Suffering from mirroritis, going to the gym

[SirFuego]

On 2/2/2023 at 7:46 PM, betarhoalphadelta said:

I get this, but according to my Garmin watch with HR tracking and app, I've burned 4,318 calories today. 1,853 resting and 2,465 active. At ~4:30 PM. Granted, that was a 90 minute endurance ride on the Peloton, a 20 minute chest & back strength workout, and a 10 minute stretch. My HR is running a little hot today as a result. I'm a big guy so my BMR is probably 2700 calories a day, but with adding exercise I can dramatically increase the daily number. 

Just so you are aware, the calories burned metric on virtual every wearable on the market today can be pretty unreliable for a lot of people. Those algorithms use averages and heart rate is a poor indicator of calories burned because it cannot account for natural differences between people and also is not able to account for muscle strain/recovery with strength training.  It's probably not a bad estimate if your metabolism aligns well with the average and you don't do hours of intense workouts every week, but it can be unreliable if you have an efficient metabolism (you burn a lot fewer calories than the average) or an inefficient metabolism (you burn a lot more calories than average).

 

Virtually every calculator out there has my BMR well over 3000 calories.  I use an app to track my weight daily and I also log the food I eat.  It uses an algorithm to estimate BMR and no matter how much my diet varies, it stays pretty stable at around 2800 calories.   My fitbit says I should be burning 3600 calories/day.  I also have a Whoop and that puts me at 2500 calories (which has been known to dramatically underestimate calories for a lot of folks).  If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less than 2800 calories a day on average regardless of what any wearable tells me.

 

Bottom line is that I completely ignore any sort of calorie estimate from wearables because I don't appear to be close to any sort of averages built into the various wearable calorie calculations.

 

 

Edited February 6, 2023 by SirFuego

[johnrobison]

To each their own, of course, but I disagree. It's quite possible to lift heavy and avoid injury. I do it regularly. And when I say heavy, I don't mean 1 or 3 rep max stuff - I mean failure in about 8 reps or less. Our bodies eveloved for physical stress and benefit from it to a good degree and I believe that taking it easy as we age leads to deteriorating joints and tissue. Connective tissue is strengthened through sensible regular heavy lifting, as is muscle and bone. Sure, we do have to be more cautious - I don't do what I did 15+ years ago - but at 55 I lift heavy 3 days of  the week (quick bike sprints the other 2 and golf on Sat/Sun) and am not injuring myself. 

Edited February 6, 2023 by johnrobison

[MK7Golf21]

18 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

To each their own, of course, but I disagree. It's quite possible to lift heavy and avoid injury. I do it regularly. And when I say heavy, I don't mean 1 or 3 rep max stuff - I mean failure in about 8 reps or less. Our bodies eveloved for physical stress and benefit from it to a good degree and I believe that taking it easy as we age leads to deteriorating joints and tissue. Connective tissue is strengthened through sensible regular heavy lifting, as is muscle and bone. Sure, we do have to be more cautious - I don't do what I did 15+ years ago - but at 55 I lift heavy 3 days of  the week (quick bike sprints the other 2 and golf on Sat/Sun) and am not injuring myself. 

 

I've lifted for about 10 years, my buddy has been dealing with a shoulder injury from the gym for the past few years off and on related to lifting heavy and he doesn't do 1-3 rep max stuff either. I know so many people that get injured from the gym and I have been injured as well, comes with the wear and tear. All I'm saying is be careful when you get older because after an injury you are never the same really. Keep your muscles health and strong in the gym and keep the ego at the door when you walk in.

[johnrobison]

47 minutes ago, MK7Golf21 said:

Keep your muscles health and strong in the gym and keep the ego at the door when you walk in.

100%!

[betarhoalphadelta]

2 hours ago, SirFuego said:

Just so you are aware, the calories burned metric on virtual every wearable on the market today can be pretty unreliable for a lot of people. Those algorithms use averages and heart rate is a poor indicator of calories burned because it cannot account for natural differences between people and also is not able to account for muscle strain/recovery with strength training.  It's probably not a bad estimate if your metabolism aligns well with the average and you don't do hours of intense workouts every week, but it can be unreliable if you have an efficient metabolism (you burn a lot fewer calories than the average) or an inefficient metabolism (you burn a lot more calories than average).

 

Virtually every calculator out there has my BMR well over 3000 calories.  I use an app to track my weight daily and I also log the food I eat.  It uses an algorithm to estimate BMR and no matter how much my diet varies, it stays pretty stable at around 2800 calories.   My fitbit says I should be burning 3600 calories/day.  I also have a Whoop and that puts me at 2500 calories (which has been known to dramatically underestimate calories for a lot of folks).  If I want to lose weight, I need to eat less than 2800 calories a day on average regardless of what any wearable tells me.

 

Bottom line is that I completely ignore any sort of calorie estimate from wearables because I don't appear to be close to any sort of averages built into the various wearable calorie calculations.

 

 

Yeah, totally agree. I'm pretty sure that the BMR of ~2700 is pretty close. The times that I've done the calorie counting weight loss and aiming for 2200 consumed per day, I was consistently losing just about the predicted 1 lb per week. 

 

I do think the calories from activity may be off for me. I'm a huge outlier in max HR. By the 220-age formula I should have a max HR of 176, and it's over 200 (confirmed a few years ago by a stress test with a cardiologist). So I run a little hotter than most, and I'm guessing that the watch overestimates active burn because my workout HR is a little higher than their average model. 

 

At the end of the day, the scale doesn't lie. Watch the scale over the course of a month or so, and you know really quickly whether you're at a calorie deficit or not. 

[againstthegrain]

^^^ The formula, 220 - age = Maximum Heart Rate, is for training purposes only, it's not predictive of any person's heart rate at their maximal effort.

 

This is the formula my trainer is using now:

 

"Traditionally the formula 220-age has been used to determine Heart Rate Max (HRmax). Updated research has shown that this formula has little scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields. It is for this reason that the regression formula of 208 - (0.7 X age) has been adopted. This equation is very simple to use, and can be easily implemented as a general starting point for measuring cardiorespiratory training intensity. The fitness professional should keep in mind that this, or any other simple formula, is not a definitive HRmax value."

Edited February 8, 2023 by againstthegrain
added new info

[platgof]

I am stilling going to the gym and increasing my workout. I have been feeling so much better since I started working out. The golf game has changed as well. The sound of my good hits is amazing, way more pop on the ball. I believe I am seeing about a 15-to-20-yards gain so far. This is only my 4th week, so I am impressed. I am going every day that I can except when appts and golf get in the way. I am just amazed at how hard I am hitting the ball. I may have to go up a shaft flex if it keeps up. This is fun!!

[platgof]

I'm upping my game and using Prime Hydration Drink added to Equate Creatine Monohydrate 5G, to see if it can help with muscle soreness playing golf and working out at the gym. Tried some today and feel it really works. Should know in a week if it pans out, but good so far. It has a very good taste; I did not expect that. So far working out at the gym, I have noticed really good results when driving the ball, as it is getting longer and sounds amazing. Seniors, you need to get on board with a gym plan and start driving the ball longer. Indeed you can!!!

[johnrobison]

If you find that you still have some post-workout muscle soreness, you may want to try adding a scoop of L-Glutamine powder. I supplement with it daily pre-workout with very good results.

[againstthegrain]

^^Nunn Hydration tablets seem to be cheaper and more convenient than Prime HD.  

[platgof]

On 2/22/2023 at 7:09 AM, johnrobison said:

If you find that you still have some post-workout muscle soreness, you may want to try adding a scoop of L-Glutamine powder. I supplement with it daily pre-workout with very good results.

Will give it a try! Had a workout today and the creatine really helped. I really like the Prime and creatine combo, seems to work well. I am definitely gaining distance with the driver. It was cold today as in 48-50*F, and windy, and the distance dropped very little. I think I have gained 15 yards so far; I really won't know for sure until the warmer weather shows up, but the sound off the driver is amazing.

[vernon]

Will be 70 the end of March and am currently four weeks in to having resumed gym workouts and lifting.  Was in great shape ten years ago as I worked for four months with a personal trainer as well as on my own and was strong and lean.

 

Unfortunately a car accident followed by a ruptured achilles followed by a back injury followed by getting old and complacent derailed all of the good in pretty short order.

 

Still played the tips and could carry a drive 270+ five or six years ago but am now in the 210 -220 range and don't like it at all.

 

I don't expect to ever get back to where I was but I know damn good and well that I can do better than I am and appreciate being able to glean helpful information from threads like this.

 

Thanks for sharing and good luck to us all!

 

 

 

[Albatross Dreamer]

While strength training may not be the biggest factor in losing weight, it might be the most important in keeping it off. For most people that lose weight through nutrition only they also lose muscle, which typically leads to a lower metabolic rate and later putting the weight back on (and then some). Some call it the fat overshoot I believe. Plus all the other benefits people have mentioned here. Needless to say nearly everyone with the exception of those that do heavy manual labor could benefit from strength training in some form or fashion. So keep up the great work!

[bluedot]

20 hours ago, Albatross Dreamer said:

While strength training may not be the biggest factor in losing weight, it might be the most important in keeping it off. For most people that lose weight through nutrition only they also lose muscle, which typically leads to a lower metabolic rate and later putting the weight back on (and then some). Some call it the fat overshoot I believe. Plus all the other benefits people have mentioned here. Needless to say nearly everyone with the exception of those that do heavy manual labor could benefit from strength training in some form or fashion. So keep up the great work!

Good post!

 

All of this speaks to a healthy “lifestyle”.  That includes not only how much you eat, but WHAT you eat, and a good resistance training routine mixed with some degree of aerobic work.  
 

The trick, I think, is to view all of this as integrated, rather than either separate items, or hoping that one good habit can fix a bunch of bad ones.

[platgof]

My typical workout is 25 minutes on the treadmill, then the hip stretchers as in 3 different machines, 40 reps each. After that the bands and 3 different routines of 20 reps per side, left and right hand. Then the gut machines for 40 reps each. After that weight presses, light and lots of reps. Then the shoulder machine, this really makes me sore. I start out with the push, then the pull, 80 reps each, sometimes 120 reps, light weights. Then finish with the elliptical machine 10 minutes for now, and may grab another 10 minutes on the tread mill. My body is complaining, but hope to get used to it.

[johnrobison]

5 hours ago, platgof said:

My typical workout is 25 minutes on the treadmill, then the hip stretchers as in 3 different machines, 40 reps each. After that the bands and 3 different routines of 20 reps per side, left and right hand. Then the gut machines for 40 reps each. After that weight presses, light and lots of reps. Then the shoulder machine, this really makes me sore. I start out with the push, then the pull, 80 reps each, sometimes 120 reps, light weights. Then finish with the elliptical machine 10 minutes for now, and may grab another 10 minutes on the tread mill. My body is complaining, but hope to get used to it.

My opinion (based on research and personal experience, I will add 😉) is that you're spending far too much time on the treadmill and elliptical. Those machines should be to strengthen your heart - you wouldn't spend a half hour just focusing on your shoulders so why so much time on the heart? I do bike sprints twice a week and spend no more than 20 min combined. Unless you're training for sustained endurance - marathon running, etc - I'd recommend hitting those machines harder and shorter. Give it a try and see what you think.

[betarhoalphadelta]

14 minutes ago, johnrobison said:

My opinion (based on research and personal experience, I will add 😉) is that you're spending far too much time on the treadmill and elliptical. Those machines should be to strengthen your heart - you wouldn't spend a half hour just focusing on your shoulders so why so much time on the heart? I do bike sprints twice a week and spend no more than 20 min combined. Unless you're training for sustained endurance - marathon running, etc - I'd recommend hitting those machines harder and shorter. Give it a try and see what you think.

 

You've probably done more research and have more personal experience than I do, so if what I say next is complete BS, please inform my 😉

 

I think a big question becomes whether the goal is "exercise" or "training". If the goal is exercise, i.e. just burning calories, 25 minutes on a treadmill or an elliptical is a great thing. If the goal is training, i.e. improving your overall cardiovascular health, it's probably not going to do very much. 

 

IMHO for OP, the goal of cardio workout absolutely SHOULD be for endurance. He's said he's older, so it's not like he's training for a marathon, but 18 holes of golf is a lot of walking and a lot of work. And heck, LIFE is hard as we all age, so improving cardio endurance is probably a great thing for his overall quality of life. 

 

So I'd go the opposite way. Hit the treadmill/elliptical for longer duration but only moderate exertion work. It's not about blasting out VO2 Max for maximum power output. It's about strengthening for the demands of life. And that comes more, IMHO, from general cardiovascular efficiency than from trying to improve max. If that means he tries to briskly walk the treadmill for an hour rather than doing a walk/jog for 20-25 minutes, he might build more where it counts. 

 

I personally do Peloton as of Jun 2022, and as I got into it started to realize that I'm a big strong guy and I can mash pedals down with high resistance for 20 or 30 minutes without too much trouble. But while it was great exercise, it was terrible training for me. I've always had strong legs and terrible cardio. I'm the guy who could hike 10 miles but couldn't run 1 lol. So I've started doing much more long-duration (45 or 60 minutes most of the time, 75 or 90 minutes when I can get it into my schedule) but lower-effort rides to build that base. I need to build the endurance. I'm also building strength, but that mostly comes from weight work rather than the bike.  

 

 

[platgof]

I am just lucky to have the strength to play 18 holes as it is. I am turning into a gym rat at my own pace. I am doing low weights and lots of reps and no desire to do differently. I can tell after a month that I am bulking up, and the pants are already loosening up. I did two workouts today, morning and afternoon, and could tell that I am getting stronger as I am moving to heavier weights somewhat and less reps, but not too much. I actually wish I lived closer to the gym. It is a blast being retired and have all the time I want for the gym. My goal is to keep this up for 6 months and see if it is worth it for the golf game, my ultimate goal. I noticed that I do have more energy already and the driver feels way lighter.

[johnrobison]

14 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

You've probably done more research and have more personal experience than I do, so if what I say next is complete BS, please inform my 😉

 

I think a big question becomes whether the goal is "exercise" or "training". If the goal is exercise, i.e. just burning calories, 25 minutes on a treadmill or an elliptical is a great thing. If the goal is training, i.e. improving your overall cardiovascular health, it's probably not going to do very much. 

 

IMHO for OP, the goal of cardio workout absolutely SHOULD be for endurance. He's said he's older, so it's not like he's training for a marathon, but 18 holes of golf is a lot of walking and a lot of work. And heck, LIFE is hard as we all age, so improving cardio endurance is probably a great thing for his overall quality of life. 

 

So I'd go the opposite way. Hit the treadmill/elliptical for longer duration but only moderate exertion work. It's not about blasting out VO2 Max for maximum power output. It's about strengthening for the demands of life. And that comes more, IMHO, from general cardiovascular efficiency than from trying to improve max. If that means he tries to briskly walk the treadmill for an hour rather than doing a walk/jog for 20-25 minutes, he might build more where it counts. 

 

I personally do Peloton as of Jun 2022, and as I got into it started to realize that I'm a big strong guy and I can mash pedals down with high resistance for 20 or 30 minutes without too much trouble. But while it was great exercise, it was terrible training for me. I've always had strong legs and terrible cardio. I'm the guy who could hike 10 miles but couldn't run 1 lol. So I've started doing much more long-duration (45 or 60 minutes most of the time, 75 or 90 minutes when I can get it into my schedule) but lower-effort rides to build that base. I need to build the endurance. I'm also building strength, but that mostly comes from weight work rather than the bike.  

 

 

I guess it's about the tradeoffs. If I'm going to spend 45-60 minutes of effort every day, I want to get the most out of it and would prefer that I'm strengthening my body as much as possible. When I do resistance training, I'm at such an intensity that I'm expending at least as much and probably even more energy (aka, burning calories) than being on a treadmill or elliptical and I'm getting the benefit of strengthening at the same time. The treadmill just isn't as an efficient use of my time if the goal is simply energy expenditure. It is an efficient use of my time in short spurts when the goal is "heart training". Cardiovascular health is being addressed for the duration of my workout whether it's resistance training or sprints.

 

My point of view on "cardio":

I think the human body has evolved perfectly to walk a round of golf - it's not an activity that we have to train for. As long as we are strong, fit, and mobile, it's something that we can do perfectly well without requiring extracurricular conditioning to do it (as opposed to running a marathon, for example, which is in excess of our natural state). We can maintain our strength through resistance training, our fitness through cardiovascular training, and our mobility through some dynamic stretching and such. But I think the cardiovascular fitness is where a lot of times we fall short because we don't really focus on the heart like a muscle. It's built to beat and beat and beat - we don't have to train it to keep beating for a round of golf. We've evolved to do exactly that. But we can train it to be a strong muscle and operate most efficiently if we give it the right king of attention. Like other muscles, it needs to be stressed for short durations. That's why sprints are so effective, whereas sustained training isn't really "training", that's just what the heart evolved to do all day long.

[againstthegrain]

On 2/28/2023 at 6:11 AM, johnrobison said:

I guess it's about the tradeoffs. If I'm going to spend 45-60 minutes of effort every day, I want to get the most out of it and would prefer that I'm strengthening my body as much as possible. When I do resistance training, I'm at such an intensity that I'm expending at least as much and probably even more energy (aka, burning calories) than being on a treadmill or elliptical and I'm getting the benefit of strengthening at the same time. The treadmill just isn't as an efficient use of my time if the goal is simply energy expenditure. It is an efficient use of my time in short spurts when the goal is "heart training". Cardiovascular health is being addressed for the duration of my workout whether it's resistance training or sprints.

 

My point of view on "cardio":

I think the human body has evolved perfectly to walk a round of golf - it's not an activity that we have to train for. As long as we are strong, fit, and mobile, it's something that we can do perfectly well without requiring extracurricular conditioning to do it (as opposed to running a marathon, for example, which is in excess of our natural state). We can maintain our strength through resistance training, our fitness through cardiovascular training, and our mobility through some dynamic stretching and such. But I think the cardiovascular fitness is where a lot of times we fall short because we don't really focus on the heart like a muscle. It's built to beat and beat and beat - we don't have to train it to keep beating for a round of golf. We've evolved to do exactly that. But we can train it to be a strong muscle and operate most efficiently if we give it the right king of attention. Like other muscles, it needs to be stressed for short durations. That's why sprints are so effective, whereas sustained training isn't really "training", that's just what the heart evolved to do all day long.

 

Based on my training I can get a decent energy expenditure and great cardio workout "heart training" in 1/2 hour.  There is no way I can resistance train at the heart rates I produce while doing cardio so the cardio burns calories at twice the rate as resistance training for me(at least according to the app.)   Good cardio training pays dividends other than being able to cinch the belt a little tighter and yes it makes walking the course that much easier so you can devote your thoughts and energy to playing golf not walking. 

 

 

 

 

[johnrobison]

9 minutes ago, againstthegrain said:

 

Based on my training I can get a decent energy expenditure and great cardio workout "heart training" in 1/2 hour.  There is no way I can resistance train at the heart rates I produce while doing cardio so the cardio burns calories at twice the rate as resistance training for me(at least according to the app.)   Good cardio training pays dividends other than being able to cinch the belt a little tighter and yes it makes walking the course that much easier so you can devote your thoughts and energy to playing golf not walking. 

 

 

 

 

Cool. And I think that a guy's gotta do whatever works best for him and keeps him going. My resistance training has my heart rate around 80% max so I'm not only strengthening, I'm also getting good cardiovascular conditioning at the same time. Then, to really focus on strengthening the heart (just like during resistance training I'm primarily focusing on certain muscle groups), I add in 10-15 min of interval sprints twice a week. For me, doing 30 min of non-resistance "cardio" (all exercise is cardio, btw, but let's say cardio since that's what people call the treadmill and stuff) would be like doing 30 minutes of lightweight squats or presses or something. Not really targeting the building of specific muscle strength. Sure, 30 min of it would fatigue my muscles but it doesn't build them up as efficiently or nearly as effectively as heavy resistance does. So, same for my heart. I can go at, say, 75% or 80% of my max HR for 30 minutes, but it's not as effective at strengthening the heart as sprinting at 95% or 100% for 30 sec or whatever time interval. I treat it the same as the other muscles.

 

Personally, I discount exercise for fat burning almost entirely. For me exercise is almost entirely for strength and fitness. Conversely, nutrition is almost entirely for metabolic health - it's there to support strength and fitness but plays a minor role to exercise. I spent many many many years playing around with exercise as a means to body fat reduction and maintenance and found it to be incredibly insignificant in that regard. Anecdotally, from friends I've worked out with over many years, I see the same thing. Quite a few put in far more time than I do in the gym with virtually no impact on their metabolic health, body fat, etc... So, "cardio" for calorie burning is not part of my equation at all. It can be for some. It is for you. It ain't for me.

[betarhoalphadelta]

On 2/28/2023 at 5:11 AM, johnrobison said:

My point of view on "cardio":

I think the human body has evolved perfectly to walk a round of golf - it's not an activity that we have to train for. As long as we are strong, fit, and mobile, it's something that we can do perfectly well without requiring extracurricular conditioning to do it.

 

FYI, I agree with this. Honestly, if you're walking 18 holes 3-4 times a week w/o fatigue, that's all the "cardio" you need to keep walking 18 holes 3-4 times a week. 

 

But re: the bolded part, I think people in these threads don't quite realize that there's a big difference between where some people on this forum are in their fitness ability, and "strong, fit, and mobile". 

 

Our bodies are evolved to perform certain activities, but spend a couple decades being sedentary and working a desk job, and you may not be strong, fit, and mobile enough to do what we're evolved to do. You need to crawl before you can walk, and it seems like the thread is about someone who quite frankly barely considers himself fit enough to golf, so at this point it's about basic conditioning. I'd argue that for anyone who has trouble getting through 18 holes without being fatigued for half of the back 9, moderate-exertion longer-duration exercise might offer the training they need just to get to that basic level of conditioning to do what we're evolved to do. 

 

@platgof is in a fitness journey to try to go from 0-60, so advice trying to tell him how to be a 200+ mph Bugatti may not be applicable. 

 

[johnrobison]

2 hours ago, betarhoalphadelta said:

 

FYI, I agree with this. Honestly, if you're walking 18 holes 3-4 times a week w/o fatigue, that's all the "cardio" you need to keep walking 18 holes 3-4 times a week. 

 

But re: the bolded part, I think people in these threads don't quite realize that there's a big difference between where some people on this forum are in their fitness ability, and "strong, fit, and mobile". 

 

Our bodies are evolved to perform certain activities, but spend a couple decades being sedentary and working a desk job, and you may not be strong, fit, and mobile enough to do what we're evolved to do. You need to crawl before you can walk, and it seems like the thread is about someone who quite frankly barely considers himself fit enough to golf, so at this point it's about basic conditioning. I'd argue that for anyone who has trouble getting through 18 holes without being fatigued for half of the back 9, moderate-exertion longer-duration exercise might offer the training they need just to get to that basic level of conditioning to do what we're evolved to do. 

 

@platgof is in a fitness journey to try to go from 0-60, so advice trying to tell him how to be a 200+ mph Bugatti may not be applicable. 

 

Fair enough and many ways to approach it. My belief, however, is that someone who can't walk 18 is lacking strength more than they're lacking cardiovascular fitness. The test would be to walk 5 or 6 miles without a load. It's when you load 20-25 lbs on your back (honestly, making 40 or so swings over a few hours isn't tiring so we'll discount that) that it becomes strenuous. So, *some* fitness would help to more efficiently deliver oxygen to the muscles, but 90% of the issue (I made that number up) is that the muscles are becoming exhausted from the load because they lack the strength to carry it.

 

Of course, if walking 5 or 6 miles at a moderate pace is exhausting then, yes, fitness is seriously lacking. But, again, I still don't believe that simply doing 20 minutes of sustained work (what's that gonna be at - 70%-75% max heart rate? Maybe?) is how you get there most effectively. I believe that sprints, which stress the heart to pump more oxygen into the muscles as efficiently as possible, is the best way to get there.

[PhillipG78]

Former collegiate strength coach here, BS, MS exercise physiology. The benefits of cardio respiratory fitness are often underrated by people and most people don’t do enough it’s especially important for older golfers and people in general. For maximizing health and longevity you should shoot for 150-180 minutes a week of moderate or at least 120 of vigorous. Moderate is 65-75% of MHR and vigorous is 76% plus. Data has routinely shown that especially in people 50+ having a VO2max in the 90th percentile reduces risk of developing all sorts of health issues and also helps improve mental function metabolic function and joint function if you’re doing low impact exercise. Golf requires more muscular endurance than people appreciate. From a strength training stand point focusing more on functional training is better for golf, TPI has a great program. EXOS formerly Athletes performance has some good programs too. You really want to focus on a few core lifts,

trapbar deadlift, alternating dumbbell press, dumbbell rows, cable chops, med ball wall throws, side planks and glute clam shells will hit all the major groups for golf. For especially older golfers mobility training is really key. If you can do the TPI program it’s great and very similar to what the PGA guys do. Do NOT train like Tiger did, there’s a reason Tigers body fell apart and Rory is still going great. 

[PhillipG78]

10 hours ago, johnrobison said:

Fair enough and many ways to approach it. My belief, however, is that someone who can't walk 18 is lacking strength more than they're lacking cardiovascular fitness. The test would be to walk 5 or 6 miles without a load. It's when you load 20-25 lbs on your back (honestly, making 40 or so swings over a few hours isn't tiring so we'll discount that) that it becomes strenuous. So, *some* fitness would help to more efficiently deliver oxygen to the muscles, but 90% of the issue (I made that number up) is that the muscles are becoming exhausted from the load because they lack the strength to carry it.

 

Of course, if walking 5 or 6 miles at a moderate pace is exhausting then, yes, fitness is seriously lacking. But, again, I still don't believe that simply doing 20 minutes of sustained work (what's that gonna be at - 70%-75% max heart rate? Maybe?) is how you get there most effectively. I believe that sprints, which stress the heart to pump more oxygen into the muscles as efficiently as possible, is the best way to get there.

Sprinting trains your anaerobic threshold which is literally the opposite of stressing the heat to pump more oxygen. Sprinting is great if you know how to run in a biomechanically sound way but for most golfers it’s a recipe for disaster. Based on the limited data steady state cardio better mimmicks the energy demands of walking a course. A lot of golfers don’t add a power component to their training so med ball slams and some plyometrics will definitely keep heart pumping and add power to training.

[johnrobison]

3 hours ago, PhillipG78 said:

Sprinting trains your anaerobic threshold which is literally the opposite of stressing the heat to pump more oxygen. Sprinting is great if you know how to run in a biomechanically sound way but for most golfers it’s a recipe for disaster. Based on the limited data steady state cardio better mimmicks the energy demands of walking a course. A lot of golfers don’t add a power component to their training so med ball slams and some plyometrics will definitely keep heart pumping and add power to training.

Agreed on the running, for sure. I don't do running sprints or even recommend them, really. I think running is pretty tough on the body and, especially as we age, not the best way to sprint. I prefer air bike sprints over any other type - it gives a great workout and saves the body from all the pounding. Swimming sprints are probably good, too. I also like adding resistance to training, as you suggest and recommend that, unless you're training for a body building show, the heart rate should be pretty high when doing resistance training - something like 80% MHR or so. But then I would add supplemental heart training in in very short spurts. Just quick sprints one or twice a week at 95% - 100%.

 

I don't buy into the anaerobic training notion - it's an outdated concept that doesn't hold up to the science of how our bodies create energy. ALL exercise is aerobic no matter how intense and we only have one system for producing energy. Without aerobic functioning, we'd literally die. I agree that there are levels of intensity but we don't switch from one source of energy to another as perhaps we used to believe a long time ago.

 

In my experience, most people aren't intense enough and intentional enough. And by intense, I don't mean how much time they're putting in - most people I see overdo volume considerably - but how much max effort they're putting in. I also know that in my own, personal experience the switch to less volume at max intensity has paid off with MUCH better returns.

[PhillipG78]

5 hours ago, johnrobison said:

Agreed on the running, for sure. I don't do running sprints or even recommend them, really. I think running is pretty tough on the body and, especially as we age, not the best way to sprint. I prefer air bike sprints over any other type - it gives a great workout and saves the body from all the pounding. Swimming sprints are probably good, too. I also like adding resistance to training, as you suggest and recommend that, unless you're training for a body building show, the heart rate should be pretty high when doing resistance training - something like 80% MHR or so. But then I would add supplemental heart training in in very short spurts. Just quick sprints one or twice a week at 95% - 100%.

 

I don't buy into the anaerobic training notion - it's an outdated concept that doesn't hold up to the science of how our bodies create energy. ALL exercise is aerobic no matter how intense and we only have one system for producing energy. Without aerobic functioning, we'd literally die. I agree that there are levels of intensity but we don't switch from one source of energy to another as perhaps we used to believe a long time ago.

 

In my experience, most people aren't intense enough and intentional enough. And by intense, I don't mean how much time they're putting in - most people I see overdo volume considerably - but how much max effort they're putting in. I also know that in my own, personal experience the switch to less volume at max intensity has paid off with MUCH better returns.

It 100% holds up to the science sprinting is nearly 100% anaerobic event up to about 300m. At distances of 30-50 meters it’s about 99% anaerobic work, which is not training or mimicking the energy demands of golf. In the 100-150 range you’re definitely getting heavily into the lactate system, but golfers don’t use that system so why train it. If you want power the plyometrics do that There’s a reason pro golfers aren’t doing wind sprints Please feel free to site a study showing otherwise. 

Edited March 5, 2023 by PhillipG78

[johnrobison]

3 hours ago, PhillipG78 said:

It 100% holds up to the science sprinting is nearly 100% anaerobic event up to about 300m. At distances of 30-50 meters it’s about 99% anaerobic work, which is not training or mimicking the energy demands of golf. In the 100-150 range you’re definitely getting heavily into the lactate system, but golfers don’t use that system so why train it. If you want power the plyometrics do that There’s a reason pro golfers aren’t doing wind sprints Please feel free to site a study showing otherwise. 

Aerobic cellular respiration occurs constantly. Does anaerobic cellular respiration occur? It does, and I wasn't suggesting that it doesn't exist, but it's occurring at the same time as aerobic. The delivery of oxygen to the cells is fundamental to muscle contraction and if it ceased - ie, 100% anaerobic - our muscles would stop within a couple of twitches and we would die shortly thereafter. A study doesn't need to be cited - this is just human physiology. Lactate production is also part of human physiology and beneficial to training.

 

Is all of this essential to play golf? No, I don't think so. I think humans have evolved with the capacity to walk 18 holes and play golf. Granted, that capacity can erode if our physical condition deteriorates but, a healthy person in good physical condition shouldn't have to TRAIN to play golf. However, to significantly improve strength and endurance, especially in the absence of things humans evolved doing - chasing game, climbing hills, etc. - resistance training and sprints to improve cardiovascular performance are quite beneficial.

[PhillipG78]

If you think I’m wrong and you’re correct feel free to post an article showing that sprinting is primarily aerobic. Sprints are beneficial for lots of aspects of fitness but doesn’t help golf specific fitness. It sounds like you love sprints and want to use them in your workouts which is great, sprints are a very effective workout and have lots of benefits. Doesn’t mean it mimmicks the energy demands of golf in any way. I’m not a big cardio guy myself but wind sprints don’t help golf performance if they did PGA golfers would do them. You might want to brush up on how cellular respiration works since by its definition the ATP-PC process of short duration sprints does not involve any gas exchange. Lactate builds up to due to the lack of oxygen in the system thus requiring pyruvic acid being converted into lactate instead of Acetyl CoA. High intensity exercise like a 5 second

sprint by its very length of time isn’t long enough for aerobic pathways to kick in, unless you’re sprinting for distances longer than 30 seconds. Even at the 30s mark the aerobic system is only providing a modest contribution to energy. Golf is primarily an aerobic sport with power endurance. The higher intensity the more you’re enhancing the posphagen system not the aerobic system. If you dísagree feel free to supply data to prove your point but I think you maybe miss understanding some of the basic concepts of energétics of exercise physiology. 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=energy+demands+of+a+100m+sprint&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1678071237764&u=%23p%3D9tawaLx-P5kJ
 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=energy+demands+of+a+100m+sprint&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1678071394382&u=%23p%3DypcF6dP9DLYJ

 

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C3&q=energy+demands+of+golf&oq=ener#d=gs_qabs&t=1678071591900&u=%23p%3DLS44filB1OIJ

Edited March 6, 2023 by PhillipG78

[johnrobison]

I'm not suggesting that sprints improve golf performance. In fact, I stated more than once that golf doesn't require a particularly high level of fitness. Not really much beyond what we, humans, evolved to be able to do. I did say, however, that if one has the goal to improve cardiovascular fitness, sprints are a better use of time (they're also less taxing on the body) than long duration, lower HR exercise. But, again, that's not about whether it will improve golf performance.

 

"Golf is primarily an aerobic sport"

Depends how you look at it, doesn't it? The golf swing, itself, relies on the ATP-PC process for energy. Walking around... Not so much 🙂

 

Nor did I say that sprinting is primarily aerobic - how much energy is produced from aerobic vs anaerobic respiration depends on the intensity and duration of the exercise. What I said was that aerobic cellular respiration doesn't stop. We don't and can't produce all of the energy required for muscular contraction without oxygen. Aerobic energy production is constant and without it, muscles would stop contracting and we would die. I also agreed that anaerobic energy production will occur and the two happen simultaneously. But we don't go 100% anaerobic when we sprint. In fact, the pyruvate produced in the anaerobic process that isn't converted into lactate is used as fuel in the aerobic process. They happen simultaneously.

 

"the ATP-PC process of short duration sprints does not involve any gas exchange" Agreed. But, again, it doesn't happen exclusive of aerobic respiration, which is also occurring during sprints.

 

I feel like this is an academic hijack of the OP's thread at this point and probably not doing him much good. My original point was simply that there is no "anaerobic threshold" - aerobic and anaerobic occur simultaneously. Increasing the amount of anaerobic contribution to energy production isn't something that's done at the expense of building a stronger cardiovascular system. My point is that it's quite the opposite - in short spurts, it's the best way to train the system.