Re: Physical fitness and evolution
From: Perplexed in Peoria (jimmenegay_at_sbcglobal.net)
Date: 06/22/04
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg law"
- Previous message: Michael Ragland: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- In reply to: Peter Webb: "Physical fitness and evolution"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Physical fitness and evolution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 20:16:23 +0000 (UTC)
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:cb7rtc$mic$1@darwin.ediacara.org...
> The adaptations that occur in response to cardio training are harder to
> explain. These include increased capillaries, more mitochondria, and
> numerous others. However, none of these seem to have a downside. Being
> fitter in a cardio sense always seems better than being unfit (unlike the
> situation with muscle vs fat). So why does your body lose these
adaptations
> to exercise when the exercise stops? What is the environmental advantage
of
> becomong unfit when we don't exercise? Why doesn't your body just
implement
> the adaptations to exercise even if you aren't exercising?
The responses you describe would seem to increase the requirement for food.
Needing more food is not always adaptive.
- Next message: Perplexed in Peoria: "Re: Hardy-Weinberg law"
- Previous message: Michael Ragland: "Re: Analog vs Digital"
- In reply to: Peter Webb: "Physical fitness and evolution"
- Next in thread: Tim Tyler: "Re: Physical fitness and evolution"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
|