tons of posts above about health benefits, fat loss, calories, just commenting on any of those.
If a person wants to cut 500-700 a day, they can…
A) Be highly active for 45 minutes a day (cardio doesn’t have to be spandex on an exercise bike)
B) cut 500-700 calories worth of food
C) Cut calories a bit, and add some activity (best choice, no starving and they will get health and fitness benefits from the exercise that just cutting calories cannot do).
Dr McGuff is informed about industrial seed oils, and myokines. He is misinformed about any “Ultimate Exercise” he might be associated with. He has interesting ideas on cardiovascular conditioning. However, his overall view of cardio is misleading. It is sad to see an ER doctor so confused about cardiovascular conditioning on such an anatomical basis.
so true…
At least in a podcast last year he talked about how NOT going to failure and doing a bit more contractions (another word for volume) seems to cause more hypertrophy with less recovery issues. Similar to Dr. Dardens newer ideas. At least that ‘HIT’ info. is becoming more accurate.
Hey ATP one trick pony…here is the link that I think you need…knock yourself out…no need to thank me…
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/training
Superior Cardiovascular Effect of Aerobic Interval Training
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/circulationaha.106.675041
Superior effect on heart health from weight training over cardio…
Aaaah ol’ one trick pony stumbles blindly into straw man territory once again. Remind me never to follow you into a minefield. 
How many times (lost count) has it been pointed out to you that no one in this group is remotely interested in “maximising” mitochondria or endurance capabilities?
Maximal performance does NOT equate to maximum health. After a certain level the two start to take separate roads.
Show me anywhere, ANY evidence of a pursuit of endurance excellence that leads to better longevity outcomes. If you find any, then I’ll show you a stack of evidence that points to otherwise.
I’ve yet to see any centenarian or blue zoner interviewed that credits their longevity to putting the miles in ( or lifting record poundages either for that matter).
Most on here want “just enough”, but you are so busy in your corner banging your little drum, that you either can’t hear that, or just choose to ignore it.
By the way…what happened to your statement, repeated often, that you weren’t going to argue this point anymore? You simply can’t help yourself can you. I think someone is a touch obsessed…
A compressed diaphragm plus increased tension in the abdomen limits blood returning to the heart. Furthermore, the tension in the working muscles obstructs oxygen delivery by squeezing off the blood vessels, and tension in the abdomen collapses the Superior Vena Cava. This adversely limits preload. This directly contradicts Dr. McGuff’s remarks that he opined in “Resistance Training: The Best Cardiovascular Workout Possible.”
I think you can find quite a number of studies which show that elite athletes (or former elite athletes) tend to live longer than the general population. This is especially true for sports where there is a significant endurance component, and it goes against the finding that “some” endurance athletes who train at a high volume of highly intense training will suffer increased rates of AFIB and display higher levels of calcified plaque. I guess sometimes longevity can improve even in the face of increased incidence of adverse health markers.
Of course, correlation is not causation, and why the longevity benefit occurs can’t be know for sure. Maybe they live longer because of higher volumes of physical activity, or maybe only exceptionally healthy individuals can train at the high volume required to achieve elite athletic performance, and the longevity comes from being exceptionally healthy. Or maybe the longevity is associated with some aspects of superior genetics that is also associated with athletic performance. There are lots of ways to spin it.
Leaving elite athletes aside, there is a clear association between reduced all cause mortality and increased levels of physical activity. So I tend to think that some level of physical activity, typically well above what the average American currently gets, is beneficial for health and longevity. I didn’t think that was particularly controversial.
As for the strength vs cardio debate: I’ve grown tired of it myself. The evidence seems clear that some strength training and some endurance training or physical activity with an endurance component is beneficial. For most, time limitations and personal enjoyment/satisfaction will dictate how much they are willing to incorporate into their daily lives. Doing both is quite probably better than doing only one or the other, and doing nothing is very likely not so good.
Cardio and squats, leg work!
Perhaps a better cardio workout, and a good leg workout!
BFR bands and an Assault Bike
I understand what you are saying.
Personally I also believe that there is some element of causation…to a certain level, then pursuit of performance beyond that level (varies for different people) can lead to negative outcomes ( either the A Fib / heart issues you mentioned, negative orthopaedic outcomes, or other health maladies). I do believe that some people are just more healthier and robust than others and can tolerate different volumes, frequencies and intensity better than others. You are your own experiment of n=1, but I would advise on erring on the side of caution, because these negative effects often only show up over time, then when they hit, they hit hard. I was only reading the other day how even Arnold is now paying health wise for his previous training exploits, with a variety of heart and orthopaedic issues.
However your post summed the whole argument up perfectly, to the point that it proves my point…it could have been one post, or one thread, and NOT ol’ one trick pony’s constant obsessive attempts to hijack practically EVERY thread on here to preach the cardio gospel.
THAT was the main crux of this thread, hence the Beetlejuice reference at the start. I specifically created it to catch a grade A idiot, and he took the hook, like I knew he would. It’s like he can’t help himself, despite numerous people on here asking / telling him to let it lie. He just can’t. As someone else said previously, some one in the HIT sphere has probably truly upset him in the past and wound his spring so tight, that his deranged personality just can’t let go.
As I keep trying to advise him…he’d get lots more love and acceptance over on the letsrun forum…
Worthless or worth trying?
yeah if you look the stats up, the Afib and such seems to only happen in those very extreme endurance trainees. Like, very extreme. The level most normal people reach, even if they train, what for a normal person, is pretty heavy, is still far below those levels.
and there is for sure causation with respect to improved health with endurance activities. Far less T2 diabetes (from much higher mitochondria levels and much lower visceral fat levels - yes diet lowers visceral fat too, but so does activity even with no change in diet). They also have way better vascular health (larger diameter arteries, which is the most direct life extending attribute of endurance training).
No one has to run triathlons weekly, just do something that isn’t weight lifting, (besides the weight lifting).
More mitochondria (from cardio) equals more body fat % used for energy.
This fact plus weight training is a win/win situation.
This recent long term study would question what you have said about heart issues being only prevalent among the extreme exercisers.
The dangers lay, it appears, among those whose exercise ratio was skewed towards a greater percentage of their total volume being at a higher intensity ( over 9 METS), regardless of total volume.
So this rules out running as a daily activity, as anyone who breaks into a reasonable jog is going over 9 METS.
Think walking or general activity such as gardening, chores etc. Which I’m sure that most on here do, without breaking into a specific cardio exercise session.
And here is a cardiologist to break it down…
Actually it doesn’t rule out weight training. Based on the 80/20 rule that the cardiologist recommends in the video you could do one or two weights sessions a week and then the rest of the time just stay active…no real “cardio” sessions, running, or BFR sessions on a bike necessary…
