Other/Mixed Correctives and Rehabilitation

[Geoduck]

I’m guessing it would be best in a seperate thread but would anyone care to write a little in straightforward terms about how important cardio really is and what the best ways to improve it are? I’m talking for general health as well as supplementing weight training. There’s just so many opinions out there and the facts get jumbled in every direction. The standard sane usually agreed on answer seems to be cardio after resistance training or on off days. A few sessions a week or more. Light, not blowing all of your energy.

 

[User 4484]

I’m guessing it would be best in a seperate thread but would anyone care to write a little in straightforward terms about how important cardio really is and what the best ways to improve it are? I’m talking for general health as well as supplementing weight training. There’s just so many opinions out there and the facts get jumbled in every direction. The standard sane usually agreed on answer seems to be cardio after resistance training or on off days. A few sessions a week or more. Light, not blowing all of your energy.

For my first half marathon I did run 2,5 times per week. Used maff-formula .. each session 45-90 minutes .. did some occasional 5km at a harder pace. For my self, I know that that about is enough for me to sustain a pace below 5 min/km. For health I do not know, but for performance (at my level) it was enough. Upping to 3 times per week would probably increase the pace, but I did simply not have time to do it.

For the first time in years I have not been running since starting with S&S (7th week now) and I´m thrilled to see how my running goes when I incorporating it again (when I reach Simple).


For a more scientific approach, I think @mprevost can chime in?

 

[offwidth]

I’m guessing it would be best in a seperate thread but would anyone care to write a little in straightforward terms about how important cardio really is and what the best ways to improve it are? I’m talking for general health as well as supplementing weight training. There’s just so many opinions out there and the facts get jumbled in every direction. The standard sane usually agreed on answer seems to be cardio after resistance training or on off days. A few sessions a week or more. Light, not blowing all of your energy.

It probably should be a separate thread. But good luck in having anyone use 'straightforward terms'
There are many opinions. Many 'facts'. Lots and lots of variables in the equation. One thing I know for sure, is that it is important to have a healthy CV system for general health. How to get there is another matter.

 

[Anna C]

Last time this came up, I invited the person that offered it to go actually look at the studies Mr. Jay cites as supportive of his assertions of maladaptive LV hypertrophic remodeling. Of course, nobody did. So I'll tell you straight out: there is no, none, nil, zip, zero, evidence that, in the absence if a disease process, the heart remodels itself as he describes in his blog.

I'm not necessarily convinced there's a maladaptive component to the effect on the heart from weight training. But I do thing there's a different effect on the heart... or at least, that steady-state cardio increases stroke volume, but "getting the heart rate up with weight training" doesn't.

 

[Bill Been]

I'm not necessarily convinced there's a maladaptive component to the effect on the heart from weight training. But I do thing there's a different effect on the heart... or at least, that steady-state cardio increases stroke volume, but "getting the heart rate up with weight training" doesn't.

Take a look at the bibliography from Mr. Jay's book and find one citation that would even tangentially support the notion that there IS a maladaptive component to the effect on the heart from weight training. Somehow, it has become a meme in the near-subconscious of "the fitness world" that there is one. Like the notion that training in the glycolytic pathway causes damage to mitochondria (and the blessedly short-lived notion that it is preferentially damaging to the mitochondria of heart muscle), I hear something like that and immediately put it in the category of very bold statements that require very convincing proof. Then I go about the boring business of trying to find some obvious indications that the notion is based on some scientific research rather than being simply taken out of context, completely misinterpreted, or significantly overstated.

So....as you are noteworthy in your dedication to "knowing stuff" about exercise physiology, I present you the 100+ sources Jay cites in his book. I'll even point you into the correct neighborhood: pay attention to 12-20. Interestingly, the sources much further down the list nicely dovetail with the other threads on HIIT and lactate production.

http://www.cardiocode.dk/warehouse/samples/CC_ref_list.pdf

 

[mprevost]

I'm not necessarily convinced there's a maladaptive component to the effect on the heart from weight training. But I do thing there's a different effect on the heart... or at least, that steady-state cardio increases stroke volume, but "getting the heart rate up with weight training" doesn't.

Yes. Weight training provides a pressure overload and endurance training provides a volume overload stimulus too the heart. Systolic and diastolic blood pressure can go up during weight training but systolic increases modestly and diastolic does not generally increase during aerobic exercise. The net impact of both types of training can be healthy. What most people fail to realize is that heart disease is a vessel disease that has metabolic causes. Inflammation, oxidation of LDL particles, reduction in reverse cholesterol transport, increased circulating free fatty acids are all part of the metabolic dysfunction that causes atherosclerosis. A leading cause is insulin resistance, which is on the rise and affects more than half of adults in the US. Any type of exercise that can prevent or even reverse these metabolic disturbances is beneficial to the heart. Both types of exercise (strength and endurance) can do this.

The recommendation for health in terms of aerobic exercise is simple:
150 minutes per week of moderate intensity exercise
or
75 minutes per week of vigorous intensity exercise

Moderate intensity is a fast paced walk.
Vigorous is a slow jog.

There are benefits beyond this volume but this volume captures the biggest bang for the buck adaptations.

I do believe that you can get similar benefits from even less volume if the intensity is high but this has not been quantified yet. We don't have the data to be conclusive on this point but the mechanisms are there and the data suggests this to be true. In that case, you can probably get away with 30-40 minutes (maybe less?) of very high intensity aerobic exercise for the same benefits (i.e., a 10 minute finisher on the end of your strength training workouts 3 X week).

Or you can mix and match. Maybe a hard 10 minute finisher twice per week and a nice long walk on Saturday.

 

[Anna C]

I present you the 100+ sources Jay cites in his book. I'll even point you into the correct neighborhood: pay attention to 12-20. Interestingly, the sources much further down the list nicely dovetail with the other threads on HIIT and lactate production.

Very interesting... Don't studies like 14 and 17 support his assertions? (I haven't actually read his book; just going by what I've heard him talk about and what this excerpt says about why he wrote the book).

Scanning lower on the list... #74 looks interesting, they had people do circuit training with light weights -- their HR was in the right "zone" but the VO2max was less than recommended. Can't tell what the conclusion was though. I would put this in the blurry zone between cardio and weight training. And yes there is a continuum; definitely not a clear distinction. For example - farmer's carries - Carry bodyweight for 100 ft? Weight training. Carry 20 lb for 5 miles? Cardio. Carry 50 lb for 5 min? Somewhere in between. And of course you could pick any weight and distance for an endless continuum. I think you could to the same for C&J, or even snatch. I often use my 10lb plastic kettlebell for C&J or snatch as easy cardio. But I wouldn't call snatching 16kg or anything heavier as cardio. Anyway, my point being, studies like #74 might be anywhere along this continuum so it's hard to know what to conclude.

My own beliefs: 1) both resistance training and cardio/endurance/LSD/aerobic training are important, and 2) if you only do one or the other, you are asking for trouble (but are still better off than if you did neither), 3) heart disease and cardiovascular disease are pretty serious problems for a lot of people and a moderate amount of traditional cardio is the best way to protect yourself against it, as described by Mike in the most recent post above. I also think there are a ton of other benefits to traditional cardio, but that's going beyond the scope here.

So, what is your opinion @Bill Been , that cardio is an important part of a training program, or not? Or more to the point of the thread, has a role in correctives and rehabilitation? I can see you don't agree with Dr. Kenneth Jay that weightlifting is maladaptive for the heart (and as I said earlier, I'm not necessarily convinced either), but I'm curious if you think one can be or become healthy -- and especially, heart-healthy -- without the traditional cardio.

 

[Bill Been]

Every one of his cited studies shows that both resistance training and endurance training result in staggering levels of beneficial adaptation of the heart. In the most amazing turn of events, one of the studies actually shows the most thickening - which he implicates as a maladaption from RT - of both the left ventrical and the septum between chambers was actually more pronounced in the endurance athletes than in the weightlifters. There is no cardiac remodeling that is detrimental associated with ANY form of exercise. These subjects got conflated when somebody noticed that the left ventrical gets sick gainz in response to resistance training and it was somehow noted also that Left Ventricular Hypertrophy or Hyperplasia kinda tends to kill people. This is the birth of a myth: it's true that the heart can remodel and kill you. It's true that exercise causes cardiac remodeling. It is also true that the detrimental kind of remodeling is associated with genetic disorders and disease states - only. It is further true that the cardiac remodeling that occurs as a result of exercise of any kind is hugely beneficial, increasing stroke volume, increasing the strength of arteries, etc.

As to whether or not I think one can be healthy without traditional cardio, of course I do. "The Literature" seems to be pointing toward a baseline of cardio/metabolic capability the attaining of which pretty well removes cardiovascular disease from one's list of concerns. It is a pretty modest level of output. Actually shockingly low. Here's two really smart MDs who are stronger than all of us talking about exactly this subject at a recent seminar for their budding organization, Barbell Medicine. The whole video (and all their others) is worth a watch, but if you're pressed for time, jump to 12 minutes 22 seconds for the part on cardiorespiratory fitness:

 

[Anna C]

Interesting video; I did watch the whole thing and yes it's all worth a watch. I also liked the parts about SMR/massage, and training in pregnancy.

That's quite a paradigm shift, that maybe not everyone needs cardio. I'm willing to consider it. He talks about a base level of cardio-respiratory fitness the three categories -- some people are already at that baseline level of required CV fitness without training, some people are below it but then attain that level with resistance training, and the third category that doesn't meet the minimums even with resistance training. That middle category is interesting... that people can improve those baseline cardio measures (MET 8, VO2max) with resistance training and therefore wouldn't need cardio. I guess I could accept that.

As for me, I fit in the category of "I like riding my bike, and I'm going to go ride my bike" as he puts it. So I'm going to do it regardless.

Obesity, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, insulin resistance -- other reasons or conditions that would be additional reasons to include it in your training.

He also mentions once you are at an intermediate level, you might want to include it, either for a conditioning-specific goal, or "to improve your recovery capacity so that you can deal with the volume." I think that last point is significant.

So there's actually 5 huge categories of people who should do it, according to what he's saying: 1) those who don't meet the minimums, 2) those who enjoy it, 3) those who have health conditions that can be improved by it, 4) those who have conditioning-specific performance goals, and 5) those who are at an intermediate or higher level of resistance training and want to improve their recovery capacity. I think that would still cover "most of us." But maybe not "all of us."

 

[Bryant W]

Another wrinkle in the "cardio" paradigm: the recommendations for aerobic exercise vary by source but are often detailed as being "low intensity" for a specified period of time. I don't jog or cycle in any structured way as I feel I get my cardio fitness from numerous other methods:

1. during my warm up (a combination of Dan John type warm ups from Intervention and old school/Charlie Francis med ball type work). Keeps me moving steady for 20-25 minutes at a low intensity heart rate
2. on days when for whatever reason the planned higher intensity workout seems like a bad idea, I will do a full body workout that involves longer duration motion at low intensity (my favorite is Cal Dietz contralateral aerobic circuit)
3. on off days where I just go for a walk/low intensity ruck where I use just enough weight to keep the heart rate 120-140 for 20-40 minutes

To meet the minimum aerobic activity requirements, you don't necessarily have to jog or cycle or do laps in the pool. You can do the above (or any activity that works the body in a low intensity fashion and keeps the heart rate elevated) regularly and easily meet the requirements.

 

[offwidth]

So there's actually 5 huge categories of people who should do it, according to what he's saying: 1) those who don't meet the minimums, 2) those who enjoy it, 3) those who have health conditions that can be improved by it, 4) those who have conditioning-specific performance goals, and 5) those who are at an intermediate or higher level of resistance training and want to improve their recovery capacity. I think that would still cover "most of us." But maybe not "all of us."

Good summary @Anna C
As usual it comes down to goals and using the right tools for the job.
And as you know... I am firmly in group 4) and group 2)...

 

[Anna C]

I don't jog or cycle in any structured way as I feel I get my cardio fitness from numerous other methods:

Things like this are harder to quantify than traditional cardio, but I think you are right, that you the vast majority of the cardio benefits -- especially those directly related to heart-health -- from the activities you listed (as compared with, for instance, MAF jogging for the same amount of time). I suspect it's not quite as beneficial for slow-twitch fiber development and aerobic base development, or for recovery and health in general, but I can't say for sure.

 

[Bill Been]

Interesting video; I did watch the whole thing and yes it's all worth a watch. I also liked the parts about SMR/massage, and training in pregnancy.

That's quite a paradigm shift, that maybe not everyone needs cardio. I'm willing to consider it. He talks about a base level of cardio-respiratory fitness the three categories -- some people are already at that baseline level of required CV fitness without training, some people are below it but then attain that level with resistance training, and the third category that doesn't meet the minimums even with resistance training. That middle category is interesting... that people can improve those baseline cardio measures (MET 8, VO2max) with resistance training and therefore wouldn't need cardio. I guess I could accept that.

As for me, I fit in the category of "I like riding my bike, and I'm going to go ride my bike" as he puts it. So I'm going to do it regardless.

Obesity, high blood pressure, elevated cholesterol, insulin resistance -- other reasons or conditions that would be additional reasons to include it in your training.

He also mentions once you are at an intermediate level, you might want to include it, either for a conditioning-specific goal, or "to improve your recovery capacity so that you can deal with the volume." I think that last point is significant.

So there's actually 5 huge categories of people who should do it, according to what he's saying: 1) those who don't meet the minimums, 2) those who enjoy it, 3) those who have health conditions that can be improved by it, 4) those who have conditioning-specific performance goals, and 5) those who are at an intermediate or higher level of resistance training and want to improve their recovery capacity. I think that would still cover "most of us." But maybe not "all of us."

I think you pretty well got it. Important to note that the categories are not uniform in size, though. The 3rd category that he mentions - those who have not achieved 8-ish METs despite resistance training through a Novice Linear Progression - is very, very small. People who have not done the Novice LP have a hard time believing this, for various reasons.

Also, to avoid confusion, it's important to understand what he means by "Intermediate". In the SS system, training level is defined in terms of recovery capacity. A "Novice" can train and complete the Stress/Recovery/Adaptation cycle in 48-72 hours. Thus, the novice trains 3 lifts M-W-F, adding weight to the bar in every lift, every session. Properly executed, this will go on for 3-5 months. Properly executed, it is also very, very difficult and creates a strong cardiorespiratory training effect. But alas, the Good Times of PRs on sets of 5 in every lift, every session cannot go on forever because you become strong enough to create a stress that is too large to recover from in 48-72 hours. At that point, you'll transition to scheduled WEEKLY increases via different programming, and you are now an Intermediate lifter. Commonly misunderstood is that it has nothing to do with how long you've been lifting or even how much weight you're moving. If you can undergo SRA in 48-72 hours, you're a Novice. Returning to the original point, this process is tremendously metabolically and cardiorespiratorily demanding and it creates more than adequate stimulus for beneficial adaptations in almost everybody, with common exceptions being very obese people. For guys like me, I find 1-2 HIIT sessions on the Prowler per week are easily adequate to keep my intraset and intrasession recovery very rapid. Andy Baker, co-author of "Practical Programming for Strength Training" says eventually you have to be in "good enough shape to train". This is similar to what Jordan is saying, which is that since correct Novice programming drives progress by manipulating Intensity by adding weight to the bar every session, one of the hallmarks of being an Intermediate is that you must introduce more Volume, and more Frequency to your training in order to create adequate stress to disrupt homeostasis and keep weekly progress happening, and some specific conditioning work will better facilitate this.

All of this is about Performance, not health. They are not the same, but neither must it be the case that training for performance automatically puts one at cross purposes with remaining healthy. Notice all the things I outlined above are beneficial for both simultaneously.

 

[Anna C]

A "Novice" can train and complete the Stress/Recovery/Adaptation cycle in 48-72 hours. Thus, the novice trains 3 lifts M-W-F, adding weight to the bar in every lift, every session. Properly executed, this will go on for 3-5 months. Properly executed, it is also very, very difficult and creates a strong cardiorespiratory training effect. But alas, the Good Times of PRs on sets of 5 in every lift, every session cannot go on forever because you become strong enough to create a stress that is too large to recover from in 48-72 hours. At that point, you'll transition to scheduled WEEKLY increases via different programming, and you are now an Intermediate lifter. Commonly misunderstood is that it has nothing to do with how long you've been lifting or even how much weight you're moving. If you can undergo SRA in 48-72 hours, you're a Novice. Returning to the original point, this process is tremendously metabolically and cardiorespiratorily demanding and it creates more than adequate stimulus for beneficial adaptations in almost everybody, with common exceptions being very obese people. For guys like me, I find 1-2 HIIT sessions on the Prowler per week are easily adequate to keep my intraset and intrasession recovery very rapid. Andy Baker, co-author of "Practical Programming for Strength Training" says eventually you have to be in "good enough shape to train". This is similar to what Jordan is saying, which is that since correct Novice programming drives progress by manipulating Intensity by adding weight to the bar every session, one of the hallmarks of being an Intermediate is that you must introduce more Volume, and more Frequency to your training in order to create adequate stress to disrupt homeostasis and keep weekly progress happening, and some specific conditioning work will better facilitate this.

That makes a ton of sense and lights a bunch of new light bulbs in my head! Thanks.

Good to know what is meant by Intermediate. And I can see that the work done with a barbell varies in degree of how "metabolically and cardiorespiratorily demanding" is is depending on where you are with your programming. And of course, demand stimulates a response/adaptation, which creates improvement. So I could see how an average person could get cardio benefit in addition to all the other benefits from starting a strength program.

I recently bought and started reading "Practical Programming for Strength Training" and it looks like a great book.