RECOVERY by M. Doug McGuff, MD We have spent most of this book talking about what one should do while in the gym. Of equal importance is the time you spend out of the gym. While the workout itself is responsible for stimulating changes in your body; it is actually your body itself that produces those changes. We must always remember that the changes we are asking the body to make are metabolically expensive. Let us say, for example, that we want to add a pound of muscle to your body. Picture a pound of ground beef at the grocery store. That is a lot of tissue for your body to synthesize. For your body to mobilize the necessary hormones and nutrients to serve the DNA-driven process of protein synthesis, it will require something very basic: time. How much time is a critically important issue. Exercise can not only serve to stimulate physical adaptations, it can prevent them. Stated differently, if you bring the exercise stimulus back to the body before it has had time to make its adaptation, you will actuallly interfere with and prevent the response from occuring. The point in time when your body finally makes its adaptation is the earliest point in time when it can productively receive the exercise stimulus again. Any sooner, and the exercise will only short-circuit the adaptation process. If you workout too soon, you will know that you have done so because you will actually be weaker in your workout rather than stronger. You will not be able to lift the same amount of resistance for as long as you did in the last workout. If you have waited long enough, you should be stronger on every set of every movement in your workout. We have found through experimentation that 4 days is the minimum that the most average adults will require between workouts. Some people may require as many as 9 or 10 days. In general, the vast majority can recover sufficiently in seven days. A concern that many might have is that if 4 days is adequate for them, will 7 days be too long? In other words, will there be decompensation during those extra three days? In my experience the answer is: no. We again must remember that the adaptation we are making is to a relatively severe stimulus and the changes made are metabolically expensive. We are building muscle tissue and upregulating metabolic systems which support the functioning of this new tissue. Because of the expense of this process, the body does not seem to allow these adaptations to deteriorate quickly. You do not spend a year building a house that you expect to crumble to the ground over the next year. In a similar way, your body does not make expensive investments that it expects to deteriorate quickly. If a person has been working out for 20 weeks or longer, deterioration may not begin for as long as six weeks. But even in beginners, if 4 days is adequate, 7 days will not be too long. Other forms of exercise (such as jogging, biking, etc.) have shorter deterioration periods. When an exercise stimulus is less severe, the resultant adaptation is less well preserved. Adaptations from jogging or other "aerobic" type activities will start to reverse within 48-72 hours. In general, at Ultimate Exercise, my personal training facility, we have found that 7 days is a long enough respite for just about everyone and is too long for no-one. You may be tempted to sneak in extra exercise, but remember your body makes adaptations when you are out of the gym, not when you are in the gym. http://mikementzer.com/
I'm surprised no one had any comment one way or the other about this piece. I thought it was a very good article.
Just an observation, but maybe no one commented because this is just another article supporting what you've already stated in numerous other posts and threads. Why start another thread? I do however have a question. If such frequency is the enemy of muscle strength and growth, why do so many people show strength and muscle development with workouts much more frequent than the writer suggests? I would believe that most people would agree that the overwhelming majority of people in this body building scene are working out a hell of a lot more frequently than every 4-7 days. I see lots of very fit, very strong, and very muscular guys and gals who are in the gym no less than four days a week. Something doesn't jive with this thesis just based on general observation.
Exactly....the research only supports training once a week for rank novices...after a few weeks, frequency has to increase. At the top of the tree, elite athletes should be training 12 sessions a week.
For the sake of argument, conventional wisdom is always conventional but not always wise. Again for the sake of argument, the 3 relevant variables are intensity, volume and frequency. Intensity is the most important and the least forgiving; if your workouts are not sufficiently intense, then volume and frequency will make little in the way of inroads. So while the people you refer to may train frequently and with a fair amount of volume, how intensely are they working out? Perhaps they are employing a fair amount of intensity, but ask yourself if that is the most efficient way to go about achieving their end goal. No one said that HIT is the only way to go. it is just presented to be the most efficient means to achieve the end of strength gains and muscle size. Consider Mike Mentzer, who made his initial gains in size with volume training. When Casey Viator introduced him to Arthur Jones. Mentzer then became an HIT enthusiast and employed far, far less volume than his contemporaries going forward. We know they were all doing steroids, so that's a given. So steroids and genetics were principal ingredients. But when it came to working out, it was very much a part-time thing for Mentzer compared to the training regimens of his competitors, some of whom worked out twice a day, 6 days a week. So it comes down to manipulating the 3 variables to advantage. That is the point of HIT. I would think it has value.
On the contrary. Beginners should work out more often because they cannot summon the kind of intensity that requires longer recovery. As for elite athletes working out 12 times a week, sorry bro, but that's nonsense. They may practice their sport that often, no argument there. But meaningful strength training 12x/week on top of their sports training? Not a chance.
You're right. I should have just posted the piece in an existing thread. Moreover, perhaps I have gone on long enough about the topic.
First off I think we can all agree that recovery is an important and often overlooked component of a solid training program, especially as we age. I learned that the hard way last year. You also provide some solid evidence that one does not need to live in the gym to get good, or even great results. Where time management and efficiency are of a concern to someone the programs you suggest provide a viable alternative to the conventionally accepted workout routine. I will say however, IMO, that efficiency and time in the gym isn't always a prime concern for everyone. Good results can be attained through a variety of methods. For an old retired dinosaur like myself I have all the time in the world. I look forward to my gym time. Gives me something to do. I would also think, again just an opinion, that less frequent workouts would require a very clean diet. Those cheat days and meals would have more of a negative impact than for someone who hits the gym more frequently. I always appreciate reading your opinions and experience on the subject of heath and fitness, and look forward to reading more.
Nothing wrong with that. You can go to the gym every day if it pleases you. But you probably shouldn't train with weights at maximum intensity each time. Otherwise, I think you will find your workouts to be at cross-purposes with your objectives. I imagine there is some truth there. But how much? Remember that we agreed you can't outrun a bad diet. So if you want to be lean, then a clean diet is a given. A workout doesn't incrementally burn all that many calories. What burns calories well is muscle, at an estimated rate of 50-100 calories a day per pound, if you will recall. So the more muscle you have, the higher your metabolism will be, all else being equal, and the leaner you will get on a given dietary regimen. To build muscle optimally, you have to train hard, briefly and infrequently (at least for that specific segment of your training) to avoid overtraining and the the stress hormones that result from such overtraining which stimulate fat storage. You will recall this thread: https://www.elitetrader.com/et/threads/body-fat-hard-facts-about-soft-tissue.310358/ The idea is not to limit physical activity, but to limit the amount of activity dedicated to serious and hard strength training. I weigh myself twice a day; when I wake up in the morning and then again just before retiring. Since I reduced by frequency to once a week (again) a few weeks ago, which includes a few minutes of HIIT cardio both at the end of the workout and one day on the weekend, I actually lost almost 2 pounds even though my arm, chest and leg measurements are ever so slightly better (could just be measurement error, but if so, it didn't go the other way). I did not alter my diet, I always eat clean and am never, ever hungry. And I'll be 59 later this summer.* So I'm not convinced that I have to go out of my way to eat a lot cleaner than I already do because of my reduced gym time. * Catalog of gift ideas and a countdown of shopping days remaining available on request.
Totally incorrect. Elite athletes recover very quickly, literally in hours and in order for them to maintain or even try to surpass their muscularity and fitness levels, they need to work far harder. Not really a problem since for most of them, it's their job. Beginners have it easy...just turn up at the gym !