Can strength training also be cardio?

Yogi_Carl

Thanks Azdak. I am glad I posted this as it has really helped to clear out some clouds.

Thanks everyone for feedback and your patience. I am a bit of a "yeah but" type person, but you've all helped to kick me back on track; much appreciated.

AlsDonkBoxSquat

Can strength training also be cardio?

I am currently taking a fitness instructor training course, and yes, strength training can be cardio, even power lifting, doesn't mean you need to take lighter weights either. As long as your HR is in the 60-90% range, you are indeed doing cardio. I personnaly double up sets to make supersets and gets my HR up there, obviously breathing is key as well.

If your "fitness instructor training course" is telling you that, then they are wrong and you should demand your money back. Or you are just misinterpreting the information, in which case you need to stay after school and write:

"Heart rate increases during strength training are not the same as during cardio"

500 times on the blackboard.

No need to be rude. And any heart rate increase during physical activity leads to cardio IF the HR is between 60-90% capacity. And seeing as my F.I.T. class is coming from the ACSM, I highly doubt they are wrong. If the point of your workout is to ONLY work on cardiovascular fitness (the heart), then an accumulated 30 minutes in the above-mentionned capacity is all you need.

I'm AFAA Certified for general group ex and I can tell you that there were some things that they said in my course that I didn't necessarily agree with . . . the text book hasn't been updated in YEARS despite the fact that the understanding of the neuances of human physiology changes constantly. It's important to learn what you are learning in your course, and to have a healthy amount of skepticism with an open mind to other ideas.

Also, in a pure strength training program where the goal is to lift as much as you possibly can for a low number of reps in an effort to gain as much strength as possible it is imparative you take rest periods (my current rest periods are 105 seconds between sets, 5x5 is anywhere from 90 seconds to 3 minutes depending on failure) and are therefore not sustaining a heart rate of 60 - 90% over the entire lifting period. I experience highs as much as 160 and lows as low as 85 (with a resting hr of 46), that's quite a disparity. So, unless you are incorporating some sort of circut work with your lifting you are not going to get the cardio effect of which you speak, and if you do incorporate some sort of cicut work with your lifting you are not going to reach a goal of picking up and putting down as much as your body possibly can.

jimmmer

Talking to nobody in particular, just like to point this out for those reading this post and are more concerned with calories burned (which you shouldn't necessarily be, including different things in your workout is a good thing if you ask me). We should not go by the assumption that heart rate indicates the HRM can calculate calories burned for cardio and strength training. If your heart rate is the same, calories burned are not. The HRM has no idea that your body is lifting weights, the calculations for those guys are based on cardio activities like running or cycling only, not strength training. Look it up.

^This

But some HRMs now are marketed with "strength training" algorithms. The FT80 is a case in point. You can choose to start a normal cardiovascular type of routine, or scroll down to the strength training setting instead before you press start. Now, how accurate these algorithms are is very much up for discussion (and probably enough meat for another thread).....

EvgeniZyntx

Now you can lower the weights, increase the reps, and decrease the rest time between sets and get a great metabolic effect similar to running, but the weights are so low that it really can't be considered true strength training.

However; with the added weight (albeit light) you will add an element of muscular endurance training to the exercise - endurance is more differenter than strength.

The answer is to do ALL the exercises. Do some strength, do some cardio, do some "conditioning". It all helps your body be healthy in different ways. If you get to a point where you're ready to be a badass at one particular aspect of fitness then you will need to focus on that one aspect to a much greater degree. Until that point while you're just working on being generally fit and healthy, do everything.

Thank you. So often the post here present the false dichotomy of strength vs cardio that it's great to see a more holistic position.

Honestly, I don't think that's what's going on here at all. The OP asked a specific question and is getting an answer to the question asked. He did not ask if he should do one or the other. I know from his past posts that he already does a well rounded program that includes strength, flexibility and cardio training. No one here has said do one or the other. We're just answering a question without throwing in extra advice.

If I wanted to throw in extra advice I WOULD TELL HIM TO TRY YOGA

ha.

Apologies - I meant here on MFP - not in this thread. The advice you, Azdak, CoderGal and Sara give is all solid, IMHO.
Sometimes, the idea that you stated "Lifting and cardio are opposites" is understood as "do one but not the other". I see them as complementary within limits and based on goals - - a very large upper body (from lifting) will not be the ideal cycling physique just like marathon running isn't the ideal sport for lifters.

sjohnny clarifies - and if you add cycling to his running - it sort of describes me:

Holisitic in that I believe in doing all of these things and that they all have a place in most people's fitness programs. They are different types of workouts though, and I don't try to modify one to make it into a combination of two or more types. For cardio, I run - I don't consider this a leg muscle workout. For strength I lift weights - heavy(ish) weight for low(ish) reps. When I'm doing "strength training" I don't worry about trying to squeeze out a cardiovascular workout in the same session.

I do also wonder about these "opposites" when we see a variety of high intensity workout programs (programs like Shredded and P90X, etc..) or Plyometrics which might not optimize endurance or strength uniquely like either purer cardio or resistance individually but give "power in movement" benefits.

If we shift the question to whats the best exercise for Parkour, for example - it's all of them.

LindseySprake

Bodypump is great for this. It's lower weight, but high rep. 800 reps a class. You still get the strength training benefits, but the squat/back/lunge tracks that are spread without the class give you a big heart rate boost so you get a good burn, while you strength train. Changed my body completely.

Totally Agree with this *high five*

Azdak

Can strength training also be cardio?

I am currently taking a fitness instructor training course, and yes, strength training can be cardio, even power lifting, doesn't mean you need to take lighter weights either. As long as your HR is in the 60-90% range, you are indeed doing cardio. I personnaly double up sets to make supersets and gets my HR up there, obviously breathing is key as well.

If your "fitness instructor training course" is telling you that, then they are wrong and you should demand your money back. Or you are just misinterpreting the information, in which case you need to stay after school and write:

"Heart rate increases during strength training are not the same as during cardio"

500 times on the blackboard.

No need to be rude. And any heart rate increase during physical activity leads to cardio IF the HR is between 60-90% capacity. And seeing as my F.I.T. class is coming from the ACSM, I highly doubt they are wrong. If the point of your workout is to ONLY work on cardiovascular fitness (the heart), then an accumulated 30 minutes in the above-mentionned capacity is all you need.

You may think me rude (and in this case you may be right), but, if I may gently point out, you were using your "credentials" as a way of trying to assert the authority of your comment. And, in this case, I think you may be misinterpreting the information.

So I will apologize for "being rude", but I strongly recommend that you review your assumptions.

PP 163-164 "ACSM's Guidelines for Exercise Testing and Prescription":

Rhythmic, aerobic type exercises, involving large muscle groups are recommended for improving cardiovascular fitness. The modes of physical activity that result in improvement and maintenance of cardiovascular fitness are found in Table 7.3. The health/fitness professional should keep in mind the principle of specificity of training when selecting the exercise modalities to be included in the exercise prescription. The principle states that the physiologic adaptations to exercise are specific to the type of exercise being performed.

(emphasis mine)

The Aerobic activities referred to in Table 7.3 include the usual collection of cardio and sports activities. No where in Table 7.3 (nor anywhere in Chapter 7 at all) does it list "weight training" as an aerobic exercise, or as a recommended activity to improve cardiovascular fitness.

There is a reason for this:

Repeated static exercise can result in prolonged elevation of the hear rate during he course of a workout. This has led some people to believe that weight training can produce a significant endurance (i.e. aerobic--my addition) training effect. However, there is a fundamental difference between endurance and static exercise in their effects on the heart. Endurance exercise places a volume load on the heart, whereas strength exercise exerts a pressure load.

George A Brooks, "Exercise Physiology" - 1st edition p 318.

Lift_hard_eat_big

Strength training has some cardio improving benefits. Will squatting and dead lifting prepare you for a marathon, most likely not. But that's why we train in different manners to achieve different goals.

Azdak

Now you can lower the weights, increase the reps, and decrease the rest time between sets and get a great metabolic effect similar to running, but the weights are so low that it really can't be considered true strength training.

However; with the added weight (albeit light) you will add an element of muscular endurance training to the exercise - endurance is more differenter than strength.

The answer is to do ALL the exercises. Do some strength, do some cardio, do some "conditioning". It all helps your body be healthy in different ways. If you get to a point where you're ready to be a badass at one particular aspect of fitness then you will need to focus on that one aspect to a much greater degree. Until that point while you're just working on being generally fit and healthy, do everything.

Thank you. So often the post here present the false dichotomy of strength vs cardio that it's great to see a more holistic position.

Honestly, I don't think that's what's going on here at all. The OP asked a specific question and is getting an answer to the question asked. He did not ask if he should do one or the other. I know from his past posts that he already does a well rounded program that includes strength, flexibility and cardio training. No one here has said do one or the other. We're just answering a question without throwing in extra advice.

If I wanted to throw in extra advice I WOULD TELL HIM TO TRY YOGA

ha.

Apologies - I meant here on MFP - not in this thread. The advice you, Azdak, CoderGal and Sara give is all solid, IMHO.
Sometimes, the idea that you stated "Lifting and cardio are opposites" is understood as "do one but not the other". I see them as complementary within limits and based on goals - - a very large upper body (from lifting) will not be the ideal cycling physique just like marathon running isn't the ideal sport for lifters.

sjohnny clarifies - and if you add cycling to his running - it sort of describes me:

Holisitic in that I believe in doing all of these things and that they all have a place in most people's fitness programs. They are different types of workouts though, and I don't try to modify one to make it into a combination of two or more types. For cardio, I run - I don't consider this a leg muscle workout. For strength I lift weights - heavy(ish) weight for low(ish) reps. When I'm doing "strength training" I don't worry about trying to squeeze out a cardiovascular workout in the same session.

I do also wonder about these "opposites" when we see a variety of high intensity workout programs (programs like Shredded and P90X, etc..) or Plyometrics which might not optimize endurance or strength uniquely like either purer cardio or resistance individually but give "power in movement" benefits.

If we shift the question to whats the best exercise for Parkour, for example - it's all of them.

Can't emphasize enough that, when it comes to planning a workout, there are almost no absolute "right' or "wrong" choices---only choices that are best suited to meet YOUR GOALS.

And since there are an almost infinite number of combinations of goals, it means that.......there are almost no absolute "right" or "wrong" choices--only choices that are best suited to meet your goals.

sjohnny

And since there are an almost infinite number of combinations of goals, it means that.......there are almost no absolute "right" or "wrong" choices--only choices that are best suited to meet your goals.

Except for mine. My choices are absolutely right all the time for everyone.

Period.

DavPul

Don't give me the credit, Azdak was the one who informed me and triggered me to look it up long ago He has a good head on his shoulders. Since then I realized how many people don't realize this and I tend to throw it out there every now and then

Adzak got his own credit. You take yours. Doesn't matter where you heard it first, you were the one smart enough to recognize that what he was saying made sense and then had the wherewithal to do followup research on your own.

Azdak

Not really. Heart increases during resistance exercise (RE) via a different physiologic mechanism than during cardio, so the heart rate increase is not a reliable indicator. Strength results and cardio results are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum. If you increase the cardiovascular component of the movement (e.g. lift lighter weights at faster speed) you decrease the resistance benefits and vice versa.

That... doesn't make a lot of sense. "Cardiovascular fitness" is by nature defined by a combination of how strong your heart is, how much lung capacity you have, efficiency of oxygen transfer in your blood, etc. All of those things are improved anytime you stress your CV system. Now obviously, if you're only getting your heart to 130-150 you're not getting the same benefits as if you get it to 165-180, but you're still getting benefit. Similarly, if you're doing cardio like running, your muscles that you're using will get stronger.

Now the benefits are not coequal. Someone like me who runs long distances isn't going to get much cardio benefit from a weight training session, because I'm unlikely to get to a point where I'm really stressing my CV system. Someone who lifts a lot isn't going to get much strength benefit from running, because their legs are already strong. Less benefit and no benefit are not the same thing though.

See one of my earlier comments. The increased heart rate that occurs during traditional weight lifting is NOT "stress(ing) the CV system" the same way that running does. It's an easy mistake to make--this is not the kind of information you are going to find in a standard fitness article. The average person sees a HR of 140 while lifting weights and they see a 140 while running and assume it must be the same. But it's not. Behind the number are different physiologic processes.

FullOfWin

Not really. Heart increases during resistance exercise (RE) via a different physiologic mechanism than during cardio, so the heart rate increase is not a reliable indicator. Strength results and cardio results are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum. If you increase the cardiovascular component of the movement (e.g. lift lighter weights at faster speed) you decrease the resistance benefits and vice versa.

I respect your reply, but I am also awre that my breathing rate increases also, so something aerobic is happening. The fact that I take shorter breaks possibly means I am not working at my maximum strength demands but more likely am training towards the intense end of cardio.

I think this is where programs like Insanity sit in the in-between between cardio and strength?

Without a metabolic cart, there is no way to identify with certainty the precise effects of any given type of hybrid workout. I can only say what I said before--in order to increase the cardiovascular training effect, you must decrease the resistance training effect and vice versa.

Let me repeat: I am not saying that your workout as described or workout classes cannot have ANY cardio effect or ANY strength effect exclusively. I am only saying that one will almost always compromise the other. You cannot maximize gains in both areas simultaneously with the same movement.

It is up to each individual to decide if the results they get match their goals. I am not here to criticize anyone's program. You speculated that, based on heart rate readings, your strength routine could also double as a cardio training routine. The answer is that: if you are trying to do a traditional strength routine, and you are expecting the results of a traditional strength routine, and you are truly working to failure in 5-8 reps, then it does not provide cardio training benefits and the increased HR is not indicative of a cardio training effect. And if, by chance you WERE experiencing a cardio training effect, it would mean that you had structured the workout in such a way that you had significantly compromised the resistance training effect.

None of this means that any exercise choices are "wrong". It just means that people have to structure their workouts to meet their goals, and in order to do that, they need to understand the physiological facts of how each type of exercise affects the body.

Would you say that the "some" training effect on cardio from true strength training is at least enough for maintaning general health?

Azdak

Not really. Heart increases during resistance exercise (RE) via a different physiologic mechanism than during cardio, so the heart rate increase is not a reliable indicator. Strength results and cardio results are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum. If you increase the cardiovascular component of the movement (e.g. lift lighter weights at faster speed) you decrease the resistance benefits and vice versa.

I respect your reply, but I am also awre that my breathing rate increases also, so something aerobic is happening. The fact that I take shorter breaks possibly means I am not working at my maximum strength demands but more likely am training towards the intense end of cardio.

I think this is where programs like Insanity sit in the in-between between cardio and strength?

Without a metabolic cart, there is no way to identify with certainty the precise effects of any given type of hybrid workout. I can only say what I said before--in order to increase the cardiovascular training effect, you must decrease the resistance training effect and vice versa.

Let me repeat: I am not saying that your workout as described or workout classes cannot have ANY cardio effect or ANY strength effect exclusively. I am only saying that one will almost always compromise the other. You cannot maximize gains in both areas simultaneously with the same movement.

It is up to each individual to decide if the results they get match their goals. I am not here to criticize anyone's program. You speculated that, based on heart rate readings, your strength routine could also double as a cardio training routine. The answer is that: if you are trying to do a traditional strength routine, and you are expecting the results of a traditional strength routine, and you are truly working to failure in 5-8 reps, then it does not provide cardio training benefits and the increased HR is not indicative of a cardio training effect. And if, by chance you WERE experiencing a cardio training effect, it would mean that you had structured the workout in such a way that you had significantly compromised the resistance training effect.

None of this means that any exercise choices are "wrong". It just means that people have to structure their workouts to meet their goals, and in order to do that, they need to understand the physiological facts of how each type of exercise affects the body.

Would you say that the "some" training effect on cardio from true strength training is at least enough for maintaning general health?

I don't know that there is a simple answer to that question. A lot of things go into "general health", morbidity, and mortality. And there are lots of different ways to do resistance exercise.

I am a working stiff, not a research assistant, so I don't have time to catalog every study I read. However, I remember some of the basic studies:

One looked at heavy squats (2-4RM) and found that the VO2 average between 2-4 METs. That's like taking a medium paced walk. That's not "no cardio", but it's not much of a cardio training stimulus, either (let's fact it--anyone who can do that heavy of a squat is likely to still have an innate aerobic level that moderate walking will not be a training stimulus).

Another looked at the calories expended during a set of bench press @ 90% of 1 RM. Again, the aerobic component was negligible.

Now, in terms of "general health", one does not necessarily have to achieve a "cardiovascular training effect" to achieve good health. Large population studies have shown that increased casual activity can have a statistically significant improvement in mortality and morbidity rates across the population. (Doing more traditional cardio has an even greater positive effect, but even modest activity is "healthy").

So, by that definition, the answer would be "yes".

DavPul

Not really. Heart increases during resistance exercise (RE) via a different physiologic mechanism than during cardio, so the heart rate increase is not a reliable indicator. Strength results and cardio results are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum. If you increase the cardiovascular component of the movement (e.g. lift lighter weights at faster speed) you decrease the resistance benefits and vice versa.

I respect your reply, but I am also awre that my breathing rate increases also, so something aerobic is happening. The fact that I take shorter breaks possibly means I am not working at my maximum strength demands but more likely am training towards the intense end of cardio.

I think this is where programs like Insanity sit in the in-between between cardio and strength?

Without a metabolic cart, there is no way to identify with certainty the precise effects of any given type of hybrid workout. I can only say what I said before--in order to increase the cardiovascular training effect, you must decrease the resistance training effect and vice versa.

Let me repeat: I am not saying that your workout as described or workout classes cannot have ANY cardio effect or ANY strength effect exclusively. I am only saying that one will almost always compromise the other. You cannot maximize gains in both areas simultaneously with the same movement.

It is up to each individual to decide if the results they get match their goals. I am not here to criticize anyone's program. You speculated that, based on heart rate readings, your strength routine could also double as a cardio training routine. The answer is that: if you are trying to do a traditional strength routine, and you are expecting the results of a traditional strength routine, and you are truly working to failure in 5-8 reps, then it does not provide cardio training benefits and the increased HR is not indicative of a cardio training effect. And if, by chance you WERE experiencing a cardio training effect, it would mean that you had structured the workout in such a way that you had significantly compromised the resistance training effect.

None of this means that any exercise choices are "wrong". It just means that people have to structure their workouts to meet their goals, and in order to do that, they need to understand the physiological facts of how each type of exercise affects the body.

Would you say that the "some" training effect on cardio from true strength training is at least enough for maintaning general health?

Yes, but we should all keep in mind that most of the things that we consider general health are mostly accomplished by shedding excess weight. For most people, losing significant weight is accompanied by lower heart rate, lower cholesterol, and lower blood pressure. You don't have to start training for a 10k to get the benefits most people seek from cardio.

drgndancer

Not really. Heart increases during resistance exercise (RE) via a different physiologic mechanism than during cardio, so the heart rate increase is not a reliable indicator. Strength results and cardio results are kind of on opposite ends of the spectrum. If you increase the cardiovascular component of the movement (e.g. lift lighter weights at faster speed) you decrease the resistance benefits and vice versa.

