Marks Daily Apple
Serving up health and fitness insights (daily, of course) with a side of irreverence.
20 Jun

A Case Against Cardio (from a former mileage king)

We all know that we need to exercise to be healthy.

Unfortunately, the popular wisdom of the past 40 years – that we would all be better off doing 45 minutes to an hour a day of intense aerobic activity – has created a generation of overtrained, underfit, immune-compromised exerholics. Hate to say it, but we weren’t meant to aerobicize at the chronic and sustained high intensities that so many people choose to do these days. The results are almost always unimpressive. Ever wonder why years of “Spin” classes, endless treadmill sessions and interminable hours on the “elliptical” have done nothing much to shed those extra pounds and really tone the butt?

Don’t worry. There’s a reason why the current methods fail, and when you understand why, you’ll see that there’s an easier, more effective – and fun – way to burn fat, build or preserve lean muscle and maintain optimal health. The information is all there in the primal DNA blueprint, but in order to get the most from your exercise experience, first you need to understand the way we evolved and then build your exercise program around that blueprint.

Like most people, I used to think that rigorous aerobic activity was one of the main keys to staying healthy – and that the more mileage you could accumulate (at the highest intensity), the better. During my 20+ years as a competitive endurance athlete, I logged tens of thousands of training miles running and on the bike with the assumption that, in addition to becoming fit enough to race successfully at a national class level, I was also doing my cardiovascular system and the rest of my body a big healthy favor.

Being the type A that I am, I read Ken Cooper’s seminal 1968 book Aerobics and celebrated the idea that you got to award yourself “points” for time spent at a high heart rate. The more points, the healthier your cardiovascular system would become. Based on that notion, I should have been one of the healthiest people on the planet.

Unfortunately, I wasn’t – and that same mindset has kept millions of other health-conscious, nirvana-seeking exercisers stuck in a similar rut for almost 40 years. It’s time to get your head out of the sand and take advantage of your true DNA destiny, folks!

The first signal I had that something was wrong was when I developed debilitating osteoarthritis in my ankles…at age 28. This was soon coupled with chronic hip tendonitis and nagging recurrent upper respiratory tract infections. In retrospect, it is clear now that my carbohydrate-fueled high-intensity aerobic lifestyle was promoting a dangerous level of continuous systemic inflammation, was severely suppressing other parts of my immune system and the increased oxidative damage was generally tearing apart my precious muscle and joint tissue.

The stress of high intensity training was also leaving me soaking in my own internal cortisol (stress hormone) bath. It wasn’t so clear to me at the time exactly what was happening – in fact it was quite confusing, since I was doing so much of this so-called “healthy” aerobic exercise – but I had no choice but to give up racing, unable to train at anywhere near the intensity required to stay at an elite level.

To make ends meet…

…I became a “personal trainer” and I refocused my attention on training average “non-athletic” people to achieve reasonable levels of general fitness and health. Of course, we lifted weights as part of the overall plan (and I will go into greater detail on that important aspect of fitness in a later post), but for the aerobic component of their training, I started doing long walks or hikes or easy bike rides with them. My many clients got the benefit of me actually working out right along side them and I got the benefit of 3 to 5 hours a day of very low intensity aerobic work (well, very low for me anyway). It was refreshing and really didn’t take much effort on my part, but I knew I had to be deriving at least some small benefit from those hours.

Since I didn’t have much time left in the week for my own workouts, once or twice a week I would do a very short but very intense workout for my own benefit, usually sprints at the track or “hill repeats” of 2-3 minutes each on the bike. Lo and behold, within a year, my injuries were healing, I was rarely sick and I was even back to occasionally racing – faster than ever. Something “primal” was happening and it made total sense in the context of the DNA blueprint. I was training like my hunter-gatherer ancestors, building my aerobic capacity slowly and steadily without overstressing my adrenals or my immune system, training my body to derive more energy from fats (and not glucose), requiring far fewer carbohydrate calories from my diet, and building muscle with occasional quick bursts of speed and intensity. I was suddenly both fit AND healthy. My Primal Health system was kicking in and it all made perfect sense.

Humans, like all mammals, evolved two primary energy systems that powered the skeletal muscles of our hunter-gatherer ancestors 40,000 years ago and that would keep us all well-powered the same way today, if we weren’t so bent on circumventing them with our ill-fated (literally) lifestyle choices.

The first energy system relied heavily on the slow burning of fats to create ATP (the universal energy currency), keeping us fueled while we were at rest or sleeping, yet also allowing for continuous or intermittent low levels of aerobic activity (think of our ancestors walking across the savannah for hours foraging for roots, shoots, berries, grubs, insects and the occasional small animal). It makes sense. Fats are very efficient fuels that are stored easily in the fat cells and burn easily and cleanly when lots of oxygen is present (as when we are breathing normally). Even if there’s no food in the immediate area, a well-trained fat-burning hunter-gatherer could continue walking and foraging for days without compromising his or her health or efficiency.

The second major energy system we developed through evolution was the ATP-PC system, which allowed for intense loads of work to be done in very brief bursts (think of our hunter-gatherer ancestors sprinting to the safety of a tree to avoid being eaten by a lion). Both ATP and phosphocreatine (PC) are always sitting right there within the muscle cells, with the former providing a quick burst of energy and the latter replenishing the former as it depletes. Together, they are the highest octane fuel we have, but it doesn’t last long. In fact, it’s ATP-PC and adrenaline that allow the little old lady to lift the front end of the Ford Fairlane off her husband when the jack fails. Unfortunately, the muscles can only store about 10-20 seconds worth of this precious fuel to complete life-or-death tasks. If our ancestors survived that quick sprint to safety, however, their ATP and PC reserves were filled again within a minute or two, making available another 10-20 second slot of intensity.

Furthermore, that brief burst of intense energy sparked a small “growth spurt” in the muscle, making it even stronger for the next encounter with the next lion – a true survival adaptation.

(Note: While our energy systems are actually quite complex, varied and interrelated, I have simplified things here to make it easier to “digest”.)

Bottom line: Fats and ATP-PC were the two primary energy sources for locomotion: we either moved slowly and steadily or “fight or flight” fast, and we became stronger and healthier the more we used only those energy systems.

But here’s the real take-home message for us: We did not evolve to rely heavily on a carbodydrate-fueled energy system, and yet, carbohydrate metabolism seems to rule our lives today. Yes, carbohydrate (in the form of glucose) can play a major role in the production of energy in skeletal muscle, but it turns out that the heart and skeletal muscle prefer fatty acids (fat) as fuel over glucose.

Our hunter-gatherer ancestors didn’t regularly ramp their heart rates up for over an hour a day like so many of us do now. Even when the concept of organized hunting came along, it would appear that our hunter-gatherer ancestors relied more on superior tracking ability (using our highly evolved and exceptionally large brains) and walking (using our superior fat-burning systems), rather than on actually “chasing down” their prey. In fact, squandering valuable energy reserves (and increasing carbohydrate [glucose] metabolism by a factor of ten) by running hard for long periods of time was so counterproductive it would have likely hastened your demise (imagine chasing some game animal for a few hours and – oops – not succeeding in killing it. You’ve spent an incredible amount of energy, yet now you have no food to replace that energy. You have suddenly become some other animals prey because you are physically exhausted).

So, what does all that mean for us in the 21st century seeking to maximize our health and fitness?

Well, we know that this current popular high intensity aerobic pursuit is a dead-end. It requires huge amounts carbohydrate (sugar) to sustain, it promotes hyperinsulinemia (overproduction of insulin), increases oxidative damage (the production of free radicals) by a factor of 10 or 20 times normal, and generates high levels of the stress hormone cortisol in many people, leaving them susceptible to infection, injury, loss of bone density and depletion of lean muscle tissue – while encouraging their bodies to deposit fat. Far from that healthy pursuit we all assumed it was! What, then, is the answer?

Knowing what we know about our hunter-gatherer ancestors and the DNA blueprint, we would ideally devise an aerobics plan that would have us walking or hiking several hours a day to maximize our true fat-burning systems and then doing intermittent “life or death” sprints every few days to generate those growth spurts that create stronger, leaner muscle.

However, since allocating a few hours a day to this pursuit is impractical for most people, we can still create a plan that has a fair amount of low level aerobic movement, such as walking briskly, hiking, cycling at a moderate pace, etc a few times a week and keep it at under an hour. Then, we can add a few intense “interval” sessions, where we literally sprint (or cycle or do anything intensely) for 20, 30 or 40 seconds at a time all out, and do this once or twice a week.

If you are willing to try this new approach, but haven’t sprinted for a while, you may want to ease into it. Start with maybe three or four the first time, resting two minutes in between and, after a few weeks of doing this, work your way up to a workout that includes six or eight all-out sprints after a brief warm-up. An easy few minutes of stretching afterwards and you’ve done more in less time than you could ever accomplish in a typical “80-85% Max Heart Rate” cardio” workout. That’s exactly type of the plan I do myself and that I give all of my trainees now.

