Keeping Fit: Page 6 - The Arsenal discussion community: One More in the Tolly

Keeping Fit

Kel Varnsen

Tony Montana wrote:
I'm confused, what is core then?

everything between upper and lower extremities.

Timbob

I do agree with Kel that doing core specific stuff is for the birds. You want functional core strength, so squat and deadlift with good form, pull ups, or kipping pull ups(if you can), kettlebell stuff, Turkish get ups etc are all good.

dreamlord

Kipping pulls ups are for retards. Crossfit is a shortcut to injuries.

Timbob

I'm not a fan of crossfit. Too much emphasis on lifting, and doesn't give you the all round fitness it claims.

There's a place for kipping pull ups, cos they are functional.

dreamlord

Meh, would rather do 5 solid reps of weighted pull ups.

Timbob

Yeah, i rather normal pull ups too.

lorddulaarsenal

Kel Varnsen wrote:
@lorddulaarsenal wrote:
Plus oversized cushion pecs turn to blob as you get older

wait, you actually think muscle turns into fat as you get older?

No, but as your skin loses elasticity you look like a molten blob

lorddulaarsenal

You'll get in the best shape you can by pushing yourself as much as you can over two miles

y va marquer

Human body is designed to run long distances, born to run.
Should wear flat running shoes and avoid running on concrete though.
Protect face from the elements to avoid that weather beaten look.
Swimming's good too.

RC8

y va marquer wrote:
Human body is designed to run long distances, born to run.

Not really. Not at all.

y va marquer

It's a theory.
A sedantry lifestyle is far more unnatural to us

lorddulaarsenal

I'd say physically, we're designed to run. Otherwise we'd have a big old shell like a tortoise

RC8

y va marquer wrote:
A sedantry lifestyle is far more unnatural to us

No doubt. And we are made to run occasionally.

But we are first and foremost made to walk. There was a period in our evolutionary history when running came very handy, but there have also been large periods before and after when it hasn't.

Christopher McDougall is a journalist, not a biologist. He has a licence to exaggerate that scientists cannot afford.

Those of us of white ancestry probably faced very strong selection to adapt to an agricultural lifestyle that involved no running whatsoever.

Personally I grew up running barefoot and I can fare pretty well even in hard surfaces. But whether an obscure Mexican tribe can afford to run for several km or not doesn't necessarily mean that your typical welsh person is equally adapted to that same exercise regime.

Mirth

If we were designed to run, we'd be quadrupedal.

Discuss.

RC8

Like ostriches?

Mirth

RC8 wrote:
Like ostriches?

True, but there must be a reason why most creatures (with the exception of a few like Kangaroos and Ostriches) walk on all fours?

In the case of human's it's because their hands found better uses, isn't it?

y va marquer

Louis Liebenberg the South African scientist who had studied persistence hunting firsthand for 25 years in the Kalahari. On one hunt in the late 1990s, Liebenberg saw men who ran down a kudu in three hours 35 minutes, traveling 35km to do so. As the hunt progressed, the trackers seemed to enter what the scientist calls a "trancelike state." The experience left Liebenberg certain that "the full picture of why we became human must include running, it absolutely must."

Liebenberg's observance of persistence hunting helped close the logic gap on the Running Man theory. Roughly two million years ago, Australopithecus was short, stout and hairy with a small brain and a big jaw. For its descendants to transform into the taller, skinnier, brainier Homo erectus, Australopithecus would have required a steady, heavy diet of calorie- and protein-rich meat. But how was it getting that meat? Fossil records show that the stone-tipped spear is only 200,000 years old, and the bow and arrow dates back just 50,000 years. That leaves a span of at least 1.8 million years when our primitive ancestors were chowing down on game before hunting tools had even been invented. Because our prey could run only short distances, to gain access to that essential form of food, we developed a body that was more efficient on two feet over long distances than our faster four-legged prey. Over millions of years, those beneficial traits were selected, passed on and can be found in the dozens of morphological markers for running in modern man. All of which has led some scientists to rethink the birth of -- and the limits to -- human speed and endurance.

It's also a theory studied by scientists.

Being designed to run occasionally is still being designed to run?

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=6110087

RC8

y va marquer wrote:
Louis Liebenberg the South African scientist who had studied persistence hunting firsthand for 25 years in the Kalahari. On one hunt in the late 1990s, Liebenberg saw men who ran down a kudu in three hours 35 minutes, traveling 35km to do so. As the hunt progressed, the trackers seemed to enter what the scientist calls a "trancelike state." The experience left Liebenberg certain that "the full picture of why we became human must include running, it absolutely must."

Liebenberg's observance of persistence hunting helped close the logic gap on the Running Man theory. Roughly two million years ago, Australopithecus was short, stout and hairy with a small brain and a big jaw. For its descendants to transform into the taller, skinnier, brainier Homo erectus, Australopithecus would have required a steady, heavy diet of calorie- and protein-rich meat. But how was it getting that meat? Fossil records show that the stone-tipped spear is only 200,000 years old, and the bow and arrow dates back just 50,000 years. That leaves a span of at least 1.8 million years when our primitive ancestors were chowing down on game before hunting tools had even been invented. Because our prey could run only short distances, to gain access to that essential form of food, we developed a body that was more efficient on two feet over long distances than our faster four-legged prey. Over millions of years, those beneficial traits were selected, passed on and can be found in the dozens of morphological markers for running in modern man. All of which has led some scientists to rethink the birth of -- and the limits to -- human speed and endurance.

It's also a theory studied by scientists.

Being designed to run occasionally is still being designed to run?

http://m.espn.go.com/wireless/story?storyId=6110087

I am in no way questioning that running was important for our ancestors at some point in time, but rather that such evidence is not enough to assume that white agricultural types have retained such adaptations.

A scientist can claim that running was evolutionarily relevant, but he can't and shouldn't then conclude that all people of all races and backgrounds should be running long distances regularly on their bare feet. A journalist, on the other hand, has the licence to make such claims even if they are not that well supported.

General Mirth,

Evolution doesn't work on a blank canvas. Ostriches and humans are bipedal because our ancestors were so as well. Both birds and apes are very unlikely to develop a galloping form much like a snake is unlikely to become bipedal in the near future. The evolutionary path required for such transformations is long and complex, and in evolution the most parsimonious trail of adaptations is usually the one taken.

y va marquer

I suppose it depends on where you set the limit on which distance is a healthy distance to run regularly?
I'm not referring to endurance running or taking distances to extreme levels.

Timbob

You need to define your terms before you take this discussion further.

« Previous Page Next Page »