MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Baby-Boomer Fix
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

marcrph

Portugal

It's the pits!

Getting older and out of shape!

What's your fix for a fit baby-boomer?
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Marc,
My 2 cents worth;
Get a copy of ED's "Living Longer Stronger". Read and heed. Past 50, staying lean while maintaining strength for life is the key. Some folks may have to tweak the diet a little, maybe lower glycemic for some folks, etc., but all the basics are there.
Griff
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

I think a starting point for baby-boomers would include a M.D. visit for a physical and lab tests.
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Marc,
Good point. Hopefully, you're doing that already, every year or so if you're past 50.
Griff
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

karma50 wrote:
Marc,
My 2 cents worth;
Get a copy of ED's "Living Longer Stronger". Read and heed. Past 50, staying lean while maintaining strength for life is the key. Some folks may have to tweak the diet a little, maybe lower glycemic for some folks, etc., but all the basics are there.
Griff


Griff,

I too agree with LLS.

Furthermore, I have gone heavily towards an evening meal consisting of a salad, and grape "homemade"(the pharmacist in me) red wine.

Also, I am leaning heavily toward SuperSlow and Extremely Slow Reps.

I want to work out more often, but it seems from Dr. Darden's intensive coaching results that more time between workouts may indeed be the way to go for older trainees!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

karma50 wrote:
Marc,
Good point. Hopefully, you're doing that already, every year or so if you're past 50.
Griff


Just had my yearly physical!

My blood tests showed I had normal ranges for all the major chemistry tests!

Time to shut up and train I guess!
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Marc,
Salad and red wine sounds real "mediteranean diet". My wife likes Merlot.
I don't work out except to enhance the quality of my life in general. I don't care at all about bodybuilding or weightlifting for it's own sake. and I have noticed recovery is an issue. It's amazing what just one set too many will do. And I hear you about slower, smoother reps. Keeping the muscle loaded is harder, I think, but rewarding.

Richard winnett's latest edition of "Master Trainer" has some excellent study reviews on strength training using different TUL's, rep speeds, etc. You can get the same benefit from somewhat lower weights and longer TUL's, according to recent studies. Not SS though, just about 3/1/3, which is less of a drag (for me) than 10/10.
Regards,
Griff
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

I switched to Matrix training. You use lighter weights using different movement patterns. The workouts are challenging, easy on the joints and has a conditioning effect. The different movement patterns keep the workouts from getting boring and just going through the motions. Muscle tension is very high with execution and the "pump" is very strong. I also reduced my calories by 25% which is not a shock to the system and still satisfying.

Overfiftylifter-lifting so I don't see the angels sooner than is necessary.
Open User Options Menu

karma50

overfifty,
What is "Matrix" training? I personally shy away from complicated routines as I've never gotten any real benefit from them. For me, if it's simpler, it's usually better. It doesn't get much simpler than bw and db's.
Griff
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

From Richard Winett; "Time For A Change,"

" I also create variety in other ways. While I usually stay within about 60-75 seconds time under tension for each exercise, I vary the repetition duration. For example, for a few weeks, I may use a 4-second concentric, 4-second eccentric repetition for a number of exercises. Then, for a few weeks, I may use an 8, 4 repetition duration or even 10,5. I also sometimes vary the rep duration for a given exercise in a workout simply on a whim."

Sounds like Mr. Winett too has experimented with Super Slow. Wonder Why? Less aches and pains?
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Speaking of the Mediterranean diet, a sound nutritional plan would seem to be the next logical 2nd step for a baby-boomer fix.

It would seem the folks from that area of the world have something important to say on getting results from diet.
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

There has been past discussion about Matrix on this forum. It was developed by Dr. Laura in Australia. Instead of changing cadence or rep number to prevent muscle adaptability, different patterns of movement are used. An example in doing a curl:

Do 5 full reps then starting from the bottom of the movement, go 1/2 way up and pause and then lower the weight return it 1/2 way up and pause and do this for 5 reps, then bring the weight to the top of the movement lower it to half way and pause and then execute 5 1/2 movements from midway to the top.

You finish with 5 full reps. This is called the Conventional Matrix Pattern.Doing squats this way is not a walk in the park. Momentum is keep to a minimum. This is not easy and the "burn" is very strong. Your heart rate gets very elevated. Some of the many patterns mix in different partial movements and isometric holds. I think it is a good way to workout for one who has decided that there body has difficulty handling heavy loads due to injuries or wear and tear and one wants to continue bodybuilding and conditioning into there later years. You have to concentrate during these workouts and not just go through the motions which frequently happens with conventional training. I found that switching from heavier training to Matrix did not produce any muscle loss. In fact, I found improvement and greatly reduced joint irritation.

Overfiftylifter-all systems probably work, I just found this system works for me.

Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

overfiftylifter wrote:
There has been past discussion about Matrix on this forum. It was developed by Dr. Laura in Australia. Instead of changing cadence or rep number to prevent muscle adaptability, different patterns of movement are used. An example in doing a curl:

Do 5 full reps then starting from the bottom of the movement, go 1/2 way up and pause and then lower the weight return it 1/2 way up and pause and do this for 5 reps, then bring the weight to the top of the movement lower it to half way and pause and then execute 5 1/2 movements from midway to the top.

You finish with 5 full reps. This is called the Conventional Matrix Pattern.Doing squats this way is not a walk in the park. Momentum is keep to a minimum. This is not easy and the "burn" is very strong. Your heart rate gets very elevated. Some of the many patterns mix in different partial movements and isometric holds. I think it is a good way to workout for one who has decided that there body has difficulty handling heavy loads due to injuries or wear and tear and one wants to continue bodybuilding and conditioning into there later years. You have to concentrate during these workouts and not just go through the motions which frequently happens with conventional training. I found that switching from heavier training to Matrix did not produce any muscle loss. In fact, I found improvement and greatly reduced joint irritation.

Overfiftylifter-all systems probably work, I just found this system works for me.



Sounds somewhat like JReps!

Have you tried Super Slow or Extremely Slow reps?
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Over50,
Thanks for the explanation. It's good it works for you, especially taking care of the joints.

Marc,
Yeah, lower calories and nutritionally dense food. Just cut out most of the junk. As far a Winnett, he's a rare voice of sanity. He still does a fairly complex routine, but emphasizes that you don't need to do all the exercises he does. He just enjoys it. Slower reps are due to his injuries.

He hurt himself trying to continue lifting really heavy (for him). He now believes using more moderate weights and longer TUL's (not necessarily SS) get good results with less joint trauma. My experience is that the little insults add up over time. Dr.D was saying and writing this stuff long ago.
Griff
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

After using HIT principles for many years,I found my progress had slowed and similar to others, physical problems with heavier weights at lower reps using 2/4 or 3/3 cadence made me look for other ways to workout. I tried Bioforce's ideas and though it has worked for several people who post on this forum, the low rep sets and the long(5min)duration between sets did not work for me. I admire him and his abilities.

I modified his ideas and jokingly called it Overfiftylifter HIT and used a 20-30 rep first set to failure(used 2/2 cadence-not as fast as Bioforce) and then with short breaks(20sec) did further sets(2-4) that produced 15-6 reps. I liked this workout because it produced the burn/pump I like to feel and elevated my heart rate(I don't like cardio). Bodybuilding.com posted a workout very similar to my ideas.

I later found Matrix and found it more challenging. I have tried slower speed techniques and the weight needed to produce 4-6 reps at 10/10 is irritating and I don't have Medx equipment to probably utilize the technique properly. I found that just comparing the different techniques and feeling the tension/challenge of just simple exercises, Matrix is superior for me. Try doing a set of curls doing superslow, a 3/3 cadence and the Matrix pattern mentioned in my earlier posting.

I measured the inroads produced by the different techniques by my ability to perform a second conventional set. The Matrix set produced the greatest inroad.

As far as Jreps, I think it is a great idea but found the constant use of freestyle training without organization troublesome. With Matrix there is a progressive and organized increased intensity of patterns of movement that I find more satisfying. I posted on the Jrep board that they should look at Dr. Laura's ideas, but they seemed to reject my contributions.

Overfiftylifter
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Right now the rage is high repetitions for mature lifters. Furthermore, deletion of explosive reps for mature lifters is also advised.

Bill Starr of IronMan magazine has recently wrote an article that advises just that, namely: slower and more repetitions.

I believe there is a point when high repetitions become more aerobic than strengthening. Therefore, I'm not quite sure if a mature lifter would want to go over 2 minutes duration in a set. Just my thoughts.
Open User Options Menu

Ciccio

marcrph wrote:
Right now the rage is high repetitions for mature lifters. Furthermore, deletion of explosive reps for mature lifters is also advised.

Bill Starr of IronMan magazine has recently wrote an article that advises just that, namely: slower and more repetitions.

I believe there is a point when high repetitions become more aerobic than strengthening. Therefore, I'm not quite sure if a mature lifter would want to go over 2 minutes duration in a set. Just my thoughts.


I call bullshit on the higher reps for older lifters. It's exactly the opposite of what you need if taking into account that when we age our muscle make-up shifts towards endurance (if we don't exercise and/or just do aerobic exercise).
Slow and controlled is the way to go!

Marc, did you try Fred Hahn's method of taking 2-3seconds for the first 2" of an exercise and then just try to move the weight up fast from there?
The weight should be heavy enough to enable max. 4 reps (for legs maybe 6 or more).

It results in a real slow positive (6-8seconds total time depending on exercise). Then you take 5-10 seconds for the negative.

Deep muscle fatigue with heavy weight and no joint/tendon pain.
It needs to be experienced to be appreciated!

It works best with proper machines but with congruent exercise form (refer to MAEx by B.de Simone) a lot of "conventional" BB/DB exercises work well.


Franco
Open User Options Menu

karma50

Marc,
Iagree. I think Winnett's point is that the research shows no difference in outcomes using somewhat lighter weights with slower more controlled reps, as longas there is a hard effort at the end of the set. The studies he cites do not see any difference between lower and higher (upwards of 20) reps in terms of outcomes. If you like heavier weights fine. If you go with a lighter weight and more reps, fine. No real difference in outcomes, according to the stdies, and my own experience.
Griff
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Ciccio wrote:
I call bullshit on the higher reps for older lifters. It's exactly the opposite of what you need if taking into account that when we age our muscle make-up shifts towards endurance (if we don't exercise and/or just do aerobic exercise).
Slow and controlled is the way to go!

Marc, did you try Fred Hahn's method of taking 2-3seconds for the first 2" of an exercise and then just try to move the weight up fast from there?
The weight should be heavy enough to enable max. 4 reps (for legs maybe 6 or more).

It results in a real slow positive (6-8seconds total time depending on exercise). Then you take 5-10 seconds for the negative.

Deep muscle fatigue with heavy weight and no joint/tendon pain.
It needs to be experienced to be appreciated!

It works best with proper machines but with congruent exercise form (refer to MAEx by B.de Simone) a lot of "conventional" BB/DB exercises work well.


Franco


I'm not that crazy about the ideal of higher reps for older lifters either!

I've never tried Fred Hahn's rep style.

My opinion is simple is best! And what works on machines should be good on free weights with few exceptions.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

karma50 wrote:
Marc,
Iagree. I think Winnett's point is that the research shows no difference in outcomes using somewhat lighter weights with slower more controlled reps, as longas there is a hard effort at the end of the set. The studies he cites do not see any difference between lower and higher (upwards of 20) reps in terms of outcomes. If you like heavier weights fine. If you go with a lighter weight and more reps, fine. No real difference in outcomes, according to the stdies, and my own experience.
Griff



If what Dr. Winnett is preaching is true, then an older mature lifter would be foolhardy to train otherwise!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Would it be wise for a mature lifter to include set intensifying methods; negatives, pre/post exhaust, drop sets?
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

marcrph wrote:
Right now the rage is high repetitions for mature lifters. Furthermore, deletion of explosive reps for mature lifters is also advised.

Bill Starr of IronMan magazine has recently wrote an article that advises just that, namely: slower and more repetitions.

I believe there is a point when high repetitions become more aerobic than strengthening. Therefore, I'm not quite sure if a mature lifter would want to go over 2 minutes duration in a set. Just my thoughts.


It all depends on the trainees "conditition", "physical limitations", and "goals".

One must train within those concerns.

Then one would train EXACTLY THE SAME, as they would at 18, 30, or 50, EXEPT they re-calibrate all recovery periods to their present capabilties.

Now when I say "exactly the same", this presumes they properly prepare the body or bodypart for the exercise and don't buy into the "no warm up" nonesense.

SLowing down a rep, IS NOT always reductive to joint stress even with the lighter loads required to do so.

Not that slow is always bad, but it is not the answer to "joint" problems. Most have joint problems for different reasons, and those need to be addressed not blanketed with slowness.

Most Boomers need to address the soon to be evident Sarcopenia. This is not targeted by slow (low load) and or high rep (low load) training stimuli.

All you are getting is "low loads" and that will NOT reduce the atrophy of the TYPE IIa's and IIb's that are jumping ship after 35.

Not that you will be competing with Ronnie on a walker, but the longer you can use "reasonably" large force/loads the higher your bone density and muscle density will be. That will help you be healthier, fitter, and more mobile in your Golden Years.

Open User Options Menu

karma50

marc,
He believes there is not much evidence for such techniques being very productive. Others disagree, and like more intense training. I find that for myself they just extend my recovery, make me stiff and sore, and don't make me any stronger. But that's me. As they say, "results may vary". For myself, it's mostly about staying reasonably lean and strong in the most efficient, safe way possible. Others may have different goals.

That's why I read Dr. Darden's articles. A lot of what he writes is aimed at people who just want to stay fit and are not into bodybuilding/weightlifting for it's own sake. Believe me, if I could find a simpler way, I'd use it.
Griff
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

BIO-FORCE wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Right now the rage is high repetitions for mature lifters. Furthermore, deletion of explosive reps for mature lifters is also advised.

Bill Starr of IronMan magazine has recently wrote an article that advises just that, namely: slower and more repetitions.

I believe there is a point when high repetitions become more aerobic than strengthening. Therefore, I'm not quite sure if a mature lifter would want to go over 2 minutes duration in a set. Just my thoughts.

It all depends on the trainees "conditition", "physical limitations", and "goals".

One must train within those concerns.

Then one would train EXACTLY THE SAME, as they would at 18, 30, or 50, EXEPT they re-calibrate all recovery periods to their present capabilties.

Now when I say "exactly the same", this presumes they properly prepare the body or bodypart for the exercise and don't buy into the "no warm up" nonesense.

SLowing down a rep, IS NOT always reductive to joint stress even with the lighter loads required to do so.

Not that slow is always bad, but it is not the answer to "joint" problems. Most have joint problems for different reasons, and those need to be addressed not blanketed with slowness.

Most Boomers need to address the soon to be evident Sarcopenia. This is not targeted by slow (low load) and or high rep (low load) training stimuli.

All you are getting is "low loads" and that will NOT reduce the atrophy of the TYPE IIa's and IIb's that are jumping ship after 35.

Not that you will be competing with Ronnie on a walker, but the longer you can use "reasonably" large force/loads the higher your bone density and muscle density will be. That will help you be healthier, fitter, and more mobile in your Golden Years.



Bio-Force,

For sure there are plenty of divergent ideas on training mature lifters.

Most baby-boomers are; face it: out of shape! Furthermore, most don't have a clue about any physical goals. So I'm guessing you are referring to a small minority of people who have kept fit over their early adulthood and youth.

From physics: Force = mass x acceleration.

Thus, there is an inverse relationship between force and acceleration. For example is you slow down the speed of a rep the force will go down. Force can cause injuries. Force over time is also stressful. Stress is not always a bad thing! Therefore, I respectfully disagree with you that I am trying to "blanket" joint problems with slow reps. I believe slow reps may be part of the solution for joint problems, but certainly not the whole solution.

I believe the fast twitch fibers can be trained with slow reps as long as the load is high enough to curtail the repetition within a proper time frame.
This however is largely unproven, and I realize this is quite controversial at this very moment. Rep speed I do not believe it is quite as simple as you have stated.
Open User Options Menu

BIO-FORCE

California, USA

marcrph wrote:
BIO-FORCE wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Right now the rage is high repetitions for mature lifters. Furthermore, deletion of explosive reps for mature lifters is also advised.

Bill Starr of IronMan magazine has recently wrote an article that advises just that, namely: slower and more repetitions.

I believe there is a point when high repetitions become more aerobic than strengthening. Therefore, I'm not quite sure if a mature lifter would want to go over 2 minutes duration in a set. Just my thoughts.

It all depends on the trainees "condition", "physical limitations", and "goals".

One must train within those concerns.

Then one would train EXACTLY THE SAME, as they would at 18, 30, or 50, EXCEPT they re-calibrate all recovery periods to their present capabilities.

Now when I say "exactly the same", this presumes they properly prepare the body or bodypart for the exercise and don't buy into the "no warm up" nonsense.

Slowing down a rep, IS NOT always reductive to joint stress even with the lighter loads required to do so.

Not that slow is always bad, but it is not the answer to "joint" problems. Most have joint problems for different reasons, and those need to be addressed not blanketed with slowness.

Most Boomers need to address the soon to be evident Sarcopenia. This is not targeted by slow (low load) and or high rep (low load) training stimuli.

All you are getting is "low loads" and that will NOT reduce the atrophy of the TYPE IIa's and IIb's that are jumping ship after 35.

Not that you will be competing with Ronnie on a walker, but the longer you can use "reasonably" large force/loads the higher your bone density and muscle density will be. That will help you be healthier, fitter, and more mobile in your Golden Years.



Bio-Force,

For sure there are plenty of divergent ideas on training mature lifters.

Most baby-boomers are; face it: out of shape! Furthermore, most don't have a clue about any physical goals. So I'm guessing you are referring to a small minority of people who have kept fit over their early adulthood and youth.


Hi Marc,

Sorry I wasn't as clear as I should be.

Of course any and all medical problems need to be respected and figured into the training equation. On top of that the other significant concern is an extended recovery period.

But I am of the opinion that the "answer" is not slow reps, not high reps "specifically" and some of the reasoning might be askew.

1) Joints. Joint pain can be cause by many things, so it is difficult to make a blanket statement, but "slowing" a reasonably loaded rep is not always joint sparing.

Slower movement speeds "increase" friction within a joint and do not decrease it. It is not unlike getting more friction on ice or snow. You make the wheel go slower to "increase" friction. Friction in a joint is a "bad" thing.

Also under load, cartilages "deform". That is they compress at the pressure points, and this deformation "increases" at slower speeds. The degree of this deformation can also be damaging to smooth and cushioning joint surfaces.

Both these occurrences can actually negatively impact joints and joint surfaces. So the idea is to use a lighter load at normal speed to lubricate the joint surfaces, and prepare the joint for greater loads and stresses.

Repetitive Stress, even if a light load, has the potential at low speeds to cause damage.

marcrph wrote:
From physics: Force = mass x acceleration.

Thus, there is an inverse relationship between force and acceleration. For example is you slow down the speed of a rep the force will go down. Force can cause injuries. Force over time is also stressful. Stress is not always a bad thing! Therefore, I respectfully disagree with you that I am trying to "blanket" joint problems with slow reps. I believe slow reps may be part of the solution for joint problems, but certainly not the whole solution.


No argument regarding the stress to the muscle and joints, and I certainly am not advocating "fast" or out of control, or exceptionally heavy loads. All that is adjusted to the individual.

But the "concept" of slow is good and normal speed is too fast or in some way not the best is the wrong direction.

Too fast (as in out of control) is bad. Too slow, as in creating more joint stress and friction is also bad.

Just jump on a leg extension machine and put your hand on your knee and do a 10 second light leg extension. It will creep you out. Now move to a normal load and speed, and the crepidus is far less, the movement is smoother, and the load to the muscle and joint is better.

Initially it "seems" like a good idea to "slow things down", but normal speed is going to be the best movement pattern to follow.

marcrph wrote:

I believe the fast twitch fibers can be trained with slow reps as long as the load is high enough to curtail the repetition within a proper time frame.


Not sure what the proper time frame might be, but referencing a time frame would lead to a fatigue based recruitment strategy. This is highly inefficient at recruiting Type II fibers overall, and it has a tendency to recharachterize them to more "enduring" and slow fiber character.

It would be better to thoroughly warm up and prepare the area being trained, and then use the "initial" and unfatigued reps with larger forces to recruit the Type II fibers and stress them before fatigue reduces the potential for that level of tension.

I don't wish this to sound like I am advocating HEAVY out of control TRAINING, but the message is don't slow down and go light for lots of reps. This will only accelerate the "old man shuffle" and the slow pace of the aged.

It is imperative that one experience higher load (but only progressively attained) and not train yourself into slowness and joint pain.

marcrph wrote:

This however is largely unproven, and I realize this is quite controversial at this very moment. Rep speed I do not believe it is quite as simple as you have stated.


The recruitment priority, and the recharaterization of fiber types is well known, as is the phenomenon of Sarcopenia. It is a battle, and one need fight it with properly applied training intensities.

Someone asked about using "exhaustions" and eccentric type loadings, and my advice is NO to the exhausting (read fatiguing) muscle groups in favor of higher "controlled" tensions, and accentuated eccentrics can be some of the most effective if implemented properly. Slowing the eccentric portion of the rep IS NOT adequate. Having a partner or trainer add eccentric load can be.

Here is one study that looks into rep speed and bone density in older populations.

bioforce.proboards79.com/index.cgi?board=
stuff&action=display&thread=96

Also, here is a collection of research and papers regarding rep speeds, muscle fiber concerns etc.
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy