Better for everyday life Advanced Strength, Or Great Cardio?

[MilkManUK]

I don't think either are really required for everday life. Most people I know across a fairly large age range have neither advanced strength or great cardio, and seem to manage with life's everyday tasks.

Although as DrBdan stated, strength does tend to come in handy more often - moving things, Picking things up, getting those bloody jar lids open etc.

If I am forced to pick one, it would be strength, but really, advanced levels of either are not required in this day and age.

 

[nephel]

If you take a guy with advanced strength and by advanced strength I mean a guy that can squat at least 315 lbs, dead lift 405 lbs and bench 275 all with good form and ROM.

I exceed these requirements.

This type of strength will have minimal if any affect on ones functional cardio.

I don't entirely agree. if you are building strength on a program that has you working at some lower percentage of your max and doing multiple reps, it can have some cardio benefit. For example, last week my program required me to do 27 total reps (split across several sets) of squats at 315 lbs. being able to do that is not just about the weight. it also requires some breathing management, recovery capacity, and cardiovascular endurance. It isn't equivalent to primarily cardio based training, but it isn't minimal (in my opinion) either.

I've never really needed such great physical strength in my day to day activities.

i never really need to run quickly or for a very long amount of time in my day to day activity either.

Women as far as the sex department goes fantasize about a jacked tan jersey shore type dude but what really impresses them in the sack is stamina derived from cardio

after a couple of hours of sex, my wife starts prioritizing food over more sex. so, for me at least, cardio isn't necessary to develop adequate sexual stamina.

 

[Sano]

No, I believe it's quite the opposite, strength is positively correlated with longevity whereas cardiovascular athleticism is less so or actively damaging. Oxidative stress is one theory.

Being stronger in old age though is the difference between life and death.

Depends on what we are talking about when we say cardio vs strenght. If strenght training means lifting and living a sedentary lifestyle and cardio means being marathon runner, then both are not necessarily healthy. I would much rather live an active lifestyle with good cardiovascular health and average strenght, than great strenght and poor cardiovascular health. Yes, strenght matters a lot more in old age, especially with combating osteoporosis(loosing bone density), balance(reactive power, like catchnig a fall) and general sarcopenia(which is the normal atrophy/loss of muscle mass and loss of muscle neurons that happens with age).

However, even before you reach an advanced age, cardiovascular disease is the number one killer. While lifting may give some benefit, it is not cardiovascular training, it's two very different ways of working the heart and circulatory system. Blood pressure, artery clogging and hematocrit value(the relationships between plasma and red blood cells in your blood stream), amongst other things, are much better worked with aerobic conditioning(and to some extent anerobic).

An active lifestyle with moderate periods of cardiovascular exercise(primarily aerobic work) and strenght training is the best combination imo. Obviously if you move around a lot during the day, walk, bike, run, swim whatever, you have your bases covered pretty well.

 

[Cmart]

Ask yourself: Are you more likely in daily life to need to pick up something heavy, or to run five miles?

 

[selfcritical]

Old people don't lose their ability to go to the bathroom by themselves due to a lack of cardio.

Anyone who's doing sufficient activity to maintain recreational endurance activities should be maintaining enough muscle mass that "not able to get off the toilet" will be a moot point. There's a reason that the MRI of the 70 year triathletes thigh is used to demonstrate using exercise to fuel longevity.

Another vote for "advanced loading of any motor quality isn't ideal for quality of life".
If someone's old, they need enough resistance training to maintain muscle mass, and enough cardio to maintain heart plasticity and circulation. If it's a post menopausal woman, fuck it give her an oral steroid. Not kidding.

 

[ironwolf]

Strength. You never hear someone ask you for a hand jogging something around the block but you regularly get asked to help carry stuff, help someone move etc. And as raptor jesus pointed, more problems that affect a senior citizen's quality of life are from lack of strength not lack of cardio.

I agree that on a day to day basis, strength is more important but it's also good to be able
To take the stairs without sweating through your work shirt.

Lately I've been moving away from long distance running and focusing on shorter runs and sprints. I actually feel like I'm getting I better shape focusing on lifting and sprinting rather than focusing on running and doing weight training here and there.

I think in the long term as people age it's important to have a good combination. My dad for instance still lifts and runs at 64. Other than prostate cancer, he's like a 50 year old and is much muuuuuch more active than most other guys his age.

