"Cardio" - Rant warning!

[Bill Hartman]

Okay, I hate the use of the term “cardio”. What exactly are they trying to convey with this term?

I asked a guy in the gym once the same question. He said that to keep your heart healthy that you had to get your heart rate up and keep it there for a while. That’s “Cardio”.

If this is true then, why don’t they promote race car driving, downhill skiing, haunted house rides, repetitive roller coaster riding, and skydiving as excellent sources for cardio. All these activities are performed at, near, or even above age predicted maximum heart rates. In the case of race car drivers, they may actually be functioning at near maximum heart rate for up to 2 hours! Is this improving cardiovascular function??? Are race car drivers hearts more healthy because their heart beats are so high for so long?

Instead, the gym trainers promote riding a bike which requires no bike riding skills, the road to No-where (treadmill), and the stairway that never gets you to the next floor.

Do my heavy sets of squats not suffice?

Actually the studies done by Ralph Paffenbarger at Standford kinda answer this question.

He’s the guy with probably the best studies on longevity which include decades of following the same people and measuring their habits and health. To make several long stories short, in general, the studies show that healthier people and people that are less at risk of heart disease burn more calories on a daily basis than those considered less healthy.

It’s not about the magical heart rate zone or running or treadmills or weightlifting or how frequently you ejaculate thus giving up your “life essence”. Simply about expending a lot of calories.

This being true then wouldn’t all forms of physical activity be “Cardio”? And if all forms of activity are “cardio”, then why don’t we call this cyclic, repetitive and occasionally, somewhat boring type of activity what is really is…energy system training (for those who religiously read T-mag you’ll notice that Chris Thibadeau –a very sharp guy- uses the same term…I did not steal it. He comes from sports training backround as do I. It’s actually a pretty common term as various sports rely on specific energy system development – Bill).

That way we can easily refer to doing aerobic(which is what we used to call it in the “old days”) or anaerobic energy system training depending on time, intensity and duration of the activity. Each having its own benefits and/or drawbacks for improving a specific way of producing energy and effects on physiology.

I’m not against “cardio”. I want my heart to beat forever if that’s ever possible. Just don’t tell me I need to get on that F&%$ing treadmill or my heart won’t be healthy.

Whew, I feel much better now (must have had too much caffeine today).

Bill Hartman

[Brian Grasso]

Bravo!

I love it when people (especially people I respect, like Bill) say 'eat it' to the world!

The multi-million dollar fitness industry, in a word, sucks. Untruths, fabrications and outright bull has penetrated our society to such a degree that 'spandex wearing' clowns are working in every capacity from aerobic instructors to 'fitness & training experts' on local radio stations and various other forms of media. The bottom line is that these fools are dictating to the general public what is 'right' and 'wrong' regarding fitness and health. Anyone ever seen the Firm ads on TV? The FOUNDER and HEAD TRAINER for the Firm can be heard every time that bloody infomercial is on saying (and I AM QUOTING DIRECTLY - or at least close enough!)... 'After just a few sessions, you feel your fat start turning to muscle'. Oh, good God.

If aerobic training is so crucial to weight and fat loss, somebody answer me this... Why, in every health club in the world, are there 'chunky' aerobic instructors who teach upwards of ten classes per week (that's TWO HOURS of 'cardio' a day) but still need to lose those 'last five'? At the same time, why are sprinters (who train in increments of LESS THAN TEN SECONDS) among the most lean athletes in the world? Think about it.

Good job, Bill.

- Brian

[Q.]

Okay, Bill, now I understand where you were coming from!

[call10]

All that's fine and dandy, but it does the beg the question: does cardio REALLY have a place in a normal routine? I do strength training 3 days a week and "cardio" (God, I already feel dirty just saying it) the other two. Primarily that f+%#*&g treadmill. Should I devote those other two days to working on a specific muscle instead of an overall cardio session? Is cardio a waste of time or can it, as it does in my case, help me keep on track and feel like I'm accomplishing more in terms of calorie burning and endurance?


So many questions for a new guy, isnt it?

[Bill Hartman]

First it's the F&%$ing treadmill

I'm not against the "C" word (geez, you're right...it is kinda dirty). It's just being used and promoted incorrectly in the popular fitness literature to such a degree that it has become a (false) truth.

If you enjoy your jaunt on the "road to nowhere" far be it from me to stop or to not encourage you to exercise. Do it. You're using calories. That's a very good thing.

My point was how wrong and misleading the "Fitness Bible" has become. These partial truths are then taught to uneducated "certified" trainers and then spread like cancer to all the arm-chair fitness experts (read: fitness and exercise participants) that is making our job harder having to fight through all the BS.

Truth: All forms of exercise create specific physiological adaptations. For example, Lance Armstrong is the greatest road cyclist on the planet. Why then is he not the greatest road runner (BEEP! BEEP!...sorry [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) on the planet? Because his adaptations are specific to the bike. Just as the world record holder in the 5K is not a great cyclist. (By the way, it's the ability of the specific muscles to extract oxygen during an event which will ultimately determine performance)

Both are aerobically fit and aerobically functional to amazing degrees of human performance, but with specific adaptations to their chosen sports (specificity).

This also has absolutely nothing to do with their heart health. They are independent factors.

In other words, aerobic fitness does not equal heart health.

However, because they burn a massive amount of calories per week in training, chances are they are very heart healthy as well.

Based on research, it's the calories used not the magic of aerobic exercise that promotes health. So if two exercisers burn the same number of total calories per week it could be assumed that they have equal protection against disease.

From a personal standpoint, I find LSD (long slow distance) incredibly boring and uncomfortable. I prefer to lift heavy objects repeatedly and then set them down, and then do it again (sounds rather indecisive, huh?). I also do other energy system training. I sprint, I run stairs, I jump rope, I drag a weighted tire, I do calisthenics, and I wrestle with my wife. Just because none of my chose activities doesn't last 30 minutes (well, except for the wrestling thing ) doesn't mean I'm not contributing to my heart health.

It's the calories that matter.

Do what you enjoy. And then do enough of it.

Bill

[Jean-Paul]

These partial truths are then taught to uneducated "certified" trainers and then spread like cancer to all the arm-chair fitness experts

Hey, I resemble that statement!

[fitone]

Hey JP that qoute was for your stuiped Swiss Ball exercises. Just kidding

In all serious the thing that I found sad about most trainers is once they are settle at a job or a postion is that they stop learning and thats where we go wrong.

There are a ton of information out there. Just remember there is always someone better then you out there that you can learn form.

I couldn't have said it any better Bill you are so right about this Cardio thing.

In Health,

Silas Chen

[Bill Hartman]

Ya know fellas, we could start a movement.

Hell NO Cardio!

Hell NO Cardio!

Would someone PLEASE remind me to lay off the caffeine!

It's late...I must go wrestle. It's my turn to be "The Rock"!

Bill

Addendum: JP, I would not categorize you in that way as you strike me as the type of guy who continues to seek answers and is not satisfied with generalized, vague reasoning. You continue to "elevate your game".

[Jean-Paul]

Thought I would bump this up since there was recent talk about Paffenbarger's studieson another thread.

[Kaiser]

Originally posted by Bill Hartman:
For example, Lance Armstrong is the greatest road cyclist on the planet. Why then is he not the greatest road runner (BEEP! BEEP!...sorry [img]tongue.gif[/img] ) on the planet? Because his adaptations are specific to the bike. Just as the world record holder in the 5K is not a great cyclist. (By the way, it's the ability of the specific muscles to extract oxygen during an event which will ultimately determine performance)

On a separate direction than the main thrust of your thread, Lance could very well have been the best triathlete in the world. He was the best junior triathlete in the country before he made his switch to only biking in his late teens.

The answer to your question about Lance: because he concentrated on bicycling and not running.

I'm going to disagree with your last statement above: "By the way, it's the ability of the specific muscles to extract oxygen during an event which will ultimately determine performance" Yes it it, but in Lances case, he has made the most of an incredible natural talent - his VO2 max level (measured at 86; one of the highest on the planet). Had he taken that God-given gift and pursued distance road running instead of cycling, I am sure he would have been in the elite of that sport as well, given that endurance racing in both cases relied on the same incredible aerobic capacity that he is blessed in abundance with.

I believe this because John Cannon was an All-Pro NFL defensive player and had an excellent measured aerobic capacity. He excelled at one of the premier short-burst/explosive sports on the planet, yet was able to make the transition to an elite triathlete in the Clydesdale (200 lbs and over) division. He took the triathlon world by storm. If he is able to use his incredible aerobic capacity to go be successful in such different sports, Lance would have most likely been able to be successful in road running.

Watch the success of Olympic Cycling Sprint Gold Medalist Marty Nothstein over the next few years. He cycles for a US team called the Navigators. He is trying to make the switch from track cyclist to road racer. He obviously has a great deal of talent, but it is doubtful that he will be an elite road racer. Time will tell.

[Bill Hartman]

If one's VO2 were the only issue in determining one' performance in an endurance event then I would totally agree. However, if that's the case, then the incredible Mr. Armstrong should be able to hop off the bike at any time and achieve world-class status in distance running or distance swimming without skipping a beat. Does he have the potential to be a great endurance athlete based on VO2 max? Perhaps, but you must train the specific muscles involved in the activity to extract more O2 from the blood.

For instance, put him on an upper body ergometer. Would he reach the same VO2 max? Nope. Put him in a pool. Will he reach the same VO2 max? Nope.

I never denied he didn't have the potential, however his adaptations are specific to the muscles involved. Therefore it is a limiting factor in performance.

There are of course many factors which contribute to such a high level of performance such as soft-tissue tolerance, bone density, economy of effort, etc. that we haven't even considered.

There are certainly many athletes with many varied gifts in the realm of sports performance. To be great at one thing the training adaptations must be more and more specific. You see this in the training of any type of athlete regardless of sport.

Bill Hartman, HARTMAN Certified and on vacation this week!!!!

[bryanc]

The can of worms openeth.

While Paffenbarger's studies appear powerful on the outside, I'm going to go with the slightly antagonistic side that they're little more than anthropological studies that give us minimal insight on how _some_ living habits can affect our future lives.

Most of Paffenbarger's data for theses health studies are from the Harvard Alumni Health Study. This was a study looking at Harvard graduates from 1916-1950. I believe the last time they sent out a survey was 1988. While Paffenbarger's group is able to obtain "objective" information (such as death certificates), they rely primarily on the recall of their subjects. Their data auditing is somewhat lacking (to confirm the surveys of over 7000 people, they randomly sampled 49 individuals whose physicians were contacted to verify their medical survey). In one of Paffenbarger's most recent studies, "Relative Intensity of Physical Activity and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease" (Circulation, 107(8), 4 March 2003, 1110-1116), one of the sets of survey questions was to ask the men what activities they did and to rate their perceived exertion on the Borg scale for each activity as well as frequency and duration. While the Harvard Alumni Activity Scale has had validation studies, it has never been validated for their own population (Paffenbarger cites three studies for validation, the most important one having been done on 25 year olds. Paffenbarger's population is in its late 60's). The question of recall bias (you are more likely to report the things you remember, and you are more likely to remember things that have happened most recently or to your liking), and desirability bias (you may be more likely to report something that either makes you look good or that you think the investigator wants to hear) can never be fully addressed in Paffenbarger's design.

Futhermore, Paffebarger is seldom looking at long-term health habits. In the Circulation 2003 study, the investigators looked at mortality and heart disease of the subjects who returned their questionnaires in 1988, in 1993--in essence their conclusions on heart health (as defined by the lack of coronary heart disease), were based on 1988 activity levels, which may or may not have been life-long activities AND the degree to which one can assign CAUSALITY of activities measured in 1988 to mortality and morbidity in 1993 is highly questionnable.

Certainly Paffebarger's studies are valuable for identifying things that should be studied more closely, but that's about it. There are issues of causality, bias, and generalizability (I mean, how much can you extrapolate to the general population from a cohort of HARVARD graduates? The proxies for socio-economic and genetic (as proxied by race) factors are astounding).

On the cardio debate, I'm not so sure that it comes down to "calories spent". I'll post on this later. Stuff about the relationship between obesity and heart disease. I swear, this board makes me at least an hour late for my workouts every time.

[poopy pants]

I swear, this board makes me at least an hour late for my workouts every time.

You can't help BUT answer can you?

[Kaiser]

Originally posted by Bill Hartman:
If one's VO2 were the only issue in determining one' performance in an endurance event then I would totally agree. However, if that's the case, then the incredible Mr. Armstrong should be able to hop off the bike at any time and achieve world-class status in distance running or distance swimming without skipping a beat. Does he have the potential to be a great endurance athlete based on VO2 max? Perhaps, but you must train the specific muscles involved in the activity to extract more O2 from the blood.

For instance, put him on an upper body ergometer. Would he reach the same VO2 max? Nope. Put him in a pool. Will he reach the same VO2 max? Nope.

I never denied he didn't have the potential, however his adaptations are specific to the muscles involved. Therefore it is a limiting factor in performance.

I'll have to wholly disagree with the great and HARTMAN certified Bill Hartman here. The discerning factors determining speed in most kind of endurance events are: VO2 max and technique (economy of motion). Technique can be taught and maximized. While anaerobic threshold can be improved upon, VO2 max is largely a result of genetics (for most individuals, VO2 max can be improved by approximately 6% at most). So one of the main determining factors in Lance succeeding at the top levels of competition at any endurance sport would be his VO2 max.

The discerning factor (besides the drive and hard work mentality) that makes an elite athlete is often times something extraordinary. In Lance's case as a paarticipant in an endurance sport (once again, leaving aside drive and tenacity), it is his incredible VO2 max. The muscle training would come eventually if he put his mind to it. But what separates him from others who train just as hard (once again, besides his mindset and mental toughness) is his incredible VO2 max. That is what allows him to be a top elite athlete versus just a great one.

Further since the limiting factor between great endurance athletes is very often VO2 max limitation, it would stand to reason that, with the proper training, he could have been an elite runner, or an elite triathlete (in this case, he already was). Training can overcome the limiting factor you've discussed. It cannot overcome VO2 max, and that is what differentiates elite endurance athletes from those who train and try harder. Unfortunately, there are no Adam Arhculettas or Bill Bates' in endurance sports.

Finally, he has already proven he can run and run well. As mentioned, he was the top US junior triathlete before he quit that discipline. You can't be at the top of your class in triathlons without performing exceptionally well in all three disciplines.

Here is some VO2 max info:
AVG VO2 Max for* 18-24 yo M 38-42 ml/kg/min * * * * *
AVG VO2 Max for 24 endurance sport pros tested 79 ml/kg/min * * * * *
Highest of these * * 85 ml/kg/min * * * * *
LA's VO2 Max * * ~86 ml\kg/min * * * * * *
Highest VO2 Max Ever recorded 94 ml/kg/min

[joshman]

Originally posted by Kaiser:
I'll have to wholly disagree with the great and HARTMAN certified Bill Hartman here. . .

Am I the only person following that doesn't understand what the disagreement is here?

I mean, sure Bill isn't in love with Lance's VO2max numbers (just joshin' yah K), but you both are saying that he would need to be trained to be good endurance athlete in other sports, and that he can't just sign up for the boston marathon (and win) tomorrow . . .

right?

[Bill Hartman]

I'm not seeing where you "wholly" disagree??

I said,"I never denied he [Lance Armstrong] didn't have the potential [I was referring to his genetic predisposition for endurance event performance], however his adaptations are specific to the muscles involved [in riding a bike]. Therefore it is a limiting factor in performance [referring to other endurance events like running]."

I was referring to his amazing performance on the bike and why he's a great cyclist and not a great runner. Could he be a great runner or triathlete...of course it's possible. He's not because he does not train to be a runner or a triathlete.

You said,"Training can overcome the limiting factor you've discussed."

You also said,"The muscle training would come eventually if he put his mind to it."

You are correct and I agree. That's exactly what I was talking about. Specificity of training determines where and how [the muscles] the adaptation takes place. That's why it is the limiting factor [for LA being as great a runner or rower or whatever endurance event].

Of course VO2 max is a limiting factor for many athletes [and perhaps many of the cyclist LA competes against], but it was my understanding we were talking about one specific athlete.

Bill Hartman, HARTMAN Certified