Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

What are your unpopular opinions about health / fitness?

1161162164166167239

Replies

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,217 Member
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Speziface wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    Cardio is a waste of time (unless you actually enjoy it).

    Or enjoy the stronger heart and more plentiful food.

    I'll stick with my strong heart and plentiful food from weightlifting and HIIT. More bang for the buck.

    Not in my experience. Can't sustain HIIT long enough to burn any meaningful amount of calories, and whatever I burn I eat back twofold or more because it increases my hunger substantially. Now don't get me wrong, no one has to do cardio (or weight lifting, or HIIT for that matter), but you can't call any form of exercise a waste of time because there are clear benefits to being active, health and otherwise.

    Yes, sitting on your *kitten* is a much greater waste of time.
    Since I don't like exercising in general, I'm going to spend the least amount of time possible to get the greatest benefit which means high intensity. I just want to get it over with so I can get back to thing I enjoy.

    And that's totally alright! It's just, this sounds more like preference than opinion.

    Nah, I still am not a fan of cardio(but it's better than nothing). I believe there are much greater benefits from high intensity exercise.
    How do you know you don't burn as much calories doing HIIT? I believe that much shorter, high intensity exercise may not burn as much at the time, but the residual calorie burn from greater muscle stimulation lasts much longer resulting in more CO.

    EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consunption) for HIIT is 14%, for Low Impact Steady State it's 7%. That's the % of residual burn of calories burned during. FWIW. HIIT can't be done for very long so the overall burn is not that big. If you could do 30 minutes of HIIT, your Butner with EPOCH would be about the same as 60 minutes of LISS but who can do 30 minutes of HIIT??

    This would depend on the intensity of the HIIT. And as @GottaBurnEmAll stated not all "HIIT" is equal. To me, HIIT means the intervals are 100% all out.

    That is the HIIT I'm talking about and in exercise physiology circle based on studies, that is the commonly accepted number. This was discussed in detail on the Lyle McDonald article sjomial linked to. It is also the number Dr. Brad Shoenfeld uses. It pretty objective and not really the subject of much speculation as to variance.

    Less that 100% all out would not technically be HIIT but would be considered interval training. The EPOC would fall somewhere between LISS and HIIT depending on intensity. All HIIT is not equal because the Marketing woo machines call everything HIIT today. Things like 1 hours HIIT classes. If you can do it for 1 hour, it ain't HIIT!!

    PS: The link sjomial gave is the 2nd in a series of in depth article about the subject and references a lot of the current research. If that is the link you are kind of dismissive of in one of your posts above, I suggest you didn't read it thoroughly. There are links to both the initial article in the series and the following ones at the bottom of the one posted.

    I did read it, but I'll look at the references too. My main leaning to HIIT over cardio is that it is closer to weightlifting in it's muscle building potential... if I am not mistaken. However, I pretty much just lift and try to stay away from all that gross running stuff...

    The studies that showed muscle building improvements were done with untrained subjects. In someone like you are me doing weight training that has not been demonstrated. In a trained individual, the benefit is primarily increase in VO2 max. HIIT in trained subjects provides cardio benefit.

    If you read the series of articles, he covers all of this.

    Ah..
    So, I understand how HIIT would not improve muscle building in someone who lifts. But wouldn't it build muscle in someone who typically only does cardio (steady state)?

    Possibly, I don't know. It wasn't one of the scenarios addressed.

    It should. Think of HIIT (or any cardio workout) as a VERY long weightlifting set using VERY light weights. For example, if you're riding a bicycle for an hour and keep an average cadence of 80 rpm on the pedals you've just done 4,800 repetitions. That'll build muscle.

    I think anything that creates overload will cause some muscle growth if nutritional conditions are right. But, as I said, in the sources I read, it was not addressed. Sadly, many of the studies on HIIT seem to have been done on college campuses utilizing untrained students and the subjects. In Lyle McDonalds articles, he talks about this and how it confounds much of the results.

    Obviously, if someone is working, say legs, a couple of times in the gym per week, running or bike riding is not likely to cause lots of muscle development. I can't say it wouldn't cause any though as the act of running or riding is slightly different than weight lifting. So, I'm sure there would be some muscular adaptation that would take place. Whether that would result in hypertrophy though may be questionable. More likely neuromuscular recruitment adaptations.

    I'm not going to argue hard for hypertrophy, because I really don't know, but as an n=1, I did lose a couple of clothing sizes over a period of a few years at roughly the same body weight from something most people consider cardio (rowing, mostly boats, some machines), with negligible ancillary strength training. I don't know that NM adaptations can account for size reduction, unless "toning" really is a thing after all (heh).

    This really represents a lot of reps (4000-5000 weekly, often, maybe more), with some small workload progressivity via technical improvements along the way.

    Clearly, a well designed progressive weight training program would produce similar results much faster, with less workout time investment . . . but, for me, less fun. I'm not well-muscled like the lifting women around here, especially not in a well-rounded, balanced way . . . but neither am I stick-like. IMO only, of course. ;)

    A couple of questions for you Ann; were you in a trained and fit state when you started? Could the reduction in clothing sizes have been from BF loss? Muscle gain (hypertrophy) would cause size increases in a lean individual. But in an individual with high to average body fat, not so much and fat loss with weight staying the same would result in size reduction. Eg. the oft referred to recomp.

    I've seen your profile pic. Good muscle development!

    Definitely in an untrained state to start - depleted even (chemotherapy, other life challenges) . Certainly there was fat loss - a fair bit. But if weight stays the same, something of equivalent weight was gained. Not just water, I think. ;) That'd be a lot of water, over quite a time scale. Fat loss alone, with no compensating gain elsewhere, would mean lower body weight.

    Recomp is fat loss with muscle gain, resulting in smaller body size at the same weight, because muscle is more compact than fat pound for pound . . . as I understand it.

    And thank you.

    Essentially, yes. And that is what I believe happened to you. Especially given that you started in an untrained state.

    In the HIIT studies, that is what happened with untrained subjects. The gained muscle mass. So, the wrong conclusion was jumped to that HIIT universally causes muscle mass growth. McDonald's contention is that in untrained individuals, yes. In trained individuals, "no _____ way" is the how he expressed it.

    Just as a minor point of clarification: Rowing is not mostly HIIT. In fact it's rarely HIIT - HIIT workouts are typically used as you'd expect: As a fraction of the workouts leading to a key competition, presumably to move VO2 max. Most of rowing (especially at my level) is LISS or regular intervals.

    But yes, what you say is what I think happened: Newbie gains and recomp . . . from "cardio", mostly LISS and regular intervals. It's a strength endurance sport.

    Another n=1 anecdote: Elite rowers weight train extensively, of course, and do
    absurd volumes of cardiovascular work, mostly rowing (boat, machine) but also some cardio cross-training such as running or biking. On water, there are two types of rowing: Sculling, two oars per person, so laterally symmetric; and sweep, one oar per person so laterally asymmetric. Many sweep rowers specialize in a particular side, starboard or port. A former member of my rowing club had been a competitive collegiate, then US national team, rower. After her rowing career, one of her (non-sports specialist) doctors asked her if she knew that her muscular development was asymmetric - more muscle development on the side she most rowed with. (Of course she did.) Trained individual, effect of very high volume "cardio".

    Yup, rowing is not HIIT pretty much any exercise from an untrained state is going to cause muscle development and cause certain hormonal fat burning adaptations. HIIT causes that to happen faster initially but LISS will cause it to happen also over a longer time frame.

    I think rowing has a much more intense resistance component to it than biking or running. I'm not a spectacular runner but there are times I can get in the right rhythm with my stride and breathing that it feels fairly effortless. It's just a matter of how long my legs can go until they are past their point of conditioning and the energy runs out. Maybe once you get the muscles condition rowing is like that also? But I'm guessing getting in good rowing shape takes some work.

    A peculiar thing about rowing is that you can increase your effort for quite a long time, essentially increasing the workload per stroke (you also increase your strokes per minute if your technique and conditioning allow). Doing so makes you go faster. You can keep getting faster (diminishing returns of course) until you age out or injure out, maybe. Strength improvements facilitate this, of course, but technique improvements also do so in ways that might not be superficially obvious. If it ever gets to feel effortless, other than by applying less effort ;), I haven't come close to finding that point.

    When you see very skilled rowers race, it can look almost effortless. It isn't. Races are essentially two anaerobic sprints with varying amounts of AT in between. Watch what elite crews do after the finish line; collapse is not unusual.
    So, it would not surprise me that there would be muscular development at the very least and building of muscle mass in an untrained subject.

    On the subject of cross training, most elite athletes have resistance training as part of their regimen. There is just no downside to it. My lifting helps my running or biking immensely and I am not even close to elite level. They would need to just to stay competitive. Do elite rowers use HIIT either before big meets or going into the season to get V02 max improvements for the most serious competitions?

    I don't know details of training planning at the national team level. Based on my experience with friends and coaches of mine who coach at the collegiate level, as well having pursued coaching certification myself via education & training led by such folks, collegiate coaches at major programs use periodized training plans that include a component of high intensity work as part of prep for the most important competition(s). The training plans include quite a few variations in intensity and duration of workouts to train various capabilities, with the emphasis shifting at different times during the season in a series of macrocycles and microcycles. There's a parallel strength track, technique work (often as a component of LISS or interval workouts), and attention to nutrition.
  • Alatariel75
    Alatariel75 Posts: 18,227 Member
    edited September 2017
    I have decided cake culture sucks.

    I don't have an office job, but if I did, cake culture would just be a blur of cakes, cookies, bagels and whatnot that people would be mocking ME ME ME ME with that I couldn't eat because gluten.

    Therefor, cake culture should be banished. Because I can't get in on it.

    We have to think of everyone's feelings, right? That's how this works, isn't it? Am I doing this right?
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    Unfortunately, this is exactly how stuff like this gets banned. One person gets their feelings hurt, or feels offended when people are generally just trying to be nice and cries about it until nobody else can partake.

    Its cake. For people's birthdays. Good God, I don't even know how this topic has sustained debate. If you don't want cake, don't eat cake. If you are unable to say no, or feel the need to pretend to eat it then you have much larger issues than the person bringing in the cake.

    Really? Cuz in our department people would be scouring the interwebz for recipes that you could enjoy. Wouldn't require any sort of ban.

    A few months ago I brought a berry mix (strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries) to a coworker who had previously said "no thanks" to an offer of a candy bar. Pointed out that berries are sweet but particularly low-sugar as far as fruits go, and high in nutrients and fiber. She burst out laughing at first and then started crying and gave me a hug.

    Somebody brings in a fruit & veggie tray? I LUVZ YOUUU!

    Edit: because mobile suuuuuux. *grumble*

    Haahaa yup, I have an amazing recipe for gluten free choco orange cake...
  • Sp1tfire
    Sp1tfire Posts: 1,120 Member
    I have decided cake culture sucks.

    I don't have an office job, but if I did, cake culture would just be a blur of cakes, cookies, bagels and whatnot that people would be mocking ME ME ME ME with that I couldn't eat because gluten.

    Therefor, cake culture should be banished. Because I can't get in on it.

    We have to think of everyone's feelings, right? That's how this works, isn't it? Am I doing this right?
    wmd1979 wrote: »
    Unfortunately, this is exactly how stuff like this gets banned. One person gets their feelings hurt, or feels offended when people are generally just trying to be nice and cries about it until nobody else can partake.

    Its cake. For people's birthdays. Good God, I don't even know how this topic has sustained debate. If you don't want cake, don't eat cake. If you are unable to say no, or feel the need to pretend to eat it then you have much larger issues than the person bringing in the cake.

    Really? Cuz in our department people would be scouring the interwebz for recipes that you could enjoy. Wouldn't require any sort of ban.

    A few months ago I brought a berry mix (strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, blackberries) to a coworker who had previously said "no thanks" to an offer of a candy bar. Pointed out that berries are sweet but particularly low-sugar as far as fruits go, and high in nutrients and fiber. She burst out laughing at first and then started crying and gave me a hug.

    Somebody brings in a fruit & veggie tray? I LUVZ YOUUU!

    Edit: because mobile suuuuuux. *grumble*

    You're an angel!! :smile: Thats so nice of you to take notice.
  • clicketykeys
    clicketykeys Posts: 6,577 Member
    It is absolutely about being a big girl/boy and not caving to pressure. I figure if I say "No, thanks," to offers of food - that's all I need to do. If someone pushes, I repeat. Third time they get, "Seriously? Did you not hear me say no the first two times?"

    I think we worry way too much about what other people think of us. Who cares if Mary from accounting doesn't like that I don't eat her pineapple upside down cake? If she doesn't like it, that's her problem to figure out. Can't change Mary. Can only control me.

    So today was a REALLY hard day for me. As it happened there was pizza and fun size candy bars. I had some of each even though I had packed lunch. If I hadn't had a kitteny day id have passed. But if it hadn't been available id have survived without it.

    PS: @vegaslounge I'm in NWGA. If you're ever gonna be in the area hmu and I'll take you to my fave Indian place.

    200.gif


    um. Did you mean to quote me?

    I did, actually! (Though, mmm, Nathan Fillion. DREAMY. *chinhands*) Yes, I could have said "no thanks" to the pizza or candy bars that were on offer today. Normally it wouldn't have been a problem. But I had the most awful day in months, at least, possibly in a year, and... I wouldn't have spent money on treats. Because I'm an incredible skinflint. But since they were free? HELL. FRIKKIN. YES.

    My point was that I don't think - for me, at least - it's about the pressure. It's about the opportunity. Motive and opportunity, you know? The motive is always there, unfortunately ;D

    BTW, here's my other Fave Detective, George Crabtree:

    tumblr_nnvq19ePX81ureiuzo1_500.gif
  • earlnabby
    earlnabby Posts: 8,171 Member
    It is absolutely about being a big girl/boy and not caving to pressure. I figure if I say "No, thanks," to offers of food - that's all I need to do. If someone pushes, I repeat. Third time they get, "Seriously? Did you not hear me say no the first two times?"

    I think we worry way too much about what other people think of us. Who cares if Mary from accounting doesn't like that I don't eat her pineapple upside down cake? If she doesn't like it, that's her problem to figure out. Can't change Mary. Can only control me.

    So today was a REALLY hard day for me. As it happened there was pizza and fun size candy bars. I had some of each even though I had packed lunch. If I hadn't had a kitteny day id have passed. But if it hadn't been available id have survived without it.

    PS: @vegaslounge I'm in NWGA. If you're ever gonna be in the area hmu and I'll take you to my fave Indian place.

    200.gif


    um. Did you mean to quote me?

    I did, actually! (Though, mmm, Nathan Fillion. DREAMY. *chinhands*) Yes, I could have said "no thanks" to the pizza or candy bars that were on offer today. Normally it wouldn't have been a problem. But I had the most awful day in months, at least, possibly in a year, and... I wouldn't have spent money on treats. Because I'm an incredible skinflint. But since they were free? HELL. FRIKKIN. YES.

    My point was that I don't think - for me, at least - it's about the pressure. It's about the opportunity. Motive and opportunity, you know? The motive is always there, unfortunately ;D

    BTW, here's my other Fave Detective, George Crabtree:

    tumblr_nnvq19ePX81ureiuzo1_500.gif

    I LOVE George although Murdoch is sooooooo easy on the eyes.
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    jdlobb wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    VioletRojo wrote: »
    Bry_Lander wrote: »
    Denying the existence of a Cake Culture seems a little silly when the mere mention of "cake" inspires multiple pages of passionate gushing over cake and other desserts...

    I think what is being denied is that Cake Culture is a bad thing.

    Or that "Cake Culture" (seriously?... ok...) is responsible for obesity.

    I don't think that It is responsible for obesity - but for a lot of people, it enables and perpetuates obesity.

    I respectfully disagree. It doesn't "do" anything. It's just an inanimate food object. Peoples choices enable and perpetuate obesity. If you are obese, you know you should not be overindulging in cake.

    Once someone is obese, they probably have insulin sensitivity issues that help keep them obese. But, cake doesn't enable and perpetuate anything. It's just a kind of food. We have all kinds of foods around us every day everywhere we go. It's all about people making choices.

    it's pretty nuts to think that social pressures don't affect behavior of the population. A single individual has responsibility for their actions, but societal pressures absolutely influence outcomes in aggregate.

    A culture where people show affection or appreciation by offering unhealthy food, and taking offense if that food is rejected, will without question cause more people to be obese, when considered across a population of 300 million people.

    You are making the classic error of mistaking individual behavior for group behavior. Even if 90% of people can turn down the cake, the fact that the cake is presented is causing the other 10% to be more obese, which raises the incidence of obesity in the population. That's just how populations work.

    Again, cake isn't unhealthy. Or any other treats. They are calorie dense. Context.

    Lolz! No way man!! I blame cake!!
  • mmapags
    mmapags Posts: 8,934 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    Speziface wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    mmapags wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    bweath2 wrote: »
    Cardio is a waste of time (unless you actually enjoy it).

    Or enjoy the stronger heart and more plentiful food.

    I'll stick with my strong heart and plentiful food from weightlifting and HIIT. More bang for the buck.

    Not in my experience. Can't sustain HIIT long enough to burn any meaningful amount of calories, and whatever I burn I eat back twofold or more because it increases my hunger substantially. Now don't get me wrong, no one has to do cardio (or weight lifting, or HIIT for that matter), but you can't call any form of exercise a waste of time because there are clear benefits to being active, health and otherwise.

    Yes, sitting on your *kitten* is a much greater waste of time.
    Since I don't like exercising in general, I'm going to spend the least amount of time possible to get the greatest benefit which means high intensity. I just want to get it over with so I can get back to thing I enjoy.

    And that's totally alright! It's just, this sounds more like preference than opinion.

    Nah, I still am not a fan of cardio(but it's better than nothing). I believe there are much greater benefits from high intensity exercise.
    How do you know you don't burn as much calories doing HIIT? I believe that much shorter, high intensity exercise may not burn as much at the time, but the residual calorie burn from greater muscle stimulation lasts much longer resulting in more CO.

    EPOC (Excess Post Exercise Oxygen Consunption) for HIIT is 14%, for Low Impact Steady State it's 7%. That's the % of residual burn of calories burned during. FWIW. HIIT can't be done for very long so the overall burn is not that big. If you could do 30 minutes of HIIT, your Butner with EPOCH would be about the same as 60 minutes of LISS but who can do 30 minutes of HIIT??

    This would depend on the intensity of the HIIT. And as @GottaBurnEmAll stated not all "HIIT" is equal. To me, HIIT means the intervals are 100% all out.

    That is the HIIT I'm talking about and in exercise physiology circle based on studies, that is the commonly accepted number. This was discussed in detail on the Lyle McDonald article sjomial linked to. It is also the number Dr. Brad Shoenfeld uses. It pretty objective and not really the subject of much speculation as to variance.

    Less that 100% all out would not technically be HIIT but would be considered interval training. The EPOC would fall somewhere between LISS and HIIT depending on intensity. All HIIT is not equal because the Marketing woo machines call everything HIIT today. Things like 1 hours HIIT classes. If you can do it for 1 hour, it ain't HIIT!!

    PS: The link sjomial gave is the 2nd in a series of in depth article about the subject and references a lot of the current research. If that is the link you are kind of dismissive of in one of your posts above, I suggest you didn't read it thoroughly. There are links to both the initial article in the series and the following ones at the bottom of the one posted.

    I did read it, but I'll look at the references too. My main leaning to HIIT over cardio is that it is closer to weightlifting in it's muscle building potential... if I am not mistaken. However, I pretty much just lift and try to stay away from all that gross running stuff...

    The studies that showed muscle building improvements were done with untrained subjects. In someone like you are me doing weight training that has not been demonstrated. In a trained individual, the benefit is primarily increase in VO2 max. HIIT in trained subjects provides cardio benefit.

    If you read the series of articles, he covers all of this.

    Ah..
    So, I understand how HIIT would not improve muscle building in someone who lifts. But wouldn't it build muscle in someone who typically only does cardio (steady state)?

    Possibly, I don't know. It wasn't one of the scenarios addressed.

    It should. Think of HIIT (or any cardio workout) as a VERY long weightlifting set using VERY light weights. For example, if you're riding a bicycle for an hour and keep an average cadence of 80 rpm on the pedals you've just done 4,800 repetitions. That'll build muscle.

    I think anything that creates overload will cause some muscle growth if nutritional conditions are right. But, as I said, in the sources I read, it was not addressed. Sadly, many of the studies on HIIT seem to have been done on college campuses utilizing untrained students and the subjects. In Lyle McDonalds articles, he talks about this and how it confounds much of the results.

    Obviously, if someone is working, say legs, a couple of times in the gym per week, running or bike riding is not likely to cause lots of muscle development. I can't say it wouldn't cause any though as the act of running or riding is slightly different than weight lifting. So, I'm sure there would be some muscular adaptation that would take place. Whether that would result in hypertrophy though may be questionable. More likely neuromuscular recruitment adaptations.

    I'm not going to argue hard for hypertrophy, because I really don't know, but as an n=1, I did lose a couple of clothing sizes over a period of a few years at roughly the same body weight from something most people consider cardio (rowing, mostly boats, some machines), with negligible ancillary strength training. I don't know that NM adaptations can account for size reduction, unless "toning" really is a thing after all (heh).

    This really represents a lot of reps (4000-5000 weekly, often, maybe more), with some small workload progressivity via technical improvements along the way.

    Clearly, a well designed progressive weight training program would produce similar results much faster, with less workout time investment . . . but, for me, less fun. I'm not well-muscled like the lifting women around here, especially not in a well-rounded, balanced way . . . but neither am I stick-like. IMO only, of course. ;)

    A couple of questions for you Ann; were you in a trained and fit state when you started? Could the reduction in clothing sizes have been from BF loss? Muscle gain (hypertrophy) would cause size increases in a lean individual. But in an individual with high to average body fat, not so much and fat loss with weight staying the same would result in size reduction. Eg. the oft referred to recomp.

    I've seen your profile pic. Good muscle development!

    Definitely in an untrained state to start - depleted even (chemotherapy, other life challenges) . Certainly there was fat loss - a fair bit. But if weight stays the same, something of equivalent weight was gained. Not just water, I think. ;) That'd be a lot of water, over quite a time scale. Fat loss alone, with no compensating gain elsewhere, would mean lower body weight.

    Recomp is fat loss with muscle gain, resulting in smaller body size at the same weight, because muscle is more compact than fat pound for pound . . . as I understand it.

    And thank you.

    Essentially, yes. And that is what I believe happened to you. Especially given that you started in an untrained state.

    In the HIIT studies, that is what happened with untrained subjects. The gained muscle mass. So, the wrong conclusion was jumped to that HIIT universally causes muscle mass growth. McDonald's contention is that in untrained individuals, yes. In trained individuals, "no _____ way" is the how he expressed it.

    Just as a minor point of clarification: Rowing is not mostly HIIT. In fact it's rarely HIIT - HIIT workouts are typically used as you'd expect: As a fraction of the workouts leading to a key competition, presumably to move VO2 max. Most of rowing (especially at my level) is LISS or regular intervals.

    But yes, what you say is what I think happened: Newbie gains and recomp . . . from "cardio", mostly LISS and regular intervals. It's a strength endurance sport.

    Another n=1 anecdote: Elite rowers weight train extensively, of course, and do
    absurd volumes of cardiovascular work, mostly rowing (boat, machine) but also some cardio cross-training such as running or biking. On water, there are two types of rowing: Sculling, two oars per person, so laterally symmetric; and sweep, one oar per person so laterally asymmetric. Many sweep rowers specialize in a particular side, starboard or port. A former member of my rowing club had been a competitive collegiate, then US national team, rower. After her rowing career, one of her (non-sports specialist) doctors asked her if she knew that her muscular development was asymmetric - more muscle development on the side she most rowed with. (Of course she did.) Trained individual, effect of very high volume "cardio".

    Yup, rowing is not HIIT pretty much any exercise from an untrained state is going to cause muscle development and cause certain hormonal fat burning adaptations. HIIT causes that to happen faster initially but LISS will cause it to happen also over a longer time frame.

    I think rowing has a much more intense resistance component to it than biking or running. I'm not a spectacular runner but there are times I can get in the right rhythm with my stride and breathing that it feels fairly effortless. It's just a matter of how long my legs can go until they are past their point of conditioning and the energy runs out. Maybe once you get the muscles condition rowing is like that also? But I'm guessing getting in good rowing shape takes some work.

    A peculiar thing about rowing is that you can increase your effort for quite a long time, essentially increasing the workload per stroke (you also increase your strokes per minute if your technique and conditioning allow). Doing so makes you go faster. You can keep getting faster (diminishing returns of course) until you age out or injure out, maybe. Strength improvements facilitate this, of course, but technique improvements also do so in ways that might not be superficially obvious. If it ever gets to feel effortless, other than by applying less effort ;), I haven't come close to finding that point.

    When you see very skilled rowers race, it can look almost effortless. It isn't. Races are essentially two anaerobic sprints with varying amounts of AT in between. Watch what elite crews do after the finish line; collapse is not unusual.
    So, it would not surprise me that there would be muscular development at the very least and building of muscle mass in an untrained subject.

    On the subject of cross training, most elite athletes have resistance training as part of their regimen. There is just no downside to it. My lifting helps my running or biking immensely and I am not even close to elite level. They would need to just to stay competitive. Do elite rowers use HIIT either before big meets or going into the season to get V02 max improvements for the most serious competitions?

    I don't know details of training planning at the national team level. Based on my experience with friends and coaches of mine who coach at the collegiate level, as well having pursued coaching certification myself via education & training led by such folks, collegiate coaches at major programs use periodized training plans that include a component of high intensity work as part of prep for the most important competition(s). The training plans include quite a few variations in intensity and duration of workouts to train various capabilities, with the emphasis shifting at different times during the season in a series of macrocycles and microcycles. There's a parallel strength track, technique work (often as a component of LISS or interval workouts), and attention to nutrition.

    Thanks Ann. Fascinating stuff! BTW, Philly is a great rowing city. During prime season there is always lots of activity down on Boathouse Row.
This discussion has been closed.