The Science of Exercise
Discussion
The two best speakers on keto and IF on youtube, combine a video, great.
they chat about best exercises on keto and best time to eat etc
https://youtu.be/KUDNGOQaDaI
Thomas DeLauer & Dr. Berg Collab: Health & Fitness Review of the Ketogenic Diet
24 minsthey chat about best exercises on keto and best time to eat etc
https://youtu.be/KUDNGOQaDaI
TameRacingDriver said:
Caveat on this one - some of it is not backed up by science at all. For example, the best meta-analysis of hypertrophy research suggests that, all else being equal, the more sets the better; this chap suggests one hard set is as good as many. Strongerbyscience is the best resource for this kind of evidence-based stuff. The conclusions are usually inconvenient: principally, that most of us intermediate lifters need hypertrophy to get materially stronger and that hypertrophy requires a lot of very hard work (i.e. sets damn close to real failure or beyond).
ORD said:
Caveat on this one - some of it is not backed up by science at all. For example, the best meta-analysis of hypertrophy research suggests that, all else being equal, the more sets the better; this chap suggests one hard set is as good as many.
Strongerbyscience is the best resource for this kind of evidence-based stuff. The conclusions are usually inconvenient: principally, that most of us intermediate lifters need hypertrophy to get materially stronger and that hypertrophy requires a lot of very hard work (i.e. sets damn close to real failure or beyond).
I would imagine that you're probably somewhat right in what you say. I think the point it tries to make, is that although more is better, less is not much worse - a law of diminishing returns applies (we can probably agree to disagree here); I like the article above because it is targetted at people like me - although it does not explicitly say it, but I have seen similar articles that do; people like me, who are either time-limited, or lack motivation, dont enjoy exercise, or a combination of all to varying degrees Strongerbyscience is the best resource for this kind of evidence-based stuff. The conclusions are usually inconvenient: principally, that most of us intermediate lifters need hypertrophy to get materially stronger and that hypertrophy requires a lot of very hard work (i.e. sets damn close to real failure or beyond).
However, I still want to improve my physique, strength, and benefit from the myriad of health benefits, and these articles are saying that you can still do all of this, even without going to the 'extremes' of some of the routines I have read about over the years.
The internet is too full of conflicting advice, routines that are too complex and/or too time-consuming, and with diet plans that your average man or woman on the street simply will not stick to, and I think that puts a lot of people off from doing an activity which clearly has great benefits for everyone, not just those looking for a men's health cover body.
Will doing single-set training done twice a week be as good as mutliple set training done twice as frequently? It's a tough one to answer, because everyone is totally different. People like yourself who want to, and enjoy lifting weights, and are happy to make their lifestyle fit around their goals, then I would suggest this type of article is not for you. For those that want to maximise their gains, then, up to a point, the more work you can do, the better the end result will be.
However, if you're anything like me, you will just be an average bloke, who doesn't particularly enjoy exercise, does it because they feel they have to, but will find excuses not to do, then a routine like this will not only still provide some results, but improve adherence, because if I think I can work out hard for just 20 minutes, 2 or 3 times a week, and still see results, then I am much more likely to stick at it.
The message I take away from it is that while I wont get the best results from this sort of routine, I may find that I get 60 or 70% of the benefits while spending 20 or 30% of the time doing it, so on that account, I view it as a more efficient, if not optimal way to work out, and I haven't seen enough truly definitive evidence to argue one way over another.
I would probably suggest that people like me are representative of 80-90% of the population, all of whom SHOULD be doing something, but are put off by the conflicting information, lack of time, desire or whatever, and anything that can help people like me should be encouraged. In a way, its not too dissimilar to the hardcore joggers sneering at those at doing 6 minutes of HIIT stating that it's not enough time to get properly fit, even though their goals are likely completely different.
Hope that makes sense
TameRacingDriver said:
Will doing single-set training done twice a week be as good as mutliple set training done twice as frequently?
Short answer...yes, long answer relating to muscle type 1 and 2 fibres, more complex, along with specificationHaven't read the article, but using volume to overload will always achieve something.
Here is a great link to how the giants of the pre steroid age did it, there was a great article by Mike Starr who talked of squatting 100lbs and making gains with that with century sets over one winter stuck with no wieghts...but can;'t find it.
http://ditillo2.blogspot.co.uk/
there are hundreds of old articles that have been uploaded to The Tight Tan Slacks of Dezso Ban
scroll to0 the bottom for them all
Volume and frequency are limited due to time constraints and recovery. Intensity is not.
If you work out intensely, then you physically won't be able to do so with large volume, and frequency is limited by recovery. Many great bodies have been made this way- and it's generally the modern approach to bodybuilding, at least with the top UK guys at present. Muscle adapts to the stress applied, the largest stress comes from intensity. Get stronger across the varying rep ranges, across all the movements, and you'll grow- simple as that.
It's the most effective way I've found to train, for hypertrophy, by quite a margin.
If you work out intensely, then you physically won't be able to do so with large volume, and frequency is limited by recovery. Many great bodies have been made this way- and it's generally the modern approach to bodybuilding, at least with the top UK guys at present. Muscle adapts to the stress applied, the largest stress comes from intensity. Get stronger across the varying rep ranges, across all the movements, and you'll grow- simple as that.
It's the most effective way I've found to train, for hypertrophy, by quite a margin.
didelydoo said:
Volume and frequency are limited due to time constraints and recovery. Intensity is not.
If you work out intensely, then you physically won't be able to do so with large volume, and frequency is limited by recovery. Many great bodies have been made this way- and it's generally the modern approach to bodybuilding, at least with the top UK guys at present. Muscle adapts to the stress applied, the largest stress comes from intensity. Get stronger across the varying rep ranges, across all the movements, and you'll grow- simple as that.
It's the most effective way I've found to train, for hypertrophy, by quite a margin.
If you do 100x0, or 10x 100, you'll be getting intensity, different sorts, that comes. One can track better with volume than anything elseIf you work out intensely, then you physically won't be able to do so with large volume, and frequency is limited by recovery. Many great bodies have been made this way- and it's generally the modern approach to bodybuilding, at least with the top UK guys at present. Muscle adapts to the stress applied, the largest stress comes from intensity. Get stronger across the varying rep ranges, across all the movements, and you'll grow- simple as that.
It's the most effective way I've found to train, for hypertrophy, by quite a margin.
chris watton said:
Halb said:
If you do 100x0, or 10x 100, you'll be getting intensity, different sorts, that comes. One can track better with volume than anything else
Or just mix rep ranges, best of both worlds. Wouldn't go as far as 100 reps in a set, though...I currently like the 5/4/3/2/1 because it suits currentneeds...but I'm gonna add in 100/500 for specific exercises.
I think mcelliot is a great example of the large 'set' format.
Halb said:
Short answer...yes, long answer relating to muscle type 1 and 2 fibres, more complex, along with specification
Haven't read the article, but using volume to overload will always achieve something.
Here is a great link to how the giants of the pre steroid age did it, there was a great article by Mike Starr who talked of squatting 100lbs and making gains with that with century sets over one winter stuck with no wieghts...but can;'t find it.
http://ditillo2.blogspot.co.uk/
there are hundreds of old articles that have been uploaded to The Tight Tan Slacks of Dezso Ban
scroll to0 the bottom for them all
And this exactly proves my point, you'll never get people to agree.Haven't read the article, but using volume to overload will always achieve something.
Here is a great link to how the giants of the pre steroid age did it, there was a great article by Mike Starr who talked of squatting 100lbs and making gains with that with century sets over one winter stuck with no wieghts...but can;'t find it.
http://ditillo2.blogspot.co.uk/
there are hundreds of old articles that have been uploaded to The Tight Tan Slacks of Dezso Ban
scroll to0 the bottom for them all
For what it's worth from my point of view I tend to lift roughly 80% my max and then go to the point where I feel like I couldn't do another rep with good form. I wouldn't go further than that as I don't have a spotter and from time to time I'll probably drop the weights and try and crank out a few more reps.
I'm glad you agree I'm not totally wasting my time though :-)
I don’t disagree with any of that.
Intensity is the key. The best relationship shown is for hypertrophy and ‘hard sets’ (very hard sets, by comparison to how most people train). 1 very hard set is probably enough to give you the bulk of the gains you will get. Almost certainly better than 3,4 or 5 easy sets.
My own limited experience is that I get very similar gains from 1 very hard set to those I get from 3-5 hard (but not quite so hard) sets.
I have very little time to workout, so I often do 1 hard set per exercise. It’s probably not optimum, but we don’t need optimum. We just want good results.
Intensity is the key. The best relationship shown is for hypertrophy and ‘hard sets’ (very hard sets, by comparison to how most people train). 1 very hard set is probably enough to give you the bulk of the gains you will get. Almost certainly better than 3,4 or 5 easy sets.
My own limited experience is that I get very similar gains from 1 very hard set to those I get from 3-5 hard (but not quite so hard) sets.
I have very little time to workout, so I often do 1 hard set per exercise. It’s probably not optimum, but we don’t need optimum. We just want good results.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff