But you aren't hoping someone would provide a reason enough that you'll look at the link?
I gave up that hope. I had to give a cursory glance, suspecting that the OP was talking nonsense yet again.
Basically you were effectively telling everyone that you were too lazy to read, and were hoping that someone would do the work for you.
And as for talking nonsense, like I have mentioned previously, I am merely offering the information for people to accept and use, or reject. Your choice. I don’t care. I have no horse in this race. Mentioned that previously also. But you didn’t read that either.
I gave up that hope. I had to give a cursory glance, suspecting that the OP was talking nonsense yet again.
Basically you were effectively telling everyone that you were too lazy to read, and were hoping that someone would do the work for you.
And as for talking nonsense, like I have mentioned previously, I am merely offering the information for people to accept and use, or reject. Your choice. I don’t care. I have no horse in this race. Mentioned that previously also. But you didn’t read that either.
Just a quick scan of the paper told me that you were misinterpreting the study.
I believe that the study, which i did delve into somewhat, is not intended to dismiss the role of intensity in cardiac remodeling, but more specifically, to downplay it's significance relative to exercise duration in the role of cardiac remodeling. And the study states that it started from the premise that intensity has historically been thought to be more effective than duration.
With that said, it doesn't pose the comparison as an either-or approach, just as to which was yielding higher outcomes and adaptations.
Here is as good a summary paragraph as I could find, which cuts to the issue:
"Our finding that exercise duration outweighs intensity carries important clinical implications. Current guidelines for sport participation often prioritize exercise intensity, while exercise duration is given less weight. Our data suggest that both exercise intensity and total exercise duration should be jointly considered when providing training recommendations, particularly for athletes and patients at risk for cardiac remodelling. This dual consideration could enhance individualized exercise prescriptions, improving both safety and performance outcomes."
So walking 5 miles is better than running it for fitness?
I presume you are being facetious but I have wondered when people have been advocating low intensity/high duration if anyone has studied where the inflection point is between a low intensity that has a reasonable impact and where it becomes essentially walking. Obviously there is no one size fits all answer and it could be as simple as the point where you don't have one foot on the ground at all times. If you start a treadmill, as the belt speeds up there is that point where walking transitions into not walking, the really difficult bit would be to retrain your mind into accepting that as a worthwhile pace.
I believe that the study, which i did delve into somewhat, is not intended to dismiss the role of intensity in cardiac remodeling, but more specifically, to downplay it's significance relative to exercise duration in the role of cardiac remodeling. And the study states that it started from the premise that intensity has historically been thought to be more effective than duration.
With that said, it doesn't pose the comparison as an either-or approach, just as to which was yielding higher outcomes and adaptations.
Here is as good a summary paragraph as I could find, which cuts to the issue:
"Our finding that exercise duration outweighs intensity carries important clinical implications. Current guidelines for sport participation often prioritize exercise intensity, while exercise duration is given less weight. Our data suggest that both exercise intensity and total exercise duration should be jointly considered when providing training recommendations, particularly for athletes and patients at risk for cardiac remodelling. This dual consideration could enhance individualized exercise prescriptions, improving both safety and performance outcomes."
This 👆tell us more? This. But in your rush to condemn, you obviously misinterpreted. But hey, we all make mistakes.
And by the way you say that I misrepresent a lot.🤔 Care to give any specific examples. Because I don’t post on here that much, and I’m at a loss to think of any that you might be referring to.
"Study shows" and it's a link to a YouTube video. I hate this timeline.
Maybe if you had bothered to scroll down just one comment you’d have noticed that I’d posted the link to the study in the very next comment underneath.
For a site full of runners there are sure some lazy people on it…🤷♂️
1. The study found a correlation, not a causation. ("This cross-sectional study provides valuable insights into the relationship between training load and cardiac remodelling but cannot establish causality due to its observational design and lack of longitudinal follow-up.")
This video talks about a recent study that shows that duration spent at lower intensities beats higher intensity work when it comes to heart remodelling.
Your conclusion differs from what the authors claim.
You said: "a recent study that shows that duration spent at lower intensities beats higher intensity work when it comes to heart remodelling."
However, Cardiac remodeling comprises changes in ventricular volume as well as the thickness and shape of the myocardial wall.
So volume and intensity are equally important in Cardiac remodeling. And since you have a background in similar research, you must know that this was demonstrated a very long time ago?
Total fitness I posted this yesterday. Did you even bother to read it?
1. The study found a correlation, not a causation. ("This cross-sectional study provides valuable insights into the relationship between training load and cardiac remodelling but cannot establish causality due to its observational design and lack of longitudinal follow-up.")
2. Cardiac remodelling is not a sport.
While the results aren't anything groundbreaking, this is unnecessarily dismissive
1) correlation/causation concerns are real, but at a certain point you do have to go out on a limb and make an educated guess. There's a reason people say the science typically trails good coaches, because people are waiting for science to "prove something"
2) cardiac remodeling isn't a sport but stroke volume is correlated (not that word again!) with endurance performance, so it's relevant. The title of the video didn't say it's all that's needed for performance just that there's a relationship with a key part of performance.
Again "volume good" is far from anything new but I am surprised it's getting pushback for the content rather than the obvious premise
Your conclusion differs from what the authors claim.
You said: "a recent study that shows that duration spent at lower intensities beats higher intensity work when it comes to heart remodelling."
However, Cardiac remodeling comprises changes in ventricular volume as well as the thickness and shape of the myocardial wall.
So volume and intensity are equally important in Cardiac remodeling. And since you have a background in similar research, you must know that this was demonstrated a very long time ago?
Total fitness I posted this yesterday. Did you even bother to read it?
I did, but ignored it. Basically because you were making assumptions on my behalf that weren’t correct.
I agree. Often times our speed/tempo workouts are too fast(workout hero). Slow those down, run longer, run in control. Even the daily runs are too fast, not enough recovery runs/recovery weeks.
I agree. Often times our speed/tempo workouts are too fast(workout hero). Slow those down, run longer, run in control. Even the daily runs are too fast, not enough recovery runs/recovery weeks.