Aerobics sorting

There is no fixed ranking that is suitable for everyone. All rankings must first anchor your core needs, and then be flexibly adjusted based on the three dimensions of sports threshold, injury risk, and efficiency. Those lists on the Internet that just say "No. 1 in skipping and last in running" are basically made up by amateurs who have never understood the rules of exercise.

Let’s first talk about the fat loss needs that everyone is most concerned about. Don't believe it, I once took care of a 180-pound young man. I believed the statement on the Internet that "skipping is twice as effective at losing fat as running." I jumped for 40 minutes on an empty stomach every day. After a week, my knees accumulated fluid and I had to struggle to squat on the toilet. From the perspective of sports medicine, the first echelon for large-scale fat loss is always non-impact or low-impact activities such as brisk walking, swimming, and elliptical machines. The pressure on the knees is less than twice the body weight, and it is not easy to be injured even if you move for an hour a day. The second echelon is rowing machines and jogging on flat roads, as long as the posture is correct and the shoes are suitable. , the risk is also controllable; high-impact events such as skipping, jumping jacks, and burpees should basically be ranked last. After all, if you look at the exercise metabolism scale, you will know that the unit consumption of skipping is indeed about 30% higher than running. However, if a person over 160 kilograms jumps, the weight carried on his knees is almost 500 kilograms. Can you handle it? Of course, there are CrossFit coaches who hold objections. They feel that as long as the core is tightened and the movements are standard, the fat-burning efficiency of high-impact aerobics can outperform low-intensity programs. Both views are correct, but the former is for the general public, and the latter is for trainers with a basic sports foundation.

If you change the demand scenario, it will be completely different. When I was preparing for a 50-kilometer hike last year, the ranking given by an old donkey who had been outdoors for ten years in the team was almost the opposite of the fat loss list. If you want to improve your sustained cardiorespiratory capacity and increase your maximum oxygen uptake, long-distance jogging and incline walking are definitely the first echelon. They can stably stimulate the heart and lungs to continue working in the target heart rate zone. After a month of practice, you can clearly feel that you are not out of breath when climbing stairs. The second echelon is long-distance cycling and open water swimming, which put less pressure on the lower limbs and are suitable for interspersed adjustments when practicing endurance. As for short-term high-explosion aerobics and HIIT, they should be ranked last. Practicing too much will drag down the ability to last long distances. Of course, there are also studies in sports journals that say intermittent aerobics can increase maximum oxygen uptake 40% faster than steady-state aerobics. However, anyone who has actually practiced it knows that the heart and lungs produced by intermittent training are "very weak". If you really want to walk on a mountainous road for more than ten hours, you still have to rely on the amount of steady-state aerobics to build endurance.

If you can’t even find time to go out, then the sorting logic will have to change. I used to work overtime for half a month on projects, and it was past nine o'clock when I got home every day. It was impossible to change clothes and go to the gym. The projects that can make you move immediately at this time are the best: high leg raises, jumping jacks, and Pamela's Happy Aerobics that can be done in the living room ranked first. There is no need to change equipment and take up space. Take 10 You can work up a sweat in just a few minutes; the second tier is rope skipping, brisk walking in the neighborhood, and you can go out just by changing your shoes; swimming at a venue, and elliptical trainers that require buying equipment should be ranked last. After all, exercise that can be sustained is useful. No matter how efficient it is, it is useless if you never find time to do it.

Oh, by the way, there is another controversial point that has been quarreling for many years: does HIIT count as aerobic, and can it be ranked first? From the perspective of exercise metabolism, HIIT is a mixture of aerobic and anaerobic energy supply, and the aerobic proportion is indeed not low. Supporters say that 10 minutes is equivalent to 30 minutes of jogging, and it is time-effective and cost-effective. Opponents say that it requires too much core and joint strength. Novices will be deformed after doing ten burpees and eight movements, and they will injure their waist and knees before losing weight. Both statements are correct, but they are suitable for different people. People with more than half a year of exercise foundation will have no problem ranking it at the top. Novices are more secure to start practicing with low intensity.

In fact, there are still people who don’t look at these parameters at all when ranking. Aunt Zhang, who is downstairs in my house, dances square dance for two hours every day for five years. After five years of dancing, her blood pressure and blood lipids are more stable than many young people who go to the gym every day. How do you think she can rank square dance? For her, it is the first place.

In the final analysis, the ranking of aerobic exercise is never about scoring the exercise itself, but about "whether you can persist, whether you will be injured, and whether it is effective." Just look at other people's lists for fun. Wearing shoes that fit your feet and moving around are more useful than any ranking.