Let’s recap:

The benefits of low level aerobic work (walking, hiking, cycling, swimming):
– increases capillary network (blood vessels that supply the muscle cells with fuel and oxygen)
– increases muscle mitochondria
– increases production of fat-burning and fat-transporting enzymes
– more fun, because you can talk with a partner while doing it

The benefits of interval training (sprinting in short intense bursts)
– increases muscle fiber strength
– increases aerobic capacity (work ability)
– increases muscle mitochondria (the main energy production center in muscle)
– increases insulin sensitivity
– increases natural growth hormone production

The costs of chronic (repetitious) mid- and high-level aerobic work
– requires large amounts of dietary carbohydrates (SUGAR)
– decreases efficient fat metabolism
– increases stress hormone cortisol
– increases systemic inflammation
– increases oxidative damage (free radical production)
– boring!

Sponsor note:
This post was brought to you by the Damage Control Master Formula, independently proven as the most comprehensive high-potency antioxidant multivitamin available anywhere. With the highest antioxidant per dollar value and a complete anti-aging, stress, and cognition profile, the Master Formula is truly the only multivitamin supplement you will ever need. Toss out the drawers full of dozens of different supplements with questionable potency and efficacy and experience the proven Damage Control difference!

Technorati Tags: , , , , ,

You want comments? We got comments:

Imagine you’re George Clooney. Take a moment to admire your grooming and wit. Okay, now imagine someone walks up to you and asks, “What’s your name?” You say, “I’m George Clooney.” Or maybe you say, “I’m the Clooninator!” You don’t say “I’m George of George Clooney Sells Movies Blog” and you certainly don’t say, “I’m Clooney Weight Loss Plan”. So while spam is technically meat, it ain’t anywhere near Primal. Please nickname yourself something your friends would call you.

  1. I have one severe doubt with what you’re saying, Mark.

    You say that our primitive ancestors weren’t designed for long running chases, that instead we were foragers who walked a lot.

    That just doesn’t seem to be the consensus among the ideas coming out of evolutionary biologists nowadays.

    As a species, we suck at sprinting (We’re far slower than quadrupeds), we’re not very strong, and in a chase we’re far less agile than quadrupeds. So why haven’t we died out? We must have some evolutionary advantage, and it’s not our brains – our ancestors were physically nearly identical to us long before they developed our immense brain capacity. We didn’t even invent projectile weapons until less than a hundred thousand years ago.

    It turns out we are fantastic long distance runners. Some of the best in the animal kingdom. If you put a horse against a man over 50 miles, the man can win! Now, horses are also fantastic long distance runners. Most other mammals wouldn’t stand a chance.

    The gist of how this helps us hunt (and thereby gain the vast amounts of protein and fat to create and maintain our disproportionately large brain) goes back to the heat of Africa. We’re hairless, we shed heat well, and we can run a long way pretty efficiently (because as a biped we don’t have to shift gaits to move faster like quadrupeds do, so we can suck in more air when we move faster than they can). This means that in the heat of the day we can simply run a Kudu to death, as it collapses from heat exhaustion and dies.

    Seriously. No kidding. There’s a video on Youtube of some bushmen doing it. Just search persistance hunting.

    What’s even better is that the smarter we got, the better we got at this kind of hunting (higher brain function makes us pretty amazing trackers, despite our less than proficient senses).

    A lot of what I’m talking about can be found in Christopher McDougall’s book “Born to Run”. It’s a great read.

    So I guess I’m wondering how to jive your idea with this idea about long distance cardio.

    Ultramarathons are becoming more popular, with very fit (and not ridiculously, dangerously, thin ) people running for days at a time.

    George wrote on June 3rd, 2010
    • “You say that our primitive ancestors weren’t designed for long running chases, that instead we were foragers who walked a lot.”

      @George, I don’t know where you get this. I never said we weren’t designed to run…I just said we weren’t designed to run long and daily the way so many people do today. The fact that you are fit enough (and biomechanically able) to run a 10K doesn’t mean you have to run one every day. I guarantee you that even though persistence hunters can jog/track/chase prey for a few hours, they don’t “overdo” it on successive days.

      Mark Sisson wrote on June 3rd, 2010
      • It was mostly in response to your explanation of our energy systems and how they relate to our ancient predecessors –

        Ala “The first energy system relied heavily on the slow burning of fats, keeping us fueled while we were at rest or sleeping, yet also allowing for continuous or intermittent low levels of aerobic activity (think of our ancestors walking across the savannah for hours foraging for roots, shoots, berries, grubs, insects and the occasional small animal). It makes sense.”


        “Even when the concept of organized hunting came along, it would appear that our hunter-gatherer ancestors relied more on superior tracking ability (using our highly evolved and exceptionally large brains) and walking (using our superior fat-burning systems), rather than on actually “chasing down” their prey. In fact, squandering valuable energy reserves (and increasing carbohydrate [glucose] metabolism by a factor of ten) by running hard for long periods of time was so counterproductive it would have likely hastened your demise (imagine chasing some game animal for a few hours and – oops – not succeeding in killing it. You’ve spent an incredible amount of energy, yet now you have no food to replace that energy. You have suddenly become some other animals prey because you are physically exhausted).”

        It seems though, that while the initial phase of the hunt was walking and tracking, the chasing of the prey over miles and miles was the actual mechanic of the kill. Our feet were our original weapons.

        I do understand what you’re saying about the daily grind of long distance aerobic activity, however if you look at the extremes of human endurance – ultramarathoners – they garner far fewer injuries than common runners while averaging impressive weekly distances. There is a debate about self selectivity, but there’s an even larger debate about the advent of poor running technique from improper footwear.

        I think, however, I’ve found the connection between your philosophy and the other ideas that have been percolating around in my brain – intensity.

        While there are certainly athletes who can run six minute miles end on end on end, maybe what the average person needs is to run at the pace where they can achieve enough oxygen uptake to continue to metabolize fat. That would put it in the same category as your 3-5 hours of low intensity activity.

        George wrote on June 3rd, 2010
      • Hi Mark,

        I’m not sure if you like links to other sites being posted on here, but all this talk of persistence hunting and hunters, I thought it may be worth people actually watching an example:

        Title is “Absolutely Fricking Amazing “Persistence” Hunt!”

        Couple of great points in this video:

        1) highlights your case about tracking and walking for hours

        2) shows that it is only ONE hunter that does the “chase” (likely a matter of preservation for the tribe… best “jogger/runner” does the chase, but not all the tribe exposes themselves to the chance of death). Also I noted in this video he wasn’t running flat out all the time, he jogged, walked, ran, stopped, drank, assessed, and continued.

        3) REALLY highlights the reverence and connection our ancestors had to their environment and hence their food!!!

        4) Sir David Attenborough states right at the end, whilst they had tubers and roots collected, it is the MUCH more nutritious, energy giving meat!!!

        I think a lot of the persistence hunter folk have read an article, but not actually watched what it is all about. And none of what I just watched is at odds with what you have stated:

        1) We jogged/trotted/walked over vast distances
        2) We did not do this routinely, as it was risk to chase prey (note the “sacrifice” of one of the tribe, for the actual chase in case it didn’t work out)
        3) We valued meat and the bigger animals, and we respected our food sources

        This last point really hits home.. I wonder ow many people rip into a steak, with no regard of where it came from, how it got there and the animal that gave its life for us to eat. When you see the respect and care that the bushman takes when killing that animal, the vegetarian arguments of cruelty are not as valid.

        Awesome work as always!



        Luke in Oz wrote on June 18th, 2010
        • Hi Mark,

          Also found an article about this type of hunting, which is written by Louis Liebenberg.

          He has a table of data that shows the distance travelled, as well as the average speed during the hunts (also shows if they were successful or not – most often not from his sample).

          Anyway, average speed is shown as between 4.2 – 6.6 km/h although it would seem the successful hunts were at a speed around 6km/hr (one hunt was 10 km/hr).

          For the non-metric of us that is 2.61 miles/hr – 4.1 miles/hr (with the 10km/hr hunt equating to 6.2 miles/hr)… Hardly what most runners would call a a “race pace”…

          In fact, I’d call that walking!!! Or most likely, walking/jogging/running/resting/walking etc etc

          Anyway – thought this may help clarify for those that seem to believe persistence hunting is contradictory to what you are saying about humans not being “Born to Run”



          Luke in Oz wrote on June 19th, 2010
        • Luke, good stuff. Do you have a link to that article?

          Mark Sisson wrote on June 19th, 2010
        • Thanks Mark,

          Glad to be able to contribute!

          I have a link – which is the one I found when I quoted the figures – which is just on some guys website. It gives a PDF copy the published paper.

          Because it looked like published paper, I did a search and found the published version in Current Anthropology. Volume 47, Issue 6, Page 1017–1026, Dec 2006, but you need to pay to see the published article.

          I have also found some further info, from a paper published in The Journal of Human Evolution, in which the authors conclude:

          “a persistence hunt, even at optimal running speed, would have been extremely energetically costly, considerably more so than a persistence hunt at optimal walking speed.”

          By optimal running speed, they demonstrated that there are running speeds in which running is more efficient than running at other speeds, HOWEVER whether running at an optimal speed or non-optimal speed, in terms of energy efficiency, ALL running speeds are less energy efficient than walking.

          From the same paper [my own edits/comments in square brackets – all other brackets are the authors]:

          “We calculated the cost for an individual… to travel the 27.8 km of a typical persistence hunt (Liebenberg, 2006), while walking at near-optimal speed based on the equation in Steudel- Numbers and Tilkens (2004). This cost would be 1407 kcal, 57% of DEE [Daily Energy Expenditure] (compared to the 72% of DEE to travel the same distance at optimal running speed). Walking is thus considerably cheaper. Whether optimal walking speeds could be used in a persistence hunt is, of course, another question. Given that tracking is often required (Liebenberg, 2006) and that the average pace reported for the persistence hunts observed by Liebenberg (2006) was a speed at which humans can either walk briskly or run slowly [the speeds I referred to previous post], it seems likely some mixture of walking and running speeds would be used, mitigating the cost of a hunt carried out solely at running speeds. Unfortunately, for all of our male subjects and most of our female subjects, their slowest running speed was the least efficient (see Fig. 1). Thus, selecting a slow steady running pace for a persistence hunt would not be a good energetic choice.”

          I don’t know about you Mark, but that seems like the author is saying that the persistence hunters walked and tracked, and then did short sprints/runs to keep the animal moving, followed by more walking/tracking as walking with intermittent running is more energy efficient than slow running at a steady pace!!!

          Again – to me – this fits in exactly with what you are saying!

          Link to that paper is:

          Hope that contributed a tiny bit more to everything you have gathered and provided for us all.

          My years in sales and marketing in the pharmaceutical industry researching and reading papers to back up claims has finally paid off contributing something concrete and worthwhile to the understanding of human health! :-)



          Luke in Oz wrote on June 19th, 2010
        • Thanks, Luke. Most of this is in agreement with my theory that, while we were born to run biomechanically, we certainly weren’t born to run long, fast AND daily. The fact that normal all-around Primal fitness allows you to do a trail run or jump into a 10K race once in a while and enjoy it doesn’t mean you are better off doing that every day – or even three days a week. It’s clear to me that persistence hunters aren’t keeping a steady HR of 80% max for hours, but are walking, running, stopping, etc., moving fractally the whole time. Then they take a few days or a week where they don’t run. I’m all for that.

          Mark Sisson wrote on June 22nd, 2010
        • blue waffles are coming….

          Scrotie McBoogerballs wrote on August 12th, 2010
  2. I can see both the points of Mark and George. I think any type of exercise, be it weight lifting, sprinting, long distance running, etc., etc., can cause harm if there is not enough rest given so the body can recover. Overtraining is a real issue with people. It causes injury and negative side effects regardless of the form of exercise. Long distance running is not unhealthy, in fact, is actually very healthy. Running a marathon everyday, however, and not giving your body proper rest and recovery, is not good. The same can be said if you go out and sprint everyday or don’t give the muscles enough time to recover from a weight lifting session.

    Chris wrote on June 3rd, 2010
    • I have a LiveJournal friend who runs marathons just for fun (by the way, she’s also overweight–I love trotting her out for people who think fat folks are incapable of athletic pursuits). But it doesn’t look all that fun to me. She loses toenails a lot. There were probably circumstances under which primal people had good reasons to run long distances–sometimes they hunted that way. But not everyone did that and, of course, no one hunted every single day. Maybe a couple, three times a week at most.

      I don’t know if I’d call long-distance running “healthy.” Maybe “not unhealthy enough to kill you.” If you like doing it, do it. As you quite astutely stated, just don’t overtrain.

      Dana wrote on February 23rd, 2011
  3. Luke,
    Great stuff. I read “The Old Way” about the San Bushmen people with great interst and had concerns about how their practice of “hunting by running,” fit in with Mark’s excercise concepts. A recent Scientific American article about how well adapted we are to running long distances in the heat reinforced my concern. However, the 6-10 K per hour pace for these hunts reported in the research you found, along with the fantastic condition of paleo human hunters makes it pretty clear that most of the time these hunts were taking place within the fat burning aerobic range of the individuals.

    Also, watching the Tour de France right now and checking on the heart meter readings, its also clear that those super atheletes are keeping their heart rates < 70% of max most of the time. (And they are still totally wiped out by the end of the month.)

    Mark, Thanks for your work on Diet and Fitness. I look forward to reaping the rewards of your program.


    GeneB wrote on July 6th, 2010
  4. Hello Mark,
    Thank you for confirming my suspicions! I bought the whole HIIT all the time myth and did at least three HIIT sessions (about an hour each) for years without results. Instead, I got sicker, more tired, had aching joints and hardly lost weight!

    After learning to listen to my body, I changed the way I ate and exercised, and it’s quite funny that the diet that I ate is almost like the Paleo diet, and my new aerobics workout is like the one you recommended!

    Now I do lots of walking (about 30 to 2 hours a day at time), swimming and stationery bike cycling, all low intensity. I do HIIT sessions too, and exactly like you recommend – at 20 to 40sec bursts!

    It goes to show that if you listen to your body it will tell you what it needs and wants :)

    Elizabeth wrote on July 30th, 2010
  5. Hi Mark,

    I am obese and a type 2 diabetic. I lead a walking group on for those of us who are under-athletic. I started this group to save my own life and hopefully help others in the process.

    We walk twice a week for at least 2 hours logging 4 to 5.5 miles each time at a speed that fluctuates around 3mph. There is a short hill on the trail that we call “cute butt hill” where we change it up and take longer strides and sometimes a faster pace. I have been doing this since March of this year.

    I am also a new member of an outrigger canoe club. I row once a week for about 45 mins to an hour. I have been rowing now for 3 weeks on Sunday and it affects my entire body. Every muscle hurts until Thursday!

    I try to eat right most of the time, avoiding “white carbs” and bad fats. And I have still not lost one single pound! This scares me. What am I doing wrong?

    Dawn wrote on July 31st, 2010
  6. > Thank you for confirming my suspicions! I bought the whole HIIT all the time myth and did at least three HIIT sessions (about an hour each) for years without results.

    I think you’re confusing HIIT with “aerobics” You can’t do HIIT for more than 20-25 mins. And Mark is promoting HIIT, not against it. I think you meant “long slow cardio” was bad for you.

    LooksYoungerThanHeIs wrote on July 31st, 2010
    • Yes, that’s right. I meant long aerobic sessions, though I did do high intensity sessions for 40 minutes too. I was crazy.

      Elizabeth wrote on August 6th, 2010
  7. blue waffles are real!!

    Scrotie McBoogerballs wrote on August 12th, 2010
  8. Blue waffles are not real!! Only the red ones are!!

    Dookie McNuggetneck wrote on November 11th, 2010
  9. Excellent fitness (e-book) however
    no one ever said that competition level fitness was healthy or a model for general wellness! Your (current) approach is great though.

    The 220-age formula should be dumped however. It is going to give a way-too-low level of exertion. It is better to use an RPE method if the actual MHR isn’t known.

    Lary wrote on December 31st, 2010
  10. Maybe If There was no spin class,only hills to climb on a bike,You would see those nice butts.I am sorry.But your way off on that one.Cardio,Done right,Is the best:O

    Keith wrote on January 1st, 2011
    • What gives a cyclist a nice butt isn’t the cardio, it’s the leg work. Your butt is basically the tops of your thighs mushed together. What makes your legs pretty usually makes it pretty too.

      Dana wrote on February 23rd, 2011
  11. Enjoyed the read, went well with my night cap.

    Elly Ollis wrote on February 11th, 2011
  12. That is EERIE. I just read a link from Facebook about a guy who lost 100 pounds cutting calories and running. I’ve put the link into the “website” box here so it’s not spam-filtered. Look at him. Is this what you guys call “skinny fat”? Sure looks like it to me. I’m happy for his weight loss but he could look *so* much better.

    And right after reading that, someone on my friends list shared this post of yours. Are you psychic or something? 😛

    Dana wrote on February 23rd, 2011
  13. Great article.

    Ethan wrote on February 28th, 2011

Leave a Reply

If you'd like to add an avatar to all of your comments click here!

© 2016 Mark's Daily Apple

Subscribe to the Newsletter and Get a Free Copy
of Mark Sisson's Fitness eBook and more!