Cardio and gymnastics

[braindx]

You don't need cardio.

This statement is dependent upon the age of the trainee. If you are over 45, you need cardio.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

May I ask why?

[Donald Lee]

Well I´m not going to compete (don´t think they have turttle class races) , so I´m running to complement gymnastics, as you said that training some middle distance runs are more beneficial than HIIT, I ´would like to know how to train them (when I´ll be able to). Fast running is not in my habilities so I should try something like 400 or 800m. Or maybe just stick to run 20 min 3 times a week at a good pace. What do you recomend?

If you just want to complement your gymnastics, then all you need cardio for is general health, work capacity, and active recovery. To do that, 2-3 days/week of 20-40 min of easy pace cardio is sufficient. You can do speed walking, jogging, biking, C2 rowing, etc. If you're on a treadmill, you should probably set the incline to about 1.5 to mimic walking/jogging outside. Like with all forms of exercise, start at a low intensity and low volume. Increase volume and/or intensity as you improve. You should probably track progress through improvements in Resting Heart Rate, since you're not trying to race or anything. A Resting Heart Rate in the low-mid 50's is probably sufficient. High 50's is still good. Low 60's is all right...If you happen to have a heart rate monitor, 120-150 is a good range to be in during your cardio. Like I said before, that's about 45-60% of maximal heart rate. Of course, there will be individual variations, but just to note what the cardio should feel like, you should never get winded and you should easily be able to keep a conversation. Things get a bit tougher in the 140-150 heart rate range, but unless you plan on keeping volume low, like 20 min., you should probably stay closer to 120-130's.

I think it'd be ideal to include something that involves the upper body, like the C2 rower, for active recovery. I can't tell yet whether the elliptical can do anything for your upper body.

[Alvaro Antolinez]

Thank you. That is what I will do then. Just for curiosity how a 400 m training looks like?

[Donald Lee]

Thank you. That is what I will do then. Just for curiosity how a 400 m training looks like?

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-lo ... -body.html

[Coach Sommer]

May I ask why?

The overall activity level of the middle aged trainee is substantially lower than that of the twenty something year old. As a consequence their overall workout requirements vary greatly. For the younger trainee, their strength training exists within a matrix of other non-stop physical activities ranging from walking across campus to biking to ultimate frisbee; they are quite literally on the go from sunrise to sundown. Their circulatory system receives vast amounts of stimulation.

Whereas for the middle aged trainee, generally their time in the gym is the only physical activity that they engage in on a regular basis besides walking to the car, driving to work and then sitting at their desk reviewing that day's paperwork. Restricting their conditioning to strength training work alone will provide insufficient stimulation for their heart and circulatory system. In this situation, additional cardio work is not only necessary; it is essential for long term cardiovascular health.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

[Guest Ido Portal]

Whereas for the middle aged trainee, generally their time in the gym is the only physical activity that they engage in on a regular basis besides walking to the car, driving to work and then sitting at their desk reviewing that day's paperwork. Restricting their conditioning to strength training work alone will provide insufficient stimulation for their heart and circulatory system. In this situation, additional cardio work is not only necessary; it is essential for long term cardiovascular health.

I agree with the notion that stimulation of the cardiorespiratory is needed, but with the tool I disagree.

Aerobic 'cardio' LSD (Long Slow Distance) work is an inferior tool. It will promote many problems:

1. Loss of muscle mass. This is a huge problem in older age, when any gram of muscle mass should be preserved.

2. Loss of Bone health. Cardio activities have been shown to promote osteoperosis and fractures in older age.

3. Inadaquete stimulus to the heart. Research shows that Paleolithic and ancient movement patterns were highly intermittent. Why put a paleolithic machine through a neolithic movement pattern? Our hearts do not do well on a LSD type of work. Look at the research of long distance runners hearts - clearly unhealthy.

4. LSD work will negativly effect your cotrisol levels. That will become an even bigger problem in older age.

5. LSD work will negativly effect your immune system. It has been shown countless times as a big immune supressor.

In summery: we were made to throw a rock at the rabbit and not run 6 miles after it. Do you want the physique of a long distance runner or a sprinter? The fact that older population needs to move more in unquestionable, but conducting in what is considered 'dignified' work - cardio is a sure way to become injured, sick and weak. I would rather see people work out in a more natural, primal fashion oriented towards strength, power, strength endurance, speed, etc..

Ido.

[Guest Ido Portal]

Once strength work starts to become easy for some things like handstands it becomes skill work. The skill work basically becomes your "conditioning" much like most of gymnastics technique work on apparatus.

Braindx, I like this comment a lot. That is a good perspective to have on things, and people here should start listening to such advice. Trying to handle anything as 'high end strength training' is a big mistake, as I have indicated before in a post about the difference between gymnastics training and strength training. And usualy its being made by weakness of character. ('I should rest more', take a protein shake after every handstand set, etc...)

Ido.

[Coach Sommer]

I'm afraid that I must disagree with you, my friend.

I agree with the notion that stimulation of the cardiorespiratory is needed, but with the tool I disagree.

Aerobic 'cardio' LSD (Long Slow Distance) work is an inferior tool.

In this instance, it is important to note that LSD is not the only tool being employed, but simply one of the tools in the tool box. It's efficacy, when properly implemented, has been proven countless times. A refusal to acknowledge its place at the training table is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

1. Loss of muscle mass. This is a huge problem in older age, when any gram of muscle mass should be preserved.

Running short distances of 3-5 miles 2-3 times per week will not result in significant loss of muscle mass. As the Chinese National Team has amply demonstrated.

2. Loss of Bone health. Cardio activities have been shown to promote osteoperosis and fractures in older age.

This is more of a issue regarding the results on an incorrectly designed conditioning program which focused solely on LSD cardio work, rather than a function of engaging in various forms of cardio work in combination with other training modalities.

Here is an interesting article regarding the role of exercise in increasing the bone density of the elderly:

Inadaquete stimulus to the heart. Research shows that Paleolithic and ancient movement patterns were highly intermittent. Why put a paleolithic machine through a neolithic movement pattern? Our hearts do not do well on a LSD type of work. Look at the research of long distance runners hearts - clearly unhealthy.

It is a matter of degree; running 3-5 miles is not considered long distance but short distance. Truly it is damaging to the system to run for endless hours on end. But running for 30 minutes is not an issue.

Here is an interesting examination of the movement patterns of a modern day persistance hunter. Note that the majority of his time during this day is spent either walking or engaging in LSD with the occasional sprint mixed in.

AQ1PnR0IYy8

LSD work will negativly effect your cotrisol levels. That will become an even bigger problem in older age.

There are many issues which can affect cortisol levels ranging from diet, to stress, to lack of sleep or other environment factors. Once again, it is a matter of managing the degree of exposure and weighing the appropriate benefits.

LSD work will negativly effect your immune system. It has been shown countless times as a big immune supressor.

Again, it is a matter of degree; over exposure will suppress the immune system. Repetitive Ironman triathlon and marathon distances are without question damaging to the body. However shorter distances are quite another matter as has been shown by muscle biopsy comparisions between half marathon and full marathon athletes.

I would rather see people work out in a more natural, primal fashion oriented towards strength, power, strength endurance, speed, etc ... In summery: we were made to throw a rock at the rabbit and not run 6 miles after it ...

Other than perhaps brachiatting (climbing), there is no more natural movement for the human body than running. We have been designed by nature to run and run for long distances. Without being overly specific, these adaptations range from the body's ability to sweat, to the specialized structure of the foot and tendons/ligaments of the lower limbs, to the larger force absorbing diameters of the vetebrae and discs, to the stronger connection between the spine and pelvis (in comparison to our non-running ancestors). We even have a version of the nuchal ligament (found only in animals which run), a tendonlike band that links the head to the spine and keeps the head steady during running.

In short, the human body is filled with adaptations specifically designed for the application of long distance running. This is why a many completely sedentary couch potatoes have been successfully trained to run a marathon in six months. Running is quite simply one of the human body's primary expressions of physical movement.

Sprinting and interval training are simply one of the forms of running which may be implemented.

The fact that older population needs to move more in unquestionable, but conducting in what is considered 'dignified' work - cardio is a sure way to become injured, sick and weak.

No one is implying that the conditioning of the elderly be based solely upon LSD. It is but one component of a complete training program that includes also includes interval, strength and mobility work.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

[Donald Lee]

Intaking some carbs during cardio will blunt the negative effects on your immune system.

[Guest Ido Portal]

Coach,

I am aware of this kind of an approach, but I argue that the ones who conduct in pure LSD work are showing us basicly which direction the adaptation goes. You can look at strength athletes in the extreme opposite, and they do not show any negative effects health wise from their practice, unless injured. On the other hand, a LSD runner will be exhibiting supressed immune system, enlarged and unhealthy heart, skeleton issues, stressed biochemistry and a multitude of overuse injuries.

In this instance, it is important to note that LSD is not the only tool being employed, but simply one of the tools in the tool box. It's efficacy, when properly implemented, has been proven countless times. A refusal to acknowledge its place at the training table is akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Of course that a lower exposure will produce less side effects, but for what cost? If I can provide a supperior tool that produces better results and even effects the aerobic system greatly, why would I still incorporate this inferior practice?

Interval work is the answer. As shown previously in research, it effects the aerobic energy system as well as the anaerobic one, but the opposite is not true!

Running short distances of 3-5 miles 2-3 times per week will not result in significant loss of muscle mass. As the Chinese National Team has amply demonstrated.

Let us put this chinese team practice under perspective:

1. What is ratio between weight baring exercise and aerobic work? What is the ratio between anaerobic work and aerobic? this is a miniscule part of their training, almost nothing.

2. Perheps their results would be far supperior without this unhealthy practice. Research on the effect of aerobic work on strength levels clearly shows that. There is no doubt.

3. The worst effect of running is on the lower body, maybe this is why the chinese feel the need to back squat to somehow fight the negative effects of running. Also, what I argue here is, look at their vertical jumps and you will see that it is effected by aerobic work. This, also have been shown in the past.

This is more of a issue regarding the results on an incorrectly designed conditioning program which focused solely on LSD cardio work, rather than a function of engaging in various forms of cardio work in combination with other training modalities.

As i have argued before, we see where the adaptation goes with LSD. Why go there, even moderatly? Why not use interval, intermittent, varied anaerobic work? No negative side effects, better results over wider array of energy systems, etc..

Here is an interesting article regarding the role of exercise in increasing the bone density of the elderly:

Actually that is not a research article. Its a collection of opinions, but that is not relevent. Why? Because with sedentery, untrained population even stamp collecting will increase bone density. Another reason why people should be highly careful when they are quoting flawed research papers.

It is a matter of degree; running 3-5 miles is not considered long distance but short distance. Truly it is damaging to the system to run for endless hours on end. But running for 30 minutes is not an issue.

I argue that even 30 min of aerobic LSD work 2 times a week will take a toll on your strength levels. Anyone who has ever tried such a protocol will notice it.

Here is an interesting examination of the movement patterns of a modern day persistance hunter. Note that the majority of his time during this day is spent either walking or engaging in LSD with the occasional sprint mixed in.

Exactly, that is not LSD, but a varied movement pattern. In nature, never will an organism maintain steady pace. Never. It is not natural. And dont give me the etheopian or kenyian runners, because they are a neolithic, carb-eating remains of their paleolithic ancestors. They are also exhibiting poor health compared to hunter gatherer groups like the Hadza.

There are many issues which can affect cortisol levels ranging from diet, to stress, to lack of sleep or other environment factors. Once again, it is a matter of managing the degree of exposure and weighing the appropriate benefits.

Of course cortisol is a normal reaction to stress, but no other activity effects cortisol secretion in such a negative manner as aerobic exercise.

Again, it is a matter of degree; over exposure will suppress the immune system. Repetitive Ironman triathlon and marathon distances are without question damaging to the body. However shorter distances are quite another matter as has been shown by muscle biopsy comparisions between half marathon and full marathon athletes.

So, again, why should a person choose an obviously problematic tool? To what end? You can produce any positive adaptation from aerobic exercise with anaerobic methods, while they do not put you in risk. (Of course it goes beyond that, because they are superior in any way to LSD work)

Other than perhaps brachiatting (climbing), there is no more natural movement for the human body than running. We have been designed by nature to run and run for long distances. Without being overly specific, these adaptations range from the body's ability to sweat, to the specialized structure of the foot and tendons/ligaments of the lower limbs, to the larger force absorbing diameters of the vetebrae and discs, to the stronger connection between the spine and pelvis (in comparison to our non-running ancestors). We even have a version of the nuchal ligament (found only in animals which run), a tendonlike band that links the head to the spine and keeps the head steady during running.

I agree with you, by biomechanical design we are ment to run, among other things, but not in a LSD fashion.

By the same thinking, a proper examination of the heart&circulatory system and the endocrine system shows that we are not designed to maintain a steady pace while running long distances.

No one is implying that the conditioning of the elderly be based solely upon LSD. It is but one component of a complete training program that includes also includes interval, strength and mobility work.

I argue that incorporating LSD work into an elderly's training plan will produce negative results in the long run, both for health and his performance.

My own mother, which trains in one of my exercise class group is a great example. She can DL 1.5XBW, perform chin-ups and full ROM push ups for reps and maintains a low body fat year round. She also carries quite a lot of muscle mass, which is a very important indicator of health in old age. She will be 60 this year. Also, when an opportunity arises and she has to run LSD (in the rare cases I prescribe it as a challange and to show my students the suppriority of our training methods) she has no problem doing so. Last we did it, she ran 11 KM non stop in under an hour.

Part of the training program she performs always include some form of sprints at least once a week.

Ido.

[braindx]

For what it's worth these two posts by Kurt Harris on the detrimental effects of cardio may be an interesting read if you haven't seen them before:

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2009 ... sease.html

http://www.paleonu.com/panu-weblog/2010 ... o-run.html

I still don't think it's necessarily given that strength -> skill work transfer, and of course if people are sprinting at least once a week (which I would recommend if they aren't lifting weights for lower body). But hey, whatever works for the individual.

[Coach Sommer]

I argue that the ones who conduct in pure LSD work are showing us basicly which direction the adaptation goes. You can look at strength athletes in the extreme opposite, and they do not show any negative effects health wise from their practice, unless injured. On the other hand, a LSD runner will be exhibiting supressed immune system, enlarged and unhealthy heart, skeleton issues, stressed biochemistry and a multitude of overuse injuries.

You imply that strength training carried to the extreme is without deleterious effects on the body which is quite patently false. Unless of course, you consider a lack of cardiovascular capacity, a loss of ROM, reduced explosive capacity, and a lack of mobility and agility to all be non-deleterious.

All of which is without bearing on the argument as presented, as we were discussing the merits of moderate aerobic work; not as a single modality of training.

Interval work is the answer. As shown previously in research, it effects the aerobic energy system as well as the anaerobic one, but the opposite is not true!

Nearly correct. Those who respond best to interval training are those who are already coming to the table with a solid aerobic base.

What is ratio between weight baring exercise and aerobic work? What is the ratio between anaerobic work and aerobic? this is a miniscule part of their training, almost nothing.

Focusing on the ratio of exercise to aerobic training is meaningless if your previous ascertion that aerobic activity leads to loss of muscle mass is accurate as additional activity would only further diminish muscle mass. Consequently that ascertion is false. And the fact still remains that the Chinese Team is running 3-5 miles 2-3 times per week without a loss a muscle mass.

Perheps their results would be far superior without this unhealthy practice. Research on the effect of aerobic work on strength levels clearly shows that. There is no doubt

This is mere supposition and again based on the false premise that low amounts of aerobic work are deleterious to strength levels. Many of the top programs in the world (Chinese, Russian, German etc.) have always included short distance aerobic work in their programs and their strength levels are superlative. In fact my own advanced athletes go out for a 15-20 minute run on Saturday mornings when our schedule and the weather allows.

The worst effect of running is on the lower body, maybe this is why the chinese feel the need to back squat to somehow fight the negative effects of running. Also, what I argue here is, look at their vertical jumps and you will see that it is effected by aerobic work. This, also have been shown in the past.

This is incorrect because of a failure to allow for moderation. This is not an either or preposition. Excessive running has a deleterious effect on the lower body. Reasonable amounts of running have a tonic-like prehab effect on the lower body.

Their verticals are solely the result of their specialized training environment which focuses on rotation rather than height. This is consistent throughout the gymnastics community in all programs independent of whether they engage in aerobic activity or not.

Actually that is not a research article. Its a collection of opinions, but that is not relevent. Why? Because with sedentery, untrained population even stamp collecting will increase bone density. Another reason why people should be highly careful when they are quoting flawed research papers.

A careful reading of the article would have shown the reference to a linked article by the American Medical Association. I assume that you would accept that as a relevant reference?

I argue that even 30 min of aerobic LSD work 2 times a week will take a toll on your strength levels. Anyone who has ever tried such a protocol will notice it.

The results of the Chinese National Team disprove your statement.

...that is not LSD, but a varied movement pattern. In nature, never will an organism maintain steady pace. Never. It is not natural. And dont give me the etheopian or kenyian runners, because they are a neolithic, carb-eating remains of their paleolithic ancestors. They are also exhibiting poor health compared to hunter gatherer groups like the Hadza

Regardless of their diet or anthropological history, the fact still remains that the majority of their movement was spent in a non-VO2 max/non-anaerobic state covering vast distances in an aerobic state.

cortisol is a normal reaction to stress, but no other activity effects cortisol secretion in such a negative manner as aerobic exercise

Of course it is released in response to both high VO2 max and aerobic work; however its release in this instance is anything but a negative as it is being used by the body to maintain blood glucose levels.

I agree with you, by biomechanical design we are ment to run, among other things, but not in a LSD fashion. By the same thinking, a proper examination of the heart&circulatory system and the endocrine system shows that we are not designed to maintain a steady pace while running long distances.

You seem to be unable to acknowledge that all running that is not interval training is not necessarily LSD.

I argue that incorporating LSD work into an elderly's training plan will produce negative results in the long run, both for health and his performance

You are of course entitled to your opinion. As for me, I am now going out for a run.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

[Joshua Naterman]

I argue that even 30 min of aerobic LSD work 2 times a week will take a toll on your strength levels. Anyone who has ever tried such a protocol will notice it.

