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
John Little Wrong on Cardio ?
First | Prev | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

ATP 4 Vitality

Resultsbased wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:

And how was he mistaken?



In all regards



The cardiovascular system will improve due to the demands placed upon it from the method of exercise Jones prescribed.



You changed the subject.

He states rush factor Nautilus training is much superior to ALL other endurance training modalities.

It most certainly is not.

Any athlete would severely handicap performance by excluding ALL cardiovascular conditioning exercise.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

epdavis7 wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
MAXIMIZING AEROBIC POTENTIAL
by Arthur Jones,


If, as usually happens, you perform a set of heavy exercise for strength building purposes, and then sit on your ass or shoot the shit with a friend for five minutes before performing the next exercise, then you probably will increase both your muscular size and strength, will doing little or nothing in the way of improving your cardiovascular condition. But if, instead, you move almost immediately from the end of the first exercise to the start of the second exercise, with almost no rest between the two exercises, then you will increase both strength and cardiovascular condition; in fact, that style of training, properly performed, will lead to a level of cardiovascular condition that is far higher than you could ever produce by any amount of jogging or any other cardiovascular exercise. Such a style of exercise simultaneously provides anaerobic exercise for strength building and aerobic exercise for improving cardiovascular condition.

/////

Years of empirical evidence the world over shows this paradigm is invalid. Anatomy & physiology proves Arthur was mistaken.




So is it your belief that training as Arthur describes has no impact on health markers? Rush factor training is not the best method for muscular hypertrophy but it does produce some results. It may be that it is not "better" than running for cardio, but it does produce some results. For your average Joe/Jane Schmoe this may be all thats needed to live a healthy vibrant life. Don't throw the baby out with the bath water. Not everyone aspires to be Mr Olympia or an endurance athlete.


I can count on you to take things out of context, and change the subject.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

hit4me wrote:
Arthur was not wrong in the fact that moving from one exercise to another quickly after performing a set to failure when it comes to cardiovascular improvement...I have seen dramatic results in myself by performing his way of training
however, his method of training does not take place of running/jogging or swimming...?.I myself am training for a 5k and I can say that even though my cardio system is good and healthy (per my heart dr), It will take me a few months to be able to run a full 5k without stopping to walk


He was wrong in that circuit Nautilus training is NOT as good as cardiovascular conditioning methods. Not even close.

I am not arguing that this style of training is effective or beneficial for a variety of purposes. It just is not close to being superior. I think Vince Gironda methods may be even better for cv needs in some regards.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

MDieguez wrote:
The carryover of the " rush factor" is much greater than many modes of cardiovascular exercise, especially jogging. Jogging helps improve one thing....jogging.
I also agree that the rush factor is not the best method for getting stronger but one can certainly improve strength that way.
As a mode of cardiovascular exercise, jogging is fine, as is the rush factor in strength training as Arthur intended it ( how could one say otherwise?), as are many other things. If you want to jog for hours on end,go ahead, you will become a better jogger , but the rush factor is better and will carry over to many more life endeavors, especially if you add in a few sprints.


Now ,,,,, you wanna sprint!


clueless!
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
MDieguez wrote:
Arthur was not wrong on this.

Here I go,

Dear clueless,


Please look the world over, as ALL endurance athletes of ANY distances, do NOT use resistance weight bearing exercise circuit training as their training modality.

Ask yourself WHY?


Because specificity reigns supreme. A good circuit trainer is not necessarily a good runner. A good runner is not necessarily a good swimmer. A good swimmer is not necessarily a good rower. A good miler is not necessarily a good marathon runner. A good marathon runner is not necessarily a good 100 miler. A good 100 miler is not necessarily a good cross fitter. You basically get better at what you practice. Rush factor training as Arthur prescribed will give you enough fitness and health to carry out your daily activities and build some muscle too. How do you not comprehend this?
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

hit4me wrote:
Arthur is not wrong on the improvement of the cardiovascular system when using his training methods, I have seen improvements in my own cardiovascular health as well as my heart dr by using his methods, however, his method of training will not prepare you for running/jogging/swimming or biking....I am training for a 5k, even though my cardiovascular system is healthy, it is not prepared for a 5k...as it will take a few months for me to run a full 5k without stopping to walk some of the way


Exactly why I run once a week. Doing a 10 mile training run tomorrow. Not for my health, not for weight loss, but because I am specifically training for a race in August. I?ll do a rush factor training workout Wednesday of next week.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

