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

[Gerry Seymour]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.