A Case Against Cardio

ukhennin

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio/

I found this article to be pretty interesting and it has me reconsidering how much cardio I include in my weekly routine. Since cardio seems rampant around here and weight training is usually a tough pill for people to swallow, I'm curious to see what thoughts on this article will be.

Drunkadelic

Mark Sission is the man!

mad4beinhere

With out reading the article, strength training is actually better for you with lower intensity cardio with bursts.......

Acg67

i'm not a huge fan of cardio, i maybe get in an hr or so a week, more LISS then intervals.

And if you're running a big deficit, a ton of cardio could do more harm then good

carolinedb

Personally, I believe both cardio and strength training have a place in my workout regime. Along with yoga. What I have trouble swallowing is the 5,000,000 conflicting opinions on the "best" exercise for weight loss. The fact of the matter is, whatever exercise you're going to do and enjoy is the best for you, whether that's long endurance cardio, intense HIIT, Pilates, yoga, strength training, Zumba, spinning, or any combination of these and the many types of exercise you can do.

TurnOnToLife

Depends on the goal. And don't forget to factor in enjoyment. The best exercise is the type you enjoy. I've been focusing on short (20-30 minute) workouts based on high intensity strength training, and I'm in the best shape I've been in in 10 years. And totally digging it!

trac3

Personally, I believe both cardio and strength training have a place in my workout regime. Along with yoga. What I have trouble swallowing is the 5,000,000 conflicting opinions on the "best" exercise for weight loss. The fact of the matter is, whatever exercise you're going to do and enjoy is the best for you, whether that's long endurance cardio, intense HIIT, Pilates, yoga, strength training, Zumba, spinning, or any combination of these and the many types of exercise you can do.

Ditto!

chrisdavey

mix it up. Doesn't have to be one or the other.

ukhennin

I didn't intend for the article to mean that all cardio is bad. I was just trying to point out that it's probably not as great as the general public thinks. I sort of get the feeling that not many people read the article though. That's okay. It's pretty long and indepth. I just thought it would be nice to get some opinions on the article, not just cardio in general.

daves160

It makes a lot of sense. Everyday high intensity cardio can really wear you out.

I have found that I do much better cycling when I ride 2-3 times a week. When riding, I always do intermittent sprints(I have to because I live in the hills), but my heart rate is always elevated.
Other days, I get a quick warm up and then it is all Martial arts training. I always make sure I get a day of rest each week as well.

But like others said, it is the exercise we enjoy that is going to give us the most. Just because we will stick with it.

I suppose one of the points the author was getting at is not to get obsessed with it. We all need balance in our lives, even in exercising.

Azdak

To me this article seemed more ideologically driven than anything else-- a loose collection of myopia, strawman arguments, false assumptions, and "explanations" with little or no valid scientific research presented to support them.

Other than that it was just fine.

This is what happens when people use themselves as the "baseline" against which all facts must be judged.

HE states the "popular wisdom" is:

we would all be better off doing 45 minutes to an hour a day of intense aerobic activity

And that the "popular wisdom":

has created a generation of overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics.

First of all, there is NO professional organization, national health organization, or even any health "expert" who recommends 45-60 min of "intense aerobic activity" per day. HE followed such a program, but that only "proves" he was obsessive, competitive, and a dumbass. This is a classic straw man argument.

Secondly, there is no study that I am aware of that indicates that the majority of people are overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics. Only about 25% of all Americans follow a regular exercise program AT ALL, and the number who do 45-60 min of intense aerobic activity is likely in the singe digits, if not less than a single percentage digit.

The author then cites his own experience as "proof" of his conclusions: 20+ years as a competitive athlete, pushing himself harder and harder, driving himself to score more "Cooper points".

Anyone else seeing the pattern here? "I was compulsive and obsessive and really ignorant--but it's the fault of the 'popular wisdom' that I wasn't successful". Even more ironic is his citing the Cooper point system as "evidence" of misguided cardio guidelines.

Ken Cooper was ALWAYS adamant that a moderate level of aerobic exercise was sufficient for optimal health benefits. He was the original "3 days a week, 20 minutes per day" guy and rarely wavered from that standard, even during the "running boom" when long distance running was being held up as the "gold standard". He never advocated using the Cooper point system as a contest--20 points was all you needed, IIRC.

He next moves on to his next round of self-infatuation--describing the various illnesses and injuries he suffered, and comes to the breathtaking conclusion:

In retrospect, it is clear now that my carbohydrate-fueled high-intensity aerobic lifestyle was promoting a dangerous level of continuous systemic inflammation, was severely suppressing other parts of my immune system and the increased oxidative damage was generally tearing apart my precious muscle and joint tissue.

How is this "clear"? I don't know--no data or evidence is ever given, just the certainty that, when viewed through his current ideological lens, the past can all be seen as fitting some "predestined" pattern.

The rest just devolves into additional blah blah blah doctrine of his new religion--I know he's a big "primal" guy. Quite frankly, at that point it was just a long litany of unsupported editorializing that I did not have the patience to examine in detail.

The thing is, with a broader base of knowledge and a touch of empathy, the topic could have been addressed in a constructive way that might have added to people's knowledge. There are plenty of different ways to exercise and doing a combination of moderate aerobics, high-intensity interval training, and resistance exercise could work just fine for many people.

But this just seemed more like religious proselytizing than anything else.

BettyMargaret

To me this article seemed more ideologically driven than anything else-- a loose collection of myopia, strawman arguments, false assumptions, and "explanations" with little or no valid scientific research presented to support them.

Other than that it was just fine.

This is what happens when people use themselves as the "baseline" against which all facts must be judged.

HE states the "popular wisdom" is:

we would all be better off doing 45 minutes to an hour a day of intense aerobic activity

And that the "popular wisdom":

has created a generation of overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics.

First of all, there is NO professional organization, national health organization, or even any health "expert" who recommends 45-60 min of "intense aerobic activity" per day. HE followed such a program, but that only "proves" he was obsessive, competitive, and a dumbass. This is a classic straw man argument.

Secondly, there is no study that I am aware of that indicates that the majority of people are overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics. Only about 25% of all Americans follow a regular exercise program AT ALL, and the number who do 45-60 min of intense aerobic activity is likely in the singe digits, if not less than a single percentage digit.

The author then cites his own experience as "proof" of his conclusions: 20+ years as a competitive athlete, pushing himself harder and harder, driving himself to score more "Cooper points".

Anyone else seeing the pattern here? "I was compulsive and obsessive and really ignorant--but it's the fault of the 'popular wisdom' that I wasn't successful". Even more ironic is his citing the Cooper point system as "evidence" of misguided cardio guidelines.

Ken Cooper was ALWAYS adamant that a moderate level of aerobic exercise was sufficient for optimal health benefits. He was the original "3 days a week, 20 minutes per day" guy and rarely wavered from that standard, even during the "running boom" when long distance running was being held up as the "gold standard". He never advocated using the Cooper point system as a contest--20 points was all you needed, IIRC.

He next moves on to his next round of self-infatuation--describing the various illnesses and injuries he suffered, and comes to the breathtaking conclusion:

In retrospect, it is clear now that my carbohydrate-fueled high-intensity aerobic lifestyle was promoting a dangerous level of continuous systemic inflammation, was severely suppressing other parts of my immune system and the increased oxidative damage was generally tearing apart my precious muscle and joint tissue.

How is this "clear"? I don't know--no data or evidence is ever given, just the certainty that, when viewed through his current ideological lens, the past can all be seen as fitting some "predestined" pattern.

The rest just devolves into additional blah blah blah doctrine of his new religion--I know he's a big "primal" guy. Quite frankly, at that point it was just a long litany of unsupported editorializing that I did not have the patience to examine in detail.

The thing is, with a broader base of knowledge and a touch of empathy, the topic could have been addressed in a constructive way that might have added to people's knowledge. There are plenty of different ways to exercise and doing a combination of moderate aerobics, high-intensity interval training, and resistance exercise could work just fine for many people.

But this just seemed more like religious proselytizing than anything else.

THAT'S what I was gonna say!!!:flowerforyou:

rileysowner

Cardio has its place, although I think that there are a surprising number of people who I see here quite literally doing not 20-30 or even 50-60 minutes a day, but 120 minutes or more a day every day thinking that will help them lose weight. In some sense they are correct, but at the same time doing cardio for that length of time every day is counter productive. They would be better served by doing less cardio and incorporating other training methodologies into that time they obviously have to exercise, and they would find the results from doing so far better than the 2 hours a day on the elliptical.

Pebble321

I'm always wary of an article that ends not with a list of references, but with an advertisement for the "Master Formula", whatever that may be, I certainly won't be checking it out.

I think the overtraining premise has some merit, I see so many people on this site burning enormous numbers of cals each day with intense workouts, then not being able to eat enough to sustain this level of activity - which just seems unwise and unsustainable.

For the author to generalise his past experiences to all modern people and his current practices to all "primal" people seems self-indulgent and really not very helpful.

Of course, I could have just said "I agree with Azdak".

4theking

Anyone that know me, knows I am not a fan of cardio. I absolutely hate running and getting nowhere like a mindless gerbil.

I guess it just depends on what your goals are. If you want the thin, scrawny look, then run for miles. If you want the muscular sprinters look, then sprint. The idea that cardio is the only way you get ripped and a sixpack is quite ridiculous. I have read that myth many times and it drives me crazy. If anything, too much cardio does just the opposite of what the desired outcome is. If you work your body to death, your fat burning hormones will lower and your metabolism will lower and muscle will be lost.

XFitMojoMom

Although a "Primal BoneHead" myself... I would have to agree with Adzak

There are plenty of different ways to exercise and doing a combination of moderate aerobics, high-intensity interval training, and resistance exercise could work just fine for many people.

There are plenty of articles supporting this, and to cite a few:
http://graemethomasonline.com/why-females-fail-with-steady-state-cardio/
http://graemethomasonline.com/ladies-cardio-sucks-for-weight-loss/

Personally I crossfit, and while I'm plagued with metabolic syndrome and familial hypercholesterolemia, there has been dramatic body composition changes. If you just want to lose weight, Crossfit is not for you. If you want to get stronger and change your body and life, then give it a shot.

meagalayne

Do what you love to do and what makes you happy - Then add in some stuff that makes you miserable once in a while as a reminder that hard work pays off

It's not supposed to be fun ALL the time, right? haha

koosdel

I prefer endurance training, over cardio.

surfinbernard

I had a very similar experience to the author of this article. Last time I was where I am now (loosing the baby-weight) I was doing hour after hour of cardio each week and found my weight loss ground to a screeching halt despite 'on paper' being in a massive weekly calorie deficit so the weight ought to have been dropping off (and I had a BMI of say 22 so had room to spare to lose a fair bit more) and I kept getting injuries, one after another and colds. Plus my fitness, although obviously at an acceptable level, was just not improving any further. So he has a point and a very good one in my opinion.

AlsDonkBoxSquat

To me this article seemed more ideologically driven than anything else-- a loose collection of myopia, strawman arguments, false assumptions, and "explanations" with little or no valid scientific research presented to support them.

Other than that it was just fine.

This is what happens when people use themselves as the "baseline" against which all facts must be judged.

HE states the "popular wisdom" is:

we would all be better off doing 45 minutes to an hour a day of intense aerobic activity

And that the "popular wisdom":

has created a generation of overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics.

First of all, there is NO professional organization, national health organization, or even any health "expert" who recommends 45-60 min of "intense aerobic activity" per day. HE followed such a program, but that only "proves" he was obsessive, competitive, and a dumbass. This is a classic straw man argument.

Secondly, there is no study that I am aware of that indicates that the majority of people are overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics. Only about 25% of all Americans follow a regular exercise program AT ALL, and the number who do 45-60 min of intense aerobic activity is likely in the singe digits, if not less than a single percentage digit.

The author then cites his own experience as "proof" of his conclusions: 20+ years as a competitive athlete, pushing himself harder and harder, driving himself to score more "Cooper points".

Anyone else seeing the pattern here? "I was compulsive and obsessive and really ignorant--but it's the fault of the 'popular wisdom' that I wasn't successful". Even more ironic is his citing the Cooper point system as "evidence" of misguided cardio guidelines.

Ken Cooper was ALWAYS adamant that a moderate level of aerobic exercise was sufficient for optimal health benefits. He was the original "3 days a week, 20 minutes per day" guy and rarely wavered from that standard, even during the "running boom" when long distance running was being held up as the "gold standard". He never advocated using the Cooper point system as a contest--20 points was all you needed, IIRC.

He next moves on to his next round of self-infatuation--describing the various illnesses and injuries he suffered, and comes to the breathtaking conclusion:

In retrospect, it is clear now that my carbohydrate-fueled high-intensity aerobic lifestyle was promoting a dangerous level of continuous systemic inflammation, was severely suppressing other parts of my immune system and the increased oxidative damage was generally tearing apart my precious muscle and joint tissue.

How is this "clear"? I don't know--no data or evidence is ever given, just the certainty that, when viewed through his current ideological lens, the past can all be seen as fitting some "predestined" pattern.

The rest just devolves into additional blah blah blah doctrine of his new religion--I know he's a big "primal" guy. Quite frankly, at that point it was just a long litany of unsupported editorializing that I did not have the patience to examine in detail.

The thing is, with a broader base of knowledge and a touch of empathy, the topic could have been addressed in a constructive way that might have added to people's knowledge. There are plenty of different ways to exercise and doing a combination of moderate aerobics, high-intensity interval training, and resistance exercise could work just fine for many people.

But this just seemed more like religious proselytizing than anything else.

This is a much more intelligent and informed rebuttal than I could come up with, but does have some knowledge in it that I did know before. To add to it, it is a blog, yes it's stated as if it is scentific fact but the fact of the matter is that he's using loose science and loose interpretations intertwined with studied facts to support his beliefs about his experiences and then attempting to extrapolate them out to a broader audience. I'm not as old as he is, but almost (I'm 33) and I can tell you that he lays a lot of blame on "popular belief" and what not. I was a competitive athlete during that same period of time and know for a fact that interval training, active rest, and the benefits of weight training were also out there and in use . . . he just chose a different path. Just because he needed life to make the changes for him because he couldn't wrap his mind around the science that was out there 20 years ago means that the things he experienced were his own fault, but it's nice to lay blame else where. I think that there are some cardio-aholics out there that could benefit from this article, but I know that many of the coaches, trainers, and athletes that I've come in contact with over the past 20 - 25 years have pushed interval training work along with variety.

joejccva71

Cardio has it's place but for weight loss it's not really required. Diet is 100 times more important.

Also according to Lyle McDonald with his UD 2.0, doing cardio for a woman is a requirement while with men it's optional so take that for what it's worth. This is for burning fat/losing weight.

Azdak

Cardio has it's place but for weight loss it's not really required. Diet is 100 times more important.

Also according to Lyle McDonald with his UD 2.0, doing cardio for a woman is a requirement while with men it's optional so take that for what it's worth. This is for burning fat/losing weight.

If you are going to cite Lyle McDonald, at least give the whole picture. From Lyle's description of the book:

the UD2 is an advanced diet for advanced dieters and is only for those seeking very low levels of body fat. A male should be at 12-15% body fat or lower and females at 21-24% body fat or lower prior to considering the UD2. As well trainees must have at least 6 months of consistent training in the weight room under their belt before they even consider the UD2.

There are different strategies for different bodies and for the same body at different stages on the path.

ATT949

Interesting commentary and I appreciate the benefit of someone with your background.

I had a different reaction to "A Case Against Cardio" but came to a similar conclusion as you did. This tripe is what many folks confuse with facts. Unfortunately, folks will read the article and think it's true or they will cite is as being a trusted source.

I appreciated the personal anecdotes even though they are, in the big picture, meaningless. Intended to build a case for accuracy ("I was there when it happened!"), it provides some background but it's highly biased recounting of one person's experience so I mentally strike through all that's he written about himself. Why? As I am wont to argue, there is no such thing as "an uncontrolled experiment where N=1".

What jarred me from Mark's gripping story of personal change was the lead sentence in one of the later paragraphs, which says "Well, we know that this current popular high intensity aerobic pursuit is a dead-end." Fortunately, Mark is in great physical shape or he would have wrenched his back jumping to that conclusion!

What nails shut the coffin for me, though, is the absence of footnotes and citations. It's much easier to sit down at the keyboard and pound out the words than it is to pound out the words and back up one's assertions with references and, by taking the former course, I look at this article as a series of recollections assembled to reinforce a theme (and generate page views).

Yes, it's good to recount personal experience because that lends an air of credibility but the puffery and lack of citations made it easy to close the web page without a second thought.

TeaBea

Personally, I believe both cardio and strength training have a place in my workout regime. Along with yoga. What I have trouble swallowing is the 5,000,000 conflicting opinions on the "best" exercise for weight loss. The fact of the matter is, whatever exercise you're going to do and enjoy is the best for you, whether that's long endurance cardio, intense HIIT, Pilates, yoga, strength training, Zumba, spinning, or any combination of these and the many types of exercise you can do.

This!

ATT949

I'll cite this as a contrast to "A Case Against Cardio":

http://ajpregu.physiology.org/content/283/5/R993.full

I find many things to appreciate in that document but perhaps what I like most is the tone that the author uses to discuss his goal, his method, and his conclusions.

bcattoes

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/case-against-cardio/

I found this article to be pretty interesting and it has me reconsidering how much cardio I include in my weekly routine. Since cardio seems rampant around here and weight training is usually a tough pill for people to swallow, I'm curious to see what thoughts on this article will be.

I haven't read the the whole article yet (at work right now) but WOW, I'm shocked by the post. It seems to me that there are far more strength trainers on this site than people doing only cardio. There's hardly a day that goes by without at least one post bashing cardio.

But I did glance at the article and can't say I would put much stock into something that begins with this--
"Ever wonder why years of “Spin” classes, endless treadmill sessions and interminable hours on the “elliptical” have done nothing much to shed those extra pounds and really tone the butt?"

--because I've kept myself thin all my life with cardio (aerobic). Step aerobics, running, walking, biking, hiking, dance aerobics, general aerobic classes, Zumba (got back down to goal in 4 months with nothing but Zumba) and the part of my body that has always got the most compliments is my butt.

dlaplume2

With out reading the article, strength training is actually better for you with lower intensity cardio with bursts.......

Without reading the article you opinion was dead on with what was in the article. :laugh: :laugh:

I did read the article, found it interesting and it was exactly what you said.

akjmart2002

Yes indeed. Thank you for breaking this down so thoroughly.

AI1108

The article is true in some regard but needs to be taken with a pinch of salt...

The group that I think its talking to is the group that I used to belong to. Like many people, I would go to the gym just to use the treadmill for 30 - 60 mins to get myself to run (if you could call it that) at a steady pace. I slowly tired out, saw very minimal results and gave up. I see many people like this every day at the gym and don't see much of a difference from week to week.

Azdak

The article is true in some regard but needs to be taken with a pinch of salt...

The group that I think its talking to is the group that I used to belong to. Like many people, I would go to the gym just to use the treadmill for 30 - 60 mins to get myself to run (if you could call it that) at a steady pace. I slowly tired out, saw very minimal results and gave up. I see many people like this every day at the gym and don't see much of a difference from week to week.

More like one of those salt "mountains" the road crews store in Chicago for the winter.

Which is why I mentioned in my lengthy rebuttal that, with a little more restraint and broader knowledge of the fitness world, such an article could have been a constructive addition.

IMO, however, it's an absurd leap to go from the situation you are describing to the all-out zealotry of the "primal/paleo/whatever" philosophy that he then launches into.

bcattoes

Anyone that know me, knows I am not a fan of cardio. I absolutely hate running and getting nowhere like a mindless gerbil.

I guess it just depends on what your goals are. If you want the thin, scrawny look, then run for miles. If you want the muscular sprinters look, then sprint. The idea that cardio is the only way you get ripped and a sixpack is quite ridiculous. I have read that myth many times and it drives me crazy. If anything, too much cardio does just the opposite of what the desired outcome is. If you work your body to death, your fat burning hormones will lower and your metabolism will lower and muscle will be lost.

Running does not have to mean a treadmill, nor does it necessarily mean long distance. I don't run now but for about 2.5 - 3 years that was my exercise. I ran 2 - 3 miles a day, everyday that weather permitted. I was not "ripped" nor did I have a "sixpack" nor did I want either of those things. I was thin and firm but not muscley and my metabolism was great.