Is cardio bad for you?
Options
Replies
-
0
-
I don't think cardio is bad for you, however if all you're doing is cardio then that's bad for you, the best cardio is HIIT high/low intensity cardio, it burns fat and builds muscles. Too much cardio will eventually break down your muscles,and raise your cortisol levels. spending countless hours on a cardio machine is not the way to go. Lift weight along with your cardio and really see your body change, unless you want to be skinny fat, meaning no muscle tone at all, like squishy, yuk!
No. 'Skinny fat' happens when you lose weight and don't work out at all, and have no muscle tone. People who do cardio do have muscle tone. Too much cardio doesn't break down your muscle tone, I have no idea where you'd even get such an idea. While it is a good idea to mix cardio with weights for bone strength, body recomp and muscle building, straight cardio is fine.
Yes !0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »grimmeanor wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »Chronic cardio can be extremely bad for you. ...
It is!
Fitness is a measure of physical ability!
...
I typed:
Are endurance Athletes hea....
one of the first things was:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletic_heart_syndrome
After reading the wiki article, I do not understand it to indicate that AHS (athletic heart syndrome) is poor health or is indicative of a health issue. I do understand it to say that there is a heart disease which has some similarities to AHS and that AHS can be mistaken for that heart disease; but, it seems that additional medical tests are required to differentiate the two. Although the article did not specifically state as such, I believe that those tests might be prescribed only if the doctor has no medical history of the patient upon which to make such differentiation.
Anecdote: After I had trained for a year (183 training days over 52 weeks) and had completed a marathon in 2011 (age: 66), my cardiologist noted that my heart had enlarged from the previous year (based upon annual ultrasound tests); but, when I told him that I had been endurance training for that year (averaging 4:23 hours, 23.6 miles per week), he was no longer concerned that my heart had enlarged (it's a muscle responding to exercise, after all). Yes, my average RHR (resting heart rate) was ~48 bpm and my BP was about 98/61 for that year, too--at the end of the year my RHR was closer to 40 bpm.0 -
Sounds to me like maybe the article is sort of having a play on words for the sake of sounding controversial and getting attention. Maybe going off the ploy that all cardio burns muscle and will only leave fat.
0 -
Not only was the wiki article on AHS misleading because it is non-life threatening nor considered unhealthy, but the slew of other links posted were similarly misleading, being about atrial fibrillation (irregular heartbeat), with some of the studies not even using endurance athletes as study participants.
So I saw no point in continuing a debate with someone who presented no credible substance to their argument.0 -
What's even more scary than that actual article?
http://blogs.denverpost.com/fitness/author/danafullington/
The person who wrote it..... her "qualifications" and position she holds. There is America's answer to why you are fat. Because your 'health advice' is written by people like her.0 -
0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »To get to the level of fitness achieved by endurance athletes, must train and push your body to levels that are adverse to your health and potentially reduce your life span.
This is true of most sports, "endurance" or otherwise. Elite athletes in most disciplines are swapping physical issues in the future for glory now.
Exactly.
I'm not saying that's a bad thing and if that's their life goal then so be it. We only get one shot on this planet, might as well make the most of it.
But to think that pushing your body does not cause adverse issues to your health (albiet ones you accept) is a bit naive0 -
Elite athletes pushing the bounds of human capability is one thing, but to claim that casual distance runners are all harming themselves more than helping themselves is just ridiculous.0
-
I do about 15-20 hours of cardio per week and maybe 90 minutes of strength training. I'm not fat. I am however, fast, very very fast and I can go for a long time.0
-
Cardio is good for me. I've always been the girl at school who could only run for 100 meters, and after the fire alarm falsely went off at the office again I'm walking up the stairs to the 13th so slowly that many people behind me get annoyed. Looks like I need to go the extra mile to get some endurance, and that's what I'm doing.0
-
It's better to lift or do something high intensity anaerobic if you want to look like a man. Even small amounts of fat, after all that cardio, can make you look fat if there's no muscle: it's kind of fat to muscle ratio that determines the looks0
-
grimmeanor wrote: »Elite athletes pushing the bounds of human capability is one thing, but to claim that casual distance runners are all harming themselves more than helping themselves is just ridiculous.
I'm not sure where I have claimed casual cardio is harmful - because its not??? Read back through my posts.
I am claiming chronic cardio is adverse to health. But again I'm not saying we shouldn't do it if we want to.
There's lots of things people do in the pursuit of personal goals or enjoyment. I did ju-jitsu for 17 years, I was the fittest I had been for a long while, but I was definitely damaging my body (would I go back and change anything - no, I did it for the enjoyment).
But people doing chronic cardio and not thinking it's not damaging them long term - that's ridiculous.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I am claiming chronic cardio is adverse to health. But again I'm not saying we shouldn't do it if we want to.
