Riddle me this...

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
If you can't get out of your chair, of if getting out of your chair is close to max effort, then how you can train your heart? And when you train your muscles, your heart is also being trained.
Funny thing is I had exactly this scenario in my post but deleted it, because I thought it would too much of stretch :)
Look at it from the other side. If your muscles are so weak that you can't get out of the chair you're still alive, but look at what happens when your heart gets so weak that it would be the same as the other muscles being too weak to stand up, you'd be dead.
So from a medical standpoint it's low quality life, but still life, versus death. Medical professionals vow to save and preserve life. So when they have to decide between life (even low quality) and death they chose life and give according recommendations.
I totally agree with you that ideally they would recommend strengthening the heart and the body, but they follow the recommendations set by studies.
Like you said there are studies that link leg strength or grip strength (like @Antti mentioned) to mortality. There are also some that look at the correlation between lean body mass and mortality. Ultimately though these are very few, while on the other side we have probably thousands of studies regarding mortality and heart health.
Unlike you, me and the others on this forum the majority of the people don't educate themselves about strength and its benefits. That majority includes most physicians aswell. So they base their recommendations on medical textbooks and because of the thousands of studies linking heart health to mortality most of those textbooks say "train your heart to be healthy". Then the physicians go on and tell their patients exactly that.

To make it clear it's not my opinion that training the heart is more important than training the body. Just theorizing why it's the number one recommendation from most people.
 
Last edited:

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
would like to add, that if a weekend warrior approach has health benefits I would be thrilled. I have a lot of clients that work construction 12+ hours for 4 days away from home, and I have been at loss as to what to tell them.
I just saw this little bit.
I can't recommend Original Strength enough.
Those guys probably don't need traditional strength training (lifting weights). Like farmers, construction workers are most likely reasonably strong just from their profession. They need restorative methods.
15min of OS resets daily will gently strengthening the little gaps and missing pieces while also providing restorative benefits. Then 2-3 long walks (maybe with their spouse and/or dog) on the 3 days when they don't have to work.
Additionally no smoking, restricted drinking (alcohol) and smart food choices.
OS + long walks + smart dieting and I'd bet many of their problems will get better or vanish completely.
 

Kettlebelephant

Quadruple-Digit Post Count
Sadly it does, but its election year in Sweden and hopefully we´ll see a longed for change. (y)
Sorry for going offtopic, but funny how the grass is always greener on the other side.
I live in Germany and you can't imagine how often I hear "scandinavia this, scandinavia that", because supposedly everything is so fine for you people up there. Then you read posts like yours and just have to smile :)
 

Stefan Olsson

More than 500 posts
Sorry for going offtopic, but funny how the grass is always greener on the other side.
I live in Germany and you can't imagine how often I hear "scandinavia this, scandinavia that", because supposedly everything is so fine for you people up there. Then you read posts like yours and just have to smile :)
I have a German/Iraqi friend here in Sweden who praises Germany over Sweden. It is what it is! :)

Back to topic!
 

offwidth

More than 5000 posts
We used to have TV ads in Canada going on about how the average 70 yr old Swede was fitter than a 30 yr old Canuck... or words to that effect...
 

somanaut

More than 300 posts
First off, I would like to thank everyone for participating in the discussion!

Also, thank you @Kettlebelephant for explaining the world from a doctors point of view. Context does provide some understanding for why they recommend as they do.

And thanks @Shahaf Levin for pointing out that Dan John's strength standards are about diminishing returns for an athlete. I didn't know where the standard was from and why it was like it is.

I wrote a long rant, but it got swallowed by a disconnect, probably for the best. I am still undecided what to recommend my clients (until I my self become stronger, certify with S1 or similar). I think walking and biking are good low skill general leisure active recovery pursuits, but I still believe, that for many cases, they do not provide the needed stimulus for ex. shoulder health.

I see two modes of thought in this thread:
1) Set reasonably high standards, and educate people in strength.
2) "Gently" active recovery.
I believe both have merits. My personality probably steers towards @Anna C's and/or @Antti's way of thinking, even for the general population. But not 100% sure. It's super hard to keep morality out of health recommendations. Perhaps it's not even possible. Because even the "gentle" approach has a specific world view. Anyhu, interesting discussion. Will probably revisit it in some time.
 
Top Bottom