Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie

Dnia 2007-01-12 Tom Anderson napisa³(a):
> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2007-01-11 Tom Anderson napisa?(a):
>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>>
>>>> Split has advantages for everyone, no matter their level of
>>>> experience, if they want to train day after day.
>>>
>>> Okay, yes, absolutely. But he could do a whole-body routine and not train
>>> every day. Did he say he was keen to do that? I may have missed it, sorry.
>>
>> However, OP did ask how often he should train and my belief is that for
>> best gains one should train more than three times per week,
>
> Okay. Why do you believe that?

Why shouldn't I? Pretty much every strength athlete does train more
often.

>> Let's have two programs. One is doing three workouts in a week
>> consisting of 6 exercises each. The second is doing three exercises
>> every day. What do you think would yield better results?
>
> I don't see any reason to think they'd give different results.

You did three exercises and are tired. Sure, you can go on with the
remaining three, but if you rest 24 hours you'd able to hit them
harder.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

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

>>> Let's have two programs. One is doing three workouts in a week
>>> consisting of 6 exercises each. The second is doing three exercises
>>> every day. What do you think would yield better results?

This is interesting.

I experimented with those things.

Lets say a given person want to do 15 sets for deltoids in one week.

It seems that you think 3 days with 5 sets are better than one day with 15
sets.

What about 5 days of 3 sets. Or 7 days of 2?

Or seven days with one set in the morning and one set in the evening.

And if you do sets of 8, why not 1 rep each hour, for a total of 16?

The amount of reps with a given weight over the *course of a week* stays the
same.

But i doubt the results will.

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

Dnia 2007-01-13 Pete (New & Improved, Version 4.08a) napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>>> Let's have two programs. One is doing three workouts in a week
>>>> consisting of 6 exercises each. The second is doing three exercises
>>>> every day. What do you think would yield better results?
>
> This is interesting.
>
> I experimented with those things.
>
> Lets say a given person want to do 15 sets for deltoids in one week.
>
> It seems that you think 3 days with 5 sets are better than one day with 15
> sets.
>
> What about 5 days of 3 sets. Or 7 days of 2?

At one point one would enter into diminishing returns zone. I don't
believe that training with maximum frequency will yield best muscle
mass results. For strength it would be less obvious.

> Or seven days with one set in the morning and one set in the evening.
>
> And if you do sets of 8, why not 1 rep each hour, for a total of 16?
>
> The amount of reps with a given weight over the *course of a week* stays the
> same.
>
> But i doubt the results will.

Up to three times a week it supposedly works well. Above that I'm less
convinced. But why would one use the same weight no matter how often
one trains? Doing several sets several times a week would made
possible to use higher weights than training with a lot of volume only
once.

P.S. - Do I have to google for a report which showed that training
every other day with half the volume gave better results than less
often higher volume training? There was a study, and if you guys will
insist I'll google it up.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

"DZ" <19373.TakeThisOut@16129176.2148422982.9717.24350.29806> schreef:

> I don't know if this is true. I could argue that using the same
> exercises allows to get to the level where you'd be using higher
> weights more quickly. Thus, doing the same exercises promotes one of
> the paradigms of building mass - progressive resistance. I know for a
> fact that you can build big arms by doing weighted dips and chinups
> only. That's it - two exercises for arms. No need for "details", just
> add weight, consistently.

That method works. I am sure.

The only "problem" with compounds is that you never know how the load is
divided. So after a few years, you notice the delts or biceps cant keep up
with the rest. And *then* you add a few other. exercises.

Actually, i did dips and pull-ups for years, with good results.

I still use a very limited amount of different exercises. But i am quite
good at the ones i choose.

I often tell beginners to select one pulling movement, a push, and something
for lower body. And then get as strong as possible. And DONT change anything
before you are strong. They rarely listen.

Weider invented the "muscle confusion principle" to confuse people. Again.

So i guess that worked.

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

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

>> It seems that you think 3 days with 5 sets are better than one day with
>> 15
>> sets.

>> What about 5 days of 3 sets. Or 7 days of 2?

> At one point one would enter into diminishing returns zone. I don't
> believe that training with maximum frequency will yield best muscle
> mass results. For strength it would be less obvious.

Right now, i prefer to "destroy" a muscle with lots of heavy sets, then rest
for several days.
More weight is nearly impossible. So its either more sets or more reps.

>> Or seven days with one set in the morning and one set in the evening.

>> And if you do sets of 8, why not 1 rep each hour, for a total of 16?

>> The amount of reps with a given weight over the *course of a week* stays
>> the
>> same.

>> But i doubt the results will.

> Up to three times a week it supposedly works well. Above that I'm less
> convinced. But why would one use the same weight no matter how often
> one trains?

What do you mean?

> Doing several sets several times a week would made
> possible to use higher weights than training with a lot of volume only
> once.

What i meant was, if something like 15 sets doesnt have to be consecutive,
but you van divide that in 3 workouts of 5 sets, then why is that reps
*have* to be cosecutive? Why bother AT ALL to perform sets, anyway?

Singles with 80-85% 1RM are pretty damn easy, and i could easily do 100
singles with that % in 2 hours.

Why exhaust myself with sets of 8 when a total amount of singles works just
as well?

> P.S. - Do I have to google for a report which showed that training
> every other day with half the volume gave better results than less
> often higher volume training? There was a study, and if you guys will
> insist I'll google it up.

Are you kidding.

I will take your word for it. Dont bother to Google.

But i have my doubts if this works in experienced lifters.

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

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

>> I don't know if this is true. I could argue that using the same
>> exercises allows to get to the level where you'd be using higher
>> weights more quickly. Thus, doing the same exercises promotes one of
>> the paradigms of building mass - progressive resistance.

> Is the resistance as seen by your muscles really progressing when you
> increase in skill?

I think its the other way around. I am not sure what you mean.

If you stay with a given wight, skill/muscle mass will make it easier to
lift it.

Then you move to a heavier weight. And again.

> Well, it is when applied to Oly lifts, but beyond
> that I'm not sure.

Compound movements dont require THAT much skill. Some skill. Which is why i
always advice people, like for instance, the overhead press, to perform them
sitting, not standing. Instinctively, people always develop some skills,
like momentum from the legs/lower back, to move more weight.

And you take the legs complerely out of the equation by sitting.
Its just that most people forget that the knees should be way below the
hips.

>> I know for a
>> fact that you can build big arms by doing weighted dips and chinups
>> only. That's it - two exercises for arms. No need for "details", just
>> add weight, consistently.

> I'm not doing any direct arm work and my arms are growing nicely, so I
> do agree with that on some level. On another level I'm pretty sure
> that if I added some direct arm work I'd have bigger arms. If I added
> some forearm work I'd have bigger forearms too.

Also true.

But this also depends on how great the involvement of the bis/tris is when
performing those compounds. When i add curls to the existing back work, i
might have a 5-10% difference in biceps.

When i added triceps to the existing chest/shoulder work, i noticed a 10-15%
difference. Perhaps even 20.

--
Pete, The New & Improved Version

"Take your own advice: killfile. I took your advice on that subject BTW.
Your turn dude" -- Will Brink

"Problem is, I still see his/their posts 'cause
you respond to them, and that throws the balance of the universe of" -- Will
Brink
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

Dnia 2007-01-13 Pete (New & Improved, Version 4.08a) napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>> At one point one would enter into diminishing returns zone. I don't
>> believe that training with maximum frequency will yield best muscle
>> mass results. For strength it would be less obvious.
>
> Right now, i prefer to "destroy" a muscle with lots of heavy sets, then rest
> for several days.
> More weight is nearly impossible. So its either more sets or more reps.

If you can do more reps then you could use more weight for the same
number of reps.

>> Up to three times a week it supposedly works well. Above that I'm less
>> convinced. But why would one use the same weight no matter how often
>> one trains?
>
> What do you mean?

I mean that 48 hours rest is substantially more than 4 minutes. You'd
sleep twice between your workouts, so your CNS is way fresher than it
is after just 4 minutes of rest.

>> Doing several sets several times a week would made
>> possible to use higher weights than training with a lot of volume only
>> once.
>
> What i meant was, if something like 15 sets doesnt have to be consecutive,
> but you van divide that in 3 workouts of 5 sets, then why is that reps
> *have* to be cosecutive? Why bother AT ALL to perform sets, anyway?
>
> Singles with 80-85% 1RM are pretty damn easy, and i could easily do 100
> singles with that % in 2 hours.

To be honest I can't picture myself doing 100 reps withing two hours
with that much weight. Doing it in set's of 8 would quite probably
kill me on the spot.

> Why exhaust myself with sets of 8 when a total amount of singles works just
> as well?

Some don't. Depends on your goals, obviously. For hypertrophy time
under tension seems to be important. Longer effort stresses different
systems within your muscles.

>> P.S. - Do I have to google for a report which showed that training
>> every other day with half the volume gave better results than less
>> often higher volume training? There was a study, and if you guys will
>> insist I'll google it up.
>
> Are you kidding.
>
> I will take your word for it. Dont bother to Google.
>
> But i have my doubts if this works in experienced lifters.

Well, was there a known bodybuilder who trained a body part less often
than twice a week. I'd suspect Mike Mentzer, maybe.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:

> Dnia 2007-01-12 Tom Anderson napisa?(a):
>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>
>>> Dnia 2007-01-11 Tom Anderson napisa?(a):
>>>> On Wed, 10 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Split has advantages for everyone, no matter their level of
>>>>> experience, if they want to train day after day.
>>>>
>>>> Okay, yes, absolutely. But he could do a whole-body routine and not train
>>>> every day. Did he say he was keen to do that? I may have missed it, sorry.
>>>
>>> However, OP did ask how often he should train and my belief is that for
>>> best gains one should train more than three times per week,
>>
>> Okay. Why do you believe that?
>
> Why shouldn't I? Pretty much every strength athlete does train more
> often.

Experienced strength athletes. We're not talking about such people here,
but rather, as the subject line says, a newbie who wants to know where to
start.

>>> Let's have two programs. One is doing three workouts in a week
>>> consisting of 6 exercises each. The second is doing three exercises
>>> every day. What do you think would yield better results?
>>
>> I don't see any reason to think they'd give different results.
>
> You did three exercises and are tired. Sure, you can go on with the
> remaining three, but if you rest 24 hours you'd able to hit them harder.

I don't buy that. If you're an experienced lifter, and you're doing loads
of sets of all sorts of different things with really heavy loads, yes, but
if you're a beginner who's just doing the basics, no. I'm a beginner, and
i don't feel that tired halfway though a workout. Sore, but not tired.

tom

--
an expertly crafted mix of practical decision-making and drunken shouting
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

Dnia 2007-01-13 Pete (New & Improved, Version 4.08a) napisa³(a):
> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters.RemoveThis@yahoo.com> schreef:
>
>>> I don't know if this is true. I could argue that using the same
>>> exercises allows to get to the level where you'd be using higher
>>> weights more quickly. Thus, doing the same exercises promotes one of
>>> the paradigms of building mass - progressive resistance.
>
>> Is the resistance as seen by your muscles really progressing when you
>> increase in skill?
>
> I think its the other way around. I am not sure what you mean.

For example I don't do curls. So I start next week (once I'm recovered
from a flu I have ) and at the beginning I'll have to start light,
because I'm not used to this exercise. After let's say two weeks, I'll
become reasonably skilled at doing curls and I'll use more weight, but
does it mean that I'll stimulate my biceps more?

> If you stay with a given wight, skill/muscle mass will make it easier to
> lift it.
>
> Then you move to a heavier weight. And again.

Yes. More or less my point.

>> Well, it is when applied to Oly lifts, but beyond
>> that I'm not sure.
>
> Compound movements dont require THAT much skill.

Oly lifts are a bit special. You'd probably have a difficulty at
beating a Chinese girl half your weight.

> Some skill. Which is why i
> always advice people, like for instance, the overhead press, to perform them
> sitting, not standing. Instinctively, people always develop some skills,
> like momentum from the legs/lower back, to move more weight.

What does it matter if they do? They have to use more weight, but does
it mean that their shoulders stop being prime movers?

> And you take the legs complerely out of the equation by sitting.
> Its just that most people forget that the knees should be way below the
> hips.

You take plenty of muscles out of equation and introduce some other
into equation. What you end up is being good at seated OHP. I'd much
prefer being good at standing OHP. This skill is usable for me every
time I have to put something heavy somewhere high.

>>> I know for a
>>> fact that you can build big arms by doing weighted dips and chinups
>>> only. That's it - two exercises for arms. No need for "details", just
>>> add weight, consistently.
>
>> I'm not doing any direct arm work and my arms are growing nicely, so I
>> do agree with that on some level. On another level I'm pretty sure
>> that if I added some direct arm work I'd have bigger arms. If I added
>> some forearm work I'd have bigger forearms too.
>
> Also true.
>
> But this also depends on how great the involvement of the bis/tris is when
> performing those compounds. When i add curls to the existing back work, i
> might have a 5-10% difference in biceps.
>
> When i added triceps to the existing chest/shoulder work, i noticed a 10-15%
> difference. Perhaps even 20.

Sure, I agree. It depends on leverages of specific exercise and
specifics of anatomical build of somebody.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

Dnia 2007-01-13 Tom Anderson napisa³(a):
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2007-01-12 Tom Anderson napisa?(a):
>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Okay, yes, absolutely. But he could do a whole-body routine and not train
>>>>> every day. Did he say he was keen to do that? I may have missed it, sorry.
>>>>
>>>> However, OP did ask how often he should train and my belief is that for
>>>> best gains one should train more than three times per week,
>>>
>>> Okay. Why do you believe that?
>>
>> Why shouldn't I? Pretty much every strength athlete does train more
>> often.
>
> Experienced strength athletes. We're not talking about such people here,
> but rather, as the subject line says, a newbie who wants to know where to
> start.

So I'm not saying that OP should train twice a day, did you notice
that? I suggested 4 times a week of at most 5 exercises per session (I
forgot what program I prescribed, so I'm guessing here ;-0).

>>>> Let's have two programs. One is doing three workouts in a week
>>>> consisting of 6 exercises each. The second is doing three exercises
>>>> every day. What do you think would yield better results?
>>>
>>> I don't see any reason to think they'd give different results.
>>
>> You did three exercises and are tired. Sure, you can go on with the
>> remaining three, but if you rest 24 hours you'd able to hit them harder.
>
> I don't buy that.

No problem. Try it. Try to do your second half of your training after
a night of sleep and some meals in between. If you can't beat your
usual performance you must be slacking somehow.

> If you're an experienced lifter, and you're doing loads
> of sets of all sorts of different things with really heavy loads, yes, but
> if you're a beginner who's just doing the basics, no. I'm a beginner, and
> i don't feel that tired halfway though a workout. Sore, but not tired.

Imagine that just like OP you have a gym at home. Would you still do
three full body workouts per week? If so, why? I'm normally curious
here.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

Dnia 2007-01-13 Andrzej Rosa napisa³(a):
> Dnia 2007-01-13 Pete (New & Improved, Version 4.08a) napisa³(a):
>> "Andrzej Rosa" <bakters DeleteThis @yahoo.com> schreef:
>>
>>> There was a study, and if you guys will insist I'll google it up.
>>
>> Are you kidding.
>>
>> I will take your word for it. Dont bother to Google.

Your kind response ashamed me enough to actually google it up.

http://apt.allenpress.com/aptonline/?request=get-abstract&issn=1533-42...volume=

#v+
ABSTRACT
There is not a strong research basis for current views of the
importance of individual training variables in strength training
protocol design. This study compared 1 day versus 3 days of resistance
training per week in recreational weight trainers with the training
volume held constant between the treatments. Subjects were randomly
assigned to 1 of 2 groups: 1 day per week of 3 sets to failure (1DAY)
or 3 days per week of 1 set to failure (3DAY). Relative intensity
(percent of initial 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) was varied throughout
the study in both groups by using a periodized repetition range of
3?10. Volume (repetitions × mass) did not differ (p 0.05) between the
groups over the 12 weeks. The 1RMs of various upper- and lower-body
exercises were assessed at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12. The 1RMs
increased (p 0.05) significantly for the combined groups over time.
The 1DAY group achieved 62% of the 1RM increases observed in the 3DAY
group in both upper-body and lower-body lifts. Larger increases in lean
body mass were apparent in the 3DAY group. The findings suggest that a
higher frequency of resistance training, even when volume is held
constant, produces superior gains in 1RM. However, training only 1 day
per week was an effective means of increasing strength, even in
experienced recreational weight trainers. From a dose-response
perspective, with the total volume of exercise held constant, spreading
the training frequency to 3 doses per week produced superior results.
#v-

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:

> Dnia 2007-01-13 Tom Anderson napisa?(a):
>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>
>>> Dnia 2007-01-12 Tom Anderson napisa?(a):
>>>> On Fri, 12 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Let's have two programs. One is doing three workouts in a week
>>>>> consisting of 6 exercises each. The second is doing three exercises
>>>>> every day. What do you think would yield better results?
>>>>
>>>> I don't see any reason to think they'd give different results.
>>>
>>> You did three exercises and are tired. Sure, you can go on with the
>>> remaining three, but if you rest 24 hours you'd able to hit them harder.
>>
>> I don't buy that.
>
> No problem. Try it. Try to do your second half of your training after
> a night of sleep and some meals in between. If you can't beat your
> usual performance you must be slacking somehow.

Heh. You really think it's that big a difference? How? Do you think
systematic tiredness is that important a factor?

>> If you're an experienced lifter, and you're doing loads
>> of sets of all sorts of different things with really heavy loads, yes, but
>> if you're a beginner who's just doing the basics, no. I'm a beginner, and
>> i don't feel that tired halfway though a workout. Sore, but not tired.
>
> Imagine that just like OP you have a gym at home. Would you still do
> three full body workouts per week? If so, why? I'm normally curious
> here.

It depends. It might be more convenient to only be working out three days
a week - less sweaty clothes to wash, more days where i'm not worn out,
etc. But then it might be less convenient - more days means shorter
workouts, which means getting to work or to bed sooner. In fact, i've
recently switched to a split routine for exactly that reason.

tom

--
mesokurtotic
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie 

Dnia 2007-01-14 Tom Anderson napisa³(a):
> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>
>> Dnia 2007-01-13 Tom Anderson napisa?(a):
>>> On Sat, 13 Jan 2007, Andrzej Rosa wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I don't see any reason to think they'd give different results.
>>>>
>>>> You did three exercises and are tired. Sure, you can go on with the
>>>> remaining three, but if you rest 24 hours you'd able to hit them harder.
>>>
>>> I don't buy that.
>>
>> No problem. Try it. Try to do your second half of your training after
>> a night of sleep and some meals in between. If you can't beat your
>> usual performance you must be slacking somehow.
>
> Heh. You really think it's that big a difference? How?

Depends how big it must be to become "that big". Especially for CNS
demanding exercises it will be big enough. Virtually nobody in his
right mind is doing squats or cleans at the end of the workout session
because his "mindpower" is already used out. Sleep changes a lot here.
For some wrist curls difference will not be huge, but still you'll have
a better forearm and calves workout if you sleep after your squats and
chins.

> Do you think systematic tiredness is that important a factor?

It's not exactly related, but to be honest I do think that it is
important. By increasing your tolerance for training stimulus you
somehow train yourself into not-hardgainer, and this can't be done
without pushing the limits of your current tolerance.

>> Imagine that just like OP you have a gym at home. Would you still do
>> three full body workouts per week? If so, why? I'm normally curious
>> here.
>
> It depends. It might be more convenient to only be working out three days
> a week - less sweaty clothes to wash,

While training at home you have no public to judge you badly if your
gym clothes are smelly, so you can "safely" change into your sweaty
workout clothes.

> more days where i'm not worn out,

With high frequency workouts you spread the load more evenly over a
week, so you shouldn't be worn out on your gym days. Your workouts are
also shorter, so it's not as much of stress.

> etc. But then it might be less convenient - more days means shorter
> workouts, which means getting to work or to bed sooner. In fact, i've
> recently switched to a split routine for exactly that reason.

Well, so we do not disagree here after all? Good. If OP is still
reading he should feel less confused.

--
Andrzej Rosa 1127R
 >> Stay informed about: Good info here but really, where should I start? A Newbie