Exercising for longevity
- Thread starter Pekelo
- Start date
I believe that ANY exercise is beneficial no matter what your age. As I am in my sixties, I cannot replicate the weightlifting days of my youth, but I still maintain a regimen of exercise that incorporates much less weight resistance but affords health benefits. In the words of Harry Calahan..."A man's got to know his limitations"
This is from a recent article, mice living 60% longer:
"
Scientists are great at making mice live longer.
Rapamycin, widely prescribed to prevent organ rejection after a transplant, increases the life expectancy of middle-age mice by as much as 60 percent. Drugs called senolytics help geriatric mice stay sprightly long after their peers have died. The diabetes drugs metformin and acarbose, extreme calorie restriction, and, by one biotech investor’s count, about 90 other interventions keep mice skittering around lab cages well past their usual expiration date. The newest scheme is to hack the aging process itself by reprogramming old cells to a younger state.
“If you’re a mouse, you’re a lucky creature because there are a lot of ways to extend your life span,” says Cynthia Kenyon, a molecular biologist whose breakthrough work decades ago catalyzed what is now a research frenzy. “And long-lived mice seem very happy.”
What about us? How far can scientists stretch our life span? And how far should they go? Between 1900 and 2020, human life expectancy more than doubled, to 73.4 years. But that remarkable gain has come at a cost: a staggering rise in chronic and degenerative illnesses. Aging remains the biggest risk factor for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes, arthritis, lung disease, and just about every other major illness. It’s hard to imagine anyone wants to live much longer if it means more years of debility and dependence.
But if those mouse experiments lead to drugs that clean up the molecular and biochemical wreckage at the root of so many health problems in old age, or to therapies that slow—or, better yet, prevent—that messy buildup, then many more of us would reach our mid-80s or 90s without the aches and ailments that can make those years a mixed blessing. And more might reach what is believed to be the natural maximum human life span, 120 to 125 years. Few people get anywhere close. In industrialized nations, about one in 6,000 reaches the century mark and one in five million makes it past 110. The record holder, Jeanne Calment in France, died in 1997 at 122 years, 164 days."
"
Scientists are great at making mice live longer.
Rapamycin, widely prescribed to prevent organ rejection after a transplant, increases the life expectancy of middle-age mice by as much as 60 percent. Drugs called senolytics help geriatric mice stay sprightly long after their peers have died. The diabetes drugs metformin and acarbose, extreme calorie restriction, and, by one biotech investor’s count, about 90 other interventions keep mice skittering around lab cages well past their usual expiration date. The newest scheme is to hack the aging process itself by reprogramming old cells to a younger state.
“If you’re a mouse, you’re a lucky creature because there are a lot of ways to extend your life span,” says Cynthia Kenyon, a molecular biologist whose breakthrough work decades ago catalyzed what is now a research frenzy. “And long-lived mice seem very happy.”
What about us? How far can scientists stretch our life span? And how far should they go? Between 1900 and 2020, human life expectancy more than doubled, to 73.4 years. But that remarkable gain has come at a cost: a staggering rise in chronic and degenerative illnesses. Aging remains the biggest risk factor for cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, type 2 diabetes, arthritis, lung disease, and just about every other major illness. It’s hard to imagine anyone wants to live much longer if it means more years of debility and dependence.
But if those mouse experiments lead to drugs that clean up the molecular and biochemical wreckage at the root of so many health problems in old age, or to therapies that slow—or, better yet, prevent—that messy buildup, then many more of us would reach our mid-80s or 90s without the aches and ailments that can make those years a mixed blessing. And more might reach what is believed to be the natural maximum human life span, 120 to 125 years. Few people get anywhere close. In industrialized nations, about one in 6,000 reaches the century mark and one in five million makes it past 110. The record holder, Jeanne Calment in France, died in 1997 at 122 years, 164 days."
Sure, but depending on your goal (muscle growth, weight loss, longevity, etc.) one kind of exercise can be way more useful than the other.
If nobody watched the video until the end, the guy at 35 is exercising only every 2 weeks! Because his goal is maintaining muscle, and according to him, that is sufficient. I also think he is a lazy fuck.
I exercise because I enjoy it...Everything else is just bonus.
Interesting video. Seems to generally support my current view of things, and activates my confirmation bias.
Looks like HIT really hits the spot and, if done correctly, I think can potentially also provide the hypoxia benefits of HIIT by going hard and resting very briefly between exercises. But a workout every 2 weeks seems a bit thin. I even tried strength training once a week for a fair length of time a few years ago and, although I didn't get perceptibly smaller, I think my body composition (leanness) was better with a higher frequency.
Last edited:
His goal is muscle maintenance (he doesn't have much for his age) and he is saying muscle starts to waste after 2 weeks of nonuse.
I think his approach is lazy AF, he should be doing cardio too for heart maintenance. If he says gym twice a week, I am OK with that, but anything less, is just pure laziness. Our bodies were meant to be exercised...
If you accept what he says in the video, the resistance training works the heart, the cardio, but, according to him, not so much the lungs. That's why he also suggests HIIT. But I take short breaks between exercises that I take to failure and barely catch my breath before going to the next exercise. Further, each set to failure generally takes 60-90 seconds, depending on the exercise. So I think that also works the pulmonary component for the full cardiopulmonary effect.
I am presently quite content with my twice weekly full-body regimen. Three times a week would be pushing it for me, and once a week would leave me a bit wanting.
At our age recovery period is 3 days.
Anyway, I am not sure if he is just trying to prove a point (muscle maintenance biweekly) or he is gonna stick to this for the next 3-50 years.
I think that depends on the workout variables. Some people claim that, based on empirical evidence, recovery can take longer, and adaptation even more so. And, as I have noted repeatedly elsewhere, I find that, not surprisingly, my recovery ability has diminished with age. I used to get away with a lot more when I was younger. My only wish is that I didn't keep doing so; I wish I knew better.