all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Cardio debunked

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.)
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
 
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
"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.
 
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...
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.
 
"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.
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".
the ballistic snatch is the closest.
 
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
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 think it's always an individual answer. For me I want to build my base as much as possible without over reaching. One of my training goals is to be able to do more than I did before, easily, and with no soreness afterwards. And that includes my rucking.
I want to be able to work pretty much all day and have lots left at the end. Training, to me, is about building reserves so that if I want to peak, I can do so pretty easily in a 6-12 week period. Otherwise I'm just keeping the wolf at the door.
We lose 10 % of muscle mass per decade unless we train and I believe we lose 10% MVo2 every decade regardless of whether we train ( not sure that's right) so at some point at my advanced age going backwards slowly IS going forward.

Relaxed unloaded walking ( mall walking ,lol) is not enough imo. If I'm unloaded walking for exercise I walk like I'm late for my plane
 
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-
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.

So the question I have is does one need to do low intensity aerobic training to improve ones health if their HR is already low. I know some people talk about ventricular hypertrophy versus increase ventricular volume but is there any evidence in the cardiovascular medical literature to support these claims.

Perhaps some of the more informed experts can comment.
Thanks everyone for a great discussion.
 
@Steve Freides, according to Maffetone to gain aerobic efficiency, training should not exceed your maf number and be 10 beats under. So maf 120, train and maintain pace at 110-120. Your question and view is interesting because say if training at 100 or 90, by lowering the hr intensity, will you reap any benefits? And for you, you do. Would you gain further aerobic development by faster brisk walking or easy running/cycling etc? My uniformed opinion but logical one is yes you will......but do you want to, given other pursuits which already give you great benefits. There is a risk/reward consideration but if you were to include a 'bit' more aerobic stuff I'd say it is fairly low risk. Do you have to? Probably not, given that you are in a pretty good place.
The question you raise can be opened out further.....to maximise aerobic efficiency is a fine attribute for those whose chosen pursuits rely on a big old aerobic machine....endurance athletes....and are we not all endurance athletes, to an extent? It makes sense to have a good aerobic machine for health, strength and performance but do you need to train it as an endurance athlete? A lot of walking/low intensity v a couple of maf runs at a target hr? Will a lot of lower volume less intense activity equal the same efficiency gains at a maf number with less volume? Accepting that strength training is a given, right? And diet is sound. If you move a lot at a low intensity, that's got to be a good thing in its own right. I'd argue that is far, far healthier than a lot of sitting with maf running at target range. As with everything it is the bigger picture, diet and other factors too. So all in all, I'm with you on this.....it maybe better to train at a maf number more often but if already strong, fit and healthy, is it going to impact you and your lifestyle?

Just a bloke view, mind.
 
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-

All good questions. Based on the American College of Sports Medicine Recommendations, and research I have gathered, plus some informed estimates on my part, here is what I think in terms of cardiovascular training for health. Pick one of the zones below (or mix and match) and perform the workout 3-5 times per week (5 times is better). I would consider each to be approximately equivalent in terms of reducing risk of mortality and improving health. So, for example, 45 minutes in zone 1 would be about the same as doing 5 minutes on zone 5 in terms of health outcomes. Again, this is for health, not performance. I am in the process of preparing an e-book or document that discusses all of this in more detail. It is mostly for my students for now.

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
 
@mprevost, thanks for your input into these discussions, there is a cross over here from another thread. It is fascinating to hear opinions from those deep into the physiology and especially so from those at the coal face, working away gaining knowledge and understanding of the human condition for everyone's benefit.
Given what you've said there.....3-5 times, with x time in zone 1 being equivalent to a whole lot less x time in zone 5. The same then could be said for zonal sessions of 3 and 4 with shorter sessions, as you've noted.
That paints a fine picture as a reference point for understanding all this stuff. However, as I'm sure you will know and testify to as well, the problem people tend to have, myself included, is the tendency to hang out too much in those middle zones....spending too long at high intensities. I'm good at judging low, good at high and go very wrong in the middle.....the very reason why, for me, the anti-glycolytic models serve me very well. It is very hard to stay too long at 95%!! 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.
So we have anti-glycoltic v glycolytic thrashing and a third way it seems, that if doing more glycolytic sessions, the volume needs to be monitored more carefully. And, for some of us, very carefully!!
Thought provoking and offers an insightful, balanced approach to training. Thank you
 
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.

Yes, for sure. In fact, many endurance athletes consider zone 3 to be "junk miles" in that it is hard enough to cook you and impede recovery, but not hard enough to get the top end fitness benefits from zone 4 and 5. 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.

For the purposes of this discussion, considering health, not performance, the times recommended in the table are plenty and easy to recover from. Lots of ways to get the same thing done, antiglycolytic, MAF, this approach.
 
... at my advanced age ...
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.)

-S-
 
@mprevost, with this model, what is considered max hr? Is there an accepted formula to derive the percentages from?

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.

So, the reverse argument..... train in zone 3 with careful adherence to the timings suggested is a consideration? From a health perspective, that is, not necessarily if seeking performance gains. The way my lay person sees this is that it would tap into both ends of the spectrum, achieving adaptation from the middle out rather than squeezing the middle tanks ie training glycolytic capacity. And from discussions here, as I understand it, this would result in short term improvements but perhaps not longer lasting as base building. So in short, zone 3 would be a prescription for short term peaking as a viable option, if I've grasped the idea correctly.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom