Steady state cardio, slightly below VT1, is part of a cardiovascular conditioning program. Diet plays the major role in fat loss. Recent research has some information on how calorie INTAKE is the salient factor to be concerned about. My experience shows high carbs, high fiber, low fat, bland diets work very well to lose body fat if paired with resistance training. Cardiovascular conditioning can supercharge resistance training, and vice versa
Marc
I’ve been spending time recently trying to decide what kind of heart rate target would be appropriate for me, if I wanted to do more low intensity (Zone 2 or sub VT1?) cardio. Depending on whose definitions I use, and the formulas they suggest, I end up with a pretty wide range of target heart rates (and thus, not a lot of clarity).
A lot of the stuff on Ventilatory Threshold and Lactate Threshold seems to come from research on competitive endurance athletes. It seems pretty technical, and even in that community, there is a lot of active debate around the details of how to properly do it.
I suppose the details matter if you are trying to achieve exceptional athletic performance. I can’t tell if there is a plausible case for sweating the details if your only object is to be healthy. Most of the arguments for doing low intensity cardio involve improved performance at a particular sport (running, cycling, triathalons, etc.) The few articles that talk specifically about low intensity cardio for health seem to focus mainly on the benefits for maintaining metabolic health and metabolic flexibility.
As far as fat loss goes: my understanding is that as you increase your intensity above VT1, your overall calorie burn increases, but you start tapping into your anaerobic metabolism to meet the extra energy requirement. So is it more important to specifically burn fat during the workout (while preserving glycogen stores) or do you believe that, in the end, calorie balance matters more? Complicated question, and I don’t know the answer.
Heart rate monitors can be expensive. Heart rate monitoring is an indirect measurement of cardiovascular conditioning. Manual pulse monitoring is prone to human error. Wearing a heart rate monitor during training can be cumbersome and uncomfortable.
A direct way to monitor cardiovascular activity is breathing rates. After all, the Kreb’s cycle is tied to oxygen and the cardiovascular system has a job of supplying oxygenated blood to the tissues.
The talk test used in VT1 training actively reflects oxygen needs and cardiovascular activity. The talk test is cheap, and easy to implement. Cardiovascular conditioning can improve rapidly, as the talk test can keep up with this improvement.
The slow twitch fibers used during sub VT1 training use lots of fat for energy. Glucose is also used , but to a lesser degree which is influenced by the intensity of cardiovascular conditioning activity. Therefore, percentage of fat burned during periods of relative inactivity can be be increased, albeit to a minor effect, and diminishing returns apply.
The main thing is this, to increase the amount of fat burned is influenced to a greater degree by the length of sub VT1 activity. However, the body feedback mechanisms will most likely slow metabolism down in the end. Dietary intake rules!
During my weight training sessions my heart rate usually gets up to around 165-170 bpm during my heaviest sets and average out around 125-130 bpm over the course of about an hour long workout. I’m not trying to push the pace to extreme levels but I push my sets really hard and I tend to superset Assistance movements(for time saving’s sake). But interestingly, from what I’ve learned in this thread, this is far removed from the window of what’s considered cardiovascular conditioning. I also do jiu jitsu and I would guess this is a combination of aerobic and anaerobic, as there are periods of very mild sustained exertion and moments of max effort for brief periods.
I don’t know if I have a point here, I’m just thinking out loud(through text lol)
Heart rate is not an indicator of cardiovascular conditioning. If it was , you could be scared into getting in shape. Furthermore, fast repetitions, done repetitive, in a circuit training fashion do not constitute a stimulus for cardiovascular conditioning to the proper degree.
Kenneth Jay is the master of cardiovascular conditioning knowledge. Read Cardio Code!
I don’t really consider cardio by any means at all. I judge my conditioning based on my performance in jiu jitsu, and for those purposes, I’m in awesome shape. But I attribute that to all of the jiu jitsu practice, not my lifting session. The lifting is just to get bigger and stronger.
Morning is when I train. Usually three days a week…alternating with three days of only “cardio” (fast power walk on a treadmill or ride my bike
around the block). I find that working out first thing in the morning really gets my day going. It also really aids to be able to accomplish this at home.
One of my latest cycles of exercises is this.
Nautilus leg extension (1-legged)
No rest
Nautilus leverage leg press
(1-legged)
No rest
calf raise
Nautilus leverage leg press
(Both legs)
Done
R-E-S-T
Repeat other leg
I like 3 exercises back to back, as this feels like the maximum amount of exercises I can keep the intensity very high on. I also like to train areas - ie. Legs/arms/shoulders/etc.
Marc
Good points. In the absence of any other feedback, gauging your ability to speak can provide immediate feedback on the intensity of effort. However, it has always seemed a little subjective. (And the ACE recommended method of doing a talk test may be cheap, but it does take some time and attention to detail.)
The allure of a heart rate monitor is that it feels very precise, and seems fairly reproducible. Personally, I don’t have any issue with the expense, nor do I find them that uncomfortable to wear when doing steady cardio. But the problem is that heart rate doesn’t define what is happening metabolically. For that you need a lactate meter and test strips, or maybe something like a lumen.
I suppose some combination of heart rate monitoring and self administered “talk tests” will get most people to the right intensity.
ACE test for VT1: https://acewebcontent.azureedge.net/assets/certification/ace-answers/forms/pt/42_Submaximal_Talk_Test_For_VT1_Protocol.pdf
Heart rate monitoring is an “indirect “ method for assessing cardiovascular activity. When a person is frightened badly, the heart rate drastically increases, however little cardiovascular improvement is accomplished.
I have 2 HR monitors, as they are a tool. However, HR monitoring is not superior to breathing assessments related to the VT 1 talk test. Breathing oxygen is directly tied to the Kreb’s cycle, which accurately reflects cardiovascular involvement.
The main reason for cardiovascular conditioning is to have compliant blood vessels., something that resistance training cannot!
It is really sad to see unqualified wannabe exercise experts state cardiovascular conditioning does not exist. This is always accompanied by name calling and a total LACK of facts and/or logic. As John Heart says, HiT is dead! HiT is now responsible for mostly disinformation. I wished I was never influenced by Nautilus.
Marc
I would certainly not suggest that heart rate is the only thing that matters. Obviously, the manner in which you elevate heart rate also has to be considered. But IF you are doing a traditional form of cardio (running, walking, swimming, etc), then monitoring your heart rate during such activity is an easy way to verify that you are using roughly the same levels of effort and intensity from workout to workout. Whether or not you are in the correct place metabolically requires more information, and “talking tests” are certainly one way to do that. So are more technical solutions like a lactate meter. I gather that the use of the latter is becoming much more common among serious endurance athletes; I would guess that they are willing to pay for more precise feedback on their metabolic state.
BTW, here is a paper that you might find interesting, because it speaks to the reliability of “talk test” assessments:
It does reinforce my concern that determining the “ease of speaking” is somewhat subjective, and that without the presence of a trained observer, it is easy to under or overestimate your training target.
AA
I concur and thank you for your remarks
Marc