Talk:Aerobic exercise/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2

Aerobics may not be great for weight loss

There is a large body of research that demonstrates that doing multiple 'high intensity' intervals is superior to aerobic work and requires substantially less time.

-Okura T, et al. Effects of exercise intensity on physical fitness and risk factors for coronary heart disease. Obes Res. 2003 Sep;11(9):1131-9. -Tremblay, et al. Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism. Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8. -Yoshioka M, et al. Impact of high-intensity exercise on energy expenditure, lipid oxidation and body fatness. Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Mar;25(3):332-9. -Broeder CE, et al. The effects of either high-intensity resistance or endurance training on resting metabolic rate. Am J Clin Nutr. 1992 Apr;55(4):802-10.

yes it is--Always Gotta Keep it Real, Cute 1 4 u 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
even if high intenstity interval training IS better than regular aerobics, your statement of "Aerobics not great for weight loss" is still completely incorrect. Sahuagin 11:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I remember seeing a program which showed fat people lost a whole lot of weight doing no exercise at all, other than playing those dance video games at home. Thus Dance Dance Revolution saved the world. Here is a link I found explaining things very well. [URL Removed because it has been blacklisted] Dream Focus 04:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bottom message

"This article is part of the alternative positions on health, healing, and illness series." Aerobic exercise is quite a mainstream medical recommendation. Quadell (talk) 15:48, Jun 30, 2005 (UTC)

aerobics is a good way to keep fit and healthy. you feel fresh and flexible. Mich
Every article can be classsified more than one way. So, it is with a lot of mainstream activities like exercise and diet. They are part of natural approaches to health such as Natural hygiene which is classified alternative medicine. I have replaced the orange box with one that doesn't even look like a box. -- John Gohde 07:37, 30 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Circuit pattern undefined

  • circuit

I'm not sure exactly how to define this; I think it consists of a combination of hills and intervals, but I'm just not sure. I mean the aerobic circuit-training pattern, not circuit weight-training. Blair P. Houghton 19:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Semi-reversions

  • I put back some stuff and cleaned up others (Indian Running can be used in cycling, e.g., so I made it less specific). The distinction between circuit weight training and circuit aerobics is significant in a pedantic way, so I made it. CWT can be aerobic, but the circuit aerobic pattern isn't that; it's more like a simulation of a real-world race loop in gym conditions.

At some point I'll remind myself to find some refs for the "intervals are better than endurance for vo2-max improvement" crack, but the whole point of interval training is that it jacks your speed and distance up much quicker than just trying to go a little faster and longer every day... Blair P. Houghton 17:16, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Training Effect

I created an article on Training Effect, linked it to two existing articles (Dr. Kenneth H. Cooper and Cooper test), and put a link to it here under see also. The article is in a "stub" state and will be expanded next week. Simesa 22:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Big confusion

First paragraph: "Aerobic exercise is not to be confused with aerobics". However, clicking on aerobics redirects back to Aerobic exercise. I have little knowledge in this area so will leave to others to fix --Andy 22:18, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

This seems weird to me too. The current setup is that in addition to the first paragraph warning contradicting the redirect, we also have a large bit randomly inserted into the middle of the article that descirbes aerobics specifically, not aerobic exercise in general. Thayvian 04:57, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

I was concerned that the Japanese version has distinctions between "aerobics" and "aerobic exercise" but both of them were linked to this single article. No, they mustn't be the same thing. So I've just disabled the redirect function, making a new "aerobics" article. Yet there is hardly any article in it. I need your helps, guys... K.T., 01Aug06, Osaka, Japan

Link add requests

Request to add aerobic exercise site to external links. --64.238.102.176

Thank you for requesting this before modifying, extremely polite! Even so, after reviewing the site I find it questionable. In addition to the google ads on the left and top (which are not distinct from other links and are easy to accidentally click on), the site is using ad software which changes words into links for advertising purposes. I can't consider this a very good resource, there's probably a better one for you and the wiki readers to learn from. Tyciol 07:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

definition of anaerobic exercise

the article defines it as being the point where glycogen can't be used fast enough. this doesn't sound right. anybody out there want to fix that, if need be? Sfahey 22:51, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Equality

In the aerobic exercise article, there is a section: "Operating anaerobically, an untrained 400 meters competitor may "hit" his "wall" after only about 300 meters." This one word really bothers me as far as only including the male gender. I'd rather not change it myself because I'm not a member and feel I have no business changing others' works. Just wondering if that word could be changed to include the other half of the world as well? Thanks

I imagine this debate is all over some talk page on wikipedia. The choices are 1) the cumbersome "his/her"; 2) "their," which sounds goofy and wrong when used as a singular); and 3) to ASSUME that "his" is not restricted to the male sex, and that females are HONORED by having a pronoun for themselves only, when one is needed. Sfahey 19:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Aerobic Exercises

Would a list of sports/activities that are aerobic exercises go here?

Does such a list exist?

If it did it would have to be bogus, since different people play their sports at differing intensities. Competitive race walkers walk aerobically; the rest of us don't. You could say the same about Olympic-level ping-pongers. Pretty much if you get a bit winded and keep at it for more than a few minutes, you're doing aerobic exercise. Sfahey 17:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Conditioning

I dont understand the differnece between aerobic conditioning, and exercise. Someone with more knowlage then me to edit the stub article of aerobic conditioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ty146Ty146 (talkcontribs) 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

(see prev. question). Exercise that makes you a bit winded and lasts more than a couple minutes is "aerobic"; if you keep at it for more than about fifteen minutes, you start to get better at it in subsequent sessions. This "training benefit" makes it "aerobic conditioning", and is good not just for performance enhancement but for heart and mind health. Sfahey 17:24, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

confusion

they should make the readings easier to understand. They don't have definitons for the words. But its still preety good.

Criticisms

It doesn't really make sense to me for the first paragraph of the Criticisms section to be where it is. To my understanding, this section is supposed to present the negative aspects of aerobic exercis, and yet the paragraph just points of the negative aspects of not doing a different type of exercise. It's like saying that a disadvantage of having a heart is that it would suck not to have lungs. Any thoughts? --GSalvatore 19:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I say have at it! Take a crack at fixing it in a way that makes sense to you. WLU 19:55, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
I've added in a request for some referencing or citations for verification of the statement, "Aerobic exercise is, however, an extremely valuable component of a balanced exercise programme and is good for cardiovascular health". While this may be a generally accepted principle, I disagree with it. With no citation provided I see no basis for this comment.Kavedave 02:19, 8 July 2007 (UTC)Kavedave
I'm not sure you can argue that aerobic exercise is not good for your cardiovascular health. WLU 02:24, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole section needs to be retitled and rewriten. The glycolitic and phophate ATP production methods still function when engaged in high-intensity aerobic activity! At least one these criticisms is misleading. (Jodac) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.131.19 (talk) 02:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

User Sneaky Boy at 08:40, 6 June 2007 posted

my nmae is joe scaife and i am hard

at the top of the article. I have removed it but does any further action need to be taken? Alex Hayes 09:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't replace the text he deleted while vandalizing. Done. WLU 15:12, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Cardiorespiratory fitness

There's an orphaned stub at Cardiorespiratory fitness that seems related to the section on aerobic capacity in this article. Do you think it would be good to merge the Cardiorespiratory fitness page into this section (and set a redirect), or would it be better to use the information in aerobic capacity to expand the stub? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism section needs both references and rewriting

This section is very POV. Examples :

When overall fitness is an occupational requirement, as it is for athletes, soldiers, and police and fire personnel, aerobic exercise alone may not provide a well balanced exercise program.

This sentence suggests that aerobic exercises are necessary component of training which is POV (see below why)

Aerobic exercise remains however a valuable component of a balanced exercise program and is good for cardiovascular health.

Again POV without reference.

In addition, the metabolic activity of an individual is heightened for several hours following a bout of aerobic activity.

From what I am aware it's not something everybody agrees on. Reference needed.

What is lacking in this section is opinions of some notable authors about counterproductivness of aerobic exercises whatsover. For example Charles Poliquin criticized aerobic exercises in many articles. One from his website :

http://www.charlespoliquin.com/index.php?Itemid=10403&id=861&option=com_content&task=view

Other articles from notable authors about bad effects of aerobic exercises :

http://www.mikemahler.com/articles/10reasons.html Alan Cosgrove, Christian Thibaudeau, Mike Mahler, criticized slow paced aerobic exercises in t-nation magazine many times.

As it can be difficult to find literature or articles in scientific journals about it it's still relevant POV shared by many trainers and should be included in the article.

Zenmaster82 9-11-2008

Error in diagram

I think I've spotted an error in the training zone diagram accompanying this article. According to the link brianmac, a very professional sounding source, 70% capacity means the resting heart rate plus 70% of the difference between the resting heart rate and the maximum heart rate; whereas the diagram has 70% capacity meaning just 70% of the maximum heart rate.

This means that brianmac has the aerobic zone for a 35 year old (with a 70bpm resting heart rate) between 153 and 163 bpm, whereas the diagram shows the aerobic zone between 130 and 148bpm. I think the method used by brianmac is called the Karvonen method; it is described in the heart rate article.

I am considering starting an aerobic exercise program and this makes a big difference, which is the correct zone to use?

I have added a link to this section in the discussion part of the image, in case it is used elsewhere.

Zfishwiki (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

This is not a Karvonen method in diagram but the flat standard basic method of calculation (Fox and Haskell formula) and designed as a general purpose of demonstrating you have different target zones in aerobic exercises. I got these numbers from a training bicycle manual. — STAR TREK Man [Space, the final frontier...] 23:01, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Still brianmac gives an intensity of 70/80% calculated by the karvonen method as being the limits to aerobic exercise, whereas the diagram gives limits of 70/80% of the maximum heart rate. You could use the Fox and Haskell formula for maximum heart rate : MHR=220-age, for both methods, but taking resting heart rate into account, the karvonen method will give different values for the aerobic limits. Both the diagram and the karvonen method provide target zones for aerobic exercise.

Perhaps the training bicycle manual is correct and brianmac is wrong, I'm not an expert, but having a look at the brianmac website, it seems very proffessional looking to me.

Zfishwiki (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about anyone else, but for the last two weeks all I can see on the training zone diagram is a blank red scrren.

Zfishwiki (talk) 22:01, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Another error in diagram?

The top range description reads VO2Max, which seems to be a misnomer - VO2Max is measured during an incremental exercise at a point where O2 consumption is not increasing even as the intensity is increased. Some exercises are as intense as 250% of VO2Max. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.112.3.235 (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Very few sources

I noticed there are very few sources cited in this article, in places that really do need them. Especially in the history part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.27.231 (talk) 02:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)