Recovery Time between workouts

[rocketman987]

The problem is there is no objective measure of recovery. Hell, there ain't even a definition.

So, we are left to ourselves.

Everyday workouts, not even if you are juicing to the max.

Every other day? Probably too much for juicers & naturals too.

Every third day. Still feels like too much, right, especially working out hard.

Every fourth day? No we arte gettining somewhere. PROBABLY, too much. especially if every set is to absolute failure.

Every two weeks? That's probably out the outer, but can't be dismissed. run a marathon, need more thatn two weeks. might need two months, which most people in the gym are running a marathon so to speak because they want to get big, quick.

So, where do we find ourselves, les than twice per week but more than once every two weeks??

this analysis on the genius level..

taking a very complex problem which thre is no ready solution,

and making it work

all you dipships posting, right after ..BS

 

[CaptainObvious]

Sure, all good points. The question to ask is, Are they succeeding because of what they're doing or in spite of it? Meaning, are they doing it as efficiently as possible? Also, you need to factor in the intensity, because depending on that variable, it can throw the others out of whack. So be sure to compare apples to apples. I did my own research and then did my own testing in the gym over time and came to my own conclusion. You'll have to do the same for yourself as will everyone else.

See, I'm no longer will to spend the time, effort and joint wear on "maximizing," whatever that may be. As I've said often I'm going for the best bang for the buck. Carpinelli showed how Richard Berger's own 1962 study only showed a 3% improvement from doing 3 sets over doing a single set. 3%. And as I once said before in another thread, you can choose to pay $10,000 for a $10,000 car, or you can choose to pay $30,000 for a $10,300 car. Choice is yours.

You have the data and your own personal results to back things up. No doubt this is working for you, and I know it works for others as well. At the end of the day we all have to find what we can sustain over the long haul, be it pumping the iron, the diet, the lifestyle we choose. Anyone who is still knocking it out at 60 gets a tip of the hat from me, as does anyone at any age who is taking their physical and mental health seriously.

 

[rocketman987]

this analysis on the genius level..

taking a very complex problem which thre is no ready solution,

and making it work

all you dipships posting, right after ..BS

this is sheer genius. no body else sees this.

taking a complex problex problem with not hard solution, ok what do we do from here ..approach


ok, lets work it backword
its genius

 

[Frederick Foresight]

this analysis on the genius level..

taking a very complex problem which thre is no ready solution,

and making it work

all you dipships posting, right after ..BS

The research serves as a reference point, a starting point, from which to tailor what suits your objectives and genetics.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Reading these studies where they compare muscle mass between two groups, I wonder if the participants are really working to overload. There is a distinction between working to failure vs overload, and often these terms are mistakenly used interchangeably.

Working to failure means you cannot do another rep because you depleted your muscle energy (ATP), or you are simply fatigued, or your mind told you to stop due to discomfort. Working to failure is a good workout and will stimulate your muscle and preserve your muscle mass, but not sufficient for growth (hypertrophy).

Muscle growth requires working to overload where you exceed your muscle's capacity. That's what stimulates the repair and growth process. You must have sufficient energy to do this, which means you need to rest between sets to restore your ATP, typically 2 - 3 minutes. It's also psychological, you must have the willful determination to push yourself to extreme intensity.

I'll bet a lot of people are only working to failure but imagine they are working to overload.

I take a few minutes rest between my single set exercises (apart from the drop sets that I do for a couple of the exercises). But I'm not quite sure what you mean by your distinction between failure and overload in the context you describe. And how can you exceed your muscle's capacity?

 

[Trader13]

I take a few minutes rest between my single set exercises (apart from the drop sets that I do for a couple of the exercises). But I'm not quite sure what you mean by your distinction between failure and overload in the context you describe. And how can you exceed your muscle's capacity?

You're posts have got me thinking about reducing my 3 set exercises down to only 2 sets, with the first set being a strong warm-up. Anything I can do to reduce the total workout time is a great benefit to my schedule.

I'm probably not the right person to answer your question about exceeding your muscle's capacity. My undestanding is that lifting to overload causes micro tears that initiate the recovery and growth process as your muscle tries to adapt to the increased demands you're placing on it.

Exceeding your muscle's capacity is similar in some ways to straining your ankle. You've gone beyond the normal capacity of your ligaments and torn them. However, with muscle there's a natural mechanism to repair and grow back stronger.

That's my layperson's explanation. Let the beating begin

 

[Frederick Foresight]

My undestanding is that lifting to overload causes micro tears that initiate the recovery and growth process as your muscle tries to adapt to the increased demands you're placing on it.

I think what you're describing is essentially training to failure; to the point where the muscle can no longer deal with the resistance it is presented. This is what results in micro tears and adaptation. At least as I understand it.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

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.

 

[Baron]

The problem is that there's no real quantifiable way (that I'm aware of) to determine if you're fully recovered or not, so we just end up going on feeling alone. Am I the type that will recover in 4 days? Or the one that might need 10 days? Who knows? The only tangible sign that we haven't fully recovered yet is muscle soreness but that doesn't always happen with every workout, so I don't think that going on muscle soreness, or lack thereof, is a very reliable indicator either.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I also can't imagine a way of determining the threshold at which I'm fully recovered, although I think there are tangible signs if you go way over the line.

In my own case, after reading the research and other material on high intensity/low volume/low frequency training, I decided to test it for myself. And so I gradually reduced both volume and frequency, and looked for signs of weakening and so on. At first, I seemed to get both a little bit stronger and (very) slightly bigger when reducing the frequency, but that was transient. However, I did not get weaker and key measurements (arms/chest/legs) remained essentially unchanged as a direct result of the reduced frequency and volume. And let's not kid ourselves, after working out for so many years, and at my age, I can't really expect to get stronger or larger anyway. Not that I'm an amazing physical specimen by any stretch, but my strongest and biggest days are behind me. That's just how it is. And while I'd like to get a bit bigger and a bit stronger, increased volume and frequency didn't do it.

So I think it comes down to this: Do you really want to do more than you need to? If so, then what the hell, go for it. But after years of working out probably well more than I needed to, and having had to schedule my life around my workouts, I really like the increased freedom now. Initially, I felt guilty not going to the gym more often but now I'm okay with it. Perhaps in the future, I'll increase my frequency. But not in the foreseeable future. Not any time soon.

I should add that even if I had gotten a little bit smaller and a little bit weaker (just a little!), I'd still be okay with it, given the time saving and the reduced joint wear, which meant nothing to me way back when but presently has more value. Also, I should note that my blood work at my last physical actually showed a bit of improvement on a couple of measures, although I suspect that's more diet-related.