T Nation

Who is Right?

Alright, I’m a long time T-Nation reader. I got in an argument with one of my friends the other day in the weightroom about weightlifting. He is on the football team (we are in college) and he has to trains quite often with the football team in the weightroom, and after practice he workouts out again on his own.

Anyway we got in this argument about training obviously. He thinks that the only way to get better and stronger is to work out until he can no long stand the fatique he is putting his body through and consequently his intense weightlifting workouts last up to 2+ hours some days doing doubles others not.

So i told him that working out over an hour is not the best thing for you and that there are far too many negatives (increase in cortisol, catabolism, decrease immune system etc) in working out that long. And he thinks that the only way to workout, is to workout that long with such high intensity.

He thinks basically that he is doing more good than harm by training that long in a single session. So who is right? I’ve read many research articles and the book called Nutrient Timing that are totally against training that long due to its negative effects. I totally believe that many authors on here that less is more.

Is he making good progress? That is a pretty large question, you forgot to cover.

[quote]Misterhamper wrote:
Is he making good progress? That is a pretty large question, you forgot to cover.[/quote]

+1. Who is in better shape? Different people have different needs and recover at different rates.

Blanket statements are usually wrong. Your fancy books probably won’t tell you that.

[quote]Misterhamper wrote:
Is he making good progress? That is a pretty large question, you forgot to cover.[/quote]

^^^+1

Is he making any true gain using his form of training??

:slight_smile:

[quote]Serd wrote:
Alright, I’m a long time T-Nation reader. I got in an argument with one of my friends the other day in the weightroom about weightlifting. He is on the football team (we are in college) and he has to trains quite often with the football team in the weightroom, and after practice he workouts out again on his own.

Anyway we got in this argument about training obviously. He thinks that the only way to get better and stronger is to work out until he can no long stand the fatique he is putting his body through and consequently his intense weightlifting workouts last up to 2+ hours some days doing doubles others not.

So i told him that working out over an hour is not the best thing for you and that there are far too many negatives (increase in cortisol, catabolism, decrease immune system etc) in working out that long. And he thinks that the only way to workout, is to workout that long with such high intensity.

He thinks basically that he is doing more good than harm by training that long in a single session. So who is right? I’ve read many research articles and the book called Nutrient Timing that are totally against training that long due to its negative effects. I totally believe that many authors on here that less is more.[/quote]

You need to understand that everyone doesn’t respond the same or have the same recuperative ability. I know a guy who trains over 2 hours on days he works out and he looks better than most of the guys on this forum worried about not training for over an hour.

I also know I get looked at funny and have been asked how the hell I got to this size when I am walking out of the gym some days after only being in there for 30min. You base what you do on what works for you, not on some time limit that someone wrote down alone.

For many people, working out for over an hour either means they are bullshitting most of the time and clowning around, or it means they will eventually burn out and not see any further progress.

For others, their bodies can take more stress and will see more results from it.

It is that simple. You aren’t like him and he isn’t like you.

I agree with everyone else here so far. For example, Ian King dictates that you shouldn’t focus on volume too much, and should focus more on intensity, thus a lot of his recomendations on exercises is only one set, then you do another exercise.

I agree with it up to the most part, however I usually double the volume of his programs, set-wise, and even though I get out of the gym 75 min- 90 min later, I’m not burnt out and recover pretty well.

When did Ian King say that? Could you direct me to it. I miss Ian King, he seems like a really cool, down to earth guy

I think that results are the ONLY factor to consider when determining what’s “right”.

No text in the world (or all of them) means crap when results are happening no matter how insane the routine may seem to someone else.

And that sure as heck doesn’t mean it’ll work well for another.

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
When did Ian King say that? Could you direct me to it. I miss Ian King, he seems like a really cool, down to earth guy[/quote]

http://www.T-Nation.com/readTopic.do?id=460656

It’s not hit on Ian King, I’m largely influence by him when it comes to training, but I think my body tolerates more volume, even during high intensity based workouts, so that’s been my personal experience under the bar.

Science is just another religion. Don’t trust everything “lab coats” say verbatim. Test your body, learn what works and what doesn’t. This a skill that noone preaches anymore.

[quote]oboffill wrote:
Science is just another religion. Don’t trust everything “lab coats” say verbatim. Test your body, learn what works and what doesn’t. This a skill that noone preaches anymore. [/quote]

Agreed. Science is really just trying to give you a method.

On the other hand, there is a lot to be said about the guess and check method. I used to count calories and grams of protein and write down my workout regimens and whatnot.

Turns out I personally make my best gains just eating and doing stuff willy nilly in the gym. I go by what my body tells me to do.

I still keep in mind to eat a lot and do my squats. But I don’t let some author or some written plan get in my way. Only I know when i am not too full to eat or when my legs are recovered. Get me?

[quote]Chickenmcnug wrote:
oboffill wrote:
Science is just another religion. Don’t trust everything “lab coats” say verbatim. Test your body, learn what works and what doesn’t. This a skill that noone preaches anymore.

Agreed. Science is really just trying to give you a method.

On the other hand, there is a lot to be said about the guess and check method. I used to count calories and grams of protein and write down my workout regimens and whatnot.

Turns out I personally make my best gains just eating and doing stuff willy nilly in the gym. I go by what my body tells me to do.

I still keep in mind to eat a lot and do my squats. But I don’t let some author or some written plan get in my way. Only I know when i am not too full to eat or when my legs are recovered. Get me?[/quote]

I totally agree. I used to be worried about counting grams and writing up killer programs for myself after reading certain material but i found if u read enough eclectic material then you just know what u wanna do when u get to the gym. I used to train for only an hour but have since pushed into the 2 hour bracket and noticed more gains than before. As previously said it depends what u do in that two hours