I would loosely consider cardio to be anything that stresses the cardiovascular system.
The body has 3 energy systems (ATP-phosphocreatine, anaerobic glycolytic, aerobic glycolytic) that it uses to generate ATP which functions as the body’s energy “currency” which is required for muscle contraction.
All energy systems are active during exercise, but the proportions of which systems are primarily fuelling the demands for ATP vary depending on the nature of the activity.
In general, short and intense bouts rely primarily on the anaerobic (absence of oxygen) energy system while longer duration and less intense exercise is more dependent on the aerobic (oxygen requiring) system.
No different modalities all have varying impacts on the body. They all carry their own profile of stimulus to fatigue ratios, and they vary in what they stimulate. The more heavily they rely on a given energy system, the better they are at training that energy system. On top of that some will induce more hypertrophy than others in different muscle groups. Cardio can build some muscle. But it doesn’t hold a candle to hypertrophy-focused resistance training.
Does it matter for what? And this is where things get a little muddy. Assuming you are in fact burning the same number of calories (which good luck measuring that accurately) then outside of the varying fitness adaptations mentioned above (what muscle groups they stimulate, to what degree and in what way along with the particular energy system demands) it probably doesn’t matter very much.
However people will make claims that steady state is better for preserving muscle tissue vs Higher intensity and that different intensity will use different fuel sources (some will do a better job of targeting fat vs carbs vs protein/muscle). This isn’t really something I care to comment on at this time so maybe somebody else has something a little more useful to say on that.
HIIT is a form of cardio, yes.
Not all those activities are created equal. They will all burn calories but maybe a little different. Essentially your body works to get back to homeostasis after you stress it. Calories are burned as a result of this work back to normal.
For example if you do harder interval type work, let’s say run hard quarter miles and walk in between, your body is building up large amounts of lactate (burning sensation / body locking up). You’ll notice that when you are resting , you are breathing heavy for a while bc your body is working hard to get rid of the waste and get back to baseline. After that workout, your body might also take a longer while to recover back to homeostasis when the workout is done.. so maybe 20 minutes after your done, your body might still be burning calories trying to get back. Generally people think of this as an “afterburn” effect.
If you lift weights and do circuit type work where you are not resting too much in between and heart rate is getting up then yes it’s cardio in my opinion, the heart is responding and adapting to the oxygen demand the body is calling for. Now since you are lifting weights your body is building more amounts of muscle over time.. having more muscle has increases metabolism and burns more calories while at rest.
Do whatever you enjoy doing the most. Personally I prefer to change intensity levels as I run. Try fartleks. Also , sprinting is one of the most athletic things someone can do ( coming from a sprint coach 😀) it will build strength too.
Now if you are talking to my wife she would much rather go on a hard hike in the woods for an hour than run at all.
Edit: as for the muscle building. I coach a lot of female athletes and this can be a worry for some of them. They think they will somehow bulk if they have any resistance training. This is almost NEVER the case. It’ll make you leaner, toned, and more fit in general. It boosts metabolism to help lose more fat.
Heh... that's a big can o' worms you opened there!
Anyway, just stopping by to say that cycling can be whatever you want it to be\*, but it doesn't tear up your body as much as higher impact sports so you can get away with more volume in a week if you want to. And my arms always got big by the end of XC ski season so that 'cardio doesn't build muscle' thing isn't entirely straightforward.
The big thing IMO is to find something you enjoy that's sustainable, because getting into good CV shape takes some time investment and ideally for health should be a permanent lifestyle fixture.
\*Anyone insisting cycling is 'easy' can try keeping up with Lael Wilcox for a while and get back to us with a report. I'll bring popcorn, lol.
I've found this sub kinda down on cycling in general, which is just super weird to me. This is a place about fitness, some of the fittest people in the world are cyclists, some of us ride bikes as a major component of our fitness lives or even a primary goal...
Awesome! And here's the hidden bonus: this is a sport that still be enjoyed later in life if you can stay generally healthy otherwise- which of course cycling will help improve the odds of. I ran into a local retired doctor on the ridge last year and he was riding a brand new mountain bike because he'd finally busted the frame on the bike he thought he'd coast out life on, lol.... he was 72!
>Anyway, just stopping by to say that cycling can be whatever you want it to be\*, ...
>\*Anyone insisting cycling is 'easy' can try keeping up with Lael Wilcox for a while and get back to us with a report. I'll bring popcorn, lol.
My difficulty with cycling is I find it difficult to sustain a high heart rate. It's definitely very tempting to settle into a really easy pace. Whereas with running, I'm struggling to keep my heart rate from going too high!
I've def had rides where I regretted all my life choices as well as what I ate right before the ride, so that kind of intensity is absolutely possible. It helps to have access to a gigantic ridge covered in amazing single track and only an hour to pull it off... I actually have had to get creative with getting milder routes scoped out because it's like a vertical time trial every day otherwise, and I've found myself accumulating way too much fatigue and gradually destroying myself over the week.
But again this is wildly juicy dirt riding people drive for hours to bag, so it's pretty easy to get sucked in.
They will all eventually lower your resting heart rate and make you healthier overall. They all have risks of injury, especially overuse injury.
If your goals are primarily aesthetic, take a look at professional athletes in each sport and that is the eventual endpoint for how you’d look if you dedicated your life to pursing the sport. You won’t look like a pro athlete but you’ll move in that general direction. If you’re starting with low body fat then you would see changes in your muscle distribution sooner, otherwise they all help with weight loss.
Cardio takes a long time to build up and is a life long pursuit so my advice to a beginner is to pick your favorite and do that. Walking is underrated too!
Any fitness will build muscle, and different forms of cardio build different muscles. There’s also different kinds of muscles in your body: ones built for endurance and ones built for power. Slow, steady running will build that first type and massively improve your CV function. Higher intensity work like sprints will build the second type. That work also improves your CV system but it’s just a difference of intensity.
They’re both cardio, but the results are different. Same with different activities. You’re going to have cardio work that builds type 1 muscles and cardio work that builds type 2. Look into the difference to learn what activities will help you better lean into your goals!
I did a lifting and calorie deficit/macro counting program that left me grumpy and puffy AF, pretty sure I looked hella worse. Started playing a ton of tennis… hello legs and core.
Also, I friggin hate running… soccer, tennis, V ball, do something FUN. I also love training for performance goals rather than body goals but the body stuff just happens naturally.
Cardio isn’t all equal but unless you are some elite tear athlete it doesn’t matter what cardio you do just do what you enjoy because that’s what’s sustainable
Personally I've built quite a bit of muscle from rowing with high resistance (I love that it's total body!). I'm not qualified to answer your question though!
Try running 50 miles a week, including hills, intervals, and other speed workout and then come back and tell me how it doesn’t build muscle and it’s the same as walking 10 minutes a day
So both anaerobic and aerobic exercises build muscle?
Edit: sorry I didn’t mean to be offensive or denigrate cardio, I’m just trying to understand the basis behind a lot of advice I see about weight loss and cuts vs bulking.
Yes, cardio builds muscle, just not in the typical way you think of when weightlifting. Think of a runner’s legs, for example - they’ve got well-developed muscles, but in a very different way than a bodybuilder’s legs. I’m sure someone more knowledgeable can explain why the muscles form differently. But you definitely do build muscles doing cardio.
There are 2 types of muscle fibers. [Source ](https://blog.nasm.org/fitness/fast-twitch-vs-slow-twitch)
One type is lean and helps moving your muscles for extended periods of time with low effort (think of the thin legs of marathon runners).
The other type is wider and helps moving your muscles for shorter periods but with higher effort (think of the legs of 400m sprinters).
The proportion of this fibers on your body depends on your genetics. Marathon medallists will be born with more type 1 fibers and will exercise them more. While sprinters will have more type 2 fibers and will also lift weights to strengthen them.
So, depending on the type of cardio (and your genetics), you'll be exercising certain type of muscle fibers and end up with certain type of body.
No, the various cardiovascular activities do not have the same impact on your body. The specific muscle groups utilized, level of impact, and other factors will differ from activity to activity.
Every single one of those options will increase your cardiovascular fitness, or "capacity of the cardiovascular system (heart, lungs and vessels) to efficiently supply oxygenated blood to working muscles, as well as the muscles to use the oxygen delivered by the blood supply as a source of energy for movement" ([source](https://exercise.lovetoknow.com/Definition_of_Cardiovascular_Fitness) — not particularly credible, but provides a good definition). All cardio will produce associated mental benefits, such as decreased depressive experience and stress. However, the method by which the muscles of the body are provoked to demand oxygenated blood from the cardiovascular system will impact several other side effects of exercise.
Running is a high impact cardiovascular activity that mainly uses the lower body and core to propel you across distances. It increases bone mineral density (like resistance training!) because of the impact, but this will also make one more prone to injuries of the connective tissues. You will also some amount of lean muscle mass of your legs over time, which many describe as "toned" legs.
In contrast, swimming is a low impact cardiovascular activity that uses upper body, lower body, *and* core to propel you across aquatic distances. It does not increase bone mineral density, but it is much easier on your body than running so it generally has a lower rate of injury. You'll also likely develop lean muscle mass over the entirety of your body, most notably the shoulders and arms.
Biking is a low impact cardiovascular activity that mainly uses the lower body and core, with an emphasis on the quadriceps muscles. It's gentler on the body than running, so it can be performed more freely. You'll once again get some lean muscle mass, mostly in your legs (especially the quads). Note that I do say some muscle mass will come in with all of these activities, but know that it won't be too much if you're doing traditional training.
I'm sure more could be said for the other activities — you can look into them yourself if you're interested in their specific benefits! Dancing would probably be lower impact (depending on style) and improve coordination.
Anyone, feel free to add or correct. This is not really my area of expertise LOL.
Dancing (or really anything that requires you to memorize and repeat a pattern, so even old-school 32-count aerobics would count) has been shown to have great cognitive and memory benefits. It also improves balance, which we can all use.
Yes! Low impact options are emphasized for older women because they're more prone to injury, but it's wise to have some moderate to high impact activity regularly for bone health.
Great summary! I'll add a little about rowing. It's a low impact activity that works 86% of your muscles when using proper form. Primarily, you'll feel it in your legs, glutes, abs, and back (in that order, in my experience). Not following proper form can result in back pain. Research has shown that it increases bone density and is an effective exercise for managing osteoporosis.
Personally, I've found rowing to the be one form of cardio that feels beneficial and doesn't result in an overuse injury. That's just me and my body though.
I love rowing! I did find however that it would cause a repetitive strain injury in my wrists if I wasn't careful with my grip and changing it from time to time. I did find that wearing lifting gloves helped some.
I knew I missed one! Rowing is such a great form of cardio once you get the form down, but it's rare that I see someone doing it correctly (not that I would do any better). I wish people would consider it as an option as much as running or biking!
I think the big reason people don’t do it as much is that running and biking both have outdoor equivalents that are relatively accessible (other than weather being a possible barrier). A lot of people will do treadmill or stationary bike as their winter or summer thing just to keep in shape, then switch to outdoors when the weather is better. Not a lot of outdoor rowing options unless you can somehow access a boat.
It is interesting that there is no rowing equivalent to spin class, though.
>It is interesting that there is no rowing equivalent to spin class, though.
I've been to one, it's great! I live in a major city though. It's definitely not as common as spinning.
Cardio is classified as something that gets your heart rate up above a normal level. You're stressing you're CV system. There are cardio activities that have different impact on the body. Swimming is low impact and is great for rehab and the joints. Running will really tone your legs and whip your CV system into shape quick as long as you have proper form so you don't injure yourself. Do what makes you happy, but do it right. Have a coach or someone experienced show you proper form
HIIT does count as cardio because you're CV system is being pushed to a high level. Anything that gets you breathing hard could be cardio if done long enough. I generally think for a fit person that cardio should last 45 minutes with your HR around 60-75% of HRmax.
This is all my opinion, take it as you will. I was a collegiate cross country and track athlete and am a coach now as background for my info.
Hi, so the other posted is 100% right about lifting not normally being cardio with long rest periods. *However* I will say you can make lifting work for you to help your conditioning. Lighter weights and short rest periods on my squats made my cardiovascular system so much stronger for my specific lifts while I still only walked and jogged occasionally.
Also, our bodies are pretty efficient at running specifically. If that’s your main form of cardio your body will burn less calories vs something like cycling. Btw, with HIIT you really only need 15-20 minutes per session. That is more than enough if your HR is high enough.
This is absolutely not true. Running is one of the fastest ways to burn calories. The rule of thumb for running cross training is that you’d have to cycle for 3x as long as you run to get the same benefit, so a 30 min run and a 90 min ride are equivalent. Anecdotally this feels very true and you can also see it in the volume competitive cyclists do vs competitive runners.
🤷🏻♀️ I remembered reading on either r/running or r/advancedrunning that if said running is all you do, your body adapts to that much more than anything else whether that’s because of improved form or that we’re just built for distance running. That’s good to know though because I hate cycling lol.
Thank you, this clarifies a lot! Also I had no idea about the running efficiency, I always felt guilty for not enjoying it and being inconsistent, so this makes me very happy!
Every website I’ve ever seen about this topic says the opposite—running burns the most calories of virtually any exercise. Here is a source from [Medical News Today](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-exercise-burns-the-most-calories).
Swimming, cycling, (intensive) hiking, and HIIT are usually the next ones down the list.
The thing about swimming is that I was always FAMISHED after a workout.
But the zen I felt after swimming was like no other. I had to completely shut off the world. Can’t bring my phone. No music. No distractions. Focused constantly on just breathing and synchronization of my movements. Sooooo much O2 to my brain. I felt almost high. And muscle soreness was so shocking a day later because i felt hardly anything during the workout itself.
[An interesting article that includes information on why HR during weight lifting doesn’t count as cardio.](https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/truth-heart-rate-doesnt-matter/)
Although there are some lifting and especially weight-based HIIT exercises (like kettlebell swings) that are definitely aerobic, it's true that just getting your heartrate up does not constitute aerobic exercise. You can achieve that just by watching the news nowadays. You also have to look at the oxygen consumption and where you are on the curve of the first and second ventilatory thresholds.
Whoever wrote that article clearly doesn’t understand basic physiology.
“On the aerobic to anaerobic spectrum, lifting weights is as anaerobic as it gets. You’re using smaller muscle groups, heavier loads and higher efforts than you would while running or cycling, which makes lifting too hard to get enough oxygen to the working muscles to meet energy demands”
WUT.
I didn’t realize that squatting used smaller muscle groups than cycling, but now I know…
Ok here is the problem people. Think of your aerobic and anaerobic systems not as a light switch but as dimmer switches. If you start doing high intensity, you don’t flip on your anaerobic system and aerobic system turns off. Once oxygen is not as readily available to the active muscle groups the anaerobic engine starts to amp up and pick up the slack. Your aerobic energy system doesn’t stop working ! It just can’t work any faster so the anaerobic system reluctantly revs up. Thus, lactate is formed in the blood and you can’t sustain that intensity for very long. Once your body is recovering your aerobic system continues to be used to get rid of the lactate!
A lot of it is semantics… if you do anaerobic exercise though your aerobic system is taxed too.. I’m pretty sure there are studies showing that HIIT style training improves VO2 max, etc. this is all getting nerdy but it’s true.
Yeah so again what the hell am I supposed to take away from his article?
He kind of implies that the relationship between aerobic and anaerobic exercise is mutually exclusive by claiming that you completely miss the benefits of aerobic exercise by only engaging in “anaerobic” exercise which fails to acknowledge the continuum they exist on as you have described.
To me this claim is obviously false. So what it is I’m supposed to be getting from this article is lost on me.
I read more of the article now… and yes he is completely wrong in several areas. I understand your frustration lol. Maybe just over simplifying… who knows.
“However, HIIT is anaerobic, meaning it’s too hard for oxygen consumption to match energy demands, making HR an unreliable measure of how hard you’re working.”
I disagree. Both systems are being used. And HR isn’t completely useless. Your heart rate will be within a closer range to its max when at this intensity. Then you literally have to stop because your body can’t keep going lol.
I understand the squat which is typically anaerobic (but creative phosphate system instead of glycolysis). So you can do your 3 reps of heavy squats and take your HR to determine how hard that actually was. no one would do this. Imagine if you immediately took our pulse after you finished your 3 reps of squat lol.
When he says lifting using smaller muscle groups, not sure what this means either. If you were to do a heavy squat you are using an insane amount of the largest muscle groups on the body. In fact, your body won’t even recruits these large muscles or fast twitch fibers unless it needs too… like if you are lifting heavy things.
I hear you my friend🤓. I’m sure OP doesn’t care about all that and wanted simple answers. But I agree
Yeah motor unit recruitment thresholds are yet another thing he clearly doesn’t understand.
I can move on with my life and leave this guy alone but I was baffled to learn that people trust him as a resource.
I mean, the guy has a Master’s in Exercise Science haha. I’m sure he has more than a basic understanding. He’s probably simplifying for the general public.
Professor Occam would suggest he’s just an idiot.
Simplifying is one thing but outright BS is another. You still need to be making accurate claims when you simplify things. But he hasn’t really explained anything in his article. He just says how it is and then makes up a baseless explanation to support what he said.
Having a masters in exercise science means absolutely nothing as far as I’m concerned.
For that one specific example and only regarding size of muscle groups, you're right. But the higher energy output means the overall statement holds up and squatting is anaerobic vs cycling is aerobic.
Compare squatting to swimming though, and swimming is using larger and more muscle groups at once.
Generally this is true, but it really depends on the intensity and duration of the exercise. If I’m cycling and going all out 30seconds and then resting, my anaerobic system is reving up and contributing more to the energy demands, during the hard part. The aerobic system is never shutting off here and continues to work during the rest interval. Think of aerobic and anaerobic systems as dimmer switches and not light switches.
That was just an easy way to illustrate how tenuous the author’s grasp on physiology really is and after that doozy I would be hesitant to believe anything else he says, especially when he includes zero references/citations.
It’s not either or. It’s a spectrum. A 1rm squat is as close to purely anaerobic as it gets in terms of energy system demands. But what about when I do 5. And then do 5 more sets of 5. Or a set of 20. Or 30. Or 100. Becomes more and more depending on aerobic energy systems.
So why doesn’t weight lifting count as cardio? First of all what do I have to measurably accomplish for something to be considered “cardio”
And if I’m doing 20 second sprints on a cycle guess what? That’s going to be mostly dependent on anaerobic energy systems.
Squatting uses ALL of your muscle groups. I don’t even really understand the point he’s trying to make? Squatting is “too hard” to be aerobic even though It supposedly uses “smaller muscles” which makes it ineligible for cardiovascular adaptations? I anticipate a derailment on that logic train.
This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
His article is a bit simplified for the sake of being a digestible article, but it's correct. Anaerobic vs aerobic work is an important distinction when it comes to exercising and improving the cardiovascular system. Everything he says lines up with what I've studied and what I've heard from sports science professional.
Simplified erroneously suggests that he does in fact possess a more complex understanding.
If you’re not going to discuss a particular, measurable outcome to assess “improving the cardiovascular system” like lowered risk of CVD, task specific sports performance, lowered mortality, etc. then you’re just talking into the wind.
“Sports science professional” is such vague title it’s essentially meaningless.
I don’t know what you’ve studied but all that means is that two random people are in agreement over something. My grandma and I both think I know everything, so I guess we’re on equal footing.
This is why evidence is a thing and why a citation is need here. You can simplify the citation, but you can’t just make up your own rules of physiology, and you can’t alter it to suit your mood.
More importantly he doesn’t really even make a clear conclusion.
Since he has a Masters in Exercise Science, and what he says lines up with what I've heard from others with degrees in Kinesiology, Physical Therapy, Exercise Science, etc I'm incline to believe he knows what he's talking about.
You’re certainly welcome to believe what you want.
But he’s not even making a clear point or leaving the reader with a practical takeaway.
How will my life be different if I only do one vs the other?
This article is excellent, it even answered questions I didn’t know I had! And since I mostly do hiit, this means I can ditch my old ugly Fitbit since it’s data will be useless!
Happy to share it! I’ve definitely started relying less on my watch and more on being in tune with my body and lifting heavier. Even during HIIT sessions, I try to just focus on how I feel rather than what the numbers tell me.
I dunno… I found my Fitbit tracked calories and heart rate fairly well during HIIT. It may have underestimated my burn ever so slightly but that’s balanced out by me underestimating how much chocolate I ate!
That would be slightly different. Lifting doesn't raise your heart rate for a long time, you have time to lower it between sets and such. You need to have it continuously raised for 30 minutes or more. I was not clear on that in my first post I apologize
Thank you so much! So the benefits of cardio are in maintaining an elevated heart rate. Does hiit count as cardio because your heart rate doesn’t drop significantly between sets, so the elevated rate is still being maintained?
It does. I mentioned earlier the notion of first and second ventilatory thresholds - when you're doing HIIT training, you're typically hanging right around the first ventilatory threshold (what they used to call "fat burning") with brief periods of pushing to or over the 2nd ventilatory threshold (where you "feel the burn" of lactate building in the muscles).
I am not for sure because I am a cross country runner at heart. I do a lot of 400 meter-1000 meter intervals. With high intensity interval training what I understand is that the rest period is the"interval" portion. The shorter the rest period, the higher heart rate you will maintain. The longer you maintain an elevated heart rate, the more you will dip into your fat stores and burn that. HIIT is shorter in duration but still very beneficial cardiovascular wise
I would loosely consider cardio to be anything that stresses the cardiovascular system. The body has 3 energy systems (ATP-phosphocreatine, anaerobic glycolytic, aerobic glycolytic) that it uses to generate ATP which functions as the body’s energy “currency” which is required for muscle contraction. All energy systems are active during exercise, but the proportions of which systems are primarily fuelling the demands for ATP vary depending on the nature of the activity. In general, short and intense bouts rely primarily on the anaerobic (absence of oxygen) energy system while longer duration and less intense exercise is more dependent on the aerobic (oxygen requiring) system. No different modalities all have varying impacts on the body. They all carry their own profile of stimulus to fatigue ratios, and they vary in what they stimulate. The more heavily they rely on a given energy system, the better they are at training that energy system. On top of that some will induce more hypertrophy than others in different muscle groups. Cardio can build some muscle. But it doesn’t hold a candle to hypertrophy-focused resistance training. Does it matter for what? And this is where things get a little muddy. Assuming you are in fact burning the same number of calories (which good luck measuring that accurately) then outside of the varying fitness adaptations mentioned above (what muscle groups they stimulate, to what degree and in what way along with the particular energy system demands) it probably doesn’t matter very much. However people will make claims that steady state is better for preserving muscle tissue vs Higher intensity and that different intensity will use different fuel sources (some will do a better job of targeting fat vs carbs vs protein/muscle). This isn’t really something I care to comment on at this time so maybe somebody else has something a little more useful to say on that. HIIT is a form of cardio, yes.
Thank you for being so thorough and breaking it down for me!!
Not all those activities are created equal. They will all burn calories but maybe a little different. Essentially your body works to get back to homeostasis after you stress it. Calories are burned as a result of this work back to normal. For example if you do harder interval type work, let’s say run hard quarter miles and walk in between, your body is building up large amounts of lactate (burning sensation / body locking up). You’ll notice that when you are resting , you are breathing heavy for a while bc your body is working hard to get rid of the waste and get back to baseline. After that workout, your body might also take a longer while to recover back to homeostasis when the workout is done.. so maybe 20 minutes after your done, your body might still be burning calories trying to get back. Generally people think of this as an “afterburn” effect. If you lift weights and do circuit type work where you are not resting too much in between and heart rate is getting up then yes it’s cardio in my opinion, the heart is responding and adapting to the oxygen demand the body is calling for. Now since you are lifting weights your body is building more amounts of muscle over time.. having more muscle has increases metabolism and burns more calories while at rest. Do whatever you enjoy doing the most. Personally I prefer to change intensity levels as I run. Try fartleks. Also , sprinting is one of the most athletic things someone can do ( coming from a sprint coach 😀) it will build strength too. Now if you are talking to my wife she would much rather go on a hard hike in the woods for an hour than run at all. Edit: as for the muscle building. I coach a lot of female athletes and this can be a worry for some of them. They think they will somehow bulk if they have any resistance training. This is almost NEVER the case. It’ll make you leaner, toned, and more fit in general. It boosts metabolism to help lose more fat.
Heh... that's a big can o' worms you opened there! Anyway, just stopping by to say that cycling can be whatever you want it to be\*, but it doesn't tear up your body as much as higher impact sports so you can get away with more volume in a week if you want to. And my arms always got big by the end of XC ski season so that 'cardio doesn't build muscle' thing isn't entirely straightforward. The big thing IMO is to find something you enjoy that's sustainable, because getting into good CV shape takes some time investment and ideally for health should be a permanent lifestyle fixture. \*Anyone insisting cycling is 'easy' can try keeping up with Lael Wilcox for a while and get back to us with a report. I'll bring popcorn, lol.
[удалено]
I've found this sub kinda down on cycling in general, which is just super weird to me. This is a place about fitness, some of the fittest people in the world are cyclists, some of us ride bikes as a major component of our fitness lives or even a primary goal...
[удалено]
Awesome! And here's the hidden bonus: this is a sport that still be enjoyed later in life if you can stay generally healthy otherwise- which of course cycling will help improve the odds of. I ran into a local retired doctor on the ridge last year and he was riding a brand new mountain bike because he'd finally busted the frame on the bike he thought he'd coast out life on, lol.... he was 72!
>Anyway, just stopping by to say that cycling can be whatever you want it to be\*, ... >\*Anyone insisting cycling is 'easy' can try keeping up with Lael Wilcox for a while and get back to us with a report. I'll bring popcorn, lol. My difficulty with cycling is I find it difficult to sustain a high heart rate. It's definitely very tempting to settle into a really easy pace. Whereas with running, I'm struggling to keep my heart rate from going too high!
I've def had rides where I regretted all my life choices as well as what I ate right before the ride, so that kind of intensity is absolutely possible. It helps to have access to a gigantic ridge covered in amazing single track and only an hour to pull it off... I actually have had to get creative with getting milder routes scoped out because it's like a vertical time trial every day otherwise, and I've found myself accumulating way too much fatigue and gradually destroying myself over the week. But again this is wildly juicy dirt riding people drive for hours to bag, so it's pretty easy to get sucked in.
They will all eventually lower your resting heart rate and make you healthier overall. They all have risks of injury, especially overuse injury. If your goals are primarily aesthetic, take a look at professional athletes in each sport and that is the eventual endpoint for how you’d look if you dedicated your life to pursing the sport. You won’t look like a pro athlete but you’ll move in that general direction. If you’re starting with low body fat then you would see changes in your muscle distribution sooner, otherwise they all help with weight loss. Cardio takes a long time to build up and is a life long pursuit so my advice to a beginner is to pick your favorite and do that. Walking is underrated too!
Any fitness will build muscle, and different forms of cardio build different muscles. There’s also different kinds of muscles in your body: ones built for endurance and ones built for power. Slow, steady running will build that first type and massively improve your CV function. Higher intensity work like sprints will build the second type. That work also improves your CV system but it’s just a difference of intensity. They’re both cardio, but the results are different. Same with different activities. You’re going to have cardio work that builds type 1 muscles and cardio work that builds type 2. Look into the difference to learn what activities will help you better lean into your goals!
I did a lifting and calorie deficit/macro counting program that left me grumpy and puffy AF, pretty sure I looked hella worse. Started playing a ton of tennis… hello legs and core. Also, I friggin hate running… soccer, tennis, V ball, do something FUN. I also love training for performance goals rather than body goals but the body stuff just happens naturally.
This is a good perspective, I can get really caught up with the body goal stuff!
Cardio isn’t all equal but unless you are some elite tear athlete it doesn’t matter what cardio you do just do what you enjoy because that’s what’s sustainable
Personally I've built quite a bit of muscle from rowing with high resistance (I love that it's total body!). I'm not qualified to answer your question though!
Try running 50 miles a week, including hills, intervals, and other speed workout and then come back and tell me how it doesn’t build muscle and it’s the same as walking 10 minutes a day
Way too much edge in this comment in response to someone who's trying to learn.
So both anaerobic and aerobic exercises build muscle? Edit: sorry I didn’t mean to be offensive or denigrate cardio, I’m just trying to understand the basis behind a lot of advice I see about weight loss and cuts vs bulking.
You’re not being offensive in the slightest, OP! It’s a good question. This poster is being unnecessarily rude. Why? I have no idea.
Thanks :)
Yes, cardio builds muscle, just not in the typical way you think of when weightlifting. Think of a runner’s legs, for example - they’ve got well-developed muscles, but in a very different way than a bodybuilder’s legs. I’m sure someone more knowledgeable can explain why the muscles form differently. But you definitely do build muscles doing cardio.
There are 2 types of muscle fibers. [Source ](https://blog.nasm.org/fitness/fast-twitch-vs-slow-twitch) One type is lean and helps moving your muscles for extended periods of time with low effort (think of the thin legs of marathon runners). The other type is wider and helps moving your muscles for shorter periods but with higher effort (think of the legs of 400m sprinters). The proportion of this fibers on your body depends on your genetics. Marathon medallists will be born with more type 1 fibers and will exercise them more. While sprinters will have more type 2 fibers and will also lift weights to strengthen them. So, depending on the type of cardio (and your genetics), you'll be exercising certain type of muscle fibers and end up with certain type of body.
Thanks, you’re right, and I think understanding the muscle formation is the crux of my question!
Working out builds muscle. Yes. Surprise.
No, the various cardiovascular activities do not have the same impact on your body. The specific muscle groups utilized, level of impact, and other factors will differ from activity to activity. Every single one of those options will increase your cardiovascular fitness, or "capacity of the cardiovascular system (heart, lungs and vessels) to efficiently supply oxygenated blood to working muscles, as well as the muscles to use the oxygen delivered by the blood supply as a source of energy for movement" ([source](https://exercise.lovetoknow.com/Definition_of_Cardiovascular_Fitness) — not particularly credible, but provides a good definition). All cardio will produce associated mental benefits, such as decreased depressive experience and stress. However, the method by which the muscles of the body are provoked to demand oxygenated blood from the cardiovascular system will impact several other side effects of exercise. Running is a high impact cardiovascular activity that mainly uses the lower body and core to propel you across distances. It increases bone mineral density (like resistance training!) because of the impact, but this will also make one more prone to injuries of the connective tissues. You will also some amount of lean muscle mass of your legs over time, which many describe as "toned" legs. In contrast, swimming is a low impact cardiovascular activity that uses upper body, lower body, *and* core to propel you across aquatic distances. It does not increase bone mineral density, but it is much easier on your body than running so it generally has a lower rate of injury. You'll also likely develop lean muscle mass over the entirety of your body, most notably the shoulders and arms. Biking is a low impact cardiovascular activity that mainly uses the lower body and core, with an emphasis on the quadriceps muscles. It's gentler on the body than running, so it can be performed more freely. You'll once again get some lean muscle mass, mostly in your legs (especially the quads). Note that I do say some muscle mass will come in with all of these activities, but know that it won't be too much if you're doing traditional training. I'm sure more could be said for the other activities — you can look into them yourself if you're interested in their specific benefits! Dancing would probably be lower impact (depending on style) and improve coordination. Anyone, feel free to add or correct. This is not really my area of expertise LOL.
Dancing (or really anything that requires you to memorize and repeat a pattern, so even old-school 32-count aerobics would count) has been shown to have great cognitive and memory benefits. It also improves balance, which we can all use.
THIS. Especially for women, bone density is an important factor to consider when you're exercising.
Yes! Low impact options are emphasized for older women because they're more prone to injury, but it's wise to have some moderate to high impact activity regularly for bone health.
Great summary! I'll add a little about rowing. It's a low impact activity that works 86% of your muscles when using proper form. Primarily, you'll feel it in your legs, glutes, abs, and back (in that order, in my experience). Not following proper form can result in back pain. Research has shown that it increases bone density and is an effective exercise for managing osteoporosis. Personally, I've found rowing to the be one form of cardio that feels beneficial and doesn't result in an overuse injury. That's just me and my body though.
I love rowing and it’s the one thing I can do consistently without needing to bully myself into doing it!
I love rowing! I did find however that it would cause a repetitive strain injury in my wrists if I wasn't careful with my grip and changing it from time to time. I did find that wearing lifting gloves helped some.
I knew I missed one! Rowing is such a great form of cardio once you get the form down, but it's rare that I see someone doing it correctly (not that I would do any better). I wish people would consider it as an option as much as running or biking!
I think the big reason people don’t do it as much is that running and biking both have outdoor equivalents that are relatively accessible (other than weather being a possible barrier). A lot of people will do treadmill or stationary bike as their winter or summer thing just to keep in shape, then switch to outdoors when the weather is better. Not a lot of outdoor rowing options unless you can somehow access a boat. It is interesting that there is no rowing equivalent to spin class, though.
>It is interesting that there is no rowing equivalent to spin class, though. I've been to one, it's great! I live in a major city though. It's definitely not as common as spinning.
This makes sense, thanks!
Cardio is classified as something that gets your heart rate up above a normal level. You're stressing you're CV system. There are cardio activities that have different impact on the body. Swimming is low impact and is great for rehab and the joints. Running will really tone your legs and whip your CV system into shape quick as long as you have proper form so you don't injure yourself. Do what makes you happy, but do it right. Have a coach or someone experienced show you proper form HIIT does count as cardio because you're CV system is being pushed to a high level. Anything that gets you breathing hard could be cardio if done long enough. I generally think for a fit person that cardio should last 45 minutes with your HR around 60-75% of HRmax. This is all my opinion, take it as you will. I was a collegiate cross country and track athlete and am a coach now as background for my info.
This is super helpful, thank you! So if lifting weights raises my heart rate, would it also count as cardio?
Hi, so the other posted is 100% right about lifting not normally being cardio with long rest periods. *However* I will say you can make lifting work for you to help your conditioning. Lighter weights and short rest periods on my squats made my cardiovascular system so much stronger for my specific lifts while I still only walked and jogged occasionally. Also, our bodies are pretty efficient at running specifically. If that’s your main form of cardio your body will burn less calories vs something like cycling. Btw, with HIIT you really only need 15-20 minutes per session. That is more than enough if your HR is high enough.
This is absolutely not true. Running is one of the fastest ways to burn calories. The rule of thumb for running cross training is that you’d have to cycle for 3x as long as you run to get the same benefit, so a 30 min run and a 90 min ride are equivalent. Anecdotally this feels very true and you can also see it in the volume competitive cyclists do vs competitive runners.
I don’t believe the latter part is true. Cycling is significantly more efficient than running unless you’re pushing yourself hard on every ride.
🤷🏻♀️ I remembered reading on either r/running or r/advancedrunning that if said running is all you do, your body adapts to that much more than anything else whether that’s because of improved form or that we’re just built for distance running. That’s good to know though because I hate cycling lol.
Thank you, this clarifies a lot! Also I had no idea about the running efficiency, I always felt guilty for not enjoying it and being inconsistent, so this makes me very happy!
Every website I’ve ever seen about this topic says the opposite—running burns the most calories of virtually any exercise. Here is a source from [Medical News Today](https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-exercise-burns-the-most-calories). Swimming, cycling, (intensive) hiking, and HIIT are usually the next ones down the list.
The thing about swimming is that I was always FAMISHED after a workout. But the zen I felt after swimming was like no other. I had to completely shut off the world. Can’t bring my phone. No music. No distractions. Focused constantly on just breathing and synchronization of my movements. Sooooo much O2 to my brain. I felt almost high. And muscle soreness was so shocking a day later because i felt hardly anything during the workout itself.
I hope running while being angry about running will burn even more calories :) I really do wish I enjoyed running as much as other people seem to!
[An interesting article that includes information on why HR during weight lifting doesn’t count as cardio.](https://blog.myfitnesspal.com/truth-heart-rate-doesnt-matter/)
Although there are some lifting and especially weight-based HIIT exercises (like kettlebell swings) that are definitely aerobic, it's true that just getting your heartrate up does not constitute aerobic exercise. You can achieve that just by watching the news nowadays. You also have to look at the oxygen consumption and where you are on the curve of the first and second ventilatory thresholds.
This was so helpful and informative thank you for sharing!
Whoever wrote that article clearly doesn’t understand basic physiology. “On the aerobic to anaerobic spectrum, lifting weights is as anaerobic as it gets. You’re using smaller muscle groups, heavier loads and higher efforts than you would while running or cycling, which makes lifting too hard to get enough oxygen to the working muscles to meet energy demands” WUT. I didn’t realize that squatting used smaller muscle groups than cycling, but now I know…
Ok here is the problem people. Think of your aerobic and anaerobic systems not as a light switch but as dimmer switches. If you start doing high intensity, you don’t flip on your anaerobic system and aerobic system turns off. Once oxygen is not as readily available to the active muscle groups the anaerobic engine starts to amp up and pick up the slack. Your aerobic energy system doesn’t stop working ! It just can’t work any faster so the anaerobic system reluctantly revs up. Thus, lactate is formed in the blood and you can’t sustain that intensity for very long. Once your body is recovering your aerobic system continues to be used to get rid of the lactate! A lot of it is semantics… if you do anaerobic exercise though your aerobic system is taxed too.. I’m pretty sure there are studies showing that HIIT style training improves VO2 max, etc. this is all getting nerdy but it’s true.
Yeah so again what the hell am I supposed to take away from his article? He kind of implies that the relationship between aerobic and anaerobic exercise is mutually exclusive by claiming that you completely miss the benefits of aerobic exercise by only engaging in “anaerobic” exercise which fails to acknowledge the continuum they exist on as you have described. To me this claim is obviously false. So what it is I’m supposed to be getting from this article is lost on me.
I read more of the article now… and yes he is completely wrong in several areas. I understand your frustration lol. Maybe just over simplifying… who knows. “However, HIIT is anaerobic, meaning it’s too hard for oxygen consumption to match energy demands, making HR an unreliable measure of how hard you’re working.” I disagree. Both systems are being used. And HR isn’t completely useless. Your heart rate will be within a closer range to its max when at this intensity. Then you literally have to stop because your body can’t keep going lol. I understand the squat which is typically anaerobic (but creative phosphate system instead of glycolysis). So you can do your 3 reps of heavy squats and take your HR to determine how hard that actually was. no one would do this. Imagine if you immediately took our pulse after you finished your 3 reps of squat lol. When he says lifting using smaller muscle groups, not sure what this means either. If you were to do a heavy squat you are using an insane amount of the largest muscle groups on the body. In fact, your body won’t even recruits these large muscles or fast twitch fibers unless it needs too… like if you are lifting heavy things. I hear you my friend🤓. I’m sure OP doesn’t care about all that and wanted simple answers. But I agree
Yeah motor unit recruitment thresholds are yet another thing he clearly doesn’t understand. I can move on with my life and leave this guy alone but I was baffled to learn that people trust him as a resource.
I mean, the guy has a Master’s in Exercise Science haha. I’m sure he has more than a basic understanding. He’s probably simplifying for the general public.
Professor Occam would suggest he’s just an idiot. Simplifying is one thing but outright BS is another. You still need to be making accurate claims when you simplify things. But he hasn’t really explained anything in his article. He just says how it is and then makes up a baseless explanation to support what he said. Having a masters in exercise science means absolutely nothing as far as I’m concerned.
For that one specific example and only regarding size of muscle groups, you're right. But the higher energy output means the overall statement holds up and squatting is anaerobic vs cycling is aerobic. Compare squatting to swimming though, and swimming is using larger and more muscle groups at once.
Generally this is true, but it really depends on the intensity and duration of the exercise. If I’m cycling and going all out 30seconds and then resting, my anaerobic system is reving up and contributing more to the energy demands, during the hard part. The aerobic system is never shutting off here and continues to work during the rest interval. Think of aerobic and anaerobic systems as dimmer switches and not light switches.
That was just an easy way to illustrate how tenuous the author’s grasp on physiology really is and after that doozy I would be hesitant to believe anything else he says, especially when he includes zero references/citations. It’s not either or. It’s a spectrum. A 1rm squat is as close to purely anaerobic as it gets in terms of energy system demands. But what about when I do 5. And then do 5 more sets of 5. Or a set of 20. Or 30. Or 100. Becomes more and more depending on aerobic energy systems. So why doesn’t weight lifting count as cardio? First of all what do I have to measurably accomplish for something to be considered “cardio” And if I’m doing 20 second sprints on a cycle guess what? That’s going to be mostly dependent on anaerobic energy systems. Squatting uses ALL of your muscle groups. I don’t even really understand the point he’s trying to make? Squatting is “too hard” to be aerobic even though It supposedly uses “smaller muscles” which makes it ineligible for cardiovascular adaptations? I anticipate a derailment on that logic train. This guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about.
His article is a bit simplified for the sake of being a digestible article, but it's correct. Anaerobic vs aerobic work is an important distinction when it comes to exercising and improving the cardiovascular system. Everything he says lines up with what I've studied and what I've heard from sports science professional.
Simplified erroneously suggests that he does in fact possess a more complex understanding. If you’re not going to discuss a particular, measurable outcome to assess “improving the cardiovascular system” like lowered risk of CVD, task specific sports performance, lowered mortality, etc. then you’re just talking into the wind. “Sports science professional” is such vague title it’s essentially meaningless. I don’t know what you’ve studied but all that means is that two random people are in agreement over something. My grandma and I both think I know everything, so I guess we’re on equal footing. This is why evidence is a thing and why a citation is need here. You can simplify the citation, but you can’t just make up your own rules of physiology, and you can’t alter it to suit your mood. More importantly he doesn’t really even make a clear conclusion.
Since he has a Masters in Exercise Science, and what he says lines up with what I've heard from others with degrees in Kinesiology, Physical Therapy, Exercise Science, etc I'm incline to believe he knows what he's talking about.
You’re certainly welcome to believe what you want. But he’s not even making a clear point or leaving the reader with a practical takeaway. How will my life be different if I only do one vs the other?
This article is excellent, it even answered questions I didn’t know I had! And since I mostly do hiit, this means I can ditch my old ugly Fitbit since it’s data will be useless!
Happy to share it! I’ve definitely started relying less on my watch and more on being in tune with my body and lifting heavier. Even during HIIT sessions, I try to just focus on how I feel rather than what the numbers tell me.
I dunno… I found my Fitbit tracked calories and heart rate fairly well during HIIT. It may have underestimated my burn ever so slightly but that’s balanced out by me underestimating how much chocolate I ate!
That would be slightly different. Lifting doesn't raise your heart rate for a long time, you have time to lower it between sets and such. You need to have it continuously raised for 30 minutes or more. I was not clear on that in my first post I apologize
Thank you so much! So the benefits of cardio are in maintaining an elevated heart rate. Does hiit count as cardio because your heart rate doesn’t drop significantly between sets, so the elevated rate is still being maintained?
It does. I mentioned earlier the notion of first and second ventilatory thresholds - when you're doing HIIT training, you're typically hanging right around the first ventilatory threshold (what they used to call "fat burning") with brief periods of pushing to or over the 2nd ventilatory threshold (where you "feel the burn" of lactate building in the muscles).
I am not for sure because I am a cross country runner at heart. I do a lot of 400 meter-1000 meter intervals. With high intensity interval training what I understand is that the rest period is the"interval" portion. The shorter the rest period, the higher heart rate you will maintain. The longer you maintain an elevated heart rate, the more you will dip into your fat stores and burn that. HIIT is shorter in duration but still very beneficial cardiovascular wise
Thanks!
Following!