The standard Deadlift is one of the best exercises available to develop many of the largest and strongest muscles in the body and is essential to any resistance or strength training program. It is one of the few standard weight lifting exercises in which the start of the movement begins with ‘dead’ weight. The Deadlift is a fantastic exercise for anybody over 40, provided it is performed correctly with good technique and with proper progression. It is a compound movement that stimulates many different muscle groups and provides excellent weight-bearing loads to several critical joints in our body. For more information on the basics of the Deadlift please see here.
How to do the Deadlift and key things to remember
Standard Deadlift: This exercise can be broken down into three parts.
The setup;
The pull or drive;
The lockout.
The Setup:
Set-up position
During the set-up the gluteus maximus and minimus (glutes/buttocks), quadriceps muscle group (thigh), all muscles of the hamstring group and the triceps surae (calf) will be eccentrically loaded.
The erector spinae muscles (lower back) and assisting core muscles will contract isometrically to stabilise the spine.
The bar should be resting against the lower tibia or shin bone.
To maximise recruitment of the lower body musculature – for general purposes and sports specific training – I would suggest that there be sufficient knee flexion at set-up so that both hip and knee extensors are both major contributors during the Deadlift. Too many do this exercise with too little knee flexion thereby making it predominantly a hip dominant movement rather than a hip and quad combined movement. This advice is not applicable to powerlifting with less knee flexion used for competition.
Hip-to-shoulder body angle in relation to the floor (or horizontal) should be somewhere between 20° to 40°. This can be varied depending on the load desired on the hip dominant or quad dominant muscles. Generally speaking, reducing this angle will place more stress or load on the hip dominant muscles (glutes) by increasing the leverage and length of these muscles.
The bar can be gripped either between or on the outside of the legs. Most standard Deadlifts however will have the bar gripped on the outside of the legs.
Hand grip can be pronated (palms facing legs) or an alternative grip with one hand pronated and one supinated (palm facing away from body) being also popular. For heavier lifts most will use the latter grip mentioned above as this will synergistically create better upper body stability and linkage to the lower limbs during the move.
The scapulae need to be retracted or depressed with the shoulders held firmly in place so that the load is distributed via the lats and erectors. The idea is that the linkage between where the hands grip the bar and where the feet contact the floor remains at greatest tension so that the forces generated can be translated efficiently.
Drive:
The highest amount of force is produced during the drive phase.
The key movement concept to think about when commencing the Deadlift is not to “push up” but rather to “push away”. So when you initiate the movement imagine you are pushing the floor away from your feet with the body virtually staying in place.
During this initial drive phase which finishes just around the knee, the upper body angle should stay the same.
The movement of the bar from the floor to the knees should be mainly achieved by the recruitment of the glutes, quads and hamstrings.
The spinal column should stay straight. To the naked eye from an observer, the spinal curves at lumber, thoracic and cervical sections should look the same or remain neutral as they would appear if you were standing erect.
From the lateral view, the knees should approximately fall over the feet and as the drive phase is carried out the knees will slightly move behind the feet.
By driving through the floor with flat feet and unhinging at the hips and knees, the bar should travel very close to or in fact scrap the tibia or shin bone all the way up to the knee. You may require some tights, long socks or something to cover the lower legs as once the technique is mastered (if you are using an Olympic bar with a roughed surface) you may otherwise take skin off and possibly bleed. This is a good sign that the bar is travelling along the correct path if all else is being performed well.
Safety for this exercise is primarily based on ensuring that correct technique is developed before progressing the weight up. If sufficient knee flexion is utilised for the standard Deadlift with the drive phase being completed with the upper body angle constant with neutral spinal alignment held, lumbar load and integrity is maintained.
Performing the valsalva manoeuvre (see here) also assists in stabilising the bodily structures and core during the whole femoral-lumbopelvic movement.
Mid-drive position
Lockout:
The lockout phase for FitGreyStrong followers commences from the knees to the standing upright position.
Following the drive from the floor to the knees, the upper body angle now changes from the 20° to 40° that was held for the drive phase.
From this point you are now trying to stand upright. To do this, once the bar has cleared the patella or is just above the knees, driving or thrusting the hips forward whilst attempting to stand upright is the movement concept to be thinking. This is where the glutes, hamstrings and erectors are required to work in unison to complete the Deadlift.
There is still some knee extension left to complete so the quads will still be required to contract forcefully in sync with the primary contraction of the glutes, hamstrings and erectors to complete the entire movement.
The core musculature (abs, obliques, TA) and supportive muscle such as the lats are needed to be held tight and strong so that the prime movers can work optimally.
The bar should finish resting fully against the upper quads with the thighs and hips fully extended, arms extended, shoulders back and head in normal position and eyes looking forward.
Mid-lockout position
Lowering the weight:
Lowering from the lockout position does not have to but can mirror the concentric stand-up movement of the Deadlift. This is an individual’s preference.
FitGreyStrong’s recommendation would be to slide the bar down against the quads, over the knees and down the tibia/shin bone until you can return it to the floor.
The spinal alignment and maintenance of correct form as outlined above would still be imperative and will, in general, minimise risk of injury.
Knee and hip flexion would be gradually increased as one lowers the bar toward the ground.
Final comments:
The standard Deadlift is one of the very best resistive-based exercises available in the gym setting for anybody of any level of fitness or anyone of any sporting background wanting to increase full-body strength for performance enhancement. If you haven’t tried this exercise before make this one of your top priorities to learn and master; it will pay huge dividends irrespective of what you are trying to achieve.
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong or FGS website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
In my article titled “It can’t possibly be true, can it?” I questioned whether there was any foundation to the claim that inactivity is not a chief cause obesity and provided scientific evidence suggesting otherwise. Today I will try explain to you what the bottom-line is as to why exercise doesn’t work for everybody trying to lose weight. One thing I have noticed is that there isn’t enough time or effort – either in the media or on the net – dedicated to informing the public about why exercise does not work for some people and what can be done about.
Exercise has been successfully applied as an essential ingredient of many weight loss programs. By increasing total daily energy expenditure, creating a caloric deficit state is theoretically, at least, more likely. It naturally follows that the weight loss achieved will be correlated to the magnitude of the energy deficit created. In practice however this does not always happen. In fact, there are a number of studies and anecdotal evidence that show a significant proportion of exercisers eating an ad libitum diet (possibly as high as 50%) do not achieve the weight loss expected with as many as 15% actually gaining weight. These individuals are often referred to as ‘non–responders‘. Those on the other hand that do achieve weight loss from exercise are referred to as ‘responders‘. The question is, how is this possible and are there any practical solutions?
Energy compensation and exercise-induced fat loss
People respond differently to exercise:
Non-responders vs responders
These differences in response to exercise include:
Non-responders increase whilst responders decrease, total daily energy intake (all the food and drinks you consume on a daily basis).
Some of these differences apparently occur unbeknownst to the exerciser so there is some sort of compensation going on to offset the extra energy expended from exercise.
Non-responders increase their consumption of fat.
Non-responders experience much greater subjective sensations of fasted hunger (upon waking) and hunger across the day compared to responders.
Non-responders demonstrate an increased whereas responders show a decreased, desire to eat.
Non-responders satisfaction or feelings of fullness from meals is significantly reduced whilst there are no changes in responders.
Behavioural compensatory adjustments to exercise training in overweight women showed the loss of weight/fat mass or lack thereof, was attributable to an increase or decrease in spontaneous physical activity, respectively.
Resting metabolic rate may be reduced in non-responders but not in responders.
Brain function and weight control is poorly understood
If you are struggling to lose weight after starting an exercise regimen then you could be classified as a non-responder and should consider the following:
If possible, have some measurements taken by a knowledgeable professional that includes girths (such as hips, waist, thighs etc) and skinfolds where the subcutaneous fat can be approximately measured by calipers. By doing this you will be able to work out more precisely what changes are actually taking place. This is pretty important because some ‘non-responders’ will lose a considerable amount of fat but total weight loss may be only slight or actually increase (see King et al 2008). This will affect roughly 10% of exercisers that are trying to lose weight but these body composition changes are in fact desirable and favourable.
Monitor energy intake more closely and consider recording actual food and beverage intakes so you can keep tabs on this as you go. Given that ad libitum diets don’t seem to work too well for non-responders, recording your intake is a good place to start. Assuringly, research shows that those that diarise what they are eating and drinking are much more successful at weight loss and weight management compared to those that don’t, so start recording.
Recognise that if you keep accurate records of these things and create an energy deficit – the research that has been conducted in metabolic-ward studies suggests – that weight loss is highly probable. Based on an account of energy intake and energy expenditure, if the creation of an energy deficit does not elicit any change in body composition, it is likely that there has been an over-estimation of energy expenditure or an under-estimation of energy intake, or a combination of both. However, this now allows subtle changes to be made to energy expenditure or intake so that body fat mass reduction can be realised (see here and herefor great discussions on the crucial role calories play when it comes to fat loss or fat gain).
Ensure that your exercise program includes some resistance or weight training. The response to exercise of non-responders as outlined above is related specifically to 1-2 hours of aerobic exercise (i.e. walking, running, cycling etc). You may ironically achieve better weight loss if you back off the aerobic exercise but place a bit more emphasis on weight training or resistance-type exercise. Some researchhas shown that appetite is suppressed more so with resistance versus aerobic exercise and it is the changes of increased appetite in non-responders that presents a major problem when attempting to bring about sustainable weight loss. With respect to adults who are overweight or obese, Drenowatz& colleagues clearly demonstrated that resistance exercise but not aerobic exercise reduced fat mass.
Resistance training is very effective to facilitate fat loss
This form of activity also substantially reduces the risk of losing LBM (lean body mass = muscle tissue) in older adults (see Villarealet al). It is very common to see exercisers lose significant amounts of LBM when only aerobic exercise is undertaken while in an energy deficit state.
The loss of LBM is not desirable for 2 key reasons. Firstly, functional physical capacity could be affected in both the short and long term (see Villrealet al). Secondly, resting metabolic rate will be reduced thereby making weight loss more difficult and weight regain more likely (see herefor further discussion).
“Don’t put the cart before the horse.” By that I mean, the quality of what you decide to eat will have a massive impact on your success. A caloric deficit is the goal but it should be achieved with a diet consisting of wholesome, natural, minimally processed and nutrient-dense foods. Not only is this essential to weight loss success but more importantly generating good health.
No caloric deficit = no fat loss
To combat increased subjective sensations of hunger, then, as a start please make sure that the diet is high in a variety of vegetables, has several serves of fruit each day, contains sufficient and varied sources of protein and includes things like nuts, seeds and oils. This is pretty commonsense stuff but you need to put into practice what actually works. The make-up or quality of the diet appears to impact on subsequent appetite, sensations of hunger and feelings of fullness, so anything that assists in keeping the physiological drives to eat at bay are only going to be helpful (see Blundellet al).
References (in no particular order)
Drenowatz, C. et al. (2015) “The prospective association between different types of exercise and body composition” Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise. 47(12): 2535-2541.
Manthou, E. and Gill, J.M.R. and Wright, A. and Malkova, D. (2010) Behavioural compensatory adjustments to exercise training in overweight women. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 42 (6). pp. 1121- 1128.
Melanson, E.L. et al. (2013) “Resistance to exercise-induced weight loss: compensatory behavioural adaptations” Med Sci Sports Exerc.August; 45(8): 1600-1609.
King N.A. et al. (2008) “Individual variability following 12 weeks of supervised exercise: identification and characterization of compensation for exercise-induced weight loss.” International Journal of Obesity. 32: 177-184
King N.A. et al. (2009) “Dual-process action of exercise on appetite control: increase in orexigenic drive but improvement in meal-induced satiety.” Am J Clin Nutr. 90: 921-927
Peterson N.D. et al. (2014) “Dietary Self-Monitoring and Long-Term Success with Weight Management”. Obesity 22, 1962–1967
Broom, D.R. (2008) “Influence of resistance and aerobic exercise on hunger, circulating levels of acylated ghrelin, and peptide YY in healthy males” American Journal of Physiology. 296(1): R29-R35.
King, N.A. et al (2012) “Exercise, appetite and weight management: understanding the compensatory responses in eating behaviour and how they contribute to variability in exercise-induced weight loss.”British Journal of Sports Medicine 46(5):315-22.
Villareal D.T. et al. (2011) “Weight Loss, Exercise, or Both and Physical Function in Obese Older Adults.” N Engl J Med 364(13): 1218-1229
Blundell J. et al. (2010) “Appetite control: methodological aspects of the evaluation of foods.” Obe Rev 11(3): 251-270
For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to achieve the above-mentioned benefits or to enhance athletic performance, contact FitGreyStrong@outlook.com or phone 0499 846 955 for a confidential discussion.
For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
The following article is a long review and appraisal of a study that investigated the effects that sitting had – with and without caloric restriction – on metabolic health and compared this to a group that was physically active. This was designed in an attempt to independently tease out just what effect – firstly, the action of sitting and secondly, the state of energy surplus – has on metabolic health. The take-home message is very simple; prolonged sitting is very bad for you. Period.
In summary, the following conclusions can be made:
Just one day of prolonged sitting had a profound effect on insulin action.
Sitting therefore has a direct effect on metabolic health by substantially reducing the body’s ability to dispose of, or “metabolise” the foods we consume.
These negative effects occurred in young, healthy and non-obese individuals.
Future research is required to determine if factors such as aging, obesity, health comorbidities and inactivity interact independently or synergistically to cause further metabolic dysfunction.
Decreasing energy or caloric intake to more closely match the energy requirements of prolonged sitting only reduced – by approximately half – the harmful effects of sitting on insulin action.
Inactivity and sedentariness causes substantial metabolic dysfunction with sitting a primary driver of poor insulin action and pivotal contributor to increased risk for more serious health complications.
Now for those that want the in-depth analysis, please read on………………………………..
A few years ago, researchers Dr Brooke Stephens, Dr Barry Braun and colleagues from the Department of Kinesiology, University of Massachusetts (USA) reported on an intriguing studyin the journal, Metabolism – Clinical and Experimental. In fact this piece of research was acknowledged with the top cited paper awardfor this journal in 2012 and was essential in highlighting the insidious dangers that inactivity and in particular, sitting, has on metabolic health. What they showed was that inactivity appears to negatively affect metabolic health and insulin action independently of diet. In fact, dietary manipulation whereby total energy intake is reduced – to match low energy expenditure requirements when primarily sitting all day long – was unable to fully mitigate the detrimental consequences of inactivity. What this suggests is that physical movement in and of itself is integral to metabolic function and health. The exact mechanisms that cause prolonged sitting to be so bad for our health are yet to fully understood but there is certainly some evidence that low to very low stimulation of skeletal muscle is central to this issue.
Whilst this seems to pass the common sense test, this is quite significant because many of the themes on the net and in the mass media that discuss ways of improving metabolic health focus heavily on diet, but relatively less time and energy seems to be dedicated to exploring the detrimental effects of inactivity largely accumulated by spending long periods of time sitting. I call this the
diet fixation syndrome
and it manifests in a utopian idea that diet and nutrition can fix almost anything. Enhancing health and wellbeing via diet is certainly a worthwhile cause but many pontificate their beliefs in such a manner whereby they assume some moral high ground lost in an idea that the consumption of “their” diet is as nature intended and then maintain with religious fervidness that any deviation from this ‘correct’ dietary approach will be somehow toxic, dangerous and unhealthy. “They” can’t all be right, can they? By “They” I mean the paleos, the vegans, the High-Fat Low-Carbers, the High-Carb Low Fat crowd, etc etc. I am not saying that the food we feed our body is unimportant but I do think that there needs to be more acknowledgment and discussion of the diabolical impact inactivity has as demonstrated by a significant body of scientific evidence. Otherwise, we will continue to see the oxygen sucked from, and being straggled and muffled by, the nutrition “hype”.
What is the best diet?
OK, well that’s enough with the popular culture critique; now let’s look at some of the science behind what happens to metabolic health when we are sedentary and I’m afraid to say the picture is pretty ugly. In this study Stephens and co. recruited fourteen recreationally active men (n=7) and women (n=7) between the age of 19 and 32 participated, of whom none were obese, all were in good health, non-smoking, free of known disease, not following a very low or very high carbohydrate diet (<30% or >70%), and none were taking any medications or supplements known to alter carb or fat metabolism. The intention of the study was to compare all participants for each test condition.
The 3 test conditions were: (1) an active condition with minimal sitting (energy expenditure and intake were both high) referred to as NO-SIT; (2) Prolonged sitting with no change in energy intake meaning that there was low activity but high energy intake i.e energy surplus referred to as SIT; (3) Prolonged sitting but energy intake was adjusted downward and accordingly to body weight (approximately 1000 kcal reduction) and this was referred to as SIT-BAL. Insulin action was defined as whole-body rate of glucose disappearance normalised to mean plasma insulin and this was determined following a continuous infusion of glucose after an overnight fast (13-14 hours) after each of the test conditions outlined above.
Insulin action was used as a proxy measure of metabolic health with better metabolic function reflected by lower insulin production, higher glucose metabolism and storage. Subjects completed each 24-hour laboratory condition with at least a week between visits. For the 2 days before each 24-hour test condition, attempts were made to ensure that eating and activity behaviour were standardised. Once in the laboratory room each subject was provided access to a computer, internet, books, magazines, or movies throughout the day and evening. Lunch and dinner during the test was standardised. Average energy intake and expenditure across each condition was approximately as follows (please click image for larger and clearer view):
Activity or inactivity was quantified using an activPAL professional physical activity monitor and this has been shown to be an accurate and reliable measurement tool to determining motion. Standardised meals based on body weight were provided. Total sitting, standing, and stepping time, and number of steps during the three 24-hour conditions was as follows:
So basically picture this. When subjects did the SIT and SIT-BAL experiment they sat and lounged around all day in a lab room, watching video’s, surfing the net and reading mags and doing as little as possible, with SIT able to indulge and eat well over what they needed whilst SIT-BAL had their food intake dramatically reduced so it matched the low energy they had burnt. Interestingly, it is the SIT condition which probably represents a significant portion of how many people spend their day so the results would provide some insight to what is really going on in those who are grossly sedentary and in energy surplus on a day-to-day basis.
In comparison, the NO-SIT ensured that subjects were on the go: stood while reading, talking on the phone, whilst on the computer; made subjects walk and accumulate at least 10,000 steps/day, perform tasks such as dish washing, sweeping, dusting etc. After spending 24 hours in the lab after each test condition, they were then injected and hooked up to a machine that pumped in different amounts of glucose (sugar) and blood samples were taken to measure insulin and glucose concentrations. These parameters were then assessed to work out how much insulin was produced in response to the glucose infusion and how well the body was then able to dispose of the glucose that was given. Generally higher insulin concentrations and reduced glucose disposal was indicative of impaired metabolic health and function.
What were the results?
The following parameters were significantly different between each test condition:
1. Mean plasma insulin (during glucose infusion)
Compared with NO-SIT, mean plasma insulin was 41% higher in SIT, whilst 18% greater levels were seen for SIT compared to SIT-BAL.
2. Total glucose disposal
During the glucose load, total disposal was lower in SIT compared with both NO-SIT and SIT-BAL.
3. Whole-body insulin action (glucose disposal normalised to mean plasma insulin)
SIT was 39% lower relative to NO-SIT and SIT was 17.7% lower compared to SIT-BAL.
