What constitutes cardio, really? No, I mean, really??

[cherimac]

Originally Posted by fit44

I use to put all my energy into cardio, but these days it's a small component of my workouts. I rebound daily for maybe 10-15 minutes, and I focus on strength. My heart rate gets up there when I challenge the weights.

Me too.

[hdw]

Originally Posted by bex

Well, to some extent, any kind of movement is cardio - in that it exercises your heart more than, say, sitting at your desk, reading VF.

Another way of defining it is the 'old' definition, which would say that it pushes your heart rate into the aerobic zone, ie more 60% of your max HR. On me, that's the point at which I break a sweat. So by that definition, walking (as in walking to the store) is not cardio (unless I'm really in a hurry), but yoga, barre and weight lifting all have a cardio component.

When I mentally classify my workouts, it's in terms of what constraint am I running up against. In other words, what capacity am I expanding by doing this workout? What is going to tire out that will keep me from doing this for another hour?

Under that classification, for me, yoga is about flexibility and balance (but involves some strength), weights or circuit training are muscle development/toning (with some cardio), step or kickboxing are cardio (with some toning). The FIF KB workouts I'm doing now are 50/50 toning and cardio - I generally run out of puff just around about the time I can't manage one more Press.

HTH

This is my thought too. Most workouts are more than one component, but it is heavier on one than the other. Even pure cardio workouts are also leg toning as you are working/strengthening your legs. Anytime you are breathing harder (i.e. heart pumping), you are doing cardio... albeit some is more taxing than the other. So endurance strength (hi rep, low weight) are cardio workout too.

[slysam]

Originally Posted by Vee

Then they came up with HIIT and the 'continuous' movement part became irrelevant. You could bring yourself to the verge of a heart attack and then stop for a bit, rinse and repeat. It was still cardio but with an anaerobic training component.

The distinction I've heard with intense intervals/hiit and aerobic exercise is... Hiit isn't aerobic because you are meant to be working in anaerobic ranges, but is still "cardio" because it still challenges and conditions the cardiovascular system. (in a different way). A lot of the strength and conditioning people who are on the anti-aerobic exercise trend. They have all kinds of claims about the dangers of aerobic exercise often sighting the difference between an marathon runner and sprinter (usually implying the sprinter's physique is in all ways admirable while the marathon runners is not). I find this odd, because both look fit to me in different ways. And as far as what most people do for aerobic fitness (if not competing in marathons), the aerobic exercise is not really that similar to marathon training. Surely there is a big difference between power walking 5 miles or jogging (or running) 5 miles vs 26. If there are body composition and health dangers to marathon training, why would it be assumed it would be the same for a one hour dance class, a 5k, an afternoon hiking, etc. I don't disagree that too much can cause problems for a lot of people though. But that is true of most sorts of exercise.

I've always heard for aerobic exercise (in high school health and college classes) that aerobic exercise is continuous rhythmic motion (or nearly), using larger muscle groups, and elevates the heart and breathing rate to a certain level (but not too high as then it is anaerobic), and is sustained a certain amount of time (30 minutes, 45 minutes, 1 hour, etc.). I think most health organizations still suggest a certain amount of aerobic exercise, it just isn't as trendy at the moment.

I know a lot of people use "aerobic" and "cardio" interchangeably or did. But cardio often is a bit broader than what is considered aerobic. There are training/fitness benefits to both. My friends who train for endurance sports use a mix of both in their programs (at least when I'e asked), I am sure our VF endurance athletes know more about this than I do. I just thought it was interesting that a friend who is on a triathlon team with a professional coach told me he usually does one hiit a week, but not on the weeks where he has races (if I recall). He considered it strength training for his heart and lungs. The other workouts were varying intensities of aerobic exercise mainly. My impression is the mix of anaerobic and aerobic cardio might be specific to your goals.

[kittybug]

Originally Posted by slysam

The distinction I've heard with intense intervals/hiit and aerobic exercise is... Hiit isn't aerobic because you are meant to be working in anaerobic ranges, but is still "cardio" because it still challenges and conditions the cardiovascular system. (in a different way). A lot of the strength and conditioning people who are on the anti-aerobic exercise trend. They have all kinds of claims about the dangers of aerobic exercise often sighting the difference between an marathon runner and sprinter (usually implying the sprinter's physique is in all ways admirable while the marathon runners is not). I find this odd, because both look fit to me in different ways. And as far as what most people do for aerobic fitness (if not competing in marathons), the aerobic exercise is not really that similar to marathon training. Surely there is a big difference between power walking 5 miles or jogging (or running) 5 miles vs 26. If there are body composition and health dangers to marathon training, why would it be assumed it would be the same for a one hour dance class, a 5k, an afternoon hiking, etc. I don't disagree that too much can cause problems for a lot of people though. But that is true of most sorts of exercise.

I've always heard for aerobic exercise (in high school health and college classes) that aerobic exercise is continuous rhythmic motion (or nearly), using larger muscle groups, and elevates the heart and breathing rate to a certain level (but not too high as then it is anaerobic), and is sustained a certain amount of time (30 minutes, 45 minutes, 1 hour, etc.). I think most health organizations still suggest a certain amount of aerobic exercise, it just isn't as trendy at the moment.

I know a lot of people use "aerobic" and "cardio" interchangeably or did. But cardio often is a bit broader than what is considered aerobic. There are training/fitness benefits to both. My friends who train for endurance sports use a mix of both in their programs (at least when I'e asked), I am sure our VF endurance athletes know more about this than I do. I just thought it was interesting that a friend who is on a triathlon team with a professional coach told me he usually does one hiit a week, but not on the weeks where he has races (if I recall). He considered it strength training for his heart and lungs. The other workouts were varying intensities of aerobic exercise mainly. My impression is the mix of anaerobic and aerobic cardio might be specific to your goals.

I think this is what is tripping me up. Like an earlier poster said, anything that gets your heart pumping, be it weights, etc., is really cardio. At least that's how I've always felt about it. I think these days there's so much emphasis on getting to the anaerobic zone, but it seems people are erroneously associating that state with "cardio." The concept of doing something for the sake of getting your heart pumping faster than it would be sitting at a desk and having that be "cardio" has fallen by the wayside.

I enjoy short HIIT workouts in VERY small amounts, but I find I can't do them for more than a few weeks at a time, if that. After a few weeks, I eschew them from my rotations for weeks at a time because honestly, my joints don't like them one bit. This got me thinking I was missing out on cardio, but I wondered how that could be when I'm breathing heavy and sweating doing the non-HIIT workouts I choose. Which then led me to wonder do I "need" the HIIT workouts at all for cardiovascular "health" when they make my joints hurt, you know?

[beyond.omega]

Originally Posted by kittybug

<snip> Which then led me to wonder do I "need" the HIIT workouts at all for cardiovascular "health" when they make my joints hurt, you know?

I don't think you need *anything* that makes your joints hurt. I also don't think you need HIIT for cardiovascular health. I think that is just one way to do it, a very good way backed by study, but not the only way.

But if you *really* want HIIT, have you thought about T-Tapp? Teresa Tapp did a study in the 90's with some heart health place in Texas about the benefits of T-tapp, and they found that it had the benefits of HIIT. (However, T-Tapp is HIIT but I count it as strength training.)

[kittybug]

Originally Posted by beyond.omega

I don't think you need *anything* that makes your joints hurt. I also don't think you need HIIT for cardiovascular health. I think that is just one way to do it, a very good way backed by study, but not the only way.

But if you *really* want HIIT, have you thought about T-Tapp? Teresa Tapp did a study in the 90's with some heart health place in Texas about the benefits of T-tapp, and they found that it had the benefits of HIIT. (However, T-Tapp is HIIT but I count it as strength training.)

Really? I was under the impression T-Tapp was strength, like you said. I have never checked out her stuff. Going to see if she has YouTube vids...

[beyond.omega]

Originally Posted by kittybug

Really? I was under the impression T-Tapp was strength, like you said. I have never checked out her stuff. Going to see if she has YouTube vids...

Yeah...no kidding...and in my workout rotations (I use that term loosely ) I treat it as strength. And it is isometric exercise, which would normally be considered strength. But still...it has a measured effect on the cardiovascular system to where she herself believes it should be treated at cardio (for people doing things like weight watchers or spark people tracking or something.)

[Peggy T]

So if I walk my dogs for an hour at 3mph over moderately hilly terrain, is that cardio or just a dog walk?

[yogapam]

Originally Posted by Peggy T

So if I walk my dogs for an hour at 3mph over moderately hilly terrain, is that cardio or just a dog walk?

I would consider that cardio. I do several brisk 1 hr+ walks a week with lots of hills and I certainly consider it cardio!

[Peggy T]

Originally Posted by yogapam

I would consider that cardio. I do several brisk 1 hr+ walks a week with lots of hills and I certainly consider it cardio!

True, but 3mph is not really brisk. It is only as fast as my chubby pooch can go!