Cardio

I did those in my old class. I taught English to kids in Korea. We're moving back to Canada on Saturday. Those were colouring pages I printed off and coloured for my students. But I have some pieces where I've done both the drawing and the colouring.

For those pics the colouring was done in crayon, in case you were curious.

That is awesome!!! I love comics, and I especially love The Hulk!!!

Because on this board, you are the Hulk, Sliz.

HAHAHA! That's only because you haven't seen Paul from New York!!! Super beast!!!

I think hill sprints a few times a week is great for body composition.

LISS cardio is a great tool as well.. And we all know it can help overweight people lose some initial weight at least and is just great for someone who is overweight / stalling in weight loss / or even as a temp. tool for when diet is not good

I also feel like LISS cardio has a sort of cleansing effect on the body and mind.. Whenever I feel I'm getting overtraining symptoms (restlessness, not feeling "finished" after a workout despite high volume work, insomnia.... irritability, etc) - then taking a break from that stuff and doing some LISS cardio helps with recovery for me, personally. I always feel fresh after a nice long jog.

Any kind of cardio work will help with the recomposition as long as food intake is properly controlled.

Intervals are great and so is a longer walk or jog, it really just depends on what you want to do and what you personally respond to the best.

People over-analyze the effects of cardio. Cardio is not done to give your muscles specific gains. The gains it gives you in strength and endurance are indirect. Cardio (or more specifically aerobic exercise) strengthens the heart. This in turn increase stroke volume (the amount of blood pumped with each heart beat), lowers heart rate, and quickens recovery time. So when you do do your more specific exercises, your body is automatically performing them more efficiently because the muscles are supplied more quickly and in better quantities with oxygen. It isn't about what cardio does for the muscles, it's about what the cardio does for the heart and what the heart does for the muscles.

It is also of note that the demands on the heart during resistance training are the most similar to aerobic exercise. Since the majority of our strength exercises are progressive resistance training in theory, it would stand to reason that aerobic exercise also increases the efficiency of such exercises.

The key lies in the timing of the exercises and doing the aerobic training in moderation. Typically workouts should be structured so that resistance training (if that is the exercise of emphasis) is placed before the aerobic exercise as not to negatively effect the intended exercises. Since aerobic exercise requires a longer recovery period than anaerobic (24 to 48 hours depending on intensity and length of exercise), this would suggest that if you were to do several days of aerobic exercise while doing strength training 3-4 times a week, the aerobic exercise should be placed on the same day as the strength training, performed at a low-moderate intensity (55-70% MaxHR uses fat stores- at 80% carbohydrates begin being burned- 90 and above is burning carbs and fat), and preferably preceding a rest day. If you are to do aerobic exercise on the rest day to be used as active rest, then it should be performed at least 24 hours preceding the next strength workout you plan to do. At 20-30 minutes of aerobic exercise, the heart has seen strength gains. Anything over an hour and a half begins to reach into more extreme use of the muscles and nutrient systems (burning fats, carbohydrates, and using some protein stores).

So to sum it up, aerobic exercise in moderation at moderate intensity when placed after strength training and 24 hours before the next strength training will improve overall strength gains in theory.

This is the theory yes. But that time could be used to do something that doesn't cause adaptation in a different direction. Think another type of strength work perhaps. There are also other ways to stimulate recovery that once again don't cause adaptation in the other direction.

PHILIP said:

This is the theory yes. But that time could be used to do something that doesn't cause adaptation in a different direction. Think another type of strength work perhaps. There are also other ways to stimulate recovery that once again don't cause adaptation in the other direction.

Yes, the time could be used to repeat the same thing over and over again

Low intensity cardio was a mainstay of even muscle-bound bodybuilders. Where is the conflict?

Concurrent training - doing both strength and cardio to the maximum extent possible in the same training session will reduce the effectiveness of both - true. However, because something is harmful in large amounts close together does not mean that it is harmful in small amounts further apart. Fact: drink too much water and you can die. So is water bad ? No one would say so. Making a statement that LISS or LSD (long slow distance) is bad is like saying water is bad. You need to qualify your statement.

Anyway, you've been through this before on other threads. No one should feel obligated to perform cardio.

I personally like the effects, and would do it even if it had a minor impact on muscle growth, whch I don't believe it does when performed as stated. There is so much going for it, even if there were a downside, which I highly doubt there is,

I would still do it.

Hahah relax the mob, my friend. I am not saying LSD is bad. I personally don't like it and don't use it but to each his own. I am pointing out that there are other ways to keep recovery going that help more toward gaining strength without adapting toward a whole different stimulus. And no. Not the same strength training again. :wink:

PHILIP said:

Hahah relax the mob, my friend. I am not saying LSD is bad. I personally don't like it and don't use it but to each his own. I am pointing out that there are other ways to keep recovery going that help more toward gaining strength without adapting toward a whole different stimulus. And no. Not the same strength training again. :wink:

I think the difference is that you see aerobic conditioning as OPPOSITE to strength.

To me they run on seperate conditioning tracks moving towards the same destination: health and fitness.

They would only collide if there areobic intensity caused its train to derail, or their paths crossed at a junction

on the same day at the same time.

If that is what you view it as then we will have to agree to disagree. I don't see them as moving toward the same goal. Personally I think aerobic fitness can be developed with better tools and since we are talking about limited recovery and training time, I use only what I consider are the best ones. Nothing wrong with either option but I do believe if some of us are trying to reach maximal lower body explosiveness and strength then the LSD work will be opposite to what we want.

Guys, up to a certain point aerobic fitness and strength training do not interfere with each other. As you start moving closer to "advanced" and "elite" levels of strength or aerobic fitness you WILL see a conflict. Whether LSD work interferes with strength gains depends entirely on how low your intensity is. At low enough intensities you aren't working hard enough for your non-type 1 fibers to really kick in, and if they are not being exposed to a new stimulus you will not lose any strength adaptations.

Also, as for the fat-burning issue... we just went over this in class and my professor is one of the guys who has done quite a bit of the research into this area so it was really neat to get into this topic. As far as long slow distance work goes, what you really want to be measuring is your respiratory exchange ratio, or a comparison of how much CO2 you are producing vs how much O2 you are consuming. Heart rates are a crude way to estimate this, but keep this in mind: at rest you're burning 70-80% bodyfat for energy. Energy expenditure is low, but most is from fat.

At 50-60% of your VO2max, which is pretty darn easy work, you're already burning more carbs than fat, but because the overall calorie count is also higher for this level of exercise you STILL burn more total fat in the same exercise session even though the percentages have changed. This holds true all the way to 80% of VO2max, at which point you do in fact start burning less fat per session.

The take home message from this is that if you're trying to burn body fat, A) keep fat intake super low during these periods and B) just do some sort of exercise. Could be floreio,or gymnastics, or playing games of basketball. Doesn't have to be LSD work but it certainly CAN be. Don't lose your mind over trying to stay in a "fat burning zone" because that idea doesn't actually hold true the way it is advertised. Finally, keep your insulin levels under control by not consuming starches beyond what you need to replace the carbs you burned during exercise.

You can actually figure that last part out pretty easily, because there are known values for activities and their calorie consumption based on body weight. If you know that and you know the approximate % of carb utilization (50% is always a fair guess as a baseline) you can do something like this: I just burned 466 calories. 233 were from carbs. 233 calories/4 calories per gram= about 58g of carbs. Bam, you know what you need to eat. The end. Then you can throw in some protein, say 25g of whey, just to make sure you don't consume any muscle. You still have a 133 calorie deficit, which means that in 30 sessions (which could be anything from your workouts to your cardio) you will burn 1 lb of body fat.

Guys, if you're 10-12% a single lb of body fat is a LOT, and that is with virtually no effort on your part. That's how you make visible changes without messing up your goals. LSD work is not necessary for fat loss, but I hope this post explains how it works.

If you're scared of it or don't like the idea, don't use LSD work. It will, however, assist you with your recovery quite a bit if you do easy enough work. Walking with some arm circles and a very basic warm up is plenty. Imagine the combined benefits from the direct cardio work, the increased blood flow through your body, and the stretching you will do if you hit a 30-40 minute warm up session as your "LSD" work. This is really no different from a slow jog or a moderate walk, but can be much more effective for what many people here want.

Elite levels of strength are exactly what I am looking toward. As well as a low bodyfat, a high level of power, and a good anaerobic system. It is a lot of goals. If I have that many, I wouldn't use a tool that I find subpar. Take sprinting. If I am more of a beginner, it will help toward power, fat loss, and anaerobic. If I am a super beginner then so would LSD but not to as much a degree. I would just rather use the best tools for the job. As for recovery, there are so many other options that I wouldn't waste my time with LSD which has effects just like Jeff wrote. I know the adverse effects are dependent on intensity and volume but once again, there are better tools. I recommend looking up that Mel Siff book about recovery if you are looking for some.

Sliz, I eat sweet potatoes PWO on strength training days. They're the only starchy carbs that I get (that I know of). Anything wrong with that?

PHILIP said:

Elite levels of strength are exactly what I am looking toward. As well as a low bodyfat, a high level of power, and a good anaerobic system. It is a lot of goals. If I have that many, I wouldn't use a tool that I find subpar. Take sprinting. If I am more of a beginner, it will help toward power, fat loss, and anaerobic. If I am a super beginner then so would LSD but not to as much a degree. I would just rather use the best tools for the job. As for recovery, there are so many other options that I wouldn't waste my time with LSD which has effects just like Jeff wrote. I know the adverse effects are dependent on intensity and volume but once again, there are better tools. I recommend looking up that Mel Siff book about recovery if you are looking for some.

Competitve sprinters (real ones not wannabes) do lots of low-intensity aerobic work my friend. Why, because it adds not subtracts.

They don't run all out all the time. That would kill them.

Muscle recovery can often be performed with low-instensity motions utilzing the same muscles. Systemic recovery I find requires working the cardiovascular system for a time, which leaves one feeling fresh and invigorated.

Whatever tools are best for the job should be used - that I do agree with.

For all the ones that may do aerobic work, I read lots of stories of sprinters not doing any. If the anaerobic work also accomplishes the aerobic goal, then no reason to use the aerobic method. The off days from hard running could be used for something like lifting.

Once again, other methods are available. Some I don't even remember. I would have to reread them.

Races 400 meters and over are predominantly aerobic.

Live long and prosper.

That is debatable as well. Especially considering there is some rather interesting things coming out on the energy systems. I doubt that just because you hit meter 300 that you all of a sudden become aerobic. As I said before though, I will have to agree to disagree with you. If you are looking for elite level results, it isn't going to be useful to spread the stimulus around.

Edit: Patrick I am not Slizzardman but I do something pretty similar. The only starchy carb I get is also sweet potatos. Everything else is veggies. I feel great on it though I also take a good multi vitamin and multi mineral to cover what I am not getting or and deficiencies. (Ketosis is apparently bad for selenium levels for example)

PHILIP said:

That is debatable as well. Especially considering there is some rather interesting things coming out on the energy systems. I doubt that just because you hit meter 300 that you all of a sudden become aerobic. As I said before though, I will have to agree to disagree with you. If you are looking for elite level results, it isn't going to be useful to spread the stimulus around.

Do you know how say the top 3 sprinters train at each distance? I don't but that would be instructive. I dont' truly care either. I actually do like sprinting and distances up to 1 mile but there is very little opportunity to particpate in charity sprint events. I'll never be elite at anything now matter how I trained, lol. I have access to an indoor track if I want to use it, and would love to see if I could get a decent 100 or 200 time though, hopefully without blowing out my knees and achilles.

After 200 It's not entirely aerobic, but the aerobic system is predominant around 30 seconds. People can disagree, but it doesn't make sense to disagree with physiology. Have you read Joel Jamieson on this? He has a balanced opinion on this subject.

Haha everyone who has recommended aerobics has recommended Joel Jamieson. I haven't gotten the chance to yet though. I just finished reading Tim Ferris and his writings on the subject.

I would guess it would be training to be the fastest they could be at each distance. I thought it was 300 but I don't remember and I would agree with that either way.

PHILIP said:

That is debatable as well. Especially considering there is some rather interesting things coming out on the energy systems. I doubt that just because you hit meter 300 that you all of a sudden become aerobic. As I said before though, I will have to agree to disagree with you. If you are looking for elite level results, it isn't going to be useful to spread the stimulus around.

Edit: Patrick I am not Slizzardman but I do something pretty similar. The only starchy carb I get is also sweet potatos. Everything else is veggies. I feel great on it though I also take a good multi vitamin and multi mineral to cover what I am not getting or and deficiencies. (Ketosis is apparently bad for selenium levels for example)

Thanks, Philip! I think I will use them to keep my carbs high on heavy days.

FutureisNow said:

PHILIP said:

That is debatable as well. Especially considering there is some rather interesting things coming out on the energy systems. I doubt that just because you hit meter 300 that you all of a sudden become aerobic. As I said before though, I will have to agree to disagree with you. If you are looking for elite level results, it isn't going to be useful to spread the stimulus around.

