and expect it to create aerobic fitness

> > higher on the continuum. It won't work.

> >

> >

> > Gympie, Australia

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Drew,

Thanks for posting that study. I don't know what to make of it

though. I would need to know more about the trials and what this

means:

" Training decreased the time required to complete 50 and 750 kJ

cycling time trials, with no difference between groups. "

Cycling watts are joules/second, but not sure if this above is energy

expended or something I am not familiar with, not being a dedicated

cyclist. I guess they were required to cycle that amount of work in

the shortest time. If so, 750kj is about the energy expended in 30

minutes of walking and 50 kj is a short sprint. If I have assumed

correctly, neither are real tests of aerobic condition as they would

be too short.

This study might show that substantial endurance training produces

equivalent anaerobic power as brief sprint interval training, which I

would expect, but it does not show the reverse. The trials would have

to be longer and more aerobic to test that, if I have interpreted it

correctly.

And the original fitness levels of the participants would also need

to be taken into account.

However, your circuit here:

" I often have clients perform a workout consisting of three circuits

of three multi-joint exercises (deadlifts, squats or leg press, an

upper body pushing movement, and an upper body pulling movement) with

only a few seconds of rest between exercises. . . "

Sounds like a solid workout which should provide some decent

anaerobic and aerobic conditioning as long as you give them enough

work to do. I would be moving their legs as well with steps-ups on a

platform or weighted lunges in between lifts. Then you have something

going. Only my opinion of course :-).

Regarding knee problems in runners:

" I'm sure I'll be glad I did in another 30 years when unlike most

joggers my age I'll still have healthy knees. "

This is generally a misconception. Experienced runners actually have

fewer knee joint problems than sedentary or overweight people and

even marathoners have little osteoarthritic degradation compared even

to recreational runners. Women probably have more problems and sports

where side and rotational forces come into play are worse off than

runners. I don't know how runners compare to weight trainers though.

Regards,

Gympie Australia

>

> ,

>

> You certainly should be able to create aerobic fitness " higher on

the continuum " with a few minutes of high intensity exercise.

>

> Short term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training:

similar initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise

performance. J. Gibala, P. Little, van Essen,

Geoffrey P. Wilkin, Kirsten A., Burgomaster, Adeel Safdar, Sandeep

Raha and Mark A. Tarnopolsky. J. Physiol. 2006;575;901-911;

originally published online Jul 6, 2006;

>

>

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/575/3/901 " http://jp.p

hysoc.org/cgi/content/full/575/3/901

>

> " Brief, intense exercise training may induce metabolic and

performance adaptations comparable to traditional endurance training.

However, no study has directly compared these diverse training

strategies in a standardized manner. We therefore examined changes in

exercise capacity and molecular and cellular adaptations in skeletal

muscle after low volume sprint-interval training (SIT) and high

volume endurance training (ET). Sixteen active men (21 ± 1 years,

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/content/vol575/issue3/images/medium/tj

p_1692_mu1.gif " Formula ) were assigned to a SIT or ET group (n = 8

each) and performed six training sessions over 14 days. Each session

consisted of either four to six repeats of 30 s ‘all out’ cycling

at HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~250%

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/content/vol575/issue3/images/medium/tj

p_1692_mu2.gif " Formula with 4 min recovery (SIT) or 90†" 120 min

continuous cycling at

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~65%

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/content/vol575/issue3/images/medium/tj

p_1692_mu3.gif " Formula (ET). Training time commitment over 2 weeks

was HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~2.5 h for SIT and

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~10.5 h for ET, and

total training volume was

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~90% lower for SIT

versus ET ( HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~630 versus

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/sim.gif " ~6500 kJ). Training

decreased the time required to complete 50 and 750 kJ cycling time

trials, with no difference between groups (main effects, P

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/le.gif " ≤0.05). Biopsy samples

obtained before and after training revealed similar increases in

muscle oxidative capacity, as reflected by the maximal activity of

cytochrome c oxidase (COX) and COX subunits II and IV protein content

(main effects, P HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/le.gif " â‰

¤0.05), but COX II and IV mRNAs were unchanged. Training-induced

increases in muscle buffering capacity and glycogen content were also

similar between groups (main effects, P

HYPERLINK " http://jp.physoc.org/math/le.gif " ≤0.05). Given the large

difference in training volume, these data demonstrate that SIT is a

time-efficient strategy to induce rapid adaptations in skeletal

muscle and exercise performance that are comparable to ET in young

active men. "

>

> So, it isn't too far of a stretch to figure the same is possible

with resistance training if similar HR elevation is achieved, which

it most certainly can be with heavy multi-joint exercises. It is not

difficult to achieve that high of a HR during resistance training or

to maintain it for the duration of the workout, provided exercises

are performed with a high level of effort and rest between sets is

minimized. I often have clients perform a workout consisting of three

circuits of three multi-joint exercises (deadlifts, squats or leg

press, an upper body pushing movement, and an upper body pulling

movement) with only a few seconds of rest between exercises, and

although I do not have them wearing HR monitors or checking their

pulse, I have no doubts the HR elevation is more than adequate to

provide significant cardiovascular benefits. I'll take strength

training over running for cardiovascular conditioning any day, and

I'm sure I'll be glad I did in another 30 years when unlike most

joggers my age I'll still have healthy knees.

>

> Drew Baye

> Orlando, FL

> High Intensity Training

> HYPERLINK " http://www.baye.com/ " www.baye.com

>

> ============================

> _____

>

> From: Supertraining

[mailto:Supertraining ] On Behalf Of sregor99

> Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2007 2:56 AM

> To: Supertraining

> Subject: Re: Aerobics is not necessary for

cardiovascular fitness

>

>

>

> Hello Drew.

>

> If you're sedentary and you do some exercise you will increase

> cardiorespiratory fitness, no doubt. I would need to see the full

> published studies to comment adequately, but here is what occurs to

> me from your first example:

>

> 1. An average decrease in resting heart rate " from 68.5 beats/min to

> 65.6 beats/min " is welcome but hardly notable. I would be wanting to

> see these RHRs under 60 for that amount of training -- although

> people respond differently to some extent.

>

> 2. " Heart rate measured 3 minutes after stopping a maximal exercise

> test declined from a baseline of 108.7 to 103.1 beats/min after 6

> months of training, with a larger decrease in women than men. "

Again,

> not too remarkable for that amount of training -- in fact, a poor

> result.

>

> 3.Overall I would estimate that the group only improved aerobic

> fitness very modestly based on those results.

>

> 4.From the second study you quote: " level of at least 145-150 beats

> per minute; this rate should be sustained for a minimum of 10-12

> minutes; and the participant should engage in such exercising 3-4

> times a week " .

>

> That sounds like aerobic exercise to me. You will not normally

> achieve this level of heart rate consistently lifting weights with

> intervals between sets. If you do circuits maybe, but you have to

> keep going and not rest. Try it, measure it.

>

> If you read my previous post, I did not say it was impossible to get

> a degree of aerobic fitness from weight training. I did imply that

it

> takes some commitment to work at it -- probably with circuit type

> programs and some interval work -- and that other forms of aerobic

> training are probably more efficient. Nevertheless, I accept that

> running or cycling does not suit everyone.

>

> I think the nub of this issue is that you can't do a few minutes of

> high-intensity exercise and expect it to create aerobic fitness

> higher on the continuum. It won't work.

>

>

> Gympie, Australia

>

[Guest guest]

--- sregor99 wrote:

>

> Cycling watts are joules/second, but not sure if

> this above is energy

> expended or something I am not familiar with, not

> being a dedicated

> cyclist. I guess they were required to cycle that

> amount of work in

> the shortest time. If so, 750kj is about the energy

> expended in 30

> minutes of walking and 50 kj is a short sprint. If I

> have assumed

> correctly, neither are real tests of aerobic

> condition as they would

> be too short.

>

> Regards,

> Gympie Australia

The conversion rate of kj to kcal is roughly 1:1. 750

kj is equivalent to 750 calories expended and 50 kj is

equivalent to 50 calories expended.

<<Power & Energy:

• Since power is really just a measure of energy over

a given time frame, if you know your average power

output and the duration of a given ride, you can

calculate the amount of energy you use on that ride.

The power tap does this continuously

throughout a ride and represents that energy in

Kilojoules or “Kj’s” where 1 Kjoule is equal to 1000

Joules.

• There are a number of different ways to represent

energy. A kilojoule is a mechanical representation of

energy. In our everyday world, however, we typically

represent energy, thermically, as the amount of heat

released when burning a quantity

of food. Thus, we normally think of energy in terms of

the amount of food we can eat in kilocalories.

• To get an idea of how many Kcals you burn for a

given number of Kjoules of energy transferred to the

bicycle, you need to know that 1 Kcal is equal to

roughly 4 Kjoules (4.184). So if you do 1000 Kjoules

on the bicycle, you’ve really transferred

about 250 Kcals of energy to the rear hub. But that

doesn’t mean that you’ve burned 250 Kcals worth of

food. This is because while riding a bicycle, the

average person is just under a quarter or 25%

efficient. That means if you burn 1000 Kcals of food

while riding a bicycle, only about 250 gets

transferred to the hub to make the bicycle move. The

rest just gets wasted as excess heat. So by a quirk of

nature, 1000 Kjoules measured by the Power Tap is

equal to just over 1000 Kcals burned by your body.

Introduction to Training with Power Lim, Ph.

D.>>>

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

[Guest guest]

I had the privilege of attending a round table

discussion with a cardiologist/researcher from Yale

University last night and the main topic of discussion

revolved around lipids and cardiovascular risk.

Amongst the areas covered were lifestyle changes that

lead to decreased cardiovascular risk. When it came

to exercise he stated that all that is needed is

approximately 30 minutes of moderate walking (not

running or weight lifting- emphasis is mine) 5-6 days

a week.

Unfortunately the fitness industry is not going to

sell too many machines or get too many people to join

their gym if they disseminate this information.

He also noted that on the other hand to lose weight an

individual would have to walk about 60-75 minutes 5-6

days a week (or burn the equivalent calories in other

activities).

In all the meetings and discussions I have had with

cardiologists as well as medical articles I have read

concerning cardiovascular health I have never come

across any mention of running, weightlifting or any

other sport as the proper way to maintain

cardiovascular health.

So as I have often mentioned in my previous posts, any

activity is good as long as you enjoy what you are

doing. If you enjoy what you are doing you will

probably make it a lifetime activity.

So for all intents and purposes " Neither Aerobics nor

Resistance training is necessary for cardiovascular

fitness " .

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

[Guest guest]

Hi Ralph,

What the cardiologist has told you might be perfectly correct but I feel that

this level of exercise would only be suitable for a healthy person fighting

against the increase of weight attributed to ageing. Many people today are 40

kg overweight and more. Walking will not bring an obese person in line with your

cardiologists figure of a waist measurement of below half a person's height. At

least it will not in a timely manner.

My own personal experience includes a significant amount of walking over about

four years. For two of those years I was travelling overseas and not working at

all. I estimate that I was walking 4 hours a day on average. Some days no

walking, some days up to 10 hours of walking. I lost weight at just under a

kilogram per month; month after month after month. I was very happy with that.

However; the amount of time I spent far exceeds 60 - 75 minutes of moderate

walking. Not many people are going to be able to walk each day as much as I

did.

What is a person supposed to do, if their doctor instructs them to lose 20 kg

plus as soon as possible? I don't believe an hour of moderate walking is going

to help them. Perhaps it is fine if the person needs to lose 5 kg in no specific

time period

Bestw wishes

Sharah

Sydney, Australia

Re: Aerobics is not necessary for cardiovascular

fitness

<<<I had the privilege of attending a round table

discussion with a cardiologist/ researcher from Yale

University last night and the main topic of discussion

revolved around lipids and cardiovascular risk.

Amongst the areas covered were lifestyle changes that

lead to decreased cardiovascular risk. When it came

to exercise he stated that all that is needed is

approximately 30 minutes of moderate walking (not

running or weight lifting- emphasis is mine) 5-6 days

a week.

Unfortunately the fitness industry is not going to

sell too many machines or get too many people to join

their gym if they disseminate this information.

He also noted that on the other hand to lose weight an

individual would have to walk about 60-75 minutes 5-6

days a week (or burn the equivalent calories in other

activities).

In all the meetings and discussions I have had with

cardiologists as well as medical articles I have read

concerning cardiovascular health I have never come

across any mention of running, weightlifting or any

other sport as the proper way to maintain

cardiovascular health.

So as I have often mentioned in my previous posts, any

activity is good as long as you enjoy what you are

doing. If you enjoy what you are doing you will

probably make it a lifetime activity.

So for all intents and purposes " Neither Aerobics nor

Resistance training is necessary for cardiovascular

fitness " . >>>

[Guest guest]

It goes without saying that besides walking, if an

individual wishes to lose weight they must also

modify their diet and and decrease their calorie

consumption.

The general recommendation is that rapid weight loss

is not advisable. Studies have shown that as little

as a 10-15 lb weight loss will have a marked

improvement in most parameters of health.

Walking 1 mile burns approximately 100 calories. If

an individual were to walk 3-4 miles 6 days a week

they would burn an extra 93,000-125,000 calories a

year which theoretically would give them a weight loss

of 27-35 lbs.

If besides exercising the same individual were to cut

500 calories out of their daily consumption (perhaps a

bagel with cream cheese or a frappuccino- or an

evening snack) they would eliminate another 182,000

calories which would give them an additional 52 lb

weight loss. If my math is correct then a person

walking 3-4 miles 6 days a week and at the same time

cuts out 500 calories daily would lose theoretically

between 79-87 lbs in 52 weeks.

The walking does not have to be continuous. It can be

broken up throughout the day. The recommendation is

that a person should try to take 10,000 steps a day

(approximately 5 miles). This might include avoiding

elevators and escalators, Parking at the other end of

he parking lot etc.

When it comes to time for this activity you must ask

yourself, how much time does the average person spend

watching TV every day?

There are 1440 minutes in a 24 hr day. 75 minutes

represents 5.2% of an individua's day. 5% of your

time is a small price to pay for improved health.

Nothing worth achieving comes easy.

For those individuals who choose to go to a gym how

much time does it take out of your day? Starting from

the time you leave the house until the time you

return. I would guess that going to a gym takes up at

least 90 minutes (including the commute).

We don't have to run or lift weights to improve our

health, just get off our butts and start moving.

A patient of mine who weighed more than 400 lbs,

required portable Oxygen, had high blood pressure and

was a poorly controlled diabetic ,despite maximum

doses of medication, decided, after years of

inactivity, to go to a gym which was across the street

from his house. He began walk on the the treadmill

every day an eventually increased his time so that he

could walk for 60 minutes every day. He came to my

office after an absence of one year. He had lost 100+

lbs, his blood glucose was normal as was his blood

pressure and he no longer required portable Oxygen.

He also no longer needed medication to control his

blood pressure and his diabetes.

In my practice I have several other patients who have

achieved similar goals just by making modest lifestyle

changes.

If your goal is improved health aerobics (as defined

by the fitness industry) and resistance training

(weight lifting ) are not necessary for health or

cardiovascular fitness.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

--- Sharah wrote:

> Hi Ralph,

>

> What the cardiologist has told you might be

> perfectly correct but I feel that this level of

> exercise would only be suitable for a healthy person

> fighting against the increase of weight attributed

> to ageing. Many people today are 40 kg overweight

> and more. Walking will not bring an obese person in

> line with your cardiologists figure of a waist

> measurement of below half a person's height. At

> least it will not in a timely manner.

>

> My own personal experience includes a significant

> amount of walking over about four years. For two of

> those years I was travelling overseas and not

> working at all. I estimate that I was walking 4

> hours a day on average. Some days no walking, some

> days up to 10 hours of walking. I lost weight at

> just under a kilogram per month; month after month

> after month. I was very happy with that. However;

> the amount of time I spent far exceeds 60 - 75

> minutes of moderate walking. Not many people are

> going to be able to walk each day as much as I did.

>

> What is a person supposed to do, if their doctor

> instructs them to lose 20 kg plus as soon as

> possible? I don't believe an hour of moderate

> walking is going to help them. Perhaps it is fine if

> the person needs to lose 5 kg in no specific time

> period

>

> Bestw wishes

> Sharah

> Sydney, Australia

>

>

>

> Re: Aerobics is not

> necessary for cardiovascular fitness

>

> <<<I had the privilege of attending a round table

> discussion with a cardiologist/ researcher from Yale

> University last night and the main topic of

> discussion

> revolved around lipids and cardiovascular risk.

>

> Amongst the areas covered were lifestyle changes

> that

> lead to decreased cardiovascular risk. When it came

> to exercise he stated that all that is needed is

> approximately 30 minutes of moderate walking (not

> running or weight lifting- emphasis is mine) 5-6

> days

> a week.

>

> Unfortunately the fitness industry is not going to

> sell too many machines or get too many people to

> join

> their gym if they disseminate this information.

>

> He also noted that on the other hand to lose weight

> an

> individual would have to walk about 60-75 minutes

> 5-6

> days a week (or burn the equivalent calories in

> other

> activities).

>

> In all the meetings and discussions I have had with

> cardiologists as well as medical articles I have

> read

> concerning cardiovascular health I have never come

> across any mention of running, weightlifting or any

> other sport as the proper way to maintain

> cardiovascular health.

>

> So as I have often mentioned in my previous posts,

> any

> activity is good as long as you enjoy what you are

> doing. If you enjoy what you are doing you will

> probably make it a lifetime activity.

>

> So for all intents and purposes " Neither Aerobics

> nor

> Resistance training is necessary for cardiovascular

> fitness " . >>>

>

[Guest guest]

I came aross the following article and think many

might find it an interesting artcle

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

**************************************

My Turn: Our Gym’s Aging Band of Brothers

We may not be the most beautiful sight at the gym, but

my aging band of brothers still has a lot to offer.

By Walter

Newsweek

Updated: 2:19 p.m. ET April 26, 2007

April 26, 2007 - Like many seniors, I regularly

journey to a fitness center—not a particularly

enjoyable ritual but one that helps preserve whatever

health I have left. I'm trying to slow the ravages of

time and forestall the Grim Reaper, lest he pay an

early house call with a heart attack, cancer or stroke

and make me a burden to my wife. My motto is " Live as

well as you can for as long as you can.”

But working out on a dozen machines, water-walking and

swimming can feel pointless, like Sisyphus pushing the

same stone up a mountain again and again. More than 60

years ago, my physical work on a farm accomplished

something. Back then, while sweating and grunting, I

dreamed of growing a chest and arms that would attract

giggling girls like bees to honey.

Alas, those days are long gone and reality has

stubbornly settled in. Forget building muscle mass.

Today, I'll settle for a modest cardiovascular workout

and some range of motion in my aching joints. Yet

companies hyping Viagra and incontinence products

portray us seniors with full heads of hair and 34-inch

waistlines. Who are these people and where are their

warts, wrinkles, scars and flab? Really, these

companies should pay a visit to my locker room.

When I was a teenager, my grandfather said that nine

out of 10 people look better in their clothes. At the

time, I thought he was just trying to dampen my raging

hormones. But in the locker room at my gym, the proof

is painfully before my eyes. Any beauty that remains

is largely internal. We are not a pretty sight. If

life is a battleground, then we naked seniors display

the ugly proof. War, accidents, surgery and gravity

have made sport of our once-proud bodies.

We are life's veterans, scarred by weapons of slow

destruction. But we laugh at time's ravages. Unbowed

and unbroken in spirit—although our bodies certainly

haven't gotten the memo—we have no shame in the locker

room. We are comfortable with what we have left. Joe's

lower leg lies somewhere on the battlefields of

France, but he happily hobbles to the pool, removes

his prosthetic foot and swims 20 laps like a seal.

Tom's deep-vein thrombosis has colored his legs almost

black, and his spine looks like a cobblestone path,

but off he goes to the treadmill. Adam's football

days have caught up to the cartilage in his shoulders

and he can hardly raise his arms, but there he is on

the recumbent bicycle. Sam's arms look like two

sticks wrapped in leather, and his splotchy head

reminds me of badly bruised fruit, but into the locker

room he comes, smiling and slowly pushing his walker

ahead of him. Karl, leaning on his cane, limps in

behind him and gratefully accepts someone's offer to

remove his socks. And then there is Tom, who six

months ago suffered a massive stroke, but here he is

today swinging his left arm and dragging his left leg

behind him. Together, we happy few help each other

and make it happen every day.

For some of us, undressing and putting on our workout

clothes can take 20 pain-filled minutes. But who's

counting? Our locker-room banter ricochets off the

walls—from the shallow to the serious. We trade

jokes, predictions on politics and the weather, sorrow

over Mike's Alzheimer's and congratulations on a 50th

wedding anniversary. Yes, we even still talk about

sex. Some things never change in a guy's locker room.

For us, our locker room is a form of sanctuary, our

" happy-hour " place, where there is confession,

celebration, support and renewal.

I used to think my life would be over before I got

old. But my locker-room band of brothers model life's

beauty every day. I wonder, can my old friends and I

offer something to the youth of today? We have lived

through 80 Minnesota winters, a Great Depression and

several wars. Don't we have some wisdom to share?

Maybe our presence might soften the abrasiveness of

our world. Perhaps we can teach our troubled and

cynical teenagers that life goes on in spite of

tragedy and suffering. Broken and slow may we be, we

still have lots to offer. My locker-room experiences

make me realize that we have uncounted and

unrecognized heroes among us.

lives in Eden Prairie, Minn.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18333349/site/newsweek/

[Guest guest]

--- hannu.leinonen@... wrote:

The dose for physical activity - in terms like 30

minutes, moderate

intensity, 5 - 6 times a week, is actually nonsense.

(If should know the total amount of physical activity

- and also what kind

of work related physical activities people have - or

if they get a workout

in there free time with out doing any training.)

I do not think that hearth knows when it's pumping

because you are doing an

aerobic exercise compared to just doing something

vividly.

The instruction that you should walk 30 minutes 5 - 6

times a week is good

for people that have a low aerobic capasity.

(Thise means that in there normal way of life they do

NOT do much physical

activity - and anything more makes the situation

better.)

AND thise are the people that doctors need to help -

and moderate physical

activity decreases there risk of getting ill (

propably 80 %).

My guestion is:

Is fitness something more than just probability for

not getting sick?

Do we need strength, stamina for survavil in modern

society? What if we need

to carry something heavy - more than 5 liters of milk?

********************************************************

My post tried to address two areas based on general

recommendations issued by the heart association and

the health community.

These recommendation consititute the minimal activity

needed on a daily basis to achieve the goals put forth

namely cardiovascular fitness and weight loss. These

recommendations are not meant to be limitations.

It has been established by the cardiology that 30

minutes of walking 6 days a week( or the equivalent in

calories used) is sufficient to maintain a healthy

heart.

The sad- part is that while 30 minutes a day seems to

be trivial to many who are accustomed to training, in

fact most in our population do not even that small

amount.

Unfortunately today in the industrial nations there

are few too many occupations which offer enoguh

physical activity to accomplish the equivalent of 30

minutes of walking.

In my practice I have far too many people who perform

" physical labor " who are overweight, have Hypertension

and Diabetes despite the so called physicality of the

jobs. In reality machines and labor saving devices

have decreased the amount of energy they need to

expend.

The telephone linemen in the past were require to

climb the poles nowadays they have basket lifts.

Carpenters no longer use a hammer they have nail guns.

Construction workers don't use shovels they sit in a

machine that does the work for them.

If there is real physical labor it is left to younger

workers to do the scut work while the older workers

become foremen and get fat.

The farmer no longer does the farmer's walk. The milk

goes directly from the cow by way of automatic milkers

directly to a large vat. The farmer's have become so

mechanized that they too are having their heart

attacks at age 50.

30 minutes is equivalent to approximately 2 miles or

4,000 steps. I would be will to bet that if you put a

pedometer on most people they would have trouble

getting in 2000 steps from the time they get up in the

morning to the time they went to bed.

Do we need more fitness than that provided by 30

minutes of walking. Apparently not. When was the

last time most of us have had to carry the equivalent

of 5 liters of milk (approx 12lbs) any distance for

survival. Many grocery stores provide some one who

will bag your groceries and in some places bring them

out to your car. If you should buy 5 liters of milk

they will place them in 5 different bags.

Just remember that these are guidelines for the

minimum requirements. The unfortunately story is that

so few people even achieve that minimum.

Today's obesity epidemic is associated more with the

lack of activity than to the bad diet.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA