Recovery?

[casualbb]

There's always a lot of talk about needing to recover before one trains again, etc. I believe based on studies and personal experience that this isn't necessary, but I was pondering yesterday and came up with an interesting thought experiment.

So, say doing a set of training produces damage/inroad/whatever. A negative result, which, over time, becomes a positive result. Call it supercompensation if you like.

Traditional bodybuilding theory holds that one should wait until complete recovery until training again.

Well what about performing multiple sets for a muscle group? Obviously after the first set the muscle is somewhat damaged, so the second, third, fourth etc. sets are actually being performed in a "damaged," "unrecovered" state. If one needed to recover before retraining, shouldn't we stop doing those extra sets?

What's your guys' take on this? I'm looking to stimulate some discussion.

-casual

 

[T-Rage]

Great point! I am a firm believer that you can stimulate growth with 1 or 2 work sets and that more sets just means longer recovery time.

I also have first hand experience with DOMS. The day after hitting a lower back rehab workout I had terrible DOMS. So much so that I thought I over did it and should take it easy. Well, against what my body was telling me I went for a 45 minute hike in a nearby wooded park. After the walk and a shower my lower back felt like a milllion bucks!

The point being that DOMS can't really be used to determine whether a muscle is fully recovered. And if we can't use DOMS what other signs are there as to whether we are "fully recovered"?

 

[Debaser]

This is one of the points DC has always made, and I believe it makes a lot of sense. If one set is enough to stimulate growth (and believe me, it most certainly is), extra sets are just redundant, and lengthen your recovery by pounding muscles that have already just taken a beating.

 

[spatts]

Yep. This is why I don't train to failure. I work everything twice a week, at least. I have no touble reovering thanks to low volume/ high intensity work, and active recovery.

 

[vinylgroover]

Re: Re: Recovery?

This is one of the points DC has always made, and I believe it makes a lot of sense. If one set is enough to stimulate growth (and believe me, it most certainly is), extra sets are just redundant, and lengthen your recovery by pounding muscles that have already just taken a beating.

Any set greater than zero will stimulate growth, but will only one set stimulate the maximum amount of growth?

 

[T-Rage]

It might be like this...

1 intense set = 92% stimulus (2 days recovery time)
2 intense sets = 94% stimulus (3 days recovery time)
3 intense sets = 96% stimulus (4 days recovery time)
4 intense sets = 98% stimulus (5 days recovery time)

This is just conceptual to get the idea across. The additional stimulus is not worth the loss caused from the extended recovery time.

1x per week at 98% stimulus
2x per week at 92% stimulus

I opt for the 2x

 

[nanotitan]

I don't know, I'm not sure I can explain this appropiately so I won' even try but I do feel that an aspect of volume is required for optimal gains. I've seen this in my training but since I don't understand it fully I'm not sure how to regulate it. Maybe I'm biased because of all the articles on work capacity I've read but I know for sure that I'm biased towards my own results.

 

[casualbb]

True. I don't mean this thread to sound like I think it's "low volume or the highway." Higher volume generally = more growth, but it's a balancing act.

Well what about performing multiple sets for a muscle group? Obviously after the first set the muscle is somewhat damaged, so the second, third, fourth etc. sets are actually being performed in a "damaged," "unrecovered" state. If one needed to recover before retraining, shouldn't we stop doing those extra sets?

My point in bringing this up was not necessarily to support super-low volume all the time (although that certainly works), but to try and debunk the idea that one must be recovered before retraining. To cause a cognitive dissonance of sorts, a recognition that the ideas of multiple sets and "wait for complete recovery" are incompatible.

-casual

 

[T-Rage]

casualbb,
This was mentioned earlier in the thread but got overlooked. You talk about training again before being fully recovered.

My question is how does anyone know if they are "fully recovered"?

I think it is safe to say that DOMS is not necessarily representative of an unrecovered muscle as active recovery techniques or even something as simple as taking a walk can alleviate DOMS.

So my question is for all of the people that say it takes 4 or 5 days for them to "recover", what are they basing this on?

It can only be 2 things...

1) The muscles are still sore (DOMS) which is not necessarily a good indicator

or...

2) They have tried more frequent workouts with limited results and feel they are strongest when they allow the muscle groups to rest 4 to 5 days

I'm not sure what I'm asking here. I guess I'm just thinking aloud.

 

[Mike_Rojas]

One thing I usually don't see mentioned is the level of "conditioning". I used to train each muscle group once a week, I made gains, and I was really sore after each workout. I was convinced I needed a week to recover. But now I train twice a week, make better gains, and have less soreness. I think more frequency builds more conditioning which allows the body to recover faster from the training. But I don't train to failure twice a week - my nervous system can't take it, not to mention my immune system.