Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

Good Things Come To Those Who Lift Weights

Posted Jan 31 2008 1:08pm 3 Comments

Without including overly technical reasons (eg: increased insulin sensitivity), here’s my short list:

The Pros:

1) You’ll look better
2) You’ll feel better
3) You’ll move better
4) Your clothes will fit better

The Cons:

1) Requires effort

Got anything to add?

Comments (3)
Sort by: Newest first | Oldest first

You may look better, feel better, and move better, though it is not necessarily so. In fact I was just speaking to one on the trainers at a local gym as to why some of the regulars don't seem to have any changes in their physiology (at all) though they are there and sweaty almost every day.

So it is not merely logging the time or lifting the weight, right? It is working hard but also working smart. Working hard may have no result other than perspiration.

The list of cons might be a bit more than one, which by the way implies folks are lazy. And perhaps they/we are :-)

Gordon,

Thanks for your comment. Obviously, there's much to be said about 'proper' program design, but generally speaking, those who get regular exercise (even if it's not "by the book") will out-look, out-feel & out-live their sedentary counterparts.

Will there be exceptions? Sure.

Perhaps you've seen the recent reports backing what fitness buffs have been saying all along (ex: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7212698.stm).

Other research shows people who have the best fitness levels (incl. body comp, self image and all 'the usual' health markers) get from 5 to 7 hours of exercise each week.

But as you're well aware, there's more to it than just 'serving time' & getting sweaty. Even so, those "regulars" you described ARE changing their physiology.

Problem is, they're usually the 'cardio-junkies' who spend hours doing low-intensity, steady state exercise, making their bodies even MORE efficient at preserving fat stores. Might be good for 'general health', but makes getting 'lean & mean' that much more challenging :(

You may be right that there are more cons than I listed, but I'm struggling to think of any.

-JS-

Thanks for your repy to my reply. And the friend request. I appreciate that Joe.

I was using this article as reference. Wait a sec, let me look at the one you've linked to...Yes that's an interesting study.

Let's take this one step farther.

There is no doubt in my mind, without citing supporting evidence, that actually living a life as opposed to sitting on one, is better for human beings overall. But we need to clarify a couple of points.

One is that the study appears to be anecdotal. That doesn't mean we throw the baby out with the bathwater. The conclusion, as I mentioned in my preface, makes perfect sense living is actually better for living than sitting is for living. But since the study relies on questionaires rather than science...well it just isn't as persuasive for a fellow like me.

Let's suppose we do accept the premise and conclusion of that study and the one I link to. Neither states that people had better lives. Just longer ones. And they're not synonymous. But again, I agree with the general statement that an amount of activity is usually better than no activity at all.

Neither does either article infer that the active people looked better. Frankly that's subjective and draws a so-what from my camp. Some like adipose tissue and others do not. Some would date a stick figure and other prefer more meat. If the only way one can feel good about ones self is to lift weight, then absolutely. I'd just like to think human beings are a little more capable, that they can find some other ways to adress their issues of the day.

And then there's the definition of activity, which may or may not be weight lifting. It may be chasing your toddler around the house for 7 hours a week. In fact if that's only 7 hours a week you lead a charmed life. So maybe the post could read Good Things Come to Those Who Get Off their A**?

Post a comment
Write a comment: