heavyhands vs. Facts and Fallacies of Fitness book?

On 2005-08-01, yoko.guruma DeleteThis @gmail.com <yoko.guruma DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> If you have a gym available, this should be a non-issue --
>> get to your gym.
>
> can't walk my dog in the gym; anyway i'd rather find outdoor solutions
> than be stuck indoors
>
>> That's still not very effective exercise.
>
> you think increasing heart rate from 86bpm to 117bpm _isn't_ effective
> exercise - how do you figure that??

It's not intense enough to have much effect. Go for an easy jog and see what
your heart rate is. I don't know what it is, but it will be more than 117bpm.

>>>It just seems obvious to me that repeatedly moving DBs
>>> while you walk has got to be better than not doing so.
>>
>> Depends. "Better" for what ?
>
> 1. um, better for everything, for overall fitness?

I don't know what you mean by "overall fitness".

> We're talking about
> exercising all of the body as opposed to just the lower-half, do you
> honestly think there's no point to that?

Yes, as I've explained.

> this is not a trivial feat to accomplish, and if you tried it you'd find its
> not easy,

The fact that it's not easy doesn't mean it's effective.

> its another way to stress your muscles.

Yes, there's the repetitive stress thing again. But you won't get *stronger*
muscles from doing this. The adaptions are highly specific, they do not
enhance general fitness.

> 2. surely the example of raising one's BPM by 30 would result in
> strengthening of the heart?

Not substantially, no. You will NOT develop good cardiovascular fitness by
training at a heart rate of min+30.

>> It will make you better at walking with handweights. But
>> a number of strength-endurance adaptions are highly
>> specific. Specific enough for example that a highly
>> competitive cyclist can switch to running, and yet they
>> are initially not very fast when they switch -- they climb
>> along a similar curve to an untrained beginner.
>
> c'mon! really?

Yes, really. Look, I'm a competitive runner, and I know competitive cyclists
who have switched to running. Are you genuinely asking for advice, or are
you just asking everyone to tell you how fantastic your stupid training plan
is ?

> even with their strong cardio fitness, there's not a
> crossover benefit to another cardio event?

There is some crossover, because they have a high stroke volume. But the other
adaptions tend to be specific.

> Their strong, developed leg muscles wouldn't help them be a better runner

Take a look at the legs on an elite runner some time. They don't have a whole
lot of bulk there.

> than an untrained
> beginner -- I'm sorry but this is hard to believe.

Try harder. Are you sincerely asking for advice, or are you more interested
in lecturing endurance athletes on the benefits of "heavy hands" ?

> i suppose that could be an option, though in this case weird as its a
> bit antisocial to be zooming to and fro while wifey walks along.

I'm sure she's secure enough that the brief intermissions would be OK.

> and it doesnt't exercise the upper-body.

Already explained this. "Heavy hands" do not really "exercise the upper body"
either. They provide *local*, *specific* adaptions. If you want to "exercise
the upper body", go and lift some weights.

> i want to maximize the returns of my
> exercise-time, so i'd prefer to work the whole body at once.

A worthy goal, but the best way to maximise your return on exercise time
would be to do some exercise that is effective (like running).

> look, combat-sports are my thing. I'm normally a Judo player, but when
> I'm boxing, I'm repeatedly throwing punches, sometimes with gloves on
> (ie.weight). When I'm HH walking, I'm repeatedly swinging & pressing
> out DBs. Seems like a good fit to me.

No, as I said, the adaptions are highly specific.

>> I don't understand what sort of "upper body workout"
>> you're after. If you're hoping to gain "general upper body
>> endurance", there's not really such a thing. You have some
>> very general aerobic adaptions (where training your legs
>> is as good as training your arms) and you have some that
>> are highly specific.
>
> OK, I admit I'm pretty vague as to the specific gains I'm looking for.
> I just find myself in a situation where I'm walking a lot, so I'm
> trying to make the best of it. When you start HH'ing its difficult to
> keep up good speed & ROM. But now I can see progress, I'm getting
> better at these things -- so my muscles must be adapting to the
> demands, in some strange way I'm getting stronger.

No, your muscles are not getting a whole stronger. Your local muscular
endurance increases, because the number and size of mitochondria in the
muscles that are recruited increases. The capillary density around the
key muscles also increases.

Endurance is all about *oxygen delivery*, it is not about *strength*.
Local endurance is about *local* oxygen delivery, as described above.

Your efficiency also improves. But again, these things do not transfer
very well to other movements, because the other movements use different motor
patterns, and differentially recruit the muscles (and muscle heads). Studies
have found for example that local adaptions are different for runners
and cyclists, even though the same muscles are recruited.

> 1. upper-body strength-endurance: two examples that are of a similar
> nature to this activity to benefit (unlike rowing/kayaking, etc) would
> be boxing and carpentry.

Lift some weights.

> 2. cardio-vascular training: Apparently this activity can raise you
> heartrate by 30 beats above normal walking HR. I don't have a

Ineffective. Go for an easy jog, and then measure your heart rate.

> heart-rate monitor to test my own response to it -- maybe some of you
> out there could run some trials and let us know? Anyway, are you
> actually telling me that such an extra load wouldn't have a positive
> effect on your heart?

Yep.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

> > 'how to get a good workout while walking'
>
> Yes, and the best answer presented so far is to use an
> incline on the treadmill. But you've ignored that.

wrong, i rejected it as impractical for this situation

> I agree with the other guy who suggests that you don't
> want advice, you've already made up your mind, and you
> want us to give it a stamp of approval. Not gonna happen.

wrong. Yes of course I'd made up my mind to some degree, because of
the perceived effort & exercise value of the activy -- it feels like
something valuable is happening. But I came here asking for informed
opinions because i wanted to hear them, I know I'm no expert on
exercise.

>> you think increasing heart rate from 86bpm to 117bpm >>_isn't_ effective exercise - how do you figure that??

> It's not intense enough to have much effect. Go for an
> easy jog and see what your heart rate is. I don't know
> what it is, but it will be more than 117bpm.

OK, right, fair enough -- I haven't ever paid much attention to cardio
/ HR training zones you and Peter have mentioned, I didn't think about
that

> The fact that it's not easy doesn't mean it's effective.

interesting

> No, your muscles are not getting a whole stronger. Your
> local muscular endurance increases, because the number and
> size of mitochondria in the muscles that are recruited
> increases. The capillary density around the key muscles
> also increases.

> Your efficiency also improves. But again, these things do
> not transfer very well to other movements, because the
> other movements use different motor patterns, and
> differentially recruit the muscles (and muscle heads).
> Studies have found for example that local adaptions are
> different for runners and cyclists, even though the same
> muscles are recruited.

OK good explanations, thanks

> Lift some weights.

Thanks, I do already. So if HH is out, how about these other ideas
i've had:

1. So what if I take a properly _heavy_ dumbell with me, and use it for
normal strength-training during the walk?

2. do grip-work. ie. i've got one of those little V-grip thingies
somewhere, use that as i'm walking.

in fact, I may do both of the above, one in each hand as i walk along.
When I get tired of pressing & curling the DB, then just carrying it
will be a grip-strength exercise, a la the 'Farmers Walk' which Joseph
suggested. The weight imbalance will be a bit annoying, but i think i
can put up with it (might even be strength-building for torso muscles?)
or i can rig up a belt to strap it to my back. or strap it to the pram


> FYI, I run 80 miles a week, I'm confident that I could
> hand you your ass on any test of cardiovascular fitness,
> and I don't need to walk around with dumbells to improve
> my cardiovascular fitness.

so macho -- well i know i certainly don't want to have a running race
with either you or Bill ... but if you guys want to step on the mat
with me, Don I predict that within five minutes you'd be a red-faced
gasping wreck. Bill, at my leisure I'd strangle you to sleep, then
pull your lipstick out of your pocket to pretty you up for your night
on the streets!

(no, i don't claim this will be due to HH, and yes I'm assuming you
aren't grapplers, in which case all bets are off

> The argument is that it is not intense enough to be
> effective.

Ok, fair enough, I can understand where you're coming from now. Thanks
for persisting.

hey get this, I just used Google-Scholar and found a research paper in
the American Journal of Sports Medicine, its another nail in the
coffin. In regards to aerobic dance with and without hand-weights, "No
significant differences (P less than 0.05) existed between groups for
VO2 max and body composition after 8 weeks of training".

Cheers,
Charlie

1. "The physiologic effects of eight weeks of aerobic dance with and
without hand-held weights".

There are few reports concerning the physiologic alterations that occur
following a specified period of aerobic dance. Further, no data exist
to describe the physiologic changes or potential risk associated with
using hand-held weights during aerobic dance. The purpose of this study
was to determine the changes in maximum oxygen uptake (VO2max) and body
composition following 8 weeks of aerobic dance using hand-held weights
(Heavyhands, AMF, Jefferson, IA). Twenty-eight college females
volunteered for the study. All subjects were given a preoxygen and
postoxygen uptake (VO2 max) treadmill test. Body composition was
measured by taking the sum of five skinfold sites and determining the
percent change following training. Subjects were randomly assigned to a
hand-held weight or nonhand-held weight group. No significant
differences (P less than 0.05) existed between groups for VO2 max and
body composition after 8 weeks of training. However, a significant
improvement (P less than 0.05) in VO2 max was found within the
hand-held weight (37.7 to 42.6) and in the nonhand-held weight group
(36.5 to 41.9). Complaints from subjects included transient aches and
pains in the shoulder area during the first 3 weeks as a result of
hand-held weight use. These findings suggest that hand-held weights may
be used safely but do not increase the work load sufficiently above
that of aerobic dance alone to significantly modify VO2 max or body
composition.