This thread slowly reminding me of that Saturday night live sketch with Chris Farley. "How much ya bench?" Funny skit i haven't thought of in years.
Yep. It’s also funny how bench press is usually the first number thrown out in a d!ck measuring contest.
What a silly, relatively useless exercise.
Really? I always thought it was a pretty functional movement. Definitely the biggest
in the gym type lift though. I feel like it helps me be a better mountain biker, but maybe not. Either way it's always gonna be the bro-est of the bro lifts.
I know downhillers can be bulky, but do pro mountain bikers tend to have developed pecs?
If I were to make a list of exercises, in terms of real world utility, bench wouldn’t sniff the top 20. Yet it's usually the first thing most guys do in the gym.
That’s not to say pushing/chest strength is useless, but you can do just fine with body weight stuff, like push-ups.
Downhill riders are definitely beefy in comparison to XC riders. I do a combination of the two, more XC in my old age. Compound lifts are always a benefit to improve riding. It's a pretty full body experience to truly ride with good form. There's a lot of push and pull involved in turning and what's called a manual, which is basically a wheelie, but you compress the front of the bike and shift your weight to backwards and push with your legs to bunny hop obstacles. The stronger you are the better, but there's a penalty for being bulky and heavy. I wouldn't want to be top heavy from benching, but i do like to bulk up during winter with a 5, 3, 1 variation and then up the reps and lower the weight in season.
I'm 100% on board with the rest of your comment. It's the big showy beach muscles, but no need to overdo it for normal functionality.
ETA. I also really do enjoy lifting weights. I like setting PRs in the gym and i think it's good for my mental health. My stress levels drop significantly. And the longevity aspect is hard to beat. I don't think there's any downside to the big 4 compound lifts as long as form is good and you're not getting hurt.
Understood, as I’ve done my fair share of cycling, mostly road. I once dated a semi pro mountain biker though. She used to punish me on technical trails, which is a part of why I gave it up mountain biking: too much injury risk, imo. Nowadays, everything I do penalizes extra weight, including beach muscles.
Resistance training is a good stress outlet, and if you enjoy it, even better. Still, I think there’s a shelf life on pushing PRs as one enters middle age, because of the potential for injury. If you thread the needle, it’s great for preserving functionality in old age, but as far as promoting longevity, cardiovascular exercise is much more important.
While i agee cardio increases lifespan greater than resistance training, i tend to look at quality of life as we age equally. Keeping stabilizer muscles well developed along with major muscle groups will help maintain quality of life aswell as health into old age. A mixture of the two is optimal, but i think the quality of our life as we age is an important factor.
I eat well, pay attention to my circadian rhythm, stay well hydrated, get my cardio, and make time for strength training. It's all a part to the bigger picture. I also try to optimize recovery techniques.
You mentioned the functionality maintenance into old age from resistance training, but I just wanted to touch a little deeper into why it's not something to be overlooked. As you mentioned before body weight exercises are a suitable replacement to weights. I'm starting to notice my recovery isn't what it used to be even though I'm not getting injured I'm slowing down and need an extra day or two that i didn't used to. Definitely a shelf life to heavier weights and I've transitioned a few workouts to be more form focused vs moving the heaviest weights i can. I suffered from a herniated disc in my back for a long time and dead lifts have been miraculous for keeping this as bay.
Quality of life is certainly important: healthspan is the term for disease-free years of life. Both aerobic exercise and resistance training contribute to it.
But even though sarcopenia has become a buzzword in the lay science world, it doesn't take much resistance training before mortality benefit plateaus. It’s only about two twenty minute sessions per week. Aerobic exercise, on the other hand, requires 300-600 minutes weekly, to achieve maximal bang for the longevity buck.
So to live the longest (and healthiest), you need to spend about tenfold more time on cardiovascular versus resistance training.
Think about all the really old, functional people you know. How many of them devote much time to lifting weights? How many are active in other ways? Do bodybuilders tend to live longer than the general population? Are they functional longer?
While I’ve encountered a few spry men over the age of 90, none of them are (or were) gym rats. Most of the functional nonagenarians I’ve met are little old ladies, whose only exercise is walking regularly.
To be clear, I’m not saying resistance training is unimportant. Just a little goes a long way, and it should complement a program focused on aerobic exercise. Better yet, find aerobic activities which promotes strength as well, like walking/hiking with weights/up hills/on uneven ground. Or do something fun which incorporates whole body strength, and balance. Like rock climbing
I just saw the pull up bars and had to do some.
