Training for Mass

[Baron]

@Frederick Foresight The up to the second research that confirms all this can be found in the new book called "The One Minute Workout"

This is right up your alley.... guaranteed or your money back.

 

[Visaria]

In your analogy, you should realise the house was actually destroyed, not merely damaged....

 

[Frederick Foresight]

In your analogy, you should realise the house was actually destroyed, not merely damaged....

That's not a bad counter analogy. ("The Duel of the Analogists.") Although I don't think the person would destroy his body working out this way if the volume and frequency were kept in check, I do question how sustainable such a regimen would be in the long run. I guess time will tell and Baron will hopefully keep us apprised.

And, rightly or wrongly, I continue to wonder if the subsequent muscle groups are getting as much consideration as the preceding ones during a workout with no rest intervals. I'm really not being argumentative here just for its own sake; this is something I have always wondered about concerning short rest intervals, let alone none at all.

 

[Baron]

In your analogy, you should realise the house was actually destroyed, not merely damaged....

Whatever. I was three bourbons deep when I wrote that so cut me some slack.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I was three bourbons deep...

Careful not to overtrain your elbow flexors.

 

[Baron]

It's not possible because my elbow flexors are the most fit part of my body due to many years of intense drinkercise.

 

[deltastrike]

@Baron have you changed your diet at all during your transition to the new HIT routine?

 

[Baron]

@Baron have you changed your diet at all during your transition to the new HIT routine?

Not at all. But I've been eating pretty clean for a few years now.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

Update

Okay, so I began the 3 times every 2 week regimen a little over a month ago, together with the marginal post-failure work as I had described in my earlier post, and ran into a bit of trouble. Whereas I would normally work out on a Monday and Friday of one week and then the Wednesday of the following week, it turned out that I was not able to do a workout on a recent Friday as scheduled, and so I did one a day earlier on the Thursday. This was with the post-failure work. I could not sleep well at all for the next 2 nights, and I could attribute it to nothing other than the all-out workouts spaced closely together. (I should point out that when I was going simply to full concentric failure and not beyond, I would normally work out twice a week, on Mondays and Thursdays.)

I realized that even at 3 times every 2 weeks, I was spacing the workouts very close in the recovery cycle for this level of intensity. Truth be told, I really do like the level of intensity that is just a bit past concentric failure as I had described in my earlier post. It really feels like I did something. And so, although I wrote earlier that if things did not go as expected that I would reduce the intensity and up the frequency, in fact, I will do the opposite. I will be keeping this level of intensity and reducing the frequency to only once a week for resistance training. I will continue to do 2 HIIT workouts each week, one right after the RT and one on the weekend a few days later.

Inspired by other independent research and what Doug McGuff wrote in his book and said in his various talks, I decided that I didn't want to spend all of my time in recovery and virtually none of it above baseline, where actual overcompensation and adaptation normally occurs. I tried this 1x/wk frequency about a year ago but switched back to a higher frequency after a couple of months. I did not notice a change in strength or body composition during that time, but just felt a bit antsy to get back to the gym more often. However, I wasn't going past failure then, so it wasn't quite the same. Who knows, maybe this time the results will be a little different.

Today it is exactly one month since I reduced my resistance workout frequency to once a week, as explained in the quoted post. I measured my blood pressure this morning and I clocked in at 99/72, which is pretty good for an almost-59-year-old guy who takes no meds and who has hypertension running in the family. To be fair, it has been some months since I last took a reading, but when my workout frequency was higher, so was my typical BP albeit within normal limits. Key body measurements remain essentially unchanged and are certainly no worse. I am slightly stronger in a couple of the exercises I do, but no different for the remainder. All in all, I consider this a win and will continue with this frequency for the foreseeable future.

If anyone else ever decides to give such a lower workout frequency a try, I'd appreciate hearing how you fare over time. The only caveat is that the workout would have to be very intense, i.e., training to true failure or thereabouts (providing, of course, that your doctor has given you the go-ahead).