I would apply more negative-accentuated methods.
ok cool,
I was curious though on frequency, you had said above there that as people aged you lowered frequency. What about training someone that wasnāt older, like your thoughts on optimal for a younger person with good gaining potential? 2 full body a week? 3? or 1?
Probably 3 or 2 times per week.
Any update on this?
ok thanks
hi Dr Darden,
Read your book the new High intensity training and feel that its a great book. Regarding your post above I have a question where you said āAnd try to go to failure on each exercise, with the exception of the barbell squat and stiff-legged deadliftā. Does it mean we should not go untill failure on Squalt and SLDF? If āYesā then why ?
rgds
Syed
Whilst you wait for the coachās answer, hereās something you need to consider:
Taking Squats and SLDLs to failure can be extremely demanding on recovery and the injury risk goes up substantially. Keeping one or two in the tank can dramatically reduce the risk of this whilst still creating an incredible muscle-building stimulus. Going to failure on a stable movement like a machine chest press is unlikely to cause problems. Going to failure on squats or SLDLs where fatigue could carry over into other sessions, and more importantly, a slight deviation of form could completely mess up your shitā¦ itās just not worth it 99.99% of the time. Longevity is important in this game.
This doesnāt mean you donāt still train these lifts hard, it means you train them safely.
I agree with cdepās answer. Thanks.
Agreed. The safety aspects are well documented. But, the part about these exercises taking a big gouge out of our recovery resources may not be foremost in many peopleās minds ā though it should be!
I talked Jim Flanagan at the Luke Carlson conference may 2022. We talked about injuries, cadence frequency and diet. Jim told me that he was working out once every 3 to 4 weeks. At his age he felt like he didnāt need any more than that. He worked when he felt like and it fit his schedule. He didnāt think he would add or lose anymore muscle and with that frequency was all he needed. Iām about 10 years younger than Jim and I didnāt feel recovered after a week off. He suggested I work out every 19 to 14 days. So thatās what Iāve been doing the past year.
Thank you for this information, gpr659. Would you mind discussing the results you have seen (in terms of strength and muscular bodyweight) in training once every 14 to 19 days over the past year?
Thank you.
Itās actually 10 to 14 days. Type error. I continually get stronger, performing leg press, compound row, chest press, pull-down, and shoulder press. The other thing I notice is I feel like working out at that frequency. Iāve been training high intensity training for 35 years.
Thank you for that information, gpr659.
At 54 years old, I too have been training high intensity for 35 years. In my experience, if one wishes to continue to train to failure while continuing to progress as they age, the frequency must be progressively reduced ā often to an extent that others may find āridiculousā ā as you and Big Jim Flanagan have done.
This reduction in frequency is not necessarily required, and might even be contraindicated, if one is training short of failure.
In my experience, most older trainees prefer to train less intensely so that they can train with a higher frequency.
In my experience (I feel like this must be continually emphasized, as commenters will invariably state that they tried reducing their frequency and became weaker, looked worse, etc.), it has only been by reducing frequency (along with volume) that has enabled me to continue to progress in strength and muscular bodyweight. Past a certain age and level of strength and development, every time I have increased the frequency and/or volume of exercise, the result has been regression. Yet I have continued to make this same mistake many times, thinking that by doing X, Y, or Z, I āshouldā be able to train more frequently.
In any event, thank you again for the information that you provided.