Are Rest Days Necessary?

Training
41

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:
Right now I squat 3x a week, deadlift 2x a week, bench 4x a week, and press 2x a week. I’d do more if I had the time lol. I think anyone can work up to lifting at least that frequently if they really wanted to. The thing is you don’t have to, so it’s not like I’d recommend it unless that’s really just your preferred style of training.

My training partner does even more. He runs everyday, does 1000 pullups a week, does squats and snatches every day, and throws in pulls and benching and pressing throughout the week along with some bodybuilding accessories. We’re almost never sore.

The human body can adapt to ridiculous levels of volume and frequency if you make it.[/quote]
Here’s a question (and I promise it’s not loaded. I don’t have an answer in mind): If you guys weren’t able to train so often, do you think you could revamp your approach to still see consistent progress?

Meaning, if overnight you both got hired for a $200k/yr job that required a 60-hour work week or you had an instant wife and triplets (whatever, it’s hypothetical, so fill in your own game-changer details). If your available training time was reduced significantly, do you think you could “de-condition” yourself to still respond well to a reduced frequency and fewer training sessions? Or is the frequency/intensity-genie out of the bottle?
[/quote]
Oh absolutely. It’s the same in training as anything else; easy come, easy go. The faster and easier something is to train the faster and easier it is to lose it. I could “de-condition” and eventually get a perfectly good training effect with only 2-4 sessions per week I’m sure. Just a different style of training. The frequency does have some inherent advantages though. A big one is improving form. You get so many chances to practice perfect technique.[/quote]

Agreed went through 8’weeks of 5 days of squat and benching and 1 day of dead lift then full body pump one “off” repeat. Trained to a. Daily Max and back off sets each day. Sounds crazy but you adapt and progress. Muscle size not as much. Hardened if anything. But gaining muscle size from my own experience needs a day or two off for the best progress. Not saying ED training won’t work but maximal progress is muscle size. Maybe not

42

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]susani wrote:
I had a quick scan through that BlueCollarTr8n, but couldn’t really find the bits that were relevant to the points you homed in on with me. Specifically - relating to how often you train, how well you’ve progressed and how much is down to genetics and how much hard work?

You did make a valid point I think. Firstly, “I’m f*cking awesome so the way I train must be right” is of course not that useful on it’s own. Someone with good genes and crap training will still do well. By the same token, someone that isn’t at world class status may still have awesome training methods but just not be lucky enough to have good enough genetics to get them far.

I always maintain that you never know what’s going to work well for you until you try it and see. What other people achieve can give you clues, inspiration and ideas but you can’t assume what works well for some/most/everyone else will be best for you.

So, to draw similar info out of you as you coaxed out of me…

If you can’t train every day (for recovery reasons) do you think that’s down to poor genetics or because you haven’t actually conditioned yourself to train every day?

Have you tried training every day? What was the outcome?

If you simply don’t want to train every day, and feel that you’ve got awesome results WITHOUT daily training do you put that down to your training approach or superior genetics?

I’ve put some stuff in my bio, but not sure if and where it shows up? [away for a few days so if you respond to this and I seem to ignore - will get back to you in a few days :)][/quote]

One issue I see is the word training. Running and stretching or walking ect. Doesn’t fall at least into my definition of training. That’s is just movment. Pull-ups everyday. Not training to me. If I move those into my definition of training then sure I agree everyone can and should “train” everyday [/quote]

So much for my packing :slight_smile:

You have a very weird definition of training then!! LOL

Long marches with a heavy pack - known as ‘Rucking’ is a training method used by armed forces etc. It’s made even more grueling when you do it whilst climbing hills!

Running is without a doubt training. You seriously think people trying to improve running/race times aren’t training? Did Usain Bolt not train when he was preparing for the olympics? What about ultra hill racers such as these - do they not train?

Why are pullups not training? Do you think the guy currently training to break his existing world record at weighted pullups isn’t training? Training to beat his current max reps (of 37) isn’t training? The countless articles on T-Nation about how to improve your pullups aren’t training articles?

What about calisthenics - so levers, muscleups, gymnastic ring handstand pushups - is this not training either. Do people like Frank Medrano not train in your opinion?

Or are you trying to tell us that what you choose to train in is superior - so demanding and difficult that it makes training in these other things - even at the highest level - so easy that you could do it every day? So, lets see you do pullups better than Steve Proto - if you can’t maybe you need to train to reach his standard? Can you give these ultra ridge runners a run for their money - if not maybe because you haven’t trained for what they do? How do your calisthenics skills compare to Frank Medranos ?

See where I’m going with this - if you can’t do these things to a very high standard then you need to TRAIN to get better. Doing them at an easy level isn’t training as it’s not moving you forwards. They become training when you do them at a level that is demanding for you - whether that be developing skill, endurance, strength, power.

What’s your idea of training? I’m sure what you do most people could do every day along side their regular stuff…if they did it at a level that was easy for them.

43

I have a pullup bar above a door jam and I do pullups on it probably 30 days per month on average, even on non-training days.

44

[quote]susani wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]susani wrote:
I had a quick scan through that BlueCollarTr8n, but couldn’t really find the bits that were relevant to the points you homed in on with me. Specifically - relating to how often you train, how well you’ve progressed and how much is down to genetics and how much hard work?

You did make a valid point I think. Firstly, “I’m f*cking awesome so the way I train must be right” is of course not that useful on it’s own. Someone with good genes and crap training will still do well. By the same token, someone that isn’t at world class status may still have awesome training methods but just not be lucky enough to have good enough genetics to get them far.

I always maintain that you never know what’s going to work well for you until you try it and see. What other people achieve can give you clues, inspiration and ideas but you can’t assume what works well for some/most/everyone else will be best for you.

So, to draw similar info out of you as you coaxed out of me…

If you can’t train every day (for recovery reasons) do you think that’s down to poor genetics or because you haven’t actually conditioned yourself to train every day?

Have you tried training every day? What was the outcome?

If you simply don’t want to train every day, and feel that you’ve got awesome results WITHOUT daily training do you put that down to your training approach or superior genetics?

I’ve put some stuff in my bio, but not sure if and where it shows up? [away for a few days so if you respond to this and I seem to ignore - will get back to you in a few days :)][/quote]

One issue I see is the word training. Running and stretching or walking ect. Doesn’t fall at least into my definition of training. That’s is just movment. Pull-ups everyday. Not training to me. If I move those into my definition of training then sure I agree everyone can and should “train” everyday [/quote]

So much for my packing :slight_smile:

You have a very weird definition of training then!! LOL

Long marches with a heavy pack - known as ‘Rucking’ is a training method used by armed forces etc. It’s made even more grueling when you do it whilst climbing hills!

Running is without a doubt training. You seriously think people trying to improve running/race times aren’t training? Did Usain Bolt not train when he was preparing for the olympics? What about ultra hill racers such as these - do they not train?

Why are pullups not training? Do you think the guy currently training to break his existing world record at weighted pullups isn’t training? Training to beat his current max reps (of 37) isn’t training? The countless articles on T-Nation about how to improve your pullups aren’t training articles?

What about calisthenics - so levers, muscleups, gymnastic ring handstand pushups - is this not training either. Do people like Frank Medrano not train in your opinion?

Or are you trying to tell us that what you choose to train in is superior - so demanding and difficult that it makes training in these other things - even at the highest level - so easy that you could do it every day? So, lets see you do pullups better than Steve Proto - if you can’t maybe you need to train to reach his standard? Can you give these ultra ridge runners a run for their money - if not maybe because you haven’t trained for what they do? How do your calisthenics skills compare to Frank Medranos ?

See where I’m going with this - if you can’t do these things to a very high standard then you need to TRAIN to get better. Doing them at an easy level isn’t training as it’s not moving you forwards. They become training when you do them at a level that is demanding for you - whether that be developing skill, endurance, strength, power.

What’s your idea of training? I’m sure what you do most people could do every day along side their regular stuff…if they did it at a level that was easy for them. [/quote]

This just became fun. I was in no way attacking you but your amazingly defensive attitude towards every comment is spectacular. I thought we were talking about from the OPs perspective here. Ie getting bigger and or leaner. But your BAMF training for life everytime you do something obv qualifies as training. I rolled out of bed 5 times last night. Shit was tough. I trained. Take it easy I’m joking. But you are really pulling teeth here and want to fight to fight. You use some misleading. Stuff ie pull-ups 600982828383 doing 1 a min. Come on. What kind of life do you live that you can do pull-ups all day. Navy seals. Sure. They train it’s also their life. I didn’t know we were talking about these elite specific populations. Any more cherry picking you want to do while being overly defensive? This entertainment shall last

And no I do not think my training is bad ass at all nor have I ever tried to compare myself to anyone you are attempting to. In fact I refuse to compare myself to anyone but myself. I train for fun and to improve my body and my performance. Not compete. I did that for mnay years and am done with that. Now I have. A life beyond training to be the best at pull-ups. So no I am not good at them. Nope can’t compete with an army ranger or insane bolt. Neither can you to be honest. So not sure why you want to discuss it.

45

Yesterday was a rest day for me, so I hiked up to the second flatiron and did a 700 ft rock climb. Not a training day, just living life!

46

[quote]Ecchastang wrote:
Yesterday was a rest day for me, so I hiked up to the second flatiron and did a 700 ft rock climb. Not a training day, just living life![/quote]

Bullshit. That’s bad ass Training

Srs though that sounds awesome

47

[quote]susani wrote:
I had a quick scan through that BlueCollarTr8n, but couldn’t really find the bits that were relevant to the points you homed in on with me. Specifically - relating to how often you train, how well you’ve progressed and how much is down to genetics and how much hard work?

So, to draw similar info out of you as you coaxed out of me…

If you can’t train every day (for recovery reasons) do you think that’s down to poor genetics or because you haven’t actually conditioned yourself to train every day?

Have you tried training every day? What was the outcome?

If you simply don’t want to train every day, and feel that you’ve got awesome results WITHOUT daily training do you put that down to your training approach or superior genetics?
[/quote]

If you look it’s all there…strength, conditioning, nutrition, body-comp., etc.

I have ran protocols that range from 4-7 days per week. Adjustments to volume, intensity, & nutrition are easily managed when a lifter/athlete is intimate with themselves. Certainly high volume routines tend to lean toward the conditioning end of the spectrum and intensity focused routines generally provide better strength and muscle building results. Until the goal is defined I don’t believe the superiority of one protocol over another can be determined. Every approach can be qualified with numbers(an example of the routine I was running at the time is provided in the thread).

IMO…my progress in all areas is the result of detailed process control (logs, charts, graphs, etc.) The only genetic gifts I received were discipline and willingness. Thanks for providing more detail; I think we all have a better idea of where you are coming from. Nice job leaping over the hurdles and through the flaming hoops that were placed in your path! I look forward to your posting in the future and wish you the best of luck toward your efforts.

48

[quote]susani wrote:
How do your calisthenics skills compare to Frank Medranos ?
[/quote]

5’9" @ 160 lbs…he only weight twenty lbs more that you.
As a specialist Frank is impressive; however he has almost no lower-body development and is small overall at best. That is not the look most men are shooting for.

49

Well Im no fucking unicorn thats for sure…

I need proper recovery, that includes days of doing nothing. My mind always wants to train…always, it really is my favorite thing to do. My body on the other hand just cant do it any longer. Im so fucking banged up from years of training hard and not smart that rest is an absolute necessity for me to yield positive results. Obvious outside factors such as family, job and other responsibilities come into play as well, but coming from a guy with normal genetics and approaching 40, rest is a decisive factor, and I only just begun to learn it.

50

[quote]AllTalkNoLift wrote:
Progress wise I have yet to see because I was cutting for the first 6 months, since then I have been maintaining for summer/ consuming too few calories for growth. [/quote]

I personally feel better and see better progress when I limit the number of days I’m in the gym. It’s probably one of those things thats different for everyone. That said, given your above statements, I’d try to take a few rest days and see what happens. Making no progress for 6+ months is a good sign that something you’re doing isn’t working for you.

51

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:

[quote]csulli wrote:

[quote]Chris Colucci wrote:
Here’s a question (and I promise it’s not loaded. I don’t have an answer in mind): If you guys weren’t able to train so often, do you think you could revamp your approach to still see consistent progress?

Meaning, if overnight you both got hired for a $200k/yr job that required a 60-hour work week or you had an instant wife and triplets (whatever, it’s hypothetical, so fill in your own game-changer details). If your available training time was reduced significantly, do you think you could “de-condition” yourself to still respond well to a reduced frequency and fewer training sessions? Or is the frequency/intensity-genie out of the bottle?[/quote]
Oh absolutely. It’s the same in training as anything else; easy come, easy go. The faster and easier something is to train the faster and easier it is to lose it. I could “de-condition” and eventually get a perfectly good training effect with only 2-4 sessions per week I’m sure. Just a different style of training. The frequency does have some inherent advantages though. A big one is improving form. You get so many chances to practice perfect technique.[/quote]
Agreed went through 8’weeks of 5 days of squat and benching and 1 day of dead lift then full body pump one “off” repeat. Trained to a. Daily Max and back off sets each day. Sounds crazy but you adapt and progress. Muscle size not as much. Hardened if anything. But gaining muscle size from my own experience needs a day or two off for the best progress. Not saying ED training won’t work but maximal progress is muscle size. Maybe not [/quote]
Good insights from both of you. I do think that’s an interesting point Ryan brought up though, that strength gains may seem to respond best to high frequency work (like the often-discussed Olympic lifters who train 12 times a week), but when size is the number one priority, daily training becomes generally less effective, or at least less preferred.

In terms of drilling in technique, like Csulli said, and almost “grease the groove”-type training, the neurological strength benefits can probably be exploited with more frequent sessions.

There are certainly some freaks who can handle seven days of bodybuilding-focused lifting (some advanced Meadows programs for example), but even that is usually a few days of intentionally-lighter work. I believe on 7-day splits, JM has 3-4 days with “just” 10-12 sets per bodypart of pump work. So, they’re still relatively brief sessions to complement the heavier days. As has been said, frequency needs to handled in context with the volume, intensity, and goal.

52

Yeah JM has 3 heavy days 3 pump and arm day. And the pump days no failure medium on weight just pump away. Heavy days are intensity sets ect. The fun stuff :slight_smile:

54

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Bigger Stronger (Leaner)? This thread belongs in the Conditioning forum. Most of what’s been discussed here has little to do with getting bigger and stronger. Yes, it’s “training” but it’s training to be better conditioned.

Sheesh.[/quote]
Hmm… I dunno. I lift heavy 6 days a week (I have another commitment on Tuesdays :frowning: so I don’t have time). 1 day is deadlift and press, 1 is deadlift and bench, 1 is squat and press, 2 are squat and bench, and one is just bench and accessory stuff. Reps are between 1 and 5 using smolov volume on press (since it’s only twice a week), sheiko level of volume on the rest.

My conditioning is actually terrible lol. I could do with going for a jog.

56

[quote]AllTalkNoLift wrote:
I have not taken a rest day in almost a year now. I don’t mean i have active rest days, I mean I lift weights every day. I have a question that goes out to anyone who has gone without a rest day for over 10 days: are they necessary? Are rest days something that you are only adapted to, or have you noticed they make a big difference for you?

Are rest days the same as training frequency, in that your body responds to the lack of rest by adapting, and not necessarily needing a rest day? Or am I really missing out on some gains?[/quote]

What is a rest day? One day a week you determine is rest, or any rest time period. Say 30 days straight training then a week off?

Referring to just time off I’ll say it’s always good, often if you don’t take it life will create it. Sometimes a set day of rest in a smaller time frame such as once or twice a week, will hold off how long you can go before you need that time off. Time off helps both mentally and physically. Besides if someone else gets the exact same results as you in 3 days a week, then are you really training or are you just entertaining yourself?

57

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]susani wrote:
How do your calisthenics skills compare to Frank Medranos ?
[/quote]

5’9" @ 160 lbs…he only weight twenty lbs more that you.
As a specialist Frank is impressive; however he has almost no lower-body development and is small overall at best. That is not the look most men are shooting for.
[/quote]

I’m more focused on skills and athletic ability than size/shape. Different goals and values. But in training the same basic principles apply. If you do something at a level that’s easy for you then it’s not training - you won’t force adaptation and it won’t require any recovery. If you want to improve at something (anything from building big muscles to sprinting or distance running) then you need to challenge your body and force adaptation. That involves breaking your body down and forcing it to rebuild - which requires recovery time.

What we’re discussing is the role of genetics, training methods, mindset etc in regards to the speed at which your body rebuilds/recovers.

I do think that there’s a lot to be said for including a variety of disciplines in your training. I deliberately set out to do that nowadays and I think they do help each other along. I know of runners that switch to triathlon - they cut back on their running time and get better than ever at running. Look at the crossfitters that do oly lifting better than most full time oly lifters. Being fitter when it comes to running etc does seem to help my recovery with strength training. And vice-versa. By hitting all energy systems, movements, fitness elements you’re turning your body into a more efficient ‘machine’. You’ll have fewer weaknesses and imbalances and I think this does help to keep you training hard, frequently and long term.

58

[quote]kenny-mccormick wrote:
Yes, anyone that says otherwise is a Muppet .[/quote]
agreed

59

[quote]susani wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]susani wrote:
How do your calisthenics skills compare to Frank Medranos ?
[/quote]

5’9" @ 160 lbs…he only weight twenty lbs more that you.
As a specialist Frank is impressive; however he has almost no lower-body development and is small overall at best. That is not the look most men are shooting for.
[/quote]

I’m more focused on skills and athletic ability than size/shape. But in training the same basic principles apply.That involves breaking your body down and forcing it to rebuild - which requires recovery time.

What we’re discussing is the role of genetics, training methods, mindset etc in regards to the speed at which your body rebuilds/recovers.

I do think that there’s a lot to be said for including a variety of disciplines in your training. I deliberately set out to do that nowadays and I think they do help each other along. By hitting all energy systems, movements, fitness elements you’re turning your body into a more efficient ‘machine’. You’ll have fewer weaknesses and imbalances and I think this does help to keep you training hard, frequently and long term.[/quote]

I recognized what your goals were from the beginning and wanted to be certain others did as well…agreed that the basic principles apply; however the need for periods of recovery is directly related to the training methods and desired results; regardless of genetics.

Yes…all else being equal genetics will always be the primary determining factor.

If you review my thread you will see I have spent a lifetime alternating disciplines(with the exception of extreme endurance); and I believe that is a superior approach to trying to combine them all at peak levels in the same routine. Although one can be anything the wish in a lifetime; they can not be all things at the same time. (A man can not be a good husband/partner and a whore monger simultaneously)

*You have top-shelf development for a female. The female version of Frank Medranos would weigh less than 110 without upper/lower balance (ie…no ass).

60

[quote]susani wrote:

[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:

[quote]susani wrote:
How do your calisthenics skills compare to Frank Medranos ?
[/quote]

5’9" @ 160 lbs…he only weight twenty lbs more that you.
As a specialist Frank is impressive; however he has almost no lower-body development and is small overall at best. That is not the look most men are shooting for.
[/quote]

I’m more focused on skills and athletic ability than size/shape. Different goals and values. But in training the same basic principles apply. If you do something at a level that’s easy for you then it’s not training - you won’t force adaptation and it won’t require any recovery. If you want to improve at something (anything from building big muscles to sprinting or distance running) then you need to challenge your body and force adaptation. That involves breaking your body down and forcing it to rebuild - which requires recovery time.

What we’re discussing is the role of genetics, training methods, mindset etc in regards to the speed at which your body rebuilds/recovers.

I do think that there’s a lot to be said for including a variety of disciplines in your training. I deliberately set out to do that nowadays and I think they do help each other along. I know of runners that switch to triathlon - they cut back on their running time and get better than ever at running. Look at the crossfitters that do oly lifting better than most full time oly lifters. Being fitter when it comes to running etc does seem to help my recovery with strength training. And vice-versa. By hitting all energy systems, movements, fitness elements you’re turning your body into a more efficient ‘machine’. You’ll have fewer weaknesses and imbalances and I think this does help to keep you training hard, frequently and long term.[/quote]

I agree with a lot of this other thsn cross fitters being better than Olympic lifters at Olympic lifts.