Least amount of resistance training

Options
2»

Replies

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,610 Member
    Options
    davew0000 wrote: »
    This article is interesting. The research is surprisingly consistent that more is more, but not very much more.

    I’ll bet I get a few dislikes though. My own view is there are plenty of people on these forums willing to put in 3x the effort for that extra 10-20%. 😉😃

    https://www.painscience.com/articles/strength-training-frequency.php
    I don't entirely disagree at all. Though personally I workout everyday, I only train one body part a day and won't train it again till a week later. So in essence it somewhat follows what's in the article. And my training sessions, due to my job, aren't usually more than 30-45 max except leg day where I'm off of work and take my time doing it (yesterday was quad day and I was in the gym for 1.5 hours doing them).
    I've retained most of my strength and muscle mass, but then again I've been about the same for the last 30 years or so.


    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

    9285851.png
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    davew0000 wrote: »
    This article is interesting. The research is surprisingly consistent that more is more, but not very much more.

    I’ll bet I get a few dislikes though. My own view is there are plenty of people on these forums willing to put in 3x the effort for that extra 10-20%. 😉😃

    https://www.painscience.com/articles/strength-training-frequency.php

    I think the only thing extra is context.

    Are you talking training for strength (as much in the article is about for studies) increases, or hypertrophy muscle size increases?

    And the fact there are more recent studies that tell a better story on both of those, like in last 3 years.


    So which applies to the OP and his stated desires is the question.
    Not the general population and avg desires or needs.
  • davew0000
    davew0000 Posts: 125 Member
    edited April 2021
    Options
    heybales wrote: »

    And the fact there are more recent studies that tell a better story on both of those, like in last 3 years.

    Interested. Could you link?
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    Options
    Start here - several meta-analysis and individual studies listed in blog section.
    Strength seems to hold true to your link, but hypertrophy needs more volume.

    http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/more-on-the-dose-response-relationship-between-volume-and-hypertrophy/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30153194/

  • davew0000
    davew0000 Posts: 125 Member
    Options
    heybales wrote: »
    Start here - several meta-analysis and individual studies listed in blog section.
    Strength seems to hold true to your link, but hypertrophy needs more volume.

    http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/more-on-the-dose-response-relationship-between-volume-and-hypertrophy/

    https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30153194/

    Thanks Haybales, that’s appreciated. I’m struck by how difficult it is to assess differences in training plans because there are so many variables and confounding factors. The water weight or muscle thing is a good example.

    I haven’t read the main article yet but I will. This chart stuck out to me, which the blog said was a non-significant inverted U. That seems a rose tinted view of it to me. Why would the middle category have more extremes at both ends? I suspect measurement error.

    9668tfw8hc5u.png

    Still, volume for hypertrophy seems instinctively right.