Does the body actually need exercise?

[Ryan Rudolph]

I wonder whether the body actually needs all this exercise that health professionals recommend.

I suspect that the body doesn’t need it, especially with this endurance exercising movement that is popular, I bet all this activity is actually counterproductive to the bodies natural equilibrium state. I observe all these people who jog, play sports, and do all these things, and they seem to be really enjoying themselves. However, I wonder what is the source of their enjoyment? I would say that they are addicted to chemicals that are being released during these activities such as adrenaline and so on.

So an athlete or a jogger is not all that different from a drug addict in my opinion, and ironically, their excessive behavior is actually unhealthy for the body because it requires extra work, extra demand on the organs and limbs, and therefore they wear out the body’s hardware faster.

So walking to the bathroom, or walking to the grocery store, this is all the exercise the body needs.

[Matt Gregory]

I'm pretty sure exercise is good for you and keeps your body young. But yeah, you can get addicted and overdo it.

On one of the few times I've been to the gym I saw some guy throw his back out (he was like 60 years old and he tried to squat like 600 lbs) and he still wanted to lift weights until my trainer talked him out of it.

But on the positive side my grandma rode an exercise bike everyday and it helped her keep walking until she was about 95 or 96.

I'm 35 and I've never exercised regularly and my body is breaking down already. I pulled a muscle in my back from just coughing a month ago and it still hurts.

[Faust]

the exercise fad is indeed an idiotic and dangerous myth. there's no scientific evidence at all that regular exercise is good for you, and can actually be bad. many ppl make the mistake of thinking that fitness and health are the same thing. fitness is what you're capable of, health is how well your body is functioning, they're two different things.

the reason why you think someone on a bicycle helped them to walk until 95 was that they were able to do it anyways!! and the reason why you pulled a muscle when you coughed is because coughs can be that powerful. i always laugh when i know about senior neighbours that take walks at 5am with an empty stomach thinking it's good for them, the insanity.

dr. henry a soloman, cardiologist, has written a book on this, and an interview:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... i_16535099

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/smartboa ... /index.htm

[ChochemV2]

Exercise is like everything else, too much is bad. Of course, being too much of a fat ass (as I am) is bad too. General movement is certainly good for you and paying attention to what you eat is even better for you but all these people who run obsessively, lift weights obsessively, and ride bikes obsessively have passed beyond any potential health benefits because they are fixated on social benefits.

I would rather take a hike in the woods than spend fifteen minutes in the gym. Instead of wasting my time in the gym I walk in the morning (mostly to wake me up because I quit coffee) and I take the dog for a walk in the park after work. Given my body's amazing ability to gain weight I'll never be svelte without a serious workout done regularly but as long as I feel fine that doesn't bother me.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

There is a right amount of the right kinds of exercise that is helpful. Too much does wear the body parts out; too little is also damaging because the body was designed to move, and must do so in order to help deliver the right replacement cells to the right parts. The weird thing is that how much too much is and how much too little is can be variable depending on the circumstances. There was a time when I exercised a lot, and 4 hours on the elliptical machine per day was not too much as long as I remembered to take my joint supplements every day. On the other hand, when the sum total of all my exercise was typing here every day, mowing both the front lawn and the back lawn in one session was too much, and would make me sick with asthma for a week. A day or so ago,* I was able to mow both and take two long walks, and only ended up a bit sore in my upper back (some females are built impractically for the standing position), and I realized that if i had been doing more upper back strength building exercises, I wouldn't have even had that problem.

The right amount of exercise is that which allows us to do what we want to/have to do without ending up in pain (coughing should not pull a muscle) without putting us in chronic pain from exercising. In my experience, we should get sore from exercise every now and then, but when we do, we should allow sufficient time to allow our muscles to rebuild from the soreness (which, for females anyway, is one day longer than when the sore feeling goes away - most exercise research has been done on males, so general recommendations of one day on, one day off [or rotating sets] is more geared to men) in order to maximize body function. once the body is in top athlete condition, it might be able to be maintained in that condition without ever getting any major soreness - although they may get a sensation that could be classified as soreness, but is not to the degree that could be considered uncomfortable.

Too much rest can also cause pain, which is what makes recovering from a back injury a no-win situation for a couple of years. Just staying in bed too long can cause back pain, but if the back is injured, it requires rest to recover. Strengthening certain muscles allows the injured parts to rest, so that is an example of where ironically, exercise produces rest and recovery.

Bodies are darned complicated things, and require a heck of a lot of time and effort on maintenance. For people prone to depression, I wonder if it is wise to consider whether or not having a body is worth the effort. If it is wise to so consider, it would also be wise to specifically consider (OT - yes, I know that is a split infinitive, but the communication seems clearer) what would make life worth the effort.

Intuitively, I'd say there must be a sufficient reward factor. Even if the reward is to the extended self rather than just the unit that responds to a given name, that still constitutes a perception of reward. In that way, the "soul" is like the body with a back injury. Some muscles must work extra hard to provide rest to the parts of the back that need proper conditions to recover - yet if the muscles that need to be strengthened are overworked/overstressed instead to the point that they, too, need recovery conditions, the body ends up in worse condition than before. Similarly, if we push our smaller selves further than what is optimal for that unit at that time, it is worse for our larger selves.

The buddha would be the spiritual equivalent of a top athlete in that the emotional soreness would not happen. Also similarly, although the person born into the right conditions could become a top athlete or a buddha can do so with the right training, not receiving sufficient individual reward (aka spiritual rest) in spiritual training would be just as bad for a buddha-in-training as pushing a potential top athlete to do a full marathon before getting sufficient training. We can see obviously that it would damage or kill the athlete, but it takes more insight to see spiritual death or damage resulting from undue demands in spiritual training.

Although we must push ourselves spiritually to grow like the athlete has to stick to the right nutrition and exercise routine to be a top athlete rather than a fat and flabby couch potato, we are equally at risk if we push too hard. The really tricky part in assessing this is that the spirit is not what today's society is conditioned to "see" like the physical body. Although most can sense that there is something wrong with the spiritually unwell (usually through annoyance when in contact with such people), only the at least partially awakened are conscious of when the problem is either an injured or malnourished spirit.

Because the spirit is harder to see and there is quantitatively as well as qualitatively less standardization in research, the biggest danger in spiritual training is in listening to a spiritual quack. Today we laugh about the medicine men of old that went around selling their snake oils that were supposed to be a cure for everything, but there is less laughing about spiritual snake oils (well, except Scientology - that gets plenty of snickering). More people are looking at the traditional religions and recognizing the dangers, but even of those people, many are uncertain of what the right spiritual trainings may be. Just because x is recognized as the wrong way does not indicate whether y is right or wrong.

Although there have been a few spiritual greats throughout history and much bastardization of their teachings, spiritual knowledge is as far in infancy today as brain surgery was 4,000 years ago. That doesn't mean that no one knows how to do this the right way, it just means that the spiritual guinea pigs ought to be careful.

* edit - adding missing word to make sense - "A day or so I was able to mow..." edited to read "A day or so ago,* I was able to mow..."

[DHodges]

What a bunch of lazy fucks. It won't kill you to get off your ass once in a while.

brain surgery was 4,000 years ago.

I thought that what went on more than, say, 100 years ago was mostly trepanation, not brain surgery per se.

[Matt Gregory]

What a bunch of lazy fucks. It won't kill you to get off your ass once in a while.

Hey, I'm not lazy! Not by a long shot. I think very heavy thoughts most of the time. Very heavy.

[Ryan Rudolph]

Matt wrote:

Hey, I'm not lazy! Not by a long shot. I think very heavy thoughts most of the time. Very heavy.

Oh sure Matt, Very heavy thoughts my ass! your idea of very heavy thoughts is trying to figure out which obese hooker on the street corner you wanna take home with you for the night...

[Faust]

once again there's no evidence that regular physical exercise is needed. elizabeth is making the big mistake thinking that fitness means health, they're totally different things. the best thing to do is to eat right.

Too much rest can also cause pain, which is what makes recovering from a back injury a no-win situation for a couple of years. Just staying in bed too long can cause back pain, but if the back is injured, it requires rest to recover. Strengthening certain muscles allows the injured parts to rest, so that is an example of where ironically, exercise produces rest and recovery.

staying in bed causes back pain because of the bed position and the position of our spines. the back pain isn't caused by inactivity. that's why those new mattresses that perfectly mold into our bodies are the best, because they fill the gap under the spinal curve that causes lower back pain.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

elizabeth is making the big mistake thinking that fitness means health

You must be joking - it's definitional. Fitness means fit to do something. In order to run a certain distance, one must be physically fit to run that distance. In order to have a good marriage, both people must be emotionally fit for marriage. In order to be a mathematician, one must be intellectually fit for mathematics. In order to be let out of a mental institution, one must be psychologically fit enough to function in society. In order to be a buddha, one must be extremely spiritually fit. Fitness can refer to physical health, mental health, psychological, spiritual... or it can refer to an inanimate equivalent of health such as in the sentence "That house is unfit for human habitation."

[Jamesh]

I don't know what planet Faust is from, but he is totally wrong. Exercise is essential, but one only needs a couple of hours per week for maintenance, with the right food choices that is, unless say you are in my position of long term lethargy in which case an hour a day would be needed for about 6 months.

[Faust]

and where's your evidence that exercise is needed???? Eating right is important because it can negatively affect you if you don't do it, whereas exercise is rubbish. The links I posted in my previous post is from a cardiologist who thoroughly debunks the exercise myth and debunks Elizabeth's assumption that fitness means health. Fitness is what your body is capable of doing physically, health is how well your body is functioning to sustain life. Being capable of lifting 200 pounds has nothing to do with how healthy I am and the chance of me living a long healthy life.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

So long as your legs are strong enough to support your body for a few hours of walking per week, it takes practically no effort to make sure all the cells in your body are properly oxygenated and fed.