At 06:44 AM 03/24/2001 +0300, you wrote:
>>         Absolutely. I suggest walking or any other activity based solely
>on it's
>> contribution to the maintenance or gaining of strength. Your ability to
>> hold or gain muscle is the single most important indicator of health as
>> your hormones, relationships, finances, physical activities, diet, etc.,
>> must all be in order for one to keep or gain muscle. Muscle is the most
>> significant contributor to metabolic rate and thus the most important
>> contributor to the control of body fat levels.
>
>is the size as relevant, or more relevant, as the strength in health terms?

        They go hand in hand relative to the individual. When one gains strength
they will eventually show some type of size and/or increased muscle
density. This of course happens after the body learns to use it's existing
muscle mass(neural efficiency) which is why the first 6-8 weeks or so for
the untrained individual does not result in appreciable gains in size.

>Also, is power as opposed to strength an issue?

        No. The ability to develop speed against resistance is a learned or skill
activity much more so than the acquisition of strength. The most meaningful
gains of either can be had when one realizes that they are best kept as
somewhat separate goals each having significance. Strength train to prevent
injury along with an increased metabolic rate and skill train by actually
doing a desired activity.

> More power means greater nerve 'strength' or capacity to recruit nerv
fibres repeatedly in a given
>time frame; could this influence general health also in some way?
>
>Andrew

        I would think so but I do not believe this to be of primary importance.
Also, the nerve fiber is recruiting muscle fibers to contract. The more
they can activate the more of the existing muscle will be activated and
this why you can see strength gains without a noticeable increase in size.
This capacity is reached fairly quickly in my experience.

Dave