As I sift through articles and books on training, year after year, every once in a while I come across something that makes sense.

Dr. Mel Siff, a highly regarded sports scientist and author of the book Facts and Fallacies of Fitness, points out that “twentieth-century scientists have raised the heart onto a pedestal, where it remains relatively unchallenged by any other bodily system.… Fascination with the heart has also spawned an industry which has captured the attention of health entrepreneurs and the public—long, slow distance (LSD) athleticism. Cardiac health and prolonged longevity came to be regarded as the consequence of ‘aerobic’ exercise.” Sound familiar? Moreover, he points out, all non-aerobic exercise has been deemed of little consequence in promoting cardiac health. Siff responds to that contention by citing study after study of anaerobic training and its effects on the heart (see, for example, Ralph Paffenbarger‘s studies of longshoremen and stair climbers). Astonishingly enough, hardly any studies have been conducted to show that “aerobic” (LSD) exercise is superior to any other form of exercise for preventing heart disease. So could the LSD/endurance community have it wrong?