Over Doing it At the Gym
#51
Sure, I can use that, it makes sense.
Today's workout, I lifted heaviER. Not my absolute max for 8 reps, 'cause it still worries me a little. My plan, for now, is to do strength training twice a week with once heavy and once lighter with more reps.
My point was, perhaps poorly written, was that so much that we see in popular media, Youtube etc. is so dogmatic. This Is The Way! When so many of us are just trying to find a method that is doable, challenging but not so difficult that it is a chore to be avoided.
OK, one other bone to pick: in our local newspaper their is a weekly column about health and fitness from a person with dubious credentials and claims to have a PhD in Results! I want to strangle her.
Today's workout, I lifted heaviER. Not my absolute max for 8 reps, 'cause it still worries me a little. My plan, for now, is to do strength training twice a week with once heavy and once lighter with more reps.
My point was, perhaps poorly written, was that so much that we see in popular media, Youtube etc. is so dogmatic. This Is The Way! When so many of us are just trying to find a method that is doable, challenging but not so difficult that it is a chore to be avoided.
OK, one other bone to pick: in our local newspaper their is a weekly column about health and fitness from a person with dubious credentials and claims to have a PhD in Results! I want to strangle her.
As for dogmatic YouTube channels, I also agree, there are a lot of channels where all that people are doing is repeating what others have said, i.e. much of them live in an echo chamber. But there are a few gold mines out there, Dylan Johnson being one of them.
I always strive to be skeptical, but with an open mind and critical thinking. I like to think I only fail occasionally

#52
Been Around Awhile

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 30,648
Likes: 1,973
From: Burlington Iowa
Bikes: Vaterland and Ragazzi
Interesting article in yesterday's NYT related to many of the alleged best or most effective exercise threads on this list.
Let’s Stop Getting Distracted From This Crucial Question About Exercise
Extracts with my bolding of text:
Let’s Stop Getting Distracted From This Crucial Question About Exercise
Extracts with my bolding of text:
February is the month things go south in our exercise routines. The excitement of New Year’s resolutions fades and the dark and cold keep us in bed, rather than on the treadmill.
This is a shame, because regular exercise is really beneficial. It can control high blood pressure, improve mental health and reduce falls among older adults. A review of 187 randomized controlled trials covering nearly 30,000 people found exercise lowered mortality risk by 13 percent.
Given the fact that people struggle to stick with exercise, the crucial question is: How can we design fitness programs that maximize long-term adherence?
Unfortunately, a lot of research and media coverage is focused instead on asking what the best type of exercise or the optimal amount is. Is walking better than tennis? Is running better than swimming? Is it really important to do 80 percent of your workout at 60-70 percent of your max heart rate (known as Zone 2)? These questions serve an engaged population and promise that with a bit more knowledge, you can maximize your health. The trouble is, they are basically impossible to answer well, and most of the answers we get are misleading and wrong.
...
Because of these challenges, most of the evidence on the so-called best exercise comes from what are known as observational studies. Instead of randomizing people to different programs, these studies ask people about the exercise they already do and compare their health outcomes to those of people who do more or less exercise, or who do different types of exercise. The trouble is that such studies almost always confuse correlation and causation.
...
The limits of our knowledge are a tough pill to swallow (especially since it’s not just exercise; the research on nutrition is equally shaky). It can be frustrating to know there are some questions we’ll never answer. I also think it can be freeing, an invitation to let go of optimization and focus on what we do know. In the case of exercise, we can say with confidence that it’s good to regularly do something that raises your heart rate.
