The Cardio Roundtable, Part 1
Featuring Charles Staley, Christian Thibaudeau, Dr. Lonnie Lowery and Don Alessi
Moderated by Chris Shugart There aren't many truisms in the fitness and bodybuilding community. However, one thing can certainly be set in stone:
If you want to be lean, muscular and healthy, you must do cardio! Or is it….
If you want to look good naked, whatever you do, don't do cardio or you'll lose all your muscle! No, wait, I think it's….
Cardio is the key to a great body! Or perhaps….
Cardio is overrated garbage! Oh
hell, I forget which "absolute and irrefutable fact" is correct. It
seems there are both experts and idiots on both sides of this cardio
conundrum. I've always thought the answer lies somewhere in the middle.
The only way to figure it out is to try both extremes and see what
happens. Over the years I've overdone the cardio and I've avoided it
completely. Through trial and error, I found out what works for me. Luckily,
you don't have to go through this whole process. Why? Because gathered
here to talk about the pros and cons of cardio are four of the smartest
guys on the planet when it comes to fitness: Charles Staley, Christian
Thibaudeau, Dr. Lonnie Lowery and Don Alessi. Here's what they had to
say when we sat down to discuss everyone's least favorite form of
exercise. Chris Shugart:
We probably need to start things off with a definition. Most of us use
the word "cardio" very loosely. What are we talking about exactly when
we say that? Lonnie, why don't you define it for us so we're all on the
same page.
Dr. Lonnie Lowery:
Actually, I've never liked the word "cardio." It's a misnomer for many
bodybuilders. The term implies an attempt to increase cardiorespiratory
function when most guys are actually just trying to maximize fat loss.
Having
said that, let's define "cardio" as aerobic activity geared toward
gaining peripheral adaptations like increased cell "fat burning"
capability (mitochondrial density) and vascularity (capillarization).
Of course, there are less direct and more anaerobic approaches to
reducing fat deposits while developing muscularity, like HIIT, but more
on that later. Shugart:
Thanks, Lonnie. Guys, here's something I've noticed over the last few
years. When I first got into this whole fitness/bodybuilding thing,
cardio was king. You had to do cardio. Cardio was thought to be
superior to weight training for the general population. You weren't
really even "fit" unless you ran five miles every morning. The
pendulum, in other words, was all the way over to the right. Then,
the pendulum began to swing to the other side. For many in the
bodybuilding community, cardio became the catabolic devil. It was
thought to not only be unnecessary, but downright harmful if your goal
was to gain muscle. The pendulum had swung far, far to the left. What's
your take on this and where is that pendulum now?
Christian Thibaudeau:
I'd say that we're definitely getting closer to a balanced position.
Many coaches who were "anti-cardio" are now realizing that some form of
conditioning work offers their athletes a lot. Some die-hard
"pro-cardio" preachers are now slowly integrating more high-intensity
exercises into their programs.
I don't
believe that we'll ever reach a point where everybody agrees on that
subject though, simply because we all have different backgrounds,
beliefs, and goals. But at least we're getting to a point where we can
look at what another coach or athlete is doing and say, "I won't do
that, but I understand what he's doing and agree that, for his goals,
it's okay". Shugart: What do you think, Don?
Don Alessi:
I don't care much about trends or where the pendulum is now. Anaerobic,
resistance athletes learn quickly that excess cardio zaps strength,
mass, power and quickness and even promotes excess fat! As far as John
Public is concerned, well, where are those "fit" runners now? Broken
down and fatter! Worse yet, some are disillusioned with the entire
fitness industry as a whole. Shugart:
Nothing I hate seeing worse than some otherwise skinny guy with a pot
belly running his flabby ass off every morning. If only we could score
points by running them down with our suped-up hotrods, just like in Death Race 2000!
I'll put tommy guns on my Toyota and we'll all adopt cool nicknames
like Shotgun Shugart and Lawnmower Lowery and… Oh, sorry, I totally
geeked out there for a second. What's your take on the cardio pendulum,
Lonman?
Dr. Lowery:
I think the definition of fitness itself needs to be clarified first.
Classically, fitness is defined by five components. 1. Cardiovascular
endurance (like a marathoner would exhibit), 2. muscular endurance
(like a boxer or wrestler would have), 3. muscular strength (e.g. a
powerlifter), 4. flexibility (e.g. a martial artist), and 5. body
composition (e.g. a bodybuilder).
It's
important to understand that the elite in any given sport are generally
less "fit" across the board (regarding a balance of the above
components) than even a serious recreational athlete might be. For
example, a powerlifter excels at strength but suffers in the
cardiovascular department (VO2 max) compared to a marathoner.
Therefore,
your historical observations about what constitutes a "fit" person are
astute. Both popular culture and academic exercise physiology really
focused upon the cardiovascular portion throughout the eighties and
even nineties. Only relatively recently has resistance training gained
more widespread acceptance. Still, countercultures like the
anti-aerobic backlash leave parts of the fitness definition lacking.
Regarding
the "pendulum," it depends on one's goals, body type and yearly
training periodization schedule. Are you trying to add mass to a thin,
ectomorphic body or rip-up an already thick physique at all costs? To
me, aerobic activity is ultimately a necessity for maximum
muscularity, whether it's done just two or three times weekly for
thirty minutes during mass building phases or almost daily for an hour
during ripping phases involving purposeful negative energy balance.
I
don't want to get ahead of myself, but the catabolism fear stems from
excessive negative energy status and cardio sessions that are too
intense and prolonged. When sessions are kept to a low-moderate
intensity, there's less risk of excess cortisol release, protein loss
and glycogen depletion. Fat mobilization and oxidation (as well as GH
release) can still be stimulated, however.
Charles Staley:
I think things are coming back to a rational center. No matter what the
argument, the truth is usually somewhere in the middle. Aerobic
exercise has a place for those seeking improved body composition, but
less of a place for those seeking maximal strength and power. Shugart:
Okay, here's something that's always bugged me. I hear many speak out
against cardio, then recommend GPP work, energy systems training,
no-rest weight training circuits, etc. But isn't that all basically
"cardio"?
Alessi:
If you want to generalize, then playing an energetic game of Xbox is
basically cardio. See, just like the question, the confusion is because
of the lack of specificity. All exercise systems have general
similarities. Cardio denotes cardiovascular conditioning of the heart
and lungs and their role in managing cellular function — or in gym
talk, your "wind." So you gotta ask yourself how much of and what type
of wind you need for a very specific outcome.
Thibaudeau:
First of all, I think one problem is that we get either confused on the
terminology we use or we get stuck on static concepts of what's what. I
don't like the term "cardio" either; it's way too general. It's
obviously an abbreviation of "cardiovascular exercise" and basically
means a form of training that improves cardiac efficiency/health. But
if you think about it, any exercise that leads to a significant
increase in heart rate and energy expenditure could be included as
"cardio" work.
People often confuse
"cardio" and "aerobic work." Don't make that mistake! You can get an
elevation in heart rate and a significant energy expenditure (thus an
activity that could be classified as "cardio") without involving the
aerobic pathway to produce your energy. In that case, you can be
performing "cardio" without actually doing an aerobic exercise.
That's
why I coined the term "energy system work." Now we can classify
exercises according to how we produce energy to sustain the activity.
It thus becomes easy to select the method best suited to our needs.
Energy system work (or ESW) can be divided into three categories:

1.
Anaerobic alactic work: Activity of very short duration (less than 25
seconds) and very high intensity: short sprints (shorter than 150m),
plyo drills, heavy lifting, etc.
2.
Anaerobic lactic work: Activity of short duration (25 seconds to 3
minutes) and high intensity: medium to long sprints (150-800m),
bodybuilding-type lifting with short rest intervals (Charles' EDT
program being a prime example), conditioning circuits, etc.
3.
Aerobic work: Activity of relatively long duration (at least 12 to 15+
minutes) and low intensity: jogging, biking, etc.

Note
that there's a gap between anaerobic lactic and aerobic work (3-12
minutes). In that case, the energy demands are from both sources.
GPP
is a recent buzz word (despite the fact that it's been in use for over
thirty years). It stands for General Physical Preparation and simply
refers to an exercise developing organic conditioning (whole body
general fitness/conditioning) while not being specific to the main
sport or activity. As a result, GPP can include pretty much any
exercise involving the whole body. It's only a matter of how you're
using it to get a good systemic effect. Shugart:
Very nice answer, Christian. People would never guess we're conducting
this roundtable in a strip joint or that you were receiving a lap dance
from "Big Bambi" while you gave that answer. Anyway, what's your take
on this question, Charles?
Staley:
Any exercise modality can be either aerobic or anaerobic, depending on
how you structure the loading. In fact, my university thesis was
entitled "Effects of a sixty minute bout of cow-tipping on
physiological and psychological variables in post-pubescent males with
acute Tourette's Syndrome." Basically, the study has been criticized
because about 34% of the subjects had to withdraw due to injuries;
nevertheless, what we found was that virtually anything can
occur at any point on the energy spectrum. Of course, some activities
lend themselves better to aerobic loading than anaerobic and vice versa. Shugart: What about the no-rest weight training circuits, Lonnie?
Dr. Lowery:
It's my experience that aerobic exercise is best left as a separate
entity from resistance training, at least when one's physique is the
only consideration. It's physiologically and psychologically
appropriate. Trying to get big muscles with reduced rest intervals and
(by definition) lighter weights, flies in the face of the specificity
principle. That is, the body adapts specifically to the stimulus
applied. Weight training circuits may be more efficient (some
cardiovascular endurance plus some muscular endurance plus some
hypertrophy) and convenient, but won't maximize hypertrophy like heavy
weights. Shugart: Good point.
I'm going to throw out some very general questions now and let you guys
duke it out. Here we go. What's better for the average guy wanting to
be lean and muscular? HIIT (high intensity interval training) or long
bouts of jogging at one pace (low-intensity)?
Staley:
Clearly the former. There's really no debate on that. And you don't
need a university degree or advanced physiology textbooks to understand
why this is so: when you expose your body to repeated long-duration
excursions, your body wants to weigh less in order to become more
efficient at doing what you're asking it to do. And the easiest way for
your body to weigh less is to catabolize muscle (which of course,
weighs more than fat). Shugart: What do you think, Coach Snippy?
Alessi: If
they're a qualified HIIT trainee, that is, under the age of 35, without
a pre-existing heart condition or family history and have at least six
months prior training experience, then it becomes a simple energy game
(calories in, calories out). For that, HIIT burns more calories in less
time. Shugart: HIIT or jogging, Thib?
Thibaudeau:
Well, the only thing you have to do is compare the physique of a
sprinter to that of a marathoner. Which one is leaner and more
muscular? The sprinter of course! In fact, sprinters, as a group, have
a better body than 95% of all the people spending hour after hour in
the gym. This is all the more impressive considering that most
sprinters will strength train three, maybe four times per week using
only basic movements such as the bench press, squat, the Olympic lifts
and hamstring work.
Of course, one could
argue that the top sprinters are genetically gifted for leanness,
strength and muscle. However, put the same guys on a hefty regimen of
long distance running and chances are the quality of their physiques
will vastly decrease.
This is not to say that
low-intensity aerobic work is to be avoided. However, it shouldn't be
abused. Let's face it, as T-men we like to shout high and loud that
aerobic work isn't manly. But the fact is that aerobic work does offer
several benefits, including the shift toward a better lipid profile, a
lowered risk of cardiovascular diseases and hypertension, as well as
fat loss. So aerobic work isn't the Devil; however, it's not the
fastest route towards a muscular and lean physique.