I suspect the issue is how one interprets chronic in this sense. I'm reading it as a tautology at the moment.
What's meant by chronic? Running 50 miles per week, cycling 10-12 hours per week, or a 60 minute session on the elliptihell 5 days per week?
Given that some on this site see running 9 miles per week as adverse to ones health it's useful to understand the framework.
0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I am claiming chronic cardio is adverse to health. But again I'm not saying we shouldn't do it if we want to.
I suspect the issue is how one interprets chronic in this sense. I'm reading it as a tautology at the moment.
What's meant by chronic? Running 50 miles per week, cycling 10-12 hours per week, or a 60 minute session on the elliptihell 5 days per week?
Given that some on this site see running 9 miles per week as adverse to ones health it's useful to understand the framework.
I think chronic is more to do with the level of intensity and the prolonged period, than the overall distance.
Hiking and biking at low to moderate levels of intensity are very beneficial to our health.0 -
tennisdude2004 wrote: »I think chronic is more to do with the level of intensity and the prolonged period, than the overall distance.
So to develop the theme. Fifty miles per week could concievably be either a marathon plan, or a 5K speedwork plan. I'll work up the longer distance as that's my focus - So perhaps a 13mile, couple of 10 mile and a couple of 6 to 8 mile sessions at a mix of paces averaging around a 9 minute kilometre.
Chronic or not? It's a pretty high volume week, but the vast majority of the distance would be at a moderate intensity, with about 8 miles of speedwork inside one of the 10 mile sessions.Hiking and biking at low to moderate levels of intensity are very beneficial to our health.
Whilst I wouldn't disagree, that's more a function of the statement being a bit of a bland catch-all. They each have slightly different effects, although predominantly in the lower aerobic range. As ever, in isolation neither is a magic bullet. One can't out-train a bad diet, with that applying to both net calorie balance and nutrient balance.
In the context of the original point, both the running and cycling that I've identified are outliers. Only a small proportion of the population are involved in endurance sports, however far more are in the segment that plays on the elliptical for 30-45 minutes at a time. The issue is that those involved in endurance training are more likely to recognise that the original article is nonsense, whereas many in the latter segment will let themselves be convinced that their relatively low quality effort is somehow bad rather than merely in need of optimisation.
Not helped by blanket pronouncements laced with vague generalisations wrapped around extreme examples.
0 -
Problems with "cardio" (I hate that word, LOL) are related much more closely to intensity than to time/distance spent doing it.tennisdude2004 wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »tennisdude2004 wrote: »I am claiming chronic cardio is adverse to health. But again I'm not saying we shouldn't do it if we want to.
I suspect the issue is how one interprets chronic in this sense. I'm reading it as a tautology at the moment.
What's meant by chronic? Running 50 miles per week, cycling 10-12 hours per week, or a 60 minute session on the elliptihell 5 days per week?
Given that some on this site see running 9 miles per week as adverse to ones health it's useful to understand the framework.
I think chronic is more to do with the level of intensity and the prolonged period, than the overall distance.
Hiking and biking at low to moderate levels of intensity are very beneficial to our health.
If you keep the majority of sessions EASY then you can do a lot, 10 or more hours a week, without any problems at all. Once in a while do a speed session or lactate threshold session with a lot of easy sessions in between.
It all is related to the recovery and supercompensation cycle. An easy session, even a long one, you will recover from in 12 to 24 hours. A hard session may take 3 to 4 days.
0 -
No, it is not bad..however, if you push it to 8-12 hours a week. you will loose upper body muscle mass.0
-
You will not lose upper body mass because of "cardio".
This contains links to studies: http://scoobysworkshop.com/does-cardio-burn-muscle/Now I know that some of you are STILL worried about cardio burning muscle so lets look at a great study (1,2,3)where they monitored body composition of athletes in the trans-europe run where they ran 2800 miles in 64 days – that’s an average 43 miles a day. The results were really interesting and not what you might expect. Obviously they lost fat and lots of it. The interesting part was that the runners didn’t lose ANY muscle mass in their upper bodies, ALL the mass was lost in their legs – why? Overtraining!!!. So if these athletes can run 43 miles (6 hours) every day all summer long without losing any upper body muscle mass, certainly YOU can jog for 30 minutes without losing muscle mass!
Remember, your body is really smart and it wont burn muscle unless you do something really stupid like running 3000 miles or doing a drastic fad diet.0 -
It's better to lift or do something high intensity anaerobic if you want to look like a man. Even small amounts of fat, after all that cardio, can make you look fat if there's no muscle: it's kind of fat to muscle ratio that determines the looks
So, you're suggesting that women who lift look like men?
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.7K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 394 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 943 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions