Re: Settle a debate: running & muscle building

On Sun, 17 Jun 2007 05:56:24 -0700, shinypenny wrote:

On Jun 17, 2:18 am, Elflord <a...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2007-06-17, Charlie Pendejo <Charlie.Pend...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Donovan wrote:
"what is the optimal exercise protocol for looking great naked ?"

Agreed, that is the question. And a fine and important question it


But I also agree with Charlie - cardio definetly does something nice
for the body, and different kinds of cardio will produce different
kinds of results. A gymnist is built differently than a ballerina. A
runner is built differently than a swimmer. Hockey players and ice
skaters have the nicest butts. Bikers don't have butts.

Call it something else other than "tone" if you like, but something is
going on here, and it's more than just burning off fat. I'd like to
know what it is, which is why my brain has been musing.


Assuming that fat level is distributed the same more or less for all,
which is true, then the big difference between all those groups is which
muscle groups are worked more. Gymnasts need to work with their upper
body, so have much more upper body muscle. Hockey players and ice skaters
are basically squatting all the time, which works the *** muscles like
hell. So, how can we explain that?

a) cardio does build muscles mass (at least at high intensities)
b) overspecialised sportsmen neglect other parts of their body and those
muscles atrophy.

So, yeah, I think if you want to 'look great' you should look beyond just
running.



--
Christos Dimitrakakis
Homepage: http://www.idiap.ch/~dimitrak/main.html
Music: http://olethros.dmusic.com


.

Loading