Al Ciampa
Level 7 Valued Member
In that very general case, you’re splitting hairs with your line of questioning. Just move; often.
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
Al Ciampa
Level 7 Valued Member
It’s a great point, but is meaningless if one is checking the HR every training session.
Al Ciampa
Level 7 Valued Member
wespom9
Level 6 Valued Member
Can't believe no one said it yet, best post.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
There are plenty of people who do not enjoy exercise, never have, never will. They still want to be healthy, or at least reasonably so. Hit the minimum necessary, by the international recommendations. One can't just tell all of them to move and often. Not that it's not right, but would we expect it to happen by that?
For a long while we have been told that we need to do cardio to be healthy and have longevity. Lifting won't do. Now, the current recommendations tell us that any kind of exercise that raises the heart rate will do.
Is it true? Is the heart rate the only metric there is to it? How does it count how it's raised?
Also, the health guidelines see more intensive exercise, as in exercise with a higher heart rate, to be double the more time efficient. What is it that one would miss, health and longevity wise, if one left the low intensity exercise to the minimum?
User 4484
Guest
This is exactly what I ment with this whole thread. Thank you for being more precise in your wording than me.
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
There are a bunch of ‘endurance guys’ out there, many of whom pay a lot of attention to HR training. I can’t speak for any of them except myself. My HR based training is focused on performance improvement (well... at my age maybe minimizing performance degradation), not health factors. If my health is improved (or maintained) I suppose that’s a bonus. There are certainly other factors to consider in determining a persons ‘health’ than cardiac ones.
This morning:
I often mention my old man. Never trained a day in his life, but he worked hard. Ate poorly, drank, smoked for years. Lived a good life to 94. There are always outliers I suppose...
This morning:
- BP: 117 / 72 (obviously could be a bit lower, but poor diet choices are at work here...)
- RHR: 48
I often mention my old man. Never trained a day in his life, but he worked hard. Ate poorly, drank, smoked for years. Lived a good life to 94. There are always outliers I suppose...
Al Ciampa
Level 7 Valued Member
Plenty of people who do not enjoy exercise on this forum? I find that difficult to believe. However, if it is health one if after, nutrition and stress reduction are far better to put ones energy into. So I’ll say again, just move, and frequently.
And no, I don’t think it’s true... I think ventilation is a far better marker, as subjective as it may be.
Are we debating the health guidelines proposed by the same government(s) who brought us the food pyramids?
My own interpretation based on reading, listening to podcasts, etc. is that if you meet the recommended time guidelines, you're not just doing very heavy lifting to get there. Very few people their heart rate up THAT long from very heavy lifting. Therefore, whatever your cumulative exercise looks like, it is at least partially moderate to light lifting, to cardio. There is a continuum, a spectrum of activities from heavy lifting to cardio, and many things in between. So if you meet the time guidelines, no matter what it consists of, the health benefits are similar and pretty much just as good for cardiovascular health.
Now I'm sure people could come up with some "powerlifters who can't climb a flight of stairs without huffing and puffing"... Sure you could go extreme, but I think there are other factors there such as heavy bodyweight and diet that may be affecting things more than just their choice of exercise. So at that point you'd have to look closer -- what is the heart health? What about circulation, oxygen delivery, respiration? Is there atherosclerosis present? These things tend to improve together with traditional cardio; perhaps less so with lifting, but that doesn't mean there's not still some improvement and risk reduction. And yes, you can over years and years develop a tolerance for a high volume of heavy lifting, so I suppose you could get to the point of being able to get your heart rate up that high from heavy lifting, eventually. But in that case you will have made a choice long before to sacrifice one sort of fitness for another.
I don't think the general exerciser has to worry about what type of exercise they do in order to meet the minimum guidelines for health. I believe these guidelines are very well backed up by evidence. Pick something you enjoy, because volume and consistency is far more impactful than specific exercise choices.
If I was at high risk for cardiovascular disease, I would certainly consult with a doctor for the best and most targeted advice. "Several health conditions, your lifestyle, and your age and family history can increase your risk for heart disease. These are called risk factors. About half of all Americans (47%) have at least 1 of 3 key risk factors for heart disease: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and smoking.1 " (source) (I know you're not all Americans, but it was the easiest reference to find).
I think it's a great question and I agree there's a lot of seemingly conflicting guidance out there. These are just my thoughts on it, FWIW, and would welcome any challenge or opposing views, as this is the way to learn more on this important subject.
I like stories, especially my own 
so I'll offer a few personal anecdotes. Take 'em for what they're worth to you.
1. I'll start with an opinion - I dislike the word "fitness" because one can be "fit" for some things and not others, see Pavel's comment about who is stronger, a lion or a whale? "Health," "heart health" - those are more specific and therefore more to my liking.
2. I've had what's been called a "very slight heart murmur" for my entire life. It's one of those things that has never caused me any problems, and has never been deemed worthy of further investigation - until now. Why now? No actual reason, just my general practitioner's observation of, "Hey, you're 65 years old, and you've never had an echo cardiogram - let's get you one and see if this murmur is actually anything we should be concerned about, or if we can stop talking about it completely." And I agreed.
I've had my initial appointment with the cardiologist - he looked at my cholesterol numbers and said, "Your numbers are higher than where we like to see them in someone your age, but you had that test for coronary calcium and scored a zero, so I'm not going to tell you to do anything different." I think this (the test for coronary calcium) is a great test for anyone with any heart-related concerns to have. It's a _way_ better predictor of you having blocked coronary arteries than your cholesterol numbers are, and even if you have to pay for it yourself, it's about $150 here, and that's a worthwhile expenditure, IMO.
My father had a heart attack at age 46, so when I turned 46, I had this test - which was then new - done for the first time, and had it done a second time about a year ago at age 64. (Zero was the result both times.) When I have the echo cardiogram in a few weeks, I'll post about what the results are.
3. Training for strength plus relaxed walking has been my 'program' for the last 20 years. For me, it makes me "fit" for my own life. A few days ago, I helped a friend across the street move from a third floor apartment to a house down the block. My phone told me I'd climbed 30 flights of stairs and walked 4 miles that day. (I also took a walk afterwards, which accounts for most of the 4 miles.)
I don't know how much more "fit" a person needs to be than that. To achieve a specific athletic result, sure, you might want to be able to do more. But for purposes of general health, I don't find more to be necessary.
4. When I have ballistics in my training, e.g., kettlebells swings, kettlebell snatches, or running sprints, I am _more_ fit. Everything in life is even easier. It's a good thing in my life and I intend to keep doing it, but I hesitate to call it "necessary" because strength training and walking together are all I've found to be necessary.
If I couldn't walk regularly, my guess is that doing kettlebell ballistics or sprints would make a fine substitute for keeping my heart healthy - but my spirit would suffer because I really enjoy being outside walking, and I do it all year long in our 4-season climate here in the Northeastern US. Ballistic exercise is very time efficient, and when I add it to my training, I do it in small doses, often being happy with 40 or 60 swings done inside of 5 minutes. When considering ballistic exercise, however, one shouldn't forget that strength makes a difference - my most recent ballistics session was 2 sets of 10 reps of 2-handed swings with a 44 kg bell, and 2 sets of 10 reps of 1-handed swings with a 32 kg bell. Not being strong enough to use those weights would mean, I hypothesize, that I'd need to spend more time with lighter weights.
And that's what I've got today.
-S-
so I'll offer a few personal anecdotes. Take 'em for what they're worth to you.1. I'll start with an opinion - I dislike the word "fitness" because one can be "fit" for some things and not others, see Pavel's comment about who is stronger, a lion or a whale? "Health," "heart health" - those are more specific and therefore more to my liking.
2. I've had what's been called a "very slight heart murmur" for my entire life. It's one of those things that has never caused me any problems, and has never been deemed worthy of further investigation - until now. Why now? No actual reason, just my general practitioner's observation of, "Hey, you're 65 years old, and you've never had an echo cardiogram - let's get you one and see if this murmur is actually anything we should be concerned about, or if we can stop talking about it completely." And I agreed.
I've had my initial appointment with the cardiologist - he looked at my cholesterol numbers and said, "Your numbers are higher than where we like to see them in someone your age, but you had that test for coronary calcium and scored a zero, so I'm not going to tell you to do anything different." I think this (the test for coronary calcium) is a great test for anyone with any heart-related concerns to have. It's a _way_ better predictor of you having blocked coronary arteries than your cholesterol numbers are, and even if you have to pay for it yourself, it's about $150 here, and that's a worthwhile expenditure, IMO.
My father had a heart attack at age 46, so when I turned 46, I had this test - which was then new - done for the first time, and had it done a second time about a year ago at age 64. (Zero was the result both times.) When I have the echo cardiogram in a few weeks, I'll post about what the results are.
3. Training for strength plus relaxed walking has been my 'program' for the last 20 years. For me, it makes me "fit" for my own life. A few days ago, I helped a friend across the street move from a third floor apartment to a house down the block. My phone told me I'd climbed 30 flights of stairs and walked 4 miles that day. (I also took a walk afterwards, which accounts for most of the 4 miles.)
I don't know how much more "fit" a person needs to be than that. To achieve a specific athletic result, sure, you might want to be able to do more. But for purposes of general health, I don't find more to be necessary.
4. When I have ballistics in my training, e.g., kettlebells swings, kettlebell snatches, or running sprints, I am _more_ fit. Everything in life is even easier. It's a good thing in my life and I intend to keep doing it, but I hesitate to call it "necessary" because strength training and walking together are all I've found to be necessary.
If I couldn't walk regularly, my guess is that doing kettlebell ballistics or sprints would make a fine substitute for keeping my heart healthy - but my spirit would suffer because I really enjoy being outside walking, and I do it all year long in our 4-season climate here in the Northeastern US. Ballistic exercise is very time efficient, and when I add it to my training, I do it in small doses, often being happy with 40 or 60 swings done inside of 5 minutes. When considering ballistic exercise, however, one shouldn't forget that strength makes a difference - my most recent ballistics session was 2 sets of 10 reps of 2-handed swings with a 44 kg bell, and 2 sets of 10 reps of 1-handed swings with a 32 kg bell. Not being strong enough to use those weights would mean, I hypothesize, that I'd need to spend more time with lighter weights.
And that's what I've got today.
-S-
Alexander Halford
Level 8 Valued Member
Not so sure about outliers. "Worked hard".
My grandfather never trained a day, life trained him - loader, lumberjack, builder, went through communist revolution, 2 wars, miserable life at exile (of jews by Stalin), smoked shag and drank moonshine most of his life in industrial quantities, 2 heart attacks. I never remember him helpless, until his very end of 80s he was busy with something, all made of wires, handshake of steel. Died at 89.
You live until you do something.
Antti
Level 10 Valued Member
Short quotes because I'm trying to fit into the single post limit:
This is important. I would imagine that practically everyone would be happy with such a life expectancy. I always think and tell people that there are so many variables at play and that we can only do something. And often the dice are loaded, and there's nothing we can do about some things. But I think it is only reasonable to try to do something.
I think I've seen some on this forum. More in the outside World, for sure. Not sure how important the distinction is.
I agree, there is much more to it than just exercise. Of course.
Ventilation is an interesting choice of a marker. How exactly do you go about it?
One of the main reasons for heart rate must be that it is much more convenient than other, more practical metrics. Like compare to the grip strength test that's often used in longevity studies . Sure, grip strength is great. But I would guess that the main reason it's in the statistics is because it's so easy to give someone a dynometer and tell her to squeeze it and log the data.
I wouldn't personally say that I'm debating anything. I don't really know anything. I just have a lot of questions.
I very much agree.
Though with the lifting, it just depends on the time spent. Ten hours of gym time a week, some of it heavier main lifts and some more bodybuilding style accessories with less rest, easily ramps up heart rates high enough for the standards. GTG sets of three, not so. There is a wide continuum when it comes to strength training, yes. But if one would have a HRM while training and have a look and the time was long enough, is that it?
I agree with the powerlifter example. There are many things at play.
I really like the point about volume and consistency, and enjoyment. It's exactly what I do and what I think many people are missing.
The coronary calcium scan sounds like a good test, and nearing middle age, it's something I'd like to have as well. I'll have to have a look at it myself.
Regarding fitness vs health I very much agree. Though if we agree that fitness is a vague term, I suppose we're in the process of trying to find out how vague health, or heart health, as a term really is.
The impact of strength on the ballistics is a valid point. Could it be there for more traditional cardio as well?
This is important. I would imagine that practically everyone would be happy with such a life expectancy. I always think and tell people that there are so many variables at play and that we can only do something. And often the dice are loaded, and there's nothing we can do about some things. But I think it is only reasonable to try to do something.
I think I've seen some on this forum. More in the outside World, for sure. Not sure how important the distinction is.
I agree, there is much more to it than just exercise. Of course.
Ventilation is an interesting choice of a marker. How exactly do you go about it?
One of the main reasons for heart rate must be that it is much more convenient than other, more practical metrics. Like compare to the grip strength test that's often used in longevity studies . Sure, grip strength is great. But I would guess that the main reason it's in the statistics is because it's so easy to give someone a dynometer and tell her to squeeze it and log the data.
I wouldn't personally say that I'm debating anything. I don't really know anything. I just have a lot of questions.
I very much agree.
Though with the lifting, it just depends on the time spent. Ten hours of gym time a week, some of it heavier main lifts and some more bodybuilding style accessories with less rest, easily ramps up heart rates high enough for the standards. GTG sets of three, not so. There is a wide continuum when it comes to strength training, yes. But if one would have a HRM while training and have a look and the time was long enough, is that it?
I agree with the powerlifter example. There are many things at play.
I really like the point about volume and consistency, and enjoyment. It's exactly what I do and what I think many people are missing.
I like stories, especially my own
And that's what I've got today.
-S-
The coronary calcium scan sounds like a good test, and nearing middle age, it's something I'd like to have as well. I'll have to have a look at it myself.
Regarding fitness vs health I very much agree. Though if we agree that fitness is a vague term, I suppose we're in the process of trying to find out how vague health, or heart health, as a term really is.
The impact of strength on the ballistics is a valid point. Could it be there for more traditional cardio as well?
Rumsmike
Level 6 Valued Member
A few months back I was curious about my heart rate during sauna sessions. This was an hour long sauna session and needless to say I was pretty surprised by my heart rate. I was literally just sitting the entire time. For context I'm 43 years old
I think it's widely accepted these days that regular sauna use is incredibly good for health and longevity and maybe it's partially because of the increased heart rate. You could easily reach the 150 minutes with just sitting in the sauna a few times week but that's obviously not a well balanced plan (as much as my wife would like it to be).
I use heart rate for MAFF running and cycling (but could probably get by just by nasal breathing) and I also keep a curious eye on my HRV and resting heart rate as I find those are pretty good indicators of recovery.
Just guessing, but I'd think following any of the programs from the SF universe and ignoring the heart rate probably meets and exceeds any minimum requirements recommended by health organizations.
Attachments
Al Ciampa
Level 7 Valued Member
There’s a lot to chew on here as you’re very thoughtful. Im only addressing your response to me.
The distinction between exercisers and those who do it because it’s probably good for you is vast. The latter group will tend to miss sessions, or go too hard or too easy, and do the minimum required. The former group is usually on the verge of over exercising, not under exercising. And they are getting a lot of work completed. For health, exercise is simply the replacement of the manual labor that we no longer need to do. For performance or other goals, it’s a different thing.
Saying that there is more to health than training is missing the point. You don’t actually have to train, for health reasons only, if you locked these two elements down.
I agree with you about the HR marker, and also that when the tech was discovered, it seemed to work for that country.
Ventilation is completely subjective and requires many months to learn the subtleties of it. Generally speaking, if you’re breathing easier and moving less air than you used to, for similar working conditions, you’ve improved that facet. More specifically, if you stick to easy nasal breathing for work, you’re not very far off from MAF or zone 2 or whatever you want to call it. But, when these two parameters diverge, you’re either: 1. Lying to yourself about your breathing (common are first), or, 2. HR isn’t explaining the whole story. No 2 can be proven by the lower requirement for recovery after the training bout, if you’ve been paying attention to that.
Yes of course it cares. VO2max has two components - central and peripheral.... so it’s not difficult to deduce that if you want specific adaptations to a specific sport you must train that and I would argue even so for health.
But I truly believe that snatching and some kind of walking hiking, trekking, carries etc will meet the demands you are asking of the body.
offwidth
Level 10 Valued Member
Were you referring to the OP or to all folks?
Because from my perspective and experience this will only occur if those demands are snatching, walking, hiking, trekking, carries etc.
If the demands you are asking of the body are... for instance, ultramarathon trail running, bike racing, climbing, etc. those protocols will fall woefully short...
(Please forgive me if I misunderstood your statement)
Sorry what does OP refer to?
those examples of snatching walking hiking and carries are general examplesthat target the central and peripheral system because they will stimulate central(cardio) and peripheral (vascular) components. No, they will not prepare an ultramarathoner or a tour defrance cyclist in the least. I was a World Cup ITU competitor in the 90’s and in order to swim, ride and run well you had to swim ride and run.
my comments were with respect to ‘health’ goals. Fitness would be the next level on the paradigm with performance being most specific.
Does that make sense?
mprevost
Level 7 Valued Member
Strength training provides mainly a pressure overload (heart working against high peripheral resistance), while aerobic exercise provides mainly a volume overload (pumping a large volume of blood). Cardiac adaptations are a bit different. Strength training results in benign cardiac hypertrophy due to the pressure overload (like weight lifting for the heart muscle). The heart's left ventricle muscular wall becomes thicker. Endurance exercise results in enlarging the ventricular cavity. The left ventricle becomes bigger (but not significantly thicker muscular walls). This allows more blood to fill the ventricle and can increase the volume that the heart can pump. Ventricular vascularization is also increased, which reduces the risk of heart attack.
Both forms of exercise are beneficial to health overall. The metabolic fitness you get from strength training can help to protect the integrity of the cardiac vessels. There is more evidence supporting the cardiovascular protective effect of aerobic exercise though. Which should you do? Both of course.
- Status