4 ms·
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. Fitne
by 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 agoThat 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 agoSo what is your minimum definition of fit?