Cardio vs Strength Training

[fatlander]

I was a skinny kid growing up and still a pretty skinny guy. I remember asking my dad when I was a kid about how to get big muscles and my dad said "No amount of muscles will ever make up for brains in the long run"

Insert Cardio in place of brains in this case....

If you cant catch your breath, youll fail hunting the mountains every time. You may be able to pick up a whole elk 1/4 and cart it off the hill but if you cant catch your breath then whats the point?

Yep.

I used to live with a couple body builders in college. Those guys could pick up a small car, but they’d never have to worry about killing an elk. They can’t walk up two flights of stairs without taking a prolonged brake to suck air like they just did wind sprints for an hour straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[P Carter]

OK, I get that BUT what happens when you've hiked all those killer miles hunting (efficiently), kill that monster bull and then have to huk it around to field dress it (because it died in a hell hole you actually had prayed you'd never find yourself in) and you're by your lonesome ? Personally, after done what I've described so many times "I" think I'm NUTS, I'll take the overall weight training for general strength, flexibility, contorted lifting ability, endurance after having expended all reserves and so on as a wise way to train for the hunt - you want to challenge yourself ? grab a pair of 100 lb dumbells and walk around the parking lot a few times, THAT will make your legs gain strength after a short while of smart on/off work out days

While I prefer the running for a wide variety of reasons, I don't disagree with you on the need for strength work. My first few years of hunting, I had been running 60ish miles a week with 8-10,000 feet of vertical gain for ultramarathons. I thought that the hunting would be easy compared to that. I was wrong. The lack of flexibility, in particular, was really tough. I had a tough time moving through downfall. And, as we all know, elk are either in the downfall or on the other side of downfall. Little things like grip strength had gone to crap. The first cut-up-and-pack-out was an eye opener. I managed, but the need for strength work and flexibility/mobility was very clear. Overall I feel much, much better with dialed back running, though it is still the base of my training, with supplemental strength and flexibility. I'm sure you weightlifters will scoff, but I do 2-3x a week, 2-3 sets of lunges, goblet squats, single leg deadlifts, pushups, and pullups. That together with a month or so worth of 2 times a week of weighted pack hikes seems to strike a pretty good balance for where I am in life right now.

 

[Poser]

Yep.

I used to live with a couple body builders in college. Those guys could pick up a small car, but they’d never have to worry about killing an elk. They can’t walk up two flights of stairs without taking a prolonged brake to suck air like they just did wind sprints for an hour straight.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bodybuilding and strength training are two completely different disciplines with two very different outcomes.

Bodybuilders train for muscle size and aesthetics. They may not even be very strong relative to the size of their muscles because they don’t train for absolute strength.

Strength trainees train for absolute strength. They may not necessarily have “big” muscles, but they have efficient muscles and are more concerned with the benefits of having, say, a strong posterior chain and strong muscles on each side of their spine so that they don’t hurt their back doing whatever it is they do in life.

A strength trainee may also include athletes who go into more specialized strength sports such as powerlifting, weightlifting/Olympic lifting or Strongman, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Whether you want to admit it or not, muscles, and how relatively strong they are, determine whether or not you can run up a hill, hike down a mountain, shoulder a backpack for 10 miles and the efficiency of these muscles are what determine whether or not you can “catch your breath” since they demand oxygen and blood from your lungs and heart in order to do their job.
You can be relatively strong and still have very efficient muscles. You can also be relatively weak and have very efficient muscles. Having some surplus strength has many advantages and few disadvantages until you get to The highest level of power to weight endurance sports, which, is just as irrelevant to this conversation as training for a Strongman event.

The discussion here is “so you want to be In The best shape possible for hunting?”
Y or N?

If the answer is yes, would you benefit from having relatively stronger as opposed to relatively weaker muscles in order to be in the best shape for hunting? Y or N?

It’s not rocket science. You’re going to potentially haul a “heavy” backpack, therefore a pair of relatively strong glutes (aka the largest muscles In Your body who’s job it is to keep you upright), a pair of strong hamstrings, a pair of strong quads to extend the knee, strong muscles running up each side of the spine to keep the spine straight and erect and, what the hell, a pair of strong shoulders aren’t going to hurt anything and might just prevent an injury if you fall down with that heavy pack on. And then you need those muscles to be highly efficient at hiking up and downhill for Miles at a time. When your quads are applying downward force on the knee on an uphill gradient and the glutes are working isometricly to keep you upright, abdominal muscles are working to protect the spine and your calves are being eccentricity loaded going downhill, they are all demanding oxygen and blood and, how efficient they do this ultimately determines how long you can sustain that activity.

Most of these muscles have a singular job to perform. All things being equal, what benefits are there to having relatively weak muscles verses relatively strong muscles? The common answer seems to be “I don’t strength train therefore you don’t need to strength train”, but that’s not the question. The question is whether or not you stand to benefit from being stronger than you are presently and for the vast majority of people, the answer to that question is going to be yes. That’s doesn’t mean that you have to do it, it only means that it would be more ideal.

An increase in strength for the average person will have a positive net benefit to your conditioning (aka “cardio”). However, more “cardio” is not going to necessarily benefit your overall strength. Since you need a minimum amount of strength in order to ruck, and since building sufficient strength to do so is a relatively slow process (and conditioning is a relatively fast adaptation, made faster if you have a strength base), the average person is going to benefit from going into hunting season somewhat stronger than they need to be. Therefore, *ideally*, you should be strength training.

You don’t have to strength train, but it’s probably bad advice to tell other people not to worry about being relatively strong and just “do cardio” (whatever that actually means because it’s a rather meaningless word).

 

[fatlander]

Bodybuilding and strength training are two completely different disciplines with two very different outcomes.

Bodybuilders train for muscle size and aesthetics. They may not even be very strong relative to the size of their muscles because they don’t train for absolute strength.

Strength trainees train for absolute strength. They may not necessarily have “big” muscles, but they have efficient muscles and are more concerned with the benefits of having, say, a strong posterior chain and strong muscles on each side of their spine so that they don’t hurt their back doing whatever it is they do in life.

A strength trainee may also include athletes who go into more specialized strength sports such as powerlifting, weightlifting/Olympic lifting or Strongman, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.

Whether you want to admit it or not, muscles, and how relatively strong they are, determine whether or not you can run up a hill, hike down a mountain, shoulder a backpack for 10 miles and the efficiency of these muscles are what determine whether or not you can “catch your breath” since they demand oxygen and blood from your lungs and heart in order to do their job.
You can be relatively strong and still have very efficient muscles. You can also be relatively weak and have very efficient muscles. Having some surplus strength has many advantages and few disadvantages until you get to The highest level of power to weight endurance sports, which, is just as irrelevant to this conversation as training for a Strongman event.

The discussion here is “so you want to be In The best shape possible for hunting?”
Y or N?

If the answer is yes, would you benefit from having relatively stronger as opposed to relatively weaker muscles in order to be in the best shape for hunting? Y or N?

It’s not rocket science. You’re going to potentially haul a “heavy” backpack, therefore a pair of relatively strong glutes (aka the largest muscles In Your body who’s job it is to keep you upright), a pair of strong hamstrings, a pair of strong quads to extend the knee, strong muscles running up each side of the spine to keep the spine straight and erect and, what the hell, a pair of strong shoulders aren’t going to hurt anything and might just prevent an injury if you fall down with that heavy pack on. And then you need those muscles to be highly efficient at hiking up and downhill for Miles at a time. When your quads are applying downward force on the knee on an uphill gradient and the glutes are working isometricly to keep you upright, abdominal muscles are working to protect the spine and your calves are being eccentricity loaded going downhill, they are all demanding oxygen and blood and, how efficient they do this ultimately determines how long you can sustain that activity.

Most of these muscles have a singular job to perform. All things being equal, what benefits are there to having relatively weak muscles verses relatively strong muscles? The common answer seems to be “I don’t strength train therefore you don’t need to strength train”, but that’s not the question. The question is whether or not you stand to benefit from being stronger than you are presently and for the vast majority of people, the answer to that question is going to be yes. That’s doesn’t mean that you have to do it, it only means that it would be more ideal.

An increase in strength for the average person will have a positive net benefit to your conditioning (aka “cardio”). However, more “cardio” is not going to necessarily benefit your overall strength. Since you need a minimum amount of strength in order to ruck, and since building sufficient strength to do so is a relatively slow process (and conditioning is a relatively fast adaptation, made faster if you have a strength base), the average person is going to benefit from going into hunting season somewhat stronger than they need to be. Therefore, *ideally*, you should be strength training.

You don’t have to strength train, but it’s probably bad advice to tell other people not to worry about being relatively strong and just “do cardio” (whatever that actually means because it’s a rather meaningless word).

I can haul a 80+ pound pack a lot further than your average bear. I can also run a lot further and longer than your average bear. I practice doing both, a lot. Carrying heavy shit for a long distance is a beautiful mix of strength and endurance. Your legs can be as strong as you want. If you can’t breathe, you can’t walk.

It’s all a balance.

You can get as technical as you’d like. One of the guys I’ve mentioned that cannot walk up flight of steps, can deadlift over 700 pounds, squat over 700 pounds and does 5x12 150lb dumbbell bench presses. He’s stronger than anyone on this thread.

All else being equal, I’d take an amateur endurance athlete (insert suburban mom that casually runs marathons) over a professional strong man in the mountains any day of the week.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Coach Chris]

Endurance = capillary density in muscle tissue
The cardiovascular system responds to the demands of the skeletal muscle not vice versa

 

[fatlander]

Endurance = capillary density in muscle tissue
The cardiovascular system responds to the demands of the skeletal muscle not vice versa

How do you increase capillary density?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[P Carter]

How do you increase capillary density?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Long, slow runs.

::ducks and covers::

But yes, I do believe that long, slow runs increase capillary density. Hence why those are parts of most endurance training programs for runners. I think, though, that the latest understanding is that high-intensity type exercises can also increase capillary density, so again it's not a question of "either-or" but rather of "what's the right mix of both" type analysis. (I'm sure The Coach will have a counterpoint here.)

 

[fatlander]

Long, slow runs.

::ducks and covers::

But yes, I do believe that long, slow runs increase capillary density. Hence why those are parts of most endurance training programs for runners. I think, though, that the latest understanding is that high-intensity type exercises can also increase capillary density, so again it's not a question of "either-or" but rather of "what's the right mix of both" type analysis. (I'm sure The Coach will have a counterpoint here.)

Exactly


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Coach Chris]

Doesn't have to be runs.
Consistently moving for long periods of time builds capillary density. This is not to be confused with what most people consider to be "cardio".

 

[P Carter]

Doesn't have to be runs.
Consistently moving for long periods of time builds capillary density. This is not to be confused with what most people consider to be "cardio".

Fair points, I agree with you on both.

 

[*zap*]

Doesn't have to be runs.
Consistently moving for long periods of time builds capillary density. This is not to be confused with what most people consider to be "cardio".

Please provide some examples of constantly moving for long periods of time which will build capillary density. Thanks.

 

[Dark_viper42]

Following

 

[Coach Chris]

Please provide some examples of constantly moving for long periods of time which will build capillary density. Thanks.

Hiking, walking, cross country skiing, cycling, etc....

 

[Desk Jockey]

Please provide some examples of constantly moving for long periods of time which will build capillary density. Thanks.

I read a few articles and papers on this. Consensus seems to be long low intensity (jogging, cycling, hiking, fast walking) work outs boost capillary density and so do high intensity work outs. Basically the micro vascular structure adapts to the need to push more blood into skeletal muscles due to exertion. Results vary a lot and it appears one impacts slow twitch muscles and the other fast twitch more.

Here is a good summary.

How to Boost Performance and Recovery by Increasing Capillary Density

Runners and weightlifters occupy different ends of the athletic spectrum, and often have equally opposing views of what it means to be “fit.” But if

www.beachbodyondemand.com

Here is a bit more brainy one.

Mechanisms for exercise training-induced increases in skeletal muscle blood flow capacity: differences with interval sprint training versus aerobic endurance training - PubMed

Skeletal muscle blood flow capacity (BFC) is increased by exercise training due to structural vascular remodeling (in the form of angiogenesis of capillaries and remodeling of the arterial tree within skeletal muscle) and/or altered control of vascular resistance. Changes in control can be...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[fatlander]

I read a few articles and papers on this. Consensus seems to be long low intensity (jogging, cycling, hiking, fast walking) work outs boost capillary density and so do high intensity work outs. Basically the micro vascular structure adapts to the need to push more blood into skeletal muscles due to exertion. Results vary a lot and it appears one impacts slow twitch muscles and the other fast twitch more.

Here is a good summary.

How to Boost Performance and Recovery by Increasing Capillary Density

Runners and weightlifters occupy different ends of the athletic spectrum, and often have equally opposing views of what it means to be “fit.” But if

www.beachbodyondemand.com

Here is a bit more brainy one.

Mechanisms for exercise training-induced increases in skeletal muscle blood flow capacity: differences with interval sprint training versus aerobic endurance training - PubMed

Skeletal muscle blood flow capacity (BFC) is increased by exercise training due to structural vascular remodeling (in the form of angiogenesis of capillaries and remodeling of the arterial tree within skeletal muscle) and/or altered control of vascular resistance. Changes in control can be...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I’ve seen all this too. The whole idea I was getting at is the coach and his buddy from alaska made it a point to tell me running was pointless a few weeks ago for a guy that couldn’t keep up with his hunting partner.

Now, suddenly, running increases capillary density. Capillary designing is the measure for endurance. Higher endurance equates to easier pack outs . . . ??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[*zap*]

So, what are long periods of time in hours?

 

[Coach Chris]

So, what are long periods of time in hours?

It depends on how long you plan to be out and moving for on a typical day of hunting. If you're going to be out for 12hrs with an actual amount of hiking of say 8hrs you might want to shoot for 10hrs of total endurance training in preparation. It doesn't have to be done one 10hr stretch. It can broken over days as long you're never reaching complete recovery between training stretches.
As far as a hierarchy of activity. Hunting is rucking. Rucking, especially in the terrain you plan to hunt is naturally going give you the best transfer of training. Next best would be hiking. After that would be walking, especially if you have hills or stairs available. Then running, cycling, skiing, etc... HIIT would be last.

Capillary density alone isn't enough unless you hunt in a complete flat, featureless area with absolutely no load to manage.
Capillary density just improves circulation. It doesn't improve strength-endurance. Capillary density doesn't make elk quarters any easier to haul out or mountains any lower. It just improves your ability to recover from the training necessary to prepare for big vert, big packs and big vert with big packs more efficient.

 

[deerkiller]

Hiking, walking, cross country skiing, cycling, etc....

getting on an elliptical trainer, dialing it to the highest setting and starting out at a comfortable slowish pace for 30 to 60 minutes - you will be surprised how fast you'll be going 20 minutes

 

[Poser]

I can haul a 80+ pound pack a lot further than your average bear. I can also run a lot further and longer than your average bear. I practice doing both, a lot. Carrying heavy shit for a long distance is a beautiful mix of strength and endurance. Your legs can be as strong as you want. If you can’t breathe, you can’t walk.

It’s all a balance.

You can get as technical as you’d like. One of the guys I’ve mentioned that cannot walk up flight of steps, can deadlift over 700 pounds, squat over 700 pounds and does 5x12 150lb dumbbell bench presses. He’s stronger than anyone on this thread.

All else being equal, I’d take an amateur endurance athlete (insert suburban mom that casually runs marathons) over a professional strong man in the mountains any day of the week.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don’t recall anyone suggesting a professional Strongman as being the ideal hunting partner, though, strongmen do tend to have pretty good strength endurance for their size as some of the events they do like shuttle carries, pulling fire trucks etc are sustained, but at, 400 lbs, they are way too big for long distance stuff (there is a video of Brian Shaw setting an unofficial world record on a rower, though).

Anyway, if we’re pulling partners from the general population, I’d take a UPS driver/delivery man. They tend to be slightly on the thicker side from moving heavy shit around, but they can move all day up and down and get up and do it again. You can have the soccer mom endurance runner: me and my UPS driver will be enjoying beers following our one trip packout while she’s struggling with 40 lbs loads of meat and passes her medical bills off on you due to her disc injury from trying to carry too much weight with a severely atrophied posture chain

 

[fatlander]

I don’t recall anyone suggesting a professional Strongman as being the ideal hunting partner, though, strongmen do tend to have pretty good strength endurance for their size as some of the events they do like shuttle carries, pulling fire trucks etc are sustained, but at, 400 lbs, they are way too big for long distance stuff (there is a video of Brian Shaw setting an unofficial world record on a rower, though).

Anyway, if we’re pulling partners from the general population, I’d take a UPS driver/delivery man. They tend to be slightly on the thicker side from moving heavy shit around, but they can move all day up and down and get up and do it again. You can have the soccer mom endurance runner: me and my UPS driver will be enjoying beers following our one trip packout while she’s struggling with 40 lbs loads of meat and passes her medical bills off on you due to her disc injury from trying to carry too much weight with a severely atrophied posture chain

I’m glad we finally agree on something. I’d rather have someone fall in the middle, like the ups man. My whole point I’ve tried to make over and over is that just saying “stronger is better” isn’t always going to hold water, and it’s eventually going to be worse.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk