Good point, I can briefly outline how the research on volume has informed how I lift these days.
It used to be believed that intensity was basically irreplaceable, but more and better studies have shown extremely similar effects from lower intensity, approximately down to 60-65% of your 1 rep max, whereas a 4 or 5 rep scheme is going to be around 80-85% your 1 rep max. So I tend to work the listed exercises in the 8-12 rep range. This further reduces injury risk. The exercise choices are good, and I also add in an accessory or two, defaulting to face pulls for posture and shoulder health and abdominal work (body saws and bicycle crunches) for core stability, though I throw in some hip abductor work when I have access to the requisite machine. The lifts you mentioned are basically still how I train most of the time.
WRT cardio, besides rowing more, I also do more of my running up hills, as it substantially lowers impact and allows higher volume.
It used to be believed that intensity was basically irreplaceable, but more and better studies have shown extremely similar effects from lower intensity, approximately down to 60-65% of your 1 rep max, whereas a 4 or 5 rep scheme is going to be around 80-85% your 1 rep max.
You can see that the difference isn’t huge even when going down to much lower loads. So the difference between 60 and 80% intensity is unlikely to be very large.
So you’re saying that for running, it’s better to do a more intense (uphill) shorter duration run, than a less intense (flat terrain) longer duration run? If I understand that correctly, it would imply that, for cardio, the rule is reverse the one for weights: “heavier” for “less reps”?
I may be missing something, but it’s not obvious to me from a physics perspective that running up hills is less impact-on-the-joints per effort, though from experience I agree it’s true. Maybe I don’t understand how impact is measured.
As long as your mass is rising at a constant rate, ascending vs. descending doesn’t change the downward force your feet must exert. Yeah, there will always be some vertical acceleration, like when cresting a hill, but unless one is running staircases with landings every 10 steps this wouldn’t be representative of the workout.
Inexperienced musing about other possible explanations:
Is it simply that effort-per-step goes up, so that fewer steps are required to achieve your goal? OTOH I’ve also been told that one should take faster, shorter steps while ascending, which would somewhat counter this effect. OTOOH maybe a short step is better on the joints than a long step. Then opting for steps that are both short and effortful could reduce a workout’s total joint-impact.
Oh, and obviously you (and your legs?) don’t move as fast. Maybe that is another contributing factor.
Good point, I can briefly outline how the research on volume has informed how I lift these days.
It used to be believed that intensity was basically irreplaceable, but more and better studies have shown extremely similar effects from lower intensity, approximately down to 60-65% of your 1 rep max, whereas a 4 or 5 rep scheme is going to be around 80-85% your 1 rep max. So I tend to work the listed exercises in the 8-12 rep range. This further reduces injury risk. The exercise choices are good, and I also add in an accessory or two, defaulting to face pulls for posture and shoulder health and abdominal work (body saws and bicycle crunches) for core stability, though I throw in some hip abductor work when I have access to the requisite machine. The lifts you mentioned are basically still how I train most of the time.
WRT cardio, besides rowing more, I also do more of my running up hills, as it substantially lowers impact and allows higher volume.
Can you list some of those studies?
https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2017/12000/strength_and_hypertrophy_adaptations_between_low_.31.aspx
You can see that the difference isn’t huge even when going down to much lower loads. So the difference between 60 and 80% intensity is unlikely to be very large.
What do you mean by ‘impact’ in this context?
Ankles, knees, mostly
So you’re saying that for running, it’s better to do a more intense (uphill) shorter duration run, than a less intense (flat terrain) longer duration run?
If I understand that correctly, it would imply that, for cardio, the rule is reverse the one for weights: “heavier” for “less reps”?
Running up hills means less impact per effort. You’re dropping your bodyweight onto your joints less because your mass is rising.
I may be missing something, but it’s not obvious to me from a physics perspective that running up hills is less impact-on-the-joints per effort, though from experience I agree it’s true. Maybe I don’t understand how impact is measured.
As long as your mass is rising at a constant rate, ascending vs. descending doesn’t change the downward force your feet must exert. Yeah, there will always be some vertical acceleration, like when cresting a hill, but unless one is running staircases with landings every 10 steps this wouldn’t be representative of the workout.
Inexperienced musing about other possible explanations:
Is it simply that effort-per-step goes up, so that fewer steps are required to achieve your goal? OTOH I’ve also been told that one should take faster, shorter steps while ascending, which would somewhat counter this effect. OTOOH maybe a short step is better on the joints than a long step. Then opting for steps that are both short and effortful could reduce a workout’s total joint-impact.
Oh, and obviously you (and your legs?) don’t move as fast. Maybe that is another contributing factor.
Did I get that right, or am I missing something?
I think poor form when running on flat ground is also a component. It is easy to magnify your impact by over striding, which happens less on ascent.
Yes