Where?
Heart rate is a poor indicator of cardiovascular conditioning. VO2 max is the gold standard of true cardiovascular conditioning, though HiTers won’t discuss it.
I don’t think anyone is talking about using heart rate as a metric for how conditioned a person is. I at least am talking about using it as a measure of whether I’m performing cardio or not.
@burt128 I agree with your comment about how to use HR as a measure for the level of cardio being performed rather than how conditioned someone is. Absolute heart rate is based on genetics and age as well as the type of conditioning performed. So an old person may be apparently unfit in terms of their max heart rate and hence any HR observed for a given training effort - but still be super conditioned for their age.
My comments about my HR not going above 100 bpm for weight training are illustrative (for me) rather than absolutes. The point being that I am not getting anywhere near a running type of stimulus.
(1) I have noticed the highest HR are for running, fast walking, racquet sports, old fashioned burpee type circuits.
(2) Cycling and rowing are of medium benefit in terms of HR elevation.
(3) Weight training is of the lowest stimulus.
This would seem to align with the activities in (1) being weight bearing and to a lesser extent in some case competetive sports (at least for me).
There was also a rule of thumb in the old days that 40 mins of running equates to 60 mins of cycling.
There will always be outliers who can reach a high HR with weight training, a good example is @T3hPwnisher who clearly generates exceptional conditioning benefits from weight training. Irrespective of whatever HR he achieves, for example he ran a 1/2M (I think) in a very respectable time off very little running, which requires v good aerobic and endurance conditioning. However his volume, intensity and dedication to training means he has achieved an unusual ability to hammer the weights for long enough and hard enough to get cardio benefits.
Same as the guys that can do 60 sec blocks of pull ups.
The average like me cant handle these volumes.
However in some cases a high level of HR from weight training may just be an indicator of poor conditioning. eg HIT ??
Whilst I agree that weight training can be used for cardio there is a range of methods that are more effective. And as a minimum weight training should aim to acheve at least zone 2 HR.
atp_4_me VO2 max used to be considered as the most inherent and least trainable component of aerobic fitness, at least at the elite level. So the swedish cross country skiers and seb coe (for example) were to some extent self selected by their high genetic VO2s. I say used to be since I am out of date on that research.
I appreciate the nod in this regard, but I’ll say I also do my part to engage in regular cardio when the schedule allows, simply because I recognize the benefits of it. I absolutely can make use of weights while engaging in conditioning, but I wouldn’t consider it “weight training” in the traditional sense as it is. VERY little resting, as you noted, But for cardio cardio, I’ll do weighted vest walks, runs, boxing workouts, etc.
I agree with most of what you’ve said except the bit I’ve quoted above. I believe the converse of what you’ve said – I think folks like you are actually the outliers. A hard, moderate to high rep set of a multi joint leg movement will take the vast majority of trainees to a heart that that exceeds 70% of their predicted HR max.
When Viator trained somebody on nautilus double machines many years ago, i believe the individuals heart rate was up to about 180 (i can be mistaken)
Brian Johnson had a video of the workout
1 Like
My observation is literally - observational, I struggle to remember seeing someone out of breath in a weights session. A Viator session is one hell of an outlier. Out of breath happens all the time in running or tennis for example.
But not wishing to split hairs, As long as you can get to at least zone 2 (60-70% maxHR) then you are getting a job done.
Note I said negative chins and dips. 60 second blocks would only be 7 reps at 8 sec. each.
Popcorn anybody? This question has been debated in a black-white manner for ages in this forum it seems. The new review in question seems to be more in favor of weight training providing cardio benefits - and all of a sudden all hell breaks loose. Dogmatic to say the least.
In my opinion there is a grayish scale where cardio and weight training overlap. Here we talk about cardio as a godsent entity of its own - when any form of properly performed (high intensity) weight training easily defeat half assed cardio in terms of output. Obviously you need to take genetic predisposition, muscle fiber type, body fat, muscle mass and ability to perform certain physical activities into account. Adding preferred activity as a motivational (psychological) aspect.
The excercise that actually happens, is what matters for long term health. Me and my training partner have personally recognized cardio benefits from our powerlifting attempts - much to our surprise!
Does strength gains precede cardio benefits?
7 Likes
Yes, it is an old and ongoing argument, one that I have been drawn into before.
I think you are spot on that there is a gray area of considerable overlap. It isn’t a black and white subject, where there is this precisely defined thing called cardo that you have to do to avoid major health problems.
In support of that statement, I find it notable that the major health organizations (CDC, WHO, American Heart Association, etc) do not obsess about cardiovascular conditioning in a very technical way. They do not recommend VO2max targets for health, nor do they make a blanket recommendation in favor of the most strenuous training methods that have been proven to increase VO2max. Instead they just offer us very broad physical activity guidelines. True, they described these as activities which have a significant aerobic component. But that isn’t the same thing as stating that you need to train very hard to maximize your VO2max. Things like gardening, housework, and walking are on the list of suitable activities. Weight lifting and weight training circuits also make the list of moderately intense physical activities that can be counted toward your prescribed dose of exercise.
Those are activities which a purist might dismiss as “not cardio” because they aren’t going to do much to increase your VO2max. Yet the evidence exists that doing a sufficient volume of these “wimpy” forms of “cardio” produces significant reductions in all-cause mortality.
In fact, the latest meta analysis which examines the benefit of doing more than the recommended dose suggests that there is a limit to how much you can substitute intensity for volume. The all-cause mortality vs volume curves for intense physical activity appear to plateau at a higher level (smaller mortality reduction) than the curves of moderate intensity activity (see Figure 1 of attached paper). That I was not expecting.
4 Likes
The funny thing also…when we are getting our asses wiped in the nursing home, we are not gonna be saying “I should have done cardio along with my weight training instead of weight training cardio”, lol
1 Like
This looks like a very interesting paper. I jumped right to the figure you pointed out so haven’t read it yet. It is interesting that it looks like CVD mortality actually goes up a small amount for folks who do a ton of vigorous exercise per week while the moderate exercise group seems to have no upper limit in CVD death reduction.
1 Like
I will have to look into this myself. My experience tells me that frequent high intensity excercise above the age of 70 y.o. (especially so called elite excercisers) significantly increases the risk of arythmias (atrial fibrillation). The electrical curcuits of the heart also become of age. This may be part of the CVD statement.
2 Likes
I might be misreading it or giving it significance the researchers don’t – I just looked at the table and haven’t read the text yet.
1 Like
If everyone arguing on this thread agrees to post physique pictures, I’ll take you up on this offer 100%.
2 Likes
Why? What’s the quality of physique got to do with heart health and mortality.
I find that a strange request at the best of times and even more so here.
It’s analogous to the star athlete not listening to the coach unless the coach puts in a better performance. Which of course is ridiculous. There are plenty of athletes that have no idea how they got to that position and look to others to guide them.
1 Like
You’re a coach? What sport?
Flip side is the fear of left ventricular hypertrophy, no?