Jo Webb wrote:
>
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 08:50:19 -0400, Hilary McClure <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> >I clearly confirmed this stuff about how you don't need to do any
> >exercise specifically for your heart through a personal experiment over
> >the course of a year and a half. At least confirmed it to my
> >satisfaction.
>
> Can you go into more detail about your personal experiment? What results
> did you get that confirmed that you didn't need cardio?

I was hoping someone would ask! I used to go on a 2.5 mile jog two or
three times a week. It seemed to be aggravating my chronic upper back
pain, so I stopped in about July of 2000 (age 42). Pretty much lost my
workout routine until February of 2001 when I got a free weight set.
From February until late July of 2001 my workout consisted of about a
forty-five minute weight workout doing one or two sets of each major
muscle group, usually to failure in about eight to twelve reps: Squat,
leg extension, leg curl, bench press, incline press, standing dumbell
shoulder press, lateral raise, concentration curl, pulldown, dumbell
row, side bend and crunch. I would only workout once every week to ten
days. I was making steady gains in strength. So in July of 2001 I
decided to try my old jogging session to see how my fitness level was
after not doing any "cardio" for about a year, and I had better wind
than I ever had before, going through the 2.5 miles more quickly than
before and with no walking breaks, and easy recovery. It seemed to me to
confirm for me the claims in the "Why Not Aerobics" article. On the
other hand you don't see many large muscular people winning marathons. I
don't know why that is. The marathon-runner physique seems like an
extreme that I wouldn't want to have.