Motor Units as determinants of Aging

#21

Mitochondrial DNA damage starts as soon as an egg is fertlised. Try having an open mind you might learn something.

#22

If mitochondrial DNA damage “starts as soon as the egg is fertilized,” then how do you explain that humans grow stronger and faster up to around age 25? If mitochondria were the root cause, performance and function should decline from birth.

Instead, all markers of strength, speed, and resilience rise until peak adulthood, and only then do we see decline, coinciding with the onset of motor unit loss. That timing alone shows mitochondria are not the ceiling. They adapt and regenerate continuously. Motor neurons, once lost, cannot.

Try having an open mind you might learn something.

#23

If what you’re saying were true, then elite endurance athletes should maintain all their motor units. Marathon runners and cyclists have the best mitochondrial profiles of any humans alive…massive mitochondrial density, turnover, and efficiency.

Yet these same athletes are the first to lose their fast motor units. By midlife, many endurance athletes have already sacrificed most of their Type 2X fibers and the corresponding motor units. If mitochondria were the decisive factor, they should be protected, but the evidence shows the opposite.

This is exactly why motor unit loss cannot be reduced to mitochondrial decline. Mitochondria adapt and regenerate. Motor neurons are terminally differentiated and post-mitotic. Once they’re gone, they’re gone. That is why motor units, not mitochondria, define the true ceiling of aging.

#24

In the end if we are not going to agree then there is no sense simply repeating the points on which we disagree.

My basic point is that motor neurons have mitochondria in them and how well they function as almost all cells depends upon how well the mitochondria in them function.

We both agree that it is currently essentially impossible to replace failed motor neurons. The question is to identify why they fail and what can be done to delay this.

1 Like
#25

You may just learn something. Read carefully, please!

So by your argument, mitochondria “control the fate” of motor units. If that’s the case, then food also controls motor units because if I don’t eat, I die. Oxygen controls motor units too, because if I stop breathing, they fail. Blood flow controls them as well.

Do you see the flaw? Mitochondria are a support system, not the driver. They provide energy, but they don’t tell motor units when to fire, how to fire, or how to adapt. Motor units are controlled neurogenically by the motor neuron, the descending drive, and the neuromuscular junction.

Mitochondria don’t issue commands. They don’t create firing rates. They don’t generate motor engrams. They just keep the lights on.

#26

You may just learn something. Read carefully, please!

Mitochondria control gene expression through post translational modifications. They control what versions of proteins cells produce. They don’t only produce ATP.

#27

John. Thank you for this conversation. I appreciate what you are saying.

However, you’ve made my point for me. Yes, mitochondria influence gene expression, but motor units are not genetically controlled, they are neurogenically controlled.

Genes provide the raw materials, mitochondria support energy and signaling within the cell, but it is the nervous system, descending drive, firing rates, common drive, and the neuromuscular junction that actually controls how a motor unit functions.

That is why two people with the same genes can end up with completely different motor unit profiles based on training and experience. Even identical twins do not have the same motor units, because motor units are created and shaped by lifetime movement experience.

So let us be clear. Mitochondria support, but they do not command. Motor unit fate is set by the nervous system.

I just checked the study you linked. Nowhere in it does it say mitochondria command or control motor units. It says mitochondrial dysfunction contributes to vulnerability in motor neuron disease, but the precise cause remains elusive. That is very different from command.

And what are you talking about with proteins? That is cell biology, not motor unit control. Motor neurons are not just “cellular structures.” They are post-mitotic and neurogenically controlled. Their firing, recruitment, and survival are not commanded by mitochondria.

So, where in this study does it say what you just claimed? Because it doesn’t. You are making a leap the paper never made.

The nervous system generates and coordinates the signals that recruit and fire motor units, while mitochondria serve a downstream role in supporting the cellular energy needs and maintenance of these motor units once they have been activated.

This neural activation is considered upstream because it precedes mitochondrial engagement; mitochondria only become involved after motor neurons signal the muscle fibers to contract. It is called common sense!!!

Mitochondria react to the metabolic demand triggered by neural commands, supporting prolonged contractile activity, maintaining neuromuscular junctions, and protecting against fatigue and degeneration.​ Their energy output and antioxidant protection are vital, but only after the nervous system has delivered its signals.

“By regulating mitochondrial transport, neurons control the local availability of mitochondrial mass in response to changes in synaptic activity.”

I can give you 100 more studies if you like. You have to come better than this!!! I am done with this conversation!

#28

I have given a link to a research paper that demonstrated a link between mitochondrial dysfunction and motor neuron failure. I won’t respond beyond this point. The mitochondria control what proteins a cell produces without the proteins it cannot build or maintain cellular structures. This process changes throughout the life of an organism and the process of change starts at the fertilisation of the egg.

Mitochondria do “command” and they command through PTMs mainly 1 and 2 carbon PTMs.

1 Like
#29

As someone “liked” this topic I had another glance and noticed that Tony had responded by editing his post to which I responded.

I would wish to emphasise the point that we should aim to learn from disagreements rather than aim to “win” discussions. That is why abuse should not be part of arguments. Abuse is used by human beings in conversations as a tool to shout down the person being argued with. The truth should not be shouted down.

I thought it would be useful to add a post to explain what I have learnt from this discussion.

I have learnt from this topic because it encouraged me to look at the question of motor units. I think I was vaguely aware of this previously, but I revisited the question of what happens to motor neurons for people who don’t have MND/ALS and in fact as people get older it can be said that part of sarcopenia is a form of ALS which hits selective motor neurons rather than all of them at one time. As I see this is part of evidence that ALS is a form of accelerated aging of motor neurons. It also highlights the need for motor neuron signalling of muscle cells as well as the creation of new satellite cells.

3 Likes
#30

Do you want a cure or do you want to be right that there will never, ever be a cure. Maybe we can’t replace lost motor units, maybe we can. But better methods of preserving the ones we currently have is feasible.

image
image1143×965 76.4 KB

#31

I agree with that for the most part, but that’s not something that is unique to motor units. There are a lot of other things that will stop you from getting to 120 if they are not adressed.

I disagree. Sure there may be nothing available that puts a huge dent in the rate of motor unit loss, however, people definitely differ in their rate of motor unit decline and it’s not all genetics. That means there are some things that can influence it. What these things are and how much of an effect they have is another question. I wouldn’t be surprised if calorie restriction had a positive effect on it, although I haven’t looked into that.

I don’t know who you’re talking about. Not many people here think there are some “magic pills” that have a huge effect on lifespan.

That’s not true. You’re calling people here naive and ignorant. That’s quite cocky, specially since you yourself show signs of ignorance.

I don’t think he is under the illusion that he will conquer aging simply with his diet and biomarker tracking but that doesn’t mean he isn’t going anywhere. He will have some positive effects on his longevity, which will increase the chances of him being alive when better age-reversal technologies arrive. That’s what most of us are trying to do.

That’s a weird thing to say. Who moves like an old man at 50?

I didn’t read it in full but glanced through some of it quickly and see big problems with your reasoning. Here is a quote from your preprint:

"If telomere shortening, mitochondrial decline, proteostasis imbalance, and the rest of the hallmarks were truly the root cause of aging, these processes would initiate the earliest observable signs of functional decline. but they do not. None of these hallmarks appear reliably in healthy individuals in their twenties. there is no telomere crisis at age 25 (López-Otin et al., 2023). There is no mitochondrial collapse in a 30-year-old elite athlete. Yet even in such individuals, fast motor unit loss has already begun (Panday et al., 2019).

This mismatch in chronology challenges the sufficiency of the Hallmarks model as a root-cause framework."

This is poor logic. Just because you don’t see functional decline in some things already in early adulthood, doesn’t mean those things aren’t declining already and don’t cause aging. There are plenty of things that start getting damaged at an early age yet don’t show up as functional decline until much later. Plenty of damages are already apparent in a healthy 25 year old, the damages just have not reached a level high enough to cause noticeable problems. Note that the body is made to have reserve capacity. The kidneys are a good example. Kidney function declines gradually with aging but generally causes problems only at old ages when it has declined a lot. You can be fine with just one kidney when you’re young and healthy, that’s an eaxmple of the excess reserve the body has. Just because you don’t see noticeable problems in early adulthood doesn’t mean that the kidneys haven’t aged significantly yet.

As far as there being no telomere crisis at age 25. Yes that’s true but the telomers are still closer to a crisis at 25 than they were at age 10 as an example. Again, just because you haven’t reached crisis doesn’t mean there isn’t damage done already that contributes to aging. The same is true with mitochondria. Sure there is no mitochondrial “collapse” in a 30 year old elite athlete, but their mitochondria will in some ways be less healthy than those of a much younger adult. You talk about fast motor unit loss having already begun at age 30, as if that’s something unique about motor units. It’s not, and that’s the main error in your theory.

I appreciate that you’re bringing more attention to motor unit loss as a factor in aging, because it certainly makes sense as an important factor to consider and it gets hardly any attention at all. Your error is in assuming that motor unit loss is somehow much more important and much more of a root cause of aging than a whole lot of other things that go bad with aging. People are always arguing about what is the main cause of aging forgetting that everything is interconnected, if only indirectly, and there is a soup of things that go wrong that feed into each other and cause aging.

6 Likes
#32

Eventually we’ll reach a critical mass of research papers, discovered pathways and case reports of some freak of nature that some experimental therapy will work. Like Huntington’s disease for example.

1 Like
#33

Why does ALS take away body movement? The hidden burden that seals the fate of motor neurons

Intrinsically accelerated cellular degradation is amplified by TDP-43 loss in ALS-vulnerable motor neurons in a zebrafish model

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-65097-0

#34

My view is slightly different to that in the article. Motor Neurons as with Dopaminergic neurons have a high energy usage which is provided particularly via OxPhos. Cones and Rods in the eye have a high energy usage, but it comes more so via glycolysis.

The reason for the high energy usage is they need to produce lots of proteins to manage the axonal arbour (arbor for americans). This means, however, that a large amount of ROS is generated. Hence a high level of mitophagy is needed and a high level of melatonin (extra of which is normally provided via the CSF from the pineal gland).

If the dynamic equilibrium of the mtDNA falls off its perch then you get accelerated aging of motor neurons. I think this is what causes the symptoms of ALS/MND and PD and possibly it links to other neurodegenerative diseases.

Lots of things have the abililty to disrupt the mtDNA equilibrium. One is a disruption in CSF flow. I think that is why physically active people are more prone to ALS (Sports people, soldiers, farmers).
It is, of course, also sensitive to change in genes linked to the maintenance of mitochondria.

1 Like
#35

Tony definitely comes across as a bit “cocky” and I have no idea of his scientific training, but he’s obviously done enough work that Mike Lustgarten (who I respect) thought his theories are good enough to discuss on his channel, so I’ll hear Tony out on this and do a little more research on this topic, as its completely new to me.

See here of the latest video with Tony and Mike: A genetic study shows that the 117 Year Old Woman had a microbiota typical of a child - #11 by drew_ab

1 Like
#36

Here is a “paper” Tony has written on this topic of motor neuron and motor unit loss as a key limiter in aging…

The First.pdf (1.8 MB)

#37

Here is a CGPT5.1 Summary of Tony’s paper:

Fast Motor Units as the Earliest Inflection Point of Human Aging: A Neuromuscular Origin Theory

Summary

This paper argues that human aging begins not in the cell, but in the nervous system—specifically, with the early, universal loss of fast motor units (FMUs) starting around ages 25–30. FMUs are the body’s highest-performance neuromuscular units: each consists of a single motor neuron in the spinal cord and the fast-twitch muscle fibers it controls. These units generate explosive power—sprinting, jumping, rapid balance corrections—and depend on constant high-quality neural signaling to stay alive.

The paper emphasizes several features of FMUs that many readers may not have encountered:

  • High-frequency neural drive: FMUs require rapid, repeated electrical signals from the motor neuron—sometimes firing 60–100 times per second. This “fast firing” is essential for their survival. Without it, the axon retracts, the neuromuscular junction decays, and the associated muscle fibers die.
  • Summation patterns: A muscle doesn’t contract from one signal—force builds when signals arrive close together. FMUs rely on extremely precise timing between signals. Aging disrupts this timing, leading to weaker and less coordinated contractions.
  • “Muscle wisdom”: Through decades of movement, the nervous system learns efficient motor patterns—fine-tuned firing rhythms that conserve energy and maintain control. FMUs store much of this knowledge. Once a motor neuron dies, the accumulated motor intelligence embedded in that circuit is lost forever.

The paper’s central claim is that FMU loss is the first measurable breakdown in the human aging sequence. It occurs before mitochondrial decline, before chronic inflammation, before telomere shortening, and even in elite athletes with otherwise excellent cellular health. This upstream failure, the author argues, allows cellular hallmarks of aging to become visible, rather than being caused by them.

Mechanistically, FMU withdrawal has cascading effects: reduced mechanical loading lowers mitochondrial stimulation; decreased neural demand reduces autophagy signals; altered contraction dynamics weaken vascular shear forces; and loss of high-rate firing compromises AMPK activation. These downstream effects mimic the hallmarks of aging—not as causes, but consequences of neural retreat.

The paper’s novelty is the reordering of causality: aging begins when the nervous system stops fully controlling the body’s fastest, highest-threshold fibers. Because motor neurons are post-mitotic, this loss is permanent. No drug, senolytic, NAD⁺ booster, or stem cell therapy can recreate a lifetime-trained neuromuscular circuit once it disappears.

The author concludes that preservation, not regeneration, is the only viable strategy: youth depends on maintaining neuromuscular command fidelity, not merely improving cellular resilience.

Actionable Insights for Longevity Biohackers

  • Use rate-of-force development , jump tests , reaction time , and rapid-change-of-direction drills to track FMU integrity.
  • Implement chaotic/reactive training (unpredictable cuts, unstable surfaces, rapid direction shifts) to sustain high-threshold motor unit recruitment.
  • Maintain high-velocity strength work (e.g., dynamic squats, Olympic-style pulls) even in midlife.
  • Combine FMU-demanding training with mitochondrial boosters (creatine, citrulline, beta-alanine) to support neuromuscular energy turnover.
  • Evaluate downstream biomarkers (lactate kinetics, VO₂ recovery curves) as indirect indicators of neural withdrawal.

Cost-Effectiveness

Neuromuscular-focused explosive training has near-zero cost, produces large measurable effects on FMU recruitment, and delivers better ROI than most pharmacological longevity interventions if the FMU-origin model is correct.

Critical Limitations

Evidence for causality remains indirect; FMU decline is primarily measured through estimation techniques (MUNE), not direct neural imaging. The model predicts—but has not yet experimentally proven—that FMU preservation delays cellular hallmarks. Longitudinal and interventional trials are required.

Ten High-Value Questions a Longevity-Focused Reader Would Ask Next

  1. Can preserving FMUs measurably slow epigenetic clock acceleration?
  2. What training regimen produces maximal FMU preservation with minimal injury risk?
  3. Are sex hormones (testosterone/estrogen) critical modulators of FMU retention?
  4. Can neurostimulation (tDCS, tSCS) amplify high-threshold motor neuron firing in aging adults?
  5. What are the best biomarkers for detecting early FMU withdrawal?
  6. Does chaotic training outperform traditional powerlifting for FMU conservation?
  7. Are there compounds that stabilize the neuromuscular junction to delay FMU loss?
  8. How does lifelong endurance training influence FMU lifespan compared to mixed modes?
  9. Can AI-generated motor-learning drills enhance “muscle wisdom” retention?
  10. What genetic or environmental factors explain outliers who maintain explosive ability into old age?

If you want, I can also generate a mechanistic diagram showing the complete upstream → downstream sequence from FMU withdrawal to hallmark emergence.

1 Like
#38

And a follow on prompt:

Now do an in-depth analysis of the paper, and identify strengths (and supporting evidence) and weaknesses (counter evidence) from published papers. Included links to reference papers in the markup of your response.

CGPT5.1 Analysis:

Below is an in-depth critique of the paper’s central claims, with specific strengths, weaknesses, and how it fits into the broader literature.

1. Conceptual Contribution and Framing

What the paper does well

  • It forcefully recenters neuromuscular control—especially fast motor units (FMUs)—within aging biology, instead of treating sarcopenia and falls as late-stage “output variables.” This is aligned with decades of work showing that motor unit loss and remodeling are major contributors to muscle aging. Lexell’s classic biopsy data showed selective loss and atrophy of type II fibers with age and argued for a “slowly progressive neurogenic process” as a major driver of muscle atrophy.Lexell 1995
  • The paper correctly emphasizes that motor neurons are post-mitotic and that age-related reduction in motor unit number is robustly documented: e.g., Piasecki et al. estimate ~40% fewer motor units in the tibialis anterior by the early 70s, with surviving units enlarged via collateral reinnervation.
  • It integrates this with the broader neuromuscular aging literature (Hepple & Rice, Hunter et al.), which clearly shows that changes in motor unit number, firing rates, and NMJ stability have profound effects on strength, rate of force development, and coordination.

Strength (conceptual): reframing aging as failure of “command” rather than just “hardware.”

That is a useful corrective to a geroscience discourse that often fetishizes intracellular pathways while underweighting system-level control.

2. Strengths: Where the Literature Supports the Author

2.1 Neurogenic contributions to sarcopenia and frailty

  • Multiple reviews agree that denervation and failed reinnervation are central in sarcopenia, especially for fast units. Miljkovic et al. and Wilkinson et al. highlight fiber loss (hypoplasia), fast-to-slow fiber shift, and neurogenic changes as key mechanisms, not just myocyte-intrinsic atrophy.
  • Hepple & Rice, and Hunter et al., similarly describe age-related loss of motor units, increased motor unit territory via collateral reinnervation, and less stable neuromuscular transmission as core features of the aging neuromuscular system.

→ The paper’s assertion that neuromuscular factors are underweighted in mainstream aging models is fair and well-supported.

2.2 Fast units as early and functionally important casualties

  • Data from Piasecki and others:
    • Older adults have fewer but larger motor units (due to collateral reinnervation), with a bias toward loss of high-threshold, fast units and reinnervation by slower units, causing functional “slowing” of the muscle.
    • Rate-of-force development and maximal discharge rates decline with age, particularly in fast tasks, which is consistent with early FMU vulnerability.
  • Reviews of NMJ aging show that NMJ fragmentation, partial denervation, and impaired transmission often precede or accompany overt fiber loss, particularly in fast muscles.

→ The idea that fast motor units are disproportionately hit and strongly linked to early loss of power and coordination is well grounded.

2.3 “Movement as neural nutrition” and the importance of complex, explosive loading

  • Exercise and NMJ literature strongly support that physical activity—especially more intense, complex movement—partially preserves neuromuscular junctions and motor performance :
    • In mice, relatively short periods of exercise can partially reverse age-related NMJ structural changes and improve function.
    • Dobrowolny et al. and Wang et al. show that physical activity modulates oxidative stress, epigenetic marks, and NMJ morphology, and can attenuate neuromuscular decline.
    • More recent human work suggests that lifelong physical activity preserves neuromuscular control and gait efficiency in older adults.

→ The paper’s prescription (explosive, variable, “chaotic” movement as a way to maintain FMU recruitment) is mechanistically plausible and consistent with the direction of current evidence, though the exact dose/format remains under-characterized.

3. Weaknesses and Overstatements

3.1 The “root-cause” claim is not supported by the data (causation vs correlation)

The paper’s strongest claim—that FMU loss is the upstream origin and that the cellular hallmarks are downstream consequences—goes far beyond what current evidence can sustain.

  • The Hallmarks of Aging framework explicitly treats hallmarks as interconnected rather than linearly ordered, and acknowledges that relative contributions and causal ordering are unresolved.
  • There is substantial evidence that molecular hallmarks are present and biologically relevant very early in life, often before the ages where FMU loss is well-documented:
    • Epigenetic clocks track age from birth onward and show measurable “epigenetic age” and age-acceleration in children and adolescents.
    • Environmental factors (early-life air pollution, psychosocial stress) already modulate epigenetic age acceleration in childhood.
    • Thymic involution—a canonical age-related process with major systemic consequences—begins in early childhood and continues through puberty and adulthood.

