A Case Against Cardio

To me this article seemed more ideologically driven than anything else-- a loose collection of myopia, strawman arguments, false assumptions, and "explanations" with little or no valid scientific research presented to support them.

Other than that it was just fine.

This is what happens when people use themselves as the "baseline" against which all facts must be judged.

HE states the "popular wisdom" is:

we would all be better off doing 45 minutes to an hour a day of intense aerobic activity

And that the "popular wisdom":

has created a generation of overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics.

First of all, there is NO professional organization, national health organization, or even any health "expert" who recommends 45-60 min of "intense aerobic activity" per day. HE followed such a program, but that only "proves" he was obsessive, competitive, and a dumbass. This is a classic straw man argument.

Secondly, there is no study that I am aware of that indicates that the majority of people are overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics. Only about 25% of all Americans follow a regular exercise program AT ALL, and the number who do 45-60 min of intense aerobic activity is likely in the singe digits, if not less than a single percentage digit.

The author then cites his own experience as "proof" of his conclusions: 20+ years as a competitive athlete, pushing himself harder and harder, driving himself to score more "Cooper points".

Anyone else seeing the pattern here? "I was compulsive and obsessive and really ignorant--but it's the fault of the 'popular wisdom' that I wasn't successful". Even more ironic is his citing the Cooper point system as "evidence" of misguided cardio guidelines.

Ken Cooper was ALWAYS adamant that a moderate level of aerobic exercise was sufficient for optimal health benefits. He was the original "3 days a week, 20 minutes per day" guy and rarely wavered from that standard, even during the "running boom" when long distance running was being held up as the "gold standard". He never advocated using the Cooper point system as a contest--20 points was all you needed, IIRC.

He next moves on to his next round of self-infatuation--describing the various illnesses and injuries he suffered, and comes to the breathtaking conclusion:

In retrospect, it is clear now that my carbohydrate-fueled high-intensity aerobic lifestyle was promoting a dangerous level of continuous systemic inflammation, was severely suppressing other parts of my immune system and the increased oxidative damage was generally tearing apart my precious muscle and joint tissue.

How is this "clear"? I don't know--no data or evidence is ever given, just the certainty that, when viewed through his current ideological lens, the past can all be seen as fitting some "predestined" pattern.

The rest just devolves into additional blah blah blah doctrine of his new religion--I know he's a big "primal" guy. Quite frankly, at that point it was just a long litany of unsupported editorializing that I did not have the patience to examine in detail.

The thing is, with a broader base of knowledge and a touch of empathy, the topic could have been addressed in a constructive way that might have added to people's knowledge. There are plenty of different ways to exercise and doing a combination of moderate aerobics, high-intensity interval training, and resistance exercise could work just fine for many people.

But this just seemed more like religious proselytizing than anything else.

There are plenty of different ways to exercise and doing a combination of moderate aerobics, high-intensity interval training, and resistance exercise could work just fine for many people.

To me this article seemed more ideologically driven than anything else-- a loose collection of myopia, strawman arguments, false assumptions, and "explanations" with little or no valid scientific research presented to support them.

Other than that it was just fine.

This is what happens when people use themselves as the "baseline" against which all facts must be judged.

HE states the "popular wisdom" is:

we would all be better off doing 45 minutes to an hour a day of intense aerobic activity

And that the "popular wisdom":

has created a generation of overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics.

First of all, there is NO professional organization, national health organization, or even any health "expert" who recommends 45-60 min of "intense aerobic activity" per day. HE followed such a program, but that only "proves" he was obsessive, competitive, and a dumbass. This is a classic straw man argument.

Secondly, there is no study that I am aware of that indicates that the majority of people are overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics. Only about 25% of all Americans follow a regular exercise program AT ALL, and the number who do 45-60 min of intense aerobic activity is likely in the singe digits, if not less than a single percentage digit.

The author then cites his own experience as "proof" of his conclusions: 20+ years as a competitive athlete, pushing himself harder and harder, driving himself to score more "Cooper points".

Anyone else seeing the pattern here? "I was compulsive and obsessive and really ignorant--but it's the fault of the 'popular wisdom' that I wasn't successful". Even more ironic is his citing the Cooper point system as "evidence" of misguided cardio guidelines.

Ken Cooper was ALWAYS adamant that a moderate level of aerobic exercise was sufficient for optimal health benefits. He was the original "3 days a week, 20 minutes per day" guy and rarely wavered from that standard, even during the "running boom" when long distance running was being held up as the "gold standard". He never advocated using the Cooper point system as a contest--20 points was all you needed, IIRC.

He next moves on to his next round of self-infatuation--describing the various illnesses and injuries he suffered, and comes to the breathtaking conclusion:

In retrospect, it is clear now that my carbohydrate-fueled high-intensity aerobic lifestyle was promoting a dangerous level of continuous systemic inflammation, was severely suppressing other parts of my immune system and the increased oxidative damage was generally tearing apart my precious muscle and joint tissue.

How is this "clear"? I don't know--no data or evidence is ever given, just the certainty that, when viewed through his current ideological lens, the past can all be seen as fitting some "predestined" pattern.

The rest just devolves into additional blah blah blah doctrine of his new religion--I know he's a big "primal" guy. Quite frankly, at that point it was just a long litany of unsupported editorializing that I did not have the patience to examine in detail.

The thing is, with a broader base of knowledge and a touch of empathy, the topic could have been addressed in a constructive way that might have added to people's knowledge. There are plenty of different ways to exercise and doing a combination of moderate aerobics, high-intensity interval training, and resistance exercise could work just fine for many people.

But this just seemed more like religious proselytizing than anything else.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.