How much cardio ... ?

[transcend2007]

I don’t think that I could handle that sort of accolade. My e-peen would be going off all over the place.

I did not know what an E-Peen "even" was .. now I know it stands for E-Penis ... so I defintely learned something from the internets today ...

 

[transcend2007]

Yeah, we all have thoughts and opinions that are probably wrong.

I would be the ABSOLUTE WORST Special Content Master ... I'd only allow content about every 47 days ... then all of these awesome posts would be completely eliminated ... shit I am firing myself and even the idea in advance ...

 

[RowdyBrad]

I walk over 12k steps for work each day and do 30 minutes on an exercise bike everyday just because I want to. I upped it to 2 hours LISS prior to my attempt at a "peak" for our waterpark trip. It worked but was obviously too much. Luckily I was fat enough I didn't notice any muscle mass loss (likely because I have so little LOL).

 

[buck]

Cardio helps burn calories. But from a heart perspective it does not seem the heart needs all that much activity to be at it's best. Probably would depend on the reason that a person is doing cardio as to what or how much is needed. Long ago I used to think doing a lot or cardio was good for the heart. But most of my reading doesn't support that thinking. I do enough to keep my BP down. If it starts going up one of the things i look at is to see if i am recovering from my cardio workouts. As aerobics seem to be more stressful than lifting weights from my reading.

 

[Bro Bundy]

I didn’t mean to come off as a know it all . I do know endurance sports well and just want to see people put the same effort into that part of training as they do to say lifting . I’m not the same as I was in my prime but I had some good results doing it my way . I just want to see people health that’s the main part of cardio . It’s not all about being 5 % bf

 

[CJ]

I didn’t mean to come off as a know it all . I do know endurance sports well and just want to see people put the same effort into that part of training as they do to say lifting . I’m not the same as I was in my prime but I had some good results doing it my way . I just want to see people health that’s the main part of cardio . It’s not all about being 5 % bf

You had alot of good points.

 

[transcend2007]

Cardio helps burn calories. But from a heart perspective it does not seem the heart needs all that much activity to be at it's best. Probably would depend on the reason that a person is doing cardio as to what or how much is needed. Long ago I used to think doing a lot or cardio was good for the heart. But most of my reading doesn't support that thinking. I do enough to keep my BP down. If it starts going up one of the things i look at is to see if i am recovering from my cardio workouts. As aerobics seem to be more stressful than lifting weights from my reading.

I am far from an expert and posted this to learn more ... so I will not state what you've said is wrong (or right) ... it is your experience and research ...

As I have been learning from Outline and shared here is that the benefit from cardio is not 100% heart health ... there seems to be an overall health marker in which the needle is moved during Zone 2 aerobic training where one of the benefits is to our mitochondria health that is directly impacted (they have been reported to increase as much as 40% to 50%) from improving our Zone 2 performance ...

Zone 2 training seems to best improve with 180 minutes per week done in 3 - 1 hour sessions or 4 - 45 minutes sessions ... while even more than 180 minutes is even better (but this seems to be a doable sweet spot) ... there is a question of how to know exactly how much your Zone 2 output is - meaning how do we quantitatively measure Zone 2 improvement ... Dr. Attia states that generating 3 watts per kilogram was the fit level and 1 watt per KG was more a beginner level - with 1.5 to 2.5 being intermediate ... again the reason understanding this matters is the more healthy mitochondria we have the more efficiently we burn stored bodyfat overall ... this is why a Tour de France rider could be going up a mountain at a moderate pace and be producing 3 watts per KG all the while burning BF a normal unfit person going up the same hill would be going far slower and likely burning glucose ... bottom line the better your Zone 2 condition the more fit you are overall (including heart) but not only heart … plus you have a greater capacity to burn body fat during Zone 2 exercise ..

P.S. I am increasing my Zone 2 cardiop to 4 - 45 minutes sessions per week ... I'll keep you guys postd over the next weeks and months ... sorry to ramble on for 47 pages ...

 

[buck]

I am far from an expert and posted this to learn more ... so I will not state what you've said is wrong (or right) ... it is your experience and research ...

As I have been learning from Outline and shared here is that the benefit from cardio is not 100% heart health ... there seems to be an overall health marker in which the needle is moved during Zone 2 aerobic training where one of the benefits is to our mitochondria health that is directly impacted (they have been reported to increase as much as 40% to 50%) from improving our Zone 2 performance ...

Zone 2 training seems to best improve with 180 minutes per week done in 3 - 1 hour sessions or 4 - 45 minutes sessions ... while even more than 180 minutes is even better (but this seems to be a doable sweet spot) ... there is a question of how to know exactly how much your Zone 2 output is - meaning how do we quantitatively measure Zone 2 improvement ... Dr. Attia states that generating 3 watts per kilogram was the fit level and 1 watt per KG was more a beginner level - with 1.5 to 2.5 being intermediate ... again the reason understanding this matters is the more healthy mitochondria we have the more efficiently we burn stored bodyfat overall ... this is why a Tour de France rider could be going up a mountain at a moderate pace and be producing 3 watts per KG all the while burning BF a normal unfit person going up the same hill would be going far slower and likely burning glucose ... bottom line the better your Zone 2 condition the more fit you are overall (including heart) but not only heart … plus you have a greater capacity to burn body fat during Zone 2 exercise ..

P.S. I am increasing my Zone 2 cardiop to 4 - 45 minutes sessions per week ... I'll keep you guys postd over the next weeks and months ... sorry to ramble on for 47 pages ...

I can understand about health markers and people should do as they think is best. And i think what is called zone 2 may be better than most. It really doesn't take much to get the heart to 60-70% range in my experience. I have done zone 2 type training for 1+ hours a day 6+ days a week since the 80's with some zone 1 -5 thrown in for fun. And varied degrees of all zone for 15+ years before that. I have found many health markers over my decades of being interested in health and training have mostly never panned out. The health marker i tend to look at most for proof is longevity. What do those that live the longest have in common. I have seen countless blood markers from many different projects not pan out in real life. That is not to say that test studies whether in labs, invitro etc. are of no value. But until they are proven in a population then they are a theory. When i look at those that live the longest i do not see where any real sort of intense or even moderate work a part of their lives was on a regular basis. I have lived through the years of health markers, fats being bad for you, protein was proven bad, eating less cholesterol is all most need to lower their levels, salt is bad, doing aerobics will solve peoples problems, lifting weights is bad. And the list goes on. Moderate weight diet activity etc seem to be the common factor from a physical standpoint for those that live the longest. Now if we are talking about performance over a short to moderate term then things may change. But i always like to read and see what may be of benefit. So thanks for sharing.

 

[transcend2007]

I can understand about health markers and people should do as they think is best. And i think what is called zone 2 may be better than most. It really doesn't take much to get the heart to 60-70% range in my experience. I have done zone 2 type training for 1+ hours a day 6+ days a week since the 80's with some zone 1 -5 thrown in for fun. And varied degrees of all zone for 15+ years before that. I have found many health markers over my decades of being interested in health and training have mostly never panned out. The health marker i tend to look at most for proof is longevity. What do those that live the longest have in common. I have seen countless blood markers from many different projects not pan out in real life. That is not to say that test studies whether in labs, invitro etc. are of no value. But until they are proven in a population then they are a theory. When i look at those that live the longest i do not see where any real sort of intense or even moderate work a part of their lives was on a regular basis. I have lived through the years of health markers, fats being bad for you, protein was proven bad, eating less cholesterol is all most need to lower their levels, salt is bad, doing aerobics will solve peoples problems, lifting weights is bad. And the list goes on. Moderate weight diet activity etc seem to be the common factor from a physical standpoint for those that live the longest. Now if we are talking about performance over a short to moderate term then things may change. But i always like to read and see what may be of benefit. So thanks for sharing.

Add coffee and eggs to your list .. those have been added and substracted so many times over the past 30 years I cannot even keep count - healthy one year the next certain death LOL ... fuck it .. I am drinking my coffee and eating 2 to 3 wholes egg 3 to 4 days a week .. fuck 'em ...

 

[buck]

Add coffee and eggs to your list .. those have been added and substracted so many times over the past 30 years I cannot even keep count - healthy one year the next certain death LOL ... fuck it .. I am drinking my coffee and eating 2 to 3 wholes egg 3 to 4 days a week .. fuck 'em ...

The biggest negatives about coffee started about 40 years ago as i remember.
Scandinavian study with boiled coffee that showed it was bad, but other universities were not able to reproduce the results. When you compare people that drink coffee to those that don't, they tend to be healthier. If you just look at the caffeine, then there is a downside. But the health benefits far out weight the caffeine even for heavy drinkers from the vast majority of studies i have seen over the decades.

And the government for decades starting in the 1940's said to eat less cholesterol to lower levels of cholesterol. The AMA told the senate committee back then on health there were no studies to support that, but the senate said they didn't care and pushed that agenda. In 2015 the government quietly took off the recommendation to limit cholesterol to 200 mg per day from the health.gov web site. As no studies ever really proved that (over the decades) as the body makes most all the cholesterol and being it is a large molecule it isn't easily absorbed. And when you look at cholesterol those at the lowest end tend to have worse longevity then those at the high end. But i am guessing the government won't acknowledge that for some time either.