Back to Current forum index
| Back to Main forum index Back to Current forum index |
| Author | Topic: high intensity exercise beneficial for the heart? |
| monica 09-06-2002 08:12 AM | to keep the heart in good condition? I have been told that i should do 'wind sprints' on a bike or via running a couple times a week. Believe me, i love your recommendation of decreasing the amount of exercise altogether, I just want to make sure that i'm doing enough to have low body fat and great muscle tone. Do you weight train? What is your specific daily/weekly exercise routine? |
| Wai 09-06-2002 10:21 AM | quote:Do vascular exercises, means that your increase the volume of the heart. The heart is simply a big muscle; and if you train it, it will grow bigger. If you stop training, it will reduce in size again, just like other muscles do. Are your muscles in better condition if they are bigger? Not necessarily. Experiments have clearly shown us that those that utilize the least energy all their life, live the longest. Simply because all cells in our body have a maximum life span and action capacity; the sooner you use up that capacity, the sooner that cell will die. So, what is this 'good condition' about? People keep on mixing things up. When someone has a 'healthy lifestyle', eating healthy food and doing vascular exercises, he is considered doing the right thing. But these people are not always the people that live the longest. First of all because dietary recommendations are partly false (they don't tell you about the toxins that originate due to the cooking process for example, and that raw cholesterol is healthy ONLY) And secondly: where dietary improvements increase the condition of your heart (less clogging of the arteries, less bad fats processed for energy by the heart), this doesn't mean that vascular exercises are beneficial too. Yes, a bigger heart can pump more blood, and this is called a better condition, but it only means that the muscle is bigger and can process more blood, nothing more, nothing less. The conclusion that this is better for you, is not based on facts. Professional athletes do NOT live longer. Those that use their energy most sparingly, are those that live the longest. And if you also make sure not to burden your heart with bad chemicals from food, you will be much healthier. To keep the heart in good condition: 1. Use it daily (=increased activity), but not too intensively; walking is perfect. 2. Don't burden it with harmful susbtances, such as oxysterols, trans fats and heterocyclic amines from cooked foods, and excessive minerlas. (they precipitate in the arteries) quote:you don't need to, at all. And they certainly don't help you to lose weight, since you then burn a lot of carbs (glucose and glycogen), but little fat, while this strongly increases your appetite, and your body will eventually always win in having these cravings satisfied. quote:These are 2 separate things, that need separate activities. - Low body fat is most effectively achieved by the combination of no longer overeating, and optimizing the utilization of body fat, through low-energy activities. (unlike the utilization of sugars, the utilization of bodyfat does not increase your appetite!) - Muscle tone is primarly achieved by low body fat: take away all the overweight from a fat person, and you will see great muscles, since that same body had to carry all that overweight. Being overweight, it doesn't mean that you don't have muscles that are in great shape; on the contrary, fat people generally ARE stronger, because the have to use their muscle more to carry all that weight. Give a thin person a backsack of 100 pounds to carry all day, and you will see him suffer. All muscles have a great muscle tone, simply because they fade away when not used. The muscle that you have, are the muscles that you use, and therefore have agreat muscle tone. It is just not visible. Take away the fat, and you will see the great muscle tone. Under that fat, you have muscles. quote:The only exercise I do, is walking, which I always did. The reason: (I hope I don't sound arrogant; I'm just a very lucky girl) The sizes of my body are perfectly in balance, which means that I do not need to sculpture my body to correct an imbalance; because that is where weight exercises are for: to increase specific muscles, to change the balance of your body. For example: men often want more shoulder width, relative to their waist; then they need to exercise their shoulder muscles. Also, some women want to have a waist that looks thinner; you cannot make it thinner (once the overweight is gone), but you CAN make it LOOK thinner (= relative to other parts of your body, like the hips and shoulders), and you can achieve so by increasing the volume of those muscles that need to look bigger relative to your waist (shoulders and hips) We need to eliminate the though that you need to exercise to look good. You only need to eliminate the overweight by preventing overeating. And once the overweight is gone, THEN you can decide to start exercising to undo an eventual imbalance, by making specific muscles bigger. |