These processes clearly precede the 25–30-year age window the paper highlights, which undermines the idea that FMU loss is the unique earliest initiating event of aging.

Bottom line: FMU loss is an important node; current data do not justify promoting it to the root cause.

3.2 The timeline is more heterogeneous than the paper implies

  • The author cites work suggesting motor unit loss from mid-20s onward, but the strongest evidence for large reductions in motor unit number comes from later decades (~50+), with 30–50% losses by 70–80 years.
  • Many reviews characterize sarcopenia and motor unit hypoplasia as becoming clearly clinically important from midlife onward, not as a sharp, universal inflection in the late 20s.
  • At the same time, other organ systems show earlier aging signatures (thymus, epigenetic clocks, lens, reproductive axis), so the claim of temporal primacy by FMUs is overstated.

3.3 Irreversibility is partially overstated

The paper is right that lost motor neurons are hard to replace, and current regenerative strategies cannot recreate a lifelong-trained motor circuit. But it downplays three important facts:

  1. Collateral reinnervation and plasticity
  • Surviving motor neurons can sprout new branches to reinnervate denervated fibers, partially compensating for motor unit loss (albeit with altered properties).
  • Exercise, caloric restriction, and other interventions can improve NMJ morphology and function, suggesting that the neuromuscular system is more plastic than “one-way loss” language suggests.
  1. Exercise-driven NMJ “rejuvenation”
  • Both rodent and human studies show structural and functional improvements of aged NMJs with exercise, including partial reversal of fragmentation and improved transmission.
  1. Emerging regenerative approaches
  • Reviews on motor neuron and NMJ regeneration describe experimental strategies using stem-cell–derived motor neurons, growth factor delivery, and gene therapy that can at least partially reconstitute motor circuits in animal models.

Fairer statement: irreversible full restoration of original FMU architecture and “muscle wisdom” is not currently achievable; partial structural and functional rescue is clearly possible.

3.4 Underestimation of muscle-intrinsic and systemic contributors

  • Comprehensive reviews emphasize that sarcopenia and functional aging are multifactorial , involving:
    • Muscle-intrinsic changes (mitochondrial dysfunction, proteostasis, impaired satellite cell function).
    • Systemic endocrine and inflammatory signals.
    • Neural factors (motor unit loss, NMJ changes).

The paper tends to frame cellular hallmarks as almost entirely downstream, when current evidence favors a bidirectional, network model (e.g., oxidative stress and epigenetic changes drive NMJ degeneration, and neuromuscular decline in turn worsens systemic metabolism).

3.5 Methodological limitations not fully acknowledged

  • The field still relies heavily on indirect motor unit number estimation (MUNE) and EMG-based techniques that have nontrivial uncertainty and methodological heterogeneity.
  • There are few long-term prospective human studies that simultaneously track:
    • Motor unit number/firing properties,
    • Cellular hallmarks (epigenetic age, mitochondrial function, senescence markers),
    • And clinical aging phenotypes.

The paper’s strong causal reordering is built on cross-sectional and partially inferred timelines, not on interventional or finely resolved longitudinal datasets.

4. Overall Assessment

Strengths

  • Correctly emphasizes neuromuscular control—especially fast motor units—as a major, often underappreciated driver of physical aging.
  • Synthesizes a large literature on motor unit loss, NMJ aging, and exercise-induced plasticity into a coherent story that has real interventional implications (explosive, complex movement as a longevity lever).
  • Realistic about the current difficulty of fully regenerating motor circuits, which is often glossed over in “repair everything with stem cells” narratives.

Weaknesses / Where to be cautious

  • Overpromotes FMU loss from “important contributor” to singular upstream “origin”, a claim not supported by the broader aging literature.
  • Underplays early-life hallmarks (epigenetic, thymic, etc.) that clearly predate significant FMU loss.
  • Overstates irreversibility by not fully engaging with evidence of partial NMJ and motor unit functional recovery via exercise and other interventions.
  • Relies heavily on timeline logic and correlation, without direct experimental tests that FMU preservation causally delays systemic hallmarks.

5. What Data Would Actually Test the Hypothesis?

If you want to evaluate or build on this model, the highest-value studies would be:

  1. Longitudinal human cohorts with repeated measures of:
  • Motor unit number and firing properties,
  • NMJ integrity (advanced EMG, imaging),
  • Epigenetic age, mitochondrial function, and senescence markers,
  • Clinical aging endpoints (frailty, VO₂max, cognition).
  1. Intervention trials that target FMUs explicitly:
  • Randomized trials of high-velocity, “chaotic” neuromuscular training vs conventional training,
  • With both neuromuscular endpoints and hallmarks-of-aging readouts.
  1. Animal models where fast motor units are genetically or optogenetically protected vs controls, to see whether this shifts systemic aging trajectories.

Until such data exist, the most defensible position is:

FMU preservation is likely a high-leverage, understudied node in the aging network, but not a proven root cause that demotes cellular hallmarks to mere epiphenomena.

From a practical longevity-biohacker standpoint, the paper still argues for a strong—and relatively low-cost—bet: aggressively protect neuromuscular command (explosive, complex, age-appropriate movement) in parallel with cellular interventions, not instead of them.

1 Like
#39

And for those who want another perspective, here is Google’s Gemini’s Analysis of Tony’s paper… very similar conclusions:

#40

@Tony_Ruggia would you agree with this below?

And another follow-on Query:

Propose a weekly workout regimen that takes into consideration this research, to optimize health of motor units and preserve function with aging

CGPT Workout Program:

Below is a scientifically grounded, motor-unit–centric weekly training program explicitly designed to preserve fast motor units (FMUs), neuromuscular junction (NMJ) integrity, firing-rate capacity, and “muscle wisdom”—while managing injury risk for developing or aging athletes.

This regimen integrates what the paper proposes (chaotic, explosive, high-threshold, reactive inputs) with what published literature shows maintains motor neurons, NMJs, and high-threshold motor unit recruitment in humans.

The structure prioritizes:

  1. High-rate firing / Fast MU recruitment
  2. Chaotic/reactive movement (“neural nutrition”)
  3. High-velocity strength training
  4. NMJ integrity (power + novelty + eccentric control)
  5. Systemic supports (mitochondrial conditioning, mobility, sleep)

The split is 4 neuromuscular days + 2 metabolic/structural days + 1 full-rest day , which balances stimulus vs recovery.

Weekly Motor-Unit–Optimizing Training Program

Day 1 — High-Velocity Strength + Short Plyometrics (Core FMU Stimulus)

Purpose:

Maximize fast motor unit recruitment and firing-rate demand with safe, high-intent movements.

Warmup (10 min):

  • Dynamic mobility (hips/ankles/thoracic)
  • Light skips, pogo hops
  • 3 × 10 accelerations (submax)

Power Prep (10 min):

  • Box jumps (low height, focus on speed, not height): 4 × 3
  • Lateral bounds: 3 × 5/s(Emphasis: crisp, reactive, low volume, high quality.)

High-Velocity Lifting (25–30 min):

Select 2 lower-body + 1 upper-body velocity lifts.

  • Trap-bar jump deadlift: 5 × 3 @ 20–30% 1RM
  • Speed squats: 6 × 3 @ 30–40% 1RM
  • Push press: 5 × 3 @ 30–40% 1RM or medicine-ball chest throw 5 × 4

Cool Down:

  • 5–8 minutes easy cycling or walking

Rationale:

  • Fast motor units are preferentially recruited when intent is maximal and load is moderate-light.
  • Summation patterns (rapid repeat firing) are maintained best with repeated high-velocity contractions.Piercing into the literature:
  • Del Vecchio et al. show early strength improvements from firing-rate and recruitment adaptations—not hypertrophy.https://doi.org/10.1113/JP277250
  • Rate-of-force development declines with age due to impaired MU discharge frequency. Hunter et al.https://doi.org/10.1152/japplphysiol.00475.2016

Day 2 — Chaos + Reaction Day (Neural “Feeding”)

Purpose:

Train unpredictability, reflex loops, and rapid motor reprogramming—critical for NMJ and FMU survival.

Drills (30–40 min total):

  • Random-direction reaction drills (visual or auditory cue): 8 × 10–12 sec
  • Agility ladder with random external cues (not memorized pattern): 6 min total
  • Unstable surface perturbation drills (Bosu, foam pads, sand): 3 × 2 min
  • Light grappling/wrestle movements or sport-specific reactive scrimmage: 10–15 min
  • Optional: Shadowboxing with unpredictable footwork

Rationale:

Day 3 — Low-Volume Sprinting + Eccentric Loading

Purpose:

Preserve top-end FMU recruitment, reinnervation potential, and tendon stiffness (critical for power longevity).

Sprints (Low Volume, High Quality):

  • 6–8 reps of 10–20 m accelerations (80–90% max)
  • 2–4 × 30–40 m relaxed sprints (85%)Never go maximal; injury risk outweighs benefit.

Eccentric Work (for NMJ stability + tendon integrity):

  • Nordic curls: 3 × 3 slow reps
  • Eccentric step-downs: 3 × 6/s
  • Slow eccentric calf raises: 3 × 8

Rationale:

  • Sprinting is arguably the strongest all-purpose FMU stimulus in humans.
  • Eccentric training increases tendon stiffness, preventing the “biomechanical paradox” where nerves fire but tissues can’t handle load.

Day 4 — OFF / Mobility / Sleep Optimization Day

Purpose:

Neuromuscular systems adapt during recovery. Motor learning consolidates during sleep.

Activities:

  • Mobility + fascial glides (20–30 min)
  • Optional massage or sauna
  • Earlier bedtime (critical for synaptic consolidation)

Rationale:

Day 5 — Mixed Strength (Slow + Fast) + Multi-Planar Power

Purpose:

Blend hypertrophy (protects metabolic health) with FMU activation via occasional high-intent efforts.

Strength (40 min):

  • Deadlift variation: 4 × 4
  • Single-leg squat: 3 × 6
  • Bench press: 4 × 5
  • Row: 4 × 6

Finish with Multi-Planar Power (10–12 min):

  • Rotational med-ball throws: 4 × 5
  • Lateral hop-to-stick: 3 × 4/s
  • Diagonal slams: 3 × 6

Rationale:

  • Strength protects muscle fibers and NMJs by increasing reinnervation capacity.
  • Multi-planar work prevents movement “stiffness” and preserves fast-twitch recruitment in unusual vectors.

Day 6 — Conditioning (Mitochondria + Recovery)

Purpose:

Support downstream tissue health without suppressing fast-MU signaling.

Options (pick 1):

  • Zone 2 cycle/run: 50–60 min
  • Ruck walk 45–60 min
  • Rowing 30–40 min

Add brief high-intensity finisher (optional):

  • 4 × 15–20 sec fast uphill power hike OR Assault Bike pushes

Rationale:

  • Improves mitochondrial efficiency and capillary density without killing fast-MU recruitment patterns (endurance monotony can impair common drive if overdone).
  • Ensures systemic markers (CRP, glucose, lactate clearance) remain optimal.

Day 7 — Rest

Full rest.

No plyos, no intense work.

Light walk, light mobility, nothing externally loaded.

Implementation Notes

1. Intensity matters more than volume.

FMUs activate at high intent, not high load. Most work should feel crisp, fast, and neurologically demanding—not exhausting.

2. Novelty is essential.

Change drills every 2–3 weeks. Long-term repetition leads to neural “habituation,” reducing FMU stimulation.

3. Don’t train like an endurance athlete if longevity is the goal.

Too much monotonic endurance (cycling, distance running) lowers high-threshold recruitment over time.

4. Tendons and connective tissue need to be strong

—especially if you preserve neural firing capacity into middle age. Slow eccentric work twice weekly is mandatory.

5. Neurological overtraining is real.

Signs: sluggish movement quality, poor reactivity, loss of “snap.”

If noted, reduce chaos/reaction days temporarily.

If You Want a Personalized Version…

I can further adapt the routine based on:

  • Age
  • Injury history
  • Performance goals
  • Time per day
  • Preferred equipment
  • Desired balance between longevity vs performance

Would you like a version optimized for your age bracket and training experience?

1 Like