By Kevin Kolodziejski
I could be talking about anything, including cycling, when I say that reworking the same old same old and having it lead to something helpful is a wonderful thing. The talk today, though, is when the same old same old is not cycling but another a very healthful thing, weight training, and the reworking of it comes from the American College of Sports Medicine.
The talk might just lead to you doing some reworking of your own, too. To your weekly workout plan, that is. To increase the odds of a reworking happening — and becoming a wonderful thing — I issue the following challenge to you. To do a stationary wall squat for three minutes.
The Stationary Wall Squat Challenge
Simply press your back against a wall, lower yourself until your thighs are parallel to the floor, maintain the position, and then wait. You’ll probably feel very little stress or discomfort during the first minute. But as you approach the three-minute mark, look out. Fire in the hole. You’ll begin to feel the same burn you’d feel if you were near the end of a high-rep barbell or dumbbell squat set.
Hold the position for more than three minutes, and I’ll be impressed. Except you’re not taking the challenge for my adulation but to experience a painfully wonderful reworking of a same old same old. One that goes hand in hand with an important point Dr. Gabrielle Lyon frequently makes and did so again on a SHE MD podcast earlier this year.
Lyon, a board-certified family medicine physician who founded of the Institute for Muscle-Centric Medicine and wrote the bestseller “Forever Strong,” thinks a reworking of the definition of resistance training is needed since it’s nothing more “than simply moving the body with force [that provides] progressive stimulus.” It’s this progressive stimulus “that matters more than whether you lift heavy or light.” Whether it’s heavy or light ,though, most American adults don’t. The latest CDC survey found that even when those who exercise using body weight or resistance bands are added into the mix just under 20 percent of American adults weight train.
Now whether or not you’re part of that 20 percent, I don’t know. What I do know is that the American College of Sports Medicine has recently done some serious reworking of their own.
The ACSM Alters Their ‘Resistance Training Prescription’
The nearly 50,000 members of the American College of Sports Medicine would love to see everyone lift weights, perform calisthenics, or flex resistance bands, which in part is why they’ve recently changed their “resistance training prescription.” Actually, it’s an update on their “position stand for muscle function, hypertrophy, and physical performance in healthy adults,” and it’s the first one they’ve made in 17 years.
More than 30,000 papers about resistance training have been published since 2009, and you might think such abundance of info would muddle the issue. Mark Kovacs, PhD, tells Yasemin Nicola Sakay in a Medical News Today article, however, the opposite has occurred. Kovacs, a human performance and longevity science researcher and sports science consultant, says, ”Over the last decade, the science has become much clearer.” It’s lead us to realize “resistance training is not just about building muscle. It is fundamental to healthspan, longevity, metabolic function, injury prevention, and long-term durability.”
Hence, the ACSM has a new stance on the ins and outs of resistance training, what many of us incorrectly call weightlifting. The paper’s somewhat technical and 22 pages, so I’m guessing you’ve never read it — or are ever going to — which’s why I’m going to write about one finding in it you really need to know.
The Need-to-Know Change
While the title of the aforementioned MNT article is indeed true, “New resistance training guidelines debunk 3 myths for stronger muscles,” the real keeper from this overview of 137 systematic reviews involving over 30,000 healthy adults is a single summation. “Few RT prescription variables (RTx) affected primary adaptations.” See, I wasn’t lying when I said the paper’s somewhat technical, nor am I now when I say this is need-to-know news. For it means, as Saul Goodman in “Breaking Bad” and “Better Call Saul,” used to say, “It’s all good, man.”
That it’s the act of lifting weights — not the manner in which you do it — that’s most important for you to reap the benefits of weight training. That as long as you lift regularly, with a fair degree of effort, and decent form, you’ll be improving or maintaining your physique, as well as helping your overall health.
Help that leads to “reduced mortality and risk for and management of cardiovascular disease, cancer, and diabetes, reduced depression, and improved sleep quality.” Help that goes “beyond the hallmark improvements in skeletal muscle mass and function.” But even if it’s those hallmark improvements you’re after — because what you’re really after is becoming a better bicyclist — the manner in which you lift doesn’t seem to matter, either.
Manner Just Doesn’t Seem to Matter
For the ACSM review found muscle growth was never adversely affected by changing the number of sessions per week, the amount of weight used, or the order of the exercises performed.
One difference it did discover is “load has repeatedly been shown to impact strength more than other RT adaptations.” So if you want to have more muscle strength, as opposed to bigger size and better function, it’s best to lift heavier weights — although the benefit to lifting heavier weight plateaus if you do more than three sets of a single exercise. The study also found “the exact number of sets required cannot be ascertained” if you’re seeking it all: muscle size, strength, and function. What is apparent, however, is performing two sets of an exercise in a given session is “clearly superior” to doing one.
Therefore, two’s the number of sets healthy adults are advised to do, with the acknowledgement even doing more “may provide additional benefits.” Though the authors speculate “that these benefits diminish with each subsequent set.”
It’s apropos to end with that, even though it fails to explain why Jimmy McGill felt the need to change his name to Saul Goodman. For it’s one of the many examples in the ACSM study that sends the same message (just not subliminally) that McGill’s new name sends.
It’s all good, man.
Kevin Kolodziejski began his writing career in earnest in 1989. Since then he’s written a weekly health and fitness column and his articles have appeared in magazines such as “MuscleMag,” “Ironman,” “Vegetarian Times,” and “Bicycle Guide.” He has Bachelor and Masters degrees in English from DeSales and Kutztown Universities.
A competitive cyclist for more than 30 years, Kevin won two Pennsylvania State Time Trial championships in his 30’s, the aptly named Pain Mountain Time Trial 4 out of 5 times in his 40s, two more state TT’s in his 50’s, and the season-long Pennsylvania 40+ BAR championship at 43.
Being a long time cyclist as I got older I could see I needed more to maintain muscle strength as I could see I was losing muscle mass. I have been going to the gym regularly for last five years and can see noticeable improvement in more muscle and strength. First thing I spend about 20 to 30 min. stretching and warming up and doing balancing sets. I then work on upper body and core muscles doing sets at 10 to 11 different stations. I mix it up some days doing light weights, some days doing moderate weight and some days heavy weight. I only do gym work two days a week and walk my dog and ride my bike the other 5 days. It has made a tremendous effect. However It’s like eating an elephant, one bite at a time. You have start light and build up.