Re: Saving calories by choosing exercise correctly

[Guest guest]

The interesting thing about walking is that I can "exercise" to lower BP, and in fact exercise like raking, cleaning the yard, picking up limbs, digging a garden are all "real" work and yet do not incur the same benefits as "aerobic" walking.

I get my heart rate up working too, and I sweat a good deal more, yet the walking is still the best "exercise" (for me). If I could run, I'd probably jog a mile or two, but I find it more bouncy as you describe it and harder on my knees and ankles, and I doubt it's better anyway for the heart.

I don't know what happens to a heart using the different exercises, but I do know I can do a lot of physical things at 70yo, that others, even younger can't do, and I never jogged. I did gym exercises several times, and I still find when I go out to dig a garden, I find muscles that ain't been used in a while. The exercise machines do not match the projects I do.

As far as sped is concerned I don't see a benefit at 4.5 mph walking as opposed to 3.0 mph. It may be the constant rate that promotes the best "aerobic exercise".

At times I crank up the treddy to higher rates after warming up at 3.0, and I find BP goes up and I don't get winded, but I do get tired sometimes, ie, my legs get tired. Forcing them to walk at 4.0 mph is a lot of work compared to jogging. There's a point where I can switch to a jog and it's easier, but is that better? (rhet) I don't think so.

Supposedly, running 3 miles is the same calories as walking, it just doesn't take as long.

I think the mainest point may be, people need to do and keep doing whatever they like and CAN do to stay mobile and agile and flexible.

And I do believe I need to conserve calories as you suggest.

Regards.

[ ] Saving calories by choosing exercise correctly

An important thing for as as CRers is to waste the less calories as possible while achieving the exercise benefits. As far as this article shows (see: http://tinyurl.com/bj79w ), walking is a better exercise than running in order to save calories for the same distance covered. So, if you reach 60% HRmax when brisk walking, don't go for jogging or running, because you were spending up to 40% more calories for the same cardiovascular training and metabolic adaptations. Of course, if your goal is the max calories spent by distance and time, don't dude: just go for that run.The result makes sense, just because when you walk, your gravity center advances drawing a fairly straight line, but when you do the same track running, that center just do it somehow bouncing, and this moving up and down is where the added energy is used, by fighting against gravity once every step you take.http://tinyurl.com/bj79wHope this was useful.Willie.

[Guest guest]

The interesting thing about walking is that I can "exercise" to lower BP, and in fact exercise like raking, cleaning the yard, picking up limbs, digging a garden are all "real" work and yet do not incur the same benefits as "aerobic" walking.

I get my heart rate up working too, and I sweat a good deal more, yet the walking is still the best "exercise" (for me). If I could run, I'd probably jog a mile or two, but I find it more bouncy as you describe it and harder on my knees and ankles, and I doubt it's better anyway for the heart.

I don't know what happens to a heart using the different exercises, but I do know I can do a lot of physical things at 70yo, that others, even younger can't do, and I never jogged. I did gym exercises several times, and I still find when I go out to dig a garden, I find muscles that ain't been used in a while. The exercise machines do not match the projects I do.

As far as sped is concerned I don't see a benefit at 4.5 mph walking as opposed to 3.0 mph. It may be the constant rate that promotes the best "aerobic exercise".

At times I crank up the treddy to higher rates after warming up at 3.0, and I find BP goes up and I don't get winded, but I do get tired sometimes, ie, my legs get tired. Forcing them to walk at 4.0 mph is a lot of work compared to jogging. There's a point where I can switch to a jog and it's easier, but is that better? (rhet) I don't think so.

Supposedly, running 3 miles is the same calories as walking, it just doesn't take as long.

I think the mainest point may be, people need to do and keep doing whatever they like and CAN do to stay mobile and agile and flexible.

And I do believe I need to conserve calories as you suggest.

Regards.

[ ] Saving calories by choosing exercise correctly

An important thing for as as CRers is to waste the less calories as possible while achieving the exercise benefits. As far as this article shows (see: http://tinyurl.com/bj79w ), walking is a better exercise than running in order to save calories for the same distance covered. So, if you reach 60% HRmax when brisk walking, don't go for jogging or running, because you were spending up to 40% more calories for the same cardiovascular training and metabolic adaptations. Of course, if your goal is the max calories spent by distance and time, don't dude: just go for that run.The result makes sense, just because when you walk, your gravity center advances drawing a fairly straight line, but when you do the same track running, that center just do it somehow bouncing, and this moving up and down is where the added energy is used, by fighting against gravity once every step you take.http://tinyurl.com/bj79wHope this was useful.Willie.

[Guest guest]

Hi Willie:

And for me this underlines the futility of using exercise as a means

of losing weight.

These data show, once again, that the trade off of exercise for

weight is such that in order to burn off one pound's worth of

calories you have to run 30 to 35 miles, or walk 55 to 65 miles.

For those who prefer to walk 60 miles rather than restrain their

appetite to the tune of a pound's worth of calories, good for them.

Rodney.

> An important thing for as as CRers is to waste the less calories as

> possible while achieving the exercise benefits. As far as this

> article shows (see: http://tinyurl.com/bj79w ), walking is a better

> exercise than running in order to save calories for the same

> distance covered. So, if you reach 60% HRmax when brisk walking,

> don't go for jogging or running, because you were spending up to

40%

> more calories for the same cardiovascular training and metabolic

> adaptations. Of course, if your goal is the max calories spent by

> distance and time, don't dude: just go for that run.

>

> The result makes sense, just because when you walk, your gravity

> center advances drawing a fairly straight line, but when you do the

> same track running, that center just do it somehow bouncing, and

> this moving up and down is where the added energy is used, by

> fighting against gravity once every step you take.

>

> http://tinyurl.com/bj79w

>

> Hope this was useful.

>

> Willie.

[Guest guest]

Hi Willie:

And for me this underlines the futility of using exercise as a means

of losing weight.

These data show, once again, that the trade off of exercise for

weight is such that in order to burn off one pound's worth of

calories you have to run 30 to 35 miles, or walk 55 to 65 miles.

For those who prefer to walk 60 miles rather than restrain their

appetite to the tune of a pound's worth of calories, good for them.

Rodney.

> An important thing for as as CRers is to waste the less calories as

> possible while achieving the exercise benefits. As far as this

> article shows (see: http://tinyurl.com/bj79w ), walking is a better

> exercise than running in order to save calories for the same

> distance covered. So, if you reach 60% HRmax when brisk walking,

> don't go for jogging or running, because you were spending up to

40%

> more calories for the same cardiovascular training and metabolic

> adaptations. Of course, if your goal is the max calories spent by

> distance and time, don't dude: just go for that run.

>

> The result makes sense, just because when you walk, your gravity

> center advances drawing a fairly straight line, but when you do the

> same track running, that center just do it somehow bouncing, and

> this moving up and down is where the added energy is used, by

> fighting against gravity once every step you take.

>

> http://tinyurl.com/bj79w

>

> Hope this was useful.

>

> Willie.

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> Hi Willie:

>

> And for me this underlines the futility of using exercise as a means

> of losing weight.

I can only say that for myself this is not true, when I exercise I tend

to loss weight. Or Ot end to maintain a weight loss. However the effect

may not be solely the calories consumed, there may be other factors,

well off to exercise.

Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> Hi Willie:

>

> And for me this underlines the futility of using exercise as a means

> of losing weight.

I can only say that for myself this is not true, when I exercise I tend

to loss weight. Or Ot end to maintain a weight loss. However the effect

may not be solely the calories consumed, there may be other factors,

well off to exercise.

Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

of course this ignores every other benefit of exercise with the cardiovascular intensity of running as opposed to walking. <wmbragg@...> wrote:

An important thing for as as CRers is to waste the less calories as possible while achieving the exercise benefits. As far as this article shows (see: http://tinyurl.com/bj79w ), walking is a better exercise than running in order to save calories for the same distance covered. So, if you reach 60% HRmax when brisk walking, don't go for jogging or running, because you were spending up to 40% more calories for the same cardiovascular training and metabolic adaptations. Of course, if your goal is the max calories spent by distance and time, don't dude: just go for that run.The result makes sense, just because when you walk, your gravity center advances drawing a fairly straight line, but when you do the same track running, that center just do it somehow bouncing, and this moving up and down is

where the added energy is used, by fighting against gravity once every step you take.http://tinyurl.com/bj79wHope this was useful.Willie.

[Guest guest]

of course this ignores every other benefit of exercise with the cardiovascular intensity of running as opposed to walking. <wmbragg@...> wrote:

An important thing for as as CRers is to waste the less calories as possible while achieving the exercise benefits. As far as this article shows (see: http://tinyurl.com/bj79w ), walking is a better exercise than running in order to save calories for the same distance covered. So, if you reach 60% HRmax when brisk walking, don't go for jogging or running, because you were spending up to 40% more calories for the same cardiovascular training and metabolic adaptations. Of course, if your goal is the max calories spent by distance and time, don't dude: just go for that run.The result makes sense, just because when you walk, your gravity center advances drawing a fairly straight line, but when you do the same track running, that center just do it somehow bouncing, and this moving up and down is

where the added energy is used, by fighting against gravity once every step you take.http://tinyurl.com/bj79wHope this was useful.Willie.

[Guest guest]

If you are looking to " move " your body during the day with the most efficiency

and the least caloric expenditure, than walking would win.

But, if you are looking to get the most " aerobic and anerobic " benefit for the

least calories/energy expended, than short high intensity intervals would win.

Thats why a combo of the two, a few sessions of short high intensity intervals

during the week, along with some longers sessions of walking may be the best

combo.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

If you are looking to " move " your body during the day with the most efficiency

and the least caloric expenditure, than walking would win.

But, if you are looking to get the most " aerobic and anerobic " benefit for the

least calories/energy expended, than short high intensity intervals would win.

Thats why a combo of the two, a few sessions of short high intensity intervals

during the week, along with some longers sessions of walking may be the best

combo.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi :

You refer to " every other benefit of exercise with the cardiovascular

intensity ........... "

There is far from unanimous agreement here about the benefits of

large amounts of exercise. If you could support your assertion with

a few studies done by authors at serious institutions who do not have

a vested financial interest in promoting exercise (exclude for

example authors associated with Aerobics), we would all be

pleased to try to assess them.

Dr. Henry 's book " The Exercise Myth " has been referenced here

previously. ( " Fitness has absolutely nothing to do with health " ).

is a cardiologist at Cornell Medical Center.

Also, the absence of exercise as a distinguishing characteristic

among the centenarians of the New England Centenarian Study has also

been noted as suggesting that exercise is not one of the most

important factors contributing to longevity.

There is also the question as to whether the benefits of exercise,

generally considered to be cardiovascular, would have much relevence

to those established on CRON, who already exhibit outstandingly good

CVD risk factors (see the WUSTL study).

But we are all (presumably) open minded to evidence suggesting that

the extra calories processed in the pursuit of challenging exercise

are likely to contribute to an increase in our lifespans, not

diminish them. There is no dispute that a certain minimum amount of

exercise is very important. Colon cancer, for example, appears to

occur less frequntly in those who exercise. It is exercise in

sizeable cardiovascular quantities that some here dispute.

Rodney.

An important thing for as as CRers is

to waste the less calories as

> possible while achieving the exercise benefits. As far as this

> article shows (see: http://tinyurl.com/bj79w ), walking is a better

> exercise than running in order to save calories for the same

> distance covered. So, if you reach 60% HRmax when brisk walking,

> don't go for jogging or running, because you were spending up to

40%

> more calories for the same cardiovascular training and metabolic

> adaptations. Of course, if your goal is the max calories spent by

> distance and time, don't dude: just go for that run.

>

> The result makes sense, just because when you walk, your gravity

> center advances drawing a fairly straight line, but when you do the

> same track running, that center just do it somehow bouncing, and

> this moving up and down is where the added energy is used, by

> fighting against gravity once every step you take.

>

> http://tinyurl.com/bj79w

>

> Hope this was useful.

>

> Willie.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi :

You refer to " every other benefit of exercise with the cardiovascular

intensity ........... "

There is far from unanimous agreement here about the benefits of

large amounts of exercise. If you could support your assertion with

a few studies done by authors at serious institutions who do not have

a vested financial interest in promoting exercise (exclude for

example authors associated with Aerobics), we would all be

pleased to try to assess them.

Dr. Henry 's book " The Exercise Myth " has been referenced here

previously. ( " Fitness has absolutely nothing to do with health " ).

is a cardiologist at Cornell Medical Center.

Also, the absence of exercise as a distinguishing characteristic

among the centenarians of the New England Centenarian Study has also

been noted as suggesting that exercise is not one of the most

important factors contributing to longevity.

There is also the question as to whether the benefits of exercise,

generally considered to be cardiovascular, would have much relevence

to those established on CRON, who already exhibit outstandingly good

CVD risk factors (see the WUSTL study).

But we are all (presumably) open minded to evidence suggesting that

the extra calories processed in the pursuit of challenging exercise

are likely to contribute to an increase in our lifespans, not

diminish them. There is no dispute that a certain minimum amount of

exercise is very important. Colon cancer, for example, appears to

occur less frequntly in those who exercise. It is exercise in

sizeable cardiovascular quantities that some here dispute.

Rodney.

An important thing for as as CRers is

to waste the less calories as

> possible while achieving the exercise benefits. As far as this

> article shows (see: http://tinyurl.com/bj79w ), walking is a better

> exercise than running in order to save calories for the same

> distance covered. So, if you reach 60% HRmax when brisk walking,

> don't go for jogging or running, because you were spending up to

40%

> more calories for the same cardiovascular training and metabolic

> adaptations. Of course, if your goal is the max calories spent by

> distance and time, don't dude: just go for that run.

>

> The result makes sense, just because when you walk, your gravity

> center advances drawing a fairly straight line, but when you do the

> same track running, that center just do it somehow bouncing, and

> this moving up and down is where the added energy is used, by

> fighting against gravity once every step you take.

>

> http://tinyurl.com/bj79w

>

> Hope this was useful.

>

> Willie.

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> There is far from unanimous agreement here about the benefits of

> large amounts of exercise. If you could support your assertion with

> a few studies done by authors at serious institutions who do not have

> a vested financial interest in promoting exercise (exclude for

> example authors associated with Aerobics), we would all be

> pleased to try to assess them.

>

et all does seem to keep up with the latest findings. They

advocate only a moderate amount of exercise. The last book I read by

said that if you are exercising more than a few hours a week (I

forget the exact number he said) you were doing so for reason not having

anything to do with health,

He also said that the most longevity was the moderately overweight who

are modestly fit. Our Good Doctor said that these studies did not factor

in smokers and the terminally ill, but apparently even factoring this in

the modestly fit but modestly overweight group still came out on top.

I have a theory about this. Our National Diet is so bad that it takes

this amount of calories to get the nutrients we need. Any other

explanations out there?

Rodney wrote:

Hi Dennis:

Good to see you back posting. Are you going to be updating us again

with your data for weight and BF%? It would be great if you felt

able to do so.

Dennis says

I am a little embarished as after my surgery I basically quit on my

program. But I have started up again but at this time I have no way to

measure anything. I did not gain back all the weight but I did gain back

a good portion of it. Right now we are concentrating on ON with fruits,

soup (making it the day before and scraping off the fat, which we did

not do before), more fish and a lot more veggies. It seems to be going

well in terms of clothing fit. I need to lose 16 kilos to get to where

my arthritis does not hurt. After that I will reevaluate.

Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

Rodney wrote:

> There is far from unanimous agreement here about the benefits of

> large amounts of exercise. If you could support your assertion with

> a few studies done by authors at serious institutions who do not have

> a vested financial interest in promoting exercise (exclude for

> example authors associated with Aerobics), we would all be

> pleased to try to assess them.

>

et all does seem to keep up with the latest findings. They

advocate only a moderate amount of exercise. The last book I read by

said that if you are exercising more than a few hours a week (I

forget the exact number he said) you were doing so for reason not having

anything to do with health,

He also said that the most longevity was the moderately overweight who

are modestly fit. Our Good Doctor said that these studies did not factor

in smokers and the terminally ill, but apparently even factoring this in

the modestly fit but modestly overweight group still came out on top.

I have a theory about this. Our National Diet is so bad that it takes

this amount of calories to get the nutrients we need. Any other

explanations out there?

Rodney wrote:

Hi Dennis:

Good to see you back posting. Are you going to be updating us again

with your data for weight and BF%? It would be great if you felt

able to do so.

Dennis says

I am a little embarished as after my surgery I basically quit on my

program. But I have started up again but at this time I have no way to

measure anything. I did not gain back all the weight but I did gain back

a good portion of it. Right now we are concentrating on ON with fruits,

soup (making it the day before and scraping off the fat, which we did

not do before), more fish and a lot more veggies. It seems to be going

well in terms of clothing fit. I need to lose 16 kilos to get to where

my arthritis does not hurt. After that I will reevaluate.

Positive Dennis

[Guest guest]

--- In , Dennis De Jarnette asked:

> He also said that the most longevity was the moderately overweight

>who

> are modestly fit. Our Good Doctor said that these studies did not

>factor in smokers and the terminally ill, but apparently even

>factoring this in the modestly fit but modestly overweight group

>still came out on top. I have a theory about this. Our National Diet

>is so bad that it takes this amount of calories to get the nutrients

>we need. Any other explanations out there?

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

From the October 2005 " Nutrition Action Health Letter " (the September

issue is still up on their website):

" The average person who is not familiar with the details of

multivariable analysis will not be in a good position to make

judgements about this study (the CDC study by Flegal et al. that says

slightly overweight is best). "

The article points out that when JoAnn Manson, professor of

epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, looked at the

Nurses Health Study data, controlling for smoking by using detailed

cigarettes-per-day data, not just the CDC's smoking-or-not data, she

found that the leanest women still had a slightly higher risk of

dying. HOWEVER, when she looked at women who had NEVER SMOKED, the

leanest women had the LOWEST RISK OF DYING. " The effect of cigarettes

on the risk of disease is so powerful and it's so difficult to control

for factors like the intensity and duration of smoking that the only

way to eliminate the bias is to look at people who have never smoked, "

says Manson. (This also implies that leaner smokers may be less

healthy than fatter ones).

The Nutrition Action article then goes on to describe how the Flegal

report had too few nonsmokers in the part of the study that followed

people the longest to restrict an analysis to healthy nonsmokers.

They also point out flaws in the Flegal study, like short term

follow-up that did not insure that they were studying originally

healthy individuals (ie they didn't screen effectively for occult

disease).

In addition, the article points out that looking at BMI for the older

individuals in the study is tricky because lower BMIs in older people

may indicate frailness rather than leanness. What's more, " depletion

of the susceptibles " may hide harm caused by obestity. " People who

are susceptible to heart disease and diabetes tend to die earlier, so

if you're still obese in your 80s, you're probably relatively immune

to the adverse effects of obesity. " Finally, what researches call

" compression of mortality " kicks in among older people. As you age,

the risk of dying is so great that not much influences it. " Even

cigarette smoking doesn't look like a strong predictor of mortality in

your 80s and 90s " , says Manson.

The article ends by pointing out that given the huge increase in risk

of diabetes, heart disease, gallstones, hypertension, breast and colon

cancer as BMI increases, is it even PLAUSIBLE that being overweight is

protective?

Hopefully the article will be posted on the web at the Nutrition

Action website next month. They seem to be a month behind between the

paper and virtual editions.

Diane

[Guest guest]

--- In , Dennis De Jarnette asked:

> He also said that the most longevity was the moderately overweight

>who

> are modestly fit. Our Good Doctor said that these studies did not

>factor in smokers and the terminally ill, but apparently even

>factoring this in the modestly fit but modestly overweight group

>still came out on top. I have a theory about this. Our National Diet

>is so bad that it takes this amount of calories to get the nutrients

>we need. Any other explanations out there?

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

From the October 2005 " Nutrition Action Health Letter " (the September

issue is still up on their website):

" The average person who is not familiar with the details of

multivariable analysis will not be in a good position to make

judgements about this study (the CDC study by Flegal et al. that says

slightly overweight is best). "

The article points out that when JoAnn Manson, professor of

epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health, looked at the

Nurses Health Study data, controlling for smoking by using detailed

cigarettes-per-day data, not just the CDC's smoking-or-not data, she

found that the leanest women still had a slightly higher risk of

dying. HOWEVER, when she looked at women who had NEVER SMOKED, the

leanest women had the LOWEST RISK OF DYING. " The effect of cigarettes

on the risk of disease is so powerful and it's so difficult to control

for factors like the intensity and duration of smoking that the only

way to eliminate the bias is to look at people who have never smoked, "

says Manson. (This also implies that leaner smokers may be less

healthy than fatter ones).

The Nutrition Action article then goes on to describe how the Flegal

report had too few nonsmokers in the part of the study that followed

people the longest to restrict an analysis to healthy nonsmokers.

They also point out flaws in the Flegal study, like short term

follow-up that did not insure that they were studying originally

healthy individuals (ie they didn't screen effectively for occult

disease).

In addition, the article points out that looking at BMI for the older

individuals in the study is tricky because lower BMIs in older people

may indicate frailness rather than leanness. What's more, " depletion

of the susceptibles " may hide harm caused by obestity. " People who

are susceptible to heart disease and diabetes tend to die earlier, so

if you're still obese in your 80s, you're probably relatively immune

to the adverse effects of obesity. " Finally, what researches call

" compression of mortality " kicks in among older people. As you age,

the risk of dying is so great that not much influences it. " Even

cigarette smoking doesn't look like a strong predictor of mortality in

your 80s and 90s " , says Manson.

The article ends by pointing out that given the huge increase in risk

of diabetes, heart disease, gallstones, hypertension, breast and colon

cancer as BMI increases, is it even PLAUSIBLE that being overweight is

protective?

Hopefully the article will be posted on the web at the Nutrition

Action website next month. They seem to be a month behind between the

paper and virtual editions.

Diane