Among the people who practice exercise regularly there are two very different camps: those who love the classic ‘cardio’ (running, walking, cycling…) and, on the contrary, those who believe that running is for cowards and prefer that nothing gets them out of it. from the weight room. This last group defends that improvements in cardiovascular performance can be obtained through strength training. If this statement seems crazy to you, try doing a series of twenty squats with little rest between them and you will see what happens to your heart rate.
Although these types of stimuli can lead to a feeling of flushing and agitation very similar to what you would have with a sprint race, however, we cannot assume that the two physiological responses are similar (or that they induce similar training adaptations) based solely on in our sensations. The prestigious and always interesting dissemination team of ‘Mass Research echoed a recently published study which aimed to examine cardiorespiratory responses to a specific squat task, specifically the participants did five sets of ten repetitions of squats at 65% of their RM with three minutes of rest between them.
To understand the aerobic and cardiovascular demand of a given type of exercise, it is useful to examine specific cardiorespiratory parameters, such as heart rate, oxygen consumption, and carbon dioxide production. The study is complex and the explanations require certain basic knowledge, but we are going to try to clarify if the weightlifters are right. The key is to try to define what we mean by ‘cardio’, something that for Eric Trexler of Mass Research depends on three fundamental criteria:
Are we getting oxygen consumption to increase to the level we would expect from a ‘cardio’ session?
The study analyzed detected an increase in the levels of oxygen consumption (VO2) up to 47.8 ± 8.9 ml/kg/min. Of course, this is not the first resistance training study to evaluate oxygen consumption, and review of values measured in previous studies go in the same direction and indicate, quite conclusively, that weight lifting counts as ‘ cardio’, if the definition of ‘cardio’ refers only to burning calories. To do this we need to introduce the concept of ‘MET’ which are multiples of the energy expenditure at rest.
The VO2 levels achieved by the participants in the squat study achieved MET levels greater than 11. For context, running at 10 km/h represents approximately 16 METs.
Does it achieve the metabolic adaptations we would expect from traditional cardiovascular exercise?
Cardiovascular exercise (well planned) increases mitochondrial volume to fine-tune the ‘machinery’ that oxidizes substrates during aerobic energy production. For this reason, increases occur in mitochondrial enzymes associated with the oxidation of fats and carbohydrates. Another important adaptation to this type of stimuli is the increase in the capillary density of the muscle, which facilitates a faster delivery of oxygen and energy substrates to the working muscle. Returning to what concerns us, does lifting weights achieve these types of changes?
There is evidence that strength training can induce similar adaptations, with two important caveats. First, the magnitude of these adaptations tends to be smaller compared to traditional ‘cardio’. Secondly, these adaptations are highly dependent on the characteristics of the type of strength training. If you are doing a high-intensity, low-volume program (such as can occur in powerlifting programming), it is unlikely that you will see a significant magnitude of adaptations similar to those of aerobic training. On the contrary, you are much more likely to achieve some of these aerobic metabolic adaptations if you perform a high-volume, low-intensity program.
In short, we should not view adaptations to cardiovascular training and strength training as dichotomous in nature. Some people will gain muscle and strength in response to a cardiovascular program (depending on their initial training status), and some people will experience aerobic adaptations in response to a strength training program (depending on their initial fitness level).
Does strength training cause the structural adaptations we would expect from traditional cardiovascular training?
By ‘cardio’ exercise it is clear that we are referring to cardiovascular, and the cardiac (heart) tissue adapts considerably better when it responds to this type of training.
However, we should not see cardiac adaptations to strength exercise and ‘cardio’ as dichotomous, as we explained in the case of metabolic adaptations. The cardiac adaptations They depend on the characteristics of the exercise program that we follow and the key factors are the preload (how much the ventricle has stretched at the end of diastole) and the afterload (the pressures in the aorta that ventricular contraction must overcome to open the aortic valve and expel blood into the aorta).
If a resistance training session is structured to produce a large and sustained increase in cardiac output with modest afterload pressures, one would expect cardiac adaptations that closely resemble cardiovascular training. In contrast, if a resistance training session is structured to produce a minimal increase in cardiac output with substantial afterload pressures, very different cardiac adaptations to cardiovascular training would be expected.
Grounding this theory in concrete examples, the cardiac adaptations that we could achieve with the CrossFit or with circuit-type training would be similar to the adaptations of aerobic resistance training, while the adaptations achieved through pure hypertrophy training, such as that of bodybuilding, will be much more modest.
In summary
Strength training can produce levels of oxygen consumption and energy expenditure similar to ‘cardio’ (although less efficiently), induce some of the aerobic metabolic adaptations we associate with cardiovascular exercise (although to a lesser extent), and may even induce some moderate structural adaptations to the heart although to a substantially lesser degree than purely ‘cardio’ exercise.
Most importantly, we should not view training adaptations in an exclusive way. Strength training offers some of the benefits and adaptations we generally associate with aerobic exercise. However, it is a good idea for almost everyone to add some conventional ‘cardio’ physical activity, even if it is just a leisurely walk, to maintain overall health.
#squats #count #cardio
