Strong women

[Mary]

the stereotype that is pushed that a woman can't be big, muscular and beautiful,

Don't you see by the way that by posing in supine positions on forest floors women are pushing the stereotype that only by being submissive can they be beautiful? Even strong women have to fall at a man's feet.

The picture that Joni posted of Heini by the way is great, because she looks strong, natural, and not "sexed up." She has a real smile on her face, and looks like a real approachable human being. So yes, I find pictures of such women inspirational, and I am glad that there are pointers to these women on the net. I don't mind using them as inspiration. But women don't have to be beautiful to be inspiring. And a woman who comes first in a competition shouldn't be subject to socially acceptable put downs like "nice hair but..."

[J]

OK here's the women I called a "walking laboratory". Jill Mills. Actually she doesn't look so bad. Maybe I was wimpier back when I saw this and just felt threatened?

http://jillmills.com/events/wsw2001/wsw2001.htm
http://realdutchpower.nl/uitslagen2002/ ... ish%29.htm

And I love a nice scowl on anyone's face. I don't like smiles. Maybe cus I hate my own. (Too horsey.)

I'm curious about whether you vegan guys see any examples of strong women beauty in reality? Does anyone moving about in the gym, exercising make you hot and not look quite like these... pictures?

JO, Although nobody makes me "hot" in the gym, I have definitely seen women at various gyms with big muscles that looked awesome. Not quite sure what you mean looking "not quite like these pictures". If you mean less muscular than yes of course.

Mary
I agree no man should walk up to a woman and comment on their physical appearance upon first meeting. Now if I've known you for quite a while and you get a new hairdo I would comment. I hope that's OK at least.

[Mary]

I can see why a lot of men would feel threatened by her, and it is encouraging that you have realised that might be what influenced your earlier assessment of her. I think she looks like a fine role model, but that not all women would want to look or be like her. I look at her, and think that she has worked really hard to get where she is, and again, like Heidi, she is obviously having a good day in some of those photos, cause she has a big smile on her face.

It is a pity you don't like your own smile though. Have you ever realised that the smile you see on photos, in the mirror, isn't your usual smile? Neil doesn't realise that he has a lovely smile, as he only ever catches the smiles he puts on for the camera, and they are always really self conscious.

I don't mind somebody commenting if I cut my hair and they know me. Just a lot of men don't know how to talk to women. They start off with chat up lines, and the problem with lines is, you feel like you are a fish... if you know what I mean. So I never bit. Neil and I just talked about all sorts of stuff, sensible and crap, for months before we got onto appearance. (Both too shy to broach it.) We talked like good mates, rather than the whole shitty "romance" thing, which has always struck me as phoney.

If Neil had started off with, "hey, I hope you don't mind me asking, but you have great cheekbones. Have you ever thought of being a model?" I would have told him to eff off.

Neil, fortunately, is not a knob. I have had that pick up line three times. And a lot of equally cheesey crap. Believe me, it really pisses people off. And if it doesn't piss a woman off, you blokes should scarper. She is a wally.

[Mary]

This is sad. But it does show that strong women pander to the market, so it is not all mens fault at all. Just so you know. (Yes, Sensless, I think she is bastardising her own achievements, which should stand on their own.)

http://www.jillmills.com/gallery/gallery.htm

[J]

I don't think she's doing anything wrong. She's got a nice body and likes to show it off apparently.

All the bad stuff that you talked about earlier comes from somewhere other than women who prance around in thongs. It comes from religion. I don't think these women should have to hide their bodies just cus religion has so many people fucked in the heads. Hiding her body won't make things any better. Probably just make things worse as then men start slavering over ankles and become turned on even by sheep.

[Heyutang]

How many damm threads are in the nutrition section from infrequent posters who want to lose weight but don't want to strength train?

This line, together with the vegan wimp thread suggests that all of us have to start lifting? Every vegan, everyone who wants to lose weight? Some people just don't want to lift heavy weights.

[J]

This line, together with the vegan wimp thread suggests that all of us have to start lifting? Every vegan, everyone who wants to lose weight? Some people just don't want to lift heavy weights.

Yep, everyone should do strength training if they want to be healthy.

[Heyutang]

you're kidding, right?

[J]

You can add a generally in there but otherwise no.

[Heyutang]

Jesus J, what are you saying man? That strength training is indispensable for health.
You should know better. As a health care practitioner, I couldn't disagree with you more.
I will even state the opposite: excessive strength training can cause injuries.
Moderate exercise is good for health. In general, cardiovascular activities are better for the average person since it will increase circulation and lung capacity. Strength training is not as good in this aspect. It ony increases strength (the CV effects are insignificant compared to CV training). And muscular strength is NOT an indicator for health.

[J]

That strength training is indispensable for health. You should know better.
Define health.

You should know better. As a health care practitioner, I couldn't disagree with you more.
At least in America being a health care practitioner counts for squat. Here they haven't got a clue except when it comes to surgery and handing out the drugs. Preventive medicine pretty much does not exist. But I do see that you know way more than the average doctor here.

I will even state the opposite: excessive strength training can cause injuries.
Of course excessive anything is bad.

Moderate exercise is good for health. In general, cardiovascular activities are better for the average person since it will increase circulation and lung capacity. Strength training is not as good in this aspect. It ony increases strength (the CV effects are insignificant compared to CV training). And muscular strength is NOT an indicator for health

IMHO
This is a huge thing to tackle so I'll just take it slow.
Why are CV effects so special? I think whatever good they do is small compared to eating right. And there are other concerns than CV.

But we would have to define "health" to even talk about this stuff.

[Heyutang]

hi J,

you're eigth we'd have to define health to really discuss this.
in Western Medicine (WM): often a negative definition, namely the absence of diseases.
in Complementary and Alternative medicine (CAM) it may be a kind of flourishing state (I forgot the real definition, you know what I mean, right?). I must add that WM is also moving into this direction, at least the young doctors.
I called myself a health care practitioner because I have a degree in physical therapy and then studied Chinese Medicine for 4 to 5 years. I'm still learning (don't have enough space for all my books ha ha).
I was justy startled by you saying that eveyone who wants to be healthy should do strength training, Tell that to a marathon runner, or a cyclist, or people that hike on Sundays.
CV effects have been proven in countless studies to effect the outcome of countless diseases (like heart problems, cancers, all stress related diseases). I would be really suprised if you didn;t know this. It is common sense.
A good diet is equally important and of course is also related to many diseases. Stress is gaining in importance as well (incl emotional stress).

The positive effects of CV training are increased heart pump and circulation, increase of Lung volume capacity, and reduces stress, improves bone mass. There may be more effects, but I can;t remember them now. More blood circulation means better nourishment of all the tissues and organs, more lung capacity means more oxygen and enegry in the body. Stress reduction from better circulation (amongst other mechanisms).

The saying should be: moderate exercise is beneficial for health.

Strength training does not have that much of an overall effect on health like CV training does. Why would you even think so?
I can only think of stress reduction, bone mass improvement, greater muscular strength. But lifting a heavy weight has not been proven to reduce the risk for a stroke. CV training has.

Hope this clarifies a bit,

Tom.

[J]

I was justy startled by you saying that eveyone who wants to be healthy should do strength training, Tell that to a marathon runner, or a cyclist, or people that hike on Sundays.
If they had to make a choice between strength training and those other activities I think they are better off with strength training.

CV effects have been proven in countless studies to effect the outcome of countless diseases (like heart problems, cancers, all stress related diseases). I would be really suprised if you didn;t know this. It is common sense.
I think the same would be equally true of heavy lifting except that lifters far too often stuff themsevles full of meat.

A good diet is equally important and of course is also related to many diseases. Stress is gaining in importance as well (incl emotional stress)
IMO A good diet is far more important for avoiding the most prevalent diseases such as cancer or heart disease.

The positive effects of CV training are increased heart pump and circulation, increase of Lung volume capacity, and reduces stress, improves bone mass.
I wonder if a person quickly reaches a point of diminishing returns when it comes to the useful benefits from increased heart pump and circulation, I think the positive effects can be reached with just lifting. I can dimly recall that elite marathoners don't seem for example to live any longer than average.
And lung capacity (for what little is has to do with health as long as you don't smoke or get overly exposed to pollutants) is best improved by doing high rep squats or running wind sprints.
Strength training is far better for improving bone mass and of course just as good for reducing stress.

There may be more effects, but I can;t remember them now. More blood circulation means better nourishment of all the tissues and organs, more lung capacity means more oxygen and enegry in the body. Stress reduction from better circulation (amongst other mechanisms).
I could be wrong on the circulation thing but I think strength training will provide whatever little positive there is for this to offer in reducing disease provided the person isn't stuffing themself full of meat in the mistaken assumption that such is necessary to get anything out of the strength training. Once again, people who just do some walking seem to get as much or even more benefit than avid long distance runners. I would suspect the same would be true of strength training if it wasn't for the meat. Plus stronger bones and muscles.

Strength training does not have that much of an overall effect on health like CV training does. Why would you even think so?
I can only think of stress reduction, bone mass improvement, greater muscular strength. But lifting a heavy weight has not been proven to reduce the risk for a stroke. CV training has.
I think it hasn't been proven because the people who lift heavy eat way too much meat (saturated fat). And bone mass and muscular strength are hugely important when you get old. What percentage of people get so weak they end up bed ridden? Unfortunately when discussing disease such isn't even metioned at least in WM as opposed to cancer, etc.

People have heart attacks, and get cancer because of what they put into their bodies. Changing their diet is far more important in this regard than getting CV exercise. But the only thing that will keep your muscles from atrophying in old age is strength training. Keeping your muscles strong will increase the overall quality of life and leave people far more active at very advanced ages.

I could be wrong of course. But the people at the top of the WM hierarchy were getting their degrees back when lifting weights was still the activity of freaks. As such they may not yet have given sufficient attention to how great a positive contribution to health it may actually produce when correcting for the diet variable.

Plus they can't quantify the improvement in quality of life it offers so they can't get many papers out of it.

[Heyutang]

J, some of what you write is simply not true.
Strength training only increases circulation in the area you're training at that time. Local increase. Use a heart rate monitor and see the difference with a long continuous activity.
Of course strength training has beneficial effects, but still I wonder where you get it that it is the best. What about tennis, football, yoga, Tai Ji Quan, and all the other sports? Suddenly you declare weight lifting is the best, out of the blue.
FYI, some standard sports physiology:
muscles can be trained in:
- coordination
- strength
- speed
- endurance
- flexibility

This is to be found in all standard textbooks.
With this information one can see how different sports accentuate different aspects of muscle training. Some accentuate flexibility, others endurance and still others strength. They ALL have an effect on muscle health, composition and texture.
And this is only the muscles.

Besides that, there is the CV system, and the nervous system (including orthosympathicus OS and parasympathicus PS).
Again, different sports will train different aspects.

In CM, people train the meridian system. Like in Tai Ji Quan. So does yoga.

finally, there is the mind. Again, different sports will train different aspects. Like team work, mental endurance etc.

The best all-round training are CV training. Especially running since that exercise uses the highest percentage of muscles. One should add stretching for extra benefits. best outdoors. Besides that, exercises like Tai Ji are very good and less demanding on the joints plus the added benefit of meridian stretching. Some yoga forms are equally good.

Strenght training does not cause circulation like CV training does. And circulation has a very important effect on health. Whilst a good exercise, it is not the only good one, and not the best one also.
It is possible to practice a more all-round approach to strength training, by experimenting with different styles and speeds, stretching etc. But you still do not have the increased blood circulation and lung capacity.

Top sporters in general live shorter because they put too high demands on their bodies when they were young. Many of them die young and have heart problems or get really fat. Many of them do not continue exercising when they are older, when lung capacity and circulation becomes more and more important to avoid diseases.

All weight bearing exercises have an effect on bone mass. not only lifting.

You really think muscle strength matters that much when you're old? Overal fitness is much more important.

I hope you can see now that strength training is only one sport with benefical effects, and not the only one.

[Mary]

I agree with Heyutang. You say that CV training isn't necessarily the best. It trains the heart and lungs! You need them to stay alive! If you eat healthy and weight train, sure you are going to be healthier than your average person, but cardio fitness is key. I cannot believe that someone who I think is a scientist (I think you are aren't you J?) doesn't understand that.

My preferance is to do a lot of weights, and it seems to suit my body quite well, but I do cardio too. And Neil is suffering at the moment because his illness means he can't do cardio. However, stretches and tai chi style excercises are really helping him manage his pain.

Regarding the pictures by the way. We really are talking from completely different soap boxes here. I am not bothered about god or religion or anything like that. I am bothered by a woman having to sell her body as a commodity just to get noticed. You don't appear to see that she is showing her body but distorting herself in the process, into the image of some male fantasist. A man who posed on an incline bench, with his legs draped as though he were about to be shafted, with a soft and welcoming smile on his face would be laughed at for the fool he allowed himself to appear. A woman is apparently excercising her "freedom of choice." Who cares that her choices are so degrading?

Next time you see a "sexy" picture of a woman, ask yourself, would a man in the same position look ridiculous. If the answer is yes, then the picture is sexist.

And again for the record, I am not bothered by nudity in the slightest. I have posed nude in the past, where I was in control of what positions I could sit in. And I posed not because they were looking for a female body, but because they were looking for a human body for the class to draw. It wasn't degrading, though at one point it got a little bit chilly. I did it on my own terms, and bought Séamus shoes and food from the proceeds.