Re: Jack LaLanne

[Guest guest]

From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

Reply-

Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2004 17:12:32 EST

Subject: Re: Jack LaLanne

>

> In a message dated 2/4/04 9:27:20 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> And if one has anything else to do in one's life, including such tasks as

>> reading and responding to email, relaxing for a bit before going to bed,

>> etc, etc, then suddently a couple of hours a day is unreasonable.

>

> That's just your choice. It's one thing to say you *can't* exercise; it's

> entirely another to say you'd rather read and respond to email, read, relax,

> or

> get more sleep. If you're doing aerobics, you can read at the same time

> anyway, if you're using a machine.

>

Oh, please...the way the language actually works, is when someone says they

" can't " exercise 2 hours a day, what it means for most reasonable people is

that given other concerns, etc, it is just not possible.

BTW, I have not come up with a way of reading on my rowing machine - can you

suggest one?

>> Apparently, for instance, the benefits of

>> extreme interval training like the Tabata protocol can approximate or even

>> exceed 45 minutes of aerobic exercise, and certainly a strenuous kettlebell

>> workout need not be an hour. Pavel even recommends that you not exceed 45

>> minutes, and not to do that every day (i.e. alternate with shorter

>> workouts).

>

> I agree that the required time would depend on the exercise, and that any

> amount of kettlebell training would be vastly superior to double or triple the

> same time as aerobics.

>

So, you agree then, that obviously the general statement that an hour and a

half of exercise (or whatever exactly you said) is optimal, is false, or at

least so vague as to be meaningless?

> Personally, however, I can't work out with a kettlebell *less* than 45

> minutes, because, limiting my resting periods to one minute between each set,

> I

> don't really feel like I've gotten a workout until I reach 40 minutes or so.

Then, personally, I would suggest you could work out harder with them. For

various reasons, I usually go for a longer workout with much more rest -

usually more than 1 minute is required if you're practicing for the

competitive lifts, for instance. But there are other concerns here than just

optimal health benefits.

If indeed it is the case that you are such a specimen of fitness that you

simply cannot get a good workout with kettlebells in less than 45 minutes,

then you are more fit than virtually anyone on the Dragondoor list.

> So I

> tend to do 45 minutes to an hour with ballistics, and 35-45 minutes when I

> emphasize presses.

>

LOL!

> I'm just beginning though,

You're just beginning and you're more fit than anyone on the Dragondoor

list. Amazing!

>and I'm switching with my gym workout, and haven't

> done snatches with the kettlebell now. I've tried them at the gym though

> doing sets of 5 with 60-lb dumbells, and I think if I emphasized snatches I

> could

> get a good workout in a half hour, whereas swings and cleans take longer.

>

> Chris

- if you can do swings and cleans for that long, then you either are

not doing them right, you're using a weight that's way too low for you, or

your sets are way too short. But, hell, you won't listen to me will you? I

doubt it.

If you really want a vigorous workout, use 2 kettlebells for the cleans. The

2 kettlebell clean is more strenuous than the snatch. In fact, if you

consider the competitive snatch, then the swing is more strenuous than the

snatch, where the idea is to relax as much as possible (though I certainly

wouldn't describe them as anything other than strenuous themselves). But

it's really difficult to do swings slowly.

[Guest guest]

I have read ( and seen pictures ) where sometimes bruce lee would exercise

throughout the day

For example while sitting in a chair he would suck his stomach in and

randomly do 10 reps every now and then

I have been doing stomach suck ins recently and you will b surprised at what

you can do with it.

Right now I dotn even squeeze hard due to my injury ( but am slowly being

able to do it harder and harder )

And already ive seen a big change in my abs from it.

So what im saying is you don't nessesary HAVE to do a session with weights

that lasts 1 hour at a given moment in your day

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Thursday, 5 February 2004 1:38 PM

Subject: Re: Jack LaLanne

In a message dated 2/4/04 8:08:08 PM Eastern Standard Time, longc@...

writes:

> When you get one, you'll get a dose of reality. Certainly, the sexercise

> is fun but an hour a day? Hmmm. Hopefully your wife/girlfriend will be

more

> cooperative.

Maybe a wife, but, a girlfriend? I don't think an hour a day is

unreasonable.

Also, as Gene pointed out, you can lower your need for exercise by

increasing

the intensity. Locking your elbows and/or suspending your legs by resting

on

your toes and the balls of your feet can be increase the endurance value, to

say nothing of more complex arrangements.

Chris

[Guest guest]

Heidi,

When you say 2 inches do you mean 2 inches from reaching the bottom or you

are just going down 2 inches from standing

And do you have your other leg pointed out straight or just lifted up off

the floor?

Also how often have you been doing it during the day to reach what you say

is the strongest your legs have ever been?

This is a very good testimonial for the type of training.

_____

From: Heidi Schuppenhauer [mailto:heidis@...]

Sent: Thursday, 5 February 2004 6:51 AM

Subject: Re: Jack LaLanne

>>And if one has anything else to do in one's life, including such tasks as

>>reading and responding to email, relaxing for a bit before going to bed,

>>etc, etc, then suddently a couple of hours a day is unreasonable.

Oh, to heck with this 2 hour a day stuff. I tried that impossible

one-legged naked warrior squat ... first time I only got down two

inches, mind you, but now I can go up to 8 (then I just hold it

like a yoga pose) and my legs are stronger than they've been

for 10 years. I just do it while I'm waiting for something to cook

or whatever. If I ever make it all the way down and up I'll

break out the champagne.

What is interesting about that pose, BTW is that I have a bum

knee and can't do ANY other leg exercises without throwing

it out -- lunges, squats, etc. But balancing on one leg (even

the bum one) is ok, and seems to be fixing the muscle

imbalance that is the core problem.

Lifting arm weights only takes about 15 minutes to get

decent results if you aren't going for a competition.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>When you say 2 inches do you mean 2 inches from reaching the bottom or you

>are just going down 2 inches from standing

2 inches from standing! Like I've said before, my knees are shot (I'm not

-- I'm over 45 and recovering from multiple issues).

>And do you have your other leg pointed out straight or just lifted up off

>the floor?

I have it pointed up as far as I can -- I started with just lifting it. I'm

*almost* parallel

to the floor now. THAT by itself is good exercise!

>Also how often have you been doing it during the day to reach what you say

>is the strongest your legs have ever been?

Maybe 3x a day. Do it til I get tired.

>This is a very good testimonial for the type of training.

I thought someone might benefit. My first take, on seeing the picture

was " yeah, in your dreams! " . But it's a little like yoga ... those impossible

positions ARE doable, after awhile (not that I've mastered many of those

either).

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

Gene,

> Oh, please...the way the language actually works, is when someone says they

> " can't " exercise 2 hours a day, what it means for most reasonable people is

> that given other concerns, etc, it is just not possible.

" Given other concerns " essentially equates " not possible " with " I'd rather do

other things. " The other concerns may be leisure or may be necessary

activities, but if they are watching tv, relaxing, reading email, or any such

leisure

activities, clearly its a case of trading one leisure for another.

> BTW, I have not come up with a way of reading on my rowing machine - can

> you

> suggest one?

No, I can't. But if the issue is that reading requirements make exercise

time-prohibitive, one could use an eliptical, tread mill, or bicycle machine.

> >I agree that the required time would depend on the exercise, and that any

> >amount of kettlebell training would be vastly superior to double or triple

> the

> >same time as aerobics.

>

> So, you agree then, that obviously the general statement that an hour and a

> half of exercise (or whatever exactly you said) is optimal, is false, or at

> least so vague as to be meaningless?

I think what I said was that *I* get about 1.5 hrs, and that I read that new

research was indicating that 1 hour of vigorous activity was needed, but that

I read it in a secondary source and don't know whether the evidence is sound.

If you are asking me to agree that " vigorous " needs to be more precisely

defined, and that any solid time requirement is probably deceivingly rigid, I

agree.

>

> >Personally, however, I can't work out with a kettlebell *less* than 45

> >minutes, because, limiting my resting periods to one minute between each

> set,

> >I

> >don't really feel like I've gotten a workout until I reach 40 minutes or

> so.

>

> Then, personally, I would suggest you could work out harder with them. For

> various reasons, I usually go for a longer workout with much more rest -

> usually more than 1 minute is required if you're practicing for the

> competitive lifts, for instance. But there are other concerns here than just

> optimal health benefits.

But I'd said following that that I was just beginning with my kettlebell, and

was only doing some basic exercises. As I say below, I believe when I start

doing snatches my workout will be more intense and I won't need as long. I

wasn't disputing what Tsatsouline recommends, I was offering a personal comment.

> If indeed it is the case that you are such a specimen of fitness that you

> simply cannot get a good workout with kettlebells in less than 45 minutes,

> then you are more fit than virtually anyone on the Dragondoor list.

Again, as I said, those times were with just basic kettlebell exercises like

swings and cleans. And I said when I do presses my workout is shorter.

> - if you can do swings and cleans for that long, then you either are

> not doing them right, you're using a weight that's way too low for you, or

> your sets are way too short. But, hell, you won't listen to me will you? I

> doubt it.

Sure I'll listen to you, if you want to give me advice, since you've been

using the kettlebells much longer than I have. I'm using the 53-lb bell, doing

sets of 25 for two-arm swings, and I think either 15 or 20 for one armed

swings. I can get the two-armed overhead easily, but the one-armed tends to go

about 30 degrees below vertical (I have to build up to that over a few swings).

I

do sets of 15 with cleans.

However, I only used it for two weeks, then went back to the gym for a cycle,

then I'm going back to kettlebell for probably one month. It takes a while

to kind of " figure out " how to tailor one's program, and also to get used to

the exercises.

I think I'm doing them correctly, since I've read the book and watched the

DVD numerous times very closely.

> If you really want a vigorous workout, use 2 kettlebells for the cleans.

> The

> 2 kettlebell clean is more strenuous than the snatch. In fact, if you

> consider the competitive snatch, then the swing is more strenuous than the

> snatch, where the idea is to relax as much as possible (though I certainly

> wouldn't describe them as anything other than strenuous themselves). But

> it's really difficult to do swings slowly.

I only have one kettlebell, but I'll keep that in mind for when I have more

money.

Thanks.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 10:03:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> Perhaps in your elitist universe, no time for " other concerns " is possible.

> In mine, and in many others, it is not. I have not problem with that use of

> the language. Thanks. Exercise is a big priority in my life. I am totally

> comfortable with saying that I CAN'T exercise 2 hours a day, and resent you

> implying that this is false.

I'm not saying it's false, because I don't know what your " other concerns "

are. You may well have numerous requirements that could reasonably be

considered necessities, like work, a long drive to work, child rearing, etc. If

your

reading is for graduate studies, I think it would be reasonable to consider it

a necessity, but if it's leisure reading, it's a leisure activity comparable

to exercise.

I personally don't exercise 2 hours a day for a variety of reasons. One of

them is that I think it would be counter-productive given my current exercise

goals, and the other is that I give priority to balancing that leisure activity

with my others, such as spending ungodly amounts of time on this list,

watching tv, reading novels, going out with friends, etc. I COULD exercise 2

hours

a day, but given my goals, desires, and choices, I don't.

> >No, I can't. But if the issue is that reading requirements make exercise

> >time-prohibitive, one could use an eliptical, tread mill, or bicycle

> machine.

>

>

> The rowing machine comment was obviously a joke. But, again - perhaps I

> might believe that a rowing machine provides a better workout?

You might, in which case you'd have to make a decision to prioritize the

relative cost/benefit of rowing versus eliptical with reading. But we were

speaking of the choice between reading and no exercise versus reading while

exercising, so it doesn't seem relevant. You already find the time for an hour

exercise a day, which is fantastic, but someone who doesn't find that time might

want to consider multi-tasking if they can to consolidate their time

requirement.

Or that my > experience is that reading is only possible (at least for me,

> if I exercise

> at a VERY leisurely rate, which both increases the necessary time involved,

> and (in my opinion) produces less benefit.

I suppose everyone has different multi-tasking abilities. I don't have any

problem maintaining my heart rate around 160-170 while reading, so I made the

egocentric assumption that anyone else could. Still, since we are discussing

the possibility that someone doesn't have time to exercise, reading while

exercising leisurely is clearly a benefit over reading with no exercise at all.

Moreover, I'd suspect that regular exercise would increase mental clarity enough

to make significant improvements in reading speed and comprehension for a

sedentary person.

> >I think what I said was that *I* get about 1.5 hrs, and that I read that

> new

> >research was indicating that 1 hour of vigorous activity was needed,

>

> OK - that sounds familiar. You did say 1 hour. That still is ridiculously

> vague, and does not account for various methods intensities of working out.

That's true, but I said I read it in a secondary article and I didn't know

anything about the research that went into it. The article cited a massive

report that presumably uses more precise terminology.

But I don't think you can fault them for not using kettlebells. Kettlebells

aren't for everyone-- I think they'd benefit most people, but I don't think

most people would use them. When I do dumbell snatches at the gym, I get a lot

of people looking me and hear things like " Wow, that kid's got balls, " etc.

Kettlebells are not only strenuous, but are considerably more dangerous than

your average aerobics machine, and I think it would be easier to get the average

person to exercise an hour with regular exercises than a half hour with a

kettlebell.

> Generally, I would regard the 'mainstream' advice about exercise to be

> about

> as reliable as similar advice about diet. So, why repeat it?

Because I don't agree with you. There are certain " mainstream " theories that

I believe to be bogus, but you can pinpoint the specific logical flaws,

logical leaps, and sometimes intentional distortions. There are also much

stronger

financial interests behind the lipid hypothesis than there is behind exercise

theories.

Also, I read it in _Muscle_Media_, which, while it does sometimes have crappy

dietary advice, is overall a good fitness magazine. Tsatsouline has two

columns in it, and I think he's a contributing editor.

Besides, I stated clearly that I was unsure of the soundness of the research,

so I didn't give anyone a false impression.

> >If you are asking me to agree that " vigorous " needs to be more precisely

> >defined, and that any solid time requirement is probably deceivingly rigid,

> I

> >agree.

>

> OK, so then you are retracting any implication that an hour a day of

> exercise is optimal?

No, I'm not. I'm leaving open the possibility that current research finds

benefits of exercise to extend to one hour a day given mainstream exercise

activities. I'm not making that as an assertion I intend to back up with

evidence,

but I'm stating that's what I read, and I don't think it's meaningless. On

the other hand, I'm agreeing with you that that is a simplistic statement and

that one can't possibly summarize a one-size-fits-all exercise regimen in one

sentence.

>

> >>

> >>>Personally, however, I can't work out with a kettlebell *less* than 45

> >>>minutes, because, limiting my resting periods to one minute between each

> >>set,

> >>>I

> >>>don't really feel like I've gotten a workout until I reach 40 minutes or

> >>so.

> >>

> >>Then, personally, I would suggest you could work out harder with them. For

> >>various reasons, I usually go for a longer workout with much more rest -

> >>usually more than 1 minute is required if you're practicing for the

> >>competitive lifts, for instance. But there are other concerns here than

> just

> >>optimal health benefits.

> >

> >But I'd said following that that I was just beginning with my kettlebell,

> and

> >was only doing some basic exercises. As I say below, I believe when I

> start

> >doing snatches my workout will be more intense and I won't need as long. I

> >wasn't disputing what Tsatsouline recommends, I was offering a personal

> >comment.

> >

>

> But, as usual, you have made (and are still making) broad claims about what

> is best for everyone.

I saved all that quoted text so you or anyone can read what I originally

wrote at the top to see this is clearly false. I introduced the sentence with

" Personally, " which clearly indicates I was making a *personal* statement about

my experience, and not making a recommendation to anyone else.

So, your anecdotal evidence (especially given the fact

> that it is very different than most people's kettlebell experience), really

> isn't applicable to that. And, as I mentioned, you should be able to

> generate just as much intensity with swings and snatches as you will with

> snatches.

I'm confident I'm doing the exercises correctly, and I find snatches with a

60-lb dumbell to be much harder than either cleans or one-armed swings. I can

only do 5-rep snatch sets, whereas I can do 15-rep clean sets, and even then

it is my grip that fails, not my arm or shoulder muscles. Furthermore,

Tsatsouline refers to the snatch in the DVD as harder than the swings and

cleans, and

says not to attempt them until one masters swings and cleans.

That's not to say they aren't strenuous. It's just that I don't exhaust

myself by 45 minutes. I understand that it's ideal *not* to reach exhaustion,

but

I tend to feel really pumped up after 35 or 40 minutes, and it's difficult

for me to just end there, since I have no exhaustion and want to keep going.

I realize I may have given the false impression that I don't consider the

exercise strenuous. The elevate my heart rate considerably, and cause a

considerable adrenaline rush. I apologize if I implied otherwise.

> Well, the 53 lb bell should be sufficient to generate a great workout

> unless

> you are SUPER strong. I still can't imagine that you can do sets like the

> above for 45 - 60 straight minutes, with only one minute breaks if you are a

> beginner.

Hmm. Well, I don't do my maximum reps every set. I follow Tsatsouline's

advice to intersperse the heavy sets with light sets, so I might do my limit

every other set. Also, when I do military presses, which I find very difficult,

I

wait 2-3 minutes between sets. The first time I attempted a military press I

couldn't even do one, but by the end of two weeks, with two press workouts

per week, I could do a three-rep set with my right arm and a one-rep set with my

left.

I don't consider myself " super " strong, but I do think I've done well for

having worked out for a year. This week I'm doing 195 on the bench press for a

set of 5, then 4, etc, through 1, I can deadlift 300, and squat 225. I can

squat more, but I've lowered my weight and switched to going as low as

physically

possible, without resting the bar. I curl with 50-lb dumbells, doing I think

about 8 reps, or 55 with less. Most people who are long-time gym rats can do

much more than this, but I consider it decent strength. I weigh just under

160.

I've really never heard anything like it! But, with a 53 lb

> kettlebell, I'd say that the 2 arm swing is probably best just for warmup,

> unless you do long sets. Then do the 1 arm. You're much bigger (and

> stronger) than me, and I'll do the 2 arm with my 88 lb kettlebell, but I

> don't even bother doing it with the 53.

I'll usually do a warm-up set with the two-armed, and then put another set in

the middle, and focus on the one-armed.

But I certainly find the 1 arm swing

> to about face level to be a VERY vigorous exercise.

I try to go as high as I can, which is well over my head but not vertical. I

do consider it vigorous exercise, but nowhere near as difficult as snatches

(which I haven't done with the kettlebell yet).

As far as 1 armed cleans

> - with the 53, I don't imagine that is very difficult. I really prefer 2

> kettlebell cleans - that is a very strenuous exercise, as is the 2

> kettlebell clean and jerk.

That sounds much more difficult. I don't find cleans to be much of a

workout, except that the twist is very tough on my hands and is a great grip

workout.

> The general recommendation on dragondoor is to get one kettlebell of each

> of

> the standard weights (35, 53, and 70 pounds) before getting a second of any

> of the weights. I'm not sure I'd agree. I find 2 kettlebell exercises to be

> indispensable (mostly jerks and cleans).

Interesting. I don't have the money right now, so I should have time to

experiment and to talk to some more people. I'll take that into account.

> Have you tried jerks yet? Not sure if the 53 would be too easy for you (I

> would not be able to do 1 armed jerks with the 53 for 45 minutes).

No I haven't. I've just given myself a warmup to the basics. I've done one

and two-armed swings, cleans, elbow raises, two-handed and one-handed military

press. Also did the under-the-leg once a week, which I find a fantastic

endurance exercise.

> Well, there are subleties like getting the proper hip snap, and being

> careful not to generate too much of the momentum with your arms in the

> ballistic exercises above, but if you're getting the swings up as high as

> you say, they should still be a very strenuous exercise.

I think I have the hip snap down. I thought the point was to progressively

lower your momentum assistance as you get stronger. The point of bringing the

bell under your legs before swinging it seems to be to gain some momentum, and

he says, to make it harder, start with dead weight.

> BTW - there really are 2 ways of working out with kettlbells. There is the

> style that Pavel talks about and recommends in his literature. but training

> for competitive lifts (not necessarily to compete, but to accomplish high

> numbers of repetitions on the jerk and snatch) is quite different. The

> technique is different, and the training is different (both of which Pavel

> readily admits). I choose to train this way, because ultimately it seems to

> me that I will be in better shape if I have the strength and endurance to

> accomplish very high numbers in these exercises. The 1 armed swing, btw, is

> an excellent exercise to help you ultimately with your snatch totals,

> especially if you develop painful or ripped callouses from doing snatches

> (which most people encounter at some point).

I'm training Pavel's way since I have the book and DVD and trust him, but I

suppose as I learn more I might vary the workout.

I develop callouses from the clean I think. I've had one bleed underneath

the skin, but not rip open.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 1:51:49 PM Eastern Standard Time, longc@...

writes:

> >>I'm going to go out on a limb and take one for the team here -- I've

> never

> >>been able to find a girlfriend interested in consistently having sex _six_

> >>days a week over time, let alone seven, and I seriously doubt I'm alone in

> >>this. <g>

> >>

> >>-

>

> You're not alone in this, . I've been married for 22 years and I'm

> interested almost daily but consider myself lucky with 3 times a week. Once

> or twice is more like it. I keep trying to tell her about research about

> men who have more sex have less prostate trouble but she doesn't seem to be

> convinced.

Unfortuantely, I have a pitiful rate of *pursuance* and hence never get

rejected. But, in my experience, it's more like six times a day than six times

a

week. Not over the long-haul, though, obviously.

I think there are several factors. One is age. I'm 22. Maybe that factors

in. Another is personality. I might be attracted to girls who like sex more

than other girls. Another might be the sex itself. Everyone likes something

different, and for people to really like the sex, the two partners need to

match in what they like. And for some reason, it seems that men consistently

tend towards a dislike for too much foreplay, whereas women not only like

foreplay but need it. I mean, an hour of kissing, some candel light, massage

oil,

and a skilled tongue might tend to increase the payoff over what you'd get for

five minutes of unzipping and unbuttoning.

I've never dated a girl who I judged to like sex more often or to less

magnitude then the average male.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 08:07:54 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Jack LaLanne

>

>

> Gene,

>

>> Oh, please...the way the language actually works, is when someone says they

>> " can't " exercise 2 hours a day, what it means for most reasonable people is

>> that given other concerns, etc, it is just not possible.

>

> " Given other concerns " essentially equates " not possible " with " I'd rather do

> other things. " The other concerns may be leisure or may be necessary

> activities, but if they are watching tv, relaxing, reading email, or any such

> leisure

> activities, clearly its a case of trading one leisure for another.

Perhaps in your elitist universe, no time for " other concerns " is possible.

In mine, and in many others, it is not. I have not problem with that use of

the language. Thanks. Exercise is a big priority in my life. I am totally

comfortable with saying that I CAN'T exercise 2 hours a day, and resent you

implying that this is false.

>

>> BTW, I have not come up with a way of reading on my rowing machine - can

>> you

>> suggest one?

>

> No, I can't. But if the issue is that reading requirements make exercise

> time-prohibitive, one could use an eliptical, tread mill, or bicycle machine.

>

The rowing machine comment was obviously a joke. But, again - perhaps I

might believe that a rowing machine provides a better workout? Or that my

experience is that reading is only possible (at least for me, if I exercise

at a VERY leisurely rate, which both increases the necessary time involved,

and (in my opinion) produces less benefit.

>>> I agree that the required time would depend on the exercise, and that any

>>> amount of kettlebell training would be vastly superior to double or triple

>> the

>>> same time as aerobics.

>>

>> So, you agree then, that obviously the general statement that an hour and a

>> half of exercise (or whatever exactly you said) is optimal, is false, or at

>> least so vague as to be meaningless?

>

> I think what I said was that *I* get about 1.5 hrs, and that I read that new

> research was indicating that 1 hour of vigorous activity was needed,

OK - that sounds familiar. You did say 1 hour. That still is ridiculously

vague, and does not account for various methods intensities of working out.

> but that

> I read it in a secondary source and don't know whether the evidence is sound.

Generally, I would regard the 'mainstream' advice about exercise to be about

as reliable as similar advice about diet. So, why repeat it?

> If you are asking me to agree that " vigorous " needs to be more precisely

> defined, and that any solid time requirement is probably deceivingly rigid, I

> agree.

>

OK, so then you are retracting any implication that an hour a day of

exercise is optimal?

>>

>>> Personally, however, I can't work out with a kettlebell *less* than 45

>>> minutes, because, limiting my resting periods to one minute between each

>> set,

>>> I

>>> don't really feel like I've gotten a workout until I reach 40 minutes or

>> so.

>>

>> Then, personally, I would suggest you could work out harder with them. For

>> various reasons, I usually go for a longer workout with much more rest -

>> usually more than 1 minute is required if you're practicing for the

>> competitive lifts, for instance. But there are other concerns here than just

>> optimal health benefits.

>

> But I'd said following that that I was just beginning with my kettlebell, and

> was only doing some basic exercises. As I say below, I believe when I start

> doing snatches my workout will be more intense and I won't need as long. I

> wasn't disputing what Tsatsouline recommends, I was offering a personal

> comment.

>

But, as usual, you have made (and are still making) broad claims about what

is best for everyone. So, your anecdotal evidence (especially given the fact

that it is very different than most people's kettlebell experience), really

isn't applicable to that. And, as I mentioned, you should be able to

generate just as much intensity with swings and snatches as you will with

snatches.

>> If indeed it is the case that you are such a specimen of fitness that you

>> simply cannot get a good workout with kettlebells in less than 45 minutes,

>> then you are more fit than virtually anyone on the Dragondoor list.

>

> Again, as I said, those times were with just basic kettlebell exercises like

> swings and cleans. And I said when I do presses my workout is shorter.

>

>> - if you can do swings and cleans for that long, then you either are

>> not doing them right, you're using a weight that's way too low for you, or

>> your sets are way too short. But, hell, you won't listen to me will you? I

>> doubt it.

>

> Sure I'll listen to you, if you want to give me advice, since you've been

> using the kettlebells much longer than I have. I'm using the 53-lb bell,

> doing

> sets of 25 for two-arm swings, and I think either 15 or 20 for one armed

> swings. I can get the two-armed overhead easily, but the one-armed tends to

> go

> about 30 degrees below vertical (I have to build up to that over a few

> swings). I

> do sets of 15 with cleans.

>

Well, the 53 lb bell should be sufficient to generate a great workout unless

you are SUPER strong. I still can't imagine that you can do sets like the

above for 45 - 60 straight minutes, with only one minute breaks if you are a

beginner. I've really never heard anything like it! But, with a 53 lb

kettlebell, I'd say that the 2 arm swing is probably best just for warmup,

unless you do long sets. Then do the 1 arm. You're much bigger (and

stronger) than me, and I'll do the 2 arm with my 88 lb kettlebell, but I

don't even bother doing it with the 53. But I certainly find the 1 arm swing

to about face level to be a VERY vigorous exercise. As far as 1 armed cleans

- with the 53, I don't imagine that is very difficult. I really prefer 2

kettlebell cleans - that is a very strenuous exercise, as is the 2

kettlebell clean and jerk.

The general recommendation on dragondoor is to get one kettlebell of each of

the standard weights (35, 53, and 70 pounds) before getting a second of any

of the weights. I'm not sure I'd agree. I find 2 kettlebell exercises to be

indispensable (mostly jerks and cleans).

Have you tried jerks yet? Not sure if the 53 would be too easy for you (I

would not be able to do 1 armed jerks with the 53 for 45 minutes).

> However, I only used it for two weeks, then went back to the gym for a cycle,

> then I'm going back to kettlebell for probably one month. It takes a while

> to kind of " figure out " how to tailor one's program, and also to get used to

> the exercises.

>

> I think I'm doing them correctly, since I've read the book and watched the

> DVD numerous times very closely.

>

Well, there are subleties like getting the proper hip snap, and being

careful not to generate too much of the momentum with your arms in the

ballistic exercises above, but if you're getting the swings up as high as

you say, they should still be a very strenuous exercise.

>> If you really want a vigorous workout, use 2 kettlebells for the cleans.

>> The

>> 2 kettlebell clean is more strenuous than the snatch. In fact, if you

>> consider the competitive snatch, then the swing is more strenuous than the

>> snatch, where the idea is to relax as much as possible (though I certainly

>> wouldn't describe them as anything other than strenuous themselves). But

>> it's really difficult to do swings slowly.

>

> I only have one kettlebell, but I'll keep that in mind for when I have more

> money.

>

> Thanks.

>

> Chris

>

BTW - there really are 2 ways of working out with kettlbells. There is the

style that Pavel talks about and recommends in his literature. but training

for competitive lifts (not necessarily to compete, but to accomplish high

numbers of repetitions on the jerk and snatch) is quite different. The

technique is different, and the training is different (both of which Pavel

readily admits). I choose to train this way, because ultimately it seems to

me that I will be in better shape if I have the strength and endurance to

accomplish very high numbers in these exercises. The 1 armed swing, btw, is

an excellent exercise to help you ultimately with your snatch totals,

especially if you develop painful or ripped callouses from doing snatches

(which most people encounter at some point).

[Guest guest]

Chris-

>Maybe a wife, but, a girlfriend? I don't think an hour a day is

>unreasonable.

I'm going to go out on a limb and take one for the team here -- I've never

been able to find a girlfriend interested in consistently having sex _six_

days a week over time, let alone seven, and I seriously doubt I'm alone in

this. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

>I'm going to go out on a limb and take one for the team here -- I've never

>been able to find a girlfriend interested in consistently having sex _six_

>days a week over time, let alone seven, and I seriously doubt I'm alone in

>this. <g>

>

>-

Hmmmm ... one might consider a couple of factors here:

1. Does SHE have an hour a day to exercise? (women still do 70% of the housework

overall ... )

2. How much are her wants etc. taken into account here?

I don't want to get into too many details lest I get stuck in SPAM here

but I talk to the girls and their take is soooo different. A lot of them

would love 6 days a week on their terms ...

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

> >I'm going to go out on a limb and take one for the team here -- I've never

> >been able to find a girlfriend interested in consistently having sex _six_

> >days a week over time, let alone seven, and I seriously doubt I'm alone in

> >this. <g>

> >

> >-

You're not alone in this, . I've been married for 22 years and I'm

interested almost daily but consider myself lucky with 3 times a week. Once

or twice is more like it. I keep trying to tell her about research about

men who have more sex have less prostate trouble but she doesn't seem to be

convinced.

[Guest guest]

Heidi-

>1. Does SHE have an hour a day to exercise? (women still do 70% of the

>housework

> overall ... )

Hah! Not in this apartment!

>I don't want to get into too many details lest I get stuck in SPAM here

>but I talk to the girls and their take is soooo different. A lot of them

>would love 6 days a week on their terms ...

And why are their terms (whatever exactly those are) superior to or more

desirable than men's terms? What ever happened to equal compromise?

-

[Guest guest]

,

Come into the real world, please! ;-)

Men and women are two totally different species. The fact that they can join

and produce offspring is one of the greatest wonders of the world.

Just one example. Men are turned on by what they see. Women are turned on by

how they are treated.

So her terms may well be vastly different than his.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

Re: Jack LaLanne

Heidi-

>1. Does SHE have an hour a day to exercise? (women still do 70% of the

>housework

> overall ... )

Hah! Not in this apartment!

>I don't want to get into too many details lest I get stuck in SPAM here

>but I talk to the girls and their take is soooo different. A lot of them

>would love 6 days a week on their terms ...

And why are their terms (whatever exactly those are) superior to or more

desirable than men's terms? What ever happened to equal compromise?

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 8:49:22 PM Eastern Standard Time,

christiekeith@... writes:

> The comedienne came out on the stage and said, " My favorite sexual act is

> 68. That's where he does me and I owe him one. " Indeed.

LOL! One of my favorites too ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> I keep trying to tell her about research about

> men who have more sex have less prostate trouble but she doesn't seem to be

> convinced.

Don't worry , you're in luck. Masturbation has the same beneficial

effect. Statistically, in fact, it is better, because there is no risk of STDs.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/5/04 11:09:52 PM Eastern Standard Time,

implode7@... writes:

> >I'm confident I'm doing the exercises correctly, and I find snatches with

> a

> >60-lb dumbell to be much harder than either cleans or one-armed swings.

>

> Well, then, what is there to say?! LOL!

>

> Well, I'm out of this discussion. It's pointless. You'll win again, since I

> will not reply (unless you say something even sillier).

I don't know what there would be to say at all, unless you could watch me

perform the exercises. I've watched the DVD very closely and read the book, and

pay very close attention to my form. I don't see how I could possibly be

doing it wrong; thus, I'm confident.

If I *am* doing it wrong, I obviously want to know. And I'd appreciate a

correction from anyone more knowledgeable than me, such as yourself. However,

since you can't see me doing them, I can't say anything except how I perceive my

performance.

Moreover, you yourself said that you didn't think cleans with a 53-lb

kettlebell were difficult, and Pavel himself says that snatches are much harder

and

shouldn't be attempted until one has mastered the preceding excercises. So I'm

not sure why when I say the same it's unreasonable.

I appreciate your transient friendliness and I'm sorry my tone appears

combative to you. I'm not trying to " win " everything, but since this happens

every

time we talk, I suppose any hope for communication with us is essentially

doomed to failure.

As to multi-tasking, I suppose you'll tell me next that most people can't

eat, watch tv, and study at the same time. :-P

Chris

[Guest guest]

>> I don't want to get into too many details lest I get stuck in SPAM here

but I talk to the girls and their take is soooo different. A lot of them

would love 6 days a week on their terms ... <<

I'm a lesbian, and I can tell you that I did laugh to myself when said he

didn't think an hour a day for sex was an unreasonable expectation of a

girlfriend. I think that young people of both sexes, or people of both sexes in

a newer relationship, and quite a few men of all ages and sexual orientations,

do want to have sex as often as every day, or even more than once a day, but

it's not what I'd call the norm.

Sexual desire and activity ebbs and flows at different times of our lives, and

this is perfectly natural and healthy. There is no schedule or amount or

frequency that's ideal for all people. It's nice when both partners have similar

patterns, but when one wants it and the other doesn't, it's time for

communication and compromise.

But Heidi's point above is one I agree with totally - and it reminds me of a

comedy routine I saw once in San Francisco. The comedienne came out on the stage

and said, " My favorite sexual act is 68. That's where he does me and I owe him

one. " Indeed.

Christie

[Guest guest]

Just get a hold of the study and make sure there is a certified PH.D

at the bottom

Seein that PH.D usually sucks people in ehehe

_____

From: Long [mailto:longc@...]

Sent: Friday, 6 February 2004 3:41 AM

Subject: Re: Jack LaLanne

> >I'm going to go out on a limb and take one for the team here -- I've

never

> >been able to find a girlfriend interested in consistently having sex

_six_

> >days a week over time, let alone seven, and I seriously doubt I'm alone

in

> >this. <g>

> >

> >-

You're not alone in this, . I've been married for 22 years and I'm

interested almost daily but consider myself lucky with 3 times a week. Once

or twice is more like it. I keep trying to tell her about research about

men who have more sex have less prostate trouble but she doesn't seem to be

convinced.

[Guest guest]

If women get turned on by how they are treated and arte not visual

Why then do I speak to many girls, seemingly have them smiling, playing with

ears and hair but when I ask em out they say no?

( im not what ya would call a HOT guy ect ect )

I think at a time maybe but today's society is so hung up on looks its

effected womens thinking

_____

From: Judith Alta [mailto:jaltak@...]

Sent: Friday, 6 February 2004 7:30 AM

Subject: RE: Jack LaLanne

,

Come into the real world, please! ;-)

Men and women are two totally different species. The fact that they can join

and produce offspring is one of the greatest wonders of the world.

Just one example. Men are turned on by what they see. Women are turned on by

how they are treated.

So her terms may well be vastly different than his.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

Re: Jack LaLanne

Heidi-

>1. Does SHE have an hour a day to exercise? (women still do 70% of the

>housework

> overall ... )

Hah! Not in this apartment!

>I don't want to get into too many details lest I get stuck in SPAM here

>but I talk to the girls and their take is soooo different. A lot of them

>would love 6 days a week on their terms ...

And why are their terms (whatever exactly those are) superior to or more

desirable than men's terms? What ever happened to equal compromise?

-

[Guest guest]

At 04:53 PM 2/5/2004, you wrote:

>Just get a hold of the study and make sure there is a certified PH.D

>at the bottom

>Seein that PH.D usually sucks people in ehehe

, I showed her one from an M.D. and she wasn't fazed a bit. Maybe if

I can find a study done by a female doctor, she'll believe it.

[Guest guest]

Mercola advertises them on his site.

From: Idol <Idol@...>

Reply-

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 2004 11:23:05 -0500

Subject: Re: Jack LaLanne

Chris-

>Maybe a wife, but, a girlfriend? I don't think an hour a day is

>unreasonable.

I'm going to go out on a limb and take one for the team here -- I've never

been able to find a girlfriend interested in consistently having sex _six_

days a week over time, let alone seven, and I seriously doubt I'm alone in

this. <g>

-

[Guest guest]

>

>

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

> Reply-

> Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 13:50:00 EST

>

> Subject: Re: Jack LaLanne

>

>

> In a message dated 2/5/04 10:03:44 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> implode7@... writes:

>

>> Perhaps in your elitist universe, no time for " other concerns " is possible.

>> In mine, and in many others, it is not. I have not problem with that use of

>> the language. Thanks. Exercise is a big priority in my life. I am totally

>> comfortable with saying that I CAN'T exercise 2 hours a day, and resent you

>> implying that this is false.

>

> I'm not saying it's false, because I don't know what your " other concerns "

> are. You may well have numerous requirements that could reasonably be

> considered necessities, like work, a long drive to work, child rearing, etc.

> If your

> reading is for graduate studies, I think it would be reasonable to consider it

> a necessity, but if it's leisure reading, it's a leisure activity comparable

> to exercise.

>

But you miss the point. I'm not arguing that it would be possible for many

people to exercise 2 hours a day if they dropped anything remotely

resembling a leisure activity. What I'm saying is that, in terms of general

usage of the English language, that it is generally acceptable to say that

you can't do something when you view your life and consider that there are

other concerns (leisure or not) that have some importance. I simply don't

understand why you want to challenge that point, and people who say,

correctly, that given their life situation, which encompasses all of these

things, that they cannot exercise 2 hours a day. What possible point are

your making by challenging this? Do you think that there is anyone who

doesn't understand, logically, what you are saying, i.e. that if they were

to give up everything that you suggest that they could exercise this much?

....

>

>>> No, I can't. But if the issue is that reading requirements make exercise

>>> time-prohibitive, one could use an eliptical, tread mill, or bicycle

>> machine.

>>

>>

>> The rowing machine comment was obviously a joke. But, again - perhaps I

>> might believe that a rowing machine provides a better workout?

>

> You might, in which case you'd have to make a decision to prioritize the

> relative cost/benefit of rowing versus eliptical with reading.

Oh, you're just being silly.

> But we were

> speaking of the choice between reading and no exercise versus reading while

> exercising, so it doesn't seem relevant. You already find the time for an

> hour

> exercise a day, which is fantastic, but someone who doesn't find that time

> might

> want to consider multi-tasking if they can to consolidate their time

> requirement.

>

We were talking about exercising a huge amount of time, which obviously is a

concern for someone who places a correspondingly huge priority on exercise.

So, therefore, what sense would it make, if they believe that the

type/intensity of exercise is important, to sacrifice this so that they can

read while exercising? I don't get it.

> Or that my > experience is that reading is only possible (at least for me,

>> if I exercise

>> at a VERY leisurely rate, which both increases the necessary time involved,

>> and (in my opinion) produces less benefit.

>

> I suppose everyone has different multi-tasking abilities. I don't have any

> problem maintaining my heart rate around 160-170 while reading, so I made the

> egocentric assumption that anyone else could.

And you also make the assumption that everyone can think as clearly and

logically as you can. You have to understand that it is rare to encounter

people who have such incredible physical and mental skills.

> Still, since we are discussing

> the possibility that someone doesn't have time to exercise, reading while

> exercising leisurely is clearly a benefit over reading with no exercise at

> all.

But, this is not what we were talking about.

> Moreover, I'd suspect that regular exercise would increase mental clarity

> enough

> to make significant improvements in reading speed and comprehension for a

> sedentary person.

>

I doubt that very much. I would bet you $ that any scientific studies that

have ever been done on this would show improvements that we would not

consider significant - i.e. in this situation making the difference between

whether one could read while exercising vs not. Do you mean to imply that

you weren't this brilliant before you started exercising?

>>> I think what I said was that *I* get about 1.5 hrs, and that I read that

>> new

>>> research was indicating that 1 hour of vigorous activity was needed,

>>

>> OK - that sounds familiar. You did say 1 hour. That still is ridiculously

>> vague, and does not account for various methods intensities of working out.

>

> That's true, but I said I read it in a secondary article and I didn't know

> anything about the research that went into it. The article cited a massive

> report that presumably uses more precise terminology.

>

> But I don't think you can fault them for not using kettlebells.

And when (good lord) have I done this?

>Kettlebells

> aren't for everyone-- I think they'd benefit most people, but I don't think

> most people would use them. When I do dumbell snatches at the gym, I get a

> lot

> of people looking me and hear things like " Wow, that kid's got balls, " etc.

> Kettlebells are not only strenuous, but are considerably more dangerous than

> your average aerobics machine, and I think it would be easier to get the

> average

> person to exercise an hour with regular exercises than a half hour with a

> kettlebell.

>

I'd argue that while they are more dangerous than, say, a bicycle machine,

they are less dangerous than running. The only times I have injured myself

with kettlebells is when I have exceeded my limits.

>> Generally, I would regard the 'mainstream' advice about exercise to be

>> about

>> as reliable as similar advice about diet. So, why repeat it?

>

> Because I don't agree with you. There are certain " mainstream " theories that

> I believe to be bogus, but you can pinpoint the specific logical flaws,

> logical leaps, and sometimes intentional distortions. There are also much

> stronger

> financial interests behind the lipid hypothesis than there is behind exercise

> theories.

>

That is probably true, about the financial interests. However, I read so

many different mainstream news stories about optimal exercise, and none of

them seem to take into account any of the wide varieties of exercises and

intensities. The comparison always seems to be between, say, ANY exercise at

all (mostly low effort aerobics) vs being totally sedentary. And the results

always seem mapped to a specific area, e.g. heart attacks. Note, however,

that I simply commented about how I regard these mainstream reports. I don't

trust them. Your mileage may vary.

> Also, I read it in _Muscle_Media_, which, while it does sometimes have crappy

> dietary advice, is overall a good fitness magazine. Tsatsouline has two

> columns in it, and I think he's a contributing editor.

>

Not sure whether Pavel contributing to that magazine would have anything at

all to do with research that he would probably disagree with strenuously

(though, probably he can read while arguing).

> Besides, I stated clearly that I was unsure of the soundness of the research,

> so I didn't give anyone a false impression.

>

>>> If you are asking me to agree that " vigorous " needs to be more precisely

>>> defined, and that any solid time requirement is probably deceivingly rigid,

>> I

>>> agree.

>>

>> OK, so then you are retracting any implication that an hour a day of

>> exercise is optimal?

>

> No, I'm not. I'm leaving open the possibility that current research finds

> benefits of exercise to extend to one hour a day given mainstream exercise

> activities.

Ok - so you are then retracting your much more general statement then.

> I'm not making that as an assertion I intend to back up with

> evidence,

> but I'm stating that's what I read, and I don't think it's meaningless. On

> the other hand, I'm agreeing with you that that is a simplistic statement and

> that one can't possibly summarize a one-size-fits-all exercise regimen in one

> sentence.

>

Well, how's that for a self-contradictory paragraph!

>>

>>>>

>>>>> Personally, however, I can't work out with a kettlebell *less* than 45

>>>>> minutes, because, limiting my resting periods to one minute between each

>>>> set,

>>>>> I

>>>>> don't really feel like I've gotten a workout until I reach 40 minutes or

>>>> so.

>>>>

>>>> Then, personally, I would suggest you could work out harder with them. For

>>>> various reasons, I usually go for a longer workout with much more rest -

>>>> usually more than 1 minute is required if you're practicing for the

>>>> competitive lifts, for instance. But there are other concerns here than

>> just

>>>> optimal health benefits.

>>>

>>> But I'd said following that that I was just beginning with my kettlebell,

>> and

>>> was only doing some basic exercises. As I say below, I believe when I

>> start

>>> doing snatches my workout will be more intense and I won't need as long. I

>>> wasn't disputing what Tsatsouline recommends, I was offering a personal

>>> comment.

>>>

>>

>> But, as usual, you have made (and are still making) broad claims about what

>> is best for everyone.

>

> I saved all that quoted text so you or anyone can read what I originally

> wrote at the top to see this is clearly false. I introduced the sentence with

> " Personally, " which clearly indicates I was making a *personal* statement

> about

> my experience, and not making a recommendation to anyone else.

>

>

nice trick, but that wasn't what I was referring to.

> So, your anecdotal evidence (especially given the fact

>> that it is very different than most people's kettlebell experience), really

>> isn't applicable to that. And, as I mentioned, you should be able to

>> generate just as much intensity with swings and snatches as you will with

>> snatches.

>

> I'm confident I'm doing the exercises correctly, and I find snatches with a

> 60-lb dumbell to be much harder than either cleans or one-armed swings.

Well, then, what is there to say?! LOL!

Well, I'm out of this discussion. It's pointless. You'll win again, since I

will not reply (unless you say something even sillier).

> I can

> only do 5-rep snatch sets, whereas I can do 15-rep clean sets, and even then

> it is my grip that fails, not my arm or shoulder muscles. Furthermore,

> Tsatsouline refers to the snatch in the DVD as harder than the swings and

> cleans, and

> says not to attempt them until one masters swings and cleans.

>

> That's not to say they aren't strenuous. It's just that I don't exhaust

> myself by 45 minutes. I understand that it's ideal *not* to reach exhaustion,

> but

> I tend to feel really pumped up after 35 or 40 minutes, and it's difficult

> for me to just end there, since I have no exhaustion and want to keep going.

>

> I realize I may have given the false impression that I don't consider the

> exercise strenuous. The elevate my heart rate considerably, and cause a

> considerable adrenaline rush. I apologize if I implied otherwise.

>

>> Well, the 53 lb bell should be sufficient to generate a great workout

>> unless

>> you are SUPER strong. I still can't imagine that you can do sets like the

>> above for 45 - 60 straight minutes, with only one minute breaks if you are a

>> beginner.

>

> Hmm. Well, I don't do my maximum reps every set. I follow Tsatsouline's

> advice to intersperse the heavy sets with light sets, so I might do my limit

> every other set. Also, when I do military presses, which I find very

> difficult, I

> wait 2-3 minutes between sets. The first time I attempted a military press I

> couldn't even do one, but by the end of two weeks, with two press workouts

> per week, I could do a three-rep set with my right arm and a one-rep set with

> my

> left.

>

> I don't consider myself " super " strong, but I do think I've done well for

> having worked out for a year. This week I'm doing 195 on the bench press for

> a

> set of 5, then 4, etc, through 1, I can deadlift 300, and squat 225. I can

> squat more, but I've lowered my weight and switched to going as low as

> physically

> possible, without resting the bar. I curl with 50-lb dumbells, doing I think

> about 8 reps, or 55 with less. Most people who are long-time gym rats can do

> much more than this, but I consider it decent strength. I weigh just under

> 160.

>

> I've really never heard anything like it! But, with a 53 lb

>> kettlebell, I'd say that the 2 arm swing is probably best just for warmup,

>> unless you do long sets. Then do the 1 arm. You're much bigger (and

>> stronger) than me, and I'll do the 2 arm with my 88 lb kettlebell, but I

>> don't even bother doing it with the 53.

>

> I'll usually do a warm-up set with the two-armed, and then put another set in

> the middle, and focus on the one-armed.

>

> But I certainly find the 1 arm swing

>> to about face level to be a VERY vigorous exercise.

>

> I try to go as high as I can, which is well over my head but not vertical. I

> do consider it vigorous exercise, but nowhere near as difficult as snatches

> (which I haven't done with the kettlebell yet).

>

> As far as 1 armed cleans

>> - with the 53, I don't imagine that is very difficult. I really prefer 2

>> kettlebell cleans - that is a very strenuous exercise, as is the 2

>> kettlebell clean and jerk.

>

> That sounds much more difficult. I don't find cleans to be much of a

> workout, except that the twist is very tough on my hands and is a great grip

> workout.

>

>> The general recommendation on dragondoor is to get one kettlebell of each

>> of

>> the standard weights (35, 53, and 70 pounds) before getting a second of any

>> of the weights. I'm not sure I'd agree. I find 2 kettlebell exercises to be

>> indispensable (mostly jerks and cleans).

>

> Interesting. I don't have the money right now, so I should have time to

> experiment and to talk to some more people. I'll take that into account.

>

>> Have you tried jerks yet? Not sure if the 53 would be too easy for you (I

>> would not be able to do 1 armed jerks with the 53 for 45 minutes).

>

> No I haven't. I've just given myself a warmup to the basics. I've done one

> and two-armed swings, cleans, elbow raises, two-handed and one-handed military

> press. Also did the under-the-leg once a week, which I find a fantastic

> endurance exercise.

>

>> Well, there are subleties like getting the proper hip snap, and being

>> careful not to generate too much of the momentum with your arms in the

>> ballistic exercises above, but if you're getting the swings up as high as

>> you say, they should still be a very strenuous exercise.

>

> I think I have the hip snap down. I thought the point was to progressively

> lower your momentum assistance as you get stronger. The point of bringing the

> bell under your legs before swinging it seems to be to gain some momentum, and

> he says, to make it harder, start with dead weight.

>

>> BTW - there really are 2 ways of working out with kettlbells. There is the

>> style that Pavel talks about and recommends in his literature. but training

>> for competitive lifts (not necessarily to compete, but to accomplish high

>> numbers of repetitions on the jerk and snatch) is quite different. The

>> technique is different, and the training is different (both of which Pavel

>> readily admits). I choose to train this way, because ultimately it seems to

>> me that I will be in better shape if I have the strength and endurance to

>> accomplish very high numbers in these exercises. The 1 armed swing, btw, is

>> an excellent exercise to help you ultimately with your snatch totals,

>> especially if you develop painful or ripped callouses from doing snatches

>> (which most people encounter at some point).

>

> I'm training Pavel's way since I have the book and DVD and trust him, but I

> suppose as I learn more I might vary the workout.

>

> I develop callouses from the clean I think. I've had one bleed underneath

> the skin, but not rip open.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

How can you make such incredible generalities about people. Obviously there

are differences if you compared the 'average' man with the 'average' woman,

but there are clearly points of intersection - too many to state things as

categorically as you do.

From: " Judith Alta " <jaltak@...>

Reply-

Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 16:29:58 -0500

< >

Subject: RE: Jack LaLanne

,

Come into the real world, please! ;-)

Men and women are two totally different species. The fact that they can join

and produce offspring is one of the greatest wonders of the world.

Just one example. Men are turned on by what they see. Women are turned on by

how they are treated.

So her terms may well be vastly different than his.

Enjoy! ;-)

Judith Alta

Re: Jack LaLanne

Heidi-

>1. Does SHE have an hour a day to exercise? (women still do 70% of the

>housework

> overall ... )

Hah! Not in this apartment!

>I don't want to get into too many details lest I get stuck in SPAM here

>but I talk to the girls and their take is soooo different. A lot of them

>would love 6 days a week on their terms ...

And why are their terms (whatever exactly those are) superior to or more

desirable than men's terms? What ever happened to equal compromise?

-

[Guest guest]

LOL

Nanette

> Re: Jack LaLanne

>

>

> wrote:

>

> > I keep trying to tell her about research about

> > men who have more sex have less prostate trouble but she

> doesn't seem to be

> > convinced.

>

> Don't worry , you're in luck. Masturbation has the same

> beneficial

> effect. Statistically, in fact, it is better, because there is

> no risk of STDs.

>

> Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>Mercola advertises them on his site.

What, girlfriends interested in daily sex? <g>

-