MB Madaera
Lost 31.7 lbs fat
Built 11.7 lbs muscle


Chris Madaera
Built 9 lbs muscle


Keelan Parham
Lost 30 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle


Bob Marchesello
Lost 23.55 lbs fat
Built 8.55 lbs muscle


Jeff Turner
Lost 25.5 lbs fat


Jeanenne Darden
Lost 26 lbs fat
Built 3 lbs muscle


Ted Tucker
Lost 41 lbs fat
Built 4 lbs muscle

 
 

Determine the Length of Your Workouts

Evaluate Your Progress

Keep Warm-Up in Perspective


ARCHIVES >>

"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."

 

This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.

To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.

 

Mission Statement

H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy

Privacy Policy

Credits

LOG IN FORUM MAIN REGISTER SEARCH
Rest 6 Days:Recovery Study
1 | 2 | Next | Last
Author
Rating
Options

smanjh

"Subjective perception of physical fitness suggests that recovery over a pre-exercise level of the present type of heavy resistance exercise can take approximately 6 days."

http://journals.lww.com/...ise_and.26.aspx

What do you guys think of this? It appears that Mentzer's ideal routine is more spot on than we could have ever guessed. That would have you training different body parts at least.

It isn't June 10th yet, but Mike was way ahead of his time. Amazing.

Of course something will come out disproving this.

Discuss.

Open User Options Menu

lildrummerboy80

smanjh wrote:
"Subjective perception of physical fitness suggests that recovery over a pre-exercise level of the present type of heavy resistance exercise can take approximately 6 days."

http://journals.lww.com/...ise_and.26.aspx

What do you guys think of this? It appears that Mentzer's ideal routine is more spot on than we could have ever guessed. That would have you training different body parts at least.

It isn't June 10th yet, but Mike was way ahead of his time. Amazing.

Of course something will come out disproving this.

Discuss.


"Subjective perception of physical fitness suggests that recovery over a pre-exercise level of the present type of heavy resistance exercise can take approximately 6 days".

not even close to what mentzer prescribed. this is much closer to the normal "train each body part 1x/week
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

lildrummerboy80 wrote:
smanjh wrote:
"Subjective perception of physical fitness suggests that recovery over a pre-exercise level of the present type of heavy resistance exercise can take approximately 6 days."

http://journals.lww.com/...ise_and.26.aspx

What do you guys think of this? It appears that Mentzer's ideal routine is more spot on than we could have ever guessed. That would have you training different body parts at least.

It isn't June 10th yet, but Mike was way ahead of his time. Amazing.

Of course something will come out disproving this.

Discuss.


"Subjective perception of physical fitness suggests that recovery over a pre-exercise level of the present type of heavy resistance exercise can take approximately 6 days".

not even close to what mentzer prescribed. this is much closer to the normal "train each body part 1x/week


You pretty much do-get rid of the curls on the arm/shoulder workout and do pulldowns. Slightly less frequency of course, but still less than many think is optimal.
Open User Options Menu

fbcoach

5x10 RM leg press, followed by 4x10 RM squats, seems like a lot of local and systemic fatigue to recover from, not to mention the damage. It would probably take me longer than 6 days:)
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Interesting, but seems like crazy leg workouts as they were doing:

"(5 ? 10 repetition maximum [RM] leg press and 4 ? 10RM squats"
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Coach and HH,

I am thinking of it in terms of relative training stimuli.

I do 2 sets among other stuff in my leg/shoulder/arm workout. Same for my chest/back workout.

Now, if you subtract for volume and input for intensity, who knows how this changes. I assume those 9-10 sets were NTF, or NTF based on the trainee's relative perception vs TTF in reality.

So, about 3-4 days makes more sense probably, with 6 not being out of the question.

It goes to support how I split my routine up IMO. It also supports most of the routines listed here.

Many will take a deep end interpretation and only train 1x a week with 2 sets, which probably does become required eventually, but I am hoping people see it as a cause for allowing more recovery time.
Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

If I understand, they did not test for objective values, IGF etc. at the 6 day mark. It would have been interesting to have seen how the objective and subjective findings meshed. It is possible that the objective measures may have showed recovery at the 6 day mark.

Also interesting was how strongly the training protocol effected local factors, IGF-IEa and MGF. Basal T and FT concentrations remained unaltered after the exercise.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

if the stimulus is correct and the subject is advanced enough to apply it, 6d might be pretty close
Open User Options Menu

summaHIT

Ontario, CAN

I usually only train an exercise once per week with a muscle being hit twice on average.
Recovery is not static however since many factors influence recovery. Sometimes I need longer and sometimes shorter periods.
I think they went a little overboard performing 8 sets of a 10rm using a compound movement for the same bodypart.
If it took 6 days for that volume then it should take less for 1 set to failure.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Anyone can train more often:

Use:
1) heavy resistance
2) Do not train to failure
3) use low reps
4) Rep speed = B&S
5) TUT = ~ 10 seconds or less
6) multiple sets
7) long kinetic chain exercises
8) Minimize eccentric rep speed
9) minimal # of exercises
Open User Options Menu

Tomislav

New York, USA

lildrummerboy80 wrote:
smanjh wrote:
"Subjective perception of physical fitness suggests that recovery over a pre-exercise level of the present type of heavy resistance exercise can take approximately 6 days."

http://journals.lww.com/...ise_and.26.aspx

What do you guys think of this? It appears that Mentzer's ideal routine is more spot on than we could have ever guessed. That would have you training different body parts at least.

It isn't June 10th yet, but Mike was way ahead of his time. Amazing.

Of course something will come out disproving this.

Discuss.


"Subjective perception of physical fitness suggests that recovery over a pre-exercise level of the present type of heavy resistance exercise can take approximately 6 days".

not even close to what mentzer prescribed. this is much closer to the normal "train each body part 1x/week

lildrummerboy,
How do you figure? Seems to match his consolidation routine closely, CT unarguably being comprised of heavy resistance exercises. On the other hand there's a good argument leg curls and side laterals aren't heavy resistance exercises.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

marcrph wrote:
Anyone can train more often:

Use:
1) heavy resistance
2) Do not train to failure
3) use low reps
4) Rep speed = B&S
5) TUT = ~ 10 seconds or less
6) multiple sets
7) long kinetic chain exercises
8) Minimize eccentric rep speed
9) minimal # of exercises



anyone can work more or do more yard work...H.I.T site...aren't people here trying to get more from less??? i'm only interested in the least amount of exercise needed to get what i've got.

marcrph,
i'd be very interested to see what all of this working out has produced for you.

enough with the pseudo scientific crap

long kinetic chain????

rather than make stuff up... call it Compound Exercises...sounds a bit more credible.

i'm curious..who would have time or even want to train anymore than 2x/week, when anymore is unnecessary??

Open User Options Menu

overfiftylifter

http://jap.physiology.org/.../95/3/1038.full

From some of the information in the above study, it looks like some biological markers for recovery return to pretest levels in 48 hours.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Joshua Trentine wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Anyone can train more often:

Use:
1) heavy resistance
2) Do not train to failure
3) use low reps
4) Rep speed = B&S
5) TUT = ~ 10 seconds or less
6) multiple sets
7) long kinetic chain exercises
8) Minimize eccentric rep speed
9) minimal # of exercises



anyone can work more or do more yard work...H.I.T site...aren't people here trying to get more from less??? i'm only interested in the least amount of exercise needed to get what i've got.

marcrph,
i'd be very interested to see what all of this working out has produced for you.

enough with the pseudo scientific crap

long kinetic chain????

rather than make stuff up... call it Compound Exercises...sounds a bit more credible.

i'm curious..who would have time or even want to train anymore than 2x/week, when anymore is unnecessary??



Absolutely. As much as I love it, training takes a back seat to education and making money. work/school has been averaging 60-65 hours a week.

I am not against people who wish to go more, but I am not looking to spend more time in the gym.

So, it is encouraging to see studies like this suggest 2-3x a week being a maximum in HIT land.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

I am not implying that everyone should do it exactly like Mentzer prescribed.

What we should look at is optimal stimulation+recovery. The whole DFT is about getting around the CNS/systematic limitations. Break homeostasis, recover. That breaking will take more than one workout eventually.
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Josh,

Marcph claims to have a 22 inch neck, correct? 22 inch necks are enormous.

He couldn't climb stairs without getting winded (his claim).

Putting 2 and 2 together means his application of McGuff's work was probably using too low of a load to make a TUL count arbitrarily.

Now he is training more because, well, he should have been doing it all along at his (probable) condition.

Not a dig at him, but he only has what he sees as evidence.
Open User Options Menu

Joshua Trentine

Ohio, USA

smanjh wrote:
Josh,

Marcph claims to have a 22 inch neck, correct? 22 inch necks are enormous.

He couldn't climb stairs without getting winded (his claim).

Putting 2 and 2 together means his application of McGuff's work was probably using too low of a load to make a TUL count arbitrarily.

Now he is training more because, well, he should have been doing it all along at his (probable) condition.

Not a dig at him, but he only has what he sees as evidence.



LOL...22" NECK!? Where was that claim?
Open User Options Menu

smanjh

Joshua Trentine wrote:
smanjh wrote:
Josh,

Marcph claims to have a 22 inch neck, correct? 22 inch necks are enormous.

He couldn't climb stairs without getting winded (his claim).

Putting 2 and 2 together means his application of McGuff's work was probably using too low of a load to make a TUL count arbitrarily.

Now he is training more because, well, he should have been doing it all along at his (probable) condition.

Not a dig at him, but he only has what he sees as evidence.


LOL...22" NECK!? Where was that claim?


I seem to remember him bragging about that last summer.

What would he need to be? Like 7 feet tall for that to be proportional to the human body? At my fattest, it was only 18 inches. 15-16 when skinny.

I only measured to see what kind of neck that would be, LOL.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Joshua Trentine wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Anyone can train more often:

Use:
1) heavy resistance
2) Do not train to failure
3) use low reps
4) Rep speed = B&S
5) TUT = ~ 10 seconds or less
6) multiple sets
7) long kinetic chain exercises
8) Minimize eccentric rep speed
9) minimal # of exercises



anyone can work more or do more yard work...H.I.T site...aren't people here trying to get more from less??? i'm only interested in the least amount of exercise needed to get what i've got.

marcrph,
i'd be very interested to see what all of this working out has produced for you.

enough with the pseudo scientific crap

long kinetic chain????

rather than make stuff up... call it Compound Exercises...sounds a bit more credible.

i'm curious..who would have time or even want to train anymore than 2x/week, when anymore is unnecessary??



When you ask an intelligent question, I might answer.

You do know better
Open User Options Menu

crazeeJZ

marcrph wrote:
Anyone can train more often:

Use:
1) heavy resistance
2) Do not train to failure
3) use low reps
4) Rep speed = B&S
5) TUT = ~ 10 seconds or less
6) multiple sets
7) long kinetic chain exercises
8) Minimize eccentric rep speed
9) minimal # of exercises


I agree with some of this. What's your progression method?

Open User Options Menu

Mr Flibble

smanjh wrote:

LOL...22" NECK!? Where was that claim?

I seem to remember him bragging about that last summer.

What would he need to be? Like 7 feet tall for that to be proportional to the human body? At my fattest, it was only 18 inches. 15-16 when skinny.

I only measured to see what kind of neck that would be, LOL.


I think you've got it a bit wrong. Marcpiddle said he had a 2.2" neck. Don't overlook the decimal point.
Open User Options Menu

Landau

Florida, USA

I used to think this was correct, but in many cases it doesn't pan out in my observation and experience. I have in some cases come across this factor accidently.

The ability to recruit a percentage of muscle mass varies extremely in individuals and it takes the trainer and trainee to both figure out what is ballpark best as far as frequency - some people can barely recruit much muscle at all during all out effort and the others that recruit a much higher percentage, more than once a week training would likely kill them.

What seems to be quite logical, sometimes goes back on you - usually when you finally think you have this thing figured out. I think Mentzer was beginning to see this just before his death.
Open User Options Menu

HeavyHitter32

Landau wrote:

What seems to be quite logical, sometimes goes back on you - usually when you finally think you have this thing figured out. I think Mentzer was beginning to see this just before his death.


Agreed!
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

Mr Flibble wrote:
smanjh wrote:

LOL...22" NECK!? Where was that claim?

I seem to remember him bragging about that last summer.

What would he need to be? Like 7 feet tall for that to be proportional to the human body? At my fattest, it was only 18 inches. 15-16 when skinny.

I only measured to see what kind of neck that would be, LOL.

I think you've got it a bit wrong. Marcpiddle said he had a 2.2" neck. Don't overlook the decimal point.


What's the matter, afraid to train and experiment.
Open User Options Menu

marcrph

Portugal

crazeeJZ wrote:
marcrph wrote:
Anyone can train more often:

Use:
1) heavy resistance
2) Do not train to failure
3) use low reps
4) Rep speed = B&S
5) TUT = ~ 10 seconds or less
6) multiple sets
7) long kinetic chain exercises
8) Minimize eccentric rep speed
9) minimal # of exercises


I agree with some of this. What's your progression method?



Add weight
Open User Options Menu
1 | 2 | Next | Last
H.I.T. Acceptable Use Policy