Thanks for taking the time to explain your point of view. I made a few comments.
[quote]Dave Rogerson wrote:
I can see myself opening up a can of worms here lol! but steady state cardio IMHO is overated and can be detrimental to strength focused lifters / athletes especially if performed for a significant period of time. Im not saying that in all circumstances steady state work should be contraindicated but when strength and power performance is of the greated importance then there are better more specific options. My reasons?
well there are two main reasons I suppose:
- metabolic cost - the metabolic cost of these activities is low. Therefore the actual energetic cost of this type of activity is pretty small. [/quote]
I would say if you can burn about 10 calories a minute that is not a small cost. Do that for 500 calories at a time, 5-10 times per week and it is pretty significant. The whole population may not have that time but athletes often would. Cardio at this intensity should have a negligible effect on strength.
[quote]Dave Rogerson wrote:
2) Specificity - if your goal is maximal strength then why train like an endurance athlete? Subjecting your body to stimuli not specific to your athletic goals may lead to undesirable adaptations. [/quote]
You are simply using the exercise to burn calories. I love the principle of specificity but in this case you are taking care of that through your actual training. If you try to do weight loss through methods that focus on max strength I think that those activities, combined with a lot of regular strength training, combined with a diet, could lead to a lot of muscle loss.
[quote]Dave Rogerson wrote:
My main argument in this case relates to Alwyn Cosgrove’s point about efficiency (see the article by T.C). Efficiency is the ratio of mechanical work and metabolic cost. Essentially anaerobic sports are grossly inefficient / uneconomical (in a metabolic/ energetic sense!). Steady state ‘aerobic’ exercise is however efficient - the work performed is comfortably fuelled by the aerobic energy systems - its economical therefore activity can be sustained for longer periods of time at a low metabolic cost (hence why EPOC is low).
Alwyn makes the point that by training in this way (think of specificity principle at this time!) you essentially train yourself to become more efficient at conserving energy so that you can sustain activity for greater periods of time. This isnt really conducive to maintaining a high metabolic rate (a high metabolic rate if we remember the definition is indicative of inefficiency!!) and therefore weight loss.
Its my opinion that when someone wishes to cut weight and maximise metabolc rate then you essentially need to train yourself to be as inefficient at conserving energy as possible. Therefore any activity that creates a high level of EPOC (which means that the energetic demands of the exercise were not met!) would be a wiser choice.
Steady state cardio does have its uses eg: active recovery. However it may not be optimal for weight management purposes
[/quote]
I guess there are a few things to consider here. Exercise economy would be increased by practicing something regularly, however most people are already efficient at walking and I don’t think extra walking will improve that too much. It is conceivable the metabolism could slow down by doing nothing but cardio to get more “efficient” but I haven’t seen too many studies to support that and even if that is the case, again the person’s regular strength training program will more than compensate for that. Also remember that as you do cardio you will burn a higher percentage of fat all the time as your body becomes more “efficient” by burning more fat and saving glucose.
I think about it in terms of the energy systems. In the oxidative system you can burn fat, carbs, and protein. Keep the intensity light to moderate and the chance of burning protein is small and you burn a reasonable amount of fat. Use any energy system other than the oxidative to lose weight and you start burning glucose (ignoring CP system). To this person glucose/glycogen is already precious, they are doing intense strength training and on a diet, probably with reduced carbs. If you don’t have glucose but need it you break down protein and thus may well have muscle loss. To me that is why steady state cardio is great for people in this situation (conserving muscle, losing weight, training hard with weights) because you can get a reasonable gain with little loss.
Thanks again for elaborating on your points. I don’t think we are really that far off from each other in most respects.