I can honestly say that I have done this, and that I benefited from the slow runs. I didn't get as sore after workouts and my strength increase was unchanged between periods where I ran slow 3-4 milers in 24-32 min and between periods where I was concentrating more on sprinting and only doing one steady pace run every other week, but I did seem to get less tired when I was doing the slow runs more often. To be fair, deadlifting 435-505 with an olympic bar and front squatting 300-350 lbs on a smith machine( You're a fool to try free weight bar squats on a moving ship) is not even close to maximum potential for someone my size, so I certainly think that had something to do with my continued progress as well. Whatever the particulars were, my personal experience contradicts what you say.

I've talked to some powerlifters who have told me that they do better with interval work, but I don't know a ton about powerlifting protocols. I do know that when you are trying to maximize your maximal strength, which we've already noted in many threads here will negatively impact other aspects of athletic development, you want as little aerobic work as possible in order to maximize muscle fiber conversion.

Exactly, that is not LSD, but a varied movement pattern. In nature, never will an organism maintain steady pace. Never. It is not natural. And dont give me the etheopian or kenyian runners, because they are a neolithic, carb-eating remains of their paleolithic ancestors. They are also exhibiting poor health compared to hunter gatherer groups like the Hadza.

The hunter clearly jogged for several hours once the chase started, until his prey took a rest in the shade. SEVERAL HOURS. This is a regular part of their life. There isn't any getting around the fact that this is the very definition of LSD, or that it is just a part of the hunt. To not recognize this is simply being dogmatic, you'd be lowering yourself to the level of the medieval Catholic Church. There is obviously a lot more to the hunt than just LSD, but it IS a vital part of it. This is quoted directly from the referenced documentary. I doubt all hunter-gatherer groups will need to employ LSD, since local resources are so different from one region to the next, but LSD is clearly a tool that has allowed hunts like the one shown to be successful.

So, again, why should a person choose an obviously problematic tool? To what end?

Why train straight arm skills when so many people get hurt training them? You can get strong without them, there are other ways to strengthen tendons. You could use extreme end ROM movements. Why use straight arm training to do it? We can all search the forums and find a HUGE number of people who have sustained injuries as a direct result of this training. So why use it? It is an obviously problematic tool.

I think the answer, just like the answer that you refuted from coach, in this case is in the programming. When you try to do to much volume or raise the intensity too high, your elbows and shoulders can start to get injured. This leads to an inability to train the upper body and, in some cases, the lower body(via deadlifts and back squats) and core(HLL/body levers) effectively for the duration of the injury.

However, when programmed conservatively and proper warm up/stretching/other pre-hab procedures are followed the straight arm training leads to the ability to do amazing things, like the planche and the iron cross. The increased tendon strength allows increased strength and power expression in other movements as well. When properly utilized, the straight arm training can be a safe way to build a higher degree of strength in the arms and shoulders.

In the same vein, the effects of extreme LSD are clearly less than desirable and not worth it for the average person. If your life is marathon running, there's not much getting around the long runs, and you may pay a higher price than you'd like.

However, there's nothing in nature or experience to suggest that a slow(I'm talking slow, like a 10-12 minute mile pace) 10-15 minute jog a few times a week will hurt you, and we are all familiar with the benefits of active recovery. Why would a short, slow jog be detrimental? It's clear that it doesn't hurt the hunter-gatherers. In fact, they seem to be moving even faster than that.

Note: My computer has been screwing up, I've been trying to post this for half an hour. I don't mean to be stacking on top of Coach's reply.

[Donald Lee]

What's so bad about acute cortisol secretion?

If endurance athletes ate more protein, we wouldn't see as many negative health markers. Protein spares muscle. Carbs lowers cortisol, but ultimately, cortisol doesn't really matter with regards to net protein balance.

Prolonged inactivity (bed rest) + high cortisol = loss of muscle mass

But muscle protein breakdown isn't really the problem with hypercortisolemia in a bed rest state, it's the lack of muscle protein synthesis. Muscle protein breakdown isn't any greater with hypercortisolemia than it is while you're fasting. Extreme inactivity reduces ribosome count, which is partly responsible for the reduced muscle protein synthesis response even with proper intake of amino acids.

Hence, cortisol is nothing to worry about, with regards to msucle mass at least, if you're active and take in sufficient amounts of protein. Also, acute elevation of muscle protein breakdown is accompanied by acute elevation of muscle protein synthesis. This net balance is what matters. It's not as simple as cortisol is catabolic and bad. Cortisol plays an important role in the body, and it's only bad when it's chronically elevated.

Also, with regards to the health of the human body, moderation in all things is generally the best: moderate aerobic acitivity, moderate anaerobic activity, moderate protein intake, moderate carb intake, moderate fat intake, moderate levels of stressing yourself out doing whatever, etc. Extremes are generally not healthy, so using extremes of a certain thing to argue against the moderation of a certain thing is not a valid argument.

Also, low intensity, low volume cardio will insufficiently activate AMPK, which is the big activator of aerobic adaptations. When you start upping the intensity and/or volume, then cardio can start interfering with your strength/muscle mass. This problem is just as big with HIIT as with steady state cardio. Excessive HIIT can potentially reduce strength/muscle mass. And, many bodybuilders have used and continue to use cardio to cut fat without having all these negative effects that people seem to have come to fear. Why is that? It's because they're doing low intensity and low volume.

[Guest Ido Portal]

You imply that strength training carried to the extreme is without deleterious effects on the body which is quite patently false. Unless of course, you consider a lack of cardiovascular capacity, a loss of ROM, reduced explosive capacity, and a lack of mobility and agility to all be non-deleterious.

Not at all. Correctly executed strength training will not result in lack of cardiovascular capacity, (metabolic conditioning can be achieved with strength training modalities) Loss of ROM - never was shown in research to be true. Flex Wheeler doing the splits on stage back in the day is an extreme example, but just one example.

Reduce explosive capacity? Loss of agility? Strength training is one of the most important tools to achieve those traits.

I think you are confusing a powerlifter's approach to what I am suggesting - much more comprehensive and varied strength training accompenied by interval and fluctuating heart rate activities, instead of your model - LSD + strength training. Dont make me a powerlifting proponent, I think we see eye to eye in how comprehensive a strength and conditioning program should be.

Nearly correct. Those who respond best to interval training are those who are already coming to the table with a solid aerobic base.

Actually, this is a myth that have been debunked a long time ago. Having a so called 'aerobic base' will not enable one to deal better with anerobic interval work. Of course, I do not need science to tell me that because during the last 10 years I have had the pleasure of recieving countless LSD joggers into my practice, and then having seen them crushed to dust by one of my famous up-hill sessions. My old students always have a good laugh, as everyone knows that it is going to happen.

Focusing on the ratio of exercise to aerobic training is meaningless if your previous ascertion that aerobic activity leads to loss of muscle mass is accurate as additional activity would only further diminish muscle mass. Consequently that ascertion is false. And the fact still remains that the Chinese Team is running 3-5 miles 2-3 times per week without a loss a muscle mass.

How did you perform the mental jump from me saying aerobic activity results in muscle loss to that additional, unaerobic strength oriented activity will further diminsh muscle mass? I did not say this at all, and it is incorrect.

The fact that the chinese team runs 3-5 miles is a singular fact in a sea of variables. I would be more careful than you in concluding that they are succeding in gymanstics because of that habit and not IN SPITE of it.

Should we also start eating white rice?

This shows me nothing. I rather make my conclusions about aerobic training from what research shows me.

A careful reading of the article would have shown the reference to a linked article by the American Medical Association. I assume that you would accept that as a relevant reference?

As I have indicated and where you refused to respond:

Why? Because with sedentery, untrained population even stamp collecting will increase bone density. Another reason why people should be highly careful when they are quoting flawed research papers.

Regardless of their diet or anthropological history, the fact still remains that the majority of their movement was spent in a non-VO2 max/non-anaerobic state covering vast distances in an aerobic state.

My problem is more with the steady state type of work. Fartleks and varied intensity runs are a different animal, due to the heavy requirements on the anaerobic system.

I will take it one step further: even trying to duplicate a LSD work in nature will lead to a fartlek kind of run compared to the steady state that will be possible only in modern conditions. So, again, steady state aerobic runs were not possible in nature.

however its release in this instance is anything but a negative as it is being used by the body to maintain blood glucose levels.

Of course that is cortisol main function (but far from the only one) and why it is being secreted during exercise, but a further cortisol dump has its price, and aerobic LSD activity is not worth it.

Putting more oxidative stress on the body through such work is not a smart habit.

You are of course entitled to your opinion. As for me, I am now going out for a run.

I have learnt my lesson during my military service in Israel, going down from a lean 82kg of bodyweight (the biggest I have ever been) to under 65Kg in a span of a few months. That was accompanied by various injuries showing their head, weakness, constant immune problems and a general depression.

But I am not presenting it as an argument, nothing can be learnt like this.

I think I will be going now to do a session of one arm chins alternated with bowers and finish off with a short prehab tri-set for the scapula retractors, ext rotators and trap-3 muscle.

Stay healthy, coach, we need you here!

With respect,

Ido.

[Guest Ido Portal]

Hence, cortisol is nothing to worry about, with regards to msucle mass at least, if you're active and take in sufficient amounts of protein. Also, acute elevation of muscle protein breakdown is accompanied by acute elevation of muscle protein synthesis. This net balance is what matters. It's not as simple as cortisol is catabolic and bad. Cortisol plays an important role in the body, and it's only bad when it's chronically elevated.

With this assumption we should go to the media. You will become a famous man for being the one who said: cortisol is nothing to worry about.

Really? We are presenting a much higher cortisol secretion in modern life than our parents and its only getting worse. Cortisol is the stress hormone, and nowdays anything is a stressor. In nature you would start to secrete high amounts of cotrisol in a fight or flight reponse, but nowdays you get it with standing in traffic.

Cotrisol is a HUGE problem.

and it's only bad when it's chronically elevated

Actually, too low cortisol levels are also problematic. This is plain wrong. If your cercadian rythem is not presenting high morning cortisol that declines slowly into the night, you will have many different problems.

Also, with regards to the health of the human body, moderation in all things is generally the best: moderate aerobic acitivity, moderate anaerobic activity, moderate protein intake, moderate carb intake, moderate fat intake, moderate levels of stressing yourself out doing whatever, etc. Extremes are generally not healthy, so using extremes of a certain thing to argue against the moderation of a certain thing is not a valid argument.

This 'moderation' dogma I espcially cannot stand. Using it as a 'mother principle' and putting everything into this box...

What about a moderation consumption of plastics? should we start chewing the keyboard?

This cannot be used to show anything. Many things should not be carried out in moderation. (Of course the obvious paradox of moderation itself...)

And, many bodybuilders have used and continue to use cardio to cut fat without having all these negative effects that people seem to have come to fear. Why is that? It's because they're doing low intensity and low volume.

If we are going to start learning from Body Builders (and during contest prep, none the less... When they are 'supplementing the most'...) than we are doomed. The amount of anabolic steriods they use during those periods when they are conducting in aerobic work is staggering. Also, the better ones do not use aerobic acitivity any more and seeing better results.

Ido.

[Joshua Naterman]

HAHAHAHAHA!!! So true about the steroids with the bodybuilders. Arnold makes that point very clear in Pumping Iron. Sure, it's an old movie, but the biggest change in pro bodybuilding has been the drugs, followed by nutritional knowledge and supplements! The top guys still do all the heavy work the oldtimers did, they just have better drugs, supplements and nutrition.

As for not doing cardio... well, the good ones certainly minimize it. I don't think any of them jog, but they do intervals when necessary.

[Coach Sommer]

Correctly executed strength training will not result in lack of cardiovascular capacity, (metabolic conditioning can be achieved with strength training modalities) Loss of ROM - never was shown in research to be true. Flex Wheeler doing the splits on stage back in the day is an extreme example, but just one example .... Reduce explosive capacity? Loss of agility? Strength training is one of the most important tools to achieve those traits.

Thank you for proving my point for me. It was your argument that strength training taken to the extreme was without serious consequences;

You can look at strength athletes in the extreme opposite, and they do not show any negative effects health wise from their practice, unless injured.

I was simply pointing out the fallacy of your statement. Strength training taken to the extreme is no more healthy than aerobic training taken to extreme.

And for the record, LSD + strength training was never my proposed model. A key point which you have continued to overlook/avoid during this discussion.

I do not need science to tell me that because during the last 10 years I have had the pleasure of recieving countless LSD joggers into my practice, and then having seen them crushed to dust by one of my famous up-hill sessions.

No serious runner trains as an LSD jogger. A point which I have attempted to make numerous times during this discussion. Hill runs, tempo runs, intervals and LSD are all part of a serious runner's training program.

The fact that the chinese team runs 3-5 miles is a singular fact in a sea of variables. I would be more careful than you in concluding that they are succeding in gymanstics because of that habit and not IN SPITE of it.

In this instance as a National Team Coach of many years, I will trust my own professional judgment. Although thank you for your opinion.

Because with sedentery, untrained population even stamp collecting will increase bone density.

Actually had you carefully reviewed the article, you would have noticed that the researchers were quite surprised that weight bearing exercises alone did not nearly increase bone density as much as previously thought. It was actually found that repeated impact training, in this instance jump roping, induced the development of superior bone density.

My problem is more with the steady state type of work. Fartleks and varied intensity runs are a different animal, due to the heavy requirements on the anaerobic system.

You are still avoiding the issue, that most of their time was spent moving in a non-anaerobic state.

I have learnt my lesson during my military service in Israel, going down from a lean 82kg of bodyweight (the biggest I have ever been) to under 65Kg in a span of a few months. That was accompanied by various injuries showing their head, weakness, constant immune problems and a general depression.

Once again, this is merely illustrative of the damages of extreme aerobic training, but has no bearing on the results of a more moderate approach.

As for your proposed aversion for moderation in training, I assume that this is not truly the case. Otherwise rather than typing, you would currently be outside running intervals 24/7.

Gentlemen, thank you for a most enjoyable discussion so far. I am enjoying exploring these ramifications.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

[Neal Winkler]

I think we can all agree on one point: The more time Coach Sommer spends on arguing the less time he spends on finishing the books.

[Donald Lee]

Ido,

When I talk about bodybuilders, I mean natural bodybuilders.

And I know you're talking about adrenal fatigue, but that's a separate issue. Anyways, if you believe in adrenal fatigue, how is that caused? It's caused by chronically elevated cortisol, not acute elevation. If you do too much anaerobic training at too high of an intensity, you can get chronically elevated cortisol as well. The stressor does not matter, whether it's aerobic or anaerobic. The chronic elevation in cortisol is what fatigues the adrenal gland and causes lower levels of cortisol.

I too was in the military, so I know what you're talking about. In the military, you run as fast as you can for a middle distance. I loved strength training, so when I had to focus more on endurance, I experienced some loss of muscle mass. If I had been training for endurance more consistently, I would have been able to do more strength work potentially to maintain or gain muscle mass. My strength, at least, was maintained.

The running you do in the military is not the type of running we are espousing-at least not what I am espousing. I espouse running at an intensity of approximately between 40-60% of maximal heart rate. The type of running you do in the military is usually at an intensity of approximately 70-80% of maximal heart rate. The size principle applies to aerobic training in addition to strength training. The higher intensity of aerobic training the higher threshold fibers you are recruiting, so higher intensity aerobic work will make higher threshold fibers more aerobic. This is one reason why I say HIIT can potentially be detrimental to maintaining or gaining muscle mass. If you're only recruiting low threshold fibers by doing low-moderate intensity aerobic work and not doing absurd volume, then you should be fine for muscle mass/strength training purposes.

[Donald Lee]

Also, the aerobic base is not a myth.

Training at low-moderate intensities increases left ventricular volume moreso than training at higher intensities. Stroke volume is maxed out at about 40-60% of maximal heart rate (going off the top of my head on that number). This means that you can pump more blood out per beat and hence provide your muscles with more oxygen.

Also, miles of training are required for efficiency. As we all know, the slow twitch fibers are hard to fatigue, so they need a high training volume. This applies moreso to long distances than middle distances.

And, intervals do not tend to work for long, at least in high level endurance athletes. The research seems to indicate that adaptations stop at about 2-4 weeks.

Anyways, with respects to any form of exericse, you usually want to start with low intensities and build up intensity. This is another reason for bulding up an aerobic base. High intensity intervals for someone untrained is potentially dangerous.

I'm sure there is a lot more that can be said, but I will leave it at that for now.

[Joshua Naterman]

You are still avoiding the issue, that most of their time was spent moving in a non-aerobic state.

Am I correct in thinking that you meant to say non-anaerobic, since the hunter was clearly relying on aerobic respiration for the long run chasing down his dinner?

Yes, a typo that I have now corrected on my part - Coach Sommer

[Jason Stein]

ince the hunter was clearly relying on aerobic respiration for the long run chasing down his dinner?

Slizzard,

It's more accurate to say that, for the most part, hunter-gatherers engaged in low-level aerobic jogs (more of a lope) with occasional bursts of speed. The "long run" is a bit of a myth.

What's more, they did not do this every day.

Mostly they walked at a low-level of exertion.

best,

jason

[Coach Sommer]

it's more accurate to say that, for the most part, hunter-gatherers engaged in low-level aerobic jogs (more of a lope) with occasional bursts of speed. The "long run" is a bit of a myth.

Whether the runs were low level jogs broken up sporadically or continuous for several hours is inconsequential. The key point here is that the majority of their time was spent moving in a non-anaerobic state.

Perhaps it will help to think of it this way; sprinting is the seasoning of the meal, not the main course itself.

Yours in Fitness,

Coach Sommer

[wingspan]

I've stopped running because I'm in the process of adding some muscle and strength and at 35 can't afford to do too many things at once but once I'm where I wanna be I shall return to a run or two a week. Nothing clears the mind and mends the soul like 5 miles on your own in a bit of forest bounding (slogging!) up and down a few hills. Treadmills are devils handiwork and I can't begin to understand the mindset of people who do the same run for the same time on a level surface three times a week, mind numbing to say the least.

Btw I saw that documentary about the hunting of the Kudu a long time ago and wondered what the paleo communities response to it would be. Out of interest what sort of evidence exists for paleolithic hunting practices? I hear a lot about sprinting after mammoths and the like but haven't seen alot of evidence, maybe running down a large mammal like a mammoth would have been the way to go.

Just to clarify I'm not hostile to paleo, as that's how I eat in the main and I like it's rationale, I'm just curious.

Apologies if this has gone too far off topic. If so I'll start a new thread elsewhere.

Cheers