I’d love to see it. He seems to be in a real groove right now.
1 Like
Absolutely
1 Like
Of course!!!
1 Like
I’m in favor of Dr. Darren making a 4 week metabolic challenge.
Depends on the bloc. Strength bloc usually 2-3 mins. Endurance/strength-condition Bloc. 30 secs. Hypertrophy bloc. Somewhere in between. Usually a min. But this is fairly arbitrary though & could also vary exercise to exercise and day to day. For e.g even during the strength bloc, after my main lift, I would spend 2-3 mins resting across my accessories. Most likely I’d shorten the rest times by half atleast for it.
16 posts were split to a new topic: Training with Synapse CCR Machine
To be clear on this , I don’t think metabolic conditioning is a scientific term . Aerobic conditioning, sure! Anaerobic conditioning, also is a scientific term. Metabolic conditioning can be either aerobic or anaerobic, or both. Por ejemplo, Dr. Darden’s chin/dip/sprint routine is a mixture of aerobics and anaerobics. This combination will definitely decrease the effect of one or the other or both moieties. So I am not of the belief that metabolic conditioning works well.
Face it, long, slower, time consuming steady state cardiovascular conditioning works. Resistance training works well. These training moieties do something different for the human body. All the experts agree, except a few HiT aficionados. Can several anaerobic workouts a week succeed for average non-drug guys? I see little evidence for such a proposition to enjoy success. Your mileage may vary!
Marc
You don’t believe MetCon works well for what purpose exactly? As a means for conditioning, muscle growth, both? (please correct if I misinterpreted your comment)
1 Like
2 weight exersizes with 30 minutes of cardio every day.
3 minutes between weight sets.
Entire workout, under 40 mins.
You don’t believe MetCon works well for what purpose exactly? As a means for conditioning, muscle growth, both? (please correct if I misinterpreted your comment)
- for any conditioning purpose
Note: Dr Dardens’ supposition that a metabolic conditioning resistance training program would have enhanced the World Champion Miami Dolphins with a no-huddle offense scheme. This.is not based on science. Resistance training is an anaerobic endeavor. Resistance training by itself falls short of properly conditioning the aerobic pathway so necessary in a no huddle offense.
What is needed for conditioning a football team for a no-huddle offense is practice geared to running actual football plays at a no-huddle pace, ie. Specificity and motor learning 101!
Metabolic conditioning splits focused effort of training, whether it is to improve resistance training or aerobic conditioning. I hope this answered your questions.
2 Likes
Do you believe that training at different heart rate zones is effective for conditioning purposes?
1 Like
Everyone knows that the hurry up offences ran many 20-30 yard sprints followed by brief rests (like, Intervals) for game specific conditioning.
So who’s right?
As regards no-huddle
John T Reed
1 Like
Heart rate training may be useful for competing athletes. However, HR training is unnecessarily complex for cardiovascular conditioning. Training below VT1, while occasionally going above VT1, is all anyone needs for health. Perhaps the “talk test” would be a interesting topic to be discussed at T Nation in the future.
Marc
Legit! Thanks for the link!
MetCon trains a variety of HR zones, usually in a HIIT fashion…
Sports like CrossFit have literally the fittest people on earth and they are the physical embodiment of Metabolic Conditioning. I guess I’m not understanding your argument that MetCon is not useful for conditioning when it very clearly is, as evidenced by the fittest people on earth.
To be clear, I agree that low and slow cardio is great for cardio purposes and specifically trains v02 Max, I just don’t see the argument that “MetCon is useless for training cardio” is grounded in reality. Happy to debate/discuss this with you; also happy to let it go if you don’t wish to debate =)
1 Like
I am not trying to demean metabolic conditioning training. Most do not exercise at all.
Therefore, any exercise is generally good. I am not that familiar with CrossFit training, but the “sport” looks silly on television. There is reported drug use. The events are loaded with dangerous exhibits of exercises. I could never be a fan of CF. Looks like smaller versions of NFL wannabe linemen.
There is no debate over the effectiveness of cardiovascular conditioning at VT1. The majority of experts pretty much agree with Dr. Lonnie Lowery views which are posted. If one is involved in competition then types of cardiovascular interval training will be needed. The experts all agree with intervals of some form for competition.
Strength training is similar in that a reasonable amount of resistance training is needed for strength. This has been recognized since Thomas DeLorme.
All experts agree with this. I am not going to debate the minutia of these various elements of conditioning.
Mixing cardiovascular conditioning with resistance training simultaneously is not established and has not been proven to be as effective as separate resistance and cardiovascular training.
