We all know that “exercise” is beneficial. Of course, it is. But, does it matter what kind of exercise? Yes. It does.
One might make an argument that cardio is better than weights or vice versa, but that is like arguing that vegetables are healthier than fruit. There is no superiority of one over the other. They are both essential. The benefits are unique.
Moderate intensity and duration cardio appear to be beneficial to the immune system. I may also have protective effects for DNA which may help slow the aging process. It appears quite likely that cardio can be lie-extending.
Weight training may not increase longevity, per se, but it will clearly benefit the quality of those added years. The added strength and muscle function will certainly improve the quality of activities of daily living. Weight training will also improve one’s capacity to do physical activity—particularly the aerobic exercise that will provide the cardiorespiratory exercise.
Essentially, we will want to do both as we age. Medically and prescriptively, we tend to see aerobic exercise most often recommended.
Certainly, some aerobic exercise (AKA “cardio”) is suggested for heart and vascular health, as well as weight management and psychological health. “How much?” and “How intense?” remain as questions. Too much focus on moderate intensity aerobic exercise, in my experience and professional opinion, may be less beneficial for the aging adult. Often, this means frequent long-duration bouts of moderate-intensity steady-state (MISS) walking or cycling. While such exercise can stimulate the immune system and have a protective effect on the aging process, it is less effective preserving cardiorespiratory fitness and has little benefit for preserving muscle mass (consider that any aerobic activity is more efficient at a lower body mass—thus, the body is inclined to shed lean muscle, as well as fat, with endurance exercise). There is increasing evidence suggest that less frequent moderate-to-vigorous physical activity (MVPA) has a greater effect on longevity than low-intensity physical activity (LIPA)—though both are beneficial. It is clearly a good suggestion to move more throughout the day. When it comes to exercise—those physical activities performed for the specific purpose of improving one’s health, performance, and/or physical appearance—“opportunity costs”. More time spent doing exercise with minimal benefit is time less well-spent.
Weight training (or some form of resistance training) may have less effect on longevity (personally, I don’t think this has been studied as thoroughly as cardiorespiratory exercise in “older” adults), but it can have tremendous benefit for quality of life as we age. More overall neuromuscular function will promote a more activity in older adults which, in turn, benefits longevity—e.g., more MVPA. Increased neuromuscular function also benefits the risk of injury.
Weight training and aerobic exercise are different forms of exercise. Remember, specificity is important. The body makes “specific adaptations to imposed demands”. I would make a strong argument for a balance of cardio and weight training, as well as the addition of some high-intensity interval resistance training for all adults. Rather than include a statement that exercise should be “age-appropriate”, I would prefer just leave it as “appropriate”. The concepts of “overload” and “progression” do not end with AARP membership (or some defined milestone of age). Safe and effective should be the only considerations in exercise selection. All health-related (cardiorespiratory, muscle endurance, muscle strength, flexibility, and body composition) and motor skill-related (speed, power, agility, balance, coordination, and reaction time) components of physical fitness remain as considerations in the exercise prescription regardless of age.
Be your best today; be better tomorrow.
Carpe momento!