ExRx.net

I came across this site and notice that it was very anti-aerobic. I'll admit that I do enjoy strength training more, but doesn't aerobics have its place as well. This site just makes it seem like aerobic training is worthless.

I did a little digging and it looks like one of the person who advocates this anti-aerocbic exercise philosophy is Ken Hutchins. He's the founder of the SuperSlow exercise protocol.

http://www.superslow.com/articles/why_not_aerobics.html

For those of you who have been in this industry for a while now, do you know or have heard of this before. Appearntly, Hutchins pissed off a lot of exercise physiologist who strongly promotes aerobic exercise.

How valid are his statements?

I think they are mostly valid. I haven't seen research on some of that though. I think his figures for calories consumed by a pound of muscle are off.

"On the subject of metabolic rate: Every pound of muscle added to the body of an adult female will require an additional 75-100 calories per day just to keep it alive. The average person, through a program of proper strength training can add enough muscle to burn an additional 3500 calories per week (I Ib. of fat=3500 calories). The amount of strength training required to effect such a change is less than one hour per week."

If that was true, every powerlifter would be ripped.

I think a lot of the confusion over the metabolic cost of muscle has to due with the energy used in training to maintain the muscle and the afterburn effect of anerobic training.

It's too bad when writers make mistakes like this. It removes credibility from what would otherwise be a good article. The ACSM newsletters are the same.

The "Superslow" training method itself is flawed so there goes their credibility again. However their view on aerobics is shared by others with more credibility.

Mark Sisson used to be a triathelete and now recommends sprints instead of long duration aerobics. He's the author of this site: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/category/fitness/

Clarence Bass is in incredible shape and his aerobic training is usually tabata rows.
http://www.cbass.com/
http://www.cbass.com/Sprintendurance.htm

"Long slow running or biking may be a waste of time for people who want to become fit and healthy but have no plans to run a marathon or compete in high-level bicycle racing."

"There is no free lunch, of course. High-intensity intervals are hard."

Thanks for the links strward. Yea, the 75-100 calories burned per day by a pound of muscle did seem pretty high. If I remember correctly, isn't it only about 4-6 calories per pound of muscle at rest?

4 to 6 calories is burned by a pound of fat. Muscle is said to be anywhere from 35 to 50 depending on your activity level. So if I had to guess I would think 25 to 30 at rest. It still adds up though. Besides most people aren't completely at rest all day. Especially if they have extra muscle.

if I play Basketball for 60 minutes, isn't it similar to 30 minutes of aerobics,
Is the fatloss about the same? Heart pulses will increase in both and Basketball is much more pleasant for me.

It's better because it's stop and start. You get you heartbeat up very high at times and then rest in between almost like HIIT. The fact that you enjoy it makes it even better.

Ok, I need someone to help me out with this because I seem to be getting different answers from different sources. I'm not suggesting that anyone is wrong or right because I don't know who's wrong or right. I just want to know which is the most accurate or is this one of those things where it depends.

These 2 suggest that 1 pound of muscle only burns about 6 calories a day.

http://www.thefactsaboutfitness.com/news/cals.htm

http://www.optimalhealthpartner.com/Med ... burner.htm

While this one suggest that 1 pound of muscle burns closer to 30 to 50 calories per day.

http://www.med.umich.edu/1libr/aha/umfit07.htm

This last one suggest that 1 pound of muscle burns 50 calories per HOUR. This seems pretty high to me. 80 lb of muscle x 50 cal = 4000 cal per hour. 4000 cal x 24 hours = 96000 cal. Damn, that's alot. I sure hope that's a typo or else I have alot more eating to do.

http://www.naturalhealthweb.com/article ... sino1.html

30 to 50 is about right. The first is obviously ridiculous, as that's how much fat uses. Muscle has to contract, and it gives off lots of heat. Why do you think you get so hot and sweaty when you exercise?

The last thing is impossible too. It would cook you from the inside out.

So obviously the middle one is the only answer that isn't completely ludicrous.

Not to mention the credibility of the sources. One is from a university and the others are from some random idiots.

Do you know of a reliable source that has the actual research on this particular subject? I've done tons of searches and can't seem to find one that shows the actual research. I'm curious to know how they came up with those numbers?

There is no reliable source for any of this and what's there is out there is contridictory. I think you can safely say that a pound of muscle burns between 6 and 50 calories per day and you can find justification for either end of the range. What you can safely say is that muscle burns more than fat.

It's an estimation. So there is solid research regarding how they calculate it. But it isn't exact. It's enough to where a small amount of muscle loss can cause a fair amount of weight gain. I don't know the specifics though. I think 30 is a good guess.

American Journal of Sports Medicine would probably have information. Very expensive but will have the best information possible.

Just found out that my school subscribes to AJSM. I did a search and over 3000 results showed up. It's like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

The answer to your original question:
Aerobic Exercise is at a moderate level (at least 30 minutes most days of the week) is important because of its positive effects on cardiac tissue (heart), as well as the massive release of multiple hormones that have positive benefits on the cardiac, pulmonary, and muscular systems.

on the muscle vs. fat
I'm not sure on the exact figures but muscle does burn more then fat. The professionals use a terminology that includes something called a MET. It refers to the exact metabolic rate (how many calories you burn) during your specific exercise. The equations are complicated and require some conversions. I'm guessing the people at Michigan didn't include all of that because it does get confusing. If you want to brave it check this out

http://www.wv-hsta.org/cdc_chc/walking_ ... diture.htm