Gift of the GABA, could restoration of function in older brains spell trouble for the GOP?

Ricter said:
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. :)
More...
And I'm sorry for hijacking the thread. I found religion in low volume/frequency (but always high intensity) a number of years ago after decades of overdoing it. And so, at 63, I'm on a mission to change the world. Can't seem to stop GABAing about it. :)
 
Last edited:
Frederick Foresight said:
And I'm sorry for hijacking the thread. I found religion in low volume/frequency (but always high intensity) a number of years ago after decades of overdoing it. And so, at 63, I'm on a mission to change the world. Can't seem to stop GABAing about it. :)
More...

Hijack away, anything we can do to keep older brains working and out of reach of the GOP the better!
 
I see we're all on the topic this morning, heh. I just finished reading the papers you linked, FF. Good stuff, ty.

The biggest thing I take away from it all is the remembrance of a principle I learned long ago: SAID, specific adaption to imposed demand. I.e. if you want to lift heavy weight you should train with heavy weight. If you want to move more mass per unit time, i.e. power, you should program to maximize the power you are generating in your workouts. And so on.

So for me, 61 and conscious of joint health and recovery ability, and preferring a full body workout every day, I choose sets, reps, load, perceived exertion, and fatigue management values that allow me to do a full body workout every day.

One other thing that occurred to me reading your links, I am still a believer in periodization, though the last paper calls it bogus. I feel like I get better results if I go higher volume for one quarter and higher load for the next quarter. I do both intensely, to failure of strict form, which I guess roughly equates to 1RiR (one rep in reserve, a junk rep). Now I'm prompted to start a high load period for Q1 2022.

:D
 
Ricter said:
I see we're all on the topic this morning, heh. I just finished reading the papers you linked, FF. Good stuff, ty.

The biggest thing I take away from it all is the remembrance of a principle I learned long ago: SAID, specific adaption to imposed demand. I.e. if you want to lift heavy weight you should train with heavy weight. If you want to move more mass per unit time, i.e. power, you should program to maximize the power you are generating in your workouts. And so on.

So for me, 61 and conscious of joint health and recovery ability, and preferring a full body workout every day, I choose sets, reps, load, perceived exertion, and fatigue management values that allow me to do a full body workout every day.

One other thing that occurred to me reading your links, I am still a believer in periodization, though the last paper calls it bogus. I feel like I get better results if I go higher volume for one quarter and higher load for the next quarter. I do both intensely, to failure of strict form, which I guess roughly equates to 1RiR (one rep in reserve, a junk rep). Now I'm prompted to start a high load period for Q1 2022.

:D
More...
Keep in mind, though, that high intensity for the purposes of this discussion is not defined by load but whether you reach failure or come very close to it. Think Henneman’s size principle, as described in this piece:

https://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm

As for the SAID principle, I am familiar with it. While I was bent on lifting heavy in my earlier years (it was an ego thing), I now just wish to maintain general strength.

Bass, McGuff, Fisher and other advocates of low volume training regard HIT to be better for joint health because it calls for more controlled rep movement. And by going hard in such manner, you reach a sufficient stimulus that you don't have to do too much volume and frequency, thereby reducing the risk of overuse injuries.

And exercise researcher James Fisher does not regard himself as an HIT advocate, but rather as an evidence-based advocate. He said in an interview that if better results were to be obtained with higher volumes, then he would increase his exercise volume. Three more of his papers:

https://www.researchgate.net/public...an_Single_Set_Training_for_Muscle_Hypertrophy

https://www.researchgate.net/public...nce-Based_Resistance_Training_Recommendations

https://www.researchgate.net/public...ning_Recommendations_for_Muscular_Hypertrophy

And since we're here and Bugenhagen has given me the green light, I can't resist including another two of Carpinelli's papers.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...a_Review_on_Strength_Training_in_the_Military

https://www.researchgate.net/public...varied_weight_training_programmes_on_strength

(I must confess I posted these links previously in the Health and Fitness forum.)
 
Last edited:
Bugenhagen said:
Yes but I only posted it because its a threat to the modern Republican party ;)
More...

DouchenBaggen comes up with yet another completely pointless post.

He is a Joe Biden supporter. Case Closed.
maxresdefault-1.jpeg
 
Ricter said:
I choose sets, reps, load, perceived exertion, and fatigue management values that allow me to do a full body workout every day.
More...
But are you doing a full body workout every day because you ought to or because you want to? As I see it, I would question the quality of the stimulus if you can recover from it so quickly. Stated differently, how much of an inroad did you really make? Just my indoctrinated opinion, of course.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top