Question: What is the best cardio equipment to buy? A treadmill, stationary cycle, versa climber, elliptical machine, or rowing machine?
Answer: The best piece of “cardio” equipment you can buy is a barbell or a pair of adjustable dumbbells.
When used properly a barbell or dumbbells are capable of stimulating greater improvements in cardiovascular conditioning more quickly, efficiently, and safely than any of the equipment you mentioned(1). Unlike the equipment you mentioned these are also safe and effective tools for improving muscular strength and size, bone and connective tissue strength, and flexibility.
The primary function of your cardiovascular system is delivering oxygen and nutrients to and metabolic wastes away from your muscles and other tissues. When you are more physically active your muscles use more energy and create more waste causing your heart to pump more blood more frequently. If a physical activity is demanding enough to cause significant increase in cardiac output for even only a few minutes it will stimulate improvements in cardiovascular fitness(2).
Most people don’t think of barbells and dumbbells as cardiovascular conditioning tools because they use them in a way that is very inefficient for this purpose. Typical strength training methods involve sets that are often too short, with too much rest allowed in between, and performed with too little intensity of effort. However, when exercises are performed with a high intensity of effort, for sufficient duration (40 to 80 seconds or longer) and with little or no rest allowed between it is possible to achieve and maintain average heart rates in excess of 80% of one’s predicted heart rate maximum (220 minus age).
Contrary to what you might expect, it is not necessary to move quickly during exercise to accomplish this, since the demands on the cardiovascular system are proportional to metabolic rather than mechanical work. This kind of heart rate elevation can be achieved with very slow repetitions or even isometric exercise if the effort is high enough. Using a very slow 10/3/10 repetition cadence for as few as 2 to 4 repetitions (approximately 45-90 seconds) I am able to consistently achieve average heart rates between eighty and ninety percent of my predicted maximum during workouts. As a general rule you should move slowly during exercises and quickly between them.
A similar effect can even be achieved with no movement at all, performing static holds using a weight that allows for 60-90 second hold times in the mid-range position.
The ability to perform a high amount of metabolic work with little or no mechanical work makes barbells and dumbbells safer for metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning when used correctly. To achieve this kind of heart rate elevation using most conventional “cardio” equipment mentioned requires moving at faster speeds, increasing acceleration, peak forces, and your risk of overuse and acute injuries.
Venous return and thus cardiac blood flow is also more efficient during properly performed strength training than traditional endurance activities, making it safer for people with heart conditions (3).
If your goal is fat loss, barbells and dumbbells are still a better choice, because the proper role of exercise in a fat loss program is increasing or maintaining lean body mass while fat is lost, not increasing calorie expenditure since no activity burns enough calories to be worth doing for that purpose. None of the equipment you asked about does this effectively, but barbells and dumbbells do.
While selectorized machines are also highly effective for cardiovascular conditioning(4) and make it possible to move between exercises even more quickly, barbells and dumbbells provide a greater variety of exercises and are more cost and space efficient, making them the best choice if you want to equip a home gym with limited space and budget.
References:
- James Peterson, PhD., Total Conditioning: A Case Study, Athletic Journal Vol. 56 September, 1975
- Gibala MJ, Little JP, Van essen M, et al. Short-term sprint interval versus traditional endurance training: similar initial adaptations in human skeletal muscle and exercise performance. J Physiol (Lond). 2006;575(Pt 3):901-11.
- Meyer K, Hajric R, Westbrook S, et al. Hemodynamic responses during leg press exercise in patients with chronic congestive heart failure. Am J Cardiol. 1999;83(11):1537-43.
- Maisch B, Baum E, Grimm W. Die Auswirkungen dynamischen Krafttrainings nach dem Nautilus-Prinzip auf kardiozirkulatorische Parameter und Ausdauerleistungsfähigkeit (The effects of resistance training according to the Nautilus principles on cardiocirculatory parameters and endurance). Angenommen vom Fachbereich Humanmedizin der Philipps-Universität Marburg am 11. Dezember 2003
Comments on this entry are closed.
I think you have written on this before, but if I do an intense set and then move on to other exercises, I will get winded and will have to rest. Otherwise, my strength on the subsequent exercise will be compromised. I believe you’ve written before that even if that were so, as long as I’m performing a set to muscular failure, it doesn’t matter. Yet, the 3×3 protocol you designed is better for metabolic conditioning than building strength. Please clarify.
Hey Paul,
The relative intensity of exercise is far more important than the absolute load, so although you may not be able to use as much weight for subsequent exercises when you move from one exercise to the next more quickly it doesn’t make much difference for long term muscular strength and size gains.
Could you please explain why the relative intensity of a routine, raised up through shortened rests between sets, should be a better or comparable stimulus for size and strength? I compare to a routine where you use the same intensity for the individual sets than in the example above, but take more time between sets and so you are able to use a greater load for each set. In the first example the stimulus for adaptation is geared more to metabolic and cardiovascular adaptation than in the second scenario. Why should it be a better or comparable stimulus for size and strength?
Hey Andy,
This is because stimulating increases in muscular strength and size appears to have less to do with absolute load than it does with intensity, or your momentary effort relative to your momentary ability. The only advantage of using more rest time and heavier weights would be the neural adaptations which would improve your ability to lift heavy weights in the specific exercises done, if that is your goal. For general increases in muscular strength and size it doesn’t appear to make much of a difference in the long run.
When I make general recommendations I do so with long-term, overall health and fitness in mind, taking all factors of functional ability into consideration, as well as safety and time efficiency. There are a lot of ways to strength train that will be equally effective in the long run, but some ways are better than others if your goal is to improve overall fitness to the greatest degree possible, as safely and efficiently as possible.
Thank you, Drew
Your answer makes sense Drew. The only point I still see here is systemic fatigue. If you place, through short rests between high intensity sets, such a great demand on the cardiovascular and metabolic system, they may not be able to support the individual muscle to a degree where an effective stimulus for muscle growth is possible. Especially for muscles trained later during the workout. The trainee achieves muscular failure, but not because all fibers of the trained muscle are adequately fatigued. The muscle fails because it doesn’t get enough oxygen, ATP etc. by the supporting systems to adequately involve all fibers. So specific for muscle growth longer rests between sets may allow a more effective stimulus for that goal.
Hey Andy,
It doesn’t reduce the effectiveness of the stimulus because there are multiple pathways to stimulating increases in strength and size, including metabolic stress. Although the tension might be lower the metabolic stress is much higher, and the end result is the same.
Also, if you start out with a little more rest and gradually reduce it as metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning improves it isn’t as much of a limiting factor as it would be for someone who tries to rush between exercises right away without improving their conditioning first.
I had a similar thought. If your level of systemic fatigue is high, your heart is racing, and you are getting nauseous from growth hormone surging, then maybe you stop the set because your overall discomfort level is so high, and not because you reached MMF. It seems possible that sufficient metabolic distress could distract you from reaching true muscle failure. I’m thinking of those legendary stories from the AJ days when people would collapse halfway through the machine circuit. That never seemed very productive.
Hey Craig,
You aren’t going to have a significant increase in growth hormone from exercise and it isn’t what makes a person nauseated. Metabolic stress is a stimulus for muscular strength and size increases and it doesn’t make much of a difference in the long run if it is the cause of achieving momentary muscular failure. If you want the most out of your workouts you should train with as high a level of effort and as little rest between exercises as you can stand, while still being able to complete a workout of reasonable volume.
Hey, Drew. Thank you for yet another straightforward article on the benefits of high intensity training. I stopped doing conventional cardio 3.5 years ago, shortly after I fully committed to a high intensity style of working out. Prior to that, I was running a good bit, swimming some, and doing sprint triathlons. While I enjoyed the physical challenge, back problems were becoming real problems, and the running seemed to be the trigger. The only “cardio” I do anymore is hiking, and it’s not for that. Here’s my question: Is the cardiovascular system actually strengthened by activities that make you breathe hard/raise your heart rate? The reason I ask is that I have heard people like Doug McGuff and James Steele allude to (but never directly say) the idea that the benefits are at the cellular level, and aren’t really about breathing hard. Now, there is no way to do a HIT workout properly without breathing hard, but my entire workout rarely exceeds 20 minutes, and I do rest some between sets. I used to run or swim for a lot longer than that, and my heart rate would be elevated for at least twice that long. Were my heart and lungs getting a better workout? Related question: while skill is highly specific, is cardio? When I was a competitive swimmer as a teenager, running would gas me pretty easily; when I was running and swimming regularly, cycling would gas me pretty quickly, too. Any thoughts on this? Thanks for all you do!
Hey Dan,
It’s both. In addition to the peripheral adaptations your heart becomes stronger, arterial compliance improves, and new blood vessels are formed (angiogenesis).
Cardiovascular adaptations are not specific, but skill is. The more skilled at an activity you are the more efficiently you perform it so less energy is wasted and there is less of a demand on the cardiovascular system.
Quick question there, do you achieve this heart rate in one HIT set? or chaining several sets (to failure) of different exercises with little rest in between? For instance: over head press (dumbells), BW squat, pushups, etc. with little rest between them
Hey Edu,
You can get the heart rate up pretty quickly if you start with a compound exercise, especially exercises like squats, deadlifts, and leg presses that involve the hips and thighs. You then have to move quickly between exercises to maintain a high average heart rate. The heart rates during exercises are actually higher than this, as the average also includes the slight dip that occurs between exercises.
Hi Drew,
I am not 100% sure on this point but I think a lot of people can’t or won’t accept that by using a barbell or machines that you can get a great strength and cardiovascular workout if you following a proper HIT workout.
I have said this before but when you put someone through a proper HIT workout they can’t believe how high their HR increases to.
I think to get the strength and cardiovascular gains from this type of workout you need to be able to perform each exercise/repetitions as perfect as possible. If you don’t concentrate a 100% when the exercises get harder you can easily start to lose form. This one reason that you need a competent HIT trainer to ensure that each repetitions is performed perfectly.
I think Arthur Jones said that these types of workouts are hard not meant to be easy but the benefits gained far out weigh any other type of workout and as you mentioned are safe workouts. Arthur Jones wrote an article called The Real Value of Exercise a great read.
Hey Steven,
Many people are skeptical when they’re told strength training can be effective for cardiovascular conditioning because the way they strength train is not, and they usually assume they are doing it correctly. It’s easy to convince them if they let you put them through a proper HIT workout, though.
Good form helps, but perfect form isn’t necessary for someone to experience the metabolic and cardiovascular demands of a HIT workout. as long as their effort is high enough and you move them from one exercise to the next quickly enough they’ll feel the effect.
Do you have a recommendation for a simple [though semi accurate) for a heart rate monitor to be used during weight training?
I currently use a FitBit Charge and it seems to be pretty consistent when compared to self-measured HR using stopwatch and carotid pulse.
I tested a Garmin HR monitor a client lent me a few years ago which had a chest strap and wrist band and it also worked well, but I prefer to use wear one on my wrist.
Keep in mind that what we are really concerned with is cardiac output, which is HR x SV, and with proper strength training SV will be higher so HR will be lower even with the same CO, so you can’t directly compare strength training to steady state activity.
I discuss this in several videos in the private Facebook group for HIT List members if you’d like to learn more.