My blogging time has been severely limited lately, leaving me mostly brief interactions here & there on social media. You’ll understand why in the near future. In the meantime, it’s probably going to be a lot of linking and quoting, so as to save my clever prose for other things.
But first, a slap.
Smack!
~ One after another, diabetics—both types—try supplementing resistant starch (primarily through Potato Starch
Steve its going very, very good with my RS experiment , Yesterday FBG 3.7 (67n), Today 4.8 (86) afther hypo in the night 2.7 ( 47 ). I have to reduce my insulin!!! Thanx for showing the way […]
Thank you, Richard Nikoley for being the big pusher of Resistant Starch, it was that what I needed just now. After 2 years HFLC/Ketosis, it did not work enough anymore. Again higher BS. With RS: back on track […]
Thank you!! I’m 70 now 24 year DMT2, want to be 100 #healthy. It goes the right way now, you gived me more hope through RS :)
~ Steve Cooksey, who, incidentally first reported about Mariet, has an update post up on his 30-day RS experiment, along with a Q&A: Resistant Starch: Why? Q & A. In the post, he states:
For me the results are no longer ‘early’ I will flat out state …
- FACT: Resistant Starch has reduced my Overnight Fasting Blood Sugars (read this post)
- FACT: Resistant Starch has reduced my Blood Sugar spike post Potato (read this post)
- FACT: Resistant Starch IS helping other diabetics. These are people I know and trust to report the results honestly and accurately. (read this post)
I mention ‘early results’ because I’m far from finished. I’ll continue to experiment with highER carb foods, exercise, etc.
~ Someone at the Human Food Project did a 10-day experiment going full LC. Here’s the before & after of his gut bug composition.
(click the image to open full size)
So, going from lots of meat, fat, plants and fiber to meat, fat and little fiber (ketogenic, most certainly) has a profound impact on gut bacteria, and rapidly. The question is, is this good, bad, or does it matter? The author writes:
Yes, you can shift your gut microbiome (dramatically) with diet in a very, very short period of time. Below is my microbial composition – at the phylum level – after shifting my diet. In short, while maintaining a high fat / protein diet, I simply dropped out the plants and fiber. This, in theory, resulted in less fermentation in my colon which shifted the pH to be more alkaline. Under these conditions, the genus Bacteroides within the phylum Bacteroidetes, was able to bloom, as strains of Bacteroides are pH sensitive and don’t grow as well in acidic conditions created by the productions of short chain fatty acids and organic acids during fermentation of fiber/resistant starch (and fermentation of host-derived substrates). Take home message (IMO): acidity good, blooms of Bacteroides (which is driving the spike in the phylum Bacteroidetes in right-hand side pie), not so good. I will discuss more of this in n upcoming blog post. [emphasis added]
I will hasten to add that “short chain fatty acids” are the words we use so that we don’t have to say “saturated fats;” upon which utterance, NAZIs always seem to show up, often in company with The Spanish Inquisition. SCFAs are also what butter munching low carbers, executives, and drinkers of coffee safe from bullets are always on about (I enjoy a BP coffee now & then, BTW, but you must make it right!). Butyrate is a SCFA. But unless it gets to your colon where it…
Butyrates are important as food for cells lining the mammalian colon (colonocytes). Without butyrates for energy, colon cells undergo autophagy (self digestion) and die.[1] Short-chain fatty acids, which include butyrate, are produced by beneficial colonic bacteria (probiotics) that feed on, or ferment prebiotics, which are plant products that contain adequate amounts of dietary fiber. These short-chain fatty acids benefit the colonocyte by increasing energy production and cell proliferation and may protect against colon cancer.[2]
…does all that good, it’s probably not much different than any other saturated fat to your stomach and small intestine and human metabolism in general. And there’s nothing that produces SFCAs right there onsite in the colon like resistant starch.
~ This was interesting news from Fred Hahn, a pretty solid low-carb proponent over many years. Anyone remember our “Potato Hack,” precursor to our resistant starch “fad?” I haven’t really revisited that, but I hear all the time through the grapevine that there are tons of people—particularly women, even in low-carb forums—that swear by it and have carried on the torch.
Fred gave it a try himself and reported his surprising results on a public Facebook post.
My experience on the all potato diet has provided some very interesting thoughts on low carb diets and fat loss.
I believe I’ve been wrong/confused/stoopid on some of the mechanisms and I am going to revamp/revise my thinking on the issue. […]
If fat loss stalls on a VLC diet, what it one to do? Eating more fat/protein will certainly NOT increase fat loss – that’s a no brainer. So what will? Answer: Eating less calories. Even if you were to eat less fat and increase carbs BUT still eat LESS overall, you’d lose.
What does this suggest? Well…
When I did my all potato/no fat diet for 5 days, I went from 173 lbs. to 169.75 with no loss of muscle as my body water readings were ~3kg HIGHER. My workouts were fine/same. No better, no worse. My pants were looser. My trainers commented that I looked ripped.
I WAS eating less total calories than when I was eating plaeo. No question. I was trying to keep cals the same, but it was hard. VERY hard. My best day was about 1500 cals. So you could say my fat loss was due to just eating less food than before. BUT it was all carbs! So if carbs make you fat, why didn’t I get fatter if carbs (potatoes!!) make you fat? […]
What this means is, the PRIMARY reason why you lose fat on a LC/HF diet is a lowered calorie intake. You lose fat because your body mobilizes stored fat to make up for the shortfall in energy requirements. It’s not just because your insulin levels drop thus allowing fat to be used for fuel, but also because you’re not taking in enough total fuel.
Go read the whole thing. Salute to Fred, in being willing to identify being wrong about something and STOP DOING THAT! rather than do what so many try to do in order to protect their fragile little egos.
I will correct Feed on one point. It’s not all carbs. There’s about 4% complete protein and a smidgen of fat in potatoes. Let’s call it 95% carbohydrate…in the form of the “nothing but a bag of glucose,” as Art De Vany once called it. In spite of that, he lost 3.24 real pounds over 5 days, and in spite of adding 6.6 pounds in glycogen binding water (2lb per day net tissue loss from baseline?). The water makes perfect sense for a long time low carber. I can recall after being faithfully LC for a long while and going on a carb binge, the most immediately noticeable thing was extreme thirst the next 24 hours.
I posted this comment, which is basically a summary of my “why calories count” post way back.
BTW, the real reason people stall 10-30 pounds from goal is that they reach equilibrium. Going LC means more satiating fat/protein (potatoes are hugely satiating, but for different reasons), less junk food engineered to make you eat more, etc. You eat fewer calories (on average, but while you lie and make it sound like that 2 lb steak is every day). You eat fewer calories, so you drop pounds and the protein helps retain lean tissue (but, if fat, 25% of the gain is lean, so you have some to spare anyway). But, as you loose weight, your energy requirements go down and one day, whether it’s 10, 20 or 30 pounds from what you think is ideal, you loose no more weight and wonder why. Calories count.
After all is said and done, there’s no escaping the fact that eating less than your body requires to maintain weight over time loses weight and eating more gains you weight.
Ok, that should about do it for this time. Enjoy.
DuckDodgers 
David Thompson 
tatertot 
Mariet Hoen 
John 
Edward 
Nick 
BrazilBrad
Warning: Declaration of FV_TC_Walker_Comment_blank::walk($elements, $max_depth) should be compatible with Walker::walk($elements, $max_depth, ...$args) in /home/freethea/public_html/wp-content/plugins/thoughtful-comments/walkers.php on line 0
Warning: Declaration of FV_TC_Walker_Comment_blank::paged_walk($elements, $max_depth, $page_num, $per_page) should be compatible with Walker::paged_walk($elements, $max_depth, $page_num, $per_page, ...$args) in /home/freethea/public_html/wp-content/plugins/thoughtful-comments/walkers.php on line 0
I’m almost positive that was Jeff Leach — since it’s a very small project and he does all of their blog and Facebook posts. Did anyone see the post where he was visiting the Hadza? Real hunter gatherers, he documents them eating raw stomach contents from their kills…
humanfoodproject.com/please-pass-microbes/
Probably puts our guts to shame, but the project is taking their samples and will report on their true HG guts.
Has anyone tried Rs for treating fungal/yeast overgrowths like candida?
Where?
Found it!Thanks
What is Richard up to? Resistant Starch – The Book?
I hope so.
@David Thompson. I fucking hope he is. He wrote his Paleo book a bit late into the Paleo era and he was a bit light on delivery in my opinion. He has no such problems with RS! Let’s hope the old cunt and Tatertot write a best seller this time.
I certainly hope he gets something out before 2 APW (APW: after Paleo war and BPW: before Paleo war).
… and if, if he is, let’s hope he’s shredded! I want to see his abs on the cover!
If it took that long for Fred Hahn to realize that it’s calories and not metablic advantage, well, then, how long would it take someone like Jimmy Moore or Dave Asprey? Colpo is right. They’re MAD!
@Richard
It was maybe mentioned before on this blog that Nazi Germans used raw potato diet etc. in their concentration camps during WWII. It definitely happened to my Czech grandfather imprisoned in Mauthausen (Austria) between 1942-45. He was included in a test group surviving on raw food only combined with hard work in a stone mine. Too painful for me to recall family stories (he died in 1984) or search for the archived information. But I found this:
“How Spuds Saved American GIs in Nazi Prison Camps During World War II”
mofga.org/Publications/MaineOrganicFarmerGardener/Fall2010/Potatoes/tabid/1726/Default.aspx
@v
Yes, his war stories were collected including photos, not by me. I personally can not even look at that booklet. It makes me sick. But this topic does not belong to this blog.
It more made me wonder if amidst all that horror his raw potato diet (and some raw beet as well, if I remember correctly) was a good thing. He survived and many others did not.
So what’s the deal on raw potatoes having solanine and should be avoided. Did he have any health problems eating raw potatoes? I suppose if you’re starving, solanine or no solanine, it wouldn’t matter.
@SpanCar – This is the FDA paper on solanine. accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/plantox/detail.cfm?id=1364
It’s real, but apparently not much of an issue with modern commercial potato breeds.
@Tatertot, thanks, the article implies that it’s under the skin. So even if you peel it, you’ll have some. But the dose makes poison and the toxic threshold is 25mg. So we shouldn’t eat more than 300 grams of raw potato. Does that sound right?
Does this mean our earlier attempts at grinding raw potatoes to make home-made potato starch should be abandoned? You need to follow the proper starch production technique? If you did eat raw potato slices, however, the toxic dose is 300 grams (8 x 100 x 3)? I thought some of us were eating raw potatoes above that amount, though.
I’m wondering if the issue really is organic vs. non-organic. Non-organic commercial potatoes are basically soaked in pesticide that they won’t sprout even if you leave in the fridge for 3 months.
So which is more important: solanine or toxicity?
“there’s no escaping the fact that eating less than your body requires to maintain weight over time looses weight and eating more gains you weight.”
It HAS to be true given enough time for the energy conversion processes to occur..
However, we also know that you can’t gain/maintain weight drinking 2,000kcals of only water – all foods lie on a spectrum affecting how we convert their energy into mass (fat, muscle or other).
Again, ‘Calories in calories out’ must hold true but it still doesn’t tell us anything about how or why different foods ‘behave’ the way they do.
What it does do is play down the obvious differences between real foods and (supposedly) edible-items (after all, if everything is just energy…)
“Again, ‘Calories in calories out’ must hold true but it still doesn’t tell us anything about how or why different foods ‘behave’ the way they do.”
Well, this is kinda Taubes’ line. Fine, but I also think Paleos in general understand a lot about this, having tried different mixes of foods by now. And I think what it comes down to is that because protein cannot long term be more than about 30%, then it’s a teeter-totter between carbs and fat and what seems clear to me is: high carb? Fine, then low fat; and if high fat, fine, then low carb. What seems to be clearly ill-advised is high fat AND high carb….which is an apt description of a lot of processed food and even home cooked “comfort food” (think mashed potatoes loaded with butter and cream/H&H/Milk, with a fat-based roux and milk or cream based gravy on top; think chicken fried steak with the same gravy—plus the mashed potatoes with still the same gravy; think fried chicken…) I’d wager that in the long history of human home cooking, “comfort food” with copious carbage and fatage is responsible for more obesity and ill health than the brief history of processed and fast food.
The fallacy, as even Fed Hahn found out, is the simplistic notion that “carbs make you fat, per se.” Simply not true, and done right, from natural foods, I see no compelling evidence to suggest it’s unhealthy, either. Too many rice, legume, potato as staple eating populations to just dismiss.
All that said, the question I’m most interested in is: why do we eat to excess no matter what the macro composition? Insulin? Leptin? Other hormones? Or, more fundamentally, is it the 100 trillion bacteria in our gut whose chemical secretions influence such hormone release and signal resolution. It’s the latter where I’m placing my bet.
Richard, Thank you for posting my story on your site. In the Netherlands we follow you very close also.
The first one who pointed RS for me is a Dutch blogger, Melchior Meyer, with his website: melchiormeijer.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/wordt-honig-aardappelzetmeel-de-paleo-hack-van-2013/ I think it is nice for the Dutch people to read about it in their own language.
He invited me to start the experiment and and see with what a result !
I am very grateful for the so unselfishly shared information to him, you and Steve Cooksey. Give credit where credit is due :-)
What I wonder about the gut biome thing, why does it not include Archae / yeasts and funghi in its results? The guts aren’t just the bacteria show. I’d speculate that the increased acidity would probably be harmful to most yeasts and funghi, whereas certain Archae might actually thrive, contributing to more overall health.
@Nils, reason why I am going with GDX Testing instead of American Gut. GDX gives fungi and yeast counts but not sure about archae. My kit should be arriving in a few days.
T-Nat
One after another, diabetics—both types—try supplementing resistant starch (primarily through Potato Starch) and end up slightly hypoglycemic and have to reduce insulin dosages.
Oops! I took Hubby’s sugar-killer supplements away while I was testing him, so we were getting raw numbers. Sugar-killers are chromium, vanadium, and bitter melon (the last two mimic insulin). I thought you all were testing RS without benefit of insulin, supplements, etc.
Still, it wasn’t as bad as it could’ve been–no 100 pt. climb or anything. 30 points in two hours may not be bad, but what scared me was IT KEPT CLIMBING over the two hours, and no return to baseline in that time.
Awhile back, we tested bananas, and they caused a +10 spike, but then returned to baseline after an hour. But that was WITH sugar-killer supplements.
So should I KEEP him on the supplements while testing, or test raw (with none onboard)?
Wenchypoo, there is no sugar killer magic bullet. You have bought into some kind of woo-woo unscientific myth.
Table sugar is a simple molecule of glucose and fructose. Your pancreatic enzyme sucralase breaks into the simpler sugars. They are fully absorbed in the small intestine. It doesn’t matter what minerals you eat, they all arrive in the bloodstream together.
Bitter melon is one of a number of plants that appear to help with blood sugar control. Cinnamon and prickly pear leaves are two others that come to mind. I suspect that they work by increasing soluble fiber, some of that reaching the colon and feeding those bacteria. There is no material that can be taken orally that mimics insulin. (Anyone out there know otherwise, I’m willing to learn!) There’s a reason there is no insulin pill and it must be administered by injection. And vanadium, while an essential mineral in very small amounts, cannot mimic insulin, a very complex hormone.
As long as the “woo-woo” works to keep him from having to use insulin, I’m sticking with it. This combination seems to be the only one that works–the much-touted cinnamon (Ceylon variety) doesn’t do anything but make him burp. Prickly pear turns HIM into a prickly pear (from prickly heat–allergy symptom). With it, he’s consistently in the 80-90 range, except after eating a high Omega-3 food.
As for no oral med that mimics insulin–Metformin?
Nope. While Metformin is an often first choice to T2 diabetes, it doesn’t “mimic” insulin. Insulin’s role and methods are many pronged, not just to prevent hyperglycemia.
And I know that you know about the placebo effect.
Wenchy,
Try it both ways. There are so many variations in blood sugar problems and hormonal interactions. So while the RS seems to help almost everyone, with some going off their meds or lowering them, others still need some assistance along with the RS. Also, time may be a factor. So I would say stay on the supplements and continue with the RS and every month see what happens without the supps. For a few days.
My Fasting number was down 10 points pretty consistently. Then I added an adrenal support supplement and it is back up !
Long-time type 1 diabetic. Some weeks on daily Bob’s potato starch and… mixed results. Fasting blood sugars are often excellent but sometimes astoundingly high, and I’ve gained six pounds. Not sure what’s going on. Probably will reduce amount from 4-6 tablespoons a day to 2 for now and see what happens.
Mark, how much insulin are you taking? RS isn’t that effective if you’re on a low-carb diet with minimal insulin usage. Same with anyone who’s taking care of their t2 diabetes by VLCing. So little insulin comes out that the sensitizing effect of RS doesn’t have much room to work with.
20 units before each meal, plus long-acting Lantus (15 units) before bedtime. Usually 2 meals a day; extra insulin for high blood sugar. This is half of what I used to take before low-carb. I’ve dropped my RS to 2 Tbsp. a day, with probiotic bacteria powder. We’ll see whether things work out.
What’s become abundantly clear to me is that Calories In, Calories Out was never wrong. The Metabolic Ward studies pretty much prove that. What is also clear is that most of the advice that comes from the mainstream that cites CICO is flat out stupid and dangerous. In fact, they might not even understand the entire Calories In, Calories Out concept, and it’s pretty straightforward. For example, people who just suggest you just slash your food intake (which will reduce calories in) don’t consider the effect that it will have on lowering your metabolism (which will also reduce calories out). Makes a lot more sense to me to dial in food quality first, fix underlying issues that may be sabotaging your weight loss efforts (like your gut, thyroid, hormones, vitamin and mineral deficiencies, injuries, other issues), and then focusing in on calories. In fact, many of those underlying issues may require that you rest (aka move less) and eat more for a period of time.
John +1
John,another area that needs to be accounted for yet is ridiculed when ever its mentioned is exercise or more specifically just being in shape.In the past I have gotten amazing results by doing high intensity aerobics and I posted this on the health forums but the idea that exercise is a huge key gets shot down rather quickly.People that are 400+ pounds will start saying how they exercised for years and are still fat and got fatter.I mean so many people will come out of the woodwork and shoot this down.They do this with such passion and proof that exercise has nothing to do with it that eventually me being the weakling of mind always gives up on my hypothesis.Well once again I joined a gym last week and am sitting here much skinnier and feeling much healthier.
What I feel happens is that as people age they slowly lose aerobic capacity and this is a major factor in health and well being.I think that obese people are just very prone to getting severely out of shape while the people that can eat anything they want do not lose fitness as fast and never go below a certain threshold.I see this all the time at my job which is strenuous.The skinny people have this amazing work ethic and are able to just power thru the day with little effort.The heavy set people though seem to drag themselves into work and then complain all day at how hard the days work is.Just now at a mall sipping my coffe I watched a few people climb this one flight of stairs and its dead set on fat people are out of shape and huff and puff while skinny people do not get out of breath at top of stairs.
Now what I feel the big shots in the health circle should be doing is forgetting about insulin etc for awhile and looking into what hormones control the level of fitness an individual has.Maybe its a simple hormone we can control or maybe its as easy as JUST FUCKING EXERCISE AND STOP COMPLAINING!!!Sorry,just angers me that most people will counter this with examples of why being in shape has nothing to do with it.And you obese people that will say….if you had my knees or my this or that….then stay fat you dumb shits.;)
I go to gym and do a 5 minute cardio workout 3 times per week.yes only 5 minutes and I see results.Warm up for a minute and then put treadmill at highest incline and a fast enough speed to where you can stay in control and not go flying off and huf and puff till pain is too high.Lower speed/incline and rest till you can go again and do one more and your down!!Give it a try.
@Wolfstriked: Aerobic conditioning happens at the cellular level. Nothing to do with hear or lungs, although everyone thinks so. McGuff in “Body by Science” explains this, and is the reason that HIT oddly enough confers aerobic capacity without doing “cardio.”
No need for the obese to run and damage all their knees and feet. Lift weights.
As I’ve posted here, PS has helped my bike riding immensely. Far more than the amount I’ve been riding would have normally done so. Once again, it’s at the cellular level, which the SCFA’s improve.
I do something similar without a gym. Luckily, I live at the bottom of a 12% grade paved road and I walk up it as fast I can without running. It takes about 5 minutes and by the time I get to the top, I am huffing and puffing enough to blow the little pigs’ houses down, even the brick one.
No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!
“No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”
Nobody. Many clips bound, but this is my fav.
youtu.be/CSe38dzJYkY
Yes, a round of those cushions would be enough to break anyone! I might even eat cake!
Forgot to add that I ate donuts and chinese food last week.And right now I am having chicken wings and fried rice as I type this.
This is what I mean…[email protected]: Aerobic conditioning happens at the cellular level. Nothing to do with hear or lungs, although everyone thinks so. McGuff in “Body by Science” explains this, and is the reason that HIT oddly enough confers aerobic capacity without doing “cardio.”
WTF does that mean?Its like you throw shit out there to confuse people.
“@Wolfstriked: Aerobic conditioning happens at the cellular level. Nothing to do with hear or lungs, although everyone thinks so. McGuff in “Body by Science” explains this, and is the reason that HIT oddly enough confers aerobic capacity without doing “cardio.””
lafing. I’m sure Doug would be, too. You have to know Doug. See his presentation at The 21 Convention. Google it. Seriously. Doug is favorite people for me. Smart people for me, too.
If there is one thing that Gary Taubes got right, it’s the futility of exercise. He got that right alright. I have no quarrel with Gary on that. Maybe that’s a little strong. It’s not futile. It’s definitely helpful.
But once you start saying that calories do matter, some people think it’s okay to believe exercising will make you lose weight and is actually equivalent to diet. Look, Wolf, get the big picture, here, ok? It’s diet 90%; exercise 10%. It’s that lopsided. Exercising is good. It burns calories, yes. But it’s marginally important compared to what you shove down your throat on a daily basis.
Oh come on, get your head of the sand. Exercise isn’t futile. I would say more but I’m lazy and this recent article is a good start: slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/12/exercise_to_prevent_cure_or_treat_dis…
It’s funny because you’re big on resistant starch to increase SCFA like butyrate, and exercise can do the same. Here’s a rat study which saw n-Butyrate concentrations of 8.14 umol/g of cecal content in the exercise group versus 4.87 in the control group.
jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bbb/72/2/72_70474/_pdf
“It’s diet 90%; exercise 10%. It’s that lopsided. Exercising is good. It burns calories, yes. But it’s marginally important compared to what you shove down your throat on a daily basis.”
This is perfectly true.
“Here’s a rat study…”
Cool. How does that compare to hundreds of hunan personal, n=1 anecdotes?
” It’s diet 90%; exercise 10%. It’s that lopsided. Exercising is good. It burns calories, yes. But it’s marginally important compared to what you shove down your throat on a daily basis.”
Absolutely. When I lost my 30 pounds the first thing people would ask me was what workout program I was on. I can say without a doubt that my workouts were 10% of the formula at best.
We don’t exercise to burn calories. That’s the fallacy that we see when people talk about exercise versus diet. We exercise to raise BMR, to provide stress that makes the body respond with development of muscle or in other ways (hormesis.) I can’t imagine that anyone would believe that all you have to do is control your diet. Movement is very important. All you have to do is try it, and you will verify its role in health.
Just a pedantic moment. We don’t loose weight, we lose weight. Loose is something that isn’t tight. Lose is the opposite of win or gain. Lose is a verb, loose is an adjective, usually. To make something loose, we loosen it. Loose can be verb, but only in the passive voice: “the hounds were loosed.”
“I can’t imagine that anyone would believe that all you have to do is control your diet. Movement is very important. All you have to do is try it, and you will verify its role in health.”
So yawn. All my 4 grandparents and 1 great grandmother lived into their 80s and well vibrantly until the last weeks. Pretty much all smoked and drank, and a couple like fish. Not a single one ever darkened a door of a gym or, to my knowledge, ever picked up a single weight that wasn’t like some piece of furniture or garden feature deemed to be in need of being moved.
I laf.
At the same time, I love deadlifts. I just don’t project their awesomeness and keep it in context.
“Movement is very important.”
Yea, can’t even recall the last time I saw a human being move, at all.
Eh. Have you read any of the meta-analysis?
scholar.google.ca/scholar?start=10&q=exercise+meta-analysis&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5
I think if someone walks ~14,000 steps/day (about the level of many hunter-gatherer tribes) they can be perfectly healthy. That’s sufficient exercise to me. But <10,000? Not a chance.
@Richard, doesn’t it depend on what you mean by “vibrantly” and quality of life or lifestyle? I can understand that prior years/decades of little exercise is needed if all you need/want to do in your laters years is sit around watching TV/reading, moving furniture and gardening. I had a grandmother who lived to 95 and did little exercise besides a bowling league into her 60’s. But her last years she couldn’t walk very well and needed help taking care of herself in the bathroom. Would a more/different exercise in earlier years have helped her in her last years? seems plausible. I’ve always thought that her bowling helped her as well. I don’t know for sure, but I’m hoping my strength training will make it more likely that I will meet with the ideal end of “live long, drop dead” versus whither away.
Probably the biggest benefit to lifting heavy is the positive effect on bone mass.
No doubt that is very important and is a long lasting effect. The elderly fall and often break bones as you know. But often what makes them fall more often is a lack of muscle strength they can use to catch themselves when they get off balance, or cushion the impact of the fall. That plus the stronger tendons/ligaments connecting the bones to the muscle. I’m no expert but I’ve often wondered why the elderly break hips so much when they fall instead of wrists and arms. Slower reaction time? Outside being able to poo unattended, being able to do things like work a clutch, carry a bag of groceries, and walk a flight of stairs… normal living stuff… is a big deal to me. Hence I’ve started doing more leg training to bank some muscle mass and bone strength well ahead of sarcopenia setting in.
Everybody falls and trips throughout life, mostly as kids and elderly with the odd events in-between, unless you ski and fly hang gliders (i do both).
Muscle bulk, strength, or twitch rate hasn’t fuckall to do with any of that. What you need is a nice bruise for educational purposes, not a bone break for a fall that ought not come to that.
Let me clarify a bit. Good muscle tone will help prevent falling in a case when one normally ought not. It does nothing for a trip, and with old people, for various reasons, tripping will happen.
I think having good muscle tone is always good. Heavy lifting is in arguably the best way and helps bones the most, but if not your thing, do something else. Get kettlebells or something. Many ways.