aerobic exercise response

Oxygen intake efficiency × exercise fitness × metabolic base threshold = effective aerobic gain. All the “useless after practicing” pitfalls that you have stepped on are essentially the result of these three variables not hitting your personal thresholds.

Don’t believe it, I just met a 996 programmer student last month. He had to run 5 kilometers every day after get off work. After running for two months, he still lost weight. He still had insomnia every day and lost hair. His body fat rate had not dropped by half, and his cortisol had soared to a critical value.

The two aerobic schools that are the most noisy in the fitness circle now have their own academic support. There is a school of dead heart rate, which says that it must be maintained at 60%-70% of the maximum heart rate to be called the fat burning zone. If it is lower than this, it will be wasted exercise, and if it is higher than it, it will be anaerobic energy supply. The other school is stuck on the duration, saying that all glycogen is burned in the first 30 minutes, and you have to move for 45 minutes before you can touch fat. Both sides can produce a bunch of SCI papers to support the show, but when it comes to ordinary people, they are often acclimated.

The core reason why this "theory is correct but useless" situation occurs is that everyone ignores the most basic premise of oxygen intake efficiency. To put it bluntly, it is how much of the oxygen you inhale can actually be sent to the muscles to provide energy. It does not mean that the louder you breathe, the higher the efficiency. For example, for people who regularly practice aerobics, their maximum oxygen uptake can reach over 50, and their heart rate remains stable at 130 when running for 5 kilometers. For novices, their heart rate soars to 170 after running for 1 kilometer, and they are almost out of breath. In fact, most of the oxygen is used to maintain the state of cardiopulmonary overload, and not much is used to decompose fat.

What is more important than efficiency is actually the fitness of the movement. This variable is most easily ignored. I have seen too many people running even though their knees have accumulated fluid. The question is that running is the most efficient way to burn fat. Don't you think this is stupid? For people with old knee injuries, the fitness level of swimming and elliptical machines is 100 points, while running may only be 20 points. How can you compare the effect of an event with 20 points with someone else's 100 points? Some people are born to hate running and feel nauseous as soon as they get on the track. It is better to dance Pamela, play badminton, or even go to the park to play Tai Chi with the uncle and aunt for half an hour. As long as you persist, your mood is stable, and your cortisol does not skyrocket, your fat burning efficiency will be much higher than running.

Of course, the premise of all efficiency and fitness is that you must first understand your own basic metabolic threshold, which is far different for everyone. If you ask a person who has just eaten 3,000 calories of hot pot and a person who has been fasting for 12 hours to walk for the same 30 minutes, the fat burning efficiency will be three times different. There are also those who have lost weight through dieting before, and their metabolic thresholds are already very low. If you ask them to run 5 kilometers a day according to ordinary people's standards, they may not consume as much water as the water storage caused by elevated cortisol.

Speaking of this, some people must ask, can aerobic exercise lose muscle? There is still no unified conclusion in the academic circles on this issue. People in the powerlifting community are generally opposed to long-term steady-state aerobics, saying that as long as it exceeds 40 minutes, they will lose muscle and affect strength growth. ； People in the marathon circle run more than ten kilometers every day without losing much muscle mass. In fact, the core depends on your goals and supplementation: during the muscle-building period, do low-intensity aerobics for less than 30 minutes twice a week. After strength training, if you eat enough protein at 1.6g per kilogram of body weight, you will basically not lose muscle. ； If you rely solely on aerobic fat loss for more than 1 hour a day, no matter how much you supplement, you will lose some muscle. It depends on how much muscle mass you are willing to sacrifice for your body fat rate. There is no right or wrong, it just depends on your choice.

A while ago, I accompanied my mother to a square dance in the community. After dancing for 40 minutes, I specially put on an idle heart rate belt for her. The heart rate was stable between 105-115 throughout the whole process, which was just in the comfortable fat-burning range for her age. After dancing, she could drop by the door market and carry two kilograms of vegetables and half a braised duck home without gasping for breath. You say her aerobic effect is much better than that of many young people who have to run 5 kilometers, squat on the side of the road and vomit for a long time after the run, and come home so tired that they don’t even want to cook?

In fact, the best thing about this reaction is that it has no fixed value. You don’t need to compare pace or time with others, or stick to the heart rate zone given by others. If you are in good condition today, just run two more laps. If your boss scolded you for not having enough energy at work today, just walk slowly downstairs for 20 minutes to get some air. If you can persist for a long time and feel comfortable after doing it, it is the best aerobic exercise for you. There is no standard answer. Your own body is the most accurate measure.