Progressive overload: more thoughts (recovery)

So how long does it take for the body to fully recover from resistance training?

The funny part is that I don't think there is a definite answer to that question. The best one I can come up with is: it depends. There are numerous studies that provide such a wide variety of - not even answers - suggestions that it makes it extremely difficult to come to a complete and definite answer. I wonder if it's even possible. Different bodyparts require different amounts of time. It also vastly varies depending on the intensity and volume of training. Easy gainers and younger people with fast metabolism may require less time to fully recover than more senior "hardgainers". Traditional recommendations maintain that 2-3 days is enough for recovery, which is why most traditional programs are built around 3-4 sessions per week. "Hardgainer" pioneer Stuart McRobert, on the other hand, provides extensive evidence that 4-5 days is an absolute minimum for a typical genetically average trainee, and that some may even become overtrained on once-a-week programs.

There's another question relevant to it: how long does it take before the body becomes deconditioned, i.e. starts losing the gains after the last training session. Our body, like a well-managed team is not going to keep additional resources on the payroll unless they are used. It's been long thought that the muscle starts losing its strength after only 3-4 days unless trained again however there are other opinions claiming that the body remains "supercompensated" for 3 and even 4 weeks. It is a well known fact that some athletes take a month completely off training and come back stronger than before knocking their personal bests right off on the very first day after the break. Many HIT people train once a week and sometimes find that they grow even if they do big lifts (like squats or deadlifts) once every 10 days. Doug McGuff, father of Body For Science, claims that many of his clients maintain gains while training once every two weeks!

So where does it leave us? A range of opinions is so wide that the only choice we really have left is a good old trial and error approach.

Let's say you try working out twice a week, which gives you 3-4 days of rest between sessions. Theoretically, if your recovery time is sufficient you should be able to increase your poundage a little (say, 2-2.5 pounds) every week. The important thing is: you should be able to handle increased weight with roughly the same amount of effort and correct form. If you have to grind it out, cheating and compromising the form for the sake of making that last rep - it doesn't count! If you stall (can't handle the 2 lb increase no matter how hard you try) for more than two weeks it means your recovery is either compromised or insufficient. Whichever the case, the key is to focus on recovery - not exercise (unless there's an injury; in which case some exercise adjustments may be in order)! If that happens, it might be good time to review your eating regime, nutritional and caloric value of the food you eat, sleeping pattern (total hours of sleep per day), and possibly extend recovery time (by switching to once-a-week or 3-times-every-2-weeks mode, for example).

Again, the basic principle to remember is: if you eat well, sleep well and rest enough - you should be able to handle small weekly increases with no perceivable increase in effort! If you can't - it might be time for adjustments. Of course, there's more to it, but that's the basics.

Progressive overload: more thoughts...

When I was younger the only way to train was to train heavy. Heavy was the key word and experience driven "pedal-to-the-metal" by overinflated young egos. When I stepped into the gym I would see my peers loading up the bar - which was an experience in itself - to the very limit of their abilities. And often times beyond. "Cheating" (which translates swinging and jerking up the weight to complete the set when you can't simply admit that the weight is too heavy) was a common thing to do. Of course it would be - it was promoted by the Trainer of Champions himself as a way to break through a plateau - how could he be wrong?! The correct form was more of an "old fart's" advice than a necessity. Plateau was also a mysterious thing - kinda like flu - everyone experienced it but no one really knew what caused it.

But I digress. Ok, maybe not. Back to the principle of progressive overload. One thing that I think was forgotten back in those days (and even more so today) is the fact that it is not the heavier poundage itself that causes the growth - not directly anyways - it's the growth that results in increased ability to lift heavier poundage! Again, let me rephrase it, because I think it's important. It is widely believed that constantly adding weight to your lifts is what causes body to grow (I mean growing muscle, of course). It's not. It may appear this way, yes, but it's not. Not directly anyway. It's a very simplistic way of looking at it whereas the process is more complex. The problem is, it shifts the emphasis from growth to weights whereas in fact it should be the other way around!

Here's what I think happens. Weight simply exemplifies resistance, a stimulus, which - when applied against the muscle triggers certain metabolic processes in the body, which are mostly of catabolic nature - including breakdown of muscle cells and release of certain hormones. That's where the role of the weight is pretty much complete! The nature and mode of the lift and amount of weight only affect the intensity of the breakdown and a relative combination of hormones released into the blood - that's it! The rest has nothing to do with the amount of weight you lifted in the last session - outside, like I said, the intensity of "damage" sustained by the body from working to overcome resistance.

What happens next is quite simple (without going into much detail). The hormones flooding the body trigger a set of chemical and physiological reactions that aim to repair the damage. This is where nutrition comes into play. Just like with a construction team materials (concrete, cement, limestone, bituminous mix, paint, etc.) are required to do the job certain nutrients are needed to provide the body with proper elements to do the repair. No matter how skilled and efficient your building team is insufficient or poor quality materials can hinder the process and adversely affect the outcome. Usually a certain combination of protein, carbohydrates and fats is needed to make repair efforts more efficient.

Now that your building team is engaged all you need to do is to provide sufficient supply of materials and allow enough time for the team to complete their job. If you don't supply materials - it will affect the team's dedication; they are going to get frustrated, lazy and eventually have people transfered to other projects. If you don't allow enough time - team will become overwhelmed, overstressed and will not be able to deliver at full capacity. In terms of physical training it means rest and recuperation. Eat well, sleep well and let the body take care of itself. Simple, huh? Well, from my own experience, it's much easier said than done.

So why is that? Why is it so difficult to simply rest and eat and let your "building team" take care of the repair? Well, the biggest challenge - as surprising as it is logical - is our mind. Our mind functions within the paradigm of rules. Statements and beliefs that we grew up with, learned at school, read in the books, heard in the media, etc., become rules by which we choose to live by. Often self-imposed (actually always self-imposed), although usually those are notions adopted from external sources (media, parents, friends, internet, religion).

Let's say, you come to the gym for the first time and a big guy on a bench next to you shows you a biceps curl. He also says that it's the best way ever to build big guns. Hmm, this guy is so big - he could be on to something. You take a mental note. But so far it's simply an opinion. Then you hear it again from someone else and you say "yeah! that's the way to train!"; now two people said the same thing. Then again. And again. Then you read a book or an article in a popular muscle building magazine that says that you should be training every other day and sometimes two out of three days your - and this is when your mind makes a conclusion that this is the way it should be. It's written in a book, after all, isn't it? And what if it comes from, say, Arnold the Governor or Joe the Trainer of Champions since 1936! People who made bodybuilding the sport it is today. And if the statement is souped up by a glossy image of a model with ripped abs? Chances are you not only will take it as an opinion - it may well become your truth, i.e. the rule you decide to live by without questioning its validity. It becomes one of the ten commandments to you. That's why advertising is such a powerful tool...

If for years and years you have been hearing that unless you train every other day - 3-4 times a week - you are not doing it right - even if your body is screaming "I'm tired! Give me a break!" what are the chances that you will listen to its plea? That's right: next to nothing! Why? Because your mind is conditioned to stick to the rules. Rules are the framework within which it operates.

Now back to training. I'll talk about the philosophy of rules in one of my other posts.

So we have established that rest and recuperation are a step critical to ensure that muscle is not only repaired but repaired exceedingly. In exercise physiology this is called supercompensation. Not only the body repairs the damage caused by stress in the form of resistance but it strengthens existing fibers and builds some extra ones in "anticipation" of an increased demand. This results in increased ability of the body to overcome resistance. This is a temporary condition, in a sense that unless this increased demand is imposed to the body the recruited fibers will gradually lose their ability to work against load. And it makes sense, the construction manager is not going to keep his entire team on the job unless there's enough work for them simply because the costs of keeping them there will not be justified. However, if the higher demand is applied again within that timeframe it will trigger the same processes and the body's ability to withstand higher resistance will increase yet again. There you have it. It's the theory of training.

To sum it up:

Step 1. Resistance is applied to the muscle (stress phase).

Step 2. Muscle is forced to work against resistance it is not accustomed to (overload), which results in temporary disruption of normal muscle cell metabolism and causes certain damage to the fibers (catabolic phase).

Step 3. A chain of chemical and physiological reactions is triggered and certain hormones are released into the blood to repair the damage and promote the healing process (anabolic phase).

Step 4. Damaged fibers are repaired with excess which means they attain a temporary state of higher capacity that allows them to handle higher levels of stress (adaptation and supercompensation).

Or put it simply:

Train well.

Eat well, sleep well and rest well until supercompensation occurs and you feel stronger than before.

Increase your working resistance a little.

Repeat steps 1 to 3 over and over again until you grow as strong and muscular as you want.

Of course there's more to it, but that's it in a nutshell.

So the key to progressive overload is to apply increased resistance (stress) but ONLY when the body has recovered enough to be able to handle it! Not until then. Consistently pushing yourself harder before your body is fully recovered from the previous session is the reason why there's much less muscle in the world than it is called for! So if everyone had focused more on growth than on the amount of weight lifted the world would have been a more muscular place in just a few short months.

Now, having said that, the question still remains: how long does it take for the body to repair the damage and supercompensate? And that's a million dollar question.

(...to be continued)

Stuart McRobert: bodybuilding for hardgainers

Those who know my philosophy about fitness, diet and bodybuilding (in a large sense - not just building muscle) know that I've been on a "mission" - my quest for a healthier body, search for an approach that would be based not on violence, but on "invitation". To coax, not coerce. Which means methods and practices designed to invite the body to change in the direction we want, rather than trying to violently force it to. Years of studying and practicing bodybuilding (mostly unsuccessfully - in a sense that I did not succeed in or even get close enough to building the body I wanted - even though I have always been in a fairly decent shape compared to many of my peers) and nutritional approaches made me realize that most conventional methods and techniques of altering your body are based on an ongoing fight against our bodies - usually by subjecting it to various forms of deprivation, over-exertion, extreme stress, etc.

When I first heard about Stuart McRobert I was in the process of arriving to a simple but painful realization that years of battering my body and following conventional and some less than routines (nutrition and training) in an attempt to make it change the way I wanted did not produce the results I wanted - no matter how hard I tried. I would always end up pretty much at the same weight (give or take), percentage of fat (give or take) and not any closer to where I wanted to be.

Stuart appears to be one of the pioneers who - through his own painful experience - first came to conclusion that a rate in which our body can grow muscle depends primarily on its ability to recuperate, when subjected to physical training. Second, he concluded that routines presented in most muscle-building magazines and books only apply to a relative minority of people blessed with favourable genetics - in terms of their ability to respond to exercise and speed of recovery. The rest of the population (which is most of us), he contended, are those whose bodies are less genetically blessed therefore take longer to recover and grow and can only handle a much smaller amount of training that they can respond to without becoming overtrained than is widely believed. He's the one who coined a term "hardgainer" and ran Hardgainer magazine for several years. I read four of his books. The one I liked best is "Beyond Brawn" simply because it - in my opinion - is more suited to a more experienced lifter. I found more answers to my questions in this book than in the other three combined.

His main philosophy revolves around several key points:

• A genetically average trainee should not copy training routines of more genetically blessed. Ironically those are the ones most magazines and books present to the public as the way to train. He believes that many trainees overtrain themselves badly when they try following those. In that sense I absolutely agree that, in a way, Joe Weider - although played a major role in popularization of bodybuilding in the last 40 years - may have caused a lot of damage to the training population by promoting champions' routines as the only way to train.
• Training frequency. He believes that 3 and 4 times of hard training a week is a definite overkill for an average trainee simply because it stretches their bodies' recuperative abilities too far.
• Correct form of exercise. Stuart preaches it with passion putting quite a heavy emphasis on it. Although I understand that it, in itself, is not going to grow more muscle but it goes a long way in terms of preventing injuries.
• Progressive overload. A principle of progressive load - which seems to have been a cornerstone of training since the beginning of times - surprisingly is not given enough justice in popular magazines. It often comes almost as a side-note as does "recuperation" by the way.

Although I certainly agree with Stuart on many accounts, some things still don't ring the truth to me. Too much emphasis is on genetic limitations, in my opinion - almost to a point where it becomes a negative mantra ("I can't grow as much muscle as I want because chances are I'm genetically challenged"). Thing is - you don't know until you try...

(...to be continued... possibly :)))

Cholesterol is bad for you: myths and facts

I believe this is a somewhat inaccurate and often misinterpreted statement.I assume that by "bad" people mean that it will (or may) cause health issues in your body. My mom always used to say: Beware of eggs, especially yolks, because they contain too much cholesterol. Here's what my investigation revealed.

Exhibit A. Cholesterol is an essential component of cell membranes for mammals (and, therefore, humans). It is an important precursor for the bionsynthesis of bile acids, steroid hormones (including androgen and estrogen) and some fat soluble vitamins. Bottom line: In itself and by itself cholesterol does not cause disease or malfunction in a normal body under normal metabolic conditions.

Exhibit B. Dietary cholesterol is only responsible for approximately 20% of all cholesterol circulating in human body. New cholesterol is produced by liver (and also recycled) every day in addition to the amount consumed with food to replace what was excreted from the body (which is about 1.2 g/day). So the body will produce about 2 g of cholesterol in addition to the daily amount of dietary cholesterol (0.4 g) every day. If the intake is higher on a specific day it simply means that the body will produce less cholesterol IN ADDITION to it. If the intake is less, it will produce more to keep the level fairly stable. Bottom line: the amount of cholesterol we consume with diet has little impact on cholesterol level in our blood.

Exhibit C. Now there appears to be a link between high level of cholesterol and progression of atherosclerosis. It is believed to be due to the fact that the fatty build-up that thickens arteries (which in turn causes narrowing of the artery and may lead to high blood pressure and other cardiovascular conditions) consists largely of cholesterol. It also appears that elevated cholesterol is not the "cause" but rather a result of a protective reaction of the body to a certain process (namely, when artery walls become damaged by LDL molecules that were oxidized by free radicals). Why it happens or, rather, what is the underlying cause for this abnormal elevation of cholesterol levels still seems to remain unclear.

Bottom line: elevated cholesterol is not the culprit; but rather a result of a body response to some other process. To use an analogy: a problem with a flat tire is that it does not contain enough air to keep the rims from hitting the road, although it's not the cause of the problem; therefore constantly adding air into the tire may provide a temporary relief but it is not going to resolve the issue because the leak is caused by a punctured tire.

Strength-For-Life by Shawn Phillips: my thoughts (part 2)

Ok, as I was reading on - more thoughts popped up...

Some other concepts and notions that I liked:

• I like the emphasis on focus and mental concentration - that rings truth to me. I think it's one of the best characteristics of the book.
• Goal setting is one other part that I found extremely powerful.
• The training program is sound, in general and nutrition plan makes sense and is easy to follow.
• The program is laid out with great degree of detail, which should make it easy to digest for a beginner.
• I liked that the author's ego doesn't seem to be running the show (he also doesn't refer to himself as an expert or "Trainer of Champions" or "Coach Ilg" or anything like that). The material is served in a clear systematic way.
• The book covers pretty much all bases. Some of them may be arguable but I think for a beginner it can provide a pretty good structure and a lot of guidance.

At the same time I ran into some things I do not agree with:

• some concepts are served as facts whereas they often are opinions at best and unsubstantiated claims at worst.
• some notions are presented in an overly simplistic, sometimes somewhat dogmatic, way.
• the part explaining why three meals per day are inferior to 5-6 meals per day and especially why skipping breakfast is a mortal sin doesn't quite hold the water. There is sufficient evidence that skipped breakfast is not going to bring metabolism down to a screeching halt. The notion of breakfast being a critical meal of the day is a popular belief and in my opinion is nothing but.
• I believe that a program that consists of 18 intensive sets per workout three times a week with at least 4-5 sets going to failure in addition to intensive interval training another three times for a total of 6 times a week can be too much for an average trainee and cannot be maintained without burning out and overtaxing your body's recovery capabilities for longer than a few weeks. Same applies to Body-For-Life program as well, which I believe can be overly intensive and lead to overtraining for many people with average genetics (that's what happened to me).
• In a section for women (p.112) he states that "you won't get big on 15 reps, but you won't get anything else either", which I think is a statement that is not entirely correct and somewhat misleading. You absolutely CAN get big on 15 reps and even 20 (there's even a famous "20 squats" program on which people have been known to grow muscle like crazy), although only if the weight is heavy enough; i.e. intensity and amount of resistance are the key. So women don't get big doing 15 reps not because of some magic number of reps that somehow prevents them from growing muscle but because of low intensity and very light weights that are typically used by them, which simply does not provide enough stimulus for the muscle to grow.

Overall I'd give the book four stars. It is very similar to Body-For-Life (with only a few modifications) and overall is a sound program (although certainly not a miracle pill) based on traditional principles (nothing revolutionary about it) of strength training and cardiovascular fitness and I believe that it can certainly serve as a good headstart to a typical out-of-shape sedentary person with little knowledge of exercise science who decided to finally take control of his body.

P.S. Well, what do you know... Just when I was about to put away the book thinking that I pretty much got the gist of it I suddenly realized there were two more chapters - 14 and 15. After reading those my entire opinion about this book changed dramatically! Let me tell you, the part about Mastering Motivation (chapter 14) is nothing short of brilliant! Stages of motivation described in it didn't simply ring the truth to me - they were tolling a 500 lbs bell from the top tower of the cathedral! That chapter alone made me want to own this book! This chapter alone lifted this book into a completely different category - way above all other fitness books I ever read. A ubiquitous Body-For-Life doesn't even hold a candle to this one in terms of understanding mental and spiritual depth of transformation (physical or otherwise). This guy totally gets it! He is one of a very few who seem to be capable of looking past the weights, sets and reps! Wow! Thanks, Nicole, for recommending this book!

Strength-For-Life by Shawn Phillips: my thoughts

A friend suggested this book. It's brilliant, she said, and it is talking about physical transformation based on principles that are exactly what you seem to be looking for: a holistic, goal oriented approach targeting both mind and body, unlike many other "get fit quick" books.

First thing I did, what I always do in situations like that, I Googled it. Often I find myself looking not just at readers' average rating (like the one you find at Amazon.com) but also critical feedback - usually those will be reviews from readers who gave the book 1 or 2 stars. Not always objective they, nevertheless, often give the gist of what the book is not. I often find that 5-star reviews can be excessively enthusiastic, sometimes to obsession point and therefore even more misleading.

So I googled author's name and the first book that popped up was one of his other ones - something about getting fabulous abs quick. Negative reviews on that one were REALLY negative, blasting the book for excessive narcissism and it being nothing but a re-hashed collection of those same age-old training ideas that have been around for decades glamoured up by photo images of the author sporting his perfect six-pack along with attractive models. There were also comments of the author being a less lucky shadow of his more successful brother Bill - creator of Body-For-Life program (I'll publish my thoughts on it later). Not a good image.

Despite the negative feedback on that other book I still decided to give this one a try. Plus I found it in the library so I figured - what do I have to lose? And I'm glad I did. I found it may be lacking some philosophical depth and scientific backup but it doesn't matter. It has good intentions and honest attitude. I had a feeling that Shawn truly believes in what he preaches. And like with almost any book I've read in the last year or two I discovered certain points that I do not agree with but it also gave me a lot of good hints and plenty of food for my inquisitive mind.

A couple of things that really got me thinking. One thing that really struck me was an excellent metaphor in the goal setting section of the book. He used Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation to illistrate why we sometimes fail to reach the goal. He compared the magnitude (importance, desirability) of the goal to the mass of the object and its remoteness (how far away this goal is) to distance in a physical sense. So, he concedes, if the goal is too far away in the future (distance) the gravitational pull may just not be strong enough to bring the goal to you even if it very desirable and important (mass)! Isn't that brilliant? I think it is.

The second point has nothing to do with the book per se but, like I said, it fed my mind with some valuable pointers. For instance, he suggests that goals should be ambitious but realistic. For a long time - since I was first exposed to ideas of the Law of Attraction - I was developing a tendency to scorn this whole "setting a realistic goal" thingy. Ha! - I was thinking - "realistic goals" are for those unenlightened souls who do not dare to dream big, aim high enough. It's simply selling themselves cheap - my Ego was arrogant and quick to judge. And when I was just reading that section of the book all of a sudden I heard this voice in my head. It quietly said literally this: "Vlad, it's all a matter of interpetation. Setting realistic goals doesn't have to mean short-changing yourself. It may simply mean making sure that the goals you are setting are deemed achievable by you! What good would it do you if you set a goal you don't believe you could achieve?" This is where the light flashed in my head. But of course!! It's so simple. It's not about how big the goal is it's about what YOU believe you can or cannot achieve within a certain timeframe!! It's about FAITH! So limitations are in what you believe is and isn't possible - not in the magnitude of the goal! If you - in full conviction and unshakeable faith - can concieve that 10 pounds of fat can be lost overnight - you will be able to wake up 10 pounds lighter the very next morning! The thing is not that it's impossible - it's that you believe it is!! A typical self-talk would probably go like this: "10 pounds overnight? No way! Totally impossible! How about - in a week? Nahh, I don't think so! Ok, do you think you could do it in three months? Well, I guess I could; I think it's possible." That's it!!!

(...to be continued... haven't finished the book yet)

My thoughts on Ego games

I originally wrote them down and put into my Google Documents online folder so instead of copy-and-pasting I decided to simply add the link here -->

My thoughts on Ego games

These are some thoughts I had on ego, the games it plays and how it affects us in various aspects of our life.