Have read several articles in newspapers and magazines lately where trainers have stated:-

"If you wait until a muscle fully recovers between workouts, this is not good because it won't grow".

So they claim that you should always train without being fully recovered in order to grow.

By "grow" I assume they mean muscle size as opposed to growth in endurance or strength or other factors.

I find from experience that their statement is 100% bullquacky.

Your muscle HAS to recover in order to grow and if you continually train it without proper recovery (regardless of what factor you are training) you could end up:-

(a) weaker
(b) burnt out
(c) smaller muscle size
(d) damage

I think proper recovery is especially important for maximum benefit the heavier you lift. And especially when outright heavy failure is involved.

Maybe you can train more frequently on the 'endurance" side of the coin.

My legs get a workout every day Mon thru Friday (job).....endurance wise they are pretty good. But I'd benefit far more if I had every second day off to recover. I notice when I get prolonged time off that my legs get way stronger....and this is when I get more recovery.

I climb upwards of 200+ stepsdaily Mon-Fri plus the heavier exes like Deads and Squats per week. I also walk about 5 miles a day.

The walking and the step-climbing do absolutely nothing for leg-size or growth. Maybe it would if I did it every second day when the muscle was more recovered. The endurance level is raised....but strength and growth do not happen from this daily endurance setup.

I believe that you absolutely HAVE to know your best recovery rate.

If you are lifting on a day where that muscle is only 50% recovered and you can't even approach what you lifted last day so you opt to go "light"....tell me how that is an improvement...


If you always train where your muscles/CNS etc. are NOT recovered you will basically be in a continual state of overtraining and fatigue.

Have read several articles in newspapers and magazines lately where trainers have stated:-

"If you wait until a muscle fully recovers between workouts, this is not good because it won't grow".

I disagree with this idea.

A: Lots of training theory is about waiting for the muscle not just to recover, but to "over-recover" before hitting it again to get the best progress.

B: In my own experience, when I've cut back to two workouts a week I still experience progress. I'm not looking for muscle growth, but there is still lots of muscle growth. So whatever these guys are thinking, it doesn't line up with my experience.

Did you see any pictures of those trainers? :confused:

How do you define "fully recovered?"

Depending on circumstances, short term overreaching can have plenty of merrit for both size and strength gains. You just have to know when to press, when to back the heck off, and when to look for the anticipated adaptation (i.e. not when you're in the middle of beating yourself up).

Just about impossible to comment on without reading the full context of the articles in question. Without this, it just opens up the possibility for a bunch of strawman arguments stating points the articles may never have intended to bring into question.

I definitely agree with the HevyMetal. In addition, I quite liked your use of the word "bullquacky". :lol:

There were no pictures of the trainers.

A couple of the articles were in the Health section of local newspapers (written by know-it-all columnists).

I did see this also on an Internet site I was at and can't remember the name of.

What they also said was that if you wait 7 days between the time you workout a muscle to the time you work it again, it recovers too much and you will get no gains.

Goonie....what they said was the definite intent of their postulation.

They, in fact stated that you should wait no longer than 48 hours also.

I figure the intensity/load/duration (plus the characteristics of the individual) of the workout will determine the recovery time...not a "written-in-stone" dictum of "x" hours.

One article I felt the writer was playing to the "treadmill+tricep kickbacks" crowd however.

The one-body-part-per-week disciples (who in many,many cases get great results) will be glad to set these so-called expert columnists straight.

What they also said was that if you wait 7 days between the time you workout a muscle to the time you work it again, it recovers too much and you will get no gains.

Goonie....what they said was the definite intent of their postulation.

They, in fact stated that you should wait no longer than 48 hours also.

I figure the intensity/load/duration (plus the characteristics of the individual) of the workout will determine the recovery time...not a "written-in-stone" dictum of "x" hours.

I get better results when stimulating a body-part 2-3 times a week as opposed to annihilating it once a week. Ever since I switched to the TBT style of workout by Waterbury, I've been pretty happy with my gains. Can't say the same when I was doing a split where I hit a certain bodypart with 3 different exercises once a week. I think this is a good example of how individuals respond differently to various styles of lifting.

What they also said was that if you wait 7 days between the time you workout a muscle to the time you work it again, it recovers too much and you will get no gains.


Wow....then I guess I must be imagining all of this progress I've made over the past several years. :lol:

They, in fact stated that you should wait no longer than 48 hours also.


If I did that, I'd tear every muscle in my body.

This just shows that there is lots of bad advice out there. Some people may benefit from this type of training, but to put it out there as some sort of universal law of training is stupid.

Most of us are experiencing from hallucanatory muscle growth! John's transformation pics are a form of mass dellusion caused by over proteination of our gym-addicted brains! We are doomed!

Though, I wonder...mucles do not live in a vacumm. Even if I split my days M/W/F, Leg/Back/Chest, as long as I am doing compounds, my legs get work during the course of other workouts, even if it is not direct work. And the entire body feels the stress of a heavy workout - which is my working the legs can improve whole-body muscle growth.

Seems to me, even on 3-day splits, you aren't really giving your muscles 7 days of rest - they are getting the hit somewhere, especially if you have cardio and other sport activities in there. I guess it all depends on their definition of "working a muscle."

Have read several articles in newspapers and magazines lately where trainers have stated:-

"If you wait until a muscle fully recovers between workouts, this is not good because it won't grow".

So they claim that you should always train without being fully recovered in order to grow.

By "grow" I assume they mean muscle size as opposed to growth in endurance or strength or other factors.

I find from experience that their statement is 100% bullquacky.

Your muscle HAS to recover in order to grow and if you continually train it without proper recovery (regardless of what factor you are training) you could end up:-

(a) weaker
(b) burnt out
(c) smaller muscle size
(d) damage

I think proper recovery is especially important for maximum benefit the heavier you lift. And especially when outright heavy failure is involved.

Maybe you can train more frequently on the 'endurance" side of the coin.

My legs get a workout every day Mon thru Friday (job).....endurance wise they are pretty good. But I'd benefit far more if I had every second day off to recover. I notice when I get prolonged time off that my legs get way stronger....and this is when I get more recovery.

I climb upwards of 200+ stepsdaily Mon-Fri plus the heavier exes like Deads and Squats per week. I also walk about 5 miles a day.

The walking and the step-climbing do absolutely nothing for leg-size or growth. Maybe it would if I did it every second day when the muscle was more recovered. The endurance level is raised....but strength and growth do not happen from this daily endurance setup.

I believe that you absolutely HAVE to know your best recovery rate.

If you are lifting on a day where that muscle is only 50% recovered and you can't even approach what you lifted last day so you opt to go "light"....tell me how that is an improvement...


If you always train where your muscles/CNS etc. are NOT recovered you will basically be in a continual state of overtraining and fatigue.

You are right to question these people. Muscle growth is very similar to weight loss through dieting (i.e. expending more calories than you are consuming) whereas you are repairing muscle faster than you are "tearing" them. What they are claiming has no academic literature to back them up, and if they claim it does, they are extrapolating evidence far more than may be acceptable. I say write a letter to the editor or to these people themselves, and when they claim you misunderstood what they were saying you can feel confident that your doubt has been validated.

I was running today and it hit me. If this trainer was talking about increasing endurance he may be on the right track. Following an exercise bout different enzymes experience increased expression. General Stress Response enzymes see the largest expression and this expression spikes a day or two later and lasts for a few days. Glycolytic enzymes spike a little earlier, and last for a slightly shorter amount of time, but oxidative enzymes spike 12 hours later, and return to baseline or slightly above 24 to 36 hours later. This is why running twice a day is better than running once a day which in turn is far better than running every other day.

Also a matter of, do they mean will not grow at all or not optimal growth?

I could see that unrecovered muscle needs to work harder to continue exersion over a recovered muscle, and the "undamaged" parts of a muscle (those not strained in the first workout) are hit more because of the weaker state.

This would, I suppose, cause greater over-all muscle use. A fully recovered muscle continually hits the same recovered fibers, while a non-recovered muscle must use alterante fibers since the recovering ones can't keep up during the following workouts. This would cause growth in fibers not normally hit if all workouts are done in a recovered state.

Of course, that wouldn't mean full recovery doesn't allow growth; it just might be suboptimal. If that's even how muscular anatomy works.

As I stated before various enzyme expression is increased after damaging the muscle cell. What you say may have some merit, but I wouldn't recommend long term practice. When the muscle is damaged it releases stress hormones which signal satellite cells to migrate to that area and "donate" their nuclii to the various protein and enzyme production that cell needs. Cycling same muscle workout days in a row may have efficacy, but I am unaware of studies that have incorporated this methodology.

This would cause growth in fibers not normally hit if all workouts are done in a recovered state.

Why doesn't your workout hit all your fibers in the first place?

I was figuring that if you rip a muscle it will repair itself to the nature of the load (if load was increasing on a regular basis).

Also the ATP and Glycolytic reserves would be fully replenished.

Endurance training, usuallly the load isn't as great and it's more spaced out in duration....which means you can train more often.

But then who's going to run 25 miles a day, day after day ad infinitum?

A guy that can do 500 situps a day did not start out doing 500 situps a day.

If you or I did, by day 3 we'd be mashed....forcing recovery.

The type of training I usually do...hell, the DOMS doesn't even appear until day 4, never mind a repaired muscle.

I couldn't Deadlift what I do every 48 hours...I'd rip my tendons and muscles to shreds.

A routine that didn't hit me as hard I could probably do more often.


So I guess it boils down to:-(as an example):- Do you want to climb 20 stairs every second day ....or...climb 150 stairs and then wait seven days?...:)

I've been on fullbody-3 times a week routines before...and it always gets (sooner or later) to the point that the loads get too heavy to lift 3 times a week because I'm outlifting my recovery.

I've been on fullbody-3 times a week routines before...and it always gets (sooner or later) to the point that the loads get too heavy to lift 3 times a week because I'm outlifting my recovery.

How long did your recovery periods end up having to be for intensive full-body sessions?

To do the same ex as heavy as I lifted it the last time?

At least 5 days minimum.

Right now I lift Mon and Thursday (Sunday and Wed for abs/core)....but I don't do a repeat of the same weight on the same exes.

For example:- Monday I'll do Squats...but more for the cardio/endurance element on that day. Max or heavy weighted I would do on Thursday.

Hevy, are you referring to articles like Waterbury's Perfect 10 training? If so, then yeah, I would agree with you.

Targeting a certain body part 4, 5 even 6 times a week is something I would never do.

Waterbury does have a point when he talks about the Cirque Du Soleil dancers, ring gymnasts, and soccer players...but I don't think it's a good idea to assume that kind of functional workout vs. a gym workout are the same thing. It's perfectly fine for gymnasts or soccer players to practice 5 days a week, but targeting the same muscle at the gym 5 times a week or more is suicide.

Why doesn't your workout hit all your fibers in the first place?

I dunno. Same reason a wide-grip pull down makes me sore in different places then a close-grip pulldown? Or why I feel the inside of my bicep straining on a certain curl while the outside feels it more on a different type?

Seems that certain exercises work certain areas more than others - might hit all the fibers but does not seem even. I was postulating that, instead of two different curls to really hit inside and outside of the bicep, while doing the same curl in a rested state and unrested state the next day, one might feel the utilization in the inside of the bicep the first day, and because those fibers are still exhausted, the same exercise might tap the outside-bicep fibers.

Again, it was a random postulation of what the author might be getting at, offered up to others more knowledgable in the area of anatony and muscle-reality to tear down. I've heard before that you cannot target areas of muscles, i.e., hitting the bicep is hitting the bicep no matter what curl you do. That hasn't prevented me from feeling different curls working specific and varying areas of the muscle.

The only reason you may not hit all fibers is if you are doing submaximal lifts (ie warmups only or 12+reps/set). It is generally accepted that the first muscles to be recruited are slow twitch, and fast twitch are only recruited for heavier loads. Of course much depends on genetic make-up, and there is person to person variabilitiy, and that is why it is generally accepted.

I dunno. Same reason a wide-grip pull down makes me sore in different places then a close-grip pulldown

Sore doesn't mean much, nor does feeling.

If you have enough intensity and volume, you're hitting your fibers.

And remember that the threshold for fiber activation goes down more or less linearly with fatigue. So when you hear people talking about how heavy a load you need to get all fibers over the threshold? That's only on the first rep. As the muscle fatigues through more and more reps, the fibers that were not activated on the first rep get recruited for later reps.

fast twitch are only recruited for heavier loads

... or later reps. The threshold for muscle fibers decays with fatigue.

A reasonably convincing demonstration of this is to exhaust yourself with light reps and see if you can then do a heavy one. If you had some fibers that were held back in reserve through many light reps, then you presumably could do something with them. The simplest way to check this I can think of is to bench press an unloaded bar until real full blown failure - you can't even get the last rep off your chest. Then immediately get off the bench and do one (1) pushup. If you had some sort of reserve of fast twitch or some other sort of high threshold fibers left, then you expect to be able to at least fire them once. Well see what happens.

Pete Sisco did a test on that..

He had some pupils do reps at about 45% of their max load to where they were fatigued (in sets).

He then had them apply all-out force to a max rep load.

They still achieved the max rep load despite the sub-sets.

Pete's point was ( and he's a believer that all-out force for 5 seconds in a partial rep will stimulate your type 2-B's much faster than doing sub-sets at sub weights) that sub-sets at lesser weights do not hit all fibers.


(As an aside, I've often wondered why Pete doesn't push a "3 stage partial". He advocates a just-short-of lockout position for max load at 5 seconds for bench press.
And we know that there is about a 15 degree "carryover" for effect.

So.....why not do one max push at chest-level for 5 seconds with "X" load...and then do another one at midrange for 5 seconds at "X" load...and onother one at near lockout for 5 seconds with "X" load.?

You might have to adjust the weight (maybe not if you use a static bar like he does...you'd just have to adjust the height of the bar) for all three...but total time would be 15 seconds and you'd cover all the bases. This could be applied to any exercise and it would still be faster in the gym than doing set after set (for those so-inclined).

Haven't tried this myself yet.....but if one is going to do partials it makes sense to me....:eek:)

Hope I'm not getting off the beaten track here....:)