MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Weights Versus Running, Which Best?
First | Prev | 1 | 2 | 3
Author
Rating
Options

Equity

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
CD51 wrote:
My experience is that HIT workouts are comparable to running workouts of similar duration and intensity.


And that is ONLY what it is --- your experience

The CV system does not know what is causing the demand for more oxygen, only that the demand is there. It responds immediately in the same manner and adapts systemically in the same manner.


Pure BS!



This is readily seen considering that the interchangeability of the various modes of ?cardio? training. Running, biking, rowing all illicit a CV improvement relative to the intensity and duration of the activity. The activity makes no difference. There are certainly advantages is terms of reducing impact on the knees and ankles (bike vs run) or working more musculature (rower vs bike) by choosing one mode over another. However, the CV improvement of raising the heart rate to 80% max for 20min three times a week is the same. This is true with of resistance training as well.



Pure BS! Why don't runners just circuit train to enable competition!


All of the studies I have read and seen discussed reach this same conclusion. ?What seems to matter is being active....? is where they all end up. So the real question for the medical community is how much exercise, how often and at what frequency is really needed? This will likely never be answered definitively.

For the average person the questions are:
1) Which activity will you do consistently over the course of time? What do you enjoy, what do you have access too and what can you do and remain injury free?
2) If time is limited, what is more efficient? What activity gives multiple benefits for a given investment in effort?

HIT answers the mail here. The CV system benefit is at least as effective as ?cardio? work that raises the heart rate to the same degree for the same duration and frequency.



More BS!


The added benefits are more musculature worked, increased strength and bone density, increased metabolism as a result of muscle mass increase and, if performed properly, decreased injury risk. While this is not exclusive to HIT, (kettlebells, crossfit style training), IMO HIT carries the lowest injury risk.



The greatest proponent/expert of kettlebell training as regards cardiovascular conditioning is Dr. Kenneth Jay, and he has a TOTALLY different story than your dribble here.


22" Neck...More BS!
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

Equity wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
CD51 wrote:
My experience is that HIT workouts are comparable to running workouts of similar duration and intensity.


And that is ONLY what it is --- your experience

The CV system does not know what is causing the demand for more oxygen, only that the demand is there. It responds immediately in the same manner and adapts systemically in the same manner.


Pure BS!



This is readily seen considering that the interchangeability of the various modes of ?cardio? training. Running, biking, rowing all illicit a CV improvement relative to the intensity and duration of the activity. The activity makes no difference. There are certainly advantages is terms of reducing impact on the knees and ankles (bike vs run) or working more musculature (rower vs bike) by choosing one mode over another. However, the CV improvement of raising the heart rate to 80% max for 20min three times a week is the same. This is true with of resistance training as well.



Pure BS! Why don't runners just circuit train to enable competition!


All of the studies I have read and seen discussed reach this same conclusion. ?What seems to matter is being active....? is where they all end up. So the real question for the medical community is how much exercise, how often and at what frequency is really needed? This will likely never be answered definitively.

For the average person the questions are:
1) Which activity will you do consistently over the course of time? What do you enjoy, what do you have access too and what can you do and remain injury free?
2) If time is limited, what is more efficient? What activity gives multiple benefits for a given investment in effort?

HIT answers the mail here. The CV system benefit is at least as effective as ?cardio? work that raises the heart rate to the same degree for the same duration and frequency.



More BS!


The added benefits are more musculature worked, increased strength and bone density, increased metabolism as a result of muscle mass increase and, if performed properly, decreased injury risk. While this is not exclusive to HIT, (kettlebells, crossfit style training), IMO HIT carries the lowest injury risk.



The greatest proponent/expert of kettlebell training as regards cardiovascular conditioning is Dr. Kenneth Jay, and he has a TOTALLY different story than your dribble here.

22" Neck...More BS!


must be from all that running
Open User Options Menu

Equity

hit4me wrote:
Equity wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
CD51 wrote:
My experience is that HIT workouts are comparable to running workouts of similar duration and intensity.


And that is ONLY what it is --- your experience

The CV system does not know what is causing the demand for more oxygen, only that the demand is there. It responds immediately in the same manner and adapts systemically in the same manner.


Pure BS!



This is readily seen considering that the interchangeability of the various modes of ?cardio? training. Running, biking, rowing all illicit a CV improvement relative to the intensity and duration of the activity. The activity makes no difference. There are certainly advantages is terms of reducing impact on the knees and ankles (bike vs run) or working more musculature (rower vs bike) by choosing one mode over another. However, the CV improvement of raising the heart rate to 80% max for 20min three times a week is the same. This is true with of resistance training as well.



Pure BS! Why don't runners just circuit train to enable competition!


All of the studies I have read and seen discussed reach this same conclusion. ?What seems to matter is being active....? is where they all end up. So the real question for the medical community is how much exercise, how often and at what frequency is really needed? This will likely never be answered definitively.

For the average person the questions are:
1) Which activity will you do consistently over the course of time? What do you enjoy, what do you have access too and what can you do and remain injury free?
2) If time is limited, what is more efficient? What activity gives multiple benefits for a given investment in effort?

HIT answers the mail here. The CV system benefit is at least as effective as ?cardio? work that raises the heart rate to the same degree for the same duration and frequency.



More BS!


The added benefits are more musculature worked, increased strength and bone density, increased metabolism as a result of muscle mass increase and, if performed properly, decreased injury risk. While this is not exclusive to HIT, (kettlebells, crossfit style training), IMO HIT carries the lowest injury risk.



The greatest proponent/expert of kettlebell training as regards cardiovascular conditioning is Dr. Kenneth Jay, and he has a TOTALLY different story than your dribble here.

22" Neck...More BS!


must be from all that running


Yes the giration. Lol!!!
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Equity wrote:
hit4me wrote:
Equity wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
CD51 wrote:
My experience is that HIT workouts are comparable to running workouts of similar duration and intensity.


And that is ONLY what it is --- your experience

The CV system does not know what is causing the demand for more oxygen, only that the demand is there. It responds immediately in the same manner and adapts systemically in the same manner.


Pure BS!



This is readily seen considering that the interchangeability of the various modes of ?cardio? training. Running, biking, rowing all illicit a CV improvement relative to the intensity and duration of the activity. The activity makes no difference. There are certainly advantages is terms of reducing impact on the knees and ankles (bike vs run) or working more musculature (rower vs bike) by choosing one mode over another. However, the CV improvement of raising the heart rate to 80% max for 20min three times a week is the same. This is true with of resistance training as well.



Pure BS! Why don't runners just circuit train to enable competition!


All of the studies I have read and seen discussed reach this same conclusion. ?What seems to matter is being active....? is where they all end up. So the real question for the medical community is how much exercise, how often and at what frequency is really needed? This will likely never be answered definitively.

For the average person the questions are:
1) Which activity will you do consistently over the course of time? What do you enjoy, what do you have access too and what can you do and remain injury free?
2) If time is limited, what is more efficient? What activity gives multiple benefits for a given investment in effort?

HIT answers the mail here. The CV system benefit is at least as effective as ?cardio? work that raises the heart rate to the same degree for the same duration and frequency.



More BS!


The added benefits are more musculature worked, increased strength and bone density, increased metabolism as a result of muscle mass increase and, if performed properly, decreased injury risk. While this is not exclusive to HIT, (kettlebells, crossfit style training), IMO HIT carries the lowest injury risk.



The greatest proponent/expert of kettlebell training as regards cardiovascular conditioning is Dr. Kenneth Jay, and he has a TOTALLY different story than your dribble here.

22" Neck...More BS!


must be from all that running

Yes the giration. Lol!!!


Head bobbing.
Open User Options Menu

CD51

Average Al wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
CD51 wrote:
However, the CV improvement of raising the heart rate to 80% max for 20min three times a week is the same.


That's really the only possible difference, 'usually' when people weight train, the HR rises and peaks during the set, you then rest before the next set and HR drops back down, then it rises up during the next set to a peak, etc.
Where steady state keeps the HR in the zone for the full 20 minutes. Heart and vascular tissue are
super slow twitch fibers so the muscles themselves need a lot of work to adapt. But the other adaptations, like increase diameter seem to be observed more in the steady state types of exercise. Where heavy lifting increases BP a LOT and improves the thickness and strength of the vascular tissues. Seems to just be related to the S.A.I.D. principle.

Agreed. I've seen HIIT studies which suggest that the more time spent at peak heart rate, the better the results.

Also, the correlation between VO2 utilization and heart rate is activity dependent. Traditional cardio generally produces a greater oxygen demand than weight lifting, at the same heart rate.

https://www.researchgate.net/...ifting_exercise



Multiple bouts of near max intensity effort separated by rest periods... that sounds a lot like interval training. Generally this is accepted as a perfectly good way to improve cardio performance.

A few weeks ago in my training log I posted my before and after results of doing zero ?cardio? for four weeks. There was no decrease in performance of a 5k run. All I did during that four week period was full body HIT workouts every couple of days. An N if one yes, but I don?t think I?m unique.

I?m not suggesting not doing cardio or that you can prepare for a marathon doing HIT workouts. However, if pressed for time HIT workouts offer more overall health benefits than running. CV improvements, strength increases, lean muscle mass increases, bone density improvement and reduced impact on the ankles and knees. Not perfect but not bad either.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

CD51 wrote:
Average Al wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
CD51 wrote:
However, the CV improvement of raising the heart rate to 80% max for 20min three times a week is the same.


That's really the only possible difference, 'usually' when people weight train, the HR rises and peaks during the set, you then rest before the next set and HR drops back down, then it rises up during the next set to a peak, etc.
Where steady state keeps the HR in the zone for the full 20 minutes. Heart and vascular tissue are
super slow twitch fibers so the muscles themselves need a lot of work to adapt. But the other adaptations, like increase diameter seem to be observed more in the steady state types of exercise. Where heavy lifting increases BP a LOT and improves the thickness and strength of the vascular tissues. Seems to just be related to the S.A.I.D. principle.

Agreed. I've seen HIIT studies which suggest that the more time spent at peak heart rate, the better the results.

Also, the correlation between VO2 utilization and heart rate is activity dependent. Traditional cardio generally produces a greater oxygen demand than weight lifting, at the same heart rate.

https://www.researchgate.net/...ifting_exercise



Multiple bouts of near max intensity effort separated by rest periods... that sounds a lot like interval training. Generally this is accepted as a perfectly good way to improve cardio performance.

A few weeks ago in my training log I posted my before and after results of doing zero ?cardio? for four weeks. There was no decrease in performance of a 5k run. All I did during that four week period was full body HIT workouts every couple of days. An N if one yes, but I don?t think I?m unique.

I?m not suggesting not doing cardio or that you can prepare for a marathon doing HIT workouts. However, if pressed for time HIT workouts offer more overall health benefits than running. CV improvements, strength increases, lean muscle mass increases, bone density improvement and reduced impact on the ankles and knees. Not perfect but not bad either.


CD51,

I understood you were new to the forum, so therefore standing up to any vitriol.

Bullying is not something I take lightly (not that you can't defend yourself), and sometimes will ' jump in'. Usually I don't but since you're new to the forum I felt the need to.

Regards.

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

CD51 wrote:
Average Al wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
CD51 wrote:
However, the CV improvement of raising the heart rate to 80% max for 20min three times a week is the same.


That's really the only possible difference, 'usually' when people weight train, the HR rises and peaks during the set, you then rest before the next set and HR drops back down, then it rises up during the next set to a peak, etc.
Where steady state keeps the HR in the zone for the full 20 minutes. Heart and vascular tissue are
super slow twitch fibers so the muscles themselves need a lot of work to adapt. But the other adaptations, like increase diameter seem to be observed more in the steady state types of exercise. Where heavy lifting increases BP a LOT and improves the thickness and strength of the vascular tissues. Seems to just be related to the S.A.I.D. principle.

Agreed. I've seen HIIT studies which suggest that the more time spent at peak heart rate, the better the results.

Also, the correlation between VO2 utilization and heart rate is activity dependent. Traditional cardio generally produces a greater oxygen demand than weight lifting, at the same heart rate.

https://www.researchgate.net/...ifting_exercise



Multiple bouts of near max intensity effort separated by rest periods... that sounds a lot like interval training. Generally this is accepted as a perfectly good way to improve cardio performance.

A few weeks ago in my training log I posted my before and after results of doing zero ?cardio? for four weeks. There was no decrease in performance of a 5k run. All I did during that four week period was full body HIT workouts every couple of days. An N if one yes, but I don?t think I?m unique.

I?m not suggesting not doing cardio or that you can prepare for a marathon doing HIT workouts. However, if pressed for time HIT workouts offer more overall health benefits than running. CV improvements, strength increases, lean muscle mass increases, bone density improvement and reduced impact on the ankles and knees. Not perfect but not bad either.


Just remember when discussing this stuff, that 'cardio improvements' is really general... like saying 'such and such improves muscular performance'. But 'what' is improved in the muscles? Strength? Size? Endurance? etc. Same with cardio, most types of exercise improve 'cardio' but the actual specific improvements might vary.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

hit4me wrote:

I agree totally....and this is the wrong message to send out to the public, if they can't devote 2 hours a day to cardio then they will not do anything


Unless someone's knees are made out of steel, I don't know how they could do two hours of cardio a day.
Open User Options Menu

CD51

Equity wrote:
CD51 wrote:
Average Al wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
CD51 wrote:
However, the CV improvement of raising the heart rate to 80% max for 20min three times a week is the same.


That's really the only possible difference, 'usually' when people weight train, the HR rises and peaks during the set, you then rest before the next set and HR drops back down, then it rises up during the next set to a peak, etc.
Where steady state keeps the HR in the zone for the full 20 minutes. Heart and vascular tissue are
super slow twitch fibers so the muscles themselves need a lot of work to adapt. But the other adaptations, like increase diameter seem to be observed more in the steady state types of exercise. Where heavy lifting increases BP a LOT and improves the thickness and strength of the vascular tissues. Seems to just be related to the S.A.I.D. principle.

Agreed. I've seen HIIT studies which suggest that the more time spent at peak heart rate, the better the results.

Also, the correlation between VO2 utilization and heart rate is activity dependent. Traditional cardio generally produces a greater oxygen demand than weight lifting, at the same heart rate.

https://www.researchgate.net/...ifting_exercise



Multiple bouts of near max intensity effort separated by rest periods... that sounds a lot like interval training. Generally this is accepted as a perfectly good way to improve cardio performance.

A few weeks ago in my training log I posted my before and after results of doing zero ?cardio? for four weeks. There was no decrease in performance of a 5k run. All I did during that four week period was full body HIT workouts every couple of days. An N if one yes, but I don?t think I?m unique.

I?m not suggesting not doing cardio or that you can prepare for a marathon doing HIT workouts. However, if pressed for time HIT workouts offer more overall health benefits than running. CV improvements, strength increases, lean muscle mass increases, bone density improvement and reduced impact on the ankles and knees. Not perfect but not bad either.


CD51,

I understood you were new to the forum, so therefore standing up to any vitriol.

Bullying is not something I take lightly (not that you can defend yourself), and sometimes will ' jump in'. Usually I don't but since you're new to the forum I felt the need to.

Regards.

[/quote

I wouldn?t give him the honor of bully status. That would imply I give a shit what he says.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

CD51 wrote:
Average Al wrote:

Multiple bouts of near max intensity effort separated by rest periods... that sounds a lot like interval training. Generally this is accepted as a perfectly good way to improve cardio performance.

A few weeks ago in my training log I posted my before and after results of doing zero ?cardio? for four weeks. There was no decrease in performance of a 5k run. All I did during that four week period was full body HIT workouts every couple of days. An N if one yes, but I don?t think I?m unique.

I?m not suggesting not doing cardio or that you can prepare for a marathon doing HIT workouts. However, if pressed for time HIT workouts offer more overall health benefits than running. CV improvements, strength increases, lean muscle mass increases, bone density improvement and reduced impact on the ankles and knees. Not perfect but not bad either.


I agree that strength training does stress the cardiovascular system, and does provide some training effect. My caution is only that you can't assume that strength training is exactly equivalent to cardio with respect to overall heart health just because it elevates your heart rate. There are other considerations that come into play.

Even when comparing different forms of cardio (Intervals vs Steady State) you can find studies which show that these two modes of cardio have somewhat different impacts on the heart.

If I only had time to do one thing, strength training would probably be my choice. But I've decided to make time for both. I understand that not everyone has that luxury.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

https://www.sacbee.com/...e179463911.html

According to this article's referenced story, 7.5+ hours a week is worse on your heart compared to working out 2.5 hours a week...if you're white. Yes. Overtraining is real.
Open User Options Menu

Equity


CD51,

I understood you were new to the forum, so therefore standing up to any vitriol.

Bullying is not something I take lightly (not that you can't defend yourself), and sometimes will ' jump in'. Usually I don't but since you're new to the forum I felt the need to.

Regards.

[/quote

I wouldn?t give him the honor of bully status. That would imply I give a shit what he says.[/quote]

Good man.
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
https://www.sacbee.com/...e179463911.html

According to this article's referenced story, 7.5+ hours a week is worse on your heart compared to working out 2.5 hours a week...if you're white. Yes. Overtraining is real.


I remember reading about a long distance runner, he started having heart problems. His arteries were perfect, zero plaque, all his blood work PERFECT, but his heart was beating weird. He had done so much endurance that his heart had over developed cross talk in the nerves, a cardiac surgeon had to do open heart surgery and make all these cuts in his heart to break the extra nerve connections. Freaky stuff.
Open User Options Menu

Crotalus

Average Al wrote:
But I've decided to make time for both. I understand that not everyone has that luxury.


Probably the smartest way to go about it ... why is it always a one way or the other argument ??

I walk a couple hours a day walking dogs ... but hate running . I'll save running for a bear attack.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Nwlifter wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
https://www.sacbee.com/...e179463911.html

According to this article's referenced story, 7.5+ hours a week is worse on your heart compared to working out 2.5 hours a week...if you're white. Yes. Overtraining is real.

I remember reading about a long distance runner, he started having heart problems. His arteries were perfect, zero plaque, all his blood work PERFECT, but his heart was beating weird. He had done so much endurance that his heart had over developed cross talk in the nerves, a cardiac surgeon had to do open heart surgery and make all these cuts in his heart to break the extra nerve connections. Freaky stuff.


Yep. I also recall reading something once that afib was more common with long distance runners.
Open User Options Menu

Equity

HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
https://www.sacbee.com/...e179463911.html

According to this article's referenced story, 7.5+ hours a week is worse on your heart compared to working out 2.5 hours a week...if you're white. Yes. Overtraining is real.

I remember reading about a long distance runner, he started having heart problems. His arteries were perfect, zero plaque, all his blood work PERFECT, but his heart was beating weird. He had done so much endurance that his heart had over developed cross talk in the nerves, a cardiac surgeon had to do open heart surgery and make all these cuts in his heart to break the extra nerve connections. Freaky stuff.

Yep. I also recall reading something once that afib was more common with long distance runners.


I also recall Mentzer citing some study about endurance athletes (I think long distance runners) having muscle cells 'turned inside out' because of the wear and tear.

Too much of a 'good' thing.

Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Equity wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
https://www.sacbee.com/...e179463911.html

According to this article's referenced story, 7.5+ hours a week is worse on your heart compared to working out 2.5 hours a week...if you're white. Yes. Overtraining is real.

I remember reading about a long distance runner, he started having heart problems. His arteries were perfect, zero plaque, all his blood work PERFECT, but his heart was beating weird. He had done so much endurance that his heart had over developed cross talk in the nerves, a cardiac surgeon had to do open heart surgery and make all these cuts in his heart to break the extra nerve connections. Freaky stuff.

Yep. I also recall reading something once that afib was more common with long distance runners.

I also recall Mentzer citing some study about endurance athletes (I think long distance runners) having muscle cells 'turned inside out' because of the wear and tear.

Too much of a 'good' thing.



I remember Mentzer used to mention how Kenneth Cooper eventually came out talking about overtraining with running.
Open User Options Menu

frostyF

Arkansas, USA

Do a search and find out what happened to heart healthy Roberto Salazar
Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Equity wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
https://www.sacbee.com/...e179463911.html

According to this article's referenced story, 7.5+ hours a week is worse on your heart compared to working out 2.5 hours a week...if you're white. Yes. Overtraining is real.

I remember reading about a long distance runner, he started having heart problems. His arteries were perfect, zero plaque, all his blood work PERFECT, but his heart was beating weird. He had done so much endurance that his heart had over developed cross talk in the nerves, a cardiac surgeon had to do open heart surgery and make all these cuts in his heart to break the extra nerve connections. Freaky stuff.

Yep. I also recall reading something once that afib was more common with long distance runners.

I also recall Mentzer citing some study about endurance athletes (I think long distance runners) having muscle cells 'turned inside out' because of the wear and tear.

Too much of a 'good' thing.



I thought that was in one of El's books, either High Intensity or super high intensity?
Open User Options Menu

Equity

Nwlifter wrote:
Equity wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
https://www.sacbee.com/...e179463911.html

According to this article's referenced story, 7.5+ hours a week is worse on your heart compared to working out 2.5 hours a week...if you're white. Yes. Overtraining is real.

I remember reading about a long distance runner, he started having heart problems. His arteries were perfect, zero plaque, all his blood work PERFECT, but his heart was beating weird. He had done so much endurance that his heart had over developed cross talk in the nerves, a cardiac surgeon had to do open heart surgery and make all these cuts in his heart to break the extra nerve connections. Freaky stuff.

Yep. I also recall reading something once that afib was more common with long distance runners.

I also recall Mentzer citing some study about endurance athletes (I think long distance runners) having muscle cells 'turned inside out' because of the wear and tear.

Too much of a 'good' thing.



I thought that was in one of El's books, either High Intensity or super high intensity?


I've read Dr. Darden's other books but not those. It's possible that information is contained in those books but impossible I read it there. I'm pretty sure I learned of it from what Mentzer wrote.

He could have got it from Darden though.

Regards.

Open User Options Menu

Nwlifter

Equity wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
Equity wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
Nwlifter wrote:
HeavyHitter32 wrote:
https://www.sacbee.com/...e179463911.html

According to this article's referenced story, 7.5+ hours a week is worse on your heart compared to working out 2.5 hours a week...if you're white. Yes. Overtraining is real.

I remember reading about a long distance runner, he started having heart problems. His arteries were perfect, zero plaque, all his blood work PERFECT, but his heart was beating weird. He had done so much endurance that his heart had over developed cross talk in the nerves, a cardiac surgeon had to do open heart surgery and make all these cuts in his heart to break the extra nerve connections. Freaky stuff.

Yep. I also recall reading something once that afib was more common with long distance runners.

I also recall Mentzer citing some study about endurance athletes (I think long distance runners) having muscle cells 'turned inside out' because of the wear and tear.

Too much of a 'good' thing.



I thought that was in one of El's books, either High Intensity or super high intensity?


I've read Dr. Darden's other books but not those. It's possible that information is contained in those books but impossible I read it there. I'm pretty sure I learned of it from what Mentzer wrote.

He could have got it from Darden though.

Regards.



OK I can't remember for sure, I do know I have the book that says that, maybe I'm remembering wrong
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 1 | 2 | 3
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy