Another discussion about the reason that you start a thread

[skribs105]

not sure im allow to say what il chalk your responses up to

If you can't think of a similar, but more appropriate word to use, I think that just highlights @kempodisciple 's point.

 

[jobo]

If you can't think of a similar, but more appropriate word to use, I think that just highlights @kempodisciple 's point.

i can think of a very appropriate word, but it seems to breach forum guidelines,

 

[skribs105]

i can think of a very appropriate word, but it seems to breach forum guidelines,

Then you don't know what I meant by "appropriate", which further's @kempodisciple 's theory.

 

[jobo]

Then you don't know what I meant by "appropriate", which further's @kempodisciple 's theory.

??? appropriate word ?? a word that adequately describes the object or person to which your applying it ?

your confusing your definitions again ant you ?

 

[skribs105]

??? appropriate word ?? a word that adequately describes the object or person to which your applying it ?

Appropriate, as in suitable or proper to the circumstances. In this case, "appropriate" meaning something you can say that won't get you banned.

But you gave one definition, which was contextually wrong, which is what @kempodisciple is getting at.

 

[jobo]

Appropriate, as in suitable or proper to the circumstances. In this case, "appropriate" meaning something you can say that won't get you banned.

But you gave one definition, which was contextually wrong, which is what @kempodisciple is getting at.

but you seem not to understand the definition of '' circumstance''

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

Besides fact and opinion, how about logic such as:

- Leg is longer than arm.
- A - B < A (force against force) and A + B > A (borrow force).
- ...

It doesn't make sense if people even argue about the logic.

Except sometimes the logic is debatable. For instance, lets' look at your second statement. Force against force is actually A+B in some situations (I'm trying to punch, and you block my arm hard, or I charge in and you use an entering frame block to stop me in my tracks).

Of course, neither of those are the point you were trying to make in your example, but the simple A/B presentation leaves some room for debate.

 

[skribs105]

but you seem not to understand the definition of '' circumstance''

Is your goal here just to pick every 3 or 4 syllable word and tell me "you don't know what it means" until I just give up trying to talk to you?

 

[dvcochran]

it may be obvious to you what he talking about, but your miss using the same terms.

FITNESS to do what exactly, cardio and aerobics though to some degree related and you get a benefit to both from either exercise, though in different amounts, are not the same thing and have contra indicators

if your doing ( extended)aerobics and your heart starts beating like a drum, thats not because your working your heart its because you've run out of oxygen, and your heart has gone into overdrive, thats not a good place to be, stop and let your heart normalise, keep going and you will a best calapse as the oxygen to the brain is cut off. you know your aerobic capacity has improved when your heart barely moves

cardio on the other hand is blasting your heart up to close to max for a short period of time, if your breathing gets highly elevated it shows you heart isn't what it should be as its not pumping the required the blood and the oxygen it carries

i had a conversation with a guy my age on a cycling forum, who was proudly telling me his cycling blasted his heart up to 200 for an extended period, he thought this meant he was fit, i said no mate that just shows how poor your aerobic capacity is, keep doing that and you will die

Oh jobo, cannot you not see that you are arguing against yourself?

You said: "if your doing ( extended)aerobics and your heart starts beating like a drum, thats not because your working your heart its because you've run out of oxygen"

You said: "cardio on the other hand is blasting your heart up to close to max for a short period of time, if your breathing gets highly elevated it shows you heart isn't what it should be as its not pumping the required the blood and the oxygen it carries"

There is a notable "chicken or the egg" situation here.

BOTH exercises require blood to be adequately carried which in turn carries oxygen to the body; assuming there is adequate oxygen there.

Frankly, I wish it was this simple. There are many other things as play here, such as lung capacity, vascular health, and muscle makeup. Then you get into the endless list of things like BMI, genetics, mentality, on and on.

To me, the answer is, if a person has the time and 'want to' to exercise 10 hours/week, AND it is quality time spent (not just conversing as the gym) they should do it. It certainly lends itself to being a lifestyle and not just a New Years resolution that is going to last for a couple of months.
If time is at a premium, the a person has to figure out how/what exercise they can fit in to their schedule. Part of the problem with this scenario is that Most people cannot jump right into the exercise regimen you describe.
It takes a little time but a committed person will figure what they need to work on the most; strength, cardio, flexibility, etc... Then they can figure out what best to do with the time they have available.

And Yes, the terms cardio and aerobics are interchangeable in terms of exercise.

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

if you think im moving the goal posts its because your not understanding the discussion. I know it must be frustrating to be constantly corrected, but its tiresome to me to spend my time constantly having to having to counter myths and complete misunderstanding. but if no one does it then the level of ignorance in the population continues to increase.

in the instant case, you said Cardio. that is cardio in the collective term for the cardiovascular system. that is the HEART and its ability to pump blood. ( HEART health in you like), if as seems likely your misusing the term to refer to increase your aerobic base. general referred to as AEROBICS, IE the bodies capacity to metabolise oxygen, then that is a different discussion. But you cant expect me to just assume you do not know which term to use and if no one corrects you how will you ever learn ?

Where's the research that there's no benefit in cardio training beyond 5 min?

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

no if i go to the hospital, those folks that know a little bit about the human body, CARDIO is the unit that deals with heart health, though it not wrong to use the terms for exercises that focus on hearth health.

HEART health is the ability of the heart and associated systems to move blood, if your heart isn't capable of moving the blood for which ever exercise you choose then you have an '' unhealthy heart'' its nothing to do with basic heart health that is just a meaningless phrase.

you cant do prolonged speed training either, that's another 5 minute exercise. so this mythical two hours your mentioning is 10 mins top, five mins if your doing them together, aerobic exercise on the other hand does take a good bit longer, 20 mins maybe, 40 if your really going for it

You're now changing context, so you can use the definition you prefer. Which you do kind of a lot.

 

[Gerry Seymour11]

If you're talking about working out, cardio means exercises to work on your cardiovascular system to increase stamina. Go to any fitness site and ask about cardio and they'll talk about exercises that get your heart pumping and blood moving.

Since we were talking about fitness, that's obviously what @kempodisciple was talking about.

And when folks use that term for exercise, they're usually including the pulmonary system (sometimes "cardio" is short for "cardiopulmonary").

 

[pdg]

BMI

Without doubt, the single most pointless 'measure' of health and condition ever devised in the entire history of humankind.

The only possible use of it is to put a number onto a disgustingly fat person to illustrate that they're fat no matter how much they deny it by saying crap like "I'm just big boned". Basically, it's a politically correct way of calling someone medically fat.

I know plenty of people with a 'healthy' BMI who can't make it up a flight of stairs without a smoke break halfway.

Conversely, I know of a good few cyclists who are classified by BMI as 'underweight', and more than a couple of professional rugby players who are 'obese'.

 

[Deleted member 39746]

Oh if we were having a argument about cardio earlier, i have seen a military fitness guide use breathing as a means to measure intensity. ie if you can speak normally while doing and after the exercise its low intesnsity, if you struggle its medium, if you cant because you keep panting its high intensity.

I dont think its related as much, but its intresting. And they laid it out as you do X amount of X intensity runs a week, so it scales with your ability. (i think it was specfically just for runs)

 

[skribs105]

Without doubt, the single most pointless 'measure' of health and condition ever devised in the entire history of humankind.

The only possible use of it is to put a number onto a disgustingly fat person to illustrate that they're fat no matter how much they deny it by saying crap like "I'm just big boned". Basically, it's a politically correct way of calling someone medically fat.

I know plenty of people with a 'healthy' BMI who can't make it up a flight of stairs without a smoke break halfway.

Conversely, I know of a good few cyclists who are classified by BMI as 'underweight', and more than a couple of professional rugby players who are 'obese'.

I can't find it at the moment, but there was an article on The Duffel Blog (the military version of The Onion) which was about a Marine who set the bench press world record getting dishonorably discharged for fitness failure because he couldn't run a mile in under 8 minutes, and his leadership was horribly embarrassed by his laziness.

BMI is a tool. Like any tool, if it used for more than what it was designed for, it will fail to live up to those standards. For example, in MMORPGs, a lot of players will use a damage meter to see how much damage they're doing, and will assume that if they do the most damage it means they contributed the most to the success of the run. But if they're not damaging the right enemies at the right time, or if they're taking unnecessary damage themselves by standing in the proverbial or literal fire, then they are actually hurting the chance of success as a whole. The meter itself is a useful tool for a lot of reasons, but if you try to make it the end-all be-all of success, the tool fails.

The same could be said of BMI. It's a useful tool at measuring what it measures, but if it's used in isolation of other tools or in isolation of context, it fails.

 

[pdg]

I can't find it at the moment, but there was an article on The Duffel Blog (the military version of The Onion) which was about a Marine who set the bench press world record getting dishonorably discharged for fitness failure because he couldn't run a mile in under 8 minutes, and his leadership was horribly embarrassed by his laziness.

BMI is a tool. Like any tool, if it used for more than what it was designed for, it will fail to live up to those standards. For example, in MMORPGs, a lot of players will use a damage meter to see how much damage they're doing, and will assume that if they do the most damage it means they contributed the most to the success of the run. But if they're not damaging the right enemies at the right time, or if they're taking unnecessary damage themselves by standing in the proverbial or literal fire, then they are actually hurting the chance of success as a whole. The meter itself is a useful tool for a lot of reasons, but if you try to make it the end-all be-all of success, the tool fails.

The same could be said of BMI. It's a useful tool at measuring what it measures, but if it's used in isolation of other tools or in isolation of context, it fails.

The fact that BMI relies so heavily on other measures to have anything approaching relevance means that it's a pointless addition.

As a tool it's really not very useful at all because without the reliance on other factors what it measures means effectively nothing. The fact that you can have a bad BMI made good by your real condition (short, muscly and fit), and vice versa (good BMI made bad because you're 90% blubber but quite tall) absolutely negates it.

The current fascination with concentration on BMI is actually a bad situation and the medical community using so heavily is something I utterly disagree with.

It's like me having a tape measure, but one that can only measure pine and only if the humidity is within a certain range - if I use it for a different wood, or metal, or it's a bit rainy then the measurement will be wrong.

Far more useful is body fat percentage. You can use that perfectly in isolation with no contextual adaptations. It's measurable and useful.




Edit to add: even proportional measurements would be more relevant than BMI - if your waist exceeds your chest then it's highly likely your overall condition isn't brilliant - your height can be integrated into this too, being wider than you are tall isn't a good place to be.

 

[Buka22]

Where's the research that there's no benefit in cardio training beyond 5 min?

It might be important if you're doing anything for six minutes.

 

[skribs105]

It might be important if you're doing anything for six minutes.

But MMA rounds are 5 minutes. Why would you do anything for 6?