[This message has been delayed mainly because Olafur was given the "assignment"
after it arrived but was unable to complete it before his visit to us (which
started 3/31). **Kitty]


I've deleted the original message because I have no need to
reference it. I'm just going to pose a few thoughts, based on the
combined knowledge I've gained over the last eight years of rather
intense self-study and practise of exercise, as it relates to health
and longevity.

[Actually you do have "need" to reference the original message. You just think
that you don't have such need. Without referencing the old message by examining
and attempting to refute specific parts of it you are just spouting unjustified
and unsupported opinion, which is essentially worthless for making any
persuasive argument. It would be just as acceptable (actually not acceptable at
all) for me to state the exact opposites of what you state below, if simply
stating them without evidence (as you have done) is all that I were going to do.
And it is not at all persuasive to take an authority role ("based on the
combined knowledge I've gained over the last eight years of rather intense
self-study and practise of exercise"). You are dealing here with many people who
have studied and practiced far longer than that, but they know better than to
merely state opinions based on their authority alone. --Paul]

[If by self study you mean doing research on yourself, you must realize that
while examining and getting to know your body is a good thing, it is by no means
equivalent to examining a group of people under controlled situation as is
commonly done in peer reviewed scientific studies. Besides, there is only a
limited amount of things you can observe about your own body without having
blood drawn or any other kinds of analysis done. With fairly inexpensive
equipment you can monitor your weight, appearance, fat percentage, blood
pressure, blood sugar and body temperature at home, just to name a few, but
these are just a few of the enormous amount of parameters that determine a
persons health status. Consequently what you can learn about the health benefits
of exercise by self study is very limited. Another important downside of self
study, is that in contrast to most scientific studies, there is no control
group. If you make a change in your lifestyle and observe a change in some
health related parameter as a consequence, how do you know the change was not
caused by something else than your deliberate change. Unless you try hard to
keep everything else constant and repeat the experiment several times, with or
without the change, you can only hypothesize that your deliberate change was the
cause of the change in the observed health parameter. Despite this, for the few
health parameters one can observe by self study, self study is a very valuable
tool - particularly since every individual is unique, and you never know for
sure how something will effect you until you try it and observe the results.
-°Olafur]


o From a longevity standpoint, I would avoid excessive aerobic-
oriented exercise, especially highly repetitive endurance exercises,
such as running and bike riding.

[One should avoid any kinds of exercise in excess, not just aerobic oriented
exercise. The important question is, at what point does it become excessive.
-°Olafur]

[The term "excessive exercise" yields over 100 hits in PubMed. An interesting
review of the subject in regard to mental health (free full paper available
online): "Physical activity and mental health: the association between exercise
and mood" PMID 15838583
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra\
ct&list_uids=15838583&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum
Part of conclusion by the authors:
"Physical activity has beneficial effects for the prevention and treatment of
different diseases, and evidence indicates that this assertion is probably true
for psychiatric diseases such as depressive and anxiety disorders. Nevertheless,
physical activity can also be harmful, especially when performed in an
inappropriate or in a very intense manner (as observed in conditions as
"excessive exercise" and "overtraining syndrome").

Specifically with respect to the association between physical activity and mood,
evidence indicates that moderate exercise improves mood (or helps maintain it at
high levels), while intense exercise leads to its deterioration, and that these
mood variations are more related to the construct of depression than to the
construct of anxiety."

Included in the paper with "excessive exercise" is what has been suggested to be
termed "muscle dysmorphia", "a condition of alterations in body image found
among some weightlifters and bodybuilders,66-71 whereby the individuals,
although large and muscular, believe that they are weak and skinny." (numbers
are of included references)

Association and similarity of these excessive behaviors to anorexia nervosa and
bulimia is also discussed.

Numerous papers on all of these excessive behaviors have been written (and more
are likely in preparation). The authors above refer to them as excessive when
the exercise or training "interfere with personal and occupational
relationships.58-60" (numbers are of included references)

Authors of PMID 16231344 state in their abstract conclusions: "The findings
suggest that exercise is excessive when its postponement is accompanied by
intense guilt or when it is undertaken solely to influence weight or shape."
Note that this last is quite different than exercise as part of productive work
or for enjoyment or influencing/improving/maintaining health.

While most papers I saw in PubMed on addressing "excessive exercise" associate
that behavior with eating disorders and body image distortion, I suggest that
there is likely a relationship with a reduced amount of fulfillment/achievement
in the mental/intellectual and/or personal relationship aspects of life.
Mental/intellectual growth necessitates more personal effort for many (?most)
people than physical activity and often also requires more time before
advancement is seen than is needed for physical improvement. In addition,
physical activity is sometimes (even often for some people) a means to avoid
meaningful discussion with others with whom one has a relationship which would
benefit from deeper understanding.

A tool that I have started to use - and others may find worthwhile - in
assessing physical exertion is the Borg Rating of Physical Exertion (RPE)
http://www.medal.org/visitor/www%5cActive%5cch36%5cch36.01%5cch36.01.02.aspx A
couple weeks ago, I and Paul ran a round trip of our driveway (total about 200
yards) at high rates of speed. Both of us rated our individual levels of
exertion at the end to be between "very" and "extremely hard" (18). My heart
rate immediately upon stopping was approximately the minimal level for that RPE.
Paul's was not taken until about 2 minutes and it was at that time at the
minimum level. Both our heart rates had dropped to less than 80 within 5
minutes. During our purposeful exercise activity (as opposed for example to
overall enjoyment hikes) we have been aiming for RPEs of 13 to 15 interspersed
with short periods of about 17. As would be expected, we are finding that longer
distances of jogging/running can be done before higher levels of perceived
exertion are experienced. And also our fast walks are faster overall. In
addition, our several mountain hikes during Olafur's visit (Sedona, Grand Canyon
and Table Top Mountain) were only a RPE of 15 (hard/heavy) at most. And there
were plenty of people around us at the first 2 locations (our group was alone at
the 3rd) who were definitely struggling or didn't attempt areas at all.
**Kitty]


These tend to wear down joints,

[Endurance training only wears down joints when done in excess. The same is true
for resistance training. Both types of training wear down joints when done in
excess but generally have positive effects on joint health when done in
moderation (PMID: 15281305, PMID: 10492030). Also because it is the amount of
shock experienced by the cartilage (along with the duration and frequency of the
shocks) which determines whether the effect is beneficial or not, carrying extra
weight generally has negative effects on joint health. And although carrying
extra fat is worse in this regard, this also applies to carrying extra muscle
mass. -°Olafur]


enlarge the heart (not a good thing!),

[Scott, your conclusion is not necessarily so as is substantiated by the
literature.
From Guyton's Textbook of Medical Physiology 8th Ed. pg261 (Ch 23, Heart Sounds;
Dynamics of Valvular and Congenital Heart Defects):
"Hypertrophy of cardiac muscle is one of the most important mechanisms by which
the heart adapts to increased workloads, whether these loads be caused by
increased pressure against which the heart muscle must contract or by increased
volume that must be pumped."
"... one can calculate approximately how much hypertrophy will occur in each
chamber of the heart by multiplying ventricular output times the pressure
against which the ventricle must work, with extra emphasis on the pressure."
"Although physiological hypertrophy of heart muscle is usually very beneficial
to cardiac function, extreme degrees of hypertrophy sometimes lead to failure.
One of the reasons for this is that the coronary vasculature usually does not
increase to the same extent as the mass of muscle. A second reason is that
fibrosis often develops in the muscle, especially in the subendocardial muscle
where the coronary blood flow is poor anyway, with fibrous tissue replacing
degenerating muscle fibers. Because of the sometimes disproportionate increase
in muscle mass relative to coronary flow, relative ischemia sometimes develops
as the muscle hypertrophies, and coronary insufficiency easily ensues."

From pg 947-948 (Ch 84, Sports Physiology) of same text:
"...it is clear that marathoners can achieve maximum cardiac outputs about 40
percent greater than that achieved by the untrained person. This results mainly
from the fact that the heart chambers of marathoners enlarge about 40 percent;
along with enlargement of the chambers, the heart mass increases 40 percent or
more as well. Therefore, not only do the skeletal muscles hypertrophy during
athletic training but the heart does also. However, heart enlargement and
increased pumping capacity occur only in the endurance types, not in the sprint
types, of athletic training."

Note that Guyton has nothing negative to say about heart enlargement caused by
endurance training (because the heart enlarges in total capacity, but only about
ventricular hypertrophy which generally results from pumping against high blood
pressure due to either hypertension or strenuous resistance exercise. --Paul]

[Here is a relevant and well done study. "Muscular Strength Training Is
Associated With Low Arterial Compliance and High Pulse Pressure" (Hypertension.
1999;33:1385-1391.) available free online
http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/6/1385
From it's concluding discussion: "This study has demonstrated that a regular
resistance-training program designed to promote skeletal muscle strength in
healthy young men is associated with lower proximal aortic and leg compliance
than those in an age-matched control group. These vascular changes were
associated with higher central and brachial pulse pressures at rest and higher
brachial systolic pressure at maximum aerobic exercise. The clinical
implications of these findings with regard to cardiovascular risk warrant
further investigation." **Kitty]

[Endurance exercise can enlarge the heart but so can resistance exercise.
However exercise in general seems to reduce left ventricular size when done for
less than a total of 3 hours weekly and only enlarge it when done for more than
a total of 3 hours weekly, according to this figure from the full text article
of PMID: 15312877:
http://heart.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content-nw/full/89/12/1455/F1
Also left ventricular size has been shown to correlate with fat free mass in
athletes, which is one of the reasons why carrying large amounts of muscle mass
is not good for your heart (PMID: 15312877). -°Olafur]


burn muscle mass (every 5
minutes beyond the 20 minute threshold will burn about 1 gram of
muscle, unless sugar is being ingested to replenish glycogen stores
within the muscles, and even then some muscle tissue is lost during
the exercise),

[You will burn some muscle mass before the 20 minute mark too, but since when is
that a bad thing from a health related standpoint? The body is constantly
renewing itself by breaking down and rebuilding muscle tissue. And resistance
training also burns muscle mass. The reason resistance training is more
conducive to adding muscle mass than endurance training is because during
resistance training, you mainly use fast twitch muscle fibers (low endurance
fibers), which have more capacity to grow than slow twitch muscle fibers (high
endurance fibers). For that reason, if it is intense enough to provide stimulus
for growth, and if adequate nutrition is provided afterward, resistance exercise
will generally result in a larger increase in muscle mass than endurance
exercise. -°Olafur]


and add too much long-term stress to the overall
body. In short, endurance-based aerobics are pro-aging (anti-
healthy).

o The best form of aerobics from a health/fitness standpoint are
short duration, high intensity in nature, such as interval
training. An example would be running hard (at 85-90% maximum
output) for 30 seconds (say, 150 meters), and then walking very
slowly back to the starting line, and repeating. Do this for 20
minutes (after a 5 minute low intensity warm-up), and you will reap
tremendous health benefits, without the associated negatives of
endurance exercising.

For example, in a 1994 study conducted at the Laval University,
Canadian doctors, one group of people performed normal jogging,
while a second did interval running. The jogging group put in 90
sessions of 45 minutes each, versus 60 sessions of 30 minutes each
for the interval runners. (In other words, the joggers put in
double the time.) Yet, the interval runners lost nine times the
bodyfat at the study's end.

[Please provide the PMID number when referring to scientific studies. Instead of
just typing in the PMID number I had to spend a while searching for the study.
Here is the study you referred to above:

Metabolism. 1994 Jul;43(7):814-8. Related Articles, Links
Impact of exercise intensity on body fatness and skeletal muscle metabolism.
Tremblay A, Simoneau JA, Bouchard C.
Physical Activity Sciences Laboratory, Laval University, Ste-Foy, Quebec,
Canada.

The impact of two different modes of training on body fatness and skeletal
muscle metabolism was investigated in young adults who were subjected to either
a 20-week endurance-training (ET) program (eight men and nine women) or a
15-week high-intensity intermittent-training (HIIT) program (five men and five
women). The mean estimated total energy cost of the ET program was 120.4 MJ,
whereas the corresponding value for the HIIT program was 57.9 MJ. Despite its
lower energy cost, the HIIT program induced a more pronounced reduction in
subcutaneous adiposity compared with the ET program. When corrected for the
energy cost of training, the decrease in the sum of six subcutaneous skinfolds
induced by the HIIT program was ninefold greater than by the ET program. Muscle
biopsies obtained in the vastus lateralis before and after training showed that
both training programs increased similarly the level of the citric acid cycle
enzymatic marker. On the other hand, the activity of muscle glycolytic enzymes
was increased by the HIIT program, whereas a decrease was observed following the
ET program. The enhancing effect of training on muscle 3-hydroxyacyl coenzyme A
dehydrogenase (HADH) enzyme activity, a marker of the activity of
beta-oxidation, was significantly greater after the HIIT program. In conclusion,
these results reinforce the notion that for a given level of energy expenditure,
vigorous exercise favors negative energy and lipid balance to a greater extent
than exercise of low to moderate intensity. Moreover, the metabolic adaptations
taking place in the skeletal muscle in response to the HIIT program appear to
favor the process of lipid oxidation.

PMID: 8028502

The full text article is not available online, and the abstract provides no
information on the length and number of training sessions in each group, so your
claims above cannot be verified. However it does state that the energy cost of
the HIIT program was more than two times lower than that of the ET program, yet
the HIIT program resulted in 9 times more subcutaneous fat loss when corrected
for the energy cost of training. Since the energy cost for the ET group was a
little more than twice that of the HIIT group, the difference in actual fat loss
between the groups is closer to 4,5 times rather than 9 times. There are two
possible explanation for the large difference in fat loss between the groups.
Either the subjects in the HIIT group ate less than the subjects in the ET
group, or the HIIT training resulted in a higher elevation in metabolic rate
(and consequently increased calorie expenditure) post exercise than the ET
training. The abstract doesn't say anything about the subjects' diets, but I
suspect the latter is the case, since high intensity exercise does result in a
higher elevation in metabolic rate post exercise than low intensity exercise
(PMID: 15052277). Such an elevation has been shown to last up to 48 hours post
exercise (PMID: 10912882). Still that does not mean interval exercise is
superior to endurance exercise in regards to fat loss. In this abstract the term
"high intensity" was used to describe the training subjected to the interval
training group, while it was not used to describe the training the subjects in
the endurance group underwent. This leads me to suspect that the subjects in the
ET group put less effort into their exercise than did the subjects in the HIIT
group. Surely the subjects in the endurance group would've burned more fat if
they had put more effort into their exercise, so if this is the case the groups
are not comparable at all. And even if the subjects in both the groups exercised
at the same intensity, and the subjects in the HIIT group lost more fat than the
people in the ET group because they experienced a higher elevation in metabolic
rate post exercise, that does not mean HIIT is superior to ET in regards to
health and longevity. Maintaining a low bodyfat is just one of many important
things to do in order stay healthy and live long. In fact losing bodyfat by
maintaining a higher metabolic rate through exercise has it's negatives, mainly
because having a higher metabolism results in more ROS production in the body
which could accelerate the aging process. For this reason it might be healthier
to lose the same amount of fat by exercising at a lower intensity and simply
eating less to compensate for the lower metabolism. -°Olafur]

[Unless there is more in the full paper to provide scientific justification of
the methodology of this study and evidence for the conclusions in the abstract,
I suggest that this study does not support its conclusions. The authors' attempt
to compare one form of exercise done for 20 weeks with another form of exercise
done for only 15 weeks is a major mistake. This resulted in an inaccurate
picture of both the energy expenditure and fat loss difference between the
groups since the subjects in the ET program expended only 1.56 times as much
energy per day as the subjects in the HIIT group did (rather than the more than
2 times overall). However, an even more unacceptable logical error is the
authors' extrapolation of the subcutaneous fat loss of the HIIT group to higher
energy expenditure levels either daily or over time (the 9 times adjusted for
energy cost) than were actually studied in the experiment. Such extrapolation is
just as bad as saying that if a little of something is good for you then more
will always be better and always requires experimental verification. In fact
with respect to the "always" this is not true, as anyone can see by examining CR
versus starvation. --Paul]


o Resistance training trumps all other forms of exercise for health
and longevity. (And yes, I fully expect Paul to disagree.) Being
lean on muscle is inferior to having ample muscle (though, not to
the exent of a thick-necked bodybuilder). Many key bio-markers
associated with healthy aging stem from strength training, such as:
- Strength (stronger people are better able to survive daily
requirements, avoid pitfals, balance, and remain non-feeble)
- Body fat percentage (muscle helps reduce body fat)
- Aerobic capacity (strength training builds the aerobic system,
many studies have proven)
- Blood-sugar tolerance
- Cholesterol/HDL ratio
- Blood pressure
- Bone density (to support the muscles)
- The body's ability to regulate its tempuarture is significantly
improved with above average muscle mass.
- Immunity system (muscles are the "heart" of the lymphatic fluid
system, and strength training is the best way to pump this fluid,
and bigger muscles keep the fluid in motion throughout the day
better than lean muscles)


[Scott, you have made a lot of claims in your message without providing a PMID,
book title or web link for any of them. Please keep in mind that this group is
science/evidence based (as is MoreLife.org) and "peer reviewed" in the sense
that statements/claims need to be presented such that the logic if not the
actual evidence for them can be seen so that peers - moderators and other
readers - can evaluate the degree to which they represent reality. In the
future, please take the time to at least provide links to online sources for
claims made, preferably ones that in themselves are science/evidence based
rather than simply unsubstantiated statements or testimonials. **Kitty]


Paul is going to reply that you do not need excessive muscles to
attain most or all of these benefits, but I've seen Paul's CR'd body
pics online here, and I think he's taken it too far in the lean
direction, and that's eventually going to come back to bite him.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I like the idea of additional muscle so that I
can stay strong and capable of highly energetic, demanding
activities.

