How does the heart respond to exercise and nutrition?

kellyellyy · July 2015

So I know that in order to put on skeletal muscle, i.e. biceps, quadriceps, abdominal muscles, you have to feed them enough protein as well as calories in general. However, since the heart is a voluntary muscle and not exactly like skeletal muscle in some ways, I'm wondering if the same principle applies to it. Like if I ate 1,000 calories (for the sake of discussion) and lifted weights, I wouldn't expect to put on any muscle, but what would happen to my cardiovascular endurance if I ate 1,000 calories and ran several miles consistently? Would you expect my heart to grow stronger and gain stamina despite the calorie deficit? Or would I only be able to run the same handful of miles, and not be able to improve in my endurance training?

I hope this made sense. I'm only curious anyway, but if anyone knows a little something about the topic I would love to hear your thoughts.

Thanks

Katzedernacht · July 2015

goood question,I reply to see the answers

scottb81 · July 2015

Yes, your heart will get stronger and your endurance better on a calorie deficit. If your deficit is too big though your legs will be permanently tired.

Cherimoose · July 2015

The greater the calorie deficit, the harder it will be to make adaptations and improvements (of any kind). With a slight deficit, improvements are certainly possible. 1000 calories is malnourishment for endurance training.

kellyellyy · July 2015

Thanks guys.

My next question is if the same goes for high intensity training...Will you be able to improve in activities that really get your heart rate way up there if you are in a moderate calorie deficit? I know you won't be able to sprint faster if your legs aren't getting any stronger, but as far as general conditioning goes, I feel like it would make sense based on what you guys said that you could increase your heart's fitness by doing high intensity work....unless endurance training is a unique thing in itself. I don't know.

Once again, no big deal if no one has read anything on this.

P.S. in my original post I meant to write that the heart is an involuntary muscle, not a voluntary one...you guys already knew that though.

scottb81 · July 2015

Yes, you can improve that too. However, if your intention is to become a runner it's not really the best use of your training time until you have developed a strong base of aerobic fitness. Two reasons for this. First, the injury risk is high. This is particularly true in the beginning. And second, until you have a strong aerobic fitness base you won't be capable of the volume and intensity needed for substantial improvement.

Even more importantly, anaerobic high intensity stuff builds on top of whatever fitness base you currently have. If you are just starting out there is nothing to build upon. You are better served by doing a lot of low and mid intensity and then after a couple of months some higher intensity but still aerobic work.

kellyellyy · July 2015

Thanks for all the good info. I'm especially thankful that it is encouraging information.

I am actually not looking to become a runner, I just want to be more athletic, as I play a sport at my university. I wish I were a runner, though, because I would be more fit!

Thanks again!

Mr_Knight · July 2015

kellyellyy wrote: »

SLike if I ate 1,000 calories (for the sake of discussion) and lifted weights, I wouldn't expect to put on any muscle, but what would happen to my cardiovascular endurance if I ate 1,000 calories and ran several miles consistently?

There is a *lot* more to CV endurance then just strengthening the heart. All kinds of physiological changes occur, and yes, if you fuel your body and do vigorous cardio (however that is defined for your context) and rest properly, pretty much every time you go out there and run (or ect), you are making physiological improvements.

Did I understand your question correctly?

mwyvr · July 2015

Let's ignore the "1000" calorie thing because you won't be using that figure if you are doing any training at all. Instead you'll want to figure out what your base metabolic rate is and then choose a deficit based on that rate. On top of that you'll burn calories training and will eat those back. The net figure simply won't be 1,000. Or 1,200. It'll be higher.

Moving on, you'll make impressive gains in your cardio pulmonary system if you focus on lower intensity endurance training *first* and build a base as Scott has suggested.

Those of us who have some weight to lose are carrying around excess fuel in the form of fat, and your body can in fact use this fairly effectively to fuel lower intensity endurance style training. So yes you can have the best of both worlds - lose weight and improve your overall fitness.

jacquifrench304 · July 2015

Mr_Knight wrote: »

kellyellyy wrote: »

SLike if I ate 1,000 calories (for the sake of discussion) and lifted weights, I wouldn't expect to put on any muscle, but what would happen to my cardiovascular endurance if I ate 1,000 calories and ran several miles consistently?

There is a *lot* more to CV endurance then just strengthening the heart. All kinds of physiological changes occur, and yes, if you fuel your body and do vigorous cardio (however that is defined for your context) and rest properly, pretty much every time you go out there and run (or ect), you are making physiological improvements.

Did I understand your question correctly?

Very informative graphic , thanks

kellyellyy · July 2015

Yes thanks to everyone that gave their input here. It is much appreciated. And this is a pretty cool chart you provided. Thanks for that!

Mr_Knight wrote: »

scottb81 · July 2015

If you use that chart for running you will get best results doing the majority of runs, 80%+ of your miles, in zone 2 and the remainder in zones 4 & 5. Zone 3 and the "Sweet Spot" are faster than you need to run for aerobic development and more importantly are moderately hard runs that lead to a lot of fatigue. In the end, running there all the time leads to you running less and getting less development or trying to run more and burning out. Running there all the time also leaves you too tired to properly run in zones 4 and 5 so you miss out in developing high levels of lactate tolerance which is critical for high performance.

If you are using a HR monitor, Zone 2 is around 70 to 77% max HR. Zone 4 is around 85 to 92% max HR. Zone 5 is above 92% max HR.

msf74 · July 2015

scottb81 wrote: »

If you use that chart for running you will get best results doing the majority of runs, 80%+ of your miles, in zone 2 and the remainder in zones 4 & 5. Zone 3 and the "Sweet Spot" are faster than you need to run for aerobic development and more importantly are moderately hard runs that lead to a lot of fatigue. In the end, running there all the time leads to you running less and getting less development or trying to run more and burning out. Running there all the time also leaves you too tired to properly run in zones 4 and 5 so you miss out in developing high levels of lactate tolerance which is critical for high performance.

If you are using a HR monitor, Zone 2 is around 70 to 77% max HR. Zone 4 is around 85 to 92% max HR. Zone 5 is above 92% max HR.

I think SST is more applicable to cycling as it is a good method for improving functional threshold power. As you say it is different for running where too much time at that intensity tends to be counter-productive.

The chart is a great illustration of the physical adaptations that are triggered through training however.

Mr_Knight · July 2015

I'd also add that the "sweet spot" thing is going to also depend on how much time a person is dedicating to training. For a typical non-athlete who is unlikely to spend more than 3 hours a week running, it's a pretty good place to spend those three hours.

For those doing a bunch more than that, yeah, some great comments upstream. :drinker:

kellyellyy · July 2015

Wow, I've learned so much about training! Thanks guys!

How does the heart respond to exercise and nutrition?

Replies

Categories