Posted Feb 1, 2011, 5:03 PM UTC
I had a friend get hit by a car and they thought she was dead. I'm pretty sure her amazing crossfit/rugby muscles saved her life. Car 0, Friend over 9000.
[deleted]
Fucker hit you and billed you for it?
[deleted]
Your car insurance company covers your physical body? You must be in really good shape!
[deleted]
One of the football coaches at my highschool broke his neck during a game when he played and I guess basically his huge neck and shoulders acted as a splint keeping it relatively still and saved him paralysis...
Proving what Dr. Rippetoe already hypothesized:
"Strong people are harder to kill than weak people, and more useful in general. "
In reference to his friend/gym buddy, who squatting wearing an air tank while doing chemo.
holy shit your friend is a badass
His, Rippetoes.
Came looking for this quote, was not dissapointed.
I cant's read scientist. It makes my head hurt.
So.. what this means is that if you are stronger you are less likely to get cancer?
Lights cigarette I'm glad I go to the gym.
There's an association between muscular strength and some forms of death. It's important not to create any other conclusions other than that. I know my first reaction is to be tempted to say that IF I get stronger THEN I'll be less likely to die of cancer. That might very well be true, but it hasn't been shown by the study. Perhaps people who are predisposed to be stronger are also predisposed to be more resistant to cancer. There could be any number of explanations. All we can say with certainty is that across populations, this correlation exists.
Probably because muscular strength comes from exercise and physical activity.
That's definitely possible. I just want to make it clear that this study makes no conclusions concerning the question of what causes the link between muscular strength and lack of death.
And generally a healthier lifestyle. But. Correlation is not... Well. You know.
Yes, but the study claims to adjust for "cardiorespiratory fitness and other confounders", so that might not be all of it.
Or it might just be that people get weaker as they die from cancer, depending on how bad the study is.
The average period of study was 18.9 years. The strength and medical tests were done in 1989-ish and deaths were recorded up to the end of 2003. Its highly unlikely the persons had cancer when they initially took the test if they died a decade later.
EDIT: They even directly state your reasoning (because in a shorter study, it makes sense to ask that) as part of their argument for the longer time period:
Several prospective studies have shown that muscular strength is inversely associated with all cause mortality.15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 All but two of these studies18 26 assessed strength through a handgrip test, which involves relatively small muscle groups. In addition, most previous studies were short term follow-ups (4-6 years)15 16 17 27 or included only older adults (≥65 years).17 20 22 23 26 The shorter term studies could have a problem with reverse causation, in that muscle weakness could be due to poor health. Moreover, it is unclear whether muscular strength is related to mortality in adults younger than 65.
Well, by adjusting for conceivable confounders, you're pretty much assuring yourself that either the correlation is due to pure chance, to some other unknown and uncontrolled-for confounder (unlikely to be a strong one), or a causal relationship.
Given that this is a prospective cohort study, which is one of the strongest designs available in an epidemiological context, causality is indeed proven within most reasonable limits.
Well, by adjusting for conceivable confounders, you're pretty much assuring yourself that either the correlation is due to pure chance, to some other unknown and uncontrolled-for confounder ... or a causal relationship.
I agree with this statement.
... causality is indeed proven within most reasonable limits.
I disagree with this statement because you can't assure yourself that unknown and uncontrolled-for confounders are unlikely because of their very nature of being unknown. This is why I believe that epidemiological studies should only be used to generate hypotheses. Otherwise you're just setting yourself up for making mistakes.
I'm happy to say that, "this study gives us reason to believe that gaining muscular strength will make one less likely to die but that this hypothesis requires further testing."
I'd agree that the study hasn't "proven", as in provided unquestionable, god-given truth. But I'd argue that it would be wrong to say that epidemiological studies can omly be used for generating hypothesis. Despite the careful wording of conclusions scientific papers, those conclusions are often used to decide on policies because it is assumed that the conclusions are causal (by all right).
To take an obvious example, consider the big epidemiological studies on smoking VS lung cancer. Even today, we have a fuzzy knowledge on the exact mechanisms that cause cancer, and what first convinced people of the causality was the epidemiologic studies themself. And I assume that you agree that they were right in drawing the conclusion? Thus, well-designed epi-studies aren't only hypothesis-generating, but can provide information on what causes what as well.
