@Kettlebelephant Did you read the article I Bill linked to? It says that both L ventricle hypertrophy and improved stroke volume are improved by strength training. It's by the authors who just came out with the Barbell Prescription. Basically, strength training is good for heart health from the research that they synthesized. As the article states, the whole stiff heart with a thick L ventricle and low stroke volume hasn't really been shown to the extent Kenneth Jay and some others have us thinking. (At least from what I have read).
So is it any more beneficial for heart health to train aerobically in addition to strength training? Most likely. But it seems that great overall health can be achieved just fine without it since as the authors state, the aerobic and anaerobic systems are still both trained through strength training.
I just feel like the ROI from a health perspective is far too low to start telling people they need to do LSD so their heart doesn't give out when in actuality the evidence isn't there. It seems that they are confusing fitness with health.
I'm not arguing against you.
Have you read the studies I posted or the ones mentioned in KJs book?
I read the article, but the article is just another article/study claiming something. I posted one study "proving" that strength training leads to the mentioned sideeffects and one that doesn't rule them out. I found those within 5min searching on the internet. Why would I believe that the authors of the article posted by
@Bill Been are right?
I bet when I put in the time and search for a couple of hours I can find 10 studies "proving" the concentric heart hypertrophy + stiffness claim and another 10 "proving" the opposite...
I don't really believe in studies. In the field of exercise science and nutrition there are so many flaws in setting up and execute studies and often with hidden agendas behind them (supplement companies etc.).
I only actually "use" them when they support something that I think is common sense and when someone demands proof like Bill did.
For me it's common sense that a mix of strength and endurance training is better for health than only strength or only endurance training. It is strength + endurance > strength or endurance > sitting on your butt doing nothing.
I come to this conclusion by lookin back at what our ancestors had to do for hundreds of thousands of years -> a lot of walking, a bit of running/sprinting and some strength/power work (in the form of throwing spears, moving stones, shouldering + carrying prey etc.)
It's by the authors who just came out with the Barbell Prescription.
See? That's exactly what I'm talking about.
The authors that release a book about barbell (strength) training, which they obviously want to sell and make profit, come up with an article/study about how beneficial strength training is to so many things, including claims of improved aerobic capacity.
And when was this book released? In the 21st century (2016), a time where everyone wants have maximum results in minimum time and where everyone wants to hear that all they need to do is 30mins in the gym to get it all (strength, endurance, aesthetics etc.)...
Obviously KJ is not any different. He could have said that not all of the studies out there support what he's writing in his book, but that wouldn't be a convincing sell strategy, right?
People come to this forum to ask about training and most of the time about strength training. All I want to do is remind them that there's more to fitness and health than strength work and that endurance is also important and very beneficial, even if it's just walking a lot in your daily life.