all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed For longevity, muscle strength may be as important as aerobic exercise

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
watchnerd

watchnerd

Level 8 Valued Member
Strength train 1-2 times a week, 4-6 exercises per session, plus cardio.

Mass also seems to matter.

A 2022 study in JAMA Network Open based on the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging found that the presence of low muscle mass was associated with faster future cognitive function decline in adults at least 65 years old. The researchers theorized that greater muscle mass may result in more physical activity and cardiorespiratory fitness, which leads to more blood flow to the brain.

So how much strength training is enough?
The federal Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans recommends two or more strength-training sessions each week. Ideally, the sessions should include four to six different exercises that use as many muscle groups as possible (legs, hips, back, abdomen, chest, shoulders and arms). For each exercise, complete 10 to 12 repetitions two to three times.

"We found that just 1-3 hours per week of moderate exercise — brisk walking and/or vigorous aerobic exercise such as [high intensity interval training] training — and just 1-2 times per week of strength exercise substantially reduced the risk of death by all-causes,” McDonough says.
Click to expand...

 
My personal take on the "quality X relationship to mortality" data:
it's ideal to be 99th %ile in aerobic capacity and strength. There seems to be a direct linear relationship between higher number and mortality risk reduction. I strive to be both and work hard at this.

for body fat, I can't really read if there is much more value being lower than low end of the 'healthy' range for the given gender (10 for males, ~18 for females). Too low is not good, but what is too low? it's very hard to walk around sub 7 so I don't think this is an issue.
I like the FFMI data as it relates to size, not just % body fat.

For muscle mass - I don't know if there is much benefit to being super high. Might even be a detriment. By ALMI standards I am slightly above average, though I'm a higher %ile when ALM/BMI as I'm pretty low body fat, so the ALMI by height puts me against people typically heavier than myself. (I'm 147-150lbs, 7-8% body fat typically, so decently muscular for my weight) I can't imagine getting myself to the a higher level.
Multiple studies I've seen place more emphasis on strength than size. I'm putting my eggs in that basket right now. 99%ile strength and just stay above average in terms of mass.
 
wespom9 said:
For muscle mass - I don't know if there is much benefit to being super high. Might even be a detriment. By ALMI standards I am slightly above average, though I'm a higher %ile when ALM/BMI as I'm pretty low body fat, so the ALMI by height puts me against people typically heavier than myself. (I'm 147-150lbs, 7-8% body fat typically, so decently muscular for my weight) I can't imagine getting myself to the a higher level.
Multiple studies I've seen place more emphasis on strength than size. I'm putting my eggs in that basket right now. 99%ile strength and just stay above average in terms of mass.
Click to expand...

What is "super high"?

My lean body mass (according to Dexa) is 172 lbs. I tend to think that's 'above average', but far from super high.

I'm also curious what you're basing your strength percentile data on.

I might be 99% strength vs gen pop (how do I even know?), but I'm definitely not vs my cohort (lifters with 5+ years of experience).
 
Last edited:
Is muscle "strength" and muscle "mass" the same thing?
I know they are correlated, somewhat, but what would the numbers for muscle strength look like at 10% bodyfat?
 
watchnerd said:
???

I don't understand your question.

A concentration camp victim would have both incredibly low body fat and incredibly low muscle mass and low strength.
Click to expand...
What would be a good level of strength for health and longevity at 10% bodyfat
 
I have googled “BMI and longevity”

I don’t even want to post a link to any of the studies that I found because its a complex situation but anybody can google and see for themselves. As in most cases there are a number of studies that some one can find with different outcomes.

The bottom line as far I understand, and its logical, BMI is not exactly correlated to longevity in the same way strength and cardiovascular capacity.

It makes total sense. We are all different in terms of what ideal body fat percentage of ours is.

A thinner version of your self regardless of your current weight is not necessarily healthy. You can always strive for increasing your strength but not all of us, if any has, to be at around 10%.

When someone claims they are 7-10% body fat, some of them are 7-10% body fat, but some are not. Body fat percentage is not sth that can be accurately measured with dexa scan, or any other device.

I don’t want to go in to a debate how accurate deca scans are or how accurate a measurement by calipers.

If somebody challenges me enough, I can share my own dexa scans that shows a huge lean muscle mass spike with in a very small period of time like a few months. If memory serves me well the spike was around 3 kg of lean body mass increase in a few months, while at the same time loosing some body weight. I have stopped taking dexa scans right after. I call myself a beginner and an easy gainer. But no way I can put on muscle that fast.
 
Ege said:
But no way I can put on muscle that fast.
Click to expand...

Probably not, but you could easily store that much glycogen in that short of a time period.

When I had Covid, my bodyweight dropped by 9 lbs / 4 kg in 4 days.

I didn't return to my pre-Covid weight until 4 weeks after -- it looked like I put on 4 kg in muscle in 4 weeks, but it was really just my glycogen stores rebuilding.
 
watchnerd said:
Probably not, but you could easily store that much glycogen in that short of a time period.

When I had Covid, my bodyweight dropped by 9 lbs / 4 kg in 4 days.

I didn't return to my pre-Covid weight until 4 weeks after -- it looked like I put on 4 kg in muscle in 4 weeks, but it was really just my glycogen stores rebuilding.
Click to expand...
Hmmm. I haven’t thought about that …do you then think dexa’s could be accurate?

Hmm, I know that around 2 - 3 kg is my glycogen storage size….
 
watchnerd said:
What is "super high"?

My lean body mass (according to Dexa) is 172 lbs. I tend to think that's 'above average', but far from super high.

I'm also curious what you're basing your strength percentile data on.

I might be 99% strength vs gen pop (how do I even know?), but I'm definitely not vs my cohort (lifters with 5+ years of experience).
Click to expand...
You are at absolutely 99% percentile strength wise in gen population, you can quote me if you need to prove you can say “there is an Ege who says that I am” statistically and scientifically enough
 
wespom9 said:
My personal take on the "quality X relationship to mortality" data:
it's ideal to be 99th %ile in aerobic capacity and strength. There seems to be a direct linear relationship between higher number and mortality risk reduction. I strive to be both and work hard at this.

for body fat, I can't really read if there is much more value being lower than low end of the 'healthy' range for the given gender (10 for males, ~18 for females). Too low is not good, but what is too low? it's very hard to walk around sub 7 so I don't think this is an issue.
I like the FFMI data as it relates to size, not just % body fat.

For muscle mass - I don't know if there is much benefit to being super high. Might even be a detriment. By ALMI standards I am slightly above average, though I'm a higher %ile when ALM/BMI as I'm pretty low body fat, so the ALMI by height puts me against people typically heavier than myself. (I'm 147-150lbs, 7-8% body fat typically, so decently muscular for my weight) I can't imagine getting myself to the a higher level.
Multiple studies I've seen place more emphasis on strength than size. I'm putting my eggs in that basket right now. 99%ile strength and just stay above average in terms of mass.
Click to expand...
147 pounds and a certified instructor yes, I would agree that you should be quite lean. You did a lot of snatches with a relatively a very very good size of KB for your body weight sir.
 
More than one study has shown that being slightly overweight is associated with reduced all cause mortality. Somewhere around the lower 1/3 of the overweight rating span on a BMI calc IIRC. The size of these studies would tend to rule out the findings being noise from too many lean muscular “overweight” participants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom