re: I quit doing cardio

quote:

---

You are the king of strawman arguments in this thread. I didn’t endorse jogging, I don’t minimize the importance of strength training, I posted studies.

---

this is where context gets lost, i wasnt saying you endorsed jogging, sorry if it came out like that

quote:

---

I think it is pretty clear that cardiorespiratory fitness is not the least important factor for longevity in any list.

---

what do you consider cardio? i consider 8-10k steps as cardio. i consider it way more important than zone 2 training

quote:

---

People who walked 8,000 or more steps even one day a week were less likely to die over a 10-year period than those who did not, according to a study published in March in the Journal of the American Medical Association Network Open.

Among 3,000-plus participants, those who took at least 8,000 steps one or two days a week were 14.9% less likely to die over a 10-year period than those who did not. People who took 8,000 or more steps three to seven days a week were 16.5% less likely to die over the same period, according to the paper.

---

thats why


i also consider sprinting as more important because there are added benefits that come from sprinting that dont come from just zone 2 jogging

quote:

---

he question arises, which model of physical training successfully supports maintaining basic health characteristics? Today, the endurance model is preferred, and its advantages have been demonstrated repeatedly. Until now, however, this “classic model” has not been compared with any other one in the context of lifelong physical activity and health. Consequently, the concepts of exercise and training in health and aging research are often used as equivalents for endurance exercise and endurance training. We provide evidence that the sprint-oriented training model also results in optimal health outcomes in a long-run perspective. It should be emphasized that both sprint and endurance athletic groups benefit from their lifelong competitive sport participation much more than recreationally active or inactive individuals and that health benefits definitely outweigh the risks associated with intensive training (Fig. 1). There are, however, differences in the profile of benefits: long-term sprint-oriented training more effectively promotes bone mineral density, muscle mass, neuromuscular function, and probably training adherence, whereas endurance training is more effective in maintaining high aerobic capacity and cardiovascular function as well as optimal glucose metabolism and lipid profile across the lifespan. Both training models seem to facilitate keeping low fat mass effectively. The risk of tendinopathy is similar in both groups and higher than in the general population, but the injury rate during competition is higher in sprinters. Competitive master athletes participating in long-term intensive endurance training regimens may have a somewhat higher risk of deleterious cardiovascular structural and functional changes than the general population. An analogous risk in aging sprint-trained athletes is not known.

---

i never meant for it to say you endorsed jogging. not at all. i do not consider walking or sprint training as cardio nor do i consider hard conditioning as cardio

i consider cardio as prolonged zone 2 training. of the things i listed i think it is least important. if you feel its more, thats fine.