Is it OK to do weights two days in a row? Watch

silent ninja
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#41
Report 6 years ago
#41
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
They train different muscle sets, and runners will be training different muscle tissue as they don't want mass, but reflex time.
Just find me any evidence that recovery time doesn't exist and I'll take you seriously.
Think you are missing the point. You'll never be 100% recovered, like someone who's not exercised in months or has taken a week off. But that does not mean you can't train over minor muscle soreness. It may not be optimal but over the long term it is because you inevitably get more volume. Training the same muscles will no way make you regress in progress.

Look at your typical 5x5 routine. You train within 48 hours twice-- same body parts, even same exercises These routines have been around since the 50's and give big results. I know a guy at my old gym that squats 6 days a week. He squats 250kg for reps and that's how he got there quick.

Also you forget skill, practice, neural adaptions, conditioning. The more you practice something, the better you get. Lifting and exercising aren't just a function of hitting those muscles and growing. You can get very strong without growing and brute strength will hardly get you far.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
reply
The Blind Monk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#42
Report 6 years ago
#42
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
That is utter crap. Over-training is a waste of time and can lead to injury. Muscles need 48-72 hours to recover. To exercise them during this time will either lead to no gains or actual reduction in performance. And before you reply, this has been known about for decades.
The hard rule of 48-72 hours is by no means 'proven...for decades.' It is more complex than what you are saying.

It depends on what you are doing. I can (and do) squat every single day. Most days, I am just doing a couple of bodyweight squats to limber up. That requires pretty much 0 recovery because I have done pretty much no work.

On the other hand, if I were a bodybuilder and I were interested in creating hypertrophy, it might be in my interest to do heavy squats, then leg press, then hack squats, then leg curls and extensions. I might do all of these (apart from squats) to failure or even beyond.

IF I did the latter, I will probably require more than 48-72 hours to repeat that workout and recover. However, if I did some light cycling I would probably recover ok.

It is about how you lay out your training, not some arbitrary rule that you must have fully recovered before the next session.

In addition, lots of lifting things is about motor learning as well as getting bigger muscles.
0
reply
Old School
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#43
Report 6 years ago
#43
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
That is utter crap. Over-training is a waste of time and can lead to injury. Muscles need 48-72 hours to recover. To exercise them during this time will either lead to no gains or actual reduction in performance. And before you reply, this has been known about for decades.
Woah, I didn't realise how wrong I had it. I will now completely change my outlook on training based on what some guy who can't squat 3 plates thinks is the absolute truth of lifting.

I again refer you to the likes of people who don't suck at olympic lifting (namely the chinise, russians and other eastern bloc countries). Several successful powerlifters, old-time strongmen and bodybuilders (Saxon(s), Grimek, Park et al) and offseason NFL players. They all train high volume and are bigger and stronger than pretty much everyone else on the planet.
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#44
Report 6 years ago
#44
(Original post by silent ninja)
Think you are missing the point. You'll never be 100% recovered, like someone who's not exercised in months or has taken a week off. But that does not mean you can't train over minor muscle soreness. It may not be optimal but over the long term it is because you inevitably get more volume. Training the same muscles will no way make you regress in progress.

Look at your typical 5x5 routine. You train within 48 hours twice-- same body parts, even same exercises These routines have been around since the 50's and give big results. I know a guy at my old gym that squats 6 days a week. He squats 250kg for reps and that's how he got there quick.

Also you forget skill, practice, neural adaptions, conditioning. The more you practice something, the better you get. Lifting and exercising aren't just a function of hitting those muscles and growing. You can get very strong without growing and brute strength will hardly get you far.
No good program will have you exercising within 48hrs unless you are on roids as it is a waste of time. You should just focus on another group eg. legs and then on the 3-4 day, repeat otherwise you are wasting time and energy.
Just find anything that contradicts what I say


(Original post by The Blind Monk)
The hard rule of 48-72 hours is by no means 'proven...for decades.' It is more complex than what you are saying.

It depends on what you are doing. I can (and do) squat every single day. Most days, I am just doing a couple of bodyweight squats to limber up. That requires pretty much 0 recovery because I have done pretty much no work.

On the other hand, if I were a bodybuilder and I were interested in creating hypertrophy, it might be in my interest to do heavy squats, then leg press, then hack squats, then leg curls and extensions. I might do all of these (apart from squats) to failure or even beyond.

IF I did the latter, I will probably require more than 48-72 hours to repeat that workout and recover. However, if I did some light cycling I would probably recover ok.

It is about how you lay out your training, not some arbitrary rule that you must have fully recovered before the next session.

In addition, lots of lifting things is about motor learning as well as getting bigger muscles.
Well the 48-72 rest works on pushing yourself pretty hard, thus to do some light weight would not count.
But lets say you are training for strength/bulk, you need that rest period or you are wasting sessions.


(Original post by Old School)
Woah, I didn't realise how wrong I had it. I will now completely change my outlook on training based on what some guy who can't squat 3 plates thinks is the absolute truth of lifting.

I again refer you to the likes of people who don't suck at olympic lifting (namely the chinise, russians and other eastern bloc countries). Several successful powerlifters, old-time strongmen and bodybuilders (Saxon(s), Grimek, Park et al) and offseason NFL players. They all train high volume and are bigger and stronger than pretty much everyone else on the planet.
..and will be on gear :facepalm:
For someone who claims to do so well, you might want to get your knowledge up to scratch too.
0
reply
The Blind Monk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#45
Report 6 years ago
#45
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
No good program will have you exercising within 48hrs unless you are on roids as it is a waste of time. You should just focus on another group eg. legs and then on the 3-4 day, repeat otherwise you are wasting time and energy.
Just find anything that contradicts what I say
I know a good few people who I am sure are not on drugs who have completed the Smolov squat cycle (both 3 and 12 week versions) they made gains squatting reasonably heavy 4x a week. I know lots of people who squatted 3x a week on Starting Strength and made gains.

Well the 48-72 rest works on pushing yourself pretty hard, thus to do some light weight would not count.
But lets say you are training for strength/bulk, you need that rest period or you are wasting sessions.
For bodybuilding. Maybe. But strength is also a skill. The majority of good weightlifters, even natural ones will do some variation of cleans and snatches reasonably heavy at least 3-4x a week.

All I am trying to say is that it's closed minded to say that it is a 'waste of a session' to train a muscle group/excercise more frequently than every 48-72 hours. It's not a rule cast in stone, especially if you take a middle ground between Blood and Guts Dorian Yates style training and how top weightlifters train.

I should mention that gear was not invented when some of the old timer strongmen were around. They hadn't been invented so it is unlikely that the Arthur Saxon or Bob Peoples etc took steroids.
0
reply
Praetoriani
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#46
Report 6 years ago
#46
It depends, there are some exercises you can do pretty much every day but there are others which if you are training too hard will result in injury. If you strain something too hard, particularly where a lot of stress is involved, that means inefficiency of exercise at best, or time out to recover at worst.

I speak as a rock climber who has seen people shoot tendons on campus boards because they have tried to go too far too quickly or too strenuously without appropriate rest or training plan, and then not be able to climb for some time as a result (and in some cases they have then worsened the injury by trying to rush back into it).
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#47
Report 6 years ago
#47
(Original post by The Blind Monk)
For bodybuilding. Maybe. But strength is also a skill. The majority of good weightlifters, even natural ones will do some variation of cleans and snatches reasonably heavy at least 3-4x a week.

All I am trying to say is that it's closed minded to say that it is a 'waste of a session' to train a muscle group/excercise more frequently than every 48-72 hours. It's not a rule cast in stone, especially if you take a middle ground between Blood and Guts Dorian Yates style training and how top weightlifters train.

I should mention that gear was not invented when some of the old timer strongmen were around. They hadn't been invented so it is unlikely that the Arthur Saxon or Bob Peoples etc took steroids.
The Smolov program is Russian...need I say more about how many of them will be on roids? :rofl: No one in their right mind would try such an extreme program without some gear, or they are wasting a lot of time and energy and could have had the same gains by doing far less. It is one or the other.

Close minded? :facepalm: The issue is that opinion has no place in science, thus being "close minded" is called being right. Just find me one shred of evidence that argues otherwise.

Sure, some guys will be genetically blessed, but lets only look at a period when things were officially documented and recorded as to do otherwise could be very silly.
0
reply
Old School
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#48
Report 6 years ago
#48
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
No good program will have you exercising within 48hrs unless you are on roids as it is a waste of time. You should just focus on another group eg. legs and then on the 3-4 day, repeat otherwise you are wasting time and energy.
Just find anything that contradicts what I say




Well the 48-72 rest works on pushing yourself pretty hard, thus to do some light weight would not count.
But lets say you are training for strength/bulk, you need that rest period or you are wasting sessions.




..and will be on gear :facepalm:
For someone who claims to do so well, you might want to get your knowledge up to scratch too.
Strength is a skill. Skills need practice. Training lifts heavy more often makes you better at lifting heavy things. This is why the Chinese and Eastern Europeans are so dominant in oly lifting and why the Eastern Europeans are so dominant in powerlifting.

This discussion however, is pretyy darn pointless because you're not going to change your mind. Which is fine, if doing what you're doing is working for you and making you happy then carry on. But please don't come out and say that YOU CAN NOT EVER TRAIN A LIFT HEAVY MORE THAN ONCE EVERY 48HRS OR YOU WILL IMPLODE AND DIE AND STUFF AND YOU WILL WASTE SESSIONS AND OVERTRAIN because it's clearly wrong and not helpful.
0
reply
The Blind Monk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#49
Report 6 years ago
#49
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
The Smolov program is Russian...need I say more about how many of them will be on roids? :rofl: No one in their right mind would try such an extreme program without some gear, or they are wasting a lot of time and energy and could have had the same gains by doing far less. It is one or the other.

Close minded? :facepalm: The issue is that opinion has no place in science, thus being "close minded" is called being right. Just find me one shred of evidence that argues otherwise.

Sure, some guys will be genetically blessed, but lets only look at a period when things were officially documented and recorded as to do otherwise could be very silly.
I personally know a 50 year old woman not on drugs who completed the 12 week Smolov cycle. Broke her plateau no problem. I know a GBPF record holder for Squat, Bench, Deadlift and total. He maxed on box squats for 40 days straight and went from 180kg-220kg. He has also done Smolov for both squat and front squat. I know a number of users on this website (redbuthotter/U4M1R) who are natural and have done Smolov. Obviously this evidence is anecdotal in nature but I think in this instance it is about as good as it is going to get.

I also know a good number of people who are at varying levels of experience who have done starting strength and breached the 48-72 hour rule and got bigger legs. Significantly bigger legs. Clearly frequency was a relevant factor there.

Unfortunately every scientific study I have ever read on the matter of training frequency was carried out on either geriatrics or untrained individuals. Which is not the audience I have in mind when discussing training.
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#50
Report 6 years ago
#50
(Original post by The Blind Monk)
I personally know a 50 year old woman not on drugs who completed the 12 week Smolov cycle. Broke her plateau no problem. I know a GBPF record holder for Squat, Bench, Deadlift and total. He maxed on box squats for 40 days straight and went from 180kg-220kg. He has also done Smolov for both squat and front squat. I know a number of users on this website (redbuthotter/U4M1R) who are natural and have done Smolov. Obviously this evidence is anecdotal in nature but I think in this instance it is about as good as it is going to get.

I also know a good number of people who are at varying levels of experience who have done starting strength and breached the 48-72 hour rule and got bigger legs. Significantly bigger legs. Clearly frequency was a relevant factor there.

Unfortunately every scientific study I have ever read on the matter of training frequency was carried out on either geriatrics or untrained individuals. Which is not the audience I have in mind when discussing training.
The woman would have had better results fixing her diet and training properly, and the GBPF will be on gear to max out 40 days in a row. It is that simple. Everyone says they are natural to avoid the stigma of roids because people think that it means you don't try, not that it merely aids recovery time and increase growth. This is why no paper has ever found that you don't need a rest period, even the ones on mixed groups. You either rest, don't rest and get no gains from the extra days training, or are on gear. There is no middle ground as you will simply overtrain and have loss as your body has to have some period to recover.



(Original post by Old School)
Strength is a skill. Skills need practice. Training lifts heavy more often makes you better at lifting heavy things. This is why the Chinese and Eastern Europeans are so dominant in oly lifting and why the Eastern Europeans are so dominant in powerlifting.

This discussion however, is pretyy darn pointless because you're not going to change your mind. Which is fine, if doing what you're doing is working for you and making you happy then carry on. But please don't come out and say that YOU CAN NOT EVER TRAIN A LIFT HEAVY MORE THAN ONCE EVERY 48HRS OR YOU WILL IMPLODE AND DIE AND STUFF AND YOU WILL WASTE SESSIONS AND OVERTRAIN because it's clearly wrong and not helpful.
Well if you want to go on some broscience over facts, go for it. Just don't complain when it fails.
0
reply
The Blind Monk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#51
Report 6 years ago
#51
[QUOTE=Jimbo1234;41266577]The woman would have had better results fixing her diet and training properly, and the GBPF will be on gear to max out 40 days in a row. It is that simple. Everyone says they are natural to avoid the stigma of roids because people think that it means you don't try, not that it merely aids recovery time and increase growth. This is why no paper has ever found that you don't need a rest period, even the ones on mixed groups. You either rest, don't rest and get no gains from the extra days training, or are on gear. There is no middle ground as you will simply overtrain and have loss as your body has to have some period to recover.
/QUOTE]
I would say that the woman in question has tried most normal things. +15kg on your squat in 12 weeks as a natural is very good. I know the GBPF guy well, he was not on gear at that point in time.

You are taking a straw man when you said 'you don't need a rest period.' What I am disputing is that there is a cast iron 48-72 hour period before you can lift again or you are somehow wasting your time. Too many people have made progress on programs like Madcows/Texas Method where you squat 3x a week for your theory to be correct. I also know too many people who train at Crystal Palace/other weightlifting clubs who all squat at least 3x a week for you to definitely need a 48-72 hour recovery period. It is all about how you train and how you manage fatigue throughout your training cycle.
0
reply
silent ninja
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#52
Report 6 years ago
#52
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
The woman would have had better results fixing her diet and training properly, and the GBPF will be on gear to max out 40 days in a row. It is that simple. Everyone says they are natural to avoid the stigma of roids because people think that it means you don't try, not that it merely aids recovery time and increase growth. This is why no paper has ever found that you don't need a rest period, even the ones on mixed groups. You either rest, don't rest and get no gains from the extra days training, or are on gear. There is no middle ground as you will simply overtrain and have loss as your body has to have some period to recover.





Well if you want to go on some broscience over facts, go for it. Just don't complain when it fails.
I think everything has been said but I'd like to add...you think lifting is a science?? There is SO MUCH stuff that is far from science -- let's not start on rep ranges or rest periods. Apart from nutrition, everything else is up for debate. The gap between science and practice is a forest. It's not even worth debating, but lifting isn't science and interpreting the science (eg protein synthesis 48-72 hours doesn't mean you'll regress or implode if you continue to train; how did you draw this conclusion?? ) demands experience and common sense.
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#53
Report 6 years ago
#53
(Original post by silent ninja)
I think everything has been said but I'd like to add...you think lifting is a science?? There is SO MUCH stuff that is far from science -- let's not start on rep ranges or rest periods. Apart from nutrition, everything else is up for debate. The gap between science and practice is a forest. It's not even worth debating, but lifting isn't science and interpreting the science (eg protein synthesis 48-72 hours doesn't mean you'll regress or implode if you continue to train; how did you draw this conclusion?? ) demands experience and common sense.
Ok, take broscience over real science and deny that research exists if you want to, though I can't see how this will help you



(Original post by The Blind Monk)
I would say that the woman in question has tried most normal things. +15kg on your squat in 12 weeks as a natural is very good. I know the GBPF guy well, he was not on gear at that point in time.

You are taking a straw man when you said 'you don't need a rest period.' What I am disputing is that there is a cast iron 48-72 hour period before you can lift again or you are somehow wasting your time. Too many people have made progress on programs like Madcows/Texas Method where you squat 3x a week for your theory to be correct. I also know too many people who train at Crystal Palace/other weightlifting clubs who all squat at least 3x a week for you to definitely need a 48-72 hour recovery period. It is all about how you train and how you manage fatigue throughout your training cycle.
With biology there will always be outliers, but this does not mean that you can dispute such things and claim that no one needs them.
How can you dispute muscle growth and how that mechanism works? It is the same for everyone and as I said, the timing is very similar yet you are trying to say that everyone you know is apparently an outlier. Statistically you will be very wrong and these guys will be either losing out on time or on gear. As I said, every paper would back me up so I do think I have a rather valid point
0
reply
AmIDoingItRight
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 6 years ago
#54
yes
2
reply
Old School
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#55
Report 6 years ago
#55
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
x

So basically what you're saying is that everyone bigger and/or stronger than you who trains more frequently than you is on gear.

lol.

Has it occured to you that some people actually, well, I dunno, enjoy lifting stuff and want to do it more often that 3x/week or whatever. Hell, maybe some of these crazy-weird individuals enjoy, say, squatting and overhead pressing but dislike benching and can't deadlift due to an injury and as a result want to squat and press heavy because they enjoy it. Would you still say they were wrong if they were to get bigger and stronger doing those lifts say 6x/week instead of following the rigid dogma (which isn't actually evidence based, at least, not in the sense you're trying to imply- find me a proper study on SS- there probably isn't one) you and other keyboard warriors prescribe?

Also re. genetic outliers... how do you know if you are one or not unless you try to find out?

Bottom line:
1) Some people lift because they enjoy it and therefore will want to do it a lot.
2) Not everything works for everyone all the time.
3) Stating that anyone who got strong with high volume and frequency shows that you don't really have a great handle on what you're talking about.
0
reply
Jimbo1234
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#56
Report 6 years ago
#56
(Original post by Old School)
So basically what you're saying is that everyone bigger and/or stronger than you who trains more frequently than you is on gear.

lol.

Has it occured to you that some people actually, well, I dunno, enjoy lifting stuff and want to do it more often that 3x/week or whatever. Hell, maybe some of these crazy-weird individuals enjoy, say, squatting and overhead pressing but dislike benching and can't deadlift due to an injury and as a result want to squat and press heavy because they enjoy it. Would you still say they were wrong if they were to get bigger and stronger doing those lifts say 6x/week instead of following the rigid dogma (which isn't actually evidence based, at least, not in the sense you're trying to imply- find me a proper study on SS- there probably isn't one) you and other keyboard warriors prescribe?

Also re. genetic outliers... how do you know if you are one or not unless you try to find out?

Bottom line:
1) Some people lift because they enjoy it and therefore will want to do it a lot.
2) Not everything works for everyone all the time.
3) Stating that anyone who got strong with high volume and frequency shows that you don't really have a great handle on what you're talking about.
:curious:
Or I've clearly said what it is;
a) They are wasting their time and their gains from those sets will be minimal to none. Just go learn the mechanics of muscle recovery and then trying arguing the point.
b) They are on gear
c) They are somehow some genetic miracle which science has yet to discover :rofl: This always seems to be the case for people who never mention anything with substance. Just go look up the vast list of problems caused by over-training.

I, for example, love working on my chest. However to do it more than 3 times a week gives me no extra gains and if I'm not careful, it will make me plateau.
0
reply
sallyjoseph
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 6 years ago
#57
No its not possible, you cannot lose a significant amount of weight in just two days.
0
reply
$hadow
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#58
Report 6 years ago
#58
(Original post by paddyman4)
Hi,

So I've heard that it's bad to train every day, as your muscles don't get a chance to recover and so don't get bigger.

Yesterday I did chest, biceps and abs. Muscles are still sore, but I was wondering if I could do back, shoulders and triceps today? Obviously I'm not focusing on the same muscles but I imagine there is some overlap as each machine doesn't just use the muscle group it is aimed at training.
First of all, whomever is giving you advice; discard them as they are feeding you bull****.

The soreness you are experiencing is called DOMS. Google it and you'll understand a bit more about what your experiencing.

If you are worried about overtraining, look up Periodization with regards to sports training on Google.
0
reply
The Blind Monk
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#59
Report 6 years ago
#59
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
With biology there will always be outliers, but this does not mean that you can dispute such things and claim that no one needs them.
How can you dispute muscle growth and how that mechanism works? It is the same for everyone and as I said, the timing is very similar yet you are trying to say that everyone you know is apparently an outlier. Statistically you will be very wrong and these guys will be either losing out on time or on gear. As I said, every paper would back me up so I do think I have a rather valid point
I never said everyone is an outlier. I said it was about your program design and execution.

There is a difference between training in a traditional bodybuilding manner where your goal is to smash the muscle into oblivion and normal weightlifting training where you are trying to hit a certain groove repeatedly while (generally) avoiding muscular failure.

I don't think that everyone I know by any stretch of the imagination is a genetic outlier. I just think that they program differently.

There have been no studies that properly address what we are attempting to discuss that are not performed on newbies or geriatrics.

Most of them have flaws like this one:
http://saveyourself.ca/bibliography.php?wir
(Original post by K Wirth, KR Atzor, and D Schmidtbleicher)
The subjects were divided into six groups of 10 individuals each, who had to go through a hypertrophy training program for arm bends with a frequency of one (A1 / F1), two (A2 / F2) and three (A3 / F3) training sessions per week up to 8 weeks altogether.

Except for the group of advanced athletes and a training frequency of once a week, all groups showed significant gains in muscle mass with a tendency of better training results when doing two or three training sessions a week.
I am not saying anyone has to (or even should) train in an extremely frequent manner. I am merely saying it is entirely possible to train in a manner that breaches the 48-72 hour rule.

It is also quite probable that people will make more gains if they temporarily over reach and then take some time off/light to recover. Though I suppose that is a deliberate short term phenomenon that you should program in.
0
reply
Old School
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#60
Report 6 years ago
#60
(Original post by Jimbo1234)
:curious:
Or I've clearly said what it is;
a) They are wasting their time and their gains from those sets will be minimal to none. Just go learn the mechanics of muscle recovery and then trying arguing the point.
b) They are on gear
c) They are somehow some genetic miracle which science has yet to discover :rofl: This always seems to be the case for people who never mention anything with substance. Just go look up the vast list of problems caused by over-training.

I, for example, love working on my chest. However to do it more than 3 times a week gives me no extra gains and if I'm not careful, it will make me plateau.
Obvs I'm a genetic freak then cos when I maxed out on squats every day for a month or so my squat went from around the 165 mark to 190. Either that or I'm on dat dere geer.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How has the start of this academic year been for you?

Loving it - gonna be a great year (130)
18.21%
It's just nice to be back! (194)
27.17%
Not great so far... (256)
35.85%
I want to drop out! (134)
18.77%

Watched Threads

View All