Exercise intensity: high vs moderate

[Marbles]

Edit: This is a good review of the literature. To sum up, more calcium in the arteries of male athletes does not appear to actually increase risk. So, calcium scores likely are less significant in male athletes and as such are a poor intermediate measure for assessing risk. https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/42/28/2737/6179516
End edit.

I find it fascinating that this data provides another reason to target lower intensity as advocated by Up Hill Athlete. This also argues against the push as hard as you can mentality I once had. However, it does not argue against ultra endurance.

It must be pointed out that being observational studies, these are not definitive. The cause could be something else (such a diet) specific to many athletes who engage in very high intensity exercise.

Intense exercise encourages coronary artery calcification

A recent Circulation journal paper has focused on investigating the relationship between exercise volume and intensity and the progression of coronary atherosclerosis in middle-aged and older male athletes.

www.news-medical.net

It is even more interesting given the Obesity Paradox, which describes the fact that while I will see significantly more patients with CAD (coronary artery disease) who are obese, the obese CAD patients will have better outcomes than the few normal weight or underweight CAD patients I see. This is in part due to the frequency of hard, calcified plaques in the non-obese.

Edited to correct characterisation of studies. Only MARC-1 was retrospective observational. MARC-2 was prospective observational, which is a somewhat better design.

 

[Patriot2]

I do not think that exercise is a predominant causal factor in CAD. Everything I have read and listened to points to keeping insulin levels low through fasting and diet is much more important. My 2 cents....

 

[Marbles]

I do not think that exercise is a predominant causal factor in CAD. Everything I have read and listened to points to keeping insulin levels low through fasting and diet is much more important. My 2 cents....

Details matter here. Exercise is predominantly protective, and the studies referenced in the article support that. Extremely vigorous exercise may be a risk factor.

Vigorous is defined as 70% to 85% of max HR, vigorous exercise is protective regarding CAD. So, for extremely vigorous exercise we are talking greater than 85% of max. 85% of my max is 174, my lactate threshold is 183. I already do not train at threshold much (goal is less than 5 to 10 % of training time). For me, this just makes me feel even better about that decision. (Edit, the AHA defines it as stated above, however for the study very vigorous was defined as greater the 9 MET hours/week.)

This also is not about general CAD risk factors, not smoking (tobacco or marijuana), not being obese, avoiding hypertension, avoiding hyperlipidemia, and not being sedentary will all give more protection than avoiding extremely vigorous exercise and are more applicable to the general population. This information is applicable only to athletes, a group that predominantly already follow the other recommendations. However, lots of athletes overtrain, and this provides one more reason not to do so.

As for the insulin bit, it is more about blood sugar, which at above normal levels is a vascular irritant. Insulin resistance is associated with CAD, bit this is likely due to what causes insulin resistance, not the increased insulin. Insulin resistance is also associated with CAD, but it is associated with a general inflammatory state, and it is likely the inflammatory state, not the increased insulin that results in increased risk.

Now, there appears to be health benefits to fasting, enough so that I recommend it to some of my patients and us IF myself. However as I tell my patients, the evidence is not yet good enough to have a high degree of certainty. I believe it will get there, but until it actually does the possibility that IF may turn out to not be great must be acknowledged.

 

[*zap*]

Regular LISS and occasional hiit or just high intensity...along with strength/mobility.

 

[Marbles]

On deeper reading of the actual study only followed middle aged men. It is hard to extrapolate to younger men or women.

It also used METs, rather than HR to define activity levels with above 9 METs being considered very vigorous. This is not that high of a output (running an 11.5 minute mile would be 9 METs of output). I rather dislike that.

It is still interesting, but provides less support for my training than I was thinking.

 

[Yoder]

I don't think working too hard is the problem with the majority of Americans. Eating garbage and playing on your phone is what's killing us. They come out with new studies that contradict each other pretty much on a daily basis.

 

[Marbles]

I don't think working too hard is the problem with the majority of Americans. Eating garbage and playing on your phone is what's killing us.

See post #3 paragraph 3. There are at least some athletes on Rokslide.

Interesting, equating moderate intensity exercise to "eating garbage and playing on ones phone." I guess when talking about the forest is too nuanced one must start talking about the continent.

They come out with new studies that contradict each other pretty much on a daily basis.

Study quality varies. If one cannot sort the chaff or is uncomfortable acknowledging the limitations of what they know, I can see how it would look like that. Especially if one can view the various individuals and entities who write studies ranging from straight up fraudulent to just bad to good as one homogenous "they."

 

[Yoder]

Ahh yes, but I am but a humble moron. What do I know.

 

[Marbles]

Ahh yes, but I am but a humble moron. What do I know.

And I'm an arrogant donkey (I fear the wrath of the mods if I use the more appropriate and longer name for the animal). Together we make one hell of a combination

 

[*zap*]

I don't think working too hard is the problem with the majority of Americans. Eating garbage and playing on your phone is what's killing us. They come out with new studies that contradict each other pretty much on a daily basis.

low intensity or high intensity can both be equally hard depending on the volume/frequency.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Exercise intensity is only one consideration even within this article's context. Blood vessel elasticity, propensity for thickening and conjection with fat and calcium almost exclusively is decided by nutrition quality (and historical length of nutrition quality), smoking history and genetics. Then comes BP history. The intensity itself is the catalyst to which our bodies respond, but it's all that other stuff that determines how our bodies respond.

In the end I've come to believe the foundation for heart health and physical fitness starts and ends with a consistent long term nutritional quality with frequent caloric restriction to stay at or below your BMR. From that baseline, training for long term fitness doesn't require massive intensity workouts, but rather consistent moderate activities that don't cause injury or prolonged cardiac strain.

 

[Patriot2]

Details matter here. Exercise is predominantly protective, and the studies referenced in the article support that. Extremely vigorous exercise may be a risk factor.

Vigorous is defined as 70% to 85% of max HR, vigorous exercise is protective regarding CAD. So, for extremely vigorous exercise we are talking greater than 85% of max. 85% of my max is 174, my lactate threshold is 183. I already do not train at threshold much (goal is less than 5 to 10 % of training time). For me, this just makes me feel even better about that decision. (Edit, the AHA defines it as stated above, however for the study very vigorous was defined as greater the 9 MET hours/week.)

This also is not about general CAD risk factors, not smoking (tobacco or marijuana), not being obese, avoiding hypertension, avoiding hyperlipidemia, and not being sedentary will all give more protection than avoiding extremely vigorous exercise and are more applicable to the general population. This information is applicable only to athletes, a group that predominantly already follow the other recommendations. However, lots of athletes overtrain, and this provides one more reason not to do so.

As for the insulin bit, it is more about blood sugar, which at above normal levels is a vascular irritant. Insulin resistance is associated with CAD, bit this is likely due to what causes insulin resistance, not the increased insulin. Insulin resistance is also associated with CAD, but it is associated with a general inflammatory state, and it is likely the inflammatory state, not the increased insulin that results in increased risk.

Now, there appears to be health benefits to fasting, enough so that I recommend it to some of my patients and us IF myself. However as I tell my patients, the evidence is not yet good enough to have a high degree of certainty. I believe it will get there, but until it actually does the possibility that IF may turn out to not be great must be acknowledged.

Insulin resistance.....that is a term everyone has heard of but I am not sure I understand it's primary mechanism. I recently heard it explained as the body's tissues are so full of stored fat that it becomes difficult to store me - thus blood sugar has nowhere to go, which looks like the insulin is not creating the desired drop in blood sugar. Your thoughts? It is certainly a major factor in the decreasing health in the U.S. Based upon my recent trip to the local Walmart ( I actually LIKE Walmart), I should buy stock in insulin companies..........

Sounds like moderate training with 5-10% at high intensity is a winner and my plan for 2023.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

At its simplest form insulin resistance is a condition where the body's muscles, cells, digestive organs stop responding to insulin produced by the pancreas.

People with this resistance have to carefully control sugar and carbohydrate intake and lean toward protein and fat sources.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

This metabolic disease is common with obesity, high visceral fat, excessive drinkers, chronic over eaters, and other avoidable diet related issues.

In a normal functioning system the pancreas injects the insulin to regulate the metabolism of glucose in the blood, which our bodies demand for activities. With "resistance" the glucose isn't properly regulated because the system is burned out by insulin metabolism. Hope this helps.

 

[Marbles]

Insulin resistance.....that is a term everyone has heard of but I am not sure I understand it's primary mechanism. I recently heard it explained as the body's tissues are so full of stored fat that it becomes difficult to store me - thus blood sugar has nowhere to go, which looks like the insulin is not creating the desired drop in blood sugar. Your thoughts? It is certainly a major factor in the decreasing health in the U.S. Based upon my recent trip to the local Walmart ( I actually LIKE Walmart), I should buy stock in insulin companies..........

Sounds like moderate training with 5-10% at high intensity is a winner and my plan for 2023.

Isulin is the bodies messenger that tells cells to store sugar AND fat AND to synthesize protein (more complex than just sugar). It is a rest, build, and store hormone.

Activity stops insulin production as the body shifts to a move, breakdown, and consume state to fuel the activity.

The body also uses insulin to lower blood sugar because above a certain concentration sugar is toxic.

Insulin resistance can be thought of as the cells constantly hearing insulin, and starting to tune it out. It becomes the obnoxious and repetitive announcement and the volume keeps needing to be turned up to get the cells attention.

Now, the body releases insulin in preparation for sugar consumption, so most flavors (other than bitter) trigger insulin release, even if it is a zero calorie item such as coke zero or stevia.

The way to get the cells to listen to insulin at a reasonable volume again is to take it away (fast or exercise).

Insulin resistance is associated with a general inflammatory state, my guess is that state goes along with all the things that cause insulin resistance (constant food intake and not moving enough) rather than being caused by the insulin resistance. So it is a symptom of the problem, like a fever, rather than the problem.

 

[*zap*]

Everyone should try intermittent fasting or eating all food within a 8hr or so window.

 

[Larry Bartlett]

Thanks Marbles. Perfect explanation.

 

[MIbowhunter4954]

I bought a Halo band (fitbit) to monitor HR during cardio, which is just running on the treadmill as of late.

It quickly taught me I was running way too hard. When I work out I'm wired to be miserable.

Slowing down has actually sped up my progress. I simple example -- I was running less than 3 miles at 6.5 mph, and 85% of the run SUCKED. HR was 170-175 toward the end.

Drop it down to 5.2, a pace I thought was much to leisurely, and I can do 4 miles with ease, and my HR is around 150.


Now I just need to strike a balance.

 

[Nick992]

If this is too much of a tangent, feel free to ignore.

I'm personally trying to find the amount of intensity that isn't damaging joints. For example I don't think hauling 100# packs around is good for the knees. I'll do it on a hunt, but I'm worried doing it weekly will be detrimental.
I've slowly worked up to 70# rucks and can do it daily, but I don't do it daily for fear of joint damage. I'm also on collagen and working on growing joint strength, meaning I started at lower weights and am working up slower than my muscles say I can. I'm not as in tune with 'good' joint soreness.
Long story short, I'm trying to listen to my body, but I haven't found a Dr. or PT with a good answer yet.

 

[Marbles]

I bought a Halo band (fitbit) to monitor HR during cardio, which is just running on the treadmill as of late.

It quickly taught me I was running way too hard. When I work out I'm wired to be miserable.

Slowing down has actually sped up my progress. I simple example -- I was running less than 3 miles at 6.5 mph, and 85% of the run SUCKED. HR was 170-175 toward the end.

Drop it down to 5.2, a pace I thought was much to leisurely, and I can do 4 miles with ease, and my HR is around 150.


Now I just need to strike a balance.

I had a similar experience. After reading some of the Uphill Athlete books I don't try to push to higher HRs most of the time. Only about 5-10% of training should be in the higher intensity range. The up side is training injuries I have struggled with since I was 18 in the military no longer bother me, and I ran 32 miles on my longest run last summer (before last summer my longest run was 16 miles)

If this is too much of a tangent, feel free to ignore.

I'm personally trying to find the amount of intensity that isn't damaging joints. For example I don't think hauling 100# packs around is good for the knees. I'll do it on a hunt, but I'm worried doing it weekly will be detrimental.
I've slowly worked up to 70# rucks and can do it daily, but I don't do it daily for fear of joint damage. I'm also on collagen and working on growing joint strength, meaning I started at lower weights and am working up slower than my muscles say I can. I'm not as in tune with 'good' joint soreness.
Long story short, I'm trying to listen to my body, but I haven't found a Dr. or PT with a good answer yet.

Rucking is pretty low impact, as long as you are stable. Short steps help with stability. Under heavy loads keeping your center of gravity over your feet is important.

If you have weak glutes (common) you should work on them to take lateral strain off your knees. To test, find a 2 foot high step, load yourself with about 50 pounds, then with one leg step up. If your knee moves inward you glutes are not working like they should.

Squats as taught by Starting Strength will strengthen them, but focus on not letting them turn inward. Also, go for lower weight high reps (think sets of 20 to 50). There are other exercise that can help to. Uphill Athlete has a few articles that cover it (or it might be in the book, I don't recall).

I would say do most rucking for distance at 45 to 60 pounds, but have a heavy ruck 1 or 2 times a month.