Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Fri, 21 Jan 2000 07:49:52 EST |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii" |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 1/20/00 10:57:48 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Thing is, there is 0 correlation between VO2 max and
> aerobic energy--that's
> where aerobics loses out over strenght training,
> which has clear positive
> correlations.. There is a study--I can't remember
> where, but its out there
> if you look hard enough, where they had the subjects
> ride a bike using only
> one leg or something. Their VO2 max increased with
> this. After however
> many weeks, they retested, and yes the VO2 max had
> increased significantly
> over when they started, when they rode with that
> leg. But not when they
> rode with the other leg.
> The conclusion is that VO2 is musculature in
> nature--and has nothing to do
> with heart strengthening by making it beat more
> through aerobic exercise!
> >>
If this makes any sense at all, which I doubt, it is that the amount of
exertion possible when attempting to duplicate bicycle activity with the
untrained leg was significantly less than that with the trained leg. The
conclusion stated is idiotic.
|
|
|