Strength vs Endurance: Why are you wasting your time in the gym? Strength vs Endurance: Why are you wasting your time in the gym? - Page 3

starting strength gym
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 28 of 28

Thread: Strength vs Endurance: Why are you wasting your time in the gym?

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Grand Rapids, Michigan
    Posts
    149

    Default

    • wichita falls texas march seminar date
    • woodmere new york april seminar date
    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Baraki View Post
    Though not the specific paper you are referring to, this is one that Jordan and I came across showing similar effects to what you describe. Increased stiffness w/ RT versus aerobic exercise, but RT increased vasodilatory capacity to a greater extent than aerobic exercise. Of course, this is still not looking at important clinical endpoints.

    https://www.nature.com/jhh/journal/v...jhh200836a.pdf
    Yeah, here's something similar: Effect of unilateral resistance training on arterial compliance in elderly men. - PubMed - NCBI

    We saw localized vasodilation in trained limbs using the IHG therapy I mentioned before, but an overall effect was a reduction in blood pressure. My question is (probably poorly framed) so if we see no change or increase in stiffness but improvement in vasodilation, endothelial function, and increased peripheral vascular function--i.e. return to healthy levels of BP and/or normal biological markers in the endothelium--what's then is the problem? Couldn't arterial stiffness simply be a systemic response to the increased dynamic pressure induced during RT? An adaptation necessary to accommodate the stress?

    Lastly, in know the studies below are results of isometric contractions for a hand-grip protocol, but I would imagine that there is significant isometric work being done during heavy RT with barbells.

    Here are some of the articles (a few after I quit working for this company):

    Isometric handgrip training improves local flow-mediated dilation in medicated hypertensives. - PubMed - NCBI

    Effects of isometric handgrip training among people medicated for hypertension: a multilevel analysis. - PubMed - NCBI

    Acute vascular responses to isometric handgrip exercise and effects of training in persons medicated for hypertension. - PubMed - NCBI

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22260503

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24174307

    (This one is just here for laughs): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17999012

    And these as interest:

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15849230

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15677730

    http://hyper.ahajournals.org/content/59/4/e35

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Farmington Hills, MI
    Posts
    4,596

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by slhuckstead View Post
    We saw localized vasodilation in trained limbs using the IHG therapy I mentioned before, but an overall effect was a reduction in blood pressure. My question is (probably poorly framed) so if we see no change or increase in stiffness but improvement in vasodilation, endothelial function, and increased peripheral vascular function--i.e. return to healthy levels of BP and/or normal biological markers in the endothelium--what's then is the problem? Couldn't arterial stiffness simply be a systemic response to the increased dynamic pressure induced during RT? An adaptation necessary to accommodate the stress?
    Why didn't I think of that?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jonathon Sullivan View Post
    And so on. You see, the interpretation and significance of any particular biomarker depends heavily on context, and many can be markers for both health or disease, depending on that context. (Have you ever considered that the slight decreases in arterial compliance reported in the literature might be a salutary adaptation to resistance training, even though it's unhealthy in sedentary or diseased populations?)

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Reviving this thread since the new "study" I've just read the abstract of concludes that "endurance" training appears to be better for metabolic, and consequently cardiovascular, health, than lifting heavy weights. I'd be interested to see the experts on this forum comment upon (and maybe identify the weaknesses of) this study:
    Associations of Aerobic Fitness and Maximal Muscular Strength With Metabolites in Young Men | Cardiology | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

    Full disclosure, it was the New York Times that drew my attention to the study.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Chandler, AZ
    Posts
    739

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amy-in-PHX View Post
    Reviving this thread since the new "study" I've just read the abstract of concludes that "endurance" training appears to be better for metabolic, and consequently cardiovascular, health, than lifting heavy weights. I'd be interested to see the experts on this forum comment upon (and maybe identify the weaknesses of) this study:
    Associations of Aerobic Fitness and Maximal Muscular Strength With Metabolites in Young Men | Cardiology | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

    Full disclosure, it was the New York Times that drew my attention to the study.
    How do they define and measure 'muscular strength'?

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ
    Posts
    178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RJPinAZ View Post
    How do they define and measure 'muscular strength'?
    "The maximal isometric leg extension was measured using a dynamometer, as a test of maximal strength.29 The repeatability has been reported to be high in maximal isometric strength tests (r, 0.98; coefficient of variation, 4.1%).30 Additional details are presented in eAppendix 1 in the Supplement."

    BTW, it also seems likely that there would be significant overlap between people with high muscular strength and people with high aerobic fitness. I'm not good enough at reading this kind of study to tell how they tried to separate out these factors, but their conclusion seems to be that aerobic fitness is "better," somehow, at optimizing the various markers in blood that are believed to impact cardiovascular health.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amy-in-PHX View Post
    Reviving this thread since the new "study" I've just read the abstract of concludes that "endurance" training appears to be better for metabolic, and consequently cardiovascular, health, than lifting heavy weights. I'd be interested to see the experts on this forum comment upon (and maybe identify the weaknesses of) this study:
    Associations of Aerobic Fitness and Maximal Muscular Strength With Metabolites in Young Men | Cardiology | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

    Full disclosure, it was the New York Times that drew my attention to the study.
    (I didn't read the study)
    That part I high-lighted above almost reads "cardio training is better for cardio". Which is kind of a no brainer.
    I hope this study didn't cost someone a lot of money to run.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    1,045

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Amy-in-PHX View Post
    Reviving this thread since the new "study" I've just read the abstract of concludes that "endurance" training appears to be better for metabolic, and consequently cardiovascular, health, than lifting heavy weights. I'd be interested to see the experts on this forum comment upon (and maybe identify the weaknesses of) this study:
    Associations of Aerobic Fitness and Maximal Muscular Strength With Metabolites in Young Men | Cardiology | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network

    Full disclosure, it was the New York Times that drew my attention to the study.
    This study reflects much of what is wrong with medical science in general, and exercise and nutritional science to an even greater degree. The majority of the motivation to move a paper to publication comes from two groups:
    1. Career research scientists with faculty appointments. They need to publish or perish, to get the next grant, make tenure, or otherwise advance or survive in the cutthroat world of academia. 2. A mixture of post-docs, PHD students, undergrad students padding their resumes, for graduate school, medical students padding their resumes for residency application, resident physicians meeting their institutional requirement to publish before graduation, and resident physicians padding their resumes for fellowship application and academic careers. Note that the longest time horizon most of the first group can tolerate is 7 years, with most needing to get something accepted for publication much sooner than that. The second group has a maximal time frame of about 4 years, most more like 1-2 years.

    Contrast this to the time needed to collect meaningful cardiac outcomes for lifestyle interventions, which in a college age population is 4-7 decades, or approximately 20 times longer than the average researcher can afford to wait for definitive results. The collision of these two realities results in health science by proxy: "since we cannot actually measure cardiac outcomes in healthy populations and also continue to eat/pay the mortgage/save for retirement/reach the next stage in our chosen careers, we will instead measure lab values in healthy populations which are known to correlate with cardiac disease in sick populations". The problem is that no one knows what those values mean in healthy populations. Fortunately all serious research departments have a statistician, so the paper can be filled with p-values and r-squared coefficients showing that the finding is significant.

    There are minor quibbles I could raise with confounding variables which were not uniform between groups. but the more important issue is that the study did not actually measure anything of proven clinical significance in the study population.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Posts
    49

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Rip and Sully (and others) -

    Ripís excellent 2017 article linked at the beginning of this conversation includes the phrase ďassuming you are not a heart patientĒ.

    My question is, if I AM a 51 yo heart patient (my cardiac calcium test showed plaque; when unmediated my blood pressure is roughly 160/110; family cardiac history; etc) would your recommendations change?

    FWIW, I lift 3x/week, do cardio 2-3x/week, and see my cardiologist 2x/year. 5í9Ē, 195 lbs. I donít much enjoy cardio but Iíll do as much as necessary to fend off death.

    Thanks in advance.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •