In a message dated 11/21/98, "Murray Maitland" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Just a short response to Mel's comment on the potential
>body-damaging effects of aerobic exercise. I really don't think
>there is any studies that look at the relative terms like
>"demanding" or "balance" and relate this to health effects. It is
>a very difficult issue to study.
Mel:
THE CARDIOVASCULAR DOCTRINE
The rather Aristotelian (all-or-none, highly deterministic) approach of Cooper
and many other cardiovascular theorists is what prompted me to ask Dr Cooper
those questions in my original mail on the alleged dangers of 'excessive'
aerobic training and the possible importance of anaerobic training.
Similarly, many years ago, I also commented to his good colleague, Dr Ralph
Paffenbarger, that his (Dr P's) extensive study of the cardiac health of
longshoremen simply showed that even anaerobic exercise may play a significant
role in cardiac health - since longshoremen (dockside workers) lift, carry,
haul and throw heavy loads and appear to do minimal aerobic activity. Not too
long afterwards, he wrote some articles which concluded that the important
factor was the number of calories expended regularly in daily exercise, rather
than simply the type of exercise.
Subsequently I have written various articles (e.g. see Siff M C "Facts and
Fallacies Of Fitness") on what I term 'the Cardiovascular Doctrine' (the
belief that cardio exercise is the most important type of exercise for cardiac
and general health), precisely because such a large percentage of researchers
in exercise physiology appears to display a bias towards 'aerobic' or
endurance training and a minimal interest in anything other than light circuit
machine or weight training.
It seemed obvious that there was so much contradiction and premature
prescribing of exercise remedies that I could never be convinced of the
Aristotelian-style cardiovascular training theory. The revolution in physics
took place when its former all-or-none approach was replaced by relativity,
indermininism, uncertainty and quantum behaviour, but too much of exercise
physiology still remains rooted in the past highly traditional methods.
This is not simply because there is some sort of academic conspiracy afoot -
it probably also has a lot to do with the absence of a revolutionary and
highly unconventional 'think tank' of exercise physiologists like that which
characterised and still characterises the new world view of physics.
MISSING LINKS IN EXERCISE PHYSIOLOGY
One serious missing link is the assumption in most physiological experiments
that psychological factors have minimal bearing on the results and that
psychological effects need to be assessed in other experiments which focus
entirely on psychological factors.
Then there is another major problem in the assumption that there is a very
well-defined region of stability, homeostasis or normality in biological
systems and that any deviations from averages and balance points are nothing
more than ignorable anomalies and exceptions.
This is the major reason why I periodically post that Puzzles & Paradoxes
(P&P) in Sports Science column to this group - to encourage more of us to dig
as deep as we can into existing rules, dogma and results to see if something
else of great value may be lurking beneath the surface.
CONCLUSION
Let's apply this now to the Cooper change of direction, namely from a belief
that cardio exercise was virtually the elixir of abundant cardiac and general
health to the 'new' belief that 'too much' aerobic exercise can generate those
mean free radicals which endanger our health. He has attempted to solve this
paradox by stating that there may be other important factors at play - but, of
course, we knew that all along, so what else is new? Any other offers?
Dr Mel C Siff
Littleton, Colorado, USA
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|