Aerobic Training (Was: Cardio Inefficient for Weight Loss?)

[Guest guest]

Chad,

Always good to define terms. So why didn't you?

" Energy is derived aerobically when oxygen is utilized to metabolize

substrates obtained from food, and deliver energy to the working muscles. "

" Aerobic training exercise's are any activity which increases your

heart rate via working of the body muscles. Aerobic exercise

strengthens the heart and lungs, (cardio vascular) system. An

aerobically fit individual can work longer, more vigorously and

achieve a quicker recovery.

Frequency, duration and intensity. Frequency refers to how often you

perform aerobic activity, duration refers to the time spent at each

session, and intensity refers to the percentage of your maximum heart

rate or heart rate reserve at which you work. "

Actually the problem isn't defining " aerobic " . Aerobic is a very well

known term. I think everyone knows what's being discussed.

So what are your " big problems with this whole post. " ?

I would suggest that you try the Seal protocol:

20 pull ups

30 push ups

40 sit ups

50 ATG air squats

done in succession for 5 sets for time.

Even if you can't do the 20 pull ups, (many can't), and you do your

max, you will experience highly elevated heart rate and respiration.

In the case of the twenty something year old MMA athletes and Seals

who've done this workout for me for time, all of them have achieved HR

of 170 plus BPM for a couple of minutes. The critical factor

determining fitness is recovery rate. That's cardiopulmonary training.

I don't usually use the term aerobic.

Regardless, if you do the protocol, your heart rate will get quite

elevated and you will be sucking wind. Sounds " aerobic " to me.

W.G.

Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

San Diego, CA

> >

> > Thank you for the response. This is the kind of

> > response that we can all learn from and at one time

> > was the norm on this forum.

> >

> > Most great discoveries start off by observing

> > anecodotal evidence and followed up with appropriate

> > studies, but anecdotes by them self are not

> > sufficient to prove a point.

> >

> > The study you cited using the nautilus machine is a

> > good example.

> > The study however only points out that nautilus

> > training can be just as effective as traditional

> > endurance training in improving cardiovascular

> > fitness. It does not address the issue of fat loss

> > which is the topic at hand.

> >

> > I don't doubt that resistance training is good for fat

> > loss or cardiorespiroatory fitness. However you have

> > not produced evidence that " cardio " is less efficient

> > for weight loss than resistance training.

> >

> > The point that the authors make is that their study

> > shows that individuals who do not enjoy the

> > traditional endurance activities can nevertheless

> > enjoy the benefits of cardio respiratory improvement

> > through resistance training.

> >

> > It is important to point out here that just as some

> > do not enjoy endurance training there are others who

> > do not enjoy resistance training.

> >

> > Ralph Giarnella MD

> > Southington Ct USA

>

[Guest guest]

--- " W.G. 'Bill' "

wrote:

> Chad,

> Always good to define terms. So why didn't you?

>

> " Energy is derived aerobically when oxygen is

> utilized to metabolize

> substrates obtained from food, and deliver energy to

> the working muscles. "

>

> " Aerobic training exercise's are any activity which

> increases your

> heart rate via working of the body muscles.

Aerobic

> exercise

> strengthens the heart and lungs, (cardio vascular)

> system. An

> aerobically fit individual can work longer, more

> vigorously and

> achieve a quicker recovery.

> Frequency, duration and intensity. Frequency refers

> to how often you

> perform aerobic activity, duration refers to the

> time spent at each

> session, and intensity refers to the percentage of

> your maximum heart

> rate or heart rate reserve at which you work. "

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

Bill It might also be helpful to point out at this

point that any activity that is not 100% anaerobic has

an aerobic component to it. Some may be predominately

Anaerobic with some aerobic component while others may

be predominantely aerobic with some anaerobic

component.

To further emphasize this point very few people can

sustain 100% anaerobic activity for much longer than

20-30 seconds. With appropriate training that time

period can be extended a little more but not by much.

So any continuous activity lasting longer that 20-30

seconds has an aerobic component to it.

Why? Anaerobic work depends on both PhospoCreatine as

well as stored ATP to fulfill its energy demand.

It is estimated that most muscles contain only enough

PC to last about 5+ sec and ATP for another 10-15

seconds. Training and supplementation can increase

this but not by much since there is limit to how much

of each the muscle can store. After the 20-30 seconds

the PC and ATP need to be regenerated and this

regeneration process requires Oxygen. That is why you

breathe so hard after doing a max lift or max rep.

That is also why you have to stop to recover between

sets. For references consult any of the many basic

exercise physiology textbooks.

Using the above information we can then state that the

longer an activity lasts beyond 20-30 seconds the more

that activity depends on aerobic metabolism for

energy. I won't go into the biochemical reactions

that take place to replenish the PC and ATP because i

have posted them on many occasions on this very

forum. If you are interested just look it up or

consult a basic biochemistry book at your friendly

library.

Cardio for me means any activity that improves the

cardiovascular system. Any activity that raises the

heart rate from between 60% max to 100% max will

stress the heart and vascular system which will

subsequently adapt to this work. So any activity that

fits that description is therefore cardio. The heart

does not care if you are lifting a barbell or pedaling

a bike up the Alp D'Huez or running around the block.

The heart lungs and vascular system respond to Oxygen

demand and CO2 excess and adapt to repeated stresses

placed upon it for more efficient delivery of O2 and

removal of CO2.

However I get the impression from reading posts on

this forum that many people who engage in resistance

training equate cardio or aerobic work to someone

doing jumping jacks to music or working out on the

machines without breaking a sweat.

You want a good aerobic/cardio workout. Get yourself

a bicycle ( and a helmet of course). Find a hill with

a minimum of 1-2 miles of climbing. Ride your bike to

the top at a HR of between 75-85% VO2 max and when you

get near the top sprint the last 100 yds as hard as

you can, turn around and go back to the bottom of

hill and repeat the climb 9 more times. After you

are finished pedal home and tell me how you feel about

8-10 hrs later- That is a great cardio workout which

is bound to give you plenty EPOC for the next 12-14

hrs. If you don't want to ride a bike perform the same

task running or walking.

Ralph Giarnella MD

Southington Ct USA

> Actually the problem isn't defining " aerobic " .

> Aerobic is a very well

> known term. I think everyone knows what's being

> discussed.

> So what are your " big problems with this whole

> post. " ?

..

> I would suggest that you try the Seal protocol:

>

> 20 pull ups

> 30 push ups

> 40 sit ups

> 50 ATG air squats

> done in succession for 5 sets for time.

>

> Even if you can't do the 20 pull ups, (many can't),

> and you do your

> max, you will experience highly elevated heart rate

> and respiration.

> In the case of the twenty something year old MMA

> athletes and Seals

> who've done this workout for me for time, all of

> them have achieved HR

> of 170 plus BPM for a couple of minutes. The

> critical factor

> determining fitness is recovery rate. That's

> cardiopulmonary training.

> I don't usually use the term aerobic.

>

> Regardless, if you do the protocol, your heart rate

> will get quite

> elevated and you will be sucking wind. Sounds

> " aerobic " to me.

>

> W.G.

> Ubermensch Sports Consultancy

> San Diego, CA

>

>

>

>

> >

> >

> > Subject: Re: Cardio Inefficient

> for Weight Loss?

> > To: Supertraining

> > Date: Friday, July 25, 2008, 4:56 AM

> >

> > Dr. Giarnella,

> > Thank you for your attempt to encourage a more

> reasonable level of

> > discourse in the forum. Most of us are here to

> learn facts based on

> > empirical evidence. This requires everyone to make

> the effort to

> > critically analyze data presented, more careful

> use of language in

> > posting, and more thoughtful responses, preferably

> based on scientific

> > data or statistically valid anecdotal evidence.

> This will go a long

> > way toward returning us to that norm.

> > I have noticed that the issue of reducing body fat

> seems to have

> > devolved into an either or proposition. It's

> either resistance

> > training combined with calorie reduction, which is

> the traditional

> > bodybuilding model or aerobics, as in distance

> running or aerobics

> > class.

> > The issue is, which is more efficient, right?

> > My approach to training is invariably holistic,

> which has the

> > advantage of having the trainee engage in a wide

> variety of training

> > modalities. Thinking holistically, for example, I

> would consider wind

> > sprints as a good combination of strength

> development and aerobic

> > training. Burns quite a few calories too.

> > That same thinking brought me to the realization

> that no one has

> > mentioned the C word, Crossfit.

> > There two problems with Crossfit as I see it. The

> first is their

> > adherence to Barry Sears Zone diet, which is

> scientifically bankrupt,

> > an opinion most nutritional scientists hold and

> that I agree with as

> > does, interestingly enough, Sears himself. It is

> essentially a serious

> > reduction in caloric intake and is not a healthy

> long term nutritional

> > plan, again in my and most nutritional scientists'

> opinion.

> > The second problem is the intensity of the

> workouts. Crossfit

> > addresses that issue, advising using less weight

> etc when starting.

> > Even then Crossfit training may prove pretty

> challenging. Unless one

> > is extremely fit, I would advise you to ease into

> Crossfit training

> > quite carefully.

> > What is really interesting is that it appears that

> most if not all

> > Crossfit training is a pretty intense combination

> of resistance and

> > aerobic training, and reduced caloric intake, the

> three primary

> > factors being discussed on the forum as effective

> in reducing body fat.

> >

> > A training protocol that I've used ever since

> being introduced to it

> > by some Seals I used to train with, goes like

> this:

> > 20 pull ups

> > 30 push ups

> > 40 sit ups

> > 50 ATG air squats

> > done in succession for 5 sets for time. Try it,

> you'll like it.

> >

> > My 6' 230lb MMA athlete who could press over

> 300lbs and ATG squat over

> > 400, could not finish this workout without

> throwing up. So he burned

> > extra calories, from barfing, and got his heart

> rate up into the

> > 180's. This is why I caution easing into this type

> of training. My MMA

> > athlete was extremely fit and only 23 and it still

> kicked his ass.

> > However, his body fat dropped from 10% down to sub

> 7% in two months

> > simply doing this protocol once a week in addition

> to his other

> training.

> > Glassman, the founder of Crossfit, has also

> borrowed this workout from

> > the Seals and has numerous others of similar

> intensity.

> > Here's a Crossfit WOD (Work Out of the Day)I got

> from the website,

> > from last Sun:

> >

> > For time:

> > 50 Box jump, 24 inch box

> > 50 Jumping pull-ups

>

=== message truncated ===