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

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?

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

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

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

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.

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.