I wished metabolic conditioning eliminated the need for cardiovascular conditioning, but that is not realistic when the bodily systems are taken into account
Marc
The whole notion of cardiovascular conditioning still seems pretty vaguely defined. There are a wide range of exercise modalities that people drop into the Cardio/Conditioning basket, but you certainly can’t say that they all do exactly the same thing.
Low intensity steady state cardio (Peter Attia’s Zone 2 training; Maffetone’s aerobic base building) seems good for improving the efficiency of aerobic metabolism and increasing the health and number of mitochondria in the working muscles. This is certainly good for one’s overall health, and is certainly good for athletic performance at endurance events. And if done for large enough volumes, maybe it can also produce modest increases in the stroke volume of the heart. But there seems to be a good deal of specificity involved, at least when it comes to athletic performance. If you want to excel at running, I suspect it is much more effective to build your aerobic base by running than by swimming or working out on a rowing machine. Whether there are any discernible differences in overall health associated with the choice of activity used to build an aerobic base is hard to say. I also wonder if it is really necessary to prescribe this kind of activity as precisely as someone like Attia does if all you want if general health and fitness.
If you are interested in boosting your VO2 max (as opposed to improving fat burning efficiency or aerobic base building), then higher levels of intensity are typically recommended. Some (Cardiac Exercise Research Group at NTNU) are very big fans of long duration intervals. The folks are CERG will tell you that their 4x4 interval program (4 rounds of 4 minute duration at 85-90% of VO2 max) is the bees knees for maxing out you VO2 max and maximizing the cardiac output potential of your heart. But man, is it grueling to do that 3 or 4 times a week.
Other cardiologists (e.g., Benjamin Levine at UT Southwest Medical center) still seem to prefer the inclusion of some long duration steady state exercise at somewhat higher intensities than that used for aerobic base building. Again, it works, but can be pretty grueling to stick with for the long haul.
You also have HIIT fans like Martin Gibala, who love any kind of interval work, regardless of the details. For time efficiency and comfort level, these folks tend to recommend shorter more numerous sprints. The folks at CERG would likely say these methods are less effective at improving the cardiac output of the heart, and more likely to boost VO2max by peripheral (rather than central) adaptations. But again, it works to some extent and improves some aspects of your health.
And we have the Carol bike people who want to tell you that 2X20 second maximal sprints on their computer controlled bike is the most time efficient way to boost your VO2max, and thereby get all the conditioning that you need. I’m sure it is good for you, but is it all you need? After all, what you are really doing is boosting you anaerobic power output for the activity being used.
That doesn’t even touch on the claims of the HIT crowd, who dismiss the notion of aerobics entirely, or the various flavors of Metabolic Conditioning, which are popular throughout the fitness world.
Taking all this advice into consideration, I still find it hard to decide exactly what kind of conditioning I should do for health benefits. The one clear consensus I can see is this: people who are physically active on a regular basis, either because of lifestyle or by virtue of structured exercise, have much better health outcomes than those who are sedentary.
Based on epidemiology, most of the major health agencies seem to have settled on roughly the same physical activity recommendations: at a minimum you should strive to accumulate 75 minutes of vigorous physical activity, or 150 moderate physical activity on a weekly basis. Additional health benefits accrue if you are willing and able to double those numbers. There doesn’t seem to be a lot of concern about how exactly you hit those number, as long as the intensity of the activity is high enough in a terms energy consumption and oxygen demand. If your oxygen consumption exceeds 3 METS, that is considered moderate activity; get it above 6 and you are in the vigorous zone. There are lots of way to get to those intensity levels.
In defense of CrossFit MetCons: Linked below is a small study where researchers characterized the cardiovascular demands of the “Cindy” Metcon. They determined that average MET level level for this particular workout was 9.5, well into the vigorous range. Assuming that other MetCons have similar demands, than doing 5 workouts of 30 minutes duration each week would more than satisfy current physical activity guidelines…
https://jhp-ojs-tamucc.tdl.org/JHP/article/view/jshp.0038.2014
4 Likes
I’ve always wondered about this - as someone who has relied on steady state cardio for years.
Most recommendations, including Lowery’s, are to keep the HR around 110-115 for “older men” (I’m 55). I typically do 2-3 miles on the incline treadmill for 32 - 48 minutes, increasing the incline and speed a little every quarter mile from 4.0% and 3.6 mph to 6% and 3.9 mph. About halfway through, my HR typically tops 120 and typically peaks around 130.
Would I be better off - again using steady state cardio as part of a fat loss strategy - if I lowered the intensity or am I more or less still in the preferred range?
Good post AA
1 Like