Talk:Aerobic exercise

message: The article is unclear about when the body starts to significantly burn fat reserves in the body after starting aerobic exercise. It says that fat burning is not immediate but starts gradually, implying fat starts to be burnt from the moment exercise starts. This is contradicted by other text in the article which states that fat burning only starts when the body runs out of glycogen. Which is correct?
Why do some articles on exercise say that fat and glycogen are burnt equally at a rate of 50:50 when exercise takes place? Which exercise heartbeat range does it apply to?
The included picture implies that a heart rate of 60-70% of maximum is a range where either fat starts to be burnt, or is the optimal range in which the most fat is burnt out of all the exercise ranges. Which is it?
Wsmss (talk) 23:46, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More information is needed on fat burning 

message: Quote: "Aerobic exercise is not a very efficient way to burn fat in comparison to other forms of exercise, as in order to preferentially burn fat one should exercise at lower intensities, which decreases the overall amount of calories burned per unit of time.[31]"
To me this section is very misleading and the aerobic exercise is the perfect way to burn fats! Yes, if we account for amount of time spent it is slow, but who is in a hurry?! Fat burning is a slow process and when you try to speed it up what can happen is that you might start to burn muscle mass instead of fats/carbohydrates. Also higher intensity trainings are stressing the heart and the body and there is no such risk with low intensity trainings which a person can make literally the whole day if he is in a hurry and wants maximum efficiency. Low intensity trainings also reduce the need to eat while high intensity trainings increase the appetite which is counter intuitive if one is trying to lose weight.Leonardo Da Vinci (talk) 11:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Efficiency in fat burning

message: Wow... no mention of history, Dr. Cooper or any other luminaries?  see
http://www.cooperinstitute.org/ et al. 132.3.29.68 (talk) 04:35, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shocking 

message: The word "Aerobics" is simple a reduction of the phrase "aerobic exercise" and so the two articles should be merged.  Dictionary.com gives the following definitions of the word:
 aer·o·bics  (noun)
 1.  Also called aerobic exercises. ( used with a plural verb ) any of various 
 sustained exercises, as jogging, rowing, swimming, or cycling, that stimulate 
 and strengthen the heart and lungs, thereby improving the body's utilization 
 of oxygen.
 2. (used with a singular verb) a physical fitness program based on such exercises: 
 Aerobics is a good way to get your body in shape.
The introductory sentence of this article:- "Aerobics is a form of physical exercise that combines rhythmic aerobic exercise with stretching and strength training routines", is therefore either incorrect (as aerobics/aerobic exercise and that may or may not include the matters mentioned, or merely a tautology - aerobics is synonymous with aerobic excerise.  
This article and [Aerobics]] have multiple issues imo (style, NPOV, references, structure, etc).  I have tagged both articles as best as I am able.  Mergeing the two would provide an opportunity to clear these up as well as eliminate the tautology.  
--LookingGlass (talk) 15:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: as has happened with all fitness-related articles, this one has been ravaged by unscientific mumbo jumbo brought about by bodybuilders and such, with no scientific knowledge to back things up. i believe a merger is good in this particular case in that it would condense all information in one article, and all efforts could be directed towards that, not to mention what you've aptly stated above. support. FoCuSandLeArN (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge and resolve multiple issues 

message: The heart rates in the "Exercise zones" graphic appear to be calculated as X% of maximum heart rate (MHR); so aerobic is (70% to 80%) * MHR. Other sources (e.g. http://www.brianmac.co.uk/hrm1.htm ) say that they should be calculated as percentages of the heart rate reserve. So if RHR is the resting heart rate, aerobic range would be RHR + (70% to 80%)*(MHR-RHR). I don't know which is correct, but noticed this discrepancy, so people might want to take a look at it.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.8.61.164 (talk) 21:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heart rate calculation 

message: Looks like the information in this section is only an Australian point of view and not a worldwide view.
Bravosiguenza (talk) 17:35, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Springnuts (talk) 07:21, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too much focus on Australia in "Aerobic exercise and obesity" section 

message: Kenneth Cooper was the first person to introduce the concept of aerobic exercise. In the 1960s, Cooper started research into preventive medicine. He became intrigued by the belief that exercise can preserve one's health. In 1970 he created his own institute (the Cooper Institute) for non-profit research and education devoted to preventive medicine. He sparked millions into becoming active and is now known as the "father of aerobics".[citation needed]
Please include the citation from the Cooper Institute to back up this claim that he is the "father of aerobics". WebMD also grants him that title here: https://www.webmd.com/kenneth-h-cooper. Oka6 (talk) 21:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation needed 

message: Hello, I just wanted to let you know that I will be editing this article. I have a few ideas for improvements on each section. I will be sure to post what I'm thinking of changing beforehand. Please, feel free to let me know what you think of my ideas.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquajanae (talk • contribs) 17:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edits  

message: I have posted some ideas for a few potential edits, I will be implementing this week, to my sandbox Uniquajanae/sandbox. aerobicexercise. Please take a look at my ideas and let me know what you think.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquajanae (talk • contribs) 17:02, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Edits 

message: I will be deleting most of the information from the Aerobic versus anaerobic section, because it is too detailed. I will be making this change within the next few days.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquajanae (talk • contribs) 14:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Information 

message: I will be creating a drawbacks section so that this information is no longer under the benefits subhead.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquajanae (talk • contribs) 14:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Drawbacks 

message: I will be deleting the aerobic capacity section. This information is not relevant to this article. It may fit better on the VO2 Max page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Uniquajanae (talk • contribs) 15:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleting Aerobic Capacity Section 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
*  ()
*  ()
Participate in the deletion discussions at the nomination pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion 

message: Hello,
As an average person with no medical background I find some contradictions in the article. Here is the quote:
"At lower intensity aerobic exercise, the body preferentially uses fat as its main fuel source for cellular respiration, however as intensity increases the body preferentially uses glycogen stored in the muscles and liver or other carbohydrates, as it is a quicker source of energy. Aerobic exercise at low or moderate intensity is not a very efficient way to lose fat in comparison to high intensity aerobic exercise"
So I'm confused. If you want to burn fat, which one is more effective - low or high intensity aerobic exercise?
Thanks! 95.214.106.86 (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article contradiction for most effective fat burning