Cardio vs. Weight Training

On Saturday, CNN posted a story on Osteoporosis written by the folks at Smartabouthealth.net

Story as seen on CNN

Osteoporosis Cases On The Rise,

U.S. Bones Weakening

( Osteoporosis Cases On The Rise, U.S. Bones Weakening, 2011 ).  The article stated that ten million Americans suffer from osteoporosis (25% of men & 50% of women) and it costs tens of millions in health care every year. (Smartabouthealth.net, 2011)

This kind of story brings up a question asked  by many inexperienced people entering the world of fitness. "Should I do cardio or weight training?"  This is because most people are aware that resistance training increases bone density.  People are also aware that cardio reduces risk factors associated with cardiovascular diseases.  Since people only have a limited amount of time to spend on their training, they want to maximize the benefits by utilizing whatever gives the most bang for the buck.

Logic dictates that in most cases they should do both.

This is not to say that I do not have a preference, but I cannot objectively state that one is better than the other in regards to health benefits.  It is much more practical to use each for its specific benefits.  Here is why I believe this.

First, it is important to note that cardio, until just recently, had a history of being promoted over weight training in the U.S.  Back in the 70s, men like Dr. Kenneth Cooper led us into the "jogging era of aerobics".  Dr. Cooper started in the late 60s when only 100,000 Americans jogged and he started a mega fitness movement.  During that time aerobics was king, and weightlifting was not as accepted as it is today.

  

Lifting weights became much more main stream in the late 70s when body building started to peak in popularity and body builders started popping up in major Hollywood movies.  This is what most of us call the golden era of iron.  Some say if it weren't for Arnold, Lou, and all the others, we might not even have weights in local gyms. 

There's been tension between the cardio crowed and the iron gang.  Your genetics generally pushed you into one camp or the other.  Fortunately, over time we learned that many of our cherished truths about fitness were wrong.  For example, it was once commonly believed that weight training did nothing for your heart.  We've since learned that things like VO2 max were, in fact, altered by Olympic weightlifting.  Other cardiovascular characteristics like ejection fraction and stroke volume were improved by all types of weight training. It was also thought that resistance training did little or even decreased performance of endurance athletes.  It is now commonly known that weight training can lead to improved performance of almost any sport.  We also learned from the World Health Organization that there was a 60% drop in cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disease from about 1970 to 2000 in the U.S.

So if you only had time for one, which should you choose?  It would be better not to ask this question since your health depends on variables provided by both.  However, I will remind everyone that without resistance training, bone density will be more of a problem as you age and you could become one of statistics from CNN's post.  The well-documented metabolic benefits combined with increased bone density and other positive characteristics should make resistance training a no brainer for midlifers.  If you want more permanent shifts in body composition, you really have no choice.  I feel it does little good to be able to run 12 miles if your bones can't take the stress without breaking.  Beyond this there are many definitions for strength and people that are serious about training usually share more similarities than differences.  In the end, you must choose your own path.  Take what works for you and discard the rest.