Over doing it or What?..

[Nes101]

Is it a wise thing training from mon-saturday 2 times a day ? or am I just pushing it

 

[Slabiathan]

Is it a wise thing training from mon-saturday 2 times a day ? or am I just pushing it

Are you trying to boost your post count or something?

 

[Send0]

Is it a wise thing training from mon-saturday 2 times a day ? or am I just pushing it

Define training. Is this a weight session in the morning and cardio in the evening?

If this is 2x wright sessions, then you aren't training hard enough in your 1st session.

is there a reason you want to train 2x per day?

 

[lifter6973]

Define training. Is this a weight session in the morning and cardio in the evening?

If this is 2x wright sessions, then you aren't training hard enough in your 1st session.

is there a reason you want to train 2x per day?

This guy seems SUS
I won't be surprised if he scripts reactions overnight.

 

[buck]

If your strength and/or muscle is growing then you are doing fine. If not, then you are not. Pretty much the deciding factors for all of the training routines i have used.

 

[Trendkill]

Is it a wise thing training from mon-saturday 2 times a day ? or am I just pushing it

Unwise and a question that doesn’t need to be asked.

 

[eazy]

If your strength and/or muscle is growing then you are doing fine. If not, then you are not.

growing muscle is such a slow process, how do you know it's happening?

 

[buck]

growing muscle is such a slow process, how do you know it's happening?

I always tracked my weight and body fat. Measured my waist, if weight is going up and the waist line isn't it can signal muscle gain. I also used calipers, which are not totally accurate but as long as the same person does the measurements the same way it is good or a comparative measure.

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

I always tracked my weight and body fat. Measured my waist, if weight is going up and the waist line isn't it can signal muscle gain. I also used calipers, which are not totally accurate but as long as the same person does the measurements the same way it is good or a comparative measure.

Ok, the natural follow up question would be “how do you know that’s the MOST effective way for you?”

 

[buck]

Ok, the natural follow up question would be “how do you know that’s the MOST effective way for you?”

Well there is never any way to know what is the most effective way to grow muscle. You can only judge how effective the way you chose has worked at that time. As every time one tries a different training style or diet etc. Their body is not the same as it was when doing the previous diet, cycle, training routine. As they are older, bigger etc. Variables have changed. But as his questions was about how did i know if i was growing muscle i responded with how i tracked muscle growth

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

Well there is never any way to know what is the most effective way to grow muscle. You can only judge how effective the way you chose has worked at that time. As every time one tries a different training style or diet etc. Their body is not the same as it was when doing the previous diet, cycle, training routine. As they are older, bigger etc. Variables have changed. But as his questions was about how did i know if i was growing muscle i responded with how i tracked muscle growth

The original question was whether working out twice a day is over doing it.

The answer you gave was “if it works keep doing it”.

But the science shows that hypertrophy is NOT driven by volume (twice a day workouts). It is driven by mechanical tension and the best way to do that is thru “effective reps”. Those are the last 5 reps in any set taken to failure. Recovery from that occurs in 48-72 hours. If you can do two workouts a day every day then you didn’t use the appropriate intensity to provide enough stimulus for adaptation.

That’s evidence-based/science-based and it’s different from the oldschool way of “more reps, more volume, more time in the gym means more results.” It doesn’t.

 

[Stickler]

The original question was whether working out twice a day is over doing it.

The answer you gave was “if it works keep doing it”.

But the science shows that hypertrophy is NOT driven by volume (twice a day workouts). It is driven by mechanical tension and the best way to do that is thru “effective reps”. Those are the last 5 reps in any set taken to failure. Recovery from that occurs in 48-72 hours. If you can do two workouts a day every day then you didn’t use the appropriate intensity to provide enough stimulus for adaptation.

That’s evidence-based/science-based and it’s different from the oldschool way of “more reps, more volume, more time in the gym means more results.” It doesn’t.

I love the response. A quote that I can comprehend and I appreciate it.

I'm gonna play devils advocate for my own knowledge. The "old way," .. is TOTAL BUNK? If so, then why are is the older generation so fucking huge? Also, is it fair (or no) to say there's more than one way to skin a cat depending on each individual?

Or is a blank answer of.. which is: here's the proven science the end all be all?

Not being smart, just looking for good info.

 

[Send0]

I love the response. A quote that I can comprehend and I appreciate it.

I'm gonna play devils advocate for my own knowledge. The "old way," .. is TOTAL BUNK? If so, then why are is the older generation so fucking huge? Also, is it fair (or no) to say there's more than one way to skin a cat depending on each individual?

Or is a blank answer of.. which is: here's the proven science the end all be all?

Not being smart, just looking for good info.

If you're talking about golden era, then I think it's a misconception that previous eras depended on high volume training to achieve their size. They got their size from lifting heavy and lower volume.

Golden era also didn't really do cardio, so when they did use high volume or high frequency training it was leading up to a show... and it kind of took the place of cardio without them meaning to.... but they did not depend on high frequency/volume to put on mass.

The older generation also didn't know much about diet/nutrition or training. Much of what they did was sub-optimal for bodybuilding; they were pioneers trying to figure out what worked and what didn't.

In today's age we have the benefit of time and learning from everyone who came before us. Take anyone from the golden era, have them train using modern methods and a modern diet, and I think it's almost guaranteed they'd be bigger and leaner.

This is what I've learned/heard from talking with others about this very same topic. I hope one of the guys who have lived through this, and actually competed, chimes in. It's something that's better explained coming from the horses mouth.

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

I love the response. A quote that I can comprehend and I appreciate it.

I'm gonna play devils advocate for my own knowledge. The "old way," .. is TOTAL BUNK? If so, then why are is the older generation so fucking huge? Also, is it fair (or no) to say there's more than one way to skin a cat depending on each individual?

Or is a blank answer of.. which is: here's the proven science the end all be all?

Not being smart, just looking for good info.

The old way worked. Do you have all that time to do 2-3 hours in the gym? They reached failure…. After several hundred reps. But that’s not the most effective use of time. You can watch the Trained by JP videos. You can watch clips and read captions with pubmed citations on Paul Carters IG account here https://instagram.com/liftrunbang1?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

And for old school bodybuilders, Yates didn’t do the volume training. I don’t think Ronnie Coleman used high volume either.

There’s “works” and then there’s “works better”.

 

[Stickler]

The old way worked. Do you have all that time to do 2-3 hours in the gym? They reached failure…. After several hundred reps. But that’s not the most effective use of time. You can watch the Trained by JP videos. You can watch clips and read captions with pubmed citations on Paul Carters IG account here https://instagram.com/liftrunbang1?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

And for old school bodybuilders, Yates didn’t do the volume training. I don’t think Ronnie Coleman used high volume either.

There’s “works” and then there’s “works better”.

Ok. So.. I've followed Paul Carter from the first time I saw you recommend him. Also, I just saw the thread for the YouTube suggestion and I plan on checking that out.

And no. I don't have 2-3hrs to spend in the gym (we've been through this on my log).. I was doing whatever what was set for me.. and to failure or as close as I could get.. and yes. It took 2-3hrs to workout. Not to mention it took me 3-5 minutes for recovery depending on the muscle group and exercise because of the max effort put into each set.

That's originally why I respectfully asked about more than 1 way to skin a cat, because with a shitload of work..and maybe more than necessary, I felt I got decent results.. But I also respect, "what works and what works "better.""

I'm a fan of getting "the biggest bang for my buck," but I'm obviously still learning as I go.

 

[buck]

The original question was whether working out twice a day is over doing it.

The answer you gave was “if it works keep doing it”.

But the science shows that hypertrophy is NOT driven by volume (twice a day workouts). It is driven by mechanical tension and the best way to do that is thru “effective reps”. Those are the last 5 reps in any set taken to failure. Recovery from that occurs in 48-72 hours. If you can do two workouts a day every day then you didn’t use the appropriate intensity to provide enough stimulus for adaptation.

That’s evidence-based/science-based and it’s different from the oldschool way of “more reps, more volume, more time in the gym means more results.” It doesn’t.

You quoted the OP's post to me that asked how i tracked my muscle growth. NOT his original post so i answered to the quoted post. I never mentioned the "old school way" as being the best. I put on my first 40+ pounds of muscle in 3 years the old school way without using any AS. So it is certainly an effective way to train but i never claim it is the best. And something i found out over the decades that i have been training is that the best/trendy science in vogue doesn't always turn out to actually be the best as something else comes along to take it's place. The new people i see starting these past few years that try to use science to grow the best as opposed to hard work don't seem to put on the muscle as well. But i totally support people ding what the want. As my experience is that what a person likes best or believes in is what he will apply himself to the most. Just as science can show what foods are the best yet people will say how they don't work for them etc. and everyone is different.

 

[BigBaldBeardGuy]

You quoted the OP's post to me that asked how i tracked my muscle growth. NOT his original post so i answered to the quoted post. I never mentioned the "old school way" as being the best. I put on my first 40+ pounds of muscle in 3 years the old school way without using any AS. So it is certainly an effective way to train but i never claim it is the best. And something i found out over the decades that i have been training is that the best/trendy science in vogue doesn't always turn out to actually be the best as something else comes along to take it's place. The new people i see starting these past few years that try to use science to grow the best as opposed to hard work don't seem to put on the muscle as well. But i totally support people ding what the want. As my experience is that what a person likes best or believes in is what he will apply himself to the most. Just as science can show what foods are the best yet people will say how they don't work for them etc. and everyone is different.

Ok. Good quality knowledge.

We should all just do what works for us. Gotcha.

The guy was asking a question. Training 2-times a day is utter bullshit.

 

[lifter6973]

Ok. Good quality knowledge.

We should all just do what works for us. Gotcha.

The guy was asking a question. Training 2-times a day is utter bullshit.

there are guys that do that at my gym. Of course they think they are Mr. Olympia, they do a local show like once every few years and place in 4th or 5th.

Thing is these people are at the gym pretty much no matter what time I go there. Every time I see them, for the time that I am there, they spend 20 percent of that time working out and the other 80 percent of that time talking, looking at themselves in the mirror and looking on their phone.

 

[buck]

Ok. Good quality knowledge.

We should all just do what works for us. Gotcha.

The guy was asking a question. Training 2-times a day is utter bullshit.

I agree with 2x day not being optimal for most. There are large pros that do it. But that is a different breed that can eat and sleep the rest of their day. Getting ready for a contest i did 2x a day a couple times but that is not really a growing period, at least for me. And trying to workup the intensity 2x day would leave me burned out 6 weeks into it. But maybe i am just a pussy.

 

[Test_subject]

Is it a wise thing training from mon-saturday 2 times a day ? or am I just pushing it

No it’s not wise.

If you’re able to work out that frequently without running into recovery issues, your intensity is severely lacking.

I’m sometimes still sore on my second leg day three days later.