Max More wrote:
> At 09:18 AM 11/16/00, you wrote:
> >Max More wrote:
> > >
> > > I would say that 45 minutes of strongly aerobic exercise five times a week
> > > is excessive. I think you can get virtually the same health benefit from
> > > around 25 minutes four times a week, with far less free radical formation.
> >I'd have to disagree.. my understanding (feel free to prove me wrong) is that
> >you really have to do a minimum of 30 minutes of steady aerobic exercise
> >to really have any effect on your cardio system.
> I have to disagree with your disagreement. :-) Aerobic conditioning
> certainly begins no later than 10 minutes after training range is attained.
> 25 minutes gives you most of the preventive health benefits. I'll go look
> this up when I have more time. But I can say that I wouldn't have gotten
> such a high aerobic fitness rating in my Kronos Clinic testing if what you
> say is true. I never continue aerobic exercise past 25 minutes.
> When I'm talking about aerobic exercise, I'm not referring to girly-man low
> heart rate exercise. ;-) I'm talking about maintaining my heart rate at
> the upper end of the fitness training range. (Last night's 3 mile run
> quickly brought my heart rate up to 165, then it climbed to 170-180 for
> most of the workout. I use a Polar heart monitor--this is cool tech that
> lets you see your heart rate in real time on a watch or displayed on most
> 45 minutes several times a week might be needed to get most of the benefits
> if someone is training a lower level of intensity. According to Dr. Kenneth
> Cooper, running any more than 15 miles per week will not bring increased
> health benefits. If I were to run for 45 minutes five days a week at close
> to my current pace, I'd cover about 30 miles. At my pace, 25 minutes
> several times a week seems just about optimal.
Ahh ok. I exercise a little easier than that, I use a machine that varies
its intensity (using a Polar monitor :-) to keep my heart rate between 130
and 163.. usually it ends up staying around 160 for most of the workout.
My goals are perhaps a bit different, I prefer the longer workouts since I
want to improve my endurance for sports like mountain biking where you have
to sustain a moderate to high level of exertion for an hour or longer.
> >This is the part that I find a little off-putting.. like I said if it helps
> >you in your job or whatever that's a good thing. But other than that, I see
> >it as a waste of time to try to attain some kind of "look" and hold it. I
> >could understand it if you are planning to try to maintain a physical body
> >far into the future... some people dig that, but myself I prefer to just be
> >uploaded and modify my body image at will after that.
> When do you expect to be uploaded? I'm not willing to wait for a future
> technology to save my body, not knowing when it will happen. The clear
> health, strength, and mood-enhancing benefits of resistance exercise give
> me clear reasons to do it. The enhanced body image is an enjoyable plus. If
> uploading takes decades (which I think fairly likely but practically
> unknowable) then I will have decades to enjoy the results of my exercise,
> and I'll be a vigorous grey-haired guy while wait-for-uploading folks will
> be shuffling around and asking for a hand with their luggage. :-)
> Weight-training does have clear health benefits such as stronger, healthier
> bones, reduced LDL levels, and lowers total cholesterol, among other
> things. Some references:
> Goldberg, L., et. al. Journal of the American Medical Association 252
> (1984); 504
> Larsson, B., et. al. International Journal of Sports Medicine 6 (5) (Dec
> 1984): 336-340
I am not planning on any certain uploading date either; I just am questioning
the claimed life extending qualities of weight training in addition to good
aerobic exercise. Especially for younger people.
-- Brian Atkins Director, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence http://www.singinst.org/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:22 MDT