Steady-State Cardio Good or Bad?

[Trocchi]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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

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![/quote]

I disagree with this. Biking is probably the best for pure cardio endurance, definitely better than running. Thats why people do spinning. You can lower the muscular effort by changing down gears etc. Far less strain on joints too.

This is explained anecdotally by newb running routines. They dont say ‘walk 1 min, run the next’ because your heart and lungs are gassed after a min! Conversely, there are no cycling routines that dictate you cycling for 5 mins then stopping, because your muscles aren’t the limiting factor.

[buildsomemuscle]

[quote]spk wrote:
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…[/quote]

solid advice

[JRT6]

I liked how one guy here bragged about doing a college paper filled with bro science.

Anyway…

I did LISS back in the day and had a RHR in the low 40’s, jumped on the HITT bandwagon and my RHR went up into the 60’s. I’ve since gone back to LISS and my RHR is again in the low 40’s, sometimes 39.

Don’t want running ruining your lifting? Then don’t train like running is your priority.

[tweaker]

This is a pretty fascinating article that got me into doing tempo runs twice a week.

Runner's World

These are steady state, but they’re ridiculously hard. Try them out. Try lifting after doing one. It’s tough. And you’ll need a heart rate monitor to make sure you’re running fast enough.

[GruntOrama]

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I remember reading somewhere, possibly in the blood and chalk series, that he did not start with the conditioning methods he uses now. When he first began he was very overweight and out of shape, so he started by walking and once he was leaner and in better shape he began doing more sprints.

Personally I believe the same rules apply to conditioning as weight training. You need to have a base to build off of. If I apply this more directly I see it as steady-state = low intensity/high volume, while intervals/sprints = high intensity/lower volume. It would be foolish to take a completely untrained individual and have them try to lift their true maximal loads, just like it would be foolish to take an untrained individual and have them run 8 400m intervals at top speeds.

To me what this means is:

-Use steady-state as a way of developing/increasing your base
-Use higher intensity conditioning as a way of increasing intensity

If the goal is to get in the best shape possible I believe steady-state cardio should be use primarily at first. After that base is developed higher intensities can be added in, however, steady state should remain at least in small amounts either as a form of active recovery or a way of maintaining your basis of conditioning.

[56x11]

[quote]GruntOrama wrote:

To me what this means is:

-Use steady-state as a way of developing/increasing your base
-Use higher intensity conditioning as a way of increasing intensity

If the goal is to get in the best shape possible I believe steady-state cardio should be use primarily at first. After that base is developed higher intensities can be added in, however, steady state should remain at least in small amounts either as a form of active recovery or a way of maintaining your basis of conditioning.
[/quote]

This.

It’s quite fashionable in the T-Nation and other publications to dismiss steady state cardio as out dated and a waste of time. Some of these authors would have you believe that you’ll shrivel away all your lean mass and you’ll (gasp) no longer be a man.

Well, I don’t care what an author’s resume looks like. What I do care is when a so-called expert states something that fails the common sense test as well as refute something with a tremendous amount of empirical data.

Common sense should tell anyone that going balls out on any activity without a proper foundation is a recipe for injury. The fact (not opinion, not theory) of the matter is the connective tissues (tendons/ligaments) do not receive as much blood as the muscles. Any injury to the connective tissue, therefore, will require a longer recovery time.

Speaking of blood supply, a tried-and-true method of increasing capillary density is steady-state cardio. Now, before someone chimes in with a study that shows that HIT does the same, we still need to go back to the issue of reducing the chance of getting injured. Again, steady state work, with a lower risk factor, increases the chance of overall success in your favor.

And there is matter of keeping the CNS fresh and ready for the next hard training session. If your goal is to get as strong and/or as muscular as possible (which I presume is the case since this is not an endurance bicycling forum), why shoot your wad doing HIT cardio five or more days per week…? It’s about saving yourself for the battles that really matter. Steady state cardio will have the benefit of keeping you active and assist with the recovery process. Simply keep the session at around 30-45 minutes.

And there is the intermuscular coordination that needs to be addressed when learning a new activity. Take a trainee that is very fit and strong but new to (for the purpose of this example) swimming. It would be an idiotic notion for this person to jump in the pool and go at it thinking he’s in the final 50 meters of an Olympic race. He will fail to ingrain proper technique, which in turn will increase his chance of injury. Back to square one: if you get injured, you cannot train. This individual will do himself a great service by going slow and steady in the beginning to learn proper technique, build the capillaries, and prepare himself for harder work in the near future.

It’s fashionable for the celebrity strength/conditioning coaches to go against the grain. Some do this by dismissing what has a significant amount of research and data behind it. Others do this by turning a blind eye to the latest significant research.

Take Wendler for example. That quote about if your mom does it, do something else is pithy and good for a laugh. But we need to remember that he, and others like him, are the kind of people that help orthopedic surgeons pay off their yachts.

Rooney’s most recent article talks up the roman chair sit up. With all his chest-thumping, he fails to consider some overwhelming information on repeated lumbar spinal flexion under load. I mention him because, should you drink his kool aid, the only type of cardio you should do is of the hard and brief variety. I could not disagree more.

I often wonder if these and others like them actually consider the ramifications of what they preach on impressionable newbies.

As is often the case in life, the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes. It’s up to each and every one of us to think and make informed decisions and not let some pied piper lead us off the cliff.

[56x11]

One thing I forgot to mention is the argument that steady state cardio will waste away lean tissue. Those who make such blanket statements know little about the Respiratory Exchange Ratio.

Provided there is an adequate amount of glycogen in the muscles, 30-45 minutes of working at approximately 60 percent or less of max heart rate, there is little risk of gluconeogenesis (conversion of glucogenic amino acids into glucose, among other reactions). So, unless you are on a very low carb diet, I wouldn’t worry. For those who want to bulk as quickly as possible and therefore don’t particularly care about fat loss can still reap the benefits of steady state cardio by making sure your glycogen stores are adequate.

[batman730]

[quote]56x11 wrote:

[quote]GruntOrama wrote:

To me what this means is:

-Use steady-state as a way of developing/increasing your base
-Use higher intensity conditioning as a way of increasing intensity

If the goal is to get in the best shape possible I believe steady-state cardio should be use primarily at first. After that base is developed higher intensities can be added in, however, steady state should remain at least in small amounts either as a form of active recovery or a way of maintaining your basis of conditioning.
[/quote]

This.

It’s quite fashionable in the T-Nation and other publications to dismiss steady state cardio as out dated and a waste of time. Some of these authors would have you believe that you’ll shrivel away all your lean mass and you’ll (gasp) no longer be a man.

Well, I don’t care what an author’s resume looks like. What I do care is when a so-called expert states something that fails the common sense test as well as refute something with a tremendous amount of empirical data.

Common sense should tell anyone that going balls out on any activity without a proper foundation is a recipe for injury. The fact (not opinion, not theory) of the matter is the connective tissues (tendons/ligaments) do not receive as much blood as the muscles. Any injury to the connective tissue, therefore, will require a longer recovery time.

Speaking of blood supply, a tried-and-true method of increasing capillary density is steady-state cardio. Now, before someone chimes in with a study that shows that HIT does the same, we still need to go back to the issue of reducing the chance of getting injured. Again, steady state work, with a lower risk factor, increases the chance of overall success in your favor.

And there is matter of keeping the CNS fresh and ready for the next hard training session. If your goal is to get as strong and/or as muscular as possible (which I presume is the case since this is not an endurance bicycling forum), why shoot your wad doing HIT cardio five or more days per week…? It’s about saving yourself for the battles that really matter. Steady state cardio will have the benefit of keeping you active and assist with the recovery process. Simply keep the session at around 30-45 minutes.

And there is the intermuscular coordination that needs to be addressed when learning a new activity. Take a trainee that is very fit and strong but new to (for the purpose of this example) swimming. It would be an idiotic notion for this person to jump in the pool and go at it thinking he’s in the final 50 meters of an Olympic race. He will fail to ingrain proper technique, which in turn will increase his chance of injury. Back to square one: if you get injured, you cannot train. This individual will do himself a great service by going slow and steady in the beginning to learn proper technique, build the capillaries, and prepare himself for harder work in the near future.

It’s fashionable for the celebrity strength/conditioning coaches to go against the grain. Some do this by dismissing what has a significant amount of research and data behind it. Others do this by turning a blind eye to the latest significant research.

Take Wendler for example. That quote about if your mom does it, do something else is pithy and good for a laugh. But we need to remember that he, and others like him, are the kind of people that help orthopedic surgeons pay off their yachts.

Rooney’s most recent article talks up the roman chair sit up. With all his chest-thumping, he fails to consider some overwhelming information on repeated lumbar spinal flexion under load. I mention him because, should you drink his kool aid, the only type of cardio you should do is of the hard and brief variety. I could not disagree more.

I often wonder if these and others like them actually consider the ramifications of what they preach on impressionable newbies.

As is often the case in life, the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes. It’s up to each and every one of us to think and make informed decisions and not let some pied piper lead us off the cliff.

[/quote]

Your sober, well reasoned post leads me to believe you must be a pussy.

Too much steady state cardio. Your balls dropped off. Happens.

[56x11]

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]56x11 wrote:

[quote]GruntOrama wrote:

To me what this means is:

-Use steady-state as a way of developing/increasing your base
-Use higher intensity conditioning as a way of increasing intensity

If the goal is to get in the best shape possible I believe steady-state cardio should be use primarily at first. After that base is developed higher intensities can be added in, however, steady state should remain at least in small amounts either as a form of active recovery or a way of maintaining your basis of conditioning.
[/quote]

This.

It’s quite fashionable in the T-Nation and other publications to dismiss steady state cardio as out dated and a waste of time. Some of these authors would have you believe that you’ll shrivel away all your lean mass and you’ll (gasp) no longer be a man.

Well, I don’t care what an author’s resume looks like. What I do care is when a so-called expert states something that fails the common sense test as well as refute something with a tremendous amount of empirical data.

Common sense should tell anyone that going balls out on any activity without a proper foundation is a recipe for injury. The fact (not opinion, not theory) of the matter is the connective tissues (tendons/ligaments) do not receive as much blood as the muscles. Any injury to the connective tissue, therefore, will require a longer recovery time.

Speaking of blood supply, a tried-and-true method of increasing capillary density is steady-state cardio. Now, before someone chimes in with a study that shows that HIT does the same, we still need to go back to the issue of reducing the chance of getting injured. Again, steady state work, with a lower risk factor, increases the chance of overall success in your favor.

And there is matter of keeping the CNS fresh and ready for the next hard training session. If your goal is to get as strong and/or as muscular as possible (which I presume is the case since this is not an endurance bicycling forum), why shoot your wad doing HIT cardio five or more days per week…? It’s about saving yourself for the battles that really matter. Steady state cardio will have the benefit of keeping you active and assist with the recovery process. Simply keep the session at around 30-45 minutes.

And there is the intermuscular coordination that needs to be addressed when learning a new activity. Take a trainee that is very fit and strong but new to (for the purpose of this example) swimming. It would be an idiotic notion for this person to jump in the pool and go at it thinking he’s in the final 50 meters of an Olympic race. He will fail to ingrain proper technique, which in turn will increase his chance of injury. Back to square one: if you get injured, you cannot train. This individual will do himself a great service by going slow and steady in the beginning to learn proper technique, build the capillaries, and prepare himself for harder work in the near future.

It’s fashionable for the celebrity strength/conditioning coaches to go against the grain. Some do this by dismissing what has a significant amount of research and data behind it. Others do this by turning a blind eye to the latest significant research.

Take Wendler for example. That quote about if your mom does it, do something else is pithy and good for a laugh. But we need to remember that he, and others like him, are the kind of people that help orthopedic surgeons pay off their yachts.

Rooney’s most recent article talks up the roman chair sit up. With all his chest-thumping, he fails to consider some overwhelming information on repeated lumbar spinal flexion under load. I mention him because, should you drink his kool aid, the only type of cardio you should do is of the hard and brief variety. I could not disagree more.

I often wonder if these and others like them actually consider the ramifications of what they preach on impressionable newbies.

As is often the case in life, the truth lies somewhere in between the extremes. It’s up to each and every one of us to think and make informed decisions and not let some pied piper lead us off the cliff.

[/quote]

Your sober, well reasoned post leads me to believe you must be a pussy.

Too much steady state cardio. Your balls dropped off. Happens.[/quote]

Good thing I read your earlier posts on this subject; otherwise, I could have missed the tongue-in-cheek humor in your comment. Nevertheless, it is bordering on being irritating, not unlike a mosquito bite.

The bottom line is steady state cardio will always have a place in the tool box. When and how it should be used is individual dependent.

[batman730]

^No offense or irritation intended. Sorry if I came across that way.

You seem like a pretty serious guy and I think you make some good points that bear remembering in the face of the ever changing flavour of the moment in cutting edge training. That is all.

[ZEB]

[quote]Trocchi wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[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

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![/quote]

I disagree with this. Biking is probably the best for pure cardio endurance, definitely better than running. Thats why people do spinning. You can lower the muscular effort by changing down gears etc. Far less strain on joints too.

This is explained anecdotally by newb running routines. They dont say ‘walk 1 min, run the next’ because your heart and lungs are gassed after a min! Conversely, there are no cycling routines that dictate you cycling for 5 mins then stopping, because your muscles aren’t the limiting factor.

[/quote]

I like cycling it’s good for cardio no question. But if you were to compare (running where you can virtually max out your heart rate) biking comes in second. With biking you have a lever to control which takes at least some muscle to turn. Whereas with distance running you are basically falling forward. It is almost pure cardio.

Now if you are talking hill sprints that is another matter.

But, of course, the best thing to do is to mix it up so you don’t develop joint problems. As you say too much running can lead to various joint problems. Then again too much of anything can lead to repetitive stress injuries.

[OBoile]

[quote]batman730 wrote:
^No offense or irritation intended. Sorry if I came across that way.

You seem like a pretty serious guy and I think you make some good points that bear remembering in the face of the ever changing flavour of the moment in cutting edge training. That is all.[/quote]

IMO the fact that you said “sober” and “well reasoned” made it pretty clear that you were supporting what he said.

[OBoile]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I like cycling it’s good for cardio no question. But if you were to compare (running where you can virtually max out your heart rate) biking comes in second. With biking you have a lever to control which takes at least some muscle to turn. Whereas with distance running you are basically falling forward. It is almost pure cardio.

Now if you are talking hill sprints that is another matter.

But, of course, the best thing to do is to mix it up so you don’t develop joint problems. As you say too much running can lead to various joint problems. Then again too much of anything can lead to repetitive stress injuries.

[/quote]

One way to get around this issue with cycling is to use a lower gear and a higher RPM. This will make it more heart/lungs based and less leg based (kind of like how a 20 rep set of squats will tax your heart/lungs much more than a heavy triple).

[batman730]

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]batman730 wrote:
^No offense or irritation intended. Sorry if I came across that way.

You seem like a pretty serious guy and I think you make some good points that bear remembering in the face of the ever changing flavour of the moment in cutting edge training. That is all.[/quote]

IMO the fact that you said “sober” and “well reasoned” made it pretty clear that you were supporting what he said.[/quote]

I thought so, but you never know on the interwebz.

[ZEB]

[quote]OBoile wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

I like cycling it’s good for cardio no question. But if you were to compare (running where you can virtually max out your heart rate) biking comes in second. With biking you have a lever to control which takes at least some muscle to turn. Whereas with distance running you are basically falling forward. It is almost pure cardio.

Now if you are talking hill sprints that is another matter.

But, of course, the best thing to do is to mix it up so you don’t develop joint problems. As you say too much running can lead to various joint problems. Then again too much of anything can lead to repetitive stress injuries.

[/quote]

One way to get around this issue with cycling is to use a lower gear and a higher RPM. This will make it more heart/lungs based and less leg based (kind of like how a 20 rep set of squats will tax your heart/lungs much more than a heavy triple).[/quote]

Yes, I agree, but you are only using a higher gear to lighten the effort that it takes to turn the lever. Otherwise, you are using more muscle power which will ultimately burn and tire as your legs fill with lactic acid BEFORE your heart and lungs are maxed out. Hence, using a higher gear, or doing “spinning” at your club is the practice of making it easier to turn.
It is basically a technique to get closer to running where there is very little muscle power used as compared to heart and lungs.

But biking can be fun and is a good way to break up the central part of your cardio routine which should be running.

[56x11]

[quote]batman730 wrote:
^No offense or irritation intended. Sorry if I came across that way.

You seem like a pretty serious guy and I think you make some good points that bear remembering in the face of the ever changing flavour of the moment in cutting edge training. That is all.[/quote]

No offense taken. That’s why I stated that I almost missed the tongue-in-cheek humor of your comment. However, there is busting balls and then there’s busting balls calling someone a pussy. That’s why I stated it was borderline irritating.

[56x11]

I came across a study that some of you may find interesting. Nimmerichter A, Eston G, Bachl N, Williams C. Longitudinal monitoring of power output and heart rate profiles in elite cyclists.

I want to preface this by stating the subject of this thread is whether or not steady-state cardio is beneficial for conditioning. I (as stated in my earlier posts) believe it does have a place.

The reason I wanted to revisit this thread is because some of us are genuinely interested in developing a bigger aerobic engine - whether it’s a firefighter trying out for a smoke jumper squad, a martial artist, and so on. For these and similar people, a bigger aerobic engine (all else being equal) can provide a significant edge.

This 2011 study involved 10 male and 1 female cyclists who compete at either the national level or at the world level. Data was tracked for 11 months. Therefore, it should provide reasonably good information as the athletes go from preseason to competition.

In this study, seven different zones of difficulty were established:

Zone 1 < 50% Functional Threshold Power (or FTP)

Zone 2 50-70% FTP

Zone 3 71-85% FTP

Zone 4 86-105% FTP

Zone 5 106-2-125% FTP

Zone 6 126-170% FTP

Zone 7 > 170% FTP

FTP, or Functional Threshold Power, is generally accepted as the highest mean average power you can maintain for one hour. Thanks to the power meter ( a device that can be attached to the bicycle), it is now easy and routine to keep track of such data.

The study yielded some interesting results. For the purpose of this thread, however, the single most interesting finding was this:

The researchers found a strong correlation between the amount of time spent in Zone 2 and the athlete’s FTP and VO2Max. That’s right, the more time the athlete spent in a relatively easy pace, the bigger the aerobic engine. If you look at the above chart and remember that FTP is defined as the highest mean average power that can be sustained for one hour, you can see that Zone 2 is roughly equivalent to what we term as steady state cardio.

This should give pause to any objective reader out there who believes tabatas/hiit/sprints are the holy grail. I believe those protocols do have a place in the toolbox. For the purpose of building a bigger aerobic engine, however, perhaps doing too much of that type of training can be counter productive.

Here is the breakdown of time spent training in respective zones:

73% (on average) in Zones 1-2

22% in Zones 3-4

5% in Zones 5-7

I realize this is just one study. And you can argue that correlation does not equal causation. However, this study in addition to what I and others have observed (world champion boxers doing road work, best endurance athletes performing slow/steady work), tells me that steady state cardio should not be dismissed because it’s not fashionable.

And I certainly do NOT want anyone to take this argument to a ridiculous extreme. For example, would it make sense to take a 250 pound lineman and make him run mile after mile? Absolutely, positively not. Not only will that trash his knees, it would be counter to his task on the field. Now, would it make sense to take this same lineman and have him perform 30-45 minute sessions on a low-impact form (ie stationary bike) of Zone 2 cardio during the off season to build a proper aerobic foundation? My answer is ‘yes.’

[Field]

I did some cardio this morning:

1.Perform set of squats
2. Walk to the water fountain

3. repeat

[56x11]

[quote]Field wrote:
I did some cardio this morning:

1.Perform set of squats
2. Walk to the water fountain

3. repeat[/quote]

That can be considered a form of cardio. It’s closer to an interval. It’s not steady state as generally defined.

And this thread is about the validity of steady state. Some posters seem to think all you need are intervals; some posters differ in where they stand. Based on your goals, what you just described (fecetious or not) may be adequate.

The reason I posted today was for the edification of anyone who is genuinely interested in gaining every edge possible - conditioning wise.

But thanks anyway.

[ZEB]

[quote]56x11 wrote:
I came across a study that some of you may find interesting. Nimmerichter A, Eston G, Bachl N, Williams C. Longitudinal monitoring of power output and heart rate profiles in elite cyclists.

I want to preface this by stating the subject of this thread is whether or not steady-state cardio is beneficial for conditioning. I (as stated in my earlier posts) believe it does have a place.

The reason I wanted to revisit this thread is because some of us are genuinely interested in developing a bigger aerobic engine - whether it’s a firefighter trying out for a smoke jumper squad, a martial artist, and so on. For these and similar people, a bigger aerobic engine (all else being equal) can provide a significant edge.

This 2011 study involved 10 male and 1 female cyclists who compete at either the national level or at the world level. Data was tracked for 11 months. Therefore, it should provide reasonably good information as the athletes go from preseason to competition.

In this study, seven different zones of difficulty were established:

Zone 1 < 50% Functional Threshold Power (or FTP)

Zone 2 50-70% FTP

Zone 3 71-85% FTP

Zone 4 86-105% FTP

Zone 5 106-2-125% FTP

Zone 6 126-170% FTP

Zone 7 > 170% FTP

FTP, or Functional Threshold Power, is generally accepted as the highest mean average power you can maintain for one hour. Thanks to the power meter ( a device that can be attached to the bicycle), it is now easy and routine to keep track of such data.

The study yielded some interesting results. For the purpose of this thread, however, the single most interesting finding was this:

The researchers found a strong correlation between the amount of time spent in Zone 2 and the athlete’s FTP and VO2Max. That’s right, the more time the athlete spent in a relatively easy pace, the bigger the aerobic engine. If you look at the above chart and remember that FTP is defined as the highest mean average power that can be sustained for one hour, you can see that Zone 2 is roughly equivalent to what we term as steady state cardio.

This should give pause to any objective reader out there who believes tabatas/hiit/sprints are the holy grail. I believe those protocols do have a place in the toolbox. For the purpose of building a bigger aerobic engine, however, perhaps doing too much of that type of training can be counter productive.

Here is the breakdown of time spent training in respective zones:

73% (on average) in Zones 1-2

22% in Zones 3-4

5% in Zones 5-7

I realize this is just one study. And you can argue that correlation does not equal causation. However, this study in addition to what I and others have observed (world champion boxers doing road work, best endurance athletes performing slow/steady work), tells me that steady state cardio should not be dismissed because it’s not fashionable.

And I certainly do NOT want anyone to take this argument to a ridiculous extreme. For example, would it make sense to take a 250 pound lineman and make him run mile after mile? Absolutely, positively not. Not only will that trash his knees, it would be counter to his task on the field. Now, would it make sense to take this same lineman and have him perform 30-45 minute sessions on a low-impact form (ie stationary bike) of Zone 2 cardio during the off season to build a proper aerobic foundation? My answer is ‘yes.’[/quote]

Great post!

And this is the reason that most combat champions through the years have trained using steady state cardio.