This digest contains the following messages:

Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 20:20:44 -0500
From: Stephen Turner 
Subject: Swiss balls again

Thanks for so many responses to my post about Swiss balls. I found this
site with more info about the balls...

http://www.melbourne.net/htrek/

Although they showed some exercises there such as one hand pushups with the
ball, which seemed more reasonable than squats, more interesting was
reported therapeutic use ie as a chair substitute.  I make my living as a
programmer, and my hobbies include guitar (and visiting Cyberpump of
course), so I can vouch for all this sitting 'activity' distressing the
back, particularly at the tailbone.  The theory in brief, is that when we
are distracted by the task at hand at our desk, we forget to sit properly
and slump over.  Sitting on the ball is supposed to require enough
concentration to prevent this, as well as provide a better surface to sit
on than a hard chair.  My devil's advocate says 'get a gel pad' regarding
this last point though.  

In short, I believe that this stuff about stabilizers is not nonsense (try
Tibetan balance exercises; balancing on one leg while making like Superman
with the rest of the body and you will feel the burn around the ankle), but
to go as far as squatting on a ball is kind of 'unjustified extrapolation'
of the concepts.

Cheers, Steve

PS Sandeep, I doubt Marty at Popeye's is gonna allow squatting on balls
there.  Maybe something less controversial like a shoulder horn for rotator
cuff though...

Top

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 1998 18:50:59 +0200
From: 
Subject: Re:Deadlift

In HIT Digest #97 Jeffrey Hall asked about deadlifts. I would like to share
my experience on this lift.
First off, there is no question in my mind that this is the most effective
exercise there is. The question is not what muscles the DL works, but
rather what muscles it doesn't work. After a good DL w/o I feel my arms,
shoulders, traps, all my back, hams and glutes. This is the most compound
of the compound exercises. This exercise will give you great returns on
your investment.
The most important thing to remember while doing deads is form. Never, ever
sacrifice form on this lift. You can seriouslly injure your back.
I decided to deadlift about 5 months ago. I also started with the bar only
and experienced lower back pain. I then switched to Sumo style and the back
pain vanished. I am also tall (6"2) and long legged. Sumo places less
strain on the lower back and more on the glutes.
Go slowly and deadlift only once a week. I do not reccommend  going to
failure on this lift. It's too dangerous. Start out with 3 sets of 8 - 10
reps. Advance cautiously.
After you have the technique down try doing two good work sets. 
Today I can do one near failure set of 8 reps at 90kgs. Before that I do 2
-3 warmup sets. 
Again let me stress that the real life benefits from this lift are great
but one must progress with great caution.

Good luck.
Y. Zohar




Top

Date: Sun, 1 Feb 1998 20:11:50 -0800
From: "James Krieger" 
Subject: My final words on Aerobics

Boy, my post on aerobics sure stirred up quite a ruckus!

I've finally gotten a break from school, so I can finally respond to some
comments on aerobics.  To avoid any circular arguments, I am only
responding to certain comments made by certain individuals, and making sure
I am saying something that has not been said before.  Some people, though,
obviously completely misunderstood some of my comments or took them out of
context 
and therefore I need to clarify what my stance is on aerobic exercise.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


-----------------------

Peter Zappola wrote:

"BUT...(you knew if was coming sooner or later) my supposition is that for
people who are able to use high intensity weight training exercise and are
after better body composition, aerobics are completely inferior to weight
training...

As I explained earlier, anyone who
can do high intensity resistance training(SS, HD, HIT) stand to gain
nothing from performing aerobics in any way."


My response:

Nowhere in my post did I ever mention anything about body composition.  I
agree with the Superslow advocates that strength training is a superior
method of making significant positive alterations in body composition.  If
anyone were to read some old posts of mine on the old Training-Nutrition
list or the Weights list, they would find that I engaged in some debates
advocating the benefits of strength training over endurance training for
modification of body composition.  My post did not support the use of
aerobics over strength training for achieving positive alterations in body
composition..

However, not everyone engaging in an aerobic exercise program is looking
for modifications of body composition (if they are, then they're not going
about it in the most efficient manner).  
Some are looking to improve cardiovascular conditioning (more on this
later), and strength training is an inferior method (yes, I said it) for
making significant improvements (notice I said significant.  I'm not saying
that improvements cannot occur) in cardiovascular and endurance
conditioning.  A little more on this later.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------

L. Feldman wrote:

"<<.  I am
criticizing the Guild's anti-aerobics attitude and their idea of having the
"Ultimate" protocol, of which there is no such thing.  The "Ultimate"
protocol depends upon the individual and his/her goals.  What is
appropriate for one person is not appropriate for another.>>  

On this, Mr. Krieger, you are correct.....and when a prospective client
comes
to me and states that his/her goal is to:  maintain or loose muscle mass,
increase or maintain body fat, put 12 hours a week or more into their
fitness
program, and run as high
a risk of injury as possible in doing so, I will be more than willing to
1)tell this person that SuperSlow is not for them and 2) recommend another
trainer."


My response:

You have taken my aerobics stance out of context and to the extreme.

Significant loss of muscle mass only occurs if endurance training is
excessive.

No form of exercise will increase bodyfat levels (all forms of exercise
burn calories.  How can it increase bodyfat?  Swimming might be a possible
exception to the hemodynamics of swimming).

Nowhere did I advocate endurance training 12 hours a week or more.  Even
some elite endurance athletes don't train this much.  There is quite a
difference between 20-30 minutes on the stationary bike 3 times a week and
12 hours on the bike a week.

More on the injury risk later.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------

Andrew Baye wrote:

"  George Sheehan's quote:  'You might suspect from the emphasis on
cardiopulmonary fitness today 
that training involves mostly the heart and lungs. Guess again. No matter
what you
have been told, running primarily trains and conditions the muscles; the
other
organs merely assist in realizing this functional potential. Almost all the
improvement in performance occurs because of circulatory changes in the
muscles and changes in the muscle cells, the engines that transform
chemical
energy into mechanical energy.'

Why not just address the muscles more safely and efficiently with HIT?"


My response:

Strength training and endurance training effect muscles in a completely
different manner.  First, we must define strength and endurance.

Strength:  The maximal force production capability of a muscle

Endurance:  The ability of a muscle to sustain a submaximal force for an
extended period of time.

Now, it is true that if we increase strength, we will increase endurance to
an extent.  For example, if we improve our 1 RM in a lift, our ability to
do repetitions with 80% of that 1 RM will also improve.  However, the more
submaximal of a force we need, and the longer we need to sustain this
submaximal force, the less benefit that we derive from strength training. 
Improving our 1 RM will greatly improve our # of reps at 80% 1 RM, but will
not nearly have the same effect on our ability to do reps with 20% of 1 RM;
 there actually might be little or no change in our reps with 20% of 1 RM. 
This is the SAID principle at work.  Endurance and strength operate on the
following continuum:

Endurance<------------------------------------------------------>Strength

The further we get towards one side or the other, the less of an effect one
has on the other.

When we look at the adaptations physiologically, we would find that
strength training results in adaptations conducive to maximum force
generation, and endurance training results in adaptations conducive to
submaximal force sustainment:

Strength training reduces or does not change mitochondrial densities in
muscle tissue, while endurance training increases these densities.  The
demand for oxidative metabolism on muscles is much, much greater for
endurance training, which is why mitochondrial density must increase to
better handle this oxidative stress.  The mitochondria are the locations of
aerobic energy production within a cell.  An increase in mitochondria in
the cell increases the cell's ability to produce aerobic energy.  Strength
training can decrease mitochondrial density, and therefore is a vastly
inferior method for increasing the endurance capabilities of a muscle.

Strength training can reduce myoglobin content in a muscle, which decreases
a muscle's ability to extract oxygen.  Endurance training increases
myoglobin content, increasing a muscle's ability to extract oxygen. 
Sustained aerobic exercise requires much more oxygen than resistance
training, and therefore, to make a muscle more efficient at performing
sustained aerobic exercise, we must perform aerobic exercise to induce an
increase in myoglobin content so that our muscles can more efficiently
handle oxygen.  Strength training is an inferior method for accomplishing
this task since it can reduce myglobin content.

Low volume strength training reduces capillary density within muscle
tissue, while endurance training increases capillary density.  More
capillaries means more oxygen delivered to muscles to help sustain aerobic
exercise.  Since low volume strength training cannot increase capillary
density, it is a vastly inferior method for inducing adaptations to
increase the oxygen supply to muscle tissue, which is very necessary for
sustained aerobic exercise.

Endurance training results in an increase in the number and activity of
enzymes responsible for the aerobic metabolism of glucose.  Since strength
training is an anaerobic activity, it does not result in this adaptation
and cannot enhance endurance in this manner.

These completely different physiologic adaptations that occur within muscle
tissue due to the different types of training necessitates that if someone
is interested in both strength and endurance, that person must engage in
both types of activities to achieve the necessary adaptations.  Strength
training is as much of an inferior method for maximizing endurance as
endurance training is an inferior method for maximizing strength.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------

Andrew Baye wrote:


"I think Arthur Jones put it best when he said, "...the lifting of weights
is
so much superior for the purpose of improving the cardiovascular condition
of
a human being that whatever is in second place is not even in the running,
no
pun intended. That is to say, running is a very poor, a very dangerous, a
very
slow, a very inefficient, a very nonproductive method for eventually
producing
a very limited, low order of cardiovascular benefit. Any, ANY, result that
can
be produced by any amount of running can be duplicated and surpassed by the
proper use of weight lifting for cardiovascular benefits. Now I realize
that
there are hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of people in this country
who don't understand that, who don't believe that, who will not admit that.
Now these people are simply uninformed. Certainly, it's possible to run
with
no benefit, it's possible to lift weights with no benefit. I'm talking
about
the proper use of weight lifting; and properly applied, weight lifting will
improve your cardiovascular benefit to a degree that is impossible to
attain
with any amount of running."

and Stephen Turner wrote:

"we are learning that brief intense infrequent exercise is
probably superior for strength training, why not also for cardiovascular
conditioning."


My response:

My response begins with a personal story.  Throughout highschool, I was a
competitive swimmer.  Whenever I would run for P.E., play basketball with
my friends, or take a break from swimming to run distance during track
season, I found that I would perform very well compared to an individual
who did not participate in regular cardiovascular exercise.  I could
perform these sustained activities without becoming excessively winded or
exhausted;  I could run a great 1600 m time despite no running at all. 
This was due to the superior cardiovascular conditioning afforded to me by
swimming.

When I went to college, I stopped swimming and engaged in strength
training.  Strength training has been my sole activity for the past 6 years
now.  While my strength has vastly improved over from when I started (for
example, 8-10 RM dips with my bodyweight to 3 RM with 125 lbs strapped to
my waist at a bodyweight approximately 30-35 lbs heavier), my
cardiovascular conditioning is now vastly inferior.  For example, I easily
become winded after walking a long, long flight of steps.  I will now
outline a story of a bet that I made which demonstrates the inferior
cardiovascular conditioning afforded to me from strength training:

When I was in school at the University of Washington, I placed a $25 bet
with my roommate that I could beat him in a game of one-on-one basketball. 
I had better basketball skills than him (this was why I made the bet,
feeling I could beat him), although both of us were poor compared to
regular basketball players.  Again, strength training was my only activity,
while he was an endurance athlete, engaging in mountain biking.  I was
significantly stronger than this individual.  However, when we played the
game, he simply wore me down by constantly running back and forth around
the basket.  I became extremely winded and exhausted, and reached a point
where I could not keep up with him.  He beat me and I lost the bet. 
Compared to me, he was not working nearly as hard.  Why?  His
cardiovascular conditioning was superior to mine since he regularly engaged
in endurance training.  I never became so exhausted playing basketball when
I was a competitive swimmer.

Another individual on this list commented how he obtained much higher heart
rates during cardiovascular exercise over training HIT.

Now, let's look at physiological adaptations on the cardiovascular system
to endurance exercise (I've already examined muscular adaptations to
endurance exercise earlier in this post):

As far as the issue of VO2 max is concerned, if VO2 max was completely
genetically determined, then we would never see any improvement in it due
to endurance training.  However, numerous scientific studies have
demonstrated increases in VO2 max due to endurance training.  Even the
notion that it can be improved by only 20% is still a significant
improvement.

As far as the reliability of VO2 max is concerned, if VO2 max was truly an
unreliable test, then we would not see consistent results across the wealth
of scientific studies that demonstrate increases in VO2 max due to
endurance training and little to no changes due to strength training.

Endurance training requires the body to pump a large amount of blood at a
low pressure, while strength training requires the body to pump a small
amount of blood at a very high pressure.  These different stimuli cause
different physiologic adaptations within the body.  At rest, the body pumps
a large amount of blood at a low pressure.  Therefore, to make the body
more efficient at doing this, we must perform endurance training.

Endurance training increases plasma volume and total blood hemoglobin,
enhancing the ability of the body to deliver oxygen to working muscles. 
Strength training does not result in such an adaptation, since it is an
anaerobic activity.  Therefore, it is absolutely necessary to perform
endurance training to achieve this type of adaptation.

Endurance training can result in a significant increase in resting cardiac
stroke volume, which generally does not result from low volume strength
training.  So, if you want to get your heart to pump significantly more
blood per beat, the most efficient way to do this is through endurance
training.

All of these physiologic adaptations to endurance exercise support the SAID
principle:  to significantly increase the abilities of your cardiovascular
system to handle endurance activities, then you must perform those
activities.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------

Andrew Baye wrote:

"What health benefits? Slight cardiovascular conditioning? An insignificant
number of calories burned? Both of these can be surpassed by proper
strength
training."


My response:

I have already addressed the cardiovascular conditioning issue earlier in
this post that you are reading.  It is much more than "slight".

Insignificant # of calories burned?
 
Average energy cost of jogging:  7-9 cal/min
Average energy cost of weight training:  9-10 cal/min

Average daily energy expenditure for a marathon runner:  50-80 cal/kg
bodyweight
Average daily energy expenditure for a weightlifter:  56-75 cal/kg
bodyweight

Not a huge difference.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


---------------------

Andrew Baye wrote:

"What risks? Injuries to the joints and spine? Degenerative joint
conditions?
Muscular atrophy? Look at marathon runners. Most look like chickens not
even
fit to make soup of. If civilization were to collapse and we were to
regress
to the state of primitive savages, the joggers would be safe, no cannibal
would waste their time chasing after such a scrawny, measly sack of bones."


My response:

You have taken my aerobics stance out of context and to the extreme.

There is a significant difference between marathon runners and someone who
jogs 3 times a week for 20 minutes.

On a side note, Dr. Michael Colgan is one of the youngest looking 50-odd
aged men that I have ever seen, looking like he is in his 30's, and he runs
marathons.  I'm not advocating marathon running here, I am just using him
as an example to indicate that if running was as bad as you claim, he
should be looking like a frail old man in his 70's.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


------------------------

Andrew Baye wrote:

"By convincing a person that all they need to do is go to
step aerobics, or use their "cardioglide" or some other piece of garbage,
and
that they do not need to strength train, is doing them a great disservice.
Not
that I give a damn about the rest of humanity, but I can't stand liars,
even
if they don't know any better."


My response:

Nowhere in my post did I claim that a person does not need to strength
train.  I advocate strength training just as much as you do for every
individual engaging in an exercise program.  The difference between you and
I is that I do not claim that strength training can provide all of the
benefits of every other form of exercise, because it cannot.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------


----------------------------

My final words:

Judging from the contents of some posts, some people seemed to think that I
advocate running.  I do not advocate running;  however, I do not condemn it
either.  The proper structuring of a fitness program depends upon the goal
of an individual.  If an individual approached me and asked me whether they
should start jogging, I would first ask what that person's goals are.  If
the person was looking for significant alterations in body composition,
then I would direct them to a different activity.  If the person was
looking for general cardiovascular improvements, then I would outline the
cardiovascular and other health improvements that jogging can provide, and
also outline the potential injuries that can occur due to jogging.  Now,
jogging carries a higher injury potential than other aerobic activities
such as swimming or riding the stationary bike, so if injuries were a
concern to the individual, then I would direct them to one of these other
activities.

I made a mistake in using running as my example, since it does have a
higher injury risk than other forms of aerobic activity.  The injury
potential of running cannot be extrapolated to other forms of aerobic
activity.  My stance is that the Guild overblows the injury potential of
all forms of aerobic activity.  For example, the "injuries to joint and
spine" and "degenerative joint conditions" are a very rare occurence in
aerobic activities such as swimming or biking.
Such conditions are more a result of overtraining rather than due to the
activity itself.

Hopefully, everyone is now clear where I stand on this issue.  For the
Superslow advocates to convince me otherwise, they will need to provide me
with the following:

On the injury potential of aerobics:

1.  National statistical data demonstrating that aerobic exercise carries a
very high injury potential.  Running is an unfair example because there are
many other forms of aerobic exercise other than running.

