Training frequency - less is more?

Options
2»

Replies

  • scottver2
    scottver2 Posts: 53 Member
    Options
    I am wondering why this is of concern? If going to gym frequently is that bothersome, then don't go. If you are concerned about your physical appearance, then it might take a little work, unless you are a genetic masterpiece. Is exercising really that boring/difficult/tedious for you? If so, possibly reevaluate what your goals are...exercising is not for everyone.
  • LolBroScience
    LolBroScience Posts: 4,537 Member
    Options
    scottver2 wrote: »
    I am wondering why this is of concern? If going to gym frequently is that bothersome, then don't go. If you are concerned about your physical appearance, then it might take a little work, unless you are a genetic masterpiece. Is exercising really that boring/difficult/tedious for you? If so, possibly reevaluate what your goals are...exercising is not for everyone.

    Frequency in relation to the amount of times a body part is hit in a given time frame.... It has to do with potential optimality....
  • cafeaulait7
    cafeaulait7 Posts: 2,459 Member
    Options
    I'm interested because I have a chronic pain problem that includes a couple of muscles that do need to be strengthened. The problem with that is that they act up the pain scale to nearly off the charts unless I do the barest of stress on them. I'd be seriously interested in training them hard 1x a week (the pain happens that often anyway) if it really would strengthen them well.

    It would be safe, btw. The pain thing is a nerve/facet joint issue that's stable. I have nothing that would really be hurt by lifting heavy for them.

    Physical therapy doesn't help much because I can't lift (except the barest amounts) 3x a week. It's too much flare-up and recovery time or either just too light to do much :(
  • Cherimoose
    Cherimoose Posts: 5,209 Member
    Options
    lemmie177 wrote: »
    I actually recently read "Body by Science," the book referenced in the article. It's super interesting and has some really exciting implications for public health (particularly for the untrained, infirm, and elderly), but you have to consider where the author's coming from and what exactly he's using all the research to support.
    A lot of beginners start out only needing 4 days or so to recover, but as they start moving more and more weight, they'll need 7 to up to 14 days depending on the individual. He's not making a case for infrequent training so much as failure training, which requires longer recovery.

    I'm not seeing the advantage for an elderly or infirmed person to be recovering from anything for 4 to 14 days. That means they're in a prolonged weakened state where they're more likely to injure themselves.
  • nossmf
    nossmf Posts: 9,542 Member
    Options
    Anecdotal evidence here:

    I've been lifting for 7 years now. I've gone as often as 5 days a week, found my best results at 2-3 times per week. My problem is I work 12-hr shifts, which after commute, sleep and time with kids doesn't leave me time (or energy) to workout on days I work. Since I've been working more shifts lately, that's been eating into available workout days, to the point where most weeks I only get a single lifting session per week.

    Thus far I've been able to maintain my size, but my strength has tapered marginally. I can still lift the same, but it takes more effort. Hopefully my work situation will stabilize back to normal where I can return to twice per week, for sanity reasons if nothing else. (I work out a lot of stress pumping iron.) But for short periods of time at least, once per week seems to be adequate, if not satisfying.
  • Sam_I_Am77
    Sam_I_Am77 Posts: 2,093 Member
    Options
    Cherimoose wrote: »
    lemmie177 wrote: »
    I actually recently read "Body by Science," the book referenced in the article. It's super interesting and has some really exciting implications for public health (particularly for the untrained, infirm, and elderly), but you have to consider where the author's coming from and what exactly he's using all the research to support.
    A lot of beginners start out only needing 4 days or so to recover, but as they start moving more and more weight, they'll need 7 to up to 14 days depending on the individual. He's not making a case for infrequent training so much as failure training, which requires longer recovery.

    I'm not seeing the advantage for an elderly or infirmed person to be recovering from anything for 4 to 14 days. That means they're in a prolonged weakened state where they're more likely to injure themselves.

    It is kind of counter-intuitive I would agree and 14-days seems a bit long in-consideration of the fact that de-training begins approximately 21-days of no training. The elderly population is different and I recall studying "special populations" in school and the elderly don't need a lot of training; two days a week was shown to be sufficient for improving quality of life. Now the studies were specific to "quality of life" so I'm not sure if that's the same goal as what the author mentioned above or not.

Categories