Endurance vs Cardio vs Strength ?

[Kemzy]

I'd like peoples input on what they think is more important and how do you manage to combine all attributes when facing a work out. What do you believe is more important, and how do you interpret the question at hand? 

[shipo]

Well rounded is best.

[WavyDavey]

It depends on what you want. To some degree, strength and endurance will compete with each other. I emphasize strength over endurance, as a personal choice that my body appreciates. Cardio is important regardless. 

I would also include Peak zone work such as sprints or HIIT to the equation.

[Kemzy]

That was a great response. I agree with you to a degree. Cardio and Endurance are on 2 different boats. Endurance requires the use of strength over a prolonged period of time, where cardio is the time, pace and distance measured, when endurance used force, time, revolutions etc...
I appreciate your response. I like the bit where you added Peak Zone work 🙂 🙂  always a great idea

[Kemzy]

It surely is, but it depends on what results you are looking for.

[Corney]

Kemzy:  I put aerobics in the same class as cardio and endurance depending on you goals.  If you are into ultra marathons, iron man triathlons then endurance is important, I wouldn't put 10K's in the endurance category.  I look at total fitness as the ability to carry out your daily activities without fatigue.  In that case, aerobics, strengthening and stretching are all important aspects in reaching that goal.  One without the others is a fools errand. 

[Dominique]

It all depends on your goals / priorities. What is it you want to improve most: your health, your fitness, your physique etc.? Are you a competitive or recreational athlete? There are tradeoffs to be made, but sometimes "jack of all trades, master of none" (in essence, what @shipo calls "well rounded") can be a good approach.

[emili]

and your perspective may change with time. I started as a huge cardio fan- its all I cared about because I needed fat loss. Then I realized I was looking willowy and I don't do that look well so I started lifting and boxing. I toned up and now I use the "well rounded" approach. I do cardio because I enjoy my weekends and its the best for burning calories. I lift because I like to look toned and I don't want to lose it and I add pounds to hill climbs or steep incline walk to strengthen my core (ladies of a certain age.. we start to shrink and droop- not for me thanks). I am sure this time next year it will be different again...

[Corney]

emili: What you are talking about is called Sarcopenia. At some point in
your 30's you start to lose muscle mass and function. Physically inactive
people can lose as much as 3%to 5% of their muscle mass each decade.That's
why along with cardio I add weight lifting and stretching 2-3 times a week
in order to address total fitness. That's also why people as they age gain
up to 1 pound a year or 10 pounds a decade. If a person only did strength
training they will lose cardio fitness and those that only do cardio will
lose muscle mass and strength. The question shouldn't be cardio vs
strength, but why not cardio plus strengthening.

[shipo]

I'm always curious about the whole muscle loss concept.  I do primarily cardio via running, however, I also do a lot of work in the barn taking care of 11 horses (moving them in and out between barn and pastures, cleaning stalls, and tossing around grain bags and hay bales).  The thing is, at 60 years old, both my leg muscles (to a minor degree) as well as my chest, arm, and shoulder muscles are significantly bulkier than they were five years ago when I moved onto the farm.

[Corney]

shipo: strengthening doesn't have to include weight lifting, just doing
activities that strengthen you muscles is enough to slow the concept of
Sarcopenia. I applaud you, strengthening your muscles while caring for
your horses. Horses take a lot of work if cared for properly. Well done,
keep up the good work!

[shipo]

I guess my question is related to my confusion regarding the three to five percent muscle loss per decade truism.

Does the truism apply...

• If the individual is basically sedentary for the decade?
• If the individual does the same amount of physical activity from on decade to the next?
• Is the baseline decade done using max endurance/strength measurements versus the same during the second decade.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the whole three to five percent loss thing makes no sense.

[WavyDavey]

---

@shipo wrote:

I guess my question is related to my confusion regarding the three to five percent muscle loss per decade truism.

Does the truism apply...

• If the individual is basically sedentary for the decade?
• If the individual does the same amount of physical activity from on decade to the next?
• Is the baseline decade done using max endurance/strength measurements versus the same during the second decade.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the whole three to five percent loss thing makes no sense.

---

Hi @shipo,

It makes sense to me. What doesn't to you?

"In one study, elderly people aged 78 to 84 who went on a RT program experienced an average increase in protein synthesis of 182 percent [source: Hasten, et al]. Another study, funded by the USDA, found that elderly participants who did RT for 45 minutes three times a week for 12 weeks saw an average increase of 32 percent for muscle fiber and a 30 percent increase in strength."

I think you may find your answers in this study. There are plenty of studies referenced.  Also, the work by Dr. Jonathon Sullivan.

[shipo]

---

@WavyDavey wrote:

---

@shipo wrote:

I guess my question is related to my confusion regarding the three to five percent muscle loss per decade truism.

Does the truism apply...

• If the individual is basically sedentary for the decade?
• If the individual does the same amount of physical activity from on decade to the next?
• Is the baseline decade done using max endurance/strength measurements versus the same during the second decade.

I guess what I'm trying to say is the whole three to five percent loss thing makes no sense.

---

Hi @shipo,

It makes sense to me. What doesn't to you?

"In one study, elderly people aged 78 to 84 who went on a RT program experienced an average increase in protein synthesis of 182 percent [source: Hasten, et al]. Another study, funded by the USDA, found that elderly participants who did RT for 45 minutes three times a week for 12 weeks saw an average increase of 32 percent for muscle fiber and a 30 percent increase in strength."

I think you may find your answers in this study. There are plenty of studies referenced.  Also, the work by Dr. Jonathon Sullivan.

---

Okay, the original comment I responded to was older folks lose on average three to five percent muscle per decade.  Without qualification, this statement cannot be true, and the study you just referenced supports my position.

Hence, my confusion.

[Dominique]

---

@shipo wrote:

---

Okay, the original comment I responded to was older folks lose on average three to five percent muscle per decade.  Without qualification, this statement cannot be true, and the study you just referenced supports my position.

---

I think it’s meant to apply to the general population as a whole, all things being equal: if physical activity remains the same (which for many means staying sedentary), then muscle loss will take place at the mentioned rate. The same applies with body weight: all things being equal (same activity level, which again for many means not much of it, and same level of eating), people will tend to slowly gain weight overtime.

Now, "all things being equal" is the critical factor is: all things don’t have to be equal. For instance, if someone previously sedentary takes a job at a horse farm, he’ll be able to gain muscle and maintain his weight, in spite of being older.

[Corney]

Dominique: You are totally and partially correct. Sarcopenia, or muscle
loss with aging, the people who lose 3%-5% Muscle mass per decade are
people who are physically inactive. But even if you stay active you may
still have some muscle loss due to:
1. Reduction in nerve cells responsible for sending signals from the brain
to the muscles.
2. Lower concentrations of some hormones to include, growth hormone and
testosterone.
3. A decrease in the ability to turn protein into energy.
4. Not consuming enough calories or protein to sustain muscle mass.
That's why I encourage fitness programs to include weight training to slow
done or possible halt this loss of muscle mass.

I ask you and shipo, do you have the same amount of muscle mass now as you
had in your mid thirties? I know I don't.

[shipo]

---

@Corney wrote:

I ask you and shipo, do you have the same amount of muscle mass now as you
had in your mid thirties? I know I don't.

---

I probably have more; then as now, my legs muscles are almost cartoonishly large, this from years of cycling (which I no longer do) and running.  That said, my upper body is significantly more developed than back then, I assume this is a byproduct of working on the farm.  Back when I was in my early thirties I could literally pull a a size 38 Regular suit coat off the rack and wear it with no tailoring; in my early sixties I need to wear a size 42 Regular and then have the waist taken in, this due to the growth in my shoulders and chest.  The collar size on my dress shirts has also increased from 14.5" to 16.5".

[WavyDavey]

Dr. Jonathan calls muscle a "physiological 401k", that we can draw on in later years (with continued exercise).

Dave Draper, now 75, has made regular deposits over the years, and still looks fantastic.

[Corney]

Well done, I guess there are exceptions to every rule.