Strength – It’s Good.

This paper is a good summary of the overall position, and it might perhaps encourage elderly readers to actually do a bit of exercise. However, unless I’m missing something, the author does accept the standard party line that a fairly heavy weight and something like 8-12 reps to failure are needed to bring about the benefits of increased strength and improved health.

There is another view, namely that using (much) higher reps can also be effective, particularly if you seek enhanced endurance rather than bodybuilder muscles.

As a non-scientist I am not in a position to argue the case. What I can say is that two years ago I started doing resistance exercise at the age of 70. At first I used the standard formula, i.e. about 10 reps to failure. Recently I began to find this unrewarding, in every sense. I didn’t find it satisfying, and I wasn’t making any further progress.

I am now experimenting with lighter weights and considerably higher reps, anywhere between 40 and 100. So far I find the following benefits:

I find it satisfying to work this way rather than frustrating and unpleasant.
I am able to maintain much better form throughout.
I believe that the risk of injury is reduced, because the lower weight means that there is little temptation to cheat by locking out or twisting the body.
If muscular soreness is any guide, I am getting a more thorough workout on high reps than I did on 10 reps, and the metabolic shock seems (subjectively) to be greater.
I actually look forward to going to the gym each week rather than reluctantly turning up because I ought to.

The key paper on this, which Phillips does not list in his references, is Anderson and Kearney’s 1982 work, ‘Effects of three resistance training programs on muscular strength and absolute and relative endurance’. This demonstrates that, at least in the individuals tested, the biggest gains in endurance were produced in those using the 100-150 range of reps. Since endurance – or stamina – is what I’m after, rather than beach muscles or competitive weight-lifting strength, this appeals to me.

Clarence Bass and Richard Gibbens have also written about this subject.

“There is nothing HIIT can offer that can’t be achieved via HIT.

If you know of any good papers to the contrary, please let me know!”

Fred, do you need a paper to show that interval training on a track might be better to help one prepare for intermittent high speed runs, for example?
Strength has many benefits – you don’t need to oversell it.

It doesn’t really address Alfie’s comment. SlowBurn gets the heart rate up there. HIIT gets the heart rate up there. Slow Burn builds the muscles being worked. HIIT builds the entire cardiovascular system. Both seem to increase growth hormone and testosterone in men. Dr Mercola has shown these increases in himself from doing HIIT. I think the SlowBurn book makes the same assertions but I leant my copy to a friend and can’t refer back to it.

All I know is that a summer of jogging 60 miles per week has left me 20# heavier with achilles tendonitis and a strained back. I’m anxious to get back to the weight room at our rec center for Slow Burn and use their cardio equipment for HIIT. For me both are necessary. Just waiting on the OK from the doctor who did surgery on my elbow epicondylitis ten days ago.

kevin

Hi Fred and others,

There appears to be a battle between the Slow Burn/strength-training mindset and the standard popular mindset that loves cardio/yoga (always based in sound logic, like “walking cures cancer, since people who are more active are less likely to get cancer!”)

This battle rhymes in many ways with the battle between low carb and low fat camps.

* An objective look at the science would, to me, suggest that some form of low carb/paleo be the null dietary regimen;

* An objective look at the science would, to me, suggest that some form of Slow Burn/strength training be the null exercise regimen.

Cutting calories or fat = superfluous nonsense that misses the point.
Cutting the bad carbs = all the benefit, none of the “waste”

Analogously, jogging = also superfluous nonsense that misses the point.
Strength training the right way = all the benefit, none of the “waste”

I don’t mean to be a mindless acolyte of SB here, but I’ve seen ridiculous benefits doing this program for a year and a half. Much stronger (and can run faster too – hmm) than I was when I did yoga religiously and ran like a fiend.

Sorry to comment on an old thread, but my question is related to this strength thread.
I am at a cross-road. I am torn between starting slow-burn or doing a 5×5 starting strength routine. My objective is to get stronger and be able to lift/pull heavy (2x my body weight) within the next 12 to 16 months.
A CSCS trainer at my university says 5×5 should not be done for more than a couple of months and that it is “brutal” and more suitable for football players.
However I like the simplicity that 5×5 uses compound movements and olympic style lifts. Just add 5# to the bar with each workout, do three to four compound exercises each workout, workout 3 times a week, alternate workouts (except for squats, do them each time).
In your book I notice all your workouts are based on machines. Most coaches say barbells are the only way to gain strength and balance, that machines, even the smith machines, are too limiting and do not help balancing and assisting muscles.
Will I get the same strength and power results from your slow burn routine using machines? What is this critique of machines I keep hearing and reading?
May I do squats, deadlifts, bench, rows, cleans, chins, etc. using the slow burn method or are these all power movements?
I really want to get stronger, and I really don’t want to waste my time. Your experience and opinion would be greatly appreciated.

I just finished reading DeVany’s New Evolution Diet. I can,t admit that I read anything new concerning paleo dieting, or lower carb eating per se , I did find some of his anecdotes and citations concerning strength intritging. He had a brief paragraph or two concerning strength, and how “the strong” live longer than the less strong, i.e., the strongest 25 percent live longer than the next strongest 25 percent, and so on down the ladder. I would like to see more information and research on this topic, as opposed to being told that yoga five days a week, or endless tread milling will help me obtain a longer life span…