Thanks for the link. From the same author:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/lifting-weights-twice-a-week-may-aid-the-brain/?_r=0
Gaining Muscle and Losing Fat (2015)
- Thread starter Baron
- Start date
- Status
Thanks for the link. From the same author:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/10/21/lifting-weights-twice-a-week-may-aid-the-brain/?_r=0
And here I thought that "juicing" meant something else entirely in weight lifting parlance...
LOL!Not to belabor the point, but I'm sure you know how we liberals feel about that sort of thing.
I have a question for you guys on exercise sequence.
From the get-go, I always worked each muscle group to conclusion before moving on to the next one. So, for example, presently I start with legs, move on to back and then do chest. I end the lifting routine with a bit of shoulder pressing. I very briefly tried supersetting a long time ago when I did more volume, but it didn't appeal to me, either in practise or in theory.
I don't plan on doing supersetting now either, because I will continue to take a good two minutes or so between sets. However, as I presently do only one set each of two exercises for each of back and chest, I'm going to try a back exercise, followed by a chest exercise, to be followed by a different back exercise and then a different chest exercise.
Have any of you guys played around with this kind of sequencing and, if so, how did it compare with doing each muscle group to conclusion? I figure it's probably not going to make any real difference, but I'm curious to know if any of you favor one approach over the other, and why.
From the get-go, I always worked each muscle group to conclusion before moving on to the next one. So, for example, presently I start with legs, move on to back and then do chest. I end the lifting routine with a bit of shoulder pressing. I very briefly tried supersetting a long time ago when I did more volume, but it didn't appeal to me, either in practise or in theory.
I don't plan on doing supersetting now either, because I will continue to take a good two minutes or so between sets. However, as I presently do only one set each of two exercises for each of back and chest, I'm going to try a back exercise, followed by a chest exercise, to be followed by a different back exercise and then a different chest exercise.
Have any of you guys played around with this kind of sequencing and, if so, how did it compare with doing each muscle group to conclusion? I figure it's probably not going to make any real difference, but I'm curious to know if any of you favor one approach over the other, and why.
I have found that using an interrupted sequence works best for me. I'll do two sets of one thing, followed by two sets of something else. When I have completed each routine I'm doing for that day, I will go back and do one more set of everything with heavier weight. Doing this helps me push that weight on the final set for all exercises.
When I did complete sets of everything before moving on to the next I found that works great for the first 2-3 exercises, but the last couple suffered as I was tapped out by then.
When I did complete sets of everything before moving on to the next I found that works great for the first 2-3 exercises, but the last couple suffered as I was tapped out by then.
That was ~sort of along the lines of what I was thinking, although my volume is much lower than yours. Rather than doing both single-set exercises for back, one after the other, to be followed by my two single-set chest exercises, I was hoping that by mixing it up I would be able to do a better set of dips, which is my first chest exercise. I tried that today and, despite keeping my break between sets at the same ~2 minutes, I was not able to do more reps with the same weight. And judging by my ending where I usually do mid-rep at failure, I doubt that I could have upped the weight a bit for the same number of reps either.
And so, my first foray into mixing up the exercise sequence between muscle groups rather than doing all (both) sets for each muscle group before moving on to the next muscle group was not a raging success. I had really hoped to do a better set of dips as an indication that I was on to something. I suppose if I did more volume that there ~might have been a noticeable difference, but as things stand, not so much; six of one, half dozen of the other. Of course, a single workout is hardly sufficient to draw much of a conclusion, but I'm guessing the next few workouts won't look much different.
And so, my first foray into mixing up the exercise sequence between muscle groups rather than doing all (both) sets for each muscle group before moving on to the next muscle group was not a raging success. I had really hoped to do a better set of dips as an indication that I was on to something. I suppose if I did more volume that there ~might have been a noticeable difference, but as things stand, not so much; six of one, half dozen of the other. Of course, a single workout is hardly sufficient to draw much of a conclusion, but I'm guessing the next few workouts won't look much different.
^ I'm thinking that because you seem to be where you want to be your workout is more one of maintenance. Correct me if I'm wrong. I'm still trying to get stronger and leaner, so I do more sets, albeit it with lighter weight I'm sure.
Well, I seem to be where I can be, naturally anyway. And although I wouldn't mind getting a bit stronger and adding a couple more pounds of muscle, I'm not complaining. If you've been at it long enough, at a certain point in middle age it becomes about maintenance.
As for your doing more sets to get both stronger and leaner, I fully understand the rationale (and lived by it for years), but the research seems to indicate that most people tend to overshoot on volume beyond what is necessary. I won't pretend to know where the volume sweet spot is. But I can tell you that I'm doing a lot less volume than I used to a few years earlier, and I don't seem to be regressing. And up until the point where I dropped the volume, I was no longer progressing either. So, in retrospect, all that extra volume appears to have been superfluous. I should point out, though, that intensity was always very high, so that part has been a constant.
You mentioned using lighter vs. heavier weight. Have a look at this site; I think the piece will be worth your time:
http://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm
As an aside, I recall from one of your earlier posts that you spend a fair amount of time in the gym and do a fair amount of cardio. Keep in mind that doing too much can be counterproductive even in taking and keeping fat off. So, again, the relationship between effort and results is evidently not quite so linear. (I wish I knew the cut-off point, or at least the marginal rate of utility.) Some food for thought from a few links on the subject I came across after a cursory search:
http://www.chicagonow.com/get-fit-c...outs-are-making-you-gain-weight-and-body-fat/
http://www.livestrong.com/article/4...ercise-not-enough-calories-cause-weight-gain/
http://chriskresser.com/why-you-may-need-to-exercise-less/
Last edited:
Interesting articles and the counter intuitive approach makes one reconsider, which I'll put some thought into. Thanks.
- Status