Basic strength training plan

[desinr-gal]

We have good studies comparing men vs. women and they are pretty conclusive that women and men respond the same to training. Men make larger gains in absolute terms, but the relative improvement from baseline to finish is very similar.

Sex differences in absolute and relative changes in muscle size following resistance training in healthy adults: a systematic review with Bayesian meta-analysis - PMC

Muscle hypertrophy may be influenced by biological differences between males and females. This meta-analysis investigated absolute and relative changes in muscle size following resistance training (RT) between males and females and whether measures ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Sex Differences in Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis - PubMed

Roberts, BM, Nuckols, G, and Krieger, JW. Sex differences in resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 34(5): 1448-1460, 2020-The purpose of this study was to determine whether there are different responses to resistance training for strength or hypertrophy...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

I suspect a lot of this is that fitness and lifting in particular for women has been focused on very light weights for a nonsense number of reps where you are exercising but never really taxing your muscles. If you are getting 10-20 hard sets in a week at a weight that you take close to failure (muscle failure! Not your overall fatigue, cardio, nervous system fatigue, etc.) you will grow. I personally really like the 8-12 rep range. Some people go a bit lower. Some people go a bit higher.

The issue with high rep ranges is that it gets very difficult for people to tell when they're getting close to failure. People doing 30 to 50 rep sets just get their reps in reserve at way higher rates than people working at lower rep ranges. You just get tired, bored, uncomfortable from the repetitive motion, etc.

So moving to a lower rep range with heavier weights just makes it way likelier that you're going to end up working closer to failure than you were at high rep ranges.

HIIT in general just provides benefits that zone 2 cardio doesn't. Once you have built up a base of aerobic fitness that lets you start focusing more on HIIT, everyone should. But HIIT is also harder on the body and can interfere with other workouts - I perform worse on lifting days if I do HIIT, so when I'm being good about my cardio it's zone 2 on lifting days and HIIT on "rest" days. My understanding is the general science these days is very supportive of the idea that HIIT should be a tentpole portion of your aerobic exercise, and then ideally you fill in additional zone 2 so that you are getting more aerobic exercise in general.

What I said, was about older women specifically which I doubt are referenced in these studies? I havent read them yet. I assume That dr Sims who has spent her life studying it would know..

 

[andreigl]

Looking for help. I’m a 48 year old male. Been on tirz for a few months and I’m down 30 lbs. Feeling a lot better, but now I want to get back into the gym.

I used to do a lot of cardio, but for the past 3 years I’ve honestly been really lazy. As an adult I have never really done much resistance training. I have a chance to kind of start from scratch now and I want to build my exercise foundation around weight training instead of cardio.

How do I start? Can someone give me the basic lifts, rep counts, set counts, and how to combine it all? I feel really lost right now. Thanks for any input.

So, I'm 52. What you need is old guy weekly training plan. Forget the young guy hours in the gym every day plan.

And for old guys like us that only need the exercise for health reasons, 30 - 60 minutes per session is plenty. First you decide if you want 3x or 4x.

If 3x, that's MWF with rest days in between. And then you will probably need to exercise all your muscle groups. Use the heaviest weight you can complete a set.

1. Start with calf exercises - 1 set of 20, 30, 40 reps calf raises
2. thighs - 1 set of 20 reps squats
3. abdomen - 1 set of 30 reps crunches
4. chest - 1 or 2 sets of either 10 reps bench press or inclined bench press or dumbbell chest fly
5. back - 1 or 2 sets of either 10 reps rowing machine or lateral pull down
6. deltoids - 1 or 2 sets of military press or dumbbell shoulder press
7. trapezius - shrugs
8. biceps
9. triceps
10. done go home

If 4x a week, that's Mon, Tues, Thurs, Fri. Just divide into two groups, the muscle groups above and add more sets. Usually I pair chest and legs and then back with upper body exercises the next day. If you feel getting strong, just increase the weight that you were using.

No need to spend too much time in the gym, avoid injuring yourself, you're old. Wolverine stack is also phenomenal.

 

[hexagonal]

What I said, was about older women specifically which I doubt are referenced in these studies? I havent read them yet. I assume That dr Sims who has spent her life studying it would know..

What biological mechanism do you believe happens with older women that causes them to stop responding to muscle growth stimulus the same way everyone else does at all stages of their life? We don't see other significant hormone changes resulting in different muscle growth stimulus being required - we just see it have less absolute effect vs. when they are more optimal.

Plenty of older women compete in natural bodybuilding and follow these same training methodologies and get results that put them at competition level. Enhanced, too, but we'll ignore them since the hypothesis seems to be some vague hormone related shift and they're using exogenous hormones.

You shouldn't trust me, but you also shouldn't trust social media influencers or people with a bunch of book deals just because they have a Dr. before their name, be it MD or PhD. Questioning scientific consensus is fine, and a key part of science in general, but that involves doing more science to find out the answer, not just stating other opinions. Is she doing studies for these claims? What do they say? How do they stack up to peer review? (For the record, she is a listed author on quite a few studies, and lead author on several.) She has direct financial incentive to promote an idea that stands out from the crowd - it's how she sells books, gets social media engagement, gets media spots, etc. Taking a quick perusal through ROAR, it looks like she provides no references for her claims - why doesn't she reference her studies?

But in regards to the studies, yes, one of the meta-analysis does cover older women in 31 separate studies.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/strength-training-women/ he breaks down a lot of the details in this blog post.

There is one study included that relates to the 'high load' vs 'low load' training in men vs. women, but it is one study, which is more a signal of 'more research needed' - single study results often fail to replicate. And, as noted in the article / a linked article off of that, there's really no reason anyone, men included, should be training at the rep ranges that are considered low load. 6-15 is the range most people live around for general muscle building, often a bit narrow like the 8-12 I tend to like. People with more strength/powerlifting focus often stay in 3-8.

Edit: For a bit of a additional context, other things that impact women's hormones including monthly cycles and birth control do not seem to significantly impact exercise performance in other meta-analysis either - any differences found were trivial.

The Effects of Menstrual Cycle Phase on Exercise Performance in Eumenorrheic Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis - PubMed

The results from this systematic review and meta-analysis indicate that exercise performance might be trivially reduced during the early follicular phase of the MC, compared to all other phases. Due to the trivial effect size, the large between-study variation and the number of poor-quality...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

The Effects of Oral Contraceptives on Exercise Performance in Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis - PubMed

OCP use might result in slightly inferior exercise performance on average when compared to naturally menstruating women, although any group-level effect is most likely to be trivial. Practically, as effects tended to be trivial and variable across studies, the current evidence does not warrant...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Edit2: Another social media influencer PhD with stuff to sell you, and is also a PhD that actively works in research in this specific area https://www.instagram.com/drlaurencs1/

She seems to pretty actively take aim at a bunch of the claims Simms makes. Here's one with a bunch of referenced studies around rep range in peri/post-menopausal women:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DPjpapZCWSW/?hl=en

 

[desinr-gal]

What biological mechanism do you believe happens with older women that causes them to stop responding to muscle growth stimulus the same way everyone else does at all stages of their life? We don't see other significant hormone changes resulting in different muscle growth stimulus being required - we just see it have less absolute effect vs. when they are more optimal.

Plenty of older women compete in natural bodybuilding and follow these same training methodologies and get results that put them at competition level. Enhanced, too, but we'll ignore them since the hypothesis seems to be some vague hormone related shift and they're using exogenous hormones.

You shouldn't trust me, but you also shouldn't trust social media influencers or people with a bunch of book deals just because they have a Dr. before their name, but it MD or PhD. What studies is she basing her recommendations on - if they don't exist, how does anyone know that what she is saying is anything more than anecdotes? She has direct financial incentive to promote an idea that stands out from the crowd - it's how she sells books, gets social media engagement, gets media spots, etc. Taking a quick perusal through ROAR, it looks like she provides no references for her claims.

But in regards to the studies, yes, one of the meta-analysis does cover older women in 31 separate studies.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/strength-training-women/ he breaks down a lot of the details in this blog post.

There is one study included that relates to the 'high load' vs 'low load' training in men vs. women, but it is one study, which is more a signal of 'more research needed' - single study results often fail to replicate. And, as noted in the article / a linked article off of that, there's really no reason anyone, men included, should be training at the rep ranges that are considered low load. 6-15 is the range most people live around for general muscle building, often a bit narrow like the 8-12 I tend to like. People with more strength/powerlifting focus often stay in 3-8.

Watch a Stacy Sims Ted talk or video, there is a good one with Andrew Huberman.
I cant be trusted to remember everything she goes into in detail correctly. Basically The decline in estrogen and other hormone disruptions leads to an over excretion of cortisol. A lack of *adequate protein consumption, combined with longer cardio sessions or too many reps while strength training leads to a catabolism of muscles. So when pre, meno, and post meno women follow established norms in workouts i.e. long zone 2 cardio, and lots of weight reps, they trigger cortisol and catabolism, so these women lose muscle mass, gain more fat and are more fatigued.
She says only short light cardio, and very short bursts or sprints at 90-100% max will drive fat loss, If combined with well timed and adeqaute protein consumption, as well as strength training with heavy weight. Heavy being fatigue at 3-7 reps. She also recommends Plyo exercises with jumps, to strengthen bones.
*adequate is a Lot. like 40g per meal starting within 1/2 hour of waking to stave off am cortisol surge.

 

[hexagonal]

Watch a Stacy Sims Ted talk or video, there is a good one with Andrew Huberman.
I cant be trusted to remember everything she goes into in detail correctly. Basically The decline in estrogen and other hormone disruptions leads to an over excretion of cortisol. A lack of *adequate protein consumption, combined with longer cardio sessions or too many reps while strength training leads to a catabolism of muscles. So when pre, meno, and post meno women follow established norms in workouts i.e. long zone 2 cardio, and lots of weight reps, they trigger cortisol and catabolism, so these women lose muscle mass, gain more fat and are more fatigued.
She says only short light cardio, and very short bursts or sprints at 90-100% max will drive fat loss, If combined with well timed and adeqaute protein consumption, as well as strength training with heavy weight. Heavy being fatigue at 3-7 reps. She also recommends Plyo exercises with jumps, to strengthen bones.
*adequate is a Lot. like 40g per meal starting within 1/2 hour of waking to stave off am cortisol surge.

None of us should be interested in podcast appearances and similar for anything more than entertainment value and to potentially point us towards things to learn about - we want actual science. People go on Huberman and say all sorts of nonsense all the time, same thing with Attia, etc.

Random controlled trials on humans are how we figure out what actually happens, with large scale observational studies helping us shore things up when an RCT isn't appropriate.

We also need to define terms - what are "long" zone 2 cardio sessions? HIIT itself is a significant spike in cortisol - is the claim that 30 minutes of zone 2 is going to cause more cortisol than that? 60? 90? Cortisol increases for weight lifting are transient in much the same way that they are for HIIT - why is it fine there and not for lifting?

I'll confess I'm skeptical of this idea that cortisol is such a bugbear to begin with - it's important to quite a few bodily functions and these spikes and dips serve a purpose. It's not like men don't also have cortisol spikes in the morning - that's the natural rhythm here. And between-person spread differences in cortisol levels dwarf the differences at an individual level going through menopause.

Cortisol Levels during the Menopausal Transition and Early Postmenopause: Observations from the Seattle Midlife Women’s Health Study - PMC

Cortisol levels rise among some women during the late stage of the menopausal transition, but we know little about changes in cortisol levels in relation to menopause-related factors (menopausal transition (MT) stage, urinary estrone glucuronide, ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Standard deviation for participants was larger than the between late reproductive to postmenopausal level differences.

https://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1562.pdf

Here, across nearly 20k participants, they found that after early childhood women actually have higher cortisol levels than men, equalizing in the 30s, and men pulling ahead in the 40s and beyond. If older men are at a higher baseline cortisol level, and cortisol is one of the primary drivers here, wouldn't it be even more important for them to manage cortisol? But again, individual variability is larger than these factors.

Jumping does not seem to have robust science supporting it for older women increasing bone density. Another PhD researcher with her own incentives for you to listen to her, so trust as you will:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DPZ6i2UCUc1/?hl=en


All of these people have stuff they want to sell you, but some specific counterpoints to Sims from another PhD researcher in this area:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DPHsC3PEwXX/?img_index=1


Studies in women over 40 seem to strongly suggest women grow the same regardless of low rep vs high rep when proximity to failure equated:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DMqW1eXSLtI/?hl=en

In more disparate cohorts, no age detected difference either:

View this content on Instagram

View this content on Instagram

View: https://www.instagram.com/p/DH6JW2bAXsQ/?hl=en&img_index=1


Mechanistic studies are great to point us in directions of things and help us build a hypothesis, or as a potential explanation for results in an RCT or observational study. But when those mechanistic studies in animals just do not match the reality in human RCTs, personally, I worry a lot more about the RCT results than I do looking at what happened in rodents.

I'm just some asshole on an internet forum with google scholar and an inflated opinion of my own intelligence and ability to comprehend studies - but Sims seems like a grifter to me.

 

[desinr-gal]

Dr. Stacy Sims holds the following credentials:

• PhD in Environmental Exercise Physiology: University of Otago, New Zealand
• MS in Exercise Physiology and Metabolism: Springfield College
• BA in Movement and Sport Sciences: Purdue University

Just curious; what are yours?