Last edited by 70in2012; 12-12-2011 at 06:12 PM.
Few but ripe.
The message I got was that people work themselves like crazy doing chronic cardio to lose weight when they just shoot themselves in the foot with their diet choices. A lot of people associate going to the gym and running on a treadmill with the whole "being on a diet" and "getting in shape" thing. Why do that when you just run around and play? Or get roughly the same benefits by sprinting over a short period of time?
If people want to sit in the gym on a treadmill for an hour, go for it. I never did during the process of losing over 80 pounds and that was probably one of the reasons I was able to achieve what I have.
5-24-10 ................ 5-24-11
Weight: 281.......... Weight: 203
Total Cholesterol: 243
Total Cholesterol: 239
LDL: 183 (calc), 138 (actual)
Total Cholesterol: 225
LDL: 161 (calc), 120 (actual)
Enter Spam Man^
“Everything in moderation, including moderation.”
― Oscar Wilde
The philosophy that has worked for me for 35 years of running. Run 4-5 miles 3x/week at a 9-10 minute pace. Cross train: swim, bike, hike.
Sprinting + resting in the PBF can be considered the "including moderation" piece, i.e. run moderately and do some sprints every once in a while, and then take a rest day every once in a while.
From what I can tell, Mark's aversion to chronic cardio stems from his overdoing it for years as a competitive athlete. He burned himself out.
For those of us who have NOT burned ourselves out through grueling competition, there is nothing harmful with moderate "chronic" cardio. I've been running for 35 years with zero knee problems, and I'm now 60 years old (roughly the same age as Mark).
What seems to cause much of the confusion is the ambiguous "chronic" term. Does chronic mean 50 miles/week at a 6 minute pace (recipe for injuries), or 12 miles/week at a 9-10 minute pace? If its the former, I agree with Mark. If its the latter, I disagree.