Is that the boards favorite mathematician in the picture?
by Mark Rippetoe
"[A] properly-designed strength training program constitutes a much better use of the same amount of time a “cardio” workout takes, and provides far more benefits to your quality of life. This is especially true if you’re older...Here’s why."
Read article
Is that the boards favorite mathematician in the picture?
Does anybody have a link to the BMJ meta-analysis Rip mentions? "A 2008 British Medical Journal meta-analysis showed that strength levels correlated better with longevity than any other parameter. "
Not "vs" - do both!
Priority depends on the individual, with most elderly people probably needing strength first or more of it.
Steady state endurance counters one of the very few negative consequences of strength training with high loads (in %1RM), arterial stiffness. And complements the interval nature of endurance that strength training comes with perfectly.
Hello Mark,
Thanks for another good article.
When strength training, does the Power Clean give the biggest bang for your buck out of the major whole body exercises in terms of cardio?
Russell
While we're at it, can we please see the reference that the "arterial stiffness" induced by weight lifting has ever been even correlated (much less causally linked) to any clinically relevant cardiovascular outcome (morbidity, mortality, organ dysfunction, cardiocerebrovascular events), in any population, anywhere, ever?
Cuz that would be super-interesting.
Please send that data. We'll wait.
Dear Mr. Sullivan,
Slightly off piste with your comment above ... I bought a rowing machine on the weekend so that I can use it for conditioning as mentioned in your book and HIIT for the aging adult.
The rower, when it arrives, will have several programs including intervals. As a 53 year old in SS LP, it would be good if you could elaborate on what the HIIT work should entail to ensure proper conditioning and without disturbing the strength gains.
Thanks,
Russell
Anyone who thinks strength training has no value in terms of cardiovascular effects can check the last few months of my log entries. I've been wearing my Polar heart rate monitor again and even with 3-5 minute rest intervals between sets, the results are plain to see.
Summary of yesterday's lifting session.
This session ran 77 minutes burning 729 calories. Average pulse was 121 bpm @ 78% of MHR with a peak of 136 bpm @ 88% of MHR.
No one's ever argued that you should strength train and then sit still. Except I've heard that Paul Anderson adapted this from Winston Churchill:
Never run when you can walk.
Never walk when you can stand.
Never stand when you can sit.
Never sit when you can lay down.
Never lay down when you can sleep.
But leaving aside Anderson's extreme example, it's hard to neglect "endurance" since low level activity is the default state. Those who are even moderately active aren't undeveloped in this capacity with regard to health or performance.
There is apparently (I can't quite comprehend the levels of ass-siting that are reported. That is, I'm now quite sure how one can manage to be so still without a spinal cord injury) a large group of "sedentary" people who manage to barely move at all, ever, for any reason. Strength training addresses both their atrophy and inactivity to a greater degree than endurance work. Adding an active lifestyle or even additional conditioning (like the HIIT we favor) or traditional endurance work is easier to do and more effective once a bit of strength (and the endurance/cardio capacity that comes with it) has been developed.