re: Body building taken to the extremes....what kind of mental deal is behind it?

When training the body you have to envision it from a risk/benefit standpoint

Under ideal conditions you would have the greatest stimulus from exercise derived in the most efficient manner (eustress without distress). For most folks, low volume, high intensity resistance training satisfies this criteria the best (as would sprinting or running in Tabata style training).

Chronic , long duration cardio does a poor job (long time commitment, chronic distress on the body with subsequent hormonal / cortisol response , cardiac dysrythmias, overtraining, injury, etc.) Most of the type As continue to "just do it" because of group think and adult dick measuring (same could be said of bodybuilders and competitive cross fitters). Fundamentals are sound, but the applications are fricked in those scenarios..

quote:

---

When training the body you have to envision it from a risk/benefit standpoint

Under ideal conditions you would have the greatest stimulus from exercise derived in the most efficient manner (eustress without distress). For most folks, low volume, high intensity resistance training satisfies this criteria the best (as would sprinting or running in Tabata style training).

Chronic , long duration cardio does a poor job (long time commitment, chronic distress on the body with subsequent hormonal / cortisol response , cardiac dysrythmias, overtraining, injury, etc.) Most of the type As continue to "just do it" because of group think and adult dick measuring (same could be said of bodybuilders and competitive cross fitters). Fundamentals are sound, but the applications are fricked in those scenarios..

---

I dont really understand what you are even saying here. Resistance training can't work the heart like cardio does.

Also, most people are not doing cardio enough to define it as "chronic". I would say its far easier for the average american to sit his arse in a chair, and throw his arms up multiple times than it is to get off his arse, and run 2 miles at a 10 minute/mile pace.

Heart disease is the US's #1 killer....and its best that people use cardiovascular exercise as their primary form of exercise before any resistance exercise. Resistance exercise is still beneficial, but not in as many ways as cardiovascular exercise.

The US is known for its high levels of obesity...and the best fat burning exercise...again CARDIO as well.

Either way, if you had to choose ONE of resistance vs. cardio/aerobic, cardio/aerobic is a no-brainer.

quote:

---

If you look at exercise as a stimulus for human performance and improvement, high intensity resistance strength training trumps all other forms of training.

---

quote:

---

"Cardio" as you know it is a term invented by people with things to sell you (think Nike). It kills me when people assume that your cardiovascular system goes offline when strength training (different than confounding factors that make bodybuilding unhealthy).

quote:

---

I take care of many runners and endurance athletes who have just as much psychogical baggage coupled with chronic wear and tear injuries (from chronic , repetitive sub maximal exertional cardio) and cultivated hormonal decline

---

.

---

quote:

---

ust as much psychogical baggage

---

Not sure if you were trying to say "physiologica" or "psychological" .

Also, huge difference between competitive runners and the average American's exercise routine. Obviously athletes are going to have more wear and tear because they push their bodies to more extremes.

quote:

---

I take care of many runners and endurance athletes who have just as much psychogical baggage coupled with chronic wear and tear injuries (from chronic , repetitive sub maximal exertional cardio) and cultivated hormonal decline

---

Can you explain this further?

What is "cultivated hormonal decline" ?

If I exercise 5 times a week for 1 hour each time (average American likely gets less exercise time than this), then how should my workouts go?

Remember, 99% of Americans are not athletes, and are more likely to not do any exercise at all than do more exercise than their body can endure.

Am I doing it wrong if I run at about 85% intensity ,and run for 20-30 minutes 4 times a week, am I going to end up injured and in a poorer condition than if instead I was lifting weights on those days?

How will I help improve my heart health?

American Heart Association Recommendations:

LINK

quote:

---

AHA Recommendation

For Overall Cardiovascular Health:

At least 30 minutes of moderate-intensity aerobic activity at least 5 days per week for a total of 150

OR
At least 25 minutes of vigorous aerobic activity at least 3 days per week for a total of 75 minutes; or a combination of moderate- and vigorous-intensity aerobic activity

AND
Moderate- to high-intensity muscle-strengthening activity at least 2 days per week for additional health benefits.

For Lowering Blood Pressure and Cholesterol
An average 40 minutes of moderate- to vigorous-intensity aerobic activity 3 or 4 times per week

---

So is the American Heart Association WAY OFF on their recommendations? Why are they encouraging so much aerobic exercise and only 2 days of muscle-strengthening exercises?


Remember: average American, not competitive running athlete/bodybuilder.


The competitors are not being included in what I am saying, because they are outliers, and likely will not reflect the mean in terms of health effects.

quote:

---

So is the American Heart Association WAY OFF on their recommendations? Why are they encouraging so much aerobic exercise and only 2 days of muscle-strengthening exercises?

---

quote:

---

The US is known for its high levels of obesity

---

These recommendations (along with our stellar dietary recommendations)have really benefited us haven't they ....

Just look around and observe that experiment in process.

LINK

I use Dr McGuff's definitions for what constitutes exercise.

1. the last person you should look to for good information on exercise is your family doctor or internist. They don't get the information in medical school. AHA knows very little.
2. our western style of medicine is primarily devoted to 'what do we do once something goes bad?'. It talks about prevention but knows little about it. It talks about wellness and longevity and healthy aging lifestyle factors but knows even less about that stuff.
3. we still don't have precise mechanisms that distinguish resistance training from cardio, how muscles hypertophy, how they respond to de-training etc. We have some observations, but we don't have mechanisms laid out yet. Part of the reason is that we focus on clinical research paradigms, not health research. Even that which is labeled health research is not really health-related, it's disease related.
4. caloric restriction increases lifespan - maybe. it helps with healthy again - maybe. It activates molecules that inhibit processes thought to be disease-promoting and/or age-promoting. It confers a level of protection to normal functioning, thought to prevent abnormal function - we think. But in some instances those same molecules are activated in cancer cells, and protects them from being killed by medication. Also, these molecules appear to be part of the muscle hypertophic response to such as with resistance training.
5. confusion abounds on this topic, partly because our research priorities suck.

quote:

---

4. caloric restriction increases lifespan - maybe. it helps with healthy again - maybe. It activates molecules that inhibit processes thought to be disease-promoting and/or age-promoting. It confers a level of protection to normal functioning, thought to prevent abnormal function - we think. But in some instances those same molecules are activated in cancer cells, and protects them from being killed by medication. Also, these molecules appear to be part of the muscle hypertophic response to such as with resistance training.

---

Interesting point

Personally, I use a 16:8 intermittent fasting protocol with a cyclical ketogenic diet (minimizing sugar and processed carbs). This relatively calorie restricted diet blends well with my minimalist training recommendations above. Overall exposure to food is decreased, but when I do eat it is very high quality selections. Despite this, I am able to maintain a healthy weight of 225 (for those who feel that fasting will make them shrivel up).

You are so far off its not even funny. Can't believe you said weight lifting can't be cardio.

Wanna know how your workout should go

Lift compound lifts for 45 min then 10 or 15 mins of hiit either through sprints, sled/prowler work, circuit training, heavy bag work, rowing or air dyne.

Long distance so called cardio is useless but hey have fun being skinny fat and having chronic issues.

Btw wanna know what the two biggest things that heppen when againg that cause many to lose their independence? Loss of explosiveness and loss of strength. Its not lack of cardio. Ill stick to the scientific proven methods and you can listen to the government and their "experts"

quote:

---

ThinePreparedAni

---

The debate on CR v IF is still ongoing. Seems IF is easier for people to maintain. Also, no one knows if isocaloric IF is the same as 40% CR or 20% CR, or what. And, it appears that the progression of time is a factor but how much, we don't know. Genetics seems to only explain maybe 25% of longevity. There is a difference between aging and longevity though.

Insulin, IGF-1, and Growth Hormone seem to be mostly bad, unless it's specifically a training adaptation they are assisting with, or if you've just had an infarction adequate GH will be necessary to help recovery of the cardiac muscle.

Carbs used to be one of the good guys, then one of the bad guys. Protein was good, but if processed it's bad. Amino acids were efficient and critical to prevent muscle loss during low energy intake, yet methionine is a common item thought to mediate beneficial aspects of protein restriction.

Then you have vitamin and mineral supplements. Can't be deficient but it seems that getting way more than you need could be bad, particularly for the anti-oxidants. This seems to be tied to hormesis because some oxidative stress is good.

Another big problem is the context of the animal studies that are done. Many issues there, and these studies go from yeast, to flies, to non-human primates.

In the end I think we are going to find that a timed hormetic approach is what's needed. That fits well with IF and IF fits well with how we evolved.

Overall I like the vision behind NuSI but like most things in biomed research there's a lot of integration that isn't taking place. It's incredibly difficult to integrate so much information, but I think it's necessary.