How does the heart respond to exercise and nutrition?

Options
kellyellyy
kellyellyy Posts: 10 Member
in Fitness and Exercise
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

Replies

  • Katzedernacht
    Katzedernacht Posts: 266 Member
    Options
    goood question,I reply to see the answers
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Options
    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
    Cherimoose Posts: 5,209 Member
    Options
    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
    kellyellyy Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    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. :blush:
  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    Options
    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
    kellyellyy Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Thanks for all the good info. I'm especially thankful that it is encouraging information. :smile: 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
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    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?

    rw_1148659_2219432.jpg
  • mwyvr
    mwyvr Posts: 1,883 Member
    Options
    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
    jacquifrench304 Posts: 131 Member
    Options
    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?

    rw_1148659_2219432.jpg

    Very informative graphic , thanks
  • kellyellyy
    kellyellyy Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    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: »

    rw_1148659_2219432.jpg


  • scottb81
    scottb81 Posts: 2,538 Member
    edited July 2015
    Options
    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
    msf74 Posts: 3,498 Member
    Options
    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
    Mr_Knight Posts: 9,532 Member
    Options
    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
    kellyellyy Posts: 10 Member
    Options
    Wow, I've learned so much about training! Thanks guys!

Categories