PDA

View Full Version : Need cardio while bulking up??



leo
06-18-2002, 07:44 PM
I just wonder that I need to do cardio exercise while bulking up..
plz help..

Tiare
06-18-2002, 08:04 PM
Whatever cardio you do when bulking, make sure to replace the lost calories with some food. Generally not a lot for bulking phase though I think some (say 20 to 30 minutes) is good. A lot of people here would say none, but it's up to you.

leo
06-18-2002, 08:49 PM
thx for ur advise but still not sure about the intensity for the cardio..should i keep the intensity lower??

leo
06-18-2002, 08:49 PM
and how many times per week??

Vido
06-18-2002, 10:35 PM
Don't be so afraid of doing cardio, while bulking. To counteract any negative effects cardio might have just eat more. I would probably do high intensity cardio actually seeing as you are most likely looking more for a healthy heart than to cut (since you are already bulking). 2-3 times a week for no more than 20 minutes should be fine.

Maki Riddington
06-18-2002, 10:40 PM
........or simply arrange your routine so that your weight training stresses your cardiovascular system.

Minimal rest periods and reps of 10-12 will not only hypertrophy the muscles but strengthen the heart muscle as well.

Vido
06-18-2002, 10:59 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
........or simply arrange your routine so that your weight training stresses your cardiovascular system.

Minimal rest periods and reps of 10-12 will not only hypertrophy the muscles but strengthen the heart muscle as well.

I disagree with this philosophy Maki. If you are not resting enough, you are not using the heaviest weights possible and are therefore not putting as much stress on your muscles as possible. I personally think this is the lazy man's way out of doing cardio.

Budiak
06-18-2002, 11:05 PM
The only reason I ever do cardio when bulking is to reduce the amount of water being stored in my fat ass while I'm consuming all of that rice and milk and crap.

Well, not so much crap, but still. Besides, it does make it so you're not at zero when you start doing cardio for cutting again, dig?
Dig.



Now lets eat.

g-dot
06-18-2002, 11:05 PM
Maki - since when does weightlifting, an anaerobic exercise become aerobic? The only way you'll strengthen your heart through exercise if it is prolonged and intense, you have to keep your heart rate elevated in order to do this. How can you keep your heart rate elevated at the necessary levels while lifting weights? Not very long at all. Weightlifting is NOT the same as cardio and you can't make it that way. Cardio and lifting are separate things, it's fine if you choose not to do cardio, but don't suggest that you can get a two for one deal by shortening your breaks.

Maki Riddington
06-18-2002, 11:31 PM
Originally posted by Vido


I disagree with this philosophy Maki. If you are not resting enough, you are not using the heaviest weights possible and are therefore not putting as much stress on your muscles as possible. I personally think this is the lazy man's way out of doing cardio.

*** The old age addage that heavy weights are the only prerequisite for muscle growth is incorrect. Cardiovascular work should not be limited to sweating it out on a treadmill or by jogging around a track. The body can grow if there is a overload placed on it's many systems. Heavy weights is a term that has many meanings. Heavy can be used when lifting to failure, whether the load is lifted for 15 repititopns or 6. Rest periods can make a weight 'feel' heavy if you limit them. The TUT used when lifting can be a limiting factor and again make the weight heavy even if it's only 10 pounds. The list goes on.
As for weight training being a "lazy man's" version, I guess you've never done this type of training? If you had, you wouldn't be critisizing it now, would you?

Maki Riddington
06-18-2002, 11:41 PM
Originally posted by g-dot
Maki - since when does weightlifting, an anaerobic exercise become aerobic? The only way you'll strengthen your heart through exercise if it is prolonged and intense, you have to keep your heart rate elevated in order to do this. How can you keep your heart rate elevated at the necessary levels while lifting weights? Not very long at all. Weightlifting is NOT the same as cardio and you can't make it that way. Cardio and lifting are separate things, it's fine if you choose not to do cardio, but don't suggest that you can get a two for one deal by shortening your breaks.

*** First off, the topic at hand was on "cardio," the poster didn't verify whether they were specifically talking about aerobic or anaerobic methods of cardiovascular training.
Secondly, if exercise is to be long and hard with an elevated heart rate this would not be defined as aerobic would it now?
One can't go for "long" periods at a "hard" pace. Unless of course you have a very high lactate threshold.
If you have never felt your heart rate after a set of squats for 4,8,10, 12 or whatever rep range then I would suggest you do. Try taking your pulse, now see how long it takes to subside, it'll be awhile. Now couple this with a short rest period of 30-60 seconds and while using a variety of compound movements and you'll have your heart rate soaring in no time at all.
On average, the body can expend up to 600 calories an hour from weigt lifting. Now that's pretty darn good if you ask me.

As for stating that one can not do both you seem to be lacking in some phisiology of the body. I would challenge you to show me how physiologically speaking how it's impossible?
Looking forward to hearing back from you.:)

Vido
06-18-2002, 11:53 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington


*** The old age addage that heavy weights are the only prerequisite for muscle growth is incorrect. Cardiovascular work should not be limited to sweating it out on a treadmill or by jogging around a track. The body can grow if there is a overload placed on it's many systems. Heavy weights is a term that has many meanings. Heavy can be used when lifting to failure, whether the load is lifted for 15 repititopns or 6. Rest periods can make a weight 'feel' heavy if you limit them. The TUT used when lifting can be a limiting factor and again make the weight heavy even if it's only 10 pounds. The list goes on.
As for weight training being a "lazy man's" version, I guess you've never done this type of training? If you had, you wouldn't be critisizing it now, would you?

Well if you do enough pushups then your bodyweight begins to feel heavy as well. Is this optimal stimulation for the pecs and tri's to grow? Hmmmmmm...didn't think so. Doing db curls with 15 lbs enough times will make the weight feel heavy. Is this accomplishing what you want?
In fact, I have done this kind of training and found it to be entirely useless as I WAS CARDIOVASCULARLY tired (so yes, maybe it did a bit of cardio) and thereore was not getting a good weight training session in. However, why sabotage your weight training to incorporate a weak attempt at cardio into your routine? That is why it is the lazy man's way out. It is stupid to try to kill two birds with one stone and incorporate a good weights workout with a good cardio workout. Take the time and do them both properly.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 12:00 AM
If you have to pick apart my poor wording then you really don't have much of a rebuttal then do you? Your heart rate after a set is elevated. I don't deny that, but try taking it 2-3 minutes later and it'll be far below your initial reading. The fact is you CAN'T sustain that heart rate AND do intense weightlifting it's one or the other. You suggest shorter breaks can do this but I challenge you to work out heavy without breaks for 45-60 minutes. You won't be able to fatigue your muscles adequately because you will be too out of breath from the cardiovascular taxation. You need to maintain your an elevated heartrate for periods of over 30 minutes to see significant cardiovascular benefits and you cannot do this while lifting weights. As to the statement you made about the calories your body expends during weightlifting, not to be rude, but so what? Lifting weights is a far more effective way of elevating your metabolism. During aerobic exercise you have an elevated metabolic rate only during said exercise and up to 1 hour afterward. From weightlifting your metabolic rate is elevated for up to 5-6 hours. You suggest that I lack physiological understanding of the body and that can't be further from the truth.

In terms of cardiovascular benefits it is a one or the other situation. Running, cycling, rowing, swimming etc. are far more beneficial for your cardiovascular system than weightlifting. Comparison wise this is true but I mean if your point is that you'll have a stronger heart doing weights than not working out at all you're correct. All that I am trying to say is that compared to the aforementioned exercises weighlifting pales in comparison.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Vido


Well if you do enough pushups then your bodyweight begins to feel heavy as well. Is this optimal stimulation for the pecs and tri's to grow? Hmmmmmm...didn't think so. Doing db curls with 15 lbs enough times will make the weight feel heavy. Is this accomplishing what you want?
In fact, I have done this kind of training and found it to be entirely useless as I WAS CARDIOVASCULARLY tired (so yes, maybe it did a bit of cardio) and thereore was not getting a good weight training session in. However, why sabotage your weight training to incorporate a weak attempt at cardio into your routine? That is why it is the lazy man's way out. It is stupid to try to kill two birds with one stone and incorporate a good weights workout with a good cardio workout. Take the time and do them both properly.

*** Of course not. Why your telling me this? Please reread my post and you will see that the term "heaviest" was explained sufficiently.
So you've used it. Would you care to share what you did, what weight you lifted in terms of relative percentage of your 1RM? The sets, reps, rest periods. Did you train to failure? Was it sub maximal type training? Notice how I said it can be done, but there is a specific way that it is to be followed so that hypertrophy can pursue. If it was such a weak attempt at cardio then why were you so tiered? You're catching yourself here, be careful. Simply saying it's a "lazy mans attempt" is not good enough. If done right you can accomplish both.

Do a search, Powerman and myself have made comments and I even posted a routine.

Vido
06-19-2002, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
If it was such a weak attempt at cardio then why were you so tiered? You're catching yourself here, be careful.

I'm not catching myself at all. You'll notice I even put that in brackets to draw attention to it. I wasn't just trying to slip it in without you noticing (I save that for the little girls :D, j/k). The fact of the matter is that I wasn't huffing and puffing like a good HIT cardio session would result in, but I was fatigued enough to not get the most out of my weight training. It's a pretty simple concept to me. I don't know about you. Weight training and cardio are 2 separate things. Read g-dot's explanation of why cardio and weight training differ. He hits the nail on the head. Sure, weight training is better cardio than an activity such as...i don't know...sleeping! But it is certainly not better than an actual cardio session. Don't do real cardio if you want, but don't try to make yourself feel better by lying to yourself and making up excuses as to why you don't NEED to do it.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 12:53 AM
[[QUOTE]Originally posted by g-dot
[B]If you have to pick apart my poor wording then you really don't have much of a rebuttal then do you? Your heart rate after a set is elevated. I don't deny that, but try taking it 2-3 minutes later and it'll be far below your initial reading.

*** PLEASE READ my post again, I said minimal rest periods (30-60 seconds), not 2-3 minutes.

The fact is you CAN'T sustain that heart rate AND do intense weightlifting it's one or the other. You suggest shorter breaks can do this but I challenge you to work out heavy without breaks for 45-60 minutes.

*** Thats the beauty of it. You don't need to work out that long. You can be in and out in 20 minutes.

You won't be able to fatigue your muscles adequately because you will be too out of breath from the cardiovascular taxation.
You need to maintain your an elevated heartrate for periods of over 30 minutes to see significant cardiovascular benefits and you cannot do this while lifting weights.

*** Can you prove this with some studies?
I did not know that at 30 minutes you can majically attain cardiovascular fitness.

As to the statement you made about the calories your body expends during weightlifting, not to be rude, but so what? Lifting weights is a far more effective way of elevating your metabolism. During aerobic exercise you have an elevated metabolic rate only during said exercise and up to 1 hour afterward. From weightlifting your metabolic rate is elevated for up to 5-6 hours. You suggest that I lack physiological understanding of the body and that can't be further from the truth.

*** Well so far you've shown me nothing in terms of phisiology that would change my mind. I chose to mention this because it goes to show that the body indeed is actively working. So much so, that there is a lot of energy being expended. But who cares, because the post I countered was that the heart indeed can be strengthed without other activities.

In terms of cardiovascular benefits it is a one or the other situation. Running, cycling, rowing, swimming etc. are far more beneficial for your cardiovascular system than weightlifting. Comparison wise this is true but I mean if your point is that you'll have a stronger heart doing weights than not working out at all you're correct. All that I am trying to say is that compared to the aforementioned exercises weighlifting pales in comparison.

*** The post was in regards to the heart muscle. So your arguing with yourself.

Clark
06-19-2002, 01:07 AM
Maki, I disagree completely. There's no way you can properly tax your muscles if you're more worried about the cardio benefits. I agree you are tired as hell afterward, but from what I've done (10-12 reps 30 seconds between sets) I see much better muscle gains from taking longer rest periods and lifting to the maximum potential of your muscles. If your lifts are struggling from the fact your heary rate is elevated there's no way you're getting the best results possible.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 01:08 AM
Originally posted by Vido


I'm not catching myself at all. You'll notice I even put that in brackets to draw attention to it. I wasn't just trying to slip it in without you noticing (I save that for the little girls :D, j/k). The fact of the matter is that I wasn't huffing and puffing like a good HIT cardio session would result in, but I was fatigued enough to not get the most out of my weight training. It's a pretty simple concept to me. I don't know about you. Weight training and cardio are 2 separate things. Read g-dot's explanation of why cardio and weight training differ. He hits the nail on the head. Sure, weight training is better cardio than an activity such as...i don't know...sleeping! But it is certainly not better than an actual cardio session. Don't do real cardio if you want, but don't try to make yourself feel better by lying to yourself and making up excuses as to why you don't NEED to do it.


*** Look these references up. They will show you that the heart indeed can be strengthened through weight training.


1. J Appl Physiol 2002 Feb;92(2):672-8 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Effects of resistance training on physical function in older disabled women with coronary heart disease.
Brochu M, Savage P, Lee M, Dee J, Cress ME, Poehlman ET, Tischler M, Ades PA.

2. Int J Cardiol 2001 Nov;81(1):61-74 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Acute cardiovascular responses to leg-press resistance exercise in heart transplant recipients.
Oliver D, Pflugfelder

3. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs 2001 Fall;16(4):142-51 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
The effects of resistance exercise on skeletal muscle abnormalities in patients with advanced heart failure.
King L.

I've only begun to do a search. Note, these were done on heart patients which should be even more proof that weight training is a great tool for strengthening the heart.

Clark
06-19-2002, 01:10 AM
Yes, the heart can be strengthened, but I doubt it will be strengthened as much as it would be through real cardio.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 01:11 AM
Originally posted by Clark
Maki, I disagree completely. There's no way you can properly tax your muscles if you're more worried about the cardio benefits. I agree you are tired as hell afterward, but from what I've done (10-12 reps 30 seconds between sets) I see much better muscle gains from taking longer rest periods and lifting to the maximum potential of your muscles. If your lifts are struggling from the fact your heary rate is elevated there's no way you're getting the best results possible.

*** I will ask that you reread my intial post. I am talking about the heart. Those who have chose to debate with me are changing the topic at hand.
Also, I didn't say that there would be a more effective result in hpertrophy.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by Clark
Yes, the heart can be strengthened, but I doubt it will be strengthened as much as it would be through real cardio.

*** Prove me wrong. What you think and what is fact are two different things. Fact outweighs thought.
Good night.

Vido
06-19-2002, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Clark
Yes, the heart can be strengthened, but I doubt it will be strengthened as much as it would be through real cardio.

Sorry, I don't have any medical studies on hand (cough,cough...I mean who do you think we are...we're not experts). But, really...how can you argue with Clark's statement? It is so blatantly obvious. Stop lying to yourself and admit that you are wrong and the discussion can end. Or at least get someone to back you up. I mean g-dot, clark, and myself have basically torn you apart and I see us on the winning side of the debate by a landslide as it stands currently.

Clark
06-19-2002, 01:20 AM
Aha
So True Vido
Maki, why don't you prove yourself correct? Maybe it's cause you can't.

sysopt
06-19-2002, 01:34 AM
i agree with maki regarding the fact that one can gear weightlifting towards cardiovascular fitness. And in some ways it might be more effective than conventional moderate intensity cardio.

Vido
06-19-2002, 01:36 AM
Originally posted by sysopt
i agree with maki regarding the fact that one can gear weightlifting towards cardiovascular fitness. And in some ways it might be more effective than conventional moderate intensity cardio.

You can do a lot of things, but it doesn't mean that they are good ideas. Also, in what ways is it more effective? Please enlighten us.

Clark
06-19-2002, 01:36 AM
explain how it could possibly be more effective.

sysopt
06-19-2002, 01:51 AM
For one thing, dont bash it till you try it. I never have, but from the sounds of it, it would be very very taxing on the cardio system and perhaps more taxing because one would probably be closer to approaching the cardio system's limits (which I believe is VO2) as opposed to moderate intensity cardio, which is not as demanding in that respect. As far as I know, the only way to tax the cardio system, is through the muscoskeletal system (except for possibly holding ones breath) using certain types of metabolism ( I think glycolysis (spelling?)). One can easily create a condition where one is using lots of this sort of metabolism throughout the whole body using compound movements with a different rep scheme and less rest time. I'm definitely no expert, just the way I see things.

Clark
06-19-2002, 01:53 AM
If you read back you'd see that both Vido and I have tried it, and don't like it

sysopt
06-19-2002, 01:59 AM
oh ok, guess it doesnt work for everyone.

Vido
06-19-2002, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by sysopt
For one thing, dont bash it till you try it. I never have, but from the sounds of it, it would be very very taxing on the cardio system and perhaps more taxing because one would probably be closer to approaching the cardio system's limits (which I believe is VO2) as opposed to moderate intensity cardio, which is not as demanding in that respect. As far as I know, the only way to tax the cardio system, is through the muscoskeletal system (except for possibly holding ones breath) using certain types of metabolism ( I think glycolysis (spelling?)). One can easily create a condition where one is using lots of this sort of metabolism throughout the whole body using compound movements with a different rep scheme and less rest time. I'm definitely no expert, just the way I see things.

For one thing, there is more than one type of cardio and this whole time I have been referring to HIT cardio training because this is the best for your heart imo. Low-intensity cardio has its place in a bodybuilding routine, but should only be a substitute for HIT (as it is good to switch things up...maybe one session of each type per week). There is NO WAY that weight training is more taxing cardiovascularly than interval running.
In addition, my main point which does not seem to be getting acknowledged my either yourself or Maki is that weight training should be done for the soul reason of working the desired muscle. Weight training is not a cardio workout. WEIGHT TRAINING IS WEIGHT TRAINING. Yes, your cardio system gets stressed during a workout, but that's not what you are going for. You are going to work your outer muscles (pecs, legs, back, etc.) not your inner organs (ie. heart).
It is like having 2 similar research papers due in 2 different chemistry classes. You can choose to do one generic paper and make duplicates of it and hand it in to both professors, or you can focus on the exact topic of each paper and write 2 distinct papers. Which way will get you the better marks? I think this analogy is fairly straight-forward and needs no further explanation.
The point I having been trying to stress all night is that you can kill two birds with one stone, but that is simply not the best option.

Clark
06-19-2002, 02:07 AM
:withstupi

great example with the test papers

sysopt
06-19-2002, 02:23 AM
Vido, I agree with you about getting 2 birds with one stone. I myself weight train and only weight train. I admit I do no significant cardio because I'm too lazy and it does not interest me. At this point, I cant eat enough as it is and I dont see how cardio can make that any better. So I was actually speaking only in abstract, not in actual practice... I also agree that interval running and HIIT cardio would be an effective cardio workout, but I still believe that weight training CAN be quite demanding on the cardio system. As demanding as HIIT or interval running...that I dont know.

runt
06-19-2002, 06:49 AM
leo, try this: 8 weeks bulking no cardio and then 8 weeks bulking with cardio. Compare the results then make a decision. Our metabolisms are all different see which works best for you. Believe me plenty of people to it either way.

leo
06-19-2002, 10:44 AM
yes yes thx very much runt
that would be great idea

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 01:10 PM
Originally posted by Vido


Sorry, I don't have any medical studies on hand (cough,cough...I mean who do you think we are...we're not experts). But, really...how can you argue with Clark's statement? It is so blatantly obvious. Stop lying to yourself and admit that you are wrong and the discussion can end. Or at least get someone to back you up. I mean g-dot, clark, and myself have basically torn you apart and I see us on the winning side of the debate by a landslide as it stands currently.

*** What's so "blatantly obvious?" The fact that you are ignoring every valid point I've made or the fact that you can't debate this with science. I'm waiting for some sort of proof from you to validy your statements. If we are to discuss this and learn then we must look at what science says as well.

I don't need anyone to back me up. The proof is in the pudding. If you feel that the truth comes in numbers you are sorely mistaken my friend. Just because several members happen to disagree with me does not put you in the right. Might I add that G-Dot was aruging something else. If you reread his staement he himself agrees that weight training is an effective method in strengthening the heart.
You have "torn" up nothing Vido. All you've done is pumped your cyber ego. If you are so concerned about "winning" a debate then it seems that the point has been lost and it is your pride that stands to take a beating.
Think about it and then post some useful information that shows us al that I'm clearly in the wrong.
Thank you.:)

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 01:11 PM
Originally posted by Clark
Aha
So True Vido
Maki, why don't you prove yourself correct? Maybe it's cause you can't.

*** I'm sorta lost here. Prove what? I just posted several references validating my stance.

ElPietro
06-19-2002, 01:15 PM
Maki is correct. :)

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by Vido



In addition, my main point which does not seem to be getting acknowledged my either yourself or Maki is that weight training should be done for the soul reason of working the desired muscle. Weight training is not a cardio workout. WEIGHT TRAINING IS WEIGHT TRAINING. Yes, your cardio system gets stressed during a workout, but that's not what you are going for. You are going to work your outer muscles (pecs, legs, back, etc.) not your inner organs (ie. heart).


*** I have taken the liberty to ignore the rest of your post for NOW. This paragraph clearly shows us all that you clearly lack the basic understanding of what happens in the body when weight training ocurrs. To say that it does not strengthen the heart muscle is pure ignorance. You keep posting that it doesn't but can you explain in physiological terms why it doesn't?
If you feel the need to counter question me which you will probally do so that you can side step this question. I will be glad to oblige.
Also, all your muscles are under your skin. How you lumped one muscle as being a "inner" muscle and the other muscles being "outer" is beyond me.

ElPietro
06-19-2002, 01:23 PM
I find it funny that you have to "go for something" in order for it to occur. Strengthening the heart and the rest of your cardiovascular system is a result of specific types of weight training, regardless if that is your goal or not, so to discount it is just plain foolish.

It's sort of like dropping an atomic bomb and saying we are going for the destruction of our enemy, we are not trying to make a complete wasteland of the target area. Moral of the story: It happens so deal with it. In the weight training sense you can use it to your advantage or disadvantage depending on your goals.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 03:47 PM
Maki - I choose not to continue this argument because contrary to how this is devloping I think you and I are arguing largely over semantics at this point because our opinions vary at only one point. We both agree the heart is worked in weightraining, but you argue that training can be geared to "kill two birds with one stone" so to speak and I say this is not the case and it's one or the other. I will end this by saying that from my understanding, which comes from what I've read over the years, is that exercises I've mentioned (swimming, rowing, running, etc.) are more effective at strengthening the heart than weightlifting.

Mystic Eric
06-19-2002, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by g-dot
Maki - I choose not to continue this argument because contrary to how this is devloping I think you and I are arguing largely over semantics at this point because our opinions vary at only one point. We both agree the heart is worked in weightraining, but you argue that training can be geared to "kill two birds with one stone" so to speak and I say this is not the case and it's one or the other. I will end this by saying that from my understanding, which comes from what I've read over the years, is that exercises I've mentioned (swimming, rowing, running, etc.) are more effective at strengthening the heart than weightlifting.

What exactly have you read over the years? Flex? Muscle and Fitness? This question goes for all of you, what are your credentials, what have you read, what is your experience, and who have you learned from?

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 04:18 PM
Reading is one thing, taking what you have learned and applying it on yourself and others is another.

Just because you've read something does not make it right.

Vido
06-19-2002, 04:19 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington


*** I have taken the liberty to ignore the rest of your post for NOW. This paragraph clearly shows us all that you clearly lack the basic understanding of what happens in the body when weight training ocurrs. To say that it does not strengthen the heart muscle is pure ignorance. You keep posting that it doesn't but can you explain in physiological terms why it doesn't?
If you feel the need to counter question me which you will probally do so that you can side step this question. I will be glad to oblige.
Also, all your muscles are under your skin. How you lumped one muscle as being a "inner" muscle and the other muscles being "outer" is beyond me.

You have "taken the liberty" to ignore the rest of my post because the analogy about the research papers is PERFECT for this argument. You CANNOT debate that.
I have no clue what you are talking about when you say that I keep saying that the heart isn't strengthened in weight training. I never said that at all. I guess I have to repeat myself once again because you are choosing to "take the liberty" of ignoring the major point in my post. I will put this in capital letters so maybe this time you actually read what I write. WEIGHT TRAINING STRENGTHENS THE HEART, BUT NOT AS WELL AS PURE CARDIOVASCULAR TRAINING. Let me go back to the research papers Maki. If you want to hand in a C+ paper (by working your heart through weight training, then by all means, go right ahead). I prefer to spend the extra time and turn in the quality A paper (by doing the BEST form of heart strengthening exercise).
I don't need to boost my "cyber-ego". Knowing that I am right and you are wrong does not concern me. I am trying to prove a point so that, whether you believe me or not, the rest of the people on this site don't sell themselves short.

Mystic Eric
06-19-2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Mystic Eric


What exactly have you read over the years? Flex? Muscle and Fitness? This question goes for all of you, what are your credentials, what have you read, what is your experience, and who have you learned from?


Originally posted by Maki Riddington

Reading is one thing, taking what you have learned and applying it on yourself and others is another.

Just because you've read something does not make it right.



That also depends on what one has read, how much one has read, and how one can understand it.

But Maki, you still haven't answered my question. What do you base your methods on? What are your credentials? Who have you learned from etc.

This goes for Maki, Vido, and g-dot and others.

Vido
06-19-2002, 04:23 PM
Originally posted by ElPietro
I find it funny that you have to "go for something" in order for it to occur. Strengthening the heart and the rest of your cardiovascular system is a result of specific types of weight training, regardless if that is your goal or not, so to discount it is just plain foolish.

It's sort of like dropping an atomic bomb and saying we are going for the destruction of our enemy, we are not trying to make a complete wasteland of the target area. Moral of the story: It happens so deal with it. In the weight training sense you can use it to your advantage or disadvantage depending on your goals.

No one is discounting it. What are you and Maki reading? Weight training strengthens the heart, but is it the best way? No. It may be good enough for you, as it does do something, but I prefer to something the absolute best way, whether that takes more time and effort or not.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 04:32 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vido
[B]

You have "taken the liberty" to ignore the rest of my post because the analogy about the research papers is PERFECT for this argument. You CANNOT debate that.

*** You see, if you would have read my intial post you would
have seen that I noted nothing about this form being the 'best."


I have no clue what you are talking about when you say that I keep saying that the heart isn't strengthened in weight training. I never said that at all. I guess I have to repeat myself once again because you are choosing to "take the liberty" of ignoring the major point in my post. I will put this in capital letters so maybe this time you actually read what I write. WEIGHT TRAINING STRENGTHENS THE HEART, BUT NOT AS WELL AS PURE CARDIOVASCULAR TRAINING.

*** Why are you arguing about this when this had nothing to do with my intial post?


Let me go back to the research papers Maki. If you want to hand in a C+ paper (by working your heart through weight training, then by all means, go right ahead). I prefer to spend the extra time and turn in the quality A paper (by doing the BEST form of heart strengthening exercise).

*** Again, where is this proof that "HIT" is the best type of cardio for the heart? I keep asking you for it but you refuse to show me any scientific studies?


I don't need to boost my "cyber-ego". Knowing that I am right and you are wrong does not concern me. I am trying to prove a point so that, whether you believe me or not, the rest of the people on this site don't sell themselves short.

*** You need proof to validate a point. None of which you have done. Vauge analogies and a condescending tone doesn't pass as proof.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 04:33 PM
Originally posted by Vido


No one is discounting it. What are you and Maki reading? Weight training strengthens the heart, but is it the best way? No. It may be good enough for you, as it does do something, but I prefer to something the absolute best way, whether that takes more time and effort or not.

*** We need proof. We're still waiting.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 04:34 PM
What I've read are medical textbooks (anatomy), peer reviewed papers published in medical journals, and I've taken two biology courses at the university level that dealt with human cellular mechanisms. I don't profess to be an expert or a walking library, but I've taken what I've learned and applied to myself. I don't know what you believe you'll prove by questionning what I've read, but there it is in black and white for you.

One last thing, I think Flex, M&F, etc. are all trash. I consider them about as useful to bodybuilding as a Teen People. The only magazine that I read that even deals with any kind of training is Men's Health and I read that out of personal interest (Diet, lifestyle, some fitness tips) and not as a source for any profound wisdom. Yes I DO read articles off the internet, but I believe most of them to be trash, and if it isn't referenced I take it with more than a grain of salt. Magazines get money for advertising, so I could never believe a fitness magazine sponsored by fitness companies to give me the truth.

Mystic Eric
06-19-2002, 04:37 PM
Originally posted by g-dot
What I've read are medical textbooks (anatomy), peer reviewed papers published in medical journals, and I've taken two biology courses at the university level that dealt with human cellular mechanisms. I don't profess to be an expert or a walking library, but I've taken what I've learned and applied to myself. I don't know what you believe you'll prove by questionning what I've read, but there it is in black and white for you.

One last thing, I think Flex, M&F, etc. are all trash. I consider them about as useful to bodybuilding as a Teen People. The only magazine that I read that even deals with any kind of training is Men's Health and I read that out of personal interest (Diet, lifestyle, some fitness tips) and not as a source for any profound wisdom. Yes I DO read articles off the internet, but I believe most of them to be trash, and if it isn't referenced I take it with more than a grain of salt. Magazines get money for advertising, so I could never believe a fitness magazine sponsored by fitness companies to give me the truth.

It's easy to say that you have read "medical textbooks", "peer reviewed papers published in medical journals" and etc but can I ask you what are the titles of these "meidcal textbooks" and "medical journals"? It wasn't in black and white because you failed to name any titles and how you got about getting your hands on these "medical journals" of yours. And Men's health is definately better than M+F and Flex... :rolleyes:

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 04:39 PM
Originally posted by Mystic Eric




That also depends on what one has read, how much one has read, and how one can understand it.

But Maki, you still haven't answered my question. What do you base your methods on? What are your credentials? Who have you learned from etc.

This goes for Maki, Vido, and g-dot and others.

*** I base this on my experience, what I've seen in the gym through testimonies and through training others. My credentials are not important. I am a certified PT and am going for my degree in Human Performance. I will be attaining my NSCA PT cert hopefully in Febuary and will be completeing a powerlifting cert and a advanced trainers course. I have learned from everyone that I interact with, my peers ( other PT, coaches ) I also had the pleasure of meeting my mnetor Dr Siff as well. Who has helped me out a lot.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 04:42 PM
Yes, I do read and I do own a small library of books I've collected over the years. I do read online journals and studies but I usually read them and then make my own descision what the take home message should be.

Mystic Eric
06-19-2002, 04:43 PM
Didn't you also coach some guy to a triumphant victory while being his first attempt in powerlifting in the 2002 BC summer open powerlifting championships?

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 04:45 PM
LOl, ya I guess, but I wouldn't take credit for that so much. You did the lifting, that's what counts. You trained hard, you stayed dedicated.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 04:49 PM
Eric, all you're proving is what an ass you are. Your post has done NOTHING but iritate me. Why don't you have the balls to call me a liar? Instead you %#$^ing question everything I've written? Not that it's any of your business but my mother, my sister, and my aunt all work at medical professions and have access these "medical journals" that you seem to doubt. ALSO I do attend university, WHICH DOES subscribe online to medical journals. MAYBE JUST MAYBE you've heard of some of some of them MAYBE. JAMA? NEJM? Lancet? Listing others is futile. Universities subscribe to hundreds of journals with thousands and thousands of articles and their medical library is *GASP* filled with medical journals. Why do you want me to proceed with this "name dropping". This is a pointless arguement because I can't prove I've read them and you certainly can't prove I haven't.

ElPietro
06-19-2002, 06:05 PM
Vido the heart is a muscle and it pumps blood. You strengthen it by manipulating your heart rate, plain and simple. Weight training can strengthen your heart equally as well as any form of cardio you can think of.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 08:21 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Vido
[B]

For one thing, there is more than one type of cardio and this whole time I have been referring to HIT cardio training because this is the best for your heart imo. Low-intensity cardio has its place in a bodybuilding routine, but should only be a substitute for HIT (as it is good to switch things up...maybe one session of each type per week). There is NO WAY that weight training is more taxing cardiovascularly than interval running.

*** Ok, I said I would adress your other statements so here goes....

Let me start by asking you where you have learned that "HIT" is the most effective way of strengthening the heart?

Next, if we were to disect "HIT," (aka Fartlek training) and look at what the major energy system was involved we would see that it would be the anaerobic system.
Now we know that anything anaerobic does the heart good, what needs to be stressed is what seperates weight training and interval training?

Both are done at high intensities, both use short rest periods ( well weight training is not always like that) and both are anaerobic in nature.

So this would mean that both can be performed by way of strengthening the heart.
I will refernce this if you insist on seeing it. During short intensities such as 30 seconds long we will see that there is a 20% use of the aerobic system and a 80 % use of the anaerobic system. Moving up to 60 seconds we will see that there is a shift to 30% aerobic and a decrease to 70% of the anaerobic system.
This shows that weight training and HIT are great methods. What it doesn't show is how HIT is more superior.

Clark
06-19-2002, 09:17 PM
Originally posted by ElPietro
Vido the heart is a muscle and it pumps blood. You strengthen it by manipulating your heart rate, plain and simple. Weight training can strengthen your heart equally as well as any form of cardio you can think of.

I agree fully that you will strengthen your heart through weight training, but it WILL NOT acheive the same strength that would be possible through cardio. Also, your muscles will suffer if you are trying to improve your heart. I don't believe this is your argument though. So back to my main point. Look at it this way, when doing cardio you want to get your heart rate to a certain level to improve performance. Because your heart is a different muscle than your regular body parts (ie, bis, tris, chest, quads. etc.), you have to sustain high heart rate to improve it. I said your heart is a different type of muscle, and here's how. Your heart is always working, otherwise you're dead (and have no place in the gym anyways:D ). Your other muscles do not have to be working all the time, and therefore grow and strengthen differently. But if you try to train your heart the same way you train your legs it won't work, this is because your heart rate will be elevated during the set, but then when you rest it will drop back down. You will not elevate the heart rate long enough to strengthen the muscle.

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by Clark
I don't believe this is your argument though. So back to my main point. Look at it this way, when doing cardio you want to get your heart rate to a certain level to improve performance. Because your heart is a different muscle than your regular body parts (ie, bis, tris, chest, quads. etc.), you have to sustain high heart rate to improve it.

So you're saying that your heartrate doesn't become elevated while lifting, and that if the rest intervals were sufficiently short, that your heartrate wouldn't remain elevated?

Lucian
06-19-2002, 09:29 PM
Maki - since when does weightlifting, an anaerobic exercise become aerobic? The only way you'll strengthen your heart through exercise if it is prolonged and intense, you have to keep your heart rate elevated in order to do this. How can you keep your heart rate elevated at the necessary levels while lifting weights? Not very long at all. Weightlifting is NOT the same as cardio and you can't make it that way. Cardio and lifting are separate things, it's fine if you choose not to do cardio, but don't suggest that you can get a two for one deal by shortening your breaks.


To tax the heart all you need to do is raise the heart rate, in order to do this more blood must flow into the heart muscle making it beat faster strengthing it.

You do NOT have to be out of breath to strengthen the heart, you do not have to excercise your lungs to improve your heart. So yes weightlifting can be better for your heart then cycling.

What will cause more blood to flow, cycling without weight, or squats?

The answer is Squats, bloodflow cardio, its all about bloodflow.

The best way to make bloodflow is to use your biggest muscles and more blood flows when you weight lift with heavier weight, I know because i've felt the diffrence.

Cardio can make your blood flow too, but unless you have strong lungs you cannot strengthen your heart with cardio, this means your cardio abilities depends on the ability of your body to use oxygen. Unless you have the right kinda muscles, cardio will never be for you. IT depends on the person.

For people with cardio builds, they should do cardio, for a bulky weight lifter, you dont need to do cardio to excercise your heart.

Clark
06-19-2002, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
*** Look these references up. They will show you that the heart indeed can be strengthened through weight training.


1. J Appl Physiol 2002 Feb;92(2):672-8 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Effects of resistance training on physical function in older disabled women with coronary heart disease.
Brochu M, Savage P, Lee M, Dee J, Cress ME, Poehlman ET, Tischler M, Ades PA.

2. Int J Cardiol 2001 Nov;81(1):61-74 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
Acute cardiovascular responses to leg-press resistance exercise in heart transplant recipients.
Oliver D, Pflugfelder

3. Prog Cardiovasc Nurs 2001 Fall;16(4):142-51 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut
The effects of resistance exercise on skeletal muscle abnormalities in patients with advanced heart failure.
King L.

I have said from the start that weight training can strengthen your heart, and I still hold that true. What I disagree with is that you say weight training will strengthen the heart as much as cardio. First of all I don't see these examples as relevant for one main reason. You are talking about training intensely to get your heart rate elevated. Doctors are not going to give a high intensity training regimen to patients that have just received a heart transplant, have heart disease, or have experienced heart failure. This would just increase the chances of a heart attack. I might be going out on a limb here, but I think *GASP* doctors want to prevent any majour disasters like that. You keep asking for examples from everybody else, but you haven't named any that can be counted as relevant.

Clark
06-19-2002, 09:43 PM
Originally posted by PowerManDL


So you're saying that your heartrate doesn't become elevated while lifting, and that if the rest intervals were sufficiently short, that your heartrate wouldn't remain elevated?

No, what I'm saying is that your heart rate DOES get raised through lifting, but you cannot sustain that heart rate for long enough to strengthen the heart as much as a good cardio session. Secondly, if you reduce the rest intervals so much that your heart rate did stay elevated you would reach a state of exhaustion NOT induced through muscular failure. Long story short, your muscles will not be worked hard enough because you will be too tired from the reduced rest to make your lifts count.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 09:50 PM
Cardio can make your blood flow too, but unless you have strong lungs you cannot strengthen your heart with cardio, this means your cardio abilities depends on the ability of your body to use oxygen. Unless you have the right kinda muscles, cardio will never be for you. IT depends on the person.

I'm SERIOUSLY laughing my ass off here. Here's my advice to you. You're so wrong I can't find the words to convey how wrong you are. Don't pass go, don't collect 200 dollars, go directly to another thread.

There's no point in replying to the rest of your post. You're trying to argue a FACT. I don't even know how you can possibly fathom in your mind that exercises like swimming, running, rowing, etc. DON'T strengthen the heart. I've got news for you, and it's no shock to anyone. Those exercises DO STRENGTHEN your heart. PERIOD. You've got a hell of an argument, squats give more bloodflow, backed up by your own personal experience. Hold the presses everyone! You've just presented irrefutable proof.

Oh here's ANOTHER fact that you don't see anyone else arguing. You need to SUSTAIN an elevated heart rate to see significant cardiovascular gains. NO ONE else in this thread is arguing this. Maki wouldn't suggest short 30 second breaks if he thought that this wasn't the case. So I'll say it again. Post in another thread.

Clark
06-19-2002, 09:52 PM
:withstupi

HAHAHHAHAHAHA

Lucian
06-19-2002, 09:57 PM
No, what I'm saying is that your heart rate DOES get raised through lifting, but you cannot sustain that heart rate for long enough to strengthen the heart as much as a good cardio session. Secondly, if you reduce the rest intervals so much that your heart rate did stay elevated you would reach a state of exhaustion NOT induced through muscular failure. Long story short, your muscles will not be worked hard enough because you will be too tired from the reduced rest to make your lifts count.

Depends on the body type. If you have endurance muscles, your muscles wont raise your heart rate very much when you weight lift, and in this case you are correct.

However if you dont have endurance muscles, weight lifting is about the only way you can sustain your heart rate while getting in enough oxygen.

You are going to tell a guy to run if his lungs cant keep up with his heart? What good is running then? So he'll have to take breaks to get his oxygen back, its not sustained cardio.

OR he can weight lift, his heart will stay at the same high rate but he wont have to take long breaks to refuel oxygen to his muscles because weight lifting doesnt burn oxygen like running does.

So whats better for the heart if you arent an endurance athelete? Weight lifting, because let a guy who has poor endurance run, he wont even be able to run 1 full mile before taking a break, he'll cramp up, he'lll be huffing and puffing, not because his heart or lungs are weak but because his muscles arent built for it.

I know because I'm not a good running, but I can play a game like basketball for hours. My endurance is good for certain types of cardio, like short bursts, my endurence is really bad when I try long distance running because my muscles cant handle it, not because of my heart.


So when you tell someone cardio is better or weights is better it depends on how your muscles respond, how much oxygen your muscles use doing what. A strong heart has nothing to do with having strong lungs, or being able to efficiently store oxygen. Some peoples muscles burn oxygen and other peoples burn less.

Clark
06-19-2002, 10:04 PM
Alright, you clearly need some help. I'm gonna help you, because I'm a nice guy (well not really, but nonetheless), my advice to you is to listen to G-Dot and go to another thread, because you are so far from reality it's not even funny.

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 10:15 PM
Originally posted by Clark


No, what I'm saying is that your heart rate DOES get raised through lifting, but you cannot sustain that heart rate for long enough to strengthen the heart as much as a good cardio session. Secondly, if you reduce the rest intervals so much that your heart rate did stay elevated you would reach a state of exhaustion NOT induced through muscular failure. Long story short, your muscles will not be worked hard enough because you will be too tired from the reduced rest to make your lifts count.


I wish you'd told me that, since my heart rate stays elevated most of the time I'm lifting.

I'll correct that next time I workout.

Clark
06-19-2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by PowerManDL



I wish you'd told me that, since my heart rate stays elevated most of the time I'm lifting.

I'll correct that next time I workout.

Elevated.....obviously. I guarantee it's not at 140 bpm for the entire WO though

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by Clark


Doctors are not going to give a high intensity training regimen to patients that have just received a heart transplant, have heart disease, or have experienced heart failure. This would just increase the chances of a heart attack. I might be going out on a limb here, but I think *GASP* doctors want to prevent any majour disasters like that.

I'd like to know how since cardiovascular training can and usually does involve significantly higher HR's and blood pressures.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 10:18 PM
Clark are you even listening? DO you even listen? DO YOU UNDERSTAND?

Did you ever wonder why some people are good at running marathons? Because they are built for it.

Tell arnold ot run a marathon, he could be fatless and some out of shape fat blob could beat him in running a marathon.

Why? Because theres 2 types of muscles, endurance and power.
If you have endurance muscles, usually long soft muscles, they burn slowly, people with long soft muscles arent as strong, usually cant run as fast, usually cant lift much weight, but they can run long long distances because by design their muscles use less energy, less oxygen, and burn less sugar. They are built for running.

Now, take a guy whos the opposite who can run fast, whos very strong, who has short thick muscles which use ALOT of energy due to them having more fibers, these guys arent going to be able to run a marathon because it takes them twice as much oxygen, sugar and energy to run it.

The muscle type CAN be changed to some extent, and you CAN make your body use oxygen better if you arent naturally built for that, but its a very difficult long experience.

Someone who uses more energy per muscle, weight lifting is their running. You cannot expect them to get a good work out running because they cant run for a whole hour before their muscles will cramp.

However, with weight lifting, yes you can weight lift for a whole hour, I usually weight lift at least an hour sometimes 2, I dont take long breaks, I only take the break long enough to catch my breath and I keep going.

You CANNOT exercise your heart if you cant keep oxygen, so weight lifting for me is better than running because I dont need to take breaks for as long and I can weight lift for hours, I cant run for hours.

So you have to look at not just the intensity level but how long the person sustains it, what good is high intensity if its only for 15 minutes, when they could weight lift and be at a slightly lower heart rate but do it for hours?

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by Clark


Elevated.....obviously. I guarantee it's not at 140 bpm for the entire WO though

You'd be surprised.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 10:23 PM
PowerManDL most people do cardio for 15-20 minutes, not 2 hours.


Do you think 15 minutes of really high heart rate is better than an hour of elevated heart rate?

Before I started weight lifting my endurance was NEVER this good.

My body isnt built for endurance muscle wise, or by design, but weight lifting did more for improving my heart than running ever has. I took a jog a couple years ago, for around a mile.

Well, i jogged and my muscles cramped up, and guess what, a few days later my endurance didnt change at all. You know why? Because jogging with high intensity for a short distance wont improve endurance.

Just like playing basketball never improved my endurance, or racing people short distances. You see I'm built for short bursts of speed and power, however because I'm not built to sustain my aerobic excercise in terms of high intensity AND go the distance, I cannot stress my heart out in the same way as I can lifting weights for 2 hours straight with elevated heart rate.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 10:25 PM
Depends on the body type. If you have endurance muscles, your muscles wont raise your heart rate very much when you weight lift, and in this case you are correct.

***** Endurance muscles? I'll assume you're referring to the entire "fast twitch"/"slow twitch" concept of muscle fibers. Even if you are what you said is STILL completely incorrect. Your heart rate will increase regardless of what "type" of muscle fiber you have. By the way "endurance" is not a classification of muscle types, it is used used to describe an ability to perform an action for an long period of time. An example would be "The marathon runner is an endurance athlete" or "It will require great muscular endurance to run 10 miles"

However if you dont have endurance muscles, weight lifting is about the only way you can sustain your heart rate while getting in enough oxygen.

*****Where in the world do you get this idea that your muscles dictate how much oxygen they receive. The amount of oxygen transported around your body is dependent on your red blood cells which ARE NOT finite in number. Your body creates more red blood cells when it needs them. This is the reason that marathon runners train at altitude where there is less oxygen in the air so their body responds by creating more red blood cells to transport the oxygen more efficiently. Once again your assumption is incorrect as outlined above.

You are going to tell a guy to run if his lungs cant keep up with his heart? What good is running then? So he'll have to take breaks to get his oxygen back, its not sustained cardio. OR he can weight lift, his heart will stay at the same high rate but he wont have to take long breaks to refuel oxygen to his muscles because weight lifting doesnt burn oxygen like running does.

*****Where you keep coming up with this lung problem I don't have a clue. Let me give you a hint. The more cardiovascular exercise you perform the better your body adapts to it, through a stronger heart, more red blood cells, more efficient transport of oxygen, better breathing techniques, etc. The rest of that paragraph is incoherent babble. What are you even trying to say?

So whats better for the heart if you arent an endurance athelete? Weight lifting, because let a guy who has poor endurance run, he wont even be able to run 1 full mile before taking a break, he'll cramp up, he'lll be huffing and puffing, not because his heart or lungs are weak but because his muscles arent built for it.

*****You think endurance athletes are born endurance athletes? They train their asses off every day running, and you'd never guess this. MARATHON DISTANCES. Once again you're talking nonsense and there's no reply to it.

I know because I'm not a good running, but I can play a game like basketball for hours. My endurance is good for certain types of cardio, like short bursts, my endurence is really bad when I try long distance running because my muscles cant handle it, not because of my heart.

****More nonsense, more nonsense and even MORE nonsense. Get this. You suck at running because you don't run. It's the same reason you probably suck at sewing or knitting or some other thing you don't do.

So when you tell someone cardio is better or weights is better it depends on how your muscles respond, how much oxygen your muscles use doing what. A strong heart has nothing to do with having strong lungs, or being able to efficiently store
oxygen. Some peoples muscles burn oxygen and other peoples burn less.

****MORE NONSENSE. Here I'll lay it out to you in plain english. If you're born healthy and don't smoke you are equipped with a set of lungs that far surpass your need to get your body oxygen. Your body doesn't store oxygen anywhere oxygen is constantly cycled throughout your body, there isn't some warehouse where your body stashes all this oxygen. I can't reply to a lot of what you've written because frankly if I haven't made this blatantly obvious it's garbage. It makes no sense and it's nothing more than incorrect information.

I've got shocking news for you if you don't already get the picture. I'll use running as an example here. Running with strengthen ANYONE'S heart. ANYONE. Running will strengthen your heart, my heart, a fat coach potatoes heart, a marathon runner's heart, your doctor's heart ANYONE'S heart. Period. End of discussion.

My replies are in your quotation.

Clark
06-19-2002, 10:26 PM
Lucian, I listen, but I don't understand who you've been listening too. Did you get your "expertise" of muscles from a crackerjack box? Marathon runners are good at running marathons because they....get ready for this, it's a shock....TRAIN FOR THEM!! Arnold wouldn't be a good marathon runner because he DOESN'T DO cross-country running. You can train your muscles to do different things. It will take hard work, but you can make your muscles do what you want. Believe it or not, I am an athlete, and *GASP* when I go jogging to get in shape, my cardio.....IMPROVES!! Try it, go for a jog, time yourself, keep doing it, every 2-3 days, and I guarantee you will see improvements. The only reason I can come up with that you have these ridiculous ideas is that you are lazy and don't want to do cardio. Thats fine, but don't try to make up "facts" that aren't true.

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by g-dot
Your body doesn't store oxygen anywhere oxygen is constantly cycled throughout your body, there isn't some warehouse where your body stashes all this oxygen.

Well actually, there is a little thing called myoglobin.......

Mystic Eric
06-19-2002, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Clark
There is no such thing as "endurance" and "power" muscles.

LOL alright guy. Whatever you say. LOL. There aren't different muscle fibre types at all! You're right. :rolleyes:

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Lucian
PowerManDL most people do cardio for 15-20 minutes, not 2 hours.

Do you think 15 minutes of really high heart rate is better than an hour of elevated heart rate?

If you're running for fat loss, or to be a sprinter, then most certainly.

My body isnt built for endurance muscle wise, or by design, but weight lifting did more for improving my heart than running ever has. I took a jog a couple years ago, for around a mile.

Well, i jogged and my muscles cramped up, and guess what, a few days later my endurance didnt change at all. You know why? Because jogging with high intensity for a short distance wont improve endurance.

It will improve anaerobic work capacity. You're not thinking in terms of specificity.

Just like playing basketball never improved my endurance, or racing people short distances. You see I'm built for short bursts of speed and power, however because I'm not built to sustain my aerobic excercise in terms of high intensity AND go the distance, I cannot stress my heart out in the same way as I can lifting weights for 2 hours straight with elevated heart rate.

Doesn't matter how you're built. It matters how you train.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 10:32 PM
Clark are you even listening? DO you even listen? DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Did you ever wonder why some people are good at running marathons? Because
they are built for it.

Tell arnold ot run a marathon, he could be fatless and some out of shape fat blob could beat him in running a marathon. Why? Because theres 2 types of muscles, endurance and power. If you have endurance muscles, usually long soft muscles, they burn slowly, people with long soft muscles arent as strong, usually cant run as fast, usually
cant lift much weight, but they can run long long distances because by design their muscles use less energy, less oxygen, and burn less sugar. They are built for running.

Now, take a guy whos the opposite who can run fast, whos very strong, who has short thick muscles which use ALOT of energy due to them having more fibers, these guys arent going to be able to run a marathon because it takes them twice
as much oxygen, sugar and energy to run it.

The muscle type CAN be changed to some extent, and you CAN make your body use oxygen better if you arent naturally built for that, but its a very difficult long experience.

Someone who uses more energy per muscle, weight lifting is their running. You cannot expect them to get a good work out running because they cant run for a whole hour before their muscles will cramp.

However, with weight lifting, yes you can weight lift for a whole hour, I usually weight lift at least an hour sometimes 2, I dont take long breaks, I only take the break long enough to catch my breath and I keep going.

You CANNOT exercise your heart if you cant keep oxygen, so weight lifting for me is better than running because I dont need to take breaks for as long and I can weight lift for hours, I cant run for hours.

So you have to look at not just the intensity level but how long the person sustains it, what good is high intensity if its only for 15 minutes, when they could weight lift and be at a slightly lower heart rate but do it for hours?

*RING* *RING* You've got a call on the CLUE phone Lucian maybe you should pick up with a hope you might get one. You've made what? 3 or 4 posts in this thread so far and not one come even close to:
a) Making sense
and
b) Being correct
It's time to pack in the bags. You're like a punch drunk old boxer who's took too many shots to the head to realize that he doesn't even have a leg left to stand on. *Points away* There's the door I suggest you use it and head to another thread.

Clark
06-19-2002, 10:36 PM
Originally posted by Mystic Eric


LOL alright guy. Whatever you say. LOL. There aren't different muscle fibre types at all! You're right. :rolleyes:

I re-read my post and made the necessary adjustments. However the fact remains that a person with more of either type isn't limited in their training, it just means they must work harder than others. Although they may not be AS good at others with the fibres matched to the sport.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 10:37 PM
****MORE NONSENSE. Here I'll lay it out to you in plain english. If you're born healthy and don't smoke you are equipped with a set of lungs that far surpass your need to get your body oxygen. Your body doesn't store oxygen anywhere oxygen is constantly cycled throughout your body, there isn't some warehouse where your body stashes all this oxygen. I can't reply to a lot of what you've written because frankly if I haven't made this blatantly obvious it's garbage. It makes no sense and it's nothing more than incorrect information.

I've got shocking news for you if you don't already get the picture. I'll use running as an example here. Running with strengthen ANYONE'S heart

I never said running wouldnt strengthen your heart, I said weight lifting strengthens some peoples hearts BETTER because they can do it longer.

The speed that oxygen is burned by the muscle is controlled BY the MUSCLE not the lungs, not the heart.

This is why mike tyson got his ass kicked by lennox lewis. He was TIRED because he wasnt built for endurance not because he wasnt in shape, genetically he wasnt designed to last 12 rounds.

Remember Ali vs Foreman? Foreman isnt built for endurance either, a powerful strong guy with short tight muscles hits harder, runs faster and uses twice as much energy doing it.

You think a sprinter or power lifter is going to use the same amount of energy and oxygen running as a guy from africa who runs marathons for fun?

If you are such an expert, Learn about diffrent types of muscle, Learn why some people are good at certain sports and bad at others, Learn why Tyson could never run a marathon, NEVER, no matter how many years he trains, because his muscles just arent designed for it. Weightlifting is better for tyson, Aerobics are for Lewis.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 10:38 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clark
[B]

I have said from the start that weight training can strengthen your heart, and I still hold that true. What I disagree with is that you say weight training will strengthen the heart as much as cardio.

*** That's good and fine but it doesn't carry much weight if you can't prove it. The only study I'm aware of that was done to show that cardiovascular work is great for the heart was done on longshoremen. The conclusion was that it was effective. The only problem was that it was done with short rest periods and then intense intervals. This would make it anaerobic in nature.
"Cardio," as you put it isn't superior. If one were to do intense cardio then it would become anaerobic. If it were to become so anaerobic then the person exercising would reach their lactate threshold. This would then terminate the exercise. If they could sustain it then they would be exercising in a steady state which would mean it would become primarily aerobic. Aerobic exercise has not been documented scientifically to be superior to weight training. Regardless of what you have read. Most of this info stems from Doctor Kenneth Cooper who published a book called 'Aerobics.' New studies have shown that this indeed no longer holds true.

First of all I don't see these examples as relevant for one main reason. You are talking about training intensely to get your heart rate elevated. Doctors are not going to give a high intensity training regimen to patients that have just received a heart transplant, have heart disease, or have experienced heart failure. This would just increase the chances of a heart attack. I might be going out on a limb here, but I think *GASP* doctors want to prevent any majour disasters like that.

*** Clark come one now, we all know that a person can't exercise at a intensity level of another person. If the exercise is intense enough to place enough stress on the heart then it will strengthen it. These doctors prescribed exercise that was intense enough to strengthen the heart. Have you had any experience dealing with heart patinets? Probally not. You'd be suprised at how hard you can work them. If you over exercise anyone then you will run the risk of injuring their body regardless of whether they are a heart patient or not.

Clark
06-19-2002, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by g-dot


*RING* *RING* You've got a call on the CLUE phone Lucian maybe you should pick up with a hope you might get one. You've made what? 3 or 4 posts in this thread so far and not one come even close to:
a) Making sense
and
b) Being correct
It's time to pack in the bags. You're like a punch drunk old boxer who's took too many shots to the head to realize that he doesn't even have a leg left to stand on. *Points away* There's the door I suggest you use it and head to another thread.

LOL!

He's got about as much chance of being right as the one-legged man has of winning an ass-kicking contest.

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 10:40 PM
Word Maki.

Maki Riddington
06-19-2002, 10:41 PM
I will start editing the posts if you can't contain yourselves.
There will be no flaming period.
First and last warning.
We can debate as mature adults or else the thread will be closed.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 10:44 PM
Well actually, there is a little thing called myoglobin.......

I'm referring to the body not storing oxygen in the sense that it seems he intended in his post. Regardless I think it's time I myself step out of this thread because it's getting more than a little bit out of hand. I think the necessary issues have been addressed and you have already restated that "It doesn't matter how you're built. It matters how you train". Which sums up my entire argument nicely so I'll leave it at that.

smalls
06-19-2002, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
........or simply arrange your routine so that your weight training stresses your cardiovascular system.

Minimal rest periods and reps of 10-12 will not only hypertrophy the muscles but strengthen the heart muscle as well.


Now, vido, clark and g-dot. Seeing as you guys are probably sitting around the same computer (at least vido and clark). Look above at maki's original post.

Do any of you disagree that you can cause hypertrophy AND stress(strengthen) your cardiovascular sytem, with the RIGHT weight training routine. NOT MAXIMAL hypertrophy, but some hypertrophy and strengthen the heart VERY effectively. If so why.

Also I find it funny that you keep stating HIT as the best form of cardio for your cardiovascular system when it is the cardio that is most closely related to weight lifting.

Anyway, what do yah say.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 10:51 PM
Gdot so you are saying genetics and body type have nothing to do with how the body burns oxygen?

You are saying Tyson couldnt outlast lewis because he was just out off shape even after his years of training?

Perhaps its because Tyson has more energy in his muscles thus burns more oxygen with each punch causing his heart rate to raise MORE with each punch than Lewis.


Whats your theory? I mean if I am wrong, shouldnt everyone be able to run marathons?

Clark
06-19-2002, 10:55 PM
First of all smalls, we're nowhwere near the same computer, we just happen to have similar views. Secondly, I've stated numerous times that I agree hypertrophy can occur, and the heart can be strengthened through weight training. I just believe that if you are going to work out, you should do it the most effective way possible. Therefore, take the time to do cardio by itself to strengthen the heart. Thusly, take time to rest so you can lift to your potential. This is just my view, as I feel that if I am going to do something at all I am going to do it right.

Now go back to sitting in the corner.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 11:02 PM
Lucian this is my last post to you. Your boxing analogy is completely irrelevent. Mike Tyson lost because he's a washed up boxer. He passed his prime 10 years ago. He had no skill then and he has no skill now. I know the difference between muscle types, I took a course that dealt with them which is more than I know you can say. People are good at some sports and bad at others because they gear their activity toward the sport they are involved in. Arnold probably can't run a 5 minute mile because Arnold never claimed to be a runner, he never trained to be a runner and he never wanted to be a runner. I bet Shaq is terrible at soccer. We know Jordan was terrible at baseball. I can give you examples until this board runs out of server space if you need. Your body adapts to your training. If you want to run endurance start training for endurance. If you want to be good at soccer play soccer. Anyone with half a brain will tell you that. Don't expect to be able to run for miles and miles and miles if you've never even jogged down the street. The only role genetics, muscle fibres, and voodo magic play is they differentiate between a person who plays a sport and a person who is great at a sport. Genetics limit your potential for greatness NOT for participation. Anyone who is willing to get in shape for ANY sport can play it, but that doesn't guarantee greatness.

On a sidenote to smalls why would you assume that I'm sitting at the same computer as Clark and Vido . We don't even share the same opinions on the arguments in this thread which Maki pointed out earlier. I never said anything about HIT cardio, I never denied weightlifting strengthens your heart my position is it doesn't do so as effectively as an exercise such as swimming/running/rowing etc. You're spending too much time on conspiracy theories and not enough time reading what was written. As I've already stated my opinion is NOT the same as that expressed by Vido or Clark for that matter.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 11:02 PM
Clark, You say anyone can train to run a marathon, and thats just not going to work for smeone whos genetically not built for it.

Its kinda like, should I run for 15 minutes at super high intensity then stop, or should I weight lift for 2 hours.

Answer this question, what exercises the heart better, high intensity yet not sustained, or medium intensity which is sustained for hours?

Thats the option, run for 15 minutes, or weight lift for hours, tell me which is better for the heart, if you say intensity is better, please tell me why my heart NEVER improved through all my years of running, jumping, playing basketball, football etc? I simply had better endurance doing those sports, I still cant run long distance.

smalls
06-19-2002, 11:06 PM
Actually Clark I partially agree with you. I think that you can't get the absolute best of both worlds at once. But that wasnt the point of maki's or anyone elses post, and that is what I was trying to bring up. You seemed to be arguing a point that maki really never said, and it got pretty old. Anyway, im not sure why your post's always have to resort to insults(or attempts at them), but I am sure they make you feel better. Just curious, how old are you. Seriously. Sorry if I missed your age in another thread.

And G-dot, sorry if I lumped you in with the terrible twosome.

Clark
06-19-2002, 11:12 PM
First of all Lucian, you keep talking about increasing your endurance, but, again, you don't know what's going on. To improve your endurance you shouldn't be trying to do HIT. You should be jogging for 45min to 1hr (to begin with). Now remember people, we're talking improving endurance here, not anything to do with muscular gains. As for your scenario, that's just trying to make me give a poor choice. The bottom line is, you will improve your endurance through jogging for an extended period. Take it from me, I broke my arm a while ago, and I thought, hey maybe if I do squats with little rest my endurance won't be too bad, but hey guess what...I was in the worst shape of my life. Back to your first comment, anyone can train for a marathon, and improve their ability to run it. They may not ever be as good as somebody who is genetically gifted with the right type of muscle fibre, but they will definitely be better than if they had not trained at all.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 11:14 PM
Lucian this is my last post to you. Your boxing analogy is completely irrelevent. Mike Tyson lost because he's a washed up boxer. He passed his prime 10 years ago. He had no skill then and he has no skill now.

But you admit tyson punches harder than Lewis right?


I know the difference between muscle types, I took a course that dealt with them which is more than I know you can say. People are good at some sports and bad at others because they gear their activity toward the sport they are involved in.

So you are saying genetics dont play a role in this at all, and that anyone can train to hit as hard as tyson, or have the endurance of lewis, and if you dont want to use them, you are saying anyone can have legs as strong as micheal jordan, and that jordan could strengthen his arms and waist like his legs are so he can dominate baseball?

See theres only 2 possibilities, either people train to be in the shape they are and I'm stronger than most people because somehow I trained to build strength type muscles, or my genes decided what type my muscles would be and the best I can do is accept the fact that I'll never be good at some things.


Which one is it?

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 11:17 PM
You're attempting to compare basic motor qualities to sport skills. The analogies aren't appropriate.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 11:20 PM
First of all Lucian, you keep talking about increasing your endurance, but, again, you don't know what's going on. To improve your endurance you shouldn't be trying to do HIT. You should be jogging for 45min to 1hr (to begin with). Now remember people, we're talking improving endurance here, not anything to do with muscular gains. As for your scenario, that's just trying to make me give a poor choice. The bottom line is, you will improve your endurance through jogging for an extended period. Take it from me, I broke my arm a while ago, and I thought, hey maybe if I do squats with little rest my endurance won't be too bad, but hey guess what...I was in the worst shape of my life. Back to your first comment, anyone can train for a marathon, and improve their ability to run it. They may not ever be as good as somebody who is genetically gifted with the right type of muscle fibre, but they will definitely be better than if they had not trained at all.


I CANT jog for an hour, what dont you understand? My muscles just dont allow it. They cramp after 15 minutes or so, now I could walk for an hour, or even power walk for an hour, but I cannot RUN or Jog at a decent intensity for an hour.

So, my option, jog at medium intensity for an hour, or weight lift and get the same heart rate for an hour without getting the cramps assosiated with running.

What you dont understand is, not everyone can jog for an hour, I'd have to train for like 6 months maybe a year before I could jog for an hour, is it worth it for me to built my way up to jogging, when I can weight lift for an hour and improve FASTER?

You might be right, running might be better than weight lifting at a certain level, but if you cant run to begin with, weight lifting is going to strengthen your heart better until you actually CAN run for an hour.

Clark
06-19-2002, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Lucian
So you are saying genetics dont play a role in this at all, and that anyone can train to hit as hard as tyson, or have the endurance of lewis, and if you dont want to use them, you are saying anyone can have legs as strong as micheal jordan, and that jordan could strengthen his arms and waist like his legs are so he can dominate baseball?

See theres only 2 possibilities, either people train to be in the shape they are and I'm stronger than most people because somehow I trained to build strength type muscles, or my genes decided what type my muscles would be and the best I can do is accept the fact that I'll never be good at some things.


Which one is it?

First of all, Michael Jordan wasn't a great basketball player because he had strong legs (I'd like you to prove this fact as well), and he wasn't a bad baseball player because he may or may not have had strong arms and a strong waist. The reason he is a great basketball player, and a poor baseball player has nothing to do with his workouts. His training merely accentuated his skill at basketball, and obviously didn't affect his skill (or lack thereof) of baseball. He would still be a great basketball player and a crappy baseball player if he never went near a gym.

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by Lucian


What you dont understand is, not everyone can jog for an hour, I'd have to train for like 6 months maybe a year before I could jog for an hour, is it worth it for me to built my way up to jogging, when I can weight lift for an hour and improve FASTER?



Big difference in saying it'd be hard with training and saying its impossible.

g-dot
06-19-2002, 11:24 PM
I have a question for you Lucian are you DAFT? I don't admit that Tyson hits harder than Lewis. Boxing isn't a science you can't calibrate their punch strength. Tyson in his day had a strong punch but he fought a lot of stiffs this doesn't say ANYTHING about muscles. I don't know if you have a problem reading but I said EXPLICITLY THAT GENETICS DO HAVE A ROLE IN HOW GOOD YOU ARE AT A SPORT. I SAID YOU CAN TRAIN TO PLAY A SPORT BUT GENETICS ARE THE ONLY THING THAT CAN MAKE YOU GREAT AT IT. Lucian I'm guessing by your line of thinking you're probably about 14 or 15 years old. I certainly hope you aren't any older than that because your comprehension skills are horrible. My advice to you is instead of trying to maintain a horribly incorrect opinion is to get off your computer right now and go to a library and start reading some books. Your grasp on the human physiology is probably close to zero. Your reading comprehension is zero. Your ability to support and form a coherent opinion is zero. Your contribution to this conversation is zero. Everything you have stated is WRONG. It is WRONG, incorrect, inaccurate, unsubstantiated, but most importantly flat out WRONG. I will uphold my word and stay out of this thread. I had no choice but to reply to your post because you so obviously misrepresented what I wrote that it was laughable.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 11:31 PM
We arent even talking about skill here.
Jordan can jump higher than 99 percent of basketball players, can you dunk from the freethrow line?

Thats not training thats GENETICS.

Gdot I'm 21, as far as my line of thinking, I'm saying genetics play a role.

Some people are stronger than others and some have more endurance.

Not everyone is built for running, PERIOD, yes you can train to be better at running if you arnt built for running, but your goal isnt to be better at running, your goal is to exercise your heart, you'd excercise your heart MORE if you can work it LONGER, correct? If you can weight lift longer than you can run, why not weight lift if its something you are better at?????

Weight lifting is a good way to strengthen the heart, sure if you can run 5-6 miles and run for 2 hours its better than weight lifting for 2 hours because its more intense, but if you can only run for 15 minutes, isnt it kinda stupid to choose running over weight lifting for 2 hours?

And this isnt from books, its from personal experience, I've never been good at running at a sustained rate, my body lets me run faster however than most.

I'm listening to what my body responds to, not books which tell generic joe how to exercise.

Clark
06-19-2002, 11:34 PM
LOL at G-Dot Hahahahaha

Lucian, you just proved me to be right. If you can't even jog for 15 minutes then you clearly have horrible endurance. By your way of thinking, you should have fantastic endurance, I mean you're keeping your heart rate elevated right....I'm gonna let you in on something....being scared raises your heart rate too, but does that improve your endurance...of course not!! So what we have learned here is that you cannot improve your endurance merely by lifting weights. Class is dismissed

Smalls, the reason I have to insult so many people is because I'm not a very nice person, and then you combine that with people who have no idea what they're doing telling me I'm wrong. That's why I'm such an angry person.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 11:38 PM
Lucian, you just proved me to be right. If you can't even jog for 15 minutes then you clearly have horrible endurance. By your way of thinking, you should have fantastic endurance, I mean you're keeping your heart rate elevated right....I'm gonna let you in on something....being scared raises your heart rate too, but does that improve your endurance...of course not!! So what we have learned here is that you cannot improve your endurance merely by lifting weights. Class is dismissed


I never claimed to have the worlds greatest endurance, I'm not BUILT for endurance. I do best at medium intensity, I can go medium intensity all day and night, I can play sports like football and basketball because they dont deprive me of oxygen.

Jogging is sustained. My weakness is not my heart, OR my lungs, its the fact that my muscles simple use oxygen too fast. I run faster and have alot of strength because of this same feature.

Not everyone is built like you Clark. Then again, you prolly arent nearly as strong as me either.

Clark this topic was about strengthening the heart, NOT improving endurance.

Endurance has to do with how the body uses oxygen.

Clark
06-19-2002, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by Lucian
We arent even talking about skill here.
Jordan can jump higher than 99 percent of basketball players, can you dunk from the freethrow line?

Thats not training thats GENETICS.

Gdot I'm 21, as far as my line of thinking, I'm saying genetics play a role.

Some people are stronger than others and some have more endurance.

Not everyone is built for running, PERIOD, yes you can train to be better at running if you arnt built for running, but your goal isnt to be better at running, your goal is to exercise your heart, you'd excercise your heart MORE if you can work it LONGER, correct? If you can weight lift longer than you can run, why not weight lift if its something you are better at?????

First of all, your incoherency makes me question what the point of telling me Jordan could (can't anymore) dunk from the free-throw line. Secondly, do you have any facts that back up your statement that he can jumnp higher than 99% of bball players. Next, you're wrong yet again, just by excercising your heart longer doesn't mean it's better, you need a certain level of intensity to match the time. You can walk for 5 hours, and it's not going to do nearly as much as a 45 minute jog.

Clark
06-19-2002, 11:46 PM
Lucian, where do you get off assuming I'm not as strong as you? Just cause you have terrible endurance doesn't mean you're strong you know. Plus, just try this ok, jog for as long as you can 3 times a week. I guarantee you'll improve yourself

Lucian
06-19-2002, 11:49 PM
To improve overall endurance of the muscles, high reps while lifting ive heard improves endurance.

When I say my muscles dont use oxygen the same way. Diffrent types of muscle on diffrent people work in diffrent ways, some burn mostly fat, some burn sugar, some muscles use up more energy faster than others, some muscles have good endurance, I've read (yes I have researched a bit) that your endurance muscle wise all depends on chemical processes in the muscle, certain types of muscles react in diffrent ways, some muscles get oxygen faster than others etc.

If your legs burn sugar or GLUCOSE for all those who want to be technical, you get cramps while running because running is burning 100 percent glucose, the lactate that builds up in the muscle deprives the muscle of oxygen.

This happens when weight lifting too, lift a light weight for high reps and you'll have similar problems with cramping, muscle fatigue etc.

