Weight & exercise

[Guest guest]

Exercise has almost nothing to do with CR. AFAIK research suggests that

calories avoided are far more beneficial than calories burned by exercise

(there is still some debate over calories burned to keep us warm).

Exercise has plenty to do with maintaining quality of life in those lucky

enough to live past middle age.

Exercise can have a place in weight loss and body shaping for health,

cosmetic, or self image concerns in overweight individuals.

In what context are you addressing exercise?

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:06 PM

Subject: [ ] Weight & Exercise

Hi folks:

Most sources tell us that in order to burn off the calories contained

in just one pound of excess weight one must either: walk at a brisk

four mph for fifty miles; or jog at six mph for thirty-five

miles; .............. or the eqivalent in whatever one's chosen

exercise happens to be.

Whenever I ask someone which they would consider the more practical

way to lose a pound of weight - walking briskly for 12½ hours, or

foregoing eating 'one pound weights worth of calories', I have never

heard anyone reply " walk briskly for 12½ hours " .

I have taken quite a lot of exercise, mostly jogging, over the past

forty years. But for me foregoing the food is far more practical

than eating whatever I happen to feel like eating, and then trying to

make up for it by jogging thirty-five miles per pound.

Some people apparently get a, perhaps addictive, 'high' from

strenuous exercise. I have never been so fortunate. I have disliked

every bit of it. I have only done it because I figured it would

contribute to the maintenance of my health.

Rodney.

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi JR:

In two contexts really. First, as an antidote to the exercise

industry's marketing efforts to have us believe, as I heard one

exercise advocate state on a TV program that: " it is a waste of time

to try to lose weight without incorporating an exercise program " .

And I posted it now because of earlier posts relating to the Ukraine

and Germany which seemed to suggest that just a little bit of

exercise would do miracles in terms of weight loss. I am not

doubting that exercise burns off calories. Nor that exercise may be

beneficial to health (I jog because I hope it is beneficial). I just

wanted to clarify how much exercise is needed to burn off one pound

of weight.

My conclusion would be more along the lines that: " it is a waste of

time and mental resources to incorporate exerise into a weight-loss

program " . Better to focus one's mental energies where they will be

most effective.

Yes, CR is not about exercise. Or even, directly, about weight loss.

Rodney.

--- In , " john roberts " <johnhrob@n...>

wrote:

> In what context are you addressing exercise?

>

[Guest guest]

>>I just wanted to clarify how much exercise is needed to burn off one pound

of weight.

I am not sure the numbers were 100% correct. 3500 calories equal a pound of

fat. One mile, whether it is walked, or run, burns approximately 100 calories.

Running may burn slightly more due to lowered efficiency, but not much more.

So, to lose a pound, it would take 35 miles, walking or running, on average.

So, the running number was accurate but the walking said about 50 miles. That

would be about 1.4 lbs.

The advantage to running is that it would take you less time than walking. In

addition with running, you may create a greater EPOC, or increase in post

exercise metabolism, and burn a few more calories by the end of the day.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Just to clarify.

You say weight but you imply fat weight.

Weight loss is a combination of fat, water, and glucose, right?

I could lose a lot of weight just by not eating and no exercise - let metab burn it.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:05 PM

Subject: [ ] Weight & Exercise

Hi folks:Most sources tell us that in order to burn off the calories contained in just one pound of excess weight one must either: walk at a brisk four mph for fifty miles; or jog at six mph for thirty-five miles; .............. or the eqivalent in whatever one's chosen exercise happens to be.Whenever I ask someone which they would consider the more practical way to lose a pound of weight - walking briskly for 12½ hours, or foregoing eating 'one pound weights worth of calories', I have never heard anyone reply "walk briskly for 12½ hours".I have taken quite a lot of exercise, mostly jogging, over the past forty years. But for me foregoing the food is far more practical than eating whatever I happen to feel like eating, and then trying to make up for it by jogging thirty-five miles per pound.Some people apparently get a, perhaps addictive, 'high' from strenuous exercise. I have never been so fortunate. I have disliked every bit of it. I have only done it because I figured it would contribute to the maintenance of my health.Rodney.

[Guest guest]

Rodney - your point is really well taken. While it's a moot point

with CRON, since we are all calorie restricted and not exercise

focused, it's part of the mentality that gets in the way of the

general public accepting CRON. A lot of newbies think that exercise

HAS to be part of your lifestyle.

I think most ordinary eaters consistently overeat and then tell

themselves that they just need to exercise more. Then, they never do.

This keeps them from developing better habits of restraint.

> > In what context are you addressing exercise?

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

Well we must be looking at different sources. Those I have seen

indicate that running is quite a bit less efficient than walking. I

have assumed that the principal reason is because, when walking, you

are simply moving your body weight pretty much in a horizontal

direction. But when running, with every step, in addition to the

horizontal motion, you also raise your entire body weight some

distance above the ground (an inch or two?).

Perhaps I will try to find (but not this evening) my source for the

relative caloric expenditure per mile for different types

of 'ambulatory' exercise.

(Of course the amount expended will also vary considerably with body

weight being moved. So all these numbers are just approximations.)

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> >>I just wanted to clarify how much exercise is needed to burn off

one pound

> of weight.

>

> I am not sure the numbers were 100% correct. 3500 calories equal a

pound of fat. One mile, whether it is walked, or run, burns

approximately 100 calories. Running may burn slightly more due to

lowered efficiency, but not much more.

>

> So, to lose a pound, it would take 35 miles, walking or running, on

average. So, the running number was accurate but the walking said

about 50 miles. That would be about 1.4 lbs.

>

> The advantage to running is that it would take you less time than

walking. In addition with running, you may create a greater EPOC, or

increase in post exercise metabolism, and burn a few more calories by

the end of the day.

>

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

This discussion reminds of the following diet advertisement I made up

to amuse a few friends:

The Coma Diet

Check in to any of our Coma Diet facilities (franchised), tell us how

many pounds you want to lose. We hook you up to IVs and then feed you a

(patented) combination of knockout drugs and sub-1000 calorie diet for

as long as it takes for the weight to Melt Away . If you prefer, we

will see that police/newspaper reports are filed describing the

fictitious accident that put you in a coma so that when you come out of

your coma in 6 months, your friends will be overcome with sympathy

(instead of jealousy at your " instant " diet).

Conveniently, at the same time you are in your coma we can also handle

optional services that would otherwise be painful while conscious such

as root canal, liposuction, laser hair removal, and tax filing.

Don

[Guest guest]

It is remarkable what they say on TV... my favorite exercise product ad is

for one that promises a complete workout in " one effortless motion " :-) and

people out there buy that poop.

I am personally an advocate of combining exercise with eating less for the

most healthful transition from heavy/unfit to light/fit, but my personal

experience reinforces your observation that exercise alone will generally be

ineffective. With the exception of one period when I trained up to a

marathon I've been pretty active for the last 10-20 years " and "

significantly overweight. Even when I ran the marathon, while not heavy I

was some 20 lbs heavier than now.

You are quite correct the bottom line is consume less calories. To turn your

argument upside down, the good news is that I don't have to eat that much

more to support my basketball and running habit... :-)

I also advocate resistance training, which also burns minimal calories

during the workout. I miss the muscle I used to have, and I didn't have all

that much to start with. I wish I had been more effective at keeping the

muscle while losing mainly fat.... but I don't plan to ever go back and try

this again. Perhaps after a lifetime of failed diets you don't really

believe you will ever lose it so don't worry as the pounds melt off.

JR

-----Original Message-----

From: Rodney [mailto:perspect1111@...]

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 6:40 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Weight & Exercise

Hi JR:

In two contexts really. First, as an antidote to the exercise

industry's marketing efforts to have us believe, as I heard one

exercise advocate state on a TV program that: " it is a waste of time

to try to lose weight without incorporating an exercise program " .

And I posted it now because of earlier posts relating to the Ukraine

and Germany which seemed to suggest that just a little bit of

exercise would do miracles in terms of weight loss. I am not

doubting that exercise burns off calories. Nor that exercise may be

beneficial to health (I jog because I hope it is beneficial). I just

wanted to clarify how much exercise is needed to burn off one pound

of weight.

My conclusion would be more along the lines that: " it is a waste of

time and mental resources to incorporate exerise into a weight-loss

program " . Better to focus one's mental energies where they will be

most effective.

Yes, CR is not about exercise. Or even, directly, about weight loss.

Rodney.

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

Your point about " the calorie avoided is better than the calorie burned in

exercise " is well-taken. If my post (ukraine) seemed to indicate otherwise,

then I apologise because that wasn't the impression that I intended to make.

My post was directed more at conventional wisdom that always seems to

downplay the role of reducing calorie intake in health. Also, my point

about the exercise that is a part of life in most of Europe wasn't to

suggest that the exercise alone is a weight-reducer, but that the overall

lifestyle is conducive to proper weight management. Not the least of what I

meant to convey is that the lifestyle itself has an effect of restricting

calories, not just that of increasing exercise.

One point that I didn't make is an important one, and I'd like to add it

now. The role of restriction of variety in the restriction of calories.

Part of the " lifestyle " here is that there is really very little variety in

the types of foods that are available. I've found that when you are

basically consuming the same foods every day will little variety, you tend

never to overconsume them. For example, I eat oatmeal pretty much everyday,

and after I consume a normal portion, I have no desire to consume more. I

am sated after only 350 calories. Contrast that with a breakfast of bacon,

eggs, toast, and juice, none of which are bad for you in moderation, but the

combination all of them together easily leads to overconsumption. I could

easily consume 1000 calories of these before thinking that I should stop.

However, I could never consume that many calories of toast, or eggs, or

bacon, by themselves.

(|-|ri5

>

>

> Hi JR:

>

> In two contexts really. First, as an antidote to the exercise

> industry's marketing efforts to have us believe, as I heard one

> exercise advocate state on a TV program that: " it is a waste of time

> to try to lose weight without incorporating an exercise program " .

>

> And I posted it now because of earlier posts relating to the Ukraine

> and Germany which seemed to suggest that just a little bit of

> exercise would do miracles in terms of weight loss. I am not

> doubting that exercise burns off calories. Nor that exercise may be

> beneficial to health (I jog because I hope it is beneficial). I just

> wanted to clarify how much exercise is needed to burn off one pound

> of weight.

>

> My conclusion would be more along the lines that: " it is a waste of

> time and mental resources to incorporate exerise into a weight-loss

> program " . Better to focus one's mental energies where they will be

> most effective.

>

> Yes, CR is not about exercise. Or even, directly, about weight loss.

>

> Rodney.

>

>

>

> > In what context are you addressing exercise?

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Well, you have to understand that there is a certain amount of truth to that

if you are coming from a standpoint of just wanting to " get in shape " . The

problem many people have is that they cut calories drastically, lose muscle

tone, slow their metabolism, and then later go back to eating " normally " and

gain all the weight back and more.

For people who don't want to make reduced calories a part of the rest of

their lives, then exercise is a must, IMO. Even then, though, this sort of

person probably will never be in good shape because overeating just a little

can negate hours of exercise.

I think the message that needs to be stressed more and more nowadays is that

controlling calorie intake is something that *always* must be done, not just

temporarily while you are trying to lose weight. That message doesn't sell

books and videos, though.

(|-|ri5

> I heard one

> exercise advocate state on a TV program that: " it is a waste of time

> to try to lose weight without incorporating an exercise program " .

> >

[Guest guest]

That's the problem I had with the physics of it. When you walk horizontally you do almost no real work as in work = force times distance. Only the motion of you weigh times the distance your CG moves up and down is work as defined in physics.

If I pick up 100 #, 1 foot that's 100 ft-lbs. So if I do squats, climb stairs, that's work. If I pick up a 100# 1 foot and move it horizontally 10 ft, I do 100 ft-lbs. If I hold a 1 # weight at arms length without moving it, I do NO work. But you know that arm gets tired, so it's doing "biological" work. And the tiredness is the buildup of lactic ac id in that non aerobic mode.

Now let's talk efficiency. If I do aerobic work, I can be 37 times more efficient, because in that mode the body is more efficient. If I dig a garden, I do real work and I work in a diff mode. You will notice you sweat a lot - the body is less efficient. Muscles get used and exercised and get prettier. I can walk several miles in 98 deg and sweat very little. If I crank my treadmill up to 14 deg, I do a lot more work. If I climb real stairs, I do a lot more work. Muscles get cramped easily after say 20 floors. The lactic acid buildup in that mode has to be released by resting.

They say if you start sweating (about 20 min walking) that's a sign you're aerobic. But eventually, I get to a point that I can walk at 3 mph for an hour and not sweat. Does that mean I'm no longer aerobic? (rhet) I don't think so.

But the real question is what happening to the arteries. Are they getting cleaner or fattier when I walk? I'm betting they get fattier if I run, cleaner if I walk, fattier if I do real work. And it's the arterial fat that bothers me not the adipose fat.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Rodney

Sent: Tuesday, June 01, 2004 8:47 PM

Subject: [ ] Re: Weight & Exercise

Hi Jeff:Well we must be looking at different sources. Those I have seen indicate that running is quite a bit less efficient than walking. I have assumed that the principal reason is because, when walking, you are simply moving your body weight pretty much in a horizontal direction. But when running, with every step, in addition to the horizontal motion, you also raise your entire body weight some distance above the ground (an inch or two?).Perhaps I will try to find (but not this evening) my source for the relative caloric expenditure per mile for different types of 'ambulatory' exercise.(Of course the amount expended will also vary considerably with body weight being moved. So all these numbers are just approximations.)Rodney.> >>I just wanted to clarify how much exercise is needed to burn off one pound > of weight.> > I am not sure the numbers were 100% correct. 3500 calories equal a pound of fat. One mile, whether it is walked, or run, burns approximately 100 calories. Running may burn slightly more due to lowered efficiency, but not much more. > > So, to lose a pound, it would take 35 miles, walking or running, on average. So, the running number was accurate but the walking said about 50 miles. That would be about 1.4 lbs. > > The advantage to running is that it would take you less time than walking. In addition with running, you may create a greater EPOC, or increase in post exercise metabolism, and burn a few more calories by the end of the day.> > Jeff

[Guest guest]

Something doesn't sound right with that statement. Why couldn't it be that your body is now stonger and adjusted to that level of exercise without stress? If you are not sweating, or breathing hard, if your heart rate is unchanged, that probably means that you now must increase the level of effort in order to be "aerobic".

(|-|ri5

<< They say if you start sweating (about 20 min walking) that's a sign you're aerobic. But eventually, I get to a point that I can walk at 3 mph for an hour and not sweat. Does that mean I'm no longer aerobic? (rhet) I don't think so. >>

[Guest guest]

That's what I'm pointing out. I think I'm still aerobic walking, but I do know if I dig a garden I sweat a lot, and I never get used to it, so I think that's non aerobic. People who do real work, are often in "that" mode and it doesn't seem to help their health. I think you can't just keep increasing the level of effort to stay aerobic, because eventually you reach your maximum and you're no longer aerobic, right? If it's true I reach that I reach a point where I'm no longer aerobic, why walk?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: chris

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:59 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Weight & Exercise

Something doesn't sound right with that statement. Why couldn't it be that your body is now stonger and adjusted to that level of exercise without stress? If you are not sweating, or breathing hard, if your heart rate is unchanged, that probably means that you now must increase the level of effort in order to be "aerobic".

(|-|ri5

<< They say if you start sweating (about 20 min walking) that's a sign you're aerobic. But eventually, I get to a point that I can walk at 3 mph for an hour and not sweat. Does that mean I'm no longer aerobic? (rhet) I don't think so. >>

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff:

Here is one source regarding the calories burned during walking and

running:

" Healthy Women, Healthy Lives " - Walter Willett (Nurses' Health

Study)

There is a diagram showing the minutes of activity required to burn

150 calories. (I cannot tell you the page # because when I

photocopied it the machine missed the part of the page where the

number was. But it is a histogram with the bars horizontal, and

is 'FIG. 15-1').

It shows that running 1.5 miles in 21.5 minutes (@ 4.19 mph - pretty

slow running speed) burns 150 calories. And that walking two miles

in 36.5 minutes (@ 3.29 mph) burns 150 calories.

This indicates that the running, at the speed indicated, burns 100

calories per mile (35 miles per pound of weight); while the walking

burns about 75 calories per mile (~46.7 miles per pound of weight).

Willett gives the source of this data as: " U.S. Dept. of Health and

Human Services " .

Rodney.

--- In , " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@p...>

wrote:

> >>I just wanted to clarify how much exercise is needed to burn off

one pound

> of weight.

>

> I am not sure the numbers were 100% correct. 3500 calories equal a

pound of fat. One mile, whether it is walked, or run, burns

approximately 100 calories. Running may burn slightly more due to

lowered efficiency, but not much more.

>

> So, to lose a pound, it would take 35 miles, walking or running, on

average. So, the running number was accurate but the walking said

about 50 miles. That would be about 1.4 lbs.

>

> The advantage to running is that it would take you less time than

walking. In addition with running, you may create a greater EPOC, or

increase in post exercise metabolism, and burn a few more calories by

the end of the day.

>

> Jeff

[Guest guest]

Perhaps you're talking about aerobic and anaerobic? Typically at the start of any activity your body operates in a purely anaerobic mode... predominantly carbohydrate metabolism (Muscular glycogen). After several minutes of moderate activity the body transitions to a more energy efficient aerobic fat metabolism.

Your heavy lifting in the garden will be a combination of both. but sore muscles (lactic acid) are sure evidence of anaerobic metabolism.

Whether you sweat or not will have a great deal to do with your surface area to body mass, ambient temperature and humidity. Since walking or running generates more heat than your major muscles can dissipate the heat is carried by blood flow to be expelled out you mouth in exhaled air and to heat the skin.

It is still pretty easy to eat more than we can work off.

JR

-----Original Message-----From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 7:30 AM Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Weight & Exercise

That's what I'm pointing out. I think I'm still aerobic walking, but I do know if I dig a garden I sweat a lot, and I never get used to it, so I think that's non aerobic. People who do real work, are often in "that" mode and it doesn't seem to help their health. I think you can't just keep increasing the level of effort to stay aerobic, because eventually you reach your maximum and you're no longer aerobic, right? If it's true I reach that I reach a point where I'm no longer aerobic, why walk?

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: chris

Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:59 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Weight & Exercise

Something doesn't sound right with that statement. Why couldn't it be that your body is now stonger and adjusted to that level of exercise without stress? If you are not sweating, or breathing hard, if your heart rate is unchanged, that probably means that you now must increase the level of effort in order to be "aerobic".

(|-|ri5

<< They say if you start sweating (about 20 min walking) that's a sign you're aerobic. But eventually, I get to a point that I can walk at 3 mph for an hour and not sweat. Does that mean I'm no longer aerobic? (rhet) I don't think so. >>

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

-----Original Message-----

From: Dowling [mailto:dowlic@...]

Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:22 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Weight & exercise

What kind of caloric intake do think is necessary to run marathon distances?

Isn't this practice rather contrary to CR?

1) the calories consumed related to running and more importantly training

for a marathon are a function of your body weight, speed, and how many miles

(approx 100-150 kcal/mile). How many miles you run per week in training for

marathon can easily exceed marathon distance and varies dramatically with

whether you are trying to break 3 hrs, or just finish.

2) While running marathons is clearly in conflict with strict CRON, strict

CRON is often in conflict with maximal QOL.... We all must choose our

personal paths. IMO life extension for it's own sake is an incomplete goal.

Live long and well...

JR

________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

detected in this email. For more information, call

601-776-3355 or email support@...

________________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

> What kind of caloric intake do think is necessary to run marathon

distances?

> Isn't this practice rather contrary to CR?

>

For forty miles per week of marathon training, you would need an

additional,

( 40 miles/week * 100 calories/mile ) = 4000 calories (weekly)

571.4 calories (daily)

This is a rough ball-park calculation for the average size person.

So if CRON calories = 2000 (my current case)

Total calories would equal 2000 + 571.4 = 2571.4

Ratio according to body weight and training mileage and any other

relevant variables. Actually this would be for delta miles, that is

miles additional to what you are running now.

Aequalsz

(Disclaimer. I'm not a certified dietician, so caveat emptor.)

[Guest guest]

One reason I mention this is that my wife runs marathons. She routinely eats

a 10 oz tin of Planters Deluxe Mixed Nuts every day or two. She has a

relatively low (compared to the general population, anyway) of 21-22. She is

nowhere close to CR in terms of caloric intake....

Personally, I also exercise more than has been deemed optimal for CR.....

>From: " john roberts " <johnhrob@...>

>Reply-

>< >

>Subject: RE: [ ] Weight & exercise

>Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:54:46 -0500

>

>

>

>-----Original Message-----

>From: Dowling [mailto:dowlic@...]

>Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:22 AM

>

>Subject: RE: [ ] Weight & exercise

>

>

>What kind of caloric intake do think is necessary to run marathon

>distances?

>Isn't this practice rather contrary to CR?

>

>

>1) the calories consumed related to running and more importantly training

>for a marathon are a function of your body weight, speed, and how many

>miles

>(approx 100-150 kcal/mile). How many miles you run per week in training for

>marathon can easily exceed marathon distance and varies dramatically with

>whether you are trying to break 3 hrs, or just finish.

>

>2) While running marathons is clearly in conflict with strict CRON, strict

>CRON is often in conflict with maximal QOL.... We all must choose our

>personal paths. IMO life extension for it's own sake is an incomplete goal.

>

>Live long and well...

>

>JR

>

>

>

>________________________________________________________

>This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

>Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

>such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

>detected in this email. For more information, call

>601-776-3355 or email support@...

>________________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

Edit: low BMI is what I intended to write.

>From: " Dowling " <dowlic@...>

>Reply-

>

>Subject: RE: [ ] Weight & exercise

>Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 17:57:03 +0000

>

>One reason I mention this is that my wife runs marathons. She routinely

>eats

>a 10 oz tin of Planters Deluxe Mixed Nuts every day or two. She has a

>relatively low (compared to the general population, anyway) of 21-22. She

>is

>nowhere close to CR in terms of caloric intake....

>

>Personally, I also exercise more than has been deemed optimal for CR.....

>

>

> >From: " john roberts " <johnhrob@...>

> >Reply-

> >< >

> >Subject: RE: [ ] Weight & exercise

> >Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2004 11:54:46 -0500

> >

> >

> >

> >-----Original Message-----

> >From: Dowling [mailto:dowlic@...]

> >Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 11:22 AM

> >

> >Subject: RE: [ ] Weight & exercise

> >

> >

> >What kind of caloric intake do think is necessary to run marathon

> >distances?

> >Isn't this practice rather contrary to CR?

> >

> >

> >1) the calories consumed related to running and more importantly training

> >for a marathon are a function of your body weight, speed, and how many

> >miles

> >(approx 100-150 kcal/mile). How many miles you run per week in training

>for

> >marathon can easily exceed marathon distance and varies dramatically with

> >whether you are trying to break 3 hrs, or just finish.

> >

> >2) While running marathons is clearly in conflict with strict CRON,

>strict

> >CRON is often in conflict with maximal QOL.... We all must choose our

> >personal paths. IMO life extension for it's own sake is an incomplete

>goal.

> >

> >Live long and well...

> >

> >JR

> >

> >

> >

> >________________________________________________________

> >This email has been scanned by Internet Pathway's Email

> >Gateway scanning system for potentially harmful content,

> >such as viruses or spam. Nothing out of the ordinary was

> >detected in this email. For more information, call

> >601-776-3355 or email support@...

> >________________________________________________________

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

I just found my mailbox overflowing, and got around to

following this thread. I hope you will excuse me if

my comments (regarding weight & exercise) come very

late or repeat something that was said later (and did

not make it into my mailbox). Anyway, I am a

professional biologist, and I think some of the

questions that were raised do have clear answers.

First of all, as to when exercise becomes aerobic, the

answer is that aerobic exercise always causes an

increae in the breathing rate and the heart rate

(above resting levels) regardless of how good shape

you may or may not be in, and regardless of whether or

not you are sweating at the time. Heart rate is the

most accurate measure. Exercise that is aerobic today

will also be aerobic next year, even if you are in

better shape then. Exercise that would not otherwise

be aerobic (such as walking 3 mph or gardening) can

and does become aerobic if sustained for a long enough

period (after which time your heart and breathing do

indeed increase). The time needed can be minutes to

hours depending on the exercise. See " Aerobics " by K.

H. (1968).

Second, I disagree with the contention that running

long distances does not make sense on a

calorie-restricted diet. Well, maybe not marathons,

but a reasonable amount of aerobic exercise

(sufficient to burn about 150-300 calories per day)

makes it much easier for me to stick to a diet. There

are several reasons for this. One is that aerobic

exercise raises your blood sugar, whereas dieting by

itself causes low blood sugar, and low blood sugar

leads to the starvation symptoms such as irritability

and craving for food. I literally find myself less

hungry after 15 minutes on the rowing machine.

Another reason is that sustained exercise stimulates

the release of endorphins, which produce a feeling of

emotional well-being.

Third, I disagree with the contention that weight loss

is irrelevant to the longevity benefits of calorie

restriction. Admittedly, calorie restriction does

have some benefits that are independent of weight, but

weight loss also has some benefits that are

independent of calorie restriction. For example, body

weight has a rather direct effect on blood pressure,

and blood pressure has a rather direct effect on

atheriosclerosis, which is the leading cause of death

in the U.S.A.

regards,

Karl

***********************************************************************

chris <motjuste@...> wrote:

> You walk because you have to start somewhere. Three

> mph is not very fast

> walking. Keep increasing the effort that you put

> into walking and I don't

> think you'll ever get so accustomed to it that it

> stops being aerobic. Not

> if you work hard enough to keep your breathing and

> heart rate up.

> Eventually you will reach a speed barrier, but then

> you can add weights. If

> you get so used to that that you don't even sweat or

> breath hard, then you

> are such prime condition that I wouldn't worry about

> anything except

> maintaining that level of conditioning.

>

> (|-|ri5

>

>

> -----Original Message-----

> From: jwwright [mailto:jwwright@...]

> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 3:30 PM

>

> Subject: Re: [ ] Re: Weight &

> Exercise

>

>

> That's what I'm pointing out. I think I'm still

> aerobic walking, but I do

> know if I dig a garden I sweat a lot, and I never

> get used to it, so I think

> that's non aerobic. People who do real work, are

> often in " that " mode and it

> doesn't seem to help their health. I think you can't

> just keep increasing

> the level of effort to stay aerobic, because

> eventually you reach your

> maximum and you're no longer aerobic, right? If it's

> true I reach that I

> reach a point where I'm no longer aerobic, why walk?

>

> Regards.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: chris

>

> Sent: Wednesday, June 02, 2004 6:59 AM

> Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Weight &

> Exercise

>

>

> Something doesn't sound right with that

> statement. Why couldn't it be

> that your body is now stonger and adjusted to that

> level of exercise without

> stress? If you are not sweating, or breathing hard,

> if your heart rate is

> unchanged, that probably means that you now must

> increase the level of

> effort in order to be " aerobic " .

> (|-|ri5

>

>

>

> << They say if you start sweating (about 20 min

> walking) that's a sign

> you're aerobic. But eventually, I get to a point

> that I can walk at 3 mph

> for an hour and not sweat. Does that mean I'm no

> longer aerobic? (rhet) I

> don't think so. >>

>

>

>