@Frederick Foresight The up to the second research that confirms all this can be found in the new book called "The One Minute Workout" This is right up your alley.... guaranteed or your money back.
That's not a bad counter analogy. ("The Duel of the Analogists.") Although I don't think the person would destroy his body working out this way if the volume and frequency were kept in check, I do question how sustainable such a regimen would be in the long run. I guess time will tell and Baron will hopefully keep us apprised. And, rightly or wrongly, I continue to wonder if the subsequent muscle groups are getting as much consideration as the preceding ones during a workout with no rest intervals. I'm really not being argumentative here just for its own sake; this is something I have always wondered about concerning short rest intervals, let alone none at all.
It's not possible because my elbow flexors are the most fit part of my body due to many years of intense drinkercise.
Today it is exactly one month since I reduced my resistance workout frequency to once a week, as explained in the quoted post. I measured my blood pressure this morning and I clocked in at 99/72, which is pretty good for an almost-59-year-old guy who takes no meds and who has hypertension running in the family. To be fair, it has been some months since I last took a reading, but when my workout frequency was higher, so was my typical BP albeit within normal limits. Key body measurements remain essentially unchanged and are certainly no worse. I am slightly stronger in a couple of the exercises I do, but no different for the remainder. All in all, I consider this a win and will continue with this frequency for the foreseeable future. If anyone else ever decides to give such a lower workout frequency a try, I'd appreciate hearing how you fare over time. The only caveat is that the workout would have to be very intense, i.e., training to true failure or thereabouts (providing, of course, that your doctor has given you the go-ahead).