No, there's really not (and is not supported by evidence either).
I also would disagree that there is not a "strong enough" for mortality and morbidity benefit, if that helps.
Member
Strength va endurance; old age
Jordan
There this question that has been lingering in my mind for a while.
In a recent Q&A @untamed you and dr baraki talked about the when and why of conditioning. Great info and i think i got most of it.
But this: no need for condiotining if you can climb 3flights of stairs or for other health issues.
Which I get, but isnt there any benefit to having some overcapacity? Ea general fitness or whatever? We always talk about strength and how it pertains to quality of life etc, that the sooner you start the better but we never say “now you’re strong enough” (strength equivalent of 8MET’s, if you will). Which I also understand, dont get me wrong, I can make the case why stronger is always better but I feel when someone questions me about this conditioning im not appt to fully answer because I cant really get my head around it.
Just as a general example.... my dad is that cyclist you talk about. 67yrs, “fit” as hell. Looks 50 etc etc. Now sure we all agree he better start training soon, when old age really comes knocking I dont want him to be this frail skinny cyclist. But somehow theres something about that all that cycling that made him were he is now? I guess there’s also the fact that the world we live in has led us to think that being fit means being conditioned, while we know being strong has more bennefits.
Maybe im just missing the point, I hope you understand the question, been over it a couple of times but cant really pinpoint it.
Thnxx
✓ Member
No, there's really not (and is not supported by evidence either).
I also would disagree that there is not a "strong enough" for mortality and morbidity benefit, if that helps.
Member
See, you just opened the can of worms. I'll bite. So, what is "strong enough" for mortality and morbidity benefit? How do we define that?Originally Posted by Jordan Feigenbaum
Member
Short and powerfull thnx. Kinda realizing I dont understand enough ofnthe subject and terminology to get into it atm.
Just to be clear, what non-found benefits we talking about? does that mean that the phrase anything is better then nothing applys? “Stayin active” even in old age should predict something over the forever couch potato right? Or does it only imply that that person is better at doing that (swimming cycling whatever) with some carryover to other activities without profoundly impacting day to day live, especially in the long run?
Ah oke. Duly noted, there a way you establish/describe the tipping point?
Thnx for answering al this stuff. Surely helps gettin better at the thinking/explaining process that goes with this.
✓ Member
I suspect this differs for groups of people, but I'd actually think the act of going through the LP and then continuing training on after that - even if no strength is gained- optimizes mortality/morbidity from a purely strength perspective.
What?
No.does that mean that the phrase anything is better then nothing applys?
I would have to think about it a little more to feel comfortable saying anything for sure, but I have some ideas I need to jot down.Ah oke. Duly noted, there a way you establish/describe the tipping point?
Member
I've thought about this too but never really formed a solid opinion. I can and have always been able to be on my feet all day and can walk a full day with no issue. A few years ago was dismayed I couldn't job even a few minutes without having to stop and just felt that wasn't right. I took up running (jogging? as it never passed the 9 min mile mark) and made it up to being able to do an hour at which point the joints started to protest. 30 minutes seemed to be my sweet spot for an internally acceptable gauge and lack of joint battering.
I've since switched to biking in a low gear 40 minutes 3-4 times a week at the top speed I can maintain. I'm unsure how necessary it is on top of training.
Really looking forward to those ideas.
Member
I asked if theres any benefit to having an endurance over capacity. You said no. Just wanted to clearify what benefits or not wr are talking a out (mortality et). I couls guess in the long run there might not, but the the example below might clarify what I mean.
What does the “no”mean on my “anything is better then nothing” ?? And again better for what. My dad takes his mountainbike, knots a rope and three sleds, and takes his grandchildren for a ride. Im just tryin to compare that with the evidence that doesnt support conditioning. Could only hope i be doing that at his age. ( I talk in examples, its not that im trying to defend my paps or so..). Im just tryin to understand.
We prolly talking past each other, sorry for that.
Thnxx
P.s. Keep jotting. You guys rock.
✓ Member
You said:
And I'm not sure what you mean by "non-found benefits" and you then asked, "does that mean that the phrase anything is better then nothing applys" in the context of the non-found benefits, to which I replied "no".Just to be clear, what non-found benefits we talking about? does that mean that the phrase anything is better then nothing applys?
I have selected my words very carefully.
My view is that endurance in excess of 8 METs capacity, ~45 mL O2/min/kg VO2max, or passing an exercise stress test without issue is of no benefit to longevity or morbidity, whereas that is not true of strength- though that threshold certainly exists (and in many it (resistance training) can produce these "endurance" adaptations)
Member
Can you point to any commonalities that would explain why someone who has done an LP would not reach this level of conditioning simply from doing the LP?
I'd guess that being very overweight would be one, but is there anything else you see among trainees?
✓ Member
Very low initial level of cardiorespiratory fitness, poor responder to training, super long rest periods, low training volumes, etc.
Posting Permissions