Kathy S. RE:exercise

Not just for Kathy S, but for everyone!!! So, just got done watching the View. Whoopi has decided to go on this particular diet/exercise plan and the guy's book is about going Cardio Free. He basically believes that we are wasting our time doing cardio and should just stick with strenght training exercise to essentially build muscle and burn more calories naturally. While I understand that strength training is extremely important (and include it in my exercise routine weekly), why do so many "professionals" want to eliminate something all together. What about balance in our workouts? In our food choices? In our lifestyles? He said that doing cardio will just make us hungrier and cause us to eat more daily. He was using a band to do certain moves, which is great, but what about getting the heart rate up as well?? I guess I just get frustrated with the "all of nothing" mentality. And, what about the person that can't physically do weight training yet, but can get out there and walk!!!! Don't tell them that cardio free is the ONLY way to be! I think its so much more important to find an exercise routine that you enjoy and that you're benefiting from. Of course we all want to use out time wisely and to our advantage, otherwise why do it if we're not gaining anything from it, but why not a combination of cardio and weight/strength training?? Can you tell I didn't buy into everything that he said?!?!?! sorry if this is turning into a small rant, but I get upset when someone says that their way is the only way to get in shape. So, Kathy or anyone that has insight into this please respond~thanks!!!!

So many differing opinions on exercise it can be confusing.   It is essential to have a balance between cardio and weight training sort of like Peanut butter and Jelly.  I just read an article by Lyle McDonald that weighs both sides of this particular idea.  The article articulates quite well the pro's and cons of this type of training.  If anyone is interested feel free to contact me and I will forward as I'm not sure of the policy here on posting a publication directly in the forums.

Hi Vi! Yes, I would be very interested in reading the article. Thank You! And I have to agree~finding a balance w/ cardio and weight training is what I"m striving for!

This is taken from Lyle McDonalds news letter.  He is well known through the body building community/trainer/nutritionist:  Enjoy. Interval Training Versus Steady State Cardio Part 1     In recent years, there has been quite the over popularization of the concept of interval training, along with a rather major backlash against traditional forms of aerobic training, for fat loss.  It's not uncommon to read how low intensity aerobics is useless for fat loss, everybody should just do intervals, regular aerobics makes you lose muscle, etc.    I have seen it claimed that aerobics will make you fatter, stress the adrenals, and all manners of fascinating claims.  Nevermind that, over the decades, bodybuilders have gotten into contest shape with (often endless amounts of) cardio, runners, cyclists and swimmers are extremely lean, etc.  Somehow, aerobic training has gotten a bad rap.   On internet forums, folks who have been taken by this idea are often trying to intervals 3-6 times per week (if they do cardio, they will only do intervals and since many do cardio every day) on top of heavy leg training. And wonder why they can't recover.  It's gotten way out of hand.   I think what happened is that for about 2 decades, aerobic training has been (over) emphasized over all other kinds of activity.  As well, people got the absolutely wrong idea about how to use it for fat loss so you have people trotting along on the treadmill at an intensity that is just slightly higher than sitting on the couch, burning a couple of hundred calories in an hour and wondering whey they aren't losing fat.     So folks, usually with a heavy resistance training bias or background, overreacted.  And the backlash began.  Basically, people get a little over-enthusiastic about a certain type of training (or eating), take it to some absurd extreme, get into problems, find an alternative and decide that the first type of training is useless, overrated, etc, etc, blah, blah, blah and they jump to the opposite extreme.  They jump from one extreme to the other until, hopefully, they come back to some happy medium.     Well, I'm a happy medium kind of guy and I try to avoid that kind of binary either/or thinking; I find it more useful to examine training tools in terms of their pros and cons, benefits and disadvantages. So let's examine both steady state aerobics and interval training for fat loss (endurance performance is a separate topic) in that fashion.   In part 1, I'm going to define some terms and examine both types of activity; in part 2 (next week), I'll talk about how to decide which is best depending on the specifics of the situation. Some definitions Steady state training: Any form of aerobic/cardiovascular training where some reasonably steady intensity is maintained for an extended period.  So this might be something akin to 20-60 minutes at a steady heart rate of 140-150 (could be higher, could be lower).  I'm just going to call this cardio or aerobics, even though I know some people get into longwinded semantic arguments about it.  I'm sure everybody knows what I'm talking about. Interval training: Essentially any form of activity that alternates higher intensity activity (such as 30-60 seconds almost all out) with periods of lower intensity activity.  The rest interval can be passive (sit on your  butt) or active (keep moving at a low intensity).  While weight training can technically be considered interval training, I'm going to restrict this article to interval training done with standard cardio modes (i.e. running, cycling, stair master, etc).  A typical interval workout for fat loss might be a short warmup followed by 5 repeats of 60 seconds near maximum intensity alternated with 60-90 seconds of very low intensity activity, followed by a 5' cool down.   This is often referred to as high intensity interval training (HIIT) which differentiates it from aerobic interval training discussed immediately below. Aerobic interval training: For completeness, I want to mention a third, sort of hybrid, form of training that is usually referred to as aerobic interval training.  This is a type of training often used by very untrained beginners who are simply unable to perform 20 minutes or more of continuous aerobic activity.  So they might perform 5 minutes of low intensity aerobic activity prior to taking a short break, followed by another 5 minutes of low intensity aerobic training, until they accumulated 20-30 minutes of activity.  Over their first several weeks of training, they would try to increase the duration of each aerobic interval session while decreasing the rest interval.  Additionally, many strength and power athletes do a type of aerobic interval training usually referred to as extensive tempo running: this is a low intensity type of aerobic interval training done in short bouts.  So a sprinter might run 10 repeats of 200 meters but at a very low intensity (aerobic intensity) with 100 meters of walking in-between.  In this article, I'm not talking about aerobic interval training when I compare and contrast traditional aerobic training and interval training; aerobic interval training is sort of a third category that doesn't apply to this discussion. Moving on Ok, so now that we're on the same page definition wise, I want to compare and contrast aerobic and interval training in terms of potential pros and cons.  This will allow us, in part 2 (two weeks from now) to look at how to integrate the different types of training into real world workout schemes.  Steady state aerobics Pros:

1. Depending on the intensity, steady state aerobics tends to burn more calories during the exercise bout than interval training. 
2. More appropriate for beginners.
3. Can be done more frequently, daily or more often (if desired) although this depends on the duration, intensity and frequency as well as the setup of the rest of the training program.
4. Some research finds suggests that regular exercise helps people stick to their diet better.  In that interval training can't (well, shouldn't) be performed daily, low intensity activity may help people stay on their diets.

Cons:

1. Most indoor aerobics modes tend to be boring, especially for long durations.  Exercise can, of course, be done outdoors but this raises a whole separate set of issues (bicycle safety, running outdoors, traffic, etc) that are beyond the scope of this article.  This is a big part of why gyms have music and televisions; I have seen one with a cardio movie theater.
2. An excess of endurance training, especially at higher intensities (too close to lactate threshold, a topic for another newsletter) seems to cause muscle loss, decrease strength and power, and cause overtraining.  This is major issue for bodybuilders and strength/power athletes but can be avoided by keeping the intensity and duration under control.
3. Too much repetition of the same mode of aerobics can generate overuse injuries, both runners and cyclists are prone to knee problems, swimming causes rotator cuff issues (and the cold water tends to increase hunger), etc. This can be avoided by non-endurance athletes by rotating the type of activity being done.
4. Unless people are tremendously aerobically fit, it can be difficult to burn a huge number of calories unless the duration of each workout is just ridiculous.  So, at moderate intensities, the average person might burn 5-10 calories/minute; a 145 lb person burns about 100 calories per mile walking or running.  So over an hour aerobic session, you might achieve 300-600 calories burn. While this can certainly add up if done daily, it's still a fairly small expenditure.  The people trotting along on the treadmill or spinning on the bike at low intensities, often for only 30 minutes, are burning jack all calories.  Which are usually more than compensated when that person figures that they must be burning at least 1000 calories and rationalizes that cheeseburger and milkshake because of it.  This is one of those weird ironies: very high caloric expenditures through aerobics are reserved for trained endurance athletes, and they typically don't need it.  The people who need to be burning a lot of calories through aerobic activity  usually aren't able to, at least not initially.

Before continuing, I should probably bring up one of the more idiotic arguments against steady state aerobics here. The argument goes something along the lines of "Aerobic training is useless because, as you adapt, the same workout that burned a significant amount of calories over 40 minutes takes 60 minutes because you're getting more efficient."  This is about as logical as saying that weight training is ineffective because the same weight that was difficult for 12 repetitions is now too light, and you have to do more repetitions with it.  Except that, in the case of weight training, the suggestion would be to add weight to the bar.  And the same exact thing can be done with aerobic training: as the body adapts (and you become fitter), you can increase your caloric expenditure by increasing the intensity of your workout.  So say that you were doing the stair master at level 8 and a heart rate of 140 beats per minute for 40 minutes.  Now you've adapted and level 8 is only a heart rate of 130. Well, you could go to an hour, or you could increase the intensity to level 9 and burn more calories during those same 40 minutes. Interval training Pros:

1. For a given time investment, interval training leads to a greater fat loss and this occurs despite a smaller calorie burn during activity.  This is because interval training generates a much larger EPOC (excess post-exercise oxygen consumption) which are the calories burned post exercise.  
2. Interval training may improve the muscle's ability to use fat for fuel more effectively than aerobic training (note: recent studies have also suggested that interval training can generate very rapid improvements in endurance performance in a very short period but this is beyond the scope of this article).
3. Time efficient: Not everybody has the time to devote to an hour (or more) of aerobic training per day.  A properly set up interval workout may only take 15-20 minutes.
4. Time seems to pass faster: Compared to regular aerobics, which can be mind numbingly dull (especially if done indoors), the change in intensity with intervals seems to make the workout pass faster.

Cons:

1. The intensity of intervals makes them inappropriate for beginners.  One exception is a style of training called aerobic intervals which I mentioned above.  But high intensity interval training is simply inappropriate for beginning exercisers, for the same reason that high intensity weight training is inappropriate.
2. Intervals are high intensity training, this has implications for the overall training setup (discussed in more detail in part 2) and integration with the rest of your program (i.e. weight training).  Simply put: if you think you can train legs in the weight room 2-3X/week and do intervals an additional 2-3X/week on alternate days, you are incorrect unless you are deliberately trying to overtrain or get injured.
3. Higher risk of injuries: this depends somewhat on the type of activity with high impact activities such as sprinting carrying a higher injury risk (especially for heavier individuals) than intervals done on the bike or stair master.
4. Limited in how many days they can be performed.  Two to three days per week is about the maximum for interval training, most endurance athletes won't do intervals more than twice/week.  Have I heard of people trying to interval daily?  Yes.  Do I think it's a good idea?  No.
5. Intervals hurt, especially intervals in the 60-90 second range where muscular acid levels are very high.  If you're not willing to push yourself, you won't get much out of interval training.  You know the warnings on most aerobics machines, that tell you to stop if you feel signs of exhaustion or fatigue; that's what a properly done interval program should feel like.  Sensations of burning in your legs (from high acid levels in the muscle) along with extreme discomfort are not only common but expected.  Some people also report nausea initially, this can be made worse if they have eaten too close to training.

In part 2, I'll examine some specific training situations to see which type of activity might be best under a given situation.    Just my .02$ it is essential to balance your cardio and weight training.  I went a year hitting just the weights.  I did lose weight and built muscle mass.  However, when I incorporated 45 mins to an hour of cardio with each weight session I lost at a faster speed than just weights alone.  As a note my weight training consists of 4 sessions a week alternating upper and lower and each session I always work core.   Leg extensions @ 130lbs.  chest press 45lbs. Lats and Dorsi @ 55lbs.  tri & biceps 25lbs.  Glutes @112lbs, back extensions @110lbs. torso rotation@ 110lbs.  this is only part of my training as to get an idea that I lift a fair amount and not just giving lip service. 

Hi Tracy, This may surprise you, but to some degree he is correct.  If you want to burn fat the fastest way possible, then you go rad on weight lighting and do no cardio.  The thought process, is the faster you build more muscle, the more fat you burn.  When you seriously lift weights you tear the muscle one way, when you do cardio you tear the muscle another way and doing the two together don't mix.  But I am talking hours in the gym. NOW, that being said.......one size don't fit all.  Let's get real, when the only exercise I was getting was shuffling to the fridge and back to the couch or bed.  Walking a block is a BIG deal.  Right after surgery I can not do what he is advocating....I didn't start weights until I hit goal. Tracy we have to do what works for us....  I suggest once we hit goal we try all kinds of things.  We have to be passionate about what we do with exercising or we won't stay with it.  Well lifting is not for everyone.  Doing the bands is not for everyone....  I am sure if you spoke to this person and said I know myself and I will not be able to stay on  your program but I will keep riding my bike, he will say keep doing what keeps you moving... I do a lot of research and read a lot.  We alone know what is good for "US".  Not some stranger on TV. So my friend, keep doing what you are doing if it's working for you. If not, then try different things. Take care, Kathy

Thanks Kathy!!!

Tracy, I saw the guy on The View.  I wish now that I'd paid closer attention--I was e-mailing my sister at the time and was listening w/ one ear cause I was pressed for time--wish I'd hit "record" on the VCR!  But what I got--and this may not be accurate--was that he wasn't advocating complete elimination of cardio but, instead, was advocating more of a circuit-type workout.  (My terminology  may not be right.)  I thought I understood him to  mean cardio for a limited time between weight training (i.e., bands, etc.)--back & forth during the whole session.  I thought his big criticism was against the basic all-cardio workouts for the typical 30-60 min.   I read through the article that "vi" sent--I thought it was very interesting!  I have a hard time understanding all this stuff, but I am very curious about it.  The LAST THING ON EARTH I want to do regarding exercise (since I do NOT love it  ) is to do it "wrong" or inefficiently!!  I might consider buying this guy's book if I can find it relatively cheap on amazon.com or somewhere.   Although I do want accurate information and most certainly want to get "the most bang for my buck" exercise-wise, I figure any method of exercising I do is way better than what I used to do:  nothing! I'm glad you brought this up! Jo

Hi Jo!!! I love circuit training and do alot of it. His book was actually entitled "Cardio Free". His thinking was that you can raise the heart rate enough just by doing things mostly with a tube/band type workout w/no cardio involved. Our heart is the most important muscle in our bodies and it needs to be worked out just as much as our quads, delts, abs, etc if not more. That's one of the benefits of some of Leslie Sansone's workouts~she has you walk at a rapid pace while using weights or stretchy bands, thus getting the benefits of cardio while toning and firming. For those more advance, there are programs like the Firm which I love~it uses free weights while doing cardio so you "kill 2 birds with 1 stone". In addition to these types of exercises, I still have a solid weight training routine that I follow weekly and I always throw in extra push ups (the worlds best full body workout) and several styles of crunches for my core.  I guess my only gripe about his plan was that he essentially said cardio is no good and not worth doing~its just a waste of time. I really believe that balance in everything is best and for those that can't do strenght training, I'm afraid they will just quit working out all together believing that's its no good.  Anyway, Just Keep Movin' is what I say, no matter what you do!!!!!!

Tracy, I totally agree when you say that this guy has the potential of carrying a message that will give people an excuse to just forget about exercising all together!  And that would be a real shame.      I imagine there will be many articles from all kinds of physiology & exercise professionals who will refute this No Cardio book!   I'm with you on the benefits of heart-healthy cardio workouts, not to speak of the calorie-burning, stress alleviating, and flexibility/endurance aspects!  I also am very aware of the added (& very important at my age) benefits of strength/weight training--bone-buildling, muscle-building (extra calories burned), and balance-building.  I will continue to do my workouts as usual--a combination of both, with rotating which muscles are worked on weight-training.   I do find it very interesting to learn more about the subject--like I know there is some disagreement on the order of how to do things.  But I don't dwell a whole lot on some of it because I don't think it makes a huge amount of difference; it's not like I'm a professional!  I just know I need to be burning calories and strengthening my heart & bones!   I just wish I liked to "move to lose" more!!  Probably my LEAST hated exercise is just going outside and walking, which I do when the weather is decent; however, that really isn't the BEST as far as efficient calorie expenditure for the amount of time (as compared to the gym).  But I'm ready for nice weather--just to have better opportunities for some variety of walking & bike riding!   Unfortunately, tomorrow it's supposed to get down to the low "teens" here!

I hear ya Jo! I love to walk outside, but today its -20 with the windchill