Beyond the ability to compete in said endurance sports, of course. What I mean is, you can get extremely fit from mainly HIIT style training. Long hours of high-HR activity such as endurance sports are only going to lead to health complications in the long term. (I realise this may be a somewhat controversial point of view on a cycling forum! 😆 )

No, sorry, you’re going to have to say that again SLOWER and LOUDER for me. Some data maybe?

Not heard that name before, I’ll have to look into him.

Very interesting man. His ideas are very en vogue right now.

No, sorry, you’re going to have to say that again SLOWER and LOUDER for me. Some data maybe?

You have to ask, what does “fit” mean?

The ability to run a marathon? To live twice your bodyweight? Climb a mountain? Swing a pickaxe all day?

It’s all just functional fitness – getting fit for a specific activity. Whereas having a more all round sense of fitness without going to any one extreme may prove more useful.

Long hours of high-HR activity such as endurance sports are only going to lead to health complications in the long term. (I realise this may be a somewhat controversial point of view on a cycling forum! )

But is, basically, the message a leading heart man gave me yesterday, as well as something that some research suggests is the case.

I need to get back into shape. I need to lose weight. When I asked the man, he said “exercise like a normal person” i.e. not like the ex-fell runner on his ward who has ARVC (and will likely need a heart transplant at some point – all made massively worse by heavy endurance work).

Another fad then. (edit: in reply to “en vogue”. Or another bandwagon for a fad specialist to jump on and try to make money from reflected glory)

Another fad then.

Philosophers tend to think they have hit on *the* answer, so don;t usually think of them as fads.

But another interesting idea to consider. And I like thinking about new ideas. It keeps the brain and one’s opinions from becoming calcified.

In response to the OP; IMO Normal would be 2 to 4 hours of light cardio (zone 2 or 3) per day with a rest day every other or every 3 days. Mixed into the cardio would be hi intensity intervals, like a hill climb or sprint. So lets say 50km to 100km road ride or a 20km to 40km MTB ride per day 4 or 5 days per week.

You have to ask, what does “fit” mean?
The ability to run a marathon? To lift twice your bodyweight? Climb a mountain? Swing a pickaxe all day?

Well exactly. If I choose to define fitness as the ability to ride 100 miles, or run an ultra or climb French 7a or whatever, who are these folk to tell me that these ‘sports are not really “exercise” nor do they have any real fitness benefits.’? That’s just gibberish.

All of my examples can be done off a few hours a week, not what I’d define as compulsive, or excessive, or at the far end of spectrum of behaviours. But this has no benefit and will put people in hospital?

If people are happy doing their household chores with vigour that’s equally fine, that’s fitness for purpose. But I get a bit bothered by loose statements like ‘some research’ and ‘a consultant once said’. Some proper data?

I appreciate some people are at a sensitive time, but there’s still space for clarity.

Beyond the ability to compete in said endurance sports, of course. What I mean is, you can get extremely fit from mainly HIIT style training. Long hours of high-HR activity such as endurance sports are only going to lead to health complications in the long term

How does the whole Paleo anti endurance thing fit in with the concept of we may have evolved to persistent hunt? Or is that like god testing our faith by creating dinosaurs 🙂

But this has no benefit and will put people in hospital?

Not the case.

But I get a bit bothered by loose statements like ‘some research’ and ‘a consultant once said’. Some proper data?

Start here.

I appreciate some people are at a sensitive time, but there’s still space for clarity.

You’re absolutely right.

I’ve looked at the abstract for your pilot study in rats linked above and can’t really conclude anything from it, without seeing the full paper. Similarly with the abstracts linked below. I don’t have access to the BMJ sadly, though I was once published in the Builder’s Merchant Journal. I’m curious but no more informed I’m afraid.

If I choose to define fitness as the ability to ride 100 miles, or run an ultra or climb French 7a or whatever, who are these folk to tell me that these ‘sports are not really “exercise” nor do they have any real fitness benefits.’? That’s just gibberish.

Sorry, I realise I didn’t put my point across clearly at all. What I meant was: people don’t do endurance sports to get fit, they get fit in order to do endurance sports. So if you are running an ultra or riding 100 miles, your specific goal is not extra fitness (what I meant by “exercise”), you are seeking the accomplishment of completing the task. No-one is going to get healthier by running an ultra, it is all extra wear & tear, stress etc, on the body, and most times when you finish your body will be in a worse state health-wise than when you started.

How does the whole Paleo anti endurance thing fit in with the concept of we may have evolved to persistent hunt? Or is that like god testing our faith by creating dinosaurs

I have not looked into this a great deal (because although I buy into the general paleo/primal concept I have no desire to actually live like a caveman! 😆 ) I believe the prevailing view is that hunting animals was not an everyday occurrence and certainly would be nothing like e.g. marathon running, it would be more like interval training (sneak then sprint, etc).

It is interesting that most people still distinguish between what they call “cardio” and other types of exercise. It is not as if you work the heart/lungs in isolation when you do this (or any other) type of exercise. I have read several times that one of the best exercises for CV is weightlifting (will try to find links) which is obviously the complete opposite of what most people think of when they think of “cardio” workouts.

I think what you’re referring to is a bit of work done in the mid nineties. I can’t recall the exact detail but rather than resistance training having a direct affect on CV, it was to do with muscle efficiency. It was found that mid rep resistance training on the legs within a gym setting (15-20 rep max) had absolutely no effect on VO2 max, yet it was found that it had a significant effect on performance. The reason for this was not well understood but the ‘best guess’ was that it trained the muscles to recruit more fibres within the muscles. I think the analogy of many hands make light work was used.

Additionally there was work done on the effect of the different types of exercise & the effect on the heart. I seem to recall that hard low rep max weight lifting (any type) will thicken the heart muscle whereas traditional steady state CV will enlarge the heart chambers. So, the conclusion was cross training to ‘strengthen’ the heart (stronger pump) & CV to increase the volume.

The reason for this was not well understood but the ‘best guess’ was that it trained the muscles to recruit more fibres within the muscles.

More in here

Or how to get stronger without increasing muscle mass. It’s all down to cordinating more muscle fibres to fire simultaneously in response to signals from the brain. The brain itself also learns when to signal muscle groups to produce the best results and equally importantly not to signal muscle groups that conter the action reauired. It was rumoured to be a new approach to doping a few years ago though I never heard a name given to the products used.

Or how to get stronger without increasing muscle mass. It’s all down to cordinating more muscle fibres to fire simultaneously in response to signals from the brain. The brain itself also learns when to signal muscle groups to produce the best results and equally importantly not to signal muscle groups that conter the action reauired.

Sort of… The study I read made a point of the finding that ‘strength’ gains were negligable, VO2 max was unchanged, yet endurance sport (runners) performance was improved significantly. I think this and simar studies now form the basis of a lot of ‘off-season’ training regimes. I think many of us instinctively know that resistance training benefits us, but don’t know how or why so talk about it in terms of ‘strength’.

It’s also interesting to note that these benefits haven’t found their way into mainstream coaching; a few friends of mine belong to various cycle and running clubs, and the mantra still being chanted is that of low intensity high volume in the off-season – which does have certain benefits but not that many in terms of outright performance.

OMITN – Great news. Except what the doctors say and don’t worry too much about what is normal. Unless you are turning in to slob or a pro athelite then you’re fine.
I”ve had no episodes for a while after tasking steadier exercise and excess wise. I guess it’s all about balance.