It appears you have not yet Signed Up with our community. To Sign Up for free, please click here....



Exercise & Fitness Message Board
Post New Thread   Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 07-16-2001, 10:19 AM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 264
paper clip HB User
Thumbs up Cycling your cardio...

For those of you trying to lose fat while preserving muscle mass, you might think about doing cardio in phases. Such as 7 days of cardio every day, and then 7 days off. During the week you're not doing cardio, you can work out 2-3 times in the weight room. This is defying your body's attempt to short-circuit fat loss by adapting to whatever stresses you place on it. In this fashion, one week is not long enough to allow physiological adaptation of either muscle, nerves to the muscles or general metabolism. This way, you keep fat burning at it's highest (cardio phase) and your muscle building primed with sufficient rest time to allow for gains. Of course it is not the best plan for people wanting to make rapid gains in muscle (which nearly always results in increased fat levels) but would be perfect for someone wanting more definition or generalized fat loss.

Once every few weeks you can take a couple of days off completely (during the cardio on phase) to allow for absolute recovery.

Just a thought I'd share.


 
Old 07-16-2001, 10:50 AM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 61
Connie HB User
Post

Interesting suggestion you pose, although I question the validity of your rationale. You suggest that by doing cardio one week on, followed by one week off does not allow your body to adapt in such a way as to conserve fat (I am assuming this is what you are driving at).

On the contrary, with sufficient cardio exercise, the muscle will adapt in such a way as to allow more fat to be burned during exercise. A person who wishes to burn as much fat as possible during exercise will do best by raising their aerobic capacity by maintaining a volume of training (which by the way is not as great as many think). By doing so, a person can exercise at a higher work rate, thus burning more calories, including more fat calories.

The name of the game with exercise is to continue to stimulate the adaptations by continually overloading. In other words, gradually increase intensity and to some degree duration. What was once difficult to perform for 30 min will become much easier. So in order to continue muscle adaptations (that allow you to burn more fat), the intensity must go up.

One week on and one week off will not do this.

 
Sponsors Lightbulb
   
Old 07-16-2001, 03:05 PM   #3
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 264
paper clip HB User
Post

Please re-read my post and you will no doubt see that I made mention to weight training in the "off" week. It is my opinion that the most successful weight loss programs incorporate strength training in addition to aerobic workouts. This is the rationale of circuit training; combining endurance with progressive resistance has shown greater benefit that either cardio or weight training alone. However, attention has recently been placed on whether or not alternating days (one day weight training, the next day cardio) will allow for full muscle recuperation. My first post is one of the attempts to counter this phenomena and provide for a more effective weight loss program. However, doing cardio alone and just alternating weeks will not be as effective as continually scheduled cardio workouts. That is something I think we can agree on.
However, I think you have mistakenly confused physiological adaptation with muscle neurology adaptation. It takes increased demands on muscle tissue in order to increase the workload of that muscle as well as it's capacity for work. But increasing muscular adaptation is not the way to go as far as fat loss is concerned, nor is it the way to go insofar as muscle strength or muscle building is concerned. In these regards, the more the muscle adapts, the less work it is performing as a whole. This results in loss of muscle mass. Wouldn't you want to lose fat weight rather than sacrifice muscle tone?
The greater the amount of cardiovascular exercise that is done (with respect to degree) the higher the likelihood of muscle loss. As AML has effectively pointed out, loss of muscle mass can actually increase the amount of fatty tissue in the long run. Muscle mass loss caused by doing only cardio is a direct result of applied laws of physics; a larger body doing the same amount of exercise as a smaller body will have greater resistance to the movement. So the adaptation that occurs is physiological in the sense that the body will reduce it's mass in order to accomodate to the extended workload. In doing so, it selects non-essential tissue (in other words, tissue that is not an organ and not required for minute-to-minute life sustainment) and decreases the size (mass) of this tissue with respect how rapidly that tissue can both regenerate and adapt. Muscles can gain or lose size rather rapidly due to their adaptation capability and the fact that muscles have extensive blood supply. Increased oxygen demand, pH changes, and metabolic needs, if occuring as a result of endurance exercise will result in decreased muscle mass. The muscles then are primed to do endurance work and tend to not have a high resting metabolic need. Therefore, these muscles truly burn fat almost exclusively while doing cardio, but not when the person it at rest. If this were not the case then professional powerlifters and bodybuilders would benefit like the rest of the population from extended cardio. However, that is not the case. The longer a person performs cardiovascular exercise (duration and frequency), the greater the demands of the muscle to adapt to this workload. Thus the muscles lose size since the body will attempt to lose weight and reduce extra work. However, alternating exercises to include both cardio and strength training is preventing muscle accomodation to endurance exercise by way of limiting it's ability to adapt. Increasing muscle tone by weight training will increase the muscle tone through forcing a movement without allowing for sufficient adaptation as long as intensity and variation are incorporated.
Here is why an endurance muscle (from only cardio) is not optimal for fat loss: If adaptation occurs within a given muscle, then that muscle will recruit less of the muscle fibers to perform the work...the end result being accomodation to decreased intensity. This is called selective myoneural synapse inhibition. It is caused by doing a repetitive endurance exercise increasing the frequency or intensity either naturally or progressively rather than performing short bursts of muscular contraction with a target percentage of maximal work done. This will happen regardless of whether we are talking about weightlifting or doing cardio. You HAVE to change the variation in order to increase metabolic demands. This is precisely why there are overweight people in GREAT shape who are teaching aerobics classes...in very good cardiovascular shape but unable to lose the problem fat. Remember that the body will drop weight in order to allow for physiological adaptation to accomodate for the work being done, but it can only do that to tissue that has an adequate blood supply! Problem fat areas on both men and women respectively are primarily composed of white fat...called "white" because it visually appears nearly devoid of blood vessels. This is why problem areas are tough to reduce...they do not have much blood supply so therefore the tissues are not very metabolically active. Therefore increasing cardiovascular endurance is not likely to decrease the amount of problem areas as well as was previously thought. Yes, over a very long period of time, this can help reduce fat, however, as I mentioned before, there are overweight people who are in excellent cardiovascular health teaching aerobics classes, and so for these people, cardio has NOT been their best answer. I would suspect that a very significant percent of the population has the same problem...inadequate blood oxygen carrying capacity. So for these people as well, cardio alone is not effective in the long run. Increasing the endurance demands of muscle tissue is not the best way to go IF there is no weight training to supplement. A muscle primed to achieve short high-intensity work in the way of strength training is primed to burn more calories than a slender endurance muscle. This is because the larger strength-oriented muscle will have a greater metabolic need than a slender muscle primed to do endurance work.

In respect to the mentioning of aerobic capacity as the best means of losing fat, I beg to differ for a few reasons. The oxygen carrying capacity of one person is NOT similar to that of all other people. This is a direct result of amount of vasculature and also other individual reasons. If you have more fatty tissue, you have more blood vessels. The more blood vessels a person has, the tougher it is for their lungs to oxygenate their blood effectively to send oxygen to all cells in need. The result is necessary tissue gets the oxygen first (such as brain, heart, muscles, bones, etc. etc. and finally fat tissue at the bottom of the list). So essentially, very little oxygen is available for fatty tissue oxygenation. So the primary concern is that you have to either be doing EXTENSIVE cardio work AND have a very good oxygen carrying capacity of your blood, AND/OR you have to have factors that would increase fat metabolism while NOT performing cardio. The best and only way this can be performed in my opinion is with the inclusion of weight training in addition to cardio...of course, unless you happen to have a high metabolism to start with and also have exceptional oxygen carrying capacity of the blood. It's too much guesswork and expense to try and determine this. Better to just add weight training to a cardio regimen in order to exact the most dramatic and rapid changes.

I'm sorry to be so technical, but I think I was called out rather than questioned specifically. I hope not to write a book next time.



[This message has been edited by paper clip (edited 07-16-2001).]

 
Old 07-17-2001, 02:54 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 61
Connie HB User
Post

First, your response was not technical, it was general. Through aerobic exercise, the muscle adapts by increasing mitochondria, which is the ONLY place fat can be oxidized. There is a ton of literature to indicate that an aerobically trained muscle burns more fat at any given muscle load. If you want to burn more fat, increase the mitochondria in your muscle and this is accomplished through aerobic exercise. Exercise physiology 101

As for oxygenation of blood, unless someone has compromised lung function or has anemia or some other blood condition that compromises Hb binding with oxygen, the blood gets oxygenated just fine. This is not a limitation per se. What is a limitation is the heart's ability to get blood to the muscle, but we are talking maximal capacity here, not submaximal conditions.

There is no literature to date to definitively say that weight lifting combined with aerobic exercise is best for weight loss. Overall, exercise alone has not demonstrated very large results in terms of fat loss. It is true that under certain conditions, weight training can effectively maintain or increase muscle mass. But, whether this promotes greater fat oxidation or not is unknown.

I talk about the need to overload the muscle. This is the the only way adaptations will continue to occur. During submaximal aerobic exercise, type I fibers are primarily recruited. As these fibers fatigue over time, more and more type II fibers are recruited. Likewise, as the intensity increases, more type II fibers are recruited. "But type II fibers are not aerobic muscle and burn little fat" you say? True, but by recruiting them, over time they adapt by becoming more aerobic and thus, will burn more fat.

When it comes to weight loss, the amount of fat burned during exercise plays a relatively insignificant role. Rather it is the chronic negative energy balance that will allow fat loss. Becoming aerobically conditioned simply allows one to burn more calories during each exercise session, which in turn allows one to maintain a negative energy balance without reducing diet calories to a level that creates problems (i.e., lack of compliance, inadequate nutrients, etc).

And if cardio exercise is not effective for weight loss or at least helping to maintain a healthy weight, then why are there so few "overfat" endurance athletes?


 
Old 07-17-2001, 04:15 PM   #5
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Posts: 95
gainfreak HB User
Post

Just my 2 cents worth, I have never been able to get my bodyfat down to the single digits without encorperating diet,cardio,weight raining. I never cycled aerobics but I'm sure that it would work for some people and others it will not. We are all different. I find that people who carry more muscle (genetically)can get away with varying cardio. For my body type, when trying to loose bodyfat, I prefer to eat maintenance calories and I get my caloric deficit from cardio/training . Ive tried a combination of cutting calories and cardio but it left me feeling weak so now i use cardio as my fat burning tool!!LOL!!

 
Old 07-17-2001, 11:56 PM   #6
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 264
paper clip HB User
Post

"There is a ton of literature to indicate that an aerobically trained muscle burns more fat at any given muscle load. If you want to burn more fat, increase the mitochondria in your muscle and this is accomplished through aerobic exercise. Exercise physiology 101"--- Of course it does, there is no dispute in that. However, you might consider increase lean body mass index and muscular metabolism. Clinical experience and physiology laboratory data as well as individual experiences have suggested rates are different, slanted in favor of larger lean body mass indices. But yes, you're right, there is no comparison between short bursts of high intensity and extended constant exercise periods in terms of immediate caloric expenditure. And remember, we're talking about general fat burning at all times of the day, not just during exercise exertion.

"As for oxygenation of blood, unless someone has compromised lung function or has anemia or some other blood condition that compromises Hb binding with oxygen, the blood gets oxygenated just fine."---Yes it very well may, but if there is peripheral resistance to proper blood flow to ALL areas of the body, preferentially in persons with high white fat amounts, then cardio efforts are basically doing things the hard way. Rather cardiac muscle itself burns energy as a result of increased peripheral resistance. The trick is to increase muscle size so that the fat burning process takes place on a more continual basis rather than having a slender muscle that would, by physical limitation of matter, not be able to burn fat to the same degree when the person is at rest. This is reiteration...just understand that the capability of lung capillary exchange and oxygenation of blood does not necessarily mean that all tissues will be properly oxygenated...even muscle tissue...to make this claim is skipping a few physiological steps. The more resistance there is (body size, fat in particular) the less oxygen is provided for ALL tissues...the result is inefficiency and diverted blood pathway. Since an overweight person has more vasculature, there is more blood tied up in other parts of the body, which can result in cardiac increased workload to distribute the oxygenated blood in more of a timely fashion.

"What is a limitation is the heart's ability to get blood to the muscle, but we are talking maximal capacity here, not submaximal conditions."---If this were the case there would be little need in "resting" cardiac examination to evaluate diastolic measurements. Yes, heavy exertion can obviously aggravate hearts susceptible to ischemia and compromised function. But if submaximal exertion did not have a cause and effect with relation to peripheral resistance then there would be no such thing as exercise-induced myocardial infarction. Many of these people who have heart attacks while jogging have them without apparent serious strain. So the effect of submaximal exertion does, in fact, cause physiological cardiac changes.

"There is no literature to date to definitively say that weight lifting combined with aerobic exercise is best for weight loss."---well this kind of depends on what your definition of literature is. NO LITERATURE is incorrect. No literature that convinces you is more accurate, I would believe. No, science has not reported any conclusive LONG TERM studies of the effects of exercise and weight loss of either weight lifting or aerobic activities, but this is likely to be a result of research project limitations. However, we do not HAVE to have conclusive proof of a certain specific when the variables making up that specific are well-grounding in what is well-known. Sort of like we don't have to have scientific proof that the sun will rise, yet it does anyhow. We can use deductive reasoning and have a sufficient measure of comfort.

"Overall, exercise alone has not demonstrated very large results in terms of fat loss."---I'm not following you suddenly. You stated vigorously before that 'exercise alone has not resulted in very large amounts of fat loss'...so I'm not sure which stance you are ultimately taking, to be honest. If you would, please let me know which you feel is most appropriate to your personal viewpoint. So while there may not be enough data to convince you that weight training is an important part of a weight loss plan, there is apparently data that you are providing that suggests a contradictory opinion to your statements. Very true, exercise alone doesn't seem to cut it. Diet must be taken into account as well as other factors such as genetics and exercise type/quality. People do not seem to want to know the truth that the best way to lose weight is by varied exercise, diet modification and just plain hard work. Such studies are not pursued actively in that this is what is widely regarded as the rule rather than the exception. However, as slim as the data might seem to be, few people will deny that exercise and diet modification are mainstays in the way to lose body fat.

"It is true that under certain conditions, weight training can effectively maintain or increase muscle mass. But, whether this promotes greater fat oxidation or not is unknown."---the scientific research literature may not show this directly, but then again, the same could be said for the discrepancies with so much of physiology. Even professionals disagree on a daily basis. Essentially, nothing is conclusive in that everyone is different and what works for one person may not work for another. Research project failures-to-agree are sometimes the result of protocol factors, not physiology...you can't watch what everyone eats all the time nor measure how their body will respond to periods of exertion and/or rest. However, greater body weight in relation to lean body mass results in a better O2 uptake as measured by Krogh metabograph than persons with less lean body mass. Therefore, they will LIKELY have a higher resting metabolism. This may not be the proof you want, but it is a sound physiological model.

"During submaximal aerobic exercise, type I fibers are primarily recruited. As these fibers fatigue over time, more and more type II fibers are recruited. Likewise, as the intensity increases, more type II fibers are recruited. But type II fibers are not aerobic muscle and burn little fat you say? True, but by recruiting them, over time they adapt by becoming more aerobic and thus, will burn more fat."---Of course, mitochondrial need will result in degree of metabolism of nutrients, that's a given. However, mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation will be dictated more by activity level in red muscle fibers. Besides, red muscle fiber by nature has a higher ratio of mitochondria. The high concentration of myoglobin as well as high innervation frequency will dictate that this muscle type functions in the way of fat burning primarilly WHILE engaging in endurance exercise. Whereas on the other hand white muscle fiber has a high resting tissue metabolic need on the basis of it being an anaerobic tissue due to low concentrations of myoglobin. So just to "exist" in it's state of increased muscle mass, maintenence metabolism is going to be higher than in a less muscle mass individual. Maybe you are referring (by mention of submaximal contractions) to dynamic endurance training. I do agree that cardio of this type can be beneficial for fat loss, especially when combined with strength training in that the alteration of exercise type itself warrants muscle signal change. Since the body is constantly trying to find a shortcut to workload and find the easy way out, exercise variation in both type, intensity and duration will have ultimately burn more calories due to the fact that the body is having to work harder in trying to adapt. The more it adapts in this case, the more stable it will become in regards to muscle metabolism. However, since we are referring to the individual as a whole rather than on the scale of muscle fibers, I refer back to the physiological model I mentioned above of higher resting metabolism in persons with greater lean body mass.

"When it comes to weight loss, the amount of fat burned during exercise plays a relatively insignificant role."--I couldn't agree more. One hour of the day (or less) in activity does increase caloric expenditure, but with an increased muscle mass the resting metabolism is higher and therefore fat burning tends to take place effectively in the hours and days following the weight lifting. The same cannot be said for typical cardio exercise that does not involve maximal or near maximal burst intensity.

"Rather it is the chronic negative energy balance that will allow fat loss. Becoming aerobically conditioned simply allows one to burn more calories during each exercise session"---Again, I agree, the calorie burning takes place during the exercise. So it would be of great benefit to add strength training to your regimen to allow for greater resting metabolism and in effect, weight loss to take place on a hourly basis throughout the day.

"And if cardio exercise is not effective for weight loss or at least helping to maintain a healthy weight, then why are there so few "overfat" endurance athletes?"---Keep in mind that genetics plays a large role in determining who is competitive as well as who chooses that as a lifestyle or profession (after all, you don't see many skinny men playing offensive line for professional foodball teams, although many wish they could). In all truth, both the muscular (mesomorph) and well-rounded (endomorph) will have to do more work in order to do the same exercise performed by the ectomorph or slender bodied person. Think about it this way, which uses more gas to drive one mile---a honda or a mack truck? The distance is the same, but the energy expenditure is not. The truck burns more gas to do the same job. Larger bodied individuals do not often choose to perform this type of competitive activity since their natural body type is not as accomodating as that of the slender build types. However, for sprints and dashes take a look at these athletes. They possess fantastic physiques with very low bodyfat levels (most of them work out with weights) but many do not even run a mile on a regular basis! I would personally rather have the muscular definition of a sprinter than a narrow-framed and tired looking endurance runner...but that is just my personal choice. Back to the issue...by nature, less work means less exertion for the same activity for slender persons and therefore full exertion can in these cases result in greater accomplishments (in timed running for instance). Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. But the competitive endurance athletes are typically people who can do "X" amount of work with the least amount of energy expenditure, to answer your question.

It seems like you are on the right track, educationally speaking, in much of what you are saying and I personally think that we have more to agree upon than previously thought. However, there is no shame or anger in simply disagreeing. We can debate all day long and at the end of the day we still have our own theories. Besides, neither of us can post everything we know in one or two messages (or even a thousand messages ).

Take care and good luck!

 
Old 07-18-2001, 08:49 AM   #7
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 61
Connie HB User
Post

[QUOTE]Originally posted by paper clip:
[B you might consider increase lean body mass index and muscular metabolism. Clinical experience and physiology laboratory data as well as individual experiences have suggested rates are different, slanted in favor of larger lean body mass indices.

I'm not certain what you mean by this. Rates of fat oxidation? Of course there are individual variations in fat oxidation, and the quantity of muscle is only one factor among many.

Yes it very well may, but if there is peripheral resistance to proper blood flow to ALL areas of the body, preferentially in persons with high white fat amounts, then cardio efforts are basically doing things the hard way. Rather cardiac muscle itself burns energy as a result of increased peripheral resistance. The more resistance there is (body size, fat in particular) the less oxygen is provided for ALL tissues...the result is inefficiency and diverted blood pathway. Since an overweight person has more vasculature, there is more blood tied up in other parts of the body, which can result in cardiac increased workload to distribute the oxygenated blood in more of a timely fashion.

This doesn't make sense to me. Adipose tissue is requires much less blood flow and has a relatively less vasculature compared to say, the muscle. The increase in cardiac workload during exercise is largely determined by the demand of the muscle. No doubt, at any given absolute demand, the overweight unfit person's heart will be working harder, and thus demand more oxygen.

"What is a limitation is the heart's ability to get blood to the muscle, but we are talking maximal capacity here, not submaximal conditions."---If this were the case there would be little need in "resting" cardiac examination to evaluate diastolic measurements. Yes, heavy exertion can obviously aggravate hearts susceptible to ischemia and compromised function. But if submaximal exertion did not have a cause and effect with relation to peripheral resistance then there would be no such thing as exercise-induced myocardial infarction.

Cardiac limitations and the demands placed on the heart are two different scenarios. Maximal aerobic capacity is limited by cardiac output, period. There is much literature to provide evidence for this (Refer to Howley or Saltin). As far as MIs are concerned, this is due to an imbalance between oxygen delivery to the heart muscle and oxygen demand, mostly the result of blockage in a major coronary artery. Peripheral resistance can increase the oxygen demand of the muscle.

"There is no literature to date to definitively say that weight lifting combined with aerobic exercise is best for weight loss."---well this kind of depends on what your definition of literature is. NO LITERATURE is incorrect. No literature that convinces you is more accurate, I would believe.

When I say literature, I mean peer-reviewed scientific studies, not personal webpages or books for profit. If you summarize the literature, the conclusion one draws is as I suggest, there is no definitive evidence (emphasis on definitive). True, not all study results are alike, that's science. As a scientist, I need very good evidence before I will say that combining weight training and aerobic exercise is the best method for fat loss. It may be for someone, and I am sure there is anecdotal evidence for that. But I need hard evidence before I make a definitive statement to the general population.

"Overall, exercise alone has not demonstrated very large results in terms of fat loss."---I'm not following you suddenly. You stated vigorously before that 'exercise alone has not resulted in very large amounts of fat loss'...so I'm not sure which stance you are ultimately taking, to be honest. If you would, please let me know which you feel is most appropriate to your personal viewpoint.

What's the contradiction, I don't understand? There is no evidence that exercise alone results in large amounts of fat loss. This is not a personal viewpoint, this is a summary of the literature. There are plenty of meta analyses now to draw this conclusion.

"It is true that under certain conditions, weight training can effectively maintain or increase muscle mass. But, whether this promotes greater fat oxidation or not is unknown."---the scientific research literature may not show this directly, but then again, the same could be said for the discrepancies with so much of physiology.

Scientific evidence is all we can go on. And as a researcher, I understand wholly the limitations of research (particularly human research). Fat oxidation is controlled by various factors that to simply state increasing muscle mass will increase fat loss is obtuse.

"During submaximal aerobic exercise, type I fibers are primarily recruited. As these fibers fatigue over time, more and more type II fibers are recruited. Likewise, as the intensity increases, more type II fibers are recruited. But type II fibers are not aerobic muscle and burn little fat you say? True, but by recruiting them, over time they adapt by becoming more aerobic and thus, will burn more fat."---Of course, mitochondrial need will result in degree of metabolism of nutrients, that's a given. However, mitochondrial fatty acid oxidation will be dictated more by activity level in red muscle fibers. Besides, red muscle fiber by nature has a higher ratio of mitochondria. The high concentration of myoglobin as well as high innervation frequency will dictate that this muscle type functions in the way of fat burning primarilly WHILE engaging in endurance exercise. Whereas on the other hand white muscle fiber has a high resting tissue metabolic need on the basis of it being an anaerobic tissue due to low concentrations of myoglobin.

You are presenting differences between type I and II fibers which I don't dispute. My statement refers to adaptations, which we know well that endurance training converts IIb fibers to IIa fibers, thus allowing them to perform more aerobically (i.e., burn more fat).

"When it comes to weight loss, the amount of fat burned during exercise plays a relatively insignificant role."--I couldn't agree more. One hour of the day (or less) in activity does increase caloric expenditure, but with an increased muscle mass the resting metabolism is higher and therefore fat burning tends to take place effectively in the hours and days following the weight lifting. The same cannot be said for typical cardio exercise that does not involve maximal or near maximal burst intensity.

No true. EPOC studies generally find that the amount of calories (fat or CHO) burned above resting levels is very little. There does not appear to be any real difference between cardio or weightlifing EPOC either.

"Rather it is the chronic negative energy balance that will allow fat loss. Becoming aerobically conditioned simply allows one to burn more calories during each exercise session"---Again, I agree, the calorie burning takes place during the exercise. So it would be of great benefit to add strength training to your regimen to allow for greater resting metabolism and in effect, weight loss to take place on a hourly basis throughout the day.

I don't find anything wrong with someone wanting to weight train.

"And if cardio exercise is not effective for weight loss or at least helping to maintain a healthy weight, then why are there so few "overfat" endurance athletes?"---Keep in mind that genetics plays a large role in determining who is competitive as well as who chooses that as a lifestyle or profession

No doubt about this.

Back to the issue...by nature, less work means less exertion for the same activity for slender persons and therefore full exertion can in these cases result in greater accomplishments (in timed running for instance).

This doesn't make sense again to me. At a given velocity for instance, the smaller person requires less energy but this doesn't necessarily mean they are exerting themselves less. Exertion is relative, in this case, to VO2max. And if you are talking about non weight bearing activity like cycling, body size doesn't play a significant role (except climbing hills).


It seems like you are on the right track, educationally speaking, in much of what you are saying and I personally think that we have more to agree upon than previously thought. However, there is no shame or anger in simply disagreeing. We can debate all day long and at the end of the day we still have our own theories. Besides, neither of us can post everything we know in one or two messages (or even a thousand messages ).

I hope I am on the right track too, otherwise, all this education is for naught. As for the type of literature I gain my information, only from peerreviewed journals, in addition to personal communication with colleagues, attending conferences, etc. Exercise physiology is my profession and my formal education. If I believe someone is making a statement that is arguably inconsistent with the literature, I will make a statement. But I will never tell an individual that a certain exercise program does not work for them, if in deed it does! Nor will I recommend specific exercise regimens to individuals. If a person wants to do cardio 7 days in a row, then stop for one week, fine, if that's what gets them out of the chair. But if you are going to make suggestions that a specific regimen will burn more fat for instance, why not provide the evidence for that.

You are on the right track too, so keep up the good work and if you want resources on any specific information to help you out, let me know.


 
Old 07-18-2001, 12:03 PM   #8
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 264
paper clip HB User
Post

“Cardiac limitations and the demands placed on the heart are two different scenarios.”---please know that this statement does not concur with medical knowledge in the context of cardiology research. If there is a limitation of cardiac function then certain demands placed upon that same tissue is directly proportional to heart functioning. End of story and I will NOT argue this since it is an understood principle of cardiology. However, if you were referring to cardiac limitations in another sense then you have an obligation to state clearly what cardiac limitations you are speaking of.

“Maximal aerobic capacity is limited by cardiac output, period. As far as MIs are concerned, this is due to an imbalance between oxygen delivery to the heart muscle and oxygen demand, mostly the result of blockage in a major coronary artery. “---Are you saying this is what is occurring in neurogenic MI for example? So are you suggesting that implant pacemakers are put there for CAD (coronary artery disease) rather than for A-V blocks, sinus failure, or Stokes-Adams syndrome to name a few examples? Please elaborate if you don’t mind, since current modern cardiology has outlined and classified diagnostically quite a few different types of MI. This could get interesting! J

“I need hard evidence before I make a definitive statement to the general population.”---you are definitively trying to refute my suggestion (that’s right, it’s a suggestion) without any conclusive proof to the contrary which I believe to be not only faulty logic, but also argumentative for the sake of our disagreeing initially.

“Scientific evidence is all we can go on. And as a researcher, I understand wholly the limitations of research (particularly human research). Fat oxidation is controlled by various factors that to simply state increasing muscle mass will increase fat loss is obtuse.”---obtuse of me perhaps, but to deny outright without due proof and in the face of both research indication and clinical experience, as you have done, is foolhardy.

“No true. EPOC studies generally find that the amount of calories (fat or CHO) burned above resting levels is very little. There does not appear to be any real difference between cardio or weightlifing EPOC either. “---Here are just a few studies suggesting that increased lean body mass is correlated to increased metabolism:

Gerodontology 1998;15(1):15-24 Exercise and nutritional needs of elderly people: effects on muscle and bone. Evans WJ. Donald W. Reynolds Department of Geriatrics, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, Little Rock, USA.---“Loss in muscle mass accounts for the age-associated decreases in basal metabolic rate”.

Med Sci Sports Exerc 2001 Apr;33(4):532-41 Effect of strength training on resting metabolic rate and physical activity: age and gender comparisons. Lemmer JT, Ivey FM, Ryan AS, Martel GF, Hurlbut DE, Metter JE, Fozard JL, Fleg JL, Hurley BF. Department of Kinesiology, College of Health and Human Performance, University of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742, USA.--- suggests that strength training increases resting metabolic rate.

Med Sci Sports Exerc 1999 Sep;31(9):1320-9 Influence of exercise training on physiological and performance changes with weight loss in men. Kraemer WJ, Volek JS, Clark KL, Gordon SE, Puhl SM, Koziris LP, McBride JM, Triplett-McBride NT, Putukian M, Newton RU, Hakkinen K, Bush JA, Sebastianelli WJ. Department of Kinesiology, Noll Physiological Research Center, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park 16802, USA.---suggests that a weight-loss dietary regimen in conjunction with aerobic AND resistance exercise augments body composition, maximal strength, and maximum oxygen consumption compared with weight-loss induced by diet alone.

J Appl Physiol 1995 Apr;78(4):1425-31 Reduction in intra-abdominal adipose tissue after strength training in older women. Treuth MS, Hunter GR, Kekes-Szabo T, Weinsier RL, Goran MI, Berland L. Department of Nutrition Science, University of Alabama at Birmingham 35294-3360, USA.---suggests exactly as the research title states.


J Appl Physiol 1994 Jan;76(1):133-7 Strength training increases resting metabolic rate and norepinephrine levels in healthy 50- to 65-yr-old men. Pratley R, Nicklas B, Rubin M, Miller J, Smith A, Smith M, Hurley B, Goldberg A. Department of Medicine, University of Maryland at Baltimore 21201.-- Resting metabolic rate (RMR) decreases with age, largely because of an age-related decline in fat-free mass (FFM) and suggests that a heavy-resistance strength-training program increases RMR in healthy older men, perhaps by increasing FFM and sympathetic nervous system activity.

Yes, there are some opposing studies to these cited above. However, you wanted me to post a few of my sources to lend credence to my rationale and so I have obliged your request.

“I don't find anything wrong with someone wanting to weight train.”---thank you, doctor, for your qualified advice.

“This doesn't make sense again to me. At a given velocity for instance, the smaller person requires less energy but this doesn't necessarily mean they are exerting themselves less. Exertion is relative, in this case, to VO2max. And if you are talking about non weight bearing activity like cycling, body size doesn't play a significant role (except climbing hills).”---please see my example given for the Honda and mack truck, and I was referring to TIMED running as a quick re-read on your part will reveal. But if you need further explanation, consider this: to do a non-timed amount of work, generally, the heavier individual will have to do a relative amount as will the slender person. However, if the event is a timed endurance race, then the larger individual will have to do considerably more work to keep pace with the slender. Therefore, all other factors aside, if the two are relatively similar in other aspects of conditioning, the slender person exerting themselves fully will likely (not always) achieve the end result with less work exerted than the larger individual.


“As for the type of literature I gain my information, only from peerreviewed journals, in addition to personal communication with colleagues, attending conferences, etc.”---Research methods are driven by interest in what is speculated, an integral part of the scientific method. After all, why prove what is already proven? Research, to a large extent, also involves formulating a plan based on an idea. Trust me, you’re not the only one to attend conferences and lectures and idea share with colleagues. I don’t think we want to go into specifics about content and extent of continuing ed.

“Exercise physiology is my profession and my formal education. If I believe someone is making a statement that is arguably inconsistent with the literature, I will make a statement.”---As a physician, I also rely partly on scientific literature for my sources of information, however, my education allows me to formulate my own opinions based on the extensive educational demands and rigors that I have been through. Keep in mind that not all research on any given topic concurs, so regardless of what cited works we point to, we can both find countering viewpoints. This serves to solve nothing. They can both be correct in their respective statements, differing only in context of said information. So to rely on scientific articles alone is faulty in that you wind up choosing to reference work you personally agree with…especially when countering points of view reflect different statements. So it can be guesswork if taken out of context.

“But I will never tell an individual that a certain exercise program does not work for them, if in deed it does!”---forgive me if this is inflammatory, but it was my distinct impression that you did not QUESTION the rationale of my interest in cycling cardio, you were quick to DISCOUNT it...and your discounting it is in fact, based on opinion rather than published fact, which is hypocrisy. I get the distinct impression that you want others to post sources for information for what we say, yet you are wanting the free-and-clear to post your opinions without the merit of backing research. As I have stated before, a posted message does not fully illuminate the credentials or knowledge of the one posting it, therefore in all wisdom, you should at least question the rationale before making it your personal mission to discount it. That’s how you can get in over your head.

“But if you are going to make suggestions that a specific regimen will burn more fat for instance, why not provide the evidence for that.”---as you have said yourself, there is little evidence to prove that exercise causes fat loss. I have provided a few sources that you are fully welcome to check out. The information however is there to suggest that through the various determined factors involved in weight loss we can draw our own conclusions based upon such info. Yes, I made a suggestion, I was not posting a research abstract. If that’s the only way you can be motivated to do something is only if it is proven scientifically, then that’s your right. However, other people will be motivated by different means and that is their right as well.

“if you want resources on any specific information to help you out”---thank you for your concern but I feel that this would be taking a dramatic step backwards for me in terms of my own education and achievements. Remember that exercise physiology, while a wonderful course of study, necessitates the informed opinions of physicians and others who have made it their profession to understand the workings of the human body, not just draw conclusions based on the works of others. But thanks for the offer, nonethesame. J However, on the other hand, if you need any pointers as to how to actively pursue further academic endeavors then I would be more than happy to assist.

Take care and best of luck!

 
Old 07-18-2001, 01:38 PM   #9
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 61
Connie HB User
Post

Touche' paperclip

Concerning cardiac limitations, more appropriate I suppose is cardiovascular limitations. And here I am referring to true vo2max values where the cardiac output is the limiting factor. If you refer to an individual who experiences angina during exercise, then obviously, there is another limitation. But for certain, what limits vo2maxin healthy individuals is cardiac output , I refer you to classic studies by Saltin and Clausen or for a comprehensive review, Howley in MSSE (I believe 1998).

My understanding is that most MIs are the result of acute thrombus (some result from vasospasm and other factors), and an MI is increasing ischemia resulting in cell death. Right? And it is an imbalance of oxygen delivery and demand that causes ischemia. If I am mistaken, let me know because I'll trash my books.

You use the word "proof" often, referring to my statements and yours. You will never hear me use that word when referring to scientific data, there are very few things in life that uphold to the criteria required for proof, especially in biological research.

I refer to the phenomenon of EPOC and studies that have measured oxygen uptake several hours following exercise. I refer to studies by Segal et al, and I believe Goran et al (I don't have my library with me here). Yes, I agree there are studies indicating that exercise training results in raised RMR and sometimes, not always, this is related to an increase in FFM. Work by Broeder and Wilmore showed no effect of weight training on RMR, just one example. I am committed to memory here unfortunately.

Timed events vs non-timed events. As far as endurance events go (running, cycling, swimming), I can't think of any competition that is timed such that athletes run for a specific time. Maybe you are aware of some but I am not. So if you are talking total absolute work or more appropriately to endurance events, power, there is no doubt the larger person is expending more energy during weight bearing activities. But, exertion, is a relative perception. If every marathon runner ran at the same pace and crossed the finish line at the exact time, the more fit individual (regardless of their weight) will have exerted himself the least. It's all relative. But as far as energy expended, the largest person expended the most and therefore, you could say did the most work.

Ah well, we can keep going, but ultimately, we both return to our own corners. Let me reiterate, since you made a point of this, you proposed a specific training regimen, albeit a suggestion. I have not made any proposal to anyone as far as suggesting exercise routines, only because what works for one, doesn't work for another. There is only one definitive suggestion I will make in this regard and that is participating in as little as 30 min of moderate exercise a day will lower one's risk of CHD. And there are enough data to support this (Blair et al, Paffenbarger et al to start).
I would like to see you and others who do propose specific regimens to back up your statements with evidence or at least a rationale.

By the way, have you read the June supplement for MSSE? Very interesting information concerning exercise and weight loss, I invite you to check it out.



 
Old 07-18-2001, 04:25 PM   #10
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 264
paper clip HB User
Post

I'm not sure if it is the same author, but one text I frequent is by Klaus Klausen on the topic of sport science. I also pay particular attention to the work of Ed Burke. Guyton's medical physiology and Ganong's physiology are old mainstays and serve as reference to the references, so to speak. But even their views differ as you know, and so I have to make an informed decision sometimes.

Yes, statistically most MI's are thrombotic-ischemic in diagnostic etiology, many likely caused by complications of CAD and CHD. Neurogenic complications follow a close second place and can have any number of etiologies. My only bringing up of this is that there are perhaps hundreds of pre-existing conditions related to compromised heart function, which, in turn, can reduce cardiac output or efficiency by way of the compromise itself (in this case, perhaps angina, fainting, nausea, confusion, or worse). But you are absolutely correct that the majority are due to thrombosis. I was not implying that you should trash your books at all, your explanation was exactly correct. And of course my opinion is the same as yours that as a general statistical rule, CAD and CHD are directly proportional to sedentary lifestyles complicated by dietary factors. Of course this is a limited statement insofar as heredity and predispositions to certain conditions go.

I agree, proof is a relative term in and of itself and is subject to the limitation of our senses or abilities, our interpretations being often different, we have the human element to take into consideration. So if I have misused the word proof, I offer an apology and my correction.

I also agree that existing studies do not agree on the subject of elevated RMR in weight trained individuals, and like you said, there are differences of opinion widespread in physiology. So alas, we have to bear with what we've got and ultimately formulate our own best opinions.

The timed events that I was referring to would be events characterized by contestant outcomes dictated by timed finishes, such as a marathon, for instance. The distance is the same for participants, albeit the efforts of varied-bodied individuals does. The timed event reference was to the fact that an earlier finish would be in the best interest of the participants, and thus to the competitive individual is motivation to increase intensity thus shortening the duration in the hopes of finishing well. So maximal exertion in some cases would be a different value than others provided differences existed only in body mass indices. So I think we are on the same page.

I know I tend to type brief openers and then have to wind up explaining myself later. I probably do that just to get to the point and hopefully not waste anyone's time. However, you're right, I should have gone into detail from the start so that any reply would be in both best interests.

As far as returning to our own corners, I hope we can consider each other a worthy debate...at least I feel you've gone toe-to-toe with me all the way. Perhaps you don't feel the same way, but in any event, you have my respect and I hold your viewpoints in high regard. If you have any suggestions for anyone (including me) in either reply or topic heading I think everyone here would benefit greatly from your knowledge and experience as I know they already have. I know that if I had a question puzzling me that you would do your best to help, as I would vice-versa and in the end, that's all that matters is that people become better educated regarding health and exercise in the prevention of premature disease and death. So my ulterior motive for posting in the first place was in suggestion of different possibilities irrespective of efficacy.

And I would like to apologize for my last comment in my last post. As I read over it again, although I mean it to be mildly retaliatory, I did not mean for it to come across in the condescending manner that it seems, and I sincerely apologize to you for that. You obviously have extensive knowledge and it shows. In the future, if you'll agree to it, I will post messages thoroughly from the start and if something is not clear and concerns you, please let me know and I'll fix it or remove it.

Thanks for your patience and persistence

Take care and best of health!

 
Old 07-19-2001, 04:27 PM   #11
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 61
Connie HB User
Post

Thank you for your information and obvious insight into several topics, that I also share an interest. You are a credit to your profession paperclip and I would also like to apologize for anything coming across as nothing more than arrogance. We have much to learn, and as professionals, we know this well. I would like to think of debates as nothing more than a way to learn and better ourselves in our respective professions. So let's continue to share our knowledge and learn from one others as much as we see fit.

Good health to you!

 
Old 07-19-2001, 09:05 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 264
paper clip HB User
Post

Thank you for the kind words, which also apply to you as well You're a class act and I look forward to learning from your knowledge and experience!

Take care!

 
Closed Thread

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Board Replies Last Post
How does rapid cycling work windimeria2000 Bipolar Disorder 5 05-05-2009 02:57 AM
I HATE Rapid Cycling!!! dreams in neon Bipolar Disorder 45 03-02-2009 01:25 AM
Am I burning any fat when I burn 3500 calories whilst cycling? The Joker Exercise & Fitness 1 07-01-2007 04:29 AM
What exactly is rapid cycling? tamara29 Bipolar Disorder 1 08-11-2006 06:33 AM
cycling and rowing- all i need? ratboy83 Exercise & Fitness 7 01-09-2006 09:33 AM




Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




Join Our Newsletter

Stay healthy through tips curated by our health experts.

Whoops,

There was a problem adding your email Try again

Thank You

Your email has been added








TOP THANKED CONTRIBUTORS



diamond839 (17), janewhite1 (8), lenvegas (7), tjlhb (4), bdrunner79 (3), sam 23 (3), Bexiesbruv (3), Titchou (3), JohnR41 (3), james079 (3)

Site Wide Totals

teteri66 (1136), MSJayhawk (941), Apollo123 (856), janewhite1 (823), Titchou (771), Gabriel (743), ladybud (667), sammy64 (666), midwest1 (655), BlueSkies14 (610)



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 AM.



Site owned and operated by HealthBoards.com™
Copyright and Terms of Use © 1998-2014 HealthBoards.com™ All rights reserved.
Do not copy or redistribute in any form!