How Crucial is Cardio for a BB'er?

Training Bodybuilding
41

[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
Your REAL Dad wrote:
You might think my opinion is an extremist’s view, but I don’t think so. CARDIO IS WORTHLESS. yeah, that’s right. Unless it’s in an ANAEROBIC ZONE. h

you realize cardio and anaerobic are complete opposites?[/quote]

Totally false. It’s a common misconception to confuse cardio with aerobic. Aerobic describes an energy yeilding pathway in the mitochondria of a cell. Cardio refers to training the cardiovascular system - of which the energy requirements while doing so can be met through aerobic or anaerobic pathways. Anaerobic is an energy yeilding pathway in the cytoplasm of a cell which doesn’t require oxygen for the phosphate bond to be broken (ATP becomes–> ADP, a phosphate, and energy) “Cardio” and “aerobics” are not the same thing. People just throw the terms around without knowing what they’re talking about

42

[quote]SilentBob490 wrote:
I read that Dante Trudall of Doggcrapp fame advocates cardio as part of the system to offset the high calorie intake you need to progress.

Although its purely individual, and also needs to stamped out of peoples minds as essential. A 17 year old who weighs 160 with a skyrocket metabolism can not afford to add in cardio if they want to add some size [/quote]

TRUE. also, cardio is VERY poor at burning calories in the first place. Just add more muscle and your BMR will be higher

43

yes it will, and it does

44

[quote]Your REAL Dad wrote:
SilentBob490 wrote:
I read that Dante Trudall of Doggcrapp fame advocates cardio as part of the system to offset the high calorie intake you need to progress.

Although its purely individual, and also needs to stamped out of peoples minds as essential. A 17 year old who weighs 160 with a skyrocket metabolism can not afford to add in cardio if they want to add some size

TRUE. also, cardio is VERY poor at burning calories in the first place. Just add more muscle and your BMR will be higher[/quote]

I was speaking with this natural competitor this afternoon at the gym about this. He competes at about 175-180lbs and currently sits at about 190 at what can’t be much more than 7-8% body fat. He said he never does cardio. He relies on his diet alone and judging by his appearance, that works well enough. He knows his metabolism is too fast and that he would drop muscle quickly if he started doing cardio everyday.

Like just about everything else, anyone making a hyper-specific blanket statement about what EVERYONE MUST do is most likely wrong.

45

I completely agree that simply monitoring caloric intake should be enough to maintain an appropriate body fat level and weight.

However, as you also said X, everyone is different, and aerobic exercise has its place.

In response to ^^, resistance exercise has very little evidence to support that mode alone improving cardiovascular health. What does it do? It increases left ventricular size over time owing to the pressure requirements to drive blood flow during resistance exercise owing to the pressure changes during exercise. It doesn’t increase peripheral oxygen uptake by increasing mitochondrial protein levels, or oxidative and glycolytic enzyme levels unless SUBSTANTIAL low intensity endurance type weights are performed.

It hasn’t been shown to improve flow dynamics in the heart to the same extent as aerobic exercise, so unless you can prove otherwise you are simply waving the flag for people who don’t want to, or aren’t inclined cause they don’t have enough time or are too lazy, to incorporate aerobic exercise into their training.

Cardio is very poor at burning calories? What nonsense.

46

How 'bout we look at this from both a scientific and practical perspective.

Prof. Rob Robergs (one of the top physiologists in the world) published a predictive metabolic equation for resistance exercise based on experimental work he did evaluating steady state resistance exercise for levels of oxygen consumption.

He derived the following equation for the metabolic cost of bench press (as one example)

where VO2 (L/min)= 0.132 + 0.031*(load in kg) + 0.01*(distance weight moved in cm), with the conversion to kcal.min of 5.05

Let’s say we have an “average” type of person here, who weighs 90kg and bench presses 100kg for reps, with a 50cm movement distance, and has very average fitness with a VO2max of 40ml.kg.min-1.

Their caloric expenditure for bench press is estimated at 18.85kcal.min; pretty good.

Now lets look at low level, steady state cardio at 60% of their VO2max. At that relative intensity, our “average” individual would need to run at 6.20km.h, and would have a metabolic expenditure of 10.91 kcal.min.

18.85 vs 10.91; cool, resistance exercise wins in relative terms. So, let’s do the absolute.

For 30 minutes of continuous aerobic exercise this individual would expend 327.24kcal. Nice, well above recommended guidelines for cardiovascular health. To reach the same amount, the same individual would need to perform 17.4 continuous minutes of resistance exercise.

