3 ms·

The author clearly equates fitness with strength, and some of his claims are way off. Here's one: "...maintaining cardiovascular fitness doesn’t really take mu

by xiaoma 16y ago

The author clearly equates fitness with strength, and some of his claims are way off. Here's one: "...maintaining cardiovascular fitness doesn’t really take much more than breathing uncomfortably hard for about 20 minutes, three times a week" As a former competitive runner, I've read hundreds of studies and abstracts about improving various cardio-vasuclar metrics. 20 minutes, three times a week is barely enough to generate even modest VO2 max improvements. Ideally it takes 40-60 minutes, five times a week, plus an extra long session of over 90 minutes. This is about the minimum training you'll see in a 5k runner or 1000m swimmer. Top 10k runners generally require 70-90 minutes a day, even when doing interval work and have long runs of over two hours. The results of this sort of training are measurable. LT, VO2max, resting HR and a variety of other metrics show a dose dependent response. Many studies[1] have also demonstrated that even recreational distance training results in a wide variety of benefits that weight training does not, even including increased rates of neurogenesis and longer telemeres than average for one's age. Weight training clearly is superior for increasing muscle and bone mass, but it isn't a magical silver bullet that improves everything. [1] I've cited all of these on hn before, most don't have paywalls and they should be googleable.

scotty79 16y ago
You don't feel fit if you can run 5k but you struggle to move a fridge or feel strain while lifting up you kid or your woman.
- xiaoma 16y ago
  Speak for yourself. I'm a bit more evolved than that sort of attitude.
  - scotty79 16y ago
    I think feeling fit is about effortlessly dealing with physical things you usually have to deal with in your life. "My car broke. No problem. I'll just run 5 miles to work." situation does not occur very often.
    - xiaoma 16y ago
      That's a ridiculous straw man. Yes, running will make running easier for you. That's great if you play sports. But sports aren't the only time people might get winded. It may be more common here in Asia where people aren't as reliant on cars but I, for example, have to about 20 minutes of walking and several flights of stairs involved in my daily commute. So do most of the other people I see in the subway. I've moved a fridge maybe once in my life and as for your other example... I haven't ever been involved with anyone that heavy. YMMV.
      - scotty79 16y ago
        Do you feel fit because you can effortlessly deal with few flights of stairs and 20 minute walk daily? How old are you? I go out of my house about once a week and I can do that. I don't think running 5km is necessary to achieve it since maximum distance I ran in my life was 1km and after that I was spitting my lungs for longer time than I actually ran.
        xiaoma 16y ago
        Quite the opposite. I'm only in my 30's, but I no longer feel fit as I once was back when I could run a 33 minute 10k. Even long after leaving serious training behind and getting a bit heavier, I continued to go for a 3-4 hour run in the mountains every other week or so and did shorter runs at least a couple of times a week. As recently as two years ago, I had a resting pulse of 48 BPM. I lived at the top of a 6 floor apartment building. Unlike my guests, I was rarely winded at the top, even going up the stairs with a backpack. I even played pick-up games of basketball in the park after pub crawls with my buddies. It felt like my energy was boundless. My habits changed after moving to Beijing. The air here isn't so good, so I don't enjoy running anymore. Instead, I've been going to the gym and doing something very similar to what the article recommended, actually! I'm stronger than ever before, squatting about 170kg. I'm not fitter, though. I'm fatter. My resting pulse is up to 70 and while the subway is no problem, several flights of stairs are off-putting. A full-court game of basketball would probably make me feel ill.
gexla 16y ago
You should quote the entire paragraph. "Cardio machines are innocent enough, as they won’t actually make you any less fit, but maintaining cardiovascular fitness doesn’t really take much more than breathing uncomfortably hard for about 20 minutes, three times a week. And we all know that swimming, hoops, bike riding, and even Ultimate Frisbee can get the job done, and that treadmills or elliptical trainers are a pale substitute." Perhaps he made an incorrect claim here. But to be fair, you should go for the point of the paragraph as opposed to one sentence from it. What he is saying here is that the cardio machines in the gym are little better than maintenance for cardio and are a poor substitute for other ways to get the same sort of workout. I think this argument still fits within your own here. The overall point of the article is that for strength, muscle mass and muscle endurance, there is no substitute for the basic free weight exercises. That's not to say that you should only do those exercises and that you can't benefit from more specialized training, but that everyone still benefits from those exercises and should make them part of a core program. The same cannot be said for cardio machines.
- xiaoma 16y ago
  I completely agree with you (and the article) that free weights are the way to go over machine weights. However, I completely disagree that weights are more important for general fitness than cardio. This was one of the primary claims of the article, and it wasn't backed up in any meaningful way. The part I quoted was just one illustration of the the author's attitude. His entire focus is on strength, not fitness.
  - gexla 16y ago
    What I got from the article is that it's mostly aimed towards the typical local gyms. He isn't arguing cardio is unimportant. He's saying that inside a gym the free weights are important, everything else might just be a waste of time. The full paragraph you quoted seems to be saying cardio on a treadmill in front of a T.V. is a waste when you could be getting the same cardio from a different activity (such as real running.) But, if you are going for the sorts of benefits that free weights can bring, then there really is no better alternative except perhaps in certain extreme cases such as with elite athletes. So again, the article is aimed at the inside of your typical gym, not outside it, which is where you would be doing most of your running I assume. ;)

by xiaoma 16y ago

scotty79 16y ago

You don't feel fit if you can run 5k but you struggle to move a fridge or feel strain while lifting up you kid or your woman.

xiaoma 16y ago
Speak for yourself. I'm a bit more evolved than that sort of attitude.
- scotty79 16y ago
  I think feeling fit is about effortlessly dealing with physical things you usually have to deal with in your life. "My car broke. No problem. I'll just run 5 miles to work." situation does not occur very often.
  - xiaoma 16y ago
    That's a ridiculous straw man. Yes, running will make running easier for you. That's great if you play sports. But sports aren't the only time people might get winded. It may be more common here in Asia where people aren't as reliant on cars but I, for example, have to about 20 minutes of walking and several flights of stairs involved in my daily commute. So do most of the other people I see in the subway. I've moved a fridge maybe once in my life and as for your other example... I haven't ever been involved with anyone that heavy. YMMV.
    - scotty79 16y ago
      Do you feel fit because you can effortlessly deal with few flights of stairs and 20 minute walk daily? How old are you? I go out of my house about once a week and I can do that. I don't think running 5km is necessary to achieve it since maximum distance I ran in my life was 1km and after that I was spitting my lungs for longer time than I actually ran.
      - xiaoma 16y ago
        Quite the opposite. I'm only in my 30's, but I no longer feel fit as I once was back when I could run a 33 minute 10k. Even long after leaving serious training behind and getting a bit heavier, I continued to go for a 3-4 hour run in the mountains every other week or so and did shorter runs at least a couple of times a week. As recently as two years ago, I had a resting pulse of 48 BPM. I lived at the top of a 6 floor apartment building. Unlike my guests, I was rarely winded at the top, even going up the stairs with a backpack. I even played pick-up games of basketball in the park after pub crawls with my buddies. It felt like my energy was boundless. My habits changed after moving to Beijing. The air here isn't so good, so I don't enjoy running anymore. Instead, I've been going to the gym and doing something very similar to what the article recommended, actually! I'm stronger than ever before, squatting about 170kg. I'm not fitter, though. I'm fatter. My resting pulse is up to 70 and while the subway is no problem, several flights of stairs are off-putting. A full-court game of basketball would probably make me feel ill.

gexla 16y ago

You should quote the entire paragraph. "Cardio machines are innocent enough, as they won’t actually make you any less fit, but maintaining cardiovascular fitness doesn’t really take much more than breathing uncomfortably hard for about 20 minutes, three times a week. And we all know that swimming, hoops, bike riding, and even Ultimate Frisbee can get the job done, and that treadmills or elliptical trainers are a pale substitute." Perhaps he made an incorrect claim here. But to be fair, you should go for the point of the paragraph as opposed to one sentence from it. What he is saying here is that the cardio machines in the gym are little better than maintenance for cardio and are a poor substitute for other ways to get the same sort of workout. I think this argument still fits within your own here. The overall point of the article is that for strength, muscle mass and muscle endurance, there is no substitute for the basic free weight exercises. That's not to say that you should only do those exercises and that you can't benefit from more specialized training, but that everyone still benefits from those exercises and should make them part of a core program. The same cannot be said for cardio machines.

xiaoma 16y ago
I completely agree with you (and the article) that free weights are the way to go over machine weights. However, I completely disagree that weights are more important for general fitness than cardio. This was one of the primary claims of the article, and it wasn't backed up in any meaningful way. The part I quoted was just one illustration of the the author's attitude. His entire focus is on strength, not fitness.
- gexla 16y ago
  What I got from the article is that it's mostly aimed towards the typical local gyms. He isn't arguing cardio is unimportant. He's saying that inside a gym the free weights are important, everything else might just be a waste of time. The full paragraph you quoted seems to be saying cardio on a treadmill in front of a T.V. is a waste when you could be getting the same cardio from a different activity (such as real running.) But, if you are going for the sorts of benefits that free weights can bring, then there really is no better alternative except perhaps in certain extreme cases such as with elite athletes. So again, the article is aimed at the inside of your typical gym, not outside it, which is where you would be doing most of your running I assume. ;)