Building muscle in your 40s

That last bit is utter rubbish, people in their 50s and 60s that carry a large amount of muscle live waaay longer than individuals that don't, carrying muscle gives you huge benefits, from protection against falls as you get older (better balance), increased bone density and far greater protection against chronic illness the list is endless, and all backed up by the science.

But what about bulk without the juice? That’s the point I think some are making. Obviously the risks of steroid abuse are known but having natural muscle mass into later life and it’s pro’s and con’s?

The science is unproven. It is only in the last twenty, thirty years that steroids have become mainstream.

You only have to watch England rugby matches from the 80/90s to see all this bulk we now seem to carry around is a relatively new concept.

We will soon start to see how well the juicers age.

From what I remember of the BBC article, resistance training was slightly better than cardio, but both together were best.

Variety wins again

Trouble is a few on this thread equal doing weights to roided up body builders when that's what's being suggested to the o/p

Just chipping in on the strength into old age thing

Although longevity is probably more related to cardiovascular fitness, sarcopenia is real and if you look at most old folk it's loss of muscle strength that is the most disabling. For all of the family members I've had that have gone into care it has not been the primary diagnosis, whether that be heart disease, cancer, Alzheimers, it's been the inabilty of them to weight bear and move making it impossible to manage their care at home.

I hate weight training and would much rather go out for a four hour ride or two hour run than spend half an hour lifting weights (10 minutes lifting and 20 sitting about in reality) but seeing how my contemporaries in their 50s are beginning to stoop; can't squat to pick things up; have to sit down to put their shoes and socks on etc., I'm starting to prioritise weights over cardio.

I think the weight vs. cardio is a bit of a false dichotomy (top endurance athletes take weight training seriously) but I find I can't face weights if I'm doing 7-10hours of endurance based activity a week so I've dialled back the running/cycling to accommodate.

As posted above, your ability to respond to a given stimulus (ie training programme) with gains in muscle mass is determined by genetics and someone gifted genetically will likely respond better in their 40s than a less gifted individual in their 20s. I'll never be a gainer (sort of fat prone endomorph who can't keep out of the fridge and away from the corkscrew) but if I can keep a reasonably respectable silhouette and maintain strength I'll be happy.

TLDR - don't worry about visible muscle gains just focus on strength - your older self will thank you

TBF I should have included mobility in my comments.

I was always a skinny bendy type and have always been able to get my hands flat on the floor in a forward bend so took my mobility for granted until I had an injury and had to see a physio a few years ago. I was really shocked when I found I couldn't get into a squat position without going on my toes and how much hip mobility I had lost through sitting at a desk and cycling.

While I think most of this is right, I've been sitting down to put my shoes and socks on for as much of the last 45 years as I can remember. Do people really not do that? Am I doing this wrong?

While I think most of this is right, I've been sitting down to put my shoes and socks on for as much of the last 45 years as I can remember. Do people really not do that? Am I doing this wrong?

It's not all beer and skittles for endurance athletes as they age either. I forget what's it's called but there is some heart condition caused by the huge variance between resting and maximum heart rate.