"less is more"

[Luka Kopusar]

Hey there.

Someone copied a link to a book "body by science", and ofc i wanted to read it because i wanted to know if this is really true. So the book tells you that 1 workout per week is enough, to see some visible results, and quite good results. I also attend a college where we have physiology and anatomy and such stuff, so i knew my way around in the book.

it really does makes sense from a physiology view, so you break down muscles and you just rest until you are stronger than before, makes sense. And then i really questioned myself, do i benefit more with my 4 workouts a week (each muscle 2x) or would i gain more hyper,strength with less frequency. And than still a question or more of a habit, a drug... "but no, what will i do on rest days, i have to do some exercies" it really hit me, just like in the book that people really developed this kinda of thinking. 

I would try this type of training, but then i think what if i would waste my time. silly maybe, but im in kinda whirlpool right now. 

 

maybe for dynamic exercises more apart, what about statics like FL,BL,PL...
 

i really hope for some of your thoughts and insights

cheers

[Connor Davies]

What's the standard thing powerlifters do to get their bench up?  Bench more.

 

Sure, you might make some progress one day a week, but that doesn't mean you won't make better progress doing more work.  Breaking down muscle fibres is only one side of strength development.  Neurological programming is the other.  Strength is a skill and doing an exercise more will make you better at that exercise.  This is why being strong at movement A doesn't automatically mean you will be strong at movement B.

 

Think for a second about old time strongmen.  They would have to go on stage to perform their feats of strength pretty much every night.  If they were focusing on breaking down their muscles while they did this, they never would have been able to perform.  Instead, they always saved some energy, and built up efficiency in their particular feats.  (Generally they would perform a lift, and then challenge the audience that none of them could do it.  This required some originality in coming up with lifts no-one had ever seen, and thus were inefficient in.)  Those guys were hella strong.

 

So don't think that doing less is automatically more.  It's more about what kind of less allows you to perform best.  Is it a shorter workout so you can hit it again that week?  Is it less exercises so you can focus on perfecting a few before moving on?  There are others, but you get my point.

[Nicholas Herreros]

If less is more than we would not have a problem with obesity in America.

[Mats Trane]

I think this is totally individual. It's all about your recovery ability. The only way for you to find out is to try.

I had my best progression when I was training GST 3 times a week. During those 3 days I trained like an animal.

The other 4 days of the week wasn't total rest. I skateboarded once week, did some waterskiing during the summer, took walks with my wife and dog and so on.

I think it's like Coach says:

Your body literally does not know the difference between 1, 2 or even 3 workouts in a given day. As far as your body is concerned, it is simply one loonngg workout that had breaks built into it.

I've noticed tha last year that the training has become a drug to me and with that injuries, having sleeping problems, getting sick easier has arrived. So now I' ve decided to go back to 3 times a week of foundation training, 1 day of H1/h/2.

Again I thinks it's highly individual. Age also Matters alot. My 18 year old son trains 9 times a week 3 mornings and 6 afternoons with one rest day. For him that works. But for me turning 51 this it does not even though it has been very difficult to accept .

The only way for you to find is to try out what works best for you. You have nothing to lose. Enter a 12 (or if you dont have the patience 8) cycle and keep a log of how it is going. And remember to keep it fun!

[ForzaCavaliere]

Strength is predominantly a neurological adaptation (I feel that is a direct quote from somewhere burned into my brain but I don't know where from). I don't think that one workout a week, while good enough to give you some initial improvements, is enough stress to the CNS to force adaptations. Your body is something that adapts to become efficient at what it's expecting to do, but I think that 1 week delay will make each workout a 'surprise' on the CNS so it sees it as something that doesn't occur very often and hence not required to adapt; much like changing training routines very often (does not produce any results).

 

You might see some hypertrophy, because the muscles are being torn and remade (?) with each workout, but in terms of strength increases... I don't think it's very much. 

[Connor Davies]

You might see some hypertrophy, because the muscles are being torn and remade (?) with each workout, but in terms of strength increases... I don't think it's very much. 

Bare in mind that at advanced levels some powerlifters can only train deadlifts every 10-14 days.  I'm sure that maybe they could improve faster if they trained it more, but it beats up on their muscles, tendons, joints, central nervous system ect too much for them to train it with any more frequency.

 

Oh, also, once you pass a certain point you have to train more frequently.  I'm not their yet, but I've heard people say they can't take a week off or their body starts to crap out on them.

[Mats Trane]

 

Oh, also, once you pass a certain point you have to train more frequently.  I'm not their yet, but I've heard people say they can't take a week off or their body starts to crap out on them.

Depends on what you do in that week, I'm sure it will crap on you if you watch tv for a week.

[Jon Douglas]

I understand that training a skill (or a skill with strong overlap) once in ten days is the minimum to retain the majority of performance. I think most would agree that a given movement in GST 1x a week is ok in a pinch for maintenance, travelling etc, but progression will generally require at least 2x; whether more is optimal is up to your particular recovery capability.

[Murray Truelove]

I know the book you mean. And even watched a YouTube thing about it. I doubt it would work with a lot of exercises; you have to go to total failure (let's hope I remember this correctly) and you can only do this safely with certain exercises i.e. hand stand pushups would be dangerous to fail on.

I'd love to know if it really works though.

[Jesse Frigo]

Success in Body by Science is predicated on doing simple movements (5, I think) to absolute failure.  It recommends machines for the safety factor.  It's useful for building strength, and maybe a bit of muscle, but not particularly useful for endurance or skills.

 

What I don't like about it is that it requires working out to complete failure.  This takes a lot of mental discipline while doing it.  Using machines doesn't really teach a person how to recruit more muscles into a movement.  You won't build any skills while doing it.  It's easy (ier) to become laterally imbalanced.

 

I read it and learned a lot about the importance of recovery time, but it's not a program I'm all that interested in doing myself.