Discussion in 'Strength & Conditioning Discussion' started by shredman, Nov 1, 2018.
Royal Marines yomp. Para's like to joke that tabbing is like yomping - only harder and faster
I'm not getting into the whole Marines vs Paras debate as I've got 2 ex RM I work with and another mate ( now dead) was RM and probably SBS....mind you I sometimes think half the British armed forces have been in the SAS when u see the number of books out there...
I guess you're ex-para then ? Respect if so.
Nah, mate. I was a STAB(Stupid TA Bastard )about a hundred years ago. The idea of jumping out of a perfectly good aircraft never appealed. Nothing but respect for both Paras and Marines, though. Exceptional soldiers.
Yeah, the joke is that the SAS is the largest regiment in the British Army, going by the number of people who claim to have served with it
Under the first graph it lists MET HOURS. I know what MET is. Metabolic equivalent training, but what are MET hours? I did a good search for the exact term used in the study and nothing came up. It shows the lowest rate of mortality, .61 at between 22 and 40 met hours. So that brings me back to what is MET hours and how to get 40 MET hours??
MET hours is just the energy expenditure in an hour. Different exercises expends different amounts of energy. Harvard made a list a few years ago in regards to how much a certain exercise is in MET per hour. It might be a bit outdated, but it's just a guideline: https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/met-hour-equivalents-of-various-physical-activities
With that, you don't have to try to hit EXACT numbers and so on so forth, you have to remember that these are mean numbers over thousands of people. As you see from the graph, a number of MET h/w from 15 to 70 gives you around the same reduce in mortality risk on average. A few hours of running/biking a week, or even several hours of walking and doing daily activies will add up to it. Obviously this doesn't take into account all the factors. As long as you're just in the general ballpark and moderately active, while mixing in some strength training, you're doing good.
Point is, stay active during the week (biking, walking, running, gardening, house work, stairs, so on). You don't even have to go the gym, although that's obviously great. Being active lowers your risk of all cause mortality AND neurophysiological diseases like alzheimers and various psychological ailments.
And are you aware of any research on whether there's any benefit to adding a different form of excercise in? In other words, say I'm doing steady state regularly, would I get any additional benefits by throwing in HIIT or weight training?
Again, note that I'm only interested in health benefits, not strength gains, body composition or anything else like that.
There’s a great deal of studies on what type of exercise works to improve BDNF in the brain. Depending on which study you look at, the consensus is that aerobic exercise and HIIT increases BDNF production in the brain. It’s considered important for neurogenesis of brain cells or neurons. Strength training can increase BDNF not in the brain. That’s another focus of research.
It’s accepted that aerobic exercise increases blood flow to the brain.
It’s interesting that there are molecules created in the bone can affect the rest if the body.
I agree with this. If there's a natural a coffee, its exercise for me.
As ops per question.
Generally speaking, both weights and cardio are best for health.
It gets specific depending on;
- health history
- life style
All of them are best.
Health is not only training. You have to watch your food, diet at all, sleep, resting time and many, many other things.
If anyone had an absolutely right answer they’d be the richest person on earth. Easily.
And why not immortal, too.
Separate names with a comma.