Other/Mixed Hypertrophy in 40s 50s 60s ?

[silveraw]

What is MPS please?
Just googled it and it referred to a radioactive arterial test.
I had poor liver markers when tested 5 years ago. I put it down to booze and passed after slowing down on midweek drinking.
My dad died of a heart attack so interested to know if heavy training could confuse a doctor!

Muscle Protein Synthesis.
One of the main drivers of muscle growth.

The other acronym you will see researching protein is MPB or muscle protein breakdown.

This video explains it pretty well in the lens of how much protein you can absorb in a meal.

 

[Steve Freides]

if their health markers and other factors are equal, the wiry guy, statistically, doesn't have as good odds as the bodybuilder with more muscle mass.

This isn't how I remember reading the literature. I think equally strong means statistically equally good odds.

-S-

 

[watchnerd]

This isn't how I remember reading the literature. I think equally strong means statistically equally good odds.

-S-

There are two different vectors I've seen applied to geriatrics:

--Strength, as measured by grip tests
--Lean body mass

The reason raw lean body mass seems to matter a lot in geriatrics, aside from frailty and bone density issues relating to accidents, is that muscle mass is an additional protein reservoir that be tapped into under extreme duress events, like dangerous illness that leaves you bed ridden, post surgery recovery, and is a bigger buffer against wasting.

Example: Covid survival rates for ICU patients were higher for those with higher lean body mass.

The flip side of this is cancer, where being in a caloric deficit starves cancer, even if you're also losing muscle.

 

[ali]

Just to re-emphasise, I get hypertrophy driven training goals, even goals for vanity: looking good naked etc. Even for confidence, feeling good about yourself. Get all that. I even get the hypertrophy for sarcopenia into older age. All good. But in a strength training population to focus on hypertrophy for longevity, because longevity, is a bit odd, given training for strength, resistance training generally covers it. Admittedly, a niche point about semantics and applied populations.

The analogy of mine was a bit crap to be fair but here is a proxy in the diet world. A person eats a well balanced diet including fruit and vegetables but eats an avocado for longevity. Just eat the avocado with no baggage. You're fine.
For someone who doesn't know what a fruit or vegetable is the introduction of an avocado is probably a good thing. And that may or may not lead to greater longevity, given many and other variables.

I am choosing to interpret "taking up golf" in this context as a euphemism or metaphor for "dying."

....never said that

Apologies to golfers. Bit like cricket to me, just don't get it. Gets you outdoors though!

 

[watchnerd]

All good. But in a strength training population to focus on hypertrophy for longevity, because longevity, is a bit odd, given training for strength, resistance training generally covers it. Admittedly, a niche point about semantics and applied populations.

I find your statement paradoxical.

Hypertrophy training is resistance training.

Much strength training is also hypertrophic.

Any resistance that is in the 30-80(ish)% range has hypertrophic effects if the sets are sufficiently hard.

You have to be doing really heavy strength training (1-3RM) for it to be mostly neural/skill, and that's probably not what geriatrics are doing.

 

[GaryT]

I always find this subject a bit baffling.
Accepting sarcopenia and the slow walk of physical decay is a thing, and that training with the aim of growing muscle to offset muscle wastage with increasing age would, on face value, be a reasonable argument and in general a good thing.
To the general population, this shift of focus, from doing very little or those obsessed with endurance only pursuits, the aim of growing muscle would be beneficial.....but for those that already strength train or do power sport does it apply?
It's a health and fitness thing tapping into this longevity vibe. Various vectors get promoted or sexed up withing the industry....not a new shiny thing per se but something to induce a little health anxiety and fear of missing out....you know, a cynic might argue. And, it'll shift again to something else, sooner or later.
Put it another way....if you strength train 3x week anyway, replacing one or more with hypertrophy or even add a hypertrophy day may well be a good training tool in itself but does it help with vague longevity health goals which are already met by the strength training?

As far as I'm aware strength training involves the use of muscle.

Not against it, to be clear but to me, its applying the needs of a different population to the needs of another, whose needs are being met by doing the thing that the other population needs to do.

Rather like someone who does not need to lose weight but feels a need to do so on the basis that losing weight is good for longevity.

Strength training v hypertrophy training for longevity?

Take this binary distinction through to its binary end point....a strong wiry 80 year old or a muscle bound bodybuilding 80 year old. Who will live the longest, healthiest, remaining few years before taking up golf?

As you age, you lose strength (dynapenia) faster than you lose muscle size (sarcopenia) according to this. It even states, as Pavel wrote in Q/D, that power is first to go. Do what you will with this info.

Sarcopenia, Dynapenia, and the Impact of Advancing Age on Human Skeletal Muscle Size and Strength; a Quantitative Review

Changing demographics make it ever more important to understand the modifiable risk factors for disability and loss of independence with advancing age. For more than two decades there has been increasing interest in the role of sarcopenia, the age-related loss of muscle or lean mass, in...

www.frontiersin.org

 

[ali]

Much strength training is also hypertrophic.

Exactly.

 

[wespom9]

I'll have to find the meta-analysis but I read somewhere (might be from a Peter Attia podcast? I'll have to check) strength seems more important than mass.
Ie take four groups
A) "normal"
B) low muscle, low strength
C) low muscle, high strength
D) high muscle, high strength

C still had a reduced mortality. B was the worst, D the best. Errors are all mine if I messed up here, I will edit this point if I can find it.

Also, as someone who listens to Dan's show all the time, I would say he's just talking in general - do something that supports holding onto or improving LBM.

 

[watchnerd]

I'll have to find the meta-analysis but I read somewhere (might be from a Peter Attia podcast? I'll have to check) strength seems more important than mass.
Ie take four groups
A) "normal"
B) low muscle, low strength
C) low muscle, high strength
D) high muscle, high strength

C still had a reduced mortality. B was the worst, D the best. Errors are all mine if I messed up here, I will edit this point if I can find it.

Also, as someone who listens to Dan's show all the time, I would say he's just talking in general - do something that supports holding onto or improving LBM.

That sorting is my recollection from Attia's podcast, as well, and also consistent with other studies.

 

[Antti]

In this study age didn't really matter when it came to hypertrophy:

Muscle size responses to strength training in young and older men and women - PubMed

The results indicate that neither age nor gender affects muscle volume response to whole-body ST. Muscle volume, rather than muscle CSA, is recommended for studying muscle mass responses to ST.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[watchnerd]

Exactly.

Then why the binary framing?

 

[ali]

As said, a rubbish analogy on my part to make room for a jokey golf reference.

 

[Bauer]

Just to re-emphasise, I get hypertrophy driven training goals, even goals for vanity: looking good naked etc. Even for confidence, feeling good about yourself. Get all that. I even get the hypertrophy for sarcopenia into older age. All good. But in a strength training population to focus on hypertrophy for longevity, because longevity, is a bit odd, given training for strength, resistance training generally covers it. Admittedly, a niche point about semantics and applied populations.

Yes, especially when hypertrophy training is only framed as "high rep, medium weights, to the pump" training. If we look at 5x5, Built Strong, or Q&D 10/2 plans, then there is probably not much benefit to switching to classic bodybuilding style.

If all you do is Daily Dose Deadlifts or Naked Warrior, maybe something more hypertrophy focused might be beneficial, but even then there are probably other lifestyle factors that might have a bigger impact for additional health (sleep, food, water, relationships, mobility, sense of purpose, ...).

 

[watchnerd]

Yes, especially when hypertrophy training is only framed as "high rep, medium weights, to the pump" training. If we look at 5x5, Built Strong, or Q&D 10/2 plans, then there is probably not much benefit to switching to classic bodybuilding style.

Dunno about that...

Novel stimulus can drive new adaptations.

I get some of my best results when I switch from training in one "rep zone" to another in a mesocycle block.

Pump training is definitely a useful add-on to my training, as it increases my muscular work capacity and sets me up to do a higher volume of strength training when I switch modes back.

 

[LukeV]

I’m 53 years old and have hung around gyms almost my entire adult life. I commonly question my fellow gym-goers about their training approaches and motivations and because I live in the town where I grew up I have been going to the gym which many of the same people for decades. One thing I have noticed is that ageing moves many/most serious strength trainers away from high intensity/low reps to moderate intensity/high reps because of recovery issues (particularly in the joints and tendons). These older lifters end up in what we call the hypertrophy rep ranges anyway whether that’s a conscious choice or reflects a change in their goal. They just can’t lift heavy any more or maybe just a handful of times a year. Reality is their workout has to match their recovery capacity and because they want to go to the gym two or three times weekly they have to lift lighter weights - heavy weights take too much out of them. Of course there are the lucky ones - older people still prioritising higher frequency workouts with reps/set below five. But I don’t see too many of them amongst the older lifters

 

[watchnerd]

I’m 53 years old and have hung around gyms almost my entire adult life. I commonly question my fellow gym-goers about their training approaches and motivations and because I live in the town where I grew up I have been going to the gym which many of the same people for decades. One thing I have noticed is that ageing moves many/most serious strength trainers away from high intensity/low reps to moderate intensity/high reps because of recovery issues (particularly in the joints and tendons). These older lifters end up in what we call the hypertrophy rep ranges anyway whether that’s a conscious choice or reflects a change in their goal. They just can’t lift heavy any more or maybe just a handful of times a year. Reality is their workout has to match their recovery capacity and because they want to go to the gym two or three times weekly they have to lift lighter weights - heavy weights take too much out of them. Of course there are the lucky ones - older people still prioritising higher frequency workouts with reps/set below five. But I don’t see too many of them amongst the older lifters

Also:

Injury risk vs reward

 

[watchnerd]

I'll have to find the meta-analysis but I read somewhere (might be from a Peter Attia podcast? I'll have to check) strength seems more important than mass.
Ie take four groups
A) "normal"
B) low muscle, low strength
C) low muscle, high strength
D) high muscle, high strength

C still had a reduced mortality. B was the worst, D the best. Errors are all mine if I messed up here, I will edit this point if I can find it.

Also, as someone who listens to Dan's show all the time, I would say he's just talking in general - do something that supports holding onto or improving LBM.

In this Joe Rogan ep, Attia calls them out separately as:

1) Strength
2) Muscle Mass
3) Cardio-respiratory fitness

FWIW, I think Attia's thoughts have involved since then, as he now talks a lot less about dead hangs and a lot more about dead lifts.

 

[North Coast Miller]

"Evan and Rosenberg say that the first biomarker, muscle mass, is responsible for the vitality of your whole physiological apparatus. Muscle mass and strength, the second signpost, are our primary biomarkers."

Biomarkers

 

[Steve Freides]

"Evan and Rosenberg say that the first biomarker, muscle mass, is responsible for the vitality of your whole physiological apparatus. Muscle mass and strength, the second signpost, are our primary biomarkers."

Biomarkers

Yes, but ...

Evans and Rosenberg isolated the following signposts of vitality that can be altered for the better by changes in lifestyle:

1) Muscle Mass

2) Strength

3) Basal Metabolic Rate

4) Body Fat Percentage

5) Aerobic Capacity

6) Blood-sugar Tolerance

7) Cholesterol/HDL Ratio

8) Blood Pressure

9) Bone density

10) Ability to regulate Internal Temperature

Significantly, all 10 biomarkers can be revived or improved through strength training.

Evan and Rosenberg say that the first biomarker, muscle mass, is responsible for the vitality of your whole physiological apparatus. Muscle mass and strength, the second signpost, are our primary biomarkers. They’re the lead dominoes, so to speak. When they start to topple, the other biomarkers soon follow. On the other hand, when muscle mass and strength are maintained, the other indicia are likewise maintained. That is where strength training comes to our aid. Aerobic exercise and diet are important, but strength training, according to the authors, is pivotal if you want to stay young longer.

A relevant discussion point here is exactly what we mean when discussing "maintaining muscle mass." I don't take this as any kind of endorsement of bodybuilding, but rather as an endorsement of strength training done in such a way as to not allow muscle mass to deteriorate beyond what might be normal in middle age. IOW, one should strive to maintain some muscle mass, and using myself as an example, I strive to keep what I've got. My expectation for myself is that I will continue to need to cut weight in order to make weight for competitions for a long time to come, and I don't ever expect to drop a weight class as a result of sarcopenia until the flesh starts rotting off my cold, dead body.

-S-

 

[silveraw]

But in a strength training population to focus on hypertrophy for longevity, because longevity, is a bit odd, given training for strength, resistance training generally covers it. Admittedly, a niche point about semantics and applied populations.

The reasoning might be a bit odd... But hypertrophy is one of the main long term drivers of strength too.
So even if you are just training for raw strength it is a great idea to add some new muscle now and again.