Athlete Michael Johnson "does All The Right Things" And Had A Stroke

managing

Member
Joined
Jun 19, 2014
Messages
2,262
Sorry, I believe you to be wrong on nearly all counts here. For a person in "excellent" health to be able to jog 5k without walking would implicate an adapted metabolism. As Peat explains, runners and joggers will have an adapted metabolism, slowing their thyroid function and heartrate down considerably, to lower caloric expenditure as much as possible. The result is a plethora of bad physiological effects, from hormones to bone structure. Most marathon runners suffer severe shin splints or osteoporosis or arthritis by time they are middle aged. Very few marathoners make it past 80, with most suffering from heart disease and various other health complications.

Running/jogging or endurance/aerobic training/excercise (whatever unloaded term you are comfortable with) is actually deadly long term, with the effect biochemically similar to being overweight. The body lowers the metabolism to compensate, compromising structure. Muscles are wasted first, and fat is more easily stored. Stress hormones, particularly cortisol (signals fat storage) are significantly elevated during runs and for long periods of time after. The effect is so prominent that I would never jog or run for longer than a couple minute at a time.

Weight training can also be stressful, but done correctly and given adequate time for recovery it can be very rehabilitative and help to permanently increase baseline metabolism and lower stress hormones. The important factor is not to give into the angst to workout too frequently, and for 95% of the population that is no more than once every 7 days assuming a workout was sufficiently intense. The returns begin to diminish once you lift weights more than once a week, because the stress hormones and lactic acid will begin to aggrandize. Running is a much more potent method of increasing lactic acid and stress hormones, though.

Having more muscle mass is also key to keeping off fat. 5 more pounds of muscle can burn an extra 200 calories per day, and that is when at rest. In contrast Running a few miles will burn only around 300 calories for the average runner, (less depending on how experienced you are). The average person will burn 100-150 calories just sitting still, so the net burn is not better than having a few extra pounds of muscle. Now add in the fact that endurance training wastes muscle mass (via increased cortisol etc) and its not unlikely you will lose 10-20 lbs of musclemass after sticking with a running routine for a few months. The calorie math says you are working much harder and burning far fewer calories, no better than when you were sedentary. The nail in the coffin is the studies that demonstrate most people will overeat after going on a run, and will overeat proportional to the perceived work they put into a jog. Thus, a person who ran a few miles to burn a NET couple hundred calories will reward themselves with a sandwich that may have 500+ calories, most of which will be stored as fat thanks to the stress hormones. This is EXACTLY why people, no matter how much they attempt to burn off those excess calories via treadmilling or playing pick-up basketball, etc, complain about gaining weight that is impossible to get rid of when they are in their 30's and 40's. When you are under 25 your metabolism is still strong enough to mitigate the damage and stave off the fat, but years of well-intentioned endurance training and unsaturated fats will damage the metabolism so much by time the average person is 45, they will find it next to impossible to not be overweight unless they drive themselves nutty eating <1000 calories per day.

I don't feel like doing long synthesis on the subject now, but the scientific data is abundantly clear. People eschew the empirical data, however, because running makes them feel good, if only for the fleeting period during and shortly after a run (endorphins/adrenaline). The stress has very negative long term effects, which are observable in the scientific literature. I read "Body By Science" which dissects this widespread misconception in detail, and is chalk full of sources.
This conversation really highlights the question of "where is the stress line?" Jogging 5k doesn't seem especially stressful to me (with lots of caveats about who is doing it of course). I am not advocating doing it. Riding 5k? or 15-20 miles? With snack (fruit juice for example)? Sure. That is something I do and enjoy. Which doesn't mean it can't be stressful.

So, I for one don't care which of you are right. I am leaning toward @sunraiser , but I'm not married to that notion. I'd much rather get it right than be on the winning team in this debate. So I'd love to hear more. Specifically, how can each of us determine what is too stressful for each of us? This probably needs to include (as you've done) some comment on what an appropriate recovery period is. The 20 mile rides are usually no more than once a week for me. Although I've been known to do 2 during ideal weather, optimal personal conditions.
 

Whichway?

Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
485
It’s hard to argue about the science of cardio vs weight lifting. I can see how walking, running and sprinting is what we evolved doing. Lifting weights is kind of a new age hack to improve upon couldn’t be achieved naturally by these means or by exercises such as calisthenics.

One of my heroes Bruce Springsteen has been following the same exercise routine since his 30s. He exercises 6 days a week, with one day of 30 minutes running, followed by one day of gym work. The results speak for themselves and he is still able to give 3-4 hour concert shows in his 60s. I think I read somewhere he had gone vegetarian though :confused:
 

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
Sorry, I believe you to be wrong on nearly all counts here. For a person in "excellent" health to be able to jog 5k without walking would implicate an adapted metabolism. As Peat explains, runners and joggers will have an adapted metabolism, slowing their thyroid function and heartrate down considerably, to lower caloric expenditure as much as possible. The result is a plethora of bad physiological effects, from hormones to bone structure. Most marathon runners suffer severe shin splints or osteoporosis or arthritis by time they are middle aged. Very few marathoners make it past 80, with most suffering from heart disease and various other health complications.

Running/jogging or endurance/aerobic training/excercise (whatever unloaded term you are comfortable with) is actually deadly long term, with the effect biochemically similar to being overweight. The body lowers the metabolism to compensate, compromising structure. Muscles are wasted first, and fat is more easily stored. Stress hormones, particularly cortisol (signals fat storage) are significantly elevated during runs and for long periods of time after. The effect is so prominent that I would never jog or run for longer than a couple minute at a time.

Weight training can also be stressful, but done correctly and given adequate time for recovery it can be very rehabilitative and help to permanently increase baseline metabolism and lower stress hormones. The important factor is not to give into the angst to workout too frequently, and for 95% of the population that is no more than once every 7 days assuming a workout was sufficiently intense. The returns begin to diminish once you lift weights more than once a week, because the stress hormones and lactic acid will begin to aggrandize. Running is a much more potent method of increasing lactic acid and stress hormones, though.

Having more muscle mass is also key to keeping off fat. 5 more pounds of muscle can burn an extra 200 calories per day, and that is when at rest. In contrast Running a few miles will burn only around 300 calories for the average runner, (less depending on how experienced you are). The average person will burn 100-150 calories just sitting still, so the net burn is not better than having a few extra pounds of muscle. Now add in the fact that endurance training wastes muscle mass (via increased cortisol etc) and its not unlikely you will lose 10-20 lbs of musclemass after sticking with a running routine for a few months. The calorie math says you are working much harder and burning far fewer calories, no better than when you were sedentary. The nail in the coffin is the studies that demonstrate most people will overeat after going on a run, and will overeat proportional to the perceived work they put into a jog. Thus, a person who ran a few miles to burn a NET couple hundred calories will reward themselves with a sandwich that may have 500+ calories, most of which will be stored as fat thanks to the stress hormones. This is EXACTLY why people, no matter how much they attempt to burn off those excess calories via treadmilling or playing pick-up basketball, etc, complain about gaining weight that is impossible to get rid of when they are in their 30's and 40's. When you are under 25 your metabolism is still strong enough to mitigate the damage and stave off the fat, but years of well-intentioned endurance training and unsaturated fats will damage the metabolism so much by time the average person is 45, they will find it next to impossible to not be overweight unless they drive themselves nutty eating <1000 calories per day.

I don't feel like doing long synthesis on the subject now, but the scientific data is abundantly clear. People eschew the empirical data, however, because running makes them feel good, if only for the fleeting period during and shortly after a run (endorphins/adrenaline). The stress has very negative long term effects, which are observable in the scientific literature. I read "Body By Science" which dissects this widespread misconception in detail, and is chalk full of sources.

Aerobic training also lowers baseline cortisol levels, given the intensity isn't too high (as I suggested above).

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ortisol_levels_The_intensity_threshold_effect

Our lymphatic system is an integral part of our detox pathways, our immune system and helps metabolise fat and fat solubles. Lymph stimulation via natural movement like walking and running is necessary.

You suggest aerobic exercise causes adaptation that's unhealthy, but I would say not doing those things is where the unhealthy adaptation kicks in. Being SEDENTRY creates adaptation in the body that's not conducive to health.

Of course there are people that can't take in or generate the energy needed to walk or exercise in general, and those people should rest and listen to their bodies. But overall the bodybuilder anti aerobic dogma is based on fear and extreme vanity.

Having muscle DOES increase your metabolic rate - as you say it increases your caloric need. But this can be both a blessing and a curse. Undereating absolutely does increase adrenaline and cortisol need, so by building a lot of muscle you're effectively putting more pressure on yourself to always eat enough, which can be limiting to living a fulfilling life.

For me, the goal is to find the lowest caloric intake (via hunger, not restriction) possible to have the energy and strength to be charismatic, expressive, and to do all the things I want to in life.

A person can increase their aerobic intensity threshold just by doing things that feel good. This adaptation is healthy and human in my experience. It doesn't involve marathon running (I'm not sure why you're talking about marathon runners as I specifically said intuitive, not endurance) it just involves natural craved movement.

Endorphins do not come into play for me when doing a relaxed jog or run. I sometimes literally crave running or even sprinting. You can put 100 studies in front of me that tell me intuitively moving my body in the ways I both crave, and have evolved to need, are somehow wrong. My experience does not match up to your theory.

Dogma and health are simply not compatible in my experience, as reassuring and structured as dogma can be.
 

sunraiser

Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2017
Messages
549
This conversation really highlights the question of "where is the stress line?" Jogging 5k doesn't seem especially stressful to me (with lots of caveats about who is doing it of course). I am not advocating doing it. Riding 5k? or 15-20 miles? With snack (fruit juice for example)? Sure. That is something I do and enjoy. Which doesn't mean it can't be stressful.

So, I for one don't care which of you are right. I am leaning toward @sunraiser , but I'm not married to that notion. I'd much rather get it right than be on the winning team in this debate. So I'd love to hear more. Specifically, how can each of us determine what is too stressful for each of us? This probably needs to include (as you've done) some comment on what an appropriate recovery period is. The 20 mile rides are usually no more than once a week for me. Although I've been known to do 2 during ideal weather, optimal personal conditions.

The line will differ for each person. I have done workouts I absolutely dreaded for years on end, and had other times I've really felt like doing something.

It can take time and patience to relearn the intuition of listening to your body, and there are certainly learned anxieties that can get in the way but in the end only you can know where that line sits on a day to day basis.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom