Breath-holding and exercise
Chuck Kaplan
> In walking, I sometimes breathe every 4th or every 5th step, this to
> increase cardiovascular demand. (I think it simulates high altitude in an
> inexpensive way.)
Give up the breath control. Just breath as your natural demand dictates. You
have a wonderful feed-back system - your body recognizes oxygen saturation
level, blood pH, carbon dioxide levels, etc. and integrates them into a
regulated system which is best described as a proven system for achieving
equilibrium.
> Strikes me there are only several basic inputs involved in exercising, and
> oxygen is one of them. In exercising, there is the assumption that breathing
> is something that should not be limited at all, and yet high altitude
> running is a standard training approach.
Runners can achieve some increase in oxygen carrying capacity in the blood while
training at altitude, but work, at any altitude, still requires oxygen. If the
partial pressure of oxygen is lower, as it is at altitude, then the body
compensates (short term) by increasing breathing rate, and (sometimes possibly
through some push toward conscious control) increase in the tidal volume (cc per
breath). Longer term is the increase in hemoglobin, but this resets itself once
you return to normal altitude.
> (Also, seems to me that people who exercise and hold their breath at the same
> time may be able to achieve greater cardiovascular fitness without straining
> the body as much.)
Holding your breath during exercise only does one thing - raises your blood
pressure.
> Any reactions to the above?
>
> And does anyone know whether high altitude training helps people with lung
> problems, such as asthma or emphysema? (Perhaps increasing the efficiency of
> the total cardiopulmonary system?)
Can't help you here - maybe some others know - but I suspect high altitude to be
contraindicated for chronic conditions like asthma or emphysema, where lung
tissue is or can become challenged to deliver sufficient oxygen
> Thanks!
>
> Any speculation, data, etc., would be greatly appreciated!
>
> Yours,
>
> Caleb
Chuck Kaplan
ACSM H&FI
Caleb Burns
Chuck -- But do we want equilibrium? Or do we want to tax the system at
times? Come close to aerobic demands on our system? I mean if breathing
absolutely freely was the goal, why not carry oxygen? That way the effect
of oxygen deficits would be maximally reduced (or at least reduced a lot).
Stair-climbing, etc., gives a workout and we know this because, in part,
we are puffing and panting. So if we breathe less often, perhaps we don't
have to work as hard to get the same puffing and panting effect.
Seems to me that in a sense you are saying that the rate of breathing is
inviolable, should not be tampered with at all. (About 10 years ago, there
were these rebreathers that simulated high altitude. Seemed bulky to me,
but I didn't use them.)
I'd be interested in any data at all that come to bear on this issue --
does breathing every fifth-step while on a treadmill signifcantly increase
cardiovascular demand? I'd imagine the answer would probably be "yes."
Would this lead to a training effect over time? Again, I'd imagine the
answer would be "yes." Might this be a useful approach for people wanting
to get into better cardiovascular shape without unduly taxing their
bodies? I think so.
Heck, could a person achieve some mild form of cardiovascular fitness
simply by engaging in appropriate breathing (and non-breathing) for a
period of time on a regular basis? I think so, but I really, really would
like to see the data on this point.
Yours,
Caleb
In misc.fitness.aerobic Chuck Kaplan <chk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
: Caleb Burns wrote:
: Chuck Kaplan
: ACSM H&FI
--
Yours,
Caleb Burns, Portland, Oregon
For ideas in general to help people:
http://www.teleport.com/~calebb
Michael Painter
Chuck Kaplan <chk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
news:38285098...@attglobal.net...
>
> > (Also, seems to me that people who exercise and hold their breath at the
same
> > time may be able to achieve greater cardiovascular fitness without
straining
> > the body as much.)
>
> Holding your breath during exercise only does one thing - raises your
blood
> pressure.
Two. It increases the chance of you doing anaerobic exercise.
If done a lot it could seem to help since an increased tolarance to carbon
dioxide is one of the factors that help free divers increase their breath
holding ability.
> > And does anyone know whether high altitude training helps people with
lung
> > problems, such as asthma or emphysema? (Perhaps increasing the
efficiency of
> > the total cardiopulmonary system?)
Little to none. Both cut off the air at the source. In some cases it could
be fatal if an exercised induced attack happened at altitude.
Mine seems to be a function of something in the town I live in. It took me
about 10 minutes to put on my shoes and walk about 20 feet to my car during
my first attack. Had I been at 5000 feet I probably would not have made it.
Breathing through a straw is a poor idea of what it's like.
Chuck Kaplan
> You ask "based on what principle?" Caridovascular conditioning is likely to
> occur if one raises one's pulse rate above a certain regularly during
> exercise, this for a certain length of time. Something is going on in this
> process of conditioning that involves more than muscles responding to
> overload (unless you are calling the heart one of the muscles responding to
> overload).
IT IS
> With such conditioning, one has a lower pulse rate (everything
> else being equal), lower blood pressure, etc.
The physiology of aerobic training is way beyond our attempts here to "reason"
it out. I am aware that many studies have shown that cardiorespiratory interval
training (approaching, passing, exceeding - then dropping below - the anaerobic
threshold {whatever that is}) can cause metabolic changes and adaptations to
effectively allow a person to work aerobically at a higher percentage of VO2max
(raising the anaerobic "threshold"). This apparently happens in response to a
fairly intense training challenge, in the presence of sufficient, or even
excess, oxygen, and results in the formation of additional muscle cell
mitochondria (the real energy factories of the muscular-skeletal system).
In re: your previous statement about "achieving equilibrium" - the human body is
constantly adapting its many systems to find steady state - it's a classic
feedback system. We challenge, sometimes to fatigue, and the General Adaptation
Principle dictates that the body will repair & recover, and in that process will
adapt to the previous challenge. That's the good news. The bad news is that
without repeated ongoing (but notice I didn't necessarily say increasing)
challenge, we also adapt to a "lower" level of exercise effort, and lose the
previous adaptations and the body finds a new and lower homeostasis (steady
state, equilibrium, etc.) That's what training is all about, and why lifelong
exercise and challenge helps to lessen the losses which accompany aging. It
also why 85 and 90 year olds can DOUBLE their muscular strength in 10 or 12
weeks of 3 times/week resistance exercises. Their bodies adapt - find a new
equilibrium - to the increased challenge. The real art is finding the right mix
of mode / frequency / intensity / duration to aid a person in safely achieving
their goal(s). It is not a black art, but it's not totally an exact science.
Everyone is different. Let's be careful out there.
> I have heard various target zones for heart rates, but I have never heard
> professionals say that only if people breathe totally freely, are those
> pulse targets appropriate. Let's say someone has chronic sinus problems,
> etc., would they not get a training effect? Same with training at altitude.
> (At altitude, I guess one's blood would adjust, but maybe it would adjust as
> well if one simply didn't breathe as often at lower levels. Makes sense to
> me the body would compensate in roughly the same fashion if enough time and
> exertion occurred with a person exercising but not breathing with every
> step.)
>
> I'd sure love to see data one way or the other.
I have been studying the practical aspects of this field for 7 or 8 years, and
can say that the data you seek is probably out there. But it is so complex, and
the research is so detailed and specific, that I suggest you take a class in
exercise physiology, maybe "anatomy of motion", get some books, etc.
http://www.yahoo.com/Science/Biology/Anatomy/
http://www.humankinetics.com/
http://www.physsportsmed.com/issues/1997/02feb/pollock.htm
These misc.fitness mail groups have lots of good information. You should read
and listen to what the "Re:" commentators are saying, as many of them are right
on the mark. Keep up the dialog, keep asking questions.
Chuck Kaplan
ACSM Certified Health & Fitness Instructor
Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS
: Chuck -- But do we want equilibrium? Or do we want to tax the system at
: times? Come close to aerobic demands on our system? I mean if breathing
: absolutely freely was the goal, why not carry oxygen? That way the effect
: of oxygen deficits would be maximally reduced (or at least reduced a lot).
Yes, you want to tax the system, but you want to do it in a way that will a)
maximize your benefit, and b) minimize your risk. During aerobic activity you
want to have the maximum oxygen delivery to the working muscles. If you
decrease oxygen delivery you decrease maximal aerobic power output, because
the energy-producing reactions that depend upon oxygen will have a smaller
supply available.
: Stair-climbing, etc., gives a workout and we know this because, in part,
: we are puffing and panting. So if we breathe less often, perhaps we don't
: have to work as hard to get the same puffing and panting effect.
This doesn't follow at all. If I lift up a 10-lb. weight a given distance I
am performing the same amount of work whether I choose to breathe while doing
so or not.
: Seems to me that in a sense you are saying that the rate of breathing is
: inviolable, should not be tampered with at all. (About 10 years ago, there
: were these rebreathers that simulated high altitude. Seemed bulky to me,
: but I didn't use them.)
Why mess with it? Pulmonary function is not the limiting factor for healthy
individuals during exercise. The respiratory system accomplishes ventilation
and oxygen transport very well. So well, in fact, that you're not going to
improve upon it with aerobic training to any major extent unless you're
diseased and/or severely deconditioned.
: I'd be interested in any data at all that come to bear on this issue --
: does breathing every fifth-step while on a treadmill signifcantly increase
: cardiovascular demand? I'd imagine the answer would probably be "yes."
: Would this lead to a training effect over time? Again, I'd imagine the
: answer would be "yes." Might this be a useful approach for people wanting
: to get into better cardiovascular shape without unduly taxing their
: bodies? I think so.
No, it doesn't at all. The energy cost of treadmill walking can be roughly
expressed thus (ACSM, 1995):
VO2 (ml/kg/min) = 3.5 ml/kg/min +
0.1 * speed (m/min) + 1.8 * speed (m/min) * grade (%)
Note that energy cost is related to body weight (since this is a
weight-bearing activity), speed of movement, and the incline. Also, energy
cost is expressed for steady-state aerobic activity as "VO2" (volume of oxygen
required per unit time). Whether you hold your breath or not you will not
change the energy cost of the activity - you'll just affect the availability
of O2 to meet the demand.
If you drive the available O2 low enough the VO2 of the activity might exceed
the O2 available. If this happens you'll need to "slow down and catch your
breath."
The difference between holding your breath and traditional anaerobic training,
however is in the way the oxygen deficit is created. In interval training,
you push yourself hard *increase* VO2 (energy cost) dramatically. This will
stress the oxygen transport system to attempt to deliver *more* oxygen - i.e.,
to increase cardiac output, etc.
On the other hand, if you hold your breath during exercise, you're still
creating an oxygen deficit, but in the opposite direction. You're
*decreasing* the amount of oxygen available to be delivered to the tissues.
In this case there's little need to increase cardiac output - there won't be
increased oxygen to deliver to the working muscles because it's been shut off
at the source.
It's also important to consider what's going to happen at the periphery. In
the case of interval training, the muscles are being asked to perform
aerobically at extremely high levels until their ability to perform
aerobically is outstripped. Changes in enzyme concentrations that facilitate
increased aerobic energy production come about because of increased oxygen
availability (compared to the muscles' current ability to fully utilize the
available resources). In the case of breath-holding, which just reduces the
O2 available, no comparable stress will be placed on the aerobic energy
pathways - they've already adapted to dealing comfortably with higher levels
of O2.
While either method might stimulate increased reliance on the anaerobic energy
systems, again, since total aerobic power output will be reduced by
breath-holding, so will total combined (aerobic plus anaerobic) power output.
In fact, the breath-holding may bring on a quicker onset of fatigue (due to
the increased oxygen deficit), but at a lower threshold than would occur with
normal breathing. Again, because power output is reduced, most likely this
would hamper (rather than enhance) training.
: Heck, could a person achieve some mild form of cardiovascular fitness
: simply by engaging in appropriate breathing (and non-breathing) for a
: period of time on a regular basis? I think so, but I really, really would
: like to see the data on this point.
People breathe throughout their lives, from birth to death. As a result, the
muscles of the respiratory system are incredibly well-developed and extremely
well-suited to their activity. While the work of the respiratory muscles
will increase with activity, unless one has active pulmonary disease the
active work of breathing will be a relatively small percentage of exercise
caloric expenditure.
larry...
: Yours,
: Caleb
: In misc.fitness.aerobic Chuck Kaplan <chk...@attglobal.net> wrote:
: : Caleb Burns wrote:
: : > In walking, I sometimes breathe every 4th or every 5th step, this to
: : > increase cardiovascular demand. (I think it simulates high altitude in an
: : > inexpensive way.)
: : Give up the breath control. Just breath as your natural demand dictates. You
: : have a wonderful feed-back system - your body recognizes oxygen saturation
: : level, blood pH, carbon dioxide levels, etc. and integrates them into a
: : regulated system which is best described as a proven system for achieving
: : equilibrium.
: : > Strikes me there are only several basic inputs involved in exercising, and
: : > oxygen is one of them. In exercising, there is the assumption that breathing
: : > is something that should not be limited at all, and yet high altitude
: : > running is a standard training approach.
: : Runners can achieve some increase in oxygen carrying capacity in the blood while
: : training at altitude, but work, at any altitude, still requires oxygen. If the
: : partial pressure of oxygen is lower, as it is at altitude, then the body
: : compensates (short term) by increasing breathing rate, and (sometimes possibly
: : through some push toward conscious control) increase in the tidal volume (cc per
: : breath). Longer term is the increase in hemoglobin, but this resets itself once
: : you return to normal altitude.
: : > (Also, seems to me that people who exercise and hold their breath at the same
: : > time may be able to achieve greater cardiovascular fitness without straining
: : > the body as much.)
: : Holding your breath during exercise only does one thing - raises your blood
: : pressure.
: : > Any reactions to the above?
: : >
: : > And does anyone know whether high altitude training helps people with lung
: : > problems, such as asthma or emphysema? (Perhaps increasing the efficiency of
: : > the total cardiopulmonary system?)
: : Can't help you here - maybe some others know - but I suspect high altitude to be
: : contraindicated for chronic conditions like asthma or emphysema, where lung
: : tissue is or can become challenged to deliver sufficient oxygen
: : > Thanks!
: : >
: : > Any speculation, data, etc., would be greatly appreciated!
: : >
: : > Yours,
: : >
: : > Caleb
: : Chuck Kaplan
: : ACSM H&FI
: --
Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS
: Caleb Burns wrote:
: > You ask "based on what principle?" Caridovascular conditioning is likely to
: > occur if one raises one's pulse rate above a certain regularly during
: > exercise, this for a certain length of time. Something is going on in this
: > process of conditioning that involves more than muscles responding to
: > overload (unless you are calling the heart one of the muscles responding to
: > overload).
: IT IS
Ummm, actually, much *MORE* of the activity is "muscles responding to
overload" than just the activity of the heart. Many people think "heart rate,
heart rate" and pooh-pooh the significance of peripheral adaptations to
training.
If it was heart rate alone that made the difference, we'd all just turn out
the lights, come up behind each other, and go "Boo!" for an hour. Lots of
things can affect the heart rate. Increased oxygen demand is only one of
them. It's the one, though, that you need to have to improve aerobic fitness.
You get that through increasing the work of the muscles, not holding your
breath.
larry...
Caleb Burns
Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS <hen...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:80b3tn$3eo$4...@news1.bu.edu...
> If it was heart rate alone that made the difference, we'd all just turn
out
> the lights, come up behind each other, and go "Boo!" for an hour. Lots of
> things can affect the heart rate. Increased oxygen demand is only one of
> them. It's the one, though, that you need to have to improve aerobic
fitness.
I agree that "increased oxygen deman is only one" of the "things <that> can
affect heart rate."And if we can bring about mildly increased oxygen demand
by not breathing quite freely, then that might be a useful variable in
improving conditioning.
Caleb Burns
saying:
Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS <hen...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:80b3hu$3eo$3...@news1.bu.edu...
> Yes, you want to tax the system, but you want to do it in a way that will
a)
> maximize your benefit, and b) minimize your risk. During aerobic activity
you
> want to have the maximum oxygen delivery to the working muscles. If you
> decrease oxygen delivery you decrease maximal aerobic power output,
because
> the energy-producing reactions that depend upon oxygen will have a smaller
> supply available.
And therefore, wouldn't it take less physical exertion to reach the same
"load" on the system? Perhaps as an example of this approach, when athletes
use oxygen on the sidelines of a football game, wouldn't their pulse rate
decrease faster than similar athletes not given such oxygen?
>
> : Stair-climbing, etc., gives a workout and we know this because, in part,
> : we are puffing and panting. So if we breathe less often, perhaps we
don't
> : have to work as hard to get the same puffing and panting effect.
>
> This doesn't follow at all. If I lift up a 10-lb. weight a given distance
I
> am performing the same amount of work whether I choose to breathe while
doing
> so or not.
>
I'm not talking about simply lifting a 10-pound weight a certain distance,
which appears to be an anarobic demand. I'm talking about repeated aerobic
activity. The work may be about the same whether or not one breathes (at
least from an external perspective), but not breathing optimally might well
lead (I think) to a training effect. (Related question -- some
footballplayers have taken to wearing adhesive strips across their nostrils,
this to open their airways more. I wonder if they wear them throughout
practices as well, or do some only wear them during games?)
> : Seems to me that in a sense you are saying that the rate of breathing is
> : inviolable, should not be tampered with at all. (About 10 years ago,
there
> : were these rebreathers that simulated high altitude. Seemed bulky to me,
> : but I didn't use them.)
>
> Why mess with it? Pulmonary function is not the limiting factor for
healthy
> individuals during exercise. The respiratory system accomplishes
ventilation
> and oxygen transport very well. So well, in fact, that you're not going
to
> improve upon it with aerobic training to any major extent unless you're
> diseased and/or severely deconditioned.
>
On the other hand, why not see what the effect would be? (Might be
particularly useful for people training to reach a higher level of
performance, people who are physically injured but who want to maintain
cardiovascular fitness, etc.)
> : I'd be interested in any data at all that come to bear on this issue --
> : does breathing every fifth-step while on a treadmill signifcantly
increase
> : cardiovascular demand? I'd imagine the answer would probably be "yes."
> : Would this lead to a training effect over time? Again, I'd imagine the
> : answer would be "yes." Might this be a useful approach for people
wanting
> : to get into better cardiovascular shape without unduly taxing their
> : bodies? I think so.
>
> No, it doesn't at all. The energy cost of treadmill walking can be
roughly
> expressed thus (ACSM, 1995):
>
> VO2 (ml/kg/min) = 3.5 ml/kg/min +
> 0.1 * speed (m/min) + 1.8 * speed (m/min) * grade (%)
>
> Note that energy cost is related to body weight (since this is a
> weight-bearing activity), speed of movement, and the incline. Also,
energy
> cost is expressed for steady-state aerobic activity as "VO2" (volume of
oxygen
> required per unit time). Whether you hold your breath or not you will not
> change the energy cost of the activity - you'll just affect the
availability
> of O2 to meet the demand.
>
I don't know how to interpret this, but it does seem to me that you haven't
included anything about the availability of oxygen -- e.g., altitude,
efficiency of the nasal and breathing system, etc. Also, your statement:
"Whether you hold your breath or not you will not change the energy cost of
the activity" -- is it your prediction that limiting your breathing to once
every fourth step while on a treadmill will NOT increase your heartrate? (I
have jogged uphill too many times even with preloading through heavy
breathing, and the hills still have gotten me. Not preloading has really,
really knocked the wind out of my sails.)
> If you drive the available O2 low enough the VO2 of the activity might
exceed
> the O2 available. If this happens you'll need to "slow down and catch
your
> breath."
>
Exactly my point. At this point, one comes closer to the aerobic maximum.
And one can reach it faster if one does not breathe optimally, I think.
> The difference between holding your breath and traditional anaerobic
training,
> however is in the way the oxygen deficit is created. In interval
training,
> you push yourself hard *increase* VO2 (energy cost) dramatically. This
will
> stress the oxygen transport system to attempt to deliver *more* oxygen -
i.e.,
> to increase cardiac output, etc.
>
> On the other hand, if you hold your breath during exercise, you're still
> creating an oxygen deficit, but in the opposite direction. You're
> *decreasing* the amount of oxygen available to be delivered to the
tissues.
> In this case there's little need to increase cardiac output - there won't
be
> increased oxygen to deliver to the working muscles because it's been shut
off
> at the source.
So your prediction is that there will be no "increase(d) cardiac output"? In
other words, limiting breathing on a treadmill to every fourth step (as
compared to freely breathing) will NOT increase cardiovascular demands? etc.
>
> It's also important to consider what's going to happen at the periphery.
In
> the case of interval training, the muscles are being asked to perform
> aerobically at extremely high levels until their ability to perform
> aerobically is outstripped. Changes in enzyme concentrations that
facilitate
> increased aerobic energy production come about because of increased oxygen
> availability (compared to the muscles' current ability to fully utilize
the
> available resources). In the case of breath-holding, which just reduces
the
> O2 available, no comparable stress will be placed on the aerobic energy
> pathways - they've already adapted to dealing comfortably with higher
levels
> of O2.
>
How do they know one isn't at higher altitudes, especially if one trains in
a breathholding fashion for a reasonably large period of time each day?
> While either method might stimulate increased reliance on the anaerobic
energy
> systems, again, since total aerobic power output will be reduced by
> breath-holding, so will total combined (aerobic plus anaerobic) power
output.
> In fact, the breath-holding may bring on a quicker onset of fatigue (due
to
> the increased oxygen deficit), but at a lower threshold than would occur
with
> normal breathing. Again, because power output is reduced, most likely
this
> would hamper (rather than enhance) training.
>
We don't know. We don't know. We don't know. But I think it might be a very,
very important question, especially given the aging of America, the
appropriate wish for the elderly and others (who might have some physical
weakness) to preserve cardiovascular fitness with a minimum of physical
demands on the body.
> : Heck, could a person achieve some mild form of cardiovascular fitness
> : simply by engaging in appropriate breathing (and non-breathing) for a
> : period of time on a regular basis? I think so, but I really, really
would
> : like to see the data on this point.
>
> People breathe throughout their lives, from birth to death. As a result,
the
> muscles of the respiratory system are incredibly well-developed and
extremely
> well-suited to their activity. While the work of the respiratory muscles
> will increase with activity, unless one has active pulmonary disease the
> active work of breathing will be a relatively small percentage of exercise
> caloric expenditure.
>
Again, we don't know. Having held my breath to one breath every four steps,
I know how taxing walking can be, especially holding weights. I would dearly
love to see the studies on this issue and am thinking of phoning the Cooper
Institute in Texas about it.
Thanks for your thoughts!
>
> larry...
>
Yours,
Caleb
Denise Howard
> I'm not talking about simply lifting a 10-pound weight a certain distance,
> which appears to be an anarobic demand. I'm talking about repeated aerobic
> activity. The work may be about the same whether or not one breathes (at
> least from an external perspective), but not breathing optimally might well
> lead (I think) to a training effect.
Let me offer a different analogy, to see if it helps you understand the
difference: gas-powered internal-combustion engine.
To run well, the engine requires the proper mix of air and fuel, so that
when the spark fires, as much of the mix as possible is burned and the
most power is delivered. If there is too little/much air or too
little/much fuel, the engine doesn't run very well and the power output is
significantly reduced; the engine may even die altogether.
What you are suggesting (by analogy) is that by reducing the airflow into
the cylinders, the engine will somehow become more powerful. You are also
suggesting that this is the same as running the engine at a higher
altitude.
Well you can (and should) adjust an engine to run well once you
are at altitude; you make sure that more air is taken in so that the total
amount of oxygen in the mix is the same as it was at lower altitude. This
is like the adjustment the human body goes through when time is spent at
altitude--at first you accomplish it by breathing a lot more (gasping!),
but gradually you develop more hemoglobin for carrying oxygen to your
muscles and your lungs may even expand over time. You are then running as
well again as a properly-adjusted engine.
But if you are not at altitude and you simply reduce the airflow into the
engine, you simply will not get a well-running engine. There's no
substitute adjustment to be made for the lack of air that will yield good
combustion. Much of the gas will exit the engine unburned; your
gas mileage will be crappy; eventually your spark plugs will foul and the
engine may refuse to run. Similarly, air starvation is not healthy for
the human body.
Hope this helps...my apologies to the mechanics among us.... :-)
Denise
ACE and AFAA certified fitness instructor
AFAA step certified
AFM motorcycle racer
Caleb Burns
Denise Howard <deni...@idiomDOT.com> wrote in message
news:80chpv$uuq$1...@news.idiom.com...
> In misc.fitness.aerobic Caleb Burns <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
> > I'm not talking about simply lifting a 10-pound weight a certain
distance,
> > which appears to be an anarobic demand. I'm talking about repeated
aerobic
> > activity. The work may be about the same whether or not one breathes (at
> > least from an external perspective), but not breathing optimally might
well
> > lead (I think) to a training effect.
>
A car is not a person, and a car doesn't get stronger the more you tax it.
Cardiovascular systems do improve with an appropriately elevated heart rate
(and/or they maintain optimal efficiency, etc.).
I am not interested in a "well-running engine" if one is simply talking
about combustion, using up all the oxygen, etc., etc. What I AM interested
in is the possibility of taxing the cardiovascular system in what appears to
be a somewhat novel fashion -- that is simply not breathing as often as
would usually be comfortable.
Does hill-running help a lot of people get into shape? I would argue that it
does, and perhaps the major reason that it does so is that it is more
demanding than running on flats, or even worse -- running downhill (which
might be a lot of fun, but this method not only taxes the cardio system
less, but it also allows the person to shock their knees, ankles, back,
etc., more, in part because the person doesn't have to breathe as often to
go the distance). Demanding tasks (at least from a cardio viewpoint) require
us to breathe more -- e.g., running up hill.
So my question is this -- if one gets a fairly good training effect from
running up a gradual slope and breathing absolutely freely (breathing in and
out as is comfortable), what kind of training effect would one get by doing
the same hill and breathing less regularly? Would the pulse rate stay the
same as before? Would oxygen demands tax the body more (which is what I
believe would happen)?
As for your statement, "air starvation is not healthy for the human body."
You haven't proved this to be the case. If "air starvation is not healthy
for the human body" then we should tell people not to run to the point they
puff and pant and have to catch their breath. We should worry about
sprinters and people who hold their breath underwater. Perhaps worry about
singers who are trying to hold a note for a long period of time and about
trombone players (like my son -- I just came back from his recital tonight)
who are playing a line of music. (Actually, I would be very, very interested
in looking at the longevity of different members of the band and orchestra.
Seems to me that band players may be in particularly good health because of
the demands on their breathing, but I don't know -- maybe it's too hard on
their lungs, etc. Interesting to speculate, though.)
>
> Hope this helps...my apologies to the mechanics among us.... :-)
>
> Denise
> ACE and AFAA certified fitness instructor
> AFAA step certified
> AFM motorcycle racer
I appreciate your thoughts on this matter! I guess, summing up one argument
I have -- the factors that determine "puffing and panting" of runners
include:
the person's weight and perhaps especially the weight of the legs,
the efficiency of the stepping action,
the incline of the running area,
the person's overall health, etc., etc.
what the person has eaten and drunk,
the speed of the run,
and how much air a person can force through his/her lungs.
Change any one of these factors (and probably many, many others I didn't
list) and you will effect the "puffing and panting" outcome. One of these
factors is certainly air (oxygen) -- e.g., running at high altitude will
lead to puffing and panting much faster.
Let me use one last example -- as I noted, some of the football players are
now using adhesive strips to open their nostrils more during football games.
Were they great athletes before those strips? You bet.
Do they think those strips help them breathe? Almost certainly they do. (I'd
rather drink soda through a large straw than a syringe.)
Do they think that it now (with the strips on their nostril) takes more
effort to make them puff and pant? I am pretty sure they think that.
I am not a great athlete, and most people are not. Most of us don't care
whether we can score an NFL touchdown. But many of us want to find a system
that makes us "puff and pant" while, at the same time, we do not overly tax
our joints, etc. By intermittent breathing (e.g., every 4th step) rather
than constant free breathing, we may well put healthy (and physically
non-taxing) stress on our cardiovascular system.
I am interested in data that come to bear on this question, especially given
the graying of America, etc. (Today I left a message at the (Kenneth) Cooper
Clinic in Dallas, Texas, and I hope to hear from them before too long.)
Again, I am interested in experimental data on this topic. (Frankly, having
thought about it, I am pretty sure I am correct and certainly would be
willing to wager a dime on the question.)
Thanks for everyone's views!
Yours,
Caleb
Michael Painter
Caleb Burns <cal...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:32sW3.30613$C7.13...@news1.teleport.com...
<snip>
> I am not interested in a "well-running engine" if one is simply talking
> about combustion, using up all the oxygen, etc., etc. What I AM interested
> in is the possibility of taxing the cardiovascular system in what appears
to
> be a somewhat novel fashion -- that is simply not breathing as often as
> would usually be comfortable.
It is an approach that will not work. It is wrong. There is massive data to
support it being wrong. Your lack of understanding the clear analogies will
not make it right.
Why bother to ask questions when you have no intention of listening?
If you want to do it go ahead
>
> So my question is this -- if one gets a fairly good training effect from
> running up a gradual slope and breathing absolutely freely (breathing in
and
> out as is comfortable), what kind of training effect would one get by
doing
> the same hill and breathing less regularly? Would the pulse rate stay the
> same as before? Would oxygen demands tax the body more (which is what I
> believe would happen)?
Asked and answered. It has to do with work and you failed the test on that
when you did not understand the weight analogy.
>
> As for your statement, "air starvation is not healthy for the human body."
> You haven't proved this to be the case. If "air starvation is not healthy
> for the human body" then we should tell people not to run to the point
they
> puff and pant and have to catch their breath.
That is done here on a regular basis and most competent people in the field
tell people that every day.
>We should worry about sprinters and people who hold their breath
underwater. Perhaps worry about
> singers who are trying to hold a note for a long period of time and about
> trombone players (like my son -- I just came back from his recital
tonight)
> who are playing a line of music. (Actually, I would be very, very
interested
> in looking at the longevity of different members of the band and
orchestra.
> Seems to me that band players may be in particularly good health because
of
> the demands on their breathing, but I don't know -- maybe it's too hard on
> their lungs, etc. Interesting to speculate, though.)
Re read the first long post on this. It contains the answer to these
questions.
People who hold their breath under water are in a totally different realm
and is well beyond the scope of this discussion. Look up Dalton's law,
Boyle's Law, "Diver reflex". Stanley's "Under water Medicine" is a good one
for this.
>
Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS
: Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS <hen...@bu.edu> wrote in message
: news:80b3tn$3eo$4...@news1.bu.edu...
: > If it was heart rate alone that made the difference, we'd all just turn
: out
: > the lights, come up behind each other, and go "Boo!" for an hour. Lots of
: > things can affect the heart rate. Increased oxygen demand is only one of
: > them. It's the one, though, that you need to have to improve aerobic
: fitness.
: I agree that "increased oxygen deman is only one" of the "things <that> can
: affect heart rate."And if we can bring about mildly increased oxygen demand
: by not breathing quite freely, then that might be a useful variable in
: improving conditioning.
You're *NOT* increasing oxygen demand by holding your breath - you're only
decreasing its availability. Oxygen demand is related to the activity being
performed - not to respiratory rate.
I think I said that below.
: > You get that through increasing the work of the muscles, not holding your
: > breath.
: >
: > larry...
Yes, I did. ;-)
larry...
Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS
: Larry -- I'm not a physiologist, etc., but let's look a bit at what you are
: saying:
Actually, Caleb, I am a degreed exercise physiologist. You're wrong. If you
don't believe me that's fine, but you just don't have enough information to
sort out the picture.
: Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS <hen...@bu.edu> wrote in message
: news:80b3hu$3eo$3...@news1.bu.edu...
: > Yes, you want to tax the system, but you want to do it in a way that will
: a)
: > maximize your benefit, and b) minimize your risk. During aerobic activity
: you
: > want to have the maximum oxygen delivery to the working muscles. If you
: > decrease oxygen delivery you decrease maximal aerobic power output,
: because
: > the energy-producing reactions that depend upon oxygen will have a smaller
: > supply available.
: And therefore, wouldn't it take less physical exertion to reach the same
: "load" on the system? Perhaps as an example of this approach, when athletes
: use oxygen on the sidelines of a football game, wouldn't their pulse rate
: decrease faster than similar athletes not given such oxygen?
Again, the fallacy in the argument is that increased inhalation of oxygen will
result in increased oxygen delivery. When blood leaves the lungs it is
extremely well-saturated with oxygen to begin with. Further, when it is
returning to the heart (venous blood) it is not completely desaturated in
healthy individuals. Taking in supplemental oxygen might help people who are
desaturating during exercise, but for normal people under normal workloads
it's not going to make much of a difference (if any at all).
Even if this did work, it would be increasing available oxygen to be
utilized. It's still not the same situation as breath-holding, which is
reducing available oxygen.
: I'm not talking about simply lifting a 10-pound weight a certain distance,
: which appears to be an anarobic demand. I'm talking about repeated aerobic
: activity.
Aerobic activity is just repeated muscular contractions. Imagine lifting the
same 10-lb. weight up and down, over and over again. Not breathing doesn't
make the weight heavier, nor does it necessarily change the distance you are
moving it. Work = Force * Distance. If not breathing doesn't change either
of these (and it doesn't), it's not going to change the work of the activity.
If you don't change the work of the activity, you're not changing the energy
required to perform that work. If you don't change the energy required,
you're not going to change the oxygen consumption, because the oxygen
consumption is the measure of the energy required to perform the work.
: The work may be about the same whether or not one breathes (at
: least from an external perspective), but not breathing optimally might well
: lead (I think) to a training effect. (Related question -- some
: footballplayers have taken to wearing adhesive strips across their nostrils,
: this to open their airways more. I wonder if they wear them throughout
: practices as well, or do some only wear them during games?)
Another practice that has been shown to have absolutely no benefit. Most
professional athletes are not trained in exercise physiology, but are always
looking for a new "competitive edge." It makes them particularly vulnerable
to hucksters selling useless crap.
In a typical double-blind study, up to 2/3 of the participants on the placebo
will report a subjective improvement in performance, which they will generally
attribute to the intervention (despite the fact that they're receiving the
placebo). This demonstrates a lot about the power of the mind, and also about
peoples' willingness to believe what they want to believe.
: On the other hand, why not see what the effect would be? (Might be
: particularly useful for people training to reach a higher level of
: performance, people who are physically injured but who want to maintain
: cardiovascular fitness, etc.)
Because: a) it's been studied; and b) it doesn't make any difference, at least
for healthy people. You're assuming that just because you're not familiar
with the body of research in exercise physiology that no one's looked at the
question. That's simply not true.
: I don't know how to interpret this, but it does seem to me that you haven't
: included anything about the availability of oxygen -- e.g., altitude,
: efficiency of the nasal and breathing system, etc. Also, your statement:
: "Whether you hold your breath or not you will not change the energy cost of
: the activity" -- is it your prediction that limiting your breathing to once
: every fourth step while on a treadmill will NOT increase your heartrate? (I
: have jogged uphill too many times even with preloading through heavy
: breathing, and the hills still have gotten me. Not preloading has really,
: really knocked the wind out of my sails.)
It might increase your heart rate, but it will not increase oxygen demand.
: > If you drive the available O2 low enough the VO2 of the activity might
Exactly. Heart rate might increase to attempt to compensate for lower
arterial oxygen levels, but that's still not going to increase oxygen demand.
However, since heart rate is strongly correlated with perceived exertion (see
Borg's work on this subject) it will probably increase your *perception* of
how hard the activity is.
: > It's also important to consider what's going to happen at the periphery.
: In
: > the case of interval training, the muscles are being asked to perform
: > aerobically at extremely high levels until their ability to perform
: > aerobically is outstripped. Changes in enzyme concentrations that
: facilitate
: > increased aerobic energy production come about because of increased oxygen
: > availability (compared to the muscles' current ability to fully utilize
: the
: > available resources). In the case of breath-holding, which just reduces
: the
: > O2 available, no comparable stress will be placed on the aerobic energy
: > pathways - they've already adapted to dealing comfortably with higher
: levels
: > of O2.
: >
: How do they know one isn't at higher altitudes, especially if one trains in
: a breathholding fashion for a reasonably large period of time each day?
Because "a reasonably large period of time" for training is maybe an hour or
two a day. This means that the other 22 hours a day you'll be breathing in a
non-impaired fashion. The sort of adaptations that occur with altitude
training are not likely to result from relatively short bursts of training,
since the reduced oxygen demand becomes a limiting factor on the activity, but
only during that short time. In high-altitude training the reduced oxygen
delivery is a 24-hour thing - at "rest" as well as during exercise. Thus,
even when the body is "at rest" its work is increased to meet the demands for
oxygen. *This* is the added stress that causes the adaptations during the
first couple of weeks at altitude.
People who are new to exercising at altitude find that they are winded
relatively easily - consequnetly, they don't train at as high an intensity
until they've adjusted.
[snipped aerobic vs. anaerobic training.]
: We don't know. We don't know. We don't know. But I think it might be a very,
: very important question, especially given the aging of America, the
: appropriate wish for the elderly and others (who might have some physical
: weakness) to preserve cardiovascular fitness with a minimum of physical
: demands on the body.
What do you mean "we don't know"? *YOU* don't know. That's a very different
thing.
: > well-suited to their activity. While the work of the respiratory muscles
: > will increase with activity, unless one has active pulmonary disease the
: > active work of breathing will be a relatively small percentage of exercise
: > caloric expenditure.
: Again, we don't know. Having held my breath to one breath every four steps,
: I know how taxing walking can be, especially holding weights. I would dearly
: love to see the studies on this issue and am thinking of phoning the Cooper
: Institute in Texas about it.
Why don't you do that. I'm sure they'll be glad to give you more information
if you care to listen to them.
: Thanks for your thoughts!
: >
: > larry...
: >
: Yours,
: Caleb
Caleb Burns
I don't believe you are correct in the following. Oxygen demand is higher
during exrcise if the exercise is conducted at high altitude. Is this not
correct?
At a higher altitude, one can get a more intense training effort for the
same amount of exercise. Yes?
My argument would be that as altitude affects availability of oxygen, so
does breath-holding (or other methods of restricting breathing, including --
probably -- rebreathers). And that this holding of breath affects "perceived
effort" (among other things). (Hence allowing one to get a greater
cardiovascular training effect for less impact on one's body.)
But I'd like to see data on the topic. Hopefully treadmill studies have been
performed on this question.
Yours,
Caleb
Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS <hen...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:80d8hd$lj$2...@news1.bu.edu...
JD
retention and O2 depletion?
Caleb Burns <cal...@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:fTBW3.31219$C7.13...@news1.teleport.com...
Matt Madsen
Caleb Burns <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>I don't believe you are correct in the following. Oxygen demand is higher
>during exrcise if the exercise is conducted at high altitude. Is this not
>correct?
No. Oxygen demand is the same, but oxygen supply is lower.
>At a higher altitude, one can get a more intense training effort for the
>same amount of exercise. Yes?
You can't work out as intensely at high altitude as at low altitude;
the bottle neck is the oxygen supply.
I believe the best results have been shown by living at high altitude
but training at low altitude.
Matt Madsen
Highnrg123
>I don't believe you are correct in the following. Oxygen demand is higher
>during exrcise if the exercise is conducted at high altitude. Is this not
>correct?
>At a higher altitude, one can get a more intense training effort for the
>same amount of exercise. Yes?
The body is a very adaptive resource. If you consistently train in a high
altitude environment, your body will be acclimatized to the environment by
undergoing several physiologic adaptations. It has been documented that, after
a person is exposed to high altitudes, there is a moderate increase in
myoglobin as well as increased mitochondrial density and aerobic enzymes.
These types of adaptations help to increase the storage of oxygen in muscles
and expedite its intracellular release.
*HOWEVER*, when the person returns to sea level, these adaptations are short
lived. Numerous studies have shown that aerobic performance is no different in
subjects who trained at high altitudes and returned to sea level for an event.
The body simply "reacclimatizes" itself. I have included some studies below for
your review.
I'd also suggest you go back and reread Larry's original post. Learn from
wisdom.
1) Balke B, et al, Effects of altitde accclimatization on work capacity. Fed
Proc, 15:7, 1966
2) Buskirk, ER, et al, Maximal performance at altitude and on return from
altitude in conditioned runners. J App Phys, 23:259, 1967
3) Levine BD, et al, Altitude training does not improve running performance
more than equivalent training near sea level in trained runners. Med Sci Sports
Exer, 24:769, 1992
**************************
Brad Schoenfeld, CPT
<a href=http://www.highnrg.com/services/book-lid.htm>Sculpting Her Body
Perfect</a>
www.highnrg.com
**************************
Caleb Burns
Yes, Matt, but one question would be -- can you duplicate at least some of
the training effects of high altitude by working out at low altitude
and not breathing regularly?
Yours,
Caleb
In misc.fitness.aerobic no-spam-...@world.std.com wrote:
: >>>>> Matt Madsen writes:
: Matt> In article <fTBW3.31219$C7.13...@news1.teleport.com>,
: Matt> Caleb Burns <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
: >> I don't believe you are correct in the following. Oxygen demand is higher
: >> during exrcise if the exercise is conducted at high altitude. Is this not
: >> correct?
: Matt> No. Oxygen demand is the same, but oxygen supply is lower.
: >> At a higher altitude, one can get a more intense training effort for the
: >> same amount of exercise. Yes?
: Matt> You can't work out as intensely at high altitude as at low altitude;
: Matt> the bottle neck is the oxygen supply.
: Matt> I believe the best results have been shown by living at high altitude
: Matt> but training at low altitude.
: I think people have done well by living and working out
: at high altitude then competing with others who trained
: at lower altitudes.
: But this is caused by very different things than holding
: your breath while working out.
: --
: ah
: (Now reading Usenet in misc.fitness.aerobic...)
--
Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS
: Yes, Matt, but one question would be -- can you duplicate at least some of
Caleb Burns
while, but his citations appear impressive.
Yours,
Caleb
Following is the message of Oleg Bassovitch. (It does appear that altitude
training may have some beneficial effects on asthma and other conditions.)
***************************************************************
Not sure about 'training' at high altitude, but 'staying' at the elevated
altitudes
seems to have many favourable effects on treatment of various diseases and
also
protects against their development.
For instance one study demonstrates reduced inflammation in children with
allergic
asthma [van Velzen E, van den Bos J-W, Benckhuijsen JAW, van Essel T, de
Brujn R,
Aalbers R. Effect of allergen avoidance at high altitude on direct and
indirect
bronchial hyperresponsiveness and markers of inflammation in children with
allergic
asthma. Thorax (1996);51:582-584.van Velzen et al, 1996], asthmatic
children were
taken to the moderate altitude for a few-week time. Authors were trying to
explain
this effect with the absence of the allergen at altitude, however another
study,
replicated at see level extra pure air conditions has failed to demonstrate
the same
favourable effect in asthmatic patients, thus the effect is in altitude per
se).
Another study is quite in line with that and shows the attenuated bronchial
responsiveness in asthmatic patients during longer stays at altitudes
[Wallace JM,
Stein S, Au J. Special problems of the asthmatic patient. Curr OpinPulm Med
(1997)
Jan;3(1):72-79.]
Epidemiological studies also pointing out on lesser incidence of various
alignments
in persons stayed at moderate altitudes. :
- Mortimer E.A., Monson R.R., MacMahon B. Reduction in mortality from
coronary heart
disease in men residing at high altitude. New Engl. J.Med, (1977)
296:581-585.
- Singh I, Chohan IS, Lal M, Khanna PK, Srivastava MC, Nanda RB, Lamba JS,
Malthotra
MS. Effects of High Altitude Stay on the Incidence of Common Diseases in
Man. Int. J.
Biometeor. 1977);21(2):93-122.
However the extreme altitudes can produce an emphysema as the result of
'overtaxing'
of the pulmonary system or pathology of this system.
If you recall, there are plenty of alpine resorts (existing for over a
century) and
it was claimed that they receive very good results in epilepsy,
tuberculosis, asthma
and etc.
Generally speaking, it is incorrect to take the oxygen as always a good
thing. Oxygen
has to be taken as fuel and regarded as a fuel. Another side of the medal
is - oxygen
is a very poisoning substance.
The studies of the last two decades make it more and more clear that ageing
and
degenerative diseases (asthma, cancer, hypertension, arthritis, and etc.)
are
characteristic with high level of oxygen derivatives (Reactive Oxygen
Species - ROS)
and lower level of antioxidant protection in the body (numerous references).
However a possible explanation to lesser incidence of disease at altitude
might very
simple: less oxygen partial pressure -- lesser rate of ROS generation in the
body --
lesser probability of disease development).
Another thing is - simulation of high altitude condition at sea level is
widely used
in Russia for almost two decades for treatment of various diseases - so
called
Intermittent Normobaric Hypoxytherapy (estimated several hundred thousand
patient
were treated by this technique).
Breath holding also very well known technique in treatment and quality of
life
improvement:
- Yoga breathing
- Buteyko's breathing technique (extension of Yoga breathing) claimed to be
much more
successful in asthma treatment then any known drug.
--
Oleg Bassovitch
http://www.go2altitude.com
**************************************
Michael Painter <mpai...@inreach.com> wrote in message
news:guZV3.4434$n51.1...@news.inreach.com...
>
> Chuck Kaplan <chk...@attglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:38285098...@attglobal.net...
> >
> > > (Also, seems to me that people who exercise and hold their breath at
the
> same
> > > time may be able to achieve greater cardiovascular fitness without
> straining
> > > the body as much.)
> >
> > Holding your breath during exercise only does one thing - raises your
> blood
> > pressure.
>
> Two. It increases the chance of you doing anaerobic exercise.
>
> If done a lot it could seem to help since an increased tolarance to carbon
> dioxide is one of the factors that help free divers increase their breath
> holding ability.
>
> > > And does anyone know whether high altitude training helps people with
> lung
> > > problems, such as asthma or emphysema? (Perhaps increasing the
> efficiency of
> > > the total cardiopulmonary system?)
>
> Little to none. Both cut off the air at the source. In some cases it could
> be fatal if an exercised induced attack happened at altitude.
>
> Mine seems to be a function of something in the town I live in. It took
me
> about 10 minutes to put on my shoes and walk about 20 feet to my car
during
> my first attack. Had I been at 5000 feet I probably would not have made
it.
>
> Breathing through a straw is a poor idea of what it's like.
>
> >
physical (Droll Troll)
>
> Yes, Matt, but one question would be -- can you duplicate at least some of
> the training effects of high altitude by working out at low altitude
> and not breathing regularly?
The answer is No--Costill and Wilmore, p. 277.
Your hypothesis is so simplistic as to be stupid. You ask for
explanations, but you don't seem to have the wherewithal to process
them. Chuck Kaplan tried explaining, Larry tried, others tried, and I
shall learn from their failures. This hypoxia stupidity reminds of the
short-lived idiocy that drinking hot coffee actually cooled you down.
What is this romance with contrarianism, anyway? Is we all wannabee
iconoclasts or sumpn?
But there are some points worth mentioning.
1. The training-under-duress business accomplishes one thing:
performing better under duress, which is not the same as better
performance. Boxers do high-temperature hypoxic training all the time,
to simulate anticipated ring conditions. But their absolute performance
in fact suffers; hopefully the performance of the opponent who has not
trained in those condition will suffer even more.
2. There are all kinds of ways to tweak a given performance, but
usually not conditioning itself, which is the real health issue. You
can carbohydrate load; you can bicarb your blood; proper warming up is a
kind of tweaking; you can take steroids; you can creatine; etc. But all
of it is for a short-term effect.
Costill and Wilmore acknowledge anecdotal reports that high-altitude
training seems "helpful", although no valid studies support this yet (as
of 1996). The strategy of high altitude training is not simple, and
fraught with its own bugaboos. Like that you can't train that well at
high altitudes to begin with, in the short term. I think we confuse all
this high and low altitude bullshit with the fact that we CAN jump
higher on the moon! But that's simple physics and not complicated
physiology.
But what is the point to your folly, Caleb? Most of this is basically
wear and tear on the body, and has nothing to do with what work-a-day
health conscious people are interested in. You have completely missed
the health point in beating what is basically a gimmick to death in this
thread.
3. The reason why performance suffers drastically at high altitude,
but improves not at all or only marginally at low altitude is explained
by the structure and function of hemoglobin itself (any biochem book,
but chapter 9, Voet & Voet, Biochem in particular).
And, some of the high-altitude adaptations can be liabilities at
low altitude, such as increased blood viscosity (and volume) due to
increased RBC production. Low altitude seems to require its own
adaptation.
Dude--there is no free ride--even if you hold your breath 'til
your face turns blue...
4. Porn stars have taken the principle of carbohydrate loading and
applied it to semen production for massive ejaculations for really big,
uh, bonerses in their paychecks. I have tried it, and it really works,
altho I didn't get paid extra (some appreciative applause, tho). Feel
free to email me for the, uh, messy details. But even this technique
has its, uh, downside.
So, if'n you want applied physiology that really has a, uh, bang
to it, then this is it. Not this hypoxia crap. There is in fact some
breath-holding in this technique, but it has nothing to do with hypoxia.
--
I'm sitting here eating left-over macaroni & cheese from a KFC-fest.
I know how they ruin their mashed potatoes, their cole slaw, and every
other pseudo-food on their menu. But how can you totally eff up
macaroni & Velveeta cheese???
KFC might as well feed their customers at a trough...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristofer Hogg, ms rd, Who can't safely boil water, much less cook;
And who is atrophying from lack of exercise!
HoloBarre Fitness/Stretching Systems, Yonkers, NY
http://www.holobarre.com phys...@erols.com
Yeah, my site is old and rusty (cuz I hate computers),
--and admittedly strident--
AND, I got no Inventory, BUT... email me anyway... please!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Caleb Burns
improved performance. What I am interested in is the possibility of possibly
adding an additional tax to a cardiovascular workout by restricting
breathing somewhat.
And would a bit of a restriction in breathing lead to an increase in
cardiovascular demand? in pulse-rate, etc.? I would be greatly interested
in data relating to THAT general question, not necessarily whether high
altitude training helps general performance. (Step 2 would go to the
question of whether such activity would lead to a training effect on the
cardiovascular system.)
You criticize me for something I never wrote.
Caleb
physical (Droll Troll) <phys...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:382E41...@erols.com...
physical (Droll Troll)
>
> I believe you misunderstand what I am saying -- I am NOT, NOT interested in
> improved performance. What I am interested in is the possibility of possibly
> adding an additional tax to a cardiovascular workout by restricting
> breathing somewhat.
>
> And would a bit of a restriction in breathing lead to an increase in
> cardiovascular demand? in pulse-rate, etc.? I would be greatly interested
> in data relating to THAT general question, not necessarily whether high
> altitude training helps general performance. (Step 2 would go to the
> question of whether such activity would lead to a training effect on the
> cardiovascular system.)
>
> You criticize me for something I never wrote.
I criticize you for... oh, never mind. Bottom line is, all the data in
the world is not going to help you, because you seem to be missing the
tools by which to understand the data. But the discussion is not
without merit.
The general thrust of your question is, I think:
By making the body work harder for something or other, might it not
eventually become better at "it" later on, when it no longer has to
"work" so hard?
The answer is:
Generally No,
because the body is basically lazy, despite being adaptively clever.
Take muscle for example. You bust your ass to build it up, right? Yet,
it is the _first_ thing to disappear, even before body fat, in times of
non-use!
Why?
Because the body is basically a stingy conservation machine,
with a short memory. Muscle is expensive; fat is cheap. Memory seems to
improve in childhood, which is why weight training in young children is
so important, IMO.
You are hoping that hypoxic training will make the body _better_ at
using oxygen? This sounds great on AM radio, but what does this mean?
Does this mean that when you _really_ need oxygen and energy, like in a
marathon, that the hypoxically trained will have an advantage?
Absolutely not.
What it means is:
that under hypoxic conditions, you might have an edge, due to some
specific adaptations to hypoxia. Like in pearl diving.
"Cardiovascular Demand" is ambiguous. _Mechanical exertion_ REQUIRES a
certain rate of O2 transport. There is a demand on the cardiovascular
system to _supply_ O2, but this is only a small part of the picture.
Cardiovascular is, in essence, simply the mechancial pumping of blood!
The _training effect_, however, is much more involved:
it is the raising of the anaerobic threshhold via a variety of
_temporary_ adaptations, such as lactate clearance, increased expression
of beta ox. enzymes, recruitment of suitable muscle fibre types, etc.
Restricted breathing will only thwart these. Restricting O2 here is
like curbing appetite by plugging up your anus, which I think has the
makings of a diet best seller.
Deprivation of oxygen creates an adaptive stress to the body that will
likely do only one thing, besides shortening your lifespan: rather than
make the body "better" at utilizing O2 (whatever that means), it likely
will shift itself to anaerobic metabolism, and adapt to an increased
oxygen debt and lactate. While this may be useful in some scenarios, it
is a bottle-neck type stress, which basically sends the body
scrambling.
When you have to scramble to cover a check that is going to
bounce, do you become a better provider or bidnessman? No--you waste a
lot of time, and incur expense--cash advances, begging friends for
loans, etc.
When your kid doesn't eat his vegetables, does starving him for a
week make him a better eater? Not likely. Similarly, you can't show
your body "whuh fuh" so simplistically. Even your body requires a
certain amount of tact and diplomacy.
Unfortunately, car analogies, while most often excellent, fail
here, because the body has extensive compensatory mechanisms. But the
bottom line still holds: your body will benefit from hypoxic training
about the same as your car will benefit from a dirty air filter, even if
the air filter is dirty only some of the time.
The "tax" you want on your cardiovascular system, besides being
nebulous and possibly irrelevant, is going to come from only one thing:
mechanical exertion. Anything else is a physiological stress that is
likely to cause only physiological mayhem. There is a relatively fine
line between what is simply wear and tear on the body and what is truly
health or fitness inducing:
Breath holding is wear and tear, and useful only if it is a
part of your chosen occupation or avocation, such as pearl-diving (where
drastically reduced longevity is the price you pay). Marathoning is
wear and tear, but you get $50,000 and a Mercedes if you win one in
Boston or NYC, and somehow marathoning has become a badge of honor among
the Yups and closet anorexics. Everybody's sippin from an Evian sports
nipple. I'd rather walk around with a plugged anus, and big red sign on
the back of my pants announcing it.
By the way, what of my semenal analogie to carb loading, Caleb? You
have not emailed me for the details. I would think that you especially
might benefit from this. And some people do get a little hypoxic...
--
Post-Purchase Purgatory: weeping, teeth-gnashing, 23.5% cc interest
physical (Droll Troll)
>
Here is an example of a "healthy stress" to the so-called
cardiovascular system:
Suppose your legs are weak (injury, polio, whatever), and you want a
better CV workout, or a better shot at the training effect. What could
you do?
Well, here is where the arms could be used to add to the aerobic
load (your CV "demand"), pushing the body more to its aerobic limit
(your cardiovascular "tax"). This is a healthy stress, which will
induce the adaptations most people desire. Some methods for doing this
are the poles in skiing, or, god forbid, ski machines, or the weights in
****properly executed**** heavy hands.
Or even more simply, for the non-injured, just running faster, or doing
whatever else faster or harder.
The other point is that the adaptations from hypoxic training (eg CO2
adaptations) are not called upon under non-hypoxic conditions, and
therefore of little use. This is an extreme "physiological
cross-training", like asking a swimmer to pole vault, and expecting his
swimming to improve. Weight training for a swimmer is no doubt
advantageous, but pole vaulting might actually _hurt_ his performance by
detracting from more relevant training. It's an optimization thing...
I can't resist: If you want to see some CV improvement from holding
your breath, don't, uh, hold your breath.
I think the horse is dead now, although I am not sure, because the head
is not completely severed. Where is my machete?
Caleb Burns
But again you misunderstand me.
You wrote:
> The general thrust of your question is, I think:
>
> By making the body work harder for something or other, might it not
>eventually become better at "it" later on, when it no longer has to
>"work" so hard?
>
> The answer is:
> Generally No,
This is NOT what I am interested in.
I have stated my basic question at different times, and here it is again:
Working at a reasonable cardiovascular load puts a strain on the CV system
(pulse goes up, respiration goes up, etc.). Let's say that one taxes the
system in this fashion by jogging 10 minute miles with free breathing. Let's
say that this drives the pulse up to 120 bpm and the person is basically
breathing every other step. What happens to the CV stress if he/she starts
breathing every 3rd step and maintains basically the same pace. Would the
pulse go higher?
I believe that it would.
Might this lead to a training effect on the CV system at lower running
speeds (perhaps 11 minute miles, for example) that would be equivalent to
free breathing at higher speeds? (I repeat, I am NOT interested in general
physical improvement, only on the cardiovascular fitness levels -- this is
the area of interest to many elderly, many of the infirm, etc.)
I think it would lead to an increased training effect at a reduced speed of
running, etc. But I know of no data on this topic.
--
Caleb
physical (Droll Troll) wrote in message <383019...@erols.com>...
physical (Droll Troll)
>
> Droll -- I do not claim any expertise in physiology.
>
> But again you misunderstand me.
Actually, I don't think I misunderstood you--I was just trying to make
your questions rational. But apparently for naught.
You mix so many apples, oranges, and non sequiturs, it's impossible to
answer coherently. The horse cannot be killed, apparently.
If anyone is interested in the semantic fallacies inherent in Caleb's
question(s), we could go through them, as it is interesting. If not,
we'll just leave the horse alone...
Suffice it to say, Caleb, and with no disrespect intended, that your
questions basically have no practical meaning, and probably no
theoretical meaning, either!
But the pulse proly would go higher. It's the body going
compensatorily crazy. any benefit? I can't imagine any.
Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS
: >
: > Droll -- I do not claim any expertise in physiology.
: >
: > But again you misunderstand me.
: > physical improvement, only on the cardiovascular fitness levels -- this is
: > the area of interest to many elderly, many of the infirm, etc.)
Actually, your exercise "method" might very well provoke an undesirable
response in these populations. The *last* thing you want to do with a cardiac
patient is increase the work of the heart unnecessarily by doing silly things
like holding your breath while exercising.
: > running, etc. But I know of no data on this topic.
Of course not. But that's not because it doesn't exist. It's because, by
your own admission, you are "no physiologist." In fact, you are almost
entirely ignorant of physiology, yet you continue to debate it as though you
were conversant in it, and moreover you insist that your ignorance must be
because the rest of the world is similarly benighted.
It is time to take this discussion off-line. You simply ask the same question
over and over, and you have no interest in any of the answers that have been
provided - only in repeating the question. Denise Howard, Chuck Kaplan, and
others have given fine answers to your questions, and you are either unable to
comprehend them or unwilling to accept them. Fine. Go somewhere else and ask
if you must, but it's not polite to stand in the center of a room and shout
"No one is listening to me!" in a voice that's so loud that all other
conversation comes to a standstill because of the din.
In the meantime, I'd also suggest trying to master the basics so that you can
frame the question intelligently. Some good ones are:
Wilmore and Costill. Physiology of Sport and Exercise. Human
Kinetics, publishers, 1999.
American College of Sports Medicine. Resource Manual for Guidelines
for Exercise Testing and Prescription, 3rd Edition.
Williams and Wilkins, publishers.
Fitness and Sports Medicine: A Health-Related Approach, by David
C. Niemann. Bull Publishing.
These are not lightweight sources, but until you can get through them you're
not going to be able to make any sense whatsoever of the raw data that's out
there. At the very least, perhaps you'll gain an appreciation for the fact
that exercise physiologists have done more than contemplate their collective
navels.
You should probably also consult some good college-level texts in chemistry,
biology, physics, biology, and anatomy and physiology. These are the
pre-requisites for making sense of the information in the higher-level
resources. The physiology of exercise is an immensely complex area and is
worthy of continued study (at least those of us who have devoted the better
part of our graduate careers to it think so). Armchair theorizing may be a
fun pastime, but it's not really terribly productive until you've mastered a
fair amount of material.
larry...
Caleb Burns
under the scenario I had earlier described. (The runner at a steady pace who
then breathes less often.) And you cannot imagine any benefit...
Well, I can. Doesn't mean that the benefit would happen, but I can imagine
there being a training effect on the CV system. (People are told repeatedly
to get their pulse up to some percentage of their maximum, etc., etc., for a
certain period of time. If they could more easily do this by combining
exercise and mild restriction of breathing, this MIGHT POSSIBLY lead to a
training effect at a rate of running that has less of a wearing effect on
the body.)
And actually, I think a researcher at a local cardiology lab (I chatted with
him today) may be interested in looking at the question in several weeks.
I can envision a variety of practical applications of this approach -- but
first, the data.
Yours,
Caleb
physical (Droll Troll) <phys...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:3830CB...@erols.com...
physical (Droll Troll)
>
Well, I do agree with one thing: that a training effect with the least
"wear and tear" on the body is desirable. Jogging, until the Yupsters
got hold of it and turned it into some weeny Badge of Courage, was used
as punishment (at camps, the military, prisons), indeed a loathsome form
of wear and tear. But breath-holding is not likely a factor in any
training effect at all.
If you want a really fast heart rate, do deep breathing, and
hyperventilate. Then hold yer breath, or do whatever you want to
do--nothing good is going to happen to the body. Unless, of course, you
are a Greer Childers (52 yo mother of three who looks good enough to be
hooking at Hunts Point and making a good living at it--BTW, is it just
me, or are Hollywood babes--like Pammie--actively emulating the Street
Whore Look? Not that I mind...), hawking videos on Breathing the Fat
Offa Your Body, for $19.95 +S&H.
Yeah, lip-lined good looking, but skanky nonetheless, with
these bony hips and that oh-so precious Anorexic gap between her thighs
that will pass both the Manhattan White pages AND Yellow pages
together.... honk-honk... coming through... egads...
You also have to realize the causal direction here: We don't
obtain a training effect BECAUSE we get our HR up--rather, our HR shoots
up because we are loading our body mechanically, thereby "training" it
physiologically. This is conceptually very important. The HR is simply
"accommodating" the greater system.
There are all kinds of physical analogies, having to do with the
*loading* of a system and causal direction. High rpm at idle has
nothing to do with horsepower; high voltages in an open circuit have
nothing to do with deliverable real watts. Causing the heart to
essentially spasm because you cut off oxygen is not the same as taxing
it in a way that is productively *adaptive*.
AND, BTW--
This whole thing about pulse and training effect, in its legitimate
sense, I think is a little awry anyway. Notwithstanding my illiteracy in
the published research, it seems to me that the significance of
heartrate is simply as a sort of tachometer which reflects specific
loads to specific parts of the body, just as the tach on your car
reflects its power profile depending on your gear and acceleration. So
there must be a suitable load for HR to have meaning (recall
hyperventilation). Thus, for HR to have true meaning, you must know
what muscles are being loaded: is it arms, legs, both, etc. Is one
jumping rope or running? etc. Details...
And, it is not the CV system that is the target of the training effect.
The CV system is, in a large sense, basically plumbing. The training
effect is an enzymatic response by the body to demands on its chemical
energetics: handling lactate, CO2, more TCA enzymes, more beta ox,
evolution of suitable muscle fibers, whatever the body can do to
*relieve the stress* and handle the load. Holding one's breath is just
painting the body into a metabolic corner--relieving this type of stress
has nothing to with fitness but rather with emergency coping.
The CV system has become a moniker of sorts, because basically
our pounding heart is the main perceptible physiological result of the
activity--a tell-tale heart, if you will. (thank you, thank you...) But
it is really the much broader effect of training which is more
significant.
Ultimately, Caleb, you could be right, and we here on MFA/MFM may have
witnessed the New Messiah of CV conditioning. But... I won't hold my
breath...
The effects on which you speculate might have other interesting
applications, but not directly related to fitness. FOR EXAMPLE--
Therapy for asthmatics used to consist of deep breathing, graduated
exercise/aerobics, and the like--with FDR as the Poster Boy for Hard
Work helping Sickly Kids. But a new pundit offers a new therapy: very
shallow short breaths, reminiscent of mild hypoxia. Now this does not
mean short shallow breaths are good for the rest of us. But it is
interesting... if it's in fact true.
BTW--
VERY effective nutritional therapy for asthmatics is sposedly boucou
magnesium and B6. $5 please...
So, why don't we all run, hold our breaths, and post the results? This
whole goddammed thing will become deafeningly mute if in fact breath
holding does NOT even raise the goddammed HR!
--
Post-Purchase Purgatory: weeping, teeth-gnashing, 23.5% cc interest
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristofer Hogg, ms rd, Who can't safely boil water, much less cook;
And who is atrophying from lack of exercise!
HoloBarre Fitness/Stretching Systems, Yonkers, NY
http://www.holobarre.com phys...@erols.com
Yeah, my site is old and rusty (cuz I hate computers),
--and admittedly strident--
AND, I got no Inventory, BUT... email me anyway... please!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Troll -- So you DO think that a person's pulse would probably go higher
> under the scenario I had earlier described. (The runner at a steady pace who
> then breathes less often.) And you cannot imagine any benefit...
>
> Well, I can. Doesn't mean that the benefit would happen, but I can imagine
> there being a training effect on the CV system. (People are told repeatedly
> to get their pulse up to some percentage of their maximum, etc., etc., for a
> certain period of time. If they could more easily do this by combining
> exercise and mild restriction of breathing, this MIGHT POSSIBLY lead to a
> training effect at a rate of running that has less of a wearing effect on
> the body.)
>
> And actually, I think a researcher at a local cardiology lab (I chatted with
> him today) may be interested in looking at the question in several weeks.
>
> I can envision a variety of practical applications of this approach -- but
> first, the data.
>
> Yours,
>
> Caleb
>
> physical (Droll Troll) <phys...@erols.com> wrote in message
> news:3830CB...@erols.com...
M. Scott
"Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS" wrote:
> : Seems to me that in a sense you are saying that the rate of breathing is
> : inviolable, should not be tampered with at all. (About 10 years ago, there
> : were these rebreathers that simulated high altitude. Seemed bulky to me,
> : but I didn't use them.)
>
> Why mess with it? Pulmonary function is not the limiting factor for healthy
> individuals during exercise. The respiratory system accomplishes ventilation
> and oxygen transport very well. So well, in fact, that you're not going to
> improve upon it with aerobic training to any major extent unless you're
> diseased and/or severely deconditioned.
>
Hello Larry,
Airtower recently conducted some experiments on supplemental oxygen during exercise, and
found (not surprisingly) that supplemental oxygen did affect heart rate and blood oxygen
levels for persons whom you would probably consider healthy individuals. If you take a
look at this page:
http://www.airtower.com/tests/tests.html
you'll see that the first test subject was out of shape and her blood oxygen level
plummeted without supplemental oxygen. By contrast, the last test subject at the bottom
of the page showed a respiratory and cardio system more fine-tuned to obtaining the
necessary oxygen from atmospheric air. His blood oxygen level without supplemental
oxygen never went below 95%. Those who were not in an exercise program did not do as
good of a job getting their oxygen. The ones that went near 80% experience dizziness.
In general, I think you're dead-on about not holding your breath while exercising. In
fact, that's why Airtower is looking at supplemental oxygen as well.
M. Scott
> Cardiovascular systems do improve with an appropriately elevated heart rate
> (and/or they maintain optimal efficiency, etc.).
>
> I am not interested in a "well-running engine" if one is simply talking
> about combustion, using up all the oxygen, etc., etc. What I AM interested
> in is the possibility of taxing the cardiovascular system in what appears to
> be a somewhat novel fashion -- that is simply not breathing as often as
> would usually be comfortable.
>
Caleb, what you are suggesting may even be a little dangerous. I'm not a doctor
either, but I have older friends who've had to undergo stress tests prior to
open-heart surgery. If I understand the physiology correctly, the ones I knew
almost had heart attacks on the spot because their heart, lungs, and circulation
didn't keep the heart muscles oxygenated enough and the heart went into arrest.
One other consideration. Many men die of heart attacks during sex. You may be
aware that people often hold their breath during sex (which is exercise), and
don't even realize it. They often do it more as they approach climax. Some
people go so far as to dabble with asphyxiation. This is a pretty close analogy
to how you're describing your workouts, and it makes me question the safety of
it.
One good thing I can say about your method: it's free and at least you're not
trying to sell something. But if someone wants to do some real hypoxic
training, they should try this site:
http://www.hypoxico.com/
M. Scott
> This whole thing about pulse and training effect, in its legitimate
> sense, I think is a little awry anyway. Notwithstanding my illiteracy in
> the published research, it seems to me that the significance of
> heartrate is simply as a sort of tachometer which reflects specific
> loads to specific parts of the body, just as the tach on your car
> reflects its power profile depending on your gear and acceleration. So
> there must be a suitable load for HR to have meaning (recall
> hyperventilation). Thus, for HR to have true meaning, you must know
> what muscles are being loaded: is it arms, legs, both, etc. Is one
> jumping rope or running? etc. Details...
>
> And, it is not the CV system that is the target of the training effect.
> The CV system is, in a large sense, basically plumbing. The training
> effect is an enzymatic response by the body to demands on its chemical
> energetics: handling lactate, CO2, more TCA enzymes, more beta ox,
> evolution of suitable muscle fibers, whatever the body can do to
> *relieve the stress* and handle the load. Holding one's breath is just
> painting the body into a metabolic corner--relieving this type of stress
> has nothing to with fitness but rather with emergency coping.
>
> The CV system has become a moniker of sorts, because basically
> our pounding heart is the main perceptible physiological result of the
> activity--a tell-tale heart, if you will. (thank you, thank you...) But
> it is really the much broader effect of training which is more
> significant.
>
You know, I think the above is a lucid explanation Caleb might understand. We
don't try to actively "work out" the heart rate. We work out to exercise and use
heart rate to gauge our workout rate.
One cannot directly work out the heart. The heart can't lift a 10 pound weight or
do 20 laps in the pool or anything else quantifiable, other than beat faster or
increase blood pressure. So people keep track of the heart rate as they exercise
to figure out if they're effectively "training" their CV system to obtain oxygen
from the air better.
What's bothersome about Caleb's suggestions is that he seems to be slaving his
workout to trying to increase his CV ability to uptake oxygen from regular air.
But not even that, he's trying to observe the heart lifting a ten pound weight.
But just as he's standing next to the heart, spotting it at the weight bench and
yelling "two more!", he's got his hands around its throat and is starving the poor
thing for oxygen.
Frankly, Caleb this is downright dangerous, especially for the seniors and infirm
you think might benefit. I think any senior should consult a doctor before
beginning hypoxic training. You in particular should consult your doctor about
your exercise, and see what he says. In fact, if you've got the means, I'd go so
far as to say you should try exercising with a pulse oxymeter on your finger, and
watch the results, with and without your breath-holding technique.
In the end, the positions the others have given is sound:
If you really want to optimize your cardio-vascular workout and your fitness
workout while you're at it, then don't do what you're doing. On the other hand, if
you want to try to artificially raise your heart beats per minute while
simultaneously starving it (and your brain, and many other muscles) for oxygen,
then do what you're doing. However, I think you are dramatically increasing your
risk for a heart attack. Then if you even survive, you'll be off any training for
quite some time, perhaps permanently.
Caleb Burns
Let's go back to what Link had said on misc.fitness.aerobic (I think that's
where she posted) to see if my notion is all that bizarre. She said that
when she leads aerobic workouts, she gets a harder workout through cuing her
participants than they get in following her (verbal) cues.
Does singing, speaking, chanting while exercising pose a health risk? I
think that if done appropriately, it does not. (But frankly, the topic -- as
far as I can tell -- has never been researched, and I would never suggest
that anyone try it until it has been researched.) Indeed, the military
appears to emphasize chanting while marching, etc., and this may in part
because of the cardiovascular effects. (I really would like to track down
one of the military trainers, but my phone calls have been placed into voice
messaging services and I don't get return calls.)
Let's go back to what Link said. If one of our goals is to get a more
arduous workout, then perhaps participants in aerobics classes should be
encouraged to chant or sing, etc., this to increase the difficulty of their
exercise. Makes sense to me, but again -- I have no data on this topic. (I
would love to make a tiny wager on this topic, though, especially with some
of the more vocal detractors.)
I do think that the data will support such an approach, and that this
general methodology will prove useful in helping many people achieve
cardiovascular fitness without overly taxing their physical systems. But
again, I do not know. (On the other hand, the data are relatively easy to
obtain.)
My question gets at the heart of the assumption that more rapid breathing is
always better than less rapid breathing. Following this logic, perhaps
athletes should train using pure -- or almost pure -- oxygen. Strikes me
that breathing in and of itself is not a goal, but a means to a goal -- that
is, good health, etc. And if we can achieve better health by modifying
breathing somewhat, then why not? (The statement -- "If God had intended man
to fly, He would have given him wings!" -- has been successfully rebutted in
the past.)
But again, I do not know the answer to the questions. In walking around with
8 or 10 pound weights in my hands, I moderate my breathing (breathe every
3rd step sometimes, sometimes every 5th step). Am I getting enough oxygen in
my blood? I think so, but I really would like to see some data on that. I do
know that such a system brings me much closer to the brink of "puffing and
panting," and for me, that's a sign that I am reaching a level of doing some
good to my body.
Anyway, I appreciate your serious inquiry, and this is one of those
questions that I will find an answer to.
Yours,
Caleb
M. Scott <msc...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:38637A02...@san.rr.com...
> > A car is not a person, and a car doesn't get stronger the more you tax
it.
> > Cardiovascular systems do improve with an appropriately elevated heart
rate
> > (and/or they maintain optimal efficiency, etc.).
> >
> > I am not interested in a "well-running engine" if one is simply talking
> > about combustion, using up all the oxygen, etc., etc. What I AM
interested
> > in is the possibility of taxing the cardiovascular system in what
appears to
> > be a somewhat novel fashion -- that is simply not breathing as often as
> > would usually be comfortable.
> >
>
Caleb Burns
etc., etc. (But I think you should qualify your statement a bit, and say,
"This might be downright dangerous" -- etc., unless you know for sure.)
> Frankly, Caleb this is downright dangerous, especially for the seniors and
infirm
> you think might benefit. I think any senior should consult a doctor
before
> beginning hypoxic training. You in particular should consult your doctor
about
> your exercise, and see what he says. In fact, if you've got the means,
I'd go so
> far as to say you should try exercising with a pulse oxymeter on your
finger, and
> watch the results, with and without your breath-holding technique.
>
I will try to get a pulse oxymeter. I did discuss it with my doctor, and he
had no objections to it. (Frankly, I would be interested in whether by
holding my breath I can actually drive the oxygen down low enough to be
harmful -- I'd imagine it would be pretty difficult to do without a lot of
effort. The body is pretty darned efficient at bringing about the breathing
response.)
Yours,
Caleb
Caleb Burns
In describing the first test subject, the report noted: "With the additional
oxygen, the test subject's heart rate was lower. With a lower heart rate,
the workout was easier for the test subject."
And that is exactly my point. Without additional oxygen, the subject's heart
rate would be higher, and if one is interested in a higher heart rate (for
conditioning purposes), then probably one should not add extra oxygen. And
indeed, to bring about a training effect, perhaps a mild restriction of
oxygen (by encouraging the subject to chant, sing, hold his/her breath,
etc.) would be appropriate.
What is the goal here? For Airtower, it appears to be maximal efficiency of
employee work -- perfectly understandable. But for people in general,
maximal efficiency of employee work (e.g., moving cartons, doing heavy labor
with less effort, etc.) is not the goal. To the contrary, the goal of many
people is to put themselves into situations that will tax them, drive up
their heart rate, etc. That's why people run, jog, do aerobic exercise, etc.
And I think the results of the study you cited support my approach on
breath-holding as a possible method of increasing cardiovascular fitness
(with a lower impact on the physical system).
Yours,
Caleb
M. Scott <msc...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
news:38637607...@san.rr.com...
Larry DeLuca
: I will try to get a pulse oxymeter. I did discuss it with my doctor, and he
: had no objections to it. (Frankly, I would be interested in whether by
A pulse oximeter will only tell you the %saturation of the blood - not the
absolute amount of oxygen. Nor will a pulse oximeter tell you anything about
what happens at the muscles - it's a measure of arterial oxygen saturation
(i.e., before the muscles).
Basically we use them in the hospital to make sure our cardiac and pulmonary
patients have good enough c/p function that they're not desaturating, which
doesn't have much to do with exercise within the normal parameters (COPD
patients and some elite athletes excepted).
The pulse oximeter will not measure VO2, which is what you'd need to
test your hypothesis that holding one's breath increases the workload.
: holding my breath I can actually drive the oxygen down low enough to be
: harmful -- I'd imagine it would be pretty difficult to do without a lot of
: effort. The body is pretty darned efficient at bringing about the breathing
: response.)
You can do this, but you need to hyperventilate first. In healthy people,
it's rising levels of CO2 that trigger the drive to breathe. Only
people who have had chronic COPD and elevated blood CO2 levels for a long
time (and even then only a minority of them) that actually go into "hypoxic
drive," which is really a fail-safe mechanism when rising CO2 doesn't trigger
a breath for whatever reason (e.g., thanks to COPD you've become
accustomed to high blood CO2 levels).
Anyway, what the swimmers do is hyperventilate right before the race,
blowing off CO2. Then, when they swim they don't get the urge to breathe
as quickly (since they have all this reserve since their blood CO2 levels
are so low). The down side, though, is that every so often a swimmer
passes out underwater and drowns because of this (since their blood O2
levels may become too low for them to remain conscious before blood CO2
levels (or extremely low blood O2 levels) trigger a breath. When they
finally do get the urge to breathe they are not only unconscious, they are
under water.
larry...
Larry DeLuca
:> A car is not a person, and a car doesn't get stronger the more you tax it.
:> Cardiovascular systems do improve with an appropriately elevated heart rate
:> (and/or they maintain optimal efficiency, etc.).
Yes, a car is not a person. Moreover, unlike a car the speedometer (heart
rate) in a person can be affected by more than the speed of the car (the
energy cost of the exercise). You can't scare a car and make it rev
its engine, but you can come up behind a person, say "Boo!" and make
their heart race for a bit. However, no one would suggest that this is
an effective mode of exercise.
:> I am not interested in a "well-running engine" if one is simply talking
:> about combustion, using up all the oxygen, etc., etc. What I AM interested
:> in is the possibility of taxing the cardiovascular system in what appears to
:> be a somewhat novel fashion -- that is simply not breathing as often as
:> would usually be comfortable.
Well, this does "tax" the system, much like it would to take a car with
a manual transmission and drive on the highway in first gear at 75 mph. It's
not very good for the engine, basically because it makes it work a lot
harder than it needs to to maintain a given level of power output.
People *are* like cars in that if you give them too much overload the
parts simply wear out.
: either, but I have older friends who've had to undergo stress tests prior to
: open-heart surgery. If I understand the physiology correctly, the ones I knew
: almost had heart attacks on the spot because their heart, lungs, and circulation
: didn't keep the heart muscles oxygenated enough and the heart went into arrest.
Well, this overstates the case just a little. When we do a stress test we're
trying to provoke symptoms, but the cutoffs for a positive test are well
below cardiac arrest - that's why patients wear a 12-lead ECG and we take
their heart rate, blood pressure, perceived exertion, and subjective
complaints of discomfort during the test. The idea is to stop at the
first sign of trouble, when it is reversible by simply ceasing exercise (in
most cases).
People can have a cardiac incident while taking a stress test, but it is
extremely unusual for this to happen.
: One good thing I can say about your method: it's free and at least you're not
: trying to sell something. But if someone wants to do some real hypoxic
: training, they should try this site:
: http://www.hypoxico.com/
Hypoxic training really isn't very useful unless you're going to be performing
at altitude. First of all, you won't make any adaptations to altitude by
running in a hypoxic chamber for a half hour - it's the sustained hypoxic
situation that drives the formation of extra RBC's, etc.
Second, consider that even people with a healthy heart can suffer cardiac
damage from too low a hematocrit coupled with too much exercise. When
the oxygen-carrying capacity of the blood is reduced by any means there is
always a risk that the energy cost of the activity (oxygen demand) will
exceed oxygen supply. For skeletal muscle this merely means fatigue,
discomfort, and needing to stop and rest. Cardiac muscle, however, is
specifically adapted to aerobic energy production, and lacks any sort of
substantial reserve for anaerobic energy production - that's part of
why heart attacks are often so deadly so quickly.
Whether someone could damage their heart just by holding their breath every
few steps is debatable (but I suspect unlikely). However, doing something
like coupling it with pre-exercise hyperventilation could complicate
matters considerably, and might result in an acute event (like loss of
consciousness and a nasty fall). At any rate, given the evidence on
swimmers, it's more likely than not that it will reduce, rather than
enhance, peak performance in runners.
larry...
Larry DeLuca
: Let's go back to what Link had said on misc.fitness.aerobic (I think that's
: where she posted) to see if my notion is all that bizarre. She said that
: when she leads aerobic workouts, she gets a harder workout through cuing her
: participants than they get in following her (verbal) cues.
Actually, all she told you is that she *perceives* the workout to be harder.
This is certainly so (as I can attest to as well, having been a group
exercise leader).
However, this does not mean that her VO2 necessarily increased, or that
she's getting a better workout.
From my own experience a lot of the perception of increased shortness of
breath and discomfort has to do not being able to breathe freely (i.e.,
at as high a respiratory rate as you would like) because you are controlling
your airflow so you can talk.
What most likely happens in this scenario is that blood CO2 levels increase
a bit, increasing the desire to breathe, and making the person feel
"short of breath."
: Does singing, speaking, chanting while exercising pose a health risk? I
: think that if done appropriately, it does not. (But frankly, the topic -- as
Singing, chanting, and speaking all require a tradeoff between control of
airflow for proper phonation and free airflow for optimal gas exchange. It's
well documented that diseases (like asthma or emphysema) that impede airflow
can impair gas exchange. There's no reason to believe that at high enough
levels of exercise intensity that trying to maintain a high level of
singing or speaking performance could impair exercise.
: far as I can tell -- has never been researched, and I would never suggest
: that anyone try it until it has been researched.) Indeed, the military
: appears to emphasize chanting while marching, etc., and this may in part
: because of the cardiovascular effects. (I really would like to track down
: one of the military trainers, but my phone calls have been placed into voice
: messaging services and I don't get return calls.)
Actually, the main reason for this is to keep people in time with each other.
Regardless, marching is a relatively low-level activity, and chanting while
marching will not impair gas exchange sufficiently for healthy people
that it's an issue. What's more, anyone for whom it did could stop chanting
briefly without being notice.
Take those same recruits, however, and have them run at peak exertion levels.
I bet they won't chant anymore.
: Let's go back to what Link said. If one of our goals is to get a more
: arduous workout, then perhaps participants in aerobics classes should be
: encouraged to chant or sing, etc., this to increase the difficulty of their
: exercise. Makes sense to me, but again -- I have no data on this topic. (I
: would love to make a tiny wager on this topic, though, especially with some
: of the more vocal detractors.)
The last thing the world needs is one more time-waster to do in the aerobics
room. The sad fact of the matter is that a lot of really bizarre practices
get started in the aerobics room because people don't understand basic
physiology (or the changes in physiology brought on by exercise).
For example, aerobics instructors observed some time ago that the heart
rate was higher during exercise if you held your arms above your head
all the time. Measurements of oxygen consumption vs. heart rate demonstrated
that the increased heart rate was not due to increased oxygen demand, but
was rather caused by what is termed "the pressor response." Basically,
putting the arms overhead increases the work of the heart by making it
pump blood uphill into the fingers against a lot of resistance.
However, aerobic exercise isn't just about the heart. Many of the beneficial
changes of aerobic exercise occur in the periphery, and are stimulated by
increased oxygen demand. Something that increases the work of the heart
without increasing oxygen demand may stress the heart, but it will not
cause any of the beneficial peripheral changes.
If you want to follow this to its logical extreme, this is what happens to
patients in heart failure. Their heart adapts and adapts to higher and
higher workloads to get the same amount of oxygen to the periphery, and
eventually the heart becomes so large and so thick that it is no longer an
efficient pump.
: I do think that the data will support such an approach, and that this
: general methodology will prove useful in helping many people achieve
: cardiovascular fitness without overly taxing their physical systems. But
: again, I do not know. (On the other hand, the data are relatively easy to
: obtain.)
Yes, the data are easy to obtain. Read a book on basic physiology. Your
approach involves more work for less benefit. It doesn't require a
new research study to prove this one out - merely a good, solid understanding
of all the data that's already out there.
: But again, I do not know the answer to the questions. In walking around with
: 8 or 10 pound weights in my hands, I moderate my breathing (breathe every
: 3rd step sometimes, sometimes every 5th step). Am I getting enough oxygen in
: my blood? I think so, but I really would like to see some data on that. I do
: know that such a system brings me much closer to the brink of "puffing and
: panting," and for me, that's a sign that I am reaching a level of doing some
: good to my body.
Well, if you add 16-20 pounds to the weight you are carrying (i.e., your
body weight plus the weights), you *are* increasing the exercise intensity.
As we have repeatedly said, exercise intensity for weight-bearing
exercise is a function of body weight, speed of horizontal movement, and
percent incline.
Of course, holding weights will also evoke the pressor response, due to the
sustained contraction within the muscles holding the weights, and the
consequent decrease in blood flow.
: Anyway, I appreciate your serious inquiry, and this is one of those
: questions that I will find an answer to.
You won't find an answer until you stop ignoring the data in front of you.
larry...
: Yours,
: Caleb
: M. Scott <msc...@san.rr.com> wrote in message
: news:38637A02...@san.rr.com...
:> > A car is not a person, and a car doesn't get stronger the more you tax
: it.
:> > Cardiovascular systems do improve with an appropriately elevated heart
: rate
:> > (and/or they maintain optimal efficiency, etc.).
:> >
:> > I am not interested in a "well-running engine" if one is simply talking
:> > about combustion, using up all the oxygen, etc., etc. What I AM
: interested
:> > in is the possibility of taxing the cardiovascular system in what
: appears to
:> > be a somewhat novel fashion -- that is simply not breathing as often as
:> > would usually be comfortable.
:> >
:>
:> Caleb, what you are suggesting may even be a little dangerous. I'm not a
: doctor
:> either, but I have older friends who've had to undergo stress tests prior
: to
:> open-heart surgery. If I understand the physiology correctly, the ones I
: knew
:> almost had heart attacks on the spot because their heart, lungs, and
: circulation
:> didn't keep the heart muscles oxygenated enough and the heart went into
: arrest.
:>
:> One other consideration. Many men die of heart attacks during sex. You
: may be
:> aware that people often hold their breath during sex (which is exercise),
: and
:> don't even realize it. They often do it more as they approach climax.
: Some
:> people go so far as to dabble with asphyxiation. This is a pretty close
: analogy
:> to how you're describing your workouts, and it makes me question the
: safety of
:> it.
:>
:> One good thing I can say about your method: it's free and at least you're
:>
:>
Larry DeLuca
: In describing the first test subject, the report noted: "With the additional
: oxygen, the test subject's heart rate was lower. With a lower heart rate,
: the workout was easier for the test subject."
This proves (as many other studies have) that HR and RPE are linked. Gunnar
Borg studied this (and developed the RPE scales that bear his name) years
and years ago.
: And that is exactly my point. Without additional oxygen, the subject's heart
: rate would be higher, and if one is interested in a higher heart rate (for
: conditioning purposes), then probably one should not add extra oxygen. And
The goal is *not* simply higher HR. HR is only used as a gauge of exercise
intensity because during steady-state aerobic exercise when the individual
is allowed to breathe freely the heart rate is related to oxygen delivery
to the working muscles.
I can scare you and make your HR go up. That won't make you aerobically
more fit. What *will* make you aerobically more fit is maintaining
"sustained, rhythmic movement of the major muscle groups" to increase
oxygen demand for an extended period of time.
Take a look at Wilmore and Costill (or McArdle, Katch, and Katch). Maybe
then this business about HR, why we measure it, when it's a valid
indicator of exercise intensity (and when it's not) will be more
obvious.
Your observation (that holding your breath may increase your HR and/or
your perceived exertion) is quite correct, and no one is arguing with
that.
However, the problem is that your proposed mechanism for improving aerobic
fitness will not work because you're not increasing oxygen demand by
the periphery - you're lowering oxygen supply to the periphery.
I know we've been around this all before, and you're probably not any
more receptive to what I have to say now than you were before, but
you would do well to learn some basic physiology so that you can
discuss this intelligently.
As for appealing to aerobics instructors for justification of your rationales,
I teach physiology to aerobics instructors for a living. If you imagine
what we know about exercise physiology as the Pacific Ocean, what we teach
aerobics instructors wouldn't cover the bottom of a dixie cup. The
concepts you're talking about are a bit too subtle to appeal to that level
of understanding for any useful model.
There's no offense meant to aerobics instructors here - we have limited time,
and so we teach only what is deemed most essential. It doesn't mean that
I can hold the ocean in my mouth - the only difference is the extra education
better affords me the knowledge of when I'm in over my head.
larry...
Caleb Burns
bragging rights?
I bet when Link (a trained instructor) "perceives" the workout to be harder
when she cues others while exercising, it probably is harder than when she
doesn't speak. On the whole, perceived difficulty in fairly well-trained
people is a fairly accurate guage of actual effort, I believe. (I think I
have read this in a variety of places.) Link is very well-trained, and her
observations on this matter should not be discarded so easily.
Larry -- There are no clear data on this topic, at least none that I can
find. Clear, unequivocal data. And the scientific approach is to test out
the hypotheses I outlined, not simply "arm-chair" it. I'm sure that you,
yourself, have investigated many interesting questions in physiology, and
for me, this is a very interesting question.
By the way, do you have any information on breath-holding in reasonably
healthy people? Is it likely that if one holds one's breath, that the oxygen
level in the blood will go to unhealthy levels, or is the breathing response
so strong that this degree of hypoxia is almost impossible to achieve? I
don't know where to get such information, and searching on the internet has
not proved very revealing.
Any information on this would be very, very helpful!
Have a great Holiday Season!
Yours,
Caleb
Larry DeLuca <hen...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:842813$bt4$3...@news1.bu.edu...
Caleb Burns
said that Link's "perceived" difficulty probably means actual difficulty.
And as I noted, Link's experience -- and probably the experience of many
other people doing the same thing -- should not be all that easily dismissed
as unimportant.
Let's tease apart a bit the following paragraph you wrote:
> The goal is *not* simply higher HR. HR is only used as a gauge of
exercise
> intensity because during steady-state aerobic exercise when the individual
> is allowed to breathe freely the heart rate is related to oxygen delivery
> to the working muscles.
I think this paragraph does not take into effect the training effect of
other methods of restricting efficient breathing, such as training at
altitude. (Indeed, as I have said before, I liken the notion of some
breath-holding to training at altitude.) You do not feel that this type of
breathing or non-breathing is at all similar to altitude training? Frankly,
as you know, I see a variety of similarities (including restriction of
available oxygen, etc.).
It's an empirical question, and the data aren't in. But I'm up for a dollar
bet and bragging rights on this matter...
Yours,
Caleb
Larry DeLuca <hen...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:8428rq$bt4$4...@news1.bu.edu...
> In misc.fitness.aerobic Caleb Burns <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
Caleb Burns
difficult to put myself into too much oxygen debt if I simply voluntarily
held my breath.)
Step one for me would be slapping on a pulse oxymeter and trying my
breath-holding approach. If it's safe to continue, that would tell me a lot.
Again, thanks! (You obviously know a LOT about this field.)
Yours,
Caleb
Larry DeLuca <hen...@bu.edu> wrote in message
news:84267e$bt4$1...@news1.bu.edu...
cy...@visi.com
thing, but I'm sitting here learning a lot. Thanks.]
On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 12:59:41 -0800, "Caleb Burns"
<cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Let's tease apart a bit the following paragraph you wrote:
>
>> The goal is *not* simply higher HR. HR is only used as a gauge of
>exercise
>> intensity because during steady-state aerobic exercise when the individual
>> is allowed to breathe freely the heart rate is related to oxygen delivery
>> to the working muscles.
>
-----
rbc: vixen (somewhat harmless)
0-0: The artist formerly known as something else.
I only answer my email every few months, on average.
Patience helps.
Caleb Burns
Yours,
Caleb
<cy...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:+41lOLlN6t9mUXOKHD2Ilvpf=Q...@4ax.com...
Larry DeLuca
: said that Link's "perceived" difficulty probably means actual difficulty.
: And as I noted, Link's experience -- and probably the experience of many
: other people doing the same thing -- should not be all that easily dismissed
: as unimportant.
No one dismissed them as unimportant. I merely pointed out that while the
observations are valid, the mechanism you've proposed to explain them is
extremely unlikely, given a lot of other data we have.
Perceived exertion only applies under the steady-state conditions outlined
above. It's been demonstrated in many situations that the relationship
between RPE, HR, and exertion can be disrupted. One of the most common
ways to do so is via the "pressor response." If you look up step aerobics
and handweights in the literature you'll discover that, following your
rationale, a large number of "trained" aerobics instructors concluded that,
based on HR and RPE, that adding hand weights to a step aerobic workout
would increase the instensity (and the CV benefit of the workout).
Further evaluation in the laboratory demonstrated that the increase in
oxygen cost was minimal to unmeasurable, but that HR and RPE *did*
increase significantly. This is the pressor response. The bottom line:
participants weren't getting a better aerobic workout - they were just
uncoupling RPE from actual exertion as measured by oxygen uptake.
: Let's tease apart a bit the following paragraph you wrote:
:> The goal is *not* simply higher HR. HR is only used as a gauge of
: exercise
:> intensity because during steady-state aerobic exercise when the individual
:> is allowed to breathe freely the heart rate is related to oxygen delivery
:> to the working muscles.
: I think this paragraph does not take into effect the training effect of
: other methods of restricting efficient breathing, such as training at
: altitude. (Indeed, as I have said before, I liken the notion of some
: breath-holding to training at altitude.) You do not feel that this type of
: breathing or non-breathing is at all similar to altitude training? Frankly,
: as you know, I see a variety of similarities (including restriction of
: available oxygen, etc.).
Actually, it does. Training at altitude under typical steady-state
conditions upholds all the other criteria. However, HR is higher for a
given VO2 at altitude than at sea level, and so is RPE. After living and
training at altitude for an extended period of time, people make adaptations
that help them perform better under those conditions.
However, it's also been documented that such changes are quickly lost
upon return to sea level. The bottom line is that altitude changes are
beneficial for training at altitude, but existing data suggests strongly
that you need to be at altitude on a constant basis to make such changes
(primarily the rapidity with which individuals return to baseline following
a descent from altitude). Your breath-holding, even if it did what you claim
it would, is simply too small a stimulus for too little time.
: It's an empirical question, and the data aren't in. But I'm up for a dollar
: bet and bragging rights on this matter...
So brag away. But in the meantime there's a lot of other data available.
Why don't you put together a proposal and send it to the NIH.
larry...
cy...@visi.com
to prove something when you don't seem acknowledge anything about
scientific testing or what's been done before is beyond me, though.
I happen to practice breath holding occasionally for reasons of my
own. All it does is make breath holding easier (up to a point) as far
as exercise, cardio, or conditioning is concerned. All it can
condition one to is a temporarily faster heart beat (an effect of it
I'd as soon skip) and to holding breath. That's it as far as my
anecdotal evidence is concerned. And my anecdotes and theories seem
to be as, uh, well founded in physiology as yours.
On Sat, 25 Dec 1999 23:39:32 -0800, "Caleb Burns"
<cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
>Cyli -- Want to bet a buck against my stance?
>
>Yours,
>
>Caleb
>
>
Michael Painter
<cy...@visi.com> wrote in message
news:XnFmON0YlhosHGYjv2QQqWpI0=F=@4ax.com...
> I'll go for 10, actually, and give you 3 to 5 odds. How you're going
> to prove something when you don't seem acknowledge anything about
> scientific testing or what's been done before is beyond me, though.
>
> I happen to practice breath holding occasionally for reasons of my
> own. All it does is make breath holding easier (up to a point) as far
> as exercise, cardio, or conditioning is concerned. All it can
> condition one to is a temporarily faster heart beat (an effect of it
> I'd as soon skip) and to holding breath. That's it as far as my
> anecdotal evidence is concerned. And my anecdotes and theories seem
> to be as, uh, well founded in physiology as yours.
It seems pointless because I'm sure that Caleb will have the *truth* for us.
I'm sure he knows where the perpetual motion machines are hidden also.
An increased ability to hold your breath comes from a couple of places.
Learning not to hold a "full" breath is one.
The major reason is that after time your body will have an increased
tolerance for CO2. An increase of CO2 is the main reason we feel a need to
breath. Lack of Oxygen is in second place (and about a lap behind.)
That is one of the reasons why good free divers have to be very careful when
diving over 60 feet or so for more than a minute or two.
Larry DeLuca
really are...]
In misc.fitness.aerobic Caleb Burns <cal...@teleport.com> wrote:
: I bet when Link (a trained instructor) "perceives" the workout to be harder
: when she cues others while exercising, it probably is harder than when she
: doesn't speak. On the whole, perceived difficulty in fairly well-trained
: people is a fairly accurate guage of actual effort, I believe. (I think I
: have read this in a variety of places.) Link is very well-trained, and her
: observations on this matter should not be discarded so easily.
I am a trainer and certification specialist for the largest certifying
organization in the world for aerobics instructors - AFAA (The Aerobics
and Fitness Association of America). While I struggle both from within
the organization and outside of it to encourage higher standards for
group fitness leaders, the current realities of training and certification
are quite grim.
The vast majority of so-called "well-trained aerobics instructors" have
little more than a variable amount of home-study, about 5 hours of classroom
time (which includes both textbook work and practical training) and a
rather short (and in my opinion far too easy) examination on the rudiments
of training.
Most of the instructors you're seeking out to help in your debate about
the subtleties of blood gas levels during exercise can't even trace the
flow of blood through the heart, barely acknowledge the existance of the
pressor response much less are able to articulate what it is, and often
cannot name the breakdown products of aerobic energy metabolism (CO2 and
H2O).
While I have struggled with the industry to increase standards for practice,
it has become increasingly clear that even the minimal ones we have set
forth are not being met. People regularly show up for workshops with
blank expressions and blank study guides, hoping that we'll "cover it all"
the day of the exam. While they may pack enough information into their
short-term memory to do well enough to squeak by, in a few months much
of this is forgotten.
This sad fact has been driven home more and more as I've gone out into the
field to teach new continuing education programs for AFAA. A large number
of aerobics instructors have forgotten such basic information as the names
of their major muscle groups and the joint actions they perform. They no
longer know the difference between "aerobic" and "anaerobic." Not even
armed with some of the most basic facts, the process of touching upon
more involved concepts is difficult at best, and more likely than not a
nearly futile endeavor.
This is not entirely the fault of the instructors. Indeed, they work at
a substantial disadvantage because there is an enormous for-profit industry
that surrounds them that perpetuates the myth that this bizarre form of
"education" is sound - mostly because it is sound when one considers the
"bottom line" - profits from certification and training.
The current system of training and certifying aerobics instructors (and
personal trainers) is not built upon an academic but rather a corporate model.
For example, when registration slowed at 3-day workshops, 2-day programs
became the norm. When people signed up for 2-day programs in reduced
numbers and objected to "too much time" for training, one-day certification
"review" programs replaced traditional trainings.
The situation has become a vicious circle, as now efforts to increase the
length of time of training programs are viewed with suspicion. Whenever a
certifying organization attempts to expand its curriculum, there are cries
from the customer pool (potential aerobics instructors who are not yet
certified) that the organizations are out to "make a buck" and that one-day
training programs are adequate.
About two years ago, I wrote a new certification exam for an organization
based in the northeastern US that does training and certification programs.
We conducted a fair amount of in-house review of the exam before
administering it for the first time. The initial group of candidates was
typical of the mix that enters aerobics instructor and personal trainer
programs - lots of enthusiasm, little experience with exercise beyond their
personal exercise programs, and no formal training. As a whole they did
very poorly on the exam. They levelled complaints that the exam was
"Master's Level" and that the requirements shouldn't be so stringent for
"Entry Level."
Further analysis of the exam (and their performance) revealed that many
very basic concepts (like the fact that chest pain is a symptom that requires
medical evaluation before exercising) alluded these candidates. In the
end the exam (and its scoring) was upheld, but the notion that candidates
who had just completed a brief, six-week training program felt that they
were qualified to determine curriculum requirements for entry-level trainers
is disturbing.
What is even more so, the very real concern was raised that having these
students go into the community and complain that the certification
exam was "too hard" could have a negative effect on business. Moreover,
there was the fact that while an exam that was "too hard" might force this
company out of business, it would only do so because someone else with
an exam that was "easier" would prevail - financially and educationally.
In this bizarre situation, people who are entirely ignorant of the required
knowledge base of instructors (those who are not yet certified who will be
taking training programs) drive the content, scope, and duration of curriculum.
Because the majority of certifying organizations are structured on a
for-profit model, these organizations can ill afford to ignore requests
for a product more closely tailored to their customer's needs (i.e., shorter
time commitment, fewer knowledge requirements, and lower price).
Even those organizations that are ostensibly not-for-profit (like ACE)
are forced to compete in this fashion to manage any sort of market-share,
and the competition is intense. There are literally hundreds of certifying
organizations out there, all vying for a piece of this very profitable
pie. In order to compete they offer lower prices and easier exams. One
Internet source even advertises that you can download their manual for
free, download and take their test for free, and pay only if you pass and
want the certificate! The exam consists of a number of true/false and
a few multiple choice questions, many of which are extremely basic even
when compared to the standards of the major organizations (like ACE
and AFAA).
Consider also what a typical "review" day is like. If you look at AFAA's
9am-6pm format (and remember, AFAA holds the largest share of instructors
world-wide), you'll see that the day consists of a category-by-category
review of the practical examination criteria. There's theory sprinkled in,
yes, but the time constraints are extremely narrow.
Here is my typical day (taken from AFAA's Primary Certification
Study Guide):
9:00 AM - 9:30 - Welcome, Introduction, and Testing Procedures
9:30 AM - 11:30 - Practical #1: The AFAA 5 Questions, Warm-up,
Aerobics; Arms, Chest, Shoulders, and Back; Quadriceps
11:30 AM - 11:45 - Mock Exam/One-Minute Demonstration
11:45 AM - 12:30 - Lunch
12:30 PM - 2:00 - Practical #2: Abdominals; Gluteals, Hamstrings,
and Erector Spinae; Hip Abductors; Hip Adductors; Cool-down
2:00 PM - 2:15 - Break
2:15 PM - 3:15 PM - Theory Review/Questions and Answers
3:15 PM - 3:30 PM - Break
3:30 PM - 4:50 PM - Practical Examination
4:50 PM - 5:00 PM - Explanation of Written Exam Answer Sheet
5:00 PM - 6:00 PM - Written Exam
Consider the implications. All of upper body strengthening, for example,
is covered in approximately 45 minutes. This category is allotted extra
time because we are also required to cover fundamental principles of
strength training, planes of movement, muscle actions, and kinesiology within
that time.
Aerobics and warm-up usually get about 25 minutes each - since we need to
include not only the practical aspects but a review of the relevant physiology!
Even in our one-hour "theory review" we're expected to review information
on Physiology (including Exercise Physiology), Cardiovascular
Application During Exercise, Basic Kinesiology and Anatomy, Injury
Prevention and Treatment, General and Sports Nutrition, and Body Composition
and Trends in Weight Management.
How deeply can anything be covered under the best of circumstances? And
worse, given the current rash of extremely ill-prepared candidates being
the norm, the process functions less and less well.
At the very least AFAA (and some of the other organizations) go out into the
field and provide some minimal level of training. Many other organizations
provide no training at all, and merely make available (at an enormous
cost) an "accreditation process" whereby individuals can essentially become
franchised exam trainers. The end result, though, is that no matter how
the organizations are structured, training programs teach "to the test,"
and the ability to turn a profit drives the length, breadth, and
depth of certification programs.
There are a large number of conscientious and well-intentioned fitness
educators who are grappling with this problem on a daily basis. While we
are acutely aware of the difficulties imposed by the current working model,
bringing about change has been (and continues to be) difficult. However,
I believe that you will begin to see increasing amounts of research
devoted to these questions, and perhaps armed with more hard data about
the deficiences of the current system change the current system in ways
that it is not possible to do with merely anecdotal data.
Link is certified by ACE - The American Council on Exercise. They publish
one of the best Aerobics Instructor training manuals available. It's a
lovely book. About 400 pages total. Of those 400 pages, only 120 pages
are devoted to what ACE calls "Essentials" - Anatomy, Kinesiology,
Exercise Physiology, and Nutrition, which get approximately 30 pages each.
The incompleteness and shallowness of such a treatment can be demonstrated
by the fact that there's no chapter on resting physiology. How can one
understand the changes in physiology brought about by exercise if you
have no training in resting physiology?
The text from my introductory anatomy and physiology course was
well over 1000 pages, and that didn't include the lab manual. Moreover,
such courses expect biology, chemistry, organic chemistry, and physics
as prerequisites. For every chapter in the ACE manual I've got a book for
the corresponding *introductory* academic course which is larger than
the entire ACE manual.
When I appear dismissive of a "well-trained" aerobics instructor's knowledge
of exercise physiology it's not because I am dismissive or disrespectful - it's
simply that I'm acutely aware of those limitations. Given that I have
about 20 minutes in my day to review and answer all the questions a group
of instructors may have about exercise physiology, there's not much time
for anything but the most basic essentials. My very first exercise
physiology lecture lasted for 1 1/2 or 2 hours, and was building upon a
base of chemistry, biology, and anatomy and physiology. That didn't
include any of the lab work! I have less than half that time to not only
cover the same breadth of information, but to lay out whatever essentials
are needed as well.
Moreover, when one compares ACE's 1994 manual with its 1987 edition, there
was a substantial "dumbing-down" of material even over what aerobics
instructors were expected to know in 1987. Excellent descriptions of
functional anatomy have been replaced by laundry lists of muscles and
joint actions devoid of context, which by and large is not tested (and so
many would-be exam candidates are advised to avoid spending too much time
on the more detailed aspects of this section in favor of more heavily-
emphasized areas on the certification exams).
Most aerobics instructors know very little more than aerobics class
participants these days when it comes to exercise physiology. While the
public has become better educated in general, aerobic instructor
training has not kept pace. In many ways, aerobics instructors are less
able to cope with the questions posed by their participants than they were
several years ago - not only because participant questions (like this one)
have become more subtle and sophisticated, but also because instructors
are working with a shrinking knowledge base driven by both the certifying
organizations' desire to make a profit and the instructors' desire to spend
as little time and money as possible to become "certified."
Now there are dedicated aerobics instructors and personal trainers who
are working to expand their knowledge base. Their efforts are commendable
and should be encouraged. However, the industry they work in does not
support them well in this regard, and there are substantial disincentives
to education and training - such as low pay and the low status that comes
from being a small, informed minority in a sea of poorly trained individuals
who are giving out bad advice. For example, a business associate of mine who
was working Southern California talked with dismay about the fact that
many clubs in her area were getting rid of certified trainers (who wanted up
to $15/hr) and replacing them with uncertified trainers (who they could hire
for $5/hr). With such powerful factors working against higher standards
for education, it is little wonder that often instructors seek out the
cheapest, easiest certification, and eschew those that are more demanding
and impose higher standards.
So yes, there are "trained" aerobics instructors out there. There are
some people who have overcome tremendous obstacles and have an excellent
knowledge base to work from. For the most part, however, "training" for
aerobics instructors is little more than the minimal amount of grist to
keep the wheels of the certification mill from wearing out entirely. It is
not until a joint effort on the part of certifying organizations, would-be
instructors, currently certified instructors, and the general public
is undertaken to not only affirm existing standards but to reconsider
them in light of the current public awareness of exercise that certification
will once again be truly meaningful. In the meantime, when consulting
aerobics instructors on matters of exercise physiology, it is best to keep
the notion of "caveat emptor" - let the buyer beware - in mind.
larry...
Gordon Haverland
> "Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS" wrote:
> Airtower recently conducted some experiments on supplemental oxygen during exercise, and
> found (not surprisingly) that supplemental oxygen did affect heart rate and blood oxygen
> levels for persons whom you would probably consider healthy individuals. If you take a
> look at this page:
> http://www.airtower.com/tests/tests.html
I looked over said tests, certainly this research doesn't
appear to
be oriented to those knowledgable in physiology, medical
physics, ...
Your paper keeps talking about heart rate, but all the
graphs are
calibrated in terms of %Oxygen usage, which is wrong. I
doubt
veyr much you measured oxygen usage as a function of time,
you
may have measured heart rate. Your experiments are not well
set
up, there is too much room for the placebo effect in what
you are
doing. Certainly it would be easy enough for you to put
together
one of your pieces of equipment with no nitrogen extraction
capability
that otherwise seemed to function identically to the
equipment you
are trying to sell. Second, every test concludes with a
testimonial
and not some kind of factual conclusion. Finally, on your
concentrator/content.html page, you end with that great
silliness
of the marketing department, "... with a patented method,
...".
The presence or absence of a patent says nothing about the
worthwhilness of said invention. All it says is that in the
opinion of the patent office observer, they knew of no
conflicting
patents or prior art.
Gordon Haverland
Any opinions reflected above are mine alone, and have
nothing
to do with Alberta Agriculture, Food and Rural Development.
M. Scott
Gordon Haverland wrote:
> "M. Scott" wrote:
> > "Larry DeLuca, EdM, CSCS" wrote:
> [ snip ]
> > Airtower recently conducted some experiments on supplemental oxygen during exercise, and
> > found (not surprisingly) that supplemental oxygen did affect heart rate and blood oxygen
> > levels for persons whom you would probably consider healthy individuals. If you take a
> > look at this page:
> > http://www.airtower.com/tests/tests.html
>
> I looked over said tests, certainly this research doesn't
> appear to
> be oriented to those knowledgable in physiology, medical
> physics, ...
> Your paper keeps talking about heart rate, but all the
> graphs are
> calibrated in terms of %Oxygen usage, which is wrong. I
> doubt
> veyr much you measured oxygen usage as a function of time,
> you
> may have measured heart rate.
Blood oxygen level was measured with a pulse oxymeter at timed intervals. Strictly speaking,
the meter was read every 15 seconds, or so. Heart rate was also monitored, though the charts
are not shown on this page. I don't know where your basis for doubts comes from.
The graphs are not calibrated in terms of oxygen usage at all. They are calibrated in %O2 in
the blood. You are wrong.
> Your experiments are not well
> set
> up, there is too much room for the placebo effect in what
> you are
> doing. Certainly it would be easy enough for you to put
> together
> one of your pieces of equipment with no nitrogen extraction
> capability
> that otherwise seemed to function identically to the
> equipment you
> are trying to sell.
You are correct that the latter could be done, especially for the testimonials. However, I
question whether that is as necessary for direct blood oxygen measurements and heart rate
measurements. Simply put, half of the people were tested with the machine for 5 minutes
(though the graphs unfortunately say 5 seconds - I will report that to Airtower), then tested
without for 5 minutes. The other half were tested without, then tested with.
It is a mighty powerful placebo effect to affect heart rate and blood oxygen levels. You are
presuming their oxygen transport is that much more effective because they are hooked to a
machine and thought they were getting oxygen?
> Second, every test concludes with a
> testimonial
> and not some kind of factual conclusion.
This is correct. For this test, they wanted to capture the subjective comments of the
participants to go along with the raw data. This is not wrong at all. In fact, the purpose
of the test was to generate some interest with a publishing doctor to follow up with clinical
tests using a control group, etc. They believe that supplemental oxygen use during exercise
might be used to help ease persons who have had a long period of no exercise begin a routine
again. Then those persons could wean themselves from the oxygen as their cardio performance
improves.