I am not 70, but closing in. I enjoy reading about health and aging. This article from Outside magazine was right up my alley. I am also a subscriber, so I trusted it would be useful. It is- mostly, but there appears be a research mistake in one of the recommendations, and it’s possible that you’d be hurt or discouraged from continuing your program, if you were to follow it.
Here’s the article itself, and I suggest you click on the light right below, read the article, and then come back:
Photo from Outside magazine
Who will argue about strength training, eating right, and walking?
No one, however, the advice about strength training is possibly dangerous.
Specifically , “Nix that muscle atrophy with regular cardiovascular and strength training exercise. One study showed that a strength training regimen of 3 sets of 8 reps at 80 percent of your one rep maximum, performed three times a week, can not only improve strength, but also build back Type II muscle fiber
, which can give you a more toned, less flabby look.”
I read the abstract for the study, and there’s something wrong. It’s the one rep maximum as a reference point. I’ve been lifting for 40 years. Eighty percent of the maximum weight is totally appropriate for 8 reps, but ONLY if you are an experienced lifter. Muscles resist cycling loads and get stronger, so really strong people need to push 80 % of their max , as much as 8 times, if they are to grow in strength.
But, if a 70+ year old tries to lift 80% of their max single effort lift 8 times, to exhaustion, and not just once, but three times in a row, I see big trouble: either torn muscles, heart failure, or a desire to stay away from something so hard to do.
My recommendation is to drop those reps to three sets of 4, if you are an older athlete, and your bar weight is 80 % of your maximum single push or pull.
So, why did the 12 men in the study have such great results after 12 weeks? I’d bet their “trainers” were not pushing them hard enough when establishing those 1 rp maximum reps. Their maximum efforts were not true maximums.
Anyone else out there agree?