Re: The Runner's Physique

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:26:03 -0000,
Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Doug:

Quoted message said:

You might want try google to increase your lack of knowledge.

Thank you, Doug! I'd just about given up even skimming this thread,
which seemed to have run its course dozens of posts ago. But your
little gem above - I'm gonna file that one away. Beautiful!

Why dontcha just blow him? Charlene?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:26:03 -0000,
Charlie Pendejo <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Doug:

Quoted message said:

You might want try google to increase your lack of knowledge.

Thank you, Doug! I'd just about given up even skimming this thread,
which seemed to have run its course dozens of posts ago. But your
little gem above - I'm gonna file that one away. Beautiful!

Why dontcha just blow him? Charlene?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Andrzej Rosa said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not dismissing what you have, but it does contradict what I have seen and
experienced.

Isn't it because you see more of "many runners" instead of "most people"?

I'm not sure I understand your position, especially the distinction between
"runners" and mere mortals.

Are you suggesting that the crowd I am familiar with are a select group of running
"success stories" who respond to training, whereas most people don't ? Or do you
mean something else ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Andrzej Rosa said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not dismissing what you have, but it does contradict what I have seen and
experienced.

Isn't it because you see more of "many runners" instead of "most people"?

I'm not sure I understand your position, especially the distinction between
"runners" and mere mortals.

Are you suggesting that the crowd I am familiar with are a select group of running
"success stories" who respond to training, whereas most people don't ? Or do you
mean something else ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Andrzej Rosa said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not dismissing what you have, but it does contradict what I have seen and
experienced.

Isn't it because you see more of "many runners" instead of "most people"?

I'm not sure I understand your position, especially the distinction between
"runners" and mere mortals.

Are you suggesting that the crowd I am familiar with are a select group of running
"success stories" who respond to training, whereas most people don't ? Or do you
mean something else ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Andrzej Rosa said:

Quoted message said:

I'm not dismissing what you have, but it does contradict what I have seen and
experienced.

Isn't it because you see more of "many runners" instead of "most people"?

I'm not sure I understand your position, especially the distinction between
"runners" and mere mortals.

Are you suggesting that the crowd I am familiar with are a select group of running
"success stories" who respond to training, whereas most people don't ? Or do you
mean something else ?

Cheers,
--
Elflord

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 16:06 GMT shinypenny napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

No disrepect to the weights folks but I think Rosa is a pure muscle head
and can't see the forest for the trees with his biased atttitude. Each
activity has it's individual benefits be it percent of fat or whatever.
To say one is superior is simply immature and biased. Pick the activity
that best fits your preference and have at it be it weights, running,
swimming, walking or a bloody pogo stick.

Better yet, combine BOTH running and weight lifting. Fitness is a
triangle, and you need all three: cardio, weights, and stretching to
maintain flexibility.

One can gain/maintain flexibility through lifting alone.

[...]

Quoted message said:

With that said, I can't help but have this feeling that the years of
weight training changed my body in such a way, that when I had to
discontinue it and I lost all those muscle gains, I looked flabbier in
places I'd never looked flabby before. Upper body in particular. IOW,
where I had built up muscle I quickly gained fat... the fat was
redistributed in new places.

I highly doubt it.

Quoted message said:

Weight training is one of those things that once you do it, you can't
stop doing it, or else you end up looking like a football player in
the off-season.

Not really. I went on and off way too many times and I never seen the
effect you describe.

Quoted message said:

I have not added weight training back in yet for three reasons:

1) Concern about injury (last time I injured my back, it was doing
free weights)

Injuries are avoidable. Actually running usually results in about twice
higher injury rates as resistance training.

Quoted message said:

2) Wanted to see what would happen if all I did was run

3) Not ready to commit to the same level I did before.. I have no
desire to join a gym again and live there.

Gym isn't necessary. I train at/around home, for example.

Quoted message said:

Running? Yeah! I enjoy that a lot, it gets me outside, it clears my
head. I would probably do it even if there weren't any weight loss or
physical health benefits. Because the mental health benefits are
enormous!

The same could be said for lifting. I do it exclusively due to its
mental healths benefits.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 16:06 GMT shinypenny napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

No disrepect to the weights folks but I think Rosa is a pure muscle head
and can't see the forest for the trees with his biased atttitude. Each
activity has it's individual benefits be it percent of fat or whatever.
To say one is superior is simply immature and biased. Pick the activity
that best fits your preference and have at it be it weights, running,
swimming, walking or a bloody pogo stick.

Better yet, combine BOTH running and weight lifting. Fitness is a
triangle, and you need all three: cardio, weights, and stretching to
maintain flexibility.

One can gain/maintain flexibility through lifting alone.

[...]

Quoted message said:

With that said, I can't help but have this feeling that the years of
weight training changed my body in such a way, that when I had to
discontinue it and I lost all those muscle gains, I looked flabbier in
places I'd never looked flabby before. Upper body in particular. IOW,
where I had built up muscle I quickly gained fat... the fat was
redistributed in new places.

I highly doubt it.

Quoted message said:

Weight training is one of those things that once you do it, you can't
stop doing it, or else you end up looking like a football player in
the off-season.

Not really. I went on and off way too many times and I never seen the
effect you describe.

Quoted message said:

I have not added weight training back in yet for three reasons:

1) Concern about injury (last time I injured my back, it was doing
free weights)

Injuries are avoidable. Actually running usually results in about twice
higher injury rates as resistance training.

Quoted message said:

2) Wanted to see what would happen if all I did was run

3) Not ready to commit to the same level I did before.. I have no
desire to join a gym again and live there.

Gym isn't necessary. I train at/around home, for example.

Quoted message said:

Running? Yeah! I enjoy that a lot, it gets me outside, it clears my
head. I would probably do it even if there weren't any weight loss or
physical health benefits. Because the mental health benefits are
enormous!

The same could be said for lifting. I do it exclusively due to its
mental healths benefits.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 16:06 GMT shinypenny napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

No disrepect to the weights folks but I think Rosa is a pure muscle head
and can't see the forest for the trees with his biased atttitude. Each
activity has it's individual benefits be it percent of fat or whatever.
To say one is superior is simply immature and biased. Pick the activity
that best fits your preference and have at it be it weights, running,
swimming, walking or a bloody pogo stick.

Better yet, combine BOTH running and weight lifting. Fitness is a
triangle, and you need all three: cardio, weights, and stretching to
maintain flexibility.

One can gain/maintain flexibility through lifting alone.

[...]

Quoted message said:

With that said, I can't help but have this feeling that the years of
weight training changed my body in such a way, that when I had to
discontinue it and I lost all those muscle gains, I looked flabbier in
places I'd never looked flabby before. Upper body in particular. IOW,
where I had built up muscle I quickly gained fat... the fat was
redistributed in new places.

I highly doubt it.

Quoted message said:

Weight training is one of those things that once you do it, you can't
stop doing it, or else you end up looking like a football player in
the off-season.

Not really. I went on and off way too many times and I never seen the
effect you describe.

Quoted message said:

I have not added weight training back in yet for three reasons:

1) Concern about injury (last time I injured my back, it was doing
free weights)

Injuries are avoidable. Actually running usually results in about twice
higher injury rates as resistance training.

Quoted message said:

2) Wanted to see what would happen if all I did was run

3) Not ready to commit to the same level I did before.. I have no
desire to join a gym again and live there.

Gym isn't necessary. I train at/around home, for example.

Quoted message said:

Running? Yeah! I enjoy that a lot, it gets me outside, it clears my
head. I would probably do it even if there weren't any weight loss or
physical health benefits. Because the mental health benefits are
enormous!

The same could be said for lifting. I do it exclusively due to its
mental healths benefits.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Dnia Fri, 09 Nov 2007 o 16:06 GMT shinypenny napisa³(a):

Quoted message said:

Doug Freese said:

No disrepect to the weights folks but I think Rosa is a pure muscle head
and can't see the forest for the trees with his biased atttitude. Each
activity has it's individual benefits be it percent of fat or whatever.
To say one is superior is simply immature and biased. Pick the activity
that best fits your preference and have at it be it weights, running,
swimming, walking or a bloody pogo stick.

Better yet, combine BOTH running and weight lifting. Fitness is a
triangle, and you need all three: cardio, weights, and stretching to
maintain flexibility.

One can gain/maintain flexibility through lifting alone.

[...]

Quoted message said:

With that said, I can't help but have this feeling that the years of
weight training changed my body in such a way, that when I had to
discontinue it and I lost all those muscle gains, I looked flabbier in
places I'd never looked flabby before. Upper body in particular. IOW,
where I had built up muscle I quickly gained fat... the fat was
redistributed in new places.

I highly doubt it.

Quoted message said:

Weight training is one of those things that once you do it, you can't
stop doing it, or else you end up looking like a football player in
the off-season.

Not really. I went on and off way too many times and I never seen the
effect you describe.

Quoted message said:

I have not added weight training back in yet for three reasons:

1) Concern about injury (last time I injured my back, it was doing
free weights)

Injuries are avoidable. Actually running usually results in about twice
higher injury rates as resistance training.

Quoted message said:

2) Wanted to see what would happen if all I did was run

3) Not ready to commit to the same level I did before.. I have no
desire to join a gym again and live there.

Gym isn't necessary. I train at/around home, for example.

Quoted message said:

Running? Yeah! I enjoy that a lot, it gets me outside, it clears my
head. I would probably do it even if there weren't any weight loss or
physical health benefits. Because the mental health benefits are
enormous!

The same could be said for lifting. I do it exclusively due to its
mental healths benefits.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

Doug Freese said:

No disrepect to the weights folks but I think Rosa is a pure muscle head
and can't see the forest for the trees with his biased atttitude. Each
activity has it's individual benefits be it percent of fat or whatever.
To say one is superior is simply immature and biased. Pick the activity
that best fits your preference and have at it be it weights, running,
swimming, walking or a bloody pogo stick.

Better yet, combine BOTH running and weight lifting. Fitness is a
triangle, and you need all three: cardio, weights, and stretching to
maintain flexibility.

The whole 'cardio' theory of fitness has very little, if any, scientific
evidence. By 'cardio' I refer to the concept of maintaining an elevated
heart rate for a certain period of time. The heart adapts to demands
much like any other muscle. If your goal is to adapt to long, slow runs
(ie. 'cardio'😉 than train long and slow. But your heart won't be in any
better shape than a dedicated 200m sprinter who does intervals. Or a
dedicated kettlebell enthusiast who does 600 swings every day with
little rest between sets, for that matter.

I play rugby and train wrestlers. I also compete in powerlifting and
olympic weightlifting, play ball and the esoteric sport of 'curling'
(DON'T ASK!!). When I train wrestlers or myslef we never do long runs as
part of our training. And I have run marathons as well as other
distances - quite a few races. I often do 400m sprints with 60 seconds
rest between and work up to 12 or so. While weighing 210 lbs or slightly
less I can still do a 5K (at age 50) in under 21 minutes with no special
training. I realize that isn't fast, but when I was training
specifically for running a 10K my best time in the 5K was slightly under
20 minutes. I'm not really built for distance, but I am a Canadian
masters champion in powerlifting and provincial record holder in olympic
weightlifting.

Fitness can be thought of as a combination of speed, strength and
endurance within functional motor skills. Flexibility is far less
important than good joint health and range of motion about joints. This
can be accomplished without ever doing static stretching or what most
people think of as 'stretching'.

There is so much dogmatic thought about 'fitness' in North America that
has more to do with marketing than actual science. Marketing books,
marketing exercise machines, marketing gyms, shoes, clothing, drinks,
energy bars, etc. And marketing personal training.

Having said all that, if you enjoy running, weights and stretching, than
by all means do it. I happen to enjoy all three, although my stretching
program might dismay you. I have to agree with Doug's comment. Pick the
activites you enjoy and have at it.

But don't make the mistake of thinking your own concept of 'fitness' is
the best for all people for all time. It isn't. Different people have
different requirements as well as different preferences. It is very
possible to have excellent fitness by doing nothing, but calisthentics.
And in fact I suspect in terms of joint health is probably preferable to
the combination of running, weights and stretching.

--
Keith

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

Doug Freese said:

No disrepect to the weights folks but I think Rosa is a pure muscle head
and can't see the forest for the trees with his biased atttitude. Each
activity has it's individual benefits be it percent of fat or whatever.
To say one is superior is simply immature and biased. Pick the activity
that best fits your preference and have at it be it weights, running,
swimming, walking or a bloody pogo stick.

Better yet, combine BOTH running and weight lifting. Fitness is a
triangle, and you need all three: cardio, weights, and stretching to
maintain flexibility.

The whole 'cardio' theory of fitness has very little, if any, scientific
evidence. By 'cardio' I refer to the concept of maintaining an elevated
heart rate for a certain period of time. The heart adapts to demands
much like any other muscle. If your goal is to adapt to long, slow runs
(ie. 'cardio'😉 than train long and slow. But your heart won't be in any
better shape than a dedicated 200m sprinter who does intervals. Or a
dedicated kettlebell enthusiast who does 600 swings every day with
little rest between sets, for that matter.

I play rugby and train wrestlers. I also compete in powerlifting and
olympic weightlifting, play ball and the esoteric sport of 'curling'
(DON'T ASK!!). When I train wrestlers or myslef we never do long runs as
part of our training. And I have run marathons as well as other
distances - quite a few races. I often do 400m sprints with 60 seconds
rest between and work up to 12 or so. While weighing 210 lbs or slightly
less I can still do a 5K (at age 50) in under 21 minutes with no special
training. I realize that isn't fast, but when I was training
specifically for running a 10K my best time in the 5K was slightly under
20 minutes. I'm not really built for distance, but I am a Canadian
masters champion in powerlifting and provincial record holder in olympic
weightlifting.

Fitness can be thought of as a combination of speed, strength and
endurance within functional motor skills. Flexibility is far less
important than good joint health and range of motion about joints. This
can be accomplished without ever doing static stretching or what most
people think of as 'stretching'.

There is so much dogmatic thought about 'fitness' in North America that
has more to do with marketing than actual science. Marketing books,
marketing exercise machines, marketing gyms, shoes, clothing, drinks,
energy bars, etc. And marketing personal training.

Having said all that, if you enjoy running, weights and stretching, than
by all means do it. I happen to enjoy all three, although my stretching
program might dismay you. I have to agree with Doug's comment. Pick the
activites you enjoy and have at it.

But don't make the mistake of thinking your own concept of 'fitness' is
the best for all people for all time. It isn't. Different people have
different requirements as well as different preferences. It is very
possible to have excellent fitness by doing nothing, but calisthentics.
And in fact I suspect in terms of joint health is probably preferable to
the combination of running, weights and stretching.

--
Keith

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

Doug Freese said:

No disrepect to the weights folks but I think Rosa is a pure muscle head
and can't see the forest for the trees with his biased atttitude. Each
activity has it's individual benefits be it percent of fat or whatever.
To say one is superior is simply immature and biased. Pick the activity
that best fits your preference and have at it be it weights, running,
swimming, walking or a bloody pogo stick.

Better yet, combine BOTH running and weight lifting. Fitness is a
triangle, and you need all three: cardio, weights, and stretching to
maintain flexibility.

The whole 'cardio' theory of fitness has very little, if any, scientific
evidence. By 'cardio' I refer to the concept of maintaining an elevated
heart rate for a certain period of time. The heart adapts to demands
much like any other muscle. If your goal is to adapt to long, slow runs
(ie. 'cardio'😉 than train long and slow. But your heart won't be in any
better shape than a dedicated 200m sprinter who does intervals. Or a
dedicated kettlebell enthusiast who does 600 swings every day with
little rest between sets, for that matter.

I play rugby and train wrestlers. I also compete in powerlifting and
olympic weightlifting, play ball and the esoteric sport of 'curling'
(DON'T ASK!!). When I train wrestlers or myslef we never do long runs as
part of our training. And I have run marathons as well as other
distances - quite a few races. I often do 400m sprints with 60 seconds
rest between and work up to 12 or so. While weighing 210 lbs or slightly
less I can still do a 5K (at age 50) in under 21 minutes with no special
training. I realize that isn't fast, but when I was training
specifically for running a 10K my best time in the 5K was slightly under
20 minutes. I'm not really built for distance, but I am a Canadian
masters champion in powerlifting and provincial record holder in olympic
weightlifting.

Fitness can be thought of as a combination of speed, strength and
endurance within functional motor skills. Flexibility is far less
important than good joint health and range of motion about joints. This
can be accomplished without ever doing static stretching or what most
people think of as 'stretching'.

There is so much dogmatic thought about 'fitness' in North America that
has more to do with marketing than actual science. Marketing books,
marketing exercise machines, marketing gyms, shoes, clothing, drinks,
energy bars, etc. And marketing personal training.

Having said all that, if you enjoy running, weights and stretching, than
by all means do it. I happen to enjoy all three, although my stretching
program might dismay you. I have to agree with Doug's comment. Pick the
activites you enjoy and have at it.

But don't make the mistake of thinking your own concept of 'fitness' is
the best for all people for all time. It isn't. Different people have
different requirements as well as different preferences. It is very
possible to have excellent fitness by doing nothing, but calisthentics.
And in fact I suspect in terms of joint health is probably preferable to
the combination of running, weights and stretching.

--
Keith

In article <[email hidden]>,

shinypenny said:

Doug Freese said:

No disrepect to the weights folks but I think Rosa is a pure muscle head
and can't see the forest for the trees with his biased atttitude. Each
activity has it's individual benefits be it percent of fat or whatever.
To say one is superior is simply immature and biased. Pick the activity
that best fits your preference and have at it be it weights, running,
swimming, walking or a bloody pogo stick.

Better yet, combine BOTH running and weight lifting. Fitness is a
triangle, and you need all three: cardio, weights, and stretching to
maintain flexibility.

The whole 'cardio' theory of fitness has very little, if any, scientific
evidence. By 'cardio' I refer to the concept of maintaining an elevated
heart rate for a certain period of time. The heart adapts to demands
much like any other muscle. If your goal is to adapt to long, slow runs
(ie. 'cardio'😉 than train long and slow. But your heart won't be in any
better shape than a dedicated 200m sprinter who does intervals. Or a
dedicated kettlebell enthusiast who does 600 swings every day with
little rest between sets, for that matter.

I play rugby and train wrestlers. I also compete in powerlifting and
olympic weightlifting, play ball and the esoteric sport of 'curling'
(DON'T ASK!!). When I train wrestlers or myslef we never do long runs as
part of our training. And I have run marathons as well as other
distances - quite a few races. I often do 400m sprints with 60 seconds
rest between and work up to 12 or so. While weighing 210 lbs or slightly
less I can still do a 5K (at age 50) in under 21 minutes with no special
training. I realize that isn't fast, but when I was training
specifically for running a 10K my best time in the 5K was slightly under
20 minutes. I'm not really built for distance, but I am a Canadian
masters champion in powerlifting and provincial record holder in olympic
weightlifting.

Fitness can be thought of as a combination of speed, strength and
endurance within functional motor skills. Flexibility is far less
important than good joint health and range of motion about joints. This
can be accomplished without ever doing static stretching or what most
people think of as 'stretching'.

There is so much dogmatic thought about 'fitness' in North America that
has more to do with marketing than actual science. Marketing books,
marketing exercise machines, marketing gyms, shoes, clothing, drinks,
energy bars, etc. And marketing personal training.

Having said all that, if you enjoy running, weights and stretching, than
by all means do it. I happen to enjoy all three, although my stretching
program might dismay you. I have to agree with Doug's comment. Pick the
activites you enjoy and have at it.

But don't make the mistake of thinking your own concept of 'fitness' is
the best for all people for all time. It isn't. Different people have
different requirements as well as different preferences. It is very
possible to have excellent fitness by doing nothing, but calisthentics.
And in fact I suspect in terms of joint health is probably preferable to
the combination of running, weights and stretching.

--
Keith

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:20:14 -0800,
Prisoner at War <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is, here.

Who cares? Only the USA matters.

It used to, but not it's just a [censored].

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:20:14 -0800,
Prisoner at War <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is, here.

Who cares? Only the USA matters.

It used to, but not it's just a [censored].

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:20:14 -0800,
Prisoner at War <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is, here.

Who cares? Only the USA matters.

It used to, but not it's just a [censored].

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 07:20:14 -0800,
Prisoner at War <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

It is, here.

Who cares? Only the USA matters.

It used to, but not it's just a [censored].

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Charlie Pendejo said:

Andrzej, I don't ordinarily follow the antics of your little gym-rat
newsgroup, so bring me up to date. Have you made yourself acceptable
to the ladies yet? If not, have you projected when you will be? Or
is it a matter of waiting by the phone or perhaps pedaling the
stationary recumbent bike while batting your eyelashes at the gals
until one asks you out, then you'll know?

Either way, rest assured that I'll be rooting for you!

I think running ability is the cornerstone of physical fitness and its
core -- cardiovascular health and endurance -- but I do not believe
that that is all there is to a man's physical potential.

I think you guys are nuts, thinking only one or the other is
important.

Quoted message said:

P.S. Just a little secret, one guy to another: some ladies find
reading comprehension sexy.

Who cares what women want. They don't know, and won't say so if they
do -- and they change their minds, anyway: back and forth!

Real men don't give a damn what women want.

Women are the ones who are fretting over what (real) men want.

I know that makes it sound like I'm a male chauvinist or something,
but it's just the truth. You worry about what women, and you can bet
that they don't want you!

'Cause the minute you agree to sell your soul to the devil it's
worthless. =)

Charlie Pendejo said:

Andrzej, I don't ordinarily follow the antics of your little gym-rat
newsgroup, so bring me up to date. Have you made yourself acceptable
to the ladies yet? If not, have you projected when you will be? Or
is it a matter of waiting by the phone or perhaps pedaling the
stationary recumbent bike while batting your eyelashes at the gals
until one asks you out, then you'll know?

Either way, rest assured that I'll be rooting for you!

I think running ability is the cornerstone of physical fitness and its
core -- cardiovascular health and endurance -- but I do not believe
that that is all there is to a man's physical potential.

I think you guys are nuts, thinking only one or the other is
important.

Quoted message said:

P.S. Just a little secret, one guy to another: some ladies find
reading comprehension sexy.

Who cares what women want. They don't know, and won't say so if they
do -- and they change their minds, anyway: back and forth!

Real men don't give a damn what women want.

Women are the ones who are fretting over what (real) men want.

I know that makes it sound like I'm a male chauvinist or something,
but it's just the truth. You worry about what women, and you can bet
that they don't want you!

'Cause the minute you agree to sell your soul to the devil it's
worthless. =)