On the polarisation of cardio and strength.

[L.Stokes]

I like lifting heavy stuff from one position to another. It makes me feel like i've accomoplished something non-trivial and sets a good precedent for my day and my life in general. I also, "enjoy" - in the nihilistic, self-flagellating way, "cardio". And by cardio i'm not refering to repetitive slow running on a treadmill whilst watching CNN news. That's simply
deserves to be called fast paced walking on a treadmill watching CNN news, not cardio. Granted, to the vast majority of people, cardio,in the sense of exercise, means a 30 minute run, walk, swim or cycle. (Yes I know that list isn't exhaustive but thats largely irrelevant.) Probably the best explanation of Cardio that I can provide is that what makes you feel like your heart and lungs are going to explode; excluding ridiculous scenarios like being locked in a pressure chamber. Of course, if we're going to look at it from the scientific perspective, weightlifting is a form of cardio - the act of lifting the weight will improve my body's v02 max and stuff (I don't know actaully know enough of the science behind it and won't pretend I do, so i'll use that brilliant word "stuff" which seems to encompass everything).


Crossfit provides a good explanation of metabolic conditioning - improving the three metabolic pathways that provide energy for all of our actions, (Phosphagen, Glycolytic and Oxidative). I'm digressing from my point largely here. In fact I haven't even provided a direction in this musing, so i'll start now. I find weightlifting more enjoyable than cardio, and, for a lack of a better word, "easier". Not "easier" in the sense that elementary maths is "easier" than transposing matrices, but "easier" in the sense that I don't think "OH fuck, today I have bench press". I do think "Oh, fuck, today I have to do Fran, Cindy, someother crossfit WOD or an erg (I haven't erged for ages, because I hate them). The only weight lifting circuit that comes close, for me at least, is 20 rep squats. Maybe I just haven't discovered a hard enough program. Maybe i'm just a pussy with the weights (that being said, I have a 330 squat/270 bench/455 deadlift (all raw) at 18 years old and 165, so whilst I'm not amazing, i'm not terribly poor either). For me, though, if i'm doing heavy deadlifts, say, I either lift the weight up, or I don't. Yeah, I struggle, but it's not like the outcome is based on your mental fortitude. It's based on your strength. That's it. I suppose it's analogous to a 100 meter sprinter versus a 400 meter sprinter. a 9.xx second 100 meter time is just as impressive as a 41.xx 400 meter time, however, i'd much rather run 100 meters and i'm sure most people would, too. 400 meters is, quite simply, more painful.

It seems, though, that cardio/metcon (especially LSD, many of the arguments against which I agree with myself) is being "put-aside" in favour of weights. My thoughts are simply whether this is simply because lifting weights is "easier" in the way that 100 meters is easier than 400 meters, in which case I think people are just being pussy's (well, those who are simply adopting an all round fitness program), or is strength that much more important that it can be solely focused on instead of cardio/metabolic
conditiong. This question isn't (for obvious reasons) targetted at those competing in one particular sport for which their training can be completely specialised.

It was doing a run of cindy (a crossfit workout involving as many rounds as possible of 5 pullups/10 pushups/15 squats in 20 minutes) that this came to my mind. It was a much harder workout than one of my strength based regimens (i'm on a westside style conjugate method at the moment), except for, perhaps, 20 rep squats.

I'd just like yours (and other peoples if they'd like to contribute) thoughts on this, Mark.

Thanks.

PS - my knee has healed. Time is a good doctor.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Well, that's a long post about a bunch of rather ambiguous shit. I don't like LSD, metcon is useful, hard in a different way than heavy 5s. Both are hard. But I'm not really sure about your question, so you guys get busy.

[MAD9692]

ummm....what?

[Polynomial]

I didn't read the block of text that is the original post, but I will say that after doing strength training stuff for two years (no cardio), I managed to chase my girlfriend for 3 miles without stopping. The pace was pretty decent, too. And man was my back stiff the whole time - all those deadlifts caused my posture to be amazing, and I couldn't slouch forward even if I tried.

When I started to research the issue of cardio a bit more, I came across Lyle saying that doing a bit of LSD (say, 20-30 mins) once in a while might be good to keep the oxidative mechanism functioning well.

[theuofh]

I agree with the original poster, but it may be a matter of training/athletic history. I personally enjoy lifting weights, and heavy sets of 5 across don't seem too mentally challenging for me. They can be physically tough, but I enjoy doing them.

Metcons, Hard Sprint/Rower intervals, or any intense "cardio", at a level about LSD, where you really have to push yourself into another realm of physical suffering, I find more difficult and require more mental effort to get through.

[MTJ]

I think I know what you're saying.

The way I would describe it would be in terms of continuous effort. Running a 10K takes focus and determination for every stride. A heavy lifting routine only requires bursts of active effort, with a much shorter total duration.

Cardio is a very mental workout. Which has its own merits in my opinion...

[Andy Baker (KSC)]

Generally this board is reserved for specific questions or commentary on specific subjects that you feel may enlighten other readers or promote productive discussion. Streams of consciousness on subjects that have been thoroughly exhausted are generally discouraged. You might get a better answer if you ask an actual question.

Your method of training should be based on your performance goals, not what is hard. Running 10 miles is hard, but it won't make you a better lifter.

[L.Stokes]

Sorry guys, I had about 10 minutes to right down my train of thought on the page before a lecture, so the quality of communication was generally dire. I probably should have waited till after the lecture and made the post more coherent.

Basically, it seems to me that strength training is considered "better" than cardio, the arguments for which I agree with. Starting strength does begin by stating that "physical strength is the most important thing in life". Despite this, however, my experience of training yields that metcon is "harder" than strength training. I don't get nausea deadlifting, I regularly get it perfoming a crossfit style WOD. Only 20 rep squats comes close to the "mental pain" brought on by a crossfit WOD. Is strength both more functional to our lives AND more "pleasant" to train? If so, that seems to be a great expediency. I mean I focus on strength for the large part of my training, throwing in the more strength based crossfit WODs for variety here and there (I did "the bear complex" earlier today). I just can't help but think that the "difficulty" must indicate the efficacy of that modality of training.

This is probably a retarded question, and i'm aware of that. It's just a thought i've been having. I'm not gonna turn to cardio or dismiss strength training, obviously. I'm just interested why it seems "easier" AND is more functional to life. I suppose it could make sense in that evolution didn't want us to be burning calories doing repetitive tasks over and over for the sake of doing repetitive tasks over and over; only sufficient calories to catch something and kill it, or alternatively run from something and not be killed.

[Mark Rippetoe]

Basically, it seems to me that strength training is considered "better" than cardio, the arguments for which I agree with. Starting strength does begin by stating that "physical strength is the most important thing in life". Despite this, however, my experience of training yields that metcon is "harder" than strength training.

I guess that depends on who you talk to. The medical community, with few exceptions, regards "cardio" i.e., long slow distance, as the only form of exercise. Metcon can indeed be hard, as can strength training, and you would know more about the relative difficulty of the two had you been a competitive powerlifter for many years. My personal experience is that both can suck porno-sized cock if they are approached with sufficient intensity. I would also observe that the intensity at with this occurs is more accessible to more people doing metcon than strength training, since the level of training advancement required to evoke this intensity is relatively low for metcon and quite high for strength training. This means that more people will have had the experience of puking after their version of "Fran" than will have had the pleasure of making the decision between blowing their head off or getting under that PR set of 10 squats at 455.

[Bolla]

Wonderful symmetry of views between LSD / ST communities:

LSD Community (e.g. forum at coolrunning.com):

Summarized:

- LSD gives tremendous conditioning benefits
- systematic LSD ensures rapid endurance progress for a long time
- LSD i slow for one reason only; it is the only way your body can cope with ever increasing volumes of end. training

Typical LSD recommendation: Lots of LSD, some high intensity end. training, very limited strength training (and then with low %RM, many reps)

Strength Training Community (e.g. strengthmill forum):

Summarized:

- ST gives tremendous conditioning benefits
- systematic ST ensures rapid strength progress for a long time
- ST with low reps for one reason only; it is the only way your body can cope with ever increasing weights

Typical ST recommendation: Lots of ST, possibly a little high intensity end. training, very limited LSD (and then avoid long workouts)

See any similarities ?

To avoid recognition in either camp I am going to walk the unthrodden path and combine ST and LSD, basta !