Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
different definitions of 'intensity' with respect to exercise?
different definitions of 'intensity' with respect to exercise?
Most sites that I've looked at seem to define exercise "intensity" as
the percentage of maximum heart rate, e.g.
* exercise.about . com /cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm
However there are at least some sites that seem to use it differently:
* w w w .living-a-healthy-lifestyle . com /burn-fat.html
"Generally speaking however, aerobics is a low intensity exercise
which will burn fat over a period of time. Weight lifting is high
intensity carried over a short time period."
That can't be using "intensity" the same way, since aerobics makes
your heart beat faster than weight lifting. Is there a standard
definition for exercise "intensity"?
What I'm really trying to find out is what kind of exercise burns fat
vs. what kind uses glycogen and glucose. Most sources say that: (1)
"low intensity" exercise burns a higher percentage of fat, and "high
intensity" exercise uses a higher percentage of glycogen; (2) "high
intensity" exercise means exercise with a higher heart rate; and (3)
weight lifting burns a high percentage of glycogen. But the three
statements taken together are contradictory since weight lifting, with
its lower heart rate, would be a low intensity exercise by that
definition.
Would it be a correct statement to say that as far as **aerobic**
exercise is concerned, low intensity (lower heart rate) means more
energy from fat and less from glycogen, and high intensity (higher
heart rate) means more energy from glycogen? But that rule doesn't
apply to anaerobic exercise like weight lifting?
-Bennett
Most sites that I've looked at seem to define exercise "intensity" as
the percentage of maximum heart rate, e.g.
* exercise.about . com /cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm
However there are at least some sites that seem to use it differently:
* w w w .living-a-healthy-lifestyle . com /burn-fat.html
"Generally speaking however, aerobics is a low intensity exercise
which will burn fat over a period of time. Weight lifting is high
intensity carried over a short time period."
That can't be using "intensity" the same way, since aerobics makes
your heart beat faster than weight lifting. Is there a standard
definition for exercise "intensity"?
What I'm really trying to find out is what kind of exercise burns fat
vs. what kind uses glycogen and glucose. Most sources say that: (1)
"low intensity" exercise burns a higher percentage of fat, and "high
intensity" exercise uses a higher percentage of glycogen; (2) "high
intensity" exercise means exercise with a higher heart rate; and (3)
weight lifting burns a high percentage of glycogen. But the three
statements taken together are contradictory since weight lifting, with
its lower heart rate, would be a low intensity exercise by that
definition.
Would it be a correct statement to say that as far as **aerobic**
exercise is concerned, low intensity (lower heart rate) means more
energy from fat and less from glycogen, and high intensity (higher
heart rate) means more energy from glycogen? But that rule doesn't
apply to anaerobic exercise like weight lifting?
-Bennett
Re: different definitions of 'intensity' with respect to exercise?
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:54:14 -0700 (PDT), Bennett Haselton
<bennett@peacefire.org> wrote:
>Most sites that I've looked at seem to define exercise "intensity" as
>the percentage of maximum heart rate, e.g.
> * exercise.about . com /cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm
>
>However there are at least some sites that seem to use it differently:
> * w w w .living-a-healthy-lifestyle . com /burn-fat.html
>"Generally speaking however, aerobics is a low intensity exercise
>which will burn fat over a period of time. Weight lifting is high
>intensity carried over a short time period."
>
>That can't be using "intensity" the same way, since aerobics makes
>your heart beat faster than weight lifting. Is there a standard
>definition for exercise "intensity"?
>
>What I'm really trying to find out is what kind of exercise burns fat
>vs. what kind uses glycogen and glucose.
Aerobic exercise that uses both upper and lower body(very large muscle
groups) is best since you are not pushing small muscles to exhaustion.
Most sources say that: (1)
>"low intensity" exercise burns a higher percentage of fat, and "high
>intensity" exercise uses a higher percentage of glycogen; (2) "high
>intensity" exercise means exercise with a higher heart rate; and (3)
>weight lifting burns a high percentage of glycogen
The bottom line is higher intensity burns more fat than lower
intensity. It maybe a smaller percentage of fat but its a smaller
percentage of a much larger number.
. But the three
>statements taken together are contradictory since weight lifting, with
>its lower heart rate, would be a low intensity exercise by that
>definition.
More aerobic activities involve more muscles. Running, cross-country
skiing, etc are very aerobic since all the major muscles are used so
the limiting factor is aerobic capacity. You can work a hand grip all
day and it will burn etc but it is not going o tax your aerobic system
one bit because of the tiny muscles involved. Same goes for anything
that solely focuses on the upper body.
>
>Would it be a correct statement to say that as far as **aerobic**
>exercise is concerned, low intensity (lower heart rate) means more
>energy from fat and less from glycogen, and high intensity (higher
>heart rate) means more energy from glycogen? But that rule doesn't
>apply to anaerobic exercise like weight lifting?
>
Depends on the muscles involved. If you compare running at one heart
rate to a higher heart rate than less energy will come from fat.
On Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:54:14 -0700 (PDT), Bennett Haselton
<bennett@peacefire.org> wrote:
>Most sites that I've looked at seem to define exercise "intensity" as
>the percentage of maximum heart rate, e.g.
> * exercise.about . com /cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm
>
>However there are at least some sites that seem to use it differently:
> * w w w .living-a-healthy-lifestyle . com /burn-fat.html
>"Generally speaking however, aerobics is a low intensity exercise
>which will burn fat over a period of time. Weight lifting is high
>intensity carried over a short time period."
>
>That can't be using "intensity" the same way, since aerobics makes
>your heart beat faster than weight lifting. Is there a standard
>definition for exercise "intensity"?
>
>What I'm really trying to find out is what kind of exercise burns fat
>vs. what kind uses glycogen and glucose.
Aerobic exercise that uses both upper and lower body(very large muscle
groups) is best since you are not pushing small muscles to exhaustion.
Most sources say that: (1)
>"low intensity" exercise burns a higher percentage of fat, and "high
>intensity" exercise uses a higher percentage of glycogen; (2) "high
>intensity" exercise means exercise with a higher heart rate; and (3)
>weight lifting burns a high percentage of glycogen
The bottom line is higher intensity burns more fat than lower
intensity. It maybe a smaller percentage of fat but its a smaller
percentage of a much larger number.
. But the three
>statements taken together are contradictory since weight lifting, with
>its lower heart rate, would be a low intensity exercise by that
>definition.
More aerobic activities involve more muscles. Running, cross-country
skiing, etc are very aerobic since all the major muscles are used so
the limiting factor is aerobic capacity. You can work a hand grip all
day and it will burn etc but it is not going o tax your aerobic system
one bit because of the tiny muscles involved. Same goes for anything
that solely focuses on the upper body.
>
>Would it be a correct statement to say that as far as **aerobic**
>exercise is concerned, low intensity (lower heart rate) means more
>energy from fat and less from glycogen, and high intensity (higher
>heart rate) means more energy from glycogen? But that rule doesn't
>apply to anaerobic exercise like weight lifting?
>
Depends on the muscles involved. If you compare running at one heart
rate to a higher heart rate than less energy will come from fat.
Re: different definitions of 'intensity' with respect to exercise?
On Apr 23, 4:24 am, Tim <T...@anywhere . com > wrote:
> Most sources say that: (1)
> >"low intensity" exercise burns a higher percentage of fat, and "high
> >intensity" exercise uses a higher percentage of glycogen; (2) "high
> >intensity" exercise means exercise with a higher heart rate; and (3)
> >weight lifting burns a high percentage of glycogen
>
> The bottom line is higher intensity burns more fat than lower
> intensity. It maybe a smaller percentage of fat but its a smaller
> percentage of a much larger number.
I know, but what's the answer to the original question about the
meaning of "intensity"? Is weight lifting considered a "high
intensity" exercise or not? By what you just said, it would be high
intensity because it's using a higher percentage of calories from
glycogen. But by the "percentage of MHR" definition used on pages
such as * exercise.about . com /cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm ,
it would be low intensity.
On Apr 23, 4:24 am, Tim <T...@anywhere . com > wrote:
> Most sources say that: (1)
> >"low intensity" exercise burns a higher percentage of fat, and "high
> >intensity" exercise uses a higher percentage of glycogen; (2) "high
> >intensity" exercise means exercise with a higher heart rate; and (3)
> >weight lifting burns a high percentage of glycogen
>
> The bottom line is higher intensity burns more fat than lower
> intensity. It maybe a smaller percentage of fat but its a smaller
> percentage of a much larger number.
I know, but what's the answer to the original question about the
meaning of "intensity"? Is weight lifting considered a "high
intensity" exercise or not? By what you just said, it would be high
intensity because it's using a higher percentage of calories from
glycogen. But by the "percentage of MHR" definition used on pages
such as * exercise.about . com /cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm ,
it would be low intensity.
Re: different definitions of 'intensity' with respect to exercise?
On Apr 23, 2:27 pm, Bennett Haselton <benn...@peacefire.org> wrote:
> I know, but what's the answer to the original question about the
> meaning of "intensity"?
It means exercising to the point where the duration in time is limited
by the body.
> Is weight lifting considered a "high
> intensity" exercise or not?
Yes, although the heart may not be the limiting factor as in
sprinting.
--
Ron
On Apr 23, 2:27 pm, Bennett Haselton <benn...@peacefire.org> wrote:
> I know, but what's the answer to the original question about the
> meaning of "intensity"?
It means exercising to the point where the duration in time is limited
by the body.
> Is weight lifting considered a "high
> intensity" exercise or not?
Yes, although the heart may not be the limiting factor as in
sprinting.
--
Ron
Re: different definitions of 'intensity' with respect to exercise?
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Bennett Haselton
<bennett@peacefire.org> wrote:
>On Apr 23, 4:24 am, Tim <T...@anywhere . com > wrote:
>> Most sources say that: (1)
>> >"low intensity" exercise burns a higher percentage of fat, and "high
>> >intensity" exercise uses a higher percentage of glycogen; (2) "high
>> >intensity" exercise means exercise with a higher heart rate; and (3)
>> >weight lifting burns a high percentage of glycogen
>>
>> The bottom line is higher intensity burns more fat than lower
>> intensity. It maybe a smaller percentage of fat but its a smaller
>> percentage of a much larger number.
>
>I know, but what's the answer to the original question about the
>meaning of "intensity"? Is weight lifting considered a "high
>intensity" exercise or not?
Yes, It works specific muscles very intensely for a very short time
and burns much fewer calories but a higher percentage of fat compared
to a 30 min run at very low intensity. It burns few calories because
the duration is short since the muscle are too exhausted to continue
other than a very short period of time. Weight lifting is for
strength building etc.
> By what you just said, it would be high
>intensity because it's using a higher percentage of calories from
>glycogen.
True
>But by the "percentage of MHR" definition used on pages
>such as * exercise.about . com /cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm ,
>it would be low intensity.
Burns fewer calories but not low intensity.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 12:27:39 -0700 (PDT), Bennett Haselton
<bennett@peacefire.org> wrote:
>On Apr 23, 4:24 am, Tim <T...@anywhere . com > wrote:
>> Most sources say that: (1)
>> >"low intensity" exercise burns a higher percentage of fat, and "high
>> >intensity" exercise uses a higher percentage of glycogen; (2) "high
>> >intensity" exercise means exercise with a higher heart rate; and (3)
>> >weight lifting burns a high percentage of glycogen
>>
>> The bottom line is higher intensity burns more fat than lower
>> intensity. It maybe a smaller percentage of fat but its a smaller
>> percentage of a much larger number.
>
>I know, but what's the answer to the original question about the
>meaning of "intensity"? Is weight lifting considered a "high
>intensity" exercise or not?
Yes, It works specific muscles very intensely for a very short time
and burns much fewer calories but a higher percentage of fat compared
to a 30 min run at very low intensity. It burns few calories because
the duration is short since the muscle are too exhausted to continue
other than a very short period of time. Weight lifting is for
strength building etc.
> By what you just said, it would be high
>intensity because it's using a higher percentage of calories from
>glycogen.
True
>But by the "percentage of MHR" definition used on pages
>such as * exercise.about . com /cs/cardioworkouts/l/aa022601a.htm ,
>it would be low intensity.
Burns fewer calories but not low intensity.
