It's certainly an interesting perspective. But like most things it comes down to what you are training for. Health, fitness, and sport specific training are different animals. Some things you just need to build a big 'cardio' engine for...
"Muscular work is muscular work" - every type of correct strength training will get you fit enough for walking, it seems that your problem was in joint health/mobility, not cardiovascular adaptations.There's "cardio" and then there's been able to walk and move for as long as you want or need to, effortlessly. I wasn't able to walk without pain and a limp for almost two decades and came to completely appreciate the ability to do so.
The most motivating quote from any of Pavel's books came from the first one when discussing the strength and conditioning needs of the fighting man : " a back of iron and legs that never quit".
I never thought I would have either after a disc herniation and severe knee arthritis.
But now that I can walk as long as I want to I truly recognize the need for every man and woman to be able to do so.We are the best walkers in the animal kingdom.Everything can out run us; nothing can out walk us
I guess that all the workouts which are meant to develop aerobic base provide the motor adaptations, not necessarily metabolic adaptations. First you develop strength and then your sports skills. Now I'm wondering how big impact does the intensity make.It's certainly an interesting perspective. But like most things it comes down to what you are training for. Health, fitness, and sport specific training are different animals. Some things you just need to build a big 'cardio' engine for...
yes except that high tension "work" increases thickening of the left ventricle, from what I understand, not the type of adaptation one gets, and needs, from traditional "cardio" training i.e running,cycling, swimming etc. That's why lifting weights faster is not "cardio"."Muscular work is muscular work" - every type of correct strength training will get you fit enough for walking, it seems that your problem was in joint health/mobility, not cardiovascular adaptations.
I agree, but for me, the big, unanswered question is how hard to we need to push ourselves in training our aerobic base, e.g., is my regular walking, which finds my pulse in the 90's or low 100's the few times I've take it, sufficient for general health benefits, carryover to other activities, and the like? It has proven to be quite sufficient for my chosen activity, which is, ta-da: walking! So, strength training has prepared me for walking, and more walking has further prepared me for walking.Plus even if one is "weight strong" if they have to walk up hills or even on the flats for hours they might find it very difficult without some sort of aerobic base
These are the questions that I wonder about. At age 55, health is my number one concern. I currently strength train 3-4 days a week and do kettlebell swings on off days, keeping my heart rate below the MAF limit. This is what I enjoy so doing this is enjoyable and something that I look forward to. My resting HR is in the mid 40's and this has not always been the case.I agree, but for me, the big, unanswered question is how hard to we need to push ourselves in training our aerobic base, e.g., is my regular walking, which finds my pulse in the 90's or low 100's the few times I've take it, sufficient for general health benefits, carryover to other activities, and the like? It has proven to be quite sufficient for my chosen activity, which is, ta-da: walking! So, strength training has prepared me for walking, and more walking has further prepared me for walking.
Does one need to do more? I like to walk and generally walk with a purpose, even if the purpose is to walk to the next town with my wife for a cup of coffee. The way I perceive my own walking is curious to me as well. Perhaps it's biased by all those years of slogging through planned runs, but it doesn't feel like "exercise" to me. Instead it feels like a healthy lifestyle choice, e.g., when it's raining heavily, I'll postpone going to the grocery store until the next day rather than taking the car in the rain and then not needing to make that same trip on foot at a another time.
So, that's the big question for me - does one need to ruck, need to do kettlebell swings or snatches, need to run/bike/swim, or is relaxed walking with a heart rate a couple of notches below the MAF-recommended rate sufficient? If relaxed walking isn't as good as MAF-based aerobic activity, how much different are the benefits, e.g., does walking at 3/4 of one's MAF-recommended heart rate give 3/4 of the benefits, and therefore does walking 4 miles instead of 3 give the same benefits as jogging, say, 1 mile?
I think, for a soldier or other person whose job requirements (or, perhaps, sport) dictate a higher level of a certain kind of fitness than mine, strength training plus relaxed walking is probably not sufficient - but what about for the rest of us?
-S-
I agree, but for me, the big, unanswered question is how hard to we need to push ourselves in training our aerobic base, e.g., is my regular walking, which finds my pulse in the 90's or low 100's the few times I've take it, sufficient for general health benefits, carryover to other activities, and the like? It has proven to be quite sufficient for my chosen activity, which is, ta-da: walking! So, strength training has prepared me for walking, and more walking has further prepared me for walking.
Does one need to do more? I like to walk and generally walk with a purpose, even if the purpose is to walk to the next town with my wife for a cup of coffee. The way I perceive my own walking is curious to me as well. Perhaps it's biased by all those years of slogging through planned runs, but it doesn't feel like "exercise" to me. Instead it feels like a healthy lifestyle choice, e.g., when it's raining heavily, I'll postpone going to the grocery store until the next day rather than taking the car in the rain and then not needing to make that same trip on foot at a another time.
So, that's the big question for me - does one need to ruck, need to do kettlebell swings or snatches, need to run/bike/swim, or is relaxed walking with a heart rate a couple of notches below the MAF-recommended rate sufficient? If relaxed walking isn't as good as MAF-based aerobic activity, how much different are the benefits, e.g., does walking at 3/4 of one's MAF-recommended heart rate give 3/4 of the benefits, and therefore does walking 4 miles instead of 3 give the same benefits as jogging, say, 1 mile?
I think, for a soldier or other person whose job requirements (or, perhaps, sport) dictate a higher level of a certain kind of fitness than mine, strength training plus relaxed walking is probably not sufficient - but what about for the rest of us?
-S-
Zone (% of Max Heart Rate) | Time (minutes) |
---|---|
1 (60-72) | 30-60 |
2 (72-82) | 20-60 |
3 (82-87) | 15-30 |
4 (88-92) | 10-15 |
5 (93-100) | 4-6 |
But, 80-85% represents a doable challenge that is easy to overstep. I get easily carried away with myself, needing to curb things rather than encourage them.
We are both going to live to be 120, Rif - you're just around the halfway point. (If memory serves, I'm about 2 years older than you. I'm 61, 62 in the Spring.)... at my advanced age ...
The polarized model that most endurance athletes follow have them spending most time in zone 2, with a sprinkling of zone 4 and 5 and very little, if any, zone 3.