Ok, silly question. As an avid cardio exerciser(I do mountain biking, running, and swimming) I have never considered doing weights(or "resistance" exercise). Doing weights would cut into my cardio activites. My wife's trainer has told her that by doing resistance exercise, one can actually improve the performance of their cardio activities. I always thought that if you want to improve your endurance of your cardio activities, you just needed to do more of it. I mean, does a marathoner run a better marathon by lifting weights? Anyone have any experience with resistance training improving their cardio performance?
think of it this way. you're building endurance but not strength by repeating the same motion over and over. you're also working a very specific set of muscles and doing very little for the sets that counterbalance them. if i didn't do my lifting after my cardio, i'd be a mess. you're not building strength, because you're not increasing the resistance those muscles are pushing against. that is constant, ie the density of water does not change. your muscles become strong enough to propel you forward and that's it. add extra power and that's an advantage. lifting increases bone density. it has a ton of benefits. plus it does get your heart rate up. on a heavy lifting day i sweat more in the weight room than on the rowing machine. i'm no professional but there are plenty out there who have written about lifting, and i've read a bit of it. i personally wouldn't consider going without my lifting routine.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Sep 3 2007, 12:43 PM) [snapback]506349[/snapback]</div> They're heavier too.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 3 2007, 10:54 AM) [snapback]506299[/snapback]</div> Yup! I've seen a significant improvement in my cardio enjoyment & outcome as a result of using resistance as my warm-up beforehand. I most definitely recommend it.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(burritos @ Sep 3 2007, 02:14 PM) [snapback]506365[/snapback]</div> they're more effective calorie burners too.
Hmmm, I may be doing it backwards. I ride my bike to the gym, run on the treadmill a while and then lift weights. Should I be doing the cardio last?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(likesmpg @ Sep 3 2007, 01:39 PM) [snapback]506377[/snapback]</div> I do a 3-6 mile run on the treadmill and then a half hour of wieghts. Most at the Gym say I am backwards, shich would make you right.....
I have not done any lifting for some time because of my bum shoulders. However, a well-rounded exercise routine should include both, as well as stretching. And don't forget core strengthening, such as pilates, which a standard weight-lifting routine might miss. Marathon runners don't bulk. Long-distance running benefits from a light body. However, marathon running is an extreme sport, and IMHO extreme sports are not especially healthy. When you lift weights, you can choose to bulk or tone. Few repetitions at very heavy weights builds muscle mass. Muscle burns calories working or resting. However, you don't need muscle mass for good health. More repetitions at lighter weight will tone your muscles without bulking. Either one is better than not lifting at all. And either one should help prevent bone loss. I could not exercise much at all last year due to my a-fib. Now that that's been cured (pulmonary vein ablation operation in February) I'm exercising again. The last couple of months I was hiking in Canada, which, though healthy, allowed my CV fitness to decline. Now I'm working back up: jogging, and exercising my arms on a machine that's like a bicycle but you work it with your hands instead of your feet. I'm hoping that will strengthen my arms and shoulders to the point where I'll be able to lift again. BTW, I don't believe it matters whether you do your cardio first or your resistance first. I think it's a matter of preference. I used to do cardio first because I was more comfortable lifting with fully-warmed-up muscles. But that was just my personal preference.
