Page 1 of 1 [ 5 posts ] 

muslimmetalhead
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Age: 28
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,420

28 Jan 2013, 2:35 pm

"Some relevant passages from Body by Science
McGuff and Little:

Obviously, you should not work out before recovery and full adaptation from the previous workout takes place — but how long is this, on average? We can share with you the average length of time that we have found to be most beneficial based on our own thirty-plus years of training, in addition to our experience in supervising in excess of 150,000 workouts and performing informal studies on the subject. Perhaps more significantly, we can also share with you the findings of exercise physiology studies regarding what happens as a result of a high-intensity workout stimulus being applied to the muscles and how long the recovery and overcompensation process typically takes.

… The muscle fibers build back to their preworkout size and then, if further time is allowed, will build up to a level that is greater than it was before the workout. The length of time required for the entire process to complete itself is dependent on the intensity of the workout stimulus and the corresponding damage to the muscle fibers. Typically, it falls in the neighborhood of five days (on the quick side of things) to six weeks.

What interested me there was that McGuff and Little considered 5 days to be “quick” — the very lowest end of the range!

They believe, based on experience and a little more evidence, that although the studies cited above show equal results, higher frequency can actually backfire over longer periods:

…even at best, the data suggest that if you train twice a week, the second workout isn’t doing anything positive [or not much] and serves only to waste your time. The reality is that by week twelve, had the study been carried out that long, you would have noted that not only were you wasting your time by performing a second weekly workout, but also you were actually starting to regress and would be unable to lift the same amount of weight for the same time-under-load (or repetition) ranges."


http://saveyourself.ca/articles/strengt ... quency.php


_________________
"I watched a change in you, It's like you never had wings, now you feel so alive"


Stargazer43
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 Nov 2011
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,604

28 Jan 2013, 2:39 pm

I had always heard it takes a day or two, not 5. But I'm far from an expert, and I certainly don't have any references to back up my claim.



1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

28 Jan 2013, 4:26 pm

This might be relevant for muscles. But it's not relevant for skill training, which in this case we're training for the strength adaptation. Muscles will come after the body adapts to strength adaptation, which is mostly tendon and ligament strength and neural (your brain) adaptations to allow you to release more seratonin. Also the changes in your testosterone and cortisol and other adrenal hormone levels.

When reading things, it's best to look at two extremes of thought and find somewhere in the mdidle. So I'll give you the Olympic lifting coach John Broz's take on it.

http://www.averagebroz.com/ABG/Q_%26_A/ ... ystem.html

Quote:
A large part of how strong we are is the ability to create and deal with a higher concentration of these neurotransmitters. The nerves develop more receptor sites to connect with them, and the glands learn to make more of the neurotransmitters themselves. Only then do you get a stronger impulse.

When you start placing demands on the brain to lift maximum weights every day, it says "oh crap I need to learn how to make and use these chemicals or he’s going to kill us. So it goes through an adaptive period where it shuts down some functions and tries to upgrade. These are the "dark times".

The main chemical in muscle contraction is SEROTONIN. It actually regulates how HARD the muscle contracts, which is why only the heaviest weights seem to effect our mood, the reason why people shy away from maximal lifting and cower from the imaginary symptoms of overtraining.


Quote:
Guys who are afraid of this response are guys who are lifting because they like the way it makes them feel. If you do lighter workouts, this serotonin is raised, but there is no signal to adapt. You feel high. Basically lifting weights becomes like a drug. People feel better doing light useless workouts, just like they feel better taking a hit of crack. I think this is why no one wants to try lifting the Bulgarian way. They are addicts.


Now, John Broz I don't agree entirely with him as he's had 2 lifters popped for steroids and numerous people quit because how hard he works his athletes. But it does "work." So somewhere in the middle between "doing light useless workouts once a week" and "go train so hard you hate your life and don't wanna wake up in the morning" is where you should be.

Quote:
If you got a job as a garbage man and had to pick up heavy cans all day long, the first day would probably be very difficult, possibly almost impossible for some to complete. So what do you do, take three days off and possibly lose your job?

No, you'd take your sore, beaten self to work the next day. You'd mope around and be fatigued, much less energetic than the previous day, but you'd make yourself get through it. Then you'd get home, soak in the tub, take aspirin, etc. The next day would be even worse.

But eventually you'd be running down the street tossing cans around and joking with your coworkers. How did this happen? You forced your body to adapt to the job at hand! If you can't' squat and lift heavy every day you're not overtrained, you're undertrained! Could a random person off the street come to the gym with you and do your exact workout? Probably not, because they're undertrained. Same goes with most lifters when compared to elite athletes.

– John Broz 2002

This is the mentality you must look at training like. Obviously, you cannot let your training affect your daily life or other sport you're training for (if lifting for a sport) too much, but the point is to push the body to adapt and overcome things with the goal of completing a task. Like for example, I used to not know how to make pizza from scratch. Now I do. Why? Because I practiced it like hell, messed up a bunch of times, but through it all, I've learned to make pizza. It's the same with your physical body.



Schneekugel
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Jul 2012
Age: 44
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,612

29 Jan 2013, 7:35 am

I dont see this as important. I do sport, because doing makes me feel fine, so sometimes i just feel it inside me, that I want to move, and if I am bicyling 2-3 hours when feeling so, i feel afterwards really good and balanced. If I dont move I get weird and hasty and so on.... I care to eat something before doing sport, so I dont get to feel weak during I do sports, but I dont care how much my muscles build them up and down. My muscles cant be happy or sad, so what advantage would I have by doing sport only every 5 day, when my muscles dont care, but I would be unhappy?

I think the article is nonsense. So the scientific facts maybe real, but you should do sport for yourself, not for your muscles. ^^



1000Knives
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Jul 2011
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,036
Location: CT, USA

29 Jan 2013, 10:52 am

The problem with science by itself is it's useless.

Results > Science. If for example, someone worked out once a week, and this worked to accomplish either the goal of more hypertrophy or the goal of more strength/performance, then it'd be done. Someone would have done this and it'd have worked, and then you'd have results of it working and then everyone would be training once a week.

When reading theories, you must see what actually works in real life. For example, Nautilus exercise machines say they're the best coolest thing ever, and have tons of "science" to back it up. However, do you actually know anyone who's super strong or athletic or built from using only Nautilus machines? Are all the pro sports teams and athletes using Nautilus machines for the majority of their training? No, they're not. Is it because the best performing athletes in the world are dumb and don't know what they're doing, and the average person who goes to the gym and uses said Nautilus machine circuit is way smarter and more advanced of a trainee?

Anyone can argue a point and usually can have some sort of facts to back it up. It doesn't make it true. And then there's bias, too. For example, low carb people will cite studies where athletes with high fat diets performed better than on low fat diets, in support of low carbohydrates. Except for the fact the athletes in the studies had high amount of carbohydrates in the diet (50% of calories, 30% fat calories) also.

It's fine to read scientific theories. It can teach you a lot, and make you think of new ways to do things that could be more efficient. But you cannot let science get in the way of real life. In real life no athlete trains once a week so his muscles will recover fully, nor have they ever. If you try this type of thing, and it works, then you can present proof of it working and maybe people will change their ways. The best proof is not theoretical, it's practical. Anyone can come out with a study or make a diagram of something and say it works. But one must actually present real world proof of something working.

Nikola Tesla summed it up best.

Quote:
Today's scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.


Here's something to think about.
The Wright Brothers were told heavier than air flight was impossible. Obviously this isn't true, because we see birds and insects do it everyday. In this case, the Wright Brothers ignored "science" and just did it, because they saw "science" was wrong, based upon observed real world experience. Of course now thanks to the Wright Brothers we have "science" showing how heavier than air flight is possible, and airplanes are very prevalent and used for everything.

Science is only a tool, it's a good tool, but it's not the end all be all, as "science" is subject to human judgment like everything else in the world.