Do you know how say the top 3 sprinters train at each distance? I don't but that would be instructive. I dont' truly care either. I actually do like sprinting and distances up to 1 mile but there is very little opportunity to particpate in charity sprint events. I'll never be elite at anything now matter how I trained, lol. I have access to an indoor track if I want to use it, and would love to see if I could get a decent 100 or 200 time though, hopefully without blowing out my knees and achilles.

After 200 It's not entirely aerobic, but the aerobic system is predominant around 30 seconds. People can disagree, but it doesn't make sense to disagree with physiology. Have you read Joel Jamieson on this? He has a balanced opinion on this subject.

The aerobic system does not become predominant at 30s. There is a reason that a 1/4 mile split for a world record marathon (about 71s) is quite a bit slower than the 400m world record, over 50% slower. It's because the aerobic system simply can not handle that level of energy production. What the aerobic system DOES do, and does extremely well, is handle the metabolic byproducts produced during those 30s. The 30 bouts TRAIN the mitochondrial and vascular portion of the aerobic system, but that is separate from the system being predominant. Predominant means it becomes the primary energy contributor, and it does not.

As far as sprinters go, most of the best sprinters 400m and under do not perform very many training runs over 80m. There's a good reason for that, between 60 and 80m is when you start to lose velocity, and you are better off spending the majority of your time training the body at maximum power. It works, plain and simple, and the majority of training runs are 60m and under.

To be fair, there are a number of different systems that work, and you have to realize that the best sprinters have a huge number of genetically pre-determined factors in their favor to begin with. Faster myosin isoforms, larger alpha motor neurons, fast twitch fiber distributions, more advantageous limb lengths and muscle attachments, longer tendons, etc. The more of these advantages you have the less your training is going to matter in terms of what the others are doing, you will be a national or international competitor regardless of which successful method you use. Having said that, from a pure training efficiency perspective they should all get the absolute BEST results focusing on 40-80m runs.

However most do perform a lot of aerboic level work. More so in the form of aerobic tempo intervals than steady state.

Not to mention recovery work at aerobic levels.

My mistake on the predominant point. It is certainly a factor though in many sprint distances, 400, 800, which

is why typically they still do train it.

I agree with your point on elite's genetics - you either got it our you don't. Mama nature just is too kind to some people!

Joel Jamieson's point on start/stop anerobic exercise such as 60 seconds intervals or 2 min boxing rounds, is that the longer the activity continues, even if the intervals are primarily anerobic, the more the aerobic becomes important. Not only for recovery, but for energy generation. Never mind that some fights are a lot of running away Anyway that's why he trains aerobi it for most fighters. That's my understanding at least!

FutureisNow said:

However most do perform a lot of aerboic level work. More so in the form of aerobic tempo intervals than steady state.

Not to mention recovery work at aerobic levels.

My mistake on the predominant point. It is certainly a factor though in many sprint distances, 400, 800, which

is why typically they still do train it.

I agree with your point on elite's genetics - you either got it our you don't. Mama nature just is too kind to some people!

Joel Jamieson's point on start/stop anerobic exercise such as 60 seconds intervals or 2 min boxing rounds, is that the longer the activity continues, even if the intervals are primarily anerobic, the more the aerobic becomes important. Not only for recovery, but for energy generation. Never mind that some fights are a lot of running away Anyway that's why he trains aerobi it for most fighters. That's my understanding at least!

He trains those because 2 minutes is really the absolute outside limit of anaerobic glycolysis, and realistically 30/15 to 30/30 for 1-3 minutes at a time, depending on what you're looking for, is going to give you the overall best conditioning effect for the type of exertion typically seen in a fight. This is fundamentally the same reason that high level sprint training is programmed the way that it is, you want to hit maximum performance with your energy system as many times as you can without depressing CNS or accumulating undue fatigue, which leads you to work at 50% or less of maximal duration for a given intensity. This is also the basic mechanism behind GB SSC (50% of max holds).

They will definitely be working their aerobic fitness through such training, there's no doubt about that, but what you're really looking for is enhancing the body's ability to recharge the anaerobic systems as quickly as possible via the aerobic system, not to use the aerobic system for actual work. Somewhat semantic, but the distinction matters to me

Very slow recovery runs are absolutely fantastic. Aerobic is a very small factor in 400 (in elites, where WR is 43.2-ish seconds), but does begin to be more important in 800. Have to keep clearing lactate for glycolysis to keep pumping out the ATP!