Minimum Maintenance Load for Efficiency

[rocketman]

I've asked this question on bodybuilding forums but was predictably met with some hostility.

My question is this: After years of 'bodybuilding'/working out for size, I'm at an age where I no longer care nor have the time for such a prioritization. However, I do want to maintain the size I do have.

That's pretty simple in and of itself.

However, what I want to do is figure out what is the bare minimum I need to do to maintain my physique. This could be absolutely invaluable for my overall efficiency in terms of saving time from unnecessarily working out.

At current, I lift 3x a week, hitting each muscle once a week, without increasing the weight, and without increasing caloric intake. That has me at maintenance.

I really want to push the limits here and see how much I can stretch it. I'm wondering if I can cut it down to 2 full body workouts every other week, with deadlifts, squats, and bench press both days, with isometric exercises on the alternate weeks. Might that sustain?

Curious to know if anyone has tried this type of experimentation.

[ginkgo]

Recently I heard a lecture by a chiropractor with the latest scientific information. He said that you have to exercise each muscle once a week to maintain it. Anyone, no matter who you are, will lose 5% of their muscle every year, year after year, without doing this minimum.

He also mentioned how an anorexic woman came into his office looking like a skeleton. He tested her and she was 50% fat. He said that you would think that she had very little fat.

[rocketman]

Right. But how much load does one need to put on each muscle to maintain it.

Weight lifting and isometric exercises are both technically "working out". so my question is how much can isometric suffice?

[MightySunTzu]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Right. But how much load does one need to put on each muscle to maintain it.

Weight lifting and isometric exercises are both technically "working out". so my question is how much can isometric suffice?

Not my area of expertise, but I do isometrics "to the pain" and make my muscles sore (sometimes very sore) from it, much the way weights would. I don't imagine that the body knows the difference. Since once a week for each body part is widely considered optimal for development, it follows that this frequency would be optimal for maintainance as well.

But since you are looking to do the bare minimum to maintain, I would only be speculating, but maybe once a week is not the variable to be tampered with... but perhaps you can do one hard set per exercise instead of doing 2 or more sets. Would be interested to hear from Joelr on the subject as i trust he has something valuable to contribute.

What i do know is that i would support the workouts nutritionally, getting the most benefit from each with that comparatively easy extra step.

[Nameless One]

"After years of 'bodybuilding'/working out for size, I'm at an age where I no longer care nor have the time for such a prioritization. However, I do want to maintain the size I do have."

That is a contradiction

[rocketman]

Originally Posted by Nameless One

"After years of 'bodybuilding'/working out for size, I'm at an age where I no longer care nor have the time for such a prioritization. However, I do want to maintain the size I do have."

That is a contradiction

How is that a contradiction? I worked out during my youth with the intent to constantly be gaining size/improving my physique.

I now just want to maintain size, not gain.

[ginkgo]

Originally Posted by rocketman

Right. But how much load does one need to put on each muscle to maintain it.

Weight lifting and isometric exercises are both technically "working out". so my question is how much can isometric suffice?

That information was not about isometrics which does not take the muscle throught the full range of movement. I would say forget about isometrics.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by rocketman

How is that a contradiction? I worked out during my youth with the intent to constantly be gaining size/improving my physique.

I now just want to maintain size, not gain.

Because you claim you no longer care, yet you want to stay the same size, there for you DO still care. You care about the results, but not the action to achieve them.

[James81]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Because you claim you no longer care, yet you want to stay the same size, there for you DO still care. You care about the results, but not the action to achieve them.

He no longer cares about GAINING size, but he still cares about MAINTAINING size. I don't see why that was so hard to understand.

And to the TS, this is the last place I would come to ask for advice about bodybuilding of any sort. LOL

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James81

He no longer cares about GAINING size, but he still cares about MAINTAINING size. I don't see why that was so hard to understand.

And to the TS, this is the last place I would come to ask for advice about bodybuilding of any sort. LOL

He worked out for size, and cared about that. Now he wants to keep that size that he worked out for, but claims he doesn't care anymore. You can't not care about something that you achieved only through caring, and expect to maintain it. I don't see why that's so hard to understand

[James81]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

He worked out for size, and cared about that. Now he wants to keep that size that he worked out for, but claims he doesn't care anymore. You can't not care about something that you achieved only through caring, and expect to maintain it. I don't see why that's so hard to understand

What a bunch of funky ass rules you have. Save us some time and just admit that you looked at it the wrong way so we can all move on.

[AaronA]

You might want to look into Stuart McRobert's work at Muscle Growth Guaranteed! or the Body By Science protocol (I think that's the one time per week approach mentioned above). These programs can be pretty minimal, compared to other programs. Also, there's a researcher named Capinelli (if I recall correctly) who said that multiple sets & reps combinations produced similar results, as long as your final rep was difficult to complete. That might sound like HIT (if you're familiar with that), but it's actually a lot more flexible. If you can safely get to that final rep in 3 sets and not have to kill yourself on the weight, you can do that, or you can do 8-12 reps at a heavy weight, or whatever approach works out. Something else you can consider doing is using fractional plates, and increase your lifts by very small increments. This means you can be more sure that you're not regressing, but still follow a more minimal protocol.

Good luck!

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James81

What a bunch of funky ass rules you have. Save us some time and just admit that you looked at it the wrong way so we can all move on.

They aren't funky ass rules. Their plane and simple rules. If you try hard to achieve something you care about all your life, you can't expect to keep those achievements once you stop caring about them. But obviously, he DOES care about them, or he wouldn't be on here. There for, as the first person who noticed the in-congruency mentioned, as well as myself, the OP is the one that wrote it wrong and not the other way around.

[Nameless One]

If size wasn't something that mattered why do you wish to maintain it? Surely if you live a strong healthy life the muscle will be strong healthy muscle, and if that means it naturally shrinks whats the problem?

[James81]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

They aren't funky ass rules. Their plane and simple rules. If you try hard to achieve something you care about all your life, you can't expect to keep those achievements once you stop caring about them. But obviously, he DOES care about them, or he wouldn't be on here. There for, as the first person who noticed the in-congruency mentioned, as well as myself, the OP is the one that wrote it wrong and not the other way around.

Brrrt...here we go.

Look at what he wrote:

After years of 'bodybuilding'/working out for size, I'm at an age where I no longer care nor have the time for such a prioritization. However, I do want to maintain the size I do have.

Underlined part.

He no longer cares about the PRIORITIZATION. Another way of saying it is that he doesn't care to make this a priority in his life anymore, but he doesn't want to lose his progress.

There's absolutely NO contradiction to that.

(I feel like an English teacher here. )

[James81]

Unless, of course, you believe that in order to maintain what you have you have to make it a priority.

Which is hogwash.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James81

Brrrt...here we go.

Look at what he wrote:



Underlined part.

He no longer cares about the PRIORITIZATION. Another way of saying it is that he doesn't care to make this a priority in his life anymore, but he doesn't want to lose his progress.

There's absolutely NO contradiction to that.

(I feel like an English teacher here. )

If we are gonna be talking semantics, then correct him on the use of the word prioritization, Mr.English teacher . That is, if he meant to say that it was a priority. Prioritization means the actual act of prioritizing, arranging, or putting on a list, certain things, depending on their level of importance. There for, the way he wrote it would not mean that he doesn't care to make this a priority in his life.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by James81

Unless, of course, you believe that in order to maintain what you have you have to make it a priority.

Which is hogwash.

Muscle is not like fat. A fat person can eat a lot to get fat, and then eat normal to maintain that fat. A body builder has to work out much more then normal to gain the weight, and going back to normal will NOT allow for maintenance. I mean, honestly. Show me one retired body builder who is at their original body builder weight.

Muscles just don't work like that, I'm sorry. Muscles need constant attention, because when there is no need for the muscles anymore ( ie. not using them like before), they will atrophy, and go to the size and density that is needed at the current level of activity.

lol I can just imagine what rocketman is thinking right now.