Recovery Time between workouts

[speedo]

No, I did not. I had to look it up. I see that it is co-authored by John Little, who also co-authored Doug McGuff's Body By Science as well as some of Mentzer's work. Little also wrote about something called Max Contraction, which sounds like the same thing. It sounds isometric-y, which I don't find very appealing, since I prefer full range of motion. But to be fair, I don't know enough about it to render a valid opinion. Could you give a few highlights, and do you use it, yourself?

No, I bought the book but never used. The idea is full range but one or two very heavy reps.

 

[rocketman987]

Yes, but I'm still working out as though I'm looking to gain in strength and size. "Maintenance" sounds like coasting. If you saw my workout, I don't think you'd see it as coasting. As for the frequency, I already noted that I hit a plateau at higher volume and frequency, so why bother with higher volume and frequency if less gives me the same outcome? The only thing that I haven't decreased is intensity. I have arguably increased it because I now hold briefly at concentric failure and finish with a very slow negative, plus I do 2 drop sets in similar fashion for each of a couple of exercises.

What you are describing is diminishing returns hitting your genetic limits, you realize this. It is maintenance you seek now, you suggest you want to train less because you realize this? That's wise, less training means less chance to injury. Every workout exposes you to potential injury.

This might be the time to experiment (safely) with other routines & schemes knowing that you probably won't get any bigger or stronger, but keeping an eye that you don't lose anything too?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

No, I bought the book but never used. The idea is full range but one or two very heavy reps.

When I was younger, I liked low reps to failure, int the neighborhood of 5 or 6. I would do subsequent sets with lower weights for more reps but my first work set after warm-up would be with the heaviest weight and for the fewest reps. Even then I wouldn't consider only a couple of reps, let alone now. I'm much more conscious of joint health, especially since I've had shoulder injuries years ago in the gym, and more recently outside of it. So I guess it's not for me.

A couple of questions. Why did you never try it? At what speed are the one or two reps performed? What is the "static" part?

 

[speedo]

When I was younger, I liked low reps to failure, int the neighborhood of 5 or 6. I would do subsequent sets with lower weights for more reps but my first working set would be with the heaviest weight and for the fewest reps. Even then I wouldn't consider only a couple of reps, let alone now. I'm much more conscious of joint health, especially since I've had shoulder injuries years ago in the gym, and more recently outside of it. So I guess it's not for me.

A couple of questions. Why did you never try it? At what speed are the one or two reps performed? What is the "static" part?

It's been years since I looked at the book. If I dig it out, I will send it to you, probably be more useful in your library.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

It's been years since I looked at the book. If I dig it out, I will send it to you, probably be more useful in your library.

I genuinely appreciate the gesture, but that's okay. I don't think I will be changing the nature of my routine in a marked way, and certainly not in that direction. But thank you.

 

[rocketman987]

Even doing the barbell curl well requires skill. We all learn to game it to use the biggest weight.Looks good in the mirror, strokes ego. (angle changes over the elbow and torso with respect to gravity make things lot easier, or harder)

That's not right way of looking at it, that's skill.

The right way is, what's the greatest stimulus over the rep, and over the set.

That's what I strive for. That might even be a ridiculous small resistance.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

This might be the time to experiment (safely) with other routines & schemes knowing that you probably won't get any bigger or stronger, but keeping an eye that you don't lose anything too?

That's certainly an option, but I'm pretty set in my ways, and I have come to my present routine somewhat gradually and with some forethought. Also, I've become a bit dogmatic, for better or (probably) worse. For example, I will only do movements that I think have evolutionary relevance, so no single-joint/isolation-type exercises apart from calf raises. Compounds are the best bang-for-the-buck exercises that also yield a better metabolic response. And there are only so many good compound movements. Finally, I now only do exercises that include (but are not limited to) my body weight. That last part is a "signature" thing.

 

[Baron]

When I was younger, I liked low reps to failure, int the neighborhood of 5 or 6.

Ah yes. I remember those days. I will never forget the day I squatted 455lbs for a few reps. I will never forget saying to myself midway through that "this is probably one of stupidest things you've ever done." I knew if I kept going down that path, that soon one day some body part of mine was going to snap. Luckily, I called it quits on the mega lifting before it had a chance to screw me up.

 

[rocketman987]

Ah yes. I remember those days. I will never forget the day I squatted 455lbs for a few reps. I will never forget saying to myself midway through that "this is probably one of stupidest things you've ever done." I knew if I kept going down that path, that soon one day some body part of mine was going to snap. Luckily, I called it quits on the mega lifting before it had a chance to screw me up.

The greater point is is there anything the squat can provide that can't be had through other isolation exercise other than skill at the squat?

Is the squat unique stimulus to the thighs, the back, the whatever that can't be replicated is the question?

 

[rocketman987]

Will the squat build bigger quadriceps than leg extensions?

Let's start here?