This Bodybuilder Says That Aerobic Excercise Is (GASP!) HARMFUL!!! Rebut Him, Letsrun!

The problem with running is that runners typically run everyday. There are no off days. This is not a great way to keep cortisol under control. Cortisol and stress will be higher in distance runners because they never take a day off. This stress is apparent in the number of runners who get injured compared to the number of lifter who get injured.

Lifters typically have at least one or two days completely off from any exercise. This allows their body to recover and their cortisol levels to return to normal.

A good article on cortisol by Rehan Jalali...

http://www.thinkmuscle.com/ARTICLES/jalali/cortisol.htm

1. Oxidative Stress

Increases in antioxidant levels with exercise outstrips cost (unless you overtrain)

2. Elevated cortisol production

Cortisol also mobilizes substrate for regeneration and recovery from exercise.

Thermic effect of meal declines with increased VO2 balancing out the catabolic equation nicely.

Set point theory shows body mass can be maintained on various combinations of caloric expenditure and intake.

3. Lowered testosterone and HGH levels

aerobic exercises raises sex drive and improves blood flow/stamina. HGH spike follows exercise. Only sense GH declines is if you overtrain. Low GH reduces cancer risk.

Womens preferred body type is the endurance athlete body, not the caveman bodybuilder body. overly high testosterone associated with various cancers, baldness and erectile dysfunction.

4. Increased appetite and a tendency toward binge eating patterns

not exercising is associated with weight gain. aerobic exercise associated with maintained body mass and lower body fat percentage. post exercise metabolism elevations sometimes ignored in caloric demands of aerobic exercise.

5. Excessive Muscular Fatigue

strength of muscle has cross sectional aspect but also neurological aspect. peak force capability means little if it cannot be maintained. athletes with stamina can maintain relatively high force outputs for extended periods. elite runners, pound for pound higher muscle power than average.

6. Conversion of fast-twitch muscle fibers to slow-twitch

The loss of fast-twitch muscle fibers contributes to aging and the loss of explosive power and speed. People become slower and slower.

slow fiber increases with age. aging would be related more to question 1, the overall health of the cells. body builders nothing special on the fast fiber side.

7. Burns a relatively small amount of calories vs. the time spent

One large meal completely offsets the pitiful amount of calories burned in an hour aerobics session.

compared to staring at the TV in between bench press reps?

caloric boost from added muscle from weight training typically oversold. pound for pound highest metabolic muscle is a small person who exercises "aerobically"

8 Overuse injuries to the feet, ankles, and knees from excessive, continual force transmitted throughout the body

This is exacerbated by over-engineered running shoes which cushion the feet in such a way to create a neural amnesia.

typical gym person is injured or given up on their training program within 3 months. impact forces strengthen bone. eccentric exercise associated with reduced incidence of back pain

9. Shortening i.e., deformation, of the muscle tissue from repetitive mid-range (partial range) movements

This creates inflexibility, immobility, and muscle imbalances. Besides being tight, the bodies postural alignment becomes compromised. Aerobics create tight, inflexible bodies that are in chronic pain.

fatigued muscles shorten, this is protective. overstretching reduces peak force and fatigue resistance.

muscle imbalances can happen in either approach. overdeveloped muscles also impair flexibility if fascia is not adpapting sufficiently. not all aerobic exercises are the same.

10. Adrenal burnout

A consequence of the “feel good” neurotransmitters which also stimulate the release of adrenaline. Adrenaline is the fight or flight hormone. Excessive adrenaline creates an addictive response and people going routinely for the so called “high” of running end up with adrenal burnout, e.g., chronic fatigue and depression.

aerobic exercise associated with self esteem and reduced rate of depression. chronic fatigue is multifactorial. exercise of all kinds has shown benefits. adrenal gland sensitivity increases with aerobic exercise, so more bang for the buck. plus metabolic rate already elevated post exercise.

11. Dr. Kenneth Cooper

Cooper, not the sharpest tool in the shed. However, his own research showed that it was peak workload in aerobic testing which predicted longterm health in middle aged adults. truth is everybody dies. longevity and quality of life both improved with cardiovascular type activity. paffenbarger data showed this type of exercise is highly protective. even helps you survive a heart attack if you do have one.

having written this I am reminded of the day I worked out next to Mr. America, in Socal. He set the treadmill at 1.5 mph and proceeded to suck air, while I jogged comfortably at 9mi/h. While I listened to him labor, I found myself reviewing CPR basics.

"Lifting weights and eating right is not going to get you into \"the best shape of your life.\"

You may look decent if you have low enough body fat but lifting weights, sprints, etc is not going to increase your body\'s ability to use oxygen."

----------------------------------------------

Fitness is more than just cardiorespiratory endurance. Having a low body and and "looking decent" is also a part of fitness.

Olympic lifters, as well as other Olympic athletes, die from heart attacks and whatnot just as much as the normal population. If their rate is higher it is likely due to a long history of steroid abuse.

------------------------------------------------

Tremblay et al, 1994

The impact of two different modes of training on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism was investigated in young adults who were subjected to either a 20-week endurance-training (ET) program (eight men and nine women) or a 15-week high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT) program (five men and five women). The mean estimated total energy cost of the ET program was 120.4 MJ, whereas the corresponding value for the HIIT program was 57.9 MJ. Despite its lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program. When corrected for the energy cost of training, the decrease in the sum of six subcutaneous skinfolds induced by the HIIT program was ninefold greater than by the ET program. Muscle biopsies obtained in the vastus lateralis before and after training showed that both training programs increased similarly the level of the citric acid cycle enzymatic marker. On the other hand, the activity of muscle glycolytic enzymes was increased by the HIIT program, whereas a decrease was observed following the ET program. The enhancing effect of training on muscle 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A dehydrogenase (HADH) enzyme activity, a marker of the activity of beta-oxidation, was significantly greater after the HIIT program. In conclusion, these results reinforce the notion that for a given level of energy expenditure, vigorous exercise favors negative energy and lipid balance to a greater extent than exercise of low to moderate intensity. Moreover, the metabolic adaptations taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the HIIT program appear to favor the process of lipid oxidation.

--------------------------------------------------------

More cardio bashing for fitness:

http://www.charlespoliquin.com/Training/aerobics-1.php

Here me out, if you want to be a runner then run. There is nothing wrong with chasing an athletic goal but I wouldn't expect a golfer to win a 40 yard dash with a running back. In the same vein I wouldn't expect a runner to win a fitness competition with a power lifter (same weight class of course!...:) )

Alan

once again ALan you prove yourself a fool. Active recovery will far better increase ones ability to recovery from consistent exhaustive excercise.

Am i the only one here that would never takes runningart2004's advice.

Aerobic exercise will encourage fat loss and increase the ability to use oxygen and not exhale 60% carbon dioxide thus improving the general functions of the body.

If you were going to do one form of exercise aerobic excercise would ABSOLUTELY be the way to go.

Runningart2004 wrote:

"but I disagree that anaerobic activities improve cardiovascular fitness as effectively as aerobic training."

All I need to do is prove that it can happen....

??? What do you mean all you need to do is prove it can happen?

Runningart2004 wrote:

Results first:

60 minutes a day, 5 days a week, of aerobic exercise (70% vo2max) improved Vo2max in group A by 5 ml/kg min. No increase in anaerobic capacity.

4 minutes a day, 5 days a week, of the "tabata protocol" improved Vo2max in group B by 7 ml/kg min while ALSO increasing anaerobic capacity by 28%.

Tabata protocol is 7-8 x 20s sprint (170% Vo2max) with a 10s rest.

You might want to reread the abstract...

I guess it depends a lot on the individual. Some runners are exceptionally strong (Maree, Joe Falcon). I'd say those guys were "fitter" than any pure lifter.

Who are the most fit athletes? My money would be on nordic skiers. Of course, they do loads of aerobic exercise, but they all spend lots of time doing drills and lifting. I don't think anyone could make the claim that an elite powerlifter is fitter and healthier than an elite skier.

I think to be "fit" is to have both good strength and cardio. You should be able to lift heavy weights, run decent times, hike like a storm, etc. Granted, most runners do not qualify, but neither do most gym rats who might be able to bench press a small cow, but couldn't run a mile in 7:00.

have u ever seen the bodies of lopez lomong? nic symmonds? k.d. robinson?

These guys don't touch upper body weights but what do you see? more than decent looking bodies.

I'd say an 800m, 1500m runner could defeat anyone of any sport in a general fitness test.

Combining strength, explosion, speed, and power.

The study did not say anything about the cardiovascular improvements in the intermittent training group being equal to those of the aerobic group, just that they both improved.

What I got from this study is the following:

Aerobic exercise increases cardiovascular fitness but does not increase anaerobic capacity. Anaerobic training improves anaerobic capacity and also contributes to cardiovascular fitness. These are the only conclusions that can be drawn from the data you have provided.

Furthermore, a training regimen of 7-8 x 20-second sprints with only 10 seconds recovery will demand aerobic involvement as well. This type of effort (2:20-2:40 total time at maximal effort with very short recovery) would be close to the effort involved in running a 800m race, which, as we all know, depends at least somewhat on one's aerobic capacity. Because of the inevitable aerobic involvement in such a test, no reasonable conclusions can be drawn about the effects of purely anaerobic training on cardiovascular development.

the main thing that stuck out to me from the OP, which has not been addressed much in this thread, is all the cancer talk. What's with that?

This guy is generalizing. I understand some of the points he is trying to make, but he is going about it the wrong way. He wrote this article for uneducated, undisciplined, unmotivated people - basically, the masses. These same people will believe everything he wrote, and they will not do any research.

Anyway, here is my experience:

I run, but not on the treadmill to nowhere. I have been doing resistance training in a gym for a few months, mostly as a way to rehabilitate after rotator cuff surgery in the middle of December. I have seen fat, skinny, and fit people lifting weights lighter than the weights I lift. I have seen plenty of guys that lift a lot more weight than I can, but I have never seen anyone in the gym do as many pull-ups or chin-ups as I do, and I don't do very many. I've been doing them for 2 months. I watch my form in the mirror, so I don't swing my legs, hips or do any of that crap. I go all the way up and all the way down. I'm 180 lbs, so it's not like I am that skinny. So, I don't think 16 years of aerobic activity has made me weak. I have seen more fat people on the treadmill, stairmaster, and exercise bike than lifting weights, but they are an older crowd, so that doesn't surprise me.

My body fat percentage was significantly lower when I was running 70 miles/week for a few years than it has been since I've been running 30 miles/week for the past few years, and I eat a lot less now, plus I don't eat nearly as much junk food. I never did any type of resistance training when I was running 70/week, but I could swing the hammer at the amusement park hard enough to make the bell ring, so I could win a stuffed animal for my girlfriend that cost less than the amount of money I paid to swing that big, damn hammer. I guess running didn't cause, "A loss of explosive power and speed." For the record, most serious weight lifters can't make the bell ring.

My sex drive has never gone down when I run more, and it doesn't go up when I don't run at all, so I am not sure what he is talking about there. Granted, I have never ran over 80 miles in a week, but I am pretty sure the author is referring to people who run significantly less than 50 mpw.

I have never been depressed, anxious, and I've never suffered from an overuse injury either.

This study used a sample size of 17 (eight men and nine women). The abstract did not say anything about how the participants were divided amongst the test groups, either. This leads me to believe that women could have been over-represented in one group, completely invalidating the results, since women have more subcutaneous fat naturally.

You want to lose weight it boils down to one simple formula. Calories in, Calories out! If you take in more than you use, you'll gain weight. Burn more than you take in you WILL lose weight. It doesn't matter if you lift weights, run distance or jump on a pogo stick!

ickybana5 wrote:5. Running is a much more efficient way to burn calories. If you could lift continuously without fatigue, then this guy would have an argument, but you can't, so he just sounds stupid. Compare the caloric expenditure of different activities on this site (remember to remove the time you entered for the previous activity before calculating a new activity)

This is actually extremely false. Lifting weights help you burn WAY more calories. Aerobic exercise returns your metabolism to normal very quickly after you've finished. Weight lifting keeps it elevated for much longer periods of time as your body needs it to recover from the greater damage you have done. Also the more muscle you put on, the more calories you burn. Being strong, vs being a skinny runner, there is no comparison on what you burn calorie wise.

That's the only point i disagree with on you all out. It's just not true.

If this done long enough, there´s burnout or injury;

"Results first:

60 minutes a day, 5 days a week, of aerobic exercise (70% vo2max) improved Vo2max in group A by 5 ml/kg min. No increase in anaerobic capacity.

4 minutes a day, 5 days a week, of the "tabata protocol" improved Vo2max in group B by 7 ml/kg min while ALSO increasing anaerobic capacity by 28%.

Tabata protocol is 7-8 x 20s sprint (170% Vo2max) with a 10s rest."

So to "get best shape of your life" you need the base and the intensity. It seems that you don´t know so much after all, Alan.

You are lumping all aerobic exercises together, and you are assuming that running cannot build muscle or stimulate muscular development, two very big and very false assumptions. Running at a normal pace (7:00/mile) is very different from taking a step class - the running WILL cause an increase in your metabolic rate for a long while after it's completion. It is true that weightlifting has a heightened "afterburn" effect, but it still doesn't even out the way you are thinking. Please also keep in mind that the type of running a person does will influence their post-run calorie-burning as well - intense running (400 meter repeats, hill running, etc.) is still highly aerobic exercise, but will cause a more dramatic post-run thermal effect.

For my argument, I am basing the comparisons on training similar to my own, so my conclusions will not be true for everyone. At my body weight and running pace, I burn an estimated 700 calories per hour while running, and only 230 calories per hour for intense lifting (using the calorie calculator I provided). Both types of exercise produce caloric "afterburn," and both types build muscle, even though lifting burns more calories in this way. Even so, the calories burned during and after lifting do not equal out to the calories burned during and after running (provided that the running is done at a fast enough pace).

The best possible scenario is to run AND lift weights, but if you have to choose one or the other, running is the better option for health and weight-loss.

Hold up.... wrote:

the main thing that stuck out to me from the OP, which has not been addressed much in this thread, is all the cancer talk. What's with that?

The study linked below followed a large group of runners over a 20 year period and concluded that the runners had a significantly lower mortality rate and a higher quality of life than a non-exercising control group. I believe the full text of this and some other studies shows reduced risk of at least some cancer types correlated with regular aerobic exercise. This, of course, says nothing about the relative merits of aerobic and strength training, but the implication that aerobic exercise is damaging to one's health is beyond bogus.

His argument is flawed in that he takes one particular factoid "oxidative stress predisposes one to cancer" (which may or may not be true, I have no idea) and concludes aerobic exercise predisposes one to cancer without considering any coincident benefit from the exercise. That conclusion is provably false.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Never claimed to know everything. Just know a lot about health and exercise.

I've been reading the shit you write on this forum for more years than I can recall. One thing is perfectly clear Alan. You don't know a thing about health and exercise. Like most people who don't know anything, you are perfectly willing to lecture others on your "theories" but you don't know a f***ing thing.

In the end the weightlifter will pound the shit out of all runners. Unless this runner is MMA trainend.

Let go of me!!

ickybana5 wrote:

You are lumping all aerobic exercises together, and you are assuming that running cannot build muscle or stimulate muscular development, two very big and very false assumptions. Running at a normal pace (7:00/mile) is very different from taking a step class - the running WILL cause an increase in your metabolic rate for a long while after it's completion. It is true that weightlifting has a heightened "afterburn" effect, but it still doesn't even out the way you are thinking. Please also keep in mind that the type of running a person does will influence their post-run calorie-burning as well - intense running (400 meter repeats, hill running, etc.) is still highly aerobic exercise, but will cause a more dramatic post-run thermal effect.

1) I am not lumping anything together. No aerobic exercise builds muscle at the same level as heavy weight lifting. Sure some aerobic exercises will help you put on muscle...but YOU are lumping putting on muscle for all exercising as being equal with your genalization, leaving it as just cardio can put on muscle as well. They are not equal. Not to mention if you already have a lot of muscle, doing a lot of cardio can lower the amounts of muscle you have in many cases. So whereas you may be adding some muscle in some areas, you might be losing it most likely as well if you're doing extensive levels of cardio. Either way weightlifting drastically puts on more muscle then high levels of cardio. Do not lump the two together as YOU are doing.

2) 400 meter repeats and hill running? That is not what the thread was about. He was talking about continuous cardio for more then 20 minutes. Not intense short repeats.