题目内容
For three decades we’’ve heard endlessly about the virtues of aerobic (increasing oxygen consumption) exercise. Medical authorities have praised running and jumping as the key to good health, and millions of Americans have taken to the treadmill(踏车) to reap the rewards. But the story is changing. Everyone from the American Heart Association to the surgeon general’’s office has recently embraced strength training as a complement to aerobics. And as weight lifting has gone mainstream, so has the once obscure practice known as "Super Slow" training. Enthusiasts claim that by pumping iron at a snail’’s pace-making each "rep"(repeat) last 14 seconds instead of the usual seven-you can safely place extraordinary demands on your muscles, and call forth an extraordinary response. Slow lifting may not be the only exercise you need, as some advocates believe, but the benefits are often dramatic. Almost anyone can handle this routine. The only requirements are complete focus and a tolerance for deep muscular burn. Fox each exercise-leg press, bench press, shoulder press and so on-you set the machine to provide only moderate resistance. But as you draw out each rep, depriving yourself of impetus, the weight soon feels unbearable. Defying the impulse to stop, you keep going until you can’’t complete a rep. Then you sustain your vain effort for 10 more seconds while the weight sinks gradually toward its cradle. Intense Uncomfortable Totally. But once you embrace muscle failure as the goal of the workout, it can become almost pleasure. The goal is not to burn calories while you’’re exercising but to make your body burn them all the time. Running a few miles many make you sweat, but it expends only 100 calories per mile, and it doesn’’t stimulate much bone or muscle development. Strength training doesn’’t burn many calories, either. But when you push a muscle to failure, you set off a pour of physiological changes. As the muscle recovers over several days, it will thicken-and the new muscle tissue will demand sustenance. By the time you add three pounds of muscle, your body requires an extra 9,000 calories a month just to break even. Hold your diet steady and, very quickly, you are vaporizing body fat. One might have benefited from any strength-training program. But advocates insist the slow technique is safer and more effective than traditional methods. In practicing slow lifting, one has to
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
计算围产期开始的时间是
根据变量定义“statlc int x[5]，y[2][3]={9，6，3，1，4，7}；”，y[1] [2]= [7] 。
写出下列程序代码运行的结果 [11] 。 #include＜iostream.h＞ class A{ public: virtual void disp() {cout＜＜" calss A!" ＜＜(end1;} }: class B: public A{ public: void disp() {cout＜＜" class B! " ＜＜end1:} }; class C: public A{ public: void disp() {cout＜＜"class C! " (＜end1;} }; void main() { A a, *ptr; B b; C c; a. disp(); b. disp(); c. disp(); ptr=&b; ptr-＞disp(); ptr=&c; ptr-＞disp(): }
Americans today don’’ t place a very high value on intellect. Our heroes are athletes, entertainers, and entrepreneurs, not scholars. Even our schools are where we send our children to get a practical education―not to pursue knowledge for the sake of knowledge. Symptoms of pervasive anti- intellectualism in our schools aren’’t difficult to find. "Schools have always been in a society where practical is more important than intellectual," says education writer Diane Ravitch. "Schools could be a counterbalance." Ravitch ’’ s latest book, Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reforms, traces the roots of anti-intellectualism in our schools, concluding they are anything but a counterbalance to the American distaste for intellectual pursuits. But they could and should be. Encouraging kids to reject the life of the mind leaves them vulnerable to exploitation and control. Without the ability to think critically, to defend their ideas and understand the ideas of others, they cannot fully participate in our democracy. Continuing along this path, says writer Earl Shorris, "We will become a second-rate country. We will have a less civil society." "Intellect is resented as a form of power or privilege," writes historian and professor Richard Hofstadter in Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, a Pulitzer-Prize winning book on the roots of anti- intellectualism in US politics, religion, and education. From the beginning of our history, says Hofstadter, our democratic and populist urges have driven us to reject anything that smells of elitism. Practicality, common sense, and native intelligence have been considered more noble qualities than anything you could learn from a book. Ralph Waldo Emerson and other Transcendentalist philosophers thought schooling and rigorous book learning put unnatural restraints on children: "We are shut up in schools and college recitation rooms for I0 or 15 years and come out at last with a bellyful of words and do not know a thing." Mark Twain’’ s Huckleberry Finn exemplified American anti-intellectualism. Its hero avoids being civilized― going to school and learning to read―so he can preserve his innate goodness. Intellect, according to Hofstadter, is different from native intelligence, a quality we reluctantly admire. Intellect is the critical, creative, and contemplative side of the mind. Intelligence seeks to grasp, manipulate, re-order, and adjust, while intellect examines, ponders, wonders, theorizes, criticizes, and imagines. School remains a place where intellect is mistrusted. Hofstadter says our country’’ s educational system is in the grips of people who "joyfully and militantly proclaim their hostility to intellect and their eagerness to identify with children who show the least intellectual promise." The views of Ravitch and Emerson on schooling are
微信支付 
支付宝支付