 Mae'r myfyrwyr yn gallu ceisio yma y dyn nhw i ddaeth a'i ddweud hynny'n mynd i ddweud y Cyfaint Paelio. Mae'r myfyrwyr yn gallu'r cyfaint. Mae'r myfyrwyr yn gallu phobl yn ei ddweud. Mae'r myfyrwyr yn gallu cyfaint mae'r myfyrwyr yn gallu'n myfyrwyr. Ond mae'n myfyrwyr yn gallu'n myfyrwyr yn cael eu ddweud hynny'n myfyrwyr. Ond y gallwn gofyn, roeddwch yn gallwch ei wneud y cyflwyno'ch cyflwyno ffaith ffysigol yn ei wneud, gan y pethau a chyflwno'r byd, cyn ydych chi'n edrych ar y bydd o'r ymgylch yn y gael. Y gael, mae'n gael o'r ymgylch yn y gael. Ond gallwn gael y byd o'r ymgylch yn ei wneud yn y cyflwyno, mae'n cyflwno'n cyflwyno'n cyflwyno'n cyflwyno'n cyflwyno'n cyflwyno'n cyflwyno. bywch chi wedi cynnal, mae'n mynd i gael hynny o ffordd, mae thrydolau a cynny. Yn y gallai llawer o yr exorcisiad o'r gwahanol neu hwnna hi o bwysigol oed toe wrth y bubbles sy'n mynd i gael'i ddylonu i ddechrau'r newydd yno'r ddechrau hwnnw sy'n bwysigol o'r ffordd, dyna gwch bethau sy'n ddefnyddio'r ddechrau a chyfrddio'r ddyll yn gwahanol. Mae'n dweud â gweithio'r ddefnyddio ar y ffordd, ac mae'n gweithio'r ddefnyddio ar y camp, are some of it occurs when they go out foraging or hunting, but most of it occurs around the home for use of a better word. Now out of interest, I've actually been using a pedometer myself recently and it's interesting the number of steps I actually take just walking around the house each day. Sometimes before I leave for work I sometimes accrue 2000 steps just from walking room to room, picking things up into the kitchen making coffee into the bathroom, brush my teeth, whatever. Mae gennych gyda'r stranad yma yn gweithio'r cyfrwyr sy'n gweithio'r cyfrwyr yma, ond mae'r cyfrwyr yn cael amser i'r cyfrwyr. Mae'n gwneud yma i'r cyfrwyr ond mae amser i gafodd, mae'r cyfrwyr yn gweithio i'r cyfrwyr, i'r cyfrwyr, i'r hwrs, i'r cyfrwyr, i'r cyfrwyr. Yn enw'n gyfrwyr? Felly mae'n gweithio yma ymryd na'r gyfrwyr, ond mae'n gweithio'r cyfrwyr yn cyfrwyr geithrefforddau ..y'r cyfweld eisiau yn ymweld y cyfweld yma. Felly, mae'n ymdweud yn oed yw'r cyfweld. Felly, dyma'n mynd. Mae rydw i'n rhaid, ond byddai... ..y'n mynd i chi'n gwybod? Mae'n gwybod eich hun o'r gathau, ti'n gwybod. Felly, oedd yn ymweld yma ac yn ymddraeth o'r pengylch... ..oeddwn i'n amliad. Mae'n gwybod yn ymdweud, mae'n gwneud... ..y'n ymdweud ymddraethau sefyll ymddraeth... gwaith y bydd hyn yn ei ddeud o'r ffrindio. Y ddweud ond gofio'r ideaos a'r ddweud y ddweud hyn yn hynno. Mae'n ddweud o'r cyfan, o'r gweithiau. Mae'n achos yn ysgol iawn, oherwydd ddaeth arall. Felly, os yw'n meddwloddol ynha'r ddweud dyfu, bydd y cyfnoddol ydw i weld o'n eich amre乞 yn ymgyrch argyflwygoedd. Mae bydd angen f易 yn ymdaint cyllid yma, sy'n fwithio'r ddaeth a'r amgw évidemment, llawer yn bosig, a bod inkredwch i'r ffordd ond ystod yn gyfnodol iawn – le wrth gwrs, ysgawr anodol a'r anodol i'r ffordd, yn unig i'r gwnaethu ar gyfer yr anodol i'r amma sydd a'i siaradau cynllunauiddol, leir, rydym yn y sgawr hwnnw, gyda'r hoffi'r populau Felly, y ffisigwactifatiddau i gael ymwneud sy'n gweithio i Ynysig a Ynysig yn ôl eu gael yw'r hynny'n eu bod yn ymgyrchyn gweithio, ydych chi'n gweithio, ychwanegol, yw'r hynny'n gweithio'r lle a'r modd logistigol, yw'r hynny'n deogrofi, ac rydyn ni wrth gŷn i gael ymddangos os ymddiwch yn gweithio i Ynysig a Ynysig yn gweithio i'r hynny'n gweithio i'w gael. Ond y dyfodol yn rhaid i'n gŷn o'r tyfnod ac mae'n rhaid i ychydig o'r cyfnod ffysgwactifu'r gwyrddion sy'n ei ffysgwactifu'r gwyrddion. Yn ydych chi'n cofnod ar gyfer o gweithgwyr hwn o ffysgwactifu o'r cyfnod ymlaen ar gyfer sy'n bwysig. Onw, wrth gwrs, sy'n cyhoedd gynnig ffysgu actygedigwyddiart, wrth gwrs, rhai cyfransiau o hyd yn troi ar y ffordd ffysgu actygedigwyddiart, llawer o'r modydd ym mwyloedd a'r ddaeth bwysig yw'r hyn yn i gael, ond rydyn chi'n chi e MPropiwyr yw digwydd i yn cael ei wneud eu rhoi ar procedure fel cymoedd. O'r wneud â canewn hwn i? Mae wedi ddweud ameniwyd. Llywydd i, rhai rhai rhai rhai busg actygedigwyddiart. So, how can we draw a generalised recommendation for exercise from it? We can't. It's very, very difficult to differentiate between what is an adaptation, i.e. an evolutionary adaptation to enhance reproductive success, something that affects our physical capacity, and whether that has determined whether we engage in a physical activity or whether engaging in a physical activity has produced said physical adaptation. It's very, very difficult to draw out those relationships and look at the direction of them as well. I mean, even studies have found that there's very low to moderate and certainly inconsistent relationships between the actual physical activity levels that populations engage in and their actual physical fitness. And that's looking at physical activity levels in terms of total energy expenditure relative to a wrestling metabolic rate. So, looking at it from this energy expenditure perspective, as I said, it's also difficult to determine whether or not our physical activity levels changed because we got smarter or we got smarter and thus changed our physical activity levels. Certainly in terms of endurance exercise, there's the argument that the two kind of went hand in hand, our ability to endurance run, our ability to engage in these types of activities like persistence hunting that's been argued. Now, I thought Skyler was going to give the same talk he was giving at AHS as well, where he talked about resistance training and its effect on the brain. So, he's not, I've learnt. So, I would urge you to go and look at his talk on YouTube as well because he discusses the effects that even strength type exercise and resistance type exercise can have on the brain as well. And it's difficult to determine the relationship between the two. When we look at extinct hunter-gatherers, it's impossible to determine what their physical activity pattern was. And even when we look at extinct hunter-gatherers, there's drastic differences. But I do think there are some interpopulation similarities that we can draw from and then try and synthesise with what modern exercise physiology suggests. OK. So, these are the current evolutionary fitness recommendations from the most recent academic articles on the topic from James O'Keefe and colleagues, including Lauren Cordain. So, they generally tend to focus more on a low, high volume of low intensity, low to moderate intensity activity. And you see this six to sixteen kilometres a day range that typically comes up that's being plugged out from one or two studies or so. They undulate high intensity activity with that low intensity activity. And there are other things that focus on the types and modes of exercise as well. So, lots of walking, running, using uneven surfaces, barefoot exercise, this type of thing, including interval training sessions, resistance training sessions and so on and so forth. But when you read through the specifics of these recommendations, they tend to be very romanticised and focus on a caveman type workout. So, in terms of resistance training, maybe we should be outflipping tyres or picking up rocks or banging a hammer on tyres and these types of things that you see in a lot of the crossfit workouts and that sort of thing. OK. So, what I want to do then is actually take some of the recent research from modern exercise physiology and see what elements of the evolutionary fitness recommendations can be supported and what can't. And what we can finally conclude in terms of some sort of, you know, rational, sober set of recommendations regarding all of this evidence. So, the question we're asking is, do the recommendations that have been made actually agree with what modern exercise physiology suggests? Do the recommendations that have been pulled from this review of the literature actually tie up with what we know from modern exercise physiology is best for improving cardiovascular fitness, strength and hypertrophy? These physical fitness outcomes that we know are very well correlated with all-cause mortality, health and well-being. Now, the current public health guidelines are obviously very focused on volume of exercise and they've come under heavy criticism, as I said at the start, because what we're starting to see is actually the intensity of effort involved in the exercise seems to be a more important component. So, if we recall, all of those physical fitness measures seem to be more associated with reductions in all-cause mortality and that higher intensity of effort physical activity seems to be more associated with it also. So, what I think is we've been at fault focusing on this end of the spectrum in terms of exercise intensity of effort and what we should have been focusing on is this end. The brief, high intensity type activity that seems to be far more supportive in terms of reducing all-cause mortality and morbidity. So, we should have been focusing on the fact that actually hunter-gatherers typically engage in this whereas previously we've been focusing more on the fact that they're more active, not the fact that actually they engage in some high quality and high intensity of effort activity. So, what does the modern exercise physiology say about this? So, in terms of cardiovascular fitness, there is growing evidence that intensity of exercise seems to be very important for it. We've all heard of high intensity interval training. The research seems to continually support that high intensity interval type training can actually improve cardiovascular fitness as much if not more than typical endurance type activity. It may not even be necessary to actually engage in interval type training or overcomplicate the programme because one study has shown that actually single sprint type exercise maximally produces the same type of benefits as the interval training sessions do. So, do we even need to overcomplicate it for cardiovascular fitness? The same seems to apply in terms of strength and hypertrophy as well. Consistently, the one variable that seems to be shown to be very important is the intensity of effort. So, how hard you're actually training. All the other variables might matter to some degree volume frequency, the exercises you choose and so on and so forth, but they pale in comparison to the effect that high intensity of effort exercise actually has on outcomes for strength and hypertrophy. Now, in terms of the recommendations for varying intensity and the frequency of exercise, there does seem to be some support for this idea of auto regulating the way in which you programme your exercise. Periodisation and varying exercise activity and that sort of thing seems to work better when it's actually individualised to the person and their context. So, there's some support for that and shock horror as well. The mode of exercise doesn't even seem to be important and I'll touch on that briefly now. So, do we really need to be performing the same types of activities that hunter-gatherers typically engage in? Should we actually be emulating hunter-gatherers in terms of producing physical fitness outcomes? Now, skill versus fitness is something that's been discussed in the exercise physiology and strength and conditioning literature for a long time and it's even debated within the studies looking at hunter-gatherer populations, particularly pertaining to hunting ability and that sort of thing. So, there are some studies that show that fitness actually improves hunting ability or at least is correlated with it. So, upper body strength seems to predict hunting ability in certain populations. Strength significantly predicts archery accuracy in hunter-gatherer populations that use bow and arrow. But, we also see that practice seems to be more important for them. So, although, yeah, those strength seems to be associated with hunting ability, we don't know what the direction of causality is there as well. But, we also actually see that it's more likely that practice makes perfect in these populations and for them they need to engage in those activities for their survival. So, do we really need to be emulating those activities when we don't need to be performing them for our daily survival? So, what I want to question is whether or not statements like machines are bad because they don't emulate natural movements is a valid statement or argument to make. As a counter, I would say my colleague James Fisher has shown that training your lumber extensors in isolation using a very sophisticated modern machine actually improves deadlift performance. Deadlift, picking up something heavy from the floor, can be a more, you know, can possibly be a more primal natural movement pattern. But, doing a very modern type of exercise seems to improve that just as much. So, the argument that we should be actually emulating hunter-gatherer physical activity patterns I think is a moot point. I don't think there's very strong evidence for it. There's certainly very little evidence that engaging in those activities will actually transfer to other skills and motor abilities as well as we've shown in recent review papers as well. So, unless you actually, somehow for some reason, need to go out and pick up a bison, butcher it, hunt, whatever, all these sorts of things for your daily activities and physical survival. I mean, does any of you guys live within a hunter-gatherer tribe? No. So, do you fit, ah, Ben, of course, you know, there's always got to be one. You see me after class. So, this is my point. Unless you actually need to engage in those skills, you don't need to practice those skills. And this ties up with what modern exercise physiology is starting to show as well. That when we're looking at these physical fitness outcomes, the ones that seem to be very important in terms of reducing all-cause mortality and morbidity, modality doesn't even matter. I mean, recent work from us and something I gave a talk on at the 2012-21 convention in London shows that the resistance aerobic training dichotomy as it's typically presented, the idea that aerobic endurance type activity improves your cardiovascular fitness but resistance training improves strength and hypertrophy and the two don't provide, you know, crossover benefits. We've started to show that actually that's a false dichotomy. Because as long as resistance training intensity of effort is high enough, you see improvements in factors like FiO2, MAX, running economy and so on and so forth, typical cardiovascular fitness parameters. But interestingly as well, if endurance type exercise or typical endurance type modalities, like cycling, if that's performed to a high intensity of effort, then recent studies actually show that strength and hypertrophy improves from that as well to just as much as traditional resistance training. So the idea that modality is even important is just a moot point as well. Your muscles don't know what they're actually contracting against as long as they're contracting intensely enough, then the benefits seem to come.