I think most people in their 20s and even in their early/mid 40s do t really think about the long term benefits.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

I exceed these requirements.



I don't entirely agree. if you are building strength on a program that has you working at some lower percentage of your max and doing multiple reps, it can have some cardio benefit. For example, last week my program required me to do 27 total reps (split across several sets) of squats at 315 lbs. being able to do that is not just about the weight. it also requires some breathing management, recovery capacity, and cardiovascular endurance. It isn't equivalent to primarily cardio based training, but it isn't minimal (in my opinion) either.



i never really need to run quickly or for a very long amount of time in my day to day activity either.



after a couple of hours of sex, my wife starts prioritizing food over more sex. so, for me at least, cardio isn't necessary to develop adequate sexual stamina.

Two hours ?!?!?! Hot damn boy. You're a Got damn sexual tyrannosaurus. And with the wife no less. You are my new hero nameless stranger.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

I agree that on a day to day basis, strength is more important but it's also good to be able
To take the stairs without sweating through your work shirt.

Lately I've been moving away from long distance running and focusing on shorter runs and sprints. I actually feel like I'm getting I better shape focusing on lifting and sprinting rather than focusing on running and doing weight training here and there.

I think in the long term as people age it's important to have a good combination. My dad for instance still lifts and runs at 64. Other than prostate cancer, he's like a 50 year old and is much muuuuuch more active than most other guys his age.

I think most people in their 20s and even in their early/mid 40s do t really think about the long term benefits.

I know I said you can't pick both.but seriously I think running short distance with sprints as much as possible combined with a body building routine that has heavy emphasis on core,squat and dead, plus the ability to do at least say ten pull ups and run two miles at a decent clip based on body weight.

I just don't advocate trying to be elite in both like I did for over twenty years because the swollen you get the more your cardio is impacted. The longer you run the smaller your legs get anyway.

This type of hybridization Is what I personally believe can create an extremely hard to kill individual.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

Depends on what we are talking about when we say cardio vs strenght. If strenght training means lifting and living a sedentary lifestyle and cardio means being marathon runner, then both are not necessarily healthy. I would much rather live an active lifestyle with good cardiovascular health and average strenght, than great strenght and poor cardiovascular health. Yes, strenght matters a lot more in old age, especially with combating osteoporosis(loosing bone density), balance(reactive power, like catchnig a fall) and general sarcopenia(which is the normal atrophy/loss of muscle mass and loss of muscle neurons that happens with age).

However, even before you reach an advanced age, cardiovascular disease is the number one killer. While lifting may give some benefit, it is not cardiovascular training, it's two very different ways of working the heart and circulatory system. Blood pressure, artery clogging and hematocrit value(the relationships between plasma and red blood cells in your blood stream), amongst other things, are much better worked with aerobic conditioning(and to some extent anerobic).

An active lifestyle with moderate periods of cardiovascular exercise(primarily aerobic work) and strenght training is the best combination imo. Obviously if you move around a lot during the day, walk, bike, run, swim whatever, you have your bases covered pretty well.

Firstly your AV is awesome.

Now to your point I disagree with about 2% of what you posted so I don't have a genuine counter point all I'll say is your last paragraph is what I'm kinda trying to do with training fo a BJJ tournament and a tough mudder in the same month

 

[ironwolf]

I know I said you can't pick both.but seriously I think running short distance with sprints as much as possible combined with a body building routine that has heavy emphasis on core,squat and dead, plus the ability to do at least say ten pull ups and run two miles at a decent clip based on body weight.

I just don't advocate trying to be elite in both like I did for over twenty years because the swollen you get the more your cardio is impacted. The longer you run the smaller your legs get anyway.

This type of hybridization Is what I personally believe can create an extremely hard to kill individual.

I agree. I don't think many people can really be elite at either but my dads been doing it for ~ 40-45 years now and at his age he says his knees, back, shoulders all feel great. He runs every morning, does deadlifts, pull ups and push ups and he's still got abs.

I've been pretty much doing both for years now and it's been working well for me. I'm not trying to be elite just stay in great shape, be in excellent health and be fit enough to do anything I want or at least be in a position where I can feasibly get ready for anything I want (like an ultra marathon or a mountaineering trip, long bow hunting trip, etc, etc).

My list of exercises is pretty short:
-squat
-bench
-desdlift
-ohp
-pull up/chin up
-dips
-sprints/running
-jump rope
-kettlebell swing/snatch/tgu.

 

[ironwolf]

Two hours ?!?!?! Hot damn boy. You're a Got damn sexual tyrannosaurus. And with the wife no less. You are my new hero nameless stranger.

I know right??? That's like 1 hour and 57 minutes longer than I need.

 

[tenniswhiz]

I think strength is more important in general.

But there is something to be said for guys who tend to work on what they're already good at.
My gym is chalk full of strong power lifters who couldn't run a single 10 minute mile to save their life. And then there are the skinny runners that would probably collapse squatting 135, but run 10k/halfs/fulls reasonably well.

 

[ironwolf]

I think strength is more important in general.

But there is something to be said for guys who tend to work on what they're already good at.
My gym is chalk full of strong power lifters who couldn't run a single 10 minute mile to save their life. And then there are the skinny runners that would probably collapse squatting 135, but run 10k/halfs/fulls reasonably well.

One of The professors I work with is a powerlifer and he's super serious about it. I'm
Not sure of his totals but he travels to competitions fairly often. His cardio is walking on a treadmill....I've always though that if a 20-60 minute walk is exercise for you, then you need to up your cardio game a bit.

 

[DrBdan]

I agree that on a day to day basis, strength is more important but it's also good to be able
To take the stairs without sweating through your work shirt.

Lately I've been moving away from long distance running and focusing on shorter runs and sprints. I actually feel like I'm getting I better shape focusing on lifting and sprinting rather than focusing on running and doing weight training here and there.

I think in the long term as people age it's important to have a good combination. My dad for instance still lifts and runs at 64. Other than prostate cancer, he's like a 50 year old and is much muuuuuch more active than most other guys his age.

I think most people in their 20s and even in their early/mid 40s do t really think about the long term benefits.

I totally agree. This thread is a false dilemma since obviously you can do both but if I had to chose one it would be strength. Luckily we don't have to choose one so we can get the benefits of both.

 

[JauntyAngle]

No, I believe it's quite the opposite, strength is positively correlated with longevity whereas cardiovascular athleticism is less so or actively damaging. Oxidative stress is one theory.

I am not sure about that. At the least, low RHR is a huge predictor of health.

Resting Heart Rate correlates negatively with all-cause mortality (the lower your RHR, the less likely you are to die for any reason). It correlates positively with incidence of major heart disease and events (the lower the RHR, the less likely you are to have a heart attack or something). It correlates negatively with outcome of heart disease etc (the lower the RHR the more likely you are to recover if you have heart disease).

 

[JauntyAngle]

His cardio is walking on a treadmill....I've always though that if a 20-60 minute walk is exercise for you, then you need to up your cardio game a bit.

I do that! But I make it a brisk walk, on an incline.

It's just fine for LISS. For a while I was doing it with an HR monitor, so I found the incline and speed combinations that would get my heart rate in the 65% - 75% level. Subjectively, those levels are no more or less difficult than the "easy miles" pace you use for running. The pace is a tad lower, the resistance is a tad higher. I've found it seems to works for controlling my weight and getting my HR down. So- if the stress on your energy systems is what you want, it's roughly the same as other accepted forms of conditioning, it gets the results that you want- who cares exactly what form it is?

 

[nephel]

Two hours ?!?!?! Hot damn boy. You're a Got damn sexual tyrannosaurus. And with the wife no less. You are my new hero nameless stranger.

like anything else, if you want to be good at your sport, do sport specific training. Unlike fighting, in sex nobody is really impressed by a quick, explosive finish.

 

[Frode Falch]

I will take good cardio and good strenght, instead of great cardio or strenght.

But if i HAVE to choose, i guess great cardio.

But i want good levels on both.

 

[Jack Handy jr]

like anything else, if you want to be good at your sport, do sport specific training. Unlike fighting, in sex nobody is really impressed by a quick, explosive finish.

talk to me when you have 17 years in to hell I mean marriage son.

I actually make it a point to wrap things up as quick as humanly possible as to get back to my sportscenter and porno. To date I'm proudly averaging about 42.3 seconds(yes I time it) from start to finish. My goal is a 30 second flat average by the end of the year.

 

[MilkManUK]

30 seconds? You can do it @Jack Handy jr