all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed Exercising for longevity vs performance

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
watchnerd said:
Performance isn't fun?

It is for me.

Otherwise, I feel like I don't have an objective.
Click to expand...
Exactly!

I'm a goalless athlete. On purpose.

Many moons ago I was a relatively successful Judo competitor at regional level. And I hated almost every step of the process.

Then I challenged myself to achieve the 500/400/300/200 goal. And I hated almost every step of the process.

After that, I tried to run a half marathon under 1:40:00. I (barely) did it too. And guess what? I hated almost every step of the process.

Then I found Pavel, who led me to Dan John. And I finally gave myself permission to keep it playful while taking it easy.
It's been more than a decade since then and I've never looked back.

When I was lifting hard, my running was horrible and my performance on the mat suffered. When I was running hard, my lifting was abysmal and my grappling game was severely affected.

Thing is... my peak performance is not what it used to be, but it's not that far behind either. But now I can fight, lift and run pretty decently without interference.

Because I have fun, I don't miss workouts. Because I take it really easy, I don't get injured anymore. Because I have no goals, I don't get discouraged or frustrated.

So I end up training waaaaaaaaaaay more frequently than before. And this is huge.

My loose purpose is (yes, @Boris Bachmann , I stole it from you) to do something more often than not. That's it.
 
TimothyGander said:
But if you aren't interested in performance (I assume getting better at fighting falls under that umbrella) why spar at all?
Click to expand...
Getting better and peak performace aren't necessarily the same thing.

I'm not interested in overpowering my opponent. It may be fun sometimes, but I don't really see the point of it anymore.

But, if I manage to defeat a younger, faster and quicker opponent relying almost entirely on my technique... Now we're talking.

I don't even need to win.

If my younger, faster and quicker opponent made me tap sixteen times in five minutes and a few weeks later I find myself tapping only twelve times, I will be satisfied.

I'm that guy who spars with a sincere smile on his face, that guy who taps A LOT and compliments you. But I'm also the guy who never tires (because I take it easy, I can spar a lot and, because I spar a lot, my sports specific conditioning is huge), the guy who waits patiently until you are spent and then tries interesting things on you.

Could I win more often if I took things more seriously? Sure, but... what for?

Taking things easy and tapping a lot allow me to have fun and learn a lot. And, frankly, I wouldn't like to be able to tap my opponent just because I'm stronger or quicker than him. I'd rather make him tap because my technique and timing are better than his.

I don't need to push my limits. Been there, done that. And it's not any fun.
 
Last edited:
Alan Mackey said:
Exactly!

I'm a goalless athlete. On purpose.

Many moons ago I was a relatively successful Judo competitor at regional level. And I hated almost every step of the process.

Then I challenged myself to achieve the 500/400/300/200 goal. And I hated almost every step of the process.

After that, I tried to run a half marathon under 1:40:00. I (barely) did it too. And guess what? I hated almost every step of the process.

Then I found Pavel, who led me to Dan John. And I finally gave myself permission to keep it playful while taking it easy.
It's been more than a decade since then and I've never looked back.

When I was lifting hard, my running was horrible and my performance on the mat suffered. When I was running hard, my lifting was abysmal and my grappling game was severely affected.

Thing is... my peak performance is not what it used to be, but it's not that far behind either. But now I can fight, lift and run pretty decently without interference.

Because I have fun, I don't miss workouts. Because I take it really easy, I don't get injured anymore. Because I have no goals, I don't get discouraged or frustrated.

So I end up training waaaaaaaaaaay more frequently than before. And this is huge.

My loose purpose is (yes, @Boris Bachmann , I stole it from you) to do something more often than not. That's it.
Click to expand...
To summarize; for you, long term consistency trumps short term intensity?
 
ali said:
And this is the problem when looking at a single variable....exercise/activity....interacting with many variables in terms of health and this thing longevity.

Yup some people are blessed with some cockroach genes and live well to a ripe old age despite the over indulgence of every known mind altering and cell destroying substance.

I've already surpassed the average life expectancy for adult blokes in some parts of Scotland.....54. I'm 59. And we know why this is....inequality. Health and wealth inequalities and if genetics were to be such a determinant for health then there would not be such a wide gap. So as genetic influence plays a role, precisely how much will be perhaps never really known.

So level the playing field to equate for genetics and wealth inequality to zoom in on exercise and activity then? How? Is it possible?

So what you're left with is the view that movement and exercise is good for you and data supports that. To what extent does it support this longevity thing is well, ....more research is needed.
Probably likely, somewhat or very little. Who knows?

It's part of a package isn't it? And each package is different....
Click to expand...
Usually, they "control for" context factors in these kind of statistics analyses. So what they try to calculate is: All things being equal, what is the isolated effect of physical acitivity?

From the abstract of the study:
"Models controlled for age, sex, race-ethnicity, income, education, marital status, survey year, smoking status, body mass index and chronic conditions."

Therefore, the effect is actually pretty strong.
 
Let's unravel this a bit more....

In our western lives we are living longer than at anytime in recent history - longer life = longevity.

Yet we are unhealthy. We live longer but unhealthier lives, right? "we' as in westerners. One of the main drivers of this is excess calorie and a lack of physical exercise. - sedentarism. Yet, we live longer. So, just looking at that in simple terms, you could make a correlation that sedentarism improves longevity....right?

So make an intervention - increase physical activity and reduce the risk of all cause mortality. Great, good. Certainly health has improved and with that an assumption is made that you will life longer, but that is only assumed. If we are living longer unhealthier lives and exercise means we live longer healthier lives, we've improved health, not longevity. Admittedly, it's a pedantic point!!
 
ali said:
Let's unravel this a bit more....

In our western lives we are living longer than at anytime in recent history - longer life = longevity.

Yet we are unhealthy. We live longer but unhealthier lives, right? "we' as in westerners. One of the main drivers of this is excess calorie and a lack of physical exercise. - sedentarism. Yet, we live longer. So, just looking at that in simple terms, you could make a correlation that sedentarism improves longevity....right?

So make an intervention - increase physical activity and reduce the risk of all cause mortality. Great, good. Certainly health has improved and with that an assumption is made that you will life longer, but that is only assumed. If we are living longer unhealthier lives and exercise means we live longer healthier lives, we've improved health, not longevity. Admittedly, it's a pedantic point!!
Click to expand...
This is true. In the west now, we die because of obesity at age 80. In the past people were dying because of starvation and diseases at age 30.
So, this "longevity" is at all time high(most probably). My conclusion is that we don't have to workout for longevity, we have already achieved that, but rather to be healthy and functional when we are old.
Strength training, aerobic and anaerobic conditioning and mobility. That's it. Those "longevity secrets" are only good for internet gurus to get some clicks, imo.
 
Last edited:
@Alan Mackey you are speaking my language.

To put in my two cents about the actual topic...

I have written about this a bit before on the forum. I turn 40 this summer, and the older I get, the more I see training for longevity/health and training for performance as the same thing. The line between the two has gotten blurrier in recent years as I have been working on fixing movement compensations that have been holding me back. I think anyone who has really turned around their fitness (in any aspect) from a place of pain/disease/discomfort/"dysfunction" to a place of health, strength and progress likely has experienced the same. Moving better is moving better. I would rather move well and feel energized and relaxed throughout my days than be able to do some elite athletic feat at the cost of being tired, sore, worried about tracking my macros or heart rate variability every day, etc...

I love following elite athletes, but I would not want to be one. Having gone through a movement disorder in which my body refused to do as I asked of it showed me just how fragile a career based on one's body running well can be halted in the blink of an eye. I personally would feel constantly stressed about maintaining my health and performance, and that, I think, would reduce my quality of life overall.

If you improve your ability to move well, without undue tension and/or compensation, there's no way that's not going to improve your performance in some respect. If you narrow your training focus in an attempt to excel at something, you will miss out on other adaptations, as others have discussed already. If you are okay with any "side effects" from that specialization (things you miss out on or attributes that see a reduction in performance) then by all means, carry on.

Let me just reiterate that the above are all my personal preferences. If you like training for peak performance that makes you happy, go for it. The only thing I encourage of people when I get the chance is that they take the time to examine why they want to do what they're doing (not just "becuase it's cool," but what is it fulfilling in your life and why), and to be aware of and accept any consequences and/or effects of what they're doing.
 
Health and Longevity (HL) vs performance, some quick thoughts:
- more emphasis on avoiding injury and also avoid subtle effects of over training in HL
- HL more emphasises minimal effective dose
- HL more generalist ie strength\power, motor\CV conditioning, range of motion and posture alignment and perhaps skills eg balance for fall prevention etc,
- performance is a side effect of HL rather than the goal although improvements occur if HL training is done well.
- HL needs inputs other than physical activity ie stress elimination via still mind meditation, adequate sleep, good diet etc. etc
- The overall implementation of HL should be as part of an enoyable way of life.
- The HL regime utilises "tactical periodisation" includes back up physical activity regimes if things get too busy or bogged down.
- HL tries to address multiple elements (wider than physical activity at same time) eg. get outdoors into nature while walking dog and socialising with significant other(s).
- HL uses some basic assessment methods to keep on track, be safe (eg HR) and to provide feedback on progress. Not emphasised too much and with relaxed attitude.
- other elements I've forgotten to mention.
 
Having had a read of this thread I'm wondering if I'm using 'longevity' differently/wrongly. When I think of longevity, I'm thinking of quality of life rather than length. There are so many freak accidents and anomalies, I don't think I can make myself live longer than I will (within reason). However I do want to have a good quality of life for the long term. For me, this means maintaining a certain level of mobility, strength and quality pain free movement. When I'm old I want to be mobile and active rather than bent over and stiff.

With this definition of longevity there is a trade off with performance at some level. For example in my early twenties I was into powerlifting type training and always shooting to hit new PRs, I didn't pay much attention to injuries and mobility issues I just wanted to lift more! The same was true with mountain biking, I wanted to ride faster and took more risks than I would now. Maybe its simply getting a bit older, but pushing for greater performance increases risk of injury. Staying injury free is a pretty high priority for me now but means I don't push as hard and err on the side of caution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom