POWERFUL Muscle Medicine

John Little

Doug McGuff, M.D., Discusses High-Intensity-Training Dose/Response for Muscle and Strength - Part 2

Page 1

In Part 1 Dr. McGuff explained his beliefs regarding short, high-intensity workouts and how one five-set workout every seven to 14 days can increase size and strength. The conversation continues.

JL: In your video you cited two studies that support the validity of once-a-week training. Tell me about that and about how you fought the idea of training once a week until you did it—and then went on to make the best gains of your life.

DM: Well, in the study they essentially took groups of subjects who were training three days a week and two days a week and looked at their rates of progress. The three-times-a-week trainees went down to training two times a week, and the two-times-a-week trainees cut back to training once a week. When that happened, their progress—measured on an absolute basis per unit of time—improved. There have been other, similar studies. The trainees decrease their frequency and actually do better in a lot of cases—particularly the elderly. Even in younger subjects that’s borne out.

As far as my training is concerned, it was Mike Mentzer’s writings that influenced me. He had a kind of “Eureka!” moment, came back into the fray and started training clients. That’s when he argued for decreasing training frequency, and I finally just decided to bite the bullet and wait a whole week and see what happened. At about the same time I’d visited Greg Anderson in Seattle. He put me through a workout that was five sets—total. It was the most impressive workout I’d ever been through in my life. The guy just hammered me. At that point I had managed to push my training out to every fourth or fifth day.

He said, “You know, I remember talking with Rob Seraino some time ago, and when we look back on our records, the best progress we ever made was when we were training once a week.” I told him that when I got back, I’d give it a try.

The first time I took seven days off, going back to the gym was a completely different experience: The weight that I’d selected for myself that had previously been very challenging and right at the edge of my capabilities felt light. I actually had to check the resistance to make sure it was right. I got more repetitions with it than I had on the previous workout by a long shot. Reaching “failure” wasn’t like it had been previously. It was the sort of thing where you were creeping up on failure and thought you were going to fail on a rep, but you’d eke it out. Then you’d start your next rep and think, “Surely I’m going to bite the dust on this one,” but you’d “Okay, I’m not going to make it this time,” and you’d barely eke it out. Finally, on the fourth one, you’d bite the dust.

So you had a very gradual reaching of muscular failure, whereas previously muscular failure had been just like running into a brick wall. It would be just like a boot dropping—Bam!—and you were done.

I think when I trained more often, whole sets of fast-twitch motor units hadn’t reached recovery, so when I had to recruit those motor units, they just weren’t there. When I laid off the full seven days, they were there again.

 JL: Haven’t you found that in some instances even more time might be required?

DM: Absolutely. With certain clients we’ve found that we have to look at the total context of their life—the ones with significantly stressful lifestyles especially.

In my practice I had a partner who worked full-time nights and had four children. We fell into this pattern where we thought, “Well, training once a week is good for everyone.” What we found, though, was that the guy would not progress; he could not make a strength improvement unless we waited. We kept pushing it out until we found that for him training every 12th day worked best, given the circadian disruption of being a full-time night worker and having four small children. You’ve got to look at what else is going on in the person’s life and plug in the right recovery equation.


Share/Bookmark
Tags:

The Wisdom of Mike Mentzer

John Little

The Wisdom of Mike Mentzer

Q: There’s been a lot of talk on the Internet lately about whether or not strength increases are necessary to build muscle. What was Mike’s view on the matter?

A: It comes down to natural training vs. drug-assisted training. If you’re taking steroids or other growth drugs that cause the body to retain water (of which muscle is 76 percent), then almost any type of training program will cause you to grow measurably bigger muscles—at least for as long as you’re synthetically helping your body to retain such fluid. If you’re looking to build muscle without using potentially dangerous substances, however, then you need to thicken the cross-sectional area of actual muscle tissue, its protein component. That requires high-order stimulation as well as time to produce the growth you’ve stimulated.

Category 5 Workout Intensity

Peter C. Siegel

Category 5 Workout Intensity

Have you ever had a workout where you were so feverishly driven that you felt you could, metaphorically speaking, burn a hole through steel? Where the weights you used felt light in your hands—as if the force flowing through you totally outmatched the iron’s attempt to overcome and exhaust you? Remember? It was as if your muscles were an extension of your will; they performed and contracted at a level seemingly beyond where they ever had before—you could actually f-e-e-l the deepest underlying fibers firing in a way you never had before.

HIGH-INTENSITY Q & A

John Little

HIGH-INTENSITY Q & A

Q: I’m still uncertain about Mike’s position that “only one set per exercise is all that is required” for someone to get bigger and stronger. I’ve seen some studies that suggest that it takes more than one set. Is Mike’s position still tenable in light of the new research?

A: Your question is long on supposition and short on evidence. Indeed, the preponderance of scientific literature clearly supports Mike’s position. You mention studies you’ve seen but you haven’t furnished any data from these studies, nor have you provided references, presumably wanting me to take what you say on faith—which I’m not prepared to do. I would ask you to consider the following:

Volume vs. Intensity

Steve Holman and Jonathan Lawson

Volume vs. Intensity

Q: Which is better, volume training or short, abbreviated, high-intensity-style workouts?

 A: High-intensity workouts or higher-volume methods? Both will work. Legendary bodybuilder Bill Pearl used to train with 20 or more sets per bodypart, but he never trained to exhaustion on any set. It just didn’t suit him. He got at more muscle fibers by doing set after set. Others prefer to do fewer sets and push harder—for example, past central-nervous-system exhaustion with X Reps—to hit the majority of fibers. When you do that, you have to scale back the volume. As Nautilus creator Arthur Jones used to say, You can train long, or you can train hard, but you can’t do both. There’s a lot of truth to that.

The Wisdom of Mike Mentzer

John Little

The Wisdom of Mike Mentzer

Q: In his last book, High Intensity Training the Mike Mentzer Way, Mike indicated in his chapter on metabolic momentum that “all-out effort of the high-intensity variety requires a lot of motivation and actual physical and mental courage.” What exactly did he mean by that? I’ve always looked at bodybuilding as a physical activity—not a psychological one.