Whether we’ve been training for years or are just thinking about getting started, the concept of training for performance or longevity may not have been the first thing we thought about. However, failing to recognize the inherent tradeoffs of these different training styles could put our health and goals at risk.

When we embark on a fitness regimen, our definition of “healthy” or “fit” may skew toward what we’ve seen on TV or social media. It may also be a reflection of the achievements our friends or acquaintances have made, like a completing a 10k or triathlon. These accomplishments often become associated with what it means to be “fit” or “healthy.” In turn, if we also want to embody these descriptors, it may appear we should aspire to similar types of activities.

At the same time, several prominent figures and documentaries in the longevity industry have popularized the consistent, sub-maximal activity (think a brisk, uphill walk, or gardening) that characterizes individuals who live into their 80s, 90s and beyond. While there are some stories of individuals of this age achieving feats of fitness, much more common is to see physical performance glorified in younger years.

So how do we reconcile society’s apparent fixation on physical performance – faster, stronger, for longer – with the idea that this style of training may not serve us well in the long run?

Training for Performance – Maximizing

Loosely defined, performance training is focused on maximizing one’s physical capabilities. The most obvious example of this is competitive sport, where the fastest time, heaviest weight, or longest duration are some of the factors that determine the victor. Excelling in these types of activities generally requires attempts to push and maintain a body past its natural limits, whether for a session, event, season, or career.

The potential danger in this style of training is the idea it can be extrapolated indefinitely with no consequence. Consider the trajectory of a professional football player or bodybuilder; while their strength and fitness may remain above average long after their career is over, they nonetheless lose elements of past performance primarily due to increased age and a decrease in time and/or intensity of training.

For those lucky enough to avoid injury while pursuing this style of training, it may seem counterintuitive and counterproductive to take training down a notch. In a society where physical performance is rewarded, why give up all the potential advantages of achieving peak performance? In contrast, those who have sustained injuries very quickly appreciate the fragility of physical health. As a result, the preservation of movement and function may become the priority, whether for the short- or long-term.

If performance training results in more, or more frequent, gratification (i.e., faster time, heavier weight, personal records (PRs), etc.), it is admittedly difficult not to be captivated by the prestige associated with physical achievements. However, if not carefully managed, sustained performance training introduces the inherent risk of injury, including stress fractures, strains, and other ailments that may adversely impact quality of live in later years.

Training for Longevity – Optimizing

Longevity training, on the other hand, can be defined as optimizing our overall physical capacity for as long as possible. In doing so, the primary intent is avoiding injury while maintaining or incrementally progressing fitness markers that align with our functional goals. These could include the ability to maintain balance, climb a set of stairs while carrying groceries, lift ourselves out of a pool, or walk 15 miles around a new city while on vacation.

Training in this manner arguably requires a more conscious decision to prioritize lower-intensity exercise like Zone 2 cardiorespiratory training and flexibility/mobility work in lieu of raw strength, power and maximal-effort activities like sprinting and heavy resistance training. For many, the frustration with longevity training is the lack of frequent or immediate gratification. In effect, this style of training commits to an intangible aspiration called longevity at the expense of potentially achieving the satisfaction of a performance milestone.

Given none of us have infinite time and energy to simultaneously pursue performance and longevity goals, nor the biological capacity to instantly recover, we must be intentional about our choice of training style at any given time. Such is not to suggest one style is superior to the other; rather, when choosing a training regimen, we should become comfortable with the implications and tradeoffs of our choice.

But how do we gain this comfort?

Work Backward from Your Goals

To frame this process in more tangible terms, a helpful exercise is to consider the activities you would like to do in later life (e.g., 70s, 80s, and beyond): play a round of golf while carrying your bag? lift a 30lb suitcase into the overhead compartment of an airplane? take a leisurely bike ride around the city? All of these activities require a certain physical capacity. Given physical capacity declines over time in a somewhat predictable trajectory, we can reverse engineer the level of physical capability we need now, and pursue the corresponding training style.

Think of this dilemma as an optimization equation: to be able to achieve “x” at age 70 may require the ability to achieve 2x at age 60, 3x at age 50, and so on (illustrative only, not scientific). However, if we haven’t yet defined our goals (“x”), it will be challenging to justify how we should be training in the present.

As a result, our training may revert to ‘autopilot’, gravitating to the familiar or influenced by society’s preference for performance (faster, heavier, longer), rather than being driven by our goals and intentions. Even with goals defined, this is not to suggest that we must choose one training style or the other indefinitely. Instead, the reality may be quite the opposite.

Performance and Longevity Training Are Not Mutually Exclusive

Before jumping to the conclusion that one style of training is superior to the other, let’s consider the practicalities of training over the course of a lifetime. If we were to train solely for longevity or solely for performance, either might become monotonous fairly quickly, not to mention the potential for the latter to become unsustainable. In fact, both training styles have a place in a long-term regimen.

Longevity training can establish a base level of fitness that provides for a certain quality of life. For example, being able to hike 2-3 hours with a backpack full of water and snacks at a moment’s notice. On the other hand, performance training can be leveraged as a means to pursue goals that stimulate growth, which, when achieved, theoretically raises the plateau of our overall fitness. For example, being able to bench press one’s bodyweight or run a half marathon in under two hours suggests a higher threshold of muscular strength and cardiovascular endurance, respectively. Therefore, short-term bouts of performance training in pursuit of specific goals can be beneficial.

Determining the Right Training Split

To contextualize the risk/benefit of performance training, and to guide an optimal split of performance vs. longevity training over the long term, it can be helpful to consider the rate at which we become deconditioned, or “out of shape.” The most extreme form of deconditioning is bed rest, or being confined to a horizontal, sedentary state. While bed rest is hopefully not a realistic possibility for most of us, it nonetheless helps quantify the consequences of a potential injury, with the relative risk of injury being higher during performance training vs. longevity training.

Maximal oxygen consumption (VO₂ max), one of the most common measures of cardiovascular function, has been shown to decrease by ~1% per day of bed rest, and this decline may be even greater in trained (aka “in shape”) individuals.¹ As for skeletal muscle, both mass and strength decreased with bed rest, though not as severely as VO₂ max on a percentage basis in the same time period. Said differently, cardiorespiratory fitness is lost quicker than muscle. Another significant complication of bed rest is reduced bone mass, which, if and when we return to activity, increases the risk of fracture with even minor falls or trauma.

Net, there would appear to be an advantage to a long-term training regimen designed to preserve cardiorespiratory fitness, as this is lost first and more quickly. This can be achieved through both cardio- and resistance-based exercise regimens; however, the principle of injury avoidance would dictate an emphasis on sub-maximal training style (i.e., longevity training). Short-term bouts of maximal- or supramaximal-effort performance training can preserve and/or elevate our baseline fitness, but should be incorporated with caution due to increased injury risk and associated consequences. All told, being intentional about our doses of performance and longevity training are important for managing injury and burnout risk, and to our overall fitness level.

Philosophy in Practice

• When considering a training regimen, consciously evaluate whether the activities are in pursuit of performance or longevity; neither is right or wrong per se, but each comes with inherent tradeoffs
• Consider physical activity goals in later life and work backward to develop a fitness protocol designed to preserve the ability to meet those goals

References:

1. Stuempfle, K., and D. Drury. The Physiological Consequences of Bed Rest. Journal of Exercise Physiology online (June 2007) 10(3):32-41.