haha
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
It seems to me that people who write books are trying to appeal to people who buy, and presumably read, books. Which means there must be a story that is at least somewhat simple and easily digested and made into rules of thumb or guidelines. But unfortunately very often the underlying sciece is just not that clear.When I read Body by Science, on the other hand, I was impressed that a number of the studies cited involved test groups assigned to differing regimens of exercise (multiple days, different styles, etc) and the results were based on objective measures. The type of studies your article says we should look toward. And, of course, the evidence presented points toward an approach to fitness that better aligns with my bias against unnecessary work, so I have embraced it fully. I am of an open mind and if evidence is presented that makes clear that the BS regimen is BS, I may reluctantly change my ways.
What bothered me about Body By Science is how they made tenuous extensions of evidence. ie., if lifting weights once per week seemed to make people as strong as more frequent lifting, they generalised that to the required frequency of workouts for other goals, such as metabolic fitness. I don't think it is likely to generalize, and there is evidence coming out of Wm Krause's group at Duke that flatly contradicts it.
Aerobic exercise bests resistance training at burning belly fat
They also recently published a study that shows longer duration, moderate, more frequent aerobic exercise is much better at improving lipid profiles than other exercise. And Dr. Krause fully understands and uses the more complete characterization of lipid chemistry provided by newer assay methods.
Exercise training, lipid regulation,... [Obesity (Silver Spring). 2009] - PubMed - NCBI
Ha
Last edited: