
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Once upon a time, our fellow jmk rambled on about "Re: Running in marathons impairs immunity." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
I must have missed your references upporting a 90 minute limit on exercise. Perhaps my news server didn't get that article? Could you please repost?
How cute.
I got the part that you are objecting.
But, I cannot respond until you specify what your specific objections
are.
On 11/20/2003 8:57 AM, John 'the Man' wrote:
Once upon a time, our fellow jmk rambled on about "Re: Running in marathons impairs immunity." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
Well, I have already presented my take on the situation. :)
Why don't YOU present us with the DETAILS and/or JUSTIFICATIONS for your different take on the 90 minute limit suggestion?
What did you conclude from the article?
When it comes to exercise, a lot of people like to take an extreme position. Either they claim that they exercise because they do Hatha Yoga (ie, the extreme of deficiency), or they insist upon running in those 26 mile marathons (ie, the extreme of excess). Marathon runners are really an insane group of people.
I didn't have that take on the article at all. I am no marathon runner but I do exercise for more than 90 minutes at a time at least once a week.
"Many components of the immune system exhibit adverse change after prolonged, heavy exertion lasting longer than 90 minutes." Thus, 90 minutes should be the maximum length for all workworks, particularly for continuous exercise activities.
Why do you think that 90 minutes should be the maximum length? What makes you think that the human body was not designed for durations of activity?
-- jmk in NC
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |