Other/Mixed Maximising heart health while putting on mass

[LukeV]

High output exercise and retained muscle mass hold back aging for a long time. Evolution makes allowances for those who are still working hard for the tribe.

That‘s an interesting point with reference to what we, in modern times, refer to as “retirement”. For the first time in human history we have the widespread phenomenon of voluntary withdrawal from labour by people still physically and mentally capable of working. I wonder what, if any, the health implications are of this.

 

[SMalishev]

That‘s an interesting point with reference to what we, in modern times, refer to as “retirement”. For the first time in human history we have the widespread phenomenon of voluntary withdrawal from labour by people still physically and mentally capable of working. I wonder what, if any, the health implications are of this.

I have thought about this a bit myself, more specifically about un, or under-employment and the effects of that. Quality time with non-work related matters is important, but I don't think it's good for the organism to not be working in some capacity for most of the time.

I see negative self-esteem and vulnerability to non-reality as a few psychological effects, and physical withering could very well be real if an individual spends a large amount of time lying in bed.

RE: Heart health, I'd view it holistically rather than just OMG muscle is going to shorten my lifespan.

 

[pet']

Hello,

As @SMalishev said, both psychology and physiology are linked. Blue Zones tend to demonstrate it:
- a lot of outside easy physical activities
- moderately heavy lifting (everyday rustic stuff lifting)
- low stress
- social activity
- raw & organic food (usually not a lot of fat)

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[Hung]

I share the same concern with the OP. At 72-74 kg (at 1m72) everytime I tried increase my bodyweight it seems my lung and heart affect the first.

 

[North Coast Miller]

That‘s an interesting point with reference to what we, in modern times, refer to as “retirement”. For the first time in human history we have the widespread phenomenon of voluntary withdrawal from labour by people still physically and mentally capable of working. I wonder what, if any, the health implications are of this.

From what I've seen, if you're male it means your glutes disappear from their usual spot and reappear on your stomach.

Seriously, the number of studies that demonstrate most age related decline can be significantly reduced by exercise is large and growing. If it were a phamaceutical it would be nothing short of a medical miracle.

 

[Steve Freides]

@What_A_Melon, think of what you're asking about like a recipe in the kitchen - there are a lot of great recipes, but many more ways to combine ingredients that result in something that doesn't taste good. Combining strength and cardio - there are a lot of ways to do that, a lot of good recipes.

I'll give you a simple thought - focus on one main ingredient, treat the other as seasoning. If you like, cycle them.

-S-

 

[North Coast Miller]

As I recall, BMI of 25 to 29 was regarded as overweight (unhealthy) in the typical human but he said that range could be occupied by a higher muscle individual without concern for health. But once BMI of 30 was reached, even by high muscle individuals, health concerns were real.

This sounds like a reasonable limit, for roughly average person this would be about 40lbs over a "normal" sedentary lean bodyweight. I'd think maybe one could go a little higher even but at some point you're really taxing your digestive system more than your heart.

I share the same concern with the OP. At 72-74 kg (at 1m72) everytime I tried increase my bodyweight it seems my lung and heart affect the first.

This is puzzling to me, as well as OPs concern. I can imagine if one is really pushing it with a BMI well in excess of 30 you'd have to be scrambling to keep the weight on between training and eating. For a more modest increase the heart is more than capable of keeping pace. And while there are plenty of bodybuilders dying young, most of them have also used/abused steroids and who knows what else. As a group they have a lower mortality rate than average, consider most of them probably have a BMI 31 or higher.

Skeletal muscle mass in relation to 10 year cardiovascular disease incidence among middle aged and older adults: the ATTICA study | Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health

jech.bmj.com

Skeletal muscle mass (SMM) is inversely associated with cardiometabolic health and the ageing process.

Is there a link between muscle mass and cardiovascular risk?

Researchers have found a significant association between the loss of skeletal muscle mass after the age of 45 and a higher risk of cardiovascular problems.

www.medicalnewstoday.com

The team found that males were about four times more likely to develop cardiovascular disease than females. Moreover, they saw a link between lower muscle mass volume and a higher risk of cardiovascular problems in the case of males.

At the other end of the spectrum, males with the highest muscle tissue volume at baseline had an 81% lower risk of events such as stroke and heart attack, compared with those with the lowest muscle mass at the start of the study period.

The team also found that males with the highest muscle tissue volume at baseline had a lower prevalence of other risk factors for cardiovascular issues, such as high blood pressure, diabetes, or obesity.

 

[What_A_Melon]

So what does the collective think is a healthy weight/composition for a 172 mid thirties male?

 

[North Coast Miller]

I'd say somewhere between 78 and 80kg, depending on whether you're a climber or not.

 

[LukeV]

I’m 170cm and of stocky build. I was at my strongest ~83kg and ~18% bf

 

[WhatWouldHulkDo]

I'll just say, as a large man who wishes he could bring down his resting heart rate, but is failing... the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence. I'd say, just get stronger, not heavier.

 

[Steve Freides]

just get stronger, not heavier.

I agree. Your body will adapt to what you do. I am unaware of evidence to suggest that 60 minutes of walking isn't just as good as 30 minutes of running, and I think the combination of strength and strength-endurance training, plus a nice volume of easy cardio, is a solid formula. It's important - very important, IMO - to realize that improving one's numbers past a certain point at anything strength- or cardio-related doesn't mean you're healthier or going to live longer. To a point, yes, but only to a point, and past that point, the predicted consequence not only don't improve but they often go down.

-S-

 

[wespom9]

am unaware of evidence to suggest that 60 minutes of walking isn't just as good as 30 minutes of running,

-S-

Most gov't's recommend 150 mins/week of moderate intensity, or 75/week of vigorous. By their standards.
60-70% HR = moderate or Zone 1
70-80%HR = vigorous or Zone 2

This suggests that as intensity goes up, volume necessary to promote adaptation goes down. I believe in his run guide, @mprevost notes this and as more and more data come out on HIIT and zones 3-5, it seems to hold true.

 

[pet']

Hello,

As the above posts mentioned, in the mid thirties, maybe firstly focusing on strength could be time well spent.

Hypertrophy is not necessarily detrimental to other abilities but if HR is a concern, as mass will increase (assuming a slight calorie surplus), it may increase as well. Depending on the amount of 'cardio' one does, this is not necessarily true though.

A good 'cardio' reference could be 'Training for the uphill athlete' (Steve House). Regardless personnes bdw, it delivers very good protocols for endurance-based activities.

In a nutshell, it could be something along the lines:
- 1 interval repeat session (speed session)
- 1 long very easy session (Z1)
- 2-3 Z2 sessions
- Occasional Z4-Z5 session

On the top of this, 2-3 strength sessions a week.

Another alternative could be Easy Strength + as much LSD activity as recovery / time allows.

Kind regards,

Pet'

 

[Steve Freides]

@wespom9, I believe we're saying the same thing, then. My typical, relaxed walk finds my HR at about 100, which is about 55% of my actual maximum, and my actual maximum is much higher than my age-based predicted maximum, i.e., 220 - age predicts 154 as my max but I've measured it at 184. Any which way, I'm happy walking. Using my predicted max works out to be 65%, right in the middle of your Zone 1.

-S-

 

[wespom9]

@Steve Freides yup, we sure are. I'm like you as well, I love my walks - nice and easy with my wife and our dog. My HR likely doesn't even reach your level of 55% (by 220-age prediction I'm 188, and my resting is ~55).

Interestingly, most research (that I've come across anyway) reports on health benefits from at least 60% max HR; there does not seem to be much on the efficacy of heart benefit from lower than 60% HR, at least not compared to research on short bouts.

Personally, I find it very hard to believe there is NO benefit from say an easy walk. Evolutionarily it just doesn't make sense.