Is cardio bad for you?

yirara

Cardio is good for me. I've always been the girl at school who could only run for 100 meters, and after the fire alarm falsely went off at the office again I'm walking up the stairs to the 13th so slowly that many people behind me get annoyed. Looks like I need to go the extra mile to get some endurance, and that's what I'm doing.

dmiivanov

It's better to lift or do something high intensity anaerobic if you want to look like a man. Even small amounts of fat, after all that cardio, can make you look fat if there's no muscle: it's kind of fat to muscle ratio that determines the looks

tennisdude2004

grimmeanor wrote: »

Elite athletes pushing the bounds of human capability is one thing, but to claim that casual distance runners are all harming themselves more than helping themselves is just ridiculous.

I'm not sure where I have claimed casual cardio is harmful - because its not??? Read back through my posts.

I am claiming chronic cardio is adverse to health. But again I'm not saying we shouldn't do it if we want to.

There's lots of things people do in the pursuit of personal goals or enjoyment. I did ju-jitsu for 17 years, I was the fittest I had been for a long while, but I was definitely damaging my body (would I go back and change anything - no, I did it for the enjoyment).

But people doing chronic cardio and not thinking it's not damaging them long term - that's ridiculous.

MeanderingMammal

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

I am claiming chronic cardio is adverse to health. But again I'm not saying we shouldn't do it if we want to.

I suspect the issue is how one interprets chronic in this sense. I'm reading it as a tautology at the moment.

What's meant by chronic? Running 50 miles per week, cycling 10-12 hours per week, or a 60 minute session on the elliptihell 5 days per week?

Given that some on this site see running 9 miles per week as adverse to ones health it's useful to understand the framework.

tennisdude2004

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

I am claiming chronic cardio is adverse to health. But again I'm not saying we shouldn't do it if we want to.

I suspect the issue is how one interprets chronic in this sense. I'm reading it as a tautology at the moment.

What's meant by chronic? Running 50 miles per week, cycling 10-12 hours per week, or a 60 minute session on the elliptihell 5 days per week?

Given that some on this site see running 9 miles per week as adverse to ones health it's useful to understand the framework.

I think chronic is more to do with the level of intensity and the prolonged period, than the overall distance.

Hiking and biking at low to moderate levels of intensity are very beneficial to our health.

MeanderingMammal

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

I think chronic is more to do with the level of intensity and the prolonged period, than the overall distance.

So to develop the theme. Fifty miles per week could concievably be either a marathon plan, or a 5K speedwork plan. I'll work up the longer distance as that's my focus - So perhaps a 13mile, couple of 10 mile and a couple of 6 to 8 mile sessions at a mix of paces averaging around a 9 minute kilometre.

Chronic or not? It's a pretty high volume week, but the vast majority of the distance would be at a moderate intensity, with about 8 miles of speedwork inside one of the 10 mile sessions.

Hiking and biking at low to moderate levels of intensity are very beneficial to our health.

Whilst I wouldn't disagree, that's more a function of the statement being a bit of a bland catch-all. They each have slightly different effects, although predominantly in the lower aerobic range. As ever, in isolation neither is a magic bullet. One can't out-train a bad diet, with that applying to both net calorie balance and nutrient balance.

In the context of the original point, both the running and cycling that I've identified are outliers. Only a small proportion of the population are involved in endurance sports, however far more are in the segment that plays on the elliptical for 30-45 minutes at a time. The issue is that those involved in endurance training are more likely to recognise that the original article is nonsense, whereas many in the latter segment will let themselves be convinced that their relatively low quality effort is somehow bad rather than merely in need of optimisation.

Not helped by blanket pronouncements laced with vague generalisations wrapped around extreme examples.

scottb81

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

MeanderingMammal wrote: »

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

I am claiming chronic cardio is adverse to health. But again I'm not saying we shouldn't do it if we want to.

I suspect the issue is how one interprets chronic in this sense. I'm reading it as a tautology at the moment.

What's meant by chronic? Running 50 miles per week, cycling 10-12 hours per week, or a 60 minute session on the elliptihell 5 days per week?

Given that some on this site see running 9 miles per week as adverse to ones health it's useful to understand the framework.

I think chronic is more to do with the level of intensity and the prolonged period, than the overall distance.

Hiking and biking at low to moderate levels of intensity are very beneficial to our health.

Problems with "cardio" (I hate that word, LOL) are related much more closely to intensity than to time/distance spent doing it.

If you keep the majority of sessions EASY then you can do a lot, 10 or more hours a week, without any problems at all. Once in a while do a speed session or lactate threshold session with a lot of easy sessions in between.

It all is related to the recovery and supercompensation cycle. An easy session, even a long one, you will recover from in 12 to 24 hours. A hard session may take 3 to 4 days.

bigd66218

No, it is not bad..however, if you push it to 8-12 hours a week. you will loose upper body muscle mass.

scottb81

You will not lose upper body mass because of "cardio".

This contains links to studies: http://scoobysworkshop.com/does-cardio-burn-muscle/

Now I know that some of you are STILL worried about cardio burning muscle so lets look at a great study (1,2,3)where they monitored body composition of athletes in the trans-europe run where they ran 2800 miles in 64 days – that’s an average 43 miles a day. The results were really interesting and not what you might expect. Obviously they lost fat and lots of it. The interesting part was that the runners didn’t lose ANY muscle mass in their upper bodies, ALL the mass was lost in their legs – why? Overtraining!!!. So if these athletes can run 43 miles (6 hours) every day all summer long without losing any upper body muscle mass, certainly YOU can jog for 30 minutes without losing muscle mass!

Remember, your body is really smart and it wont burn muscle unless you do something really stupid like running 3000 miles or doing a drastic fad diet.

BrianSharpe

dmiivanov wrote: »

It's better to lift or do something high intensity anaerobic if you want to look like a man. Even small amounts of fat, after all that cardio, can make you look fat if there's no muscle: it's kind of fat to muscle ratio that determines the looks

So, you're suggesting that women who lift look like men?

tennisdude2004

BrianSharpe wrote: »

dmiivanov wrote: »

It's better to lift or do something high intensity anaerobic if you want to look like a man. Even small amounts of fat, after all that cardio, can make you look fat if there's no muscle: it's kind of fat to muscle ratio that determines the looks

So, you're suggesting that women who lift look like men?

Proof!!!!

sjohnson__1

lovelaughrun wrote: »

AllanMisner wrote: »

This is an excellent question! Our bodies were designed to do certain things, our genetics drive what we’re best at, and volume can be a problem for even the best of us.

Elite endurance athletes often struggle with very bad health issues. Why? Because they pushed themselves so far for so long. Exercise is stress, and the more intense, more often, longer we’re under stress, the more acute the response. In short, or light bouts, that can lead to adaptive improvement. And then there’s the line where it becomes chronic.

From personal experience, I’ve found my appetite goes crazy when I’m pushing out a lot of cardio. So, when I’m training for a longer run (like a marathon), I’m likely to put on weight. If I train doing long, slow distance and mix in some HIIT, I’m able to avoid the appetite pop.

Fat loss comes from what and how much you eat. Exercise should be geared toward other health and fitness goals. If you want good cardiovascular endurance, then by all means, train that way. But don’t think, I’ll burn more calories and lose faster. Patience and persistence are key.

this guy ^^ gives out good, solid advice

Agreed! Every time I read his responses they're spot on.

htimpaired

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

grimmeanor wrote: »

tennisdude2004 wrote: »

Chronic cardio can be extremely bad for you. If you look at some of the elite endurance runners they are probably without doubt some of the fittest people on the planet, but I should think they are also some of the most unhealthy.

I don't mean to sound argumentative, hopefully I simply misunderstood your meaning.

I did a Google image search for "elite endurance athletes" and I'm struggling to find anything that appears unhealthy with them.

Also, in line with that I am struggling with the part where you said they are the "fittest" while simultaneously the "most unhealthy". I think that might be due to the meaning of those words:

fit·ness
ˈfitnəs/
noun
noun: fitness
the condition of being physically fit and healthy.
"disease and lack of fitness are closely related"
synonyms: good health, strength, robustness, vigor, athleticism, toughness, physical fitness, muscularity; More

It seems that in order to be fit, one is also healthy by definition.

I'm sure it is a simple misunderstanding.

It is!

Fitness is a measure of physical ability!

To get to the level of fitness achieved by endurance athletes, must train and push your body to levels that are adverse to your health and potentially reduce your life span.

I'm not saying people shouldn't run marathons or take part in triathlon's (each to their own) but studies have proven that training and pushing your body to attain that level of fitness is detrimental to your health.

That's all I was saying - health and fitness, at that level, are two different things.

Also I think your google might be broken!!!!

I typed:
Are endurance Athletes hea....

one of the first things was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletic_heart_syndrome

Wikipedia as the source aside, please note this segment from that website about the clinical implications of athletic heart syndrome:

"Athlete's heart is not dangerous for athletes (though if a non-athlete has symptoms of bradycardia, cardiomegaly, and cardiac hypertrophy, another illness may be present). Athlete's heart is not the cause of sudden cardiac death during or shortly after a workout,[5] which mainly occurs due to hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a genetic disorder.

No treatment is required for people with athletic heart syndrome. Athlete's heart does not pose any physical threats to the athlete and, despite some theoretical concerns that the ventricular remodeling might conceivably predispose for serious arrhythmias,[16] there is no evidence of any increased risk of long-term events.[17] It is recommended that the athlete see a physician and receive a clearance to be sure that the symptoms are due to athlete’s heart and not another heart disease, such as cardiomyopathy. If the athlete is uncomfortable with having athlete's heart or if a differential diagnosis is difficult, deconditioning from exercise for a period of three months will allow the heart to return to its regular size. However, one long-term study of elite trained athletes found that dilation of the left ventricle was only partially reversible after a long period of deconditioning.[18] This deconditioning is often met with resistance to the accompanying lifestyle changes. The real risk attached to athlete's heart is if an athlete or non-athlete simply assumes that they have the condition, instead of making sure they do not have a life-threatening heart illness."[19

ForStMicheal

the common sense rule applies here, pretty much all exercise is good for you, and all exercise is potentially harmful if you over do it.