58, and counting. I know that as we get older recovery takes longer. There is no need to reduce intensity, all else being equal, but total volume and frequency needs to get a bit kinder and gentler. Yeah, I always hated cardio the way kids hate broccoli. I used to do 30 minutes on a treadmill at maximum incline of 15 degrees. (Very brisk walking but not running.) Even in front of the TVs in the gym it was dull as mud. And it wasn't particularly easy; I did it at a pace I could not possibly hold a conversation. But conventional wisdom dictated that cardio was essential for good health and longevity, and so I ate my broccoli. But in 2012 or thereabouts, after stopping cardio altogether for a time, I came upon burst training (HIIT), and I've been doing that ever since. Now my total cardio apart from resistance training lasts only about 7 minutes, which I tack on to the end of the lifting routine, and once at home on Saturday morning.
Which, I admit, is more than I can say. Although I've communicated with a couple over the years via e-mail and they were kind enough to respond. Also keep in mind that experts disagree. Some research contradicts other research. I'm not saying yours is wrong and mine are right, but we have to make our own choice regarding whom we align ourselves with because we agree with the content and manner of their research. For a few years now, since about 2012, I've come to appreciate and respect the work of Ralph Carpinelli, Richard Winett and James Fisher. Should you ever be interested, I can always attach a few pdf files of their research papers for your consideration.
Sorry, I disagree. I think HIIT applied sparingly hits the spot when coupled with HIT. As for low intensity steady state, that's a throwaway for me; I don't even count it. It's good to walk, and I do, but I wouldn't call it a workout.
Nah, the other way around. Reduce intensity (i.e. the weight) and increase the number of reps per set. Saying that, that's something you may want to implement in your sixties rather than now. https://academic.oup.com/biomedgero...uscle-Protein-Synthetic-Responses-to-Exercise
All they are saying in that study is that people who have never lifted a weight before can get similar results no matter what protocol they follow, and that's because they are doing something in the gym rather than nothing at all. The body just doesn't give out results forever though, so it quickly adapts to the strain being put upon it and then normalizes at that level. The point in time that this study stopped (after 12 weeks of training) is where the real work and strategy begins, because after a newbie lifts for a few months, we all know that the honeymoon phase in terms of results comes to a screeching halt. And after years of lifting, a person has to be quite crafty by constantly changing up their training and diet in order to get even a few % increase in strength and muscle mass.
The Journals of Gerontology? Gerontology?! Don't sass me, boy. If I may be less than modest for a moment, I'm in better shape than most of the people half my age at my gym, as measured by relative strength, agility and physique. Seriously. Studies show that intensity is the most important variable in best eliciting the desired response from exercise, including among the elderly. Not volume, not even frequency. But intensity. Clarence Bass, who's closing in on 80, has reported on study after study in this regard, and he still goes about his workouts with low volume, low frequency and high intensity. A small sampling: http://www.cbass.com/Intensity.htm http://www.cbass.com/IntervalsEveryone.htm http://www.cbass.com/BendingTheAgingCurve.htm Doug McGuff, a lifetime fitness enthusiast and ER doctor who doesn't think separate cardio is even necessary apart from low volume, low frequency, high intensity resistance training, reported on this finding in his own book, Body by Science, even for people with heart conditions. Intensity is king. (I will admit that I personally find Dr. McGuff's view a bit extreme.) Visaria, we're going in circles here. I know you mean well, and I hope you know I do as well. But we're at an impasse. There is little point in arguing. Let's agree to disagree.
I agree. Untrained people, and especially young guys who just start training (I know because I was once one of them), can get initial results by doing little more than showing up. (Okay, that might be a slight exaggeration.) Results are harder to come by later on, and at some point it becomes more about maintenance. Baron, please give me your opinion on something. I've read conflicting material on training for the more advanced trainees (for lack of a better term). Some say that the trainee has to do more volume and some post-failure work. Others say that as a person becomes more advanced he can elicit more intensity than a newbie and therefore should be more careful with volume and frequency and much more sparing with post-failure work, if any. Stated differently, he can generate more intensity than he can readily recover from compared to his newer counterparts. Which view do you think is more accurate? HIT proponents suggest the latter.
I definitely think an advanced trainee can lift more intensely, so if that person did decide to increase the intensity further through post-failure work like super-sets and drop sets, they should really only do that at the very last week of training hard for past the 6-8 weeks, and then take at least a full week off from training after that. Because once you've got to the point where you are doing post-failure work, there's really nowhere left to go from there in the intensity department, so it's best to give your body a full week of recovery time, and then after that week is over, start a fresh lifting program for the next couple of months and then rinse and repeat.
Yes, I agree that post-failure work should be used sparingly, if at all. From time to time, I had done it as a matter of course and found that it accumulates and eventually overwhelms. Personally, I'm not big on periodization, although I know many people swear by it. Presently, I don't do any post-failure work, preferring to just go to full failure using good form and then finishing with a slow negative.