Questioning the resistance/aerobic dichotomy

[geo]

In the exercise world there seemingly has always been a dichotomy of what exercise is best for what effect/outcome. Typically running/cycling/etc has been labeled as aerobic/cardiovascular exercise. While weight lifting has been considered resistance excercise specifically for strength/muscular hypertrophy. But is this dichotomy of types of exercise and their effects true?

This article asks and gives some hints as to whether this dichotomy need exit or is even correct: http://www.degruyter.com/dg/viewarticle ... 4-0119.xml

[sharonbikes]

I have never understood why people call something like bike riding "cardio" and something like weighlifting "strength training" because you can't do one without the other. Personally, I think they are just things made up by some gym trainer to sell their services. If cardio is just to build up the cardiovascular system, then how did I get muscles in my legs from years of bike riding? It makes no sense.

Sharon

[petero]

I always thought it had to do with the principle of specificity of training. Weights for strength, cardio for cardio, being more efficient than the other. And what about muscle types? FWIK, they're not exactly set in stone, but that might have something to do with the specificity, too.