Exercise Not Very Useful

LOL!! And no, your muscles aren't really burning any calories!


http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/he...1&ei=5 087%0A

Exercise is often said to stave off osteoporosis. Yet even weight-
bearing activities like walking, running or lifting weights has not
been shown to have that effect. Still, in rigorous studies in which
elderly people were randomly assigned either to exercise or maintain
their normal routine, the exercisers were less likely to fall, perhaps
because they got stronger or developed better balance. Since falls can
lead to fractures in people with osteoporosis, exercise may prevent
broken bones -- but only indirectly.

And what about weight loss? Lifting weights builds muscles but will
not make you burn more calories. The muscle you gain is minuscule
compared with the total amount of skeletal muscle in the body. And
muscle has a very low metabolic rate when it's at rest. (You can't
flex your biceps all the time.)

Jack Wilmore, an exercise physiologist at Texas A & M University,
calculated that the average amount of muscle that men gained after a
serious 12-week weight-lifting program was 2 kilograms, or 4.4 pounds.
That added muscle would increase the metabolic rate by only 24
calories a day.

Prisoner at War wrote:
LOL!! And no, your muscles aren't really burning any calories!


Ok you lost any credibility with the subject line. ****ing fat-ass loser.

Prisoner at War wrote:
LOL!! And no, your muscles aren't really burning any calories!


http://www.nytimes.com/ref/health/he...1&ei=5 087%0A

Exercise is often said to stave off osteoporosis. Yet even weight-
bearing activities like walking, running or lifting weights has not
been shown to have that effect. Still, in rigorous studies in which
elderly people were randomly assigned either to exercise or maintain
their normal routine, the exercisers were less likely to fall, perhaps
because they got stronger or developed better balance. Since falls can
lead to fractures in people with osteoporosis, exercise may prevent
broken bones -- but only indirectly.

And what about weight loss? Lifting weights builds muscles but will
not make you burn more calories. The muscle you gain is minuscule
compared with the total amount of skeletal muscle in the body. And
muscle has a very low metabolic rate when it's at rest. (You can't
flex your biceps all the time.)

Jack Wilmore, an exercise physiologist at Texas A & M University,
calculated that the average amount of muscle that men gained after a
serious 12-week weight-lifting program was 2 kilograms, or 4.4 pounds.
That added muscle would increase the metabolic rate by only 24
calories a day.


Interesting article. Just one more example of the problems associated
with looking at factors affecting health, such as exercise, in
isolation.

You know, of course, that the article doesn't say that exercise isn't
useful. I guess that was your way of calling attention to this
article.

Bartleby wrote:

Jack Wilmore, an exercise physiologist at Texas A & M University,
calculated that the average amount of muscle that men gained after a
serious 12-week weight-lifting program was 2 kilograms, or 4.4
pounds. That added muscle would increase the metabolic rate by only
24 calories a day.

They must not have been lifting very hard. I've gained way more then 2kg in
12 weeks, and I'm small-framed.

On Jan 15, 5:27 pm, "Manco" wrote:


Ok you lost any credibility with the subject line. ****ing fat-ass loser.


Get back to your Japanese porn, "manco."

On Jan 15, 6:33 pm, Bartleby wrote:


Interesting article. Just one more example of the problems associated
with looking at factors affecting health, such as exercise, in
isolation.

Indeed. It's a problem of the human mind to get so caught up in one
way of thinking -- the hair-splitting scientific method here of
isolating variables -- that the forest is lost for the trees.

You know, of course, that the article doesn't say that exercise isn't
useful. I guess that was your way of calling attention to this
article.

I didn't say that it did. What it does suggest is that "exercise is
not very useful." I exercise for fun. It's a hobby. And its main
benefit is the fun factor (which is why I'd wondered in another thread
why Dave the Blond Bomber's e-mail newsletters were always talking
about just getting to the gym, like it was some kind of a chore). But
it's got very little to do with health...I've often remarked how
ironic it is that I can bench press 335-lbs. but am much more
inflexible in the shoulders now -- and it's not even like I have any
"shoulder issues" or pain!

On Jan 15, 11:29 pm, "Manco" wrote:


They must not have been lifting very hard. I've gained way more then 2kg in
12 weeks, and I'm small-framed.


It's called fat, you moron.

On Jan 16, 6:00 am, Prisoner at War wrote:
On Jan 15, 6:33 pm, Bartleby wrote:



Interesting article. Just one more example of the problems associated
with looking at factors affecting health, such as exercise, in
isolation.

Indeed. It's a problem of the human mind to get so caught up in one
way of thinking -- the hair-splitting scientific method here of
isolating variables -- that the forest is lost for the trees.

I have no problem with the scientific method and I look forward to
reading additional
reports on the effects of exercise on health.

You know, of course, that the article doesn't say that exercise isn't
useful. I guess that was your way of calling attention to this
article.

I didn't say that it did. What it does suggest is that "exercise is
not very useful." I exercise for fun. It's a hobby. And its main
benefit is the fun factor (which is why I'd wondered in another thread
why Dave the Blond Bomber's e-mail newsletters were always talking
about just getting to the gym, like it was some kind of a chore). But
it's got very little to do with health...I've often remarked how
ironic it is that I can bench press 335-lbs. but am much more
inflexible in the shoulders now -- and it's not even like I have any
"shoulder issues" or pain!

I wouldn't draw the same conclusion. The article does suggest that
some beliefs about exercise may be unwarranted, but I didn't read
anything
to the effect that people should stop exercising to improve their
health or
that they should only exercise for enjoyment. We'll eventually get a
better
idea about the effects of exercise on health and that may come at the
cost of
having to abandon previously unexamined assumptions or obsolete
theories.

It's great that you enjoy working out and it's not so great that your
shoulder flexibility
is becoming much more limited. Why not pay more attention to your
shoulder to
prevent your problem from getting any worse so that you can continue
to enjoy
working out for years to come?

On Jan 16, 8:20 am, Bartleby wrote:


I have no problem with the scientific method and I look forward to
reading additional
reports on the effects of exercise on health.

The scientific method has its uses and its limits. I think there's a
tendency for some to get so caught up in hair-splitting analysis that,
again, the forest is missed for the trees. The "fitness craze" (and
fads in general) is a manifestation of that kind of a mindset, taken
to extremes. As the article observes, there's nowhere near the kind
of benefit that most imagine.

I wouldn't draw the same conclusion. The article does suggest that
some beliefs about exercise may be unwarranted, but I didn't read
anything
to the effect that people should stop exercising to improve their
health or
that they should only exercise for enjoyment.

"Exercise is not very useful" is not similar to "people should stop
exercising" or "people should only exercise for enjoyment." Of
course, the article didn't offer a conclusion in the way I've stated
it, but that's the thrust of its thesis all right.

We'll eventually get a
better
idea about the effects of exercise on health and that may come at the
cost of
having to abandon previously unexamined assumptions or obsolete
theories.

Or reviving previously abandoned assumptions! More and more we see
how genetics play the dominant role in most anything: some people are
just born fat, some people are just born skinny, some people are just
born with muscles...the more things change, the more they stay the
same! Girls will be girls and boys will be boys....

It's great that you enjoy working out and it's not so great that your
shoulder flexibility
is becoming much more limited. Why not pay more attention to your
shoulder to
prevent your problem from getting any worse so that you can continue
to enjoy
working out for years to come?

I don't think shoulder inflexibility will hinder my pumping iron. It
actually doesn't have much of an effect on my life, except when I need
to scratch the middle of my back, which I used to be able to reach
with a minimum of effort, whereas nowadays I must use one arm to help
push (very carefully) the other.

In that Milo article on the flat bench press, the author does mention
that some lifters experience increased inflexibility of their
shoulders, but claims that the condition is avoidable with a proper
range of other exercises -- without, unfortunately, noting what those
are!

In the February issue of bodybuilding magazine MMI another person also
notes that many muscular folks wind up more inflexible. And just the
other day I read in Noakes' book "Lore of Running" that runners also
wind up losing flexibility -- as well as jumping performance!

The body is a very, very strange creation. Indeed, it's such a Rube
Goldberg contraption, it's just one more proof of evolution, and not
"creation" at all!

Most people I know exercise for the immediate pleasure it gives them
or the fun in playing sports.
If it has some associated health benefits or not, all the better.