[Ronin]

With all the discussion about "Body Building" I've been thinking about the various kinds of use of "resistance" exercise.

While I am primarially a tandemist/bicyclist I do use a BowFlex three times per week to maintian upper body strength.

As muscles come in basically two forms (Fast and Slow Twitch) I have, from my bicycling background, concentrated on the lower strength/higher endurance fast twitch muscles using higher repetitions (around 30/exercise) over the slow twitch muscles that can handle much higher resistance but for fewer repetitions (generally less than 10/exercise and usually more like five or six max).

I find that I have strength and endurance and the BowFlex also allows me to move these muscles pretty fast (something that free-weights would not allow). While I'm not laying on additional pounds of muscle (something that bicyclists tend to eschew anyway) I do find that I have formed strength, endurance and definition. Also, being over 60 I doubt that there is sufficient testosterone flowing to allow the addition of a lot of muscle mass.

So, how about it? Which is better, and why? Is there a better or is it just different apporaches to the same goal?

[Scratch]

I think there is a good body of evidence to suggest that higher weight and lower reps can prove to be more beneficial, but then that depends some on what kind of benefit you wish to achieve.

I believe your understanding is a bit backwards -- fast-twitch muscle fiber is low endurance and slow-twitch fiber is high endurance. Fast-twitch fibers are used for quick bursts of energy and are only recruited by the nervous system in response to high demands of resistance or necessary power -- the rapid deployment of force in a short time frame. To effectively train fast-twitch muscle fibers, they need to be put to use -- fibers that don't get stressed in a workout have no reason to recover and regenerate, plus if you read the following link you'll gain a better understanding of the importance of the nervous system and how strength is "learned", so to speak.

Neural mechanisms are the most important determinants of strength adaptations.

At your age, it's going to be difficult for you to gain much in muscle mass -- your neuroendocrine response will have diminshed levels of testosterone, but you sure can still train your nervous system and improve how efficiently it recruits your available muscle fiber.

Of further benefit to understanding, you might wish to consider how there are two forms of muscular hypertrophy, sarcoplasmic and myofibriliar. Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is what largely results from bodybuilding sorts of routines which tend to feature lighter weights (smaller percentage of the lifter's 1RM -- 1 rep max) and higher reps. Sarcoplasmic largely improves the bulk of the muscle through increased cellular fluids.

Myofibriliar hypertrophy is when the muscle increases in size because the fibers are rebuilt to be stronger. The best way to get myofibriliar hypertrophy is through prolonged periods of strength training with reps and sets that use weights greater than 85% of the 1RM. Using heavy weights like that will get the fast twitch muscle fibers, nearly all the fibers to be fired by the nervous system -- more stress, more recovery, more strength in time.

The wikipedia page about muscular hypertrophy is reasonably good --

Muscle hypertrophy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now, you might not derive direct aerobic benefit from strength training, but in your case as a cyclist improved leg strength can mean your muscles could work with greater efficiency, since with every turn of the pedals you wouldn't need as much muscle fiber to make the turn of the pedals, over prolonged periods of time you would in effect have a greater endurance capacity.

I believe that's the gist of it. It's fascinating to read and study about.

[Ronin]

Scratch, et al.,

Interesting articles.

I think that there is also something in the way you train and what you train your body to do. As a bicyclist I have learned to use what cyclists call high-cadence (i.e., faster leg motion rather than lower speeds). Some exercise research people have noted that cadences around 60 rpm are "more efficient" than higher cadences -- more total energy is produced during the testing period. I've even seen those low cadence riders myself. However, while I can sustain many hours of high cadence pedaling, I haven't found any cyclists using the low cadence able to sustain their effort for more than 20 minutes before exhausting their energy. Looking at professional bicycle racers when they hit mountains, those reduced to low cadences barely get over the mountain and many just drop out of the race.

On a personal note: my legs are quite strong and I can, if necessary, push a lot of resistance for a very short peroid of time. However, my leg muscles are conditioned to long sustained effort. I'm trying to do the same for my upper-body (within reason as I'm not motivated to spend 90 minutes on each muscle group on the BowFlex every day).

I agree that maximum weights/resistance will result in larger muscles but are those muscles necessarily more efficient as well as stronger? Or, put a simple way: "Is bigger always better?"

[Scratch]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I agree that maximum weights/resistance will result in larger muscles but are those muscles necessarily more efficient as well as stronger? Or, put a simple way: "Is bigger always better?"

Hmmm, I don't know if I properly communicated what I tried to say in my prior response judging by your response here. I'll have to see if I can do better and compose another response when I have more time later on.

[Ronin]

Scratch, et al.,

Don't worry you did communicate well -- I just don't buy the "bigger is better" argument.

A long time ago I got into the whole weighlifting and bodybuilding thing (I was a teenager at the time). I was as enraptured about "getting bigger" as the next person and did get pretty fit as a result but never actually got "BIG" that's when I was told that in order to get really big I'd have to start taking "special supplaments" most of which had to be injected and were "illegal" without a prescription from an MD but he knew a guy who knew a guy who knew an MD who writes prescritions for bodybuilders. My antenna went up and I got out of bodybuilding.

To me there are two reasons for training: to get more fit or vanity.

I haven't seen a difinitive study that says that a larger muscle consumes more glucose than an equally fit, albeit smaller, muscle. I also have a problem with the idea that you have to overeat just to get "BIG" as overeating does have serious side-effects in the long term.

As to strength: I look at Olympic style weight lifters. The lower weight categories consitently lift a higher percentage of their body weight than the super-heavy class. So, who is really stronger? My money is on the skinny guy who lifts a higher percentage of his body weight than the super-heavyweight.

As the Prophet said: "vanity of vanities; all is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2).

[Scratch]

I guess I wasn't sure if I adequately communicated my main idea that strength doesn't necessarily directly correlate to muscle mass, and that dependent upon what an individual wishes to achieve, there is some threshold where more mass might result in more strength but it can also lead to degradation in performance in activities like running and cycling.

But I also brought up the point about the two kinds of muscular hypertrophy as it is an important consideration -- I'm reasonably sure that you, as a cyclist, are not going to want any unnecessary muscle mass and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy would be the muscle mass you definitely don't want too much of. But then, if you are looking to gain strength, where will you best be served?

So that's why I also raised the issue of how much strength is about how well the nervous system recruits the available muscle fibers. To get all the muscle fibers activated might best be done by heavy resistance.

[shiftzor]

Originally Posted by Ronin

Scratch, et al.,

Don't worry you did communicate well -- I just don't buy the "bigger is better" argument.

A long time ago I got into the whole weighlifting and bodybuilding thing (I was a teenager at the time). I was as enraptured about "getting bigger" as the next person and did get pretty fit as a result but never actually got "BIG" that's when I was told that in order to get really big I'd have to start taking "special supplaments" most of which had to be injected and were "illegal" without a prescription from an MD but he knew a guy who knew a guy who knew an MD who writes prescritions for bodybuilders. My antenna went up and I got out of bodybuilding.

To me there are two reasons for training: to get more fit or vanity.

I haven't seen a difinitive study that says that a larger muscle consumes more glucose than an equally fit, albeit smaller, muscle. I also have a problem with the idea that you have to overeat just to get "BIG" as overeating does have serious side-effects in the long term.

As to strength: I look at Olympic style weight lifters. The lower weight categories consitently lift a higher percentage of their body weight than the super-heavy class. So, who is really stronger? My money is on the skinny guy who lifts a higher percentage of his body weight than the super-heavyweight.

As the Prophet said: "vanity of vanities; all is vanity" (Ecclesiastes 1:2).

I have been wondering the very same thing, although vanity comes with fitness but at a much slower rate and a smaller size. I have been working on strength i.e. lower resistance and lots of reps. I still don't know if I should be lifting heavier weights and less lifts, really I am doing this for my D so I am happy doing either for the best results.

[BrianSCohen]

First of all, I believe that endurance and strength are basically opposing goals. You can achieve a mixture of athletic endurance and strength, but to be really good at either you will compromise the other. It is clearly undersood that sprinters are stronger than endurance runners (see ).

Now as a diabetic, I believe there is strong evidence that the best condition is to have low body fat and a large healthy lean body mass. If I have to choose which body you want as a shown below, which would you choose?



If you are like me, you are with the sprinter. Guess what, to build muscles like that you need to focus on low reps and heavy weights. Pushing light weights for high reps gets you the poor guy from Finland. Large muscles go hand in hand with strength. Sure you can argue about whether bodybuilding or powerlifting or olympic weightlifting has some variation in outcomes. The plain fact is, lift weights, get strong as a bull and you will have big muscles.

And as to Ronin, just cause you are 60, you still have what it takes to build serious muscle. Take a look at this guy Old Navy. Use your bowflex, choose mainly compound exercises. Choose a rep range of 4-10 reps, with 3-5 sets. When you complete your sets, move the weight up. Use superhuman intensity in attempts to complete your lifts. The more you challenge your body, the better will be your results.

[fit226]

ok, i am going to chime in a little as i have been involved with the bodybuilding scene for over 18 years. I am going to tell you that 90% of all bodybuilders, sprinters, football players and generally any pro sport there are "special supplements' involved..lol.. That guy OLD NAVY is also some way or another on these SS's ...whether they call it HRT (hormone replacement therapy) or just juicing. Guys its physically impossible to build the so called muscle you are looking for, without. Yes we have advanced in the legal supplement era but truth be told alot of people juice. I could show you 20 guys in my gym that use the stuff..some look like they do and some don't...moral of the story, yes you can become fit and healthy definitely without steroids but to build huge muscles or even very good muscles at an age of 30 or more its not possible as testosterone starts to diminish.

[BrianSCohen]

fit,

I gotta chime back in here. I am not suggesting that every 60 year old guy can aspire to build muscles like Ronnie Coleman just by going to the gym and cranking out some reps with heavy weights. I am suggesting that someone starting out even at the age of 60 can if they devote themselves build substantial amounts of muscle, increasing their lean body mass markedly and lose signficant body fat. Look at the site here Strength Training. The elderly subjects that survived all gained measurable lean body mass and lost body fat.

I am not arguing that one should aspire to gain huge amounts of muscle mass like a body builder, but as a diabetic I am much better off weighing 200 lbs of mostly muscle than being 130 lbs of anorexic skinny fat.

ps. I also believe that diabetic men are at risk of low testosterone, and it does make a health difference. You should ask your doctor to annually monitor their testosterone levels and if needed get HRT.

[Scratch]

even very good muscles at an age of 30 or more its not possible as testosterone starts to diminish

I'd say it's possible. Of course, I guess it might depend on what you mean by good muscles, but I've put on about 8 to 10 lbs of muscle this year using squats, deadlifts, and good diet.

It's true that testosterone production diminishes as we age, there's no doubt if I had done a similar amount of lifting and eating 15 to 20 years ago I probably would have put on a lot more muscle than I have this year, but the body is still capable of producing testosterone in sufficient quantity.

[fit226]

Scratch

Do me a favour and go and buy 10 lbs of lean ground beef and see if that is how much muscle you gained? I say do this comparison as 10 lbs of muscle in a year is quite the feat. Its like the old corn on the cob..cut off all the kernals on a cob of corn and see if you would actually dish out that much onto your plate if it was loose in a bowl...you'll be surprised.

[fit226]

Originally Posted by BrianSCohen

fit,

Look at the site here Strength Training. The elderly subjects that survived all gained measurable lean body mass and lost body fat.

I tell you the last thing i want to be doing at that age is walking my walker to the cable crossover..LOL...i am hoping that i have a wife 20 years my younger who will fetch my slippers and a beer...HAHA..totally kidding but honestly at that age i hope to be even remotely mobile..

[Scratch]

Originally Posted by fit226

Scratch

Do me a favour and go and buy 10 lbs of lean ground beef and see if that is how much muscle you gained? I say do this comparison as 10 lbs of muscle in a year is quite the feat. Its like the old corn on the cob..cut off all the kernals on a cob of corn and see if you would actually dish out that much onto your plate if it was loose in a bowl...you'll be surprised.

Simple record keeping shows that I was about 141 to 143 lbs at the end of December 2007. On the scale in the mornings now I weigh 150 to 152 lbs.

[BrianSCohen]

Most beginners find the fastest and easist gains in their first year. Ten lbs of lean body mass is easily achieved even at the age of 60. I am 48 years old, over the last two years, I have gone from 210 lbs at 30% bf to 195 lbs at under 15%. From the numbers, I've lost over 30 lbs of fat, and gained about 18 lbs of muscle.

I don't aspire to be a competing bodybuilder or athlete. This is about my health and happiness. I want to reach 80 or 90 years old and when I do, I want to be running around chasing all the honey pies, not stumbling around in my walker.

Now to add something disgusting to the whole muscle discussion, here is my picture comparing muscle to fat.