5 ms·

You should quote the entire paragraph. "Cardio machines are innocent enough, as they won’t actually make you any less fit, but maintaining cardiovascular fitne

by gexla 16y ago

You should quote the entire paragraph. "Cardio machines are innocent enough, as they won’t actually make you any less fit, but maintaining cardiovascular fitness doesn’t really take much more than breathing uncomfortably hard for about 20 minutes, three times a week. And we all know that swimming, hoops, bike riding, and even Ultimate Frisbee can get the job done, and that treadmills or elliptical trainers are a pale substitute." Perhaps he made an incorrect claim here. But to be fair, you should go for the point of the paragraph as opposed to one sentence from it. What he is saying here is that the cardio machines in the gym are little better than maintenance for cardio and are a poor substitute for other ways to get the same sort of workout. I think this argument still fits within your own here. The overall point of the article is that for strength, muscle mass and muscle endurance, there is no substitute for the basic free weight exercises. That's not to say that you should only do those exercises and that you can't benefit from more specialized training, but that everyone still benefits from those exercises and should make them part of a core program. The same cannot be said for cardio machines.

xiaoma 16y ago
I completely agree with you (and the article) that free weights are the way to go over machine weights. However, I completely disagree that weights are more important for general fitness than cardio. This was one of the primary claims of the article, and it wasn't backed up in any meaningful way. The part I quoted was just one illustration of the the author's attitude. His entire focus is on strength, not fitness.
- gexla 16y ago
  What I got from the article is that it's mostly aimed towards the typical local gyms. He isn't arguing cardio is unimportant. He's saying that inside a gym the free weights are important, everything else might just be a waste of time. The full paragraph you quoted seems to be saying cardio on a treadmill in front of a T.V. is a waste when you could be getting the same cardio from a different activity (such as real running.) But, if you are going for the sorts of benefits that free weights can bring, then there really is no better alternative except perhaps in certain extreme cases such as with elite athletes. So again, the article is aimed at the inside of your typical gym, not outside it, which is where you would be doing most of your running I assume. ;)
xiaoma 16y ago
"You should quote the entire paragraph." I didn't quote the entire paragraph because I figured everyone read it and I just wanted to point out the most objectionable part. However, looking back at the paragraph you quoted, I realized I don't just disagree with the incorrect claim that 20 minutes gets the job done. The claim about bike riding "getting the job done" and treadmills being a poor substitute is also objectionable. Many studies have shown that running generates a higher VO2 rate than biking. This holds true even for tri-athletes, who typically have more cycling than running training. Swimming is much harder to measure, but I sure wouldn't take the author's word for it with all the other unfounded claims in the article. I could probably find another half-dozen issues with the article and quote them all, but that would make a really long comment, wouldn't it?
- gexla 16y ago
  So, maybe we should zoom even further out from that paragraph and look at the point of the article as a whole. I agree there are lots of problems in the article, but I agree with the basic point. That is, for muscle strength, muscle mass and muscle endurance, free weight training needs to be part of your core training program and there is no substitute. You are referring to cardiovascular training which is barely mentioned in the article. He probably shouldn't have mentioned cardio at all except he wanted to make a point that cardio machines shouldn't even be in the gym. You mention routines of running which should be anywhere from 40 minutes to 2 hours, would you do that sort of routine on a treadmill in a gym?

by gexla 16y ago

xiaoma 16y ago

I completely agree with you (and the article) that free weights are the way to go over machine weights. However, I completely disagree that weights are more important for general fitness than cardio. This was one of the primary claims of the article, and it wasn't backed up in any meaningful way. The part I quoted was just one illustration of the the author's attitude. His entire focus is on strength, not fitness.

gexla 16y ago
What I got from the article is that it's mostly aimed towards the typical local gyms. He isn't arguing cardio is unimportant. He's saying that inside a gym the free weights are important, everything else might just be a waste of time. The full paragraph you quoted seems to be saying cardio on a treadmill in front of a T.V. is a waste when you could be getting the same cardio from a different activity (such as real running.) But, if you are going for the sorts of benefits that free weights can bring, then there really is no better alternative except perhaps in certain extreme cases such as with elite athletes. So again, the article is aimed at the inside of your typical gym, not outside it, which is where you would be doing most of your running I assume. ;)

xiaoma 16y ago

"You should quote the entire paragraph." I didn't quote the entire paragraph because I figured everyone read it and I just wanted to point out the most objectionable part. However, looking back at the paragraph you quoted, I realized I don't just disagree with the incorrect claim that 20 minutes gets the job done. The claim about bike riding "getting the job done" and treadmills being a poor substitute is also objectionable. Many studies have shown that running generates a higher VO2 rate than biking. This holds true even for tri-athletes, who typically have more cycling than running training. Swimming is much harder to measure, but I sure wouldn't take the author's word for it with all the other unfounded claims in the article. I could probably find another half-dozen issues with the article and quote them all, but that would make a really long comment, wouldn't it?

gexla 16y ago
So, maybe we should zoom even further out from that paragraph and look at the point of the article as a whole. I agree there are lots of problems in the article, but I agree with the basic point. That is, for muscle strength, muscle mass and muscle endurance, free weight training needs to be part of your core training program and there is no substitute. You are referring to cardiovascular training which is barely mentioned in the article. He probably shouldn't have mentioned cardio at all except he wanted to make a point that cardio machines shouldn't even be in the gym. You mention routines of running which should be anywhere from 40 minutes to 2 hours, would you do that sort of routine on a treadmill in a gym?