CureYourBody.com is excited to announce the launch of
its new forums. The next several months will be critical to setting up the
forums the way you want them to be. So
if you feel we should add more categories or sub forums, please let us know.
We'll add sub forums on our own as well, if we feel a
large number of posts are being made on a specific topic. For example, "Colon Cleansing" was added as a sub forum to the Gastroenterology forum since there seems
to be a lot of posts for that specific subject.
Many people have different strengths etc but I just wanted to know what is the basic minimum requirement that is considered to be active and engaging as where exercise is concerned on a daily basis?
An answer to your question isn't so straight forward. It really depends on what you are trying to accomplish (in other words, what the major goal you are trying to accomplish is).
I could give a textbook answer and suggest that 30-minutes of exercise, aerobic in nature, will be enough accounting for the British Heart Foundation's recommendation. If I swing American, the American Heart Association suggests we can further subdivide this into 3 alternative sessions amounting to the same said effects if the sessions equate to the same time frame (in other words, three-10 minute sessions).
The health benefits are obvious - showing "some" movement superior to "no" movement and subsequent:
[1] Strengthening of heart muscle,
[2] Improving Blood Flow,
[3] Reducing High Blood Pressure,
[4] Raising HDL ("H"elpful or good cholesterol)
[5] Lowering LDL ("L"ethal or Bad cholesterol)
See, the issue here is that you mentioned strengths of varying proportions though, so we must consider what it takes to accomplish attaining such strengths. And such will be what truly contributes to accomplishing varying body composition pursuits (i.e. - lose fat, increase muscle, et al...). These goals are not exactly the same as health benefits, but the two are also not mutually exclusive.
How do we arrive at an answer of what the correct number is then. The answer lies in how we define "intensity" and it takes on different connotation for different types of exercise.
Aerobic (cardio training) intensity: How quickly we move
Anaerobic (strength training) intensity: How heavy we lift (or really, how heavy we "resist" - gravity that is)
The more intense you make each session, the more likely you are to achieve both constructs and so my own minimum requirements would hinge on this principle:
Aerobic: 30 minutes of moderately intense activity 0-2 times per week
Anaerobic: 30-45 minutes of moderately intense activity 4 times per week
Or you could accomplish BOTH with circuit-style training (which combines both constructs) and do 3 sessions circuit training, mod intensity at about 45 minutes each for the minimally "best" health / body composition benefits combined. Of course, some will accomplish said results with more, some with less activity, but you were asking for minimums.
I do around half an hour a day exercise and walk around one to two miles a day on a good day. I think for my age and also actitivity level that is at least the basic minimum. Is that quite good?
It "may" however, it is still questionable what you are tryinig to attain? In other words, just being active for the sake of being active, could be defined as a number of things...I am looking for your true GOAL.
Most try and quantify their goals (Most Often) in one of the following 3 manners:
[1] Body Composition/Physique Change: Lose Fat, Gain Muscle/Tone, etc...?
The exercises that you can perform are crunches, sit ups and pull ups. These will help you tone and flatten your tummy but I think you have to ask your doctor if you can do exercises after you give birth.
Hello
OK, this is getting nasty. In their latest Droid Does TV ad, Verizon and Motorola clearly mock the iPhone as a self-obsessed beauty queen that may be pretty on the outside, but it’s slow on the inside.
On the other hand, Droid is portrayed as a rough, fast, nasty, living-on-the-edge phone that cares less about looks and more about performance.
“Should a phone be pretty,” the ad asks. “Should it be a tiara-wearing, digitally-clueless beauty pageant queen? Or should it be fast?” We’re not quite sure that the Droid – or any Android Android Android phone, for that matter – is that much faster (if at all) than the i Phone, but you gotta advertise something, right? See the full ad after the break.
