Review
See also: https://www.painscience.com/articles/strength-training-frequency.php.
Summary:
Strength training is not only more beneficial for general fitness than most people realize, it isn’t even necessary to spend hours at the gym every week to get those benefits. Almost any amount of it is much better than nothing. While more effort will produce better results, the returns diminish rapidly. Just one or two half hour sessions per week can get most of the results that you’d get from two to three times that much of an investment (and that’s a deliberately conservative estimate). This is broadly true of any form of exercise, but especially so with strength training. In a world where virtually everything in health and fitness is controversial, this is actually fairly settled science.
I tried them for a while and was unimpressed. Plus some need to be loaded quite heavy, risking injury.
Plus some need to be loaded quite heavy, risking injury.
To be clear, by isometrics i mean pushing against immovable objects. (also see)
(This comment is directed more at the rest of the audience who I think are likely to take the wrong lessons from this post, rather than OP who I don't doubt knows what they are talking about and has found success following their own advice)
[For supersets] the main downside being that the overall greater work packed in to a smaller amount of time being somewhat more motivationally taxing.
At least for me personally, this is an overwhelmingly important consideration! There's no way in hell I could go to failure on both ends of a superset at once without throwing up.
(I just go 1 or two reps shy of failure and don't worry too much about perfect weight selection to hit the same rep ranges all the time). Studies have found even 2 sets to failure once a week to be sufficient for maintenance if you are super strapped for time. I normally do this twice a week.
This might work for OP, but I don't think it's good advice for most readers (80% of whom I'd bet have never actually pushed a weight lifting set to failure and will be mistaken about where their failure point actually is).
If you aren't tracking your lifts exactly, reccording them each time, and forcing yourself to do more than the previous time every time you return to the gym, it's very hard to know for sure that you were actually 2 reps shy of failure.
We can experience a lot of discomfort/panic before the point at which we actually fail - (for most weight exercises if you're not involuntarily making loud yelling noises during the last couple reps, you're probably not anywhere close to true failure).
If you're reading this, and you don't already have a book/app where you write down exactly how much weight you lifted and are progressively increasing that, do this first!
Thanks for the details! One of the findings of exercise studies is that you still get a lot of benefits not going to failure.
Yes that's true that beginning almost any form of exercise will deliver most of the benefits compared to what an optimal rountine would! But your post is all about trying to be as time efficient as possible (e.g you also discussed the potential to use drop sets to go even beyond failure!).
For vast majority of people reading this post - if their goal is to get the greatest possible benefit from resistance training in shortest amount of time - the biggest mistake they're making right now is not having their sets be difficult enough. You're right that you don't need to go to failure to get most of the benefits, but if time efficiency is the goal, spending that extra 15 seconds to add those two final pre-failure reps to a set is the first thing I'd reccomend.
In Updates and Reflections on Optimal Exercise after Nearly a Decade, you talk about moving away from squats, benches, and deadlifts, but it seems in this post you recommend goblet squats and RDLs. Could you please explain what is the advantage of switching to these exercises, compared to using the routine from Updates and Reflections with supersets and less rest time as recommended here? I'm not a complete beginner but I've only done bodyweight stuff before, so I'm a bit confused (Nick E's BWSF, specifically). Thank you for the post sequence in any case, I found them very informative.
it's about training the same muscle groups with lower joint injury. eg people do deadlifts with 2x+ bodyweight but RDLs are effective at bodyweight even for strong people.
lately i've been doing one legged leg press for similar reasons, though less time effective.
How large do you think the marginal benefits of doing the full workout you recommend in Updates and Reflections on Optimal Exercise after Nearly a Decade versus the quicker version in this post?
pretty small, hard to quantify but I'd guess under 20% and perhaps under 10.
A lot of stuff turns out to hinge on effort. One of the reasons that strength programs work better than generic exercise routines is that with higher reps it's easy to 'tire yourself out' at a level that doesn't actually drive that much adaptation. Think of those fitness classes with weights. Decent cardio, but they don't gain much strength.
Previously: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RydETq379eoWqBFvj/updates-and-reflections-on-optimal-exercise-after-nearly-a
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/bZ2w99pEAeAbKnKqo/optimal-exercise
I figured it would be useful to summarize how I train when I go for time efficiency these days, based on my understanding of the relevant meta-analyses on exercise selection and parameters. The primary time savers are supersets and lowered rest times. A routine like this is not totally optimized for max hypertrophy or anything, but is very very time efficient, and would still likely cause large gains for relatively untrained people. A lot of why I exercise these days, besides maintenance, is energy levels and injury prevention.
With supersets, you spend the time resting one group of muscles by doing an exercise for a different group of muscles. This is well supported as having the same or even slightly greater improvements in exercise studies, with the main downside being that the overall greater work packed in to a smaller amount of time being somewhat more motivationally taxing. There is the question of which supersets to do given we want full body coverage in a small amount of time and which versions of exercises resistance training coaches think work well based on their experience, together with some evidence from studies. There is the added constraint that since most people will do these in a commercial gym, you usually can't mix together supersets that use different machines, since many people will be trying to use them.
On rest times, studies seem to support that resting for longer than 2 minutes isn't needed for max performance, though they do note that if you let people rest ad libidinum they tend to rest for longer, more like 5 minutes, so you have to push yourself. Rest times as low as 1 minute don't show much worse performance but are also even more taxing. I've found with supersets you can get away with 1 minute rests between exercises, given that that means time between working the same muscle group will be 2ish minutes.
I normally do 2 warmup sets with light weight, followed by 3 sets of 8-20 (I just go 1 or two reps shy of failure and don't worry too much about perfect weight selection to hit the same rep ranges all the time). Studies have found even 2 sets to failure once a week to be sufficient for maintenance if you are super strapped for time. I normally do this twice a week.
Superset 1: Goblet squats, superset with RDL (both with kettlebell, dumbbell can also work)
I do these for higher reps rather than trying to load them super heavy. I bought foam wedges for $17 rather than wearing squat shoes to the gym. Many people are fine with just some 5lb weight plates under their heels. The foam wedges are also great for step ups as they allow an increase in ROM. Please do be careful about traction of the wedges on whatever surface, and also the traction of your shoes.
Superset 2: Incline dumbbell shoulder press superset with one arm dumbbell rows.
I tried to do incline chest supported dumbbell rows (both arms at once) as the second exercise for MAX EFFICIENCY but found it was just too difficult to do both arms at the same time and get both proper form and not get totally burned on grip strength way too quickly. Could be a skill issue on my part, but I found it much easier to do one arm at a time. I don't readjust the bench in between, similar to this.
If you're really hammered for time, you can just do some light ab work, and maybe throw in a set of hip abductors and be done. You can also superset hip abductors on the cable machine with glute kickbacks if you want more glute work. You may need to bring your own ankle strap depending on gym. I also like to throw in some light twist stabilization as additional ab work.
Optional upper body superset: Cable face pulls, cable bicep curl, cable tricep extension
I think doing at least 1 circuit on this is worth the time, even if time strapped, as even a single set shows benefits in studies.
I've gotten through a routine like this in under 45 minutes if I'm really going for it. Though normally, with full sets of everything, not being crazy strict on the rest, and some random accessories thrown in, I spend more like 70 minutes.
Misc accessories I really like (good for a variety of criteria, basically): weighted step ups, reverse hyperextensions, chin-ups, sled push/pulls if your gym has one.
Edit: twitter commenter @phantom_opus points out there are even more truncated approaches for the ultra time strapped. Which is a good point. Were I to do something like that it would probably look like:
This would get me out the door in 20 minutes and get me some strength and cardio
There are also studies showing single set to past failure with dropping the weight (only doable on machines) is very effective as well (eg, warmup, 1 top set, then immediately lower the weight 20% and do more reps 2-3 times until close to total failure is reached). I found this was about the same overall time efficiency as the superset routine with the drawback of all machines. Felt harder to get a full body workout.