Amateur marathon lovers who do not have the luxury of doing all kinds of exercises during day time will not have enough blood going to their brains and other internal organs including skin and bones when they train themselves for endurance. They hope that when they exercise non-stop, blood will be circulated to all their body cells. That is not true, blood only goes to their muscles. Thus, if a person does a marathon run every quarter, I expect that bone loss will start in a few years time but brain damage can happen much sooner. One more question - can the following exercise (called the 30-time start-stop interval training for internal organs) reverse brain damage and osteoporosis? The main criterion of this start-stop exercise is that you have to stop your exercise(s) 30 times in a day so that you can send more blood to your organs for a while every time when you stop moving. Please comment.
Article The 30-Time Start-Stop Interval Training For Internal Organs...
Your question is puzzling, and contains several statements that are simply false. Even a cursory search of Pubmed, Google Scholar, or any other search tool will show that cerebral blood flow is maintained or increased during exercise, and that weight-bearing exercise is the primary mechanism to prevent osteoporosis.
Doesn't blood flow to the brain remain constant regardless of physical activity? And did you read the article completely? There are no references as to his theories and he is an electrical engineer by profession. I don't fathom why you'd take his word over that of established physiologists or textbooks for that matter.
Hey, I need more intelligent discussions. Mind you, this is a potential science break though in many fields and I encourage people to think outside the box just for a while. Who could point out that exercise is good for the brain unless we stop the exercise many times? So far, I am the only one. To me, all exercises (impact, non-impact, high intensity, low intensity, aerobic, resistance,...you name it) are the same. The reason why swimming is seen not as good as impact exercises (for osteoporosis) is that most non-competitive swimmers tend to swim non-stop once they jump into the pool, whereas impact exercises are usually much shorter sets with many breaks. Aerobic can be somewhere in between. When experiment subjects were not screened properly, researchers would get all kinds of vague results. My 30-time start-stop interval training is very simple theory employing only 2 principles from my Pao’s Law of Exercise (derived from a new taichi theory). I don’t do this exercise by myself because I am doing the extra slow taichi which is to trick my brain that I am not moving, and I only do it 30 minutes a day because it is more efficient than starting and stopping 30 times. Anyway, I hope that more people can do more researches and experiments on this start-stop exercise and expand its applications. I see that sky is the limit.
Have you ever considered that maybe the reason why the results are vague is because subjects weren't SCREENED properly?
All my statements are referring to all tissues except skeletal muscles because the microcirculations for most cells in internal organs 9 are completely different from muscles' as revealed by my taichi findings. Better screening would defintely improve experiment results on internal organs. But the results still won't be very accurate because a person only needs to raise the heart rate by 20 to 25 bpm without moving to send more blood to capillaries. If you only ask your patients to exercise 30 min or 1 hour and do not care what they do for the rest of the day, your experiment results could be very different.
I hope that anyone who has some chronic illnesses can try for yourself to stop and rest 30 times during your current exercises just for 2 weeks and see if you start feeling better.
- Badges
- Science topic