- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: I quit doing cardio
Posted on 4/4/24 at 1:53 pm to lsu777
Posted on 4/4/24 at 1:53 pm to lsu777
I don’t consider walking 8k steps a day to be cardio unless they are with increased effort (with resultant increase in heart rate) for a meaningful duration (all 8k steps in one session). If those steps are taken without increased effort I don’t think it’s making anyone more fit.
In all these studies we have know there is significant confounding, which I’ll define for those who might not know (not you) as factors other than the one being measured that affect the outcomes. The sedentary people likely had less healthy lifestyles in other ways as well (overnourishment, diabetes, htn, smoking, drinking) that weren’t measured that affected the results.
That study showed a 16% benefit to 8k steps. The VO2 max study I cited, showed at minimum a 40% benefit when going from low average to above average and up to a 500% benefit when going from low to elite. So 2.5x to 30x higher mortality benefit. Confounding significantly affects these results. To show this, we have to make assumptions. Let’s assume that 10% of all excess deaths are due to a confounder not measured, which I think k is conservative (the number could easily be 16%, erasing all of the benefit to walking 8k steps). When you factor in confounding, the effect of the study variable changes a lot in the 8k steps group, now 6% benefit, and very little in the Vo2 max groups, now 30-490% benefit, with VO2 now 5-81 times more beneficial than 8k steps.
Regarding sprinting vs endurance training. That article seems more like hypotheses rather than measurements of hard outcomes, but I think the hypotheses are reasonable. However, I think the benefits of sprint training listed can be more effectively reached with strength training.
In all these studies we have know there is significant confounding, which I’ll define for those who might not know (not you) as factors other than the one being measured that affect the outcomes. The sedentary people likely had less healthy lifestyles in other ways as well (overnourishment, diabetes, htn, smoking, drinking) that weren’t measured that affected the results.
That study showed a 16% benefit to 8k steps. The VO2 max study I cited, showed at minimum a 40% benefit when going from low average to above average and up to a 500% benefit when going from low to elite. So 2.5x to 30x higher mortality benefit. Confounding significantly affects these results. To show this, we have to make assumptions. Let’s assume that 10% of all excess deaths are due to a confounder not measured, which I think k is conservative (the number could easily be 16%, erasing all of the benefit to walking 8k steps). When you factor in confounding, the effect of the study variable changes a lot in the 8k steps group, now 6% benefit, and very little in the Vo2 max groups, now 30-490% benefit, with VO2 now 5-81 times more beneficial than 8k steps.
Regarding sprinting vs endurance training. That article seems more like hypotheses rather than measurements of hard outcomes, but I think the hypotheses are reasonable. However, I think the benefits of sprint training listed can be more effectively reached with strength training.
This post was edited on 4/4/24 at 2:17 pm
Posted on 4/4/24 at 3:11 pm to NewOrleansBlend
i never said that the study you showed didnt show a greater benefit to longevity for vo2 max groups
what i said was...you get a lot of that from strength training and the roi when factoring in quality of life is better. from strictly a numbers point, your study trumps anything..
but when factoring in roi of quality of life, aesthetics whatever it falls short imo.
and no you are not going to change my mind, nor do i really care that much to even want to change my opinion
but ill say this...if both strength training and endurance training both get us to 70+...which one do you feel is going to give us a better quality of life? which one would have the better metabolic benefit over the long haul? which one would have us looking better and being able to complete every day task? which one would we still be able to reasonably continue to do?
thats how i look at things
what i said was...you get a lot of that from strength training and the roi when factoring in quality of life is better. from strictly a numbers point, your study trumps anything..
but when factoring in roi of quality of life, aesthetics whatever it falls short imo.
and no you are not going to change my mind, nor do i really care that much to even want to change my opinion
but ill say this...if both strength training and endurance training both get us to 70+...which one do you feel is going to give us a better quality of life? which one would have the better metabolic benefit over the long haul? which one would have us looking better and being able to complete every day task? which one would we still be able to reasonably continue to do?
thats how i look at things
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News