I'll note that even if the changes are local to the muscle, that doesn't
mean strength training causes the SAME changes - eg mitochondria/capillary
growth v. muscle fiber growth.


----- Original Message -----
From: S.B. Feldman <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, January 21, 2000 6:49 AM
Subject: Re: [P-F] more sauper slow confusion


> 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.
>