Another discussion about the reason that you start a thread

[skribs]

Are you saying that logic may not apply to everybody?

Depends on the subject.

For example, who has better kicks - Muay Thai or Taekwondo? Some argue that TKD has better kicks, because in many TKD school's it's 80% of what you do anyway. Others argue that MT has better kicks, because when they spar you can actually punch, kick to the leg, and grab the leg - none of which you can use in TKD. If you throw a body kick in MT, you have to be cognizant of the possibility of being countered by a jab or a leg kick, or of having your leg grabbed.

The same can be applied to who has better punches. I'll again use Muay Thai, but this time put in boxing. Boxers spend 100% of their time on punches - either how to throw them or how to avoid them. MT fighters spend significantly less on punching. However, a Muay Thai fighter has to worry more about the clinch, about knees and elbows, kicks and throws. Their stance will be different to better prepare them for leg and body attacks, and they'll be more aware of the distance they need to be in order to punch you without getting punched or kicked.

In both cases, I've given you two pieces of logic based on fact. But we haven't arrived at an objective fact of who has better kicks or punches. Which objective fact do you put more weight on? Training time or the overall applicability of the technique? This is where logic can lead to an opinion.

This is the problem, I think. A lot of people have used logic to come to a conclusion, and because of that assume it is fact. But they don't realize that their bias affects how they perform that logic, and that choices were made in assessing the results of their logical test.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Are you saying that logic may not apply to everybody?

When it's that black and white, sometimes. I'll give an example:

Being stronger is better than not being stronger. Therefore you should increase your strength training. Seems logical.

Now for the complication. You only have 10 hours a week to do supplementary training. Being faster is also better than not being faster. Good cardio is better than bad cardio. So what if I already spend 8 hours of that doing strength training, and only 2 hours combined for cardio/speed. Should I still be increasing my strength training?

 

[skribs]

When it's that black and white, sometimes. I'll give an example:

Being stronger is better than not being stronger. Therefore you should increase your strength training strength training.

Now for the complication. You only have 10 hours a week to do supplementary training. Being faster is also better than not being faster. Good cardio is better than bad cardio. So what if I already spend 8 hours of that doing strength training, and only 2 hours combined for cardio/speed. Should I still be increasing my strength training?

Or the one I'm struggling with, which is how consistent should you be in your exercises. Someone who just does pushups will end up with strong chest and triceps and not much else. But if you work out 3 days a week, and you have 6 different workout plans that you follow so you can hit every muscle group, how much will you increase your chest and triceps if you're only working them once every 2 weeks?

 

[dvcochran]

Besides fact and opinion, how about logic such as:

- Leg is longer than arm.
- A - B < A (force against force) and A + B > A (borrow force).
- ...

It doesn't make sense if people even argue about the logic.

I fully agree with not arguing against logic. However, there are more that two variables in this (and most any) scenario.

 

[jobo]

When it's that black and white, sometimes. I'll give an example:

Being stronger is better than not being stronger. Therefore you should increase your strength training. Seems logical.

Now for the complication. You only have 10 hours a week to do supplementary training. Being faster is also better than not being faster. Good cardio is better than bad cardio. So what if I already spend 8 hours of that doing strength training, and only 2 hours combined for cardio/speed. Should I still be increasing my strength training?

thats really is bad logic, for all but profesional strong men, , ten hours is a quite ridiculous time to spend on strength training, an hour is plenty and you will continue to get stronger on a month by month basis for years to come

two hours cardio is a bit excessive as well

you've plenty of timeleft in your wek to train additional skills

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

thats really is bad logic, for all but profesional strong men, , ten hours is a quite ridiculous time to spend on strength training, an hour is plenty and you will continue to get stronger on a month by month basis for years to come

two hours cardio is a bit excessive as well

you've plenty of timeleft in your wek to train additional skills

Yes, that is my point. The first logic of "being stronger is better should you should do strength training more", sounds like it makes sense up until you evaluate it further in the context of actual workouts.

As for the two hours cardio-that's a 5k a day, four days a week. Or 20 minutes a day of cardio with one rest day. Up to each person if that's excessive for them.

 

[jobo]

Yes, that is my point. The first logic of "being stronger is better should you should do strength training more", sounds like it makes sense up until you evaluate it further in the context of actual workouts.

As for the two hours cardio-that's a 5k a day, four days a week. Or 20 minutes a day of cardio with one rest day. Up to each person if that's excessive for them.

its well over the top for heart health, if you cant work your heart in 5 mins your not running fast enough

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

its well over the top for heart health, if you cant work your heart in 5 mins your not running fast enough

Now you're just moving goal posts. I said each person can decide if it's excessive, you stated it's excessive for one specific medical concern. Something I've seen you accuse others of recently. I'm noticing a pattern of you both accusing others of bad arguments, while making the same type of bad arguments yourself (and denying or ignoring it when pointed out). Makes me think you have the issue mentioned in OP where you don't want to actually discuss your opinion-about anything-you've made up your mind and just want to be proven right.

If you're wondering, this is also why I stop replying to you after getting my point across most times.

 

[jobo]

Now you're just moving goal posts. I said each person can decide if it's excessive, you stated it's excessive for one specific medical concern. Something I've seen you accuse others of recently. I'm noticing a pattern of you both accusing others of bad arguments, while making the same type of bad arguments yourself (and denying or ignoring it when pointed out). Makes me think you have the issue mentioned in OP where you don't want to actually discuss your opinion-about anything-you've made up your mind and just want to be proven right.

If you're wondering, this is also why I stop replying to you after getting my point across most times.

if you think im moving the goal posts its because your not understanding the discussion. I know it must be frustrating to be constantly corrected, but its tiresome to me to spend my time constantly having to having to counter myths and complete misunderstanding. but if no one does it then the level of ignorance in the population continues to increase.

in the instant case, you said Cardio. that is cardio in the collective term for the cardiovascular system. that is the HEART and its ability to pump blood. ( HEART health in you like), if as seems likely your misusing the term to refer to increase your aerobic base. general referred to as AEROBICS, IE the bodies capacity to metabolise oxygen, then that is a different discussion. But you cant expect me to just assume you do not know which term to use and if no one corrects you how will you ever learn ?

 

[Deleted member 39746]

For the "lols" to be completely honest with you.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

if you think im moving the goal posts its because your not understanding the discussion. I know it must be frustrating to be constantly corrected, but its tiresome to me to spend my time constantly having to having to counter myths and complete misunderstanding. but if no one does it then the level of ignorance in the population continues to increase.

in the instant case, you said Cardio. that is cardio in the collective term for the cardiovascular system. that is the HEART and its ability to pump blood. ( HEART health in you like), if as seems likely your misusing the term to refer to increase your aerobic base. general referred to as AEROBICS, IE the bodies capacity to metabolise oxygen, then that is a different discussion. But you cant expect me to just assume you do not know which term to use and if no one corrects you how will you ever learn ?

Cardio is actually a collective term for cardiovascular exercise, not the system, fyi. Which could be done to focus on your hearts health, or for any number of other things that rely on the heart beyond basic heart health. And you also replied two hours for cardio is over the top, when I said two hours for cardio combined with speed. So your point is moot to begin with.

 

[jobo]

Cardio is actually a collective term for cardiovascular exercise, not the system, fyi. Which could be done to focus on your hearts health, or for any number of other things that rely on the heart beyond basic heart health. And you also replied two hours for cardio is over the top, when I said two hours for cardio combined with speed. So your point is moot to begin with.

no if i go to the hospital, those folks that know a little bit about the human body, CARDIO is the unit that deals with heart health, though it not wrong to use the terms for exercises that focus on hearth health.

HEART health is the ability of the heart and associated systems to move blood, if your heart isn't capable of moving the blood for which ever exercise you choose then you have an '' unhealthy heart'' its nothing to do with basic heart health that is just a meaningless phrase.

you cant do prolonged speed training either, that's another 5 minute exercise. so this mythical two hours your mentioning is 10 mins top, five mins if your doing them together, aerobic exercise on the other hand does take a good bit longer, 20 mins maybe, 40 if your really going for it

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

no if i go to the hospital, those folks that know a little bit about the human body, CARDIO is the unit that deals with heart health, though it not wrong to use the terms for exercises that focus on hearth health.

HEART health is the ability of the heart and associated systems to move blood, if your heart isn't capable of moving the blood for which ever exercise you choose then you have an '' unhealthy heart'' its nothing to do with basic heart health that is just a meaningless phrase.

you cant do prolonged speed training either, that's another 5 minute exercise. so this mythical two hours your mentioning is 10 mins top, five mins if your doing them together, aerobic exercise on the other hand does take a good bit longer, 20 mins maybe, 40 if your really going for it

10 minutes speed, 10 minutes cardio. Thats 20 minutes a day. Times 6 is 2 hours per week. If you go with you're "really going for it", that's 4 hours in the week.

 

[jobo]

10 minutes speed, 10 minutes cardio. Thats 20 minutes a day. Times 6 is 2 hours per week. If you go with you're "really going for it", that's 4 hours in the week.

congrats on your basic maths, but there is really no need to do it every day, cardio one day, aerobics another and speed another so that 40 mins times x2 and 5 mins x2 x2 then throw in 20 mins of strength training a week so call it two hours

but your 4 hours is still a long way short of the 10 hours you originally quoted

 

[skribs]

no if i go to the hospital, those folks that know a little bit about the human body, CARDIO is the unit that deals with heart health, though it not wrong to use the terms for exercises that focus on hearth health.

HEART health is the ability of the heart and associated systems to move blood, if your heart isn't capable of moving the blood for which ever exercise you choose then you have an '' unhealthy heart'' its nothing to do with basic heart health that is just a meaningless phrase.

you cant do prolonged speed training either, that's another 5 minute exercise. so this mythical two hours your mentioning is 10 mins top, five mins if your doing them together, aerobic exercise on the other hand does take a good bit longer, 20 mins maybe, 40 if your really going for it

If you're talking about working out, cardio means exercises to work on your cardiovascular system to increase stamina. Go to any fitness site and ask about cardio and they'll talk about exercises that get your heart pumping and blood moving.

Since we were talking about fitness, that's obviously what @kempodisciple was talking about.

 

[jobo]

If you're talking about working out, cardio means exercises to work on your cardiovascular system to increase stamina. Go to any fitness site and ask about cardio and they'll talk about exercises that get your heart pumping and blood moving.

Since we were talking about fitness, that's obviously what @kempodisciple was talking about.

it may be obvious to you what he talking about, but your miss using the same terms.

FITNESS to do what exactly, cardio and aerobics though to some degree related and you get a benefit to both from either exercise, though in different amounts, are not the same thing and have contra indicators

if your doing ( extended)aerobics and your heart starts beating like a drum, thats not because your working your heart its because you've run out of oxygen, and your heart has gone into overdrive, thats not a good place to be, stop and let your heart normalise, keep going and you will a best calapse as the oxygen to the brain is cut off. you know your aerobic capacity has improved when your heart barely moves

cardio on the other hand is blasting your heart up to close to max for a short period of time, if your breathing gets highly elevated it shows you heart isn't what it should be as its not pumping the required the blood and the oxygen it carries

i had a conversation with a guy my age on a cycling forum, who was proudly telling me his cycling blasted his heart up to 200 for an extended period, he thought this meant he was fit, i said no mate that just shows how poor your aerobic capacity is, keep doing that and you will die

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

no if i go to the hospital, those folks that know a little bit about the human body, CARDIO is the unit that deals with heart health, though it not wrong to use the terms for exercises that focus on hearth health.

HEART health is the ability of the heart and associated systems to move blood, if your heart isn't capable of moving the blood for which ever exercise you choose then you have an '' unhealthy heart'' its nothing to do with basic heart health that is just a meaningless phrase.

you cant do prolonged speed training either, that's another 5 minute exercise. so this mythical two hours your mentioning is 10 mins top, five mins if your doing them together, aerobic exercise on the other hand does take a good bit longer, 20 mins maybe, 40 if your really going for it

Ah. I forgot you can't accept words have multiple meanings, and are unable to figure out meaning through context. I'll keep that in mind going forwards.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

congrats on your basic maths, but there is really no need to do it every day, cardio one day, aerobics another and speed another so that 40 mins times x2 and 5 mins x2 x2 then throw in 20 mins of strength training a week so call it two hours

but your 4 hours is still a long way short of the 10 hours you originally quoted

10 hours wasn't what i quoted as the ampunt of time you should do cardio/speed training in any of the posts. But I'll chalk that up to your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

 

[jobo]

10 hours wasn't what i quoted as the ampunt of time you should do cardio/speed training in any of the posts. But I'll chalk that up to your apparent lack of reading comprehension.

not sure im allow to say what il chalk your responses up to

 

[skribs]

it may be obvious to you what he talking about, but your miss using the same terms.

FITNESS to do what exactly, cardio and aerobics though to some degree related and you get a benefit to both from either exercise, though in different amounts, are not the same thing and have contra indicators

if your doing ( extended)aerobics and your heart starts beating like a drum, thats not because your working your heart its because you've run out of oxygen, and your heart has gone into overdrive, thats not a good place to be, stop and let your heart normalise, keep going and you will a best calapse as the oxygen to the brain is cut off. you know your aerobic capacity has improved when your heart barely moves

cardio on the other hand is blasting your heart up to close to max for a short period of time, if your breathing gets highly elevated it shows you heart isn't what it should be as its not pumping the required the blood and the oxygen it carries

i had a conversation with a guy my age on a cycling forum, who was proudly telling me his cycling blasted his heart up to 200 for an extended period, he thought this meant he was fit, i said no mate that just shows how poor your aerobic capacity is, keep doing that and you will die

Let me put it this way: you are the first person I have ever seen take "fitness" and "cardio" used in a sentence and assume we're not talking about exercises that work on your heart and lungs. Your position on this is so far outside of reality that I don't even know where to begin to dissect it.