Being a personal trainer Orange County, I first read Ken Hutchins' "Exercise vs. Recreation" article in the year 1996. I give some thought to his ideas in this field that they are some of the most important ideas from the history of exercise taught. They've certainly improved my way of life significantly. And chances are you probably have not heard of these ideas before discovering this article. I hope the suggestions benefit you as they have me.
In this context, "exercise" denotes activity that is done to enhance your body physically (increase strength, endurance, cardiovascular efficiency, help with losing fat, preserve or increase bone density and lean muscle mass, etc). "Recreation", on the other hand, refers to things that we all do for fun and enjoyment (which are psychological purposes). In his essay on the subject, Ken identified 5 key dissimilarities regarding what appropriately qualifies as "exercise" and what qualifies as "recreation": Exercise is logical. Recreation is instinctive. Recreation is whatever you feel is fun for you ("instinctive"), while proper exercise results from a logical approach of considering how to efficiently, effectively, and safely load your muscle and joint functions on the human body.
The principles of exercise are universal. Recreation is personal. The muscle and joint functions of the body of a human are fundamentally the same for everybody, so the requirements for effectively loading the muscles to offer effective exercises are universal (applies to everybody). In a way, effective exercise is the same for everybody. Recreation, on the other hand, is personal. The Thing I like to do for enjoyment may be very different to that which you enjoy.
Exercise has general transfer to other activities, whereas recreation is specific. The benefits of exercise (stronger muscles, more endurance, better cardiovascular efficiency, etc.) will improve your ability to perform any physical task (including running a race or carrying groceries from your car to the kitchen). Recreational skills are specific to that activity itself, and the motor skills learned from one task don't transfer well with other activities (learning the ability of swinging a golf club iron will do little to improve your bowling game, for example).
The intention of exercise is physical. The intentions of recreation are mental. As discussed earlier, the fundamental purpose for exercise is to boost the body physically. Recreation is made for fun, leisure, relaxation, etc. (i.e. mental and psychological reasons).
Proper exercise is not fun. Recreation is fun. Recreation has to be enjoyable for you - that's the whole motive for doing so! Exercise, however, is about loading the muscles of your body in a demanding manner, and that's not fun when you are doing it effectively. The results and advantages of exercise are certainly fun but if the procedure of exercising is fun, most likely it's not challenging enough for the muscles to qualify as meaningful exercise.
What exactly will be the practical implications of such ideas? Essentially it is the only certain version of training for strength (including slow-motion training for strength) qualifies to be included under a useful concept to the word "exercise". And it is not useful to consider alternative activities as "exercise". (That doesn't mean other activities are "bad". It just means they are not useful for exercise.)
Significant problems often occur whenever people mistakenly confuse and mix exercise with recreation. As an example, before starting to be enlightened about this subject, years ago I played basketball considering that it was fun and also because I thought it was good exercise. I now discover that compared to the muscular loading produced through proper strength training, basketball provides disorganized, inefficient, and sometimes low intensity muscular loading. Because of this, basketball is relatively ineffective for stimulating physical improvements with my body. Also, the high-force pounding my joints experienced from countless hours of running and jumping began to make me feel the effects of osteoarthritis on my knees at age 23 (very young for somebody's joints to start wearing out!). As an alternative for a better body, basketball had given me the exact opposite result with regards to my prematurely worn out knees were concerned.
I would have been more satisfied if I'd separated exercise and recreation, stimulating change in my body from rational strength training, and just played basketball because it was fun to do (rather than thinking that it was something best for me physically).
When I became convinced of Ken's suggestions on the subject and quit all of the non-strength training activities I'd previously considered to be "exercise", I didn't get stronger or weaker, and I didn't get leaner or fatter after ceasing those activities. The only real difference was my knees started feeling better after removing the pounding I was taking from the jogging and other similar things I've been doing. Exercise for me now is actually safer and even more effective, and the things I do for recreation are usually more fun simply because I do them for enjoyment and never because I feel like I need to do them for exercise.
My suggestion as a personal trainer Orange County is to perform sensible strength training for exercise to improve the body physically, and make great use of your fitter body to experience all of the other activities you like to do for recreation (anything they may be, including swimming, basketball, running a marathon, badminton, etc.) If you mix exercise and recreation, exercise is less efficient as well as much dangerous, and recreation is less enjoyable. Keep these things separate and I think you will be better off.
In this context, "exercise" denotes activity that is done to enhance your body physically (increase strength, endurance, cardiovascular efficiency, help with losing fat, preserve or increase bone density and lean muscle mass, etc). "Recreation", on the other hand, refers to things that we all do for fun and enjoyment (which are psychological purposes). In his essay on the subject, Ken identified 5 key dissimilarities regarding what appropriately qualifies as "exercise" and what qualifies as "recreation": Exercise is logical. Recreation is instinctive. Recreation is whatever you feel is fun for you ("instinctive"), while proper exercise results from a logical approach of considering how to efficiently, effectively, and safely load your muscle and joint functions on the human body.
The principles of exercise are universal. Recreation is personal. The muscle and joint functions of the body of a human are fundamentally the same for everybody, so the requirements for effectively loading the muscles to offer effective exercises are universal (applies to everybody). In a way, effective exercise is the same for everybody. Recreation, on the other hand, is personal. The Thing I like to do for enjoyment may be very different to that which you enjoy.
Exercise has general transfer to other activities, whereas recreation is specific. The benefits of exercise (stronger muscles, more endurance, better cardiovascular efficiency, etc.) will improve your ability to perform any physical task (including running a race or carrying groceries from your car to the kitchen). Recreational skills are specific to that activity itself, and the motor skills learned from one task don't transfer well with other activities (learning the ability of swinging a golf club iron will do little to improve your bowling game, for example).
The intention of exercise is physical. The intentions of recreation are mental. As discussed earlier, the fundamental purpose for exercise is to boost the body physically. Recreation is made for fun, leisure, relaxation, etc. (i.e. mental and psychological reasons).
Proper exercise is not fun. Recreation is fun. Recreation has to be enjoyable for you - that's the whole motive for doing so! Exercise, however, is about loading the muscles of your body in a demanding manner, and that's not fun when you are doing it effectively. The results and advantages of exercise are certainly fun but if the procedure of exercising is fun, most likely it's not challenging enough for the muscles to qualify as meaningful exercise.
What exactly will be the practical implications of such ideas? Essentially it is the only certain version of training for strength (including slow-motion training for strength) qualifies to be included under a useful concept to the word "exercise". And it is not useful to consider alternative activities as "exercise". (That doesn't mean other activities are "bad". It just means they are not useful for exercise.)
Significant problems often occur whenever people mistakenly confuse and mix exercise with recreation. As an example, before starting to be enlightened about this subject, years ago I played basketball considering that it was fun and also because I thought it was good exercise. I now discover that compared to the muscular loading produced through proper strength training, basketball provides disorganized, inefficient, and sometimes low intensity muscular loading. Because of this, basketball is relatively ineffective for stimulating physical improvements with my body. Also, the high-force pounding my joints experienced from countless hours of running and jumping began to make me feel the effects of osteoarthritis on my knees at age 23 (very young for somebody's joints to start wearing out!). As an alternative for a better body, basketball had given me the exact opposite result with regards to my prematurely worn out knees were concerned.
I would have been more satisfied if I'd separated exercise and recreation, stimulating change in my body from rational strength training, and just played basketball because it was fun to do (rather than thinking that it was something best for me physically).
When I became convinced of Ken's suggestions on the subject and quit all of the non-strength training activities I'd previously considered to be "exercise", I didn't get stronger or weaker, and I didn't get leaner or fatter after ceasing those activities. The only real difference was my knees started feeling better after removing the pounding I was taking from the jogging and other similar things I've been doing. Exercise for me now is actually safer and even more effective, and the things I do for recreation are usually more fun simply because I do them for enjoyment and never because I feel like I need to do them for exercise.
My suggestion as a personal trainer Orange County is to perform sensible strength training for exercise to improve the body physically, and make great use of your fitter body to experience all of the other activities you like to do for recreation (anything they may be, including swimming, basketball, running a marathon, badminton, etc.) If you mix exercise and recreation, exercise is less efficient as well as much dangerous, and recreation is less enjoyable. Keep these things separate and I think you will be better off.
About the Author:
Getting into top shape through the help of personal trainer Orange County not just improves your figure but also your health also. The rewards that an individual could obtain from personal trainer Mission Viejo are limitless.
No comments:
Post a Comment