Intesity vs endurance

[kindred]

is intensity always better than endurance when talking cardio.

When would doing things slower but longer be of benefit?

 

[Christian]

When you want to loose muscle mass and be a marathon runner..

 

[PTC]

PTC NEWSLETTER, Issue # 54

 

[Nicolas]

is intensity always better than endurance when talking cardio.

When would doing things slower but longer be of benefit?

Generally speaking, you should train specific to your goal.

If, in the sporting environment, you are largely intermittent with your exercise; then a more intermittent style stress (interval training, for example), may be more suitable - allowing high intensities, in short bouts, with varying low intensity, active recovery periods.

Ideally, continuous endurance training is more appropriate for endurance events, where a recovery phase just isn't available, or is available in very limited supply.

 

[Kyle Aaron]

Low-intensity steady state best fits people who are very deconditioned, sedentary for many years with a poor diet. It's not very demanding, but it's more than they were doing, so their body will adapt. As time goes on they can up the intensity.

Nico has the right of it. Depends on where the person is now and where they want to go.

One person I train is middle-aged, overfat, deconditioned. He just wants to look and feel better. If I gave him intervals he would just collapse, and probably injure himself. Pointless. So he does low intensity steady state training - is just generally physically more active, walks to the shops, etc. The sessions we have are for the weight training. He's achieving his goals.

Another one I train is a rower, who has two minute sprints at the end of each race. Another is a martial artist who has 1'30" rounds with 30" rest... 20 of them. Both of these need moderate-intensity, steady-state training, but they also need to be able to keep going when their limbs are heavy and burning from heavy efforts... so they get intervals, or rather Tabata (20" max reps, 10" rest, 8 sets of this). They're achieving their goals, too.

Figure out where you are. Decide where you want to go. Then people can tell you how to get here.

That's one of the many problems with the fitness industry, too many get focused on one brilliant route to places. "You should travel down the Monash freeway, it's awesome." Yeah, but what if I don't want to go where it's taking me? Stupid.

 

[BoyFromAus]

PTC NEWSLETTER, Issue # 54

awesome read

 

[kindred]

Low-intensity steady state best fits people who are very deconditioned, sedentary for many years with a poor diet. It's not very demanding, but it's more than they were doing, so their body will adapt. As time goes on they can up the intensity.

Nico has the right of it. Depends on where the person is now and where they want to go.

One person I train is middle-aged, overfat, deconditioned. He just wants to look and feel better. If I gave him intervals he would just collapse, and probably injure himself. Pointless. So he does low intensity steady state training - is just generally physically more active, walks to the shops, etc. The sessions we have are for the weight training. He's achieving his goals.

Another one I train is a rower, who has two minute sprints at the end of each race. Another is a martial artist who has 1'30" rounds with 30" rest... 20 of them. Both of these need moderate-intensity, steady-state training, but they also need to be able to keep going when their limbs are heavy and burning from heavy efforts... so they get intervals, or rather Tabata (20" max reps, 10" rest, 8 sets of this). They're achieving their goals, too.

Figure out where you are. Decide where you want to go. Then people can tell you how to get here.

That's one of the many problems with the fitness industry, too many get focused on one brilliant route to places. "You should travel down the Monash freeway, it's awesome." Yeah, but what if I don't want to go where it's taking me? Stupid.

That answers my question nicely thanks.