Anyone have any opinions on strength vs cardio + resistance (i.e. bands)?
I generally dislike article like this because they don’t tell you what their protocol is like so you can’t really know what they did.
For most people, hypertrophy specific protocol is better than strength protocol. Zone 2 cardio is better than HIT. But people tend to do the opposite. They want to break personal record every session, run fastest every run.
Source on this?
It's not that simple. For example, there is evidence that cardio does not impact pericardial adipose tissue mass, while resistance training does, while only being slightly less efficient than cardio for epicardial adipose tissue mass.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/article-abst...
Depending on what your primary risk factor is, it's possible that strength training is more beneficial.
Studies have shown people that engage in strength training tend to gain less age related visceral fat vs. people who solely engage in cardio, as well. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/oby.20949
But yes, the real answer is people should do both.
10 rep range still provides plenty of strength gains as long as you are pushing to near failure. It is less CNS adaptation than going much nearer to your 1RM or 10RPE for a fewer amount of sets, but it's not going to put you into the "weak bodybuilder with gigantic muscles" meme
https://www.strongerbyscience.com/powerlifters-should-train-... - tldr is periodization is good, and people should spend more time in the range considered hypertrophic than they do, even for strength training.
I don't really follow this advice because I don't enjoy bodybuilding style lifting or using machines, but it's led Nuckolls and others to a multitude of world record powerlifts.
Anyway, any forms of lifting weights that can elicit stress will see an increase in strength. Even running, at the highest level. The point I was trying to make is, for an average human being who wants to be just be healthier. Cardio has tremendous benefits and should be prioritized. They should also considered weight lifting, but choose protocol that emphasizes on hypertrophy than strength. That way, they get the benefit of strong enough and have more muscle tissue for inevitable decline when old age comes.
Lots are. Lots aren't. There are a variety of leagues and federations that test frequently, both in-competition and out of season.
We know they're almost certainly keeping these clan because many weight classes in Olympic weightlifting have had significant drops since the steroid era, being unable to overcome them even with significantly better training knowledge, processes, etc. - the testing is catching them. Many of those olympic lifters lag only slightly behind the similar tier of powerlifters in the drug tested leagues on squats, with the difference there being largely because for olympic lifters the high bar squat is an accessory exercise and for powerlifters they get the benefit of the low bar squat + it being their primary exercise, and a significant component of strength is part of your nervous system adapting to specific movements. If these powerlifters were all at supraphysiological levels of testosterone through gear, they'd be blasting way past the olympic lifters.
I also still don't totally agree with you on the other aspects, either. We have studies that show weightlifting and cardio are equally important for a very broad variety of risk factors. For example, preventing or managing type 2 diabetes is better done via weight training vs. cardio, way better blood sugar levels, etc., and being diabetic significantly raises your all cause mortality for a huge number of things. Do both. And most of the basic health benefits for lifting are at volumes that are pretty easy to achieve even on limited time, both for strength and hypertrophy based loads. And you'll get plenty of hypertrophy even on a strength-focused plan when you match for volume, you just won't be maximizing it the way bodybuilders are. As for age related decline, you still have to lift either way - it's not like you build up a large enough reserve to lift through your 50s on a super hypertrophy fixated program and then stop and still have muscles through the end of the decade. If you stop training, a bodybuilder isn't going to last much longer than a powerlifter on the having muscles part. If you keep training, both should be able to maintain proper amounts of muscle mass for their age and genetic makeup, and if you have concerns around joints or similar you can always move to a more hypertrophy specific workload when you get to that point. It's not like you've got to learn a whole new skillset.
I don't understand your arguments.
They all have different effects, neither should be forgotten.
I do that and only enough cardio to get me into zone 2 during my lifting sessions.
1) Exercise is good for you. The adaptations from exercise are good for you regardless of what kind of exercise you do.
2) Strength and cardio provide different adaptations. Neither is better or worse.
The most important thing is to do whichever one you enjoy the most, or both, or neither if you would enjoy some other exercise more.