> Extreme cardiorespiratory fitness (≥2 SDs above the mean for age and sex) was associated with the lowest risk-adjusted all-cause mortality compared with all other performance groups.
Sure your cardio might be "good" now, but see Table 2 for what happens to you over time (with and without training).
> Individuals with higher cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) showed lower risks of all-cause, CVD and cancer mortality; those with higher grip strength (GS) had lower all-cause mortality. All-cause and CVD mortality risk was lowest in adults with both higher CRF and higher. Improving both CRF and muscle strength, as opposed to either of the two alone, may be the most effective behavioral strategy to reduce all-cause and cardiovascular mortality risk.
Your doc, like most docs, is probably woefully undereducated on the subject. Or at the very least he's so used to the average patient that anything above average is just a relief.
Episodes 236-238 of the Barbell Medicine podcast goes more in depth about the health benefits of endurance training and what a good target is for health benefits.
Is your resting heart rate under 70bpm? Can you run 2 miles in 18 minutes? If not, you could use some cardio. If only so you can breathe when you get COVID.
The average is a huge range of 60-100. 70 is usually on the lower end and implies some cardiovascular fitness. It usually won't be that low from sitting on a couch. Running 2 miles at 9 minutes / mile isn't some accomplishment either, but it does imply some sort of training for an adult. I wanted to list a real standard for health, not athletic performance.
If you want athletic performance, there are the Iron Man / RASP standards and a heart rate between 40-60. Do note that while under 60 is highly trained, 40 is more on the elite athlete side of things.
you seem way more informed than me, but if that's the case, I'm confused by your suggestion: if 70 already implies cardiovascular fitness, why do you recommend cardio, given the person already should have some cardiovascular fitness?
I don't think I misunderstood you, I was suggesting that if 70bpm is already "cardio fitness", shouldn't that be sufficient for most individuals to prevent the majority of health issues?
Ah, got it. Yes, I agree that it's sufficient to be healthy, that's why it's the only number I initially brought up. I hate when people conflate exceptional fitness with health for people who don't want to specialize on fitness.
I'm a bit of a gym rat, mostly lifting though also some bodyweight/calisthenics.
I don't really do cardio.
I was concerned about it, so talked to my doc.
He said "you're lifting for an hour a few times a week. Your heart rate spikes when you're doing heavy lifts, right?"
"Yes".
He replied, "you're fine".
To test the theory, I got into the pool without having done any cardio at all in years. I had no trouble swimming 500 yards straight.
I wouldn't characterize my cardio capability as great, but it's moderate and good enough.