4. Carbohydrate oxidation rate
SIT-BAL was 22% lower compared to NO-SIT and 19% lower compared to SIT.
5. Average energy intake and expenditure
a) Energy intake for SIT-BAL was approximately 32% lower than NO-SIT and SIT.
b) Energy expenditure for SIT and SIT-BAL was approximately 26% lower compared to NO-SIT.
c) Energy balance was different for all conditions. NO-SIT was in energy surplus by +162 kcal/day vs. SIT which was in surplus by +938 kcal/day vs. SIT-BAL which was in energy deficit by approximately -30 kcal/day.
6. Total sitting, standing and stepping time and number of steps
NO-SIT was significantly different to SIT and SIT-BAL but there was no difference between SIT and SIT-BAL.
Please refer to tables 2, 3 and 4 for a full report of the results of this study.
So what is the take-home message?
Prolonged sitting is very, very bad for us. This study showed that just one day of prolonged sitting had a massive impact on insulin action and therefore compromises metabolic function and health quite dramatically. Even if you reduce the food you eat – to lower your energy intake to more closely match your low energy expenditure when sitting for prolonged periods – insulin action is not fully restored to that seen when activity levels are high. The logical inference to make from this is that sitting for prolonged periods of time is not natural for our species. One of the obvious features of what makes ‘us’ who and what ‘we’ are, is the fact that we have a musculoskeletal system that is designed for physical movement and it is the lack of stimulation of this during waking hours that has very dire consequences.
The results also suggest that energy surplus (i.e. consuming food/beverages beyond energy requirements) plays a key role in the harmful effects of sitting on insulin action. As shown in previous studies energy surplus or an overabundance of fatty acids, glucose and/or amino acids inhibits key components of the insulin signalling pathway. Therefore, it is important that we look beyond just excessive carbohydrates or sugar – notwithstanding that reducing sugar intake remains an important dietary change to make – and acknowledge that a chronic state of energy surplus will reek havoc on our metabolic health irrespective of the macronutrient basis of any excess consumed. Currently, there is no scientific consensus for the notion that one macronutrient poses more risk to metabolic health when in energy surplus if you are healthy and insulin-sensitive. Until such time that evidence proves otherwise, it is the state of being in energy surplus that causes insulin action and metabolic health to be compromised not the source of the excess.
There are 2 more very important things to take note of to put this study into perspective. Firstly, if you refer to the results above and table 2 specifically, you will notice that NO-SIT was in energy surplus by approximately +162 kcal/day versus SIT-BAL which was in energy deficit by approximately -30 kcal/day. You may be wondering why this is important and worthy of comment. Basically due to this difference, the true impact of sitting on insulin action could have actually been underestimated with the real difference between these 2 condition possibly even larger than what was found. Had NO-SIT been in energy balance and not energy surplus, insulin action could have been better than that measured and hence when compared to SIT-BAL a greater difference would have been observed. Secondly, the study subjects were young, healthy and non-obese so it is difficult to extrapolate the findings to other less healthy, older and/or obese populations. What can be said is that prolonged sitting or inactivity would certainly not enhance insulin action and metabolic health in those that that are older and/or suffer from chronic health conditions. So pretty much the advice would be the same.
Finally, I would like to make some big picture comments that can possibly be deduced from this study. It is pretty obvious, I think, why health conditions such as obesity and insulin resistance have become endemic. To make clear:
this study showed that nutritional manipulation by reducing energy intake to match low energy expenditure of inactivity (SIT-BAL) only reduced approximately one half of the harmful effects of sitting on insulin action.
It is therefore feasible that impaired glucose metabolism and insulin resistance could be developed in the non-obese who are normal weight or Body Mass Index (BMI) if there is gross long-term inactivity. Consequently, we should be cognisant of the dangers of inactivity and refocus some of our energy and attention away from diet and nutrition as being the only answer to these problems. The solution seems very simple indeed but that would mean that people would have to move a whole lot more as well as modify and show greater restraint in their eating habits but that unfortunately seems very unlikely to occur anytime soon.
For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to achieve the above-mentioned benefits or to enhance athletic performance, contact FitGreyStrong@outlook.com or phone 0499 846 955 for a confidential discussion.
For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
Research shows that as we get older skeletal muscle tissue and mass is lost because fast-twitch muscle fibres are atrophying or decreasing in size. This sarcopenia-induced alteration fundamentally affects muscular strength and functional physical capacity thereby making activities of daily living significantly more challenging, and in some cases, even dangerous.
The interplay of the ageing process and increasing sedentarism or gross physical inactivity combine to create the “perfect storm”. This ‘deadly’ combination of ageing and disuse synergistically accelerates morphological and functional declines in human skeletal muscle as evidenced by substantial reductions in muscle size, strength and power.
However, scientific research has demonstrated quite categorically that exercise and in particular, resistance training, attenuates and possibly even reverses some of this decline. Resistance training changes the trajectory of functional physical capacities by significantly enhancing strength due hypertropic changes in fast and slow-twitch muscle fibres hypothesised to be caused by myofibrillar accretion and substantial up-regulation of neural efficiencies via improved recruitment of skeletal muscle. Both these processes lead to greater neuromuscular force development.
The benefits of resistance training and the associated adaptations cannot be over-emphasised. I have seen such exercise in older people lead to dramatic improvements that are truly life-changing. Indeed, the experience of an individual undergoing such a transformation is often amazing to watch, with many not able to fully grasp or really comprehend the many practical benefits that come about following just a couple of months of training.
The Future Treatment For Sarcopenia-induced Muscle Atrophy?
FitGreyStrong Advice:
If you don’t want to be one of those 60 or 70 year olds who can’t stand up from a chair, who gets anxious if there are stairs to climb, looks for the hand rail for support or is distrustful of negotiating uneven surfaces, then you need to seriously consider partaking in regular sessions of weight or resistance training.
FitGreyStrong recommends:
Two sessions per week
30-40 minutes in duration not including warm-up
Focus on working all major muscle groups primarily based on compound, multi-jointed non-machine orientated movements.
1-2 work sets
6-30 repetitions. The load is not important, the effort is. All loads in older adults have shown to be effective and produce comparable changes in muscle strength and hypertrophy, muscle endurance, bone density and physical function.
Controlled tempo (3-4 seconds on the eccentric, 0-2 seconds on transition, 1-2 seconds concentric, 1 seconds pause then repeat; if you are not sure what this mean please contact me)
60-180 seconds rest between sets. If stronger or more experienced, try longer rests on high effort sets.
At least 48 hours between sessions for recovery
Consume 40 g whey protein post-exercise to maximise muscle protein synthesis rates (see here for an outline on the research supporting post-exercise protein)
Please note: Even if you’re fit and active with endurance activities such as running or cycling, it is important to remember that such exercise will not sufficiently stimulate fast-twitch muscle fibres due to the relative low muscle forces developed. The implications of this are that selective fast-twitch muscle atrophy and strength loss will still occur and functionality will be somewhat compromised. You should therefore still incorporate weight or resistance training into your lifestyle to reap the benefits that have been shown time and time again.
Want to know more about the research? Click here for the details.
For local Townsville residents interested in FitGreyStrong’s Exercise Physiology services or exercise programs designed to achieve the above-mentioned benefits or to enhance athletic performance, contact FitGreyStrong@outlook.com or phone 0499 846 955 for a confidential discussion.
For other Australian residents or oversees readers interested in our services, please see here.
Disclaimer: All contents of the FitGreyStrong website/blog are provided for information and education purposes only. Those interested in making changes to their exercise, lifestyle, dietary, supplement or medication regimens should consult a relevantly qualified and competent health care professional. Those who decide to apply or implement any of the information, advice, and/or recommendations on this website do so knowingly and at their own risk. The owner and any contributors to this site accept no responsibility or liability whatsoever for any harm caused, real or imagined, from the use or distribution of information found at FitGreyStrong. Please leave this site immediately if you, the reader, find any of these conditions not acceptable.
