[Tim Neal]

Another good one from Steve Maxwell:

http://maxwellsc.blo...o-aerobics.html

[RiverCity Physical Culture]

i questioned Steve on Dr. Koop. Let's see if answers.

Otherwise he is absolutely right about everything else. EVERYTHING. Some of his points are based on information that you could 'spin' for either camp, and he is in the business of promoting strength and HIIT, that's true.

But good on him. These tools are better answers for almost anyone. I have spent a few years in commercial gyms watching people piss away their lives, money, time and health. The most 'successful' ones end up with some form of "anorexia athletica" on a road to nowhere (treadmill) or as bodybuilders. That's what they have to look forward to.

There's a revolution coming brother! It will not be televised, but it may be youtubed and or blogged.



""This post is a very good reason why no one should get their information from blogs.""
Anyone who gets all their info from anywhere is a jack ass. Every source of information has a bias. That's why a scientist looks for a preponderance of evidence, a juror the absence of doubt. That's why we have a lot more theories than laws. Show me someone with no skepticism, and I will show you... well whatever you want. That poor chump is a chump.

My college courses on exercise provide more biased, inaccurate or inapplicable information with more political or economic motivations behind them than what 'charlatans' and 'snake oil merchants' like Pavel Tsatsouline or Steve Maxwell or Steve Cotter or Ross Emanait, the Gracies, Greg Glassman or Rhadi Ferguson or whoever you wanna come down on now for trying to feed their kids by doing what they love.

In summation; be critical and skeptical of blogs. It's your duty. It's the price you pay for living in a free and liberal society. But don't ignore sources either. They are the launch pad.

Curious why this doesn't agree with what you've been told all your life? Look up some research, read another book. Don't dismiss someone like Steve Maxwell, who's had the clinical success he's had; it's been measured and it's repeatable. It's empirical evidence. When a man like this says "don't do aerobics, it won't lead you to the fat loss that you are looking for the way X will" the burden of proof in my eyes falls on the challenger, the internet ninja, that's never trained anyone in their life, and never gotten anyone the kind of results that men like Steve and the others I mentioned have.

This post has been edited by RiverCity Physical Culture: 09 March 2008 - 02:48 PM

[kevsooner]

When some one is writing an article or sales pitch it's common to use extremes. With aerobic or edurnance training there are strong paradigms The author is trying over come.

Sure aerobic exercise has it's place and benefits but when compared to anerobic training or high intensity efforts.
aerobic based training produces a limited type of fitness that producess minimal improvement in strength, power, strength endurance, speed endurance and speed

" 2) Fast twitch to slow twitch conversion happens anyway over time.
There's a reason you don't see 60 year old world class sprinters."

As we age there is atrophy in type II fibers but this is more common in individulas that are physically inacttive (or those that perform alot of aerobic activity)

Fiber distribution is strongly determined by genetic factors, it it also belived these differences are also strongly influenced by the type , intensity and duration of training, as well as the pre-training status of the individual.

so just because biological aging makes it harder to maintain fast twitch fibers doesn't mean we have to help the process.

" training to be an athlete is altogether different than exercising for health and fitness."

How and why should the two be so different? Is not the goal of health and fitness to develope optimal levels of strength, lean body mass, and specific fitness qualtiies??? Every client Iv'e worked with that was just an average joe wants to get in shape. They all wanted to look better they all want their bodies to perform better. Sounds alot like my athletes!!

Have you ever heard an average joe say they want a training program with the goal being to lose strength, increase body fat, and move slower??? I've never heard an athlete request that program either..

It appears you are also guilty of making "sweeping generalizations"

[rberry13]

tmarkoski, on Mar 9 2008, 03:48 PM, said:

What Mr. Maxwell and his ilk don't understand is that making wide sweeping generalizations is bad science.
Oh, that's right. Mr. Maxwell isn't a scientist.
He's a salesman.

Aerobic exercise promotes general health.
To claim that it does not is simply irresponsible.

That he can make the claim that it promotes depression with a straight face takes real chutzpah.
All the scientific evidence shows that aerobic exercise clearly reduces the effects of depression.

Oh, that's right. Mr. Maxwell isn't a scientist.
He's a salesman.

Training to be an athlete is altogether different than exercising for health and fitness.
Making sweeping generalizations as he does is designed to do nothing more than generate publicity for the product he sells.
Dr. Kenneth Cooper is still promoting aerobic activity for healthy living.

The burden of proof falls to those who are making the grandiose claims.
The one making them is Mr. Maxwell.

I'll take the Mayo Clinic over Steve Maxwell any day.
http://www.mayoclini...xercise/EP00002

Well said, tmarkoski, well said. Especially the part about training athletes being different than exercising for general health and fitness.

Many of us in the martial arts tend to forget that our activity patterns are not the norm, that more than 50% of the US population does not meet the physical activity guidelines. http://www.cdc.gov/n...onals/index.htm

Also, the relationship of health benefits to physical activity is curvilinear, the greatest gains are to be had by going from one of the lowest level of physical activity groups to the next highest. http://books.google.......hl=en#PPA105,M1

I strongly suspect those who are arguing most vigorously against the proven benefits of aerobic exercise have their own agenda they are trying to push.

This post has been edited by rberry13: 09 March 2008 - 08:54 PM

[kevsooner]

Yes. The agenda is clearing up poor training advice.

[Geoff Langdale]

Some of the claims are a bit out-there, and should at least have sources.

But it's true that aerobic exercise has been grossly oversold and the pendulum has swung very far in the direction of 'running/cycling for 2 hours is a normal, everyday sport' versus 'running for 10 seconds - 1 minute'/'throwing an heavy implement'/'picking something up'/'jumping' is a freakish endeavour that should only be practiced by children, professionals, or weirdos.

That doesn't mean that those repairing the balance should indulge in the practice of making wild claims without backup. Remember all that stuff about weight training making you slow, inflexible, have high blood pressure, bleed out through every orifice? Well, ok, I made the last one up - but I remember hearing all of the others - fortunately a lot less these days.

[jacket wrestler]

Talking about the masses and health cardio vascular exercise has got to be the most important of the two ie strength or cv.
all heart patients who have had a procedure are given progessive aerobic exercise and the benefits are well proven now scientifically.

strength training has many simular benefits but is not suited to the masses as there are way to many contra indications that make it impposible and dangerous for many. but not with aerobics most people can do it in some shape or form without danger and become healthier
if you are able a healthy 50-50 mix of the two would be ideal

[kevsooner]

strength training ( even max loading) has been used in rehab for heart patients. several studies have shown a link between strength levels and mortality rates ( stronger lives longer)

Strength may not be "suited" for the masses because people continue to shovel out incorrect information. You don't believe there any negative draw backs to focusing on aerobics or endurance training??

Let's say an elder male has problems with getting up out of bed, his chair, the toilet, and falls one day breaking his hip. What do you think would have helped him more??? walking around the park or engaging in some form of strength training that would have improved his strength levels which in turn would helped his balance and bone density further helping with his recovery.

How are you so certain on which modality is the" most important." Take a trip to your local PT set in his office for a couple of hours and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts more of his clients are aerobic/endurance (ex joggers) than strength nutts.

Don't get me started on the claim how aerobics creates a superior benefit in regards to cardiovascular health. Ask Jimmy Fixx about that theory. Don't tell me it strengthens your core and running builds up all the leg strength you need!!!!

Any form of exercise can be dangrous if you not understand what you are doing. If you simply read an article ever now and then on the web or maybe even the newspaper heck maybe your best source of information is your monthly fitness magazine it's safe to say you don't have a clue about what's safe or what's the most important.

Why does it have be 50/50? why not 60/40 70/30 80/20 ??????

[Tim Neal]

tmarkoski, on Mar 9 2008, 10:22 PM, said:

This post is a very good reason why no one should get their information from blogs.

There is so much of this that is just plain wrong.

1) The idea that aerobic exercise is bad is just foolish.

2) Fast twitch to slow twitch conversion happens anyway over time.
There's a reason you don't see 60 year old world class sprinters.

3) People not losing weight or even gaining weight can't be blamed on the type of exercise
if changes in diet aren't made.

4) Metabolism slows with age.

His whole position is based on the erroneous assumption that you can't possibly do both weight training and aerobic exercise, which, yet again, is pure nonsense.
Starting one's weight training after one's heart rate has already been elevated by aerobic activity is a good thing.

Mr. Maxwell has an agenda.

Dr. Kenneth Cooper is still in the business of aerobics.
Obviously he isn't at all bothered by still taking peoples money at his aerobic centers.
http://www.cooperaer...Facilities.aspx

1) Steady state cardio doesn't elevate EPOC all that much, which is one of the main factors in fat loss. Sure, one hour of steady state cardio will probably burn more calories than one hour of resistance training, but it's the calories you burn in the other 23 hours outside of the gym that really matter.

Essentially, once you're done doing steady state cardio, you're done burning calories. However, with resistance training and/or with high intensity interval training (HIIT), your body's metabolism will be elevated for upwards of 24 to 48 hours. Thus, you'll burn a ton more calories.

2) Speaking of metabolism, yours is in direct correlation with how much LBM (lean body mass) you have. The more LBM you have, the higher your metabolism. Given that long duration, steady state cardio actually eats away muscle; you're shooting yourself in the foot in that regard.

3) The "fat burning zone" doesn't exist. It's true that your body will burn a greater percentage of fat at lower intensities; however, the total calories being burned is so small that it doesn't even really matter. Again, it all comes down to EPOC.

4) As Alwyn Cosgrove has pointed out on numerous occasions, your body adapts very well to cardiovascular exercise (in this case, steady state cardio). This is a bad thing. As you get more efficient at running a certain distance, the work required to complete that distance will become less and less as you get fitter

To improve, you have to go further in order to burn the same amount of calories. What once took you 30 minutes to burn "X" amount of calories, now takes you 45 minutes. Doesn't sound too efficient in my book.

5) A great analogy I like to use is comparing a marathon runner to a sprinter. Marathon runners do a ton of long distance, steady state work, and yet still average anywhere from 11 to 14% body fat (still somewhat lean, but not very muscular at all. Many of them still have the "skinny-fat" look).

On the other hand, sprinters do anywhere from 10 to 120 seconds of "work" and yet average 6 to 8% body fat. Just goes to show that short, intense bursts of energy (anaerobic work) is generally far superior to longer, less intense bursts of energy (aerobic) when taking body composition into consideration.

6) I agree on your diet point.The majority of your fat loss should come via diet, not copious amounts of steady state cardio/aerobics. From a time efficiency standpoint, which makes more sense? Not eating that bowl of cereal at night (300-500 calories) or spending 60 minutes on a treadmill to burn that same 300-500 calories every single day?

7) Steady state cardio/aerobics does little to change how your body looks. Sure, you may lose 20 pounds, but you'll still be the same "shape." You won't look leaner, only smaller (not to mention weaker).

References

1. Zatsiorsky, V. Science and Practice of Strength Training. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 1995.

2. Baechle, T., Earle, R., and Wathen, D. Resistance Training.. In: Essentials of Strength and Conditioning (2nd Ed.) Baechle, T.R., Earle, R.W.., ed. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics, 2000.

This post has been edited by Tim Neal: 10 March 2008 - 01:08 AM