3 ms·

The author is a dink. He doesn't even answer the "why" question. I'll tell ya why: because it works. Your stupid aerobics class does barely anything for your he

by moltar 12y ago

The author is a dink. He doesn't even answer the "why" question. I'll tell ya why: because it works. Your stupid aerobics class does barely anything for your health. Strength and conditioning work out on the other hand, does what your body is meant to do. Yes it's tiring, but that's the point. Said that, there are some people that take it to extremes, but that is just like in any other industry/sport.

danieltillett 12y ago
While it is possible that the author “Heather" is male, it would be the first male “Heather” I have ever heard of.
TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago
I was under the impression aerobic exercise has benefits for the heart, lungs, and circulation, at least? Can you elaborate on the "barely anything" bit?
- Keats 12y ago
  Classes are either not long enough or not enough intensity (look up HIIT) for good benefits (you will get some initially but will quickly stall).
  - anthony_d 12y ago
    I think that's the mindset the author has an issue with. You said "you will get some (benefits) initially but will quickly stall" like it's a bad thing. Fitness doesn't improve forever with any program, you're still going to die. If you view fitness as a means to an end (health/long life) then you've got to realize there are diminishing returns. There have been many studies showing the diminishing returns kick in very quickly (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/running-just-5-minutes-a-day-has-long-lasting-benefits/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/running-just-5-minu...). If you want to be an elite athlete that's fine, but you should at least acknowledge it's its own reward and not claim it's about health.
    - Keats 12y ago
      That depends on your goals. If the only reason you exercise is to be healthy in a long term, then a short workout a few times a week is enough. If you want to be stronger/better at sports X/run marathons etc then no, aerobic classes are not enough. It's not even aiming for 'elite athlete', just aiming to be fit (you won't be fit in my definition if you only do 3x40min of aerobic classes a week).
      - Jtsummers 12y ago
        So what is your minimum definition of fit?

by moltar 12y ago

danieltillett 12y ago

While it is possible that the author “Heather" is male, it would be the first male “Heather” I have ever heard of.

TheSpiceIsLife 12y ago

I was under the impression aerobic exercise has benefits for the heart, lungs, and circulation, at least? Can you elaborate on the "barely anything" bit?

Keats 12y ago
Classes are either not long enough or not enough intensity (look up HIIT) for good benefits (you will get some initially but will quickly stall).
- anthony_d 12y ago
  I think that's the mindset the author has an issue with. You said "you will get some (benefits) initially but will quickly stall" like it's a bad thing. Fitness doesn't improve forever with any program, you're still going to die. If you view fitness as a means to an end (health/long life) then you've got to realize there are diminishing returns. There have been many studies showing the diminishing returns kick in very quickly (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/running-just-5-minutes-a-day-has-long-lasting-benefits/ http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/30/running-just-5-minu...). If you want to be an elite athlete that's fine, but you should at least acknowledge it's its own reward and not claim it's about health.
  - Keats 12y ago
    That depends on your goals. If the only reason you exercise is to be healthy in a long term, then a short workout a few times a week is enough. If you want to be stronger/better at sports X/run marathons etc then no, aerobic classes are not enough. It's not even aiming for 'elite athlete', just aiming to be fit (you won't be fit in my definition if you only do 3x40min of aerobic classes a week).
    - Jtsummers 12y ago
      So what is your minimum definition of fit?