Rippetoe on Aging

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
I haven't read the article, but cardio as you get older isn't hard. I walk, and I don't walk briskly but rather as relaxedly as I can, and it still gets my heart rate high enough, and I do enough of it, that I believe I'm receiving some cardio benefit from it.

I would be interested to know, in light of the fact that there is a lot now written about the maximum recommend heart rate for aerobic benefit - MAF - if there is some sort of sliding scale out there that says what goes on at heart rates _lower_ than one's MAF-recommended maximum. E.g., according to the MAF math, my MAF-recommended maximum is 122, derived by subtracting my age, 63, from 180, and then adding 5 back in because I've been training for more than 2 years. When I walk, the few times I've spot checked my pulse, it's been roughly 100 bpm, and this is an activity in which I engage on a regular basis, averaging, I'd guess, a few miles a day, probably 45 minutes or something around that.

@aciampa, any light you could shed on this or opinion you'd like to offer?

-S-
 

mprevost

Level 6 Valued Member
The Ame
I haven't read the article, but cardio as you get older isn't hard. I walk, and I don't walk briskly but rather as relaxedly as I can, and it still gets my heart rate high enough, and I do enough of it, that I believe I'm receiving some cardio benefit from it.

I would be interested to know, in light of the fact that there is a lot now written about the maximum recommend heart rate for aerobic benefit - MAF - if there is some sort of sliding scale out there that says what goes on at heart rates _lower_ than one's MAF-recommended maximum. E.g., according to the MAF math, my MAF-recommended maximum is 122, derived by subtracting my age, 63, from 180, and then adding 5 back in because I've been training for more than 2 years. When I walk, the few times I've spot checked my pulse, it's been roughly 100 bpm, and this is an activity in which I engage on a regular basis, averaging, I'd guess, a few miles a day, probably 45 minutes or something around that.

@aciampa, any light you could shed on this or opinion you'd like to offer?

-S-
THe American College of Sports Medicine Recommendations are based on 150 minutes per week at an intensity that would be below the MAF intensity. Full text here: Quantity and Quality of Exercise for Developing and... : Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise
 
Last edited:

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
Mike @mprevost, I took at look, but that's largely Greek to me, and while I find mention of vigorous and moderate exercise, it doesn't seem to be quantified. Should I wade through the full text - I was just reading the paragraph at the top.

-S-
 

mprevost

Level 6 Valued Member
Vigorous on that document is about MAF pace. Moderate is a 3-4 mph walk. They are recommending 150 min moderate per week or half that for vigorous. The outcome is reduction of "all cause mortality" which is just another way of saying reducing your risk of dying of stuff (all stuff).
 

Steve Freides

Staff
Senior Certified Instructor
Elite Certified Instructor
I think 150 min moderate is probably about what I get, give or take.

-S-
 

Al Ciampa

Level 8 Valued Member
Certified Instructor
I haven't read the article, but cardio as you get older isn't hard. I walk, and I don't walk briskly but rather as relaxedly as I can, and it still gets my heart rate high enough, and I do enough of it, that I believe I'm receiving some cardio benefit from it.

... 45 minutes or something around that.

@aciampa, any light you could shed on this or opinion you'd like to offer?

-S-
One's MAF is supposed to indicate the highest intensity of endurance movement that avoids anaerobic metabolism. The closer you can move near this level, the better the adaptations. However, I believe that a beneficial CV effect can be derived from any enduring muscle activity that results in repetitive movements which raise your HR above resting. Further improvement of CV function is a different thing from maintaining health; you would need far more volume at that intensity, or, you would need to increase the intensity of your activity.

Then according to the evidence in the ACSM paper, you are reducing your risk of all cause mortality. They do state that more is better but the biggest bang for the buck comes from the shift from nothing to 150 minutes moderate.
Correct. Movement for health protection has only degrees of difference from movement for health/performance improvement; but the change from couch to habitual movement is probably the most significant.
 

AndyMcL

Level 6 Valued Member
I would be interested to know, in light of the fact that there is a lot now written about the maximum recommend heart rate for aerobic benefit - MAF - if there is some sort of sliding scale out there that says what goes on at heart rates _lower_ than one's MAF-recommended maximum. E.g., according to the MAF math, my MAF-recommended maximum is 122, derived by subtracting my age, 63, from 180, and then adding 5 back in because I've been training for more than 2 years. When I walk, the few times I've spot checked my pulse, it's been roughly 100 bpm, and this is an activity in which I engage on a regular basis, averaging, I'd guess, a few miles a day, probably 45 minutes or something around that.
I've personally found that I get a lot of benefit from performing extended endurance below the MAF scale. My maximum (190-27+5) is 158. I do almost all of my long endurance work (60-120) minutes below 150bpm with an average around 142. For me that seems to be the sweetspot for running and rowing. Breathing is relaxed. I'm sweating but not drenched. When I finish I am fatigued, but not crushed. If I push myself to hold my HR in the 150-158 range I get a lot more spent. Now, a lot of this could be individual variation. It could be simply that as volume goes up intensity must decrease and go even further below your aerobic threshold. But it could also be that there is a lot of benefit to finding the minimum effective dose. Steve, it sounds like you have found what works well for you.
 

Michael Scott

Level 7 Valued Member
So, if I am walking 20-30 minutes a day, and doing S&S work 30-45 minutes a day, is that comparable to your statement below? Or, should I focus on getting more walking time in during the week?

Vigorous on that document is about MAF pace. Moderate is a 3-4 mph walk. They are recommending 150 min moderate per week or half that for vigorous. The outcome is reduction of "all cause mortality" which is just another way of saying reducing your risk of dying of stuff (all stuff).
 

mprevost

Level 6 Valued Member
So, if I am walking 20-30 minutes a day, and doing S&S work 30-45 minutes a day, is that comparable to your statement below? Or, should I focus on getting more walking time in during the week?
You are doing great. More walking is always good but you are doing enough to make a difference.
 

vegpedlr

Level 6 Valued Member
It's worth remembering if by MAF one means Maffetone's 180 formula, that Maffetone defines aerobic and anaerobic differently than every other coach I've read. Maffetone defines the threshold by fuel utilization, fat vs carbohydrate while everybody else I've read uses lactate accumulation. Hence the common complaint from endurance athletes trying MAF training for the first time, "I can't possibly train so slow!" In his books, Maffetone indicates that training well below MAF is still beneficial. He often prescribed walking to his athletes in addition to their regular training with the result that they actually got a little sore, since walking stimulated some underused muscle fibers.

For general health, it doesn't take much, not much intensity and. It not much volume.
 
Top Bottom