From: pae@blackcat.stortek.com (Phil Earnhardt)
Subject: Re: Wanted: NordicTrak Ski Simulator
Organization: StorageTek, Louisville, CO
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 07:05:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.221700.1@nickel.laurentian.ca> g5000005@nickel.laurentian.ca writes:
>In <1992Sep14.222747.26700@stortek.com> pae@blackcat.stortek.com 
> (Phil Earnhardt) writes:

>>With the exception of swimming, nothing is wrong with the other aerobic
>>exercises you listed, particularly if you add some upper-body component to
>>the aerobic exercise. For losing fat, swimming is one of the less effective
>>exercises.                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>^^^^^^^^^
>
>Oh? And on what basis do YOU make that statement? My first degree was in
>Kinesiology and I thought I learnt that swimming and nordic skiing were the
>BEST in terms of aerobic exercise! Please set me straight on this one...

It doesn't sound like you want to get set straight....

The results come from researchers who examine the effectiveness of various
types of exercise in having unfit people lose fat. The reason for swimming's
being one of the less effective aerobic exercises for fat loss is not clearly
understood. Part of the effect comes from the fact that the dominant muscles
typically used for swimming are the upper-body muscles; another part of the
picture may come from physiological reactions that mammals have when they
enter water.

Did your kinesiology research rate swimming as an effective exercise for unfit
people to losing fat? Where did it rank compared to other aerobic exercises?

>If you mean that the NT allows you to exercise in your 'target' exercise
>heart rate zone, then yes, I agree. However, when using the NT, there are two
>events occurring: [...] Once you become proficient at the technique, it gets
>harder to elicit that 'target' exercise heart rate.  	2) As you get fitter,
>you require more resistance to elicit that 'target' exercise heart rate. As I
>understand the NT machine, you quickly run out of resistance settings.

Maybe the problem arises from limitations in how you perceive a NT should
be used. You can raise the elevation of the front of the machine. Faster
running-style strides will raise your effort. Ditching the pole straps and
using small hand weights give you entirely new options for using the machine.
Doing skating-style asymmetrical pole plants with hand weights and a
skating-like leg stride raises *my* pulse rate quickly.

You may not want to do any of these things -- they no doubt are butchering
technique that you may want to develop before the snow arrives. On the other
hand, I'd guess that many (most? 90%?) of Nordic Track owners don't get on the
snow more than a handful of days every winter. In other words, they don't care
nearly as much about technique, and should, by all means, experiment with new
and novel ways to use their machine if they hit the wall that you have hit.

>>>Being a nordic ski coach (+12 years), people are rather suprised to hear me
>>>shoot down the NordicTrack (in spite of Bill Koch's endorsement |^) !)  but
>>>it is really not that effective (resistance is everything!).

This points to a phenomena of the misc.fitness group: the different
communities that participate here. One major bifurcation is between
primarily-anerobic and primarily-aerobic fitness types. Within the aerobic
types, there's a further sub-division: folks interested in a baseline level of
fitness and athletes interested in maximal performance and training aids.
Most of our misunderstandings and conflicts come from interactions between
these various sub-groups. Fortunately, it's also the source of our great
diversity of opinions.

It's possible that folks becoming fit will exceed the capabilities of a NT to
deliver aerobic exercise; it's more likely that such limits will be
encountered by competetive atheletes. Life would be boring if we only had NT
machines, but they're a fine diversion from the other aerobic exercise gear.

>Nordic Norm
--phil


Newsgroups: misc.fitness