Sculpted trend spurs women to pump iron

[kwikdriver]

Women are pumping more iron, with nearly 1 in 5 doing twice-a-week workouts, a new federal study shows.

The desire for a more attractive body, along with worries about bone loss, probably contribute to the trend, experts said.

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention did the research, which is called the first to look at the national prevalence of weightlifting and other forms of strength-training. It is being published this week in the CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

The study found an overall increase in weightlifting and other forms of strength-training. In 2004, about 20 percent of U.S. adults were doing strength-training at least twice a week, up slightly from the late 1990s, when about 18 percent of adults were.

Women improved the most: About 17.5 percent did twice-a-week workouts in 2004, up from about 14.5 percent in 1998. Men, in contrast, held steady at around 21.5 percent.

Body-celebrating women’s magazines like Oxygen and Shape are part of a cultural shift that has led more women to embrace weightlifting, some fitness experts said.

“Women see this as an ideal they’d like to achieve, and it makes weight-training more approachable to women,” said Teresa Moore, an associate professor of exercise science at the University of South Carolina.

Long-term concerns about bone loss, and a recognition that strength-training can help, may also be factors.

“Women are starting to become more interested in strength-training because of the increased prevalence of osteoporosis,” said Judy Kruger, a CDC epidemiologist who was the study’s lead author.

The study’s data come from an annual national survey that involves face-to-face interviews with tens of thousands of U.S. adults. Starting in the year 1998, this question was added; “How often do you do physical activities designed to strengthen your muscles, such as lifting weights or doing calisthenics?”

Researchers saw increases in strength-training from 1998 until around 2002, when the trend line went flat.

“I can’t speak to why it leveled off,” said Kruger, who works in the CDC’s Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity.


Older adults do less strength-training than younger people, but there was a marked increase in the percentage of people 65 and older who did two or more workouts each week. For older men, the statistic rose to 14 percent in 2004, up from 11 percent in 1998. For older women, it rose to almost 11 percent of women in 2004, up from about 7 percent in 1998.

The U.S. government has set a public health goal that, by 2010, at least 30 percent of American adults should be doing strength-training at least twice a week.

The new report indicates that goal may be difficult to attain.

“A lot of people are still electing to stay home and play computer games and video games rather than get out and exercise,” said Moore, who has been powerlifting and bodybuilding since 1982.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13956966/

[HairOnFire]

I've got my mom pumping iron - she's 76! She's been doing it about 3 months after I gave her my 3- and 5-pound weights. She does some of her moves while in a chair. She said she has had to buy new shirts and blouses because her clothes are too big for her.

[jazzfan]

I love this article! I also like that it mentioned the benefit of warding off osteoporosis, rather than it all being about vanity or something. Reading this article prompted me to research the connection between strength training and bone density. Apparently strength training can help your body hold on to calcium, which is why it improves bone density. I never knew that! I'm extra glad now that I switched from a cardio-only program back to my first plan of alternating cardio and strength training.

[Demi]

If you enjoyed this article and found it interesting, then you might find the following one of interest too:


Resistance is useful

For years we've been told the only way to burn off fat is endless hours of aerobic exercise. But now researchers say the secret lies in 'resistance training'. By Fiona Russell

Thursday July 6, 2006
The Guardian
London, UK


For decades the experts have been telling us to exercise more, harder and longer, to burn body fat. Run, power-walk, row, trampoline ... do whatever bores you least, but increase your cardiovascular training. Now comes the latest advice: do less cardio - but burn more fat. The key, say scientists, is resistance training. This could mean lifting light weights or using the body's own weight as resistance, with squats, press-ups and lunges.

According to research from Glasgow University currently under review, the rate at which body fat is burned can be significantly increased when you precede any aerobic activity with 20 minutes of press-ups and squats.
"This is a breakthrough for both sedentary people and fit people," says Dr Niall MacFarlane, one of the authors of the study. The research - which monitored 11 fit volunteers over three weeks - suggests that if exercisers include a 20-minute session of resistance training prior to working out aerobically, the fat-burning benefits are two to three times greater. This means the easily breathless don't need to huff and puff for such a long stretch - and exercise aficionados can achieve better results in the same period of time.

"In fact," says MacFarlane, "because resistance training helps to switch on the body's fat-oxidation [burning] processes quicker, it also means people will be able to endure longer subsequent aerobic exercise."

Until now, anyone exercising aerobihas probably been told they need to keep going for at least half an hour to see significant results. At the start of a session, an untrained body uses a higher proportion of sugars, or carbohydrates, mainly stored in the muscles and liver, to fuel energy expenditure. (It is harder for our body to source energy from fat stores than from carbohydrates.) This reliance on carbohydrate can lead to early depletion of muscle glycogen and fatigue - and tired people tend to give up before they have started to burn fat.

For them especially, the research could be a boon. The Glasgow team believes that 20 minutes of resistance training enables the body to use fat as an energy fuel much sooner. The body will burn fat right from the start. And because the body is using fat to fuel the muscles instead of carbohydrate, the muscles do not tire as quickly and can endure longer sessions."This is especially good news for the sedentary person or the very overweight," says MacFarlane.

The happy news doesn't end there. Three one-hour sessions a week should be adequate - and nothing too strenuous either. Forty minutes' brisk walking after 20 minutes' easy resistance training (eg lunges without weights with rests in between sets) should suffice. "The fat-burning potential of this hour is the equivalent of two hours' hard running," claims MacFarlane.

Juliette Cassidy, 33, from Glasgow, is a convert to the resistance-CV combo. Not so long ago, she had a demanding regime, running five times a week and competing in ultra-marathons of up to 100 miles. But a year ago, on the advice of a personal trainer, she switched to two 30-minute sessions a week of weights and resistance work, including barbell lifts, press-ups, straight weight lifts, lunges and squats, while running less. "My body shape has completely changed," she says. "I have much more muscle, and while I weigh more, my physique is slimmer. I have less fat on my hips, bum and thighs and everything is more toned."

Not everyone is surprised by the Glasgow research. "We've always known resistance training is a good thing in terms of fitness," says Mike Johnstone, national endurance coach for Scottish Athletics. "Even if an unfit person was doing only resistance training you would expect to see fat burn. Anything that makes you move quickly, such as sit-ups and press-ups, will help you lose weight.

"The more muscles a person has compared with fat, the more efficient the body is at burning fat and calories. I still believe in the traditional premise that we should all be exercising more, especially aerobically, and for longer periods to improve general fitness. If this gets people up and exercising in the first place, it has to be a good thing. Hopefully, they will then stick at it and increase the intensity."

There are benefits, too, for those who already exercise. Instead of spending an hour sweating on the treadmill and lifting weights, people will find enhanced benefits from a resistance session followed by an easier run. "The more resistance training and aerobic exercise they do, the better the fat-burning benefits are and the greater their endurance," says MacFarlane. "If they are able to do more, that's good, but what we're saying is, you don't have to kill your-self to see fat loss."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/health/story/0,,1813677,00.html

[jazzfan]

This is fantastic! Thanks so much for sharing!

[bkloots]

Personally, I think the "fat- burning" effects of exercise are overrated. But the total health benefits of regular weight training and cardio exercise are monumental. I wish more women would see good nutrition and exercise as the answer to feeling and looking youthful as long as possible. Save a bundle on skin creams, and invest it in free weights and a few sessions with a personal trainer. :lol:

[HairOnFire]

Personally, I think the "fat- burning" effects of exercise are overrated. But the total health benefits of regular weight training and cardio exercise are monumental. I wish more women would see good nutrition and exercise as the answer to feeling and looking youthful as long as possible. Save a bundle on skin creams, and invest it in free weights and a few sessions with a personal trainer. :lol:

kloots, can you elaborate? Do you think that the "afterburn" stuff is overrated, like burning calories for "hours afterwards," or whatever it is they say? I agree with you about exercise and nutrition being the holy grail. Hell, if I had time, I'd work out 6 hours a day! A little pumping iron, a little bike riding, an hour of running, jump in the Bay for a dip, maybe some Pilates and yoga and abs work in there. I am so wanting to get buff! :agree:

[bkloots]

Do you think that the "afterburn" stuff is overrated, like burning calories for "hours afterwards," or whatever it is they say?

Yes, this is part of it. Also, the idea that you can control weight by "burning off" extra calories you eat, as in, "If I eat this donut, I can work it off with an hour of running" or similar thinking. I'm also skeptical of the metabolic benefit of having more muscle tissue. It is probably measurable in a laboratory, but every individual is so different, I don't think I'd count on it as a weight management strategy.

Then again, I'm speaking for myself. I exercise like crazy, but I still have to be extremely careful with my nutrition just to stay in one place, weight wise. I have way more muscle than I had at 33--but at almost 60, it's hard to stay ahead of my body's ever-increasing metabolic efficiency.

Everybody needs to get moving, don't you think?

[HairOnFire]

I agree about not counting on exercise for weight management. Taking that tack is probably pretty hopeless, especially if you're over 40! I know it wasn't working for me in the past couple years. I started noticing a quick downhill slide at around age 43 or 44--very quick weight gain and no payback from exercise at all. I'll have to stay very very diligent in the future just to manage my weight loss. Getting buff is another ball 'o wax entirely--time consuming and ongoing. Right now I'm extremely motivated, but I'll probably hit slumps and down times as well. I'm also expecting a stall here soon because I'm very close to goal, so I'm gearing up for that psychologically!

Are you a personal trainer?

[fabshelly]

I love it, I have so much less stress. I lift heavy weights, slowly.
I only eat meat, eggs and very little dairy, so I'm slowly turning into panther woman!

In less than a year, I'm going to be sooo sleek and strong - as long as you move SLOWLY, you won't hurt yourself. But if you're gonna lift free weights over 20 lbs. or so, ALWAYS HAVE A SPOT BUDDY!

Another thing: don't rip those muscle cell walls every day - that gives them no chance to heal (so you can rip 'em again). Twice a week is good. Do 8-10 sloooow reps until you reach muscle failure - that's that burning feeling of all the muscle cell walls giving way. Crawl into the shower, and spend the next three days reading a good book in the time you'd otherwise be jumping around messing up your knees.

YMMV.

[bkloots]

Fabshelly, I love your description of heavy weight training. That's about it--and that's what it takes to get "buff."

Now that I've joined a gym, I have the opportunity to work heavy if I want to. However, my present goals are simply to maintain a healthy weight, and stave off getting wingflaps under my arms. :lol:

No, I'm not a personal trainer. But I like to teach and encourage people, so one of my retirement possibilities in a couple of years could be to study and work towards certification. As one of the first Boomers, I know there will be a lot of "old" people coming along behind me, and they'll need their butts kicked.

I wish I'd gone for "buff" in my 30s. I did run a marathon back then, and with that intensity of aerobic training, I was "skinny fat," if you know what I mean. I don't think any kind of training can touch the flab on my thighs, and nobody cares what I look like in a bikini anymore. So unless I add Fitness Competition for Old Broads to my list of goals, twice-weekly high-rep workouts, plus another workout for upper body, keeps me looking pretty good in tank tops, so that's what I do. Plus three or four sessions of some kind of cardio--step, ice skating, running, etc.

I admire that buff look, and I know what it takes to achieve it, unless you're very young and/or genetically gifted. Best wishes.

[seyont]

I did the Total Failure method for 25 years, and it certainly works well for the first year as a strength training method. But after a while, you're just tearing down your muscles a few times a week. They may get bigger, you'll certainly get tired, but you don't get any stronger or any leaner. Athletically, it's a maintenance regime.

There's an old way to train: lift heavy, briefly, often, and never go to failure. Instead of weakening your body and hoping to heal each week, you train your brain and central nervous system to recruit more and more muscle fibers. (You know the stories of ladies lifting cars off their children? That's all the muscle fibers being recruited.)

Here's the magical part: brief bursts of intense effort (I work out a total of two to ten minutes a day) kick up your metabolism and chew fat in a way that an hour on a treadmill never did. And it helps your aerobic capacity. It seems like cheating. Another "A calorie is not a calorie", but on the expenditure side.

Art DeVany has theories on the hormonal aspects involved, very hard to read, but evolutionary in their basis. Pavel Tsatsouline has a lot of practical stuff on the subject (search terms: Grease The Groove, Naked Warrior, synaptic facilitation, kettlebells). Tabata is another person/term, but be forewarned that the Tabata Protocol is brutal.

I'm not saying Total Failure is bad, I'm just putting out a rather exotic and, to me, fascinating alternative.

[bkloots]

Seyont, I'm just wondering if testosterone makes a big difference in getting dramatic results from short and heavy. The Guy Advantage indeed!

[seyont]

I wonder, too, but my girlfriend is dead set against the experiment. Heck, she's dead set against the low-carb experiment.

[AuntJoyce]

Read about Fred Hahn's (Slow Burn guy) experiment with eating meat and eggs for 2 months and then taking a stress test:

http://slowburn.typepad.com/my_weblog/2006/06/me_and_my_stres.html

[kwikdriver]

I did the Total Failure method for 25 years, and it certainly works well for the first year as a strength training method. But after a while, you're just tearing down your muscles a few times a week. They may get bigger, you'll certainly get tired, but you don't get any stronger or any leaner. Athletically, it's a maintenance regime.



If you're going to failure on the same body part more than once a week, you will not grow after a point. The whole point of intensity training is to give your body time (at least a week) to rest and recuperate between brief stimulatory periods. I used intensity training for years, and the only time I didn't keep growing was when I wasn't eating enough. I never plateaued, and ended up lifting extremely heavy weights (BP 400+ pounds, Squat 600+) for a natural athlete. You might want to revisit your routine, because I know several other people who also had excellent results with intensity training. I know lots and lots of people who stopped growing, or experienced very slow growth, using the routine you are suggesting, on the other hand.

[AuntJoyce]

I agree with Barbara. Weight training and dieting have different purposes, imo. You must watch what you eat in order to lose fat. I've been weight training twice a week for five years with a personal trainer. Having muscles is awesome even though you can't really see them under my fat. My weight has stayed about the same.

Even at 240 pounds and 45 years old, I was able to outlast most of the younger and thinner ladies in tennis. When our instructor was really punishing us with drills, they would be gasping for air and wanting to sit down. I may have been a little red-faced and soaking wet, but I was still good to go. That's when all those lunges and squats really pay off. Now that I tore my meniscus, I decided to give up tennis and focus on hiking.

I can kick some butt in the gym too. I love seeing little side glances from the others when I grab 20, 25 and 30lb dumbbells and they are using fives and tens. Even when I feel like a failure for eating the wrong things, I still get to the gym for weight training.

[bkloots]

I'm working up to 50 push-ups--and not the "girl" kind. It's not that I'll ever win bar bets with the skill, but I'd like to know I COULD. :lol:

And I actually meant natural testosterone, not a supplement.

[Frederick]

I'm working up to 50 push-ups--and not the "girl" kind.

This is impressive.

I don't think I've ever seen a "girl" do 50 regular push-ups.

My compliments!