Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Why is bench press a criteria as opposed to say lifting 200# over your head (clean and jerk?), or dead lift 200#? Doesn't benchpress build shoulders? Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: aequalsz Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 9:09 AM Subject: [ ] Muscles and bones Believe that higher intensity weight lifting should help maintain oreven improve bone density and muscle strength and maybe mass. Why? Well to increase my bench press results I have to add on more weightsand then I see improvements in muscle strength. On the other handdoing numerous push-ups while maintaining the status quo, does notimprove maximum strength at all. Microscopic analysis of the limb bones of our prehistoric ancestorsshows that their bones were usually much stronger than those of aperson of today, probably due to the current genetics but also due todemands associated with high intensity muscle output. (I'm of courseassuming that when one was running from a cave bear or bashing a rivalover the head with a club that it took significantly high intensitymuscle output.)Don't believe the namby-pamby aerobic routines utilizing some rathersmall weights (2 pounds) or walking weightlessly on a "treadmill" (NASA Space Station) will help maintain musculature or bone density very much. Also have read a scientific article recently stating thathigher intensity exercises were more effective for preventing bonedensity loss. Was concerned with this because the wife had shown somesigns of incipient osteoporosis.So personally today I'm going to add some more poundage to my workoutand try to stress the system a little bit more. Nothing drasticthough, especially at my age.So far with the CRON diet have reached a BMI of about 25 (down from25.5) but at the same time, after resuming some weight training, also feel significantly stronger. There shouldn't be any reason one can'tbe a strong and lean individual simultaneously. Of course not strongto the extent of a body builder but still able to bench press wellover 200 pounds, etc. Extending one's life via CRON is a great idea,but if you're body has become weakened too much and you suffer aserious injury such as in a car wreck, get mugged, slip on some ice,fall off your chair, or whatever, your lifestyle and life span mightsuffer greatly. So in my humble opinion, it a good idea to factor ina few more possibilities than planning on living to a greatly extendedage completely safe and free from injury like some of the CRON testmice or monkeys do. They were pretty safe in their cages unlike thoseof us who live in the real world. CRON without some fairly stressfulexercise is a mistake IMHO.Disclaimer. Am new to CRON, am not and have never been in the medicalprofession, and some would say don't know my a** from a hole in theground. :-) Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > Why is bench press a criteria as opposed to say lifting 200# over your head (clean and jerk?), or dead lift 200#? Doesn't benchpress build shoulders? > > Regards. > That is just one of the weight exercises I've done since my army days. Personally think lifting a large weight over your head or dead lifting a large weight is fairly dangerous. Especially since you can easily give yourself a hernia, slip a disk in your back, or drop one on your foot. So I give gravitational forces a lot of respect. And just do, what I consider, safer weight lifting exercises that I believe well keep the ole body functioning - without incurring too much risk doing it. Like moderate weights on the shoulders doing limited squats for the leg muscles and (gently) stressing the vertebra of the back. Enough intensity however that I'm breathing fairly deeply for at least a few seconds. My own reference point is a body weight of 155 pounds and max bench press of 275 lbs, achieved at age 25 or thereabouts. Doubt if I'll be revisiting those numbers anytime soon, but you never know, never been this optimally nutritioned before. :-) Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Good point and one which we've touched on before. IMHO, if you're too extreme and you do get sick for some reason (or lose a lot of blood in an accident of some kind) you ain't got much in the way of " reserves " afa body fat or blood etc........another reason to be moderate in your program........... on 6/5/2004 10:09 AM, aequalsz at aequalsz@... wrote: Extending one's life via CRON is a great idea, > but if you're body has become weakened too much and you suffer a > serious injury such as in a car wreck, get mugged, slip on some ice, > fall off your chair, or whatever, your lifestyle and life span might > suffer greatly. So in my humble opinion, it a good idea to factor in > a few more possibilities than planning on living to a greatly extended > age completely safe and free from injury like some of the CRON test > mice or monkeys do. They were pretty safe in their cages unlike those > of us who live in the real world. CRON without some fairly stressful > exercise is a mistake IMHO. > > Disclaimer. Am new to CRON, am not and have never been in the medical > profession, and some would say don't know my a** from a hole in the > ground. :-) > > > Aequalsz > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 I have been lifting for years and since I lift alone at home I prefer the safety of a machine. While it was a significant investment at the time. I just logged workout # 943 on thurs so I feel like I've gotten my money's worth. (note: I've replaced the cables about 3x and welded broken bits twice, but it's still cheaper than a health club). Unlike the human body, machines do not get stronger from stress. :-) I am a fan of weight training for general fitness and attempt to somewhat compensate for my loss of mass while playing basketball with younger, bigger, players. I don't know how much is due to age (55yo) and how much is due to energy balance but I have lost strength over the years. I'm currently benching more than I weight, but less that I did before losing weight. I find that I lose strength very quickly from brief interruptions in training... I'm not yet back to where I was after a recent week out of town. I've seen general health advice (for old folks) saying not to bench press more than half our body weight. I obviously don't follow that. I would suggest doing whatever you can, and if you have some decent strength be careful not to let it waste away during rapid weight loss. There have been discussions here before about weight training so some time in the archives will provide more information. JR -----Original Message----- From: aequalsz [mailto:aequalsz@...] Sent: Saturday, June 05, 2004 11:15 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Muscles and bones --- In , " jwwright " <jwwright@e...> wrote: > Why is bench press a criteria as opposed to say lifting 200# over your head (clean and jerk?), or dead lift 200#? Doesn't benchpress build shoulders? > > Regards. > That is just one of the weight exercises I've done since my army days. Personally think lifting a large weight over your head or dead lifting a large weight is fairly dangerous. Especially since you can easily give yourself a hernia, slip a disk in your back, or drop one on your foot. So I give gravitational forces a lot of respect. And just do, what I consider, safer weight lifting exercises that I believe well keep the ole body functioning - without incurring too much risk doing it. Like moderate weights on the shoulders doing limited squats for the leg muscles and (gently) stressing the vertebra of the back. Enough intensity however that I'm breathing fairly deeply for at least a few seconds. My own reference point is a body weight of 155 pounds and max bench press of 275 lbs, achieved at age 25 or thereabouts. Doubt if I'll be revisiting those numbers anytime soon, but you never know, never been this optimally nutritioned before. :-) Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Hi Aequalsz: Just for reference, what represents 'moderate weights on the shoulders' in your case? TIA Rodney. --- In , " aequalsz " <aequalsz@y...> wrote: ................. Like moderate weights on the shoulders doing > limited squats for the leg muscles and (gently) stressing the vertebra > of the back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 Here is a link to an article about a man who does CR, but the articles suggests he lifts weights more and eats more protein than the average CR person. I would think one can do CR in slightly different ways with slightly different desired results if one alters particular aspects of one's lifestyle. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001789302_agecalories 12m.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@y...> wrote: > Hi Aequalsz: > > Just for reference, what represents 'moderate weights on the > shoulders' in your case? TIA > > Rodney. > I started with 50% body weight, but realized I'm a bit out of shape so backed off to 35%. A Chec laborer (and bodybuilder) in Miesau Germany once told me that this exercise can kill you. Suppose he meant heart attack, so I don't get too carried away with it. And I don't squat all the way because it can be tough on the knees. Just use a weight that you're comfortable with. Don't know what my max would be since my legs are far stronger than my arms, but at any rate think it's important to be careful with this exercise and start out slowly if this one is new to you. I'm not a big body builder, actually more of a runner and a computer nerd so you should probably consult someone more experienced than me on weight training. I'm just hoping to lose weight and actually regain a bit of strength lost due to inactivity and natural aging. Aequalsz Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 Hi All, I believe that you are correct, . I have a much lower BMI and eat fewer calories than another CRer, yet he has a lower body fat content - 5 versus my 8.2%. He does isometric exercise; I do not. Muscle requires more calories/weight I believe. Al Pater. > Here is a link to an article about a man who does CR, but the > articles suggests he lifts weights more and eats more protein than > the average CR person. I would think one can do CR in slightly > different ways with slightly different desired results if one alters > particular aspects of one's lifestyle. > > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001789302_agecalories > 12m.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 6, 2004 Report Share Posted June 6, 2004 This is also a data point suggesting that %BF alone is inadequate to quantify a safe lower limit for CR. Different individuals will have different activity levels and for that matter different genetic makeup. There are no hard definitions only rough guidelines. JR PS: hi Al, I hope you're eating a little more today... -----Original Message----- From: old542000 [mailto:apater@...] Sent: Sunday, June 06, 2004 9:48 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Muscles and bones Hi All, I believe that you are correct, . I have a much lower BMI and eat fewer calories than another CRer, yet he has a lower body fat content - 5 versus my 8.2%. He does isometric exercise; I do not. Muscle requires more calories/weight I believe. Al Pater. > Here is a link to an article about a man who does CR, but the > articles suggests he lifts weights more and eats more protein than > the average CR person. I would think one can do CR in slightly > different ways with slightly different desired results if one alters > particular aspects of one's lifestyle. > > http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001789302_agecalories > 12m.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.