Gaining Muscle and Losing Fat (2015)

[Frederick Foresight]

Extended rest between weight lifting sets could help muscle growth:

http://www.newkerala.com/news/2016/fullnews-59092.html

The findings, published in Experimental Physiology, go against the conventional belief that favours shorter periods of rest. The study highlights that short rest intervals may actually impair the processes that control muscle growth.

16 males completed resistance exercises interspersed by either one minute or five minutes of rest. Muscle biopsies were obtained at 0, 4, 24 and 28 hours post-exercise and analysed to determine myofibrillar protein synthesis (MPS) and intercellular signalling.

In the early part of recovery, the increase in MPS from resting levels was two-fold greater in those with longer rest periods. They saw a 152% increase, versus 76% increase in those with short rest intervals.

Dr. Leigh Breen, from the University of Birmingham, explained: With short rests of one minute, though the hormonal response is superior, the actual muscle response is blunted. If you're looking for maximised muscle growth with your training programme, a slightly longer interval between sets may provide a better chance of having the muscle response you're looking for.

The team recommend that novices starting out on weight training programs should take sufficient rest, of at least 2-3 minutes, between weight lifting sets.

Dr. Breen added: Over time, they may need to find ways to push beyond the plateau of muscle building that commonly occurs, and so may gradually decrease their rest periods. For experienced lifters, its possible that they may not experience the same blunted muscle building response to short rest intervals, particularly if they have trained this way for a prolonged period and adapted to this unique metabolic stress. Nonetheless, similar recommendations of 2-3 minutes between sets should help to ensure maximal muscle growth in well trained individuals.

The research team are currently following up the investigation with a longer term study to see effects over a number of months, and further research into how individuals can maximise their training outcomes by manipulating variables, such a rest, in their training.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Some pros and cons of intermittent fasting:

http://www.cbass.com/FAQ(11).htm

 

[CaptainObvious]

Some pros and cons of intermittent fasting:

http://www.cbass.com/FAQ(11).htm

Words to live by.


"If intermittent fasting appeals to you, give it a try. But don't expect benefits that can't be achieved eating regular meals of quality foods--and regular exercise. Sustainability is the key. No diet or exercise regimen will work if you can't stick to it. Don't defeat yourself by making it harder than it needs to be. Find a plan that you enjoy and are comfortable doing as far as you can see, hopefully for life. "

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Here's a bit of a progress report on my routine reconfiguring over the last few years. To quickly review, in ~May 2012 I switched to a 3x/week full-body routine with what was initially a bit less overall weekly volume than the higher volume 2x/week full-body routine I had been doing since about 2005. (Before that I did an ABA, BAB split for well over 10 years, for 3 weekly workouts, which totaled about 7.5 hours a week, including cardio. And before that, who cares.)

So from May 2012 until the end of 2014, I remained at 3x/week full-body, but progressively lowered the volume (number of sets) over time. In January 2015 I did the same routine, but only 2x/week. Before doing so, I took 3 circumference measurements: upper arm, chest and upper leg. At the end of 2015, I took the same measurements again, and the results were the same. So it seems that the 3rd weekly workout I had been doing between May 2012 and December 2014 had no noticeably beneficial effect on either strength or measurements. I did, however, lose a couple of pounds in 2015, but I think that outcome was more likely diet-related.

In April, I mentioned that I would be doing 3 workouts every 2 weeks, down from twice a week. The first such workout began April 20. Five workouts later, it has been just over 3 weeks, and I am due for another workout tomorrow. Of course, 3 weeks is far too soon to comment on the efficacy of this new reduction in workout frequency, and although my strength is largely unchanged since May 2012, the 3 measurements are ever so slightly larger than they were at the beginning of 2016 (and presumably just before I began this new frequency, since they had remained static since I began recording them at the end of December 2014). Although I took care to do it right, the slight difference in measurements is probably measurement error. On the plus side, however, they did not go down. Assuming this remains the case (or, even better, if the measurements improve going forward), this means that I more than halved the weekly workout volume without any negative effect. "More than halved" because, although I went from 3x/week to 3x every 2 weeks, my initial workouts in May 2012 lasted about an hour excluding cardio whereas they now last about 40 minutes. (And I take 2-3 minutes between sets, depending on the exercise.)

And so, I'll have to wait and see if the measurements improve (not really likely) or at least remain the same. Either way, as long as they don't go down, it'll be a win for me.

So there might be something to this HIT thing after all...

 

[fhl]

Here's a bit of a progress report on my routine reconfiguring over the last few years. To quickly review, in ~May 2012 I switched to a 3x/week full-body routine with what was initially a bit less overall weekly volume than the higher volume 2x/week full-body routine I had been doing since about 2005. (Before that I did an ABA, BAB split for well over 10 years, for 3 weekly workouts, which totaled about 7.5 hours a week, including cardio. And before that, who cares.)

So from May 2012 until the end of 2014, I remained at 3x/week full-body, but progressively lowered the volume (number of sets) over time. In January 2015 I did the same routine, but only 2x/week. Before doing so, I took 3 circumference measurements: upper arm, chest and upper leg. At the end of 2015, I took the same measurements again, and the results were the same. So it seems that the 3rd weekly workout I had been doing between May 2012 and December 2014 had no noticeably beneficial effect on either strength or measurements. I did, however, lose a couple of pounds in 2015, but I think that outcome was more likely diet-related.

In April, I mentioned that I would be doing 3 workouts every 2 weeks, down from twice a week. The first such workout began April 20. Five workouts later, it has been just over 3 weeks, and I am due for another workout tomorrow. Of course, 3 weeks is far too soon to comment on the efficacy of this new reduction in workout frequency, and although my strength is largely unchanged since May 2012, the 3 measurements are ever so slightly larger than they were at the beginning of 2016 (and presumably just before I began this new frequency, since they had remained static since I began recording them at the end of December 2014). Although I took care to do it right, the slight difference in measurements is probably measurement error. On the plus side, however, they did not go down. Assuming this remains the case (or, even better, if the measurements improve going forward), this means that I more than halved the weekly workout volume without any negative effect. "More than halved" because, although I went from 3x/week to 3x every 2 weeks, my initial workouts in May 2012 lasted about an hour excluding cardio whereas they now last about 40 minutes. (And I take 2-3 minutes between sets, depending on the exercise.)

And so, I'll have to wait and see if the measurements improve (not really likely) or at least remain the same. Either way, as long as they don't go down, it'll be a win for me.

So there might be something to this HIT thing after all...

It seems like your goal is how little you can do without losing anything. I have to admit that I hadn't even thought of that as a potential goal in my life. Being that i'm 61, I probably will in the not too distant future, but right now, it still seems more rewarding to seek challenges that will produce gains. I guess to each his own.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

It seems like your goal is how little you can do without losing anything. I have to admit that I hadn't even thought of that as a potential goal in my life. Being that i'm 61, I probably will in the not too distant future, but right now, it still seems more rewarding to seek challenges that will produce gains. I guess to each his own.

During my peak crazy, I was working out 3 times a week for a total of 7.5 hours, which included 1.5 hours of fairly intense but steady-state cardio. This was up to about 2005, well into my mid 40s. Since I have always trained hard (and continue to do so), I almost always had some joint discomfort or pain. This was admittedly due in part to some poor form at the time, but also to the volume and intensity as I was moving on into middle age. I was sold on the more-is-better philosophy for years and never came up for air. You're more than welcome to continue where I left off.

More recently, I began reading the latest research on both resistance training and cardio. I only wish I had done so sooner. Now my goal is one of efficacy and efficiency, given that natural lifters have limited recovery abilities, especially as they get older and continue to train hard. Working out hard takes you well below baseline. If you do too much of it and don't allow for enough recovery given your available resources, then you remain below baseline. However, you first have to return to baseline before you can go into supercompensation (i.e., getting stronger/bigger).

So the choice is yours. You can work yourself into the ground and glory in it if you like. I've had my fill of that. Whereas at one point I was approaching my workouts with some trepidation (for lack of a better word) because of the volume and intensity (and frequency) involved, I now look forward to my workouts. I know I'll go all out, but that it will only be for a short while and I won't have to do it again until I actually feel above baseline rather than perpetually run down. More to the point, I no longer look upon it with a sense of obligation but rather with anticipation because I love the short-lived, all-out challenge. Besides, lifting weights is not an exercise in unending endurance.

So yes, fhl, to each his own.

As an aside, I think it's great that you're seeking challenges to produce gains. What kind of gains, exactly? I've been working out hard for about 40 years, with only occasional medium-term breaks in my earlier years when school and early career required it. What kind of gains do you propose I should be seeking at the age of 57? Any gains at this point would only come if I had been overdoing it and am now allowing for more recovery. Otherwise, the best I can hope for is maintenance for as long as possible followed by a very slow descent. I think my goals have to be a bit more tempered than a young or even middle aged guy who just started lifting weights.

 

[CaptainObvious]

During my peak crazy, I was working out 3 times a week for a total of 7.5 hours, which included 1.5 hours of fairly intense but steady-state cardio. This was up to about 2005, well into my mid 40s. Since I have always trained hard (and continue to do so), I almost always had some joint discomfort or pain. This was admittedly due in part to some poor form at the time, but also to the volume and intensity as I was moving on into middle age. I was sold on the more-is-better philosophy for years and never came up for air. You're more than welcome to continue where I left off.

More recently, I began reading the latest research on both resistance training and cardio. I only wish I had done so sooner. Now my goal is one of efficacy and efficiency, given that natural lifters have limited recovery abilities, especially as they get older and continue to train hard. Working out hard takes you well below baseline. If you do too much of it and don't allow for enough recovery given your available resources, then you remain below baseline. However, you first have to return to baseline before you can go into supercompensation (i.e., getting stronger/bigger).

So the choice is yours. You can work yourself into the ground and glory in it if you like. I've had my fill of that. Whereas at one point I was approaching my workouts with some trepidation (for lack of a better word) because of the volume and intensity (and frequency) involved, I now look forward to my workouts. I know I'll go all out, but that it will only be for a short while and I won't have to do it again until I actually feel above baseline rather than perpetually run down. More to the point, I no longer look upon it with a sense of obligation but rather with anticipation because I love the short-lived, all-out challenge. Besides, lifting weights is not an exercise in unending endurance.

So yes, fhl, to each his own.

As an aside, I think it's great that you're seeking challenges to produce gains. What kind of gains, exactly? I've been working out hard for about 40 years, with only occasional medium-term breaks in my earlier years when school and early career required it. What kind of gains do you propose I should be seeking at the age of 57? Any gains at this point would only come if I had been overdoing it and am now allowing for more recovery. Otherwise, the best I can hope for is maintenance for as long as possible followed by a very slow descent. I think my goals have to be a bit more tempered than a young or even middle aged guy who just started lifting weights.

Things do change as time goes on. I know, that's heady stuff. It can be a tough lesson to learn as the aches and pains reach a point where they just won't subside. And then there's the stamina, at least for me. I just run out of juice if I go too hard for a two days in a row. I just can't pull it off anymore. I've cut from 5 days to 4 and feel much better, but I still have more fatigue that I care to admit. For me it's not a matter of not having the time. I have plenty of that, and I really enjoy going to the gym. It's in no way a burden for me for either time or enthusiasm. Age is simply taking it's toll. However, I plan on making a good looking corpse and one that they won't need a forklift to carry towards the hole, or a steel mill sized furnace to incinerate. Haven't made up my mind whether to feed the worms or be dust. I'm leaning towards getting cooked. Now I've gone off the rails. Back to fitness.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

but I still have more fatigue that I care to admit.

Then my guess is that you're likely not allowing enough time for recovery. You might want to revisit either volume or frequency (not intensity, since that should remain high, health permitting), and try spending more time above baseline.

From what I recall, you do one resistance workout a week with the remainder dedicated to cardio. Two observations: first, too much cardio impedes your strength training progress; and second, my understanding is that you don't need too much cardio to benefit from it. I don't pretend to know where you should draw the line, but having more fatigue than you care to admit suggests that you should get your pen out and recalculate.

See ya above baseline.

 

[fhl]

During my peak crazy, I was working out 3 times a week for a total of 7.5 hours, which included 1.5 hours of fairly intense but steady-state cardio. This was up to about 2005, well into my mid 40s. Since I have always trained hard (and continue to do so), I almost always had some joint discomfort or pain. This was admittedly due in part to some poor form at the time, but also to the volume and intensity as I was moving on into middle age. I was sold on the more-is-better philosophy for years and never came up for air. You're more than welcome to continue where I left off.

More recently, I began reading the latest research on both resistance training and cardio. I only wish I had done so sooner. Now my goal is one of efficacy and efficiency, given that natural lifters have limited recovery abilities, especially as they get older and continue to train hard. Working out hard takes you well below baseline. If you do too much of it and don't allow for enough recovery given your available resources, then you remain below baseline. However, you first have to return to baseline before you can go into supercompensation (i.e., getting stronger/bigger).

So the choice is yours. You can work yourself into the ground and glory in it if you like. I've had my fill of that. Whereas at one point I was approaching my workouts with some trepidation (for lack of a better word) because of the volume and intensity (and frequency) involved, I now look forward to my workouts. I know I'll go all out, but that it will only be for a short while and I won't have to do it again until I actually feel above baseline rather than perpetually run down. More to the point, I no longer look upon it with a sense of obligation but rather with anticipation because I love the short-lived, all-out challenge. Besides, lifting weights is not an exercise in unending endurance.

So yes, fhl, to each his own.

As an aside, I think it's great that you're seeking challenges to produce gains. What kind of gains, exactly? I've been working out hard for about 40 years, with only occasional medium-term breaks in my earlier years when school and early career required it. What kind of gains do you propose I should be seeking at the age of 57? Any gains at this point would only come if I had been overdoing it and am now allowing for more recovery. Otherwise, the best I can hope for is maintenance for as long as possible followed by a very slow descent. I think my goals have to be a bit more tempered than a young or even middle aged guy who just started lifting weights.

The research you've posted on here, as far as I can tell, has all been how the less is more philosophy achieves strength gains at least equal or commensurate with high volume workouts. The title of this thread is even 'gaining muscle and losing fat'. Perhaps you could point out the particular articles that stated they were some kind of maintenance routine. For instance, the Clarence Bass articles where he talks about training in his sixties. It certainly appeared that he was going for gains of one sort or another. Either strength or symmetry. Do you see it differently?

Iow, the whole thread is about making gains. Do you think that people 57 yrs old should just stay away from this thread because it is no longer possible unless you 'work yourself into the ground'? (your words)

In a thread about how to achieve strength gains, you have posted numerous articles on, and argued repeatedly, about how high volume is not required. That gains can be achieved with low volume. And now you tell us that you're doing it and you are seeing no gains. Only maintenance. I guess that's the difference between theory and practice.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

The research you've posted on here, as far as I can tell, has all been how the less is more philosophy achieves strength gains at least equal or commensurate with high volume workouts. The title of this thread is even 'gaining muscle and losing fat'. Perhaps you could point out the particular articles that stated they were some kind of maintenance routine. For instance, the Clarence Bass articles where he talks about training in his sixties. It certainly appeared that he was going for gains of one sort or another. Either strength or symmetry. Do you see it differently?

Iow, the whole thread is about making gains. Do you think that people 57 yrs old should just stay away from this thread because it is no longer possible unless you 'work yourself into the ground'? (your words)

In a thread about how to achieve strength gains, you have posted numerous articles on, and argued repeatedly, about how high volume is not required. That gains can be achieved with low volume. And now you tell us that you're doing it and you are seeing no gains. Only maintenance. I guess that's the difference between theory and practice.

Seriously, what's with the attitude?

I'm already as lean as I need to be. As for strength and size, you think people who started early and worked out hard and diligently their whole adult lives will continue to make gains forever? You don't think that, even after a number of decades, a person might eventually reach his genetic potential? Evidently, you haven't been at this for very long. As for Clarence Bass, I think he's a great guy. I've read a number of his pieces on his website and learned from them. And he's in great shape. But have you noticed that, after a certain point, he stopped getting progressively larger and leaner?

http://www.cbass.com/PICTORAL.HTM

And as for "working yourself into the ground," I was alluding to the fact that it defeats the actual objective; you risk going into negative territory. Was that not clear enough for you? Perhaps you should read my post again, except maybe more slowly this time.

I'd love to continue making gains. And I'm willing to put in the effort provided that I don't overtax my recovery capability, which would defeat the purpose of the enterprise. However, I'm also being realistic about how much farther I, personally, can expect to make progress given my specific circumstances and training history.

This is a good thread. I think it has something for all ages and training ages. And I welcome criticism and debate with respect to anything I have posted. But please try not to detract from this thread by attempting to score points with cheap and misguided shots. Let's leave that for the next forum down the list, shall we?