"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.
I don't know if Mr. Landau and others do any other exercise than one intense workout every 5-7 days, but is this enough for general health and fitness? Do you also think your workouts(enjoyed Mr. Landau workouts on YouTube) is sustainable as you get older-50+?
Speaking as a guy who just trains for general health/fitness, at 58, I prefer to work out every 3-5 days, at a less than "near death experience" intensity. My joints don't like heavy (for me) weights and set extenders anymore, and I don't think I ever got that much from them anyway. I do some walking most days, but don't do any formal "cardio", and have found circuit training about twice a week to be ideal. If I miss a workout I don't panic. I have been trying to conciously move more slowly, and maintain about 60-90 seconds TUL. I move quickly between sets, My body seems to like this better than anything else I have tried.
I think one of Landaus's workouts would ruin the rest of my week, and Ilike to stay fairly active.
I train one full body session per week, 12 exercises SSTF, no intensifiers, followed by a 20 min HIIT session.
Also do 'cardio', steady state three times a week, ie fast walking around our neighborhood lake circa 2 miles per session.
Results have been great to my physique.
I cannot see how any who trains like Landau could do more than once per week..those intensifiers are brutal yet effective imho, but they do prolong recovery. Perhaps a NTF sesion could be thrown in if one believes they enhance recovery?
I just switched to a once per week protocol a few weeks ago. My progress is on a thread here (something like "it's that time again" I believe). It's too early to tell, but I'm already guinea pigging it for you. Give it a couple of months and you'll be able to see at my expense if it works.
I'm running too, but not for fitness. I'm doing it because the season for spontaneous turkey-bowl (American Football) invites is upon us and if you haven't been running, the DOMS is unbearable.
So far, it seems to be working well. I'm making progress, but since I just slowed down the reps to 4/4 or there abouts, some of that could be a skill type acclimation. But time will tell. The slower speed is friendlier to my knees and shoulders and allows me to use lower weights and still get to full-on failure.
I'll keep you posted then you can decide whether you want to try it yourself. My jury is still out, so to speak.
For maintence and strength gains once per week is enough. Years ago and lately when my schedule gets tight I only have the will/time once a week. If u hit it right ur body will need the rest and there is nothing like hitting your new routine with everything fresh.
Good Luck and if u need some suggestions on routines let me know.
Why would you believe that anyone can objectively answer this question? Those who will answer are most likely biased - face it just the fact that you're here means you are biased. The people who aren't here are just as biaded.
None of this is about fitness. The guy who came out twenty years ahead of his colleagues touting vitamin C was later asked about exercise and longevity - his biased response, as he is no different than any of us, was don't exercise.
i don't think once HIT every 5 to 7 days is enough exercise in general for me. i gotta have that cardio in between.. at least 30 mins on treadmill, cycle or rower.. or track running. Even the rapid pow pow bam bam on heavy bag..but kicks as well as punches to get lower extremities in the mix!
I do think running, (not jogging) sprinting and similar activiies use FT muscle, and do affect recovery. Also, sports and having fun is, well, fun.
Please keep us posted on your progress.
You bring up a good point. As we age, it is important to "attempt" to slow the reduction of TYPE II (FT) fibers.
While some use Sprinting, I have found Sprinting hills or Stairs to be better.
The reason is that each step is pretty much a high effort, and you don't reach a terminal speed (meaning you don't reach your top speed)
Sprinting should never be undertaken witout a significant pre-conditioning period and I MEAN significant. I took a full 6 months before I applied full effort.
Spinting also has the side benifit of stimulating the maximum amounts of HGH and Test, in most when the efforts are high.
It is a win/win on all fronts, but again, it should be implemented progressively and with full warmups.
I sprint a long wooden staircase wit a much greater rise (steeper) than normal stairs. I take two steps at a time and suggest that too as an eventual goal since single steps are way to choppy.
A good few set of stadium stairs can also work although they are less steep.
But for the third time, I must remind you codgers and geezers like me, to warm up thoroughly and implement the program with very slow progressions.
It will make you feel like you're 18 again (eventually).
You have a valid point. I don't know that exercise helps longevity that much. It does improve the quality of life as you age. I know this from experience. That's the only reason I do it. Bodybulding and weightlifting, as such, don't interest me. My observation is that people's physiques, and even strength, are more influenced by genetics and diet than any amount of exercise. Metabolic health is another matter. I am just looking for the most efficient, safe way to maintain the strength and function I have as I age.
I"m 56 and I work out twice a week, pull on Monday and push on Thursday. On Tuesday or Wednesday I might run for 30 minutes and maybe on Saturday I stationary cycle or row on an erg if I get the time. I seem to be making more small increments of progress with this program than I did when I did my entire workout on one day and waited a week till the next.
I generally push to failure but now I'm going to throw in a week now and then of stopping short of failure to give my body more time to recover.The older I get the longer it takes to recover, especially if I'm stressed at work or something.
We are now doing 2 a week. The Wednesday Training is about 12 minutes and Sunday Training is about 17 minutes - give or take a few. The difference between 1 - 2 "Workouts," I don't know, I don't think much about it. Dr. Osborn wanted to do a second (real brief) session mid week and I was OK with that. It might keep me from getting stale? My recovery is real quick and 2 "Workouts" over the period of a week that total less than 30 minutes ain't no big deal.
Mr. Landau, do you think you will still be using the same high intensity workouts as you get older? Have you trained others with the spirited workouts who are members of AARP? Your workouts appear to have produced great physiques for yourself and others, but as far as health(blood pressure etc.)is concerned, do you think the workouts promote physical well being? Have you had client's who in pre-post blood work or other medical tests demonstrated positive changes in health?
Overfiftylifter-curious to hear trainer's views on long term health ramifications of our use of weight training.
Training to failure really means - train as hard as you can. "Workouts" for example - An eighty something year old woman with Parkinsons - training each exercise to adequate localized fatigue. She will train Thursday. The training is the same, she optimizes each set and the progression is by one half to one pound "micro-loading."
In my case, I recruit as much muscle as I can - when the muscles no longer can produce force, set over.
Pathological adaptations, not sure - but if you keep "form" as good as possible, it will be no worse than what it is. Do the best you can with what your dealt, and when in doubt, do less.
The answer to the question if one workout per week ist enough depends on your musclefibre-dominance. If your muscles are normal-twitch-dominated, 2 workouts per week are sufficient (60-90 sec per excercise), if they are slow-twitch-dominated it could be better to workout 3 times a week (90-120 sec per excercise), if they are fast-twitch-dominated 1 workout per week is ideal (40-60 sec per excercise).
After I figured out that I'm a fast-twitcher (on the medx-lumbar-extension-machine) and worked out the way I should, my strenth increased in a rapid way. Ask yourself for example: Are you much more better in (1) short or in (2) long distance runs or (3) in both? If (1) you might be a fast-twitcher, if (2) a slow-twitcher, and if (3) - well, you guess...
I have strength trained once a week for as long as 4 months, because of my schedule. I didn't plan it that way,it just happened. I actually lost no strength and gained on a couple of exercises.
I just got a bit sore and felt like working out more. That doesn't mean I needed to. I also hiked 2-4 miles most days, so I wasn't totally sedentary.
I think the answer depends on age, genetics and goals. If you just want to maintain strength as you age and don't care at all about "bodybuilding", (like me) looking for the minimum makes sense. Also, if you have other activities/sports, maybe 1x/wk is all you can handle and get benefit.
This question I proposed is more in regards to one's general health. Do we have any proof that high intensity exercise using free weights or machines promote health?
Is one short session of 20 minutes a week by itself enough to assist and promote general health?
We have seen examples that muscle mass can improve with this and similar systems from a number of contributors(Dr. Darden, Mr. Landau, Fred Hahn, Drew Baye, etc.)to this forum and they have physiques to prove it but as regards to smooth muscle, cardiac and other tissue, are we promoting health? Is one workout a week enough?
Overfiftylifter-there is more to health than a 18 inch bicep.
Heart disease is not a disease that improves with performance, it's a pathology. Abnormalaties that lurk will be triggered with excessive tonnage, and the behavior that goes with the indiscriminate hoisting of such.
So the exposure and behavior of HIT likely will not harm the onset pathologies, but will do little to promote so called measures of health, but what really does? If you really knew, how could you measure beyond normal health. Less is more over time.
Doug McGuff's website has some great articles on health and HIT. The best I've read. They tend to get a bit technical, but you can get a lot out of reading them. Maintaining FT muscle as you age seems to have profound metabolic/health effects. Cardiovascular adaptations to strenght training are also substantial.