[quote]Chris87 wrote:
[quote]56x11 wrote:
[quote]Chris87 wrote:
I’m a senior in Exercise Science, so I’m not an expert but I do study this stuff
1- The argument over the specific number of ATP molecules for oxidative pathways isn’t really important to this topic. It won’t affect your training weather you get 32 or 34 molecules
2- Interval training does rely mostly on the phosphogen and glycolytic systems (anaerobic) during the actual movement, however while you are resting between intervals, it is largely the oxidative (aerobic) system that is at work. This is how you can get benefits to both anaerobic and aerobic systems from interval training. It also has the benefit of requiring less time than long duration aerobic work, which is good from both a time management perspective, and from the “long cardio causes damage” perspective
3- Like the above poster said, there’s nothing wrong with your body releasing cortisol. It is going to, this is inevitable. It can be a problem when really high levels of it are released though
4- Long duration cardio (say jogging for endless miles) is damaging to the body. It causes very high levels of cortisol release (mostly because of the duration), but it also can be very damaging to the body just because of the endless “pounding on the pavement”. Running is tough on the body, I’ve seen estimates that while running, with each step you take your body is subjected to forces about 3x your bodyweight. If you’re running for hours and hours every week, this will take its toll on your body. This kind of damage can be largely avoided by using interval training instead, which is why it is advocated for in that article[/quote]
Chris,
What is the current paradigm being taught at the university level regarding steady-state cardio?
Other than the occasional NSCA journals, I’m a bit out of the loop. And the college students I interact with are in other fields.
I realize that the answer may or may not differ from your personal opinions. I’m just curious as to what’s in the current text books and lecture halls on the subject.
Thanks in advance and, in trade, I’ll be happy to answer any questions you may have regarding S/C.
[/quote]
In regards to what? Do you mean comparing interval training and aerobic? They really don’t get into that very much. The stuff they teach about training (lifting and conditioning) is all straight out of the ACSM recommendations, which are EXTREMELY basic and pretty lacking in my opinion
In most classes they generally hail aerobic exercise as the holy grail for health benefits, and they really don’t go much further than that. There’s a class called Physiology of Strength and Conditioning that I haven’t taken yet, so maybe they will get into more detailed stuff as far as training. I doubt it though, I haven’t learned anything as far as training in the 4 years I’ve been in school
[/quote]
I should’ve been more concise when I asked the original question.
It’s currently fashionable for people who think they know what’s going on to preach that Interval training is all anyone needs to maintain or even improve conditioning. These folks will argue to no end that steady state is a complete waste of time.
Although I agree that too MUCH aerobic work is counterproductive, I argue that both low-intensity work and steady state work belongs in the toolbox. Just how much and how often these tools are utilized is individual and situation dependent.
I’m not aware of what ACSM promotes on the subject, being of NSCA and NASM background myself. It’s not too hard to find out what ACSM promotes if that’s where your University is getting it’s information.
This, more or less, answers my question regarding the prevailing stance on the subject at the University level (at least the one you’re attending, anyway).
Thanks.
p.s. You might find the following study interesting reading. There was a lengthy discussion on the merit of steady-state cardio in this very subforum way back in 2012(!). I remember it well because it both surprised and amused me that such a basic concept that has stood the test of time (as practiced by world-class aerobic athletes) can become so polluted by incorrect information.
Anyway, below one of my posts in that thread. I specifically cited an article performed on national level and world-class cyclists and how they spend a good deal of time training in what would be considered the steady state zone. This, among other reasons, should seriously undermine the notion that once someone reaches a certain fitness level, steady state work is no longer necessary.
If you’re ever bored you should read the full study. As a D1 athlete and someone majoring in Exercise Science, I think you’ll find it an interesting read.
From a post dated 10-31-2012
http://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/sports_body_training_performance_bodybuilding_conditioning/is_steadystate_cardio_good_or_bad?id=5249701&pageNo=2
[quote]56x11 wrote:
I came across a study that some of you may find interesting. Nimmerichter A, Eston G, Bachl N, Williams C. Longitudinal monitoring of power output and heart rate profiles in elite cyclists.
I want to preface this by stating the subject of this thread is whether or not steady-state cardio is beneficial for conditioning. I (as stated in my earlier posts) believe it does have a place.
The reason I wanted to revisit this thread is because some of us are genuinely interested in developing a bigger aerobic engine - whether it’s a firefighter trying out for a smoke jumper squad, a martial artist, and so on. For these and similar people, a bigger aerobic engine (all else being equal) can provide a significant edge.
This 2011 study involved 10 male and 1 female cyclists who compete at either the national level or at the world level. Data was tracked for 11 months. Therefore, it should provide reasonably good information as the athletes go from preseason to competition.
In this study, seven different zones of difficulty were established:
Zone 1 < 50% Functional Threshold Power (or FTP)
Zone 2 50-70% FTP
Zone 3 71-85% FTP
Zone 4 86-105% FTP
Zone 5 106-2-125% FTP
Zone 6 126-170% FTP
Zone 7 > 170% FTP
FTP, or Functional Threshold Power, is generally accepted as the highest mean average power you can maintain for one hour. Thanks to the power meter ( a device that can be attached to the bicycle), it is now easy and routine to keep track of such data.
The study yielded some interesting results. For the purpose of this thread, however, the single most interesting finding was this:
The researchers found a strong correlation between the amount of time spent in Zone 2 and the athlete’s FTP and VO2Max. That’s right, the more time the athlete spent in a relatively easy pace, the bigger the aerobic engine. If you look at the above chart and remember that FTP is defined as the highest mean average power that can be sustained for one hour, you can see that Zone 2 is roughly equivalent to what we term as steady state cardio.
This should give pause to any objective reader out there who believes tabatas/hiit/sprints are the holy grail. I believe those protocols do have a place in the toolbox. For the purpose of building a bigger aerobic engine, however, perhaps doing too much of that type of training can be counter productive.
Here is the breakdown of time spent training in respective zones:
73% (on average) in Zones 1-2
22% in Zones 3-4
5% in Zones 5-7
I realize this is just one study. And you can argue that correlation does not equal causation. However, this study in addition to what I and others have observed (world champion boxers doing road work, best endurance athletes performing slow/steady work), tells me that steady state cardio should not be dismissed because it’s not fashionable.
And I certainly do NOT want anyone to take this argument to a ridiculous extreme. For example, would it make sense to take a 250 pound lineman and make him run mile after mile? Absolutely, positively not. Not only will that trash his knees, it would be counter to his task on the field. Now, would it make sense to take this same lineman and have him perform 30-45 minute sessions on a low-impact form (ie stationary bike) of Zone 2 cardio during the off season to build a proper aerobic foundation? My answer is ‘yes.’[/quote]
I understand that we need everything that is naturally occuring in our body and that the proper hormonal balance is imperative to good health. I’m just trying to firgure these points out as the article was written in a bit confusing way.