What does your endurance training look like?
The biggest lie in fitness?
- Thread starter Frederick Foresight
- Start date
Current endurance/cardio workout.
3 minutes heavy bag.
10 burpees within a one minute "rest" period.
3 minutes heavy bag.
10 air squats within one minute rest period.
3 minutes heavy bag.
25 mountain climbers within one minute rest.
Repeat for 3 cycles
Basically. when done with the heavy bag, I'll take 10-15 seconds, do the exercise movement, take another 10 seconds or so which brings me to the one minute mark and I hit the bag again.
I do this once a week when doing weight training and one week out of every month I do no weight training, and do this every other day for that week.
Okay, I can see why you separate endurance from resistance. In my case my "endurance" work is only about a 6-minute ~HIIT thing comprising 3 movements that thoroughly wakes me up in the morning right before I do the resistance stuff. But, I'll tell you, moving on to full static concentric failure on compound lifting movements and only resting 60-70 seconds between sets also qualifies as endurance work in my book. (I just hope I have the right book.)
I think your assessment is correct regarding the short rest period between your lifting movements given the max effort required for those movements.
Thanks. I love a bit of confirmation bias first thing in the morning.
As an experiment I tried this out during my workout today. Chest and Back, max effort to failure using mostly machines, Hammer Strength and only used dumbbells for the incline bench. One warmup set, light weight for each movement and then two sets to failure with 6 reps as the goal. Holy shit, I was gassed out by the end of it. Different kind of endurance I guess.
I also used a rest/pause for 6 reps one rep max weight used set for one movement for one set on both chest and back. Kind of a Mismash I guess, but damn, I was a bit wobbly by the end of it.
I remember when I used to take longer breaks of 2-3 minutes or so (and sometimes even longer) between sets. Taking shorter breaks definitely changes the tenor of the workout; it feels more like having gone through the wringer. Initially, I thought I might have to stop a set because of an aerobic bottleneck rather than hitting anaerobic failure. But that was not the case. Admittedly, I would likely do another rep or two if I waited long enough, but I'm not sure what the upside of that would be. I'm still going to full concentric failure rather than being aerobically gassed out.
Regarding your warmup sets, you're just using that as an excuse to rest.
Kidding aside, though, do you really need a warmup set for each different exercise you do? The reason I ask is because I thought so as well for the longest time. Unless you're going heavy on skilled movements, I would think a warmup set for the first exercise of each muscle group is enough, especially if you're using machines. And for us older guys, it's better to go with moderate weights slowly, in which case the first few slow reps of each exercise serve as a warmup. Just my opinion on what I've been reading and based on my own personal experience.In fact, in my case, my ~HIIT cardio is my only (general) warmup, after which I go straight into my work sets.
But I respect your lazy ass if you feel the need to intersperse "warmup holidays" throughout your workout.
P.S. Obviously don't change anything if what you're doing feels right.
Last edited:
In my defense I did skip the warmup for the last set which was a chest exercise, but you're right, as the workout moves along the warmups should be abandoned at some point. I also forgot to mention that I really slowed the tempo on every movement, I mean really slow, at least for me, 8-10 seconds. I must say, overall it was probably the toughest weight training workout I have had in quite some time. I don't think I could do this for a full body session. I'm still a bit gassed and expect some soreness tomorrow.I remember when I used to take longer breaks of 2-3 minutes or so (and sometimes even longer) between sets. Taking shorter breaks definitely changes the tenor of the workout; it feels more like having gone through the wringer. Initially, I thought I might have to stop a set because of an aerobic bottleneck rather than hitting anaerobic failure. But that was not the case. Admittedly, I would likely do another rep or two if I waited long enough, but I'm not sure what the upside of that would be. I'm still going to full concentric failure rather than being aerobically gassed out.
Regarding your warmup sets, you're just using that as an excuse to rest.
In fact, in my case, my ~HIIT cardio is my only (general) warmup, after which I go straight into my work sets.
But I respect your lazy ass if you feel the need to intersperse "warmup holidays" throughout your workout.
P.S. Obviously don't change anything if what you're doing feels right.
I tried going 7-8 seconds or so and did so for a time, but I generally find myself in the 5-6 second range these days. Slower reps like 8-10 provide a good and hard workout, but 5-6 seems closer to "natural," and is still an improvement over what I had been doing in earlier years.
I came across an interesting observation. You may recall I had written about Brad Schoenfeld in this forum in the past, because he is currently the leading proponent of training volume in the exercise research community. His work is often quoted in other papers and in "muscle mag" type web sites. You may also recall that I noted his research concluding that high volume training is superior has been duly criticized for not being supported by the evidence:
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...rouble-for-the-gop.363086/page-2#post-5495533
But here's the interesting thing. Schoenfeld works out, employing his high(er) volume training. You will note that his physique does not look any bigger or better than that of Doug McGuff, co-author of Body By Science, who works out briefly and infrequently, and who is ~around the same age as Schoenfeld. That alone should give volume proponents some pause. And if the argument is raised about genetics, and that perhaps McGuff's are better and that's why he can get away with training less, that argument does not hold water. By his own account, McGuff was exhausted and treading water on higher volume until he went in the other direction, decreasing both volume and frequency.
As an aside, rightly or wrongly, I prefer my own physique, such as it is, to that of Schoenfeld, and I'm older than he is, and work out a whole lot less than he reportedly does.
https://www.elitetrader.com/et/thre...rouble-for-the-gop.363086/page-2#post-5495533
But here's the interesting thing. Schoenfeld works out, employing his high(er) volume training. You will note that his physique does not look any bigger or better than that of Doug McGuff, co-author of Body By Science, who works out briefly and infrequently, and who is ~around the same age as Schoenfeld. That alone should give volume proponents some pause. And if the argument is raised about genetics, and that perhaps McGuff's are better and that's why he can get away with training less, that argument does not hold water. By his own account, McGuff was exhausted and treading water on higher volume until he went in the other direction, decreasing both volume and frequency.
As an aside, rightly or wrongly, I prefer my own physique, such as it is, to that of Schoenfeld, and I'm older than he is, and work out a whole lot less than he reportedly does.
Last edited: