>From:	Robert W. Avery <[log in to unmask]>

>Does it matter for longevity whether exercise is aerobic or
> anaerobic? Are both equally harmful?

Anaerobic will result in the production of lactic acid, which is an
excellent chelator which will help to rejuvenate some of the
accumulated age-related damage in our bodies.  But I would assume
that if you are exercising long enough to go anaerobic the net
result is a negative effect on longevity.  Don't get me wrong, a
little exercise now & then is probably of no great concern.  I work
as a mailman & walk about 10 miles +/- up & down stairs 5 days/week.
I can state without hesitation that this is not doing me any good, &
can definitely feel the impact this has on my body (I'm not talking
joints or anything like that here, I'm refering to just the impact
of the energy expenditure this requires).  It also requires a
considerably greater caloric intake than if I was lethargic.  Time
after time I have seen co-workers return from a vacation looking
rejuvenated from their appearance when they left a week or two
prior.  I have no doubt at all from sensing my body that I would be
a lot better off without any of this.  There is a www site for
determining caloric requirements, & I have figured out mine to be
around 1500+/day for lethargy & 2700+/day when I work (but as Bob
Avery has pointed out caloric requirements are probably almost
halved when eating raw, something the www site's program does not
accomodate for).  The problem is that everyone over eats to some
extent, & exercise can burn off some of the excess & people feel
better because of this.  But it is not so much that exercise is
doing you any good, but that over eating is doing you harm.

--Doug Schwartz
[log in to unmask]