- walking/jogging (low intensity, intermittent muscular work)

- sprinting (high-intensity, intermittent muscular work)

- conventional weight training (moderate-high intensity, intermittent muscular work)

- high-precision, high-intensity training like I do, myself (high-intensity, continuous muscular work)

I don't think there is yet a proven answer. However, current evidence points toward the idea that the greater the intensity of activity, the greater the benefit?and that this is true virtually independent of how long the workout lasts or how often the workout is performed. There was an interesting 13 year (I think) Harvard study of around 45,000 men that showed improved cardiovascular health corresponded to the intensity of activity that a person did, and not the duration or how often it was done. (people in the study who lifted weights once a week had a lower risk for heart disease than those who walked for at least 30 minutes every day)

There are also easy-to-demonstrate safety advantages to doing the fourth and final option above?both from the perspective of the ability to track appropriate muscle and joint function and minimize torque forces on one's joints that cause wear and strain, and also from cardiovascular safety?there are studies and anecdotal evidence that shows that continuous muscle loading puts less bad strain on the heart and seems to be cardio-protective, even at high intensity levels, in a way that walking and jogging are not, even at lower intensity levels. As a we always keep attention to how the person is going to benefit. And that way we make his/her training program.

There is the reason doctors give for people to do ?aerobic? activity 3-5 days per week. This reason is that studies have shown that such activity is healthier than being sedentary. I agree with these studies, however, most of those studies have lacked inclusion of higher intensity level activities to compare to the walking/jogging. In all the studies I'm aware of that do include higher intensity activities, the high intensity activities win, hands-down.

Then there is the convincing observation that people often make that seems to confirm the idea that ?aerobic,? steady-state activities (such as walking or jogging) are good for the cardiovascular system: when one does these activities, one improves over time, able to increase the distance and speed of travel, while getting less winded. This seems to be an obvious, unquestionable sign of cardiovascular improvement, however sports studies that have shown that improvements in performance in one activity (such as running, swimming, or cycling) do not transfer to any other activities, and are not the result of an improvement in one's cardiovascular system, but instead, seemingly a result of increased skill at that activity. The only studies in this group that have shown a transference of benefit were when the intensity of a group of athletes was taken up to the point of muscle failure. That seemed to cause a true cardiovascular improvement, as it created benefit that transferred across activities. That is how people like us as one of the best .

Then there are the anecdotal results we see?when we train people: excellent improvements above and beyond all previous training, even in the case of cyclists and tennis players who have been sometimes training almost daily for ?stamina.? (remember, we're only adding about 20 minutes a week to their routine, and sometimes also taking away hours per week of what they were doing before).

And there are the technical reasons that MDs and physiologists have shared with me as to why certain methods (which I incorporate into my workouts and those of my clients) might be superior in training for cardiovascular health. I've gone on too long, but I have articles with research citations, and I'm happy to give copies to any of you who are clients of my gym. Just ask, and I'll make sure you get it at your next workout.