DGS49
Diamond Member
When Dr. Kenneth Cooper published his book, "Aerobics," it took the fitness industry by storm. In a nutshell, he proposed that one could (basically) guarantee good health by simply doing exercises that raised the heart rate to the "aerobic" level, and kept it there for 20 or more minutes, three times per week. Distance running was the easiest path to this exercise goal.
The aerobic level, in basic terms, is 220 minus your age, multiplied by 70-85%. So for a 40 year old human, it would be (220-40) x 0.7 (to 0.85) = 126 to 153.
It is Dr. Cooper's work that is the reason why treadmills, elliptical machines, and the like have those little charts on the side, telling you what heart range you should strive for, depending on your age. They are based on the calculation shown above.
But it has been observed that a lot of people who follow this regimen STILL have heart disease and occasionally die from it, pretty much to the same extent as if they did nothing.
A Dr. Barry Sears observes that we humans evolved to exercise differently. He points out that our primitive human and humanoid ancestors did not do any long-distance running, but only ran occasionally when (1) pursuing prey, or (2) avoiding a predator, and in those cases they ran as fast as they could for a short period of time. So he recommends "interval training," which is short bursts of intense activity, with rest periods in between. In concept, this might be done on a quarter-mile oval - sprinting the straight sections and walking the curves. According to Dr, Sears, four or five such sprints is plenty, and a complete workout for heart and lungs can be accomplished in about 12 minutes.
Dr. Cooper subsequently acknowledged that his original prescription was not the best and that some interval or hill training was necessary to optimize heart and lung efficiency.
On the other hand, it has been observed that exercise at BELOW the "aerobic level" - for example walking - is actually better for calorie burning and weight loss ("fat burning") than running, which basically burns only sugar and carbs. But walking for weight loss takes more time than running or doing intervals, which is a consideration for most people.
Is it possible that weight training (or calisthenics) alone can condition the heart and lungs, when considering, say, a one-hour workout 3 or 4 times a week? My own experience is that my heart is seldom elevated during wright training, even when I'm pushing myself to the maximum.
Parenthetically, I will also observe that neither aerobic nor interval training do anything to improve strength or musculature - even in the legs. Candidly speaking, most distance runners look like shit, physique-wise.
Any other thoughts?
The aerobic level, in basic terms, is 220 minus your age, multiplied by 70-85%. So for a 40 year old human, it would be (220-40) x 0.7 (to 0.85) = 126 to 153.
It is Dr. Cooper's work that is the reason why treadmills, elliptical machines, and the like have those little charts on the side, telling you what heart range you should strive for, depending on your age. They are based on the calculation shown above.
But it has been observed that a lot of people who follow this regimen STILL have heart disease and occasionally die from it, pretty much to the same extent as if they did nothing.
A Dr. Barry Sears observes that we humans evolved to exercise differently. He points out that our primitive human and humanoid ancestors did not do any long-distance running, but only ran occasionally when (1) pursuing prey, or (2) avoiding a predator, and in those cases they ran as fast as they could for a short period of time. So he recommends "interval training," which is short bursts of intense activity, with rest periods in between. In concept, this might be done on a quarter-mile oval - sprinting the straight sections and walking the curves. According to Dr, Sears, four or five such sprints is plenty, and a complete workout for heart and lungs can be accomplished in about 12 minutes.
Dr. Cooper subsequently acknowledged that his original prescription was not the best and that some interval or hill training was necessary to optimize heart and lung efficiency.
On the other hand, it has been observed that exercise at BELOW the "aerobic level" - for example walking - is actually better for calorie burning and weight loss ("fat burning") than running, which basically burns only sugar and carbs. But walking for weight loss takes more time than running or doing intervals, which is a consideration for most people.
Is it possible that weight training (or calisthenics) alone can condition the heart and lungs, when considering, say, a one-hour workout 3 or 4 times a week? My own experience is that my heart is seldom elevated during wright training, even when I'm pushing myself to the maximum.
Parenthetically, I will also observe that neither aerobic nor interval training do anything to improve strength or musculature - even in the legs. Candidly speaking, most distance runners look like shit, physique-wise.
Any other thoughts?
