Exercise science degree info check

[Lactateislove]

So I'm in 3rd year exercise science and I thought I might make a thread where I could question some of the content that opposes the starting strength model.

1. Human's are designed for sustained moderate intensity exercise (walking jogging etc.) because our bipedal gait is suited for endurance. The lecturer than used the Kalahari bushmen's persistence hunt as an example of why endurance is best from an evolutionary view (video below).

I'm not sure how to refute the argument of endurance is best when put into an evolutionary context. Can anyone clarify?

Human Mammal, Human Hunter - Attenborough - Life of Mammals - BBC - YouTube

2. As far as the heart goes we are told eccentric hypertrophy (an endurance adaptation) is healthy but concentric hypertrophy (a strength adaptation) can be dangerous (diagram below). Is this true? Would it explain why I had a max heart rate (207) above my age predicted one (199).

http://bachperformance.com/wp-conten...5/02/heart.png

Thank you.

[Austin Baraki]

1. I'll leave this silliness to others.

2. A few resources I came across recently:
See Chapter 12 HERE:

Chronic exposure to resistance training can alter the morphology of the heart. In the past, some structural changes seen among those with consistent resistance training experience were misconstrued as maladaptations similar to those resulting from chronic hypertension. More recent data, however, have demonstrated that the morphological changes following resistance training are similar to those found with aerobic exercise and not those associated with pathological left ventricular hypertrophy.

Simply put, and as logic might also suggest (despite your Ex Phys professor's best attempts to ignore it), resistance training won't put you into diastolic heart failure.

Others:
Left ventricular remodelling and the athlete's heart: time to revisit the Morganroth hypothesis
The Morganroth hypothesis revisited: endurance exercise elicits eccentric hypertrophy of the heart
The athlete's heart: a contemporary appraisal of the 'Morganroth hypothesis'. - PubMed - NCBI
LV hypertrophy in resistance or endurance trained athletes: the Morganroth hypothesis is obsolete, most of the time -- Haykowsky and Tomczak 100 (16): 1225 -- Heart

[LimieJosh]

Concentric vs Eccentric hypertrophy are not particularly useful terms. More typically we think of them as volume vs pressure hypertrophy. These changes go beyond just pure hypertrophy though (change in internal chanber volume as a ratio of muscle mass is really what is critical, and different between the two scenarios), and it is not the morphological changes that are problematic, but the scenarios that produce them. Having to chronically pump against high systemic blood pressure is not the same as having to pump against the increased afterload produced during strength training when it is coupled with the increased venous return of a training session.

As for the first bit, I dont even understand the premise. What does it possibly mean that "endurance is best"? As someone with years of experience of delivering this material I will not take this confusion as a limitation or error on the part of the instructor.

[Joe Jaloszynski]

As for the first bit, I dont even understand the premise. What does it possibly mean that "endurance is best"? As someone with years of experience of delivering this material I will not take this confusion as a limitation or error on the part of the instructor.

I am not a doctor or a medical student. I do not have any certification. But it sure sounds like an excuse to not lift heavy because that's hard. Running is easy. I would also venture a guess that this professor weighs less than 170lbs and is a runner.

[LizF]

Dr. Been is probably the best person to address #1, but I'll go ahead and give it a shot.

Endurance has been very useful to human beings. I do think that we have developed in such a way that sustained moderate exertion is easier for us than other forms of exertion. However, since there are other attributes that are also useful (speed, strength) and since the majority of us haven't been persistence predators since the development of ranged weapons, I don't see how this particular factoid is relevant to anything in modern exercise science -- except that it suggests the relative uselessness of sustained moderate exertion for forcing adaptation. After all, if it's easiest, and we're designed to do a lot of it, then it won't end up producing a lot of stress.

I must say, I'm very wary of an alleged biological expert saying that we are "designed" for anything.

[Suwannee Dave]

...I must say, I'm very wary of an alleged biological expert saying that we are "designed" for anything.

I agree. If we were designed for any particular habitat or activity, we would not have become the most invasive species on the planet.

[lewabbit]

I am not a doctor or a medical student. I do not have any certification. But it sure sounds like an excuse to not lift heavy because that's hard. Running is easy. I would also venture a guess that this professor weighs less than 170lbs and is a runner.

Running is easy?

[Joe Jaloszynski]

Running is easy?

It's easier than learning how to perform basic barbell lifts correctly. It's also easier than walking into a gym and hammering out a volume day of squats. Yes, I believe running is easier than lifting weights.

[lewabbit]

It's easier than learning how to perform basic barbell lifts correctly. It's also easier than walking into a gym and hammering out a volume day of squats. Yes, I believe running is easier than lifting weights.

I have personally always found running to be extremely difficult. If you're talking about any sort of serious running, it's a very hard thing to do.

Running a marathon is the equivalent of squatting 405, i would think. And in my world- squatting 405 to depth, for reps, is infinitely easier.

[MBasic]

I have personally always found running to be extremely difficult. If you're talking about any sort of serious running, it's a very hard thing to do.

Running a marathon is the equivalent of squatting 405, i would think. And in my world- squatting 405 to depth, for reps, is infinitely easier.

nope. says the ten of thousands of people who do this every time the PF Changs comes to town.
I guarantee there's more marathon runners (people who finish under 6 1/2 hrs and get their participation medal) than people who can hit at depth 405 squat (225 for females).
WAY FUCKING MORE. everyone and their brother has a 26.2 sticker on their car

What people are capable of is a different story. But I digress