I respect your reply, but I am also awre that my breathing rate increases also, so something aerobic is happening. The fact that I take shorter breaks possibly means I am not working at my maximum strength demands but more likely am training towards the intense end of cardio.

I think this is where programs like Insanity sit in the in-between between cardio and strength?

Without a metabolic cart, there is no way to identify with certainty the precise effects of any given type of hybrid workout. I can only say what I said before--in order to increase the cardiovascular training effect, you must decrease the resistance training effect and vice versa.

Let me repeat: I am not saying that your workout as described or workout classes cannot have ANY cardio effect or ANY strength effect exclusively. I am only saying that one will almost always compromise the other. You cannot maximize gains in both areas simultaneously with the same movement.

It is up to each individual to decide if the results they get match their goals. I am not here to criticize anyone's program. You speculated that, based on heart rate readings, your strength routine could also double as a cardio training routine. The answer is that: if you are trying to do a traditional strength routine, and you are expecting the results of a traditional strength routine, and you are truly working to failure in 5-8 reps, then it does not provide cardio training benefits and the increased HR is not indicative of a cardio training effect. And if, by chance you WERE experiencing a cardio training effect, it would mean that you had structured the workout in such a way that you had significantly compromised the resistance training effect.

None of this means that any exercise choices are "wrong". It just means that people have to structure their workouts to meet their goals, and in order to do that, they need to understand the physiological facts of how each type of exercise affects the body.

Would you say that the "some" training effect on cardio from true strength training is at least enough for maintaning general health?

Yes, but we should all keep in mind that most of the things that we consider general health are mostly accomplished by shedding excess weight. For most people, losing significant weight is accompanied by lower heart rate, lower cholesterol, and lower blood pressure. You don't have to start training for a 10k to get the benefits most people seek from cardio.

This is somewhat true, but there are a lot of recent studies that indicate fitness is more important than weight. Not that weight is unimportant, or that there isn't almost always some weight loss associated with fitness, but there's controls for that in the studies. It seems as though a person who can run a 10K, or at least a 5K (usually a half hour of "vigorous exercise" is part of the minimum allowable level for "fit"), is likely to live longer and maintain a higher quality of life. Even if that person is well above optimal weight. Now of course you don't get a ton of people who are level 2 morbidly obese who can run a 5K, but you do get a fair number of overweight or mildly obese people who can. You also get a lot of skinnny people who can't. It seems it's better to be the in the first group than the second.

Still better to be fit and a healthy weight, but given a choice the fitness seems to be more important than the weight. To use MFP terms, fit-fat is better than skinny-fat.

FullOfWin

What if you're skinny-fat-fit?

Yogi_Carl

What if you're skinny-fat-fit?

Then I guess you look ok in your clothes and are functionally fit but don't look good if you strip down in public. The question I guess is whether that fat is located around your internal organs (bad) or around your hips (not so bad).

WendyTerry420

The Thirty Day Shred is strength training and cardio. If you rest between sets, then your heart rate will go back down. But if your heart rate remains elevated, then it's cardio, no matter what the activity.

Azdak

The Thirty Day Shred is strength training and cardio. If you rest between sets, then your heart rate will go back down. But if your heart rate remains elevated, then it's cardio, no matter what the activity.

I would invite you to review the dozen or so comments in this thread that prove this statement to be inaccurate.

WendyTerry420

The Thirty Day Shred is strength training and cardio. If you rest between sets, then your heart rate will go back down. But if your heart rate remains elevated, then it's cardio, no matter what the activity.

I would invite you to review the dozen or so comments in this thread that prove this statement to be inaccurate.

If you think that the 30DS does not incorporate strength training with cardio, then you have never watched the video or tried to perform the exercise.