[It would be beneficial, Scott, for you to state in what "highly energetic,
demanding actvities" you are engaging for which you "like the idea of [having]
additional muscle". By doing so we could all evaluate your choices of
preparatory exercise. **Kitty]


Plus, from personal experience, I never see strong
people die a natural death, only feeble people. I look at people
like Jack Lalanne and Bob Delmonteque (although, they're both more
muscular than I think need be) and at later ages they're still going
strong, both lifting weights as they've done for 50+ years (and
eating well, too, of course). Bob's site, for the curious:
http://www.bobdelmonteque.com/

[First, I am not at all strongly CR'd compared with most people in the CR
Society. Second, although there are no longevity results for CR in humans, all
animal results are positive and parameters for those practicing CR are all far
better relative to age than for those not practicing CR. Finally, there have
been no heavily muscular supercentenarians, although most worked hard and
exercised naturally all their lives until they were unable to. As for your
statement "I never see strong people die a natural death, only feeble people",
what you have witnessed personally is quite insignificant from an evidential pov
as well as quite mistaken and illogical. The evidence of enumerative studies
shows that very strong people do die of heart attack and other maladies. And if
it is not a sudden death, the reason that they are feeble when they die is
because their malady (particularly cancer) has already reduced their strength
and energy. --Paul]

[Both of these longtime body builders (LaLanne was also a longtime promoter of
exercise) appear to continue to be physically active in their 80s and 90s which
is very good. However little other personal health information is provided by
either of these men beyond some exercise/training routine, general dietary
practices and (some?) supplement usage. I've not seen any measured data on these
men (and others included on their websites) to help readers determine their
overall physical health (granted that they must be in acutely vigorous health or
they would not be able to continue such exercising). Photographs - most of them
in posed positions emphasizing their well-oiled highly muscular bodies - do not
give the entire picture of a person's physical and mental health, nor any
implication that they will actually have exceptionally long lives (greater than
100).

Scott, you don't point out which of Paul's health parameters (all are made
public) are "eventually going to come back to bite him". (He is concerned about
his fasting blood sugar which often is higher than he would like and he is
always working on finding ways to lower it.) He and I have acknowledged that our
physical exercise has not been as vigorous as often in the past year or two as
when we easily had 3 nights of real high energy dancing (plus long fast walks)
when in Toronto. In the past couple of months we have been doing more energetic
walking/jogging, in addition to energetic dance exercise at home, plus using the
small collection of exercise equipment I have had in Arizona for several years
prior to meeting Paul. This has been added to the Physical/Mental Exercise page,
yet to be uploaded.

Your stated opinion appears to be directed more at physical appearance rather
than muscles for functionality. (As an example of muscles for function - see
photos I've uploaded to the Photo section
http://health.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/morelife/photos of Olafur doing a water
line repair on our property on 4/9 - in Olafur's album . This is something that
Paul has done himself and would admittedly be easier if he had more chest and
arm muscle. But then, with friends like Jack - and Olafur during his visit - and
contracting if really necessary, Paul is able to put the majority of his efforts
to mental activities that are the major distinction between humans and other
animals, and which he enjoys much more.)

This brings up the very large subject of what individuals consider to be
physically attractive and *why* - the latter being the most important aspect as
it demonstrates in part the individual's outlook on life. Since it has the
potential for being quite lengthy, I invite members qualified to post to provide
a summary of what they think constitutes attractiveness for themselves and
others (male and female), giving substantive reasons for both. This may
necessitate some thinking by most individuals about their ideas in this area of
physical attractiveness. I will, in my comments to messages, then elaborate on
what I personally think about my own appearance and what and why I find certain
others to be physically attractive. **Kitty]


Anyway, that about wraps up this message. there's more, but this is
plenty for now. Bottom-line, resistance training is the best bet,
over any form of aerobics, to achieve longevity. The only issue in
question is to what degree.

[Scott, since you have provided no references to substantiate your "bottom line"
claim that "resistance training is the best bet, over any form of aerobics, to
achieve longevity", it is nothing more than a claim. While Paul, Olafur and even
I are fairly well familiar with the scientific literature it is quite possible
that we have missed some studies that substantiate your statements. We look
forward to you and/or others posting the links, PMIDS or titles to/of such
papers so that we and others can evaluate them for thoroughness in concluding
that "resistance training is the best bet, over any form of aerobics, to achieve
longevity".

Until then we will ourselves practice and encourage a variety of mostly moderate
exertion exercise - as demonstrated to be of value by numerous studies - that
uses all muscle groups and intermittently at least increases the pulmonary and
cardiac activity to aerobic levels. **Kitty]


Scott miller
a.k.a. DukeNukem
http://www.imminst.org/forum//index.php?act=Profile&MID=2347