|
[ Exercise Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
I've been meaning to pass on this information to y'all and now I am. Hopefully, labrat will see it too because I promised it to her.
I will just paste three pieces of information here without any comments for your analysis.
1. Here's a message I got from an email list I am on.
"Did anyone else see the PrimeTime special last week with the segment that covered the book, Power of 10 and it's author? Though I've not read the book, Power of 10 is a method of strength training in which you visit the gym for a single 20 minute visit per week, and do several compound movements (those involving several muscles at once) at a super slow pace -- 10 seconds on the contraction (positive movement), and 10 seconds on the retraction (negative movement). Besides going super slow, you also use a very heavy weight, and do a single set of repetitions (reps) to failure (meaning you cannot do another rep using proper control and form).
The female anchor of PrimeTime, Leslie Stahls (sp?) has been using this method for three years, and credits it for her lean, well sculpted appearance, as well as relieving muscle pains and so on.
Anyway, the show asked a nutritional "expert" (wearing a while coat, of course) what he thought of this, and the guy said that he doesn't see how this program is effective without an aerobics component.
So, the show put together a challenge: They recruited two identical twins who are "plus sized models," each nearly identical in weight, and each roughly 35 pounds overweight, IMO.
Twin A did the Power of 10 program (one 20 minute gym visit per week), while Twin B did aerobics, 3-4 gym visits per week, each for one hour, doing the treadmill, jazzercise, kickboxing, stair climber, and other grueling, sweaty undertakings which it was clear she despised. Twin A said her gym visit was hard, but short. Twin B said she dreaded coming, and dreaded the thought of coming four times a week. Meanwhile, we see Twin A out shopping and doing normal life errands.
Five weeks later!
Twin B had lost four pounds, total gym time of 18 hours. Twin A, using Power of 10, with a total gym time of 1 hour and 20 minutes, had lost 15 pounds.
Now then, even though they didn't measure endurance conditioning, had they done so, the Power of 10 twin would have enjoyed a greater increase than Twin B, who only trained aerobically. How do I know? Because the army did exactly this same test in the mid-70's, showing that intense strength training not only builds muscle and burns fat far more effectively than aerobic training, but it also build endurance more effectively.
And there's more good news: Strength training is far better for the body in terms of anti-aging benefits, and produces much less wear and tear on the body."
2. Trash Your Jogging Shoes and Get Lean in 10 Minutes a Day
3. Exercise Your Heart Really Needs
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
Hi R.,
Excellent articles! I've been amazed at the results I'm getting with a strength training program similar to this; I was inspired by the weight training program my sons' are in. Glad to know I'm not missing anything by skipping the eliptical machine and treadmill -- I stopped running several years ago when RA crashed down on me. I do walk my dogs daily for a total of ~ 1 to 1-1/2 hour, and yoga/stretching several times a week to stay limber. Maybe I'm doing something right. . .
Thanks again,
Donna
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by DonnaW [302.465] on January 07, 2005 at 15:09:06:
My sister did "SuperSlow" workouts which helped prepare her for hip replacement surgery. She had osteoporosis due to thyroid being removed and these workouts-- 30 min. once a week- really strengthened her bones and trimmed her down!
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by Mel [461.4] on January 07, 2005 at 16:39:59:
More than aerobic training would have, you think?
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
Thanks R
I printed this out for hubby.
I think Lincoln was getting to this when he was helping me with questions about my tendonitis in my arms. He told me heavier weights, less reps.
D
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
I actually started superslow a week ago.
Only difference is I am doing it 2 times a week and cardio the other 2 times.
My only beef is that your arms get the most workout as they are being used in most of them (other than legs of course).
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
Hi R,
For me the question is, which type of exercise (slow heavy weights, CV, aerobics, etc.) is really healthier? Weight loss is one factor in health, but not for all people. Cardiovascular strength is another. But my understanding of aerobics is that the health benefit is not only in weight loss and CV, but in the fact that it changes and enhances the metabolism of the person.
I suppose what kind of exercise you choose depends upon your goals. Some may need to do more than one kind of exercise.
Best wishes,
Jan
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by Steven [280.62] on January 07, 2005 at 18:25:11:
If what I posted is right, you can easily drop (and should) aerobic training (if that's what you mean by cardio). The other training does better cardiovascular training than aerobic.
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by Happygal [1307.218] on January 07, 2005 at 19:39:06:
If you read all items I posted, you will see that the answer is definitely not aerobic. Superslow or interval training provide ALL the benefits (for those who are able to do it, of course).
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
Thanks for sharing this R.
Without realising it, my housekeeper and I have been following something similar for years. As I have dogs that need to be exercised, we cant do non-stop jogging. They need water breaks every 1 or 2 km. So we have been walking/running and stopping every ten mins or so. It seems to work well. One benefit of this is, one never gets that feeling of tiredness. I also include weight training 3 times a week.
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 21:43:16:
Not for me, it's not enough. I have been hitting the gym for years and played sports my whole life.
I'm trying this superslow for 4 weeks to see if it does anything.
The only problem with a lot of these exercise claims is when someone is overweight and doesn't exercise, exercise will have results almost no matter what you do. But if you have been doing it for a long time, it's different.
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by Steven [280.62] on January 07, 2005 at 22:57:30:
I would guess that the military experiments that the post mentioned involved more or less fit subjects.
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 23:05:28:
Last week I only did one of these workout and no cardio and I didn't even feel sore.
It feels like your arms get tired before any body parts do.
I'll see how this all works in 3 more weeks, I guess/
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by Steven [280.62] on January 07, 2005 at 23:15:23:
I didn't even feel sore.
Is that a good sign?
It feels like your arms get tired before any body parts do.
Wouldn't this depend on exercises? I can think of some that would even involve arms.
I think your use of the word cardio is confusing. Since strength exercises can improve cardiovascular fitness, they can also be called cardio. So, a better name of what you mean is aerobic (if that's what it was). Otherwise, it's not clear what you are talking about.
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
If the military found this to be true, wouldn't you think they would be skipping running and other aerobic type exercise's now? My husband is in the military, and I was.. and every morning they run.
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 08, 2005 at 00:39:58:
Anything involving upper body and not arms itself (chest, back, shoulders) makes arms tired before the body part.
Not being sore the 1st time u do it isn't a good sign. You almost always get sore when you switch to a new routine. I even took a 1 month layoff before so I was sure I would be sore.
Cardio meaning a sustained cardiovasuclar workout. Weight training, while can get your heart going, doesn't maintain it as you stop, rest and walk to a different machine or weight bench.
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
I will have to read this a little later - just saw it, but on my way out!
~~~8>
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by militarywife [2796.218] on January 08, 2005 at 08:15:48:
Hi Militarywife:
It's possible that the military isn't using the latest techniques or is not yet aware of them. I know people in the military and one claims that the drink "Sunny Delight" is healthy because they drink it in the military.
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by Steven [280.62] on January 08, 2005 at 09:02:42:
I've tried the slow approach with pull-ups, and my muscles were sore, if I remember correctly. It lasts only a couple of days.
Cardio meaning a sustained cardiovasuclar workout. Weight training, while can get your heart going, doesn't maintain it as you stop, rest and walk to a different machine or weight bench.
It doesn't (sustain...), but it improves maximum capacity of the cardiovascular system, which, according to one of the articles, reduces a heart attack risk a lot.
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by militarywife [2796.218] on January 08, 2005 at 08:15:48:
This is analagous to what happens in medicine -- it is known that herbs, essential oil, enzymes, etc. are very useful in treating and preventing disease, but how many doctors in US use them?
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 08, 2005 at 13:09:24:
Ok but I try not to get advice from articles when my own experience contradicts it.
I have been exercising for years and the way I get in shape is high intensity cardio. But injuries prevent me from doing this so I have to work around it.
I spoke to a superslow trainer today but he told me to try 4 ro 5 seconds instead of the 10 seconds. You use some heavier weights but its' still killer. The problem being I had to go so light to do 10 seconds (well 20 if u count both up and down) that I was doing like 40 reps easy. But more weight made it too hard as my arms would get tired trying to hold up that slow.
But he recommended I do cardio (kickboxing for me right now) with it but on other days.
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
Very interesting. I'd think the weakest link in the program might be tendons, joints, and ligaments. Even if their muscles can take the heavy weights, these other areas might not, as they tend to be more fragile than muscle. So the person would have to work up to it gradually with lighter weights until the rest of the body acclimates... thus postponing the real benefits of the program. Is this ever addressed?
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by Jan S. [535.81] on January 08, 2005 at 14:14:23:
I also think that one would have to work up to it, as with anything.
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
I am one who never enjoyed aerobic type activities, and prefered physical ones. When I wanted to lift weights, a reverse Pyramid routine, where you lift the heaviest weight you could on the first set, appealed to me more, and seemed to make more sense, since that's when you are your freshest, and could lift heavier. Now it would put more strain if your muscles were tight, and some think would cause injury, while working up from a lighter weight, you would warm up, but I never needed to stretch, or much. Just moving the part, if they felt tight, like doing a squat, or raiseing my arms once seemed to be enough. Going to lighter weights on following sets might not do much or even be needed, but felt good, since the hard work was over.
Something that comes to mind about exercizing, the heart, and longevity, is the claim I heard, that we Only have so many heart beats in the heart muscle, that it will just wear out. IF this is true, then geting our heart rate up, often may shorten ones life. Might be the quickest way to good conditioning is the best. A local Phd, physiotherapist on the radio once said that tennis isn't an activity that will get you into good shape, because it is a Start/Stop activity, and you need something like joging, that gets your heart rate up and keeps it there. I laughed since I played tennis and played hard, and liked to get to where I had no limits, after laying off all winter, and my legs and lungs didn't stop me. I felt I would get into excellent condition. The next week he started to laugh and said he was wrong, and said he tested a friend who played tennis, and was in Excellent shape. He said, I Guess if you do something Hard enough, and Long enough, you could get to the same spot.
This guy looked like he was a body builder since he was Huge in his upper body with a slim waist. I imagine he also did aerobics, since he pushed it so hard. When I heard that he died at age 54, I Knew I Didn't want to do what HE recomended.
I Think that everyone may be different, and some should probably weight lift and maybe do a reverse pyramid, and others do the normal routine, and others, aerobics. Whatever feels good, and NOT what the Current thinking is. I would Not enjoy areobics, but some seem to love it. There are fast and slow twitch muscles, and different people have more of one or the other. Maybe that determines what feels good or works. Anyway, I do what feels good or works for me. Not what the experts claim.
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by Vince F [173.9] on January 08, 2005 at 19:25:17:
Mine approach is similar to yours. I hate jogging but love sprinting. And interval training -- such as tennis.
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
In Reply to: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 07, 2005 at 14:56:07:
Interesting stuff R. I've wondered why it seems some high profile runners were having heart problems. I surmised it was because they were using/sweating out some important nutrients over time. This suggests another perhaps, or a co-causation. I remember Lincoln saying that after about a half hour of cardio, the male starts losing testosterone. That ain't good! Lincoln believed in short intense sessions as well, using exercises that worked groups of muscles. His workouts weren't super slow, more geared to mimic strengths and movements needed for practical functionality.
I've believed in interval training for some time as part of a fitness program, looks like it might be more important than I figured. I do enjoy the high from cardio work, but I don't go more than a half hour now.
I put the book on hold at the library so I'll get more insight soon. I imagine I'll incorporate some of this, if not exclusively. Have to keep the body guessing, you know.
S
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by Sounder [1194.48] on January 09, 2005 at 22:48:31:
If you get more insight, please share it with us.
In Reply to: Re: Lengthy lighter exercises vs. shorter more intensity exercises posted by R. [27.1490] on January 09, 2005 at 15:07:11:
It probably is determined by the type of muscle fibers people have. It used to take me too long to loosen up to play tennis the way I liked to, and feel warmed up, and I started runing sprints before starting. I would run as fast and long as I could till I ran out of air and as often as I had to to feel drained, and then I was ready. After laying off all winter, I would push myself while practicing, to increase my breathing and get my legs to move. It would take a few weeks till neither had limits, and my lungs would burn, and legs feel heavy till I got there.
|
[ Exercise Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |