3 ms·
Seems debatable to me. Since the 1960s, Ken Cooper has advocated for workouts based primarily or exclusively on cardiovascular exercise like cycling. In his boo
by btrettel 9y ago
Seems debatable to me. Since the 1960s, Ken Cooper has advocated for workouts based primarily or exclusively on cardiovascular exercise like cycling. In his book "Aerobics" he had an example comparing a cycling commuter to a dedicated weightlifter and (as I recall) he didn't think the weightlifter was improving their fitness in the ways that matter.
- matte_black 9y agoPersonally I also don't think weightlifting is really the best way to achieve fitness these days either, it is simply the most straight forward for people and the easiest to understand. After lifting weights for over a decade I moved on to calisthenics focused training, which I feel is superior but more complicated to learn at more advanced levels.
- btrettel 9y agoIf I recall correctly Cooper had a similar problem with calisthenics and discussed it in the book. That training doesn't help your cardiovascular capacity as much as he wants, which is what's most important for your health and longevity. (I don't think calisthenics was given any points in his system.) He probably would also disagree about what's most straightforward. I recall him recommending running in the book because it doesn't require any special equipment or training, in contrast to cycling, weight lifting, swimming, calisthenics, etc. To be clear, I do think strength training is important as you age to avoid sarcopenia. But I suspect that running or cycling would provide enough resistance to slow sarcopenia for your lower body, making other exercise more important for your upper body and core.