Steady-State Cardio Good or Bad?

Bigger Stronger Leaner
21

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Steady state cardio isn’t the demon you make it out to be. You’re world won’t end if you do it. Lower intensity cardio also provides numerous health benefits that can’t be obtained with short all-out efforts.[/quote]

Sorry OBoile, I truly don’t mean to start an argument but that’s just not true. There isn’t a single health benefit you can obtain from steady state cardio that you can’t obtain better results from sprinting & weight training. I actually did a report about this in my health class. My teacher hated me because he was a marathon runner :stuck_out_tongue:

22

[quote]AlwayzLearning wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Steady state cardio isn’t the demon you make it out to be. You’re world won’t end if you do it. Lower intensity cardio also provides numerous health benefits that can’t be obtained with short all-out efforts.[/quote]

Sorry OBoile, I truly don’t mean to start an argument but that’s just not true. There isn’t a single health benefit you can obtain from steady state cardio that you can’t obtain better results from sprinting & weight training. I actually did a report about this in my health class. My teacher hated me because he was a marathon runner :P[/quote]

Mental strength to be able to maintain a steady level of work for an extended period of time?

In addition, steady-state cardio may not be particularly useful as any sort of conditioning work if you’re “fit”, but it’s the only thing you can do when you’re out of shape, untrained, what have you. Sprinting when you’re out of shape or untrained can be disastrous, depending on whether you’re actually sprinting or just running fast.

And I think there’s a considerable amount of difference between marathon running and steady-state cardio. Marathon running is a sport. Steady-state cardio is not.

23

[quote]AlwayzLearning wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Steady state cardio isn’t the demon you make it out to be. You’re world won’t end if you do it. Lower intensity cardio also provides numerous health benefits that can’t be obtained with short all-out efforts.[/quote]

Sorry OBoile, I truly don’t mean to start an argument but that’s just not true. There isn’t a single health benefit you can obtain from steady state cardio that you can’t obtain better results from sprinting & weight training. I actually did a report about this in my health class. My teacher hated me because he was a marathon runner :P[/quote]

I don’t mean to start an argument either. However I find the juxtaposition of your user name and this statement to be pretty ironic. You have very obviously formed a firm conclusion on this subject and you “know” you are right. Anybody who disagrees with that conclusion is wrong and/or uneducated in your opinion. This attitude is not at all consistent with “AlwayzLearning”.

As for the topic at hand, the terms of discussion are so broad as to be almost meaningless. What is “steady state cardio”? Ultra distance running? 5k? 1500m tempo runs? what??? What is “good or bad”? It all depends on what you’re trying to achieve and where you are in your training progression. The Canadian Heavyweight Men’s Eight rowers do a SHIT TONNE of steady state, low rate, aerobic technical rowing as the basis of their training. They also do roadwork, higher intensity anaerobic power development, weights, lactate threshold work, tempo training etc. I believe they periodize their speedwork to peak pre-competition and then taper into their brief racing season. Their medal standings seem to indicate that this is not so “bad” as it pertains to their goals and most of them have better physiques than many who are posting on these boards, despite not training for aesthetics at all.

Many NCAA/Olympic wrestlers, boxers, mma fighters etc. also include significant amounts of roadwork and still seem to be able to move pretty bloody explosively with the added bonus of not gassing later in their bouts. Lots of them have respectable physiques as well.

Why are people so dogmatic and black and white in their views of these things? Makes no sense to me. I will concede that if you are a younger strength athlete who wants to look naked, HIIT etc. is probably the best bang for your buck, but is that the be all end all of all physical/sporting endeavour? What about people who want to remain competitive later in life? Sprint times drop off rapidly over 30 but more steady state/aerobic events hold much steadier for longer. Ultra distance guys stay competitive at an elite level into their 40’s (not that ultra distance appeals to me at all at this stage in my life). 100-400m guys, not so much.

What about people who are interested in obstacle racing, decathlon, open water swimming, paddling, rowing, rugby or any other sport with more varied and/or sustained energy demands? If you want to compete in a 12k obstacle race and you’ve never run further than 200m at a stretch, I predict that you will have a hard day.

People would really benefit from opening their minds. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Understand yourself and your goals and train accordingly, but stay flexible and curious. Just get to work in the meantime.

24

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]AlwayzLearning wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Steady state cardio isn’t the demon you make it out to be. You’re world won’t end if you do it. Lower intensity cardio also provides numerous health benefits that can’t be obtained with short all-out efforts.[/quote]

Sorry OBoile, I truly don’t mean to start an argument but that’s just not true. There isn’t a single health benefit you can obtain from steady state cardio that you can’t obtain better results from sprinting & weight training. I actually did a report about this in my health class. My teacher hated me because he was a marathon runner :P[/quote]

I don’t mean to start an argument either. However I find the juxtaposition of your user name and this statement to be pretty ironic. You have very obviously formed a firm conclusion on this subject and you “know” you are right. Anybody who disagrees with that conclusion is wrong and/or uneducated in your opinion. This attitude is not at all consistent with “AlwayzLearning”.

As for the topic at hand, the terms of discussion are so broad as to be almost meaningless. What is “steady state cardio”? Ultra distance running? 5k? 1500m tempo runs? what??? What is “good or bad”? It all depends on what you’re trying to achieve and where you are in your training progression. The Canadian Heavyweight Men’s Eight rowers do a SHIT TONNE of steady state, low rate, aerobic technical rowing as the basis of their training. They also do roadwork, higher intensity anaerobic power development, weights, lactate threshold work, tempo training etc. I believe they periodize their speedwork to peak pre-competition and then taper into their brief racing season. Their medal standings seem to indicate that this is not so “bad” as it pertains to their goals and most of them have better physiques than many who are posting on these boards, despite not training for aesthetics at all.

Many NCAA/Olympic wrestlers, boxers, mma fighters etc. also include significant amounts of roadwork and still seem to be able to move pretty bloody explosively with the added bonus of not gassing later in their bouts. Lots of them have respectable physiques as well.

Why are people so dogmatic and black and white in their views of these things? Makes no sense to me. I will concede that if you are a younger strength athlete who wants to look naked, HIIT etc. is probably the best bang for your buck, but is that the be all end all of all physical/sporting endeavour? What about people who want to remain competitive later in life? Sprint times drop off rapidly over 30 but more steady state/aerobic events hold much steadier for longer. Ultra distance guys stay competitive at an elite level into their 40’s (not that ultra distance appeals to me at all at this stage in my life). 100-400m guys, not so much.

What about people who are interested in obstacle racing, decathlon, open water swimming, paddling, rowing, rugby or any other sport with more varied and/or sustained energy demands? If you want to compete in a 12k obstacle race and you’ve never run further than 200m at a stretch, I predict that you will have a hard day.

People would really benefit from opening their minds. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Understand yourself and your goals and train accordingly, but stay flexible and curious. Just get to work in the meantime.[/quote]

That was a really… REALLY good post man. I am a very open minded person about all of this & I’m sorry but you didn’t point out a single health benefit of aerobic exercise that anaerobic exercise can’t top. Not only does anaerobic exercise top all of the health benefits of aerobic exercise, it does it all at a fraction of the injury rates.

Of coarse if you’re a professional rower you’re going to be in pretty damn good shape. These guys are rowing from 4AM to 6AM 6-7 days a week. Like any serious athlete they put in a lot of hard work. I’ve yet to see a fat basketball player either.

All of your points were sports specific batman is all I’m saying. When I was talking about sprinting vs steady state cardio I was referring to the gym rat group that is T-Nation. The guys that go to the gym to get big and shredded or the guys that want to be explosive athletes or the men that want to squat 600lbs.

If you like running 5k’s, then do some 5k’s. If you like being a professional rower, then do some training that is beyond my scope of imagination that involves steady state cardio for your rowing team. If your hobby of choice involves some form or another of steady state cardio and only doing steady state cardio will make you better at said sport then go ahead. That’s all sports specific. I don’t imagine there are many rowers on these forums though or marathon runners.

My point still stands though. Not a single health benefit can be obtained from steady state cardio that cannot be obtained in a safer more efficient manner from anaerobic exercise. Not even heart health. I enjoy learning about this kind of stuff. I don’t mean to sound arrogant and if I do I apologize. I’m very open minded though and if anyone has any evidence proving otherwise I’d love to see it!

25

I personally run 1 mile to my old high schools football field every morning and do 20 minutes worth of sprints on the football field then run 1 mile back. I’ll run a 5K once or twice a month as well. I know that there is a time and place for everything and just like you wouldn’t put a guy under a barbell that can’t even body weight squat without his knees caving in and his feet flattening I would’t expect someone that can’t run 1 mile to go out and do 20 minutes worth of sprints.

It’s simple training progression really… You train up to a 5k. Once you can run 3 miles begin doing sprints. 5 sprints 2-5 days per week at first. Two weeks later bump it up to 7, etc. No need to go bang out mile after mile day after day wreaking havoc on your ankle knees and hips. We all know why you’re running. You’re running to lose fat, not to go place first at the next half marathon. Sprints get you where you want to go. Barbell complexes get you where you’re wanting to go. Kettle Bell Complexes. Super sets. Triple Drop sets. Etc. You get the point…

26

[quote]AlwayzLearning wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]AlwayzLearning wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Steady state cardio isn’t the demon you make it out to be. You’re world won’t end if you do it. Lower intensity cardio also provides numerous health benefits that can’t be obtained with short all-out efforts.[/quote]

Sorry OBoile, I truly don’t mean to start an argument but that’s just not true. There isn’t a single health benefit you can obtain from steady state cardio that you can’t obtain better results from sprinting & weight training. I actually did a report about this in my health class. My teacher hated me because he was a marathon runner :P[/quote]

I don’t mean to start an argument either. However I find the juxtaposition of your user name and this statement to be pretty ironic. You have very obviously formed a firm conclusion on this subject and you “know” you are right. Anybody who disagrees with that conclusion is wrong and/or uneducated in your opinion. This attitude is not at all consistent with “AlwayzLearning”.

As for the topic at hand, the terms of discussion are so broad as to be almost meaningless. What is “steady state cardio”? Ultra distance running? 5k? 1500m tempo runs? what??? What is “good or bad”? It all depends on what you’re trying to achieve and where you are in your training progression. The Canadian Heavyweight Men’s Eight rowers do a SHIT TONNE of steady state, low rate, aerobic technical rowing as the basis of their training. They also do roadwork, higher intensity anaerobic power development, weights, lactate threshold work, tempo training etc. I believe they periodize their speedwork to peak pre-competition and then taper into their brief racing season. Their medal standings seem to indicate that this is not so “bad” as it pertains to their goals and most of them have better physiques than many who are posting on these boards, despite not training for aesthetics at all.

Many NCAA/Olympic wrestlers, boxers, mma fighters etc. also include significant amounts of roadwork and still seem to be able to move pretty bloody explosively with the added bonus of not gassing later in their bouts. Lots of them have respectable physiques as well.

Why are people so dogmatic and black and white in their views of these things? Makes no sense to me. I will concede that if you are a younger strength athlete who wants to look naked, HIIT etc. is probably the best bang for your buck, but is that the be all end all of all physical/sporting endeavour? What about people who want to remain competitive later in life? Sprint times drop off rapidly over 30 but more steady state/aerobic events hold much steadier for longer. Ultra distance guys stay competitive at an elite level into their 40’s (not that ultra distance appeals to me at all at this stage in my life). 100-400m guys, not so much.

What about people who are interested in obstacle racing, decathlon, open water swimming, paddling, rowing, rugby or any other sport with more varied and/or sustained energy demands? If you want to compete in a 12k obstacle race and you’ve never run further than 200m at a stretch, I predict that you will have a hard day.

People would really benefit from opening their minds. There’s more than one way to skin a cat.
Understand yourself and your goals and train accordingly, but stay flexible and curious. Just get to work in the meantime.[/quote]

That was a really… REALLY good post man. I am a very open minded person about all of this & I’m sorry but you didn’t point out a single health benefit of aerobic exercise that anaerobic exercise can’t top. Not only does anaerobic exercise top all of the health benefits of aerobic exercise, it does it all at a fraction of the injury rates.

Of coarse if you’re a professional rower you’re going to be in pretty damn good shape. These guys are rowing from 4AM to 6AM 6-7 days a week. Like any serious athlete they put in a lot of hard work. I’ve yet to see a fat basketball player either.

All of your points were sports specific batman is all I’m saying. When I was talking about sprinting vs steady state cardio I was referring to the gym rat group that is T-Nation. The guys that go to the gym to get big and shredded or the guys that want to be explosive athletes or the men that want to squat 600lbs.

If you like running 5k’s, then do some 5k’s. If you like being a professional rower, then do some training that is beyond my scope of imagination that involves steady state cardio for your rowing team. If your hobby of choice involves some form or another of steady state cardio and only doing steady state cardio will make you better at said sport then go ahead. That’s all sports specific. I don’t imagine there are many rowers on these forums though or marathon runners.

My point still stands though. Not a single health benefit can be obtained from steady state cardio that cannot be obtained in a safer more efficient manner from anaerobic exercise. Not even heart health. I enjoy learning about this kind of stuff. I don’t mean to sound arrogant and if I do I apologize. I’m very open minded though and if anyone has any evidence proving otherwise I’d love to see it!
[/quote]

You’re right. There are likely not many competitive rowers, distance runners etc, who use these forums. My point with the rowers was more that if steady state cardio turned you into the frail, weak slow and generally useless human being that many people in the sprint/HIIT only camp seem to believe it does, you wouldn’t see athletes doing that volume of steady state stuff and walking around at around a fairly muscular, lean 220-230#. I’m not saying it’s the easiest/quickest or best way to get there, but if steady state really caused your testosterone to crash and your muscle mass to waste away, then rowers’ training should make it impossible to carry the amount of muscle that they do.

You’re also correct that my points are all sport/goal specific, but so is “fitness”. The OP’s question, unfortunately, is not. There is no mention as to whether he is looking to put up an elite total, stand on the BB’ing stage, fight in the UFC whatever… The question is just is steady state “good or bad?”. Relative to what? What if he wants get big and shredded and still be able to run a 5k with his hot crossfit girlfriend and not embarrass himself? Relative to that goal, steady state has definite value. In your next post you outline your own use of steady state stuff in your training. If you truly believe that sprinting etc. is superior in every way, then why do you even bother wasting your time? I’m not meaning to be dick, you come off like a decent, reasonable guy. I’m just asking. Why do you suggest guys train up to a 5k at all (which I happen to agree is a pretty decent baseline) before switching to sprints? If any health/fitness goal is better achieved through the use of intensity alone, why not cut to the chase?

Furthermore, what about the range in effective training methods for guys looking to achieve the same goal, i.e. get big and strong. Look at GVT vs. CT’s Perfect Rep/i bodybuilder stuff. Both seem to help produce big, strong dudes and yet they are diametrically opposed in their approach.

For the record, I love sprints. The idea of training a 1/2 or full marathon is way outside my personal boredom threshold. However I wouldn’t mind a sub-20 min 5k while maintaining near to my current body mass (6’4" 230# +/-) and getting just a hair leaner and much stronger. I happen to be into rowing as well, I do some “combat” sports off and on and am competing in a 5k mud/obstacle race this spring. I looking to compete, not just finish. I am also contemplating giving Highland Games a go this spring. In short I like doing “stuff” and I like doing it awesome and I prefer to look alright doing it. To this end, I do 1 day of strides/speed drills/sprints, one day short tempo runs (1k warmup, 1k faster than race pace, 1k cooldown) and one day LSD trail running 1.5x race distance. I also incorporate rucking, erging (rowing machine), lifting, calisthenics, throwing, climbing, hill/stair sprints, ax/maul work, drags and carries etc. in a mix of aerobic/anaeobic cross-training. I do a full-time physical job which demands a high volume of steady state output with periods of moderate and high intensity interspersed. I modify food intake/macros periodically to support my current body comp goals. I am far from impressive physique wise IMO, but in spite doing steady state stuff, neither am I the “extra slender, pencil-necked, and endomorphic” specimen that Martin Rooney describes in his recent article about the evils of distance work and how sprints are the answer to everything.

I don’t disagree with anything specific that you’re saying, I just dislike the black and white, good/bad, all or nothing approach that many people (not necessarily you) tend to take about, well everything.

Long post. Sorry.

27

Like anything it depends on your goals neither is better.

28

[quote]AlwayzLearning wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Steady state cardio isn’t the demon you make it out to be. You’re world won’t end if you do it. Lower intensity cardio also provides numerous health benefits that can’t be obtained with short all-out efforts.[/quote]

Sorry OBoile, I truly don’t mean to start an argument but that’s just not true. There isn’t a single health benefit you can obtain from steady state cardio that you can’t obtain better results from sprinting & weight training. I actually did a report about this in my health class. My teacher hated me because he was a marathon runner :P[/quote]

From personal experience I disagree with this. I never got my resting heart rate below the 60s while only doing weight training. My blood pressure was also alittle on the high side at 130/85. Both resting heart rate and bp has dropped since adding aerobic exercise to my weekly training schedule.

29

This thing about running, ie the dont run at all, save calories so you just bulk up is utter bullshit. The reason cardio vascular work is being frowned upon is because there is an obssession for sted eds to get their bodies (arms and chest) as big as possible even if this exceeds what their natural frame is built for ie non functional mass because they dont do function any way!

so theres 2 factors resulting in this bullshit myth. one is the one explained already ie train a certain way you have extra non functional mass and of course trying to run for that type of person will look like his stuck in a swamp and feel like absolute shit! the 2nd factor is that many of the lads whove got into body building (at any level im referring to even the 1s in local comps where jimmy 5 bellies will get a tan and turn up!)ha are naturally not athletic and have never got their physiques to be muscular powerful and quick as well as possess a decent v02 max

Because thats not in their DNA . SO the only way 4 them is bicep curls, preacher curls,cable curls, decline curls etc etc and dissing anyone whose in good shape and doing runs as well as weights as pussys! i don`t think that arguemmt holds any water when you consider how boxers and to a degree mma fighters also do both weights and running and how they seem to maintain great bulk

although admittedly one must also consider that wrestling stimulates the muslces anaeorobically to a great extent and also the role of anabloic steroids in combat sports cant be undermined BUTR still there are numerous athletes in different sports who are running loads and doin some weights but would drop these big bodybuilding cats like a bad habit!

30

[quote]AlwayzLearning wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Steady state cardio isn’t the demon you make it out to be. You’re world won’t end if you do it. Lower intensity cardio also provides numerous health benefits that can’t be obtained with short all-out efforts.[/quote]

Sorry OBoile, I truly don’t mean to start an argument but that’s just not true. There isn’t a single health benefit you can obtain from steady state cardio that you can’t obtain better results from sprinting & weight training. I actually did a report about this in my health class. My teacher hated me because he was a marathon runner :P[/quote]

You’re wrong. Cardio done at low-moderate intensity (this can be steady state or not) is better than sprints for increased (heart) stroke volume and improved parasympathetic tone. It also is considerably less stressful on the body allowing for easier recovery and greater training volume (and more energy for strength/speed training).

There is a reason why every world class endurance athlete does the vast majority of their training in the “aerobic” zone.

articles.elitefts.com/training-articles/echocardiography-evidence-of-cardiac-output-training/

Here is an article you can read to get you started.

31

[quote]whatever2k wrote:

[quote]AlwayzLearning wrote:

[quote]OBoile wrote:
Steady state cardio isn’t the demon you make it out to be. You’re world won’t end if you do it. Lower intensity cardio also provides numerous health benefits that can’t be obtained with short all-out efforts.[/quote]

Sorry OBoile, I truly don’t mean to start an argument but that’s just not true. There isn’t a single health benefit you can obtain from steady state cardio that you can’t obtain better results from sprinting & weight training. I actually did a report about this in my health class. My teacher hated me because he was a marathon runner :P[/quote]

From personal experience I disagree with this. I never got my resting heart rate below the 60s while only doing weight training. My blood pressure was also alittle on the high side at 130/85. Both resting heart rate and bp has dropped since adding aerobic exercise to my weekly training schedule.[/quote]

Forgot about blood pressure. Lower intensity cardio is supposedly better for this as well.

32

Joel Jaimeson advocates long distance for his MMA champions and I have added it to my (Masters) CFit regimen. Sprint intervals are great and I love to lift but the distance adds collateral heart circulation which adds long term endurance for WODs, boxing rounds, MMA fights, rowing, etc, etc. Physiologically, it makes sense.

33

[quote]AlwayzLearning wrote:

Sorry OBoile, I truly don’t mean to start an argument but that’s just not true. There isn’t a single health benefit you can obtain from steady state cardio that you can’t obtain better results from sprinting & weight training. I actually did a report about this in my health class. My teacher hated me because he was a marathon runner :P[/quote]

What about people who cannot sprint or lift weights. Sprinting and heavy weights may appear to be optimal (lol) for a healthy young male, but many people simply won’t be able to sprint or lift weights because of joint problems or similar. If your knee or back hurts after 2 or 3 sprints, then you aren’t going to be reaping any benefits. Conversely, if you can swim for 40 mins a day pain free that will do far more for you.

Also lifting heavy weights and being able to run 100m fast has nothing to do with health in the conventional sense. If i added 20kg to my back squat, 20kg to my bench and cut 2 secs off my spirt time I would not be more healthy. My unhealthyness is, as is most people’s, a product of what I eat, drink and smoke.

The hormonal benefits of sprinting as massively overstated. Amount of sleep, food, mood, psychological profile/situation have a FAR greater affect on hormones than sprinting. Sure sprinting might be good for the <1% of people who base their life around hormone optimization, but for most people it will just be a small hormonal blip that has little effect on their body composition.

34

[quote]Bull_Scientist wrote:
Most people in the world have always agreed that doing aerobic endurance exercises such as long-distance runs are healthy and natural. Also, from what I understand is that not only did humans actually evolved to being endurance type beings, but also we are the only animals in the world that can do marathons due the relative hairlessness and millions of sweat glands in the human body.

Yet there have recently been some experts, including Dr. Art De Vany who are saying that cardio exercises such as long-distance runs are unhealthy and unnatural and that we didn’t evolved to be long-distance runners. In addition, some physiologists have recently been questioning aerobic endurance exercises as well saying that those exercises are very likely to produce long-term adverse effects such as asymptomatic cardiac damage and accelerated aging.

So what is one supposed to do?[/quote]

With the heart damage, the most reputable study http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/12/05/eurheartj.ehr397.abstract was based on actual athletes doing intense endurance exercise that lasted between 3 and 11 hours :rolleyes: Researchers from both sides also acknowledge that there are studies which show know permanent heart damage which are still perfectly valid.

Another report states: O’Keefe wants people to understand that the lion’s share of benefits come at a relatively modest level. No further benefits are obtained beyond 30 to 60 minutes a day of vigorous activity.

The researchers said elite-level athletes commonly develop abnormal electrocardiograms and their hearts adapt in ways that traditionally weren’t thought to be harmful. Now it seems the cardiac remodelling from excessive exercise may increase their risk of heart rhythm problems like atrial fibrillation.'. (Heart damage risk from excess endurance training | CBC News)

The harm is very clearly linked with elite athletes. Exercising vigorously cardio wise for an hour a day is still an incredibly large amount of cardio to. Many runners doing steady state cardio will only do 3-4 runs a week, with all but one workout under an hour.

The average person is not likely to be able to damage themselves doing even longer cardio either as they will not be able to manage the intensity.

35

[quote]Trocchi wrote:

[quote]Bull_Scientist wrote:
Most people in the world have always agreed that doing aerobic endurance exercises such as long-distance runs are healthy and natural. Also, from what I understand is that not only did humans actually evolved to being endurance type beings, but also we are the only animals in the world that can do marathons due the relative hairlessness and millions of sweat glands in the human body.

Yet there have recently been some experts, including Dr. Art De Vany who are saying that cardio exercises such as long-distance runs are unhealthy and unnatural and that we didn’t evolved to be long-distance runners. In addition, some physiologists have recently been questioning aerobic endurance exercises as well saying that those exercises are very likely to produce long-term adverse effects such as asymptomatic cardiac damage and accelerated aging.

So what is one supposed to do?[/quote]

With the heart damage, the most reputable study http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/12/05/eurheartj.ehr397.abstract was based on actual athletes doing intense endurance exercise that lasted between 3 and 11 hours :rolleyes: Researchers from both sides also acknowledge that there are studies which show know permanent heart damage which are still perfectly valid.

Another report states: O’Keefe wants people to understand that the lion’s share of benefits come at a relatively modest level. No further benefits are obtained beyond 30 to 60 minutes a day of vigorous activity.

The researchers said elite-level athletes commonly develop abnormal electrocardiograms and their hearts adapt in ways that traditionally weren’t thought to be harmful. Now it seems the cardiac remodelling from excessive exercise may increase their risk of heart rhythm problems like atrial fibrillation.'. (Heart damage risk from excess endurance training | CBC News)

The harm is very clearly linked with elite athletes. Exercising vigorously cardio wise for an hour a day is still an incredibly large amount of cardio to. Many runners doing steady state cardio will only do 3-4 runs a week, with all but one workout under an hour.

The average person is not likely to be able to damage themselves doing even longer cardio either as they will not be able to manage the intensity. [/quote]

Really excellent post.

It’s odd how one (or more) writers will make a claim with nothing to back it up and everyone jumps on the bandwagon. Claiming that early man didn’t do long distance steady state cardio is just wrong minded. They did it when they hunted and they did it when they traveled long distance as well. Is it really that much of a stretch to believe that early man to recognized that he could in fact go faster if he broke into what we now call a jog?

Also, there are absolutely health benefits that take effect that are not available to those who never do longer distance training. Blood pressure control is only one of them. I mention it because I can speak from experience with that one. Covering longer distance will also bring down various blood fats more effectively than sprinting.

36

but what kind is best if your only goal is better endurance? and what will not lead to overtraining when combined with almost daily weight training

37

[quote]buildsomemuscle wrote:
but what kind is best if your only goal is better endurance? and what will not lead to overtraining when combined with almost daily weight training[/quote]

The best cardio for pure endurance must include some form of running. Keep in mind that the less muscle involved means that your heart/lungs will tire before your muscles. For example when you bike, you will eventually feel a burn in your quads. That means your quads are straining (lactic acid) BEFORE your heart and lungs have a chance to tire. Running uses very little muscle. Just look at the legs of those who run 5 and 10 miles per day. Spindle thin in most cases. Naturally you don’t want that look. But just as we learn from the sprinters by looking at heir chiseled legs we can also learn from the distance runners. Who has the best cardio? Distance runners hands down! There are of course many ways to improve your cardio but none beat running in my opinion.

My point is make sure you include distance running in your training routine. Certainly not every day and maybe only twice per week. That is the single best way to improve your cardio, there is nothing better!

Overtraining is another topic. Nothing will, in and of itself, cause you to over train. Overtraining is conglomeration of many elements such as sleep, nutrition, training regime, outside stress factors with work and family etc.

There are a number of ways to check if you are over training:

1-Check your pulse in the morning. If it’s faster than usual that is one sign of over training. But you must have a baseline before trying this. In other words know what your pulse is when you are feeling good.

2-Sexual interest decreases. If your wife or girl friend isn’t looking as good to you as usual that might be one sign of over training. Either that or she gained weight and just doesn’t look good…ha ha kidding :slight_smile:

3-Appetite decreases.

4- You get a restless nights sleep.

5- You think you are getting good sleep but awake the next day feeling like you have not slept.

There are other signs but these are the big ones.

Good luck man!

38

I have to defer to Jim Wendler on this one.

When it comes to cardio Wendler’s rule is

  1. If its awesome…do it.
  2. If your mom can do it…don’t.

my mom jogs 2-3 miles 5 days a week.

case closed for me

39

[quote]LBramble wrote:
I have to defer to Jim Wendler on this one.

When it comes to cardio Wendler’s rule is

  1. If its awesome…do it.
  2. If your mom can do it…don’t.

my mom jogs 2-3 miles 5 days a week.

case closed for me[/quote]

Wendler’s goal is not endurance. It’s picking up really, really heavy shit.

Depends on what you’re trying to achieve.

Have your mom “jog” 2-3 6:30 miles and then get back to me.

40

as a former 4:03 miler and current aging pro cyclist, steady state cardio is your foundation. get your base miles in before the harder stuff. pretty simple…look at the kenyan and ethiopean running program. lots of early season slow miles building their base before the tempo runs and hills and intervals start.
same with cycling. the belgiuns and dutch as well as the other great nations in cycling ride slow and ez before the harder training…not rocket science at all…