I’m not sure what you’re asking me regarding the workout, but I would evaluate your dizziness issue separately.
I thought antiquity was part and parcel with the strength and conditioning world, right?
1 Like
But you are not recommending achieving a certain level of cardiorespiratory fitness. Instead, you recommend meeting some very broad guidelines.
The consequences of not meeting the aerobic training minimums is that your health benefits from training are likely to be worse for all listed health conditions and increased mortality risk.
As far as I know, the required aerobic capacity for decreased mortality risk is 8 METs (I believe you have also stated this several times), which is usually not a big deal for a strength athlete. Also, it is known that resistance training improves aerobic capacity. So once again, why is it reasonable to recommend the same aerobic activity for a sedentary person and for someone who trains for strength?
I only feel dizzy at treadmill, indoor bike, and indoor stairs machine I feel ok.
I actually am, in fact, as evidenced by our multiple publications on this. I think people should start by meeting the guidelines in order to develop improved levels of aerobic fitness.
The guidelines are a reasonable starting point. If you have a better suggestion, please post it along with your supporting evidence.
This is a simplification and untrue. I’d advise against parroting SS here. 8 mets is where the decreased mortality threshold starts, but there is a dose-dependent relationship between increased cardiorespiratory fitness and improved health outcomes (including mortality). Additionally, no, not all individuals who strength train will develop this minimum level of cardiorespiratory capacity.
Not really reliably, though this depends on the training. For example, if you do mostly sets of 5, your aerobic capacity probably doesn’t improve much- if at all. In some individuals it will get worse.
My answer remains the same. Just because someone engages in resistance training does not absolve them of the responsibility for doing conditioning work. You’re not very conditioned (and unlikely to be conditioned enough) if you only strength train.
Yea, I would get that checked out.
Oh crap, just when I thought that I was out of the ropes.
Ok, I will go see a doctor again. It is a ASAP think, or can wait my next visit in the next couple months?(Wich is already scheduled)
So to increase ROI from the work done, your programming seems to indicate is is better to spend some time in different cardio vascular modalities (I.E. most GPP programming seems to eventually end up as some LISS and HIIT in the templates at a minimum). So if I want to add in more cardio at the end of my lifting sessions and I’m doing 1 day of LISS and 1 of HIIT pre guidelines on GPP days, how should I preference additional cardio work for the best ROI from my training economy?
I believe you’ve stated that HIIT has higher taxation and is more similar to lifting so would it be best to have something like add in 2 LIIS sessions and a mid state day like the 5@8 then 2 min rest for 2-3 round like from the endurance template? That would be 3 LISS, 1 medium and 1 HIIT? Would it be better to trade one of the LISS days for a mid day for 2 LISS, 2 Mid and 1 HIIT? Or once again am I worrying too much about the minutia and I should just do some more of whatever cardio I can stay compliant with?
Thank you for being so responsive in this thread and helping clarify a lot of this. I thought from just doing the lifting I was in a decent spot but I can definitely find the time to work on the cardio vascular side of my fitness more especially with working in construction right now.
Recommending that everyone follows the same guidelines is not the equivalent of recommending an improved fitness level. Instead, you could approach it the same you approach strength training - program for improvement systematically, applying the correct amount of stress.
This is a simplification and untrue. I’d advise against parroting SS here. 8 mets is where the decreased mortality threshold starts, but there is a dose-dependent relationship between increased cardiorespiratory fitness and improved health outcomes (including mortality). Additionally, no, not all individuals who strength train will develop this minimum level of cardiorespiratory capacity.
I was not parroting SS. Actually, I was quoting you on several occasions. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVnNMnXRzWU (12:24),
and here:
https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/when-should-you-do-conditioning/ (quotes below)
Well, as it turns out the literature suggests that the stronger someone is, i.e. the more force they can produce with their muscles to move an external object, the lower the morbidity and mortality rates when compared to both sedentary populations and those who were more “aerobically developed” from doing typical conditioning/cardio training and, more interestingly perhaps, the same rates of morbidity and mortality as those who were the strongest and the most aerobically developed.
and
Does this mean I’m saying people who are training/exercising for health purposes shouldn’t do any sort of conditioning? No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m implying that you get a pretty decent stress from weight training to drive conditioning adaptations that have an observably profound effect on clinical outcomes. If you desire additional capacity for another purpose, i.e. you want to be able to run further/faster or have more “wind” when doing a particular activity (e.g. pick-up basketball), then doing some supplemental conditioning work will be useful in achieving these goals. However, let’s not be confused with what the literature is saying about how this will affect health.
and the conclusion:
From a health perspective, there’s really not a lot of purpose for pure conditioning modalities unless it’s either facilitating another related (e.g. fat loss) or unrelated goal (e.g. more conditioning for sport) OR the person isn’t training and therefore needs something to supplement them.
Notice how the second quote contradicts the following statement:
Not really reliably, though this depends on the training. For example, if you do mostly sets of 5, your aerobic capacity probably doesn’t improve much- if at all. In some individuals it will get worse.
Obviously this depends on the training, but it is documented that strength athletes and bodybuilders have average-above average aerobic capacity.
My answer remains the same. Just because someone engages in resistance training does not absolve them of the responsibility for doing conditioning work. You’re not very conditioned (and unlikely to be conditioned enough) if you only strength train.
This is a straw man, because no one is against some conditioning in case it is needed.
By the way, I wasn’t going to say anything before your snarky comment about parroting SS, but you said that those guidelines exist for over a decade, so how come you’ve only changed your recommendations recently? Does it have anything to do with separating yourself as much as possible from the SS brand which you’ve mentioned several times in this thread out of context?
Of course you could say that you didn’t know any better back in 2017, but I kind of find it hard to believe.
Actually, I was quoting you on several occasions. For example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVnNMnXRzWU (12:24),and here:
https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/when-should-you-do-conditioning/ (quotes below)
We were wrong.
I’ll let Jordan chime in on the rest, but this idea (which has also been brought up in other contexts) is getting quite annoying.
The prior recommendations were based on this analysis from 2009: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam…rticle/1108396 , which provided mortality data dichotomized at the ~8 MET cutoff.
Better CRF was associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality and CHD/CVD. Participants with a MAC of 7.9 METs or more had substantially lower rates of all-cause mortality and CHD/CVD events compared with those with a MAC of less 7.9 METs.
In 2018 we had a new meta-analysis of data published in JAMA (based on a growing body of evidence that has become more convincing to us) on the dose-response relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness and mortality: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam…rticle/2707428 , in which there was a graded dose-response between low (6.1 METs), below average (8.2 METs), above average (9.6 METs), high (11.4 METs), and elite (13.8 METs), with the following results:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:“Click image for larger version Name:\tm_zoi180168f2.png?Expires=2147483647&Signature=aPQmzUZrOKQt5-2-bgGXT5A3EGS6WZhvzyhNnY2Zub~hDDRkwKHIU8qqqK2FGwrVr3OedewjZ120CCSVbZ2hMqza9tgHGBMjTp6Mtqyq6pYYWJRbGj9gRDiX2pNvuXq2DW0KfZcZzahp~cGA0mVfwxiAO0h49yQZji4gZzjbqAPBoA8Stu7dKmBPh04IZemfMj8fet~MYYxO Views:\t0 Size:\t124.0 KB ID:\t44511”,“data-align”:“none”,“data-attachmentid”:“44511”,“data-size”:“full”,“title”:“m_zoi180168f2.png?Expires=2147483647&Signature=aPQmzUZrOKQt5-2-bgGXT5A3EGS6WZhvzyhNnY2Zub~hDDRkwKHIU8qqqK2FGwrVr3OedewjZ120CCSVbZ2hMqza9tgHGBMjTp6Mtqyq6pYYWJRbGj9gRDiX2pNvuXq2DW0KfZcZzahp~cGA0mVfwxiAO0h49yQZji4gZzjbqAPBoA8Stu7dKmBPh04IZemfMj8fet~MYYxOUZSE68ahBAhjJK~~ecUWYFC8TMl3Fs2uPxwBK3-LXHlqSOrN30ugld4Re788W2duvvUAl6RE0Zxelq~km1EG9WUCT7OSUv0VwQWFzRnfdB1HIcijki7e3VGgJJZqs9fhxRheWjuxng__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA.png”}[/ATTACH]
So … we have changed our minds, and our recommendations.
2 Likes
We recommend that everyone achieve that initial level of aerobic training and RT. We would manage individuals individually based on their individual needs. We are not arguing against individual prescriptions.
It seems that you were and blended it with the video and training quote, as in the cited video I make mention of those individuals who will not attain this level of fitness. The caveats are important and the 8 METS thing we have changed our mind on, see above and in our recent publications that are freely available.
The conditioning quote is consistent with the existing literature when that was published. Things have changed as new evidence has emerged. You’ll note that the the article is from 2013 and the video is from 2017, both prior to the current scientific consensus report published to accompany the 2018 guidelines and the study detailed by Dr. Baraki above.
Not universally, no and in many cases, not sufficiently. It appears that the subjects’ initial level of fitness and training responsiveness are important predictors. In short, I would not recommend bodybuilding or strength training for improved aerobic performance in isolation.
I wish you would’ve because then we could’ve gotten to the meat of this sooner. The back and forth is somewhat frustrating because you’re making assumptions that are not consistent with the current data. Additional data has emerged to suggest the independent importance of aerobic training for individuals who are strong and those who participate in resistance training.
Correct, the compelling data (in our opinions) didn’t exist when that initial video and article were recorded. As evidence changes, so do our recommendations.
The other brand is of no concern to us, but people keep putting forth ideas from that organization unfortunately.
1 Like
[quote=“BobbyD, post:48, topic:6847, username:BobbyD”]
I believe you’ve stated that HIIT has higher taxation and is more similar to lifting so would it be best to have something like add in 2 LIIS sessions and a mid state day like the 5@8 then 2 min rest for 2-3 round like from the endurance template? That would be 3 LISS, 1 medium and 1 HIIT? Would it be better to trade one of the LISS days for a mid day for 2 LISS, 2 Mid and 1 HIIT? Or once again am I worrying too much about the minutia and I should just do some more of whatever cardio I can stay compliant with?
[/quote]
This. Brisk walking would likely be fine (~5 METs).
Correct, the compelling data (in our opinions) didn’t exist when that initial video and article were recorded. As evidence changes, so do our recommendations.
Yea, but they aren’t. They have been roughly the same for nearly 20 years. The resistance to the aerobic guidelines in this crowd are more likely influenced by men in Wichita Falls or elsewhere on the Internet and not that the recommendations are constantly changing, because they aren’t.
I don’t understand how to reconcile these two statements. I’m very glad that you are presenting us updated recommendations based on new evidence, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to claim that the recommendations have been the same for nearly 20 years when you were recommending something quite different less than two years ago.
The recommendations have been similar for a good amount of time, however the data to support them and the importance of each component had been lacking and so our strength of recommendations have changed.
If someone is saying, “It seems like you guys have changed your mind. That’s new!” I’d say, “Yep, that’s exactly what happened.”
However, if someone is suggesting the reason for adherence rates being ~ 40% range for adults is because they are changing all the time, then I would have to disagree with that. We could likely keep the recommendations the same for the next 50 years and never get close to 70 or 80% adherence, as this does not address the underlying problems with adherence.
1 Like
This is mostly your fault. You, Jordan and Allan are throwing sarcastic remarks regarding SS everywhere it’s possible. Jordan has mentioned “men from Wichita falls”, and “parroting SS” out of nowhere in this thread alone. So don’t be surprised that people get this idea.
The prior recommendations were based on this analysis from 2009: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam…rticle/1108396 , which provided mortality data dichotomized at the ~8 MET cutoff.
In 2018 we had a new meta-analysis of data published in JAMA (based on a growing body of evidence that has become more convincing to us) on the dose-response relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness and mortality: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jam…rticle/2707428 , in which there was a graded dose-response between low (6.1 METs), below average (8.2 METs), above average (9.6 METs), high (11.4 METs), and elite (13.8 METs), with the following results:
[ATTACH=JSON]{“alt”:“Click image for larger version Name:\tm_zoi180168f2.png?Expires=2147483647&Signature=aPQmzUZrOKQt5-2-bgGXT5A3EGS6WZhvzyhNnY2Zub~hDDRkwKHIU8qqqK2FGwrVr3OedewjZ120CCSVbZ2hMqza9tgHGBMjTp6Mtqyq6pYYWJRbGj9gRDiX2pNvuXq2DW0KfZcZzahp~cGA0mVfwxiAO0h49yQZji4gZzjbqAPBoA8Stu7dKmBPh04IZemfMj8fet~MYYxO Views:\t0 Size:\t124.0 KB ID:\t44511”,“data-align”:“none”,“data-attachmentid”:“44511”,“data-size”:“full”,“title”:“m_zoi180168f2.png?Expires=2147483647&Signature=aPQmzUZrOKQt5-2-bgGXT5A3EGS6WZhvzyhNnY2Zub~hDDRkwKHIU8qqqK2FGwrVr3OedewjZ120CCSVbZ2hMqza9tgHGBMjTp6Mtqyq6pYYWJRbGj9gRDiX2pNvuXq2DW0KfZcZzahp~cGA0mVfwxiAO0h49yQZji4gZzjbqAPBoA8Stu7dKmBPh04IZemfMj8fet~MYYxOUZSE68ahBAhjJK~~ecUWYFC8TMl3Fs2uPxwBK3-LXHlqSOrN30ugld4Re788W2duvvUAl6RE0Zxelq~km1EG9WUCT7OSUv0VwQWFzRnfdB1HIcijki7e3VGgJJZqs9fhxRheWjuxng__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAIE5G5CRDK6RD3PGA.png”}[/ATTACH][IMG2=JSON]{“data-align”:“none”,“data-size”:“full”,“src”:“https://forum.barbellmedicine.com/core/image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAPABAP///wAAACH5BAEKAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAICRAEAOw==”}[/IMG2]
So … we have changed our minds, and our recommendations.
I think your first paper dichotomised only the conclusions. The data actually contains three categories:
Data Extraction Two authors independently extracted relevant data. CRF was estimated as maximal aerobic capacity (MAC) expressed in metabolic equivalent (MET) units. Participants were categorized as low CRF (<7.9 METs), intermediate CRF (7.9-10.8 METs), or high CRF (≥10.9 METs).
Although the difference between intermediate CFR and high CFR was not very significant. The picture in the new paper (2018) is different of course, but it was not performed on the general population, and has some additional limitations mentioned. For instance, CFR assessment was based on a single performance of ETT.
So, I am not exactly sure how you find these evidence to be strong enough to change your mind, but that’s your business.
Assume now that we accept your premise that higher CFR is better with no upper limit. How is this idea reflected in a blanket statement that everyone should do 150-300 minutes of cardio per week? Do you think this will bring everyone to elite level? High level? What is your acceptable level of CFR, and why would you program for it with the same recommendation for everyone?
This is equivalent to stating that there is evidence that stronger is better, so everybody should go to the gym 3 times a week and do some resistance training for 40-60 minutes per session.
What initial level?
It seems that you were and blended it with the video and training quote, as in the cited video I make mention of those individuals who will not attain this level of fitness.
I was not. You are the only person associated with SS, that I’ve heard talking about the 8 METs thing.
The caveats are important and the 8 METS thing we have changed our mind on, see above and in our recent publications that are freely available.
The conditioning quote is consistent with the existing literature when that was published. Things have changed as new evidence has emerged. You’ll note that the the article is from 2013 and the video is from 2017, both prior to the current scientific consensus report published to accompany the 2018 guidelines and the study detailed by Dr. Baraki above.
So, in 2013 strength training was stressing enough to drive aerobic adaptations, and in 2019 it does not? What is your evidence?
Not universally, no and in many cases, not sufficiently. It appears that the subjects’ initial level of fitness and training responsiveness are important predictors. In short, I would not recommend bodybuilding or strength training for improved aerobic performance in isolation.
This is a straw man again, because no one was advocating to train aerobic performance using strength training. I was only stating that strength training does have a positive effect on this parameter and it is well documented that strength athletes have average-above average aerobic capacity, contrary to your statement. See for example Designing Resistance Training Programs By Steven J. Fleck, William J. Kraemer, which contains several references on this subject.
I wish you would’ve because then we could’ve gotten to the meat of this sooner.
.
This is not the meat. You are being paranoid.
The back and forth is somewhat frustrating because you’re making assumptions that are not consistent with the current data. Additional data has emerged to suggest the independent importance of aerobic training for individuals who are strong and those who participate in resistance training.
What assumptions have I made? That was my first question - where is this data (notice your independence statement), with respect to those who participate in strength training. Before you answer, recall again this quote
Well, as it turns out the literature suggests that the stronger someone is, i.e. the more force they can produce with their muscles to move an external object, the lower the morbidity and mortality rates when compared to both sedentary populations and those who were more “aerobically developed” from doing typical conditioning/cardio training and, more interestingly perhaps, the same rates of morbidity and mortality as those who were the strongest and the most aerobically developed.
which was also evidence based. How does the paper Austin provided disprove this?
The other brand is of no concern to us, but people keep putting forth ideas from that organization unfortunately.
The other brand is no concern to you, but you keep bringing them up on every occasion. Why?
You’re the one that keeps bringing it up. We will comment on it when it’s appropriate and decline to talk about it when it’s not. Let it go, dude. Alternatively, you can go to a different forum if you like.
A few things:
- It’s CRF, not CFR.
- Yes, the difference between intermediate CRF and CFR was statistically significant in older individuals and those with comorbidities.
- Yes , the paper was performed on the general population.
- CRF is typically measured on a single exercise test when doing this type of research.
I’m struggling to see your points here, though I am overall unconcerned about your interpretation of the literature nonetheless.
General recommendations are designed to give the population at-large actionable targets to achieve in order to improve outcomes. The guidelines do not specify a certain level of strength, but rather than individuals should resistance train 2x/wk. Similarly, the guidelines do not specify a certain level of aerobic fitness, but rather a baseline level of physical activity. At present, we agree with the 2018 Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans for this purpose.
Individuals who strength train are not a special population to whom these guidelines do not apply to. Those who engage in regular RT, but whom do little to no additional aerobic training may be increasing their risk of morbidity and mortality by not doing so. Alternatively, they may not depending on their individual medical history and current status. With that in mind, we know that the training recommendations will be inappropriate for some individuals in that they won’t achieve the desired results or, worse yet, actually suffer worsening health from exercise. Therefore, exercise recommendations for individuals should be individualized whenever possible to promote adherence and improve outcomes.
To your other questions
-
We recommend all individuals meet the current physical activity guidelines unless their individual situation requires modification for improvements in outcomes.
-
I will accept that you’re not parroting SS if you say so
-
I have said- and continue to say- that typical strength training can drive aerobic improvements in some individuals. However, strength training alone will have no effect or even decrease aerobic fitness in some other individuals, which is important. Additionally, combined AT and RT appear to work better for a number of important outcomes compared to one or the other. A number of new studies have been published since 2013 showing this in addition to us becoming aware of additional data showing the heterogeneity in training adaptations to a given level of training. This is likely reflected in different way we discuss this topic.
-
I am tired of you saying strawman while making an actual strawman argument yourself. I am not saying you were suggesting to train aerobic fitness via resistance training only. Rather, I am disagreeing with you that strength trained individuals are a special population requiring special recommendations that differ from the ones given to the general population.
-
A few papers we think are important come from the UK Biobank studies, particularly Kim et al and Tikkanen eta al- both published in 2018. Additionally, both Schroeder’s 2019 RCT and Kamada’s 2017 cohort study on AT, RT, or combined training is telling for potential disease and mortality modification effects. What’s interesting is that all of these papers champion RT, as they should- RT and being strong is great
However, all point out that there are additional benefits to be had from engaging in aerobic training and achieving higher levels of CRF even in those who are engaging in RT. -
It appears that CRF is another predictor of health and prognosis for a variety of conditions such as ASCVD, hypertension, certain forms of cancer, etc. In some circles, it is felt that CRF may even be a more potent predictor than muscular strength or power. Austin’s paper doesn’t disprove this, which is not really how science works. Rather, the paper cited by Dr. Baraki suggests the situation is more nuanced and we need to pay attention to more things than just muscular strength. Note, I’m not saying you are suggesting we should ignore aerobic fitness, but at the time of publication of that article- we were not aware of the importance of CRF in different applications in addition to -or in some cases- independent of strength.
-
We’d like to make sure people are not carrying forward ideas promoted by the other brand that we do not endorse on our website.
Alex, all of your posts here seem to be contrarian and written in a tone that do not promote discussion. There’s no need for that. If you want to Zercher and LP yourself to death, go ahead dude. As long as you’re training - that’s cool with us. On the other hand, if you’re open to changing your mind on things and having reasonable discussions then you’re in the right place. We do it all the time, which is why we think CRF deserves some important consideration. Please consider this carefully going forward.
1 Like
To add, the scientific report summarizing the available evidence on the current recommendations:
1 Like