Is this too much?

Bully wrote:
[...]

> Sure, as long as you have the pink dumbbells to
> do them with

I actually purchased a pair of pink vinyl-covered one-pound dumbbells
for the gym as a gag gift. One has disappeared! I don't know if it's
wandered into the women's section or if it was stolen by some truly
hardcore lifter, but it's not on the main floor any longer.

[...]

--
Curt
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters DeleteThis @yahoo.com> schreef:

> I think that if you put any amount of intensity in it, it might turn to
> be too much. Why do you need all these exercises? Why not do three
> times a week full body workouts? Training every muscle group once a
> week will not turn you into a monster. Full body workouts work better
> for mass gains with three times a week schedule.

You dont think twice is enough?

Do you really think that 3th workout will accelerate the growth process?

> IMHO best way for combined fat loss and strength gains is to do one set
> of everything in a circuit fashion. You go through it as long as you
> have time and gas in you, but I don't know how it works in gym
> settings. Whatever, details are not important. What is important, is
> that you train muscles *three* times a week, not once.

Got my best result with only once a week.

I almost destroyed my muscles that single day, but it was one day
nonetheless.

And even now, if i hit my muscles the way i do 3 times instead of 1.5 times
a week, i have to stop posting. 2 max.

----
Pete
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

Dnia 2006-11-27 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters RemoveThis @yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>> I think that if you put any amount of intensity in it, it might turn to
>> be too much. Why do you need all these exercises? Why not do three
>> times a week full body workouts? Training every muscle group once a
>> week will not turn you into a monster. Full body workouts work better
>> for mass gains with three times a week schedule.
>
> You dont think twice is enough?
>
> Do you really think that 3th workout will accelerate the growth process?

There was a study (I can find a reference if hard pressed) where they
compared once a week three sets to one set three times a week. Higher
frequency worked better. But I'm not saying that twice a week is
definitely worse. Once a week most probably is for most people.

>> IMHO best way for combined fat loss and strength gains is to do one set
>> of everything in a circuit fashion. You go through it as long as you
>> have time and gas in you, but I don't know how it works in gym
>> settings. Whatever, details are not important. What is important, is
>> that you train muscles *three* times a week, not once.
>
> Got my best result with only once a week.
>
> I almost destroyed my muscles that single day, but it was one day
> nonetheless.

And you were constantly sore, weren't you? Besides, with once a week
one needs to concentrate on isolation exercises rather then compounds,
so if gym time is similar, more frequent training will stimulate more
muscle mass, so muscle mass gains should be bigger. I mean, you don't
destroy your triceps with dips. You'd rather use dips, push-downs and
maybe even kickbacks just for triceps. Takes time.

> And even now, if i hit my muscles the way i do 3 times instead of 1.5 times
> a week, i have to stop posting. 2 max.

You can't train "the way you do" now. Higher frequency means lower
intensity and less sets per body part in the same workout.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
[...]
Tricep kickbacks -- FFS!


--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

Dnia 2006-11-27 Bully napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> [...]
> Tricep kickbacks -- FFS!

All right. I got carried over with that.








But they can be used as a finisher. I'd just prefer to write it under
some net nickname, not my real name.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

Andrzej Rosa wrote:
> Dnia 2006-11-27 Bully napisa³(a):
>> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> [...]
>> Tricep kickbacks -- FFS!
>
> All right. I got carried over with that.

Carried away?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> But they can be used as a finisher.

Sure, as long as you have the pink dumbbells to do them with

> I'd just prefer to write it under
> some net nickname, not my real name.



--
Bully
Protein bars: http://www.proteinbars.co.uk

"Be who you are and say what you feel, because those who mind don't
matter, and those who matter don't mind." - Dr. Seuss
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

Dnia 2006-11-27 Bully napisa³(a):
> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>> Dnia 2006-11-27 Bully napisa³(a):
>>> Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Tricep kickbacks -- FFS!
>>
>> All right. I got carried over with that.
>
> Carried away?

True. I should have known better after all those books I read.
It's nautical term.

>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> But they can be used as a finisher.
>
> Sure, as long as you have the pink dumbbells to do them with

IF I ever decided to do them, I'd use speed, isometric contraction at
the top, and slow, controlled negative. It should get me into iron
dumbbells territory. Especially that I won't touch this exercise until
I'm really strong (which means probably never).

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

Gooserider wrote:
> I've recently adopted a car-free lifestyle. My car needs a clutch and I
> needed to get more cardio, so I've been bicycle commuting. My commute is 18
> miles each way, and I can usually make it in just over an hour. That's two
> hours of cardio a day, 5 days a week. I am coming off a shoulder injury, an
> impingement actually. I haven't lifted in a couple of months but the
> shoulder feels better and I would like to start lifting again. I think it
> would work better for me to do legs on Saturday, a day I don't have to ride
> 36 miles.

You're right, that's a lot of cardio.
You don't mention how old you are, what
kind of shape you're in, how labor intensive
you job/daily activities are, how well you
sleep, how intense is you night life, how long
you've been exercising consistently, what, if
anything, it's done for you, or what it
is specifically that you're trying to achieve
through diet/exercise. That info would help to
improve the quality of the advice/opinions
that is/are given.

For example, I'm 43. 20 years ago, for
awhile, I did a bicycle commute, dieted
strictly (800-1200 calories/day), weight
trained, worked as a warehouseman (moving
and lifting all day), and attended classes
at night. I was able to do it all, but
I didn't really get any stronger--and
therefore my appearance didn't improve
other than to get leaner (no muscle growth).
Today, doing the same thing, I'd be seriously
run down (aka overtrained) inside of a month.

You can try what you've listed below, but
keep in mind that if you don't get progressively
stronger you're muscles are not growing and
ultimately you're just standing still--or worse
you're grinding yourself down.

I agree with an earlier post that suggests
whole body workouts 3 times per week. I've
been in an out of weight training since the
late 70's. Lately I've been following the
HST (hypertrophy specific training) method
and have gotten stronger and better looking
(a little bigger and more muscular/leaner)
in a fairly consistent manner. Being 43 I
couldn't be happier. I'm stronger, have
bigger muscles, and am leaner than at any
point in my life. I eat good (Body for Life
eating recommendations are similar to what
I follow: roughly equal percentages of all
three macronutrients), sleep well (never use
an alarm clock; quiet, dark room that's not
too hot or cold; and no evening or night time
stimulants or alcohol (or drugs of any kind
for that matter), and I don't engage in any
extra physical activities that I can avoid.
In a word, attention to everything in ones
life that could effect results is what is
required when one is old, genetically typical
and drug-free. It's a fine line that has
to be walked. For example, in my situation,
I'm sure that a 5 day per week, 36 mile bicycle
commute would bring my progress to a swift halt.
In that situation I would need to employ the
reduced volume methods explained by Stuart
McRobert in Brawn and Beyond Brawn (and even then
progress would be very slow or non-existent).

In the end, that's my recommendation to you.
In my opinion, you might do well with HST if
you're young and have all your lifestyle
ducks in a row, otherwise you'd be better
served by looking into and employing reduced
volume (hardgainer) training as explained in
McRoberts' books. And this assumes that you're
genetically typical (see Brawn if you don't know
how to define that) and drug-free. In my opinion,
the program below is likely to be too much.
--
> So----
>
> Tuesday---chest/shoulders/tris
> DB flat bench 3x10
> DB incline bench 3x10
> DB shoulder press 3x10
> Lateral raises 3x10
> Rear delt raises 3x10
> Cable pushdowns 3x10
> Dips 3x10
>
> Thursday----back and biceps
> Seated cable rows 3x10
> Lat pulldowns 3x10
> Hyperextensions 3x10
> Standing bb curls 3x10
> Concentration curls 3x10
>
> Saturday--Legs
> Squats 3x10
> Leg extensions 3x10
> Leg curls 3x10
> Seated calf raises 3x10
>
> Abs I will do 3 x week. I believe I can handle this workload. I'm unsure how
> to eat for this kind of workload. I know I should get more carbs because of
> the cardio but I need to get plenty of protein to feed muscle growth. Would
> following a Body for Life-type diet( I know, Bill Phillips is a buttplug)
> keep me from bonking?
>
> Mike
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

"Andrzej Rosa" <bakters.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> schreef:

>> You dont think twice is enough?

>> Do you really think that 3th workout will accelerate the growth process?

> There was a study (I can find a reference if hard pressed) where they
> compared once a week three sets to one set three times a week. Higher
> frequency worked better.

Because it was only 3 sets.

> But I'm not saying that twice a week is
> definitely worse. Once a week most probably is for most people.

Once every 4-5 days works fine, IMO.
Once a week works. but depends on volume/strength.

>> Got my best result with only once a week.

>> I almost destroyed my muscles that single day, but it was one day
>> nonetheless.

> And you were constantly sore, weren't you?

Not then.
I was talking about 1993-1995. Wasnt that sore then. I AM sore now!

> Besides, with once a week
> one needs to concentrate on isolation exercises rather then compounds,

Why?

> so if gym time is similar, more frequent training will stimulate more
> muscle mass...

No.

The body decides how fast you grow, NOT the workout frequency. Trust me.

I know a few things about growth...

> so muscle mass gains should be bigger. I mean, you don't
> destroy your triceps with dips.

I destroyed them once with close grips lying on the floor.
Used 90 kilos for 15 sets of 6 reps. Was SICK the next day, and the triceps
looked inflammated. Like i went overboard on Synthol.

That single tricep workout made my arms grow. Serious...

>You'd rather use dips, push-downs and
> maybe even kickbacks just for triceps. Takes time.

Did pushdowns several hours ago.

Sets of 8 with 70 kilos. Took me about 40 minutes. including warm-ups. Dont
know how much sets.
Normally use 65, but for some reason i managed 70...

Can hardly type..

>> And even now, if i hit my muscles the way i do 3 times instead of 1.5
>> times
>> a week, i have to stop posting. 2 max.

> You can't train "the way you do" now. Higher frequency means lower
> intensity and less sets per body part in the same workout.

Yes, i agree with that.

----
Pete
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

Dnia 2006-11-27 Pete napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters RemoveThis @yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> You dont think twice is enough?
>
>>> Do you really think that 3th workout will accelerate the growth process?
>
>> There was a study (I can find a reference if hard pressed) where they
>> compared once a week three sets to one set three times a week. Higher
>> frequency worked better.
>
> Because it was only 3 sets.

So six sets once a week would work better then 2 sets three times a
week? I somehow doubt it.

>> But I'm not saying that twice a week is
>> definitely worse. Once a week most probably is for most people.
>
> Once every 4-5 days works fine, IMO.
> Once a week works. but depends on volume/strength.

True, but then working the same muscle every day also gives people
results.

>>> Got my best result with only once a week.
>
>>> I almost destroyed my muscles that single day, but it was one day
>>> nonetheless.
>
>> And you were constantly sore, weren't you?
>
> Not then.
> I was talking about 1993-1995. Wasnt that sore then. I AM sore now!
>
>> Besides, with once a week
>> one needs to concentrate on isolation exercises rather then compounds,
>
> Why?

To spare CNS. Going to failure on big movements drains me very
quickly, so if I wanted to really hit some muscle group, I'd use "easy"
exercises done hard. Hard exercises done hard would be very hard
indeed. I'd burn out quickly doing this, even if I'd apply it only to
upper body.

>> so if gym time is similar, more frequent training will stimulate more
>> muscle mass...
>
> No.
>
> The body decides how fast you grow, NOT the workout frequency. Trust me.
>
> I know a few things about growth...

I trust you. I trust many other big guys who managed to get where they
are by infrequent and very intense body part stimulation. It obviously
works. But frequency is crucial too. For example, no matter how much
you'd destroy your muscles, once a month is not enough. On the other
hand, my auntie has relatively good shoulders from years of knitting.

>> so muscle mass gains should be bigger. I mean, you don't
>> destroy your triceps with dips.
>
> I destroyed them once with close grips lying on the floor.
> Used 90 kilos for 15 sets of 6 reps. Was SICK the next day, and the triceps
> looked inflammated. Like i went overboard on Synthol.
>
> That single tricep workout made my arms grow. Serious...

So that's why people say that you train like a powerlifter?

OK. According to what I think that I know now, it would be too much.
According to what I think I know, you'd be better off doing half of that
but twice more often. But I'll remember what you said when I'll be in
the mood to change my views on things.

Even now, I definitely do not dismiss the idea that less frequent but
harder workouts work better for mass gains.

>>You'd rather use dips, push-downs and
>> maybe even kickbacks just for triceps. Takes time.
>
> Did pushdowns several hours ago.
>
> Sets of 8 with 70 kilos. Took me about 40 minutes. including warm-ups. Dont
> know how much sets.
> Normally use 65, but for some reason i managed 70...
>
> Can hardly type..

40 min for triceps only, and you can't type afterwards. Compared to
around 10 sets of 4 of ring dips (supersetted with sets of 3 of pullups)
three times per week I do; it doesn't sound exactly tempting to me.
And it's possible that if I switched to harder and less frequent
workouts my progress would slow down, so who knows if I'm not in a
win-win situation?

But if I'll ever come to a point when devoting 40 min for triceps only
will not sound ridiculous, I'll probably go with splits. I simply
can't imagine that I'll get so "serious" about training. There is life
out there, too.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much? 

In article <456ac71c$0$10946$dbd49001@news.wanadoo.nl>, "Pete"
<phoutstra RemoveThis @wanadoo.nl> wrote:

> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters RemoveThis @yahoo.com> schreef:
>
> > I think that if you put any amount of intensity in it, it might turn to
> > be too much. Why do you need all these exercises? Why not do three
> > times a week full body workouts? Training every muscle group once a
> > week will not turn you into a monster. Full body workouts work better
> > for mass gains with three times a week schedule.
>
> You dont think twice is enough?
>
> Do you really think that 3th workout will accelerate the growth process?

Although I don't think this is an area studies are the last word on the
topic, in general, studies find newbie types make their best progress 3
times per week and experienced lifters 2 times per week using at least 80%
1 RM. So says a review from 2003. From an article I wrote:

This study was called "A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for
strength development" and was done by a Dr. Rhea and co workers at the
Department of Exercise and Wellness at Arizona State University (Med Sci
Sports Exerc. 2003 Mar;35(3):456-64.). They looked at 140 studies that met
their criteria for being included in the meta analysis. As anyone who has
ever worked out for any length of time already knows, they found studies
showed different responses based on the training status of the
participants, that is whether or not they were new to weight training or
experienced lifters. From all the studies they examined, they concluded:

*Training with a mean intensity of 60% of one repetition maximum (1RM)
elicits the best gains in untrained individuals

* Training with 80% of 1RM is most effective in those who are already
trained (i.e. are not new to weight training)

* Untrained participants experience optimal gains by training each muscle
group 3 days per week

*Trained individuals get their best responses training each muscle group 2
days per week.

* Four sets per muscle group elicited the maximal gains in both trained
and untrained individuals


Over simple, I agree, but it's a decent starting point. Personally once
every 5 days/twice per 10 days is as much as I can stand and still make
progress. There would also seem to be a natural vs juice monkey variable
to this: juice allows higher volumes and or greater frequency without over
training.
 >> Stay informed about: Is this too much?