EUGENIZATION.

NY Times’ Gina Kolata writes about strength training and the relationship of muscle to health:

More Than an Exercise in Vanity.

What’s excellent about this article is that it stresses the importance of strength training vis a vis the concept of “muscle health.”  Seem like a misnomer?  Not really - studies show positive correlation of muscle strength to longevity; in other words, the stronger your muscles are, the longer you live.

While I’m more than happy to see positive press for strength training, (particularly press geared towards the population that truly needs it - older adults who’ve never strength trained) I couldn’t help but notice the inaccuracies in Kolata’s article.   I’ll comment on them here in no particular order:

1) “And keeping muscles fit takes effort, which means regular training with weight lifting and cardiovascular exercise even if the results are not a sculptured look, these experts add.”

First off, cardiovascular exercise really isn’t necessary - I’ve touched upon this previously, but in summary, stronger muscles are more enduring muscles.  So-called cardiovascular benefits (at least, to the extent that they impact health and longevity) can easily be attained through strength training.

As for not attaining a sculptured look, that’s mostly a function of diet.  You can reasonably expect that with a properly performed strength training routine, your muscles will grow - no, not to Arnold-like proportions, but grow they will - and this is a good thing.

2) “To maintain endurance, you should engage in activities that pump blood to the muscles, like walking.”

More Cardio Myth stuff.  Note: I am not suggesting that a marathoner only engage in strength training, then go out and run a marathon.  No, a marathoner should run his little tail off, slowly accumulating mileage and building up efficiency in his muscular system so as to perform the low-intensity activity of running for an obscene amount of time/distance.  What I am suggesting is that for purposes other than sports performance (namely, health and longevity), it’s not necessary. 

Stay active if you like; run if you like; get thrashed in Brazilian Jiujitsu if you like; just realize you don’t have to do any of these things to ensure health if you also strength train.

3) “The most effective way to stimulate muscles is with a system known as progressive resistance. This approach can take about three hours a week and includes days, once a week or so, when you lift weights so heavy that you can do only three to five repetitions before your muscles are too tired to lift again. Other days are devoted to moderate resistance, with weights you can lift 8 to 10 times. And then you should have some light days, with weights you can lift 12 to 15 times before your muscles tire.”

Sorry Gina; progressive resistance simply means that you load muscles with a given weight, and progressively increase that weight (and/or the workload) over time.  There’s no need to vary the intensity (read: effort) on different days, nor do you need to arbitrarily change rep ranges (3-5 vs. 12-15) on different days as well.  Good-ol’ single progression (where you do the same basic exercises, sets, and reps, increasing the weights you use over time) will work just fine for the average trainee 99.999% of the time.

You can take one hour a week to do it, three hours, or 20 minutes; the time spent isn’t important.  What is important is that you strength train with concentration, consistency, and high levels of effort.

All in all, it’s hard to fault Gina Kolata’s article; after all, I’m sure her intentions are in the right place.  And if it gets someone who would never have considered strength training into the gym (or into my wicked clutches - wuah ha ha ha), then it certainly will have served humankind well.