I was told recently that “functional body weight exercises are best for older adults”. I take issue with this claim. For several reasons:
“Older adults”. I am not quite sure what is meant by thus phrase—whenever it is used. Certainly, it has to be clearly defined. The comment was on an AARP thread on Facebook, so what defines “older”? Fifty-five—the age of admission into AARP? 65? 75? 85? Why not 45? “older” adult is quite subjective. In my humble opinion, other than for classification for a specific purpose (e.g., getting an AARP discount) such classifications are meaningless. There are people much older than me who are more capable, as well as many more who are much younger than me who are far less capable. Defining the efficacy of any one exercise or activity on the basis of age alone defies the principle of individuality. Frankly, I find it a bit ageist.
“Functional”. I understand what some are getting at when they refer to “functional exercise”, but, frankly, all exercise is to some degree “functional”. After all, exercise is intended to improve health and performance. Often what is labeled as “functional exercise” can be better termed “pre-habilitation” or “corrective exercise”. In other words, such so-called “functional exercise” is intended to manage imbalances and limitations that impede upon normal physical function. Such exercise is warranted before proceeding to a more progressive overload of the musculoskeletal system, but, at some point, one has to leave the “pre” behind and, at the very least, maintain this level of functionality.
“Body weight exercise”. There are some advantages to body weight exercises. Certainly, one advantage is the lack of need for (extensive) gym equipment. One glaring challenge with body weight exercise is progression. After all, “body weight” should not increase (with the exception of muscle mass—which most body weight exercise will not significantly increase). Thus, overload can only come by adjusting the load relative to gravity. This can be effectively done, but “body weight exercise” is by no means superior to free weights, machines, and other forms of resistance exercise. Muscle, after all, does not know by what means resistance is being generated. There are exercises that are more or less effective than others, and there are tools that are (situationally) better or worse than others. By no means, however, is one categorically superior to another. My critic’s comment that “there is a reason they are called DUMB-bells and DEAD-weights” shows an unfounded bias. (Reminds me a bit of a comment made to me 30-plus years ago by a former strength and conditioning coach who referred to exercise physiologists as “160-pound weaklings who have never lifted a weight in their lives telling you to never do full squats”. Thankfully, when he learned that I had recently completed my Master’s degree in exercise physiology, he said, “You’re not like the rest of them.” I graciously accepted the compliment. Now certainly, not all exercise physiologists are or were like he described. Indeed, most of the profession has evolved.) As with any tool—including barbells and dumbbells—these are only effective (and safe) when used properly.
It is important for aging adults to maintain (or regain) as much muscle mass as possible to remain the most active and functional lifestyle. This does not mean we have to lift like powerlifters or CrossFitters. We just shouldn’t limit or defined the capabilities of “older adults”. What we do to strengthen the muscles is less important than doing something and doing our elected something safely and effectively. Older adults follow the same principles of overload, progression, specificity, individuality, and reversibility and their younger counterparts.
Be your best (at any age); be better tomorrow.
Carpe momento!