Too much cardio?
Replies
-
The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.
The work that O'Keefe derives his conclusions from does demonstrate that there is an increase in whole life mortality risk as a result of detrimental heart and CV irregularities. O'Keefe has had to get fairly creative and makes some big leaps of faith to get to his conclusions.
Essentially persistent, long term, long duration endurance athletes lose some of the improvements to mortality from moderate exercise, and revert to much the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-exerciser.
The snag is, the reason for that isn't known.
0 -
My theory is that the conclusion relies on data from the old days, where putting in lots of miles meant spending a significant amount of time out of reach of 911, relative to a couch potato.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Essentially persistent, long term, long duration endurance athletes lose some of the improvements to mortality from moderate exercise, and revert to much the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-exerciser.The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.
See and this is the leap. Let's suppose the risk for an ultra-ironman-15+ hr/week guy of developing a-fib is %2 higher than a casual moderate exerciser. You can claim that his risk of that type of death is higher (by a tiny amount). Ok. But you have to take into account the other 10 reduced risks of mortality (weight, diabetes, stroke, attacks etc) that the elite crazy guy enjoys.
The point is NONE of this applies to anyone posting on myfitnesspal. Maybe for some elite, olympic, world champ, lunatic OCD type-As but the average soccer mom is NOT going to over-cardio herself to the point where she's anywhere near being worse off.
I'll just leave this here:Our major finding is that repeated very intense exercise prolongs life span in well trained practitioners. Our findings underpin the importance of exercising without the fear that becoming exhausted might be bad for one's health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618162
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
Diminishing returns in what sense?
If one is looking for improved CV capacity, then that's largely going to come from lots of long easy sessions in the aerobic range. Clearly working in the threshold range and anaerobic range have different effects, but both of them depend on an aerobic base.
But the level of improvement becomes negligible, so for simple health improvement not much worth it. One will get more from combining the CV work with resistance work, rather than just thrashing out more CV.
OTOH if one is looking at improving performance, whether running, cycling, rowing etc, then there is a lot of benefit in lots of miles.
Think they are more interested in calorie burn return.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Essentially persistent, long term, long duration endurance athletes lose some of the improvements to mortality from moderate exercise, and revert to much the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-exerciser.The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.
See and this is the leap. Let's suppose the risk for an ultra-ironman-15+ hr/week guy of developing a-fib is %2 higher than a casual moderate exerciser. You can claim that his risk of that type of death is higher (by a tiny amount). Ok. But you have to take into account the other 10 reduced risks of mortality (weight, diabetes, stroke, attacks etc) that the elite crazy guy enjoys.
The point is NONE of this applies to anyone posting on myfitnesspal. Maybe for some elite, olympic, world champ, lunatic OCD type-As but the average soccer mom is NOT going to over-cardio herself to the point where she's anywhere near being worse off.
I'll just leave this here:Our major finding is that repeated very intense exercise prolongs life span in well trained practitioners. Our findings underpin the importance of exercising without the fear that becoming exhausted might be bad for one's health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618162
pretty much...0 -
Tbf its luttlezebra that brough it up and shes the one making the claims. 5 hours cardio isnt hard to exceed.0
-
MeanderingMammal wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »
The better rationale for limiting CV time is diminishing returns for the casual exerciser. The gains from 6 hours upwards aren't great enough to justify the dedicated effort.
Diminishing returns in what sense?
If one is looking for improved CV capacity, then that's largely going to come from lots of long easy sessions in the aerobic range. Clearly working in the threshold range and anaerobic range have different effects, but both of them depend on an aerobic base.
But the level of improvement becomes negligible, so for simple health improvement not much worth it. One will get more from combining the CV work with resistance work, rather than just thrashing out more CV.
OTOH if one is looking at improving performance, whether running, cycling, rowing etc, then there is a lot of benefit in lots of miles.
Think they are more interested in calorie burn return.
So running gives me 600-700 cals per hour.
At 7 hours per week, say middle third of a half marathon cycle, I can't physically consume enough food to compensate.
I acknowledge that an elliptihell will give 50-70% of that consumption, but the extra burn really isn't worth it.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Essentially persistent, long term, long duration endurance athletes lose some of the improvements to mortality from moderate exercise, and revert to much the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-exerciser.The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.
See and this is the leap. Let's suppose the risk for an ultra-ironman-15+ hr/week guy of developing a-fib is %2 higher than a casual moderate exerciser. You can claim that his risk of that type of death is higher (by a tiny amount). Ok. But you have to take into account the other 10 reduced risks of mortality (weight, diabetes, stroke, attacks etc) that the elite crazy guy enjoys.
Indeed. I'll continue pounding the miles out, for the quality of life benefits, rather than worry about negligible increases in risk. I'm more likely to get knocked over by a car whilst out running anyway.
0 -
Anecdotally I did run myself into a 3 day bout of cardiac arrhythmia through some stupid training decisions a couple of years ago. I self treated it and finally got it to stop by going for another run, LOL. Not that I would recommend that course of action to anybody else.
I've been to the Dr. For physicals and such a couple of times since then and it's all back to normal.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
So running gives me 600-700 cals per hour.
At 7 hours per week, say middle third of a half marathon cycle, I can't physically consume enough food to compensate.
I acknowledge that an elliptihell will give 50-70% of that consumption, but the extra burn really isn't worth it.
[/quote]
I am talking about the OP and someone trying to lose weight. All things being equal if I have achieved a certain level of fitness, then im less bothered about increasing my VO2 and more interested in burning as many calories as I can. It might not be worth it for you, but might be for them.
Back to the original argument of 5h a week max, then anyone who cares to read the articles or do some research can see how thats taken out of context or there are all sorts of taking things out of context and provisos about intensity and duration of those 5hrs and who it applies to. People will either read the articles or they will not, they are either capable of objectively analysing and appreciating what the articles are saying or they are not. The articles are informative enough. Think ill carry on doing as I am and the risks from being run over are far higher.0 -
Op, see the full series on http://sportsscientists.com/2010/01/exercise-and-weight-loss/. Also note, it takes a lot of effort and time to improve one's fitness and efficiency (up to your genetic limit) which the blog does not go into with a lot of detail.
I agree 5 hours a week is nothing especially when there is little intensity. Double that duration with at least 20-25% of the time at tempo and sweet spot is minimal needed to build up the aerobic base if your are in a time crunch (cycling but suspect similar for other endurance sports). Pros have the leisure to put "miles build champions" to task but most of us have a day job. I'm only at 11 or so hours a week at best but mostly in the 9s.
I would not start doing VO2Max, anaerobic, and neuromuscular training (true HIIT and not the crap you see advertised) until at least a season in if you are starting from or near scratch. I restarted cycling after a 23 year hiatus beginning of the year and is only a shadow of my collegiate racing days. At best I'm only a distance third from the start of my interest in the sport at age 16. I hope my base is sufficient by next fall so I can start incorporate some VO2Max, anaerobic, and neuromuscular training but that depends on how quickly I regain my functional threshold power (based on age average and some 60 or so watts to go). And also by that time I hope I can stay on during my club rides and trade some pulls instead of hanging on dear life and being dropped most of the time.0 -
lithezebra wrote: »Here's an expert.
Here's another expert, Dr. Larry Cresswell - a cardiac surgeon and athlete focussed on athletes - who takes on some of the O'Keefe inspired discussion.
His blog is an interesting read on a variety of endurance sports related topics with regular references to related studies as they appear in the mainstream.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »
Essentially persistent, long term, long duration endurance athletes lose some of the improvements to mortality from moderate exercise, and revert to much the same mortality risk as the sedentary non-exerciser.The study I cited wasn't about whole life mortality at all but rather detremental heart and cardiovasular irregularities.
See and this is the leap. Let's suppose the risk for an ultra-ironman-15+ hr/week guy of developing a-fib is %2 higher than a casual moderate exerciser. You can claim that his risk of that type of death is higher (by a tiny amount). Ok. But you have to take into account the other 10 reduced risks of mortality (weight, diabetes, stroke, attacks etc) that the elite crazy guy enjoys.
The point is NONE of this applies to anyone posting on myfitnesspal. Maybe for some elite, olympic, world champ, lunatic OCD type-As but the average soccer mom is NOT going to over-cardio herself to the point where she's anywhere near being worse off.
I'll just leave this here:Our major finding is that repeated very intense exercise prolongs life span in well trained practitioners. Our findings underpin the importance of exercising without the fear that becoming exhausted might be bad for one's health.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21618162
This is exactly how my friend who is a doctor (with a very strong interest in this topic) explained it to me.
0 -
Here's another expert, Dr. Larry Cresswell - a cardiac surgeon and athlete focussed on athletes - who takes on some of the O'Keefe inspired discussion.
Thanks for the link and the recommendation! I just added his blog to my RSS feed.0 -
5 hours of cardio really isn't that much. I'm doing around 15 plus 6 of weights. (Triathlete) Result = I can eat what I want (within reason of course) without counting and maintain my size 0-2.0
-
I do huge Cardio sessions every week, I did marathon distance on the treadmill a few days ago. I cycle to work every day (18 mile round trip).. I do HIIT training most days.
I'm not suggesting that you begin an intense cardio regime, I simply enjoy it.. You certainly aren't doing yourself any harm doing 5 hours per week.
It all comes down to fuelling your workouts, if I burn 1000 Calories (pie in the sky number for arguments sake), I make sure that I'm eating back at least 75-80% of my calories(the 20% I don't eat back is to combat potential inacuracies with calorie burn totals given by my HRM), so I would be eating back 750-800 calories.
I have no desire to burn through muscle and so far I have managed without doing!
Anybody that suggests that Cardio is terrible for you and that you can't sustain muscle whilst doing it, in my eyes just hasn't done enough research. I trained for the Royal Marines last year and cardio is as much a part of training as strength training, far too many people have an irrational fear of cardio!!
Training is all relative to your goals and your personal enjoyment. If you enjoy doing cardio, by all means - enjoy it!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394K Introduce Yourself
- 43.9K Getting Started
- 260.4K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 435 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.9K MyFitnessPal Information
- 15 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions