How much cardio vs. strength
Replies
-
And I think you'll find that the stronger you get, the easier the cardio gets.
Only to a certain point. It is estimated that for each additional pound of weight, a runner will be 2 seconds slower per mile. This is one of the reasons that elite runners don't do a ton of heavy upper body lifting, as muscle is additional weight. This is also the reason that a runners ideal running weight is usually below the healthy weight range.0 -
Both go hand in hand with overall health, but lifting will define your body much more than cardio. If your diet is on point and you eat a deficit, fulfill your macros, and lift heavy- you will see great results. Cardio will allow you to eat more food and maintain a healthy heart and lungs.
Look up proven lifting routines and then look up form and technique for each exercise on YouTube to make sure you are doing them correctly.
I'd recommend starting out with lower weights so that you understand the form and motions, then moving on to heavier weights when you are most comfortable with what you are doing.0 -
People tend to give advice based on their workouts and what they like to do..or what works for them. YOU have to decide what you will stick with and if this is a lifestyle change..or you just wish to drop pounds..and then you're good? Cardio and diet is good to drop weight..adding some light strength training..(lighter weights..more reps) will help tone you up and also lose weight. The final decision is up to you and it's based on your specifics (age-weight-lifestyle-diet-goals)0
-
JZ_Evolution_Mark2 wrote: »Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass...
Is there any real proof of this? I hear everywhere that "cardio is catabolic" - but as long as a person isn't literally in starvation mode, I don't see why long-distance runners and intensive cardio-only folks don't metabolize carbs then fat like everyone else.
Humans are designed to be long-distance runners and always on their feet. If it was easy for lots of constant movement to waste away our muscles, I can't see how we would have survived as a species.
Long-distance runners? Maybe long-distance walkers is a better phrase. We are probably better designed to sprint to a big stick or rock to throw. Always on their feet? Yes. Smarter at figuring out how to hide from predators.
I prefer a sprinter to a marathoner any day. Sprinters seem to be lean and hold onto lots of muscle very well. Marathoners seem to be very lean.
Marathoners are lean because being lean is one of the most crucial factors in performing your best at the marathon. Sprinting performance is enhanced by greater muscle power. At the elite level, athletes are genetically self-selected--they are born with different body types. It's like me saying I'd prefer to train at being a basketball player than a jockey because basketball players always seem to be tall and jockeys seem to be short.
0 -
JZ_Evolution_Mark2 wrote: »Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass...
Is there any real proof of this? I hear everywhere that "cardio is catabolic" - but as long as a person isn't literally in starvation mode, I don't see why long-distance runners and intensive cardio-only folks don't metabolize carbs then fat like everyone else.
Humans are designed to be long-distance runners and always on their feet. If it was easy for lots of constant movement to waste away our muscles, I can't see how we would have survived as a species.
As long as protein intake is sufficient and you are in nitrogen balance, a person can do high volumes of endurance training and maintain muscle mass.
Someone trying to MAXIMIZE muscle gain might find that high volumes of cardio interferes with that goal somewhat, but that is at the far end of the spectrum. And even that is not due to cardio "eating" muscle.0 -
GuitarJerry wrote: »I'm close to 50 and think more about what's sustainable over a lifetime, and life is a marathon, not a sprint. Jogging added muscle to my legs, yoga added muscle to my arms and back, and both of these feel like they support my health without tearing me up. Yes I do lift too, some. And sprint, sort of, some. But the bulk of the exercise I do is more gentle and sustainable, stuff I can do for years and years and years. I remember in Jazzercise we had not one, not two, but three ladies over 80 years old in the class, dancing and having fun.
What you enjoy is what you will keep doing. Exercise has to fit into your life.
There are actually many 80 year old lifters. Lifting really us the absolute best exercise for overall health. I would only cut lifting if it began having detrimental effects, which it sometimes does as you age. But, if you lift properly, that shouldn't happen.
There really is no single exercise that is the best for overall health. And same as one can do a ton of acardio and completely weak, I know lifters who cannot run a block to catch the bus. Which does not sound healthy either.0 -
Have you looked into bodyweight strength training? That can be done at home and with minimum equipment, so no perceiving stares or feeling bad about your performance. You could also buy some cheap dumbbells to make the body weight exercises a bit harder.
I see no problem with doing more cardio than strength to be honest. It highly depends on your goals and preferences. If lifting hundreds of pounds is not all that important to you, then not training to do so is valid. You could get enough muscle stimulation for the purposes of preserving muscle mass from bodyweight training and fill the rest of your exercise time with whatever exercise you enjoy, even if it happens to be prancing.0 -
I do both, probably to a ratio of about 30% lifting to 70% cardio.
For vanity factors, I like the physique that strength training brings. I also to strength train because I'm hypermobile and it helps me enormously to keep that in check.
But I also run and cycle. I used to do triathlons and my RHR was in my mid 40s. Then I did nothing for 3 years and I was shocked to find it had crept up to 75bpm!!! I love the fact that in three months my resting heart rate has dropped by 13bpm since I started exercising again after 3 years off. It's now at 62bmp and I can't wait to eek it down further. For me that is true fitness.
I don't want to be that person who just looks like she's in good shape, but who can't run around the block.0 -
I'm 42, and I used to lift a lot. I have arthritis in my shoulder and some spinal degeneration, so every time I try to get back into lifting some sort of pain issue crops up again, which has really soured me on it of late. One thing that has never caused me pain is cardio. So, I focus on that - I currently get about 40-50 minutes of intensive cardio on a daily basis (plus walking 1-2 times per day as well). I can run a 10K in about 45 minutes currently, and am looking ahead to a half-marathon before the end of the year.
A lot of people here poo-poo people who do cardio-only exercise programs. If you're into getting that aesthetically sculpted physique, sure, weight training along with fat loss is awesome. Also, if you're an older adult, there's something to be said for progressive resistance training, as it tends to prevent injuries due to falls.
Aside from all of that, to my mind, the real issue is finding a kind of exercise you like and getting really good at it. I'm really good at running (I also have an exercise bike as well which I also use), so I do it a lot. I get the benefit of significant calorie burns (so I get to eat more.... wheee!) and I also have a resting heart rate that's trending into the high 40s at this point. I'm extremely fit right now - more so than I've ever been (current stats - six-foot two, 185 pound male. Notoriously inaccurate FitBit Aria has my body fat % bouncing around a 10% range).
I may try and take up weight training again in the future (probably with the help of a personal trainer who could help to work around my musculoskeletal issues). But I have zero issues with anyone who chooses a cardio-only program for whatever reason. In fact, my personal physician (who is also a pulmonologist) says that he thinks cardio should be the main priority of anyone doing exercise programs - as having a fit cardiovascular system is much more predictive of health and longevity than simply having muscle mass, which, aside from the value it has for looking pretty in a swimsuit and the above issue of how it may benefit older adults, really doesn't add that much to health or longevity.
At least, that's his opinion. Sounds good to me.
Agree with much of this. I lift and love lifting. I'm struggling right now for a lack of a running partner and as a result I've gone from running 40k plus a week to barely eking out an occasional 5k. My heart rate is up and I have far less energy, and yet I'm the strongest I've ever been. As unpopular as it is to say on here we need cardio. For me cardio is especially critical because I have asthma and without cardio my breathing suffers.
OP - if your goal is to get stronger then throw in one session of extra lifting a week for 20-30 minutes and otherwise keep doing what you're doing. If your goal is to simply maintain muscle mass and strength then 2 sessions per week should be sufficient. I subscribe to the the best exercise is the one you will do philosophy, at least in the beginning. Keep at it.0 -
I may not be able to train to be taller or shorter. But I can train for more power and better physique.JZ_Evolution_Mark2 wrote: »Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass...
Is there any real proof of this? I hear everywhere that "cardio is catabolic" - but as long as a person isn't literally in starvation mode, I don't see why long-distance runners and intensive cardio-only folks don't metabolize carbs then fat like everyone else.
Humans are designed to be long-distance runners and always on their feet. If it was easy for lots of constant movement to waste away our muscles, I can't see how we would have survived as a species.
Long-distance runners? Maybe long-distance walkers is a better phrase. We are probably better designed to sprint to a big stick or rock to throw. Always on their feet? Yes. Smarter at figuring out how to hide from predators.
I prefer a sprinter to a marathoner any day. Sprinters seem to be lean and hold onto lots of muscle very well. Marathoners seem to be very lean.
Marathoners are lean because being lean is one of the most crucial factors in performing your best at the marathon. Sprinting performance is enhanced by greater muscle power. At the elite level, athletes are genetically self-selected--they are born with different body types. It's like me saying I'd prefer to train at being a basketball player than a jockey because basketball players always seem to be tall and jockeys seem to be short.
I may not be able to compete at the elite level because of genetics. That is all true.
Sprinting is one way to achieve more power. Sprinters are muscular. And I like the sprinter's physique.
You have to find what works for your body. I find a good mix of plyometrics, weights and cardio is helping me achieve my goals. And hitting my macros is feeding my output.
0 -
I may not be able to train to be taller or shorter. But I can train for more power and better physique.JZ_Evolution_Mark2 wrote: »Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass...
Is there any real proof of this? I hear everywhere that "cardio is catabolic" - but as long as a person isn't literally in starvation mode, I don't see why long-distance runners and intensive cardio-only folks don't metabolize carbs then fat like everyone else.
Humans are designed to be long-distance runners and always on their feet. If it was easy for lots of constant movement to waste away our muscles, I can't see how we would have survived as a species.
Long-distance runners? Maybe long-distance walkers is a better phrase. We are probably better designed to sprint to a big stick or rock to throw. Always on their feet? Yes. Smarter at figuring out how to hide from predators.
I prefer a sprinter to a marathoner any day. Sprinters seem to be lean and hold onto lots of muscle very well. Marathoners seem to be very lean.
Marathoners are lean because being lean is one of the most crucial factors in performing your best at the marathon. Sprinting performance is enhanced by greater muscle power. At the elite level, athletes are genetically self-selected--they are born with different body types. It's like me saying I'd prefer to train at being a basketball player than a jockey because basketball players always seem to be tall and jockeys seem to be short.
I may not be able to compete at the elite level because of genetics. That is all true.
Sprinting is one way to achieve more power. Sprinters are muscular. And I like the sprinter's physique.
You have to find what works for your body. I find a good mix of plyometrics, weights and cardio is helping me achieve my goals. And hitting my macros is feeding my output.
Wanting to train for a certain physique is one thing, but sweeping generalizations that marathoners don't have a lot of muscle because endurance training is catabolic is another. They are very lean because many of them prefer to be borderline underweight for faster time. Extra weight, including muscle weight, hinders that. That's why you will see many long distance specialized athletes who prefer to not build their muscles. Some cross athletes or those who do both long distance running and weight training have both the extra muscle and the endurance. It hasn't been catabolic in their case because of the way they train.
Case in point:
0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
I may not be able to train to be taller or shorter. But I can train for more power and better physique.JZ_Evolution_Mark2 wrote: »Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass...
Is there any real proof of this? I hear everywhere that "cardio is catabolic" - but as long as a person isn't literally in starvation mode, I don't see why long-distance runners and intensive cardio-only folks don't metabolize carbs then fat like everyone else.
Humans are designed to be long-distance runners and always on their feet. If it was easy for lots of constant movement to waste away our muscles, I can't see how we would have survived as a species.
Long-distance runners? Maybe long-distance walkers is a better phrase. We are probably better designed to sprint to a big stick or rock to throw. Always on their feet? Yes. Smarter at figuring out how to hide from predators.
I prefer a sprinter to a marathoner any day. Sprinters seem to be lean and hold onto lots of muscle very well. Marathoners seem to be very lean.
Marathoners are lean because being lean is one of the most crucial factors in performing your best at the marathon. Sprinting performance is enhanced by greater muscle power. At the elite level, athletes are genetically self-selected--they are born with different body types. It's like me saying I'd prefer to train at being a basketball player than a jockey because basketball players always seem to be tall and jockeys seem to be short.
I may not be able to compete at the elite level because of genetics. That is all true.
Sprinting is one way to achieve more power. Sprinters are muscular. And I like the sprinter's physique.
You have to find what works for your body. I find a good mix of plyometrics, weights and cardio is helping me achieve my goals. And hitting my macros is feeding my output.
Wanting to train for a certain physique is one thing, but sweeping generalizations that marathoners don't have a lot of muscle because endurance training is catabolic is another. They are very lean because many of them prefer to be borderline underweight for faster time. Extra weight, including muscle weight, hinders that. That's why you will see many long distance specialized athletes who prefer to not build their muscles. Some cross athletes who do both long distance running and weight training have both the extra muscle and the endurance. It hasn't been catabolic in their case because of the way they train.
Case in point:
Who is sweeping? One way to lose mass is to endurance train. Constantly. To a deficit. And, yes, I am aware that heavier loads hinder long distance performance.
The comparison was to sprinters and marathon runners specifically. Plyometrics vs. endurance-type running. And the statement was specifically my aesthetic preference. To each their own.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »
I may not be able to train to be taller or shorter. But I can train for more power and better physique.JZ_Evolution_Mark2 wrote: »Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass...
Is there any real proof of this? I hear everywhere that "cardio is catabolic" - but as long as a person isn't literally in starvation mode, I don't see why long-distance runners and intensive cardio-only folks don't metabolize carbs then fat like everyone else.
Humans are designed to be long-distance runners and always on their feet. If it was easy for lots of constant movement to waste away our muscles, I can't see how we would have survived as a species.
Long-distance runners? Maybe long-distance walkers is a better phrase. We are probably better designed to sprint to a big stick or rock to throw. Always on their feet? Yes. Smarter at figuring out how to hide from predators.
I prefer a sprinter to a marathoner any day. Sprinters seem to be lean and hold onto lots of muscle very well. Marathoners seem to be very lean.
Marathoners are lean because being lean is one of the most crucial factors in performing your best at the marathon. Sprinting performance is enhanced by greater muscle power. At the elite level, athletes are genetically self-selected--they are born with different body types. It's like me saying I'd prefer to train at being a basketball player than a jockey because basketball players always seem to be tall and jockeys seem to be short.
I may not be able to compete at the elite level because of genetics. That is all true.
Sprinting is one way to achieve more power. Sprinters are muscular. And I like the sprinter's physique.
You have to find what works for your body. I find a good mix of plyometrics, weights and cardio is helping me achieve my goals. And hitting my macros is feeding my output.
Wanting to train for a certain physique is one thing, but sweeping generalizations that marathoners don't have a lot of muscle because endurance training is catabolic is another. They are very lean because many of them prefer to be borderline underweight for faster time. Extra weight, including muscle weight, hinders that. That's why you will see many long distance specialized athletes who prefer to not build their muscles. Some cross athletes who do both long distance running and weight training have both the extra muscle and the endurance. It hasn't been catabolic in their case because of the way they train.
Case in point:
Who is sweeping? One way to lose mass is to endurance train. Constantly. To a deficit. And, yes, I am aware that heavier loads hinder long distance performance.
The comparison was to sprinters and marathon runners specifically. Plyometrics vs. endurance-type running. And the statement was specifically my aesthetic preference. To each their own.
I must have misunderstood you then. Probably because it was in a reply to "Lots of cardio will eat away muscle mass" as a sweeping generalization. No it will not if you don't let it, like is shown in the long distance runners above (with runs that include 50-milers and 100-milers). Even someone who does nothing but strength train will look lean and less muscular if they are borderline underweight. One way to lose mass is to be underweight, regardless if you do endurance, strength, or nothing at all.0 -
I think it just depends on what you want to get out of your weight loss as well as your fitness goals. I think you can say that in general, weight lifting while losing weight tends to lead to a better body composition when you reach your goal.
I alternate lifting days with cardio days for that very reason. However, I now have to pay more attention to the amount of protein that I eat, and I tend to be much more hungry than when I was just doing cardio. (In fact, cardio generally suppresses my appetite.) Those may not be worthwhile trades for people who are trying to lose weight and don't have a lot of energy to put into meal planning and battling late-night cravings. I'm not trying to scare you away from lifting - it gets easier with time, and I love making progress towards my fitness, so I find it completely worthwhile. I would definitely try incorporating more lifting (using a structured program) and see how you feel. If you don't like it, there's no shame in sticking with your cardio routine!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions