Cardio vs. strength training

Nonsense.

Cardio in general has been shown in many studies to improve people's health and longevity.

This is another ploy that is currently being used by bloggers to try to marginalize cardio. They are equating all of cardio with intense marathon runners. They are referring a research study that showed that a subset of marathon runners who overstressed their heart. The results did show a correlation of a slightly shorter lifespan for such people, which is believed to be a result of some damage being done to the heart by placing too much stress on it. It's misguided to try to generalize that subset onto the entire realm of cardio activity and label cardio as useless or dangerous.

 

really? where are these posts hidden?

seems like a majority of the health and fitness posts i've seen are about women and/or cardio.

 

This Egger character is a bit strange. I am wondering the same thing as you -- where are these posts??

The fact is, long distance cardio is catabolic, whereas HIIT is anabolic. HIIT doesn't promote the loss of muscle, but the building of it. It also coincides with increased levels of HGH, which standard cardio does not.

I have nothing against classic cardio, and engage in it myself still, but when I do it's maybe for 30 minutes, three times per week maximum.

Before I was referring chronic cardio such as distance running, or even people who walk 5-6 miles per day. Sure, it's better than being sedentary, but in my opinion it is not the optimal form of cardio. And at the very least, a person can accomplish in 10-20 minutes of HIIT what would take an hour or more doing LISS. So not only are there benefits with HIIT not associated with LISS, but it also saves a lot of the time classic cardio takes up.

Nobody is trying to marginalize anything.