new study on diet vs exercise

[kyleb]

High intensity workouts can cause significant damage to your muscles, which does result in them building faster if you are intaking enough protein and calories. There are also studies that show that high intensity activities can cause ligament or bone damage, stress fractures, etc. (No kidding.)

It should be obvious, but the benefits of high-intensity training outweigh the negatives.

[Thremp]

The only thing better than this retarded ass study is the retarded ass response in this thread.

[censored].

I'm like in retardo idiot land.

[kidcolin]

what you just posted doesn't in any way make it obvious that the benefits outweigh the negatives. Maybe being 10 lbs overweight for the rest of your life is better than being a ripped machine-man only for your body to fail you at the age of 45.

I'm not trying to patronize you, but I think it's an interesting debate and deserves attention. Maybe another thread.

[imitation]

kid are you comparing high intensity aerobics v. low intensity aerobics or aerobic activity generally v. weight training?

I'm confused and affects the answer to your question.

[kidcolin]

I'm not an exercise expert, so I'm not sure. I think I'm generally comparing high intensity work outs versus low intensity ones. Whether that's aerobic or weight training I'm not sure. Maybe someone can fill me in.

Me personally, I know I was in the best shape of my life when I played soccer in high school. I could run seemingly forever and probably was in the 4-6% body fat range. Now I know I personally liked how I felt physically then more than I do now, but let's face it: with a 10 hour work day and more responsibilities, 2 hours of soccer practice/game type intensity isn't feasible. But if it were, would my body be better off in the long term? Or would I simply break down by the time I'm 35 (or 40, or 50)?

I look at the crossfit site, and I think to myself, "wow. some people are really beating the crap out of their bodies." Some might have genetic capabilities that allow them to do that.. but I wonder if some go through that sort of brutal training and are really causing all sorts of harm that will show up down the road.

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
bit of a sidetrack:

Hey Smiley,

"What I can tell you is that high intensity exercise (sprinting, lifting weights, most sports) will all do very good things for your body. "

I know you're a big fan of crossfit, and I think I largely agree with this statement (being that I was in much better shape when I played sports and rode my bike 5 miles a day or more). But do you have any knowledge of how high intensity workouts affect your long term health? As in, are you causing any serious deterioration? I'm not saying it does or doesn't, it's just something I've thought about recently.

[/ QUOTE ]

Speaking from personal experience I have less nagging aches and pain now (especially knees and back) than I did a year ago (although I've really only been incorporating crossfit stuff for a little over 4 months), my resting heartrate is lower, and my energy level is generally higher unless I miss meals. The only long term studies I can think of is looking at athletes whose sport closely mirrors that of something like crossfit (soccer, rugby (without the head trauma obv.), olympic weightlifting to a degree, hockey and so on. I think you'll see a lot of these former athletes enjoying above average health/fitness well into middle and old age - Gordie Howe played professional hockey in 5 decades. In anycase, if high intensity training has no long term effects or perhaps minor negatives than I would still choose to live for the next 20-30 years with a much higher fitness and health levels.

Also, what I think most people don't take into account when looking at a crossfit workout which ends in half the participants dry heaving on the gym floor or worse, is that the workouts themselves rarely last longer than 30 mins. It is all about quality vs. quantity and I am almost positive that running 5 days week for an hour a day is going to be far worse for your body than crossfit which will have an average of 3 high intensity workouts, 2 strength days, and a long run/row. Most of the degenerative problems of running for example are because of repeated trauma to the knees - this just doesn't happen in a crossfit protocol because there is such a wide range of movements which for the most part are very low impact.

I read this interview the other day with greg glassman, the founder of crossfit - I think it gives a great introduction to the philosophy outside the website.

interview with founder of crossfit

[SmileyEH]

[ QUOTE ]
Now I know I personally liked how I felt physically then more than I do now, but let's face it: with a 10 hour work day and more responsibilities, 2 hours of soccer practice/game type intensity isn't feasible. But if it were, would my body be better off in the long term? Or would I simply break down by the time I'm 35 (or 40, or 50)?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is really the best arguement for crossfit possible. You can design a crossfit like program that literally will never take more than 45mins a day and you can do it in your backyard or garage.

[ QUOTE ]
I look at the crossfit site, and I think to myself, "wow. some people are really beating the crap out of their bodies." Some might have genetic capabilities that allow them to do that.. but I wonder if some go through that sort of brutal training and are really causing all sorts of harm that will show up down the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

The training is really not that brutal. All the workouts ask is you go hard for the duration and anyone can do that as long as they have some determination. Ensure that you give yourself adequate rest (you will need a lot more when first starting) and warm up and cool down before and after every workout.

While I think everyone has the genetic capability to get strong, fit, and healthy there are very few people that have the genetic capability to have a poor diet, get no exercise, not enough sleep, and be 30lbs overweight - while still being healthy and fit.

[Blarg]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not an exercise expert, so I'm not sure. I think I'm generally comparing high intensity work outs versus low intensity ones. Whether that's aerobic or weight training I'm not sure. Maybe someone can fill me in.

Me personally, I know I was in the best shape of my life when I played soccer in high school. I could run seemingly forever and probably was in the 4-6% body fat range. Now I know I personally liked how I felt physically then more than I do now, but let's face it: with a 10 hour work day and more responsibilities, 2 hours of soccer practice/game type intensity isn't feasible. But if it were, would my body be better off in the long term? Or would I simply break down by the time I'm 35 (or 40, or 50)?

I look at the crossfit site, and I think to myself, "wow. some people are really beating the crap out of their bodies." Some might have genetic capabilities that allow them to do that.. but I wonder if some go through that sort of brutal training and are really causing all sorts of harm that will show up down the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can't compare attempts to have extreme fitness, no more than extreme manual labor, with conventional notions of being in shape, even in very good shape. There are different types and levels of being in good shape, and tearing your body up isn't necessary. You don't have to work out that hard or often to be in very good shape, not work that many muscle groups as hard as people going the crossfit route might do.

Whereas truly extreme physical endeavor might arguably have detrimental effects in the long-term, merely being in great shape isn't going to break you down by the time you're 35 or 50 or whatever. All exercise can hurt you, though, if you don't perform it safely and with common sense. You don't have to work very hard at all to pull a muscle or damage a joint; you only have to go beyond your own ability, however low, or lift something or move your body the wrong way.

That's the key people should be worried about. Proper, safe movement and good form. Move wrong, and you're in trouble no matter how much or how little you exercise.

I hope we don't start to see more people talking about not wanting to over-exercise to the point of being early cripples the way they sometimes talk about not wanting to get huge bodybuilder muscles -- as an excuse not to work out. Most people are nowhere near having to worry about what they're doing having those negative effects.

[kidcolin]

thanks for your insights guys.

Smiley,

I agree that running for an hour is probably worse for your body. I know a few distance runners who have bad knees at the ripe old age of 25.

Blarg,

Good point about form. I recently started seeing a physical therapist for some minor back pain, and she showed me my form was all wrong on the crunches and push-ups I do. I can already see the difference, both in their effectiveness at working the muscles, and in the decrease of aches and pains.

[Fast Food Knight]

[ QUOTE ]
The only thing better than this retarded ass study is the retarded ass response in this thread.

[censored].

I'm like in retardo idiot land.

[/ QUOTE ]

What a helpful, relevant, and insightful response.