Imo, nope. No human growth hormone (HGH) stimulation in aerobics alone.
Last edited:
Gift of the GABA, could restoration of function in older brains spell trouble for the GOP?
- Thread starter Bugenhagen
- Start date
I don't know what all the modern fitness acronyms are I must admit, I've never been into the science of exercise. Lately I just walk down and walk up 27 floors holding a 50lbs suitcase at arms length as I can or over my head.
I do use an oxygen concentrator though when doing some leg work, the odd time I need to really focus on detailed work it certainly helps.
Last edited:
Well, I'm out of my depth.One has to ask, "sufficient for what?" Olympic cyclists engage in a lot of lower heart-rate, long distance training to improve mitochondrial density and grow more numerous capillaries. Thus they are building the foundation for oxygenation and VO2 max. Based on that method, developed by experts specifically for maximum performance, I'd recommend older folks do both longer distance steady-state exercise, like walking, AND resistance training. If they are fit enough to do HIIT they should work that in for something like 20% of their program.
But for a fartknocker who's going to do nothing else, yeah, compound movements. But, do them every day, lift to RPE 7 or 8 (not to failure, aka leave two or three in the tank), so that a day is sufficient recovery time to do it again.
I'm not an exercise physiologist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I just favor hard resistance exercise (to failure, and not any of this 2 or 3 reps left in the tank stuff; I don't have a tank). And although I used to do ~reasonably intense steady-state cardio several years ago after the lifting component, I hated every minute of it. After the resistance work, I now do HIIT, which is done more intensely and in spurts rather than steady state. I prefer Band-Aids to come off hard and fast, rather than slowly.
You gotta do the thing that keeps you coming back, right?
Last edited:
Ricter's 50-pound suitcase workout routine to hit the five basic human movement patterns.
Carry: the suitcase at arm's length up and down stairs (delts, traps, rhomboids, quads, glutes). Rotate with (R/W) overhead carry.
Hinge: Standing on chairs or boxes as necessary, swing the suitcase from a bent-over position to an upright position, similar to kettlebell swings. (delts, lower back, glutes)
Push: with suitcase balanced on back, standard pushups. R/W decline pushups. (pecs, triceps, anterior delt)
Pull: with suitcase attached to waist, chinups. R/W pullups. (lats, posterior delt, biceps)
Squat: reverse lunge with suitcase. (quads, glutes) R/W carry, as above.
Carry: the suitcase at arm's length up and down stairs (delts, traps, rhomboids, quads, glutes). Rotate with (R/W) overhead carry.
Hinge: Standing on chairs or boxes as necessary, swing the suitcase from a bent-over position to an upright position, similar to kettlebell swings. (delts, lower back, glutes)
Push: with suitcase balanced on back, standard pushups. R/W decline pushups. (pecs, triceps, anterior delt)
Pull: with suitcase attached to waist, chinups. R/W pullups. (lats, posterior delt, biceps)
Squat: reverse lunge with suitcase. (quads, glutes) R/W carry, as above.
Last edited:
Absolutely.
The advantage of leaving some reps in the tank is that you can do the exercise again the following day, a calisthenics approach which increases overall weekly volume. Training to failure means deeper fatigue and longer recovery. That's okay (optimal even) for a standard "bro split" routine, e.g. Mon/Tue/Thu/Fri do it all again next week program.Well, I'm out of my depth.
I just favor hard resistance exercise (to failure, and not any of this 2 or 3 reps left in the tank stuff; I don't have a tank). And although I used to do ~reasonably intense steady-state cardio several years ago after the lifting component, I hated every minute of it. After the resistance work, I now do HIIT, which is done more intensely and in spurts rather than steady state. I prefer Band-Aids to come off hard and fast, rather than slowly.
You gotta do the thing that keeps you coming back, right?
Last edited:
Yes, I get that. But then it comes down to quality over quantity, no? My understanding is that if you do not go to your limit or very close to it, then you are not stimulating adaptation. If your body is working well within its means, is there really a biological imperative to improve, i.e, to get stronger or bigger?
There is new research showing that working to near failure is nearly as stimulative as working to failure, but without the fatigue load. Yes, it's a compromise, but it has important advantages, chief of which is the ability to perform with those muscles the same day if necessary, a consideration police, soldiers, and firefighters must make. Those guys can't say, e.g. "just did squats so I can't climb those stairs right now". Training only to NF, especially "grease the groove" (GtG), is also a way to increase your single set max reps, which is useful if you have a physical test coming, such as those for the aforementioned occupations. I'll leave you to read up on GtG.
I love all the different training variables and modalities. At 61 and with a lifetime of exercise I like ways to keep it fresh and interesting. Which is why I'm blathering on and on about it here.
Yes, I've heard about such research. And while I do my best to keep an open mind, I try to focus on the research done by researchers whom I respect. Consider this study, for example:There is new research showing that working to near failure is nearly as stimulative as working to failure, but without the fatigue load. Yes, it's a compromise, but it has important advantages, chief of which is the ability to perform with those muscles the same day if necessary, a consideration police, soldiers, and firefighters must make. Those guys can't say, e.g. "just did squats so I can't climb those stairs right now". Training only to NF, especially "grease the groove" (GtG), is also a way to increase your single set max reps, which is useful if you have a physical test coming, such as those for the aforementioned occupations. I'll leave you to read up on GtG.
I love all the different training variables and modalities. At 61 and with a lifetime of exercise I like ways to keep it fresh and interesting. Which is why I'm blathering on and on about it here.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...t_advanced_techniques_in_trained_participants
Conclusion: "repetition maximum" (RM), is considered more intense than leaving 2 or 3 in the tank, is not as effective as going to momentary muscular failure (MMF).
Frequency? Consider these articles:
https://www.cbass.com/TrainingFrequency.htm
https://www.cbass.com/howmuchexercise.htm
As for the higher volume and frequency crowd? Perhaps the best-known proponents of volume and frequency these days are Brad Schoenfeld and his sidekick James Krieger. Consider their recent research advocating higher volumes/frequencies:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30153194/
Now consider this critical commentary of Schoenfeld's studies and others like it, and then judge for yourself:
https://www.researchgate.net/public...or_Muscle_Hypertrophy_in_Experienced_Trainees
Also, since Schoenfeld drew some pretty remarkable conclusions on the subject of volume (and frequency), it is interesting to note that, according to those who are much more statistically inclined than I am, that the results of his own study does not support his conclusions:
And Doug McGuff, an emergency room physician and lifelong fitness enthusiast who co-wrote Body By Science, concluded from his own research as well as that of others, that exercise is generally overprescribed -- that is, hard, meaningful exercise. If you do it properly, you don't need to do too much. Right or wrong, I like it.
(But I'm guessing it's right.)