RoR: Forum

Using my original example of someone who can do 10 reps with 100-lbs on a bench press and 10 reps with 200-lbs on a leg press, that person -- regardless of their age -- should be able to get these results:

........................................ Chest Press ... Leg Press
Training Time
0 months.............................. 100-lbs........ 200-lbs
6 months.............................. 165-lbs........ 330-lbs
12 months............................ 224-lbs........ 447-lbs
1.5 years ............................. 276-lbs........ 551-lbs
2.0 years.............................. 321-lbs........ 642-lbs
2.5 years.............................. 360-lbs........ 720-lbs
3.0 years.............................. 393-lbs........ 785-lbs
3.5 years.............................. 419-lbs........ 837-lbs
4.0 years.............................. 438-lbs........ 876-lbs
4.5 years.............................. 451-lbs........ 902-lbs
5.0 years.............................. 458-lbs........ 915-lbs

If you train uninterruptedly and don't get those results, then something is probably wrong with your program.

There are outliers, however. Folks who were accidentally born with muscles which were 90% slow-twitch muscle fibers (which you can test for in a lab or even roughly in a gym). These "born-marathoners" will not get the average results depicted above -- even if they train perfectly. There are outliers on the other side (1), too -- who will get better results than those depicted above.

Folks under age 50 or so can continue adding 0.25-lbs/wk to their chest press and 0.5-lbs/wk to their leg press. To repeat a caveat, it can be considered unreasonable to expect someone to train without interruption -- for 5-10 straight years in a row.

Ed

Reference:
(1)
http://www.scotmendelson.net/StatsSponsors.html

Post 21

Sunday, August 22, 2010 - 5:58pm

For that Big Five routine I'm assuming you can use free weights instead of machines? And what about aerobic workouts?

Post 22

Sunday, August 22, 2010 - 7:30pm

John,

Free weights -- because of the friction & tracking of machines -- are better than machines are. If you want to do cardio, fine, but don't get too crazy with it. Cardio training has the potential to take away from strength training.

Ed

Post 23

Sunday, August 22, 2010 - 7:35pm

Yeah I just do free weights, on a rare occasion I'll use a machine but that's probably just 1% of the time. As far as cardio I do two sessions a week, sometimes three. Usually for the two I'll do an HIIT type of cardio and if I do a third it's steady state. Each session no more than 45 minutes. I do find that doing cardio makes lifting easier. When I tried to do a bulking phase I dropped all cardio from my routine and my poor lung and heart capacity I think made my lifts suffer.

Post 24

Monday, August 23, 2010 - 11:04am

John,

Remember also that you need to do cardio to prevent the resistance training from causing your arteries to stiffen and your pulse pressure to increase. Pulse pressure is the difference between your systolic and diastolic blood pressure. For example, if your blood pressure is 120/80, your pulse pressure is 40; if your blood pressure is 120/60, your pulse pressure is 60.

As people age, their pulse pressure often increases because the arteries stiffen with age. In body builders who don't do cardio, pulse pressure also increases. If your systolic pressure stays low, this rise in pulse pressure may not pose a cardiovascular risk, but it's probably a good idea to avoid this arterial stiffening, and supplementing your resistance training with cardio is a good way to do it.

Post 25

Monday, August 23, 2010 - 11:45am

Those are some interesting points Bill. I didn't consider the health impacts of dropping aerobic exercise. I do also feel it's beneficial just so that I don't feel like I pass out every time from being out of breath when I do resistance training, especially for something like a leg routine which can be pretty taxing on my lungs. Doing a set of 10 reps of back squats or deadlifts, especially for me being 6' tall with long legs really beats up my lungs. I know when I dropped aerobic workouts from my workout schedule I fatigued faster in my resistance training.

Post 26

Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 11:47am

The authors of Body by Science swear that their program provides adequate cardiovascular stimulation to maintain wellness. I make no pretense at knowing enough sports medicine to corroborate or refute their claim. However, so far at least, my "workout to failure" has been a failure of my muscles, not my lungs.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 8/24, 11:48am)

Post 27

Tuesday, August 24, 2010 - 6:45pm

Bill,

I checked out your concerns -- i.e., arterial stiffness, increased pulse pressure, increased cardiovascular risk (stemming from resistance training) -- and they seem to be unfounded. Where are you getting your information from?

Arterial stiffness
Data on arterial stiffness from resistance training is equivocal at best.

Pulse Pressure
Increased pulse pressure might be explained by lower diastolic pressure -- found in resistance trained subjects -- even while systolic pressure is lowered (just not as much as diastolic is lowered). This would make the finding of increased pulse pressure an innocuous, statistical artifact.

Of course, none of this pertains to John so much, as the main reason he does cardio is not to offset any spurious adverse effect of weight training, but more so that he can hit the weights even harder without getting winded.

Ed

Further Reading
================
Casey DP, Beck DT, Braith RW. Progressive resistance training without volume increases does not alter arterial stiffness and aortic wave reflection. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2007 Oct;232(9):1228-35.

Kawano H, Tanimoto M, Yamamoto K, Sanada K, Gando Y, Tabata I, Higuchi M, Miyachi M. Resistance training in men is associated with increased arterial stiffness and blood pressure but does not adversely affect endothelial function as measured by arterial reactivity to the cold pressor test. Exp Physiol. 2008 Feb;93(2):296-302.

Cortez-Cooper MY, Anton MM, Devan AE, Neidre DB, Cook JN, Tanaka H. The effects of strength training on central arterial compliance in middle-aged and older adults. Eur J Cardiovasc Prev Rehabil. 2008 Apr;15(2):149-55.

Collier SR, Kanaley JA, Carhart R Jr, Frechette V, Tobin MM, Hall AK, Luckenbaugh AN, Fernhall B. Effect of 4 weeks of aerobic or resistance exercise training on arterial stiffness, blood flow and blood pressure in pre- and stage-1 hypertensives. J Hum Hypertens. 2008 Oct;22(10):678-86.

Strasser B, Haber P, Strehblow C, Cauza E. The benefit of strength training on arterial blood pressure in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus measured with ambulatory 24-hour blood pressure systems. Wien Med Wochenschr. 2008;158(13-14):379-84.

Yoshizawa M, Maeda S, Miyaki A, Misono M, Saito Y, Tanabe K, Kuno S, Ajisaka R. Effect of 12 weeks of moderate-intensity resistance training on arterial stiffness: a randomised controlled trial in women aged 32-59 years. Br J Sports Med. 2009 Aug;43(8):615-8.

Terra DF, Mota MR, Rabelo HT, Bezerra LM, Lima RM, Ribeiro AG, Vinhal PH, Dias RM, Silva FM. Reduction of arterial pressure and double product at rest after resistance exercise training in elderly hypertensive women. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2008 Nov;91(5):299-305.

Okamoto T, Masuhara M, Ikuta K. Home-based resistance training improves arterial stiffness in healthy premenopausal women. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009 Sep;107(1):113-7.

Okamoto T, Masuhara M, Ikuta K. Upper but not lower limb resistance training increases arterial stiffness in humans. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2009 Sep;107(2):127-34.

Yoon ES, Jung SJ, Cheun SK, Oh YS, Kim SH, Jae SY. Effects of acute resistance exercise on arterial stiffness in young men. Korean Circ J. 2010 Jan;40(1):16-22.

Veloso J, Polito MD, Riera T, Celes R, Vidal JC, Bottaro M. [Effects of rest interval between exercise sets on blood pressure after resistance exercises] Arq Bras Cardiol. 2010 Apr;94(4):512-8.

Cardoso CG Jr, Gomides RS, Queiroz AC, Pinto LG, da Silveira Lobo F, Tinucci T, Mion D Jr, de Moraes Forjaz CL. Acute and chronic effects of aerobic and resistance exercise on ambulatory blood pressure. Clinics (Sao Paulo). 2010 Mar;65(3):317-25.

Queiroz AC, Kanegusuku H, Forjaz CL. Effects of resistance training on blood pressure in the elderly. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2010 Jul;95(1):135-40.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/25, 6:27am)

Post 28

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 10:04am

Ed,

You wrote,

I checked out your concerns -- i.e., arterial stiffness, increased pulse pressure, increased cardiovascular risk (stemming from resistance training) -- and they seem to be unfounded.

Ed, I did not say that resistance training necessarily increased cardiovascular risk. What I said is, "If your systolic pressure stays low, this rise in pulse pressure may not pose a cardiovascular risk, but it's probably a good idea to avoid this arterial stiffening, and supplementing your resistance training with cardio is a good way to do it." Then you said,

Increased pulse pressure might be explained by lower diastolic pressure -- found in resistance trained subjects -- even while systolic pressure is lowered (just not as much as diastolic is lowered).

I agree. Didn't what I said take that into account?!

You say the data on arterial stiffness is equivocal. Sure, but there's still some indication that resistance training does increase it. I would say that all other things being equal, flexible arteries are better than stiff ones, especially as you get older. My main point was simply that you can avoid this stiffening effect by doing cardio along with resistance training. Do you have some objection to this?

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/25, 10:24am)

Post 29

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 4:09pm

Bill,

My main point was simply that you can avoid this stiffening effect by doing cardio along with resistance training. Do you have some objection to this?

Just a minor one. Aerobics increases blood perfusion, and blood perfusion decreases the muscle hypertrophy from resistance training. Or, rather, I should say that a relative lack of perfusion in working muscles during resistance training increases the results (in terms of muscle hypertrophy) of resistance training.

If resistance training lowers both your systolic and diastolic blood pressure by about 3 mm Hg (and by 6 mm Hg in hypertensives), then even if your arteries aren't as compliant as they were -- you aren't really worse off (from a sedentary baseline).

If you had your way and were everyone's personal trainer, then we'd be a nation of pencil-necked geeks exchanging stories about arterial compliance and relative risk-reduction -- rather than a nation devoted to measuring our biceps and bragging about how much we can bench press. Sheesh!

It's better to be bigger.

Ed

Post 30

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 6:31pm

Ed,

Are you joking or serious? Seriously, what is your goal? Is it to further your health and longevity or grow bigger biceps? I'm beginning to think that your infatuation with the paleolithic diet has led to an infatuation with paleolithic man -- a muscular brute who slays bisons and scavenges for nuts and fruits.

Remember, modern man's most important body part is his BRAIN, not his pecs, delts, abs, gluts, hams, calves and whatever other pieces of muscular meat you'd like to "pump up."

Perhaps, you wish that you lived during prehistoric times, so you could eat the real paleolithic diet. Unfortunately, that kind of diet is no longer available. What you call "the paleo diet" is at best an unhealthy imitation of the original, since we no longer have access to the kind of meat available to early man -- the kind in which the fatty acid composition was more like what we see today in fish. So people who think they're following that diet are only fooling themselves.

But eating lots of fatty meat in a vain attempt to imitate the stone-age diet will certainly pump up your hormones as well as your biceps and give you the physique of a cave man (not really!). It will also give you heart disease and cancer. But, hey, it comes with the territory, right?

Post 31

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 7:02pm

Bill,

I was joking.

Ed

Post 32

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 7:15pm

Bill,

But eating lots of fatty meat in a vain attempt to imitate the stone-age diet will certainly ...

Wow. All this time. All these words. All these references. Even explicit detail ... and you still don't get it. I'm not sure if stranger things have ever happened. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

It's not whether or not you eat fatty meat, Bill. It's whether you offset fatty meat intake with other things. Nature is a balance. Nutrition is a balance. How much sodium can you have and be healthy? Well, that depends on your potassium intake. How much protein can you have and be healthy? Well, that depends on your intake of water and base-forming plants and your level of exercise, etc. How much vitamin E can you have and still be healthy? Well, that depends on your intake of vitamin C and polyphenols and ...

But why do I feel like I'm talking to the wall?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/26, 6:24pm)

Post 33

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 8:23pm

So, Ed, how do you offset fatty meat intake with "other things"? What other things? Anti-cholesterol medication? Do you really think that's advisable? And what about the effect of fatty meat on hormone levels and cancers of various kinds like breast and prostate? How do you offset that?

Post 34

Wednesday, August 25, 2010 - 9:15pm

"Is it to further your health and longevity or grow bigger biceps?"

I'm pretty certain you can accomplish both.

Post 35

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 6:04am

Bill,

If you want to know the answers to your questions, then seek out the intervention trials on paleo-friendly diets -- many of which I've posted (apparently in vain).

I see that I truly am talking to the wall.

Ed

Post 36

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 7:55am

John wrote,

"Is it to further your health and longevity or grow bigger biceps?"

I'm pretty certain you can accomplish both.

True enough, John, but it's also possible to grow bigger biceps at the expense of your health and longevity. Many strength athletes and body builders do.

Ed wrote,

If you want to know the answers to your questions, then seek out the intervention trials on paleo-friendly diets -- many of which I've posted (apparently in vain).

I see that I truly am talking to the wall.

Ed, you need to be less condescending. I'm familiar with your studies, which simply show that paleo-friendly diets are better than the standard American diet.

But the issue here refers to a statement I made in Post 30: "But eating lots of fatty meat in a vain attempt to imitate the stone-age diet will certainly pump up your hormones as well as your biceps and give you the physique of a cave man (not really!). It will also give you heart disease and cancer." To this you replied,

Wow. All this time. All these words. All these references. Even explicit detail [and here you provided a link to an earlier post, which unfortunately does not address this issue] ... and you still don't get it. I'm not sure if stranger things have ever happened. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

It's not whether or not you eat fatty meat, Bill. It's whether you offset fatty meat intake with other things.

Just to be clear, we're talking about LOTS of fatty meat, right? You said you eat a pound a day. So, I asked, "how do you offset fatty meat intake with 'other things'? What other things?" It was a simple question, since I'd never heard you comment on the importance of "offsetting" fatty meat intake. I didn't think that you viewed it as something that needed to be "offset."

But if you'd rather dismiss me as someone who is incorrigibly evasive and no longer worth answering, that's certainly your choice.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 8/26, 7:56am)

Post 37

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 7:55am

From thepaleodiet.com faq page:

"This nutritional plan is totally unlike those irresponsible, low-carbohydrate, high-fat, fad diets that allow unlimited consumption of artery-clogging cheeses, bacon, butter, and fatty meats. Rather, the foundation of The Paleo Diet is lean meat, seafood, and unlimited consumption of fresh fruits and veggies."

Note: "Lean meat".

Post 38

Thursday, August 26, 2010 - 7:05pm

Bill,

My studies don't just show paleo-friendly diet intervention to be better than "standard" diets, they show them to be better than the very diets (the "NCEP Step 1" & the "Mediterranean Diet") recommended for populations by the working professionals in the field of medicine. Better than what the professionals recommend. There's a world of difference there -- a whole world.

But the issue here refers to a statement I made in Post 30: "But eating lots of fatty meat in a vain attempt to imitate the stone-age diet will certainly pump up your hormones as well as your biceps and give you the physique of a cave man (not really!). It will also give you heart disease and cancer." To this you replied,
Wow. All this time. All these words. All these references. Even explicit detail [and here you provided a link to an earlier post, which unfortunately does not address this issue] ...

Tell me again how the link I provided -- a link to an explicit "stone age" diet, itemized for both food selection and macronutrient (e.g., fat) content -- please do tell me about how all this talk about what is actually inside a paleo-friendly diet "does not address this issue."

Let me tell you how it doesn't. It doesn't when you equivocate and build straw-man arguments. That's how. It doesn't when you say that the issue about paleo-friendly diets isn't about what's actually found in paleo-friendly diets. No. But you're sure -- without looking at what's in these diets -- you're sure they're disproven by this other evidence that you want us to look at.

That's a straw man argument.

Now, if you don't want me to sound condescending, then start refraining from such equivocation and straw-man arguments. Either argue about the diet or not. You can't have it both ways.

And if you argue about the diet, then you have to argue about what's in the diet. If you don't like the explicit example I gave in that link, then pick another one. I don't care where you find it. Pick a paleo-friendly diet and launch a criticism from there -- and I'd be glad to respond.

You know, I'm starting to think that all this time you have never actually bothered to look at a paleo-friendly diet. I think this is a 'contempt prior to investigation' moment.

Just to be clear, we're talking about LOTS of fatty meat, right?

You tell me, Bill. Look at a paleo-friendly diet and you tell me. You don't like the link I provided -- you don't think it "addresses the issue" -- then find another example. Anywhere.

So, I asked, "how do you offset fatty meat intake with 'other things'? What other things?" It was a simple question, since I'd never heard you comment on the importance of "offsetting" fatty meat intake. I didn't think that you viewed it as something that needed to be "offset.

Don't pull my chain. I've been talking about offsetting meat intake for years here. I could link you to literally a dozen examples of this. The cardinal one from memory is my RoR Fitness thread 4 years ago, entitled "Twice as much veggies as meat":

http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/RoRFitness/0041.shtml

In the last 4 years, I remember posting at least a dozen times advocating that meat intake should include certain dietary offsets such as:

1) water to dilute the breakdown products of protein in urine
2) veggies to offset the acid-forming nature of meat
3) omega-3 fatty acids to offset the disrupted fatty acid profile in most current, fatty meats

Where have you been in the last 4 years, Bill?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 8/26, 7:11pm)

Post 39

Friday, August 27, 2010 - 10:23am