Dr. David Ryan - The Facts About Aerobic Response.

**webmaster** · 09-15-2005, 04:41 PM

Learn some of the main reasons why doing cardio twice a day or after a workout may be more beneficial in burning fat and not muscle. There are also a number of facts here that may surprise you. Try not to get mad when you read this.

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/drryan6.htm

HOW TO REVIEW: Post Your Review Of This Article - CLICK ON POST REPLY BELOW! You do NOT need to be a registered member to post a reply in this section!

MCconditioner · 09-15-2005, 08:52 PM

This article is really poorly written. I couldn't flush out anything of value.

Saeco Pink · 09-16-2005, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MCconditioner

This article is really poorly written. I couldn't flush out anything of value.

Because you didn't find anything you value, then the article is poorly written?

Saeco Pink · 09-16-2005, 01:19 AM

This article is interesting for making arguments I had not heard of before.

agony21 · 09-16-2005, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Saeco Pink

This article is interesting for making arguments I had not heard of before.

Agreed! I thoroughly enjoyed this article, and he made some very interesting arguements.. I wish there would be alot more articles like this...

Scott LaPierre · 09-16-2005, 08:06 AM

I enjoyed this article too, and would like to see more like it; however, at points I almost felt like it was contradicting itself. At one point it sounds like he's recommending cardio over 50 minutes, because of the suppresssion of cortisol. At another point it sounds like he's recommending 2 separate shorter sessions instead of one longer session.

09-16-2005, 10:52 AM

Yes, there is valuable information in this article, but no it is not very accessable. The article is disorganized, poorly wrtitten and it does contradict itself.

It is the writer's job to present his point of view in as clear and concise a manner as possible. One idea must lead to another in a way that makes sense and ultimately supports the conclusion. This author couldn't be bothered to proof-read, let alone organize his thoughts.

The summary seems to contradict the article, in any case.

bubba g · 09-16-2005, 12:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes, there is valuable information in this article, but no it is not very accessable. The article is disorganized, poorly wrtitten and it does contradict itself.

It is the writer's job to present his point of view in as clear and concise a manner as possible. One idea must lead to another in a way that makes sense and ultimately supports the conclusion. This author couldn't be bothered to proof-read, let alone organize his thoughts.

The summary seems to contradict the article, in any case.

I have to agree with you....

Culturista · 09-17-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

I have to agree with you....

Me too. He presented a lot of charts, studies, and interesting information but he really could have structured the article better. I just hope he knows that "summarization" is not a word.

This is what I got out of it.

-A 10 minute low int. (power walking) cardio session in the morning.
-A 10 minute mod. int. (60-75%) in afternoon after workout.

-Sweating is important so wear a sweatshirt.

-Cortisol production is good???

09-18-2005, 01:15 AM

Next time the author should check with pubmed. Current research shows cortisol increasing after 60 minutes.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...766&query_hl=3

The author should have also known that increased cortisol is the last thing people trying to loose weight.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...820&query_hl=7

For a doctor you would think they could check pubemd at least before writing an article.

Darkservant · 09-19-2005, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Unregistered

Yes, there is valuable information in this article, but no it is not very accessable. The article is disorganized, poorly wrtitten and it does contradict itself.

It is the writer's job to present his point of view in as clear and concise a manner as possible. One idea must lead to another in a way that makes sense and ultimately supports the conclusion. This author couldn't be bothered to proof-read, let alone organize his thoughts.

The summary seems to contradict the article, in any case.

Have to agree with the contradiction bit. The article also seems to not encourage HIIT from my what Ive read of it, considering alot of people benefit from doing shorter high intensity cardio which is energising (for me that is..) and more time concious for some of us with proven results.

What was missed in the article is the nutritional aspects of doing cardio in the morning. If the author does suggest an empty stomach for am cardio, then I would say, I've seen myself how bad this can be on muscle due to high cortisol levels, but then again everyones different.

I think articles like these should encourage individuls to try and see what works from them as some people respond positively or negitively to certain training techniques/understanding.

As a positive note I did take a good amount of info on the overtraining aspect and how bad excessive cardio can be.

01-13-2006, 02:19 PM

This article seems like it has something there but seems poorly written. It jumps around with a lot of attempts at humor and loses focus. It cites cortisol suppression as a bad thing. But why?? I thought cortisol was bad so suppressing it would be good. And why do we exercise more than 5 minutes?? The question was raised but I don't see the answer. Even the title is a non sequitur.