PDA

View Full Version : High vs Low intensity - which is better?


October 13th 07, 07:43 PM
I'm not refering to the age old debate on high vs low intensity for
losing weight.
I know low intensity burns more fat, but high burns more calories
overall and raises your metabolism for hours afterward, blah, blah,
blah....

I am not interested in losing weight at all.
I NEED all the calories I can get, I have trouble keeping my weight
up.
But thats a whole other story.

I'm speaking in terms of 'internal' health.
I eat a bad diet, and am in the process of trying to change.

But in the meantime, I want to try and reverse the damage done.

I get yearly physicals (with blood work) and got a stress echo test
(running on treadmill) two years ago.
Things all came up normal, but my good cholesterol is on the low side.

So I have three goals in mind
1. Raise good cholesterol
2. Clean my arteries of the plaque clinging to it (same as goal 1?)
3. Try to keep my weight up

Whats the best option for this high or low intensity cardio?

I know for goal #3, low is probably better, but I have no idea for 1
and 2.

Thanks

Andrzej Rosa
October 14th 07, 01:02 AM
Dnia Sat, 13 Oct 2007 o 20:43 GMT napisał(a):
> I'm not refering to the age old debate on high vs low intensity for
> losing weight.
> I know low intensity burns more fat, but high burns more calories
> overall and raises your metabolism for hours afterward, blah, blah,
> blah....
>
> I am not interested in losing weight at all.
> I NEED all the calories I can get, I have trouble keeping my weight
> up.
> But thats a whole other story.
>
> I'm speaking in terms of 'internal' health.
> I eat a bad diet, and am in the process of trying to change.
>
> But in the meantime, I want to try and reverse the damage done.
>
> I get yearly physicals (with blood work) and got a stress echo test
> (running on treadmill) two years ago.
> Things all came up normal, but my good cholesterol is on the low side.
>
> So I have three goals in mind
> 1. Raise good cholesterol
> 2. Clean my arteries of the plaque clinging to it (same as goal 1?)
> 3. Try to keep my weight up
>
> Whats the best option for this high or low intensity cardio?
>
> I know for goal #3, low is probably better,

Not really. Low intensity cardio will not build muscles on you, HIIT
might do that. Who is heavier, sprinters or long distance runners? You
shouldn't expect that training of a long distance runner will make you
look like a sprinter.

Actually, if you want to get heavier you probably shouldn't do much
cardio at all. I doubt that it has any magical means of raising
cholesterol and unpluging arteries, but if you still want to do it, do
it HIIT style.

> but I have no idea for 1 and 2.

I _think_ (see? I don't know it, just think) that some sort of complexes
could work for you. Basically you grab a bar or dumbbell and lift it up
in various ways before putting it down. All sorts of lifts are fair
game, and some could be easy for the weight you have in your arms, but
you do them anyway. Here (http://staff.jccc.net/ijavorek/bookdb.html)
you have some examples.

But you could just go to the gym and do circuit training on machines, if
you prefer it this way. Or simply do high reps of compound lifts in
between rope skipping sessions.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

October 14th 07, 02:43 AM
On Oct 13, 8:02 pm, Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
> Not really. Low intensity cardio will not build muscles on you, HIIT
> might do that. Who is heavier, sprinters or long distance runners? You
> shouldn't expect that training of a long distance runner will make you
> look like a sprinter.

I think theres a slightly different reason for that.
When you have to do long distance running, you probably dont want to
carry too much weight since well, you're carrying extra weight.
But for sprinters, since its an explosive (anarobic) exercise, they
need the extra muscle for power, etc.
So sprinters probably lift a lot more than marathon runners do (if
marathon runners even lift).
Thats why marathon runners in general are skinny, but have no muscle.

> Actually, if you want to get heavier you probably shouldn't do much
> cardio at all.

I have always avoided cardio, because I want to keep my weight up.

> I doubt that it has any magical means of raising
> cholesterol and unpluging arteries, but if you still want to do it, do

I thought one method of raising HDL (if thats the good cholestorol) is
cardio?
from a website: methods of raising HDL:
1. lose weight
2. Aerobic exercise
3. stop smoking
4. cut out trans fatty acids
5. 1 or 2 cups of red wine

But they never go into whether high intensity is better or low
intensity

> I _think_ (see? I don't know it, just think) that some sort of complexes
> could work for you. Basically you grab a bar or dumbbell and lift it up
> in various ways before putting it down. All sorts of lifts are fair

I actually lift weights 3-4 times a week (including pullups with
weights, deadlifts, squats, cleans, bench)

But there MUST be some kind of health benefit from cardio, not
counting using cardio to burn calories.
Because thats not even a big deal.
Running on the treadmill for 30 minutes burns, what...300 calories?
Just eat 1 less candy bar, and thats 300 calories less.

But, thats going away from the topic.

So whats the best cardio for HDL/Artery benefits?

Thanks

ATP*
October 14th 07, 02:47 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm not refering to the age old debate on high vs low intensity for
> losing weight.
> I know low intensity burns more fat, but high burns more calories
> overall and raises your metabolism for hours afterward, blah, blah,
> blah....
>
> I am not interested in losing weight at all.
> I NEED all the calories I can get, I have trouble keeping my weight
> up.
> But thats a whole other story.
>
> I'm speaking in terms of 'internal' health.
> I eat a bad diet, and am in the process of trying to change.
>
> But in the meantime, I want to try and reverse the damage done.
>
> I get yearly physicals (with blood work) and got a stress echo test
> (running on treadmill) two years ago.
> Things all came up normal, but my good cholesterol is on the low side.
>
> So I have three goals in mind
> 1. Raise good cholesterol
> 2. Clean my arteries of the plaque clinging to it (same as goal 1?)
> 3. Try to keep my weight up
>
> Whats the best option for this high or low intensity cardio?
>
> I know for goal #3, low is probably better, but I have no idea for 1
> and 2.
>
> Thanks

Cardio with bursts of high intensity appears to be better for all three, if
the last one could be rephrased build lean mass. There was a recent study
that showed playing soccer to be superior to jogging in several respects.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/20/AR2007092000465.html

October 14th 07, 05:14 AM
On Oct 13, 2:43 pm, wrote:
> So I have three goals in mind
> 1. Raise good cholesterol
> 2. Clean my arteries of the plaque clinging to it (same as goal 1?)
> 3. Try to keep my weight up
>
> Whats the best option for this high or low intensity cardio?
>
> I know for goal #3, low is probably better, but I have no idea for 1
> and 2.

Let me clarify #3...I don't want to lose weight.
Thats why I said low intensity is probably better for #3.
High intensity or Intervals are great for burning calories, but I
don't want to burn calories.

I do lift weights - my workout in a nutshell: 3 sets of 5 reps
Squat, Bench, row, pullups with weights, Clean&Press, deadlift, curls
and close grip bench.
I know, I know, 5 reps is a bit low for hypertrophy...but I love
lifting heavy (well, heavy for *me*)

October 14th 07, 05:23 AM
On Oct 13, 9:47 pm, "ATP*" > wrote:
> Cardio with bursts of high intensity appears to be better for all three, if
> the last one could be rephrased build lean mass. There was a recent study
> that showed playing soccer to be superior to jogging in several

I skimmed through the article, and it basically says high intensity (I
consider high intensity the same as high intensity intervals...after
all doing a light jog between sprints is similiar to resting for 20
seconds between sprints)

It basically said high intensity is better for losing weight than low
intensity.
Which is pretty well known I think.
Low intensity burns more calories from fat....BUT high intensity burns
more overall calories.

But I dont think the article mentioned anything about HDL or arteries.

Most articles on raising HDL just says "do aerobic exercise" but it
doesnt say low intensity or high intensity.

Thanks

rev
October 14th 07, 05:35 AM
wrote:
> On Oct 13, 9:47 pm, "ATP*" > wrote:
>> Cardio with bursts of high intensity appears to be better for all three, if
>> the last one could be rephrased build lean mass. There was a recent study
>> that showed playing soccer to be superior to jogging in several
>
> I skimmed through the article, and it basically says high intensity (I
> consider high intensity the same as high intensity intervals...after
> all doing a light jog between sprints is similiar to resting for 20
> seconds between sprints)
>
> It basically said high intensity is better for losing weight than low
> intensity.
> Which is pretty well known I think.

> Low intensity burns more calories from fat....BUT high intensity burns
> more overall calories.

This makes little sense to me and *may* only be true under certain
circumstances if at all. Just do it, any type of exercise will help you!

>
> But I dont think the article mentioned anything about HDL or arteries.
>
> Most articles on raising HDL just says "do aerobic exercise" but it
> doesnt say low intensity or high intensity.
>
> Thanks
>
You are over thinking this imo. Any exercise done on a regular basis
tends to increase HDL. So just exercise - pick up heavy things and put
them down and repeat; go for long walks, swim etc.



--
Bob Volkmer

Andrzej Rosa
October 14th 07, 06:26 AM
Dnia Sun, 14 Oct 2007 o 03:43 GMT napisał(a):
> On Oct 13, 8:02 pm, Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Not really. Low intensity cardio will not build muscles on you, HIIT
>> might do that. Who is heavier, sprinters or long distance runners? You
>> shouldn't expect that training of a long distance runner will make you
>> look like a sprinter.
>
> I think theres a slightly different reason for that.
> When you have to do long distance running, you probably dont want to
> carry too much weight since well, you're carrying extra weight.
> But for sprinters, since its an explosive (anarobic) exercise, they
> need the extra muscle for power, etc.
> So sprinters probably lift a lot more than marathon runners do (if
> marathon runners even lift).
> Thats why marathon runners in general are skinny, but have no muscle.

You can gain muscles even without lifting. There is this age old SAID
principle, which means Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands. Running
fast needs muscles, so your body will build muscles. Running for long
distances is limited by oxygen, so weight reduction is the answer
(without going into details). Different stimulus, different hormones,
different outcomes.

[...]
>> I doubt that it has any magical means of raising
>> cholesterol and unpluging arteries, but if you still want to do it, do
>
> I thought one method of raising HDL (if thats the good cholestorol) is
> cardio?
> from a website: methods of raising HDL:
> 1. lose weight
> 2. Aerobic exercise
> 3. stop smoking
> 4. cut out trans fatty acids
> 5. 1 or 2 cups of red wine
>
> But they never go into whether high intensity is better or low
> intensity

They probably do not know.

>> I _think_ (see? I don't know it, just think) that some sort of complexes
>> could work for you. Basically you grab a bar or dumbbell and lift it up
>> in various ways before putting it down. All sorts of lifts are fair
>
> I actually lift weights 3-4 times a week (including pullups with
> weights, deadlifts, squats, cleans, bench)
>
> But there MUST be some kind of health benefit from cardio,

It's way easier to research, so it could be proved to work.

Take a look at two hypothetical scenarios. In one you jog for half an
hour at 75% of you VO2max. In the other you *exceed* your VO2max, so
you have to slow down to catch up, but then you go fast again. In both
scenarios your cardio-respiratory system works as hard as it can. What
benefits you'd get from steady state cardio?

> not counting using cardio to burn calories.

Oh, you'd probably burn more calories in the first scenario, but only
probably. First, nobody knows how many calories you need for sudden
bursts of anaerobic activity. There are estimates, most probably very
wrong. Scientist made them trying to achieve the impossible, that is a
steady state anaerobic activity. Squatting 10% of your max ten times is
nothing compared to one heavy single. You don't even feel warmed up, but
that's how the estimates were made.

> Because thats not even a big deal.
> Running on the treadmill for 30 minutes burns, what...300 calories?
> Just eat 1 less candy bar, and thats 300 calories less.

Isn't it how it works? Once you need to torture yourself for half an
hour for just one candy bar, eating a candy bar doesn't look so great
anymore?

> But, thats going away from the topic.
>
> So whats the best cardio for HDL/Artery benefits?

I *don't* know, but I'd put my bet on barbell complexes and/or high rep
ballistic lifts. Especially if you want to put on weight.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Andrzej Rosa
October 14th 07, 06:33 AM
Dnia Sun, 14 Oct 2007 o 06:23 GMT napisał(a):
> On Oct 13, 9:47 pm, "ATP*" > wrote:
>> Cardio with bursts of high intensity appears to be better for all three, if
>> the last one could be rephrased build lean mass. There was a recent study
>> that showed playing soccer to be superior to jogging in several
>
> I skimmed through the article, and it basically says high intensity (I
> consider high intensity the same as high intensity intervals...after
> all doing a light jog between sprints is similiar to resting for 20
> seconds between sprints)
>
> It basically said high intensity is better for losing weight than low
> intensity.

Don't get confused by euphemisms. Here they meant *fat*, not lean
bodyweight.

> Which is pretty well known I think.
> Low intensity burns more calories from fat....BUT high intensity burns
> more overall calories.

It's not so simple, as I mentioned elsewhere.

> But I dont think the article mentioned anything about HDL or arteries.
>
> Most articles on raising HDL just says "do aerobic exercise" but it
> doesnt say low intensity or high intensity.

Most people with this problem are fat, so any kind of exercise and
weight reduction program will help. Beside that, nobody knows sh*t.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

sycochkn
October 14th 07, 07:44 AM
> wrote in message
oups.com...
> I'm not refering to the age old debate on high vs low intensity for
> losing weight.
> I know low intensity burns more fat,
*good for weight loss and cardio vascular fitness.
>but high burns more calories
> overall and raises your metabolism for hours afterward, blah, blah,
> blah....
*good for building lean tissue and gaining weight.
>
> I am not interested in losing weight at all.
> I NEED all the calories I can get, I have trouble keeping my weight
> up.
> But thats a whole other story.
>
> I'm speaking in terms of 'internal' health.
> I eat a bad diet, and am in the process of trying to change.
>
> But in the meantime, I want to try and reverse the damage done.
>
> I get yearly physicals (with blood work) and got a stress echo test
> (running on treadmill) two years ago.
> Things all came up normal, but my good cholesterol is on the low side.
*so is mine.
>
> So I have three goals in mind
> 1. Raise good cholesterol
*diet, no smoking, aerobic exercise.
> 2. Clean my arteries of the plaque clinging to it (same as goal 1?)
*raise good cholesterol, lower bad cholesterol.
> 3. Try to keep my weight up
*eat more food.
*the diet that is good for cholesterol is not necessarily good for gaining
weight.
>
> Whats the best option for this high or low intensity cardio?
*I have no idea. I am at the point of 15 minute miles for 1 hour 3 times a
week.
>
> I know for goal #3, low is probably better, but I have no idea for 1
> and 2.
>
> Thanks
>

sycochkn
October 14th 07, 07:49 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 13, 8:02 pm, Andrzej Rosa > wrote:
>> Not really. Low intensity cardio will not build muscles on you, HIIT
>> might do that. Who is heavier, sprinters or long distance runners? You
>> shouldn't expect that training of a long distance runner will make you
>> look like a sprinter.
>
> I think theres a slightly different reason for that.
> When you have to do long distance running, you probably dont want to
> carry too much weight since well, you're carrying extra weight.
> But for sprinters, since its an explosive (anarobic) exercise, they
> need the extra muscle for power, etc.
> So sprinters probably lift a lot more than marathon runners do (if
> marathon runners even lift).
> Thats why marathon runners in general are skinny, but have no muscle.
>
>> Actually, if you want to get heavier you probably shouldn't do much
>> cardio at all.
>
> I have always avoided cardio, because I want to keep my weight up.
>
>> I doubt that it has any magical means of raising
>> cholesterol and unpluging arteries, but if you still want to do it, do
>
> I thought one method of raising HDL (if thats the good cholestorol) is
> cardio?
> from a website: methods of raising HDL:
> 1. lose weight
> 2. Aerobic exercise
> 3. stop smoking
> 4. cut out trans fatty acids
> 5. 1 or 2 cups of red wine
>
> But they never go into whether high intensity is better or low
> intensity
>
>> I _think_ (see? I don't know it, just think) that some sort of complexes
>> could work for you. Basically you grab a bar or dumbbell and lift it up
>> in various ways before putting it down. All sorts of lifts are fair
>
> I actually lift weights 3-4 times a week (including pullups with
> weights, deadlifts, squats, cleans, bench)
>
> But there MUST be some kind of health benefit from cardio, not
> counting using cardio to burn calories.
> Because thats not even a big deal.
> Running on the treadmill for 30 minutes burns, what...300 calories?
> Just eat 1 less candy bar, and thats 300 calories less.
>
> But, thats going away from the topic.
>
> So whats the best cardio for HDL/Artery benefits?

Triathelon?

>
> Thanks
>

sycochkn
October 14th 07, 07:58 AM
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Oct 13, 2:43 pm, wrote:
>> So I have three goals in mind
>> 1. Raise good cholesterol
>> 2. Clean my arteries of the plaque clinging to it (same as goal 1?)
>> 3. Try to keep my weight up
>>
>> Whats the best option for this high or low intensity cardio?
>>
>> I know for goal #3, low is probably better, but I have no idea for 1
>> and 2.
>
> Let me clarify #3...I don't want to lose weight.
> Thats why I said low intensity is probably better for #3.
> High intensity or Intervals are great for burning calories, but I
> don't want to burn calories.
>
> I do lift weights - my workout in a nutshell: 3 sets of 5 reps
> Squat, Bench, row, pullups with weights, Clean&Press, deadlift, curls
> and close grip bench.
> I know, I know, 5 reps is a bit low for hypertrophy...but I love
> lifting heavy (well, heavy for *me*)
>

If you intend to build lean body mass you need to burn and consume a lot of
calories. It is probably desirable to do both aerobic and anerobic exercise.

Bob

October 16th 07, 02:38 AM
On Oct 13, 2:43 pm, wrote:
> I'm not refering to the age old debate on high vs low intensity for
> losing weight.
> I know low intensity burns more fat, but high burns more calories
> overall and raises your metabolism for hours afterward, blah, blah,
> blah....
>
> I am not interested in losing weight at all.
> I NEED all the calories I can get, I have trouble keeping my weight
> up.
> But thats a whole other story.
>
> I'm speaking in terms of 'internal' health.
> I eat a bad diet, and am in the process of trying to change.
>
> But in the meantime, I want to try and reverse the damage done.
>
> I get yearly physicals (with blood work) and got a stress echo test
> (running on treadmill) two years ago.
> Things all came up normal, but my good cholesterol is on the low side.
>
> So I have three goals in mind
> 1. Raise good cholesterol
> 2. Clean my arteries of the plaque clinging to it (same as goal 1?)
> 3. Try to keep my weight up
>
> Whats the best option for this high or low intensity cardio?
>
> I know for goal #3, low is probably better, but I have no idea for 1
> and 2.
>
> Thanks

I am glad to see that people realize that being skinny does not
necessarily mean healthy and that it does not give you a license to
eat junk.

First I think you should get a bowflex and build lean muscle mass.
Eat frequently and add more protein for building muscle mass. Keep
your fat intake at a minimal level and eat lots of fruits and
vegetables.

Joyangel123
http://joyangel-123.blogspot.com
Joyangel123:Lifestyles and Habits

October 17th 07, 05:18 PM
I think you are making things overly complex there

To simplify...

1) you definitely need cardio to keep your cardiovascular system
healthy, no matter what anyone tells you. i recommend building up to
3-5 times per week, which can be any type of exercise which brings
your heart up into the 65-85% of your maximum heart rate for 30 mins
each time. A heart rate monitor is invaluable piece of kit, both for
myself and clients for this. there are many websites that can estimate/
calculate your max heart rate and the 65-85% zone you should work in.

2) resistance exercise will increase muscle mass and hence increase
your overall weight, whether it be weights, machines, body weight
exercises. lower reps (talking 1-4 ish) > power increases, higher reps
(4-8 ish) > increase in mass, then greater that that leans more
towards endurance effects. bear in mind however that everyone adapts
slightly differently to the number of reps, hence why i have written
'ish' after each rep range. 2-3 times per week. workouts need last no
more than 45 mins.

3) and probably the most important for you is diet. getting the right
balance may mean you need to eat more of the good stuff, especially as
you build muscle which increases your overall metabolism. there are
many websites that have info on what to eat. my advice is don't go
for any of these powders/fancy low carb/high protein garbage diets.
keep a balanced diet, carbs, protein, fats, minerals and vitamins,
fibre, and water, and you'll be fine. there are websites that will
estimate your calorie needs. use this as a basis for your meal
planning, and increase your intake slowly over several weeks and
months, until you begin to see an increase/maintenance in weight.
these websites will also tell you good foods and also not-so-good
foods to eat in moderation.

tim.



--
TeamWorks Fitness
Personal Training in your home
Bristol, UK
t: 01454 853 835 (evenings)
or 07960 844 554 (any time)
http://teamworksfitness.googlepages.com

Andrzej Rosa
October 17th 07, 09:03 PM
Dnia Wed, 17 Oct 2007 o 18:18 GMT napisał(a):
> I think you are making things overly complex there
>
> To simplify...
>
> 1) you definitely need cardio to keep your cardiovascular system
> healthy, no matter what anyone tells you. i recommend building up to
> 3-5 times per week, which can be any type of exercise which brings
> your heart up into the 65-85% of your maximum heart rate for 30 mins
> each time.

I checked once my heart rate during a weight training session. Without
really pushing it, I ended up with 160-ish heart rate after a set and I
started another at about 130-ish. 85% of my MHR is about 160, 65% is
about 120.

Right in the ballpark, I'd say...

[...]
> 3) and probably the most important for you is diet. getting the right
> balance may mean you need to eat more of the good stuff, especially as
> you build muscle which increases your overall metabolism.

Muscle mass doesn't increase metabolism. It's good news or bad news,
depending on your stance.

[...]
--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R

Jean Genie
November 4th 07, 03:51 AM
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 11:43:55 -0700, tforms1 wrote:

> I'm not refering to the age old debate on high vs low intensity for
> losing weight.

> So I have three goals in mind
> 1. Raise good cholesterol
> 2. Clean my arteries of the plaque clinging to it (same as goal 1?) 3.
> Try to keep my weight up
>
> Whats the best option for this high or low intensity cardio?

I've read (but have no cite) that high-intensity is better, /per the
length of time you do it/. Also, that there're 'edge effects', that
if you can keep the high-intensity up /for a continued time/, that
it's better than the same total length in shorter bursts. IIRC the
person who interpreted the results thought that the HDL was
'cleaned up' LDL, and that the higher blood flow increased the
conversion.

Sorry again, for no documentation.