Fitness Trend?

A

Amadeus

Cathlete
Cathe,
Lately I've noticed that just about "everyone and their dog" as far as "experts" go is SO hot on doing lots of heavy weight work and forgoing much or ALL of any cardio work. It seems some people tend to think cardio work is not important for fat loss. Just curious as to what your opinion is.

I tried it this summer and really didn't see much in the way of results as far fat loss goes, I did see an increase in muscle though.

Hmmmmm . . . I think I'm beginning to smell a "fitness trend". here.

Julie
 
RE: I'm not Cathe but . . .

As you know, I am a certified group fitness instructor, and get a lot of literature from fitness organizations like ACE and IDEA . . .

IMHO, the "everybody and their dogs" who are advocating heavy lifting to the exclusion of cardio are the same lemmings who advocated cardio only just a few short years ago. You're right - it's a trend only, and a pretty idiotic one to boot. There's an unfortunate "throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bathwater" mentality that infects the fitness industry, and what was supposedly safe and effective this year will be found to be fitness's greatest villain the next year . . . only to make a comeback the year after. (The value of hi/lo group fitness classes, the safety of certain stretches and positions, the effectiveness of mini-trampoline workouts {now repackaged as "Urban Rebounding} all come to mind.)

It's interesting to note that the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM), the gold standard of exercise and training principles, only added strength training to its position stand as a necessary component of fitness in 1995. And strength training for women and seniors are even more behind in terms of acceptance and advocacy. Now, of course, after years of neglect, trend-chasers are ONLY paying attention to heavy lifting. Kinda makes you wonder what next, huh?

Annette Q. Aquajock
 
RE: I'm not Cathe but . . .

Can I put my 2 cents in

Now I know she probably didn't mean it as it sounded but I had a look on Amazon yesterday at Kathy Smith new book and there is a quote from her saying how she would like to give up cardio and just do weights. Now unfortunetly for someone who does not bother to see what else she says may take this to mean she has joined this trend (I don't know if she has I didn't get the book and I hope she isn't)but I agree it will probably see lots of people jumping into weight classes.

Babs
 
RE: I'm not Cathe but . . .

Great to have you back posting again, Annette! The forum was "borum" without you ;-).

Yes, specifically what I should have mentioned was the two fitness plan books I have read: Body For Life and Business Plan For the Body. Both of these have jumped on heavy weights with both feet in a huge way and have greatly reduced the percieved "need" for cardio.

I know that when I don't get enough cardio in, I tend to "wheeze" and have to use my inhaler. (Shhhh we're not calling this asthma.) Also, interestingly, being an ectomorph I just KNEW that low cardio (60 minutes low to moderate intensity per week) would be the way for me to go. My weight stayed the same and I did not see any change in bodyfat/clothes size in 12 weeks. Apparently it works for "some". I did get bigger muscles, but . . . not much bigger.

I was hoping that would be the "magic bullet" for me. Back to reality, having much better results with a mix of high rep weights and varing forms of cardio 4-5 times a week.

Hope I can get over to see you soon!
 
Hello,

Could I say something? I don't really follow trends, I like to follow something that works in keeping with my lifestyle and fitness goals. However, I think having trends is good, take a look at Madonna who started us all on running and weights when she changed her body shape all those years ago and now yoga. If it wasn't for the trendsetters then I would still be in the dark about weight lifting, yoga, aerobics etc. as I wouldn't have a clue how to do the exercises properly.

There will always be trends because fitness is like fashion, it's constantly changing and new things come out to keep us, consumers, spending our money. And fitness is not an exact science because our bodies and lifestyle undergoes evolution from generation to generation, so researchers will never be able to agreed on what's best for us.

Celebrities will always go on fad diets and fitness regimes and we all hear about it, but we should focus on our own needs and ambitions. We should aim to incorporate those 'trends' that will work for us as individuals.

I would like other people's opinions on whether 'fitness trends' are a good thing or not.

Yen
 
The problem I have lies in the faddism and exclusion of "something". A few years ago it was FAT. "Don't eat any fat and you won't be fat". Guess what we need to eat fat. Then it was carbs, "don't eat any carbs, they're bad for you, insulin producing fat." We obviously need carbs. (And brazen little me even eats bagels, carrots, corn and potatoes still. Hee-hee.) Excluding weight work, "it will bulk you up like a man". Now it seems that cardio is the new "bad guy". It's making us all fat.

I should state that change FOR THE BETTER is a good thing and seeing the industry morph form where it was back with Jane Fonda and high impact aeorbics has been terrific. It's just that I see some trends gain momentum before they have the science/facts to back them up.

Yoga, Pilates, weight training, balanced diet-these are all good things. But when I went to the gym to attend "cardio-box" class last month I found that the instructor was horribly underinformed on punching technique/form and sometimes and I have to wonder if my gym or instructor wasn't too quick or a bit careless in the pursuit of following a "kick-boxing trend".

It just seems like there's a big bandwagon to jump on.

As always "moderation in everything" seems to be the way to go.

Julie
 
Interesting discussion! I'm wondering if this latest trend, if that's what it is, is somewhat mirroring an aging population. As we age we lose the muscle and the pounds pile on, making lifting more important to restore our metabolism. As we age the joints aren't quite what they used to be, making lifting a more appropriate or safe exercise than high impact aerobics. And as we age flexibility becomes more important, and for some reason it seems easier to pair the stretching with lifting.

Regarding the Karas book, I don't agree with the assessment that he's anti-aerobics. He advocates exercising aerobically everytime one works out in addition to weightlifting, (which he does stress more - 25% cardio time, 75% weightlifting time for each workout.) I would say that his main message is Quit Eating Like a Hog, America. ;-) At any rate, following his program, using Cathe workouts, of course, has made a huge difference for me over just a few months. But maybe that's just me - like you say, whatever works, right?

Thinking/Wishing Out Loud: I've noticed quite a few posters have shared they've had incredible results cutting their cardio back while following the tank top rotation. This has made me think Cathe could come up with another Cross-X series geared for the 40-something crowd that does the opposite of the first one, something that combines about 15 minutes of heart thumping cardio with 30 minutes of lifting, with a couple of the workouts having looooonger stretch segments. At 44, I can still handle the high intensity impact, just not real long workouts 5-6 days a week. The thought of 15 minute combos and the ensuing rotation possibilities gets me all twitterpaited. And I like the idea of switching back and forth from the original Cross-X (for a week or so to keep the cardio monster fed) to an Opposite Cross-X for muscle confusion. Anyone else harbor any wishes for something like this?
 
Don't get me wrong, I would LOVE for this idea to work, but for me over the summer it just didn't and my resting heart rate went all the way up to 75 bpm (I was embarassed). x( I think I'll try more weights/less cardio again this winter just to see what happens.

I think that reverse CTX series sounds awesome. But one thing I would worry about with reducing the amount of cardio is that aerobic exercise has more than just a "cosmetic fat burning effect". As far as internal aging goes, I know it helps greatly with the whole cardio-pulmonary fitness which is extremely important as we age. (Given the propensity for cardio-vascular disease in the US.)

So, I don't know . . . maybe I'm wondering if this "experiment" wouldn't be "trading off" internal health benefits for external appearance sake?

(Hmmmm . . . I think that was what I was wondering in a nutshell.)

Julie
 
Hmmm...I've wondered the same thing myself. But consider this: those "cosmetic pounds" that need to be lost may be as much or more of a stress on the cardiovascular system as doing less cardio. If that's the case, then losing fat pounds is much, much more than just cosmetic. I wonder at what point is the trade-off. Any thoughts?

The other thing I wonder about the studies is to what "norm" they are talking about: The average non-exercising overweight American or people like us that exercise pretty advanced and are knowledgeable about diet, etc. I'm not sure where this fits into the equation also!

I'm out of time now, but I'll try to look up some of Karas's quotes on cardio and post 'em here later for everyone to chew up. ;-) Im curious- when you did your experiment was the main downside the HR or did you experience scale problems? If that's the case how clean was your eating? He stresses the 24/7 thang, and I find if I deviate from that I pay. It's difficult getting myself into the mindset that we (my husband is doing it too) just don't need to eat as much as we've become accustomed to! Curses!!! :D
 
Maribeth, if I get this one wrong lemme know . . .

One of the things that's forgotten in the cardio vs. weights debate, and the either-or pendulum, is a little thing called specificity of training:

Cardio work will not strengthen the muscles

Muscle strengthening will not work the heart or cardiovascular system

Cardio and/or strength training will not make you more flexible . . .

Ad infinitum

In order to effectively maintain cardiovascular strength and endurance, you must overload that particular muscle - the heart - consistently, and the only way to do that is with regular aerobic work that forces your heart to beat faster and harder and forces you to breath faster and more deeply. The act of strength training will not do this. However, the benefits of strength training will enable you to put more force and effort into your cardio work; THAT is where strength training assists in maintaining good heart function.

Another thing that's also forgotten is the benefits if impact-oriented cardio work in maintaining bone density especially for the large lower body bones that we kinda need to walk on and sit/stand with. Strength training can assist in maintaining bone density but it can't do it all.

Me, I prefer a 45%/45%/10 split in terms of cardio, strength and flexibility training. I've gotten nothing but stronger over time with that, and my RHR is 49 beats per minute.

Annette Q. Aquajock
 
Annette, you have the specificity nailed. Strength training (generally) doesn't provide much in the way of benefits as far as the cardiovascular system goes. Cardio training (generally)doesn't do much as far as muscular strength goes. And neither will do much for flexibility unless stretching is part of your normal routine.

One point that should be considered is that the amount of cardio exercise necessary to achieve health benefits for the heart, lungs and vascular system is significantly less than what is necessary for optimizing physical performance. For health benefits, continuous exercise utilizing large muscle groups for 15-20 minutes three times a week at an intensity of 60-85% of your age predicted maximum heart rate is enough.

The amount of each type of training all depends on goals, but all three types (cardio, strength and flexibility) are required in order to get maximal benefits. I seem to do best with a routine where I spend 60-75% of my time on strength training.

An interesting piece of research I read recently, quoted in "Designing Resistance Training Programs" by Fleck and Kramer, indicated that although heavy strength training has no negative impact on aerobic performance, heavy aerobic training DOES have a negative impact on power performance.

Each variant on body type will respond a little differently to training routines--some people will get the best results with a program that leans heavily on cardio work, others will get the same results with a program that focuses primarily on strength training. It's a matter of custom designing a program that best suits the individual.

Maribeth
 
Whoa! So if I'm reading you correctly, Maribeth, Karas would be right on the money when he says that, as far as for achieving a cardio health benefit, we need at least a total workout of 60 minutes with 25% of that time devoted to pure cardio a minimum of 3-4 times a week.

If so, that means an "Opposite CrossX 2" as I previously dreamed about up above might actually be beneficial?! Where do I put in a request to Cathe, hehe.

Another question for ya, Maribeth: Is there any info out there about how long of a pounding aerobic workout we need to keep the bones from going brittle? Would 15-20 minutes of a high impact cardio several times a week for us oldsters with bad knees be enough to keep the orthopedic surgeon at bay? And thanx in advance for sharing your fount of info with us! :)
 
More specifically, for me, is not the 'trend' that is the problem. Trends occur because there is a demand for them, because people want variety to keep from boredom, because people want to see results 'right here right now' and because people want miracles cures to age old problems. Diet and fitness trends are part of the economic equation - there is demand so there will be supply.

What I believe you have hit on here is 'overload of information' - that is the real problem. The simple fact is if you eat too much, you'll get fat. It's not fat or carbs or proteins that make you fat, but artificial additives and overeating. I like the simple peasant mentality when it comes to diet and exercise - eat natural food and do manual labour.

I don't know if any of you watch Oprah Winfrey, but one of her shows featured beautiful women in their more 'mature' (50+) years and there was one lady that I have never forgotten. She was 84 and she looked superb, fitter and healthier than women in their 20s. Her secret? 2 hour weight training 4 times a week with a personal trainer. I thought she was inspirational!

What I want to get across here is that age does not and should not prevent you from doing anything. And forget about following diet and fitness trends, just understand that the more active your lifestyle and the more natural your diet, the longer you will live and the less you will weigh.
 
Julie,

This will probably sound like a tangent , but I've recently discovered a correlation between pulse rate and allergies. Environmental and food allergies can cause your pulse to jump six to ten beats per minute - or more. If you know of a food you're mildly allergic to, give it a test. Take your pulse before eating, then about half an hour after eating the suspicious food.

If you are constantly exposed to an allergen - your pulse could theoretically remain higher than normal for an extended period of time. Just a thought...

Angela
 
Wow, Annette 49 bpm on RHR? That sure "beats" my 75.

Thanks, Angela, I will check that allergy thing out.

Now, Maribeth, one of my favorite quotes: Know they self. Seems we've all been given a human body to "play" with. Success is just finding out the best way to manipulate yours.

Lisa, after saying that, and reading what Maribeth added, I think a "one size fits all" approach to fitness is probably over simplifying. You know, I really liked Mr. Karas' book until I got to the part where he mentioned (p.156) a woman who had restricted her calories to 1000 per day and lost ten pounds. A good percentage of muscle I am betting. To me, that is just way too low. I think that's what an average four year old should have. With that one little sentence there he kind of blew himself out of the water with me. I don't see how any "personal trainer" could advocate such a restrictive diet and think a client would gain muscle simultaneously. I have to wonder how much the lady weighs, now. But bascially, his calories in vs. calories out philosphy makes good sense. Seriously though, I just HATE calorie counting and food diary business. I do much better with portion control and counting portions.

Good question to Maribeth/Annette: What would be the minimum amount of cardio needed to maintain cardiovascular fitness? Will that vary by individual too? (Of course I know I will;-))

Julie
 
Amadeus,
Are you sure you're comparing "resting heart rates" with "resting heart rates." The true resting heart rate is one taken when you wake up in the morning (preferably on your own, as the sound of the alarm can raise your heart rate. You can also lie down for 20 minutes or so, then take the rate). There is also another heart rate (the "ambient heart rate" maybe? I forgot what it's called) which is your heart rate while you are lounging around. Last time I checked, my resting rate was around 50, and my ambient (or whatever) was around 65.
 
Hey Julie,
Minimum amount of cardio training for health benefits is 15-20 minutes at 60-85% MHR three times a week. Minimum amount of cardio needed to maintain a specific level of cardiovascular fitness will depend on what that level is.

1000 calories per day is low. You're most likely correct when you bet that the woman lost muscle on that. Unless she was doing nothing and has a resting metabolic rate below 1000 calories (unlikely), that kind of restriction is counterproductive.

You wouldn't be shocked at seeing a personal trainer recommend a ridiculously restrictive program such as the one you mentioned if you'd seen some of the "fitness professionals" I've seen--there is a desperate need for licensure and standardization in this industry. CBS News did a very good "Eye on America" expose tonight--all about how there is no regulation whatsoever of "certified" fitness personnel.

Until that day comes--and I'm lobbying my buns off for this--it's most definitely a buyer beware market.
Maribeth
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Our Newsletter

Get awesome content delivered straight to your inbox.

Top