Keep the Grim Reaper at bay by being strong.

One of my favourite Mark Rippetoe quotes is, “Strong people are harder to kill than weak people and more useful in general.”

One of my members recently sent me an article that adds a different flavour to that. Here are the highlights.

Two new papers offer some insights into the benefits of strength training.

The first is an analysis of the link between strength, muscle mass, and mortality. From a team at Indiana University using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. The design was pretty straightforward. They assessed 4,440 adults ages 50 or up who had their strength and muscle mass assessed between 1999 and 2002. The researchers checked back in 2011 to see who had died.

For muscle mass, they used a DEXA scanner to determine that 23 percent of the subjects met one definition of “low muscle mass,” with total muscle in the arms and legs adding up to less than 20kg in men or 15kg in women. For strength, they used a device that measures the maximum force of the knee extensors (the muscles that allow you to straighten your knee). They found that 19 percent of the subjects had low muscle strength.

The results, published in Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, found that those with low muscle strength were more than twice as likely to have died during the follow-up period than those with normal muscle strength. In contrast, having low muscle mass didn’t seem to matter as much. Having low muscle mass but normal strength didn’t seem to be such a bad thing. Function matters more than what you look like. That doesn’t mean you can afford to let your muscle melt away as you age; having a good reserve of muscle mass may be important, for example, if you end up having to spend time in the hospital at some point.

The other study took aim at the perception that strength training is an afterthought in public health guidelines. Most of us remember that we’re supposed to get at least 150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise per week. Reams of data support the beneficial health effects of hitting this goal.

The guidelines also suggest doing “strength-promoting exercise” at least twice a week—a clause that’s often forgotten and the benefits of which are usually framed in terms of avoiding frailty and improving quality of life, rather than actually extending it.

Researchers in Australia analyzed data from 80,000 adults in England and Scotland who completed surveys about their physical activity patterns starting in the 1990s. The headline result was that those who reported doing any strength training were 23 percent less likely to die during the study period and 31 percent less likely to die of cancer. Meeting the guidelines by strength training twice a week offered a little extra benefit.

One interesting detail: Strength training in a gym and doing bodyweight exercises seemed to confer roughly equivalent benefits. So you don’t necessarily need to heave around large quantities of iron.

In this particular cohort, the benefits of meeting only the strength-training guidelines seemed to be roughly equivalent to meeting only the aerobic-training guidelines—at least in terms of overall mortality.  The findings do suggest that ditching aerobic exercise entirely may not be optimal. And indeed, the best outcomes of all—a 29 percent reduction in mortality risk during the study—accrued to those who met both the aerobic and strength-training guidelines.

So, in summary, strength training is good for you. Does that really tell you anything you didn’t know? Perhaps not. And the harder to kill bit, in Mark Rippetoe’s quote now means something a little different. Food for thought…!

By | 2018-10-15T02:35:27+00:00 October 23rd, 2018|Blog, Health|