Home   |   Contact   |   Help

Get Our Newsletter
Sign up for our free newsletter to get training tips and stay up to date on Catalyst Athletics, and get a FREE issue of the Performance Menu journal.

Go Back   Catalyst Athletics Forums > Training > Fitness, Strength & CrossFit

Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-05-2010, 12:18 AM   #1
Paul Epstein
New Member
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 39
Default Aerobic Excersize 'a waste of time'

According to the results, published in the Journal of Applied Physiology today, 20 per cent of people do not receive any health benefits from aerobic exercise.


time enjoyed wasted is never a waste of time but i dont enjoy jogging so im going to beleive in within the 20% who get no benefit from Aerobic work
Paul Epstein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:28 AM   #2
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646

Here's something relevant:

Is getting fit easier for some people?


While physical activity is an essential part of getting fit, it's not the whole story. An individual's fitness level also depends on how they respond to that activity, which is largely determined by their genes.

The landmark research in this field is the Heritage family study, begun in the 1990s. US and Canadian researchers recruited 481 sedentary people from 98 families, and subjected them to a rigorous 20-week training programme. They then put them through a battery of tests.

While many people's aerobic fitness improved dramatically, others showed a less marked response. The disheartening news is that about 1 in 10 showed no change whatsoever in their aerobic fitness, despite doing 45 minutes of vigorous exercise three times a week for the final six weeks of the programme (Journal of Applied Physiology, vol 87, p 1003).

The degree of response turned out to be largely down to the participants' genes. If your parents find it hard to get fit, there's a good chance you will too. "We had families where all of them were low responders and other families where they were all high responders," says Claude Bouchard, now director of the Pennington Biomedical Research Center at Baton Rouge, Louisiana, who led the study.

Happily, even those whose aerobic fitness did not change had lower blood pressure and cholesterol, more normal insulin levels, and less abdominal fat. "You're never a complete non-responder," says Bouchard.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:28 AM   #3
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646

And here's another:

Taken from www.newscientist.com


DOES an activity have to get you out of breath to count as exercise? Do you really have to do half-an-hour a day? Is pumping iron a good way to keep your heart healthy? These are just some of the dilemmas many of us face when working out the best way to get fit. The good news is scientists do broadly agree on the best ways to get fit, they just haven't been very good at telling us what they've discovered.

"We haven't done a great job of distilling down a large number of studies and say what this means for the average person who's trying to get in shape," acknowledges Simon Marshall, a specialist in exercise and sports psychology at San Diego State University in California.

Whether because of a lack of information, or because some of us are just plain lazy, most of us don't do enough exercise. One recent survey in the UK found that only a third of adults meet the recommended goals for physical activity.

Though we all know that exercise is a good thing, only recently was the extent of its influence on our health established. In the early 20th century, heart attacks were growing steadily more common in the west, and they were seen as a sinister new epidemic. It is now thought there are several explanations for this, ranging from a fall in infectious diseases enabling heart attacks to take the lead, to various changes in society that made lifestyles less healthy.

A key insight into the importance of lifestyle came from a 1953 study of London bus conductors. At the time, London buses not only had a driver but also a conductor, who sold tickets to passengers after they had boarded and sat down. Most of the buses were double-deckers, so the conductors spent a lot of their day walking up and down the stairs.

The landmark study published in The Lancet (vol 262, p 1053) showed that conductors suffered half as many heart attacks as their driver colleagues. "It was the first hint that this new frightening epidemic could be linked to the way we live," said Jerry Morris, at the time an epidemiologist at the UK's Medical Research Council, who led the study.

Since Morris's study, hundreds of other investigations have confirmed the benefits of exercise on the heart and circulation, as well as on almost every other system of the body. Diseases that are prevented by exercise include stroke, cancer, diabetes, liver and kidney disease, osteoporosis and even brain diseases such as dementia and depression.

What counts as exercise?

The standard advice is we should aim for 150 minutes a week of moderate-intensity exercise. The tricky question here is what "moderate" means.
Gauging the intensity of an activity by measuring how fast it makes your heart beat is old hat. These days, metabolic rate is the preferred measure. It is usually represented in units known as the metabolic equivalent, or MET. This is the metabolic rate during the activity in question divided by the rate when sitting doing nothing. Moderate exercise is defined as anything that clocks up between 3 and 6 METs (see chart).

How much, and how often?
Half-an-hour of moderate-intensity exercise at least five days a week used to be the required regime to keep fit. Now the consensus is that exercise doesn't have to be portioned out in daily doses. If you aim for 150 minutes per week you can divide it up however you like.
That has to be good news for those of us who find it difficult to fit regular exercise into the daily schedule. So, if you can manage a one-hour hike and an hour of some energetic sport at the weekend, you only have to find time for another half-hour bout during the working week. "There's not compelling evidence that 150 minutes across five days is any better than across three or four," says Simon Marshall of San Diego State University.
Another hot question in sports science is what is the shortest period of exercise that is worth doing. The latest evidence suggests that three lots of 10 minutes, for example, are just as good as one continuous 30-minute bout (Sports Medicine, vol 39, p 29).

Is pumping iron really necessary?

Several studies have suggested a link between muscle strength and living longer, but for a long time it was unclear whether other factors were confusing the picture. People who are muscular are more likely to be thin, aerobically fit and generally healthy - all features known to extend lifespan.

In the past few years, however, some large, well-designed studies have settled the question. One study, published in 2008, measured the muscle strength of almost 9000 American men and followed their health for 20 years. The death rates among those whose muscle strength was in the bottom third for their age group was around 30 per cent higher than for the other two-thirds (BMJ, vol 337, a439).

That link remained even after the results had been adjusted to take account of the effects of aerobic fitness. "The bottom line is that both strength and aerobic fitness make independent contributions to health," says Steve Blair, one of the study's co-authors, based at University of South Carolina's Arnold School of Public Health, who helped write the US national guidelines on exercise.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 01:30 AM   #4
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646

And yet another:

Part 3:

Can you be fat and fit?


Whether being overweight is an absolute bar to fitness has become one of the most hotly debated questions in exercise science. Steven Blair at the University of South Carolina is one of those who doesn't accept what might at first sight seems plain common sense - that being fat means you must be unfit.

No one denies that there is a negative correlation between weight and aerobic fitness: overweight people tend, as a group, to be less fit. This is partly because a sedentary lifestyle contributes to weight gain, and partly because fat people may feel discouraged from taking exercise. It can be a vicious circle.

In a study published in 2007 Blair recruited 2600 people of varying weight and timed how long they could run on a treadmill before becoming exhausted, a proxy for fitness (JAMA, vol 298, p 2507). Among those who were mildly obese, only a third met a common definition of being physically unfit, and only half of those who were moderately obese were unfit. Blair points out that measures of aerobic fitness - the body's ability to deliver oxygen to the muscles - have nothing to do with the amount of fat tissue present.

In the 12 years during which the subjects were followed, Blair's study found that the risk of dying was more closely linked to fitness than fatness. People who were fit but obese had a lower risk of dying than people who were unfit but of normal weight. That's important, says Blair, because while many overweight people find it hard to get slim, they could still become healthier with more exercise. It's a point he would like doctors to bear in mind when advising overweight patients.
Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 07:21 AM   #5
Brian Stone
Senior Member
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Norwich, CT
Posts: 502

Originally Posted by Paul Epstein View Post

time enjoyed wasted is never a waste of time but i dont enjoy jogging so im going to beleive in within the 20% who get no benefit from Aerobic work
Haven't read Donald's stuff yet, but "no benefit" seems like a big stretch based on the info in that article. The main point seems to be this:

In theory the more blood a heart can pump, and the more oxygen muscles use, the less risk there would be of early disease and death.

James Timmons of the Royal Veterinary College at the University of London, who headed the study, said aerobic exercise would not help certain people ward off heart disease, diabetes and other potential ailments.


By the end of the study 20 per cent saw their maximum oxygen increase by less than five per cent.

About 30 per cent showed no increase in insulin sensitivity, meaning that the exercise did not reduce their risk of diabetes.
Basically, no demonstrated benefit to diabetes and heart disease. That's not to say it's useless for other things. I suspect the majority of people that exercise aerobically don't have heart disease and diabetes aversion as their primary motivation, but it is certainly a great ancillary benefit for those that get it.
"Use what talents you possess: the woods would be very silent if no birds sang there except those that sang best." —Henry Van Dyke

Brian Stone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 08:58 AM   #6
Steven Low
Super Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,091

Considering that very low intensity doesn't burn much glycogen/carbs, there's no reason for the body to increase insulin sensitivity and other things like that.

It makes sense when you think about it on a physiological level.

Based on simple facts like this you can infer that some people may likely have subsets of genes where low intensity work may not even help them that much.

That and genes do make a HUGEEEEEE difference in a a lot of things. There's nothing getting around them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't train or eat well or whatever. Lift heavy, eat well, sleep well. 3 things that everyone should do..
Posts NOT intended as professional medical, training or nutrition advice.
Site // Bodyweight Strength Training Article // Overcoming Gravity Bodyweight Book
Steven Low is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-05-2010, 09:28 AM   #7
Mike ODonnell
Senior Member
Mike ODonnell's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,596

Originally Posted by Steven Low View Post
Considering that very low intensity doesn't burn much glycogen/carbs, there's no reason for the body to increase insulin sensitivity and other things like that.

Plus it gives the body no reason to elevate protein synthesis, and we all know we want to keep muscle to slow down the whole aging process.

The only lasting benefit I see to lower intensity stuff is just in a "lifestyle" manner to help manage stress and raise personal enjoyment. Life should be fun....not an aerobics class.
Fitness Spotlight
The IF Life
Mike ODonnell is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-06-2010, 06:59 PM   #8
Donald Lee
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 646

Here's Joel and Lyle talking about the topic:

Donald Lee is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:28 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9 Beta 3
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Subscribe to our Newsletter

Receive emails with training tips, news updates, events info, sale notifications and more.

Submit your question to be answered by Greg Everett in the Performance Menu or on the website

Submit Your Question

Catalyst Athletics is a USA Weightlifting team of competitive Olympic-style weightlifters with multiple national team medals.

Read More
Olympic Weightlifting Book
Catalyst Athletics
Contact Us
Products & Services
Weightlifting Team
Performance Menu
Magazine Home
Subscriber Login
About the Program
Workout Archives
Exercise Demos
Text Only
Instructional Content
Exercise Demos
Video Gallery
Free Articles
Free Recipes
Recommended Books & DVDs
Olympic Weightlifting Guide
Discussion Forum
Weight Conversion Calculator