This means over 17 continuous minutes of resistance exercise. Lets consider, for argument sake, that one working set for this individual of continuous repetitions takes 20 seconds, this means continuous work. This means to reach the same caloric expenditure this individual would need to perform over 50 sets of exercise in a session (assuming other exercises were relatively similar, or if they just wanted to do bench press the entire time assuming they could continue lifting this load for that amount of work) to accumulate the same total metabolic cost.

Even at 30 seconds per continuous working set, this would imply over 34 working sets of exercise equating the intensity above.

For interest, the formula for parallel squats is = -1.424 + 0.022*(load in kg) + 0.035*(distance in cm)

Although the study has several inherent assumptions and limitations, such as assuming a linear relationship between oxygen and workload, this is an excellent piece of work which helps us understand WHY resistance training does have such a positive effect on body composition.

Summary: efficiency = resistance exercise the winner. Practicality = aerobic exercise the winner.

47

… i just posted but for some reason it hasn’t shown up!?

Anyways, what i was trying to say in my last post was… how i’m not exactly sure how or where to proceed. I’ve been doing as much research these past couple of days and feel like I’ve come to a couple of conclusions.

  1. If your goal is GENERAL fitness or MAXIMUM fat loss – HIIT is superior for both cardio conditioning and fat loss…

  2. However, if you are training for MAXIMUM strength and/or muscle, Low Intensity Steady State cardio (ex. brisk walk) CAN be done without hindering strength, muscle or recovery. In fact if done on off days it can actually help to speed recovery and burn a few extra calories.

So I guess it all comes down to your goals. Do these 2 points make sense? or am i more confused then i thought?

cheers

48

[quote]Bingbeast wrote:
… i just posted but for some reason it hasn’t shown up!?

Anyways, what i was trying to say in my last post was… how i’m not exactly sure how or where to proceed. I’ve been doing as much research these past couple of days and feel like I’ve come to a couple of conclusions.

  1. If your goal is GENERAL fitness or MAXIMUM fat loss – HIIT is superior for both cardio conditioning and fat loss…

[/quote]

For conditioning yes, fat loss no.

[quote]Bingbeast wrote:

  1. However, if you are training for MAXIMUM strength and/or muscle, Low Intensity Steady State cardio (ex. brisk walk) CAN be done without hindering strength, muscle or recovery. In fact if done on off days it can actually help to speed recovery and burn a few extra calories.

cheers[/quote]

Yes fine here.

49

Wow. What an excellent debate. I would like to underscore that the examples people are citing of folks such as Eskimoes -and of the other extreme- of guys who are 7% b.f. yet do no cardio are now confusing body composition with cardiovascular, HEART, health. Fatty aerobics instructors can be totally heart healty, and it was a pitiful sight for me to see Greg Kovacs struggle up stairs one time.

I must have posed the same question 7 or 8 years ago on this website. While the answers are now more sophisticated, I must say the general concensus remains, on balance, YES, you can derive SOME heart healthy benefits depending on how you weight train. breathing squats…

50

[quote]USINGNOWAYASWAY wrote:
Wow. What an excellent debate. I would like to underscore that the examples people are citing of folks such as Eskimoes -and of the other extreme- of guys who are 7% b.f. yet do no cardio are now confusing body composition with cardiovascular, HEART, health. Fatty aerobics instructors can be totally heart healty, and it was a pitiful sight for me to see Greg Kovacs struggle up stairs one time.

I must have posed the same question 7 or 8 years ago on this website. While the answers are now more sophisticated, I must say the general concensus remains, on balance, YES, you can derive SOME heart healthy benefits depending on how you weight train. breathing squats…[/quote]

Kovacs weighed close to 400lbs. Did anyone think he WOULDN’T have trouble with his cardiovascular system?

Health is simply the absence of disease. When people ask these questions, it is like they think “health” is something you build up to. If you do not have high blood pressure or any other cardiovascular issues, then you are “healthy” in that sense until a problem arises.

That means simply doing cardio just to do it as if that alone makes you “healthy” makes little sense.

This is also a bodybuilding forum. The goal is physique change with hopefully the zero or very little detrimental effects to the system as a whole. If someone is looking for some kind of “fitness forum”, they are in the wrong place.

I personally don’t think the people on such sites are that healthy to start with, but they sure think they are.

51

Weightlifting is a cardiovascular activity. Not only can you lose significant fat from weightlifing, but you can build muscle, which burns more fat in the long run. My first couple years of working out, I did zero cardio and lost 65 pounds, while adding a good amount of muscle.

These days, I will burn 100 calories at the top of my workout as a warmup, and another 100-200 calories at the end of the workout through elliptical, rowing, running, etc. But I consider that optional, and the bulk of my workout continues to be pumping iron.

Aerobic exercise isn’t necessary for maintaining health. I think weightlifting delivers a lot more, for the amount of time and effort invested.

52

There are tons of fitness people who train for goals that are simply too broad for there own good. They say to themselves “ok, i want abs, so i’ll do crucnhes, i want to have a healthy heart so I’ll do cardio, i want big muscles so i’ll lift weights, i want to also be flexible so I’ll do yoga and I’ll do it all on a calorie restricted diet just so i don’t get fat”.

In my opinion we could list 100’s if not 1000’s of ‘health promoting’ exercises and systems. Yoga, pilates, Circular Strength Training, mobility training, foam rolling, energy systems work etc… They all have value but it’s when we start over analyzing them and get the feeling like we’re missing out on something if we don’t do them. We lose touch with the end goal and focus on the means. If you are in fact training for bodybuilding you need to use some deductive reasoning. Ask yourself, “will this help my ultimate goal of building muscle and limiting fat?”.

The basic feeling I’m getting from this thread, is that HIIT is a great training tool but may not be the best suited for a bodybuilder and Low intensity cardio can offer extra benefits but is not absolutely crucial.

53

[quote]GluteusGigantis wrote:
dratner wrote:
Some data…according to Dr. Mel Siff in “Facts and Fallacies of Fitness”-

Also according to Siff, he says that it is a misconception to relate “target heart rates” to cardiovascular efficiency or health…for example, if exceeding the target heart rate is something to be avoided at all costs, why aren’t race care drivers suffering from an epidemic of heart disease? Well, according to Siff, "although the heart rate of race car drivers can reach 200 beats per minute and remain as high as 180 during a race, the incidence of traumatic cardiac episodes during these events is extremely low.

More data, according to Henry A Solomon, in The Exercise Myth, “Cardiovascular health refers to the absence of disease of the heart and blood vessels, NOT to the ability of an individual to do a certain amount of physical work. Your overall cardiac health is determined by the condition of various heart structures, including the heart muscles, the valves, the special cardiac tissue that carry electrical impulses and the coronary arteries.”

Another interesting fact from Charles Poliquin…“The average VO2 max (measure of aerobic efficiency) in the NBA is is only about 47, compared to about 42 for the average couch potato, and 80 for a world-class rower.” What this is saying is, basketball players are clearly not that aerobically fit, but in excellent cardiovascular shape.

None of this is actual data, and as much as these guys have good opinions they should publish their data. The fact is, they don’t have “good” evidence, just good anecdotes. The example of NBA players is terrible, some of them are not in very good shape at all. Comparing their fitness level to an elite class rower is terrible. Are you also trying to say that an NBA player could get in a boat and take them on in a rowing race? Nonsense. Just the same, a rower couldn’t jump on a basketball court and do repeated high intensity sprints to the same level and quality of an NBA player (discounting other parts of their respective sports).

The NBA players who do alot of running during a game would have very high VO2 max scores.

The point about target heart rates is such a distortion of physiology. Heart rate will fluctuate extremely during resistance exercise owing to the large changes in peripheral resistance that will accompany muscle contraction levels and alterations in pressure. A standard powerlifting movement can elicit blood pressure in excess of 300mmHg, and they don’t die right there on the spot (if they’re healthy). If they sustained that BP for a period of time, sure it would be dangerous, but just to choose one particular example as above for a race car driver as to why heart rate is irrelevant is a distortion of physiology and shows a lack of understanding.

The best example for why aerobic exercise is the best for your “heart health” (just to really simplify it), is that cardiac rehab is based on aerobic exercise, not resistance. This improves peripheral oxygen uptake, improves circulation in the periphery, improves venous return, improves heart contractility, improves sympathetic/parasympathetic balance, improves coronary artery vessel blood flow, vessel mechanics etc etc. Resistance exercise is added to improve muscular strength levels for general quality of life, not to improve their heart related issue.

Your example of getting fit doing weights and then being able to outrun your “fit” friend is just a one-off extreme example.

There is a clear LACK of any substantial evidence that weight training regimes improve VO2max. In a seminal study of rep ranges a few year ago, Campos et al found that training in the 25-27RM range increased time to exhaustion in an aerobic exercise task, but did not increase VO2max. Training at rep ranges lower than this increased strength, but have no effect on time to exhaustion or fitness measures. This has been substantiated over and over and over again.[/quote]

Great discussion. So am I correct in saying that aerobic exercise is best for “heart health”, even better than HIIT?

As a minimum, how many aerobic sessions should I do and for how long in your opinion? (again, for max health benefits without hindering muscle growth too much)

I currently do 1 or 2 20mins sessions per week of slow jogging around the block, lift weights 4 times a week. Also curious whats others think, sorry for the hijack.

54

[quote]Professor X wrote:
USINGNOWAYASWAY wrote:
Wow. What an excellent debate. I would like to underscore that the examples people are citing of folks such as Eskimoes -and of the other extreme- of guys who are 7% b.f. yet do no cardio are now confusing body composition with cardiovascular, HEART, health. Fatty aerobics instructors can be totally heart healty, and it was a pitiful sight for me to see Greg Kovacs struggle up stairs one time.

I must have posed the same question 7 or 8 years ago on this website. While the answers are now more sophisticated, I must say the general concensus remains, on balance, YES, you can derive SOME heart healthy benefits depending on how you weight train. breathing squats…

Kovacs weighed close to 400lbs. Did anyone think he WOULDN’T have trouble with his cardiovascular system?

Health is simply the absence of disease. When people ask these questions, it is like they think “health” is something you build up to. If you do not have high blood pressure or any other cardiovascular issues, then you are “healthy” in that sense until a problem arises.

That means simply doing cardio just to do it as if that alone makes you “healthy” makes little sense.

This is also a bodybuilding forum. The goal is physique change with hopefully the zero or very little detrimental effects to the system as a whole. If someone is looking for some kind of “fitness forum”, they are in the wrong place.

I personally don’t think the people on such sites are that healthy to start with, but they sure think they are.[/quote]

Professor X,

I used to be a health promoter. Not to get into semantics, but the obsolete definition of health was indeed “the absence of disease.” Call us Canadians goofy or whatever, but we now consider health as trying to optimize health status. That’s a big difference, and so yes, it is possible to improve health from that perspective. If you believe health is simply the absence of disease then you are correct.

And yes, there are many factors that come together to create “health.” The question posed, however, was heart specific and I don’t the issue and question is of broad enough interest that it not be mutually exclusive to either a bb or fitness forum.

respeck.

55

i think that sounds ok to me! Just keep an eye on your Squat or other heavy leg exercise. If your numbers are stalling or you seem a little less ‘comfortable’, I would drop the cardio a bit. However 2 - 20 minutes sessions shouldn’t be doing any real damage unless you’re overweight, you’re workouts are very intense or you’re on a really restricted diet.

my.02 cents

56

Definitions:

Cardio…aka Cardiovascular Activity: Any activity that raises the heart rate above baseline.

There are two forms of cardiovascular activity: Aerobic and Anaerobic.

Aerobic activity over the long term is muscle wasting. Studies have shown Anaerobic activity to be more productive at actually losing body fat. One study compared a group who did 5 hours a week of steady aerobic activity to one group who only did 90 minutes a week of anaerobic activity. While the aerobic group burned more calories (duh) the anaerobic group actually lost more body fat at the end of the 15 week research period.

A study compared the results of a group who did aerobic exercise with a group who did “tabata intervals” (20s sprint, 10s rest, repeat 7-8 times). The Tabata group improved both aerobic and anaerobic capabilities while the aerobic group improved only aerobic abilities. The improvements in aerobic ability (Vo2max) was similar between both untrained groups.

As long as you are following a good diet you don’t “need” aerobic activity to get lean. You also don’t “need” aerobic activity to have a healthy heart, raise Vo2max, etc, etc, etc.

57

Am I the only one who’s squat suffers with frequent cardio?

I was squatting 335x3 before I started doing serious cardio and now I’m down to 1 or maybe 2 on a good day.

58

See, I just can’t let this go because this is people who don’t really understand the physiology combining different points to try and make one

[quote]BantamRunner wrote:

Aerobic activity over the long term is muscle wasting. Studies have shown Anaerobic activity to be more productive at actually losing body fat. One study compared a group who did 5 hours a week of steady aerobic activity to one group who only did 90 minutes a week of anaerobic activity. While the aerobic group burned more calories (duh) the anaerobic group actually lost more body fat at the end of the 15 week research period. [/quote]

Aerobic activity over the long term is muscle wasting? WHAT??? There is nothing to suggest that aerobic exercise will stimulate ATROPHY. WHAT FUCKING BULLSHIT. If you’re talking about an acute session then all you are on about is exhaustion of muscle glycogen levels. That’s it.

What studies have shown anaerobic activity is better for losing bodyfat? I’m quite sure I’m more up to date in this area and there is very shitty fucking evidence for that. ALL of the long term studies looking at FAT REDUCTION have shown that continuous aerobic exercise is far superior to interval techniques. Consider basic physiology. At high intensities (over 80/85% VO2) fat oxidation as a contribution to total energy is LOW. At intensities below 70% VO2 total fat utilization is fantastic!!! AND the longer you go the better. If you’re talking about relative fat%, then interval training MAY elicit SOME hypertrophy of type II and I muscle fibers, which will influence the relative balance of lean body mass to fat mass (hence decreasing fat %).

And before you trot out the EPOC, well that’s bullshit too. Yep, an elevated metabolism that maybe yields caloric expenditure 20-30 calories above normal. WOW. Yep, that kicks ass.

[quote]BantamRunner wrote:

A study compared the results of a group who did aerobic exercise with a group who did “tabata intervals” (20s sprint, 10s rest, repeat 7-8 times). The Tabata group improved both aerobic and anaerobic capabilities while the aerobic group improved only aerobic abilities. The improvements in aerobic ability (Vo2max) was similar between both untrained groups.

As long as you are following a good diet you don’t “need” aerobic activity to get lean. You also don’t “need” aerobic activity to have a healthy heart, raise Vo2max, etc, etc, etc. [/quote]

So what you’re talking about here is the fact that anaerobic interval training improves oxidative and glycolytic enzyme levels in muscle. ALSO anaerobic exercise is better for boosting VO2max compared to continuous aerobic exercise owing to greater central adaptations in cardiac function. This is a performance related point. Not health related.

Get your facts straight first before spouting off.

Shall we summarize?? (just in case, actually, because people don’t bother reading what everyone else has already posted)

A) RESISTANCE TRAINING BY ITSELF - can alter body composition via increased caloric expenditure and increased lean body mass relative to fat mass. However, compared to continuous aerobic exercise it is more practical to use aerobic modalities for total caloric expenditure unless you’re very patient and don’t mind accumulating reductions in fat mass over longer periods of time. Many examples provided in this thread attest to individuals who exclusively use weight training, and over a sufficient period of time can reduce their fat % to good levels.

B) CONTINUOUS AEROBIC EXERCISE (at appropriate levels) - good for fat loss. Good for mitochondrial protein content. Good for the heart. Well proven time and time again for the heart in rehab programs. If done at appropriate intensities will not interfere with strength gains. Used more effectively in combating metabolic syndrome than interval training.

C) HIGH INTENSITY AEROBIC EXERCISE (nothing is truly anaerobic) AKA INTERVAL TRAINING

Great for performance and boosting fitness. Can elicit some increase in relative proportion of type IIa relative to IIb muscle fibers. Can elicit central adaptations (heart). Is not as efficient for fat loss as continuous aerobic, and not as good for strength as resistance. If used inappropriately (preceding resistance in same session, in excess of 3-5 sessions per week when also doing regular resistance) there is good evidence that this will directly interfere with potential strength and hypertrophy gains.

D) THE REAL FUCKING WORLD BIT: A & B are used for bodybuilding. This is what happens in the real world. How much evidence do you need? People need to stop fucking around with C. That has been the biggest “I can’t believe this” point I have since frequenting this site, the amount of people who talk about bodybuilding but are doing fucking interval training? Seriously, WHAT THE FUCK!!! You know how hard it is to get athletes to hypertrophy a good amount when you’re having to throw frequent interval work at them for their sport?? Do you ever see athletes who are lifting during season as well as their team training and interval work actually get bigger?? FUCKING NO.

So, off you go to your random opinion pieces written by people pushing their own training technique or random internet websites for ongoing misquotations and inappropriate contexts for random facts…

(yes, I am trying to win a “nasty cunt” insult…anyone…anyone…)

59

Ok. I get it. This is a bb forum and hence that’s why the original specific question of heart health keeps digressing to body composition. So whatever…

Gluteus, notwithstanding the “nasty cunt” 'tude, you have provided me with some actual, useful info. However, I totally get the science of what you are saying, but whatabout your thoughts on the oft quoted comparison of the adonis like physiques of the short distance sprinter vs. the skinny fat marathon runner?

60

[quote]USINGNOWAYASWAY wrote:
Ok. I get it. This is a bb forum and hence that’s why the original specific question of heart health keeps digressing to body composition. So whatever…
[/quote]

What was missed? Health is the absence of disease. That is ALL it is no matter who tries to play a game of semantics and make it more than that. Your heart is healthy if there is no disease present. You also asked in the title whether cardio was crucial to a bodybuilders. It may or may not be depending on the individual.

What else were you looking for?