intensity vs duration

I did not know where else to post this so I posted it here in the "general section". First, I work out several times per week with weights and an eliptical trainer. Due to a neck injury in 2004 my max lifts have been dramatically reduced but with the aid of a DC the injury and associated mess are being cleaned up. The prognosis is good for an eventual, and gradual, buildup of bench press and squats. Now, with all that said.

It's been said that you can work out hard or for a long time, but not both unless you want to overtrain. Whether that is true or not I don't know. I do know that my greatest gains in muscle mass and endurance have been made when I worked out hard at least once per week and gave my body sufficient time to "over compensate". "Non Max" workouts were still taxing, but they were not anywhere near as exhausting as the "push it days".

I've seen too many people not make any gains, or make very slow gains, because they fear pain. Therefore, when the going gets tough, they quit. Cripes.

Anyway, I read this weekend that "new wisdom" says it's the duration of the workout, not the intensity that is the real benefit. That seems to make no sense; I could walk "forever" if I did not walk fast. I could lift weight "forever" if I did not use a weight that taxes my muscle strength. When I underwent a stress test I was told it was due to my fitness level that it took "so long" to raise my heart rate to the target zone. I achieved that level by busting my butt so often that it cracked

So, what say the resident experts?

I have been doing workouts of only 6 sets per muscle group for three months and have gained more mass than I did in the previous three years. I do each muscle group only once per week. I'm 50 so I need more recovery time too I guess. One day I picked up a Flex magazine while waiting around because I couldn't find Saltwater Sportsman. Those guys are psychos and many do illegal steroids but they do know how to put on mass even without them or supplements. Try to read one of those if you're seriously trying to body build. It's pretty interesting. Just as important as working out, is eating right. As they say, workouts are pretty useless if you go out afterwards and drink beer and eat pizza.They tell you workouts for gaining strength, gaining mass...Hank

Many years ago, when I was younger, I hooked up with a lifting partner who "subscribed" to the (Ray and Mike Mentzer) heavy duty school of lifting.

We'd warm up and then do no more than 2 sets per exercise. Both sets were done using maximum liftable weight. The first set was done to failure. The second set was done to failure, then 2 forced reps, followed by two negatives. We'd do an entire workout in 60 minutes; which worked out to about 30 minutes per man. It was crazy and several others told us so

I think Dorian Yates (www.dorianyates.net) also uses a heavy duty philosophy.
I also think that David and Peter Paul trained heavy duty as well. I saw pictures of them (allegedly) repping 300+ pounds on behind the neck presses. They were [in]famous for saying something like "there is no such thing as over training. Only under eating, under sleeping and lack of will."

Anyway, lift hard but be careful.

G_M

; In college my trainers would have us (d-line) transition between the two. "Heavy duty" is as valid a philosophy as any other. So is endurance training.

It's important to note that they work two distinct muscle fiber groups. Endurance training (or high rep lower resist.) works the long (or fast-twitch) muscle fibers and strength (or heavy duty or power) works short (or slow-twitch) fibers.

The reason body builders prefer heavy training to the point of exclusivity is that you can break them down faster (which means they get bigger faster) and more weight is more fun. But as my Trainer Jerry used to say, "by the time you and your slow twitch muscles catch up to me, my fast-twitch muscles and I are going to whip your slow-twitchin' ***!"

So, most athletes’ use a "tuned" regime. Start with low weight and high reps and slowly, week-by-week, increase weight and decrease reps.

That's my advice, and when it comes to training EVERYONE has a good system.

JB

We ultilize periodization training. Msucle development can be static if you take on a static training plan. Which is why you see people never change at the gym. They do the same exercises at the same intensity and in the same wrong form. Once they get hurt they commonly quit and blame it on getting old or something silly....

The physiology of muscle tissue is what drives periodization training.

The concept of periodization is based on Hans Selke's general adaptation theory. This theory suggests that there are three body adaptation phases to a given stress:


The first one is the shock; when the body is exposed to a training stimulus, there is micro-cellular damage and performance decrease (fatigue).

The second phase is stimulus adaptation; a process where physiological adaptations take place and performance increases (super compensation)

The third phase is the stagnation phase, the body has adapted itself and is used to the stimulus. Consequently, there's no new adaptation. Also, when there is too much time without stimulation, there is a decrease in performance (Ref: 2,3,4,5,6).

Click to expand...

http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/ss25.htm



My friend is a body builder (no steroids) that used to compete as a teen. He is training again to compete in an over 30 category. So, his trainnig plan is different than mine. His focus is on mass gains, while mine is more on strength, flexibility, and endurance. So, I follow along with a similar routine but do less weight and more reps (in general). Continued progress seems best with a varied program. Meaning lift heavier one day a week (less reps), moderate another, and lift low weight with high reps as well. He'll be doing mega weight with rest pauses starting monday. I will sneak one similar workout each week but that is it. The other days will vary for me.

Clarence Bass has a good book out that covers the concepts and has a through plan for serious physique building. http://www.cbass.com/PROD01.HTM My friend borrowed me his copy to read. Interesting stuff.

I'm also reading/using a training guide by Chris Carmichael (One of Lance Armstrong's former trainers) that has the same concepts stressed in it. It is based on physiological understanding so it makes sense to see it repeated.

Green_Manelishi:

I did not know where else to post this so I posted it here in the "general section". First, I work out several times per week with weights and an eliptical trainer. Due to a neck injury in 2004 my max lifts have been dramatically reduced but with the aid of a DC the injury and associated mess are being cleaned up. The prognosis is good for an eventual, and gradual, buildup of bench press and squats. Now, with all that said.

It's been said that you can work out hard or for a long time, but not both unless you want to overtrain. Whether that is true or not I don't know. I do know that my greatest gains in muscle mass and endurance have been made when I worked out hard at least once per week and gave my body sufficient time to "over compensate". "Non Max" workouts were still taxing, but they were not anywhere near as exhausting as the "push it days".

I've seen too many people not make any gains, or make very slow gains, because they fear pain. Therefore, when the going gets tough, they quit. Cripes.

Anyway, I read this weekend that "new wisdom" says it's the duration of the workout, not the intensity that is the real benefit. That seems to make no sense; I could walk "forever" if I did not walk fast. I could lift weight "forever" if I did not use a weight that taxes my muscle strength. When I underwent a stress test I was told it was due to my fitness level that it took "so long" to raise my heart rate to the target zone. I achieved that level by busting my butt so often that it cracked

So, what say the resident experts?

Click to expand...

Intensity and duration are exclusive of each other. You can either workout with intensity, but it'll be only for short periods of time (the nature of the energy system used and neural fatigue) or you can go forever with low intensity.

Low intensity work is still advocated by folks who believe they will "burn fat" at this rate. Nothing could be further from the truth, but that's another topic. Low intensity training has its applications, though they're very limited. People with certain conditions and under certain medications will benefit from it since their conditions preclude them from performing high intensity work safely. A low intensity workout is also ocasionally used by the advanced athlete to enhance recovery during peaking periods, though I can tell you how much THEY HATE doing them.

In general, a healthy individual who considers himself active and has some experience with some form of conditioning, has no business relying on low intensity work to achieve fitness.

There's an abysmal difference between being active and being conditioned. Conditioning requires those who are ready, to cross some VERY uncomfortable tresholds, which require great focus and mental preparation. A lot of people who were raised with the "low intensity to burn fat" mantra are simply not mentally prepared to do it.

That is why it's very hard to find somebody who is really conditioned. Even when people know that they're training under a fallacy, they refuse to get out of their box. Doing so would mean their reality would crumble and they're not willing to take the next step. The worst part is that most of the times, these are the loudest complainers "I don't understand, I go to they gym all the time and I haven't changed. Their machines suck" (true quote by the way).

Speedy recovery and be safe!