I realized I inadvertently posted this in the wrong forum so I’m switching it here:
I remember a podcast a while back where you discussed the possibility of asymmetry in diminished returns regarding strength vs cardiovascular conditioning. Apologies if I’m misremembering the exact details, but I think it was along the lines of “Once you can squat 300 lbs, there are diminished health benefits from continued strength gains but the benefits of cardiovascular conditioning gains may continue to make health improvements.”
is there a similar CV goal analogous to the 300 lb squat? E.g., after a six-minute mile, there are diminished health benefits from continued improvement
granting there are significant portions dedicated to both strength and conditioning across all the templates I’ve tried, are some templates preferable for improving general health in the absence of specific strength goals (and assuming we meet the 300lb squat threshold)?
I think there are dose-dependent relationships between health and both strength and cardiorespiratory fitness levels. I don’t think these relationships are linear, but I think they steadily trend upwards to some amount that’s pretty well developed. Putting numbers on that is rather difficult though. One study looking at strength performance and mortality found that a 1.9x-bodyweight leg press 1RM was the average strength in the men with the lowest mortality rates. Two other recent studies showed that those who see the most improvement in their strength had the biggest improvements in blood sugar and blood pressure management. It’s really hard to put a number on exact strength cut-offs, where I think there’s no longer any benefit health-wise, but I do think that getting stronger over time is a good goal. I feel similarly about cardiorespiratory fitness.
I would not use a 300lb squat as a max strength needed for health cut off, though we’d be a lot better off if most could squat that. I also wouldn’t use an endurance performance that’s reliant on many non-health related factors. We know that across different exercise modes, there’s a dose dependent relationship between cardiorespiratory fitness and reduction in heart disease risk. I would like to see this as high as possible.
I don’t think any specific template is better (or worse) for health than another, provided the individual is getting stronger, enjoying the training, and doing the conditioning
Thanks, Dr. Feigenbaum. Your answer makes sense. I don’t think I was looking for a distinct cut-off where health benefits are no longer improving, but more about finding the “elbow in the curve” where there might be diminishing returns. The idea being that it would help prioritize efforts. E.g., if I can, say, DL 700 lbs but struggle to break a 12 min. mile run, it might be obvious that I need to prioritize some conditioning. But if it’s something like 300 lbs and 8:00, it’s a little less clear. But your point is taken that meeting the recommendations while trying to make some progress is good enough for general health.
I’m guessing two tests that would represent the “elbow” as it were would be somewhere around a 1.9x BW leg press for men and the ability to do an 8-MET activity for 5 minutes
