"Doing more exercise with less intensity,"
Arthur Jones believes, "has all but
destroyed the actual great value
of weight training. Something
must be done . . . and quickly."
The New Bodybuilding for
Old-School Results supplies
MUCH of that "something."
This is one of 93 photos of Andy McCutcheon that are used in The New High-Intensity Training to illustrate the recommended exercises.
To find out more about McCutcheon and his training, click here.
Resting too long between sets allows for too much ATP replenishment. You tend to end up working with bundles of fibers that are already sacked rather than getting at new ones if you know what I mean.
The phosphate cycle takes about 25 to 35 seconds so rest breaks are bets kept below 20 seconds. Rest that is during the same set (breakdowns, rest pause etc) or super sets for the same muscle.
How much rest between exercises for the same muscle (not talking supersets, or breakdowns, etc.). Two minutes? Three?
In a one-2-one personal training facility like Drew's, 2 minutes rest would mean 2 minutes rest.
The time from the end of one set to the beginning of the next would be 2 minutes.
In a commercial gym, the 2 minutes rest wouldn't actually be 2 minutes rest.
The 2 minutes would be spent moving to another piece of equipment which could be right down the other end of the gym. Then you have to set it up. That's after you've made a note of your reps and load for the previous exercise, and then you can start the next set. And that's if the equipment you want to use is free at the time. It probably won't be.
So basically, in a commercial gym, your rest periods are anything but restful.
The goal of "metabolically devastating" a person - reaching a state of physical collapse seemingly cherished in some quarters - has decidedly not been part of the scientifically conducted studies and has never been demonstrated to be essential for gaining strength and muscle mass.
Many have been overdosing on intensity and then rationalizing the predictable results (e.g., inability to recover) by cloaking them in science - but where there is no science to support what one is doing.
Again, take Lance Armstrong, a person at the absolute extreme end of the genetic continuum even for his sport. Armstrong does not attempt to train at 100% day in and day out despite an ability to recover from training and racing that is legendary. If this guy is not going to the brink in every training session, what am I doing trying to go over the brink in every session?
But, yet, doesn't it seem odd that throughout centuries of athletic training there was no one who discovered that one maximum sprint per week, one maximal lift, or one maximal 10-mile run per week was all that was required to improve? Aren't we being presumptuous in believing that no one before us had ever tried very brief, very infrequent, very high intensity training?