Aerobic, Weight Training Combo Best Against Diabetes

http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets

"The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
....
"The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."



Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
exercise is better.

It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.

Steve

Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
>
> "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
> Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
> 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
> exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
> resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
> aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
> treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
> an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
> at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
> full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
> ...
> "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
> and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
>
> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
> exercise is better.
>
> It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
> weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
> groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.

There is also duration, not just proportions. If they had the
resources, they would probably add two 90 min groups, 90 min aerobics
and 90 min resistance. But given limited resources, they made the
choice based on the optimal duration argument. The choice relies on
some sort of diminishing returns for either prolonged aerobics or
resistance training.

In article <nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:

> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
>
> "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
> Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
> 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
> exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
> resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
> aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
> treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
> an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
> at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
> full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
> ...
> "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
> and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
>
>
>
> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
> exercise is better.
>
> It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
> weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
> groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
>

I agree. Very poor study design IMO. You can't warrant the conclusion
they draw.

--
Keith

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-EB14F8.07521919092007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article
> <nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
> Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
>
>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
>> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
>> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
>>
>> "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University
>> of
>> Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39
>> to
>> 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
>> exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
>> resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks,
>> the
>> aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
>> treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
>> an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
>> at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
>> full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
>> ...
>> "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
>> and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
>>
>>
>>
>> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
>> exercise is better.
>>
>> It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
>> weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
>> groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
>>
>
> I agree. Very poor study design IMO. You can't warrant the conclusion
> they draw.

Not yet mentioned is the fact that weight machines, while they may be
popular, aren't what I'd consider to be a valid test. They ought to
have people training Olympic or power lifts, or at least add a third
group to their study. IMHO, the difference between the "weight machine"
group and the real lifters will be as appreciable as the difference
between the weight machine group and the aerobics bunnies.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

In article <5lcojpF7hhbmU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-EB14F8.07521919092007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article
> > <nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
> > Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
> >
> >> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
> >> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
> >> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
> >>
> >> "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University
> >> of
> >> Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39
> >> to
> >> 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
> >> exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
> >> resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks,
> >> the
> >> aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
> >> treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
> >> an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
> >> at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
> >> full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
> >> ...
> >> "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
> >> and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
> >> exercise is better.
> >>
> >> It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
> >> weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
> >> groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
> >>
> >
> > I agree. Very poor study design IMO. You can't warrant the conclusion
> > they draw.
>
> Not yet mentioned is the fact that weight machines, while they may be
> popular, aren't what I'd consider to be a valid test. They ought to
> have people training Olympic or power lifts, or at least add a third
> group to their study. IMHO, the difference between the "weight machine"
> group and the real lifters will be as appreciable as the difference
> between the weight machine group and the aerobics bunnies.
>

Possibly, but if none of them were regular exercisers and they have type
2 diabetes it would be very difficult to control the amount of work they
do. Virtually none of them could do a snatch or jerk safely, IMO. So
you'd be spending the first 3 months just getting basic ROM adaptations.

What you say may be true, but this probably would be a good place for
your kettlebells simply because the learning curve is quicker and
progressing by reps in 45 minutes would be easy to control.

--
Keith

Steve" <nomail@msn.com> wrote in message
news:nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net ...
> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
>
> "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
> Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
> 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
> exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
> resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
> aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
> treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
> an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
> at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
> full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
> ...
> "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
> and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
>
>
>
> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
> exercise is better.
>
> It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
> weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
> groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
>
> Steve


You think that combining weight training with aerobic work would not have
shown any significant difference than the 2 by themselves? I'm willing to
bet that the difference would have been quantitative, but not radically
different. I know that from personal experience and from training other
people that the combo is more productive than the 2 stand alones.

--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message
news:5lcojpF7hhbmU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-EB14F8.07521919092007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>> In article <nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
>> Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
>>> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
>>> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
>>>
>>> "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
>>> Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
>>> 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
>>> exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
>>> resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
>>> aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
>>> treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
>>> an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
>>> at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
>>> full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
>>> ...
>>> "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
>>> and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
>>> exercise is better.
>>>
>>> It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
>>> weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
>>> groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
>>>
>>
>> I agree. Very poor study design IMO. You can't warrant the conclusion
>> they draw.
>
> Not yet mentioned is the fact that weight machines, while they may be
> popular, aren't what I'd consider to be a valid test. They ought to have
> people training Olympic or power lifts, or at least add a third group to
> their study. IMHO, the difference between the "weight machine" group and
> the real lifters will be as appreciable as the difference between the
> weight machine group and the aerobics bunnies.
>
> -S-
> http://www.kbnj.com
>
>

Steve,
Adding Olympic lifts to 99% of the people out there is ludicrous. They
require far too much technique work and don't offer any appreciable value
over standard free weight movements. I've never done an Olympic move in my
life and don't think I've missed out on anything. Do you really think one
has to do Olympic lifts or power lifts to be a "real lifter?"


--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

In article <B9fIi.118370$dI1.55103@newsfe08.phx>,
"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:

> Steve" <nomail@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net ...
> > http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
> > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
> > http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
> >
> > "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
> > Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
> > 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
> > exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
> > resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
> > aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
> > treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
> > an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
> > at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
> > full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
> > ...
> > "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
> > and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
> >
> >
> >
> > Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
> > exercise is better.
> >
> > It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
> > weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
> > groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
> >
> > Steve
>
>
> You think that combining weight training with aerobic work would not have
> shown any significant difference than the 2 by themselves? I'm willing to
> bet that the difference would have been quantitative, but not radically
> different. I know that from personal experience and from training other
> people that the combo is more productive than the 2 stand alones.

Perhaps, but the point is that you've got two groups exercising 135
minutes a week and one exercising 270. I think you could have taken
either type of training and doubled it and there would have been a
significant difference. It is a crappy study design and they shouldn't
have come to the conclusion they did. You don't know if it is the type
of exercise (combination) or simply the duration that causes the
difference.

--
Keith

Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>> Steve" <nomail@msn.com> wrote
>> > http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
>> > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
>> > http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
>> >
>> > "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
>> > Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
>> > 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
>> > exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
>> > resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
>> > aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
>> > treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
>> > an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
>> > at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
>> > full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
>> > ...
>> > "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
>> > and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
>> >
>> > Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
>> > exercise is better.
>> >
>> > It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
>> > weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
>> > groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
>
>> You think that combining weight training with aerobic work would not have
>> shown any significant difference than the 2 by themselves? I'm willing to
>> bet that the difference would have been quantitative, but not radically
>> different. I know that from personal experience and from training other
>> people that the combo is more productive than the 2 stand alones.
>
> Perhaps, but the point is that you've got two groups exercising 135
> minutes a week and one exercising 270. I think you could have taken
> either type of training and doubled it and there would have been a
> significant difference. It is a crappy study design and they shouldn't
> have come to the conclusion they did. You don't know if it is the type
> of exercise (combination) or simply the duration that causes the
> difference.

They observed twice the effect for the combined exercise. So the
conclusion is that the two types of exercise act in perfectly additive
manner. This conclusion is well supported by their study. It's
unlikely that doubling the time of either type would give a similar
result. The duration of aerobic (uninterrupted effort) and that of
resistance (with rests between sets) can't be compared anyway.

In article <1885@75264323.53357662.2495.23782.24746>,
DZ <29201@321982814.277854702.7019.5734.8771> wrote:

> Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> >> Steve" <nomail@msn.com> wrote
> >> > http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
> >> > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
> >> > http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
> >> >
> >> > "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
> >> > Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
> >> > 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
> >> > exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
> >> > resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
> >> > aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
> >> > treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
> >> > an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
> >> > at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
> >> > full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
> >> > ...
> >> > "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
> >> > and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
> >> >
> >> > Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
> >> > exercise is better.
> >> >
> >> > It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
> >> > weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
> >> > groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
> >
> >> You think that combining weight training with aerobic work would not have
> >> shown any significant difference than the 2 by themselves? I'm willing to
> >> bet that the difference would have been quantitative, but not radically
> >> different. I know that from personal experience and from training other
> >> people that the combo is more productive than the 2 stand alones.
> >
> > Perhaps, but the point is that you've got two groups exercising 135
> > minutes a week and one exercising 270. I think you could have taken
> > either type of training and doubled it and there would have been a
> > significant difference. It is a crappy study design and they shouldn't
> > have come to the conclusion they did. You don't know if it is the type
> > of exercise (combination) or simply the duration that causes the
> > difference.
>
> They observed twice the effect for the combined exercise. So the
> conclusion is that the two types of exercise act in perfectly additive
> manner. This conclusion is well supported by their study. It's
> unlikely that doubling the time of either type would give a similar
> result. The duration of aerobic (uninterrupted effort) and that of
> resistance (with rests between sets) can't be compared anyway.

You can't make that 'unlikley' assumption on the basis of the study
shown. There is a bunch of recent research into adaptations from
training (especially those regarding what is happening in bone tissue)
that indicate just how complex that area is. The fact that you like to
combine cardio and resistance training doesn't mean it is the 'best'. I
do much the same thing, although my cardio is interval in nature.

It is a crappy conclusion to draw from that study. They could have
easily designed the study to test equal duration exercise - and should
have. And should still.

--
Keith

Hobbes <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote:
> DZ wrote:
>> They observed twice the effect for the combined exercise. So the
>> conclusion is that the two types of exercise act in perfectly additive
>> manner. This conclusion is well supported by their study. It's
>> unlikely that doubling the time of either type would give a similar
>> result. The duration of aerobic (uninterrupted effort) and that of
>> resistance (with rests between sets) can't be compared anyway.
>
> You can't make that 'unlikley' assumption on the basis of the study
> shown.

There is no need to. This has been looked at previously, for exactly
that biomarker, using a meta-analysis where times were varying from 30
to 120 min -

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi...ull/29/11/2518

"A further doubling of exercise time would have little further effect
on any measures."

> The fact that you like to combine cardio and resistance training
> doesn't mean it is the 'best'.

What I posted has nothing to do with my preferences.

Also, they didn't claim that the combined form is "best". News
articles did. Their conclusion is that the two types of exercise act
in a surprisingly additive manner, concerning a specific biomarker.

"Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:khobman800-FE5B70.14125419092007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> In article <B9fIi.118370$dI1.55103@newsfe08.phx>,
> "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve" <nomail@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net ...
>> > http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
>> > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
>> > http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
>> >
>> > "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
>> > Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
>> > 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
>> > exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
>> > resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
>> > aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
>> > treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
>> > an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
>> > at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
>> > full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
>> > ...
>> > "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
>> > and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
>> > exercise is better.
>> >
>> > It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
>> > weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
>> > groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
>> >
>> > Steve
>>
>>
>> You think that combining weight training with aerobic work would not have
>> shown any significant difference than the 2 by themselves? I'm willing to
>> bet that the difference would have been quantitative, but not radically
>> different. I know that from personal experience and from training other
>> people that the combo is more productive than the 2 stand alones.
>
> Perhaps, but the point is that you've got two groups exercising 135
> minutes a week and one exercising 270. I think you could have taken
> either type of training and doubled it and there would have been a
> significant difference. It is a crappy study design and they shouldn't
> have come to the conclusion they did. You don't know if it is the type
> of exercise (combination) or simply the duration that causes the
> difference.
>
> --
> Keith


I agree that the study is flawed, but I still believe the combining the 2
different schools of exercise is better than the stand alone. I'm stating
this for overall health. For bodybuilding or powerlifting, I don't think you
need the aerobic work as much.



--
Robert Schuh
"Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
- Nietzsche

http://www.hardbopdrums.com/

"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote in message
news:VcfIi.118371$dI1.114321@newsfe08.phx...
>
>
> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message
> news:5lcojpF7hhbmU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:khobman800-EB14F8.07521919092007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>> In article
>>> <nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
>>> Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
>>>> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
>>>> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
>>>>
>>>> "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University
>>>> of
>>>> Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39
>>>> to
>>>> 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
>>>> exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic
>>>> exercise,
>>>> resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks,
>>>> the
>>>> aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
>>>> treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group
>>>> spent
>>>> an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group
>>>> was
>>>> at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing
>>>> the
>>>> full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
>>>> ...
>>>> "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both
>>>> resistance
>>>> and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
>>>> exercise is better.
>>>>
>>>> It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and
>>>> 1/2
>>>> weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
>>>> groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. Very poor study design IMO. You can't warrant the
>>> conclusion
>>> they draw.
>>
>> Not yet mentioned is the fact that weight machines, while they may be
>> popular, aren't what I'd consider to be a valid test. They ought to
>> have people training Olympic or power lifts, or at least add a third
>> group to their study. IMHO, the difference between the "weight
>> machine" group and the real lifters will be as appreciable as the
>> difference between the weight machine group and the aerobics bunnies.
>>
>> -S-
>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>>
>
> Steve,
> Adding Olympic lifts to 99% of the people out there is ludicrous. They
> require far too much technique work and don't offer any appreciable
> value over standard free weight movements. I've never done an Olympic
> move in my life and don't think I've missed out on anything. Do you
> really think one has to do Olympic lifts or power lifts to be a "real
> lifter?"

No, I don't think one needs to do Olympic lifts to be a real lifter, but
I think if one is going to compare aerobics and weight lifting, one
ought to compare some real weights. The people who use the machines in
my gym typically do things like 3 sets of 15 on the chest press machine
with 40 lbs. It's better than nothing for sure, but it's not the right
thing for the sort of point that study is trying to make. If the people
were actually moving some serious weight on those machines, that would
be much better, maybe even sufficient, but I doubt they were.

And that's the problem with doing exercise studies on people who aren't
regular exercisers at the start - you prove absolutely nothing about the
long-term effects of any exercise, and who cares what happened to them
over the course of a few weeks or even a few months? I can, OTOH, tell
you a lot about the effects of running with less than ideal technique
for 20 years.

Personally, I've only done the smallest bit of Olympic lifting - I spent
a week or two learning to clean a barbell until I could clean my
bodyweight and then practiced barbell front squats a bit, and I've also
done some snatches, again not with much weight. Powerlifting, however,
has a lower skill component than Olympic lifting and I think it's
realistic for people to learn to deadlift, squat, or both. And, BTW,
this is another great use for a kettlebell - the so-called kettlebell
ballistics are the poor man's versions of Olympic lifts, done for with
enough weight to matter but not requiring nearly the sort of skill
barbell Olympic lifts require - Keith mentioned something along those
lines as well. I've taught a number of people who'd never lifted
weights before to swing and clean a kettlebell within a few minutes.

Just my two-cents-worth.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com


>
> --
> Robert Schuh
> "Everything that elevates an individual above the herd and
> intimidates the neighbour is henceforth called evil; and
> the fair, modest, submissive and conforming mentality,
> the mediocrity of desires attains moral designations and honors"
> - Nietzsche
>
> http://www.hardbopdrums.com/
>

"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> writes:

> "Steve Freides" <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote in message
> news:5lcojpF7hhbmU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:khobman800-EB14F8.07521919092007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>>> In article <nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net >,
>>> Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
>>>> http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
>>>> http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
>>>>
>>>> "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
>>>> Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
>>>> 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
>>>> exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
>>>> resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
>>>> aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
>>>> treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
>>>> an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
>>>> at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
>>>> full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
>>>> ...
>>>> "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
>>>> and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
>>>> exercise is better.
>>>>
>>>> It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
>>>> weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
>>>> groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree. Very poor study design IMO. You can't warrant the conclusion
>>> they draw.
>>
>> Not yet mentioned is the fact that weight machines, while they may be
>> popular, aren't what I'd consider to be a valid test. They ought to have
>> people training Olympic or power lifts, or at least add a third group to
>> their study. IMHO, the difference between the "weight machine" group and
>> the real lifters will be as appreciable as the difference between the
>> weight machine group and the aerobics bunnies.
>>
>> -S-
>> http://www.kbnj.com
>>
>>
>
> Steve,
> Adding Olympic lifts to 99% of the people out there is
> ludicrous. They require far too much technique work and don't offer
> any appreciable value over standard free weight movements. I've
> never done an Olympic move in my life and don't think I've missed
> out on anything.

Schuh, you are the biggest know-it-all in the history of Usenet.
Yesterday you concluded that Wendy's chili has more fat per serving
than they advertise with your sole evidence being the fact that you
have tasted it, and today you pass judgment on the value of the
Olympic lifts despite the fact that you admit that you have never done
them. You are the grand-master champion of the uninformed opinion.

Congratulations.

The real pity is that there are probably some issues where your
opinion is worth something. Unfortunately, your ego won't let a
single subject go by without a definitive Schuhism, so it is hard to
tell the difference between your educated opinions and the crap that
you just pull out of your butt.

> Do you really think one has to do Olympic lifts or power lifts to be
> a "real lifter?"

What does this have to do with anything? The study was about the
health benefits of combining weight training with aerobics. Freides
wishes that instead of generic "weight training" some Olympic training
could have been mixed in. Those of us that *have* done Olympic lifts
before know that Olympic lifting is different than other types of
strength training, and we'd like to see how it compares in this type
of scientific test.

There probably are some people that don't think that bodybuilders are
"real lifters." Who cares what they think?

Jason

In article <31jIi.118401$dI1.55570@newsfe08.phx>,
"Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:

> "Hobbes" <khobman800@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:khobman800-FE5B70.14125419092007@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> > In article <B9fIi.118370$dI1.55103@newsfe08.phx>,
> > "Hard Bop Drums" <nospam@hardbopdrums.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Steve" <nomail@msn.com> wrote in message
> >> news:nomail-CAC3F6.22561318092007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net ...
> >> > http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
> >> > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
> >> > http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
> >> >
> >> > "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
> >> > Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
> >> > 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
> >> > exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
> >> > resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
> >> > aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
> >> > treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
> >> > an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
> >> > at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
> >> > full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
> >> > ...
> >> > "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
> >> > and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
> >> > exercise is better.
> >> >
> >> > It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
> >> > weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
> >> > groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
> >> >
> >> > Steve
> >>
> >>
> >> You think that combining weight training with aerobic work would not have
> >> shown any significant difference than the 2 by themselves? I'm willing to
> >> bet that the difference would have been quantitative, but not radically
> >> different. I know that from personal experience and from training other
> >> people that the combo is more productive than the 2 stand alones.
> >
> > Perhaps, but the point is that you've got two groups exercising 135
> > minutes a week and one exercising 270. I think you could have taken
> > either type of training and doubled it and there would have been a
> > significant difference. It is a crappy study design and they shouldn't
> > have come to the conclusion they did. You don't know if it is the type
> > of exercise (combination) or simply the duration that causes the
> > difference.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
>
> I agree that the study is flawed, but I still believe the combining the 2
> different schools of exercise is better than the stand alone. I'm stating
> this for overall health. For bodybuilding or powerlifting, I don't think you
> need the aerobic work as much.

I agree with both statements. I think of it more as endurance work than
cardio, but I still agree.

--
Keith

Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> And that's the problem with doing exercise studies on people who
> aren't regular exercisers at the start - you prove absolutely
> nothing about the long-term effects of any exercise, and who cares
> what happened to them over the course of a few weeks or even a few
> months?

I think you're getting carried away. The study is on and about people
with diabetes. How is that irrelevant what happens to them when they
start an exercise program? Actually, the effect on the marker they
studied reaches a certain point in some weeks or months and then there
is no further improvement.

In article <26406@2446424565.741920589.4909.31960.16816>,
DZ <22771@1906723560.1146329539.29770.9005.17089> wrote:

> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> > And that's the problem with doing exercise studies on people who
> > aren't regular exercisers at the start - you prove absolutely
> > nothing about the long-term effects of any exercise, and who cares
> > what happened to them over the course of a few weeks or even a few
> > months?
>
> I think you're getting carried away. The study is on and about people
> with diabetes. How is that irrelevant what happens to them when they
> start an exercise program? Actually, the effect on the marker they
> studied reaches a certain point in some weeks or months and then there
> is no further improvement.

OTOH the long-term effect of physical activity is beneficial and that is
well-documented.

So the marker comes up to a certain point and you can expect it to stay
at that point if you maintain a reasonable level of fitness.

--
Keith

In article <26252@290157670.879623285.10610.7066.17150>,
DZ <19892@195705909.768130755.4965.7855.25820> wrote:

> Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
> > http://www.time.com/time/health/arti...662683,00.html
> > http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/n...ory_54920.html
> > http://diabetes.webmd.com/news/20070...etes-best-bets
> >
> > "The elegantly designed study, led by researchers at the University of
> > Calgary and the University of Ottawa, involved 251 patients aged 39 to
> > 70, with type 2 diabetes. The patients, none of whom were regular
> > exercisers, were randomized to one of four groups: aerobic exercise,
> > resistance training, a combination of both, or none. For 22 weeks, the
> > aerobic group worked out for 45 minutes three times a week on the
> > treadmill or stationary bicycle; the resistance-training group spent
> > an equal amount of time on weight machines. The combination group was
> > at the gym twice as long as the other two exercise groups, doing the
> > full aerobic plus weight-training regimens."
> > ...
> > "The bottom line: "There is additional value to doing both resistance
> > and aerobic exercise," according to Sigal."
> >
> > Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
> > exercise is better.
> >
> > It would have been interesting to have a group do 1/2 cardio and 1/2
> > weights, spending the same total amount of time as the other two
> > groups. I bet the additional value would have been insignificant.
>
> There is also duration, not just proportions. If they had the
> resources, they would probably add two 90 min groups, 90 min aerobics
> and 90 min resistance. But given limited resources, they made the
> choice based on the optimal duration argument. The choice relies on
> some sort of diminishing returns for either prolonged aerobics or
> resistance training.


Others agree that the results are unclear:
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Nephrology/Diabetes/tb/6715

"However, the study was not designed to determine the effect of
exercise intensity, duration, or volume, the researchers noted.

This made it unclear whether the extra benefit from combined exercise
was because of the additional amount of time spent exercising or by
altering glucose tolerance through complimentary mechanisms, Drs.
Klaus and Levine cautioned. Further study may be needed to answer this
question, they said.

Furthermore, the participants were "probably more adherent to exercise
and healthier on average than the general population with type 2
diabetes," Dr. Sigal and colleagues said."

"DZ" <22771@1906723560.1146329539.29770.9005.17089> wrote in message
news:26406@2446424565.741920589.4909.31960.16816.. .
> Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
>> And that's the problem with doing exercise studies on people who
>> aren't regular exercisers at the start - you prove absolutely
>> nothing about the long-term effects of any exercise, and who cares
>> what happened to them over the course of a few weeks or even a few
>> months?
>
> I think you're getting carried away.

Moi?

> The study is on and about people
> with diabetes. How is that irrelevant what happens to them when they
> start an exercise program? Actually, the effect on the marker they
> studied reaches a certain point in some weeks or months and then there
> is no further improvement.

OK as far as that goes but, e.g., they observe better insulin
sensitivity in those who exercise - this is nothing new, and more to the
point, improving one's insulin sensitivity for a few weeks or a few
months doesn't have long-term health consequences, only keeping the
improvement for years and years does. Since the disease in question is
so often described as a lifestyle problem, it seems only common sense
that changes of lifestyle are the only relevant solutions. Otherwise
it's like finding a pill that works then discussing the results of
taking the pill for a few weeks or months.

I'm exhausted at the moment - too much exercise and work or some
combination thereof today. Apologies if the above doesn't make much
sense.

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
>>> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
>>> exercise is better.

Not better, but TWICE as better.

> Others agree that the results are unclear:

You mean that Steve has suggested a trial with kettlebells? No,
wait... Well, of all the Drs below, that's Dr. Levine's word against
mine. At least I provided argumentation. Dr. Sigal is a study author,
so while he acknowledges various limitations, he surely doesn't call
the results "unclear". OTOH, Dr. Klaus is a fictional character.

> http://www.medpagetoday.com/Nephrology/Diabetes/tb/6715
> "However, the study was not designed to determine the effect of
> exercise intensity, duration, or volume, the researchers noted.
> This made it unclear whether the extra benefit from combined
> exercise was because of the additional amount of time spent
> exercising or by altering glucose tolerance through complimentary
> mechanisms, Drs. Klaus and Levine cautioned. Further study may be
> needed to answer this question, they said. Furthermore, the
> participants were "probably more adherent to exercise and healthier
> on average than the general population with type 2 diabetes,"
> Dr. Sigal and colleagues said."

"DZ" <25801@2108229658.263522015.15532.9768.11342> wrote in message
news:12597@942030538.2691031048.1970.25757.23391.. .
> Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
>>>> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
>>>> exercise is better.
>
> Not better, but TWICE as better.
>
>> Others agree that the results are unclear:
>
> You mean that Steve has suggested a trial with kettlebells? No,
> wait... Well, of all the Drs below, that's Dr. Levine's word against
> mine. At least I provided argumentation. Dr. Sigal is a study author,
> so while he acknowledges various limitations, he surely doesn't call
> the results "unclear". OTOH, Dr. Klaus is a fictional character.

Are you saying there isn't a Santa Klaus?

-S-
http://www.kbnj.com

>> http://www.medpagetoday.com/Nephrology/Diabetes/tb/6715
>> "However, the study was not designed to determine the effect of
>> exercise intensity, duration, or volume, the researchers noted.
>> This made it unclear whether the extra benefit from combined
>> exercise was because of the additional amount of time spent
>> exercising or by altering glucose tolerance through complimentary
>> mechanisms, Drs. Klaus and Levine cautioned. Further study may be
>> needed to answer this question, they said. Furthermore, the
>> participants were "probably more adherent to exercise and healthier
>> on average than the general population with type 2 diabetes,"
>> Dr. Sigal and colleagues said."

In article <12597@942030538.2691031048.1970.25757.23391>,
DZ <25801@2108229658.263522015.15532.9768.11342> wrote:

> Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
> >>> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
> >>> exercise is better.
>
> Not better, but TWICE as better.
>
> > Others agree that the results are unclear:
>
> You mean that Steve has suggested a trial with kettlebells? No,
> wait... Well, of all the Drs below, that's Dr. Levine's word against
> mine. At least I provided argumentation. Dr. Sigal is a study author,
> so while he acknowledges various limitations, he surely doesn't call
> the results "unclear". OTOH, Dr. Klaus is a fictional character.
>
> > http://www.medpagetoday.com/Nephrology/Diabetes/tb/6715
> > "However, the study was not designed to determine the effect of
> > exercise intensity, duration, or volume, the researchers noted.
> > This made it unclear whether the extra benefit from combined
> > exercise was because of the additional amount of time spent
> > exercising or by altering glucose tolerance through complimentary
> > mechanisms, Drs. Klaus and Levine cautioned. Further study may be
> > needed to answer this question, they said. Furthermore, the
> > participants were "probably more adherent to exercise and healthier
> > on average than the general population with type 2 diabetes,"
> > Dr. Sigal and colleagues said."

Dimitri - don't be so argumentive. The point is obvious - "further study
is needed'. You could well be right, but you can't draw that conclusion
based on this study.

It is a simple study. Same population, but control duration and monitor
intensity and volume. If you get the same results - voila. This study is
a good start and I'm encouraged that the researchers themselves noted
the limitiations.

--
Keith

Steve Freides <steve@fridayscomputer.com> wrote:
> "DZ" wrote:
>> Steve <nomail@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>> Elegantly designed? Not really. It shows is that twice as much
>>>>> exercise is better.
>>
>> Not better, but TWICE as better.
>>
>>> Others agree that the results are unclear:
>>
>> You mean that Steve has suggested a trial with kettlebells? No,
>> wait... Well, of all the Drs below, that's Dr. Levine's word against
>> mine. At least I provided argumentation. Dr. Sigal is a study author,
>> so while he acknowledges various limitations, he surely doesn't call
>> the results "unclear". OTOH, Dr. Klaus is a fictional character.
>
> Are you saying there isn't a Santa Klaus?

They misspelled Dr Kraus. It seems to me that I'm the only one in
this discussion who's read the paper.

DZ

>>> http://www.medpagetoday.com/Nephrology/Diabetes/tb/6715
>>> "However, the study was not designed to determine the effect of
>>> exercise intensity, duration, or volume, the researchers noted.
>>> This made it unclear whether the extra benefit from combined
>>> exercise was because of the additional amount of time spent
>>> exercising or by altering glucose tolerance through complimentary
>>> mechanisms, Drs. Klaus and Levine cautioned. Further study may be
>>> needed to answer this question, they said. Furthermore, the
>>> participants were "probably more adherent to exercise and healthier
>>> on average than the general population with type 2 diabetes,"
>>> Dr. Sigal and colleagues said."