| monica 09-07-2002 08:31 AM | I am a little bit confused about exercise. Should i set aside time to exclusively walk (outside or on a treadmill) for a certain amount of time each week? Or are you saying that as long as you walk during the day while shopping, cleaning, working, etc. and not remain sedentary, that is plenty. So Should I cancel my gym membership and stop weight training if i do not want to make my muscles larger? I was under the impression that weight training increases one's BMR, speeds up metabolism and allows you to burn more stored body fat even when resting. I also thought that by training your muscles with resistance with high repetitions, that you can actually make your body appear firmer. Is this all false. Believe me, i hope it is. Do you have any idea how much time i would save if i didn't have to go to the gym anymore??? ![[Wink]](../wink.gif) PS Please respond with as much detail as possible. Everything you have said in your book and website is absolutely fascinating to me and i am prepared to follow everything you recommend. I have a Bachelor of Science in Exercise Physiology from USC so i welcome all of the tedius details you can offer me!!! ![[Smile]](../smile.gif) |
| Wai 09-07-2002 10:04 AM | quote:Yes, though, by walking constantly, you are most consistently maintaining the right level of energy expenditure. Shopping, cleaning etc.; everything not involving sitting for a moment, is perfect. quote:Yes. Weight training, almost by definition, comprises exercises that are about burning a lot of energy in a short period of time. And even isolation exercises, which are not about burning a lot of energy, are about stimulating specific muscles (or only parts of muscles) to grow bigger. Weight training is about increasing the burdening of the exercised muscles, so that they are stimulated to grow bigger, in order to be better able to cope with this increased burdening in the near future. quote:Yes, bigger muscles increases one's resting metabolic rate; A bodybuilder needs more energy even when he is not exercising. But: Who can effortlessly maintain a very low bodyfat rate? The skinny computer-nerd, not the bodybuilder. Who can easily lose bodyfat? The physically inactive anorexia patient, not the athlete specialized in the 100 meter run. Let me explain: The more muscles you have, the more energy you need to feed all cells, even when resting. But, muscle cells mainly need glucose. Yes, your need for fatty acids will also be increased, but your need for glucose will be increased much more: the fat/glucose ratio in required energy, will have DECREASED. And if losing weight would simply be about eating too little, everybody could easily lose weight. why is it so hard to lose overweight? Because we generally try to lose weight by decreasing the intake of energy THAT WE NEED, or by increasing the utilization of the energy THAT WE NEED MOST DIRECTLY. In other words: The blood glucose level strongly determines your appetite. So that if you decrease the blood sugar level (thinking that this will force your body to utilize more bodyfat), your appetite will increase. And, eventually, your body will always win. The longer it takes, the bigger it's revenge: HUGE CRAVINGS. You need to take only (in the highest possible ratio relative to other energy) the energy that you will not miss directly: bodyfat. Back to the higher resting metabolic rate: So, if your need for glucose is much higher, the strain on the blood glucose levels will be more intense, meaning that your blood glucose level will fluctuate much more; it will decrease more often, making you hungry more often AND it will increase much stronger, because your energy intake per meal will be bigger. this higher increase in the blood sugar level will lead to a greater secretion of insulin; not just leading to a greater conversion of glucose into glycogen (in the muscles and liver), but also to the conversion of energy into body fat. The more muscles you have, the more your body will force you to eat all the time. the more physically active you are, the more this influences your blood sugar level, and the more you will be forced to eat more often, and more in one meal, causing the storage of more bodyfat. For the computer nerd it is easy to forget to eat, and eat little; a larger percentage of the utilized energy is originated from fat, and utilizing bodyfat does not directly trigger your appetite. The less physically active he is (sitting behind his computer), the less his blood glucose level fluctuates, not triggering his appetite. (that way he will also easily utilize muscle protein for energy, but that is another story) SUMMARIZING An increased metabolic resting rate is not an advantage if the extra required energy needs to come from glucose mostly (because there are more muscle cells that need to be fed), because that de-stabilizes the blood sugar level, increasing your appetite. The lower the glucose/fat ratio in utilized energy, the easier it is to lose bodyfat. (though the glycogen depots also play an important role, but that is another story) Intense physical activity increases the need for fat and energy in total, but the increase in the need for glucose is greater, and thus the glucose/fat ration in utilized energy will INCREASE, making it harder to lose bodyfat. Also, the increased intake of carbs will lead to a greater secretion of insulin, and thus to storing more bodyfat. quote:The more muscles you have, the firmer / sturdier you will look (if the amount of bodyfat does not increase more), yes. But there is a difference between looking sturdier/firmer, and muscle tone. By getting more muscles, your skeleton will not change, and thus, you will not get taller, just wider. The stronger your muscles, the bigger they will be. The more exercised your waist, the wider it will be. Muscle tone is not about how strong the muscle is (and thus not about how big it is), but to what extend the muscle is visible. Skinny people can have a great muscle tone, simply because there is no fat (or water retention) to hide them. Bodybuilders can be huge, with incredible strong muscle, but you cannot see the muscles where there is fat on top. You don't easily grow bodyfat on your biceps, so, yes, their biceps will still have a 'great muscle tone', but not the muscles hidden under fat (often the abdominals). So, you can have great, powerful muscles with a very poor muscle tone, or small muscle with a great muscle tone. This depends on how much fat (and water) there is on top of that muscle. And...training your muscles with resistance with high repetitions does not reduce the fat on top of those muscles. why not? 1. Because muscles utilize mainly glucose, not fat. 2. Because exercising muscles locally, cannot possible tell your body which bodyfat to utilize first; 'where to take it from'. The energy that you need for those exercised muscles, is taken from the blood. And if your body utilizes body fat, it is your genetic make-up that determines which body fat is utilized first, and which fat is utilized last. Exercising has no influence on this 'decision where to take the bodyfat from', whatsoever. So, yes, that is completely false. quote:You are forgetting one thing; that it takes even more time to walk, shop, or do other (such more efficient) low energy activities than that it takes to work out in the gym. quote:No problem at all. Just keep on asking till you understand every word. In general is is just about rephrasing / reformulating. If you don't understand it, I didn't explain it well enough yet. Pretend that you are a five years old; keep on asking why till you understand. quote:and an open mind despite that? I applaud you. For most scientists it is too hard to be open minded regarding something that goes against that what they have learned by working hard (their study), and to be open to the idea that that what will give them status and wealth (their career) may be (partially) based on false information (the teachings). |
| monica 09-08-2002 01:13 AM | i think i finally get it Wai. Wow....have i had it all wrong. Everything that you just explained rang so true to me. What an entirely new perspective i have on resistance training and it's 'so-called' benefits. So will my metabolism drastically slow down if i suddenly just stop weight training all together. Should i gradually do less and less for a few weeks first? You have to understand what a strange concept this is for me. I have been so attached to the fact that i need to work out so hard and train every muscle like crazy in order to have a great body. Please reassure me just one more time, Wai, that simply walking everyday is enough. I'm sure that this all probably sounds strange to you, but i have weight trained my entire adult life and a part of me feels like my body will become this unshapely, soft, flabby mess if i stop. Not even sit ups???? Really??? ![[Big Grin]](../biggrin.gif) |
| Wai 09-08-2002 02:30 PM | quote:Yes, but that is no problem at all. quote:you don't need to, just make sure to walk instead. quote:It is enough for a woman that does not want big muscles. quote:If you want well-defined abs, you need to lose the fat on top. If you want bigger abs, you need to train them. But if there is still fat on top, this will only increase the size of your tummy. So, what do you want? How is your body now? |
| monica 09-08-2002 04:02 PM | thank you Wai....i feel very reassured now To answer your Q, i am 6ft tall with a very narrow frame (small bones) and actually fairly thin right now. However, I would like my upper arms, thighs and butt to be a bit smaller/leaner. My goodness, how i wish i found you years ago. NO WONDER THEY ARE BIGGER THEN I WOULD LIKE >>> I TRAIN THEM LIKE A MAD WOMAN!!! What a rude awakening this is for me. OK Wai...i am going to put my complete faith in you...as of today, no more weights (except my calfs, which are much too small). But lots of walking. From what you have explained, (and quite eloquently i must say!) I should first get all of the fat off through just the diet and walking and THEN determine which muscles i should train (if any) to make my body more symetrical (and beautiful, of course |
| Wai 09-09-2002 12:34 PM | quote:There are different ways to exercise your calfs. For example: there is one machine where you sit, and one where you stand. Don't use the one where you stand, because that one puts weight on your entire spine and pressure on your waist, which has an 'expanding' influence on your waist-muscles. quote:Exactly. |
| mengyao 01-04-2003 05:12 PM | i heard that if you only do aerobic exercise of any kind with no muscle training, you will GRADUALLY decrease your muscle mass! is that true, and if it is, how can i prevent it? |
| Wai 01-06-2003 02:17 PM | quote:Yes, all the way down to a minimum level. quote:That's easy: by not doing aerobic exercises. Aerobic exercises don't help you to lose weight anyway! ... ? |
| Auron 01-06-2003 02:58 PM | that seems so true you those kids I remember in H.S. that were on the track team had no muscle. |