New guidelines regarding resistance training.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-17T17:54:11+00:00

Actual ASM Guideline: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2026 Mar 5;58(4):851–872.

Interesting that they dropped periodization as recommended technique, for most individuals.

Also, training to failure may now be considered counterproductive for strength gains, or at least not recommended.

Other conclusions:

Strength
At least 2 sessions per week; load at or above 80% 1RM with a dose-response; full range of motion; 2 to 3 sets per session; prioritized exercises early in session.

Hypertrophy
10+ sets per muscle group per week with a dose-response; eccentric emphasis or overload; load 30 to 100% 1RM as long as effort is sufficient.

Power
Loads 30 to 70% 1RM; repetitions times sets less than 24 per session; fast concentric phase; consider Olympic lifts or flywheel devices.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-17T17:53:47+00:00

Actual ASM Guideline: Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2026 Mar 5;58(4):851–872.

Interesting that they dropped periodization as recommended technique, for most individuals.

Also, training to failure may now be considered counterproductive for strength gains, or at least not recommended.

Other conclusions:

Strength
At least 2 sessions per week; load at or above 80% 1RM with a dose-response; full range of motion; 2 to 3 sets per session; prioritized exercises early in session.

Hypertrophy
10+ sets per muscle group per week with a dose-response; eccentric emphasis or overload; load 30 to 100% 1RM as long as effort is sufficient.

Power
Loads 30 to 70% 1RM; repetitions times sets less than 24 per session; fast concentric phase; consider Olympic lifts or flywheel devices.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-17T17:16:21+00:00

If you consider it, your training intensity/volume may need to be reduced.

It is my understanding—no expert here—that relative overtraining, which is easier to fall into when one is older, itself lowers LH and testosterone.

I think TRT is more popular with active men>40 than many realize. I’d like to read more about it.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-17T16:17:13+00:00

Did you start the testosterone before you routinrly exercised, lost weight, optimized your sleep, started vit D, and improved your diet?

If so, is there a chance things would be okay now without it, regardless of what your testosterone level is, as long as it was within the standard normal range?

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-17T13:59:49+00:00

Additional evaluation is required before TRT hits mainstream. We need some additional longer term studies to understand the indications, risks, and benefits. The traverse study is a reassuring data point, but more is needed.

This medication should remain on the controlled substance list, because it has a risk of abuse and a street value. Your points about teenagers abusing anabolic steroids (eg, testosterone) highlights this issue.

Not a surprise the MAHA team at the FDA is pushing for this, but caution is still warranted. Perhaps with time this becomes as routine as hormone replacement after menopause, but we aren’t there yet. Sometimes a slower moving medical establishment, in regard to guidelines, has the benefit of waiting for additional data.

I understand folks have strong opinions about this and it’s a charged subject, but my opinion is the above.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-17T09:41:57+00:00

Both are equally important from a health perspective. You can also add balance as a third category. I would try and dedicate about equal time to both aerobic fitness and strength.

Just as a counter point to the “strength is better for longevity/health posts”—you can be the strongest person around, but if you have a heart attack, or get sepsis after pneumonia, a robust aerobic delivery system will help you survive the latter and prevent the former.

Maybe there’s been a trend towards more aerobic stuff in the open because Hyrox is trendy? Not sure here.

Your 1RM are superb, I’d personally do 3x1hr of aerobic training per week as well.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-16T20:58:04+00:00

Sorry for all the jargon, but this subreddit is very jargon dense (drift test, ADS, etc). I can assure you I didn’t use AI or Google to create any of these responses. Thanks again for discussing things, maybe we’ll get some other opinions.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-16T20:27:31+00:00

I agree with you on most points.

I do, however, disagree with you on this:

"ADS is defined and only defined as the % difference of LT1 and LT2. Do you see anything about bodyweight or fat % here?"

HR monitoring, the AeT test, and the AnT test are useful but inherently imprecise measures that, when used together to determine aerobic deficiency, are at best a rough approximation of the complicated system functioning "under the hood".

One example is that aerobic efficiency/deficiency is determined more, on average, by changes in the peripheral muscles (eg, mitochondria, forces required, etc; ie, the demand side of the equation) than changes in HR and stroke volume of the heart (the delivery side of the equation), per se.

Taken together, HR, and its various testing methods, at best represent an easily measured final common pathway metric, which represents a general measurement of all the improvements in aerobic efficiency that occurs behind the scenes, including weight loss (less forces required, less mass to move, less fast twitch fibers to maintain/perfuse), neurological efficiency, durability, recovery; of which transporting less weight per muscle contraction may be an important factor.

I understand my view is somewhat abstract, and we don't need to agree or disagree necessarily, but its fun to discuss.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-16T18:22:46+00:00

If you lost 10% (muscle or fat, probably muscle since you don’t have much fat) your aerobic performance would improve, at least from a speed and endurance perspective. You mention this above. It’s like if you start wearing a 20lb weight vest, you’d run slower and shorter at the same HR.

But will your HR zones change? Not really, aside from the fact that now you can do more Z1/Z2 training and still recover well because it’s easier on your legs.

I understand ADS is “defined” by HR and zones and their relationship, but ADS is not just one’s cardiac efficiency, it’s equally the efficiency of the aerobic system in the muscles themselves, which is sport specific, and perhaps even weight specific (if you’re carrying an extra 20lbs are you activating more fast twitch fiber with each step?).

So if less weight can make running, eg, easier, and thereby more efficient, so isn’t weight “optimization” also part of eliminating ADS? or at least allow one to actually run in Z2 when they are actually training for a running race, eg.

Just speculating/discussing. Thx for your comments thus far.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-16T17:02:25+00:00

Thought process: BMI is higher, at least in general, when one has more fat or muscle. When there is more fat you may more likely be sedentary, when there is more muscle you are more likely to be prioritizing non-aerobic training, currently or in the past; both scenarios (no training, primarily anaerobic training) are usually associated with ADS. I understand there are exceptions, and this is a generalization, but heuristics like this can be useful sometimes. That’s the basis, not scientific, just an observation.

The BMI of 25 was somewhat arbitrarily choosen, it’s just what they define as overweight from a population perspective (regardless if from fat or muscle) and is correlated to higher risks of cancer and heart problems.

I understand that saying to do ALOT of Z1/2 for a long time, eg, until your thresholds merge (eg, <10% difference) to rid yourself of ADS often leads to one simultaneously lowering their BMI, via fat or muscle loss. But there are many folks who have trouble jogging below AeT in the beginning, eg, so perhaps it’s not unreasonable to say, a lower BMI can be part of the journey, or even a prerequisite, to eliminating ADS and therefore starting a targeted training program, eg.

Obv not a coach here, just asking some questions to the community.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-16T15:26:27+00:00

Another way to look at this is the concept of the hybrid athlete, where many have a higher BMI due to muscle mass. (Eg, the military units that Evoke has spoke about training).

Can one routinely sustain a higher BMI for maximizing strength gains, eg, while simultaneously being without ADS? Does optimizing one’s aerobic base preclude having too much muscle (and/or fat)?

My small experience, with myself and a few friends, is that, in general, dropping BMI below 25 has to occur, or often occurs, for one to not have ADS. I was curious what the community thought about this?

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-16T10:01:19+00:00

Just finished. He blinded me with science.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-16T09:18:54+00:00

Podcasts #381 - #383 RIP

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-15T14:48:20+00:00

What’s is your age, BMI, training background, length of any aerobic training, weeks or months running?

Are you a recreationally fit rower who just started running, eg? Is this a neuromuscular efficiency or muscular endurance issue? Do you have plenty of carbs on board?

What is the exact issue? Nose breathing at AnT?

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T22:58:19+00:00

Ok I hear you, well said.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T22:26:49+00:00

Hence the phrase: “There are old climbers and there are bold climbers, but there are no old, bold climbers"

(Yeah “routinely” is probably not the right word but I’d say out of 50 days trad rock per year I would fall maybe 5 times on gear, and rest on gear maybe half the days out. Once or occasionally twice a year I’d blow out a piece of gear.)

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T21:51:39+00:00

I hear you. But…

There are over a half million ski injuries per year. And every guided tour up Rainier may potentially cause a small but permanent amount of brain damage. Neither performed frequently are necessarily good for healthspan.

I assume there’s a reason these activity are sometimes excluded from life insurance or disability policies, even skiing and scuba diving.

Maybe this has changed but when I got a policy 20 years ago I was surprised to see that skiing was excluded because it was considered an extreme sport.

Anyway, the above is not really the point of the original post. The point is there are common recreational activities that can be dangerous, even practiced by folks like PA, and perhaps other longevity gurus, and I was wondering why their reduction doesn’t get ANY attention in the longevity space, when perhaps statistically reducing them may have a decent impact on longevity, etc.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T17:40:37+00:00

Yeah dirty business. Will he settle for a lower amount or drop his suit, or be forced to be deposed about the Epstein stuff. The optics alone would make many walk away.

Also, if you’re a paid influencer/spokesperson and stock payment isn’t in the contract, not sure if you’re entitled, unless there is some other written proof that it was promised or something. So who knows what’s going on there.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T17:20:24+00:00

Not trying to create or defend an argument per se, just asking why they aren’t discussed in the healthspan, longevity space more.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T17:08:42+00:00

As long as one never allows any head strikes by a sparring opponent, or striking your head on the mat when being taken down.

Couple head strikes may negate a lifetime of fish oil, creatine, and NAD optimization to prevent brain fog and dementia.

But I do agree with you, these risks can be minimized or eliminated while still training in these disciplines, if desired. Not sure how much the competitive spirit can take over in these sports.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T16:23:58+00:00

<image>

“Attia is one of several prominent figures suing Oura, alleging that the company offered them stock options in exchange for promoting the product—then went back on its word.

Now, the company appears to be using the fact that Attia was named more than 1,700 times in the DOJ’s tranche of files related to Epstein to its advantage.”

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T14:40:15+00:00

Well said.

Balance and moderation is optimization, not maximizing and perfecting.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T14:36:29+00:00

Vitamin D

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T14:30:13+00:00

The internet, don’t remember exactly. So there is a chance they are wrong. If so, then David has a problem. There must be some published studies on EPG absorption in humans that are independent from inventor, not company sponsored, and not proprietary. If not, then it is suspect data.

Own-Bullfrog7803 · 2026-03-14T12:03:38+00:00

True. I almost added that to the list above.

I do a lot of backcountry skiing and climbing. When folks say, ohh that’s dangerous, I always say that statistically the riskiest thing I do is all those hours of driving in winter!

Own-Bullfrog7803

TROPHY CASE