What’s the upper limit for cardio before it negatively impacts resistance training?
If my goal is to reduce my resting heart rate, would 30-40 minutes 3x/week of ZONE 2 be sufficient to get most of the benefits in this regard, or would 60 minutes 3x/week be a lot better? I’d also do a session of hiit fortnightly.
We discussed the interference effect, e.g. cardio negatively affecting gainzZz from resistance training, in podcast episode 237. You can listen to that here. A brief quote describing the most recent meta-analysis on the topic:
“Concurrent aerobic and strength training does not compromise muscle hypertrophy and maximal strength development. However, explosive strength gains may be attenuated, especially when aerobic and strength training are performed in the same session. These results appeared to be independent of the type of aerobic training, frequency of concurrent training, training status, and age.” Schumann 2022
There is no singular upper limit for cardio, as this has to do with the individual’s current training tolerance, recovery resources, and so on. I think the majority of people can do at least 150-minutes per week with no significant effect on strength adaptations.
I do not think either scenario is enough conditioning to get “most” of the cardiorespiratory fitness-based benefits available to you, though I’d favor 180 min/wk over 90. The current guidelines recommend 150-300 min per week as a minimum target. We also know that there’s a dose dependent relationship between health and cardiorespiratory fitness, where more fitness correlates to better health. While this isn’t linear, I suspect somewhere closer to double the guidelines’ recommendations is more likely to “max out” someone’s general cardiorespiratory fitness development vs 90 or 180 minutes as suggested here. Logistically, that may not be possible and in that case, I’d go with the most you can do per week in this scenario. I would skip HIIT here as well.
Thanks. So to summarise, 1 hour zone 2 cardio done 3x/week is unlikely to see significant resting heart rate reduction over time, but is better than nothing, and you’d suggest not doing hiit in this scenario. Is this correct?
I was trying to be more careful with my wording. I do think engaging in regular conditioning work will likely lower resting heart rate in individuals proportionate to their improvements in fitness, which is going to be proportionate to training volume, existing fitness level, genetics, etc.
Maximal resting HR reduction will likely require substantially more conditioning volume than proposed here, so to get the most HR-lowering benefits, I suspect more volume is better.
I do not think HIIT is a good use of training resources in this setting, correct.
Thanks for clarifying Jordan. My goal is to reduce my resting heart rate by 5-10 beats, bringing it into the 50s per minute (currently 61-64 bpm), so I hope 3 hours of steady state may get me there in time.
Yea, I think that’s likely. If we were talking lower than that or a much higher VO2max for example, I think that is likely to take more. This should be fine IMO.