We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I suspect this is correct, and has to do with the intensity of the demand on the heart. Many things are thrown into the "cardio" category which use the heart, of course, but make no constructive demands on it. Walking, hiking, speed walking, swimming, and jogging are like that.
HIIT exercises, on the other hand, do stress the heart because of the intensity of all kinds of sprints. 30-60 second maximum sprints of any form are good stressors. So is moving heavy weights. Heavy, not light weights. Sets of deadlifts reaching up to 70% of your max is a serious stressor on the heart. When you finish each set, you feel it in your heart. And you feel a bit dizzy from that stress.
What true cardiac training does is to stress the heart to the point that it is forced to build its muscle and to grow new arteries. Those new arteries can save your life when others get blocked up with gunk. If your breath can keep up with your exertion, it's not real cardiac training: it is endurance training.
What most people term "cardio" is endurance maintenance and endurance training. These are important in life, but have little or no heart consequences for the otherwise healthy.
Our Maggie'sFitness for Life program (heavy powerlifts, endurance cardio, HIIT cardio, calisthenics) incorporates all fitness aspects: Muscle and Bone strength, Endurance, True cardio, and Athleticism. We are convinced that's a balanced program for vigor for all ages.
The quote from the article's 2nd paragraph is "... static activities such as weight lifting or press-ups have a greater effect than an equivalent amount of dynamic exercise such as running, walking or cycling.'
"Equivalent amount." So sure, if you can do pushups for 40 minutes, go for it. I'll walk or ride the bike, I think. And I'll do pushups at other times, to serve other goals besides maintenance and mental clarity and stress relief, as part of a mostly well-rounded program that works for me.
Running is definitely overdone by lots of people, I totally agree with that. Overuse injuries and weakening of certain muscle groups (quads, etc.) are obvious downsides. But people who love running -- I used to be one -- are usually addicted to it for the endorphins, and consequences be damned.
Walking and biking are different, I think. Far easier on the joints. More fun and enjoyable. Easier and therefore more likely folks will keep doing them. Big emotional and mental benefits. Great sleep at night. Something you can do into old age. People should do both of them as much as possible, whatever other exercise they may be doing, especially as they age.
The point here is that maintenance exercise serves different goals than HIIT and an hour of calisthentics and deadlifts, and those goals are still worthwhile, either as part of a larger more ambitious program, or by themselves.
Over the years I have found that the best approach to exercise is to find something you will keep doing because it works for you. Doing several things is better, of course, but even doing one thing is better than sitting on the couch. Everything after that is details.