Why don’t you lift weights?

In My Humble Opinion
721

I knew nothing about powerlifting when I started going to the gym, so have always used a pretty wide variety of exercises - not just major lifts and things to strengthen those.

As I get older, I still use very heavy weights some of the time. But recovery takes longer. More time between major lifts is helpful. And there are many exercises I consider beneficial and want to include in my regular. One is constrained by time and energy and I wanted to limit any given session to eight exercises - a couple at high intensity, a handful of machines at whatever intensity, a touch of cardio and a few specific new things to keep it interesting.

TL; DR: Just doing the main powerlifting lifts does not give enough rest or balance for my current needs, plus I want to increase power and flexibility.

722

As we age the rest periods do seem more important. I tend to wait for the soreness to mostly subside before working again. My workout tend to be 2 or 3 days apart now. I find I am noticeably weaker while I am sore.

723

I think the bulk of evidence points to the value of consistency and (if you’re trying to get bigger/stronger) adding volume. Past that, genetics and biochemistry take up the next brunt of the matter. Technique and philosophy is largely just something for people to debate and think about, so that they maintain interest in the activity. The actual impact of technique differences, relative to the impact of working out consistently over decades, is largely irrelevant.

724

I haven’t found a given regimen for all-round health that includes everything you’d want:

  1. Strength
  2. Power
  3. Low heart-rate endurance
  4. Mid heart-rate endurance
  5. High heart-rate endurance
  6. Flexibility

Outside of having an active life, working an 18th century farm, I expect that you’d need to roll your own regimen.

725

If you have been lifting a few years, constantly experimenting, you should have some idea of what works for you.

726

You can’t optimize all these things at the same time. This is why periodization is a thing. If you optimize your muscles for strength and power, running marathons will be hard.

727

Does a “given regimen for all-round health” at all imply any need or goal to “optimize all these things” let alone “at the same time”?

For “all-round health” I can be fine being a mid pack for age group runner and cyclist, with decent but not impressive strength, power, etc. Am I perhaps better off for all around health optimizing none of them?

728

If no place for weights, try this-

LINK–it’s real

729

Yes.

The reason you can’t optimize is because the muscle fiber ratios change just by doing a lot of marathons or powerlifting. If you don’t compete, it is better and reasonable to maintain “good enough” strength, endurance, power, balance and flexibility. You need to understand periodization to get better at everything, picking two of those at a time (and not just any two). Interested readers should read Thibaudeau’s Kindle e-book on the subject, or in much less detail, Muscle Ladder (both discussed somewhere on SDMB).

There are sports where many skill sets are required: CrossFit, hockey, decathlon, etc. An athlete great at one sport is unlikely to be great at another, and the best (say) Crossfitters are genetic misfits unlikely to train in ways that apply to me or you, even in the absence of dubious training aids.

730

I don’t know that I’m the most knowledgeable person out there. From what I do know, it seems like we have fairly limited knowledge on the “overworking” aspect of things. I.e. in general, we see that it’s good to have some amount of physical activity, good to have some amount of flexibility, to have some amount of endurance, etc. In general, it seems to be that more is better. Cases of cautionary tales are fairly limited. Powerlifters, for example, who are squatting a thousand pounds semi-regularly, anecdotally, might have hip issues. But that is “anecdotally” since there’s so few people doing it that you can’t really get meaningful metrics out of the matter, and who knows whether they’re doing other, suspect things might be involved.

So in terms of what we do have, most things that I’m aware of simply say that “more seems to be better”. If you’re more able to run, that’s better than if you can’t. If you’re more able to lift heavy weights, that’s better than if you can’t. It could be a linear progression of goodness. I’m just, personally, skeptical of that answer.

We’re sort of left with making reason-based assumptions like, “Most things can be done too little and too much, this probably falls in the same territory.” But, reason-based assumptions are what lead to the idea that, “If your back hurts when you lift heavy things, stop trying to lift things.” Which, plausibly, lead to more back issues because the real answer was that people needed to continue using their back, but build up the overall strength to do what they were trying to do in a more deliberate way.

I don’t think that there’s sufficient real-world data to say that it’s guaranteed that you should be adept at all things, at all times. Personally, I’d bet that we will, in the future, determine that it’s bad to fall below a particular threshold on any one thing, so any effort to cycle through the styles of training would need to keep that in mind. But that would just be my personal bet and nothing more.

I’d likewise bet some good money on the following propositions: 1) Any form of physical activity is liable to have cross-over benefits to those other things, even if it’s not the modality that best targets those things, and 2) Consistency and regularity are of utmost importance, so finding physical activities that encourage you to get out and do stuff is probably of high enough importance, given proposition 1, that you probably don’t need to be so concerned about hitting everything - unless that, itself, is part of what motivates you.

Of course, future drugs and genetic modification could make all of that moot.

731

I don’t know that general health and fitness relies on optimization? I mean, I don’t try to get as much Vitamin C down my gullet in a day as I can, to the expense of Vitamin A, and then try to catch up the next month on A to the loss of C. A healthy diet is just a low-level exposure to lots and lots of different things.

In terms of avoiding injury, I think we could make a reasonable statistical case that the important thing is to have capabilities above some minimum.

Like, if you think of a structure that’s out in the world, it might need to survive earthquakes, storms, fires, collisions, etc. But if you look over the history of incidents, you’re likely to find that less dangerous incidents are far more common than more serious ones. The average fire is going to be a wastebasket fire, not a fire big enough to destroy half of LA; the average earthquake will be a 3 not an 8; and so on. But, that being true, it’s all perfectly random. Eventually, there will be some incident of larger magnitude than the usual, and it will be of some random and unpredictable form.

On that day, can that structure survive that issue?

If we apply the same logic to our everyday life, we never know what power we will need on that day when there’s some incident. Do I need to be able to lift something, run away from something, bend out of the way, or what? Without knowing that answer, I just need to be good at everything. And how good do I need to be? Well, the most likely emergency is still a small emergency - just somewhat larger and problematic than the everyday. You probably don’t need to be amazing, just good enough to deal with tier 2 problems. And if you can handle all the tier 2 problems, then your next best bet is to be solid against all the tier 3 problems.

If you can remain proof against injury, that’s going to help you from suffering any larger structural failures.

And while that does only apply to accidental inuries, you might extend the philosophy to everything. If you’ve got bad lungs, that creates an entry point for bad health - which will then affect the rest of your body’s functioning. If you’ve got a bad heart, then the same.

Minus any way to know what predicaments and ailments are going to attack you in the future, your best bet is to have a consistent, well-rounded defense against all of them.

732
  • Balance & proprioception
733

The goal is not to become, say, the most flexible person ever - one study shows seven weeks of yoga can increase certain ranges of motion by a modest 4%.

The goal for many should be to avoid sarcopenia, muscle loss gradually occurring over later decades that may result in an inability to carry light loads up stairs, do modest tasks, or play with grandchildren. Balance helps avoid disastrous falls; flexibility keeps joints healthy. Exercise has more health benefits than we yet know, many at the level of cells and microbiota.

My goal is to be moderately powerful, flexible and balanced. With impressive strength and some endurance. But only in service to enjoyment (I enjoy exercise) and health.

734

FWIW there is a fair amount of work on trying to establish any possible dose response curves. More on cardiorespiratory exercise than on the strength side.

For all forms of exercise the best news is that benefits are front loaded. Of course that also implies diminishing returns. The top off to possible even negative impact may be at lower levels for strength training than for cardiorespiratory exercise. And for each there is definitely a concern for overtraining. Stressing a system is good. So long as the stress isn’t overwhelming and there is opportunity to recover from the stress.

Preach it! Regular exercise, especially a plan than does address cardiorespiratory, strength, and neuroproprioceptive components (balance), is as close to water from the fountain of youth as we have got. Modest investments literally slow aging and prevent the diseases of aging.

735

Going into my 4th month and approaching 77 yrs old. I have finally got enough stamina to do something resembling a real workout. I went on a diet a couple of months ago and have lost about 15 pounds. I think I am adding muscle weight. If I stand in front of a mirror I am starting to see a V shape in my body. I was helping my son unload some lumber the other day and I am back to picking up several 2X4’s instead of one at a time. This is my primary goal, just to be able to do a days work and get some work done in a reasonable amount of time. The one thing I am very happy about is no injuries so far. Anytime I tried weight lifting I was always injuring my shoulders. they seem to be my Achilles heel. I highly recommend starting some kind of program no matter how old you are.

736

Here is a NYT gift link on how to do a “perfect lunge”. The article has further links to squats, pushups and burpees.

737

So here’s a question for the resident muscle heads…

It is the case that a stronger muscle is a bigger muscle. This translates directly to real world experience: if a person increased their bench press or their squat 50 pounds, then the muscles that they use for those exercises would be noticeably larger.

But there is generally drawn a distinction between training for strength and training for hypertrophy. The recommendation is to use lower reps for strength training, and higher reps for hypertrophy.

So why the distinction?

Shouldn’t strength training also result in muscle growth? Even if higher reps increase blood flow to the muscle, and perhaps contribute to muscle fullness, wouldn’t strength training be a more effective method for adding muscle mass?

738

Yes training for strength also results in some hypertrophy. Of course.

But the emphasis in strength training is possibly even more on the neuromuscular aspect, getting the exact specific optimal series of firing of motor units in various muscles to perform maximally at the very specific task.

My limited understanding also is that training for strength is also more stress. Which means less volume can be done safely and more recovery is required. Volume is a vital aspect.

But for practical purposes for most of us, meatheads or casual lifters, do both. And many mix it up.

739

If you do not devote significant time to weight training, the difference between training fit strength and hypertrophy is marginal.

It is possible to gain significant muscle without changing body weight (“improved composition”). It is possible to get big muscles which are not strong, compared to training for strength.

The difference is in the muscle fibres, which can change depending on the training one emphasizes.

Skeletal muscle fibers can be classified based on two criteria: 1) how fast do fibers contract relative to others, and 2) how do fibers regenerate ATP. Using these criteria, there are three main types of skeletal muscle fibers recognized. Slow oxidative (also called slow twitch or Type I) fibers contract relatively slowly and use aerobic respiration (oxygen and glucose) to produce ATP. Fast oxidative (also called fast twitch or Type IIa) fibers have relatively fast contractions and primarily use aerobic respiration to generate ATP. Lastly, fast glycolytic (also called fast twitch or Type IIx) fibers have relatively fast contractions and primarily use anaerobic glycolysis. Most skeletal muscles in a human body contain all three types, although in varying proportions.

Power lifters largely care about only three lifts. To chase numbers, you need to maximize IIx fibers, which really only come into play at efforts exceeding 85-80% or so. They will also come into play at moderate loads once enough fatigue is reached that the moderate load exceeds 85-90% of what one can do after becoming tired. That is, if I lift a 70% load for ten reps in several sets, enough fatigue will eventually set in that 70% (of 1RM) exceeds 85% (of 10RM or less), so the Type IIx fibers might kick in eventually.

So if my 1RM is 100kg, I might maximize muscle fibers with loads over 85kg, which is hard and could likely only be done for few reps and sets. Bodybuilders might do 60-70kg for many more reps and sets, with much higher total load and likely more hypertrophy. If the growth is in the sarcoplasmic reticulum, the muscle is bigger but not necessarily stronger. If you lift 70kg, 70kg, 70kg, 70kg,70kg, 70kg… at some point your “maximum” is no longer 100kg, but 90kg then 80kg then lower due to fatigue. If the ratio of 70kg/80kg or 70kg/90kg exceeds (say) 85% you start using your Type IIx fibers prized by strongmen. Sprinters look stronger than marathoners. Marathoners have muscles with great endurance but mild to moderate strength.

Of course, easier just to let the master speak:

Here is a précis of advanced science applied to workout design (for intermediate or advance lifters only).

740

I am completely convinced on the first part. Which makes the rest of this a bit of an academic point for all but a very very small fraction of those who lift.

And improving body composition of course is possible.

It’s the last bit that I am somewhat skeptical about. Mainly due to the difficulty of defining “strength” in a way other than “doing the specific task better.”

First though let’s consider only at the muscle fiber type issue, and assume that in both cases the individuals are training with weights that get them approaching failure, exhaustion, by the end of each set, the difference being the rep range to get there, 3 to 5 or 10 to 15. I am suspecting that by the last rep of the set both cases have mostly used up what IIx can do. One recruited early one near the end.

But the other point is more the conundrum. What does “strength” mean? How should we measure it? There is lots of task specificity and I think many who train for strength are wanting more than strength as defined by lifting more at that very specific movement.

If we measured strength in some way other than the same specific movement that was used for the training, say 1 rep max on leg extension, or in the other direction max performance on sled push or pull when the big three lifts were the training regimen, how would the different approaches stack up?

My suspicion is that training to lift a maximal amount at a very specific lift will do the best job of producing maximal amounts at that specific lift, but not better than somewhat higher volume to near exhaustion sets at tasks that are other than that specific task.

So is say a football lineman better served by one approach or the other? Is “strength” training going to better produce the strength he wants?

I dunno.