Does heart rate reflect calorie consumption in anaerobic e..

On Jan 29, 11:56 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt....TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> But you burn some while recovering between workout sessions and it adds
> up to similar numbers for cardio and strength training. I've even seen
> quotes that it adds up to more than cardio, but it probably depends on
> intensity of both.

I've heard tell of such things, too, but I wonder what exactly they
mean by "the same." Do they mean the same in some one instant? Which
is plausible enough -- intensity at any one given moment is intensity
at any one given moment. But with aerobics we speak of more than just
instantaneous change; we're talking about change (calories burned)
over time. So I just don't see how one could burn as much, not to
mention more, calories anaerobically than aerobically.

>You do get at least part of the benefits. Again it would probably
> depend on what kind of exercises one does and how intense they are.
> Doing a set of concentration curls every 5 minutes will not do much,
> contrary to high rep snatches, for example.

Well, any exercise is better than none, to be sure, but I don't think
anaerobic exercises really improve the heart and lungs much (which is
the point of aerobics, along with increased fat-burning efficiency,
etc.). Thus, you don't get the training effect, which is what that
is. No, with weights you get big muscles and strength, which is
great, but it's one thing, and not the other.

Best is to do both, of course. I'm not sure why there's even a
preference that people often have...it's like some people who never
eat vegetables or nuts or meat or -- believe it or not, fruits (yes,
I've actually met a person who doesn't like eating fruits). As for
burning calories, I'd recommend a proper diet as well as aerobics and
weight-lifting. If one's so concerned as to count calories, attack
the issue from all angles!

> --
> Andrzej Rosa
 >> Stay informed about: Does heart rate reflect calorie consumption in anaerobic e.. 

Dnia 2007-01-29 Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
>
>
> So, IOW, anaerobic exercise typically being two minutes or less, sure,
> you burn the calories, but that's like, what, all of five calories?

But you burn some while recovering between workout sessions and it adds
up to similar numbers for cardio and strength training. I've even seen
quotes that it adds up to more than cardio, but it probably depends on
intensity of both.

> And you don't get the training effect of significantly improved
> cardiovascular health, I'd bet.

You do get at least part of the benefits. Again it would probably
depend on what kind of exercises one does and how intense they are.
Doing a set of concentration curls every 5 minutes will not do much,
contrary to high rep snatches, for example.

--
Andrzej Rosa
 >> Stay informed about: Does heart rate reflect calorie consumption in anaerobic e.. 

Dnia 2007-01-29 Prisoner at War napisa³(a):
>
> On Jan 29, 11:56 am, Andrzej Rosa <bakt... RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> But you burn some while recovering between workout sessions and it adds
>> up to similar numbers for cardio and strength training. I've even seen
>> quotes that it adds up to more than cardio, but it probably depends on
>> intensity of both.
>
> I've heard tell of such things, too, but I wonder what exactly they
> mean by "the same."

From what I gathered, they often measure fat loos results for high
intensity and low intensity groups. There are also some studies which
compare body temperature.

> Do they mean the same in some one instant?

One can estimate the calorie expenditure in one instant too, and it's
used, but the point is to gather info about what happens in the long run.

> Which
> is plausible enough -- intensity at any one given moment is intensity
> at any one given moment. But with aerobics we speak of more than just
> instantaneous change; we're talking about change (calories burned)
> over time. So I just don't see how one could burn as much, not to
> mention more, calories anaerobically than aerobically.

During training one can't do that (until one sits on an exercise bike
and pretends to pedal). I've read that average cardio session burns
twice the amount of calories as average HIIT session. However if you
look who gets slimmer, HIIT still wins, so they must either consume
less or burn more while resting. Both could be true.

>>You do get at least part of the benefits. Again it would probably
>> depend on what kind of exercises one does and how intense they are.
>> Doing a set of concentration curls every 5 minutes will not do much,
>> contrary to high rep snatches, for example.
>
> Well, any exercise is better than none, to be sure, but I don't think
> anaerobic exercises really improve the heart and lungs much

Lungs not, I agree with that, but I'll argue with you when it comes to
heart. My father died on heart attack while lifting something. Don't
you think that if he trained his heart to withstand lifting he'd be
still alive? I do.

> (which is
> the point of aerobics, along with increased fat-burning efficiency,
> etc.). Thus, you don't get the training effect, which is what that
> is. No, with weights you get big muscles and strength, which is
> great, but it's one thing, and not the other.

Sure. Sprinters are obviously very fat.

> Best is to do both, of course. I'm not sure why there's even a
> preference that people often have...it's like some people who never
> eat vegetables or nuts or meat or -- believe it or not, fruits (yes,
> I've actually met a person who doesn't like eating fruits).

Well, people differ. Some hate steady activity, some hate bursts of
activity and some hate both. I know at least several examples of each
kind.

> As for
> burning calories, I'd recommend a proper diet as well as aerobics and
> weight-lifting. If one's so concerned as to count calories, attack
> the issue from all angles!

I say to ignore most hated angles. Higher chance of long term
compliance.

--
Andrzej Rosa
 >> Stay informed about: Does heart rate reflect calorie consumption in anaerobic e..