Due to a combination of laziness and a busier than usual schedule, I haven't been to a gym in 9 months. Fortunately, my job basically consists of lifting heavy boxes and moving them over moderate distances. So I've got the blue collar workout going on--built up arms and shoulders, the lower back of an old man, and pudginess around the middle. I highly recommend this regimen.
My instinct would be to wonder if you could swing one hour six times a week rather than two, three times a week, and do cardio and weights on separate days. Not that that solves your problem, it just seems like a better idea.
Other than that, the moving to big-muscle, compound exercises sounds like a good one -- squats, deadlifts, chin and pull ups, etc.
(I was selling the Concept II rowing machine to Kriston a couple of weeks ago -- it's an excellent combination of cardio and a strength workout. If you have access to one, there'd be something to be said for putting most of your workout energy into rowing, and saving the lifting for muscle groups the erg doesn't hit, like chest and hamstrings.)
LB, my decision to go every other day was based on the thought that I'd save shower and changing time-- if I can cut the number of workouts in half, I can save some time. I can then use that time wisely by surfing the internet instead of working.
I should, with the way I talk them up. Really, they're great -- it's the only cardio machine I know that people who own actually use, rather than hanging laundry on.
Technique isn't intuitive -- someone has to show you how to do it -- but a couple of months working out on one of those and you'll have a truly killer back and legs. There's also a competitive culture -- people race them (the erg measures effort expended and turns it into 'distance rowed'.) At Labs' size, he could probably get fairly competitive pretty quickly; there's a strong relationship between mass, limb length, and the kind of splits you can pull.
pace what 'the pros' say in the muscleman comic books, you should be working every muscle at least twice a week. The easiest thing to do would be to do the same program 3x a week. Do a couple different compound exercises; such as squat, benchpress, pulldowns, military press. Also, make sure that the weight you are using is increasing over time. every few months take a week off and then restart at a somewhat lower weight. change from hi no of reps per set to low reps per set as you increase weight if you need to.
I'd also do the weights prior to the aerobic work.
doing less arms is probably fine. I would consider doing a full body work-out on one of the three days, without rests. You might also consider going back and forth between cardio and the weights. Do ten mins cardio, and then without resting, do a specific muscle group, then do ten mins cardio, etc.
Ignore all of what I have said if you are trying to build lots of mass. But my guess, you aren't.
You might also consider very slow repitition sets. It's a way to do more in less time, because it requires less sets, although each rep you do takes about 7 to 10 seconds.
Have people had success with yoyo-style workouts, that is, hitting the same muscles more than once a week? Since I started, I've worked each muscle group once a week, but I've always wondered about this.
Your search for a "routine" is your downfall. Routine is the enemy of fitness.
Do these workouts: www.crossfit.com. You'll be out of the gym in far less than two hours. (The whole workout, including warmup should run anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes.) If you only have 3 days per week, then only do it three days per week. You'll still get in kick-ass shape, and you'll have *tons* more fun in the process.
14: Yes, but that's been starting from quite a low baseline. I started trying to get back in shape seriously about a year ago, and I hit the same muscles three days a week. While I'm still not all that strong, I'm much stronger than I was this time last year.
I don't know that this translates all that well to someone who's already in decent shape, though.
each muslce group only really needs one day of rest. So you could theoretically blast your glutes every other day for an exceptionally muscular back side.
6: I am about to take the two Carolina dogs for a four mile hilly cross country walk. 12 foot leashes, rambunctious 60 lb 2-yr-olds, and 7 pound bracelets(cuffs?) on each wrist.
20- Why? Obviously you need to pay attention to good form on things like squats/deadlifts/(anything really), but if you do so I don't know what's the worry about injury.
(One possible exception: if you're not in super shape and you simply jump in whole hog, especially on their 3-day-on, one-day-off format, you'll be risking overuse injuries and just generally wearing yourself out too much. But the site is littered with warnings to START SLOW, and SCALE the workouts to your ability/recovery levels.)
Your gut (!) is right: compound movements (squats, deadlifts, bench press, cleans, standing barbell presses, dips, etc.)are much better than isolated exercises for smaller muscles (arm work, e.g.).
Deciding on a regimen will depend in large part on how much experience you have lifting. If you are relatively new to it, you can work a single muscle group multiple times/week and progress nicely. If you've been at it awhile, then once/week/muscle group will be necessary to allow adequate recovery time.
Since you'll only have 45 minutes to lift, I'd concentrate on different muscle groups each day: day one squats, plus a couple other leg exercises (leg curls, leg extensions, calves). Day 2: chest (bench press, incline press, dips). Day 3: back (deadlifts, pull ups, bent-over rows with barbell, pull downs).
Concentrate on knocking the tar out of the main lifts (squat, bench/incline, deads/pull ups) and spend relatively little time on the other exercises. And learn good form - especially on squat and deadlifts.
One interesting site to check out is martygallagher.com. He used to have an exercise chat at the washington post, and now has a blog with a weekly chat at his website. He takes rank beginners and gives them a routine consisting of squat, deadlift, and bench, plus walking for cardio and tightened eating for excellent results. His advice is generally a very clear, back-to-basics approach.
21- that article is garbage. Seriously. Go to the website and search through their message boards for a discussion (I'd post a link but can't access that site from work.) People were misquoted, things were portrayed very out-of-context, etc. The author was obviously interested in portraying the site as very scary and badass, and more or less distorted reality to get there.
(A very few people have come down with rhabdo -- a potentially fatal condition resulting from extreme over-exertion, but, referencing my caveat above, they were very new people who pushed themselves way too hard by just jumping right in without scaling things to their abilities. So don't let that scare you.)
Crossfit is great stuff, definitely. My only qualms about it has to do with logistics. A lot of their workouts involve gymnastics-type stuff; medicine balls thrown at a high target; moving between different exercises, each of which requires a fair amount of room and equipment (e.g., sumo high-pulls, standing push press, medicine ball, and erg, rotated through four times for one of their workouts); or movements that are hard for someone to do (e.g., the ring pull-up to dip move or the handstand push up). Great workouts, yes, but virtually impossible in a relatively confined gym space in which one navigates around many other users.
That said, if you've got the space for it, it's worth a try.
Also, even that style of workout gets stale after awhile, and straight-ahead weights and cardio is a nice counterpoint to it.
Actually FL, one thing you need to clarify before getting a bunch of exercise advice is what exactly you're trying to do. Why are you working out? To be as strong as possible? As big and muscular as possible? As fast/athletic as possible? Just be healthy enough to hopefully not have a heart attack at 45? Or just generally to exude more of teh sexx appeal?
What exactly you should do depends in large part on what your goals are.
If you only have three days a week, one way is to focus on both the main movement, along with the accessories. Something along the lines of
Day 1: Start with one or two heavy chest exercises, bench press, etc., and then work triceps and shoulders
Day 2: Start with a heavy squat or deadlift type exercise, then move on to isolation exercises for hamstrings, quads, calves.
Day 3: Start with speed work, ie pick a bench or a leg movement, and do exsplosively, weights in the 50-60 percent of your max range, sets of three with bench or squats, singles with deadlifts, and then do other accessory work, hitting weak areas
I'd recommend reading Science and Practice of Strength Training by Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky. You can find it on Amazon.
26- I'm not going to spend all day defending crossfit, I promise, but:
(1) I think the majority of people who do the workouts daily don't have all the equipment/space necessary to do them "as prescribed". If you look in the F.A.Q's there is a long list of potential subs for virtually all of their exercises. You just take the equipment you have and do the best subs you can.
(2) The thing you're missing is that sometimes (relatively often) the daily workouts *are* exactly what you're saying. Something like "max effort deadlift -- eight sets of one rep (resting between sets) with as much weight as possible), or "Run 5k". You see max effort lift days probably at least once a week, and "pure cardio" days probably twice a month or so.
And hell, some of the workouts take somewhere between 3-10 minutes. And you're done. If you can still stand up, feel free to go run some cardio, or do whatever pleases you. You don't have to "do exactly and only what they say."
I'm not sure what reason there is to think it's a myth, even if we assume that muscle growth stops after 48 hours. For example, I stay sore for up to 4 days after a hard squat workout; that limits my ability to squat for at least as long, regardless of when the muscle stops growing. Also, my ability to increase weight over the mid-term goes up if i allow more time between lifts.
So, the claim in 25 depends on time of muscle growth being the only limiting factor on workout frequency. I think that's a mistake. Other important factors are: lactic acid buildup, fatigue, limited amount of time for workouts, and psychological freshness. None of those correspond neatly to muscle growth, and each, I submit, is a reason to focus on one muscle group/workout and /week.
Also, (1) is there a good source for the view that muscle growth stops after a week? (I'm serious here, I've not heard of it, but would like to look closer), (2) wouldn't the drugged up thing make recovery quicker, and therefore make it possible to workout more often? I thought that was the advantage of steroids.
That said, it makes sense for folks to experiment to see what works for him/herself.
Hey man, I like crossfit, and did it myself for awhile, and I would like to do it again. And I honestly don't think we're of altogether different views here. And I agree that the substitutes help, but even so it's hard to do at a small gym.
And by "that style getting stale" what I mean is that degree of variance is not the only relevant and worthwhile sort of variance. For example, sometimes I am motivated by doing interesting, slightly wacky, and intense regimens like x-fit for awhile. Other times I like to set a goal of moving up to 3 x [weight] squat over a couple months, and still other times I'm motivated by swimming a x:xx 500 free, or biking x miles in x hours. Those last two goals are best achieved by different methods than crossfit; I submit that mixing up the different styles is a legitimate and effective way of keeping fresh, even granting the wide variance within the x-fit mode. But if one can keep with x-fit indefinitely, and *that sort* of variance suffices to keep one interested, by all means go for it.
Ashtanga yoga is an awesome workout when you want a quasi-cardio weight workout.
Re Concept II. That's what we always used in highschool, and I've always heard that they were the best.
I've wondered about one from Australia, though. It was designed by rowers ro approximate the feel of being on the water. There were testimonials rom some pretty well-respected crew coaches saying that it was better than Concept II--though it hasn't caught on all that widely, so take those testimonials for what they're worth.
You don' wanna be a pansy-man do ya? Then it's time to bring the m****f****** house down.
Supersets, only supersets. Lots of bodyweight. No resting, pansy! Each superset should only take about 10 minutes because there isn't much resting (pansy) in between sets. For example:
1. Weighted row and pushups (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; pushups to exhaustion)
2. Bench press and (weighted) back extension (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; 12-15 reps for back extension)
3. Bent-over rows and pushups (again!) (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; pushups to exhaustion, girly-man)
4. Pull-ups and dips (5 sets, both exercises to exhaustion)
5. Finally, abs and supermans. Hell, you could finish it out with plyometrics: 1 minute abs, 1 min. supermans, 1 min. pushups (more!), 1 min. wall-sits. Rinse. Repeat. No resting!
There's enough cardio there that you could even cut down on your other cardio a little bit--that is, do this for as much time as it takes, and then use the rest of the time for pure cardio.
And this is how you become a manly man. Chuck Norris will smile down upon thee.
You don' wanna be a pansy-man do ya? Then it's time to bring the m****f****** house down.
Supersets, only supersets. Lots of bodyweight. No resting, pansy! Each superset should only take about 10 minutes because there isn't much resting (pansy) in between sets. For example:
1. Weighted row and pushups (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; pushups to exhaustion)
2. Bench press and (weighted) back extension (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; 12-15 reps for back extension)
3. Bent-over rows and pushups (again!) (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; pushups to exhaustion, girly-man)
4. Pull-ups and dips (5 sets, both exercises to exhaustion)
5. Finally, abs and supermans. Hell, you could finish it out with plyometrics: 1 minute abs, 1 min. supermans, 1 min. pushups (more!), 1 min. wall-sits. Rinse. Repeat. No resting!
There's enough cardio there that you could even cut down on your other cardio a little bit--that is, do this for as much time as it takes, and then use the rest of the time for pure cardio.
And this is how you become a manly man. Chuck Norris will smile down upon thee.
Oh, by the way, there are no leg exercises in there because it is assumed that you're running and doing other leg-oriented cardio like a madman (madperson?). Squats are great and all if you need leg strength for explosivity and whatnot, but if you're running long distances then it shouldn't matter too much, especially since my ubermench upper-body routine doesn't add disproportionate bulk, just cutness and definedity.
32- I've used a water rower. I liked it a lot. I like the C2 as well. I can't say I see much difference between the two, though, other than price. I'm not sure how the water rower holds up against the C2's notorious indestructibilty.
Labs is skinny and already in shape. What advice does the unfoggetariat provide for the portly gentleman interested in losing a significant amount of weight? (That is to say, B isn't the only one around here who could e-mail Ben a pic of bitch tits.)
The sitch: I just got a Bally's membership and am slowly working my way back into things. The free training session I got at signup recomended working the large muscle groups in conjunction with one of those exercise balls to get all the twitchy little side muscles. My cardio tolerance is fairly low at the moment, but historically comes back fairly quickly whenever I get on on get-fit kick--I can't even jog a mile right now, but should be able to do 2.5-3 within a few weeks. I can maybe swing 3 1 to 1.5 hour workouts a week.
Do those three 1-1.5 hour workouts need to include cardio? That is, do you already have a cardio schedule, in which case the three workouts are for weights? Or do those three workouts need to be cardio and weight training?
Basically, working on a balance of cardio, weights, and decent eating (lean protein, plus fibrous carbs / few processed starches and sugars) is the template. There are a few things that you can do tip things toward weight/fat loss. One is to do cardio before eating anything in the morning; this apparently favors using body fat as energy, rather than whatever is in your digestive system. The cardio can be intensive walking, the idea being getting your heart rate up for an extended period (starting at 15-20 minutes, then moving up from there). Another is to eat smaller meals more often, which increases one's metabolism somewhat.
And the weight lifting should be focused on the big/compound movements.
THey need to include cardio, and ideally dressing, showering, etc. (Not to come off like a lazy ass, just dealing with a 50+ hour a week job, part-time school, and being the parent of 15-month-old, and a spouse who needs a fair amount of emotional support while dealing with a dying parent.)
Diet really helps. I've been on a diet the past month and lost about 14lbs which is a lot more than I'd have lost on exercise alone.
In the past when I lost quite a bit of weight I did a free-weight workout every other day and just did dumbell presses, shoulder presses, bent-over rows, front squats and lunges, inclined pushups, bicep curls and deadlifts. No full-squats and no bench presses as I didn't have access to a spotter or a rack to make them safe.
I'd say the best thing is to mix it up -- these days my only regular exercise is a 90 min. savate class plus some general bodyweight exercises at home -- and not get bored with whatever exercise you are doing.
Re: diet -- I'm not following a formal diet but just a general GI/Montignac thing where I'm cutting out high-GI carbs and substituting in low-GI alternatives -- wholemeal pasta rather than white, brown rice rather than white, no potatoes, etc. -- and eating more veg and fresh meat. Also, no sugary drinks.
I am still eating the occasional muffin, cake or whatever and still drinking a moderate amount of alcohol -- there's no point in being on a diet you know you won't stick to over a long period of time.
"I'm not sure what reason there is to think it's a myth, even if we assume that muscle growth stops after 48 hours. For example, I stay sore for up to 4 days after a hard squat workout; that limits my ability to squat for at least as long, regardless of when the muscle stops growing. Also, my ability to increase weight over the mid-term goes up if i allow more time between lifts."
soreness after a workout doesn't indicate muscle growth. in fact, a signficant reason for soreness is that you've waited a week to exercise. also, it often result from going 'to failure' - the last rep or ttwo where your strength declines significantly, you get shaky, etc. This is pretty useless; you'd be better off just quiting a rep or two early, a preserving your strength. It is the total volume done under a specific tension to the muscle that is important. (this is different from doing 15 rep sets which have other benefits; it applies for the 2-8 range or so). even training purely for strength, not growth, an entire week is too long to wait.
"So, the claim in 25 depends on time of muscle growth being the only limiting factor on workout frequency. I think that's a mistake. Other important factors are: lactic acid buildup, fatigue, limited amount of time for workouts, and psychological freshness. None of those correspond neatly to muscle growth, and each, I submit, is a reason to focus on one muscle group/workout and /week."
how do any of those argue for a 1/week frequency?
Also, (1) is there a good source for the view that muscle growth stops after a week? (I'm serious here, I've not heard of it, but would like to look closer), (2) wouldn't the drugged up thing make recovery quicker, and therefore make it possible to workout more often? I thought that was the advantage of steroids.
"That said, it makes sense for folks to experiment to see what works for him/herself."
i don't totally disagree, but most people bodies aren't radically different, and the 6 months or so it takes to see real change is a long time to wait to decide what works. plus the are always dozens of factors changing, which makes it hard to do a real controlled experiment.
the main difference for those looking to lose weight, instead of gain, is in total calorie intake. exercise burns a few calories, but is mainly useful for changing the fat/muscle ratio
try to be conscious of how much you're eating; keeping a journal wherein you enter everything you eat every day can be quite revealing.
easiest things to change are switching to diet sodas or coffee/tea, and wine/whiskey instead of beer, and splenda instead of sugar. fill up on vegetables fruits, beans, whole grains, lean meats. don't make your diet austere (herbs/spices are your frineds) or you'll just give up and eat a gallon of ice cream some afternoon. eat when hungry, but in limited amounts. also don't try to lose all the weight quickly; not because its unhealthy, but because its actually quite easy to lose weight over a long-term period if you just monitor what you are eating.
but is mainly useful for changing the fat/muscle ratio
45 understates the importance of this for losing weight. It's true that the calories you burn during exercise aren't really that big a deal, and aren't going to make a significant difference (they're almost trivial compared to the amount you take-in/expend just living your day-to-day life). But increasing your muscle/fat ratio will significantly up your resting metabolism, as muscle requires more enrgy to maintain. So you'll burn more calories just being alive, and will have a much easier time eating what you want (within reason) and still maintaining a healthy weight.
I've been on a diet the past month and lost about 14lbs... I am still eating the occasional muffin, cake or whatever and still drinking a moderate amount of alcohol
AFAIR a pound of muscle burns about 6 calories a day at rest. so a person with 30 pounds added, far above what most people at a gym have gained, is burneing ~200 caloreis per day with their extra muscle. its not negligible, but not huge either.
yoyo--it's actually like 40 calories per day, according to what I just read over at martygallagher.com (the site phred was reccomending--thanks phred!). A 10 pound gain in muscle mass is thus 400 extra calories a day, or the loss of most of a pound a week, ceteris parabus. (Alternatively, one free Big Mac every day!)
Labs--those height/weight charts don't do well with outlier body types. I'm 5'10", but stocky (big rib cage/shoulders)--if I weighed what they say I should weigh, I'd look like Callista Flockhart's anorexic sister.
I second the Marty Gallagher recommendation. He can get repetitive (or did in his Post chat, anyway), but he's smart, consistent, and fad-averse.
I believe the bigger muscle groups/more weight/less frequency trend is generally used to build strength and mass. For example, powerlifters will only work a muscle group once a week, using some sort of big compound motion exercise, and for very short sets (not counting warmups, which can take a while). Then they hurry home and resume eating. For looking good/bodybuilding, I think the consensus is that that this approach has never worked for anybody but Mike Mentzer.
So I donno. As others have said, it probably depends on what your goals are. For strength and size it might be helpful. For staying trim it might not.
I think if you go to all the effore of putting on 10 lbs. of muscle mass, you will have likely burned more than 10 pounds of fat.
But what do I know? The only time I've ever consistenly lost weight are on Atkins style diets where I wind up in a near constant state of rage because I want a piece of pizza (or bread, or pasta, or whatever). Plus my pee smells funny.
that number can't be right. muscle is only 1/3-1/2 of the weight of a body. for me personally, it lets say 80 pounds of muscle. I eat about 3000k calories a day. That comes out to about 37calories/pound, not far from Gallagher's number. But muscle isn't the only calorie consume tissue in the body: brain & liver each take up abouta quarter of calories per day. Also, tasks like carrying groceries up the stairs aren't going to scale up in calories as you increase muscle mass, so the proportionate number of calores per pound goes down.
"how do any of those argue for a 1/week frequency?"
1. Lactic acid build-up/soreness takes awhile to dissipate (and, note, that an intense workout, even without going to failure, suffices for a great deal of soreness). (nb: that was true of me even when I lifted groups more than once/week) (nb2: I recognize that soreness is not coextensive with growth - that's why I noted that it was important *regardless* of growth)
2. One's energy levels fall off pretty quickly after about 45 minutes - one hour, and whatever comes later will suffer. Also, cramming in a full body workout in that time frame underworks the parts.
3. It is hard to get psyched to do squats more than once/week. They're just too brutal when done with any intensity.
I won't be dogmatic about once/week/group, like I said, if you've been able to get consistently stronger over the mid- to long-term that that way, go for it. I've been very happy with my progress over the years doing once/week. That, of course, assumes varying rep ranges and regimens.
Re: the claims that going to failure is pretty useless, and that it's better to stop a save strength, and that total volume is what *really* matters.
One does not need to go to failure necessarily, but one does need to work up to the limits of one's capacity to progress. Sometimes that means maxing out at failure, other times it means multiple sets at a static weight ('volume'). Neither is all things considered better, both will work until the routine gets stale.
His washington post chats are archived online. Go the live discussions page and do a search for "marty gallagher" and you'll get a bunch of hits. He actually spent a lot of time on those, doing follow-ups on questions that were left over at the end of the discussion. It's repetitive, as noted above, but there's a wealth of information there, ranging from advice for the beginner trying to lose weight, to the competitive power-lifter trying to squat many hundreds of pounds. And a lot of the repetitiveness comes from his view that concentrating on a few fundamentals is the major part of the battle.
"1. Lactic acid build-up/soreness takes awhile to dissipate (and, note, that an intense workout, even without going to failure, suffices for a great deal of soreness). (nb: that was true of me even when I lifted groups more than once/week) (nb2: I recognize that soreness is not coextensive with growth - that's why I noted that it was important *regardless* of growth)"
well, lactic acid is gone w/in a few minutes. it was believed that lactic acid cause DelayedOnsetMuscleSoreness but this is not the current theory. As for interfering iwth your training, i've never noticed a loss of strength from training, provided it wasn't the first workout after a layoff, and provided i didn't go to failure in the prior workout. however, note that more frequent training results in less doms.
"2. One's energy levels fall off pretty quickly after about 45 minutes - one hour, and whatever comes later will suffer. Also, cramming in a full body workout in that time frame underworks the parts."
if you divide your sets of M, W, and F into a monday workout of .33M+.33W+.33F, it should take about the same amount of time as before, and overall volume will be the same.
Re: the claims that going to failure is pretty useless, and that it's better to stop a save strength, and that total volume is what *really* matters.
"One does not need to go to failure necessarily, but one does need to work up to the limits of one's capacity to progress. Sometimes that means maxing out at failure, other times it means multiple sets at a static weight ('volume'). Neither is all things considered better, both will work until the routine gets stale. "
i won't say its only total volume. tension (weight) is the most important thing to be increasing. but 'failure training' is pretty much worthless.
I believe the bigger muscle groups/more weight/less frequency trend is generally used to build strength and mass. For example, powerlifters will only work a muscle group once a week, using some sort of big compound motion exercise, and for very short sets (not counting warmups, which can take a while). Then they hurry home and resume eating.
There's powerlifter gyms like Westside are doing the big movements like bench, deadlift, etc. twice a week. One of the days is max effort, the other works explosive power with weights in that 50-60% of max range.
Incorporating powerlifter techniques has worked really well for me. Also helps to keep from getting stale as they rotate the exercises being used frequently.
This just isn't true. It's not used as much by bodybuilders, but for competitive powerlifters using the Westside, or conjugate method, working up to a max is a weekly occurrence.
The 'open source' fitness movement. Three days on, two days off. Mostly compound lifts for core body strength, with short intense arobic for maximum benefit (not long, endurance training). Short, intense, efficient. And, like LB, they're pretty into the concept 2 rower.
I have no idea what that need would be
Duh.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 8:40 AM
Due to a combination of laziness and a busier than usual schedule, I haven't been to a gym in 9 months. Fortunately, my job basically consists of lifting heavy boxes and moving them over moderate distances. So I've got the blue collar workout going on--built up arms and shoulders, the lower back of an old man, and pudginess around the middle. I highly recommend this regimen.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 8:45 AM
My instinct would be to wonder if you could swing one hour six times a week rather than two, three times a week, and do cardio and weights on separate days. Not that that solves your problem, it just seems like a better idea.
Other than that, the moving to big-muscle, compound exercises sounds like a good one -- squats, deadlifts, chin and pull ups, etc.
(I was selling the Concept II rowing machine to Kriston a couple of weeks ago -- it's an excellent combination of cardio and a strength workout. If you have access to one, there'd be something to be said for putting most of your workout energy into rowing, and saving the lifting for muscle groups the erg doesn't hit, like chest and hamstrings.)
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 8:47 AM
I was selling the Concept II rowing machine...a couple of weeks ago
Do you get a commission on that?
Posted by washerdreyer | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 8:51 AM
LB, my decision to go every other day was based on the thought that I'd save shower and changing time-- if I can cut the number of workouts in half, I can save some time. I can then use that time wisely by surfing the internet instead of working.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 8:57 AM
Wear a pair of uranium cufflinks the size of doorknobs and you will build huge arms without going to the gym at all.
Posted by dsquared | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 8:59 AM
Do you get a commission on that?
The rules clearly state that she has to send Ben a picture of her tits.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:00 AM
Ooh, LB, I've been looking for a rowing machine. I've always found those to be my favorite workouts. The Concept II, you say?
Posted by Matthew Harvey | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:00 AM
I should, with the way I talk them up. Really, they're great -- it's the only cardio machine I know that people who own actually use, rather than hanging laundry on.
Technique isn't intuitive -- someone has to show you how to do it -- but a couple of months working out on one of those and you'll have a truly killer back and legs. There's also a competitive culture -- people race them (the erg measures effort expended and turns it into 'distance rowed'.) At Labs' size, he could probably get fairly competitive pretty quickly; there's a strong relationship between mass, limb length, and the kind of splits you can pull.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:00 AM
pace what 'the pros' say in the muscleman comic books, you should be working every muscle at least twice a week. The easiest thing to do would be to do the same program 3x a week. Do a couple different compound exercises; such as squat, benchpress, pulldowns, military press. Also, make sure that the weight you are using is increasing over time. every few months take a week off and then restart at a somewhat lower weight. change from hi no of reps per set to low reps per set as you increase weight if you need to.
