A Case Against Cardio

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.

UpEarly

You know... I don't think he really makes a case against cardio. At the bottom of the article he recommends plenty of low-level cardio with some sprints added in for good measure.

"Knowing what we know about our hunter-gatherer ancestors and the DNA blueprint, we would ideally devise an aerobics plan that would have us walking or hiking several hours a day to maximize our true fat-burning systems and then doing intermittent “life or death” sprints every few days to generate those growth spurts that create stronger, leaner muscle."

Essentially... that pretty much sums up my workout. I hike 4-6 days a week, usually for 70-100 minutes at a time. (occasionally much longer when I can fit it into my busy schedule) Sometimes I get my heart rate way up there for short intervals when I'm climbing an especially steep hill. Sometimes I do this hiking with 20-40 pounds of weight strapped to my back. It's been great conditioning for me. I've lost weight easily, eating 2000 or more calories a day.

I don't personally follow Mark's primal eating plan. It's just not for me. But I do exercise in a manner similar to what he's recommending, and have had great success with it.

UpEarly

Depends on the goal. And don't forget to factor in enjoyment. The best exercise is the type you enjoy.

THIS! Right on! :-)

MikeSEA

I don't know if this is too tangential a question or not, but doesn't it seem like the terms "cardio" and "strength training" are a little inadequate. Maybe they're not.

I ask because I do strength training 3/week, and "cardio" 3/day alternating. My question is really, what constitutes "cardio?" I can only assume on the most basic level it means you're getting your heart rate up, but if we're talking something that gets my heart rate up higher than me sitting or even walking slowly, that leaves a lot room. My cardio days usually involve an hour of me on the elliptical doing fairly low intensity intervals. My heart never really gets up to the more intense cardio zone, but it's usually just out of range of the fat burning zone.

Short story long, I guess my point is that i kind of wish we would speak about topics in specific terms. Instead of generalizing cardio workouts, or even low vs high intensity, it would be nice if ranges were given. Maybe all of that is common knowledge and I just don't have it.

On that point, if anyone knows of a convenient portal for authoritative sources on this topic, please share .

questionablemethods

I think Mark's blog posts are very good at what they are designed for -- getting people on board with a way of living that doesn't revolve around beating yourself up training for marathons if you hate it because you think that is the only way to be healthy. And, of course, creating his brand.

I tend to like what he has to say, but I fully admit that is because it completely jives with how I already LIKE to be active. I don't like running long distances, I hate the elliptical (or the gym, for that matter). I do like walking, so I tend to walk about 15 miles a week (more when I was commuting on foot to work). I like bodyweight exercises and I like doing short, all out sprints, now and then. Well, hot damn! That's exactly what Mark Sisson lays out!

I don't think that it is the only way. I think that people will be far more successful doing whatever it is that they ENJOY doing and will do consistently for the rest of their lives. Period. For me, it is probably not going to be training for long endurance races.

As someone who also likes the science-y side of things, I do think his articles are pretty lacking in citing actual sources (or acknowledging nuances). But I don't think his target audience is made up primarily of researchers, either.

bcattoes

I don't know if this is too tangential a question or not, but doesn't it seem like the terms "cardio" and "strength training" are a little inadequate. Maybe they're not.

I ask because I do strength training 3/week, and "cardio" 3/day alternating. My question is really, what constitutes "cardio?" I can only assume on the most basic level it means you're getting your heart rate up, but if we're talking something that gets my heart rate up higher than me sitting or even walking slowly, that leaves a lot room. My cardio days usually involve an hour of me on the elliptical doing fairly low intensity intervals. My heart never really gets up to the more intense cardio zone, but it's usually just out of range of the fat burning zone.

Short story long, I guess my point is that i kind of wish we would speak about topics in specific terms. Instead of generalizing cardio workouts, or even low vs high intensity, it would be nice if ranges were given. Maybe all of that is common knowledge and I just don't have it.

On that point, if anyone knows of a convenient portal for authoritative sources on this topic, please share .

I don't know about the blog that was referenced, but generally "cardio" refers to aerobic exercise. Here is a description of what aerobic exercise:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/aerobic-exercise/EP00002
During aerobic activity, you repeatedly move large muscles in your arms, legs and hips. You'll notice your body's responses quickly.

You'll breathe faster and more deeply. This maximizes the amount of oxygen in your blood. Your heart will beat faster, which increases blood flow to your muscles and back to your lungs. Your small blood vessels (capillaries) will widen to deliver more oxygen to your muscles and carry away waste products, such as carbon dioxide and lactic acid. Your body will even release endorphins, natural painkillers that promote an increased sense of well-being.

questionablemethods

I hope this isn't too off topic, but in trying to add to the discussion I thought I would link to this post: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2009/11/1/cardio-causes-heart-disease.html

Yeah, it is still by someone who might be under the broad "paleo" umbrella, but it is looking at some specific research and is written by a radiologist. I'm interested in hearing what others have to say.

He wrote a follow-up, too: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/21/still-not-born-to-run.html

bcattoes

I hope this isn't too off topic, but in trying to add to the discussion I thought I would link to this post: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2009/11/1/cardio-causes-heart-disease.html

Yeah, it is still by someone who might be under the broad "paleo" umbrella, but it is looking at some specific research and is written by a radiologist. I'm interested in hearing what others have to say.

He wrote a follow-up, too: http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblog/2010/3/21/still-not-born-to-run.html

I will try to read all of that later, but the thing that turns me off of most paleo writers I've read (and I have not read a lot) is the sarcastic tone, which this article also has. Hopefully when I read the whole article there will be explanation of why marathon runners were chosen for the "cardio" group, when current medical recommendations are for much less aerobic exercise for maximum heart health. Marathon runners often go beyond aerobic levels into anaerobic levels, so it seems an odd choice for the study. Why not use people that do the medically recommended levels of aerobic activity? I also wonder (okay, doubt) that anyone thinks aerobic activity makes them immortal (there's that sarcastick tone I mentioned).

questionablemethods

I will try to read all of that later, but the thing that turns me off of most paleo writers I've read (and I have not read a lot) is the sarcastic tone, which this article also has.

I think Kurt Harris is pretty even-handed in general. He dips into sarcasm once in awhile, but he's not writing a scientific article, he's writing to a blog audience. I could point you to hundreds of non-"paleo" writers with equal amounts of sarcasm (often while lampooning the "caveman diet.") Many of them are also parroting conventional wisdom, without a hint of scientific references anywhere. So, your complaint (and the earlier complaints by many--myself included--about Mark Sisson's post) might be more generalized to "blog writers everywhere" and not just "paleo writers."

Hopefully when I read the whole article there will be explanation of why marathon runners were chosen for the "cardio" group, when current medical recommendations are for much less aerobic exercise for maximum heart health. Marathon runners often go beyond aerobic levels into anaerobic levels, so it seems an odd choice for the study. Why not use people that do the medically recommended levels of aerobic activity? I also wonder (okay, doubt) that anyone thinks aerobic activity makes them immortal (there's that sarcastick tone I mentioned).

I believe the studies where specifically looking at the "too much of a good thing" present in marathoners -- they weren't aiming to say that moderate amounts of aerobic activity are harmful. But, yes, I do think that many people think that if moderate amounts of aerobic activity is good, then more is better. I know people personally who have lost weight and gotten healthier by running some 5Ks who then thought something along the lines of "if 12 miles a week is good, certainly upping that will be even better." Many of these people will drive 3 miles round trip in pleasant weather because they "don't have the time" and certainly don't see the walk as exercise, but they will then go home and pound the pavement/treadmill for a couple hours even if they DON'T REALLY LIKE IT.

Maybe it's just that Americans have a "more is more" mentality, but it's out there. I think that is what Dr. Harris was trying to address. I don't think that he's saying getting out and hiking at a local park or playing some tennis or, hell, running a few miles a few times isn't a good thing.

Hoosiermomma

Interesting stuff here. Bumping to check this later!

aj_rock

I don't think the evidence given by this article leads directly to the conclusion it made. Yeah the guy had problems but he ran A LOT and probably did it on less than ideal surfaces (I still cringe everytime I see someone running on a sidewalk). Fact of the matter is, in order to reach ELITE levels of fitness, you WILL have health problems related to over-exercising in your life. That's exactly why no one preaches that everyone should be elite level athletes.

Essentially, just don't be a nutbar :ohwell: