Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Chronic Cardio Increases Life Expectancy

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    I'm hoping the chronic will increase my life expectancy too
    I used to seriously post here, now I prefer to troll.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DeeDub View Post
      Where does that "fact" abut hunter gatherers come from? Tribes like the Masai cover literally dozens of miles a day, much of it running. If that isn't "chronic cardio", what is?
      Not to be a prick, but [citation needed].
      This seems to indicate that running is maybe about 12km for a group of particularly avid hunters: Day in the Life of a Hunter-Gatherer | the Justin Owings page

      The famous Kalahari hunters seem to take "two to five hours over 25 to 35 km"


      These guys took a few hours to go after the fastest North American mammal:Persistence Hunting Marathoners | Nature | OutsideOnline.com

      Finally, this one here is interesting: http://www.mattmetzgar.com/matt_metz...ce_hunting.pdf
      It talks about time and distance covered- the fastest pace recorded is about 10km/hour, or about 10 minutes per mile- just a little over a fast walk. One of the persistence hunters even states "it was possible to run down a kudu if the hunter walked some of the time". While that is certainly not an easy pace over terrain, it is not a run to exhaustion for someone conditioned for it. The data from the .pdf seem to show that they don't run for very long at a stretch. Skimming through it there was a maximum of maybe 40 minutes of running logged at one time.

      This guy talks about outrunning his dog after about 90 minutes of a 6mph pace: Persistence Hunting and Endurance Running: 5 Tips to Run Effortlessly | Physical Living

      Some of the other links mentioned the frequency as well as the rest periods, which pretty much always includes an easy day after a hard one. Nothing I've found indicates "dozens" of miles of running. The longest persistence hunting I found was 35km, or about 22 miles. The only thing I found reaching a plurality of "dozen" was some of the walking that some of the tribes do, up to 100km at a time, including through the night.

      On the surface, one would assume that persistence hunting (which the Maasai don't do) is chronic cardio. However, the term "chronic" implies that something about it is unhealthy. With the low average pace and the ratio of running to walking during the event, and the high rest time afterwards, I'm guessing that this really doesn't count. Someone who runs 5 miles every day, has knee and ankle and hip problems, takes NSAIDS daily, or shin splints and ices them daily, someone who needs to eat 600g of carbohydrates most days to keep their body fueled, and yet continues to pound the pavement (with their pronation-corrected shoes) because they believe it is healthy- that is my definition of chronic cardio.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by jfreaksho View Post
        "two to five hours over 25 to 35 km"

        [...snip...lots of other interesting information...]

        However, the term "chronic" implies that something about it is unhealthy. With the low average pace and the ratio of running to walking during the event, and the high rest time afterwards, I'm guessing that this really doesn't count.
        That covers a range from 5 km/h to 17.5 km/h. Very low percentage of North Americans are regularly doing either on a consistent basis. If even such extended an exertion level doesn't count as "chronic cardio", it would seem to imply that "chronic cardio" is a pretty rare infliction that really isn't a consideration for most people.

        No?

        Comment


        • #34
          G-man, I don't think Mark is against endurance athletics. Did you see his posts in the past few days re how to prepare for a marathon? What he is against is daily abuse of the body. It is the daily component, never giving the muscles a chance to recover from that induced inflammation, that makes it chronic cardio. Do the studies you've cited have anything specific to say in this regard?
          Four years Primal with influences from Jaminet & Shanahan and a focus on being anti-inflammatory. Using Primal to treat CVD and prevent stents from blocking free of drugs.

          Eat creatures nose-to-tail (animal, fowl, fish, crustacea, molluscs), a large variety of vegetables (raw, cooked and fermented, including safe starches), dairy (cheese & yoghurt), occasional fruit, cocoa, turmeric & red wine

          Comment


          • #35
            "Cardio" may cause heart disease - Part I | Psychology Today

            Comment


            • #36
              Mark himself got fed up with running, changed lifestyle pattern and liked it. This combined with the fact that HIIT, move slow frequently and LHT might be more benificial in terms of fat loss for normal people, compared with cc, made "dont do cc" a good part in his "lifestyle and health industry". It is not a scientifically based statement incorporated into the primal lifestyle.

              Running and doing cardio when injured is of course not good for the body (as with doing LHT or sprints if you have a bad shoulder/knee/hip). However, I find it very hard to believe that running long distances is bad for us since our bodies are designed to do it. We are built to move our body where running is one of the movements. To claim that it is dangerous for the body to often run long distances is in my opinion a little bit stupid. Sure, it might be hard to get long training sessions in an otherwise stressful lifestyle, sometimes quite boring, and might (with the wrong technique, i.e. heel strike running in my opinion) damage the body. Sprints might be more benificial in terms of fat loss and for the "exercise fast so you have time for other things" lifestyle, but to claim that cc is dangerous is not scientifically supported. It is just a statement from Mark, based on a personal belief and some fat loss reserach.

              One should have in mind that Mark makes money out of Primal Blueprint and that the whole Grok/Primal thing is a trademark and selling point aspect. I am a strong believer in questioning ANYTHING that ANYONE says or does in a situation where there is money to be made. Don't let the new thinking (PBF, Paleo solution etc.) become the new "conventional wisdom" without being questioned. With that said, Mark's book and this website changed my life (in a good way) and provides awesome information.
              Last edited by Gods unborn son; 12-11-2011, 04:59 AM.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by DeeDub View Post
                That covers a range from 5 km/h to 17.5 km/h. Very low percentage of North Americans are regularly doing either on a consistent basis. If even such extended an exertion level doesn't count as "chronic cardio", it would seem to imply that "chronic cardio" is a pretty rare infliction that really isn't a consideration for most people.

                No?
                I live in Boston, the runningest city in America. Bostonians run more miles per capita than any other city in the U.S. Every day I see people running with terrible form, pained expressions on their faces and either skinny-fat or some other way unhealthy. My years in the Army have shown me many people who run daily, have a wheat belly, and pop 800mg Motrin and ice some part of their body after every single run.

                I think that you need to look past the action and focus on the physiological mechanisms going on underneath. Walking is done at an aerobic pace. Light jogging is still usually done at an aerobic pace. Sprinting is done at an anaerobic pace, but intentionally, and for very short distances.

                People who are running long distances often think (I did for many years) that it helps your aerobic fitness level, without realizing that I was, nearly every day, exceeding the aerobic threshold into anaerobic fuel burning that depletes glycogen. There is a lot of room between crossing that threshold and a max-effort sprint, and that is where many people train.

                If the training time is short and the intensity is high, there are a lot of benefits- see Tabata's research for this. The problem is maintaining this medium-high pace for hours each week, which can lead to all the negative things that Mark talks about. A slower pace that stays within the aerobic mode, burning fat, will provide the benefits of walking with a higher pace and more impact on your body, but without the stress of increased cortisol levels and systemic inflammation.

                So, in short: Really fast for short time=sprinting, which is good.
                really slow for long time=walking or jogging, which is good.
                medium-fast for long time=stress on the body. Over time, this can lead into the symptoms of chronic cardio.

                Going back to the hunters I linked to earlier, they range in pace from a walk to a sprint, but it seems most of the chase was done at a light jog- still within the aerobic range for a reasonably fit individual. They tend to rest up adequately before going out again, and, as long as they have enough food to get by, are probably not likely to "run through the pain".

                Americans have a "more is always better" attitude- if jogging one mile is good, then running five per day at a fast pace must be better, right? If pain is weakness leaving the body, then I'm going to lose as much weakness as I can every day.

                They tend to skip running altogether, as you mentioned, or get excessive about it. Neither is healthy. For most people who haven't ever run longer distance before, the tendency is to start off way too fast and burn out, both on training runs and competitions as well as their training plans in general. My last Army PT test I was one of the last across the starting line, one of the last to the quarter-mile mark, and yet one of the first to finish the two miles, simply by knowing my pace and being consistent. I consistently passed people the entire time, and only one person passed me that finished in front of me. One of the soldiers I passed (about 10 years younger than me) talked about how he had been running four miles a day to get ready for that test. I highly doubt he has been able to maintain that for the past two months since then- he probably go burned out in some way: poor recovery time, fatigue, injury/inflammation/pain, lack of motivation- all are symptoms of "chronic cardio".

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by Go-Pre View Post
                  Apparently you haven't been to the Hawaii Ironman.
                  apparently not

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by dado View Post
                    apparently not
                    dado, I've been waiting for you to join this thread and say something entertaining. Don't disappoint me now.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      All I can really see in this study is that "chronic cardio" is better than sitting on your butt. Well... of course it is. And Primal Fitness is better than Chronic Cardio.

                      Don't forget genetics.

                      Go to swimming competition trials. All of those guys/ gals train their butts off, but by the end of the trials, you begin to see the same body-type in the top 1%- which comes down to the most elite having a genetic edge. I could train my hardest for 20 years, but still not be TDF caliber, because somewhere in the world, someone will simply be genetically better than me for cycling by 3%, or whatever.

                      STUDY FAIL

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        @jfreaksho - I don't have many quibbles with what you're writing. My problem is that we're comparing wrong-by-definition cardio against right-by-definition "primal". That's a pretty uninteresting question.

                        The more interesting question is whether a properly trained cardio focused lifestyle results in better/more life than a properly trained primal approach. Or conversely, if you're doing "chronic" cardio, are you doing more or less damage to yourself than if you are doing "chronic" primal?

                        All IMO, etc.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by DeeDub View Post
                          Where does that "fact" abut hunter gatherers come from?
                          well we only have guesses. various guesses. this entire physiology, nutrition and exercise "truth seeking" has been full of "true today, false tomorrow" truths. i am a little bit annoyed. but there is no one to blame (possibly human limitation and the inductive nature of "knowledge" seeking in this world).
                          Few but ripe.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by DeeDub View Post
                            @jfreaksho - I don't have many quibbles with what you're writing. My problem is that we're comparing wrong-by-definition cardio against right-by-definition "primal". That's a pretty uninteresting question.

                            The more interesting question is whether a properly trained cardio focused lifestyle results in better/more life than a properly trained primal approach. Or conversely, if you're doing "chronic" cardio, are you doing more or less damage to yourself than if you are doing "chronic" primal?

                            All IMO, etc.
                            How would you define "properly trained" in standard cardio? I would say that the result of that is a person who can run long distances at a pace and method that causes minimal temporary injury and no permanent or chronic injury.

                            You ask an interesting question, and I think there are far too many variables for it to be a simple study. Throwing in the "properly trained" makes the difference, as someone properly trained will be listening to their body and not forcing their body through all the negative consequences of overtraining, resulting in little or no negative consequences. This ideal situation for a "properly trained" person will happen regardless of the method used, and so to find a difference you have to start looking at other factors such as muscle mass, gait, bone density, balancing ability, etc. I would argue that a PBF-based exercise plan is more effective at building and maintaining muscle mass and bone density than a cardio-focused plan, but that's just slightly educated wishing.

                            It's not a simple question, and I don't think the comparative studies have been done.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by jfreaksho View Post
                              You ask an interesting question, and I think there are far too many variables for it to be a simple study.
                              I'm not even sure there is necessarily one answer. Seems like it would depend on what needed doing. If your primary job is to stand on the bluff above your tribe's cave and toss boulders at intruders, then Primal is probably the way to go. If your job is collect every edible root in a 20km radius four times a week, then sensible cardio is probably your friend.

                              Seems every important question devolves to "What is the meaning of your life?", LOL.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Also consider your own personal goals before you bother trying to answer the original question. If the endpoint for you is longevity, then the studies mentioned certainly point to chronic cardio being more worthwhile than doing nothing. I am not sure that this is really something that PB would disagree with. If however, enjoyment of life, healthy joints and wellbeing are important, then maybe the PB style of exercise might be better. My grandfather is 98 this year. Every morning he wakes up and does these funny little exercises, taught to him by a doctor when he had TB in his thirties. I think perhaps any non-sedentary lifestyle is going to be an improvement. For longevity, there are some pretty impressive IF studies out there, I wouldn't bother debating the exercise side of things, diet is clearly more important.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X