"Once You Hammer in the Nail, All You're Doing is Damaging the Wall" - Technorati Lifestyle

"Once You Hammer in the Nail, All You're Doing is Damaging the Wall" - Technorati Lifestyle

"Once You Hammer in the Nail, All You're Doing is Damaging the Wall"

Author: Jean-Luc Boissonneault


Published: June 10, 2011 at 10:37 am

A
long time ago Mike Mentzer -popular for high intensity training- gave
this statement in one of his seminars that really stuck with me:


"Once you hammer in the nail, all you're doing is damaging the wall"



After more than 10 000 hours of training people, I can tell you he was
right on. There's really two ways people are currently over doing it. It
can happen with volume, which is the amount of work for a given muscle,
and it can happen with intensity - using too much weight that
compromises form.




The way many people exercise today is that they tell themselves they will workout for an hour a day. Unlike the TUT
of the set where the focus should be on the duration of the each set.
The duration of the workout itself should not be the goal. The emphasis
should be on the overall volume of work you accomplish, and if that
means your workout is 15 minutes, that's okay. As a beginner or anyone
for that matter that has taken more than four weeks off of training,
you should start with no more than four sets per muscle group. Once you
have done those four sets you will have accomplished the goal of the
workout.




On the other side of the spectrum there's crossfit training where
people do full body exercises to pure exhaustion in the shortest amount
of time possible often compromising form to reach the desired goal. This
is the opposite effect. As little to no rest is taken, intensity
increases and form is compromised under  heavy loads. Do you really need
to suffer like that in order to lose bodyfat, build muscle and be
healthy?




Absolutely not.




Now don't get me wrong, I've tried both these methods with great
results and they have their place when you're working towards a
conditioning goal. One can get 80 percent of the benefit of the
conditioning while still getting just as lean, muscular and healthy,
while not having to deal with the psychological stress that happens
before even starting the workout.




For the person that simply wants to lose body fat, get in shape,
build muscle and be healthy without feeling like death, all you need is
moderate strength training that focuses on manipulating volume combined
with a good nutrition plan.

Why You Shouldn't Work Out Every Day | STACK

Why You Shouldn't Work Out Every Day | STACK

May 18, 2013

The best athletes in the world are committed to a training program that enhances their physical skills. However, training more often doesn't necessarily always lead to better results. It's just as important to give your body time to recover as it is to perform intense training sessions. That's right...taking days off can actually improve your results.

Here are five reasons why you shouldn't necessarily work out every day.

Replenish Energy Stores

Your body uses adenosine triphosphate (ATP) to power muscle contractions. During weight training, the most readily available source of this energy is muscle glycogen. This source is finite, so it must be replenished before another training session. If you work out on low energy stores, you will notice decreased performance, because your muscles will be used as a source of energy and begin to break down. (Learn how muscles work.)

Repair Muscle Fibers

A proper training program is designed to stress your muscles, which is the only way to stimulate gains. However, this stress causes damage to muscle fibers. The process of repairing this damage and rebuilding muscle tissue after a workout is actually when muscles get bigger and stronger.

Alleviate Muscle Soreness

Any time you challenge your muscles in a new way or increase your workout intensity, you will encounter sore muscles. Delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS), which occurs between 24 to 72 hours after a workout, can feel anywhere from mildly discomforting to nearly debilitating. DOMS is caused be microscopic tears in the connective tissue surrounding muscles. It will resolve itself, but it is a sign that your muscles need time to rest. (Alleviate muscle soreness with a foam roller.)

Avoid Overtraining

Athletes who train too frequently run the risk of overtraining, causing stress, exhaustion, fatigue, irritability, decreased performance and even injury. Your body transitions from a state of muscle building to muscle break down. In this case, too much of a good thing turns into a bad thing. (Learn more about overtraining.)

What to Do

Maximizing your training program is simple—you need to schedule recovery into your training.
As a general rule, allow a muscle group to rest for 48 hours before reworking it. For example, if you work your legs on a Monday, don't rework them again until Wednesday.
To create an efficient schedule, stick to a split-routine plan. This commonly involves splitting your routines into upper- and lower-body days, but you can get more specific if you want.
One final note: you need to actually plan days to allow your body to rest, even if you aren't reworking the same muscle groups. Plan a mid-week rest day, and then one or two days off on the weekend to allow your body to fully recover. Ideally, you should only work out between three and five days per week.

Peak Shape - at 60: Clarence Bass

Peak Shape - at 60

me - at 60!

Don't Overtrain

People are incredulous when I tell them I do only two workouts a week, a whole-body weight session and a very hard aerobics session lasting about 30 minutes. (I also walk for an hour or so on four other days, to burn extra calories and speed recovery.) Even my brother-in-law, who runs long distance to control his weight, asked, "Why so little?" My lifelong friend Carl Miller, a former U.S. Olympic Weightlifting Team coach and an excellent lifter in his own right, said, "Frankly, I didn't believe you."
Well, it's true. I've been doing weights on Sunday (two hours or less) and aerobics on Thursday for about a year now. I'm not claiming that twice a week is best for everyone - there is probably no one best training schedule, certainly not for everyone - but it has worked wonderfully well for me.
I believe most people, especially bodybuilders, err on the side of overtraining.

As I confessed in Ripped 2, I overtrained for years. I simply didn't understand the importance of rest. George Sheehan, the famous runner-doctor-philosopher (God rest his soul), perhaps said it best: "The body can be trained for greater performance by induced stress. But the amount of stress and the time allowed for recovery are critical to the success of the process." Like Dr. Sheehan, when it comes to training, I've come to appreciate the wisdom in the saying, "less is more."

As I've explained before, in my books and most recently in the FAQ on this site about Mike Mentzer's new book Heavy Duty II, I've been experimenting for years with longer rest periods between workouts. Mentzer's claim that his clients gains soared when he switched them from training every two or three days to every four or five days (Mike says, "Decomposition doesn't even start after a two-week layoff") prompted me to extend my rest periods to 3 days after weight sessions and 2 days after hard aerobics.

I got the idea of different recovery periods after weights and aerobics from Vladimir M. Zatsiorsky, Ph.D., the famed Soviet sports scientist who is now a professor at Penn State. In his book, Science and Practice of Strength Training, (Human Kinetics, 1995) Zatsiorsky points out that "fatigue effects from different types of muscular works are specific." He says that means you might not be sufficiently recovered to repeat a heavy strength workout, but you may be well recovered for a hard aerobics session. I found that's true.

By Thursday, after an intense Sunday lifting session, I'm not ready for another heavy strength workout, but I am ready for a great aerobics workout. And with two more days rest I'm fully recovered to enthusiastically launch into another heavy resistance session.

That's how my Sunday-Thursday training plan came into being. I also discovered that Mentzer is right about no decompensation even after two weeks. My weight sessions are divided into an "A" workout and a "B," with each being repeated every two weeks. For example, I do the power snatch and squat one week and the power clean and deadlift the next.

This worked great. My strength steadily improved even though my bodyweight was dropping. In the eleven months leading up to the photo session, you could count my bad workouts on the fingers of one hand. My training diary is full of comments such as "Great Workout," "Excellent Session," "Almost Perfect!" I'm sticking to my twice a week schedule.
Twice-a-week training definitely works.

One Work Set Only

One-set-only training is controversial, not only among bodybuilders, but in the academic world as well.
"Just one set of each strength exercise, correctly done twice a week, is generally enough to increase strength significantly." commented the editors of Physician and Sportsmedicine (February, 1997).
"Monumental misinformation," Howard G. Knuttgen, Ph.D. of University Park, Pennsylvania, fired back. According to Dr. Knuttgen, the correct prescription for active adults is "2 or 3 sets repetition maximum per session for each muscle group" done "3 to 4 sessions per week." (PSM, May 1997) But that wasn't the end of it.

Dr. Ralph N. Carpinelli, who teaches the neuromuscular aspects of strength training at Adelphi University, took up Dr. Knuttgen's challenge, in Richard Winett's Master Trainer (February 1998). "There is no scientific evidence, nor is there any physiological basis, that would support the superiority of multiple sets," wrote Dr.Carpinelli. As a matter of fact, continued Carpinelli, "Theoretically, as people become stronger and wish to attain maximal increases in strength and hypertrophy, which is not accomplished without optimal recuperation, they may require lower volume and frequency."
Carpinelli, who did an extensive review of the scientific literature on one set versus many, believes "the quantity of exercise is not as important as the quality of exercise." (Master Trainer, Dec. 1997).
I side with Dr. Carpinelli.

First, when you train your whole body in one workout, as I did, you simply can't do very many quality sets; there's not time or energy to do many sets of each exercise. I rarely did more than one set per exercise (after warm-up) in the eleven months before the photos were taken. What's more, as readers of my books know, I have long recommended only one or at most two work sets per exercise.
The best and most complete explanation why I generally do - and recommend - only one work set is in my book Lean For Life (beginning at page 140). But the gist of it is essentially Dr. Carpinelli's point: Quality and quantity are mutually exclusive. It is difficult, perhaps impossible, to maintain quality or intensity and do many sets. You can train hard or you can train long, but you can't do both.
Try this experiment in two separate workouts. (WARNING: Don't do this unless you are in good shape and have no health problems. If you have any doubts at all, consult your doctor.) First take Dr. Knuttgen's advice: warm up and then do 3 sets of squats "repetition maximum." Select a weight you can do about 12 reps and do three sets of as many reps as you can..

Now, about a week later try it my way: warm up well, put the same weight on the bar and do as many reps as you can, one set only. How many reps did you do? How did you feel afterward? Were you sore a few days later?

My guess is you did 2 or 3 more reps than before, even though you went for maximum reps the previous week. I'll also bet you didn't have much enthusiasm for doing another set (I know I rarely do), and that you got stiff and sore.

As I explain in Lean For Life, when you plan to do multiple work sets, consciously or subconsciously, you pace yourself; you hold back on the first set, saving your energy for the sets to follow. On the other hand, do only one set and you can focus totally on that set without thinking about the subsequent sets. You are freed up to make a better effort; you don't have to hold anything in reserve. The result is a more intense and, therefore, a more productive set. Try it and let me know your thoughts.

I do only one very hard set

Hard Intervals

My weekly aerobic workout was a modified version of the Tabata high-intensity-interval protocol discussed in articles 10, 11 and 12 on this site. I used the Schwinn Air-Dyne stationary bike, the Concept II rower or the treadmill.

As readers of "Forget The Fat-Burn Zone" (Web Article #10) will recall, Dr. Tabata's experimental group did 7 or 8 sets of high intensity intervals (20 seconds work with 10 second rest) four days per week. On the 5th day they added 30 minutes at 70% of V02max before doing 4 sets of 20 second intervals. Because I only did the protocol once a week, I included a steady-state segment along with the 20-second intervals.
After a 5-minute warm-up, I did 5 to 10 minutes at a steady pace (fast enough to be hard at the end), followed by about 5 minutes easy to recover, and then about ten 20-second intervals. I always ended with 5 minutes of cooldown.
Dr. Tabata's group did intervals at 170% of V02max, but V02max can only be measured in the laboratory. I simply experimented and found a pace that made the last interval very hard to complete. I also monitored my heart rate with the Polar chest-strap device (See The Lean Advantage 3, Chapter 6). My heart rate was usually over 90% of my measured maximum (190) at the end of the steady-state segment and again on the last 20-second interval. As my condition improved, of course, I increased the pace of the workout. (AGAIN, DON'T TRY THIS WITHOUT CHECKING WITH YOUR DOCTOR.)
Believe it or not, I came to enjoy these short - but challenging - aerobic workouts. It was not only the challenge that I liked , but the fact I only did this workout once a week. I came to each session well rested and enthusiastic. I don't believe that would've been true if I had attempted to do this very demanding protocol more often, especially when training hard with weights.
Like my whole-body weight session, I'm sticking to once-a-week aerobics. It was fun and the photos prove it worked extremely well. My body fat came down steadily, while my strength increased. Isn't that what bodybuilding is all about?
What's more, I did it at 60!
(Check back with us next month for the results of my treadmill test at the Cooper Clinic.)

Exercise: Is Less Better Than More? | Perfect Health Diet

Exercise: Is Less Better Than More? | Perfect Health Diet

New York Times column, “For Weight Loss, Less Exercise May Be More,” got some attention this week. It was based on a recent study of the effects of exercise on weight loss.
The Danish study [1] found that exercise is helpful for weight loss – but only the first 30 minutes of light exercise per day. Additional exercise had no effect on body weight – in fact it even seemed to diminish weight loss. Those who jogged for 60 minutes a day lost five pounds, those who jogged for 30 minutes lost seven.

The subjects wore activity tracking devices – Actigraph GT1-M devices, which are an older model of these and similar to a Fitbit – which produced a surprising result. Those who exercised 30 minutes a day were seemingly energized by their exercise, as they became more active in their daily lives – more likely to take the stairs, for instance. Those who exercised 60 minutes a day, on the other hand, seemed to be worn down by their exercise, and became less active in daily life.

It seems that 30 minutes of exercise improved health but 60 minutes of exercise may have diminished well-being. When it comes to exercise, perhaps, less is more.

A Well-Supported Result

While the Danish study [1] was novel in looking at how weight loss and non-exercise activity respond to exercise, it is not the first study to show that light activity may be healthier than intense activity.

In the new Scribner edition of our book, we greatly expand the part which discusses how to optimize immunity and heal or prevent disease. The new edition discusses exercise. We found a number of recent studies showing that light daily activity is as good or better than intense activity for health:

• A study of American runners found that those who ran between 1 and 20 miles per week at a jogger’s pace of 10 or 11 minutes per mile reduced their risk of dying as much as those who ran more than 20 miles a week or who ran faster. [2]
• Another Danish study reported that Danes who exercised two or three times per week for a total of one to two and a half hours reduced mortality by 44% and extended their lifespans by 6.2 years for men and 5.6 years for women. Those who exercised either more or less had less benefit. [3]
• A study of 416,175 Taiwanese adults found that an hour and a half of moderate exercise per week (13 minutes per day) reduced mortality by 14% and extended lifespan by 3 years. An additional 15 minutes per day reduced mortality by only another 4%. Benefits peaked at 50 minutes of exercise per day. [4]

These are intriguing results. What’s more intriguing is that it doesn’t seem to matter how fit the exerciser is. People gain substantial health benefits from light exercise, even if the activity never makes them fit.

An Evolutionary Argument for Not Over-Exercising

Thanks to Stephan Guyenet, we’ve been talking a lot about the reward system of the human brain. It evolved in order to make us want to do healthy things, like braving the stings of angry bees to get honey from hives concealed high in trees.

David recently linked to an interesting post suggesting that our Paleolithic ancestors may have done a lot of honey gathering, which reminds me of this movie about the Hadza and their honey seeking:



Why did we develop an attractive taste for sugar, and why does the brain reward us for carb consumption? Presumably because the Paleolithic diet was too low in carbs for optimal health, and evolution wanted to encourage Paleolithic hunter-gatherers to gather more honey.

But, however valuable carbs are, it’s not clear that they are as valuable as the extra six years of life we obtain from light daily exercise. Yet there’s no innate reward for exercise. Many people are quite content to live their whole lives as couch potatoes.

Why didn’t evolution reward exercise, if it is as valuable as carbs? Probably because Paleolithic humans almost invariably got more exercise than they needed. Perhaps our brain evolved to prevent our ancestors from over-exercising, and now our brain unfortunately rewards us for over-resting!

Conclusion

It looks like exercise is healthful, but most or all of the benefits come from a relatively small amount – the first 30 minutes per day.

Doing the research for the new edition of our book has led me to revise my ideas of why exercise is beneficial, and how we should exercise to optimize health. In my next post, I’ll discuss why I think light exercise is most healthful, the tension between healthfulness and fitness, what I think a health-oriented exercise program should look like, and how my personal exercise activity has changed.

References

[1] Rosenkilde M et al. Body fat loss and compensatory mechanisms in response to different doses of aerobic exercise–a randomized controlled trial in overweight sedentary males. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2012 Sep;303(6):R571-9. http://pmid.us/22855277.
[2] Gretchen Reynolds, “Moderation as the Sweet Spot for Exercise,” New York Times, June 6, 2012, http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/moderation-as-the-sweet-spot-for-exercise/.

[3] European Society of Cardiology (ESC) (2012, May 3). Regular jogging shows dramatic increase in life expectancy. ScienceDaily. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120503104327.htm.

[4] Wen CP et al.  Minimum amount of physical activity for reduced mortality and extended life expectancy: a prospective cohort study. Lancet. 2011 Oct 1;378(9798):1244-53. http://pmid.us/21846575.

 5 61 0 251

Exercise, Fitness, Longevity

← Do the Elderly Need Paleo More than the Young?

Leave a comment ?

1. David September 22, 2012 at 9:57 pm

   Interesting post. I disagree, however, with your statement that there’s no innate reward for exercise. Exercise releases endorphins and other hormones, and has been found to be more effective in fighting depression than anti-depressant medicines. I think being a couch potato isn’t natural, but happens because people enjoy the quasi-meditative state of watching TV or surfing the web.

   Reply
   • JonMarc September 22, 2012 at 10:26 pm

     I guess in light of the study, it may work both ways. The body releases endorphins and gets healthier in response to moderate exercise but discourages more than that.

     Reply
   • Paul Jaminet September 23, 2012 at 8:00 am

     Hi David,
     Well, now that’s an interesting question. Endorphins are one of the circadian immune molecules we want to promote by exercising. Their presence reflects improved health, and cause it.
     It definitely feels better when we become healthier through exercise, and so many people learn from experience that it’s a good idea to exercise, and come to want to do it.
     But for most sedentary people, there’s no desire in advance of exercise to go do it; and there’s no great pleasure in the first day of exercise. As I understand it, it’s prospective wanting (motivating action) and concurrent liking (rewarding it) that the innate reward system of the brain generates. And those cues seem to be lacking.
     Best, Paul

     Reply
2. JonMarc September 22, 2012 at 10:23 pm

   Interesting. This has certainly been my experience.
   I used to go through 3-5 months bouts of over-exercising in my attempt to manage my weight. The only other time (before Paleo/PHD) that I successfully lost a substantial amount of weight was a few years ago at which time I severely restricted calories and exercised 1-2 hours most days of the week for a 2-3 month period. T’wasn’t healthy, t’was miserable, it ended quickly, and I gained all the weight back and more.
   Last fall before learning about Paleo/PHD/etc, I spent two months meticulously counting/limiting calories and doing long cardio sessions 5-6 days a week. After two months the scale hadn’t budged.
   Since starting Paleo/PHD in January I have lost 60 lbs and put on a bunch of muscle with ease. I loosely follow Mark Sisson’s fitness rx – I lift heavy things (mostly myself) once or twice a week, I do a full on sprint every week or so, and I do plenty of enjoyable walking, biking, and playing as I am able.
   I definitely prefer smart, manageable, and cheap exercise over what I used to think I needed

   Reply
3. George Henderson September 22, 2012 at 11:25 pm

   If there is no innate reward for exercise, there is still what Nietzsche called the “will to power” which, in its purest form, impels animals to exert themselves in acts that have no survival value and to enjoy themselves.
   Perhaps we didn’t need innate rewards when exercise helped us get food, a mate, status, territory etc. Athletes and other performers still get those rewards.

   Reply
4. Eva September 23, 2012 at 12:17 am

   I suspect that in an individual that is very healthy both mentally and physically, that person enjoys a bit of exercise and as others have mentioned, exercise releases endorphins and is well known to elevate mood. It’s just that now, most of us eat toxic foods from birth (cheerios are typically a baby’s first solid food!!!) and many of us live isolated noncommunal lives far different from what we evolved for.

   Reply
5. David Moss September 23, 2012 at 4:34 am

   It may be worth disentangling intensity and volume. Though you say that moderate activity may be better than intense activity, all the evidence cited apart from the words “…or who ran faster” seem to be concerned with volume. It may be that the best sort of exercise is infrequent short bursts at high intensity, rather than longer at moderate intensity.

   Reply
   • Paul Jaminet September 23, 2012 at 8:04 am

     Hi David,
     Yes, that’s an important point. Intensity is a totally different variable than volume and its health effects have to be studied independently.
     Yes, there does seem to be a lot of evidence in favor of HIIT. However, the ability to increase intensity is correlated with health, so we have to be careful in analyzing studies.

     Reply
6. JonMarc September 23, 2012 at 5:13 am

   I didn’t watch that video the first time through – really fascinating stuff!

   Reply
7. Ole September 23, 2012 at 6:15 am

   I love having you back blogging. Interesting view on the benefits of exercise. You seem to be able look at these things from a new perspective.
   A personal experience:
   The last couple of months I have been doning crossfit style exercise. Lately I have been pondering if I was generally feeling a litle bit better when I was doing more leangains style training.
   What I still really like about crossfit is the community and the focus on learning new movements and improving mobility and not only focusing on gaining muscle.
   Can’t wait for the new book!

   Reply
8. Mario Iwakura September 23, 2012 at 6:45 am

   Good vacation to you two!
   Exercise: a very complex subject indeed. Based on a recent study, maybe we should not encourage sick people to exercise (at least not more than brisk walks) but try to get healthy first. I think Table 1 is visually very revealing (and disturbing):
   Adverse Metabolic Response to Regular Exercise: Is It a Rare or Common Occurrence?
   http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364277/

   Reply
   • Paul Jaminet September 23, 2012 at 8:05 am

     Hi Mario,
     Yes, I think exercise intensity and volume need to be scaled with health. Exercise should be refreshing, not stressful. For unhealthy people that means a brisk walk may be the most they should do.

     Reply
9. Markus September 23, 2012 at 7:21 am

   This is all very interesting and consistent with my own experience. I definitely feel that for general health and well being a moderate amount of light exercise is the best route. Looking forward to upcoming posts!

High-intensity aerobic interval trai... [Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

High-intensity aerobic interval trai... [Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008] - PubMed - NCBI

Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2008 Dec;33(6):1112-23.

High-intensity aerobic interval training increases fat and carbohydrate metabolic capacities in human skeletal muscle.

Perry CG, Heigenhauser GJ, Bonen A, Spriet LL.

Source

Department of Human Health and Nutritional Sciences, University of Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada. perryc@uoguelph.ca

Abstract

High-intensity aerobic interval training (HIIT) is a compromise between time-consuming moderate-intensity training and sprint-interval training requiring all-out efforts. However, there are few data regarding the ability of HIIT to increase the capacities of fat and carbohydrate oxidation in skeletal muscle. Using untrained recreationally active individuals, we investigated skeletal muscle and whole-body metabolic adaptations that occurred following 6 weeks of HIIT (~1 h of 10 x 4 min intervals at ~90% of peak oxygen consumption (VO2 peak), separated by 2 min rest, 3 d.week-1). A VO2 peak test, a test to exhaustion (TE) at 90% of pre-training VO2 peak, and a 1 h cycle at 60% of pre-training VO2 peak were performed pre- and post-HIIT. Muscle biopsies were sampled during the TE at rest, after 5 min, and at exhaustion. Training power output increased by 21%, and VO2 peak increased by 9% following HIIT. Muscle adaptations at rest included the following: (i) increased cytochrome c oxidase IV content (18%) and maximal activities of the mitochondrial enzymes citrate synthase (26%), beta-hydroxyacyl-CoA dehydrogenase (29%), aspartate-amino transferase (26%), and pyruvate dehydrogenase (PDH; 21%); (ii) increased FAT/CD36, FABPpm, GLUT 4, and MCT 1 and 4 transport proteins (14%-30%); and (iii) increased glycogen content (59%).

Major adaptations during exercise included the following: (i) reduced glycogenolysis, lactate accumulation, and substrate phosphorylation (0-5 min of TE); (ii) unchanged PDH activation (carbohydrate oxidation; 0-5 min of TE); (iii) ~2-fold greater time during the TE; and (iv) increased fat oxidation at 60% of pre-training VO2 peak. This study demonstrated that 18 h of repeated high-intensity exercise sessions over 6 weeks (3 d.week-1) is a powerful method to increase whole-body and skeletal muscle capacities to oxidize fat and carbohydrate in previously untrained individuals.