Poliquin - Negatives of Aerobic Training

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by Kuytrider

It's still ok for me to do my 20-25 minutes of jogging 3 times a week though? I do it for fresh air and to escape my sedentary job. Sprint intervals are not a good idea on powerlifting programs apparently, otherwise I would do those. I notice that the negatives mainly concern those who cover very long distances.

Who told you not to do sprint intervals?! Sprints are amazing for developing explosive power, and intervals are much better for conditioning and fat loss compared to steady state cardio like running at the same speed for long periods of time.

[Fazc]

The article is interesting but his conclusions are a little too convenient for my liking:

Originally Posted by bruteforce

The Good News: Top Three Thing You Can Do Instead of Aerobic Exercise
1) Strength Train
You’ll build muscle, burn fat (it triggers growth hormone, which increases fat burning), lower cortisol and inflammation, and look better.

Strength training increases cortisol release, in fact that is the basis for some models of strength training, and plenty of relatively modern research has been done by Pendlay & Hartmann to show this (2000, 2001 HFM).

2) High-Intensity Anaerobic Intervals or Strongman Training
You’ll burn fat—visceral belly and subcutaneous fat—and gain conditioning.

Come on, you do that anyway with cardio.

3) Take a Probiotic and Select Antioxidants
You’ll help your body detoxify from diet and environmental pollutants(they cause inflammation), and lower cortisol from daily stressors. Check out my Primal Reds for antioxidants and my ProFlora Excellence DF Caps. if you’re considering a probiotic.

Just seems like an advertisement now.

I'm not a massive fan of cardio, but I'd rather just say I don't like it than make up a bunch of convenient BS to try and explain why I don't like it.

[BendtheBar]

Bad News #1 - Aerobic Training Raises Cortisol and Accelerates Aging

Yes, but in concert with good nutrition, resistance training and other wise health choices made by those who utilize cardio I am skeptical that this "acceleration" is anything to be concerned about.

Processed foods and laziness accelerate aging more.

This reminds me of the whole wheat studies in which the benefits of whole wheat were compared to that of processed flour and not the absence of flour.

Take Person A, eating a processed foods diet, sleeping poorly and getting no exercise. Who will live longer...Person A, or Person B who gets off the couch, drops a few pounds, eats better, does some resistance training...

That's the question for me.

I hate cardio. I spent 15 years of my life running and stepping. But I know that lifting alone does not help my aerobic health/capacity much. I certainly am not here to be Mr. Cardio, but I do think I would perform better with 3 sessions a week.

[bruteforce]

Healthy discussion makes the mind grow. Appreciate all the opinions and though going on with this. Fazc and BtB (and others for that matter), in your mind, is there benefit to doing prolonged steady state cardio (more than 30-45) over doing non-steady state activities such as sprints, strongman, etc.

Anecdotally, I have seen big benefits from adding a 2 mile walk every day. This was especially true when I was closer to 300 pounds, but still holds today. My recovery is better, and I can't see the body reacting negatively to the sort of use that if was more or less intended to du.

[5kgLifter]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

Yes, but in concert with good nutrition, resistance training and other wise health choices made by those who utilize cardio I am skeptical that this "acceleration" is anything to be concerned about.

Processed foods and laziness accelerate aging more.

This reminds me of the whole wheat studies in which the benefits of whole wheat were compared to that of processed flour and not the absence of flour.

Take Person A, eating a processed foods diet, sleeping poorly and getting no exercise. Who will live longer...Person A, or Person B who gets off the couch, drops a few pounds, eats better, does some resistance training...

That's the question for me.

I hate cardio. I spent 15 years of my life running and stepping. But I know that lifting alone does not help my aerobic health/capacity much.

Neither if they get hit by a bus

But seriously, some age related looks are to a degree genetic, IMO. The problem with all studies seems to be that they like to sway things one way or the other, seldom do we see a middle-ground study that highlights balance between both extremes.

Personally, I think that's where most things should fall...balanced; it may be the reason that I like cardio which is short (usually 20-30 minutes duration) and where I can blast and recover throughout but not to some pre-set design...no clock watching, no counting, just get to the point of breathless and then recover with a slower pace...and how much of the 20-30 minutes is harder/easier paced will depend on how I feel at the exact moment. It seems to work and I get a mix of everything without even needing a "plan" to adhere to...it also makes every session unique, so I never know what I will expect beforehand. It keeps cardio sessions alive.

[Fazc]

Originally Posted by BendtheBar

I certainly am not here to be Mr. Cardio, but I do think I would perform better with 3 sessions a week.

Word.

Also in regards to cortisol we're not hugely close to knowing exactly how bad it is on it's own, studies from Pendlay and Hartmann have shown athletes setting all-time PRs while in a fatigued state of lowered testosterone/increased cortisol. So the involvement & balance of all these hormones/chemicals is far more complex than just pointing to one and saying it's bad.

[Fazc]

Originally Posted by bruteforce

Healthy discussion makes the mind grow. Appreciate all the opinions and though going on with this. Fazc and BtB (and others for that matter), in your mind, is there benefit to doing prolonged steady state cardio (more than 30-45) over doing non-steady state activities such as sprints, strongman, etc.

I couldn't say with any great certainty, this is one area I can definitely say I don't know much about. I just know I generally feel better while doing some consistent cardio, and that's a quality of life issue for me moreso than a strictly strength one.

I think the body adapts to the demands placed on it. If you sleep 8 hours a day, drive to work for 1 hour, sit on your butt for a further 8 hours, drive back home in your car on your butt for another 1 hour and then spend the evening infront of the box for another 6 hours before you start it all again; your body isn't going to have a whole hell of a lot of fun the first time you decide you need to do anything more strenuous than that. Sure lifting helps but it isn't a panacea for health.

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by bruteforce

Healthy discussion makes the mind grow. Appreciate all the opinions and though going on with this. Fazc and BtB (and others for that matter), in your mind, is there benefit to doing prolonged steady state cardio (more than 30-45) over doing non-steady state activities such as sprints, strongman, etc.

Well personally I have always seen my anaerobic power carry well over into aerobic activities. I noticed I was able to give that "short burst" of exertion much better when playing sports.

On the other hand, when my aerobic capacity drops, I stay winded far too long, and some of my sets are limited. My (lack of) aerobic activity impacts my strength workouts more than I like to imagine.

In my personal opinion, as long as your aerobic capacity is not limiting your sets/workouts, then things like walking are perfectly fine just for health. As we age our metabolism slows, and as we all know, active people tend to live longer. So stay active

But if there is some aerobic hindrance, then something a little more intense is needed. Perhaps complexes, sled pulls, skipping rope, running, whatever.

At a minimum, for good health, at least walk, bike or hike.

[BendtheBar]

Originally Posted by Fazc

Word.

Also in regards to cortisol we're not hugely close to knowing exactly how bad it is on it's own, studies from Pendlay and Hartmann have shown athletes setting all-time PRs while in a fatigued state of lowered testosterone/increased cortisol. So the involvement & balance of all these hormones/chemicals is far more complex than just pointing to one and saying it's bad.

I would agree.

I have lived in a lower testosterone, sleep deprived stupor for long periods of time due to work demands. As a machinest I was lifting very (Very!) heavy 8 hours a day, sleeping very little, eating poorly and doing everything possibly wrong all while destroying PRs.

I was also using strict intermittent fasting at this time, eating nothing while working.

My job was lifting 75 to 100 pound engine blocks into a hone, out of the hone, into a washer, out of a washer, into a dip tank, out of a dip tank, into a drying rack, out of a drying rack and into plastic bags hundreds upon hundreds of times per day...my activity was constant, and it was physically brutal.

It should have been a cortisol beat down, but my body adapted.

[Kuytrider]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Who told you not to do sprint intervals?! Sprints are amazing for developing explosive power, and intervals are much better for conditioning and fat loss compared to steady state cardio like running at the same speed for long periods of time.

I read somewhere (info overload again and not sure where) that sprint intervals may have a negative impact on someone trying to increase their strength. To be honest, my fitness is not the best and it could do with extra cardio for conditioning. I have done intervals before but not for long enough to get the real benefits. Was planning to add them when I was done with the strength work, perhaps I will change and do them sooner rather than later.

In an ideal world, I would be far more active because my job involves sitting on my ass. I think a gradual increase is in order. Would you recommend climbing stairs with weight on my back? Also did that before but not for long enough.