all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Does the body care how the bpm goes up in terms of health?

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

User 4484

Guest
Perhaps this have been discussed earlier?

in terms of health, does the body care how you get your heart rate up? Is there a difference between doing strength aerobics, running or skipping rope? Or doing a strength session? When I train my heart rate never drops below 120 bpm as I like to move a lot between exercises.

does you reap a certain health benefits from different modalities or is it “same same”?

In Sweden, and perhaps rest of the world, the Minimum recommendation are 150 minutes of moderate intensity per week or 75 minutes of high intensity.

Would 3 strength sessions ‘a 60 min where the heart rate never drops under120 bpm reap the same health benefits as running 60min 3 times per week if the bpm is matched?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
In the Finnish national recommendations, any kind of exercise that raises the heart rate will do. I've also discussed the matter with various professionals who agree.

On the other hand, I think I've read on this forum that some disagree. I think there were discussions on it on the forum in the past but I'm afraid they didn't really go all the way with it.
 
Perhaps this have been discussed earlier?

in terms of health, does the body care how you get your heart rate up? Is there a difference between doing strength aerobics, running or skipping rope? Or doing a strength session? When I train my heart rate never drops below 120 bpm as I like to move a lot between exercises.

does you reap a certain health benefits from different modalities or is it “same same”?

In Sweden, and perhaps rest of the world, the Minimum recommendation are 150 minutes of moderate intensity per week or 75 minutes of high intensity.

Would 3 strength sessions ‘a 60 min where the heart rate never drops under120 bpm reap the same health benefits as running 60min 3 times per week if the bpm is matched?
You would need to define what you mean by ‘strength session’. I think most traditional strength sessions will raise the HR; then it will drop with set rest periods. Whereas steady state locomotive work of the LED variety will elicit a more or less constant HR. This will cause differing cardiac adaptations.

Perhaps you could provide an example of a 60 min strength session that provides a steady 120ish HR
 
This is out of my area of expertise, but I know there are important differences between the way your heart rate goes up for strength training and the way it does for endurance training. If memory serves - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - endurance training increases your heart's size and capacity while strength training thickens the walls of the heart.

@mprevost

@Al Ciampa

-S-
 
This is out of my area of expertise, but I know there are important differences between the way your heart rate goes up for strength training and the way it does for endurance training. If memory serves - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - endurance training increases your heart's size and capacity while strength training thickens the walls of the heart.

@mprevost

@Al Ciampa

-S-
I'm not an expert either, but I recall the same thing. If I'm not mistaken, when strength training, blood pressure is elevated and the heart has to overcome this pressure, so it's some sort of "strength training" for the heart as well. This causes the muscles to thicken. On the other hand, a relaxed steady state cardio requires a lot of flow at a low resistance, so the heart adapts to move more volume.

So the heart adapts to the imposed demands, who would have guessed.
 
Both traditional cardio and lifting increase the thickness of the walls.

Even so, regarding strength training, we have to differentiate between the time under load and the time between the sets while the heart rate is still elevated.
 
You would need to define what you mean by ‘strength session’. I think most traditional strength sessions will raise the HR; then it will drop with set rest periods. Whereas steady state locomotive work of the LED variety will elicit a more or less constant HR. This will cause differing cardiac adaptations.

Perhaps you could provide an example of a 60 min strength session that provides a steady 120ish HR

I can see where this could be a problem. I should have said resistance training and not strength training as that is much more specific. And the semantics of definitions will be subjective.

When I say resistance training in my case three examples would be:

warm-up
Fast paced treadmill walk - 5 min
Naked get-ups - 5 min

Training
8 goblet squats
20 meter prowler push
8 push-ups
x 20 rounds

Or

ABC EMOM
x 20 min

Or

30 min EMOM
min 1: 10 swings
min 2: 5 goblet squats
min 3: 10 push-ups


This is perhaps closer to 30-40 min, but you get the point.
 
Even so, regarding strength training, we have to differentiate between the time under load and the time between the sets while the heart rate is still elevated.
I wonder this too. Let's say we lift for 10 seconds and rest for 80 seconds. During the 80 seconds rest, does the heart work in a similar manner as when doing steady state cardio?
 
in terms of health, does the body care how you get your heart rate up? Is there a difference between doing strength aerobics, running or skipping rope?

No

Your heart doesn't know or care.

It doesn't know if you are performing high repetition in a weighted exercise or let's say biking a few miles; which amount to performing multiple repetitions of a single leg press, which is basically what riding a bike amount to.

Or doing a strength session?

Different Type of Strength Training

As per...

You would need to define what you mean by ‘strength session’.

Strength Training fall into multiple categories.

1) Maximum Strength Training

3) Speed Training

4) Hypertrophy Training

6) Strength Endurance Training

The only two that really increase your heart rate and keep it up are Hypertrophy Training. It fall more into Endurance Training; higher reps and short rest periods.

Strength Endurance is the other: mega high reps and even shorter rest periods.

In Sweden, and perhaps rest of the world, the Minimum recommendation are 150 minutes of moderate intensity per week or 75 minutes of high intensity.

Outdated Data

This is essentially same misinformation that is recommended in the USA.

An example.

Can three minutes of exercise a week help make you fit?

Research by Dr Jami Timmons determined...

Three (3) 20 second Sprints in a HIIT Session with two (2) minute rest periods between each Sprint performed three (3) time a week was effective.

HIIT is a paradox. It increases Anaerobic and Aerobic Capacity.

Would 3 strength sessions ‘a 60 min where the heart rate never drops under120 bpm reap the same health benefits as running 60min 3 times per week if the bpm is matched?

Maximum Strength

If your objective is increasing your Maximum Strength. where your heart rate goes is essentially a non-issue.

running 60min 3 times per week

This amount to using a sledgehammer instead of a fly swatter to kill a fly.

There no point in running for 60 minutes (using a sledgehammer) when you can achieve the same effect with HIIT (a fly swatter).

Secondly, too much aerobic training impedes Maximum Strength, Power and Speed.

Endurance Sports

If you are in an Endurance Sport, then 60 minutes of aerobic training make sense.

If not, what is the point?
 
Se my answer to @offwidth and how I meant resistance training to avoid the specialization of strength training.

I saw this, "When I say resistance training in my case three examples would be:"

It does not provide enough information for me to understand what you are doing.
 
Perhaps this have been discussed earlier?

in terms of health, does the body care how you get your heart rate up? Is there a difference between doing strength aerobics, running or skipping rope? Or doing a strength session? When I train my heart rate never drops below 120 bpm as I like to move a lot between exercises.

does you reap a certain health benefits from different modalities or is it “same same”?

In Sweden, and perhaps rest of the world, the Minimum recommendation are 150 minutes of moderate intensity per week or 75 minutes of high intensity.

Would 3 strength sessions ‘a 60 min where the heart rate never drops under120 bpm reap the same health benefits as running 60min 3 times per week if the bpm is matched?
This is out of my area of expertise, but I know there are important differences between the way your heart rate goes up for strength training and the way it does for endurance training. If memory serves - someone please correct me if I'm wrong - endurance training increases your heart's size and capacity while strength training thickens the walls of the heart.

@mprevost

@Al Ciampa

-S-
The heart is a pump at the center of a rather large network of biological piping. The heart, and that network of piping, adapts to stimulus. I hear your question asking if different stimuli which cause HR to increase result in equal health outcomes? As Kenny said, generally speaking, yes. Specifically, however, as others said, no.

Can you be more specific with your question? What do you mean by “health”? Do you also want to improve your mitochondrial function? Do you also want to increase capillary mass? Do you want to improve slow twitch strength and fast twitch respiration? These questions are separate from what the HR monitor says.
 
I think part of what makes steady state cardio healthy is the stretching of the heart and improving your bodies ability to deliver oxygen. Holding your breath and flexing your muscles for longer periods of time are part of strength training and play a role in spiking your heart rate during strength training. This will restrict blood flow and how much oxygen gets transported. And it will increase the pressure your heart has to overcome when expanding making it harder to stretch. I would say these things will have a negative impact on the 2 benefits mentioned before even if you keep your heart rate up during your whole workout.
 
The heart is a pump at the center of a rather large network of biological piping. The heart, and that network of piping, adapts to stimulus. I hear your question asking if different stimuli which cause HR to increase result in equal health outcomes? As Kenny said, generally speaking, yes. Specifically, however, as others said, no.

Can you be more specific with your question? What do you mean by “health”? Do you also want to improve your mitochondrial function? Do you also want to increase capillary mass? Do you want to improve slow twitch strength and fast twitch respiration? These questions are separate from what the HR monitor says.


I mean health as WHO describes it for population 18-64 years old:

"In order to improve cardiorespiratory and muscular fitness, bone health and reduce the risk of NCDs and depression the following are recommended"

source Global Recommendations on Physical Activity for Health
 
One of the fastest ways to raise one's heart rate is to have a gun pointed at them. One has to take heart rate with a grain of salt because heart rate can be impacted by many things, including things different from what one is trying to measure when looking at heart rate.
 
From what I've read - Strength training reduces risk of heart attack and aerobic training reduces risk of heart attack. So, in that sense, either way might be fine.
 
One of the fastest ways to raise one's heart rate is to have a gun pointed at them. One has to take heart rate with a grain of salt because heart rate can be impacted by many things, including things different from what one is trying to measure when looking at heart rate.

Why?

I understand that different types of exercise have effects in addition to training the heart.

But if training the heart is the main goal, what more is there to it than the heart rate?
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom