Cardio: too fat to run?

Nick Roy said:

Science is great, but if you're always waiting in the science you are behind the curve. I prefer self experimentation along with seeing other people experiment and share their results.

a) What "curve" are you talking about? I think you take me for an elite athlete. I'm 36 with 2 kids, 16% body fat, and solidly at the start of Foundation 1. 

b) "experiment and share results" = science. And self experimentation is also great and I heartily encourage it, but it has those nuisances of being "sample size of one" and "inconsistent methodologies" and of course, limited by your own knowledge. 

You could probably come to the same conclusions as these researchers, and that would be great. On the other hand, the 3-part article that I posted is the aggregation of numerous other articles, so you would have had to have run all of those tests on yourself too ... it runs into time, and again, conclusions are difficult to draw because of the small sample size and (probably) inconsistent testing regimen. Rather than discount scientific articles, read them, compare the conclusions to what you already know, ask questions about the weak points, and devise new experiments or progression plans based on your now enhanced understandings. If you already know everything in the article, sure, it's a waste of time to read... that's why articles have abstracts : ). 

Very interesting post Giovanni, thanks. 

wamarler said:

a) What "curve" are you talking about? I think you take me for an elite athlete. I'm 36 with 2 kids, 16% body fat, and solidly at the start of Foundation 1. 

 

b) "experiment and share results" = science. And self experimentation is also great and I heartily encourage it, but it has those nuisances of being "sample size of one" and "inconsistent methodologies" and of course, limited by your own knowledge. 

 

You could probably come to the same conclusions as these researchers, and that would be great. On the other hand, the 3-part article that I posted is the aggregation of numerous other articles, so you would have had to have run all of those tests on yourself too ... it runs into time, and again, conclusions are difficult to draw because of the small sample size and (probably) inconsistent testing regimen. Rather than discount scientific articles, read them, compare the conclusions to what you already know, ask questions about the weak points, and devise new experiments or progression plans based on your now enhanced understandings. If you already know everything in the article, sure, it's a waste of time to read... that's why articles have abstracts : ).

My point: spending your time reading is less effective than acting.

When I said waiting on science, I meant waiting on scientific results(usually when people want the science behind something, they mean the proof) before going out and taking action in everything that you do. "The science" are just the results others have had, self experimentation is the scientific method, which might give you entirely different results. So it's worth separating the two.

Why? Because there is such thing as junk science, there are also asinine tests that sound really good but in the end proved nothing. Or their test subjects were people who don't remotely resemble the populous at large, such as comparing professional triathletes to individuals that haven't adapted to that stimulus. For all you know, what they said isn't an optimal physical fitness regimen is perfect for you right now in your current condition. Scientific facts, backing up something you already know to be good is comforting, but experimenting for yourself gets you where you want to be faster. Elite athlete or not.

Nick Roy said:

My point: spending your time reading is less effective than acting.

When I said waiting on science, I meant waiting on scientific results(usually when people want the science behind something, they mean the proof) before going out and taking action in everything that you do. "The science" are just the results others have had, self experimentation is the scientific method, which might give you entirely different results. So it's worth separating the two.

Why? Because there is such thing as junk science, there are also asinine tests that sound really good but in the end proved nothing. Or their test subjects were people who don't remotely resemble the populous at large, such as comparing professional triathletes to individuals that haven't adapted to that stimulus. For all you know, what they said isn't an optimal physical fitness regimen is perfect for you right now in your current condition. Scientific facts, backing up something you already know to be good is comforting, but experimenting for yourself gets you where you want to be faster. Elite athlete or not.

Mm... if spending time reading is less effective than acting, does that mean you don't read forum posts about the nuances of F1 techniques?  ;-). 

At the end of the day, I think you misunderstood my point of sharing those pieces.

On elements I'm currently working on and have tried yes, by that point I've already been experimenting and continue to do so ; )

And I think it's more the other way around. My initial comment was never directed at you, but the conversation topic as a whole. It just applied to your last comment along with others had posted.

When I was a kid, I jogged in place, in front of the bathroom mirror.  Going from Elementary to Junior High School, everyone was like, "you lost so much weight", for I was a chubby kid.  Then I started lifting weights afterwards, and continued my journey.  

The stationary bike works pretty well too.  Easy on the joints (knees).  It may not seem to work the upper part of the body, but I noticed that it does work from the waist down @ the very least.  I tend to take my hands of the handles and swing my arms forward and back, as I'm going at it periodically.  

Some would say running is the best for there's the runner high; I tend to get that once in a blue.  But when I'm out and about, I would walk/run/sprint combo when I'm on the street.  

I think jogging is the best because your going at your own pace and in time your body (actually your cardio (heart)) will get stronger to go longer, and periodically go faster, and faster, in short intervals (on and off as your going at it for 30+ minutes; 45 average (no more than 1 hour)).  

'Bout to get on my timbs (@ this time my running shoes lost it's traction) and go at it like they do in the military.  You see how they jog, they don't run and it is very effective as the body (leg joints) pound on the pavement for a length of time.  

As I'm writing, I'm thinking about how GB actually strengthened the joints (ankles/knees/etc) to take on the pressure.  I'm about to find out...

Being that it has been a minute since I jogged, due to winter hibernation, I went on a jog/walk scenario for a half hour out in the concrete jungle.

Afterwards I wanted to do handstands, but realized that I'm at another level with the wrists and headstand, so I did some shadow martial arts for almost 2 hours afterwards.  As mentioned about the legs, going into 'horse stance' most of the time during my kicking and punching, I noticed how much stronger my legs (joints) have gotten.  And of course I got into stretching before and afterwards.