We should ‘lift heavy’ as we get older | Hacker News Reader

We should ‘lift heavy’ as we get older

archive.ph

50 pointsborissk67 comments

It wasn’t unheard of for 60 year olds to be joining military battles in ancient Sparta/Athens either.

Perhaps the article forgot the whole idea of lifelong strength training and how marginal gains can work. Rather it focuses on building that strength later in life rather than right now.

Strength training is some of the best stress we can provide our bodies.

None of this is really new. Plato was even well known and has many quotes on the importance given his name even originates from “broad” by his wrestling coach.

As a 51 year old man who has been lifting consistently for 35 years it is heartening to see these studies back up my anecdotal results. My workouts have evolved as I have aged certainly, but I remain dedicated to keeping muscle packed on. Doing so has kept my weight under control (I restrict type of foods, but never portion) Made me more injury resistant (I can take a fall) and remain active enough to enjoy moving my body through space. Tracking with others my age I can see that significant performance deltas have opened. We are decades apart. My takeaway is start early and stick with it. Never stop. One needs strength, flexibility, and endurance. Keep switching it around, confuse the body, and generally always be terrible at something. Working out is about probing your weaknesses not celebrating one’s strength. If there is an issue to take with weight lifting it is that it tends to encourage practitioners to reach higher and higher levels of strength in a relatively small range of movement. This is motivating when young and the thing that kills momentum once you get older and don’t heal so fast.

"Working out is about probing your weaknesses not celebrating one’s strength."

That's a keeper of a sentence for years and decades to come :)

The problem is they also say we should do calorie restriction. CR plus a reasonably active lifestyle sounds a lot more fun than lifting weights, and less likely to injure me.

Has anyone studied how these different things stack? If someone walks a lot and eats healthy, and lifts a normal amount of things in daily life... will they get significant disease prevention benefits from lifting on top of that?

And what happens if you control for mental well being? Will someone who deeply enjoys being strong get a lot more benefit than someone who's just kind of meh about a PR?

being strong improves your life.

there is no situation in which not being strong is a benefit.

up to a certain point

It's important to realize the vast majority of people will not get to that certain point. Sure, you may not want to be as large as some of the famous body builders, but don't worry! That takes living your entire life organized around the central goal of getting bigger. If you are going to the gym for an hour 3 days a week you will never get to that point.

Even if you're making your life revolve around body building you won't get as big as them if you don't take some questionable products.

It seems obvious, but that kind of thing still needs to be verified with science, so we can figure out exactly how strong you need to be before there's diminishing returns and you are getting more trouble with injuries than you save with health benefits.

I've always found the direct benefits aside from the possibile long term health boosts from being stronger to be pretty moderate back when I worked out more, but I also know people who seem to get so much benefit it literally saved their life and they'd probably be suicidal without the gym, it just makes them feel that wonderful, so I'm probably the odd one out there.

Yes, being strong is beneficial by itself all else being equal. If you had to choose: it is better to be strong even if you are fat than being weak and thin.

"better" meaning survival here according to the research.

Calorie restriction sounds more fun than lifting weights?

That's a new one for me.

Have you actually tried a routine or are you just guessing that lifting is painful or awful or something? IME it's quite relaxing as long as you're not ego lifting (going beyond your current capabilities).

Yeah personally my approach has been lifting heavy and the seafood diet ("when I see food, I eat it"). Much more fun than calorie restriction and no lifting.

IF for years now and working out for a half year. For me the pain (mainly day+2) of a workout is a lot bigger than the hurt of hunger. A good workout gets me grumpy for a day. A little hunger gets me grumpy for a few minutes. It’s also more easily to resolve.

Interesting.

I don't typically get soreness from working out unless I'm doing something novel.

For me interesting as well. I’ve done tri / marathon running in the past and then as now, quite a lot of soreness after training. My body has a pretty good “training response” (and a general lack of performance ;) but I don’t know better that training leads to sore days.

Calorie restriction seemed like poor framing for transitioning then settling at lower bodyweight, otherwise where does restriction stop. IMO spirit of prescription for restriction when older is to find lowish bodyweight that doesn't stress your biology too much, but also exercise to build enough muscular base to be durable against injuries. Not mutually exclusive goals. Building muscle base doesn't involve PRs, they get set regardless on way to building base, but long term maintenance is fairly trivial. Go in gym do 3x8 of on compounds that cover major muscle groups with medium (i.e. not very strenous weights) a couple times a week.

I tried to get into working out a few times in my life, but it was always short-lived, usually because I'd injure myself because I didn't know what I was doing.

Getting a good trainer makes all the difference in the world, and I don't mean a high-school kid at a large commercial gym. My trainer owns his own gym. It has been a real treat to have someone stand there the whole time while working out (1 hour 4x per week) and cheer me on, watch my form, give me advice/tips before starting each set, etc. It's not cheap - mine is $60/hr in the Midwest - but so worth it.

Just as a frame of reference, $60/hr is significantly lower than prices out in more major metropolitan areas on the coasts. In Boston it’s definitely over $100/hr.

IMHO, lifting weights i.g. focuses too much on specific muscles.

Calisthenics, OTOH, builds well distributed strength.

Just watch some YT videos of body builders vs Calisthenics guys and you will know what I mean.

Impressive, very based take. Now good luck convincing your 80 year old curmudgeon Dad to lift a weight.

On the other hand, there are dangers to "lifting heavy" as you get older, such as a hernia.

The opposite is true in practice. Hernias happen when your core is weak and you exert yourself beyond capacity. Strengthening your core wall and adding stabilizer muscles all help to prevent hernias.

> you exert yourself beyond capacity

This can easily happen when you're lifting weights.

I'm not saying don't lift weights. But I think "lifting heavy" may be the wrong message, and this quote from the article seemed strange:

> Most strength training involves weights sufficiently heavy you’re only able to pick them up between one and five times in each set.

It's safer to use lower weight, more reps, good form, don't strain too much.

This training method is called Progressive Overload and it is data-backed to develop muscle and strength.

Lower weight and reps are good for cardio but real strength comes from pushing your muscles beyond capacity.

> This training method is called Progressive Overload

What I said is not incompatible with progressive overload, which doesn't specify any particular weight or number of reps, just gradual increase. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_overload

> It's safer to use lower weight, more reps, good form, don't strain too much.

This is utterly, completely wrong.

And this book goes into tons of detail about why. It's partly written by a medical doctor and includes many (many) research citations.

The Barbell Prescription: Strength Training for Life After 40 https://aasgaardco.com/store/books-posters-dvd/books/the-bar...

"One more step Please complete the security check to access archive.ph"

What utter shit.

Terrible idea

I'm all for exercise, but useful and environment-friendly exercise

- why putting bikes on a car to go riding? just get on your bike directly and save that extra pollution

- why taking your car to go at gym and run on indoor machines?

- why taking your car, ordering your food, etc and then lift weight? recently I saw a person traveling in a van, with a whole weight lifting bench and heavy weights, there must be more useful thing to take for a trip no? there are plenty rocks or wood branches on that site, or you can just lift your own weight, or lift smaller weight for a longer time, there are plenty "natural" oppoturnities

same thing for the diet, you can pick more local and less polluting, less or no-plastic wrapping

The problem with lifting rocks is that you don't know how heavy the rocks are.

You can generally tell how heavy they are by the size and also by trying to lift them.

The real problem is ergonomics.

fortunately there is a large choice of rocks and wood, and that's customisable a bit for wood

I'm sure you can get strong lifting rocks and wood. However, a barbell set-up (whether at home, gym, or elsewhere) allows you to perform progressive overload in a safe, controlled and convenient fashion. Fitness fanatics have been using them since the 19th century for that reason.

But find some large pumice rocks and you'll really look impressive!

I currently need to take the car to the gym as I am recovering from a broken leg. I tried walking but by the time I got there I was in too much pain.

Once my rehab is complete then I'll cycle or walk.

On a tangent; the calf muscle is a real hard muscle to build back...

>On a tangent; the calf muscle is a real hard muscle to build back...

I had real trouble growing my calf muscles. Years at gym and no progress. I found a way. 5 years after getting fat they're showing some good growth. In my case less gym was key.

simply walking a lot outdoor, on any terrain, and bicycle gives strong calves, and low BMI through hormones and an adequate diet (rich in fiber)

Meh

- I don't want to drive bike along the buisy road, or do running or walking. I prefer to do that in less poluted environment

- The same with car, I want to minimize exposure to outside polution, at least until teleport is discovered or we all live in urban woods.

- Rocks? No, you shouldn't lift rocks for exercise, becuase you will injour yourself. You should lift rocks in general, when you need to lift them, becuase one of the points of exericse is to be fluid in daily life, and if that includes lifting some rocks periodically thats more then OK. But basing your long term exercise strategy on random stuff around is not good idea IMO. As with anything in your life, you need good tools.

Atlas stones are a common strong man lift.

For people who have already trained to an elite level with regular weights.

since million years, human go at the gym and lift regular weights to get really strong, it's well known, how else would they do? They also eat protein mixtures

It's well known that at least since the antiquity humans were practising body weight exercises to strengthen themselves.

I don't know how Neanderthals got strong but I'm not sure they had a lot of rocks to carry regularly.

that's exactly what I meant, you can get strong without a gym and their specialised stuff, specialised diet etc.. all this is just consumerism

Cool. You do it your way and I'll do it my way and we'll see who gets results.

well, if your way can be as environmental-friendly as possible, all good (so no additional products, services, artificial food, etc)

and the "results" are a bit artificial as well, what matters is a strong core, legs, arms, but not the useless volume you get when lifting, because that's not a movement we do in our daily lives, we rather do small movements, static pauses, small weights. Better training for the right purposes

This is a very American question, driving is not the only way to leave your house.

Obviously it's silly to drive to the gym only to run on a thread mill, but that's not what the article is about, it's about lifting heavy.

Lifting heavy can't be replaced with lifting a lighter weight many times, it trains very different things. And using rocks or branches is not a practical solution. If you can't get to a gym and can't afford to buy your own weights, a better way is to look into calisthenics. You'd really only need to buy a door post pull up bar or similar and you're set.

I'm curious, what's American to you in their reply?

All of the points from OP mentioning cars despite the article seemingly being about gym. US have a view of being focused on cars when most of the world travel by bike or foot in cities.

> most of the world travel by bike or foot in cities.

of course, I'm talking of rich countries, there's not just USA, (West Europe, ...) where the car usage is extremely high, and where fitness services flourish

Poorer countries have other priorities, and a better general health, low obesity level (but less public health, so a lower life expectancy

> calisthenics

that's what I meant with lifting your own weight, you can find many places for that outdoor, no need to buy anything

People in the rich world outside the US have a very different relationship to cars, not to mention public transport and walking/biking.

In fact, the car obsession in America is a poor world phenomenon, you'll see this in countries where car ownership is considered a luxury. In other rich countries people just use the most convenient mode of transport, which in cities usually is the metro - it's never the car.

I disagree, I live in western Europe, France, and the situation is unfortunately very US-like, people care a lot about their cars

> In other rich countries people just use the most convenient mode of transport, which in cities usually is the metro - it's never the car

No, other rich countries are converging to this US model https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_...

It's not about car ownership, it's about car dependence and how you view the car. In Scandinavia most people have cars, but nobody would find it the least bit strange for a middle class or rich person to take the bus to work, and people don't think it's normal to drive 500 m to a shop.

I don't know if you are French or just live there, but you have probably noticed that most people have very small cars compared to the US. Most people don't feel the need to signal status through having a large car, it's much more pragmatic.

South of France, high proportion of SUV, many Teslas too, there are some small cars that probably don't even exist in USA, but still a large proportion of oversized vehicles, and 1 bicycle every 100 cars (roughly, when I'm bored and start counting on my bike or walking)

many SUVs: https://www.best-selling-cars.com/france/2022-full-year-fran...

You're kinda missing the point. It's not about number of cars or bikes per capita standing in a garage but rather how the cities are built differently. Everything is designed for walking and bikes. In the US, they are designed for cars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORzNZUeUHAM

What is silly about driving to a gym if that is the way you will run? Not everyone likes to run on roads or trails. Some beginners want something more deterministic.

> This is a very American question, driving is not the only way to leave your house.

...except that in many parts of the USA, effectively it is, after spending the past eighty years preferentially building exclusively infrastructure for private cars.

This is exactly why it's a very American question.

The article is about strength training in general. If you haven't read Starting Strength, then maybe the idea is foreign to you. Suffice it to say that lifting heavy with progressively overloaded weight is the only way to build strength.

That said, to your First point, if you live in America, you might be aware that cycling anywhere is dangerous for your health. I myself have ridden my bike many miles through dense traffic in order to get to closed roads to do fun rides and crits, but I would never give this advice to anyone in the general case! Bike infrastructure is a joke in the United States and if you're not a freak with a preternatural sense of spatial awareness, the reflexes of a cat, and a half-serious death wish then quite frankly you are only endangering your own life putting yourself next to 4000-lb vehicles driven by teenagers and distracted adults texting and changing their playlist while driving. As an avid bike rider who logs over 1500 miles a year on the bike I recommending cycling in traffic to NOBODY.

I agree with your bicycle thesis, with the caveat that if you are way, way out in the country, where traffic is ever so light, and you can hear the lone cars that pass coming a mile away, yeah, you can have a great time safely on a bicycle. Anywhere near population density though, I would think twice about it.

I rode a lot in the inner city for years, but despite the fact that it's looked down on by the local authorities, I'd just travel on the sidewalks with my "mountain" bike. In the rare case in which I'd encounter a pedestrian, I'd simply veer out of the way or halt and let them pass. Sharing the road with motor vehicles on a bicycle in the U.S.? I wouldn't do it. It's just not safe. Copenhagen it's not.

I lift in a useful way, doing many useful manual tasks, helping a friend at fruit market (so lifting hundreds of kgs), carrying my own food (on a bike or walking) etc.. so I build useful compact and strong muscles, while being at a low BMI because endurance is the most important thing there

There are so many opportunities to use our muscles in our daily life, without generating more pollution, without using more services like gym, their products, their space and energy while you can simply exercise outdoor, not even talking about the benefits of sun

Perhaps they were moving the weights to their home so they can workout in an environmental friendly way?

But training for competition would require a barbell set not just random heavy objects.

People in this world have preferences just like you do, but not about the environment.

I'll take "taking your car to go at gym and run on indoor machines" for $400.

I'm 72, and I run dirt trails. I find running on asphalt uncomfortable on my joints, and dangerous unless you can find pedestrian-only paved trails. Concrete is even worse to run on. (And running treadmills is incredibly boring, so I'm not actually answering the original question.)

At one point, I had a trail starting from my back yard, but where I live now the nearest dirt trail of any length is a couple miles away. So I drive to the trailhead. Similarly for dirt bike riders who want to ride on dirt, I suppose.

Why not ride my (road) bike to the trailhead? There are some narrow roads (as in no shoulder) between here and there. (FWIW, I drive an EV.)

you could just walk then, walking outdoor has much more benefits than indoor machines. I guess there is also the appearance part: "Oh look, he can't even run", no, we have to be above appearance

I love some Japanese guy who talked about slow running, everything is there: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9L2b2khySLE it's better to run slowly well than faster and bad (with bad consequences on the joints)

I'd like to see the numbers on how much getting exercise contributes to global warming. Not every story has to be about the environment.

everything does, a gym & car lifestyle is a high contributer obviously, I don't think this kind of person manage to be under 2T CO2 eq / year

Reply on news.ycombinator.com