Simon,
“I would call this a good reason to proceed with the lower weight / shorter rest periods version of this kind of Training. 70-75%1RM, with rest periods of 15-40 secs.”
I am inclined to agree with you here…you make a good point and if I go down this road, then this would probably be the way that I do it.
Al
“My reading is that lower intensity RE improves arterial stiffness. Higher intensity does not improve arterial stiffness. They do not conclude that higher intensity RE makes stiffness worse.
So I would quibble with the wording of the 4th sentence. In my mind it should probably say “practicing high intensity RE should be cautious in particular age groups/patients due the LACK OF FAVORABLE effects…”
But logically thinking, you’d surely want to go with a format that has positive results, over one that
has no benefit whatsoever…even if there are no negative outcomes.
To use an analogy, if you were making a financial investment, would you go for one that makes you some money, or one that yields no return at all?
First you would have to consider that lifting heavy might have its own unique benefits, different from moderate to light lifting. These kinds of analysis only focus on a sole outcome. They never give a comprehensive picture of the pros and cons.
To use an investment analogy, maybe you should have a diversified portfolio: some cardio, some heavy lifting, some moderate lifting.
How about using heart rate as a proxy for cardiac benefits. Aka zone 1, zone 2 etc.
My experience is that no form of weight training - heavy, light, short or long rest periods - elicits an HR of over 100. No form of running produces an HR of less than 110. Typically I run at 130-150 with peaks at 165 for intervals, and lift at 80-100.
Non weight bearing cardio (bike, row) is somewhere in between as you would expect.
Since my background is more running than strenght I would expect srength work to produce a relatively higher HR than average - but that is still not the case.
Hence one of the reasons I am suspicious of the benefits of even vigorous EMOM having notable cardiac benefits.
By the way the model of sprinters resting at 1 minute per 10m run is a common rule of thumb. But, like 3-5 mins between lifting sets it represents the ideal for full time athletes or serious recreational sportsmen with part time jobs.
Finally, the optimum training for a particular sport is not the ideal model for good health.
Al,
You make some good points. But, if your portfolio was titled, “Healthy Ageing”, wouldn’t you eliminate any investment that was either losing you something or merely breaking even at best?
Why stick with an approach that was not adding to the overall portfolio?
In his book “Exercised” Daniel Lieberman examines healthy ageing from an anthropological standpoint ( good read by the way). Cardio and overall movement are highlighted…and so is resistance training, but only to a point. The myth of our supermen ancestors is exactly that…a myth. Most modern day hunter gatherers have the build of a Kenyan marathon runner, and our ancestors weren’t any different. They only needed enough strength to perform their tasks. The image of hulking brutes wandering around the landscape just wasn’t true. Heck, even our primate cousins the apes aren’t as strong as many people believe.
So using big weights has a serious possible downside…and adds little in terms of practical benefits. So is it a positive addition to that portfolio?
Again, you are assuming that there are no upsides to going with heavier weights on occasion. It may be true that when it comes to hypertrophy, you can get the same results with light or heavy loads. But what about preserving the strength and density of your bones? Heavier weights mean more load on the bones, and perhaps more stimulation. Heavier weights could conceivably do a better job of recruiting the highest threshold motor units, and therefore might be better at preserving the high threshold fast twitch fibers, which are the first to go with age.
I think part of the problem with this discussion is the reaction to the phrase “lifting heavy”, which is a relative term. On a forum like this, it is easy to envision lifting heavy as young guys pulling 700LB+ deadlifts while blood drips out of their nose. But in another context, it might mean your grandmother deadlifing 185LB for 3 reps. That might not be as risky as you think, and could do wonders for the strength and density of the bones in her hips and lower spine. It might do a lot more for her than deadlifting a 40LB kettlebell for 25 reps. Just something to think about.
If heart rate mattered, you could be scared into fitness. We know that won’t work!
The breath of life!
The mitochondria are where the Kreb’s Cycle resides, This is where ATP is made, and Oxygen is utilized.
Therefore, It would seem Oxygen usage would be a direct barometer of mitochondria activity. Mitochondrial activity is the heart and soul of cardiovascular conditioning. Heart rate monitoring is an indirect method of measuring cardiovascular activity. So breathing rates, although delayed, are a window of insight into the cardiovascular system by way of the mitochondria.
Al,
The 185 to 700lbs comparison analogy would be relative surely? The grandma pulling 185 would surely be exerting herself as much as the 700 puller…IF that was her limit.
Consequently the potential for joint mismanagement under such heavy relative loads would be the same for both surely?
You do make some good points about motor unit recruitment…BUT doesn’t the Henneman principle point to the fact that the higher level motor units are recruited at the end of the set, regardless of the weight used, if the effort at the end of the set is high enough? ( as long as the weights used aren’t ridiculously light.
Even “non HIT” researchers such as Schoenfeld are acknowledging this now. The idea that strength is better developed with lower reps and higher weights is built on the principle of specificity. It applies to the exercise trained, more so than general overall strength, as training in a specific exercise near, or at, 1 RM requires a large degree of skill specific to that exercise. General strength gains ( as applicable to everyday activities) can be gained from higher rep/ lower load training.
Al,
I will concede that lower reps / multiple sets CAN be used in a positive fashion in certain circumstances.
Example…a beginner, in the absence of a pull down station or assisted pull up station…could learn to chin up with multiple reps of one, two or three reps in the chin up, with, over time, steadily decreasing rest periods between the “sets”, until an unbroken set of moderate to higher reps could be performed…
Al,
It appears that low load training also has a significant positive impact on bone density.
Even distance running ( the quintessential low load, high rep activity) has shown improvements in lower extremity bone density.
Al,
I will also concede that faster rep cadence (either in the presence of heavier or lighter loads) may not be as risky for an ageing population as was previously thought.
When “HIT researchers” such as James Steele, who collaborated on this study reach these conclusions then it might be time to reconsider slightly.
In a text conversation he stated however that although the “power” group’s results were better than the traditional rep cadence group, in practical terms it wasn’t by much. So people may still want to err on the side of caution and still not miss out. Plus remember, a typical study length is a “snapshot” and the longer term implications are usually unknown.
Also he ( and the study) did not use / recommend the approach using free weight exercises such as the squat and deadlift. The exercises in terms of form were fairly controlled via the use of machines.
The consensus in the power lifting world is that the smaller you are, the easier it is to do a lift at some multiple of your body weight. For a 150 lb guy, 4x BW deadlift is feasible; for a 400 lb strongman? Not happening. From this, I infer that the physiological stresses from lifting do not scale linearly with size. If you are big, can add a lot of muscle mass to your frame, and end up training with very high absolute loads, then you have more reason to worry about lifting might affect your arteries and heart, than if you are an ordinary human with ordinary strength levels, and typical levels of muscle mass. As for injury risk with load… that is a whole separate discussion.
Sure, the Henneman size principle suggests that fatigue eventually results in the recruitment of higher threshold units. The more fatigued you get, the deeper into the motor pool you go.
But fatigue, specifically CNS fatigue, is known to inhibit motor unit recruitment. So the more fatigued you get, the harder it gets to recruit additional motor units.
So, in a HIT set taken to failure, fatigue works at cross purposes: you start to recruit the higher threshold units at the point where you are most fatigued; that would also be the point where CNS inhibition is highest.
So it isn’t unreasonable to suggest that it might be easier to raise the weight and rely less on fatigue to recruit those valuable high threshold units.
I think you may have posted two links to the same study. At least both studies seem to have been sponsored by BodyPump, an organization that sells that particular kind of workout routine.
I think it would be fair to say that seeing those kinds of BMD increases from a low load, and low impact training program is a little unusual. I would want to dig deeper to understand if there was anything unusual about how the study or studies were done.
Typically high impact activities, such as jumping or running are suggested to preserve bone health, as these produce momentary forces on the bones that are multiples of body weight. And the research I’ve seen suggests that the higher the impact, the better the result. Of course, if you are old, doing a lot of jumping comes with some injury risk, which might make it unacceptable for some.
Al,
“As for injury risk with load… that is a whole separate discussion.”
I’m not sure that it is. Because an injured trainee isn’t training and gets no benefits whether that is improved strength or reduced arterial stiffness. So in theory it might be a separate category, but practically it is all closely related.
Al,
“If you are big, can add a lot of muscle mass to your frame, and end up training with very high absolute loads, then you have more reason to worry about lifting might affect your arteries and heart, than if you are an ordinary human with ordinary strength levels, and typical levels of muscle mass.”
The meta analysis I posted earlier didn’t, to my knowledge, contain any studies that only examined elite strength athletes. Typically they contained subjects that were from the general population.
I ended up skimming a number of meta analyses on the subject. Individual studies are all over the place with regard to how resistance training affects arterial stiffness; even the meta analyses don’t always agree with each other. One meta analysus which conceded there might be an adverse effect to higher intensity was was unwilling to say if it was worth giving up the benefits of higher load training to avoid this effect.
At the individual level, one study found that only upper body high intensity lifting is a problem; with lower body exercises, have at it! Some have found that if you lift light after you lift heavy, you are OK. But lifting heavy after lifting light is a problem. Some point out that lifting increases arterial stiffness, but seems to lower blood pressure. How does that work? One study said that lifting in the 60-80% range is OK, but 85%+ is a problem - is that believable? 5% more intensity and you are going to die! Everyone says that more research is needed to actually pin down what is going on.
BTW, I found one study which found that running a half marathon with very good times was associated with increased arterial stiffness. But Cross Fit seems to test out OK in this regard, despite the heavy lifting that is sometimes used.
And no one can say much about dosage: how many sets per week at what intensity is OK? Does TUT matter. Is it better to hold tension on muscle for 90 seconds without valsalva vs doing a 10 second valsalva during the heavy portion of a conventional cadence lift, with lots of breathing in between.
To me, the information out there is a confusing mess, without a clear consensus. I don’t consider it very actionable. It isn’t enough for me to worry about, or form the basis for changing my workout approach, especially given the relatively low volume of intense lifting that I do.
If you want to worry about it, that is your call.
As regards cardio frequency, here is some grist for the mill
Every 2 weeks doesn’t work for me!
Marc,
It does for me…in a sense. My only HIIT is done prior to my second ( of two) weight workouts a week. It is merely one, 4 minute effort ( trying to reach 90%+ of max HR) after an eight minute gradually increasing warm up. One week I do it running on a treadmill, the next week I do the same on an exercise bike. I’ve tried twice a week…but for me, this is too much and unsustainable.
The other weights session I do “strides” on the treadmill after a warm up, before hitting the weights. Usually 4. Working up to a top speed and holding it for six seconds before decelerating. With 90seconds rest between each. Do these for fun and to keep the feeling of running fast in my mid fifties leg muscles.
And of course I do three or four zone 2 /MAF sessions, for thirty to fifty minutes during the week, either on the treadmill or the recumbent bike.
I’m sure you’d approve…
There has been a lot of talk on this thread about the benefits of lifting heavier weights for low rep sets and their benefits for the general health of the older lifter.
Needless to say…I’m still not convinced.
Just how strong do we need to be for good health. Similarly, just how muscle mass do we need to have to stave off sarcopenia? Bodybuilder levels?
When is it enough? As I have already stated, Daniel Lieberman’s book “Exercised”, talks about the importance of weight training from an evolutionary context…BUT puts it in perspective. Our ancestors were only strong enough to continue carrying out their daily tasks as they got older. There weren’t muscular supermen wandering around the ancient landscape.
On the flip side you can just go too heavy. The goals of elite strength and physique athletes are different from those of us pursuing health, yet many of the general public look to the elite for advice, when perhaps that is not the best option.
This video, although extreme in example, points to the simple fact that heavy weights can be, and are dangerous. So the more you can steer away from that ( and the Henneman size principle and recent research proves that you can)…the better.
