Estimated read time: 7 minutes
I’ve written about “cardio” from time to time on this blog, but not much recently. This post will serve as a primer to catch people up to speed, as well as detail new ideas about “cardio”.
Let’s start strong, shall we?
1. The conventional notion of “cardio” is a complete and total fallacy.
It is every bit as erroneous as limiting saturated fat in the diet and eating copious amounts of grain and other carbohydrate rich “foods”.
In no way, shape, or form is low intensity* physical activity optimal or even necessary for best results and the maintenance of “vibrant health”.
That’s right, our aerobic quest for immortality (as Kurt G Hariss has put it) is a fools errand ─ one I subscribed to for many years. At one point I was running a weekly half marathon, swimming 60+ minutes at a time, jumping rope for 2+ hours a week, and various other forms of what we, as a society, call “cardio”.
*Walking, and equivalent activities, are not “bad” for your health. However as soon as you break into something equivalent to a “jog”, any minimal benefits immediately cease and the negative effects begin.
2. What’s the problem with “cardio”?
Well for one, it does a very poor job of working your cardiovascular system. A paradox, yes, but never the less true.
The heart and lungs respond to the demand imposed on them by the muscles. When that demand is low, next to nothing happens (or, negative adaptations are made).
Which isn’t surprising in the face of evolution. Steady state “aerobic” activity is a very modern, logical concept. It’s the nutritional equivalent of eating grain and beans.
At no point in our millions of years of evolution did we ever adapt to long duration “endurance” events. At most, this is what went on─ and even that is stretching it a bit IMO.
Can we travel long distances without stopping? Sure we can, people have run hundreds of miles without stopping─ but just because we can doesn’t mean we should.
*By the same token, we can eat grains as “food”, but that doesn’t mean we should, and it certainly doesn’t make grain “food” for humans.
The most common knee-jerk response to this notion is that “you don’t know that” (and then the typical romantic assertions about our ancestors and their daily habits).
My response?
Short of traveling back in time, I do “know” this.
How so?
Simple, starvation was our biggest threat as a species for millions of years.
Ever heard the phrase “work up an appetite”?
Well for ancient man, “working up an appetite” after a 20+ mile stroll in the wilderness (like he was ever doing this) would have meant certain death without the pay off of a large amount of food, that he could somehow bring back to wherever he was living at the time (20+ miles away), and cook.
He also had to provide food for any buddies that were with him hunting the animal, probably help support the rest of the tribe, and fend off any predators looking to eat what he and the rest of the party had (hopefully) hunted down.
“Cardio” to that degree, simply wasn’t happening. The risk was too great for too risky a pay off, and therefore, we are not evolved to perform it.
3. Stepping back for a moment, the heart and lungs support everything.
Doug Mcguff says it well in this video.
I won’t repeat what Doug says so well in that video, but I will add that linking steady state long duration activities (running, cycling, swimming, etc), to the cardiovascular system, is the metaphoric equivalent of ripping your heart and lungs out, plopping them on a treadmill, and saying “go”.
Of course, that’s ridiculous to no end, but what’s not so funny is that this is exactly what most people believe. Virtually every “trainer” you will find at a gym, most medical doctors, and even your friends & family.
*In fact these “informed” people are the ones who will most vehemently defend the position, no matter how silly it appears from a third person’s perspective.
As an alarming by product, believing in this notion allows a lot of unhealthy people , to believe they are “healthy”, if they simply hop on a tread mill 3 times a week for 20 minutes a pop.
This is absurd.
In fact as I linked earlier, doing enough of this non sense can contribute to heart problems. In addition, and IMO, the oxidative stress from a ton of “cardio” is enough to contribute to plaque build up in the heart, and cause dangerous side effects (such as… death).
Not to mention bone and joint problems ─ even without the shock (as in the case of swimming).
Which again, is a paradox. The people harmed the most from cardio are the very people doing their best to prevent ill health with their current knowledge.
It’s a recurring theme in life though ─ what you resist persists (and/or intensifies).
The same can be said for vegetarianism (regardless of the purpose or reasoning), and current health care reform.
4. Stepping back once again, to the “work up an appetite” quote, “cardio” does nothing in the way of lowering body fat.
But how so? Doesn’t it burn all those evil calories?
No, not really.
A lot less calories are burnt in steady state activity than most people think. On top of that, there are about 3,500 calories in a pound of human fat.
So if 500 calories tick by on a tread mill for 60 minutes, you have used 1/7 th a pound of fat for energy.
1/7 th
Think about how insignificant that is for a second, before I share the bad news ─ you can consume 500 calories in under a minute.
In fact, I do all the time in the form of a shake. I could probably down the whole thing (over 1,000 calories sometimes) in under a minute if I tried.
Combine that with the fact that “cardio” causes an increase in appetite, and presto ─ more calories consumed than you would have without the activity. But the calorie part is borderline irrelevant, since the “healthy” food most people eat spikes insulin through the roof, which contributes hundreds of times more to the obesity epidemic than excess calories ever could.
Let’s break this down again for clarification.
- An over-fat person hops on a treadmill for 60 minutes, and 500 calories tick by (a ~third of which would have been “burnt” by sitting in a chair and watching that person run)
- Person get’s off treadmill, and is soon hungry.
- In an effort to “eat healthy”, that person now eats not only more “food” (from the physical activity), but now eats more of what caused him or her to be over-fat in the first place.
It’s sick, and cyclical.
5. But isn’t something better than nothing?
No one has written better about this subject than Drew Baye,
In my own words, doing “cardio” in an effort to do something , is akin to drinking salt water to quench your thirst.
Salt water of course will only dehydrate you, and kill you in a survival situation.
By the same token, “cardio” does nothing positive for your health (that can’t be had by better modalities such as walking, reading a book, being social, and properly conducted strength training), and at worst can be detrimental to your health ─ not to mention a complete waste of time.
The Good Stuff
For those that have been here a while, some fresh information.
For those that are new to the above information, I apologize if any of it came off as “inflammatory”. It is not my intention to push anyone away from this site, but I call things as I see them on TDL, without compromise, for both you the reader, and my own mental health
.
Since adopting principles in Moment Arm Exercise , I have stopped rushing through my exercises.
This initially (mostly) came out of necessity ─ the intensity was too great for each individual exercise. I believe this was due to the changes I made to my exercises for the purpose of “congruence”, as well as many months of training in a high intensity fashion (a skill).
This is actually what I find most interesting about “congruence” in exercise (at least the way I practice it).
By eliminating or limiting the duration your muscles in their “weak points”, during an exercise under significant load, the “intensity” is dramatically increased. You essentially get rid of the “rest point” as seen in the top of a Nautilus Pull-down or the end of most leg presses, and presto─ your muscles are (almost) always contracting at their peak instead of the
- easy
- hard
- easy
process seen in “full range of motion”.
Illustrated, it looks like
- hard
- very hard
- hard
Considering this, I found it impossible to move instantly from exercise to exercise as I once did using full range of motion and Nautilus or MedX machines. If I did, my intensity was significantly hindered simply because I was out of breath and exhausted from the previous exercise.
So I had to choose, “cardio”, or intensity in my exercises. I chose the latter.
Why?
Well for starters, I don’t take my sweet time between exercises. I do the exercise, record my stats, and move to the next exercise. I am not in a rush, and usually wait 1-2 minutes. Basically I move as fast as I can, without compromising my intensity to any degree (so I wait as long as is necessary).
My total time spent “exercising” is identical, but I’m in the gym significantly longer due to the rest between exercises.
But getting more Bill Nye on you guys, I no longer believe there are any substantial benefits to “rushing between exercises” in some frantic pace.
Would my “cardio” be better if I did? Maybe, maybe not. I don’t believe it has been proven either way yet (I have yet to notice a difference in my dodge ball performance), and even if it were, what difference would it make?
*I’m somehow doubting my heart would become invincible.
What I do believe to be true though, is that “cardio” (more properly labeled “metabolic conditioning”) is fickle. It can come and go relatively quickly, and is not a long term, physiological adaptation by the body .
New muscle (and the corresponding adaptations of the heart, lungs, connective tissues and so forth) is a long term adaptation though.
It’s an expensive investment by the body, and it’s here to stay barring any unusual circumstances (multi-month lay offs from training, severe trauma related injuries, being bound to a bed and immobile, severe calorie restriction, etc).
The one upside I see to “rushing between exercises” though is that it makes high intensity training, seem less radical, since it then fits into the current notion of “cardio”.
It “covers all the bases” as I’ve heard.
Which is a good thing if it gets people to stop running around like hamsters on a wheel, but for those more experienced, I just think it’s unnecessary.
If you can make the intellectual leap that “cardio” doesn’t exist, I suggest trying to allow more time between exercises and seeing if you make any sudden gains in your training.
I have, and I haven’t dropped dead of a heart attack yet.
very good post.
I have sorta arrived at the same conclusions. I focus on weight and reps for a given 120s and range of motion. Instead of preforming all my exercises in a single day, I usually perform one or two each day and visit the gym just about every day (I have excellent gym access). Of course I stagger the group of muscles I exercise to get the most bang for my buck. If I get under a 2-5% increase in total load (rep x weight), I know I am overtraining; if I get over a 2-5% increase in total load, I know I am not training hard enough.
We were born to run long distances, as mentioned in the film, although I’m not sure that this form of slow persistence hunting is what we were known for, because we’re actually adapted for running as opposed to jogging. The objective is not to wear out the animal’s muscles, but rather to overheat the animal.
This is why we have much larger butts than any species genetically similar to us, as well as much less hair and hundreds of times of more sweat glands. Of course, we did this barefoot, so we didn’t suffer knee, ankle, and other joint injuries typically associated with runners. But my guess would be that it wouldn’t be out of the ordinary for a hunter to run down prey over the length of a half marathon at a very quick pace. I also think that getting hungrier after distance running is consistent with the idea that you have now caught something and will be consuming larger quantities than you’d otherwise be capable of before it goes bad, so that you can hunt less frequently.
I’ve heard good things about the book Born to Run, although I have not read it, with regards to this subject. I can also vouch for a history channel series called “Evolve” which you should definitely torrent. A lot of this stuff is covered in there.
Gotta say, HIT + diet without pasta, bread, etc. for 4 months has me in some of the best shape of my life and more importantly has kept me in shape through a really hectic semester at school despite only working out once every 7-10 days. I practically swear by Body By Science nowadays. Thanks for introducing me to this stuff Dream.
Awesome post, but I got a question for you. In terms of excersise, or even nutrition, what can I do to increase my energy levels, and/or fight off daytime fatigue? By energy levels I am not talking about sport endurance, rather I mean how much energy and alertness I have at a random time in the day.
I’ve been doing strict HIT since May, and I have cut down carbs almost to 0 and increased fat and meat intake since then too. I am never really tempted to switch back to jogging and conventional workouts, or going back to my old eating habits, but I have to say I am not too satisfied with my current daily energy levels. I don’t know if they’ve necessarily gone down since then and to be honest, I have always had that problem, (I fall asleep in at least 95% of classes, etc.) but I remisnce about the time span where I jogged a few times a week, and always felt energized and pumped after. I don’t know whether it was simply psychological, but I am having a hard time that letting go of the notion that staying active does nothing for energy levels, enthusiam and mood.
By the way, keep posting links in the content of your blog – I just read the one about vegetarianism – awesome stuff
simz
@Hammer
Just because we can, doesn’t mean we should. In the case of running, I believe this rings especially true for modern man. Even barefoot, running is very damaging to the body, and many people will end up with overuse injuries in a long enough time span. Also, steady state slow running is almost useless as “exercise” (sprints have a more potent exercise effect).
I do not believe we chased down animals at an “aerobic” pace. As seen in the video, it was a constant run, stop, walk, run, stop, run, etc. Steady state was non existent (hence aerobic metabolism is much newer than anaerobic).
I have not seen the History channel show, or read the book “Born to Run” (I have read reviews of it however). I believe both are falling prey to romanticism though, especially the book. This is a common error in thinking about exercise (although if the History channel episode merely stuck with running as it pertains to evolution, I don’t think it would be out of line, quite informative actually- but correlating that to “proper exercise” is not wise).
thanks for commenting
-Anthony
@Simon
Try going for a short walk when the sun is out. Do not wear sunglasses (this is key, but not explainable in a single comment). Also, take deep breaths and try to relax, even when you are “tired”.
I say this because “energy” has almost always been a mental thing for me. If I’m excited for one reason or another, fatigue tends to disappear rather quickly. If I am energetic but get into a “bad” mood, energy can quickly dissipate.
Sounds overly simplistic, but do more of what you love, less of what you don’t love, and continue eating right. Collectively, I think this will be all the “energy” you’ll ever need.
glad you enjoyed the links, will keep at it!
-Anthony
You got me thinking. The part of me thats been influenced by advertising all my life believes there’s a miracle cure for feeling tired or lathargic, maybe its an exotic berry, or secret sleep pattern, or a specific excersise. But I’m sure what is comes down is actually the ‘doing more what you love thing’ and feeling excitment. Lately, things in my environment have been a bit rocky for me, no need to get into details, but I can see myself, when things bounce back, getting more energy.
Thanks for the reply
simz
Too many contradictions in your assertion that “cardio” is unhealthy. Food didn’t fall from the sky for our ancestors and it certainly didn’t grow in orchards, right? IF the premise is that man evolved as a meat eater / omnivore, it had to have been caught.
The walking, jogging for hours is most likely what we evolved to do. This is healthy – it has to be. OR, at least, it is most likely in our evolutionary repertoire. This is also called “cardio”. Most people, imo, quit before they should because, yes, it’s hard to jog and walk for hours at a time. Easier to denigrate it than to do it.
You say that it was too energy expensive to pursue game like the men in the video? Fat, my man. That is why we eat and burn fat. It’s energy intensive. One pound of it can take me 6 hours of walking / jogging, and that’s cheap.
Don’t confuse the walking / jogging routine with anaerobic threshold pace racing. THAT cannot be in our evolutionary repertoire, because at that pace, we are both not fast enough to catch our prey and too slow to outrun that which is trying to eat us. But, it’s a big step to conclude that time spent at this pace is actually “unhealthy”- no matter what one MRI cardiac study suggests. It’s an epidemiology study, right? That makes it meaningless.
Also, don’t fall for the fad Crossfit stuff on the other hand. Why on earth would our ancestors move like that? That is high risk injury movement. They most likely didn’t spend their time moving rocks and trees, right? They stepped over them – because they grew big brains and were smart.
Humans are good at adapting. We get big when we lift weights. We get faster when we run – either in sprints, at threshold pace or over distance. We also adapt to alcohol and heroin, nicotine, etc. Just because we can adapt to it doesn’t mean it’s healthy for us.
There was plenty of walking, and highly intense sprinting when it came to catching prey. Only in the case of tracking game that got away, would there be any “jogging.” And it would be on and off, in that case, never continuous, and never a very long distance. As humans we may not have had the speed of a lion, but we had weapons like spears, bow and arrows, boomerangs, all which made hunting prey from a distance a little easier. We also likely started off just scavenging, and eating insects for our meat, til we got the balls to chase it down ourselves.
And yes, our ancestors did spend time moving rocks and trees. It’s what allowed them to discover food, find shelter, and make tools.
@Simon
Try turning…
“Lately, things in my environment have been a bit rocky for me, no need to get into details, but I can see myself, when things bounce back, getting more energy.”
into…
“My environment has been rocky lately. I choose to no longer be a product of my environment – it will be a product of me, of MY choices, and my courage. When I make this decision, things will “bounce back”, because I demanded they would, and didn’t wait for it to happen.”
=)
@TomTom
“Too many contradictions in your assertion that “cardio” is unhealthy. ”
Admittedly, this was not the most well thought out post – I had ideas I wanted to share about new developments, but worried many people would not be up to speed on what was already in my head about “cardio”, so the beginning of this post was more of a quick primer than anything.
See my 2009 21 Convention speech for a better articulation of my ideas.
“The walking, jogging for hours is most likely what we evolved to do. This is healthy – it has to be. OR, at least, it is most likely in our evolutionary repertoire. This is also called “cardio”. Most people, imo, quit before they should because, yes, it’s hard to jog and walk for hours at a time. Easier to denigrate it than to do it.”
I know how it seems…and I know how you feel with your current knowledge (I too once drew the same conclusions), but I have to strongly disagree.
We never “jogged” (continuously) for hours – not on a grand scale anyway. Modern tribes generally DO NOT do this, and it would make very little sense for ancient man to do so. To go even further, “aerobic metabolism” is a relatively new development in our evolution. The mitochondria involved were actually bacteria that found their way into our cells, and made permanent residence. Anaerobic metabolism is far more ancient, because it has always been a necessity. In short, aerobic was more of a random mutation than anything from my understanding – a random mutation that has destroyed millions of knees and hips over the past few decades with the stupidity that is the “aerobics” movement, which has now evolved into the “cardio” movement.
The rest of your comment I either don’t follow or have little to say (not a fan of Crossfit though, although, it’s better than “aerobics”, but still not “good”).
thanks for commenting (if any of this came off offensive or patronizing I apologize as that was not my intention)
-Anthony
Good read Anthony!
Since this is a better way of contacting you than email, I’m writing you here.
You’ve covered in depth your thoughts about the P90X approach, but I was wondering if you could perhaps address your thoughts on the other hot workout trend, Crossfit.
The athletic achievements I’ve seen from Crossfit seem pretty staggering and it seems to be working for a lot of people, providing them with functional fitness through powerlifting and gymnastics exercises (you’re probably already familiar with it).
Anyways, would love your thoughts and insight on this style of exercise.
Hey Jeff
Have you seen this post?
http://www.thedreamlounge.net/2009/08/12/strength-training-superior-to-p90x-cardio-crossfit-functional-group-exercise-fitness-classes/
I discuss crossfit a bit there.
The short version: crossfit does not fit into my model of “proper exercise”, which is universal to everyone. The principles I’ve seen are not safe, promote long term overuse injuries, are too frequent, and not intense enough to produce best results.
While Crossfit may be a step above “cardio” and “aerobics”, it is not optimal for anyone to be practicing, and in my eyes, is not “exercise” to begin with (it is a collection of physical activities mistaken as exercise).
The “athletic achievements” I’ve seen are impressive as well, but do not correlate to “exercise”, the same way sports like football are not “exercise”. Better, safer, results can be had in less time by simple, hard, and progressive strength training. If one wants “functional” improvements, that person needs to specifically practice what they want a high functional ability in. If you are a cop, and want to have a good sprinting ability- you need to practice sprinting (a skill), and support it with proper strength training- not do all sorts of random activities in hopes that they mystically transfer over to a better sprinting ability.
A bit harsh =), but I hope this answers your question. Thanks for commenting
-Anthony
I believe you are correct not to rush between exercises. Studies at McMaster University comparing sprint interval training (Four to six 30 second maximum efforts with four minutes rest in between) produced equivalent cardiovascular adaptations to 90 minutes of continuous, traditional “endurance training”. The metabolic effect of a multi joint exercise performed in high intensity fashion would be comparable or greater than a typical foot or cycle sprint, and other studies and a large amount of empirical evidence have shown significant metabolic/cardiovascular improvements with high intensity strength training alone.
My recommendation is to rest only long enough between sets to allow the cardiovascular system to recover enough to not limit the effort you are able to put into the next exercise. If the reader doesn’t understand how a strength training exercise can have this effect, they’ve never done one correctly.
Less rest and you compromise the overall intensity of each exercise. Rest too much, and you’re wasting time you could be putting to better use or enjoying in the pursuit of activities outside of the gym.
As always, well said Drew. For the record, I do remember you mentioning what I wrote about in this post to me when we first met (hybrid machine). Wish I would have listened and applied what you said sooner =).
It’s interesting to note that your heart and lungs aren’t sore the day after a run.