Muscle fatigue does not mean you have a weak heart or lungs though.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 11:50 PM
Clark I've jogged for weeks before and because of its intensity I cannot jog for longer than an hour, if i jog at a low enough intensity so my muscles dont fatigue my heart rate is LOWER than when I'm lifting weights.

PowerManDL
06-19-2002, 11:51 PM
Oh boy, here we go.

Homo stat fight at 6 o'clock.

Lucian
06-19-2002, 11:52 PM
OK Clark I thik I understand your point now, I'm finished with this debate.

Your point is, intensity is better for the heart than sustained workload.

So in theory, a sprinter should have the healthiest heart.

Clark
06-20-2002, 12:06 AM
Lucian, I love to get technical, but a word to the wise is to only try to get technical if you know what you're talking about. Or otherwise, pretend you know what you're talking about as long as nobody else knows the difference. Unfortunately for you, I know otherwise. Here's how the process ACTUALLY works. Now please save yourself the embarassment and quit while you're behind.

Your cells get energy through glycolysis a procss called "cellular respiration" in which ATP is utilized for energy. It is an aerobic process and oxygen must be present to fuel the process along its pathway._ When oxygen is NOT supplied in adequate amounts the pathway does not progress fully and lactic acid is created as a byproduct ANAEROBICALLY. The lactic acid does NOT deprive the muscle of oxygen, but glycolysis does NOT continue until the lactic acid is AEROBICALLY converted back to be utilized along the glycolyticpathway. SO until the backlog of lactic acid is dealt with you will have that "burn". This has nothing to do with glucose keeping oxygen out of the muscles. The muscles don't directly utilize glucose anyway. It is adenosine triphosphate (ATP) that is utilized at the cellular level and NOT glucose. The consumption of ATP is an aerobic process as outlined above. Everything written about a person's legs burning 100% glucose is completely incorrect because the only "fuel" being utilized in any considerable amount is ATP which powers most cellular mechanisms with the only notable exception being DNA synthesis which utilizes a different, yet similar molecule.

PowerManDL
06-20-2002, 12:12 AM
Originally posted by Clark
Lucian, I love to get technical, but a word to the wise is to only try to get technical if you know what you're talking about. Or otherwise, pretend you know what you're talking about as long as nobody else knows the difference. Unfortunately for you, I know otherwise. Here's how the process ACTUALLY works. Now please save yourself the embarassment and quit while you're behind.

I agree.

Your cells get energy through glycolysis a procss called "cellular respiration" in which ATP is utilized for energy. It is an aerobic process and oxygen must be present to fuel the process along its pathway.

Ooooops.

The consumption of ATP is an aerobic process as outlined above.

Oooooops again.

ATP which powers most cellular mechanisms with the only notable exception being DNA__"a different, yet similar molecule"

Wow, that's three oooooopses. I guess people really should get technical only if they know what they're talking about.

Clark
06-20-2002, 12:13 AM
Lucian, I'm not sure you can read, but if you go back and read the thread I say that the heart benefits from sustained periods of higher intensity. I assume in this comment that most people have some sort of cardiovascular ability. I guess you are the exception to this rule. I'm going to leave this thread as correcting you so often is hard work.

Clark
06-20-2002, 12:26 AM
Sorry PowerManDL I got caught up in the conversation and rushed a reply and put the cycle in reverse. Cellular respiration is the synthesis of ATP from glucose, but with that taken into consideration the rest of the post should be correct. As for the last statement about DNA synthesis being powered by a different molecule that is correct

Lucian
06-20-2002, 12:40 AM
Your cells get energy through glycolysis a procss called "cellular respiration" in which ATP is utilized for energy. It is an aerobic process and oxygen must be present to fuel the process along its pathway._ When oxygen is NOT supplied in adequate amounts the pathway does not progress fully and lactic acid is created as a byproduct ANAEROBICALLY. The lactic acid does NOT deprive the muscle of oxygen, but glycolysis does NOT continue until the lactic acid is AEROBICALLY converted back to be utilized along the glycolyticpathway. SO until the backlog of lactic acid is dealt with you will have that "burn". This has nothing to do with glucose keeping oxygen out of the muscles. The muscles don't directly utilize glucose anyway. It is adenosine triphosphate (ATP) that is utilized at the cellular level and NOT glucose. The consumption of ATP is an aerobic process as outlined above. Everything written about a person's legs burning 100% glucose is completely incorrect because the only "fuel" being utilized in any considerable amount is ATP which powers most cellular mechanisms with the only notable exception being DNA synthesis which utilizes a different, yet similar molecule

It still doesnt change the fact that some legs use more fuel than others.

Unless you can prove all body parts on all people use the same exact amount of fuel, you cannot PROVE muscle endurance is equal between all people.

I never said I HAD good muscle endurance, I said I had a strong heart.

The debate here isnt the technical name of the fuel, but we are debating if diffrent muscles on diffrent people burn diffrent amounts of fuel or diffrent fuels entirely.

Its like a car, a car that runs fine until you put it into a certain gear then all the fuel runs out instantly.

I dont think either of us can prove this, however from my experience and obvservations I believe diffrent bodies use fuel in diffrent ways and so they have diffrent optimal intensity levels, someone who has a slow burn can run longer than someone who burns out within seconds.

You get my point?


Lucian, I'm not sure you can read, but if you go back and read the thread I say that the heart benefits from sustained periods of higher intensity. I assume in this comment that most people have some sort of cardiovascular ability. I guess you are the exception to this rule. I'm going to leave this thread as correcting you so often is hard work.


And You are to decide which intensity is best for "EVERYONE" and you have decided running provides the best intensity for EVERYONE?

Define high intensity, because high intensity for me is weight lifting, running is too high to sustain for me, maybe running isnt high intensity for a marathon runner, diffrent people have diffrent levels they do best in.

Vido
06-20-2002, 01:10 AM
I've been away for a few hours and this debate has dissipated into nothing but a chorus of insults. I do not wish to further continue this most recent trend, but Lucian, quit ATTEMPTING to contribute. You are clearly in pathetic cardiovascular shape and your mental thought process is in a similar condition. I have never heard someone say that jogging a few times a week won't increase endurance (unless of course you are already in good enough shape that you would require even more of a stimulus). I don't care if you're a fat ass, a stick, a professional bodybuilder, or whatever, the fact is you can increase endurance. You get muscle cramps because of a lack of proper warm-up or insufficient nutrition prior to your run, not because your muscles weren't built for it. YOU ARE LAZY. YOU DO NOT WANT TO RUN. YOU ARE MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOURSELF. I am sorry to have to put it to you so bluntly, but hopefully the message will be interpreted correctly as a result.

McBain
06-20-2002, 01:20 AM
:bow: as you wish :rolleyes:

Vido
06-20-2002, 01:29 AM
McBain that was nothing more than incoherent babble. At least try to respond to something or add to the thread in some way.

ElPietro
06-20-2002, 07:32 AM
I thought this thread was about strengthening the heart? Why did we digress to endurance versus power stats now?

I will restate my view that if you want to have a strong heart with maximum muscle mass then weight training intensely with short rest periods is far superior to any cardio available. Fuel source is irrelevant here. It is a function of HR over time. I believe you can achieve equal or near equal heart rates weight training and sustain this HR over a longer period than you could with any form of cardiovascular training, givin you are trying to preserve mass and strength. Now running a 50k marathon that will take you hours may strengthen the heart more, but in order to have the aerobic capacity to run such a race you would not be anywhere near your maximal strength or muscle mass.

It's quite simple...since we were talking about endurance and such. To perform cardio over a long period of time the muscles being used need to be efficient at utilizing oxygen as a source of energy. Which muscle fibres do this? Type I fibres are best, with some oxidative efficiency in type IIa fibres but they are a distant second. Now which muscle fibres are superior at strength and are responsible for hypertrophic gains? Type IIb fibres with Type IIa second. So unless you are superman and think you can be trainied maximally for both oxidative and glucose supported energy you can't. So if you want to maximize your size and strength and yet have a strong heart doing something like circuit training can be used as a substitute for cardio. The downside is that your body will be less efficient at oxidative process, so if you try to run you will gas out very fast...which has very little, if anything to do with your heart.

If you have a point then make it. This thread is good but is being degraded by those who have very little knowledge but like to hang of the testies of those who they THINK know what they are saying. So either post something to add to the thread or don't post.

Maki Riddington
06-20-2002, 12:47 PM
Originally posted by Vido
I've been away for a few hours and this debate has dissipated into nothing but a chorus of insults. I do not wish to further continue this most recent trend, but Lucian, quit ATTEMPTING to contribute. You are clearly in pathetic cardiovascular shape and your mental thought process is in a similar condition. I have never heard someone say that jogging a few times a week won't increase endurance (unless of course you are already in good enough shape that you would require even more of a stimulus). I don't care if you're a fat ass, a stick, a professional bodybuilder, or whatever, the fact is you can increase endurance. You get muscle cramps because of a lack of proper warm-up or insufficient nutrition prior to your run, not because your muscles weren't built for it. YOU ARE LAZY. YOU DO NOT WANT TO RUN. YOU ARE MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOURSELF. I am sorry to have to put it to you so bluntly, but hopefully the message will be interpreted correctly as a result.

*** Vido, instead of side stepping the issue I would like it if you would address my points. If you have nothing to say then I understand.

Vido
06-20-2002, 01:21 PM
Maki, I am on a discussion board here. I am voicing my opinion, which I believe to be right. If I had access to or was going to spend countless hours trying to dig up medical studies to prove my point I wouldn't be on this site in the first place. The reason to be on a discussion board is to preach what you know and learn new things from other people.
In addition, as Clark pointed out the references you have given are totally inappropriate. This, however, does not bother me, because I unlike yourself don't need to listen to some doctor to know what is going on in my body. Doctors recommend .3g protein per lb of bodyweight or something ridiculously low like that. Do you listen to them there? Why would you listen to them in anything else then?

"Reading is one thing, taking what you have learned and applying it on yourself and others is another.

Just because you've read something does not make it right." (Maki)

I find it amusing that you keep asking for me to reference things that I have read when you yourself say that just because you read something does not make it right.

ElPietro
06-20-2002, 01:29 PM
Doing research and reading information provided by qualified studies are valid to support an argument. I think it's a waste of Maki's time to even have to debate with you since you are unwilling to back up anything you say while he follows through on this. Your logic is flawed in many cases yet you refuse to see the light so I don't know how you ever expect to learn anything here. .3g of protein/lb of bodyweight is perfectly fine for someone who is not training as most here do. But I'm glad you can discount everything doctors think or can prove scientifically since you know every process that is happening in your body. :rolleyes:

Maki Riddington
06-20-2002, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Vido
Maki, I am on a discussion board here. I am voicing my opinion, which I believe to be right. If I had access to or was going to spend countless hours trying to dig up medical studies to prove my point I wouldn't be on this site in the first place. The reason to be on a discussion board is to preach what you know and learn new things from other people.

*** Then if you believe it to be right you can prove through many different ways. So far you've said that it doesn't work and have given very general arguments which are pretty much useless.
If you are to pass something of as being your opinion then say so in the first place. Don't bother arguing it and then resorting to say when you can't argue your opinion any more that it is just a opinion and your entitled to it. We all know the saying about opinions. Eh?

In addition, as Clark pointed out the references you have given are totally inappropriate.

*** No he hasn't. Read my rebuttal and then look for Clarks. You will see there is none. Feel free to share your own personal experience with heart patients and then come back to me. Stop ignoring my posts.

This, however, does not bother me, because I unlike yourself don't need to listen to some doctor to know what is going on in my body. Doctors recommend .3g protein per lb of bodyweight or something ridiculously low like that. Do you listen to them there? Why would you listen to them in anything else then?

*** There is a difference between a surgeon, an MD and a doctor who deals with heart patients etc.... Please don't be so naive.
Who said anything about a MD. Come on Vido, you should know that? Surely.......

"Reading is one thing, taking what you have learned and applying it on yourself and others is another.

Just because you've read something does not make it right." (Maki)

I find it amusing that you keep asking for me to reference things that I have read when you yourself say that just because you read something does not make it right.

*** Again you are showing that you're not reading and grasping the basic concepts of my posts. I have stated that I use all faucets (sp) avaliable to me. Not just reading. I base everything I do and say on a blend of different sources. You on the other hand do not.

Lucian
06-20-2002, 03:15 PM
I've been away for a few hours and this debate has dissipated into nothing but a chorus of insults. I do not wish to further continue this most recent trend, but Lucian, quit ATTEMPTING to contribute. You are clearly in pathetic cardiovascular shape and your mental thought process is in a similar condition. I have never heard someone say that jogging a few times a week won't increase endurance (unless of course you are already in good enough shape that you would require even more of a stimulus). I don't care if you're a fat ass, a stick, a professional bodybuilder, or whatever, the fact is you can increase endurance. You get muscle cramps because of a lack of proper warm-up or insufficient nutrition prior to your run, not because your muscles weren't built for it. YOU ARE LAZY. YOU DO NOT WANT TO RUN. YOU ARE MAKING EXCUSES FOR YOURSELF. I am sorry to have to put it to you so bluntly, but hopefully the message will be interpreted correctly as a result.

__________________

Lazy because I dont want to run, rest, run, rest, run, rest, when I can lift, lift, lift, without any resting and keep my heart rate at the same or close to the same rate as running?

You talk about not wanting to insult but claiming I'm in poor condition endurance wise because I'm not as good at running as you? This has nothing to do with my heart which may be stronger than yours.

We were discussing the heart, not overall endurence. Running does not improve the HEART better than weight lifting for everyone.

As far as over all endurance, we were not talking about that, but even if we were, your endurance muscle wise has nothing to do with your eatinng habits, or your warm up or cool down, it has to do with your muscle type. You think a marathon runner has to eat healthy and train run 5 miles? no, but I do.

Tiare
06-20-2002, 05:40 PM
I think cardiovascular exercise is good and should be used even when bulking. I do believe that you should be consuming carbs WHILE doing cardio if you are bulking because you really don't want to run out of readily available sources of energy.

Lucian, I put my heart rate at 145 to 160 for about an hour when I do cardio (I'm 32) and I would suspect that you don't get your heart rate past 120 when you are lifting for any more than a few seconds at a time.

smooth muscle (i.e. heart, diaphram, etc) does not work like skeletal muscle in many ways. It should not be compared to skeletal muscle for how to increase it's strenght etc. Your heart "strength" would be very hard to measure as that it really doesn't change much from a very fit to a very unfit person (remember, the heart only pushes blood and the volume of blood it pushes doesn't change much). What does change is your hearts endurance. Cardiovascular exercise tends to improve your hearts endurance.

Somebody was discussing anaerobic respiration here earlier which I don't understand? What's that got to do with the cardiovascular conditioning? Since lactic acid building up in the heart muscle only means that you are suffocating and will soon be dead, Don't believe me? ask a coroner about what they look for to determine cause of death in suspected strangulations and they will tell you lactic acid in the heart muscle.

Everyone burns the same fuels. ATP. It is created the same way in every body. Krebbs cycle (aerobic) and glycolysis (Lactic acid/fermentation/anaerobic). There is one other way to produce ATP in the body but it's use is very limited and very short duration.

Anyway, back to the original thread, I believe that cardio helps even when bulking. :D

Lucian
06-20-2002, 07:17 PM
Hearts endurance? what are you talking about??????


y.

Lucian, I put my heart rate at 145 to 160 for about an hour when I do cardio (I'm 32) and I would suspect that you don't get your heart rate past 120 when you are lifting for any more than a few seconds at a time.


The heart rate depends on how much muscle you have and the type off muscle.

Do some squats, your heart rate will jump up to over 120, how long? It will stay up as long as you are doing your squats. It takes a few minutes for your heart rate to go back down, MINUTES not a few seconds, if you catch your breath in a few seconds after doing squats you must be doing them with very light weight.

I get a higher heart rate doing pushups than I do when I run, I get an almost equal heart rate doing squats, maybe slightly less than running, now, If i do 50 pushups then without any rest begin doing squats, my heart rate stays the same by because I'm resting one set of muscles and working another, I can do it for longer than if i just run.

Running is not much diffrent than squats, you are using your legs to push your body forward, Squats you are pushing weight, the diffrence with weight lifting and with running, When your legs get tired with running you have to stop running, your muscles decide when you must stop, with weigtht lifting, you just switch your excercise.


So I want you to try an experiment.

Do 100 pushups, have your weight ready so you can do squats RIGHT AFTER you do those 100 pushups, Do 50 squats in sets of 10.

THEN after you do your squats, do some pullups.

IF you tell me you arent getting a workout doing this, Then it must have something to do with the muscle fibers because that gives me a better workout by far than just running, I'm absolutely exchausted after doing something like that, my muscles, literally dripping with sweat and my heart rate is very high.

Running would put my heart rate just as high, maybe even slightly higher, but my legs dont last 2 hours. Its as simple as that.

We can keep arguing about this, or you can take my challenge and try it, Lift HEAVY weights, not light wussy weights, if you can lift heavy weights in your squats and then do 50 pushups and your heart rate isnt as fast as running, Make a new post with your results.

The best way to decide this is to test it out in the gym.

Maki Riddington
06-20-2002, 07:57 PM
Bump for Vido.

Bigmofo
06-20-2002, 11:47 PM
You guys had an interesting debate, that was before Lucian arrived, please Lucian you dont have any idea of how stupid your posts really are, please go away! :cry:

lucian's greatest moments in stupidity:

Running is not much diffrent than squats

:help:

Its like a car, a car that runs fine until you put it into a certain gear then all the fuel runs out instantly


:cry:
Diffrent types of muscle on diffrent people work in diffrent ways, some burn mostly fat, some burn sugar

:cry:

and the list goes on and on...someone needs to ban this guy from the boards...

Qea
06-20-2002, 11:56 PM
I tried reading this thread but gave up after the 2nd page

cheers!

:hump:

Lucian
06-21-2002, 12:58 AM
You guys had an interesting debate, that was before Lucian arrived, please Lucian you dont have any idea of how stupid your posts really are, please go away!

lucian's greatest moments in stupidity:

Running is not much diffrent than squats


Oh dont try to put the blame on me, Debate? When I arrived people were busy attacking Maki, Now it seems these forces have decided to attack me.

You believe Squats are running are all that diffrent? Same exact muscles involved, similar movements, both carrying weight.

The diffrence, one is carrying alot less weight than the other.

You squat 600lbs, your heart rate is going to go up, you run carrying 200lbs, your heart rate is going to go up.

The only diffrence here is, when you use less weight you fatigue faster,

Running vs Squats can be compared to something like power lifting vs kick boxing.

You are lifting weight no matter which one you do, but lighter you are stressing the muscle in diffrent ways.

You arent going to get bigger muscles by running, well not much bigger, its mostly aerobic in nature, but to strengthen the heart you dont need to do aerobics.

That is MY point, I'm not arguing about endurance vs power, I'm not arguing about whats better between running and weight lifting for "ENDURANCE"

I'm talking about the heart, the lungs plays a role in endurance as do the muscles and no where have I mentioned weight lifting is better for your lungs and your muscle endurance.

However, when people claim i said things which I never really said then try to use it against me like a few people did, that goes beyond debating and becomes fighting. I'm not here to fight over stuff I never said.

Did I ever say running was bad or worse than weight lifting for endurance? NO I was talking about the heart.

To excercise your heart, you do whatever makes your heart rate rise high, which YOU can sustain. Running requires muscle endurance, and good lungs, Weight lifting does not, why should someone who has poor muscle endurance waste their time trying to run when they can weight lift without spending months building up their overall endurance?

We are talking about the heart, HEART

Thats what the debate was about. Everyone who has argued with me has never once proved with any real evidence that running is any diffrent than squating when it comes to the stress it puts on the heart.


So lets test both theories and find out, everyone here is into weight lifting, and running, so why dont you TRY running on a treadmill, calculate your heart rate, and then do squats, pushups, pullups etc and check your heart rate, then post your results here.

To people who say weight lifting doesnt raise the heart rate, well lets find out, and to people who say they can recover within seconds from doing weight trainig such as squats, well lets find out.

But its pointless for people to say to me
"Lucian you are wrong, I'm a certified trainer, I've took this course, read book X, So I know what I'm talking about"

For an educated person thats not a scientific way of thinking and its not an intelligent way to act, you prove a person wrong you dont tell them they are wrong when you have nothing but words of other people and no real test results.

Lucian
06-21-2002, 01:11 AM
I have a suggestion which can end this debate, if anyone is willing to listen.

The suggestion is we have a survey, everyone here, do weight lifting, monitor your heart rate while you are doing it then run and monitor your heart rate, tell the exact rate, how long you ran or weight lifted and how you felt doing each, we can put this in a new thread, the results will decide once and for all.

No point in arguing about this any more, Maki can you close this thread?

Clark
06-21-2002, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by Maki Riddington
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Clark
[B]*** Clark come one now, we all know that a person can't exercise at a intensity level of another person. If the exercise is intense enough to place enough stress on the heart then it will strengthen it. These doctors prescribed exercise that was intense enough to strengthen the heart. Have you had any experience dealing with heart patinets? Probally not. You'd be suprised at how hard you can work them. If you over exercise anyone then you will run the risk of injuring their body regardless of whether they are a heart patient or not.

Maki, what i was getting at is that I feel these examples are irrelevant because they are not involving people who are in any shape similar to yours, mine, or anybody else that is bodybuilding. These people have hearts that are weakened significantly, and thusly, if you were to work out with the same intensity as them I doubt that you would even break a sweat. The reason I believe the patients were prescribed with gym work is that they could imrpove their heart strength slowly from a level where it is extremely weakened. We (at least I, I have no information for any other person's heart srength) have hearts that are quite strong already, and thusly need to be challenged more. IMO the way to do this MOST EFFECTIVELY WITHOUT SACRIFICING ANY HYPERTROPHY is to keep the two separate.

I never noticed your rebuttal to my original post until you responded to Vido, that's why it came so late.

Maki Riddington
06-21-2002, 04:12 PM
Originally posted by Clark


Maki, what i was getting at is that I feel these examples are irrelevant because they are not involving people who are in any shape similar to yours, mine, or anybody else that is bodybuilding. These people have hearts that are weakened significantly, and thusly, if you were to work out with the same intensity as them I doubt that you would even break a sweat.

*** Intensity is relative. In other words, they are doing what they can handle. Just as we lift as much weight as our body can handle.

The reason I believe the patients were prescribed with gym work is that they could imrpove their heart strength slowly from a level where it is extremely weakened.

*** The same could be done by walking on a treadmill. Which
alot of heart patients choose to do. I think I'm missing your point?

We (at least I, I have no information for any other person's heart srength) have hearts that are quite strong already, and thusly need to be challenged more. IMO the way to do this MOST EFFECTIVELY WITHOUT SACRIFICING ANY HYPERTROPHY is to keep the two separate.

*** I agree that "without sacrificing hypertrophy" it is wise to keep the two seperate. But that was not my arguement. You are changing the arguement to something else.
Please.... again, (as I have posted numerous times now) read my posts over carefully. This will save you the time in the future of arguing a point that was never argued.

I never noticed your rebuttal to my original post until you responded to Vido, that's why it came so late.

Lucian
06-23-2002, 12:14 AM
I think that is a pretty obvious statement. The higher the reps the more lactic acid is produced. The more lactic acid produced the closer one gets to his/her lactate threshold.

Maki does that mean muscle endurance can be improved by going higher rep in my weight lifting? Does this also mean more strength = less endurance?

Maki Riddington
06-23-2002, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Lucian


Maki does that mean muscle endurance can be improved by going higher rep in my weight lifting? Does this also mean more strength = less endurance?

*** Yes, muscular endurance can be increased by performing 'higher' reps. If you train for endurance then you will see a decrease in your relative strength. Your strength endurance will increase depending on how you train for it.

Lucian
06-24-2002, 08:44 AM
Maki, so in order to run miles like clark does, I would have to sacrafice strength and speed?