|
2005/04/26, 10:51 AM
I'm curious, I see the same guys lifting weights around the gym everyday, but they never ever ever do any cardio. Some of them are so muscle bound I doubt they could even touch their toes or run a mile.
So here's my question. If you just lift weights and are bulky - are you actually fit? Does it change your resting heart rate significantly or increase your fitness by any other measure except strength?
|
|
|
|
2005/04/26, 10:58 AM
Recent studies have found that weightlifting actually does benefit your cardiovascualr system.
Weight lifting will benefit your health in many ways - it helps build bone density - warding off osteoporosis.
It improves the delivery of nutrients to your tissues, it improves energy supply throughtout the body (your mitochondria actually increase in number, meaning more energy producing centers).
"Muscle bound" is actually a very outdated stereotype. People with a lot of muscle mass may or may not be flexible, but they are definitely healthier than those not lifting weights.
--------------
Every new day is a gift.
|
|
2005/04/26, 10:59 AM
I am one of those muscle bound guys, and using that term is well kind of insulting. Now to answer your question, you are right in terms of overall cardiovascular fitness lifting just weights does a little for that, but not as much as a real cardio program. But I will say this I may not be able to run a marathon, but I am way more "fit" then most cardio bunnies i see. Studies have proven that just doing cardio is not a good measure of fitness. Why do you equate cardio with fitness more so than lifting weights? I equate fitness with a Lean Muscle mass over heart rate. That is not to say that a good heart rate is not important but a mix is needed. Sorry if this is coming across harsh but I feel that just because someone does more cardio than I does not make them more fit than I.
--------------
Less Talk, More Chalk!
7707mutt@freetrainers.com
|
|
2005/04/26, 11:06 AM
Intense Weight Training Increases Metabolism For 2 Days!
Many scientists say weight training is of little value for weight control because it doesn't burn very many calories compared to jogging, cycling, or cross-country skiing.
However, university of Wisconsin, LaCrosse, researchers showed that intense weight training boosted metabolism for a whopping two days after a workout. Scientists estimate metabolism by measuring oxygen consumption. Exercise boosts post-exercise metabolism by increasing muscle temperature, stimulating chemicals called uncoupling proteins that increase calorie burning, and disrupting normal cell functions (cell water, electrolytes and minerals). Elevated post-exercise metabolism can make an important contribution to weight control. This study showed that weight training helps people control bodyfat by increasing metabolism and muscle mass. (European Journal of Applied Physiology, 86:411-417, 2002)
|
|
2005/04/26, 11:08 AM
Some additional reasons weight lifting is good for your body!!!!
Avoid Muscle Loss
Adults who do not exercise lose between 5 and 7 pounds of muscle every decade. Because muscle is highly active tissue, muscle loss is accompanied by a reduction in the resting metabolic rate. An average metabolic reduction for a non-exercising adult is 2-5% per decade. in an exercising adult this can almost be eliminated.
Increase in metabolic rate
Research reveals that adding 3 lbs of muscle increases our resting metabolic rate by 7%, and our daily need by 15%. adults who start a sensible exercise program use more calories all day long, thereby reducing the likelihood of fat accumulation.
weight training increases bone density
the effects of exercise on bone tissue are similar to the efect on muscle tissue. the same exercise stimulus which stimulates muscle proteins to grow can stimulate bone cells to increase their density. this increase in bone density can be a significant factor in reducing osteoporosis in later life.
weight training reduces bodyfat.
The only place in the body which effectively burns fat, no matter what we are doing, is the muscle itself. By increasing our muscle, more fat can be burned in a shorter period of time. since dieting alone has been found to reduce muscle mass, dieting alone is not an effective way to lose bodyfat, and in the long term may actually cause fat gain. therefore, a sensible strength training and aerobic exercise program not only burns more calories but also trains the body to be a better fat burner.
Muscle Up
Does stress make your blood pressure spike? If so, then build up your biceps.
Lean body mass helps your blood pressure return to normal after a stressful event, a recent study revealed. Muscle tissue improves your body's ability to regulate sodium, a key for blood pressure control. Tone your muscles by lifting weights a minimum of 10 minutes, 3 times per week.
RealAge Benefit: Keeping your blood pressure at 115/76 mm Hg can make your RealAge as much as 12 years younger.
--------------
Every new day is a gift.
|
|
2005/04/27, 10:11 AM
specifically showing that strength training benefits your cardiovascualr system more than just aerobics:
http://eurheartj.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/17/6/854
also(though not as well referenced scientifically):
HIGH INTENSITY STRENGTH TRAINING:
MORE AEROBIC THAN "AEROBICS"
by Greg Anderson
The most common question asked by our new personal training clients at Ideal Exercise is: "Where are the treadmills and stationary bicycles?". Most have never heard that great benefits to the cardiovascular system, commonly referred to as "aerobic fitness", can be had through a program of high-intensity strength training with no additional steady-state activity. And while I do certainly spend a great deal of my time explaining why such benefits are certainly possible (and more desirable as it is much more efficient to achieve muscular and cardiovascular benefits in a single program) it usually takes a few workouts before the client understands the depth and magnitude of cardiovascular involvement possible from strength training. As one of my trainees remarked recently (after a set of squats to complete failure followed by 20 seconds of effort against the bar in the bottom position): "My God! (gasp, gasp...) this is more aerobic than aerobics..."
Although (as I shall explain) the statement that high-intensity strength training is "more aerobic than aerobics" is not entirely correct, such an observation on the trainee's part does underscore the profound effect of intense muscular contractions on the cardiovascular system. The current mania for "aerobics" in the fitness industry stems from a misunderstanding of two factors: The function of the cardiovascular system, and the identification of skeletal muscle as the window through which optimum loading of the entire metabolic system(s) --including the cardiovascular system--takes place.
A great deal of the misunderstanding of the function of the cardiovascular system arises from the use of the word "aerobics" to describe a particular exercise protocol. The term aerobic denotes a metabolic pathway within the body which yields energy through the oxidation of fat and carbohydrate. Literally, aerobic means: "with oxygen". Most of us have been taught that to exercise aerobically is to perform long duration steady-state activities which produce an elevated heart rate. Note that said participation of the heart and lungs is entirely dependent on muscular activity. Such low intensity activity is said to primarily stress the aerobic metabolic pathway and allow the body to use primarily fat as a fuel source. Additionally, "aerobics" is thought to provide an increase in endurance and provide a protective effect against coronary artery disease. While I will certainly agree that there are some marginal benefits to the cardiovascular system from a program of such activity, the reality is simply that these effects could be achieved in a safer and more efficient manner through the use of high-intensity strength training.
Many bodybuilders that I have spoken to believe that the inclusion of some type of "aerobic" activity in their program is necessary to achieve optimum leanness. I point out to them that from a bodybuilding standpoint, the issues at hand are both the amount of fat that you don't have and the amount of muscle that you do. Since it is very easy to overtrain by including too many exercises or too much additional activity, it seems that any slight fat loss achieved through steady state activity could be more than offset by compromising the ability to build (or even maintain) muscle as a result of overtraining. In fact, research on fat loss performed by Ellington Darden Ph.D. (and duplicated by Ideal Exercise) showed best results with the combination of high-intensity strength training with a reduced calorie diet and the total exclusion of steady state activities. As Mike Mentzer has pointed out, the body only has a limited amount of adaptation energy. It is not as if you have 100 units of adaptation energy for building muscle and 100 units available for increasing endurance; you have 100 units, period!
The following is a reprint of an article which we hand out to all of our new clients at Ideal Exercise...
Why not aerobics...?
· "Aerobic" activity is not the most effective form of exercise for fat-loss. Steady state activities such as running, cycling, dancing, etc. do not burn a significant number of calories! One pound of fat can fuel the body for up to 10 hours of continuous activity. "Aerobic" activity is simply inefficient for this purpose!
· The most important contribution that exercise makes to a fat-loss program is the maintenance of muscle tissue while fat is lost. Strength training is the only reliable method of maintaining muscle tissue. Aerobics can actually cause you to lose muscle tissue!
· Some supposed "experts" have suggested that the important effect of aerobics is that of increasing metabolic rate. Our question is this: If "aerobic" activities burn few calories while you are doing them, then how many calories will they burn (calories burned = metabolic rate) when you are not doing them? The answer to that question is: very few...
· On the subject of metabolic rate: Every pound of muscle added to the body of an adult female will require an additional 75-100 calories per day just to keep it alive. The average person, through a program of proper strength training can add enough muscle to burn an additional 3500 calories per week (1 lb. of fat = 3500 calories). The amount of strength training required to effect such a change is less than one hour per week.
· "Aerobic" activities are dangerous! Running is an extremely high-force activity that is damaging to knees, hips, and back. Aerobic dance is probably worse. And so-called "low impact" classes or activities like stationary cycling are not necessarily low-force. Don't be fooled by the genetic exceptions who protest that they have never been injured-- overuse injuries are cumulative and we are often not aware that we have them until it is too late. In time, the enthusiastic aerobic-dance participant or jogger will probably pay the price for all that "healthy" activity. If that price is a decrease or loss of mobility in one's later years, then "aerobics" have effectively shortened the individual's life-span. Loss of mobility is often the first step toward loss of all biological competence.
Don't I need some form of aerobics to insure good health?
What about my heart?
· Remember: The function of the cardiovascular system is to support the muscular system--not the other way around. If the human body is logical (and we assume that it is) then increases in muscular strength (from a proper strength-training program) will correlate to improvements in cardiovascular function.
· You will notice that the word "aerobic" has been set off in quotation marks when it refers to an activity performed for exercise. There is a good reason for this emphasis: There is no such thing as aerobic exercise! We have all heard that activities such as jogging and cycling are "aerobic" while those such as weight training and sprinting are "anaerobic". These distinctions are not 100% correct. The words aerobic and anaerobic refer to metabolic pathways which operate continuously at all times and in all activities. You cannot "turn off" either of these pathways by merely increasing or decreasing the intensity of an activity.
· A word on intensity: Few of the "experts" who promote aerobics will debate our last statement. What they do say, however, is that gentle low-intensity activities use the aerobic pathway to a greater degree than they use the anaerobic pathway. We agree with this statement completely and feel that it should be taken to its logical conclusion: The most "aerobic" activity that a human being can engage in is sleeping!
· Consider this: Dr. Kenneth Cooper (author of Aerobics, The New Aerobics, Aerobics for Women), the US. Air Force Cardiologist who coined the term "aerobics" (meaning a form of exercise) and has promoted their use for over 25 years now admits that he was wrong! According to Dr. Cooper, further research has shown that there is no correlation between aerobic endurance performance and health, longevity, or protection against heart-disease. He will admit, however, that such activities do carry with them a great risk of injury. Further, he admits that gross-overuse activities such as running may be so damaging to the body as to be considered carcinogenic.
· Irving Dardik, MD, former vascular surgeon, contends that: "The basic concept of aerobics conditioning is wrong." He also contends that the best way to train the vascular system is to build flexibility into its response by using short bouts of elevation followed by sudden recovery, then demanding activity again.
· Elevated heart rate is not an indicator of exercise intensity, exercise effect, or exercise value. It is quite possible to experience an elevated pulse, labored breathing, and profuse sweating without achieving valuable exercise. Intense emotional experiences commonly cause these symptoms without a shred of exercise benefit.
· Even if an elevated pulse is necessary for cardiovascular conditioning (we do not doubt that pulse elevation may be necessary, but we do not believe that it should be the emphasis of a conditioning program) remember that some of the highest heart-rates on record were achieved during Nautilus research performed at West Point. The West Point cadets commonly experienced heart rates in excess of 220 beats per minute during Nautilus exercise. These pulse rates were maintained for periods of 20-35 minutes.
What about endurance? Won't my athletic performance suffer if I don't do aerobics?
· Endurance for athletics and recreational activities is primarily a result of three factors: skill, muscular strength, and genetics. Heritable factors (genetics) are considered to be non-trainable or, in other words, you cannot do much about them. Increasing one's skill in an activity is a result of practicing that activity. For long-distance runners skills such as stride length and efficiency can be trained through practice (practice on a treadmill doesn't serve this purpose as it is not the same as road-running). Muscular strength is the single most trainable factor in endurance performance. It is the muscles that actually perform work. When strength increases, the relative intensity of any given task decreases.
· Athletes often talk about training their "wind". Actually our bodies' ability to use oxygen is not as trainable as once believed. Consider that in a resting state the lungs can saturate with oxygen the blood moving through them during the first one-third of the total transit time. At maximal exertion, saturation speed might slow to one-half of the total transit time. Even with some compromise of pulmonary function (illness, injury, etc.) the lungs can usually perform their job quite adequately. It is the muscle's ability to use the nutrients delivered to it that needs training. This is most efficiently addressed by strength-training.
· More on the subject of "wind": Most exercise physiologists refer to the phenomenon of "wind" as maximal oxygen uptake. One Canadian researcher has determined that maximal oxygen uptake is 95.9% genetically determined.
· A 1991 study at the University of Maryland showed that strength training produced improvements in cycling endurance performance independent of changes in oxygen consumption.
· Covert Bailey, author of Fit or Fat and advocate of "gentle aerobic exercise" now recommends wind sprints to those seeking to become maximally fit. Why wind sprints? Because sprinting is a much more intense muscular activity than jogging. Why not wind sprints? Because as with other running, the risk of injury is just too great! Pulled hamstrings, sprained ankles, and damaged knees are too high of a price for a marginal increase in fitness. Strength training greatly increases the intensity of muscular activity (much more so than sprinting) and greatly reduces the risk of injury!
· Ideal Exercise possesses signed testimonials from members who have improved their endurance performance for running, skiing, and other activities while following a program of high-intensity strength training and following this policy:
Aerobics... Just Say No!
(Many thanks to Matt Hedman for his invaluable assistance in preparing this material.)
Copyright 1995, 1997 Greg Anderson. All Rights Reserved.

"http://www.mikementzer.com/" "welcome.html" "articles.html" "tips.html" "books.html" "consulting.html" "checkout/catalognew.asp"
© 2002 Mentzer-Sharkey Enterprises, Inc. Site by "http://www.fxmedia.com/"
--------------
Vitality shows not only in the ability to persist but the ability to start over. - F. Scott Fitzgerald
|
|
2005/04/28, 06:02 AM
I never do cardio... im to lazy to ... i dont even stretch i figured im moving at my job all day as an electrician by time i get home... im still pritty warmed up and all... but to say where unfit cardio or cant even touch our toes!! other day i tried this i ran 8 quarter miles in 12minutes 8 seconds.. which is about 2 miles or i think 3.2 kms... and i can still put my wrists over my toes while i am seated on the ground... so i dont think that muscle building is a bad thing... also i use to do running that was all i did... and i started getting shitty knee problems... ever since i build muscle there to act like a spring protection i havent felt no pain or anything... some good posts there assimer and mutt:)
|
|
2005/04/28, 06:25 AM
stretching after resistance training is still good tho timmstar.. its gonna help you retain your flexibility and prevent injury
|
|
2005/04/29, 02:07 AM
yeah your probably right bropie i have no doubt. but im to lazy also the amount of moving around i do at work with roffs /attics of houses and under houses it gives u good flexibility... also i do a fair bit of cardio at my work i rekon running around pulling cables through a house ( imma electrician ) or some would say.. "cable jerker":)
|
|
2005/04/29, 09:34 AM
hehe.. you only need about 5 minutes to stretch after a workout. it'll make the world of a difference.. i trained for awhile without stretching, and lost alot of my range of motion.. then i incorporated it in (legs is probably the longest stretch day, but only takes a few minutes) and ive seen definite improvements.
|
|
2005/04/29, 09:39 AM
I never do stretching after my workout. After reading this thread I do believe I will incorporate it into my workout starting today.
Thanks bropie
Leslie
|
|
2005/05/03, 04:03 PM
Q: I am constantly being asked just how resistance training actually creates and maintains bone strength, and I don't have a good answer! Any light you could shed on this topic would be greatly appreciated.
A: The exact mechanism through which exercise stimulates bone formation is still unclear.
One of the more popular theories is that when a muscle contracts, the stress of the contraction is transmitted to the bone to which it is attached, creating an electrical charge in the bone. In turn, this electrical charge stimulates the activity of the osteoblasts (bone building cells). This adaptive response of bone is known as the piezoelectric effect.
For exercise to be most effective, experts agree that it must be weight bearing. This means you must place a stress or load on the musculoskeletal system by loading it with weight.
If you are walking or jogging, your body weight is providing the load. Resistance training, while not technically a weight-bearing exercise, allows you to load your musculoskeletal system with weights.
There are two fundamental reasons why resistance training is a particularly effective exercise for developing and strengthening bone: specificity and intensity. With resistance training, individual muscle groups can be targeted and exercised separately. This allows you to select specific muscles to be stressed, which in turn determines specific bone sites that will be subjected to the electrical stimulation of osteoblasts.
As your muscles grow stronger, you can gradually increase the amount of resistance lifted. Research suggests that this gradual, progressive increase in musculoskeletal stress results in greater increases in bone density.
It is important to keep in mind that, contrary to popular belief, bone is not an inert object. It is a dynamic tissue (like muscle), which is constantly broken down and rebuilt throughout life. As is the case with muscle tissue, the bottom line with respect to bone mass and strength is use it or lose it.
Source: Bryant, Cedric X. 101 Frequently Asked Questions about "Health & Fitness" and "Nutrition & Weight Control". Sagamore Publishing, 1999
|
|
2005/05/05, 06:01 PM
It depends on what your definition of fit is. If you only do weights, you can bench 600 lbs, but you get tired walking to the car. No your not fit. If you only do weights, you bench 600 lbs or what ever, and you can perform your every day tasks with out difficulty, then yes I would say you are fit. It all depends on what your goals are, powerlifters lift more than anybody, but they have problems with cardio. Cardio people can run marathons but they cant lift anything. It's all in what your goals are, that's just my opinion.
|
|
2005/05/05, 06:37 PM
just resently in my health class we had to find are vo2 max......which I belive is the muscle and bodies ability to uptake oxygen into muscles. mine was over 60......which is the above average catagory by like 15points......btw I never do cardio. I walked the mile in 13.36
My blood pressure last time....was 108/80
I spend lil or no time on tredmills
all this and i'm 258lbs
--------------
" The only true eye, is your minds eye"- plato
|
|
2005/05/18, 06:31 AM
personally i think that to be perfectly fit it requires u to do cross training a mixture of both weight training and cardio. However in my gym i do see guys just lifting weights and half of them are so big i doubt they could do half the things that someone with a lighter build can do except lift. i wish them luck though if thats all they wanna do :)
|
|
2005/05/18, 10:05 AM
so what is "perfectly fit? gibb.......lance armstrong is very fit...........ronie coleman is fit and lean......so is eddie george.........which one is "perfectly fit"
lance can clycle days and days........but I beat he can barly bench his body weight maybe a lil more.....ronnie coleman I bet has the same body fat percentage....as lance and his over 300lbs...? How is that not "fit"
liek i sai din my above post......my blood pressure is 108/80 last doc visist...I spend at most 20- 30mins on a cardio machine.......gee maybe the cardio bunnies are just wasting their time.......cause on my fitness test.....only thing I scored low on was flexabilty.....and thats my fault......but even then I was "average" for flexabilty.
So what is "perfectly fit" I wanna know?
--------------
" The only true eye, is your minds eye"- plato
|
|
2005/05/18, 10:11 AM
It comes down to the sterotype that I seem to fall into. That since I do not look like a fitness cover model(after all why else would you be lifting for), and that I carry extra weight that I am lazy unfit and generally unhealthy. I DEFY that to the upmost. I have friends that are in the "fit" bodyweight range, yet are sicker that I am thru the year, canhardly pick a basket of clothing up and carry it. I can work 8 hours outside doing manual labor and still go to the gym for 1.5 hours. Just because I have a 48 waist and they may have a 34 does not make me less fit then they. This is America and I guess the way you look is the way you are judged.
--------------
Less Talk, More Chalk!
7707mutt@freetrainers.com
|
|
2005/05/18, 04:31 PM
I knwo what you mean mutt...........guess the "perfect fitness" is benching 500lbs and running a mile in under 6 mins, and having a 6 pack!
--------------
" The only true eye, is your minds eye"- plato
|
|
2005/05/19, 12:48 PM
Larry Allan with the Dallas Cowboys has a carreer best bench of 700lbs and lift squat of 900 lbs. If I'm not mistaken that's the NFL record on bench...not sure on squats. He's 6'3" and 335 lbs.
http://www.nflplayers.com/players_network/players_network.aspx?strSection=bio&ID=20724
|
|
2005/05/19, 03:26 PM
Coming into this a little late but would the way you lift weights effect your fitness level at all? Like today I did supersets with no more than 30 seconds rest between sets and I felt like I got more of a workout than doing HIIT or a regular 30 min. cardio session. I was dripping sweat and panting like a dog, by the end I just wanted to collapse. Now I havent worked out like that in a while but it felt great and it also felt like I got my cardo workout in at the same time as lifting. But in the end it all comes down to what exactly does being fit mean?
|
