Here's a bit of food for thought regarding workout frequency and intensity.
The linked article describes a 37-year-old man's experience with training just short of failure:
http://www.cbass.com/KevinDye.htm
You will note that he has worked out for over 20 years, presently has a fairly abbreviated routine, and works out twice a week. He reports to have made gains in strength and size by not going all the way to failure, as he had previously done.
There is some debate regarding the need to go to failure to maximize results. Although I've tried stopping just short of failure when I first read about this idea a couple of years or so ago, it never really sat well with me. Regardless of how I tried to convince myself otherwise, in the end, the stopping point seemed vaguely arbitrary. And so, despite fits and starts with training just short of failure, I resumed going to failure because I felt most at home doing so. The book Body By Science makes a compelling case to train to failure to maximize inroads, as does a study that I posted here a while back:
http://www.hituni.com/the-science-o...-better-than-repetition-maximum/#.Vzyg4Wz2ZO-
This study was conducted on subjects who had some training experience.
What is interesting is that the guy in the first article did mostly compounds not-to-failure 2x a week, whereas the study subjects in the second article did mostly isolation work (which is less intense and metabolically demanding than compound work, all else being equal) to actual failure, also 2x a week. And they both evidently achieved better results. So it then follows that if one were to do almost entirely compounds and to failure, it would make sense to reduce the frequency to something less than 2x a week in order for the work not to exceed one's recovery ability. Makes sense, no? And thus, my 3x-every-2-weeks routine was born.
The argument is not flawless, but it's not without merit.
The linked article describes a 37-year-old man's experience with training just short of failure:
http://www.cbass.com/KevinDye.htm
You will note that he has worked out for over 20 years, presently has a fairly abbreviated routine, and works out twice a week. He reports to have made gains in strength and size by not going all the way to failure, as he had previously done.
There is some debate regarding the need to go to failure to maximize results. Although I've tried stopping just short of failure when I first read about this idea a couple of years or so ago, it never really sat well with me. Regardless of how I tried to convince myself otherwise, in the end, the stopping point seemed vaguely arbitrary. And so, despite fits and starts with training just short of failure, I resumed going to failure because I felt most at home doing so. The book Body By Science makes a compelling case to train to failure to maximize inroads, as does a study that I posted here a while back:
http://www.hituni.com/the-science-o...-better-than-repetition-maximum/#.Vzyg4Wz2ZO-
This study was conducted on subjects who had some training experience.
What is interesting is that the guy in the first article did mostly compounds not-to-failure 2x a week, whereas the study subjects in the second article did mostly isolation work (which is less intense and metabolically demanding than compound work, all else being equal) to actual failure, also 2x a week. And they both evidently achieved better results. So it then follows that if one were to do almost entirely compounds and to failure, it would make sense to reduce the frequency to something less than 2x a week in order for the work not to exceed one's recovery ability. Makes sense, no? And thus, my 3x-every-2-weeks routine was born.
The argument is not flawless, but it's not without merit.
Last edited:

How many sets do you do in total on your lifting day?