P90X/Insanity vs. Traditional Cardio

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 10, 2011 4:42 AM GMT
    Okay, I need to take this opinion to the masses, because I'm really confused. And I normally don't ever post in these forums... But this argument got me kind of upset.

    I just got in a heated debate with a member about workout programs such as P90X & Insanity, which are very cardio/plyo/muscle-confusion based, versus "traditional" cardio.

    In essence, his point was "cardio is cardio" and that running on a treadmill for 60 minutes will give you the SAME results as doing a P90X or Insanity DVD for 60 minutes. He said they are a waste of money and you can do the same thing with regular cardio.

    I do not agree. I think doing one of those DVD workouts will transform your body MUCH more. I get the CONCEPT/argument that running on a treadmill with the same intensity of doing Insanity could in essence, burn the same amount of calories, but that's not what I'm trying to say.

    These workouts include plyometrics. You're doing push-ups, working your abs, working various muscle groups. So yes, it is "cardio" since your heart-rate is elevated, but it's giving you more results after since you're doing muscle conditioning as well, wouldn't it? You're doing more TO your body and confusing your body more in that hour than simply running on the treadmill at a high/similar intensity. I mean, if these programs work your muscles as will and help you tighten, tone, or even bulk up, doesn't having more muscle burn more fat throughout the day?? So that's still giving you more results even after you're done with the "cardio".

    I'm very open to debate and different opinions, but as a simple argument, this just seems absurd. Yes, it is the same ideas as cardio in terms of raising your heart-rate, but not in the results you get from the same amount of time. It is more efficient and effective.

    This just really got me thinking. I did Insanity and loved the program, and don't think I could have ever gotten the same results by doing an hour of cardio per day. I think I would have had to work 3x as hard to get the SAME results.

    This member called me a "moron" and said it was due to "people like me that caused the fitness industry to be saturated with shit" so I'd like to hear your opinions, but please, let's be respectful.

    Thank you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 12, 2011 1:41 PM GMT
    The point of cardio is to exercise your heart. To do that, you make it pump faster to produce faster blood flow. The member you were disagreeing with is correct in that aspect. However, I think you two were arguing different points, and that is what caused the confusion.

    You're talking more about full-body results between working out all of your muscles versus running on a treadmill. Working out all of your muscles will give you benefits over all of your muscles. Running on a treadmill will not give you benefits over all of your muscles. That would be similar to saying bicep curls will do wonders for your chest.

    However, it sounds like the person you were debating with was thinking only of cardiovascular exercise, meaning exercising the heart. So in essence, you were both correct, only you weren't on the same page with each other in what was being debated. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2011 9:03 PM GMT
    Ahem, horse shit! I did P90X and lost 15 lbs in 30 days. Cardio is not cardio, the difference is that when you run on a treadmill your heart rate is continuously elevated. When you hit P90X or Insanity, your heart rate is elevated, brought to rest, and then elevated again. The interval workout is a better overall workout for your heart and your body (as if you need it).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 1:13 AM GMT
    JackHoffman saidThe interval workout is a better overall workout for your heart


    Source?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 1:24 AM GMT
    Pyrotech saidThe point of cardio is to exercise your heart. To do that, you make it pump faster to produce faster blood flow. The member you were disagreeing with is correct in that aspect. However, I think you two were arguing different points, and that is what caused the confusion.

    You're talking more about full-body results between working out all of your muscles versus running on a treadmill. Working out all of your muscles will give you benefits over all of your muscles. Running on a treadmill will not give you benefits over all of your muscles. That would be similar to saying bicep curls will do wonders for your chest.

    However, it sounds like the person you were debating with was thinking only of cardiovascular exercise, meaning exercising the heart. So in essence, you were both correct, only you weren't on the same page with each other in what was being debated. icon_wink.gif
    Correct answer. icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2011 1:46 AM GMT
    you need to explain your argument more. Is he running sprints on the treadmill? is he varying his range and causing his heart to slow down and speed up? What are you arguing, pure calorie loss or muscle toning or gain?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2011 5:21 AM GMT
    The argument was general, which what makes this more frustrating. I was not trying to get specifics. The basic argument was:

    What will make your body look BETTER

    One hour of "traditional" cardio or one hour of P90X?

    He said "cardio is cardio" and will have the SAME results on your ENTIRE BODY after one hour as doing one hour of P90X, which is obviously untrue.

    Pyrotech, I acknowledge the point of cardio is exercising the heart. Yet, he was still saying you would see the same physical transformation by traditional cardio methods as one of these DVD workouts, which I just don't find plausible on any level.