Women and Resistance Exercise

Ask or answer questions, discuss and express your views

Moderators: Ironman, Jungledoc, parth, stuward

User avatar
ApolytonGP
Advanced Member
Advanced Member
Posts: 1122
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:44 am

Post by ApolytonGP » Wed Aug 04, 2010 5:50 pm

Jungledoc wrote:You'll notice that in the Poloquin blog that this referred to initially there is the reference to a study or studies at Tufts that showed that muscle mass correlates to longevity. I'd love to see that study and to be able to quote it with authority. In the blog Poloquin doesn't give any better hints about the article(s), or the author. I've tried to find it with a literature search, but I couldn't find it. I wrote to Poloquin, and got a reply from his assistant saying basically "find it yourself". I wrote back patiently asking for any more clues, such as author's name, but in her reply she said "Charles writes those, and he doesn't come into the office much." She said that she'd try to ask him, and get back to me sometime.

This illustrates a very common trend in writing about fitness and in healthcare, and I'm sure in many other fields where there is a mix of folk tradition and science. People "cite" studies without really citing them. Without a specific citation (name of article, author, publication, dates, etc) the reader has no way of confirming what you say about the study. You're left trusting the interpretation and honesty of the author. There isn't really even evidence that the author has seen the study him/herself.

I have seen cases where people quoted studies, but when I went and looked at the actual study I found that it didn't even say what the writer claimed it said. At least with the citation data I can see for myself that this is the case. When the "citation" is nothing more that "a study showed that..." there is no way to confirm or refute the writer's claim. Saying something like "a study at Tufts University showed that..." sounds more convincing, but is no different. "Tufts University" is not a useful Medline search.

When a layperson in casual conversation (in person or on a forum) says something like that, you call him on it and he can't produce the "study", it's really no big deal. But when "experts" of international reputation do it in widely distributed writing, it's downright disturbing.
I produced two literature reviews (one was a pure lit review and the other had it's own study as well) on the whole machine/free-weight debate. And no one wanted to get all dirty and roll in the details. Even to trash their methodologies since they contradicted the powerlifting meta-narrative. :cry:

Stu did point out some good issues with one study I brought up from AARR and I appreciated his shrewd insights. Even though they hurt my case. :mad:


wilburburns
Member
Member
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Location: Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Post by wilburburns » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:40 pm

hmm, I bet that was a good post. by Hoosegow that is now gone
:blackeye:

Cliff

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Wed Aug 04, 2010 7:50 pm

It was.

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:37 pm

Thought better of it. My patience has grown thin. I figured it was best to delete it.

wilburburns
Member
Member
Posts: 625
Joined: Thu Jul 24, 2008 12:16 pm
Location: Kentucky, USA
Contact:

Post by wilburburns » Wed Aug 04, 2010 8:47 pm

hoosegow wrote:Thought better of it. My patience has grown thin. I figured it was best to delete it.
Still sorry I missed it..

Cliff


KPj
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 3482
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am

Post by KPj » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:53 am

ApolytonGP wrote:
I produced two literature reviews (one was a pure lit review and the other had it's own study as well) on the whole machine/free-weight debate. And no one wanted to get all dirty and roll in the details. Even to trash their methodologies since they contradicted the powerlifting meta-narrative. :cry:

Stu did point out some good issues with one study I brought up from AARR and I appreciated his shrewd insights. Even though they hurt my case. :mad:
Weren't they done on beginners?

'nuff said.

KPj

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Thu Aug 05, 2010 7:23 am

ApolytonGP wrote:I produced two literature reviews (one was a pure lit review and the other had it's own study as well) on the whole machine/free-weight debate. And no one wanted to get all dirty and roll in the details. Even to trash their methodologies since they contradicted the powerlifting meta-narrative. :cry:

Stu did point out some good issues with one study I brought up from AARR and I appreciated his shrewd insights. Even though they hurt my case. :mad:
What does that have to do with anything? Am I missing something here? How does this reply follow my post? I didn't criticize you for not providing the citation, I criticized Charles Poliquin. Is this just an opportunity to bring up your perceived slight again? Does every thread on the forum have to be about you? Why hijack this thread?

Please, Poly, either get the stinkin' chip off your shoulder or shut up.

I'm that far, that far from asking the mods for a ban.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:15 am

Doc, ignore him.

I've been looking at a lot of articles that link exercise to longevity (I've given up on the Tuft connection). There are a lot of articles out there, most poorly documented that all make the connection. Most relate to some Harvard study that correlates endurance exercise to longevity. Other articles talk about strength and flexibility being the key criteria. Most correlate the volume of exercise with the increased endurance but some relate fitness level to longevity.

The question of exercise improving longevity is probably certain. The question in my mind is "what type of exercise is optimal". When my doctor tells me I should run an hour a day at the "just talk" level, can I say that I weight train intensely, sprint occationally and walk leisurely and that's just as good and not as boring?

I think someone said: "Endurance exercise makes you live longer, strength training makes you want to live longer."
Strengthen your muscles as muscular atrophy is the main reason for loss of physical function as you age
Increase your maximum heart and lung capacity by short bursts of intense activity followed by rest. This is something like interval training but it consists of very intense intervals. Maximum heart and lung capacity are correlated with mortality. Constant aerobic activity does not increase maximum capacities and is less beneficial.
http://www.ratracetrap.com/the-rat-race ... onger.html
Pick the right exercise
The type of exercise you choose matters when it comes to longevity. Recent research from Finland indicates that individuals who engage in endurance activities (running, cycling, swimming, cross country skiing, walking) live about six years longer than couch potatoes. In contrast, those who prefer team sports like basketball, ice hockey, or soccer live just four years more. And sports-active people who prefer 'power-type' activities, including weight lifting, field events, and sprinting, last for only two additional years.
http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0003.htm

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Thu Aug 05, 2010 8:42 am

stuward wrote:This may not be the document you want but it's interesting and has a great bibliography: http://www2.fhs.usyd.edu.au/ess/orr/GDA ... %20age.pdf
Thanks, Stu. Those are interesting. The first one there has a "sources" link, but unfortunately the page it links to is no longer available. They do give some information about Tufts, and names of some people who work there. That third one will require some study!

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:21 am

And thanks for the others as well.

I've found lots of articles on related topics, but nothing claiming to show that muscle mass correlates to longevity, so far.

The reason I'm interested (besides that it's simply important information) is that it would seem that this should influence training type in older individuals. If muscle mass is indeed the most sensitive indicator of longevity, and if increasing muscle mass increases longevity (a separate question), then us older guys would be better-served by a hypertrophy style of training than a purely strength-oriented approach.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Thu Aug 05, 2010 10:58 am

I think it's strength that is the key driver so if you find anything, please post it. Strength and muscle mass are often lumped together in scientific studies so it's going to get confusing.

hoosegow
Veteren Member
Veteren Member
Posts: 2003
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 6:40 am
Location: Texas

Post by hoosegow » Thu Aug 05, 2010 12:18 pm

Okay Doc. I am only throwing this out there as a hypothesis for consideration while doing your research. Strength training (perhaps) may not have any direct correlation to longevity. Instead could it improve quality of live and consequently make people want to move more and thus ultimately resulting in them living longer?

Maybe this example will clarify. Strength training along with other stress on the muscular/skelatal system has been shown to improve bone density (I assume this is a fairly accepted truth). Greater bone density helps the elderly avoid fractures and breaks - eg. the hip. Consequently the elderly who do strength training remain active longer helping with their overall health.

User avatar
stuward
moderator
moderator
Posts: 6648
Joined: Sat Mar 10, 2007 5:44 pm
Location: Halifax, NS

Post by stuward » Thu Aug 05, 2010 1:01 pm

Housegow, I agree 100% with your assessment and that's why I think strength is more important than mass, but apparently there is an potential effect on mitochondria that may directly affect aging and longevity. I don't know what drives that other than exercise in general.

robertscott
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Posts: 4424
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:20 pm

Post by robertscott » Thu Aug 05, 2010 3:52 pm

stuward wrote:Housegow, I agree 100% with your assessment and that's why I think strength is more important than mass, but apparently there is an potential effect on mitochondria that may directly affect aging and longevity. I don't know what drives that other than exercise in general.
increased flexibility probably has something to do with it as well, keeps folk active

User avatar
Jungledoc
moderator
moderator
Posts: 7578
Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea

Post by Jungledoc » Thu Aug 05, 2010 4:24 pm

Obviously it's a complex thing. I'm sure that all of those things contributes. But this is Poliquin's claim that I'm trying to convirm:
According to Tufts University, the greater your muscle mass the greater the longevity potential. It is, in fact, the number one biomarker of longevity. It is a far better predictor of longevity than total cholesterol or blood pressure.
Of course, total cholesterol and BP are not great predictors, so maybe this isn't a big deal.


Post Reply