I'd also do the weights prior to the aerobic work.
Posted by yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:08 AM
doing less arms is probably fine. I would consider doing a full body work-out on one of the three days, without rests. You might also consider going back and forth between cardio and the weights. Do ten mins cardio, and then without resting, do a specific muscle group, then do ten mins cardio, etc.
Ignore all of what I have said if you are trying to build lots of mass. But my guess, you aren't.
You might also consider very slow repitition sets. It's a way to do more in less time, because it requires less sets, although each rep you do takes about 7 to 10 seconds.
Lots of people may disagree with my suggestions.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:11 AM
8: Yes. IME, all other rowing machines suck, and I mean that in the least complimentary of possible ways.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:27 AM
Second the Concept II recommendation. They're pretty sweet.
Posted by Matt F | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:30 AM
Have people had success with yoyo-style workouts, that is, hitting the same muscles more than once a week? Since I started, I've worked each muscle group once a week, but I've always wondered about this.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:31 AM
if ashtanga yoga counts, yes, i've had lots of success with yo-yo workouts. (yay, biceps).
Posted by mmf! | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:36 AM
Your search for a "routine" is your downfall. Routine is the enemy of fitness.
Do these workouts: www.crossfit.com. You'll be out of the gym in far less than two hours. (The whole workout, including warmup should run anywhere from 15 to 45 minutes.) If you only have 3 days per week, then only do it three days per week. You'll still get in kick-ass shape, and you'll have *tons* more fun in the process.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:39 AM
14: Yes, but that's been starting from quite a low baseline. I started trying to get back in shape seriously about a year ago, and I hit the same muscles three days a week. While I'm still not all that strong, I'm much stronger than I was this time last year.
I don't know that this translates all that well to someone who's already in decent shape, though.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:39 AM
each muslce group only really needs one day of rest. So you could theoretically blast your glutes every other day for an exceptionally muscular back side.
Posted by text | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:40 AM
6: I am about to take the two Carolina dogs for a four mile hilly cross country walk. 12 foot leashes, rambunctious 60 lb 2-yr-olds, and 7 pound bracelets(cuffs?) on each wrist.
Posted by bob mcmanus | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:47 AM
16: I've actually looked with curiosity at that site -- the potential for hurting yourself badly seems sort of high. Can you speak to that?
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 9:50 AM
20 - The NYT had an article not too long ago about people getting seriously hurt by CrossFit.
Posted by Becks | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:02 AM
20- Why? Obviously you need to pay attention to good form on things like squats/deadlifts/(anything really), but if you do so I don't know what's the worry about injury.
(One possible exception: if you're not in super shape and you simply jump in whole hog, especially on their 3-day-on, one-day-off format, you'll be risking overuse injuries and just generally wearing yourself out too much. But the site is littered with warnings to START SLOW, and SCALE the workouts to your ability/recovery levels.)
Seriously- do it. You'll never go back.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:06 AM
Your gut (!) is right: compound movements (squats, deadlifts, bench press, cleans, standing barbell presses, dips, etc.)are much better than isolated exercises for smaller muscles (arm work, e.g.).
Deciding on a regimen will depend in large part on how much experience you have lifting. If you are relatively new to it, you can work a single muscle group multiple times/week and progress nicely. If you've been at it awhile, then once/week/muscle group will be necessary to allow adequate recovery time.
Since you'll only have 45 minutes to lift, I'd concentrate on different muscle groups each day: day one squats, plus a couple other leg exercises (leg curls, leg extensions, calves). Day 2: chest (bench press, incline press, dips). Day 3: back (deadlifts, pull ups, bent-over rows with barbell, pull downs).
Concentrate on knocking the tar out of the main lifts (squat, bench/incline, deads/pull ups) and spend relatively little time on the other exercises. And learn good form - especially on squat and deadlifts.
One interesting site to check out is martygallagher.com. He used to have an exercise chat at the washington post, and now has a blog with a weekly chat at his website. He takes rank beginners and gives them a routine consisting of squat, deadlift, and bench, plus walking for cardio and tightened eating for excellent results. His advice is generally a very clear, back-to-basics approach.
Posted by phred | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:07 AM
21- that article is garbage. Seriously. Go to the website and search through their message boards for a discussion (I'd post a link but can't access that site from work.) People were misquoted, things were portrayed very out-of-context, etc. The author was obviously interested in portraying the site as very scary and badass, and more or less distorted reality to get there.
(A very few people have come down with rhabdo -- a potentially fatal condition resulting from extreme over-exertion, but, referencing my caveat above, they were very new people who pushed themselves way too hard by just jumping right in without scaling things to their abilities. So don't let that scare you.)
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:12 AM
"If you've been at it awhile, then once/week/muscle group will be necessary to allow adequate recovery time."
no, this myth stems from a misunderstanding of recovery. Muscle growth is basically doen within 36-48 hours after a workout.
this advice is spread by people who use massive amounts of drugs. people who don't need to to train intelligently.
Posted by yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:13 AM
Re: crossfit.
Crossfit is great stuff, definitely. My only qualms about it has to do with logistics. A lot of their workouts involve gymnastics-type stuff; medicine balls thrown at a high target; moving between different exercises, each of which requires a fair amount of room and equipment (e.g., sumo high-pulls, standing push press, medicine ball, and erg, rotated through four times for one of their workouts); or movements that are hard for someone to do (e.g., the ring pull-up to dip move or the handstand push up). Great workouts, yes, but virtually impossible in a relatively confined gym space in which one navigates around many other users.
That said, if you've got the space for it, it's worth a try.
Also, even that style of workout gets stale after awhile, and straight-ahead weights and cardio is a nice counterpoint to it.
Posted by phred | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:16 AM
Actually FL, one thing you need to clarify before getting a bunch of exercise advice is what exactly you're trying to do. Why are you working out? To be as strong as possible? As big and muscular as possible? As fast/athletic as possible? Just be healthy enough to hopefully not have a heart attack at 45? Or just generally to exude more of teh sexx appeal?
What exactly you should do depends in large part on what your goals are.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:18 AM
If you only have three days a week, one way is to focus on both the main movement, along with the accessories. Something along the lines of
Day 1: Start with one or two heavy chest exercises, bench press, etc., and then work triceps and shoulders
Day 2: Start with a heavy squat or deadlift type exercise, then move on to isolation exercises for hamstrings, quads, calves.
Day 3: Start with speed work, ie pick a bench or a leg movement, and do exsplosively, weights in the 50-60 percent of your max range, sets of three with bench or squats, singles with deadlifts, and then do other accessory work, hitting weak areas
I'd recommend reading Science and Practice of Strength Training by Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky. You can find it on Amazon.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:20 AM
26- I'm not going to spend all day defending crossfit, I promise, but:
(1) I think the majority of people who do the workouts daily don't have all the equipment/space necessary to do them "as prescribed". If you look in the F.A.Q's there is a long list of potential subs for virtually all of their exercises. You just take the equipment you have and do the best subs you can.
(2) The thing you're missing is that sometimes (relatively often) the daily workouts *are* exactly what you're saying. Something like "max effort deadlift -- eight sets of one rep (resting between sets) with as much weight as possible), or "Run 5k". You see max effort lift days probably at least once a week, and "pure cardio" days probably twice a month or so.
And hell, some of the workouts take somewhere between 3-10 minutes. And you're done. If you can still stand up, feel free to go run some cardio, or do whatever pleases you. You don't have to "do exactly and only what they say."
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:27 AM
re 25.
I'm not sure what reason there is to think it's a myth, even if we assume that muscle growth stops after 48 hours. For example, I stay sore for up to 4 days after a hard squat workout; that limits my ability to squat for at least as long, regardless of when the muscle stops growing. Also, my ability to increase weight over the mid-term goes up if i allow more time between lifts.
So, the claim in 25 depends on time of muscle growth being the only limiting factor on workout frequency. I think that's a mistake. Other important factors are: lactic acid buildup, fatigue, limited amount of time for workouts, and psychological freshness. None of those correspond neatly to muscle growth, and each, I submit, is a reason to focus on one muscle group/workout and /week.
Also, (1) is there a good source for the view that muscle growth stops after a week? (I'm serious here, I've not heard of it, but would like to look closer), (2) wouldn't the drugged up thing make recovery quicker, and therefore make it possible to workout more often? I thought that was the advantage of steroids.
That said, it makes sense for folks to experiment to see what works for him/herself.
Posted by phred | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:28 AM
re: 29
Hey man, I like crossfit, and did it myself for awhile, and I would like to do it again. And I honestly don't think we're of altogether different views here. And I agree that the substitutes help, but even so it's hard to do at a small gym.
And by "that style getting stale" what I mean is that degree of variance is not the only relevant and worthwhile sort of variance. For example, sometimes I am motivated by doing interesting, slightly wacky, and intense regimens like x-fit for awhile. Other times I like to set a goal of moving up to 3 x [weight] squat over a couple months, and still other times I'm motivated by swimming a x:xx 500 free, or biking x miles in x hours. Those last two goals are best achieved by different methods than crossfit; I submit that mixing up the different styles is a legitimate and effective way of keeping fresh, even granting the wide variance within the x-fit mode. But if one can keep with x-fit indefinitely, and *that sort* of variance suffices to keep one interested, by all means go for it.
Posted by phred | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:39 AM
Ashtanga yoga is an awesome workout when you want a quasi-cardio weight workout.
Re Concept II. That's what we always used in highschool, and I've always heard that they were the best.
I've wondered about one from Australia, though. It was designed by rowers ro approximate the feel of being on the water. There were testimonials rom some pretty well-respected crew coaches saying that it was better than Concept II--though it hasn't caught on all that widely, so take those testimonials for what they're worth.
Have you ever heard of the Water Rower?
Posted by Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 10:39 AM
You don' wanna be a pansy-man do ya? Then it's time to bring the m****f****** house down.
Supersets, only supersets. Lots of bodyweight. No resting, pansy! Each superset should only take about 10 minutes because there isn't much resting (pansy) in between sets. For example:
1. Weighted row and pushups (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; pushups to exhaustion)
2. Bench press and (weighted) back extension (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; 12-15 reps for back extension)
3. Bent-over rows and pushups (again!) (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; pushups to exhaustion, girly-man)
4. Pull-ups and dips (5 sets, both exercises to exhaustion)
5. Finally, abs and supermans. Hell, you could finish it out with plyometrics: 1 minute abs, 1 min. supermans, 1 min. pushups (more!), 1 min. wall-sits. Rinse. Repeat. No resting!
There's enough cardio there that you could even cut down on your other cardio a little bit--that is, do this for as much time as it takes, and then use the rest of the time for pure cardio.
And this is how you become a manly man. Chuck Norris will smile down upon thee.
Posted by Spencer | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 11:08 AM
You don' wanna be a pansy-man do ya? Then it's time to bring the m****f****** house down.
Supersets, only supersets. Lots of bodyweight. No resting, pansy! Each superset should only take about 10 minutes because there isn't much resting (pansy) in between sets. For example:
1. Weighted row and pushups (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; pushups to exhaustion)
2. Bench press and (weighted) back extension (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; 12-15 reps for back extension)
3. Bent-over rows and pushups (again!) (5 sets, 8-10 reps each; pushups to exhaustion, girly-man)
4. Pull-ups and dips (5 sets, both exercises to exhaustion)
5. Finally, abs and supermans. Hell, you could finish it out with plyometrics: 1 minute abs, 1 min. supermans, 1 min. pushups (more!), 1 min. wall-sits. Rinse. Repeat. No resting!
There's enough cardio there that you could even cut down on your other cardio a little bit--that is, do this for as much time as it takes, and then use the rest of the time for pure cardio.
And this is how you become a manly man. Chuck Norris will smile down upon thee.
Posted by Spencer | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 11:08 AM
Sorry for the double-post. I am shamed.
Posted by Spencer | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 11:10 AM
Oh, by the way, there are no leg exercises in there because it is assumed that you're running and doing other leg-oriented cardio like a madman (madperson?). Squats are great and all if you need leg strength for explosivity and whatnot, but if you're running long distances then it shouldn't matter too much, especially since my ubermench upper-body routine doesn't add disproportionate bulk, just cutness and definedity.
Posted by Spencer | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 11:20 AM
31- Agreed. I guess I misunderstood you.
32- I've used a water rower. I liked it a lot. I like the C2 as well. I can't say I see much difference between the two, though, other than price. I'm not sure how the water rower holds up against the C2's notorious indestructibilty.
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 12:09 PM
Labs is skinny and already in shape. What advice does the unfoggetariat provide for the portly gentleman interested in losing a significant amount of weight? (That is to say, B isn't the only one around here who could e-mail Ben a pic of bitch tits.)
The sitch: I just got a Bally's membership and am slowly working my way back into things. The free training session I got at signup recomended working the large muscle groups in conjunction with one of those exercise balls to get all the twitchy little side muscles. My cardio tolerance is fairly low at the moment, but historically comes back fairly quickly whenever I get on on get-fit kick--I can't even jog a mile right now, but should be able to do 2.5-3 within a few weeks. I can maybe swing 3 1 to 1.5 hour workouts a week.
THoughts?
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 12:23 PM
Do those three 1-1.5 hour workouts need to include cardio? That is, do you already have a cardio schedule, in which case the three workouts are for weights? Or do those three workouts need to be cardio and weight training?
Posted by Spencer | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 12:26 PM
Ugh, poorly phrased questions.
Posted by Spencer | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 12:27 PM
chopper -
Definitely check out the martygallagher.com page.
Basically, working on a balance of cardio, weights, and decent eating (lean protein, plus fibrous carbs / few processed starches and sugars) is the template. There are a few things that you can do tip things toward weight/fat loss. One is to do cardio before eating anything in the morning; this apparently favors using body fat as energy, rather than whatever is in your digestive system. The cardio can be intensive walking, the idea being getting your heart rate up for an extended period (starting at 15-20 minutes, then moving up from there). Another is to eat smaller meals more often, which increases one's metabolism somewhat.
And the weight lifting should be focused on the big/compound movements.
Posted by phred | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 12:34 PM
THey need to include cardio, and ideally dressing, showering, etc. (Not to come off like a lazy ass, just dealing with a 50+ hour a week job, part-time school, and being the parent of 15-month-old, and a spouse who needs a fair amount of emotional support while dealing with a dying parent.)
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 12:38 PM
re: 38
Diet really helps. I've been on a diet the past month and lost about 14lbs which is a lot more than I'd have lost on exercise alone.
In the past when I lost quite a bit of weight I did a free-weight workout every other day and just did dumbell presses, shoulder presses, bent-over rows, front squats and lunges, inclined pushups, bicep curls and deadlifts. No full-squats and no bench presses as I didn't have access to a spotter or a rack to make them safe.
I'd say the best thing is to mix it up -- these days my only regular exercise is a 90 min. savate class plus some general bodyweight exercises at home -- and not get bored with whatever exercise you are doing.
Re: diet -- I'm not following a formal diet but just a general GI/Montignac thing where I'm cutting out high-GI carbs and substituting in low-GI alternatives -- wholemeal pasta rather than white, brown rice rather than white, no potatoes, etc. -- and eating more veg and fresh meat. Also, no sugary drinks.
I am still eating the occasional muffin, cake or whatever and still drinking a moderate amount of alcohol -- there's no point in being on a diet you know you won't stick to over a long period of time.
Posted by Matt McGrattan | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 12:42 PM
re 30
"I'm not sure what reason there is to think it's a myth, even if we assume that muscle growth stops after 48 hours. For example, I stay sore for up to 4 days after a hard squat workout; that limits my ability to squat for at least as long, regardless of when the muscle stops growing. Also, my ability to increase weight over the mid-term goes up if i allow more time between lifts."
soreness after a workout doesn't indicate muscle growth. in fact, a signficant reason for soreness is that you've waited a week to exercise. also, it often result from going 'to failure' - the last rep or ttwo where your strength declines significantly, you get shaky, etc. This is pretty useless; you'd be better off just quiting a rep or two early, a preserving your strength. It is the total volume done under a specific tension to the muscle that is important. (this is different from doing 15 rep sets which have other benefits; it applies for the 2-8 range or so). even training purely for strength, not growth, an entire week is too long to wait.
"So, the claim in 25 depends on time of muscle growth being the only limiting factor on workout frequency. I think that's a mistake. Other important factors are: lactic acid buildup, fatigue, limited amount of time for workouts, and psychological freshness. None of those correspond neatly to muscle growth, and each, I submit, is a reason to focus on one muscle group/workout and /week."
how do any of those argue for a 1/week frequency?
Also, (1) is there a good source for the view that muscle growth stops after a week? (I'm serious here, I've not heard of it, but would like to look closer), (2) wouldn't the drugged up thing make recovery quicker, and therefore make it possible to workout more often? I thought that was the advantage of steroids.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8563679&dopt=Abstract
"That said, it makes sense for folks to experiment to see what works for him/herself."
i don't totally disagree, but most people bodies aren't radically different, and the 6 months or so it takes to see real change is a long time to wait to decide what works. plus the are always dozens of factors changing, which makes it hard to do a real controlled experiment.
Posted by yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 1:06 PM
dead chopped:
the main difference for those looking to lose weight, instead of gain, is in total calorie intake. exercise burns a few calories, but is mainly useful for changing the fat/muscle ratio
try to be conscious of how much you're eating; keeping a journal wherein you enter everything you eat every day can be quite revealing.
easiest things to change are switching to diet sodas or coffee/tea, and wine/whiskey instead of beer, and splenda instead of sugar. fill up on vegetables fruits, beans, whole grains, lean meats. don't make your diet austere (herbs/spices are your frineds) or you'll just give up and eat a gallon of ice cream some afternoon. eat when hungry, but in limited amounts. also don't try to lose all the weight quickly; not because its unhealthy, but because its actually quite easy to lose weight over a long-term period if you just monitor what you are eating.
Posted by yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 1:14 PM
Chopper, now I must fight you.
Labs is skinny and already in shape
BMI is 26. 225 pounds of pure vanilla, baby.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 1:22 PM
but is mainly useful for changing the fat/muscle ratio
45 understates the importance of this for losing weight. It's true that the calories you burn during exercise aren't really that big a deal, and aren't going to make a significant difference (they're almost trivial compared to the amount you take-in/expend just living your day-to-day life). But increasing your muscle/fat ratio will significantly up your resting metabolism, as muscle requires more enrgy to maintain. So you'll burn more calories just being alive, and will have a much easier time eating what you want (within reason) and still maintaining a healthy weight.
So: exercise!
Posted by Urple | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 1:22 PM
I maintain my svelte figure through a rigorous combination of sloth, cigarettes, and skipped meals. Also, generous helpings of pork and wine.
I'll beat all y'all to the funeral home.
Posted by apostropher | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 1:36 PM
Labs, aren't you like 7'6"? 225 is skinny for freaks like you.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 1:42 PM
I've been on a diet the past month and lost about 14lbs... I am still eating the occasional muffin, cake or whatever and still drinking a moderate amount of alcohol
Men suck. Or at least McGrattan sucks.
Posted by LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 1:48 PM
re 47
AFAIR a pound of muscle burns about 6 calories a day at rest. so a person with 30 pounds added, far above what most people at a gym have gained, is burneing ~200 caloreis per day with their extra muscle. its not negligible, but not huge either.
Posted by yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 1:56 PM
Chopperific: yet the fascist heteropatriachy classified me as overweight.
You wouldn't believe how happy I am about that.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 2:02 PM
yoyo--it's actually like 40 calories per day, according to what I just read over at martygallagher.com (the site phred was reccomending--thanks phred!). A 10 pound gain in muscle mass is thus 400 extra calories a day, or the loss of most of a pound a week, ceteris parabus. (Alternatively, one free Big Mac every day!)
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 2:09 PM
Labs--those height/weight charts don't do well with outlier body types. I'm 5'10", but stocky (big rib cage/shoulders)--if I weighed what they say I should weigh, I'd look like Callista Flockhart's anorexic sister.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 2:12 PM
Christ, you're telling me I have to put on more weight?
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 2:16 PM
Only if you change your name to Giles.
Posted by eb | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 2:18 PM
I second the Marty Gallagher recommendation. He can get repetitive (or did in his Post chat, anyway), but he's smart, consistent, and fad-averse.
I believe the bigger muscle groups/more weight/less frequency trend is generally used to build strength and mass. For example, powerlifters will only work a muscle group once a week, using some sort of big compound motion exercise, and for very short sets (not counting warmups, which can take a while). Then they hurry home and resume eating. For looking good/bodybuilding, I think the consensus is that that this approach has never worked for anybody but Mike Mentzer.
So I donno. As others have said, it probably depends on what your goals are. For strength and size it might be helpful. For staying trim it might not.
Posted by tom | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 2:20 PM
I think if you go to all the effore of putting on 10 lbs. of muscle mass, you will have likely burned more than 10 pounds of fat.
But what do I know? The only time I've ever consistenly lost weight are on Atkins style diets where I wind up in a near constant state of rage because I want a piece of pizza (or bread, or pasta, or whatever). Plus my pee smells funny.
Posted by Chopper | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 2:24 PM
re 53:
that number can't be right. muscle is only 1/3-1/2 of the weight of a body. for me personally, it lets say 80 pounds of muscle. I eat about 3000k calories a day. That comes out to about 37calories/pound, not far from Gallagher's number. But muscle isn't the only calorie consume tissue in the body: brain & liver each take up abouta quarter of calories per day. Also, tasks like carrying groceries up the stairs aren't going to scale up in calories as you increase muscle mass, so the proportionate number of calores per pound goes down.
Posted by yoyo | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 2:50 PM
re: 44.
"how do any of those argue for a 1/week frequency?"
1. Lactic acid build-up/soreness takes awhile to dissipate (and, note, that an intense workout, even without going to failure, suffices for a great deal of soreness). (nb: that was true of me even when I lifted groups more than once/week) (nb2: I recognize that soreness is not coextensive with growth - that's why I noted that it was important *regardless* of growth)
2. One's energy levels fall off pretty quickly after about 45 minutes - one hour, and whatever comes later will suffer. Also, cramming in a full body workout in that time frame underworks the parts.
3. It is hard to get psyched to do squats more than once/week. They're just too brutal when done with any intensity.
I won't be dogmatic about once/week/group, like I said, if you've been able to get consistently stronger over the mid- to long-term that that way, go for it. I've been very happy with my progress over the years doing once/week. That, of course, assumes varying rep ranges and regimens.
Re: the claims that going to failure is pretty useless, and that it's better to stop a save strength, and that total volume is what *really* matters.
One does not need to go to failure necessarily, but one does need to work up to the limits of one's capacity to progress. Sometimes that means maxing out at failure, other times it means multiple sets at a static weight ('volume'). Neither is all things considered better, both will work until the routine gets stale.
Posted by phred | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 3:03 PM
Re: Gallagher
His washington post chats are archived online. Go the live discussions page and do a search for "marty gallagher" and you'll get a bunch of hits. He actually spent a lot of time on those, doing follow-ups on questions that were left over at the end of the discussion. It's repetitive, as noted above, but there's a wealth of information there, ranging from advice for the beginner trying to lose weight, to the competitive power-lifter trying to squat many hundreds of pounds. And a lot of the repetitiveness comes from his view that concentrating on a few fundamentals is the major part of the battle.
Posted by phred | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 3:18 PM
re: no. 44
re: 44.
"1. Lactic acid build-up/soreness takes awhile to dissipate (and, note, that an intense workout, even without going to failure, suffices for a great deal of soreness). (nb: that was true of me even when I lifted groups more than once/week) (nb2: I recognize that soreness is not coextensive with growth - that's why I noted that it was important *regardless* of growth)"
well, lactic acid is gone w/in a few minutes. it was believed that lactic acid cause DelayedOnsetMuscleSoreness but this is not the current theory. As for interfering iwth your training, i've never noticed a loss of strength from training, provided it wasn't the first workout after a layoff, and provided i didn't go to failure in the prior workout. however, note that more frequent training results in less doms.
"2. One's energy levels fall off pretty quickly after about 45 minutes - one hour, and whatever comes later will suffer. Also, cramming in a full body workout in that time frame underworks the parts."
if you divide your sets of M, W, and F into a monday workout of .33M+.33W+.33F, it should take about the same amount of time as before, and overall volume will be the same.
Re: the claims that going to failure is pretty useless, and that it's better to stop a save strength, and that total volume is what *really* matters.
"One does not need to go to failure necessarily, but one does need to work up to the limits of one's capacity to progress. Sometimes that means maxing out at failure, other times it means multiple sets at a static weight ('volume'). Neither is all things considered better, both will work until the routine gets stale. "
i won't say its only total volume. tension (weight) is the most important thing to be increasing. but 'failure training' is pretty much worthless.
Posted by Anonymous | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 3:37 PM
I believe the bigger muscle groups/more weight/less frequency trend is generally used to build strength and mass. For example, powerlifters will only work a muscle group once a week, using some sort of big compound motion exercise, and for very short sets (not counting warmups, which can take a while). Then they hurry home and resume eating.
There's powerlifter gyms like Westside are doing the big movements like bench, deadlift, etc. twice a week. One of the days is max effort, the other works explosive power with weights in that 50-60% of max range.
Incorporating powerlifter techniques has worked really well for me. Also helps to keep from getting stale as they rotate the exercises being used frequently.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 6:59 PM
'failure training' is pretty much worthless.
This just isn't true. It's not used as much by bodybuilders, but for competitive powerlifters using the Westside, or conjugate method, working up to a max is a weekly occurrence.
Posted by gswift | Link to this comment | 03-10-06 7:13 PM
Crossfit
The 'open source' fitness movement. Three days on, two days off. Mostly compound lifts for core body strength, with short intense arobic for maximum benefit (not long, endurance training). Short, intense, efficient. And, like LB, they're pretty into the concept 2 rower.
Posted by cw | Link to this comment | 03-13-06 11:46 AM