2.  The physiological mechanisms explaining why aerobic exercise is
dangerous (provided that overtraining is not occuring.  Strength training
can be just as injury-provoking if overtraining is at work)

On the idea that strength training provides all of the benefits of
endurance exercise:

1.  The physiological adaptations (both muscular and cardiovascular) of
strength training and how they equal or exceed that of endurance training
and how these adaptations benefit endurance exercise more than endurance
training itself.  

2.  Peer-reviewed scientific studies demonstrating this.  Don't give me
evidence that strength training can benefit endurance activities, which is
well known in the scienfitic community;  I'm talking about significant
evidence that strength training can replace endurance activities.


The following cannot convince me:  philosophy, 1970's quotes from Arthur
Jones, blanket statements about exercise science or scientists, or research
from Nautilus that I cannot go look up at my University library (in the
words of the HIT strength coach Ken Mannie, "Would you accept the
credibility of a study done by a cigarette company on the safety of
smoking?").


James Krieger
Top

Date: Tue, 3 Feb 1998 11:08:30 -0600 (CST)
From: lylemcd@onr.com (Lyle McDonald)
Subject: Re: Comments on aerobics

Though I'm trying hard not to get dragged into another debate with no
conclusion, I want to make a couple of comments about the topic of
aerobics.  While I agree completely that aerobic exercise is highly
*over-rated* from a variety of standpoints, I believe it a bit reductive to
say that's it's useless/nonsense, etc.  And I know it's a bit after the
original discussion but I've been busy.

>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 18:56:52 -0500 (EST)
>From: Peter Zappola 
>Subject: Re: to James Kriegers Comments on Aerobics

>However, for anyone interested in maximum muscle in minimum time, nothing
>beat high intensity anaerobic resistance training.

I agree.  But that's not the point of aerobic exercise anyhow so it's kind
of a moot point.  Anyone who thinks they are going to gain much muscle from
aerobic exercise is insane.  But again that's not why people perform
aerobics in the first place.

>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:33:17 EST
>From: DrewBaye 
>Subject: Aerobics is not exercise, and exercise is not supposed to be fun.

>As for George Sheehan, MD, here are a few quotes from The Physician and
>Sportsmedicine which might prove to be somewhat insightful;
>
>"You might suspect from the emphasis on cardiopulmonary fitness today that
>training involves mostly the heart and lungs. Guess again. No matter what you
>have been told, running primarily trains and conditions the muscles; the other
>organs merely assist in realizing this functional potential. Almost all the
>improvement in performance occurs because of circulatory changes in the
>muscles and changes in the muscle cells, the engines that transform chemical
>energy into mechanical energy."
>
>Why not just address the muscles more safely and efficiently with HIT?

Because even a cursory glance at the exercise research will show that the
muscular adaptations to strength training are diametrically opposed to that
of endurance training.

Let's take at face value the contention that there are NO central
adaptations (in the heart and lungs) to endurance training (a contention I
happen to disagree with but that's another post) and look just at the
peripheral adaptations (in the muscle).

Depending on the paramters of the training (number of sets, length of set
time, rest interval between sets), strength training has generally been
shown to cause a decrease in mitochondrial density and a decrease in
capillary density, both of which are adaptations which are necessary for
aerobic performance.  I believe a decrease in the quantity of aerobic
enzymes has also been documented but I'm not sure going from memory.

So from the standpoint of achieving *optimal* aerobic performance (if such
is your goal), strength training alone will not provide the proper
adaptations.

Or we can simply look at it from a real-world viewpoint.  The stance taken
by the SSG (and implicit in Sheehan's comments cited above) is that aerobic
training provides NO adaptation which strenght training can not provide
from a peripheral standpoint.  I'd be more than happy to put up an
endurance athlete that I've trained (and I use a combination of endurance
training, intervals, sprint training AND heavy strenght training) against
ANY athlete who has just strength trained in a race.

Now, I suppose we could argue the skill factor here as well.  But even the
presence of the skill factor eliminates the contention that HIT can do for
muscles what endurance training does.  SAID dominates again.  If you want
your muscles to get stronger and generate more force, do strenght training.
IF you want your muscles to be more enduring, do endurance training.  But
don't expect endurance training to improve your strength (to any great
degree) any more than strenght training will vastly improve your endurance.

And I am well aware of the studies by HIckson showing an improvement in
endurance performance with heavy strenght training (5X5 I believe).  But,
he was comparing a group that performed endurance training PLUS strenght
training to a group that performed endurnace training only (or he may have
looked at improvement in endurance performance when strenght training was
added). Although I'm not aware of any studies along these lines, I have no
doubt that the comparison of athletes who did endurance trianing ONLY to
those who did strenght trianing ONLY would show increased endurance
performance than in the endurance only.  I would equally expect a third
group who did endurance AND strength training to perform better than
either.

>Date: Mon, 26 Jan 1998 20:45:06 EST
>From: DrewBaye 
>Subject: Running: Benefit vs. Risk

>What health benefits? Slight cardiovascular conditioning? An insignificant
>number of calories burned? Both of these can be surpassed by proper strength
>training.

How are you defining slight here.  The adaptations in the heart from
endurance training (increased contractility and efficiency of pumping) are
different than from strenght training (increased left ventricular
hypertrophy).

>What risks? Injuries to the joints and spine? Degenerative joint conditions?
>Muscular atrophy? Look at marathon runners. Most look like chickens not even
>fit to make soup of. If civilization were to collapse and we were to regress
>to the state of primitive savages, the joggers would be safe, no cannibal
>would waste their time chasing after such a scrawny, measly sack of bones.

Ok, but what about the person who does 20' of aerobics thrice weekly
(considered the bare minimum to get benfits).  Using an extreme example
(marathohn runner) to condemn a little aerobics would be like using an
elite bodybuilder to say: "Look at what you'll look like if you lift
weights for 30' three times weekly."

>People desperately need exercise. Real exercise. And telling them that they
>can benefit from jogging, doing the dishes, gardening, etc, is only going to
>draw their attention away from real exercise; low force, high intensity
>strength training.

I don't think anyone on this list will argue your contention that strength
training is by far and away the best activity on the planet for everyoen to
be doing.  I sure won't.  I was preaching hte benefits of strenght training
to clients and family many years ago before it was cool.  Everyone should
be strenght training.  Everyone.

>By convincing a person that all they need to do is go to
>step aerobics, or use their "cardioglide" or some other piece of garbage, and
>that they do not need to strength train, is doing them a great disservice.

I agree with you.  But you are vastly overgeneralizing here.  You are
basically including anyone who has a person do aerobics (for whatever
reason) in your condemnation of aerobics.  I think aerobics are highly
overrated.  I think they have their place in an overall fitness program. I
think everyone should be doing some type of weight training.  I don't
believe in toning, shaping or any of that garbage.  So I'm not at either
extreme that you have delinated: those who think all you should do is
aerobics or those who think all aerobic activity is bad.  So where do I
fall?

Lyle McDonald, CSCS


Top

Date: Sun, 01 Feb 1998 13:20:43 -0600
From: Patrick Ziebell / John Nall 
Subject: Re: James Krieger's SuperSlow oratory

OK.  Please see below...  I've made some of the minor edits you've
recommended, hopefully this now meets the requirements.

Thanks,
Patrick 

cyberpump@geocities.com wrote:
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is not acceptable in current format. Can you please resubmit?  I see only some
> minor changes would make it acceptable. Like the subject header, and references to sarcasm.
> 
> Please just try to present your information.  We are now trying to avoid being adversarial and getting personal on the digest.
> 
> Thank-you,
> 
> Rob
> 
> Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:19:59 -0600
> From: Patrick Ziebell / John Nall 
> Subject: RE: SuperSlow comments in digest #93
> 
> I’ve been able to stay clear of the discussions/debates up to this
> point… Andrew usually does more than hold his own on these topics, but
> this last little “ditty” from James just got stuck too far back in my
> craw to let it go…
> 
> James writes <<<< However, I feel this anti-aerobics attitude will only
> hinder the need to encourage an ever-increasing sedentary population
> into engaging in regular
> exercise program…. >>>>
> 
> The key phrase here is “exercise”, folks involved with SuperSlow
> absolutely encourage EXERCISE programs… “aerobics” do not constitute
> exercise… it is a form of recreation.  Hence, it’s not encouraged as an
> exercise program.  I would question your “ever increasing sedentary
> population” theory… heck, we’re in the midst of the gigantic health and
> fitness boom!… health clubs on every street corner, xx million people
> now engage in running…  I think your point should be rephrased to “ever
> increasing overfat, out-of-shape population”, that I’ll buy 100%.  But,
> doesn’t that seem odd in light of my previous observation?… Hmmm,
> something must not be quite right here…..
> 
> <<<< Part of the problem with a lack of adherence to regular exercise
> programs is that many people find exercise monotonous and unenjoyable >>>>
> 
> Proper exercise should NOT be performed as entertainment or amusement…
> it should not be “fun”.  Exercise is a logical strategy to elicit
> improvements from and within your body.  Properly conducted, it should
> not require more than 60-90 minutes week (advanced folks even less).
> Use the other 167 hours of your week in the pursuit of fun, enjoyable
> pursuits.. don’t look for amusement within your workouts.
> 
> <<<< The constant attacks by the Superslow Guild on aerobic exercise are
> unfounded.  I am purely speaking for myself here, but I view these
> attacks as ploys to convert people to Superslow.  Discouraging people from doing
> activities that they may enjoy and receive health benefits from seems
> self-serving to me. >>>>
> 
> SuperSlow advocates have no business “discouraging people from doing
> activities that they enjoy…” some people might like to read books or
> perhaps paint, why would I tell someone not to do that?  The problem
> comes in when folks get involved in recreational activities with the
> idea that they are doing something that will earn them exercise
> benefits.  They end up disappointed, frustrated, injured, or all the
> above.  As far as “converting” people… that’s silly.  Folks involved
> with this protocol are just trying to get the word out that a safer,
> more efficient, and at least AS effective form of exercise now exists.
> The protocol hasn’t been around long (I’m speaking of the structured
> SuperSlow exercsie protocol, not “I lift my weights slower during my
> HD2, or Periodization program”, that’s not the SuperSlow exercise
> protocol, that’s lifting your weights “slower”, don’t be mislead).  This
> industry itself has been around a long, long time now… iron dumbbells
> and running around the park has been performed for decades…  this
> laggard industry has to evolve sometime doesn’t it?  Why is it so hard
> to swallow that a better way to accomplish a certain task just might be
> available?
> 
> <<<< I present you with some comments from long-time Runner's World
> columnist
> George Sheehan: >>>>
> 
> How absolutely ironic that you’re quoting a veteran Runner’s World
> columnist… I would advise everyone reading this post to “run” over (pun
> intended) to their local magazine rack and pick up the latest (Feb ’98)
> copy of Runner’s World….   What is the featured article screaming across
> the cover?!?  “FIX INJURIES FAST!”  Hmmmm… This is a premier “health and
> fitness” (still not sure what that phrase means) magazine exposing all
> the benefits of health and fitness…  yet here on the cover is a featured
> article on fixing your injuries…  in a kind of “oh, by the way, WHEN you
> get injured, here’s how you can treat your pain”.  _Proper exercise
> should PREVENT injury, not CREATE injury_ , yet another big clue that
> running/aerobics are not exercise, they are recreational past times that
> carry with them some marginal health benefits (generous) and a great
> deal of injury potential…  if you’re going to run/aerobicize, do it
> because you enjoy it and understand the risks therein… don’t do it for
> exercise benefits.
> 
> << exercise.  I consider these scare tactics that have little basis in hard
> facts>>>
> 
> You state that SuperSlow advocates are _way_ too hung up on injury
> potential, but in the national publications month after agonizing month
> you’ll see these types of articles (“101 ways to help that aching knee”,
> “25 home remedies for hip pain”, “how to ice your shin splints”, etc..)
> in “health and fitness” (recreational) publications..  Perhaps for
> younger folks this seems silly to be concerned with injury, heck, when
> you’re in your 20’s you could practically go out and get run over by and
> truck and wake up the next day with a subtle tooth ache.  But I assure
> you as we age (to Andrew’s point from a few digests ago) the cumulative
> effects are staggering.
> 
> <<<< The Guild believes that endurance exercise produces no
> physiological
> adaptations to enhance endurance, and that Superslow can produce all the
> benefits that an endurance exercise protocol would. >>>>
> 
> I’m not going to regurgitate all of the past debates.. but to rest… a
> stronger muscle is a more “enduring” muscle whatever “muscular
> endurance” is… (the term is so specious that it’s difficult to even
> frame a sentence with it.)
> 
> In closing… one has to keep this in mind when addressing exercise
> concerns…
> _The_cardiovascular_system_exists_to_support_the_muscular_system_, not
> the other way around.  Skill conditioning also plays an extremely large
> role… motor learning principles are key in helping us comprehend
> exercise.
> 
> Patrick J. Ziebell
Top