🚀 go-pugleaf

X-Orig-MsgId: <842813$bt4$3@news1.bu.edu>

In misc.fitness.aerobic Caleb Burns <calebb@teleport.com> wrote:
: M. Scott --

: Let's go back to what Link had said on misc.fitness.aerobic (I think that's
: where she posted) to see if my notion is all that bizarre. She said that
: when she leads aerobic workouts, she gets a harder workout through cuing her
: participants than they get in following her (verbal) cues.

Actually, all she told you is that she *perceives* the workout to be harder.
This is certainly so (as I can attest to as well, having been a group
exercise leader).

However, this does not mean that her VO2 necessarily increased, or that
she's getting a better workout.  

From my own experience a lot of the perception of increased shortness of
breath and discomfort has to do not being able to breathe freely (i.e., 
at as high a respiratory rate as you would like) because you are controlling
your airflow so you can talk.

What most likely happens in this scenario is that blood CO2 levels increase
a bit, increasing the desire to breathe, and making the person feel
"short of breath."

: Does singing, speaking, chanting while exercising pose a health risk? I
: think that if done appropriately, it does not. (But frankly, the topic -- as

Singing, chanting, and speaking all require a tradeoff between control of
airflow for proper phonation and free airflow for optimal gas exchange.  It's
well documented that diseases (like asthma or emphysema) that impede airflow
can impair gas exchange.  There's no reason to believe that at high enough
levels of exercise intensity that trying to maintain a high level of 
singing or speaking performance could impair exercise.

: far as I can tell -- has never been researched, and I would never suggest
: that anyone try it until it has been researched.) Indeed, the military
: appears to emphasize chanting while marching, etc., and this may in part
: because of the cardiovascular effects. (I really would like to track down
: one of the military trainers, but my phone calls have been placed into voice
: messaging services and I don't get return calls.)

Actually, the main reason for this is to keep people in time with each other.
Regardless, marching is a relatively low-level activity, and chanting while
marching will not impair gas exchange sufficiently for healthy people
that it's an issue.  What's more, anyone for whom it did could stop chanting
briefly without being notice.

Take those same recruits, however, and have them run at peak exertion levels.
I bet they won't chant anymore.

: Let's go back to what Link said. If one of our goals is to get a more
: arduous workout, then perhaps participants in aerobics classes should be
: encouraged to chant or sing, etc., this to increase the difficulty of their
: exercise. Makes sense to me, but again -- I have no data on this topic. (I
: would love to make a tiny wager on this topic, though, especially with some
: of the more vocal detractors.)

The last thing the world needs is one more time-waster to do in the aerobics
room.  The sad fact of the matter is that a lot of really bizarre practices
get started in the aerobics room because people don't understand basic
physiology (or the changes in physiology brought on by exercise).

For example, aerobics instructors observed some time ago that the heart
rate was higher during exercise if you held your arms above your head
all the time.  Measurements of oxygen consumption vs. heart rate demonstrated
that the increased heart rate was not due to increased oxygen demand, but
was rather caused by what is termed "the pressor response."  Basically,
putting the arms overhead increases the work of the heart by making it
pump blood uphill into the fingers against a lot of resistance.  

However, aerobic exercise isn't just about the heart.  Many of the beneficial
changes of aerobic exercise occur in the periphery, and are stimulated by
increased oxygen demand.  Something that increases the work of the heart 
without increasing oxygen demand may stress the heart, but it will not
cause any of the beneficial peripheral changes.

If you want to follow this to its logical extreme, this is what happens to
patients in heart failure.  Their heart adapts and adapts to higher and
higher workloads to get the same amount of oxygen to the periphery, and
eventually the heart becomes so large and so thick that it is no longer an
efficient pump.

: I do think that the data will support such an approach, and that this
: general methodology will prove useful in helping many people achieve
: cardiovascular fitness without overly taxing their physical systems. But
: again, I do not know. (On the other hand, the data are relatively easy to
: obtain.)

Yes, the data are easy to obtain.  Read a book on basic physiology.  Your
approach involves more work for less benefit.  It doesn't require a
new research study to prove this one out - merely a good, solid understanding
of all the data that's already out there.

: But again, I do not know the answer to the questions. In walking around with
: 8 or 10 pound weights in my hands, I moderate my breathing (breathe every
: 3rd step sometimes, sometimes every 5th step). Am I getting enough oxygen in
: my blood? I think so, but I really would like to see some data on that. I do
: know that such a system brings me much closer to the brink of "puffing and
: panting," and for me, that's a sign that I am reaching a level of doing some
: good to my body.

Well, if you add 16-20 pounds to the weight you are carrying (i.e., your
body weight plus the weights), you *are* increasing the exercise intensity.
As we have repeatedly said, exercise intensity for weight-bearing
exercise is a function of body weight, speed of horizontal movement, and 
percent incline.

Of course, holding weights will also evoke the pressor response, due to the
sustained contraction within the muscles holding the weights, and the
consequent decrease in blood flow.

: Anyway, I appreciate your serious inquiry, and this is one of those
: questions that I will find an answer to.

You won't find an answer until you stop ignoring the data in front of you.

					larry...

: Yours,

: Caleb

: M. Scott <mscott5@san.rr.com> wrote in message
: news:38637A02.2F714E05@san.rr.com...
:> > A car is not a person, and a car doesn't get stronger the more you tax
: it.
:> > Cardiovascular systems do improve with an appropriately elevated heart
: rate
:> > (and/or they maintain optimal efficiency, etc.).
:> >
:> > I am not interested in a "well-running engine" if one is simply talking
:> > about combustion, using up all the oxygen, etc., etc. What I AM
: interested
:> > in is the possibility of taxing the cardiovascular system in what
: appears to
:> > be a somewhat novel fashion -- that is simply not breathing as often as
:> > would usually be comfortable.
:> >
:>
:> Caleb, what you are suggesting may even be a little dangerous.  I'm not a
: doctor
:> either, but I have older friends who've had to undergo stress tests prior
: to
:> open-heart surgery.  If I understand the physiology correctly, the ones I
: knew
:> almost had heart attacks on the spot because their heart, lungs, and
: circulation
:> didn't keep the heart muscles oxygenated enough and the heart  went into
: arrest.
:>
:> One other consideration.  Many men die of heart attacks during sex.  You
: may be
:> aware that people often hold their breath during sex (which is exercise),
: and
:> don't even realize it.  They often do it more as they approach climax.
: Some
:> people go so far as to dabble with asphyxiation.  This is a pretty close
: analogy
:> to how you're describing your workouts, and it makes me question the
: safety of
:> it.
:>
:> One good thing I can say about your method: it's free and at least you're
: not
:> trying to sell something.  But if someone wants to do some real hypoxic
:> training, they should try this site:
:> http://www.hypoxico.com/
:>
:>