Another example would be outbreak investigations, where the results of epidemiological studies can be considered strong enough proof-of-causality to shut down food manufacturers.
The old adage "correlation does not equal causation" is true, of course, especially for simple two variable studies, but it does not mean that we can't draw any conclusions on causality. Look up Judea Pearl's work if you're interested in this.
Finally, I agree that I overstated myself - I had only skimmed the paper. What you said in the end of your comment is probably better formulated. But you do see that even your stated conclusion implies that the study provides some information on the causality of pure muscle strength on death?
genes influence strength, genes influence death
health influences how much you work out, how much you work out influences health
Did you see an R^2 reported in that paper? It would be nice to know the strength of the accounted variance in order to think about whether there are unknown or uncontrolled confounders.
There wasn't an R2 reported in the paper, and there usually isn't in the context of survival analysis. R2 comes from the context of linear regression where you compare the results of your model to the results of a constant line, and there's not really any natural way to transfer that measure to the comparison of survival curves.
Though I do agree that it would be good to have a general measure of "improvement potential" - I'm just not aware of one.
You thought cancer. I was thinking bullets
Wooo I love being dumb too!
Isn't it awesome?! We are happier than smart people!
Did a scientist figure that out?
[deleted]
Muscular strength was significantly and inversely associated with risk of death from all causes and cancer after controlling for potential confounders, including cardiorespiratory fitness. The inverse association was consistent in strata of age (<60 and ≥60 years) and body mass index (18.5-24.9 and ≥25 kg/m2). Muscular strength was significantly and inversely associated with risk of death from cardiovascular disease after controlling for age, yet the association was attenuated once other potential confounders were entered in the model and was not significant after further adjustment for cardiorespiratory fitness. The analysis on the combined effects of muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness with all cause mortality showed that the age adjusted death rate in men with high levels of both muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness was 60% lower (P<0.001) than the death rate in the group of unfit men with the lowest levels of muscular strength. These results highlight the importance of having at least moderate levels of both muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness to reduce risk of death from all causes and cancer in this population of men.
So yeah, they controlled for cardiorespiratory fitness. Just being strong didn't help statistically, but being strong and cardiorespiratorally fit was better than just being cardiorespiratorally fit.
Also, keep in mind this is correlational. People with the strength to work out during cancer are less likely to die than people who don't have the strength, that's tautological but will influence the results of a study like this.
I wonder when they measured all these things. Cancer atrophies the body as it advances, thus removing the muscle.
However:
Muscular strength was significantly and inversely associated with risk of death from all causes and cancer after controlling for potential confounders, including cardiorespiratory fitness."
It gets confusing when they examine CVD alone because presumably CVD is included in "all causes."
Furthermore (from the Conclusion):
Muscular strength and cardiorespiratory fitness were moderately correlated (age adjusted partial r=0.33), suggesting that the association between muscular strength and risk of death from cancer works at least partially through different mechanisms than those associated with the protective effects of cardiorespiratory fitness.
Take-away: I don't need to do cardio to prevent cancer. If I were a man.
Fine, fine, fine... You win, I'll do squats
So.... fit people live longer?
Who would have thought being healthy would cause an extension of life!
The many, many fat people that live to be 70.
I have literally never seen a fat person that old.
Diet wasn't able to be taken into account, unfortunately.
Unfortunately, yes, but usually fit people have better diets than average.
Claim: Squats save lives.
Status: Confirmed.
I think we're all missing the point here: if you get strong enough, you'll be immortal.
If you read carefully, overall mortality was lowest for the average strength group while mortality due to cardiovascular disease and cancer were lowest for the high strength group.
Age adjusted death rates per 10 000 person years across incremental thirds of muscular strength were 38.9, 25.9, and 26.6 for all causes; 12.1, 7.6, and 6.6 for cardiovascular disease; and 6.1, 4.9, and 4.2 for cancer (all P<0.01 for linear trend).
Perhaps this study implies strength training is good for longevity, but you only need to be stronger than the weakest 33% to benefit.
When attacked by a pack of rabid dingos, just make sure you are not in the bottom fitness tertile. This could account for the remaining all causes deaths!
Water is wet
It's not that obvious, especially after adjusting for cardiorespiratory fitness.
Not in the freezer.
...'tis not water then.
I respectfully disagree.
Or people that seem to die less easily than average are also able to become stronger more easily than average.
Or my favorite, apocryphally from the Marines: "Why do we get big? TO ABSORB MORE BULLETS"
Hell, the results would be even more favorable if all the WWE guys would stop overdosing.
Fitness is a lifestyle, not a state; this shouldn't be surprising at all. That aside, good find-- confirms what most all of us already knew
Death from all causes? Chainsaw to forebrain?
I would say that chainsaw to forebrain is probably one of the causes of death that has the strongest negative correlation with muscular strength.
Don't read too much into this study, it really just kinda says what everyone already knows. Stronger people are healthier than other people, that's pretty much it. Diet wasn't taken into account at all, and it stands to reason stronger people (exercisers) also pay more attention to what they eat than others, and other drug use (besides smoking and alcohol) wasn't accounted for. Don't think you can be one of the powerlifters who eats crap and lifts a ton and live longer than the guy next door who runs 3 times a week but watches what they eat like a hawk. Also there wasn't a big enough sample size of women to make any conclusions about them. While I'm not saying it's different for women, I am saying we don't know if it's different or not.
EDIT: This study was mostly white, middle to upper class people, so there weren't many big burly construction workers playing with the results.
it stands to reason stronger people (exercisers) also pay more attention to what they eat than others,
Careful what you assume here. I'm sure some of the test group were gym rats but in my experience the really strong folks I've known were predominantly that way due to rustic living and/or manual labor, neither of which predispose you to an otherwise healthy lifestyle. One particular example would be a friend who works in construction; he's been a hardcore alcoholic since he was maybe 17, and definitely isn't an unusual example of that population. I don't have any idea of the overall breakdown across the US population (or this study) but I'd be surprised if more than half the "strong" population were fitness nuts instead of people who just have to be tough day-to-day.
Sorry I forgot to add this study was mostly white, middle-upper class, well educated people, so it wouldn't be composed of many laborers.
I always wonder if there is any relation to the inner workings of a strong man, versus a weak man, regarding their ability to prevent cell divide mistakes that cause cancer.
I mean with the exception of radiation exposure and carcinogens, all those people who have had random cancers and are usually explained through genetics, could have something to also do with exercise as well perhaps.
I know this study doesn't say that at all, but perhaps a lot of cancers are due to an imbalance of chemicals caused by a lack of exercise or nutrition?
Well, a higher metabolism would help your body process waste/cruft etc. faster, and flush it from your system sooner, that might have some effect.
That didn't actually happen for me. After I started training, weight lifting and cardio, and eating healthy (higher protein, lower carbs, more vegetables, lower fried/sugar)--- I started producing very painful waste. 7 months into it, it's still this way.
Have you seen the doctor about this?
No, but I asked a friend doctor about it (though not a specialist). He said I should just eat more fruit and stuff, that it is probably just anal fissure or something like that that will take time to heal. Said it happens to a lot of people who take in too much protein that they aren't use to.
Brb, going to the gym so I may be immortal.
When getting stronger, also remember one of Rippetoe's other axioms: "Never deadlift when you have to shit, and never shit when you are deadlifting".
As a person who's considering starting strength training, I have a few questions:
Basically, I can definitely spare 3/4 hours a week if it means I'll be fitter overall, but I'd like to know if that's enough or if I have to completely change my lifestyle.
[deleted]
I can't get enough of all of those, so I welcome any increase in the quantity, thanks!
If you're eating well and want to take a bit less risks in terms of putting on fat, whey protein shakes without much other dietary changes can help a lot. Also, creatine. Also, both those things regardless of what other dietary changes you make. :P
And nuts! Nuts and beans of all types are great for protein sources.
Quinoa! A complete protein and very easy for your body to metabolize. Also, very yummy! :)
mmm . . . saponins
No, you do not. But I will tell you from experience in doing 1/2 GOMAD while doing Starting Strength... the excess of calories makes your muscle recovery nothing short of miraculous.
Yes. Many good programs list only 3 workout days. "You don't get stronger from working out. You get stronger from recovering from working out."
From experience, I will tell you that if you have any postural problems, they can come out and kick you in the ass and cause injury. Look up "Kyphosis" and "Lordosis". Do you look like either of those? Also, look up the test for "thoracic mobility". Do you pass that test? Also, can you do a 2 minute plank without letting your lower back sag?
These are all things that help put you in the correct position when lifting. If you have weak abs, you can hurt your lower back on squats (thus the planks).
A little over an hour in the gym with warmup/workout/stretching is plenty.
That won't be a problem, I love chicken breats, eggs and meat. I was more afraid I'd have to stop eating altogether.
That's what I gathered from the article I read the other day, too. I've been putting it off, but I guess there's no time like now to get a month's membership, at least.
Nope, neither of that, or even scoliosis. I can do a 2-minute plank (at least I could two years ago when I was doing it on Wii Fit, and I've been doing pushups four times a week since then). If the thoracic mobility test is just lying flat on the floor and bringing my wrists to the ground over my head, it was easy, so I guess I'm set!
Thank you very much, I'll get a gym membership ASAP!
Hell no. If you are currently "of average weight" and you want to put on strength, not eating enough is going to be the problem. If, down the road, you see yourself plateauing, consider doing 1/2 GOMAD for 4-6 weeks.
I'm glad that you have none of those problems, it will make life easier.
Good luck!
I find it really weird that you asked these questions under this comment. :)
But you don't have to change your diet much (besides maybe eating more). All the GOMAD, OATS, etc. people are just trying to get the most out of their exercising. The one easy thing you really should do is eat healthy and get enough protein, but if you don't want to you'll just see fewer gains.
Well, you looked like someone who knew his Rippetoe, and, uh, this comment was the first one on the page so I'd get some good answers :(
Also, thank you, I already eat my tuna, chicken breasts, etc, so I think the protein part is covered.
It's recommended to eat fewer than two cans of a tuna a week due to the mercury content.
10% fat? Hell no. 30/30/40 is a good protein/fat/carb ratio. You don't have to load up on calories to get stronger, but you will progress faster and add more muscle mass.
For the most part, this is right on. The key to strength is low rep, high intensity, high frequency workouts. That means lift heavy and often. That also means that push-ups are not the best way to increase chest strength.
Sorry, I meant body fat. I found out about pushups already, I've hit a plateau so now I need to add weight (or benchpress) :(
Just eat healthy and make sure you are eating plenty. 1500 calories a day may not be enough. It all depends. Play it by ear.
3/4 times will be plenty! In fact, four is just about ideal when it comes to strength development. Three is plenty and many, many people have seen great gains exercising three times a week with compound lifts.
Learning about exercise is a process that never ends. The field is always developing, and it's a lifelong pursuit. But, the compound lifts are golden. I would say the most important thing to know besides that is single leg lifts. 1 leg Deadlifts, single leg squats, lunges, etc. They will really balance out with your compound development :-].
That's very encouraging, thank you. I'll have to watch my diet to not gain too much fat, but I think I'll manage, thanks again.
Michael Pollon has the great quote, "Eat real food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
I suggest reading the Paleo Diet by Robert Wolf and the www.chaosandpain.com blow. Motivation and real nutritional science applied.
I'll have a look, thank you.
In response to your first question, as someone who does lift, plays sports and who is my last semester for B.S. in Nutrition and Food Sciences and applying for my Master's in biochemical and molecular nutrition, Yes... and no.
The thing you should try to do is keep it simple. Everyone is going to say something different, take L-glutamine, take creatine monohydrate, don't take creatine monohydrate. I read these different studies frequently, even I get confused. The point is there are a ton of different things going on in our bodies, timing of when we eat can be important, our hormone balance, what type of metabolism we are in, etc. Don't worry about any of these things. Eat when you want (to an extent, you wouldn't eat spaghetti just minutes before running a marathon) and eat what you want (again with moderation).
There's a trend towards moving torwards all-natural organic foods because they're "healthier", bull shit (again to an extent). Sure stay away from overly processed foods or avoid eating foods with super high levels of sodium, but don't avoid them because they're "not healthy" avoid them because you can probably make something better tasting.
In short, take a look at what you eat regularly, you may want to stay away from all those Mcdonald french fries, but you don't have to go on some sort of special diet. I don't know your diet, but a Moderate increased intake of high quality protein those which are high in Essential Amino Acids, will help. People will often use whey post workout because it's more convenient, that's fine too; it's cheap and easy.
Don't even get me started on CHO's and Fat...
This seems to be the most sensible advice, especially with the amount of conflicting research that gets published... Thanks, I'll just eat reasonably well.
not really, SS is a great strength training program. I first started it last year and I was very surprised by how quickly you get visibly stronger/more muscular. SS is made up entirely of compound exercises. e.g. exercises that work out more than 1 muscle group. It's all about maximum workout for minimum time.
Yep, it looks very good and people are recommending it so I'll give it a go, thanks!
It seems to me like some of the other commentors did not answer your questions very directly so I figured I'd take a shot. I'm not a doctor, nor I'm I a professional bodybuilder. My only qualifications for giving advice are basic bodybuilding courses in college, 6 years of semi-competitive college Judo, reading Reddit, and reading books/articles online. So please take everything I say with those in mind.
No. Shakes and eggs are only two forms of protein. You could never consume a protein shake or egg and build muscle. You just need to consume protein. 1 gram per pound of bodyweight is a good starting point for weightlifting this is higher then USDA recommendations. Despite what you may have heard there is very little evidence that high protein consumption is dangerous. High protein consumption does lead to increased blood flow to the kidneys; which originally led researchers to believe it was harmful. This has turned out to be unfounded because it really only harms kidneys that have already been damaged due to disease, etc. The reason you see bodybuilders using shakes and eggs is because of cost and convenience. One scoop of whey protein powder (.50 cents?) has around 24 grams. A good size piece of steak also has around 24 grams but at what cost? You don't want to consume all your protein from one source, however, whey can reduce costs. Before whey protein powder weight lifters consumed large quantities of whole milk. The draw back to this was the amount of calories to protein value. Timing is another issue as well after a workout the body is in great need of crabs, salt, magnesium, potassium, etc. A shake allows for you to get this things into your muscles ASAP for bigger quicker gains. As far as your friends advice goes, it sounds like he was recommending that in order to get to 10 percent body fat you need to make extreme dietary changes. The reason your friend mentions the 10% mark is because that's the point the most people will start to show abdominal muscles. You really need to decide what your goals are. More strength, lower body fat percentage to show off current muscle or both. Each goal requires a different plan of attack. I'd start with borrowing/buying a body fat caliper and actually seeing what your body fat percentage is first. (Scooby's website has a tracker for this and advice on achieving both: see his site below) TLDR; yes you can make gains without whey or eggs, just slower and more expensive ones.
Yes. Believe it or not a good deal of natural weightlifters are only in the gym three days a week. The reason being that the body needs rest, especially if your doing compound lifts that Rippetoe suggests. Unless you have freak genetics or steroids that allow for quick recovery from heavy lifts then I'd stick to three days a week. Its more about how you use that golden 45 minutes to an hour. Also, don't be afraid about "Looking like ______" insert what ever fantasy character. Doing compound lifts will not really change the way you look for a good long period of time; and I promise you that you will like the way you look anyway. And what would be so wrong with looking like an Olympic weightlifting. This guy is an Olympic weightliftter, does he look like Mr. Universe? No, is his stronger then a Mr. Universe with a more stable core? Most certainly.
Not really? Starting strength is a great guide. If I could choose one resource that would be it. Strong compound lifts are such a essential and forgotten element. If your really want to read more I'd recommend these two articles: This first one will probably further convince you what your already know about the modern gym (it was on Reddit a couple of days ago). And this one is essentially the commandments of weightlifting. Anymore detailed questions about bodybuilding can be found at these two sites: http://www.scoobysworkshop.com/ and http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/index.html (go to the article listing and be wary of the supplement recommendations) Good luck and remember consistency is really the most important component to your workout.
That was very informative, thank you. It's not that I absolutely don't want to look fit, but I don't care about it as long as I'm stronger. From what I understand, strength training and muscle building has the disadvantage of fat gain, which I don't really want (I'm at about 18% now). That men's health article was what got me thinking about this, especially since I piss away hours a day on reddit which I could put to good use getting fitter.
I'll start with the program and play the body fat thing by ear, I guess. Thank you very much for your help, I love how helpful everyone is.
Glad you found it informative. I felt like writing all that because you had the exact same questions I had as I started to workout. Try watching Scooby talk about the Twinkie Diet; He really cuts through the bullshit, I love his videos. I'm not accusing you of having a Twinkie diet, the video is just a really basic analysis of the relationship between fat loss/gain and weight training. If you see progress don't forget to join r/loseit and post your results.