And none of the aforementioned could hang with my cousin doing a roofing job for 10 hours in the hot summer heat with a hangover and a cigarette dangling from his mouth while carrying roofing shingles up a ladder. Probably not healthy, but damn is he tough as nails.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

It?s just a little after lunch time here and I?ve had a pretty full morning. My wife and I are early risers and we got up early and ate and took our dogs on an hour long walk. When we got back I ran ten miles at a slower than normal pace due to the humidity. I?ve since taken shower one of the day and eaten. I?ll go out in a few minutes and spend several hours doing yard work in the heat of the day. My point is being able to do these activities doesn?t make me any healthier than someone who trains circuit style 1-2 times a week and perhaps goes on a few walks now and then. I?ve just conditioned myself to these activities.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

epdavis7 wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
How do you not comprehend this?


It is easy to comprehend your Nautilus company line foolishness. You are simply attempting to change the subject.

Furthermore, your line is pure BS. You can not refute Arthur Jones was wrong that circuit resistance training was a superior means of achieving cardiovascular conditioning. As you know full well, but are too stupid to admit such, studies show this to be the EXACT truth.

Running is so specific that the world over uses this modality. Not to get better at running as you so erroneously state, but to improve cardiovascular conditioning.

Sad to see someone so cleverly deceived.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

epdavis7 wrote:
It?s just a little after lunch time here and I?ve had a pretty full morning. My wife and I are early risers and we got up early and ate and took our dogs on an hour long walk. When we got back I ran ten miles at a slower than normal pace due to the humidity. I?ve since taken shower one of the day and eaten. I?ll go out in a few minutes and spend several hours doing yard work in the heat of the day. My point is being able to do these activities doesn?t make me any healthier than someone who trains circuit style 1-2 times a week and perhaps goes on a few walks now and then. I?ve just conditioned myself to these activities.


Just doing what you were evolved to do...

Exercise and gene expression: physiological regulation of the human genome through physical activity.
Booth FW1, Chakravarthy MV, Spangenburg EE.

Abstract:

The current human genome was moulded and refined through generations of time. We propose that the basic framework for physiologic gene regulation was selected during an era of obligatory physical activity, as the survival of our Late Palaeolithic (50 000-10 000 BC) ancestors depended on hunting and gathering. A sedentary lifestyle in such an environment probably meant elimination of that individual organism. The phenotype of the present day Homo sapiens genome is much different from that of our ancient ancestors, primarily as a consequence of expressing evolutionarily programmed Late Palaeolithic genes in an environment that is predominantly sedentary. In this sense, our current genome is maladapted, resulting in abnormal gene expression, which in turn frequently manifests itself as clinically overt disease. We speculate that some of these genes still play a role in survival by causing premature death from chronic diseases produced by physical inactivity. We also contend that the current scientific evidence supports the notion that disruptions in cellular homeostasis are diminished in magnitude in physically active individuals compared with sedentary individuals due to the natural selection of gene expression that supports the physically active lifestyle displayed by our ancestors. We speculate that genes evolved with the expectation of requiring a certain threshold of physical activity for normal physiologic gene expression, and thus habitual exercise in sedentary cultures restores perturbed homeostatic mechanisms towards the normal physiological range of the Palaeolithic Homo sapiens. This hypothesis allows us to ask the question of whether normal physiological values change as a result of becoming sedentary. In summary, in sedentary cultures, daily physical activity normalizes gene expression towards patterns established to maintain the survival in the Late Palaeolithic era.


Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
How do you not comprehend this?


It is easy to comprehend your Nautilus company line foolishness. You are simply attempting to change the subject.

Furthermore, your line is pure BS. You can not refute Arthur Jones was wrong that circuit resistance training was a superior means of achieving cardiovascular conditioning. As you know full well, but are too stupid to admit such, studies show this to be the EXACT truth.

Running is so specific that the world over uses this modality. Not to get better at running as you so erroneously state, but to improve cardiovascular conditioning.

Sad to see someone so cleverly deceived.


Marc, it?s ironic that the guy who complains of personal attacks and name calling does more than anyone else on this board. What is your end game? Do you wish us to publicly pull down the pants of John Little and spank his bare bottom until it?s bright red and televise it on pay per view? Still pissed about getting banned from the BBS message board? The only reason you are not banned here is that this board has never banned anyone and for the most part is inmoderated.

I?ve already stated circuit training is not the best for hypertrophy or limit strength although it will build muscle and strength and to get good at something you must specifically practice that something. I placed in my age group at a recent trail 20K. There is no way I could have caught the 1st place finisher (a friend). I guarantee you I would crush him in a MetCon style workout (because I have) and simple things like helping a member of our church move into a third story apartment...because I did it with him and he was gasping for air moving couches and entertainment centers. He called me the next day and said his whole body was in agony and he was going to skip our training run. Although challenging, I had no issues and did the training run by myself. He is a born long distance runner ie long legs, short torso, low bodyweight and muscle mass. I am not, although I enjoy it and do my best. I would think being able to walk long distances carrying moderately heavy loads is a more common modality world wide than running. I run, but acknowledge wear and tear is a concern and it is not needed for health or enjoyment of life.
Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

epdavis7 wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
How do you not comprehend this?


It is easy to comprehend your Nautilus company line foolishness. You are simply attempting to change the subject.

Furthermore, your line is pure BS. You can not refute Arthur Jones was wrong that circuit resistance training was a superior means of achieving cardiovascular conditioning. As you know full well, but are too stupid to admit such, studies show this to be the EXACT truth.

Running is so specific that the world over uses this modality. Not to get better at running as you so erroneously state, but to improve cardiovascular conditioning.

Sad to see someone so cleverly deceived.

Marc, it?s ironic that the guy who complains of personal attacks and name calling does more than anyone else on this board. What is your end game? Do you wish us to publicly pull down the pants of John Little and spank his bare bottom until it?s bright red and televise it on pay per view? Still pissed about getting banned from the BBS message board? The only reason you are not banned here is that this board has never banned anyone and for the most part is inmoderated.

I?ve already stated circuit training is not the best for hypertrophy or limit strength although it will build muscle and strength and to get good at something you must specifically practice that something. I placed in my age group at a recent trail 20K. There is no way I could have caught the 1st place finisher (a friend). I guarantee you I would crush him in a MetCon style workout (because I have) and simple things like helping a member of our church move into a third story apartment...because I did it with him and he was gasping for air moving couches and entertainment centers. He called me the next day and said his whole body was in agony and he was going to skip our training run. Although challenging, I had no issues and did the training run by myself. He is a born long distance runner ie long legs, short torso, low bodyweight and muscle mass. I am not, although I enjoy it and do my best. I would think being able to walk long distances carrying moderately heavy loads is a more common modality world wide than running. I run, but acknowledge wear and tear is a concern and it is not needed for health or enjoyment of life.


Your point?

FYI ///. You are not the custodian of this site. And, if I was banned, all that would be left is your meaningless dribble.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
epdavis7 wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
How do you not comprehend this?


It is easy to comprehend your Nautilus company line foolishness. You are simply attempting to change the subject.

Furthermore, your line is pure BS. You can not refute Arthur Jones was wrong that circuit resistance training was a superior means of achieving cardiovascular conditioning. As you know full well, but are too stupid to admit such, studies show this to be the EXACT truth.

Running is so specific that the world over uses this modality. Not to get better at running as you so erroneously state, but to improve cardiovascular conditioning.

Sad to see someone so cleverly deceived.

Marc, it?s ironic that the guy who complains of personal attacks and name calling does more than anyone else on this board. What is your end game? Do you wish us to publicly pull down the pants of John Little and spank his bare bottom until it?s bright red and televise it on pay per view? Still pissed about getting banned from the BBS message board? The only reason you are not banned here is that this board has never banned anyone and for the most part is inmoderated.

I?ve already stated circuit training is not the best for hypertrophy or limit strength although it will build muscle and strength and to get good at something you must specifically practice that something. I placed in my age group at a recent trail 20K. There is no way I could have caught the 1st place finisher (a friend). I guarantee you I would crush him in a MetCon style workout (because I have) and simple things like helping a member of our church move into a third story apartment...because I did it with him and he was gasping for air moving couches and entertainment centers. He called me the next day and said his whole body was in agony and he was going to skip our training run. Although challenging, I had no issues and did the training run by myself. He is a born long distance runner ie long legs, short torso, low bodyweight and muscle mass. I am not, although I enjoy it and do my best. I would think being able to walk long distances carrying moderately heavy loads is a more common modality world wide than running. I run, but acknowledge wear and tear is a concern and it is not needed for health or enjoyment of life.


Your point?

FYI ///. You are not the custodian of this site. And, if I was banned, all that would be left is your meaningless dribble.


Of course I?m not the site custodian, that?s Scott?s job lol. He?s worked hard for that title. Far be it from me to assume that role. There?s plenty of dribble to go around lol. A lot of it is running down your 22 inch neck.
Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

I think Jones was correct. The methods he was describing were superior if you look at it from a perspective of time. It's unlikely to win a marathon circuit training, but how many subjects want to do that in the first place and I believe such activity is potentially harmful to the cardiovascular system and it is certainly harmful to the musculoskeletal system to run for prolonged periods.

Is it better to spend 5 hours per week running or 20-40 minutes per week circuit training? Which is better on the joints?

Another point, why can "highly conditioned" endurance athletes often be seen struggling to the point of becoming nauseated when they first try Nautilus circuit training or the craziness of Crossfit? Metabolic conditioning perhaps?
Open User Options Menu

spud

epdavis7 wrote:
ATP 4 Vitality wrote:
MDieguez wrote:
Arthur was not wrong on this.

Here I go,

Dear clueless,


Please look the world over, as ALL endurance athletes of ANY distances, do NOT use resistance weight bearing exercise circuit training as their training modality.

Ask yourself WHY?

Because specificity reigns supreme. A good circuit trainer is not necessarily a good runner. A good runner is not necessarily a good swimmer. A good swimmer is not necessarily a good rower. A good miler is not necessarily a good marathon runner. A good marathon runner is not necessarily a good 100 miler. A good 100 miler is not necessarily a good cross fitter. You basically get better at what you practice. Rush factor training as Arthur prescribed will give you enough fitness and health to carry out your daily activities and build some muscle too. How do you not comprehend this?


This post right here is the end of the thread as far as I'm concerned.

Forget about whether Jones was right or wrong. The point is this. The heart and lungs can only be worked by using your skeletal muscles. The harder they work, the more they demand oxygen, so the heart and lungs have to increase their work rate to supply that demand. Nautilus style circuit training employing the rush factor does this incredibly well. Does it replace specific practice of running, swimming, cycling or rowing? No. It doesn't. That's no different from powerlifters and Olympic weightlifters needing to practice their specific lifts rather than only doing assistance work in their training.

You only need to do those specific activities if you are COMPETING in an event of some kind, whether it's at Olympic level or local amateur level. The advantage of going the strength training route rather than the "cardio" route is that it also addresses a whole bunch of health related problems that you will face in later life, that traditional cardio can't address. In a nutshell, they are dynapenia, sarcopenia and osteopenia. Google them if you want to know more about them and their effects. I think the Jones style of weight training can be improved by aiming for something like 30 - 60 seconds of rest between sets. It's still short enough to get a more than decent cardiorespiratory effect, but long enough that your performance on the exercises in terms of load and form used doesn't fall apart completely because you're so winded. This is what I'm no doing in my home gym, and it works a treat. I think the idea of aiming for a close to zero rest as possible is completely pointless, unless you don't care at all about the strength side of things and just want to see how winded you can get.

I want the strength and muscle benefits first and foremost, but if I can inject some "cardio" as well, then I'm going to do that, but it will never be the overriding priority.
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Of course I?m not the site custodian, that?s Scott?s job lol. He?s worked hard for that title. Far be it from me to assume that role. There?s plenty of dribble to go around lol. A lot of it is running down your 22 inch neck.

==Scott==
As official site custodian, ha ha, my best advice at the moment is to just ignore his rantings on cardio or just about anything else for that matter. He is obsessed with arguing about Jones statement that a good Nautilus workout will provide the best cardio anyone could get.Even if you agree with him he will still argue on. At this point in this never ending insanity about cardio, who cares? Who cares what John Little does or says? Let's move on.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

Resultsbased wrote:
I think Jones was correct. The methods he was describing were superior if you look at it from a perspective of time. It's unlikely to win a marathon circuit training, but how many subjects want to do that in the first place and I believe such activity is potentially harmful to the cardiovascular system and it is certainly harmful to the musculoskeletal system to run for prolonged periods.

Is it better to spend 5 hours per week running or 20-40 minutes per week circuit training? Which is better on the joints?

Another point, why can "highly conditioned" endurance athletes often be seen struggling to the point of becoming nauseated when they first try Nautilus circuit training or the craziness of Crossfit? Metabolic conditioning perhaps?


Metabolic conditioning for certain and even that can be very specific. Have a crossfit guy do 3 three minute rounds on a heavy bag all out. Watch him gas out. Conversely have a boxer do crossfit and watch him lay on the floor gasping. General adaptations certainly occur, but specificity (and genetics) always reigns supreme.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7


I want the strength and muscle benefits first and foremost, but if I can inject some "cardio" as well, then I'm going to do that, but it will never be the overriding priority.


A lot of the issues I observe in my elderly friends and family members is not lack of "cardio" but lack of strength. If they are out of breath, its because their muscles have become so weak they must work harder to complete a task or even stand up for that matter. A strength training session done semi circuit style would greatly benefit them for everyday life moreso than trying to go out and run...and I'm a guy who likes to run saying this.
Open User Options Menu

epdavis7

entsminger wrote:
Of course I?m not the site custodian, that?s Scott?s job lol. He?s worked hard for that title. Far be it from me to assume that role. There?s plenty of dribble to go around lol. A lot of it is running down your 22 inch neck.

==Scott==
As official site custodian, ha ha, my best advice at the moment is to just ignore his rantings on cardio or just about anything else for that matter. He is obsessed with arguing about Jones statement that a good Nautilus workout will provide the best cardio anyone could get.Even if you agree with him he will still argue on. At this point in this never ending insanity about cardio, who cares? Who cares what John Little does or says? Let's move on.


I am recommending you for a pay raise and performance award! Fine site custodian indeed! How dare Marc Pharmacist insinuate I was site custodian. No one could ever fill your shoes nor replace. Keep up the great work!
Open User Options Menu

Resultsbased

entsminger wrote:
Of course I?m not the site custodian, that?s Scott?s job lol. He?s worked hard for that title. Far be it from me to assume that role. There?s plenty of dribble to go around lol. A lot of it is running down your 22 inch neck.

==Scott==
As official site custodian, ha ha, my best advice at the moment is to just ignore his rantings on cardio or just about anything else for that matter. He is obsessed with arguing about Jones statement that a good Nautilus workout will provide the best cardio anyone could get.Even if you agree with him he will still argue on. At this point in this never ending insanity about cardio, who cares? Who cares what John Little does or says? Let's move on.


We may disagree over politics, but I could not agree more with this post...excellent.
Open User Options Menu

Average Al

spud wrote:

The point is this. The heart and lungs can only be worked by using your skeletal muscles. The harder they work, the more they demand oxygen, so the heart and lungs have to increase their work rate to supply that demand. Nautilus style circuit training employing the rush factor does this incredibly well.



Rush Factor training on a Nautilus circuit is very challenging, and will get your heart rate way up. But does that mean you have produce the highest possible demand for oxygenated blood from the heart?

I don't know of any study where O2 demand was actually measured during the performance of a Nautilus circuit done with a rush factor. It doesn't appear to have been one of the parameters measured during Project Total Conditioning. That study primarily looked at changes in athletic performance, rather than changes to the performance of the heart.

I have seen one study where a weight training circuit with barbells was compared to traditional cardio. They measured O2 demand versus heart rate, and found that for the same heart rate elevation, traditional cardio produced twice the O2 demand as the weight training circuit.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../pubmed/2072844

So while it might seem like you could infer a high oxygen demand based on a high heart rate, that is an assumption that needs to be tested.

Open User Options Menu

ATP 4 Vitality

Average Al wrote:
spud wrote:

The point is this. The heart and lungs can only be worked by using your skeletal muscles. The harder they work, the more they demand oxygen, so the heart and lungs have to increase their work rate to supply that demand. Nautilus style circuit training employing the rush factor does this incredibly well.



Rush Factor training on a Nautilus circuit is very challenging, and will get your heart rate way up. But does that mean you have produce the highest possible demand for oxygenated blood from the heart?

I don't know of any study where O2 demand was actually measured during the performance of a Nautilus circuit done with a rush factor. It doesn't appear to have been one of the parameters measured during Project Total Conditioning. That study primarily looked at changes in athletic performance, rather than changes to the performance of the heart.

I have seen one study where a weight training circuit with barbells was compared to traditional cardio. They measured O2 demand versus heart rate, and found that for the same heart rate elevation, traditional cardio produced twice the O2 demand as the weight training circuit

So while it might seem like you could infer a high oxygen demand based on a high heart rate, that is an assumption that needs to be tested.



Study on circuit training

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../pubmed/6513767
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

Average Al wrote:
spud wrote:

The point is this. The heart and lungs can only be worked by using your skeletal muscles. The harder they work, the more they demand oxygen, so the heart and lungs have to increase their work rate to supply that demand. Nautilus style circuit training employing the rush factor does this incredibly well.



Rush Factor training on a Nautilus circuit is very challenging, and will get your heart rate way up. But does that mean you have produce the highest possible demand for oxygenated blood from the heart?

I don't know of any study where O2 demand was actually measured during the performance of a Nautilus circuit done with a rush factor. It doesn't appear to have been one of the parameters measured during Project Total Conditioning. That study primarily looked at changes in athletic performance, rather than changes to the performance of the heart.

I have seen one study where a weight training circuit with barbells was compared to traditional cardio. They measured O2 demand versus heart rate, and found that for the same heart rate elevation, traditional cardio produced twice the O2 demand as the weight training circuit.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../pubmed/2072844

So while it might seem like you could infer a high oxygen demand based on a high heart rate, that is an assumption that needs to be tested.



==Scott==
I've done rush factor circuit training and just about every cardio type exercise and I've found I cannot get my heart rate up and the heavy breathing from rush factor training as I can get on just two minutes of all out rowing on a concept 2 rower.I can get to breathing so hard I'm near passing out and 5 minutes afterward I don't feel the muscle ache I'd have from a circuit of Nautilus pushed to the limit.Is this worth arguing about? No, both work the heart and lungs pretty good.
Open User Options Menu

hit4me

Florida, USA

entsminger wrote:
Average Al wrote:
spud wrote:

The point is this. The heart and lungs can only be worked by using your skeletal muscles. The harder they work, the more they demand oxygen, so the heart and lungs have to increase their work rate to supply that demand. Nautilus style circuit training employing the rush factor does this incredibly well.



Rush Factor training on a Nautilus circuit is very challenging, and will get your heart rate way up. But does that mean you have produce the highest possible demand for oxygenated blood from the heart?

I don't know of any study where O2 demand was actually measured during the performance of a Nautilus circuit done with a rush factor. It doesn't appear to have been one of the parameters measured during Project Total Conditioning. That study primarily looked at changes in athletic performance, rather than changes to the performance of the heart.

I have seen one study where a weight training circuit with barbells was compared to traditional cardio. They measured O2 demand versus heart rate, and found that for the same heart rate elevation, traditional cardio produced twice the O2 demand as the weight training circuit.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../pubmed/2072844

So while it might seem like you could infer a high oxygen demand based on a high heart rate, that is an assumption that needs to be tested.



==Scott==
I've done rush factor circuit training and just about every cardio type exercise and I've found I cannot get my heart rate up and the heavy breathing from rush factor training as I can get on just two minutes of all out rowing on a concept 2 rower.I can get to breathing so hard I'm near passing out and 5 minutes afterward I don't feel the muscle ache I'd have from a circuit of Nautilus pushed to the limit.Is this worth arguing about? No, both work the heart and lungs pretty good.


but some on here just like to argue due to their over inflated ego thinking they are smarter than every one else
Open User Options Menu

entsminger

Virginia, USA

hit4me wrote:
entsminger wrote:
Average Al wrote:
spud wrote:

The point is this. The heart and lungs can only be worked by using your skeletal muscles. The harder they work, the more they demand oxygen, so the heart and lungs have to increase their work rate to supply that demand. Nautilus style circuit training employing the rush factor does this incredibly well.



Rush Factor training on a Nautilus circuit is very challenging, and will get your heart rate way up. But does that mean you have produce the highest possible demand for oxygenated blood from the heart?

I don't know of any study where O2 demand was actually measured during the performance of a Nautilus circuit done with a rush factor. It doesn't appear to have been one of the parameters measured during Project Total Conditioning. That study primarily looked at changes in athletic performance, rather than changes to the performance of the heart.

I have seen one study where a weight training circuit with barbells was compared to traditional cardio. They measured O2 demand versus heart rate, and found that for the same heart rate elevation, traditional cardio produced twice the O2 demand as the weight training circuit.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/.../pubmed/2072844

So while it might seem like you could infer a high oxygen demand based on a high heart rate, that is an assumption that needs to be tested.



==Scott==
I've done rush factor circuit training and just about every cardio type exercise and I've found I cannot get my heart rate up and the heavy breathing from rush factor training as I can get on just two minutes of all out rowing on a concept 2 rower.I can get to breathing so hard I'm near passing out and 5 minutes afterward I don't feel the muscle ache I'd have from a circuit of Nautilus pushed to the limit.Is this worth arguing about? No, both work the heart and lungs pretty good.

but some on here just like to argue due to their over inflated ego thinking they are smarter than every one else


==Scott==
Yea there's always someone on here who thinks they have it all figured out...

https://www.youtube.com/...+out+your+wrong
Open User Options Menu
First | Previous | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy