# How often of work out in week exercise to get in shape myth?



## moonhill99 (Jun 24, 2017)

I got into a dispute with my friend he was saying you can work on cardio and lift weights two or three times in a week!!  I said that is pointless!! You need at least no less than 4 times a week to work on cardio and lift weights.

So what is the magic number? Well obvious MMA fighters and athletes work out everyday.

But working out two or three times in a week such seem silly.  That is 4 to 5 days being couch potato if goal is to get in shape work on cardio and be lifting weights to build body muscles.

Well some other people say no less than three times in week, but even that seem too low and two times in week such seem pointless. Well if the magic number is no less than 4 times in week.

So what is the magic number? What should I say to him?

I'm bit confused now getting different numbers of working out in a week some say 3 and some say 4 or 5.


----------



## JR 137 (Jun 24, 2017)

Doing anything, even a few minutes once a week is better than nothing at all.

How often, how long, what intensity you work out at, and what type of exercise you do should be determined by your goals.  Do you want to lose 5 lbs in a day, week, month or year?  Do you want to put on 5 lbs of muscle in the afore mentioned time?  Do you want to increase VO2 max (how efficiently your body uses oxygen)?  Where are you now and where do you want to be, and when?

5 minutes once a week may seem pointless to 99% of the population.  It might be realistic for the first few weeks for someone who's 700 lbs.

Again, something's better than nothing at all.  The best thing is consistency, regardless of what you're doing.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 24, 2017)

Depends on the person and the individual's goals, I'd say.

For someone who is truly trying to maintain cardiovascular health, say... they can probably get by with 3 days per week, each week, of moderately intense cardio workouts.  It won't rip/shred them up unless they are eating really, really well, but it would promote better heart health.

For lifting, to get big, I've heard a wide range of things, probably because people are so different and they eat differently.  For me personally, what worked best was a 2-day on, day of rest, 2 days on, another day of rest, then the last 2 days on then 3 days off... repeated on and on. Tricky to schedule with a normal job, but with the work a day (24-hour shift), off two days schedule I had when I was a paramedic, it was perfect. I had the best muscular development during that phase of my life (call it 22 to 28).


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 24, 2017)

moonhill99 said:


> That is 4 to 5 days being couch potato



Why do you think that? The person could be doing jobs that require walking, lifting etc. they could be running up and down stairs, could be mothers looking after children and a home as well as working. don't assume that because someone isn't training all the time they are a 'couch potato'.


----------



## marques (Jun 24, 2017)

Better 2 days a week forever, than 4 or 5 days for a while, until you get tired, injuries or starting having many schedule conflicts.

Some people already 'workout' in their professions, others are lucky enough to need less training for the same results. Also, how much training days is relative to what you want to achieve. 2-4 days a week seems reasonable for health purposes. If you want the 1st place in triathlon or wining the Mr Muscle Trophy, you may need 6 training days, plus a rigorous lifestyle.

No magic number.


----------



## CB Jones (Jun 24, 2017)

I like to concentrate on each muscle group twice a week with 3 days rest in between.

And I run 2 - 3 times a week depending on my knee.


----------



## Deleted member 34973 (Jun 24, 2017)

I would say it depends, are you training as a profissional fighter or to stay profissionWhat activities are you involved in. What are your end goals.

I will try to find a link to an article I read in mens health(i believe)...that stated a lot of people workout way more than what is needed, for their specific lifestyle.


----------



## punisher73 (Jun 25, 2017)

What does it mean to be "in shape"?  That is a very nebulous term.  Do you just mean having a healthy bodyweight and heart rate/blood pressure?  Do you mean being in shape for a particular sporting event (football, basketball, baseball etc)?  All of those things require different levels of fitness to be in shape for the activity and what level you want to do it at.

If you are just talking about a basic baseline fitness, I believe that walking 30 minutes a day is enough to stay healthy along with a good and balanced diet.


----------



## KangTsai (Jun 25, 2017)

Thrice a week is not unheard of for most people's lifting programs. I went to the gym about 2-3 times a week along with 2-3 MMA sessions so yeah. Never really did cardio in the gym except bagwork.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2017)

moonhill99 said:


> I got into a dispute with my friend he was saying you can work on cardio and lift weights two or three times in a week!!  I said that is pointless!! You need at least no less than 4 times a week to work on cardio and lift weights.
> 
> So what is the magic number? Well obvious MMA fighters and athletes work out everyday.
> 
> ...


It depends what your goal is. There is some evidence that 5 minutes of exercise (the right time) 5 times a week can have a significant positive impact on fitness. Will that get you to where you can run a Tough Mudder Half? No. But it will produce results. As will doing cardio 3 times a week. Or lifting once a week. Any schedule that pushes your limits - even a little - will produce results, compared to doing nothing.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 25, 2017)

Guthrie said:


> I would say it depends, are you training as a profissional fighter or to stay profissionWhat activities are you involved in. What are your end goals.
> 
> I will try to find a link to an article I read in mens health(i believe)...that stated a lot of people workout way more than what is needed, for their specific lifestyle.


If you can find that, please do post that. I'm collecting some sources about amount of exercise for certain goals.


----------



## JP3 (Jun 25, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Why do you think that? The person could be doing jobs that require walking, lifting etc. they could be running up and down stairs, could be mothers looking after children and a home as well as working. don't assume that because someone isn't training all the time they are a 'couch potato'.


Indeed. Personally, I prefer the term Desk Jockey.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 25, 2017)

JP3 said:


> Indeed. Personally, I prefer the term Desk Jockey.



When my children were young and I was also working 12 hour shifts ( days and nights) where I rarely saw a desk finding a couch would have been an unheard of luxury.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 25, 2017)

I divide my training into 2 parts.

1. cardio - running, stretching, MA solo drill, ...
2. weight - single head, double heads, heavy bag, other training equipment.

For example. this week, I'll do

1. Monday - cardio
2. Tuesday - weight
3. Wednesday - cardio
4. Thursday - weight
5. Friday - cardio

Next week I'll do

1. Monday - weight
2. Tuesday - cardio
3. Wednesday - weight
4. Thursday - cardio
5. Friday - weight

I had tried to do weight 3 days, and cardio 3 days. It's just too hard for my age. After my retirement I though I could have all the time in the world to train. My body just don't allow me to train that hard.


----------



## Kung Fu Wang (Jun 25, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> What does it mean to be "in shape"?


Not from the health point of view but from the MA point of view. To be in shape to me mean

when you are

- young, you want to "develop" something. You want something to get better.
- old, you want to "maintain" something. You don't want something to get worse.

How much time and how hard do you have to work in order to achieve that?


----------



## moonhill99 (Jun 25, 2017)

punisher73 said:


> What does it mean to be "in shape"?  That is a very nebulous term.  Do you just mean having a healthy bodyweight and heart rate/blood pressure?  Do you mean being in shape for a particular sporting event (football, basketball, baseball etc)?  All of those things require different levels of fitness to be in shape for the activity and what level you want to do it at.
> 
> If you are just talking about a basic baseline fitness, I believe that walking 30 minutes a day is enough to stay healthy along with a good and balanced diet.



Do they not say the average young person should be able to at least run one mile? If you cannot run at least one mile you are out of shape?


----------



## moonhill99 (Jun 25, 2017)

KangTsai said:


> Thrice a week is not unheard of for most people's lifting programs. I went to the gym about 2-3 times a week along with 2-3 MMA sessions so yeah. Never really did cardio in the gym except bagwork.



I guess it well depends on how much muscle one wants to get. If one wants to to get some muscles 2 or 3 times week is enough of bodybuilding.

Now if one wants to get really big like guys you see in WWE 2 to 3 times week is just not going to do it. You have to at least 4 times in week or more of bodybuilding.

May be there are some bodybuilding builders on this forum that can give proper plan for the goal.


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2017)

moonhill99 said:


> Now if one wants to get really big like guys you see in WWE 2 to 3 times week is just not going to do it. You have to at least 4 times in week or more of bodybuilding.



That's their job though, they know exactly what they have to do to keep their jobs and it may well not be just going to the gym.


----------



## Hyoho (Jun 26, 2017)

I did ten times a week. No cardio, no weights. Specific training related to my art. All a total waste of time anyway if you cant fight.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 26, 2017)

Hyoho said:


> I did ten times a week. No cardio, no weights. Specific training related to my art. All a total waste of time anyway if you cant fight.


Fitness is not only about fighting, though.


----------



## Hyoho (Jun 26, 2017)

Was for me at the time. I'm more laid back and defensive now.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jun 26, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> That's their job though, they know exactly what they have to do to keep their jobs and it may well not be just going to the gym.



There are two types of people who do bodybuilding people that want to get some muscles and some people that want to get really big.

There is difference.

Well Bruce Lee was bodybuilder but he was not really big.

What I'm saying I don't think you can work out two times a week and think you going to look big like this.

I don't think you could work out two times a week and think you are going look big like these WWE guys or bikers.

http://www.india.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/By9vpMKIAAE4XoY.jpg

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.co...6bfda61161--roman-reigns-wwe-roman-regins.jpg

Or big like these guys
https://contemplativefitness.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/111pooka.jpg

http://bikerlawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Attorney-Norman-Gregory-Fernandez-3-27-13.jpg

*These people probably work out 4 to 5 times in week.

I don't think you can work out two times in week and look like that or anyone close to looking like that.*


----------



## Tez3 (Jun 26, 2017)

moonhill99 said:


> There are two types of people who do bodybuilding people that want to get some muscles and some people that want to get really big.
> 
> There is difference.
> 
> ...



Whatever. I did understand you know, you don't have to keep repeating yourself. There's also other reasons why people do bodybuilding you know.


----------



## JR 137 (Jun 27, 2017)

moonhill99 said:


> There are two types of people who do bodybuilding people that want to get some muscles and some people that want to get really big.
> 
> There is difference.
> 
> ...


There's a a lot of reasons why you he WWE guys and pro body builders look the way they do...

They work out smart and hard.  They don't just throw together some workout they found online.  Everything is done for a reason, and they work closely with experts who constantly monitor what they're doing and make necessary changes.

They eat right.  They pay attention to exactly what's going into their bodies, how much, how often, and when.  They consult experts; they don't look online and go with whatever sounds good.

They're genetic freaks.  If I followed them around like their annoying little brother and did exactly what they did (eating, exercising, and resting), I still wouldn't be like them.  I'd be the best I can be, but not the best they can be.

For most of these people, it's their full time job.  Most ordinary people don't have the time to dedicate the number of hours to working out as these people. 

A lot of them have a lot of help from illegal drugs.  You can only get so big, strong, fast, etc. naturally.  PEDs increase the amount of muscle building and fat burning hormones, decrease the amount of muscle destroying hormones, and decrease the time to adequately recover.  Most ordinary people aren't willing to use them for many reasons.

Saying these guys are as big and/or as fit as they are because they work out a certain number of times a week is absurd.  Comparing us to them is even more absurd.  Only a moron would look at someone like Bruce Lee's workout routine online and think they'll look like him if they replicate it.  And yes, there's certainly no shortage of morons out there.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jun 28, 2017)

Tez3 said:


> Whatever. I did understand you know, you don't have to keep repeating yourself. There's also other reasons why people do bodybuilding you know.





JR 137 said:


> There's a a lot of reasons why you he WWE guys and pro body builders look the way they do...
> 
> They work out smart and hard.  They don't just throw together some workout they found online.  Everything is done for a reason, and they work closely with experts who constantly monitor what they're doing and make necessary changes.
> 
> ...



Tez3 and JR 137 may be you should explain to me what bodybuilding is for the average person working out 2 times week vs 4 times a week vs professional bodybuilding.

Well obvious some one wanting to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger will need to hire a professional trainer or some one competing in proper bodybuilding contest.  And no he not trying look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.


But than there is also different types of bodybuilding and power lifting too that can also get even more complicated.

Yes I will keep in mind some one doing wrestling or Judo may not be all about looks but the muscles needed for what you doing. Like power lifters that can lift heavy but not all power lifter look create vs a bodybuilder.

Or biker that looks really big but not really muscle or proper bodybuilding or strong but just looks big.


But for the average person who does not WANT to spend money to hire a professional trainer and put in what would normally do in week!! What would average person working out 2 times week vs 4 times a week look like?

 Would there be any difference working out 2 times week vs 4 times a week?

May be if you can explain the difference types of looks and stuff than I can post back what he is after and you can point me to right direction or if a personal trainer is needed for that look.

 If he is after a type of look and goal well depending on it a personal trainer may be needed or he may have to work out 4 times week and really take as a job and not hobby where I don't know if he wants to do that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jun 28, 2017)

moonhill99 said:


> Tez3 and JR 137 may be you should explain to me what bodybuilding is for the average person working out 2 times week vs 4 times a week vs professional bodybuilding.
> 
> Well obvious some one wanting to look like Arnold Schwarzenegger will need to hire a professional trainer or some one competing in proper bodybuilding contest.  And no he not trying look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.
> 
> ...


There are still a lot of variable at play. 2 highly intense workouts per week will outpace 4 moderate workouts per week. 2 complete workouts (push/pull muscles in the same workout, for instance) might be slightly less effective than 2 pairs of more isolated workouts (pull muscles one day, push muscles the other). And, of course, the person's physiology - some people respond better to workouts (when I was 30, one intense full-body workout a week, plus my regular MA classes, got me nicely cut and fairly muscular).

Getting a personal trainer involved is actually a good place to start. That doesn't have to be highly expensive - they can help craft the right routine, make sure the exercises are done right, then you're on your own. One or two sessions with a trainer can be a significant help.


----------



## jobo (Jul 7, 2017)

moonhill99 said:


> I got into a dispute with my friend he was saying you can work on cardio and lift weights two or three times in a week!!  I said that is pointless!! You need at least no less than 4 times a week to work on cardio and lift weights.
> 
> So what is the magic number? Well obvious MMA fighters and athletes work out everyday.
> 
> ...


your friend is correct, the more must be better myth means lots of people don't get what they want. The improvements you make don't come when your training, they come when you are resting, sitting on the couch. Any programme has to include a large portion of couch sitting to be,effective


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> your friend is correct, the more must be better myth means lots of people don't get what they want. The improvements you make don't come when your training, they come when you are resting, sitting on the couch. Any programme has to include a large portion of couch sitting to be,effective


That's why professional athletes only train two or three times a week?


----------



## jobo (Jul 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's why professional athletes only train two or three times a week?


depends on what event the professional athelete is training for, they have a program that that gets them in peak condition ether once a weak once a month, once a quarter once a year or once every four years
what they don't dp is train flat out every day, they have adequate recovery built into their program so rest days and stretching days are he order of the day. The,secrete is balancing training and recovery .

if it takes your muscles 3 days to recover from a session, that's the optimum period between training


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> depends on what event the professional athelete is training for, they have a program that that gets them in peak condition ether once a weak once a month, once a quarter once a year or once every four years
> what they don't dp is train flat out every day, they have adequate recovery built into their program so rest days and stretching days are he order of the day. The,secrete is balancing training and recovery .
> 
> if it takes your muscles 3 days to recover from a session, that's the optimum period between training


That's the optimum period between training _that muscle_. Training twice a week misses a lot of opportunity to develop.


----------



## jobo (Jul 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That's the optimum period between training _that muscle_. Training twice a week misses a lot of opportunity to develop.


like I say it depends body builder go mad with it, but they arnt seeking improvement in performance, if you do a full body work out twice a week that's plenty for most people, if you want to spit it so you do push one day , pull another legs another etc then you may have to work out five days, but the time spent each day is a lot less

I've read that the  least you can get away with if you want to make progress is once every 5 days. .so twice a week covers that, but you still need to let the body recover/ adapt before you go again

what professional athletes don't do is push so hard in training that they have nothing left when it comes to the game on Saturday


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> your friend is correct, the more must be better myth means lots of people don't get what they want. The improvements you make don't come when your training, they come when you are resting, sitting on the couch. Any programme has to include a large portion of couch sitting to be,effective


Sleeping is far more effective of a rest than sitting on the couch, but you're right; proper rest is just as important as proper training.

Pro athletes train significantly more than twice a week, and most need peak performance week in and week out during their season.  Granted they'll have more intense days and less intense days, but they'll train almost every day.


----------



## jobo (Jul 9, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> Sleeping is far more effective of a rest than sitting on the couch, but you're right; proper rest is just as important as proper training.
> 
> Pro athletes train significantly more than twice a week, and most need peak performance week in and week out during their season.  Granted they'll have more intense days and less intense days, but they'll train almost every day.


its throwing in the term professional athletes that's a bit misleading, what sort of athlete with what soemry of fitness goals

there is an considerable difference between a soccer player who needs to hit peak performance every Saturday and say a boxer that has 12 weeks to prepare for a fight and cares nothing about his week to week performance as long as it all comes together in 3months and then again an Olympic cyclist who is looking to peak 4years from now.

a soccer player will spend half a week doing recovery exercises and half a week building up to Saturday, they most certainly won't be killing them selves on Thursday and friday

no matter how you wish to prioritise your training, there is the hard rule that it takes a well worked muscle 72 hours to recover full performance, that's 3days if your going to hit it mote frequently than that, you wont see  improvement session to session and sooner or latter( probably sooner) you need a deload week to let everything catch up.if your getting full performance back a lit quicker than that, then your not working it hard enough and you wont make gain faster by half training more often

as part of my reason for doing MA is self defence, I favour the soccer model, I don't want to be weak ad a kitten for weeks on end to be supper fit in 3months, I want to be close to peak performance at all times. To do that and fit it in to a 7 day cycle I hit each muscle hard every 3days or twice a week. That's not only excersising twice a week i have push days and pull days and jumping and running days. But if time was a factor a full work out twice a week would be just as good


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 9, 2017)

jobo said:


> its throwing in the term professional athletes that's a bit misleading, what sort of athlete with what soemry of fitness goals
> 
> there is an considerable difference between a soccer player who needs to hit peak performance every Saturday and say a boxer that has 12 weeks to prepare for a fight and cares nothing about his week to week performance as long as it all comes together in 3months and then again an Olympic cyclist who is looking to peak 4years from now.
> 
> ...


Your last sentence is the only part I disagree with. Twice a week on full-body work is not quite as good as 2x2. You only have so much total energy to expend, and you'll be more productive (in a gain/recovery cycle) on the 4-day format. How much? That depends a lot on your own energy levels and recovery (72 hours isn't an absolute, like everything else in the human body).


----------



## jobo (Jul 11, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Your last sentence is the only part I disagree with. Twice a week on full-body work is not quite as good as 2x2. You only have so much total energy to expend, and you'll be more productive (in a gain/recovery cycle) on the 4-day format. How much? That depends a lot on your own energy levels and recovery (72 hours isn't an absolute, like everything else in the human body).


im not sure what your recommending here, if you are saying that x4 body building type spits, where yoili focus just one muscle group say, legs, back, chest etc on different days is a good way to train, then yes it is, but you can have issues when you want to use your legs and back at the same time

if what your saying is that 4 light to moderate full body session is better than a fullbody  heavy to and beyond failure sessions

then absolutely not, you are never pushing yourself enough to get serious performance gains


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 22, 2017)

I think what he was saying here is comes down to what the goal is. Of the many variables like going for walk 3 or 4 times week does not mean you be able to be runner, sprinter, MMA fighter or boxer. That the cardio program needs to be deigned for what the goal is. 

I know people who can run for miles and miles but cannot even do fast sprinting for 5 minutes!! Likewise there some really fast sprinters but could not run for hours on end like runners.

If the go is to be MMA fighter or sprinter than work on stamina program. Where if the goal is to be runner, jogger or hiker than work on endurance program.

And train how long you want it goal to be or what your goal should be.

Where one or two times a week of very hard cardio may be better than 3 or 4 times week of very soft cardio if the goal is MMA fighter or sprinter.

If you into being runner, jogger or hiker than softer cardio but longer duration better than hard cardio.

Now if you don't care about being MMA fighter, wrestler, boxer, sprinter, runner, jogger or hiker. Than a 30 minutes of light walking everyday is good enough of not having a sedentary lifestyle. And factoring in your office job or IT job gives you the 15 minute breaks every 2 or 3 hours!! Just so you can get up and move around not to have stiff body sitting too long at your desk.


----------



## moonhill99 (Jul 22, 2017)

jobo said:


> like I say it depends body builder go mad with it, but they arnt seeking improvement in performance



It depends on what bodybuilding program they are trying to do be it powerlifters, bodybuilding or wrestlers in WWE.

What look is the person after to have the program designed for that person for that look he is after.


----------



## Hyoho (Jul 22, 2017)

In some arts one uses specific stances and sets of muscles to do certain movements. As I powered off the back leg into the hips i used to be able to pwer press twice weight with my left leg as the right. All the muscle in the world will not help you if your opponent has a better understanding of timing.


----------



## jobo (Jul 23, 2017)

moonhill99 said:


> I think what he was saying here is comes down to what the goal is. Of the many variables like going for walk 3 or 4 times week does not mean you be able to be runner, sprinter, MMA fighter or boxer. That the cardio program needs to be deigned for what the goal is.
> 
> I know people who can run for miles and miles but cannot even do fast sprinting for 5 minutes!! Likewise there some really fast sprinters but could not run for hours on end like runners.
> 
> ...


yes sort of, if you view ma as a sport, then there are specific fitness goals that are,different than most other sports, soccer for instance required you to be able to run about for an hour and a half and within that,do any number of 30yard sprints. So that's endurance over a very long time and power in 20 sec bursts..

a ma tournament requires maximal performance over a short time frame, you don't need the endurance of a soccer player but you need to be able sustain maximal effort for far longer than 20secs .

from a self defence point of view, the fight is either over very quickly,or you need to be able to put out max performance for,say 5minets. Being able to do a lot of push ups in a couple of minutes is going to leave you three minutes short.

so from a,ma view training needs to be,short and brutal to give you the best,chance of sustaining your self in a,fight.

at that level of intensity you cant be working the same muscle group more that once in two or three days, if you can then the training wasn't brutal enough, if you divide that into a,week that two or three times.

you can of course do less intense training on other days. If that is actually doing any good towards your goalis a different matter


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 31, 2017)

An interesting article I just came across...

How Often Should You Lift Every Week? New Research Reveals the Answer


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 31, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> An interesting article I just came across...
> 
> How Often Should You Lift Every Week? New Research Reveals the Answer


That looks like interesting findings. I need to go find the journal article and see the actual nature of the study.


----------



## JR 137 (Jul 31, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> That looks like interesting findings. I need to go find the journal article and see the actual nature of the study.


I really like Men's Health.  I've met a few of the strength & conditioning contributors from my career in sports medicine.  Their sources are top notch people and they pretty much always use scientific research when writing their articles. 

The only issue I see with them is they water it down a bit and don't provide links to the full study.  But hey, it's a magazine for the masses, and written to that audience, so you can't really fault them for that.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Jul 31, 2017)

JR 137 said:


> I really like Men's Health.  I've met a few of the strength & conditioning contributors from my career in sports medicine.  Their sources are top notch people and they pretty much always use scientific research when writing their articles.
> 
> The only issue I see with them is they water it down a bit and don't provide links to the full study.  But hey, it's a magazine for the masses, and written to that audience, so you can't really fault them for that.


Like most who distill research for the masses, they osometimes over-generalize the conclusions from studies. Happens in any realm where dry scientific data is parsed into useful suggestions. It's the nature of the beast, but it leaves me wanting to see the original study to see if it can be generalized that way.


----------



## JR 137 (Aug 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Like most who distill research for the masses, they osometimes over-generalize the conclusions from studies. Happens in any realm where dry scientific data is parsed into useful suggestions. It's the nature of the beast, but it leaves me wanting to see the original study to see if it can be generalized that way.


Yes.  It would be good if they provided links to the study(ies) they're referencing.

I discussed a few articles a while back with a PT friend and colleague of mine.  We wanted to see the actual studies they were referencing,  it to no avail.  One I remember in particular was a study by a Stanford University group.


----------



## jobo (Aug 1, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Like most who distill research for the masses, they osometimes over-generalize the conclusions from studies. Happens in any realm where dry scientific data is parsed into useful suggestions. It's the nature of the beast, but it leaves me wanting to see the original study to see if it can be generalized that way.


its in the ball park of other( summaries of) studies I've seen.

perhaps the point to note with this, is its looking at the intervals for maximum muscle growth, rathe than the intervals for performance gains and though the two correlate to some extent they are quite different in approach to training.

with performance you are less interested in the time the mucle grows and more in how long it takes the muscle and the nervous system to fully recover from the session. That would normally be longer than the 48 hours quoted if its a full on session, possibly less than 48 hours if its a light session.

though the end result is much the same, in that two( or three )good full body sessions a week are more or less optimal

the problem with weeks is they only divide by 7&1, so you are always going to get uneven training patterns that gives to much or to little rest, unless you can train on a rolling program of every 3days regardless of what day of the week it is


----------



## KabutoKouji (Aug 2, 2017)

i do 1 TaiJiJuan class and a Kung Fu class every week - I try to do 2 or 3 other days per week of exercises in between - so far I feel vastly healthier that I did a year ago, I'm 40 now and honestly I feel fitter than when I was 20, then again that might be because I've finally stopped smoking.


----------



## jobo (Aug 3, 2017)

KabutoKouji said:


> i do 1 TaiJiJuan class and a Kung Fu class every week - I try to do 2 or 3 other days per week of exercises in between - so far I feel vastly healthier that I did a year ago, I'm 40 now and honestly I feel fitter than when I was 20, then again that might be because I've finally stopped smoking.


that sounds good, but it really depends what you are calling as exercise. It's a balance between frequency and intensity, if you are doing light exercises say less than 50% intensity then training five times a week is ok  , . But you will quickly reach a point where you stop making gains. You have to build in some over load progression and if you do that then you need to rest in between sessions, that's not do no exercise just do lighter recovery exercises to get the blood flowing

the exercises Ithat used to wipe me out six months ago are what I do as a light recovery session now. I treat my class as a rest day as it doesn't tax me at all. I do six mile walk to get there to make it more of a challenge 

even doing spits, I need to take a day in-between heavy sessions or I end up shaking like a leaf as the overload to my nervous system is greater than the overload to my muscles


----------



## KabutoKouji (Aug 3, 2017)

well it does depend on what I choose to do as exercises - in general I increase number or weight/resistance as they become easier, or in the case of standing stuff (Embrace Moon To Chest, Horse stances etc.) I will increase the time. I do try to every few weeks or so increase everything. But I'm also well aware of what happens to me when I go too far too quickly - so it's always a balance of trying to not go too far and wreck myself . I'm not going to have a six pack anytime soon, but I'm slowly reducing all the time. My back is pretty bad so most situp exercises eventually end up hurting me no matter how warmed up or careful I am. I got one of those wheel things to use cos that exercise doesn't seem to hurt my back much. Also I try to do as much 'planks' as I can as they also don't hurt my back, and Embrace Moon To Chest seems to strengthen my back and help good posture.


----------



## jobo (Aug 3, 2017)

KabutoKouji said:


> well it does depend on what I choose to do as exercises - in general I increase number or weight/resistance as they become easier, or in the case of standing stuff (Embrace Moon To Chest, Horse stances etc.) I will increase the time. I do try to every few weeks or so increase everything. But I'm also well aware of what happens to me when I go too far too quickly - so it's always a balance of trying to not go too far and wreck myself . I'm not going to have a six pack anytime soon, but I'm slowly reducing all the time. My back is pretty bad so most situp exercises eventually end up hurting me no matter how warmed up or careful I am. I got one of those wheel things to use cos that exercise doesn't seem to hurt my back much. Also I try to do as much 'planks' as I can as they also don't hurt my back, and Embrace Moon To Chest seems to strengthen my back and help good posture.


contrary to popular belief, sit ups predominately work the  hip flexors , the top of the hip flexor is attached to the lower spine, that's why they hurt you back, there are a lot better exercises for abs, including the abbs roll outs you are,doing


----------



## KabutoKouji (Aug 3, 2017)

yes and I apparently had a loose hip when I was a child, and did a lot of TKD, my hips ain't in great shape either


----------



## LandonCarter29 (Oct 5, 2017)

It all depends upon what your workouts consist of. The harder you train the more time you need in between workouts to let your body recover.


----------



## jobo (Oct 5, 2017)

LandonCarter29 said:


> It all depends upon what your workouts consist of. The harder you train the more time you need in between workouts to let your body recover.


well that's a trueism, but not as they ay the full storey. 
either you have trained " hard" enough to provoke the adaptation you are after or you haven't! If you haven't you are at best stuck at a certain level, that's if you are no going backwards. If you have there is little point excersising again till the adaptation has run its course. Doing it again won't make the adaptation happen sooner or to a greater extent.

people seem to confuses time spent, with intensity, I've seen people at the gym, spending an hour or more doing 10 mins of exercise, the rest is spent playing with their phones, waiting for a machine to be free, doing something pointless like walking on the running machine, or bouncing a medicineball on their abs, Then they call themselves hard gainers or can't understand whilst they are still fat


----------



## Anarax (Oct 6, 2017)

moonhill99 said:


> I got into a dispute with my friend he was saying you can work on cardio and lift weights two or three times in a week!!  I said that is pointless!! You need at least no less than 4 times a week to work on cardio and lift weights.
> 
> So what is the magic number? Well obvious MMA fighters and athletes work out everyday.
> 
> ...



One size fits all doesn't apply to exercise. People of different ages, genetics, body type and health histories changes what, when, and how you should workout. For example, someone with a slower metabolism will have an easier time putting on muscle mass opposed to someone with a faster metabolism. A lot of people break down their weight routines into sections like arms, legs, back, chest, etc. Someone could work all their muscle groups into 2-3 weight training sessions a week and rotate them accordingly. For example, I can't do bicep curls then flys, given my biceps are weakened and can't stabilize the weight for flys. If I do triceps before chest press I run into the same issue, the stabilizer muscles are burned out and can't stabilize the weight. However; if you approach it strategically you can compress a lot into one workout as long as you don't burn out the muscles in the wrong sequence. This works for *some* people, not for everyone  

Some people who have less time might try to compress more into one workout than others. A professional bodybuilder told me that the average person needs at least 2-3 days for anaerobic muscle recovery, from my experience this is accurate for *me*. Meaning if I do bicep weight training one day I shouldn't be able to work them again at least 2 days later. Your muscles need time to recover and grow, to do that you must put them under a certain amount of strain. Again, everyone is different, but the average person is 2-3 days for recovery.


----------



## jobo (Oct 7, 2017)

Anarax said:


> One size fits all doesn't apply to exercise. People of different ages, genetics, body type and health histories changes what, when, and how you should workout. For example, someone with a slower metabolism will have an easier time putting on muscle mass opposed to someone with a faster metabolism. A lot of people break down their weight routines into sections like arms, legs, back, chest, etc. Someone could work all their muscle groups into 2-3 weight training sessions a week and rotate them accordingly. For example, I can't do bicep curls then flys, given my biceps are weakened and can't stabilize the weight for flys. If I do triceps before chest press I run into the same issue, the stabilizer muscles are burned out and can't stabilize the weight. However; if you approach it strategically you can compress a lot into one workout as long as you don't burn out the muscles in the wrong sequence. This works for *some* people, not for everyone
> 
> Some people who have less time might try to compress more into one workout than others. A professional bodybuilder told me that the average person needs at least 2-3 days for anaerobic muscle recovery, from my experience this is accurate for *me*. Meaning if I do bicep weight training one day I shouldn't be able to work them again at least 2 days later. Your muscles need time to recover and grow, to do that you must put them under a certain amount of strain. Again, everyone is different, but the average person is 2-3 days for recovery.


where have you got the idea that the speed of your metabolism effects muscle growth? If this has any truth, then it will be the opposite of your claim, in that faster metabolisms means you can grow muscles quicker !


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> where have you got the idea that the speed of your metabolism effects muscle growth? If this has any truth, then it will be the opposite of your claim, in that faster metabolisms means you can grow muscles quicker !


I think the issue is more a matter of how much is available for muscle growth. I've never looked into the science of it, but it seems to be a common theme that skinny (exomorphs) people have a harder time putting on muscle mass than similarly active endomorphs and (especially) mesomorphs. If I had to guess (and I suppose I do, since I haven't read up on it), it would be a matter of consistent availability of the building blocks during the recovery process.


----------



## jobo (Oct 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I think the issue is more a matter of how much is available for muscle growth. I've never looked into the science of it, but it seems to be a common theme that skinny (exomorphs) people have a harder time putting on muscle mass than similarly active endomorphs and (especially) mesomorphs. If I had to guess (and I suppose I do, since I haven't read up on it), it would be a matter of consistent availability of the building blocks during the recovery process.



there are lots and lots of reasons and non of them are that thin people have faster metabolism, they range from simple genetics, to the,amount of HGH and test, to hormone realised by the liver that limit the amount of muscle you can grow

 BUT the most obvious answer is  a healthy 100lb male will have circa 40lb of muscle mass, a 200 lb male will have 80lbs of muscle, if they both work very hard and put on 10% muscle, the 100lad now has 44 lbs of muscle the big lad has 88lbs. They both worked the same but one has twice the benefit,


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> there are lots and lots of reasons and non of them are that thin people have faster metabolism, they range from simple genetics, to the,amount of HGH and test, to hormone realised by the liver that limit the amount of muscle you can grow
> 
> BUT the most obvious answer is  a healthy 100lb male will have circa 40lb of muscle mass, a 200 lb male will have 80lbs of muscle, if they both work very hard and put on 10% muscle, the 100lad now has 44 lbs of muscle the big lad has 88lbs. They both worked the same but one has twice the benefit,


Agreed (and I'll accept your knowledge on the science of it - that's not a strong area of physiology for me). I think the previous post was more talking about people like me (no matter what I did, I never got above 155 lbs. in HS, even when I was on a well-organized, properly intense bodybuilding workout schedule and diet to go with it) and people who naturally carry more mass (not fat people, though they'd likely have more than the 5% I carried in HS) from the same level of exercise. Again, I don't know the biochemistry involved, but I've experienced it and seen others who couldn't gain weight (fat or muscle) because of their metabolism.


----------



## Anarax (Oct 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> where have you got the idea that the speed of your metabolism effects muscle growth? If this has any truth, then it will be the opposite of your claim, in that faster metabolisms means you can grow muscles quicker !



I was taught so from college health science courses, physicians, personal trainers and bodybuilders. There is a lot of science behind it and why it makes it more difficult with a higher metabolism, not impossible though. There are numerous articles online that cover this topic, but this link  does a good job of covering it. It explains some of the things someone with a higher metabolism should do to gain muscle.


----------



## jobo (Oct 7, 2017)

Anarax said:


> I was taught so from college health science courses, physicians, personal trainers and bodybuilders. There is a lot of science behind it and why it makes it more difficult with a higher metabolism, not impossible though. There are numerous articles online that cover this topic, but this link  does a good job of covering it. It explains some of the things someone with a higher metabolism should do to gain muscle.


that link is complete tosh, it does nothing at all to provided a scientific bases for what you claim, what it does do is state the very obvious that if you want to gain muscle you need to take on enough calories to fuel your exercises and recovery, but that is equally true for everyone,,,,,,?


----------



## Anarax (Oct 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> that link is complete tosh, it does nothing at all to provided a scientific bases for what you claim, what it does do is state the very obvious that if you want to gain muscle you need to take on enough calories to fuel your exercises and recovery, but that is equally true for everyone,,,,,,?



How is it tosh? Did you google the topic and see the other articles and forums that state the same? It states you must eat and workout more to achieve the same results than someone with a slower metabolism. Eating more calories, more frequently and must workout more. How is that not more difficult?  More actions to achieve the same result, thus makes it more difficult to do so. Which is what I stated originally.


----------



## jobo (Oct 7, 2017)

Anarax said:


> How is it tosh? Did you google the topic and see the other articles and forums that state the same? It states you must eat and workout more to achieve the same results than someone with a slower metabolism. Eating more calories, more frequently and must workout more. How is that not more difficult?  More actions to achieve the same result, thus makes it more difficult to do so. Which is what I stated originally.


why should i google it, i know your wrong, its you that making wild claim , you are the one that needs to provide some,science to prove it


----------



## Anarax (Oct 7, 2017)

Well, it seems whatever link I post you're not going to read it if you already *know* I'm wrong. However; if you do choose to research it yourself, you will see it's a topic that many have addressed and explained both scientifically and personally.


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> why should i google it, i know your wrong, its you that making wild claim , you are the one that needs to provide some,science to prove it


Except it's not a "wild claim". It's something many people have experienced, and many professionals recognize. Now, he may have the processes incorrect (I don't know one way or the other), but you've not presented anything that counters the idea that a faster metabolism (common usage of the term, I don't know if that's technically what's going on in folks like me) makes it more difficult to gain muscle. It's entirely possible it's nothing more than requiring more of everything (calories, protein, and maybe even exercise) to gain the same %.


----------



## jobo (Oct 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Except it's not a "wild claim". It's something many people have experienced, and many professionals recognize. Now, he may have the processes incorrect (I don't know one way or the other), but you've not presented anything that counters the idea that a faster metabolism (common usage of the term, I don't know if that's technically what's going on in folks like me) makes it more difficult to gain muscle. It's entirely possible it's nothing more than requiring more of everything (calories, protein, and maybe even exercise) to gain the same %.


the fitness industry is,full of bro science. Myths

we have two facts, one) some people have difficulty putting on muscle
two) some people consume more calories when resting than others, other wise know as a fast metabolism

and people have assumed a connection between the two, or rather that b) has caused a)

now who ever is making that claim needs to come up with some study that shows that connection.

the bizzare thing about this claim, is that people,with a greater muscle mass generaly consume greater calories when resting, ie have a faster metabolism than those with little muscle mass. Perhaps the logical place to start would be to show that thin people are thin because they have a fast met,,.

if that cant he done then there is no point doing the rest


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> thin people are thin because they have a fast met


Not a claim he made.

There is evidence that SOME people are thin because of their metabolism. Some are thin because they simply don't eat much and don't get much muscle-building exercise. And there are other factors, and combinations of factors.

And none of that changes the fact that what he said was not, as you claimed, a "wild claim". Even your assertion (without the same sort of evidence you're suggesting he should provide, I might point out) that "he fitness industry is,full of bro science. Myths" is a much larger and more sweeping claim than his.


----------



## jobo (Oct 7, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Not a claim he made.
> 
> There is evidence that SOME people are thin because of their metabolism. .



is there? Where?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 7, 2017)

jobo said:


> is there? Where?


Here's some of the easy stuff to find that's related to the question.

Hyperthyroidism: Various treatments available for overactive thyroid

Thyroid and Weight | American Thyroid Association

Thyroid Hormone Regulation of Metabolism

Hyperthyroidism | The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism | Oxford Academic
If you need, I can do a better search later. Searching scholarly articles on the topic is difficult because most searches turn up a lot of thyrotoxicosis and many about hypothyroid and/or low metabolism. These results are mostly around hyperthyroidism, which results in a higher metabolism (BMR) and many effects thereof.


----------



## jobo (Oct 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Here's some of the easy stuff to find that's related to the question.
> 
> Hyperthyroidism: Various treatments available for overactive thyroid
> 
> ...


so you have nw conflated ac" fast metab" with an over,active thyroid? It's interesting as popular wisdom is that i am slim because i have a fast metabolism, ive been told that hundreds of times in my life,yet there is nothing at all wrong with my thyroid, or i would image the fast majority of slim people


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> so you have nw conflated ac" fast metab" with an over,active thyroid? It's interesting as popular wisdom is that i am slim because i have a fast metabolism, ive been told that hundreds of times in my life,yet there is nothing at all wrong with my thyroid, or i would image the fast majority of slim people


I conflated nothing. Overactive thyroid is one cause of fast metabolism.

The rest of your rant gets us to the point of talking about "wrong" (using your word) versus "elevated". A diagnosis of hyperthyroidism generally would require markers above a certain level. Hypothyroidism generally would require markers below a certain level. That leaves a range considered "normal". A range. That means that someone can have a more active thyroid than another person, and both be within "normal" range.

Nor is the thyroid the only thing that affects BMR. There's evidence (and I'm not doing your searching for you - since you are inclined to take pot shots at the method of the search, do your own damned search) that BMR can is genetically influenced. There are other factors that are easily controllable (diet, exercise, sedentary state, etc.), but there are at least two (thyroid and genetics) that are not under the control of the individual.

But, once again, you knew most of this, and were simply arguing to be arguing.


----------



## jobo (Oct 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> I conflated nothing. Overactive thyroid is one cause of fast metabolism.
> 
> The rest of your rant gets us to the point of talking about "wrong" (using your word) versus "elevated". A diagnosis of hyperthyroidism generally,  would require markers above a certain level. Hypothyroidism generally would require markers below a certain level. That leaves a range considered "normal". A range. That means that someone can have a more active thyroid than another person, and both be within "normal" range.
> 
> ...


well you seem to have gone round in a circle now and concluded that being slim might be genetic, which it most certainty is, however we are still looking for the evidence that a fast metabolism is a restriction to muscle growth rather than having a genetic limit to the amount of muscle you can grow.

people who are naturally slim have no trouble putting on muscle of they use chemical assistance and load them shelves up with steroids and or test /human growth hormone, so the answer would seem to be dependent on changing their blood chemistry rather on their fast metab consuming all the calleries, which was the other guys point


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> well you seem to have gone round in a circle now and concluded that being slim might be genetic, which it most certainty is, however we are still looking for the evidence that a fast metabolism is a restriction to muscle growth rather than having a genetic limit to the amount of muscle you can grow.
> 
> people who are naturally slim have no trouble putting on muscle of they use chemical assistance and load them shelves up with steroids and or test /human growth hormone, so the answer would seem to be dependent on changing their blood chemistry rather on their fast metab consuming all the calleries, which was the other guys point


Nothing circular there. You're just not paying attention.

As for WHY the fast metabolism makes gaining difficult, he never said it was because they burned calories faster: "For example, someone with a slower metabolism will have an easier time putting on muscle mass opposed to someone with a faster metabolism." From there, you dragged the conversation toward the conclusion you drew from that sentence. Any emphasis on calories first has been yours.


----------



## jobo (Oct 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Nothing circular there. You're just not paying attention.
> 
> As for WHY the fast metabolism makes gaining difficult, he never said it was because they burned calories faster: "For example, someone with a slower metabolism will have an easier time putting on muscle mass opposed to someone with a faster metabolism." From there, you dragged the conversation toward the conclusion you drew from that sentence. Any emphasis on calories first has been yours.


now you are being circular, what science do you have that slower metaba have an easier time putting on muscle, that's the wild claim i pulled the other guy over and now you are repeating it


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> now you are being circular, what science do you have that slower metaba have an easier time putting on muscle, that's the wild claim i pulled the other guy over and now you are repeating it


Still nothing circular (that's a pretty specious argument, in and of itself). I didn't make that claim, except to cite anecdotal evidence of it and say I didn't know what support there was beyond that. Quoting someone's claim to clarify what they claimed is not the same as making a claim.

But then you knew that, too.


----------



## jobo (Oct 8, 2017)

gpseymour said:


> Still nothing circular (that's a pretty specious argument, in and of itself). I didn't make that claim, except to cite anecdotal evidence of it and say I didn't know what support there was beyond that. Quoting someone's claim to clarify what they claimed is not the same as making a claim.
> 
> But then you knew that, too.


he obviously cant support, you despite all your blusters can't support it, at that point i have no idea what you are arguing about ?


----------



## Gerry Seymour (Oct 8, 2017)

jobo said:


> he obviously cant support, you despite all your blusters can't support it, at that point i have no idea what you are arguing about ?


No bluster. I provided a bit of evidence and offered to do more searching. Rather than asking for something different, you chose to act like I'd conflated two ideas (when I clearly pointed out my original results had only produced that one thing).

But you knew that.


----------



## marques (Oct 11, 2017)

ACSM recommends 5*30min/week of moderate intensity or 3*50min/week of vigorous intensity exercise, for health purposes.


----------

