Here is another viewpoint that utilises common sense to flip the relationship between strength training and cardio on its head…
This will blow the mind of one lucky little boy…
2 Likes
Dumb.
Bart Kay pretty much explained how I trained my entire competitive bodybuilding time.
You should know that no one did cardio who lifted weights to put on muscle during the 1970’s. I mean no one. In the 1990’s I started to walk to burn fat solely during contest prep, increasing the time as I got closer to the show.
If I wasn’t training for a contest, I did not do cardio at all. I never ran or jogged to lose fat. I did play rugby until I was 27 years old, but even then, I played left wing because I didn’t have to be in great cardiovascular condition running from one side of the field to the other. I actually quit playing rugby to devote greater focus on adding muscle.
4 Likes
People need to realize that ‘cardio’ aka low intensity training, only has one thing that we cannot induce with weight lifting, and that’s the adaptations of larger diameter arteries. Anytime any guru, HIT person, YouTube person or even a doctor says there is no benefit to LIT vs weight lifting, they are ignorant of the proven observed adaptations in the coronal arteries from lower intensity steady state activies.
Forget the fat loss stuff, unless a person wants to perform 1-2 hours a day of running etc., neither lifting nor cardio is going to make much difference vs caloric intake. But for health reasons, larger coronal arteries are THE best thing a person can have in their golden years. Period.
2 Likes
I replied from a muscle building point of view. I had no regards to life extension at that time in my life. And as far as “golden years”, my golden years were the three decades I competed. At 76 years old, these years are better described as “fading and shrinking away years.”
1 Like
The video is not arguing that you do not need cardio to build muscle but, that it will make muscles smaller, that it is bad for your heart, and other dumb stuff.
There are benefits to all HR zones and the modality you use to get you there is going to depend on your fitness level.
This is a good thing?
1 Like
Most definitely!
I played rugby because I liked the game. I lifted weights with a specific goal in mind. Where would anyone with two neurons between their ears place their focus?
I never do true cardio either. I add long walks as well. I don’t want a runners body nor does it feel good.
sure my reply was general, not directed at you or anyone
yep right on, saying cardio is bad for the heart is the stupidest thing. Yeah, people who do excessive running have had heart issues, but anything over done to extremes causes some kind of issues.
If you have ever had the misfortune to visit an elderly relative in a nursing home, you will see a collection of people who are weak and in pain and are extremely inactive. To the extent that you can eliminate barriers to movement by improving strength and reducing pain for those people, you will get more spontaneous movement from them. But that leaves open the question of whether or not movement beyond that which one might spontaneously engage in would be even more beneficial. I think the evidence is pretty clear that, up to a pretty high level, more is better from a health and longevity perspective.
3 Likes
I concede to your point…with a caveat and a follow up question…
More may be better…but just like the debates on strength training…at what intensity?
In the video, Bart Kay concedes that walking is beneficial. Now some would class walking as cardio. However if you nip over to the training forum on letsrun, there are arguments / debates / questions about training, training volume and various levels of intensity that make the discussions about the finer points of strength training in this forum look practically “couldn’t care less” in comparison.
Now they are looking at cardio from a competitive point of view, in most instances, whereas most, if not all on here view it from a general health perspective. But in terms of intensity, how much is too much? In terms of type…do people prefer long and slow, or are there any HIIT fans out there that think that way is the be all and end all?
1 Like
More of what??
Movement is the key…i.e.golfing, tennis, swimming, playing with grandkids, gardening, crafts, mowing the lawn or just everyday home chores
strength training IMHO is more important than cardio as we age into our senior years…i.e. supports muscle strength, muscle mass, bone mass, cardio is effected to some degree, flexibility is effected to some degree
cardio would be a great assistance to strength training if desired just like yoga and stretching would be a great assistance to strength training
4 Likes
I am at a point in my life where I don’t give a crap what other people think about this topic. Also like the old forum that Dr.Darden had this one is devolving into other topics
that are not HIT related. There are other forums here on t-nation for that sort of thing.
Nit picking a trolling as well.
For the most part I have been doing HIT for 30 years.
The last 2 years I do brisk walking a few times a week but not during the winter months. Sometimes once a week or less. Longer walks of about two and a half
miles take about 45-50 minutes. This year I have only walked like that about 10 times so far.
I recently had an issue that turned out not to be my heart. But my Doc
ordered a few tests. NM Stress test_Nuclear-Lexiscan.
Pharmacologic stress myocardial perfusion imaging.
No focal myocardial perfusion defects
No gross wall motion abnormalities
The calculated left ventricular ejection fraction is 75%
Normal heart size
No coronary artery calcification’s orpericardial effusion seen.
Impression: No scintigraphic evidence of pharmacologically induced
myocardium at risk.
I am 60 years old and have a family history of heart disease. The
difference is I eat better and exercise. The past few years I take 500mg
of pure niacin a day. That’s it.
I don’t pay attention to studies or online self professed cardio experts. HIT
and minimal waking is all I need.
Having said this if there was a controlled study that lasted 30 years I might
read it.
1 Like
Zone 2 and it requires deliberate movement. All movement is great but, unless you are out of shape going for a stroll or playing golf is not going to get you into zone 2.
That is why saying certain types of cardio is bad is dumb. Depending on your fitness level different training modalities are going to be needed.
This morning I walked for 1 hour at a small incline . I did almost 4.5 miles and my heart rate never got above 110BPM. It took over 30 minutes to break 100 BPM. I need different types of cardio to get into zone 2.
When you are 80 and you fall and break a hip because you have no strength or bone mass
…zone 2 cardio will not help
1 Like
Just to play devil’s advocate for a moment, and not to particularly argue for a viewpoint…
In response to dips rule’s comment about a 30 year study, there is something similar, although anecdotal and not particularly controlled.
More and more evidence is coming from the lifestyle choices of blue zoners. There appears to be trends, as written about in the article below. The first point in the article is particularly interesting. Most blue zoners don’t do any “formal” exercise. They just move, as part of everyday living, a lot. The notion of a formal exercise session for 30 to 60 minutes being sufficient for the day, which then allows you to rest and recover for the rest of the day, seems to be misconstrued. It seems to be better to move at lower intensity throughout the day. We in the West seem to have this exercise for health thing a bit wrong.
Assuming you make it to 80, after a life of neglecting zone 2 cardio.