The answer from Body by Science is yes, very much so. I can drown you with quotes from the book if you like. Sadly, Amazon seems not to have fully implemented page numbers into the Kindle highlighting feature.

The overall argument as I understand it (my understanding may be faulty) is this:

1) Low intensity exercise does not do any part of you including your heart much good because it fails to significantly stimulate the kind of adaptation you want. You need to get your heart pumping hard if you want to trigger an adaptation, and low-intensity aerobics does not do that. High intensity aerobics does, but that is (3).

2) Long-duration furthermore potentially does your body much bad through wear and tear and accidents (don't forget probability of accident per second is multiplied by time to get total probability). As you'll see in the quotes, they claim (and have evidence for the claim, but you need to consult the actual book for full details) that exercising for long periods does not give you additional body-adapting benefits over and above exercising for short periods. So the long duration is (a) mostly wasted (except I suppose for direct calorie burning, but they emphasize that exercise is overrated as a calorie burner) and (b) potentially harmful.

3) High intensity (this can be high intensity aerobics such as the stationary cycle and it can also be high intensity resistance) does your body good (including your cardiovascular system, because your heart is working hard) by stimulating adaptation (for example, muscle building, but not only that). You can get much more information on the benefits of high intensity exercise (for all parts of you including your heart) if you google "high intensity interval training".

As a consequence of (1), (2), and (3), they recommend high intensity short duration exercise with a long rest period in between (for your body to recover and build).

They make the interesting additional point that steady-state activity (which is necessarily low-intensity long-duration exercise), while not benefiting you physiologically, creates the illusion of physiological adaptation when in fact what is adapting is essentially your nervous system. You learn to move your body more efficiently. So for example, if you walk for long periods, then as a result you will learn to walk for long periods (through economy of motion) but your learning will be limited to that one activity (because each activity has a different set of efficient motions which has to be learned anew).

Keep in mind that here I am only relaying the claims of the book's authors. Much of what they say makes sense to me but I have suspicions about some bits of it and I do not vouch for it.

Quotes (with some bit boldfaced by me):

Strength training is actually the best way to train the cardiovascular system precisely because, unlike what we refer to as “aerobics,” strength training actually involves and stimulates all of the components of metabolism. This includes the metabolism that goes on in the cytosol (the liquid portion of the cell and in the absence of oxygen) and the metabolism that occurs in the mitochondria (i.e., in the presence of oxygen).

and

Your cardiovascular system, it should be remembered, is always engaged. It’s engaged when you are standing in a room talking to someone: your heart is beating, your blood is circulating, and your lungs are taking in air and expelling carbon dioxide 24-7. The only way to get your cardiovascular system to work harder is by performing mechanical work with muscle. Any increase in muscular demand simultaneously increases the involvement of your cardiovascular system to a much greater extent. So, you are always “doing cardio” in the popular sense of the term whenever you do anything—or nothing.

Given the interrelatedness of the various metabolic cycles, the notion that you can separate any of these metabolic cycles out from each other is erroneous; they are always running concurrently and together, though some of them can outpace the others. Anything that defines exercise from a metabolic sense is raising the intensity level above its baseline, and even if such pathways could be isolated, they shouldn’t be if your goal is total health and fitness.

and

Remember that the purpose of the cardiovascular system is to supply certain nutrients that are needed by the muscles and to help remove the by-products of the consumption and utilization of these nutrients. Cardiovascular health is often confused with aerobic conditioning, the latter of which is always specific to a particular activity, such as running or stationary cycling. Cardiovascular health, by contrast, equates to the ability of the heart, lungs, and bloodstream to supply whatever the muscles need. According to an abundance of studies, the cardiovascular system receives tremendous stimulation and benefit from resistance exercise.

and

Indeed, there is no additional physiological advantage afforded to one’s body, including endurance or cardio benefits, by training that lasts more than six to nine minutes a week.

and

(Most of the perceived conditioning in steady-state activity is actually a result of the body’s finding a way to make the exercise easier through improved economy of motion, and not because of improved cardiovascular condition. This is why a runner who performs another steady-state activity such as cycling will be gasping for air.

and

Your heart and lungs cannot tell whether you’re working your muscles intensely for thirty seconds on a stationary bike or working them intensely on a leg press. The heart and lungs know only about energy requirements, which they dutifully attempt to meet. Four thirty-second intervals of high-intensity muscular exertion is four thirty-second intervals of high-intensity muscular exertion, whether that takes place exclusively in the lower body, as in stationary cycling, or in both the upper and lower body, as in resistance exercise. In either scenario, it is mechanical work by muscles that is the passkey to the aerobic and other metabolic machinery within the body’s cells.

and

If the intensity of exercise is too low, nothing much in the way of a stimulus is presented to the body. On the other hand, if the intensity is too high in an activity such as running, you will increase the stimulus for positive adaptation, but you will also appreciably increase the chance of doing damage that will undermine your health.