If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?
John 'the Man' wrote:
Please tell us scientists So your delusions have reached as far as thinking you're a scientist now? For the benefit of the intellectually changed Geeks in this audience, the word 'us' is plural. Yes and inclusive in the context you used it, but you're not included in the group 'scientist'. In *all* valid studies that test yoga against standard Western style physical exercise any improvements from Yoga were shown to be totally insignificant. Improvements in what? how you can get the benefits of physical exercise without actually working your butt off, ... MattLB. Is your knowledge of physiology really this bad? There's no magic John, just straightforward stretching and physical exertion. There's no need to believe in chakras, auras or anything mystical to get the health benefits of Yoga postures. Like I've told you before, you need physical strength and stamina to maintain some of the postures, strength you probably won't have if your only idea of exercise involves puffing and panting. METs are about calorie consumption, not about muscle physiology. First of all Matti Boy, METs are quantitative measure of the physical reality of exercise intensity rather than calorie consumption. Low intensity exercise burns up calories, too. And has a lower MET score. Can you see the connection? Since you claim to be an expert on muscle physiology state the mechanisms by which yoga works its magic in your mind. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I repeat Dim Wit, tell us the precise physical mode of action whereby yoga improves physical strength and stamina. Holding poses requires muscle contraction. If the pose is hard to maintain, the current strength of the muscle is obviously inadequate, so there is muscle adaptation to compensate and you get stronger. This is really not all that different to 'Western' isometric exercise. As for stamina, the deep controlled breathing improves ventilation in the lungs and increases the capacity for removal of CO2. All the stretching improves the general health and efficiency of the muscles and tendons too. Next, cite the citations of research that shows that yoga was more effective at increasing physical strength and stamina than Western style exercise. You're running off on your own here. I never made any such claims, just refuted your claims that Yoga was next to useless. The question is not whether Yoga can improve physical strength and stamina, but whether or not intense physical exercise can improve it best. Careful while you're backpedalling, you might trip over. Then show us evidence that METs are not a valid measure of increased physical strength and stamina. That's easy. 1 MET is equal to 1 calorie burned per kilogram of body weight per hour. It says nothing about strength or cardiovascular fitness, just how many calories are burnt by a particular exercise. The higher the MET a person can sustain the fitter they are, but it still says nothing about how strong they are. MattLB |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?
Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB
rambled on about " Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... A long and detailed response follows throughout this post. I unlike Matti Boy cite full citations and other third party sources to support my positions. As I already went through this nonsense on my Yahoo Mailing List with our Bicker, I simply copied most of my comments from previous posts. For the benefit of the intellectually changed Geeks in this audience, the word 'us' is plural. Yes and inclusive in the context you used it, but you're not included in the group 'scientist'. I will repeat it once again, ... 'for the benefit of the scientists in our audience.' Do you often have a problem comprehending the meaning of sentences, Matti Boy? In *all* valid studies that test yoga against standard Western style physical exercise any improvements from Yoga were shown to be totally insignificant. Improvements in what? Don't you know what exercise improves? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Perhaps, if you were to concentrate? Campbell JF, Stenstrom RJ, Bertrand D. Systematic changes in perceptual reactance induced by physical fitness training. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...d&list_uids=3\ 900922&dopt=Abstract Percept Mot Skills. 1985 Aug;61(1):279-84. PMID: 3900922 ABSTRACT: "Subjects completing fitness training, all of whom were initially classified as augmenters, became reducers by the end of their program. Subjects enrolled in yoga and meditation courses remained relatively stable in their perceptual tendencies." Blumenthal JA, Emery CF, Madden DJ. Cardiovascular and behavioral effects of aerobic exercise training in healthy older men and women. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...d&list_uids=2\ 768768&dopt=Abstract J Gerontol. 1989 Sep;44(5):M147-57. PMID: 2768768 ABSTRACT: "This study demonstrated that 4 months of aerobic exercise training produced an overall 11.6% improvement in peak VO2 and a 13% increase in anaerobic threshold. In contrast, the Yoga and Waiting List control groups experienced no change in cardiorespiratory fitness. Other favorable physiological changes observed among aerobic exercise participants included lower cholesterol levels, diastolic blood pressure levels, and for subjects at risk for bone fracture, a trend toward an increase in bone mineral content." I don't see any evidence here that Yoga is more effective than our Western Aerobic and Anaerobic Exercises are at improving overall physical fitness. The primary reason people exercise for health reasons is to avoid heart problems. METs are primarily associated with aerobic activities that promote heart health. These types of activities build aerobic endurance rather than strength. METs are a measure of exercise intensity, something that you are trying very much to avoid. The higher the exercise intensity the better the exercise is at avoiding death from heart conditions. Every 50 met-h/wk was associated with a 26% reduction of risk of CHD. So working out at 5 METs would take 10 hours a week, while working harder at 10 MET would let you accomplish this goal in only 5 hours of work. Who says so, a study published the prestigious JAMA says so? Many other studies during 2002 and 2003 have proven that exercise intensity counts more than exercise duration. Tanasescu M, Leitzmann MF, Rimm EB. Exercise type and intensity in relation to coronary heart disease in men. http://www.fchn.org/fmh/wmchh/articl...ty_cad_men.pdf JAMA. 2002 Oct 23-30;288(16):1994-2000. PMID: 12387651 High intensity exercise starts at 6 mets. Brisk walking stops at 4 METs. Jogging at 5 miles per hour starts at 8 METs. While running at 7 miles per hour starts at 11.5 METs. These METs figures are for a 150 pound person on a level grade. Body building exercises build muscle mass. When you body build for health reasons the primary objective is building muscle mass rather than just strength. And has a lower MET score. Can you see the connection? I will repeat it again, my only interest in METs are that they are a quantitative measure of exercise intensity. I saw MET displays on the exercise machines at my gym. I did not know what they met. So, I researched the issue. The most important component of a sound exercise prescription for aerobic fitness is the level of exercise intensity. The prescribed level of intensity must be sufficient to overload your cardiovascular system, but not so severe that you over do it. Unfortunately, many adults - particularly those just starting an exercise program - have difficulty estimating the intensity of exercise needed to produce improvements in their aerobic fitness levels. In past decades, the aerobic exercise goal was set at achieving about 80 percent of your maximal heart rate. Now, the focus is on METs (metabolic equivalent tasks). What’s a MET? A MET or metabolic equivalent, is a way of expressing the rate of energy expenditure for a given physical activity. Specifically, one MET is equal to resting VO2 (volume of oxygen used) which is approximately 3.5 ml (oxygen) per kilogram (body weight) per minute. All physical activities can be classified on the basis of oxygen requirements. The amount of oxygen your body consumes is directly proportional to the energy you expend during the activity. At rest, your body consumes approximately 3.5 ml of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per minute. The resting level of oxygen consumption is referred to as l.0 MET. Thus, an eight-MET level would equal eight times the amount of oxygen you use at rest. Since you claim to be an expert on muscle physiology state the mechanisms by which yoga works its magic in your mind. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I repeat Dim Wit, tell us the precise physical mode of action whereby yoga improves physical strength and stamina. Holding poses requires muscle contraction. If the pose is hard to maintain, the current strength of the muscle is obviously inadequate, so there is muscle adaptation to compensate and you get stronger. This is really not all that different to 'Western' isometric exercise. Gee, there is really a lot of muscle contraction required in the Lotus position. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! As you already have pointed out, at best only some positions require muscle contraction as a side benefit of yoga. I will repeat: http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/Y0022400.html "Yoga --Hindu discipline aimed at training the consciousness for a state of perfect spiritual insight and tranquillity." As for stamina, the deep controlled breathing improves ventilation in the lungs and increases the capacity for removal of CO2. All the stretching improves the general health and efficiency of the muscles and tendons too. Stamina is more effectively provided, per the studies above, per Western-style aerobic activities. Just thought that you might want to know. Stretching is a normal part of Western-style workouts. Just thought that you might want to know. Next, cite the citations of research that shows that yoga was more effective at increasing physical strength and stamina than Western style exercise. You're running off on your own here. I never made any such claims, just refuted your claims that Yoga was next to useless. Sorry to inform you, but YOGA when performed correctly is next to useless in the exercise department. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=yoga "Yoga --Hindu discipline aimed at training the consciousness for a state of perfect spiritual insight and tranquillity." http://www.wordsmyth.net/live/home.p...chtype=exa ct "Yoga --any set of [yoga] exercises involving the postures, meditation, and breathing techniques of this discipline." http://www.bartleby.com/61/28/H0082825.html hatha yoga "A form of yogic exercise that emphasizes specific postures in combination with controlled breathing. It is widely practiced in the West." I made a specific health claim. I was asked to define what kind of exercise provided these kinds of health benefits. I simply answered the question. Yoga is positively not that type of exercise is any more than slow walking is. My objective was to effectively communicate what is guaranteed 100% to improve physical fitness in an efficient manner with a minimal amount of confusion. As well as in a minimal amount of time. A major problem with YOGA is that there are numerous forms of Yoga, all of which IMHO will only serve to confuse the average person. Next, YOGA often cannot be separated from religion. This is called Matti Boy wasting a lot of time researching yoga. I have no doubt that Yoga can be good for your health. I simply don't have any evidence that Yoga is more effective then our Western Aerobic and Anaerobic Exercises are at improving overall physical fitness. Nor, do I see the practicality of getting involved in a long study of the various forms of yoga when something as simple as walking and jogging has been conclusively proven to improve your level of fitness. The question is not whether Yoga can improve physical strength and stamina, but whether or not intense physical exercise can improve it best. Careful while you're backpedalling, you might trip over. Sorry, but I don't recommend wimpy activities like yoga. Then show us evidence that METs are not a valid measure of increased physical strength and stamina. That's easy. 1 MET is equal to 1 calorie burned per kilogram of body weight per hour. It says nothing about strength or cardiovascular fitness, just how many calories are burnt by a particular exercise. The higher the MET a person can sustain the fitter they are, but it still says nothing about how strong they are. And, what about stamina? |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?
John 'the Man' wrote:
I unlike Matti Boy cite full citations and other third party sources to support my positions. Because you have no knowledge of your own? For the benefit of the intellectually changed Geeks in this audience, the word 'us' is plural. Yes and inclusive in the context you used it, but you're not included in the group 'scientist'. I will repeat it once again, ... 'for the benefit of the scientists in our audience.' Do you often have a problem comprehending the meaning of sentences, You seem to have trouble comprehending the concept of 'repeat', since you've written a different answer there to what you wrote the first time, which was: "Please tell us scientists how you can get the benefits of physical exercise without actually working your butt off," In *all* valid studies that test yoga against standard Western style physical exercise any improvements from Yoga were shown to be totally insignificant. Improvements in what? Don't you know what exercise improves? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I do, but you've meandered from stamina, to strength to intensity, seemingly at random. Campbell JF, Stenstrom RJ, Bertrand D. Systematic changes in perceptual reactance induced by physical fitness training. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...d&list_uids=3\ 900922&dopt=Abstract Percept Mot Skills. 1985 Aug;61(1):279-84. PMID: 3900922 ABSTRACT: "Subjects completing fitness training, all of whom were initially classified as augmenters, became reducers by the end of their program. Subjects enrolled in yoga and meditation courses remained relatively stable in their perceptual tendencies." Perceptual motor skills? Can you explain what this means? "This study demonstrated that 4 months of aerobic exercise training produced an overall 11.6% improvement in peak VO2 and a 13% increase in anaerobic threshold. In contrast, the Yoga and Waiting List control groups experienced no change in cardiorespiratory fitness. Other favorable physiological changes observed among aerobic exercise participants included lower cholesterol levels, diastolic blood pressure levels, and for subjects at risk for bone fracture, a trend toward an increase in bone mineral content." I don't see any evidence here that Yoga is more effective than our Western Aerobic and Anaerobic Exercises are at improving overall physical fitness. That in itself isn't surprising, but again I made no claim of superiority. What sort of Yoga was it? The primary reason people exercise for health reasons is to avoid heart problems. No citation for this claim I see. METs are primarily associated with aerobic activities that promote heart health. These types of activities build aerobic endurance rather than strength. I'd certainly like to know the MET rating of the furious backpedalling you're now doing. And has a lower MET score. Can you see the connection? I will repeat it again, my only interest in METs are that they are a quantitative measure of exercise intensity. I saw MET displays on the exercise machines at my gym. I did not know what they met. So, I researched the issue. What’s a MET? A MET or metabolic equivalent, is a way of expressing the rate of energy expenditure Hang on, you said it had nothing to do with energy expenditure earlier: "I was not writing about burning calories." for a given physical activity. Specifically, one MET is equal to resting VO2 (volume of oxygen used) which is approximately 3.5 ml (oxygen) per kilogram (body weight) per minute. All physical activities can be classified on the basis of oxygen requirements. Apart from anaerobic ones. As you already have pointed out, at best only some positions require muscle contraction as a side benefit of yoga. I will repeat: http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/Y0022400.html "Yoga --Hindu discipline aimed at training the consciousness for a state of perfect spiritual insight and tranquillity." You can repeat something irrelevant if you wish, but it doesn't help your argument. Stretching is a normal part of Western-style workouts. Just thought that you might want to know. So you're saying that Yoga and Western style exercise have benefits in common now? Sorry to inform you, but YOGA when performed correctly is next to useless in the exercise department. What about when performed incorrectly? http://www.bartleby.com/61/28/H0082825.html hatha yoga "A form of yogic exercise that emphasizes specific postures in combination with controlled breathing. It is widely practiced in the West." That almost makes it sound like Western style exercise. My objective was to effectively communicate what is guaranteed 100% to improve physical fitness in an efficient manner with a minimal amount of confusion. As well as in a minimal amount of time. You wiped out big time then. Exactly what has fitness to do with the benefits of ideal weight (which is what this thread is about), given you've already claimed: "I was not writing about burning calories."? A major problem with YOGA is that there are numerous forms of Yoga, all of which IMHO will only serve to confuse the average person. Next, YOGA often cannot be separated from religion. This is called Matti Boy wasting a lot of time researching yoga. Don't bother with your pathetic smoke and mirrors routine, it's been perfectly clear all the way through that I was talking about Hatha (physical) Yoga. I have no doubt that Yoga can be good for your health. By magic? That's what you said wasn't it? How can it be good for health if there are no physical exercise-related benefits from it? Sorry, but I don't recommend wimpy activities like yoga. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want, but it's been pointed out more than once, by people who've actually done Yoga, that strength is required for some of the poses. Then show us evidence that METs are not a valid measure of increased physical strength and stamina. That's easy. 1 MET is equal to 1 calorie burned per kilogram of body weight per hour. It says nothing about strength or cardiovascular fitness, just how many calories are burnt by a particular exercise. The higher the MET a person can sustain the fitter they are, but it still says nothing about how strong they are. And, what about stamina? See the bit where I said "sustain", that was the stamina bit. MattLB |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?
Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB
rambled on about " Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... Since you are unable to respond in a mature manner, you can drop dead be your usual A-Hole self. I have wasted enough of my time on a wimp, who does wimpy Yoga. Yoga is exercising only in your mind, Matti Boy. John 'the Man' wrote: I unlike Matti Boy cite full citations and other third party sources to support my positions. Because you have no knowledge of your own? For the benefit of the intellectually changed Geeks in this audience, the word 'us' is plural. Yes and inclusive in the context you used it, but you're not included in the group 'scientist'. I will repeat it once again, ... 'for the benefit of the scientists in our audience.' Do you often have a problem comprehending the meaning of sentences, You seem to have trouble comprehending the concept of 'repeat', since you've written a different answer there to what you wrote the first time, which was: "Please tell us scientists how you can get the benefits of physical exercise without actually working your butt off," In *all* valid studies that test yoga against standard Western style physical exercise any improvements from Yoga were shown to be totally insignificant. Improvements in what? Don't you know what exercise improves? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I do, but you've meandered from stamina, to strength to intensity, seemingly at random. Campbell JF, Stenstrom RJ, Bertrand D. Systematic changes in perceptual reactance induced by physical fitness training. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...d&list_uids=3\ 900922&dopt=Abstract Percept Mot Skills. 1985 Aug;61(1):279-84. PMID: 3900922 ABSTRACT: "Subjects completing fitness training, all of whom were initially classified as augmenters, became reducers by the end of their program. Subjects enrolled in yoga and meditation courses remained relatively stable in their perceptual tendencies." Perceptual motor skills? Can you explain what this means? "This study demonstrated that 4 months of aerobic exercise training produced an overall 11.6% improvement in peak VO2 and a 13% increase in anaerobic threshold. In contrast, the Yoga and Waiting List control groups experienced no change in cardiorespiratory fitness. Other favorable physiological changes observed among aerobic exercise participants included lower cholesterol levels, diastolic blood pressure levels, and for subjects at risk for bone fracture, a trend toward an increase in bone mineral content." I don't see any evidence here that Yoga is more effective than our Western Aerobic and Anaerobic Exercises are at improving overall physical fitness. That in itself isn't surprising, but again I made no claim of superiority. What sort of Yoga was it? The primary reason people exercise for health reasons is to avoid heart problems. No citation for this claim I see. METs are primarily associated with aerobic activities that promote heart health. These types of activities build aerobic endurance rather than strength. I'd certainly like to know the MET rating of the furious backpedalling you're now doing. And has a lower MET score. Can you see the connection? I will repeat it again, my only interest in METs are that they are a quantitative measure of exercise intensity. I saw MET displays on the exercise machines at my gym. I did not know what they met. So, I researched the issue. What’s a MET? A MET or metabolic equivalent, is a way of expressing the rate of energy expenditure Hang on, you said it had nothing to do with energy expenditure earlier: "I was not writing about burning calories." for a given physical activity. Specifically, one MET is equal to resting VO2 (volume of oxygen used) which is approximately 3.5 ml (oxygen) per kilogram (body weight) per minute. All physical activities can be classified on the basis of oxygen requirements. Apart from anaerobic ones. As you already have pointed out, at best only some positions require muscle contraction as a side benefit of yoga. I will repeat: http://www.bartleby.com/61/24/Y0022400.html "Yoga --Hindu discipline aimed at training the consciousness for a state of perfect spiritual insight and tranquillity." You can repeat something irrelevant if you wish, but it doesn't help your argument. Stretching is a normal part of Western-style workouts. Just thought that you might want to know. So you're saying that Yoga and Western style exercise have benefits in common now? Sorry to inform you, but YOGA when performed correctly is next to useless in the exercise department. What about when performed incorrectly? http://www.bartleby.com/61/28/H0082825.html hatha yoga "A form of yogic exercise that emphasizes specific postures in combination with controlled breathing. It is widely practiced in the West." That almost makes it sound like Western style exercise. My objective was to effectively communicate what is guaranteed 100% to improve physical fitness in an efficient manner with a minimal amount of confusion. As well as in a minimal amount of time. You wiped out big time then. Exactly what has fitness to do with the benefits of ideal weight (which is what this thread is about), given you've already claimed: "I was not writing about burning calories."? A major problem with YOGA is that there are numerous forms of Yoga, all of which IMHO will only serve to confuse the average person. Next, YOGA often cannot be separated from religion. This is called Matti Boy wasting a lot of time researching yoga. Don't bother with your pathetic smoke and mirrors routine, it's been perfectly clear all the way through that I was talking about Hatha (physical) Yoga. I have no doubt that Yoga can be good for your health. By magic? That's what you said wasn't it? How can it be good for health if there are no physical exercise-related benefits from it? Sorry, but I don't recommend wimpy activities like yoga. You can stick your fingers in your ears all you want, but it's been pointed out more than once, by people who've actually done Yoga, that strength is required for some of the poses. Then show us evidence that METs are not a valid measure of increased physical strength and stamina. That's easy. 1 MET is equal to 1 calorie burned per kilogram of body weight per hour. It says nothing about strength or cardiovascular fitness, just how many calories are burnt by a particular exercise. The higher the MET a person can sustain the fitter they are, but it still says nothing about how strong they are. And, what about stamina? See the bit where I said "sustain", that was the stamina bit. MattLB |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?
John 'the Man' wrote:
Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB rambled on about " Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... Since you are unable to respond in a mature manner, you can drop dead be your usual A-Hole self. I accept your concession of defeat. MattLB |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?
Once upon a time, our fellow MattLB
rambled on about " Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... Since you are unable to respond in a mature manner, you can drop dead be your usual A-Hole self. I accept your concession of defeat. Bull****! Science is on my side, Matti Boy, and I have proved it. All, you have done is be an A-Hole. I have better things to do with my time, like do some real exercise like real men do. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just thought that you might want to know. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?
Once upon a time, our fellow John 'the Man'
rambled on about " Benefits of reaching "ideal weight"?." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... A health role model means somebody that if you try to emulate will provide you with direct health benefits. If the choice is between Julia and Jack, I would go with Jack. I have found another role model. The name is Micky Snir. See: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...lories12m.html For picture and story. He is 5' 10" tall which is my height. He weighs 173 pounds, which is my weight goal. I have another 8 pounds to go. He body builds and looks pretty good. But, he claims to be on a CR diet. Micky is obviously at the upper end of the recommend weight for his height, if he is not overweight. He is also on at least one CR Yahoo Group, so I need to read his posts and see what kind of word game this guy is playing with CR. Micky has avoided the gaunt appearance and weakened bones typical of many of a calorie-restricted diet. Just thought that you might want to know. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Fat rejectance is the new war on women | NR | General Discussion | 3 | October 15th, 2003 07:19 AM |
Fat rejectance is the new war on women | NR | General Discussion | 25 | October 10th, 2003 02:30 AM |
Medifast diet | Jennifer Austin | General Discussion | 17 | September 23rd, 2003 05:50 AM |
"Ideal weight" followup | beeswing | General Discussion | 8 | September 20th, 2003 01:26 PM |