Can you tell me if this is true, and/or usefull.
Like you look at a long distance runners legs, they are like toothpicks,
but you look at a 100 meter dashers legs like donathon baily, there huge, big legs,
so if you wana get some mass on your legs and still doing cardio would it be better to do sprint cardio, like insted of going 20 hard minutes of cardio, you should do 15 minutes of sprint cardio like 1 minute walking then 1 minute sprinting as fast as you can then 1 minute walking then 1 minute sprinting as fast as you can and so on and so on for 15 minutes.
Would this be better to get more mass on your legs.
there is a method called H.I.T.T.
its mostly for fat burning I dont think you'll get any gains from it
Last edited by captain piddles; 03-09-2002 at 10:25 PM.
Look at they type of sport they both compete in. Long distance running is aerobic while 100meter sprint is anerobic. Sprinters need to workout anerobically to develop there speed. What better way than with weights? I would take a shot in the dark and say they do a lot of squatting.
I agree they must be pumping the leg iron cause its the only way to really build up, any sort of cardio variation still is cardio and has the abillity to burn muscle as well
I don't think the cardio aspect of these runners are directly affecting their muscle mass. That is, a sprinter doesn't have big legs because he sprints. He has big legs because he works them hard in the gym to gain strength and power that will help him on the track. The long distance runner is the opposite. He wants to be as lean as possible to carry less weight and just train for endurance. Cardio is for cutting body fat (and cardiovascular health) and is not for mass/strength gains...