People also want to know how much exercise to do; this is also very hard to know. The randomized studies showing benefits of exercise typically aim for 2.5 hours per week. After that, we are mostly relying on lower-quality observational studies. Those show that the benefits of exercise tend to flatten around seven to 10 hours a week.
What we do know is that people are more likely to stick with an exercise program that is tailored to their preferences and lifestyle. When doctors are advising patients about exercise, they should be as open as possible to the variety of ways people might want to get moving. Research should focus on which approaches are best to lead to long-term, sustained exercise habits — ideally, research with randomized trials. The type of flawed observational research discussed above gets in the way of both of these priorities — it takes research time from studying what matters, and it creates misleading and constraining advice. It doesn’t really matter which exercise people do — they just need to do it past February.
This is a shame, because regular exercise is really beneficial. It can control high blood pressure, improve mental health and reduce falls among older adults. A review of 187 randomized controlled trials covering nearly 30,000 people found exercise lowered mortality risk by 13 percent.
Given the fact that people struggle to stick with exercise, the crucial question is: How can we design fitness programs that maximize long-term adherence?
Unfortunately, a lot of research and media coverage is focused instead on asking what the best type of exercise or the optimal amount is. Is walking better than tennis? Is running better than swimming? Is it really important to do 80 percent of your workout at 60-70 percent of your max heart rate (known as Zone 2)? These questions serve an engaged population and promise that with a bit more knowledge, you can maximize your health. The trouble is, they are basically impossible to answer well, and most of the answers we get are misleading and wrong.
...
Because of these challenges, most of the evidence on the so-called best exercise comes from what are known as observational studies. Instead of randomizing people to different programs, these studies ask people about the exercise they already do and compare their health outcomes to those of people who do more or less exercise, or who do different types of exercise. The trouble is that such studies almost always confuse correlation and causation.
...
The limits of our knowledge are a tough pill to swallow (especially since it’s not just exercise; the research on nutrition is equally shaky). It can be frustrating to know there are some questions we’ll never answer. I also think it can be freeing, an invitation to let go of optimization and focus on what we do know. In the case of exercise, we can say with confidence that it’s good to regularly do something that raises your heart rate.
People also want to know how much exercise to do; this is also very hard to know. The randomized studies showing benefits of exercise typically aim for 2.5 hours per week. After that, we are mostly relying on lower-quality observational studies. Those show that the benefits of exercise tend to flatten around seven to 10 hours a week.
What we do know is that people are more likely to stick with an exercise program that is tailored to their preferences and lifestyle. When doctors are advising patients about exercise, they should be as open as possible to the variety of ways people might want to get moving. Research should focus on which approaches are best to lead to long-term, sustained exercise habits — ideally, research with randomized trials. The type of flawed observational research discussed above gets in the way of both of these priorities — it takes research time from studying what matters, and it creates misleading and constraining advice. It doesn’t really matter which exercise people do — they just need to do it past February.
#53
I agree many studies, especially when it comes to health, both in exercise and nutrition are very lacking and misleading -- too bad we can't grab up a bunch of people, like lab rats and do real science
I know how much anecdotal information is pounced on by those who want to portray themselves as "scientifically minded", but when you get anecdotal information from really good sources and it's duplicated multiple times, then that's something to take note of.
Look at all the seniors that have never been seriously active and are falling apart, but their condition is radically improved and does a 180 after strength training.
This is just one example, but there are tons out there.

I know how much anecdotal information is pounced on by those who want to portray themselves as "scientifically minded", but when you get anecdotal information from really good sources and it's duplicated multiple times, then that's something to take note of.
Look at all the seniors that have never been seriously active and are falling apart, but their condition is radically improved and does a 180 after strength training.
This is just one example, but there are tons out there.
#54
Senior Member


Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,364
Likes: 727
From: Columbus, Ohio
Bikes: Lynskey R230, Trek 5200, 1975 Raleigh Pro, 1973 Falcon ,Trek T50 Tandem and a 1968 Paramount in progress.
Interesting article in yesterday's NYT related to many of the alleged best or most effective exercise threads on this list.
Let’s Stop Getting Distracted From This Crucial Question About Exercise
Extracts with my bolding of text:
Let’s Stop Getting Distracted From This Crucial Question About Exercise
Extracts with my bolding of text:
All those click bait articles on Best Exercise to Lose Weight and Best Exercise for seniors are not always helpful when so many of our friends, relatives and neighbors do nothing.
#55
Early-onset OldFartitis




Joined: May 2014
Posts: 2,142
Likes: 741
From: USA
Bikes: 1996 Trek 970 ZX Single Track 2x11
Back when I was 18 years of age, I'd been athletic for several years and was nearing the peak of my strength and athleticism. Had a friend who had been seriously training for years, and he knew strength+flexibility training. We paired up at the gym, and spent many months working out together. He went on to be an Olympic figure skater of some note, and been training nearly a decade for that.
The workouts we did, then, were simple and straightforward, but challenging enough for me. I was already a distance runner and had some good strength (in my 'genes'), but I had never done more than dabbling in a gym. Did about one-third of the exercises as compound-muscle movements, with the other two-thirds as (mostly seated) single-muscle types. Olympic barbells and dumbbells, with some Universal gym stations. Nearly every exercise we did was an 8x8 ... 8 reps/set, each set to near failure, 8 sets, and in between each set the other guy would get his in. One day a week, we'd focus on upper body, another day on lower, another day a blend (at somewhat reduced intensity). Typically, I'd run to and from the gym (~9mi round-trip), sometimes cycling.
In short: such a workout could kick our butts. I was almost as strong as he, but he had greater capacity to deal with higher intensity, less recovery time. We both had roughly equal stamina.
At 18 (even 25-28), I could handle such a workout. At my age now, many decades and some injuries later, not a chance.
These days, I do more like 15-20 reps/set, 3-4 sets, with more rest in between doing something else (stretching of a different muscle group, or a low-intensity compound-muscle exercise). Focusing on core and hip/leg stability (due to old injuries) tends to be my focus, but whole workouts go well beyond just those areas. Across a week, I make sure to hit each muscle group and area of the body at least twice. No longer run, but walking, gym rowing, and cycling fill in the rest. When my body complains, I typically ratchet down the intensity by a third or half, and add a rest day or two if needed. But I still try to "hit" those muscles and do those stretches anyway, if I can. The rest is managed with nutrition intake, decent sleep.
Definitely cannot afford to "over-do" it, certainly not in the injury areas, and I definitely don't want to go through all that again in some new area that has so far escaped such injuries. BTDT. Won't ever again, if I can help it. And so, my intensity is modest, but I ensure all the muscle groups are hit with what I know they can manage, pushing occasionally in those areas that haven't been previously injured. Works well, for me. Dearly wish I could push the intensity, but generally cannot anymore.
Every body is different. And we each have our own histories of injuries, muscle/nerve damage, genetic limitations and the like.
The workouts we did, then, were simple and straightforward, but challenging enough for me. I was already a distance runner and had some good strength (in my 'genes'), but I had never done more than dabbling in a gym. Did about one-third of the exercises as compound-muscle movements, with the other two-thirds as (mostly seated) single-muscle types. Olympic barbells and dumbbells, with some Universal gym stations. Nearly every exercise we did was an 8x8 ... 8 reps/set, each set to near failure, 8 sets, and in between each set the other guy would get his in. One day a week, we'd focus on upper body, another day on lower, another day a blend (at somewhat reduced intensity). Typically, I'd run to and from the gym (~9mi round-trip), sometimes cycling.
In short: such a workout could kick our butts. I was almost as strong as he, but he had greater capacity to deal with higher intensity, less recovery time. We both had roughly equal stamina.
At 18 (even 25-28), I could handle such a workout. At my age now, many decades and some injuries later, not a chance.
These days, I do more like 15-20 reps/set, 3-4 sets, with more rest in between doing something else (stretching of a different muscle group, or a low-intensity compound-muscle exercise). Focusing on core and hip/leg stability (due to old injuries) tends to be my focus, but whole workouts go well beyond just those areas. Across a week, I make sure to hit each muscle group and area of the body at least twice. No longer run, but walking, gym rowing, and cycling fill in the rest. When my body complains, I typically ratchet down the intensity by a third or half, and add a rest day or two if needed. But I still try to "hit" those muscles and do those stretches anyway, if I can. The rest is managed with nutrition intake, decent sleep.
Definitely cannot afford to "over-do" it, certainly not in the injury areas, and I definitely don't want to go through all that again in some new area that has so far escaped such injuries. BTDT. Won't ever again, if I can help it. And so, my intensity is modest, but I ensure all the muscle groups are hit with what I know they can manage, pushing occasionally in those areas that haven't been previously injured. Works well, for me. Dearly wish I could push the intensity, but generally cannot anymore.
Every body is different. And we each have our own histories of injuries, muscle/nerve damage, genetic limitations and the like.
#56
Senior Member


Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,437
Likes: 4,527
From: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
I agree many studies, especially when it comes to health, both in exercise and nutrition are very lacking and misleading -- too bad we can't grab up a bunch of people, like lab rats and do real science
I know how much anecdotal information is pounced on by those who want to portray themselves as "scientifically minded", but when you get anecdotal information from really good sources and it's duplicated multiple times, then that's something to take note of.
Look at all the seniors that have never been seriously active and are falling apart, but their condition is radically improved and does a 180 after strength training.
This is just one example, but there are tons out there.
https://youtu.be/xEh1akDooZc?si=6M49brUuG1QGcY_x

I know how much anecdotal information is pounced on by those who want to portray themselves as "scientifically minded", but when you get anecdotal information from really good sources and it's duplicated multiple times, then that's something to take note of.
Look at all the seniors that have never been seriously active and are falling apart, but their condition is radically improved and does a 180 after strength training.
This is just one example, but there are tons out there.
https://youtu.be/xEh1akDooZc?si=6M49brUuG1QGcY_x
#57
If you watched that video, there are examples of that lady's parents that were clearly headed for a life that required assistant-living, but now they actually have turned that around (in their 80's) and are getting stronger. This is NOT about becoming stronger for bragging rights, it's about living a quality life.
That's why I workout. I have no desire to be someone that mimics professional cyclists, it's all about quality of life. I'm also not saying that lifting heavy is THE key to living independently as we age, but it's a key part, along with doing all kinds of things that challenge yourself without killing yourself.
I've seen, first hand, what happens to people that require assistant-living. I'm not rolling over and just accepting that life.
.
#58
Senior Member


Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 30,437
Likes: 4,527
From: 25 miles northwest of Boston
Bikes: Bottecchia Sprint, GT Timberline 29r, Marin Muirwoods 29er, Trek FX Alpha 7.0
Yes, time/age catches up with everyone. However, exercising, like what was shown in that video is not about an attempt at becoming immortal. It's not even about extending one's life, it's about staying independent as long as possible.
If you watched that video, there are examples of that lady's parents that were clearly headed for a life that required assistant-living, but now they actually have turned that around (in their 80's) and are getting stronger. This is NOT about becoming stronger for bragging rights, it's about living a quality life.
That's why I workout. I have no desire to be someone that mimics professional cyclists, it's all about quality of life. I'm also not saying that lifting heavy is THE key to living independently as we age, but it's a key part, along with doing all kinds of things that challenge yourself without killing yourself.
I've seen, first hand, what happens to people that require assistant-living. I'm not rolling over and just accepting that life.
.
If you watched that video, there are examples of that lady's parents that were clearly headed for a life that required assistant-living, but now they actually have turned that around (in their 80's) and are getting stronger. This is NOT about becoming stronger for bragging rights, it's about living a quality life.
That's why I workout. I have no desire to be someone that mimics professional cyclists, it's all about quality of life. I'm also not saying that lifting heavy is THE key to living independently as we age, but it's a key part, along with doing all kinds of things that challenge yourself without killing yourself.
I've seen, first hand, what happens to people that require assistant-living. I'm not rolling over and just accepting that life.
.
I appreciate the video. I hope that's me too. my Sister just sent me a video of my soon to be 96 yr old mother attempting arm movements w/ a balloon. she's trying. I'm so impressed w/ my parents perseverance
hang tough
#59
climber has-been




Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 9,132
Likes: 6,027
From: Palo Alto, CA
Bikes: Scott Addict RC Pro & R1, Felt Z1
Instead of randomizing people to different programs, these studies ask people about the exercise they already do and compare their health outcomes to those of people who do more or less exercise, or who do different types of exercise. The trouble is that such studies almost always confuse correlation and causation.
"Correlation does not equal causation -- therefore your observational study is junk."
Sure, there are crap observational studies that don't adjust for confounding effects, but epidemiology is a science, and modern epidemiology is pretty sophisticated at detecting causal effects in the presence of other factors. Just one example of an adjusted exercise study:
"...examine the association of physical activity patterns with all-cause and cause-specific mortality rates and were adjusted for age at baseline (as a continuous variable), sex, race and ethnicity, marital status, income, educational attainment, smoking, alcohol intake, comorbidities score, self-rated health, psychological distress, and mobility."
Last edited by terrymorse; 02-27-26 at 10:22 AM.
#61
Thread Starter
Gruppetto Bob




Joined: Sep 2020
Posts: 11,395
Likes: 11,633
From: Seattle-ish
Bikes: Orbea Orca, Bianchi Infinito & Campione de Mundo
__________________
“A watt saved is a watt earned” 🚴🏻♂️
Not a CAT
“A watt saved is a watt earned” 🚴🏻♂️







. 2 days off when that happens fixes that. I hate off days but they are necessary for longevity and improvement.
