days a week

BlueIsland

i go to gym five-six times a week for 45-50 minute intense sessions. 20 mins cardio (4-5km) and then 25 mins weights working on different muscle groups every day. met this guy i knew last night. he was running on threadmill when I got in. I was leaving and he was on bike. He says "jaysus you did f""k all". I laughed and said "i know" even though I did more in my fifty minutes that he did prob in his hour and half to two hours.
im just wondering how long generally do people spend in gym? How nay days do you go?

Malteaser!

Depends on what I'm doing, benching is always a super quick day (40-50 minutes) whereas dl and squat day would take me well over an hour.

I usually go 3 to 4 times a week. When I made up my program I only made a 3 day one coz I knew I wouldn't have the time to be going more than that but sometimes I end up there for a 4th day.

tribulus

As long as it takes really. Benching days aren't that much, maybe just over an hour.

Squatting days take longer because I take long intervals.
DL's similiar too.

Probably 1.5-2hours.

Hanley

tribulus wrote: »

As long as it takes really. Benching days aren't that much, maybe just over an hour.

Squatting days take longer because I take long intervals.
DL's similiar too.

Probably 1.5-2hours.

Same here. Squatting usually takes about 2 hours, deadlifts are a little less, and benching = less again.

WHIP IT!

I was wondering this myself only last night to be honest... I started a new four-day week programme and was a little concerned that Day One looked, on paper, a little light and short...

Took me about 50mins altogether and I resisted the temptation to add anything to the programme myself - "trust the programme", I told myself...

Am I glad I did today - the DOMS are pretty bad! Actually, I realised after my warm-down when I got back to the dressers that I'd had a tougher workout than I probably thought. As soon as I lifted the arms to peel off my tshirt.

Bottom line - like everything else, it's quality, not quantity...

Roper

Did a great deadlift session in 30 minutes last night, interspersed with pull ups and dips. Don't know how people fill 2 hours!

BossArky

I usually have 4 sessions a week of about 1 hour each.

If I had more time I would probably go 7 days a week as I enjoy getting blood flowing and de-stressing from work!

I now try to be careful that I don't overdo it each time. This hasn't been the case in the past where I would be in pieces for days after due to bench, deadlift, squat and pull ups on same day.

celestial

go over 45 mins on an intense workout and you can start burning muscle for fuel. Work short, work smart!

Vegeta

Roper wrote: »

Did a great deadlift session in 30 minutes last night, interspersed with pull ups and dips. Don't know how people fill 2 hours!

I'm the same i'm in bits after an hour doing a total body routine, I take roughly 1 minute to 1.5 minute rest between sets.

If I was taking 5 mins then it might stretch out a bit

hunnymonster

<<cough>> about 20-30 hours a week. Most of it isn't weights though. At the moment (down season) I probably spend 3 hours a week lifting in 3 sessions.

rubadub

BlueIsland wrote: »

20 mins cardio (4-5km) and then 25 mins weights

Best do your weights first. You have more energy so can lift more, and work the muscle more, and hence promote more growth. And after you have used up the energy in your muscles during the weights I think you might be more likely to burn fat during your cardio.

If you are going 6 days a week it might be better to have weights & cardio on different days.

BossArky

rubadub wrote: »

Best do your weights first

I often find I can bench, squat or deadlift more after a 5km run due to the increased blood flow.

Hanley

celestial wrote: »

go over 45 mins on an intense workout and you can start burning muscle for fuel. Work short, work smart!

"Intense" in the strict % of your one rep max terms will require longer rest periods because your CNS needs more recovery time. So "intense" workouts will quite offten be longer.

Besides, why is it 45 mins? And not 46? I actually thought it was 56, no wait 65.

I don't know why that myth persists.

Leon11

We're told to keep our workouts short and intense ie.less than 40 mins. No idea why, if I'm doing heavy volume of squating I'd easily take 90 mins in the gym what with resting etc. To the OP, if your not having a good session do as Hanley says, pick one movement and beat your PR, at least you'll have done something.

Transform

celestial wrote: »

go over 45 mins on an intense workout and you can start burning muscle for fuel. Work short, work smart!

That is so over generalised and really needs to be taken off totally as it has no sense as its out of context

Gumbyman

I go 3 or 4 days a week for about 45 mins a pop. 25 cardio, 20 free weights. I always do my cardio first then the weights because it takes me about 20 minutes to stop pumping sweat after the cardio. The gym is at work and I go in the morning so this helps me not look like aheart attack at my desk!

On a side note - what do you guys eat before gym if going in morning? Is brown bread and tuna ok or should I be cramming in some porridge?

g'em

3 x 1.5 - 2 hr lifting sessions a week and one hour long GPP/cardio session.

thebiggestjim

I only go twice a week. Monday and Thursday. 1.5 - 2 hrs (20 mins total warm up and down). I know it doesn't seem like much but I concentrate on the compound movements and I have seen results.

celestial

Hanley wrote: »

"Intense" in the strict % of your one rep max terms will require longer rest periods because your CNS needs more recovery time. So "intense" workouts will quite offten be longer.

Besides, why is it 45 mins? And not 46? I actually thought it was 56, no wait 65.

I don't know why that myth persists.

I am open to correction but this is something I see again and again in fitness magazines. Apparently after approx 45 mins into intense workout (cardio, weights, etc) the body is likely to enter a catabolic state where it can burn more muscle than fat for fuel.

I'm sure there are different variables at play here though but seeing as I keep hearing it again and again I'd be interested in hearing from those more knowledgeable than me on this.

Hanley

celestial wrote: »

I am open to correction but this is something I see again and again in fitness magazines. Apparently after approx 45 mins into intense workout (cardio, weights, etc) the body is likely to enter a catabolic state where it can burn more muscle than fat for fuel.

I'm sure there are different variables at play here though but seeing as I keep hearing it again and again I'd be interested in hearing from those more knowledgeable than me on this.

I spent 2 hours in the gym today. I was in for about 70 mins yesterday, probably 90ish mins on Friday and another 2 hours on Sunday. All weights.

I've done 2 4 week cycles in the last 6 months where I spent 3 hours a day, 4x a week lifting.

Since May I've put on 12kg. No more than 3-4kg of that is fat. I'd quite happily go out on a limb and say from my own empirical evidence that the 45 mins "rule" is bullsh!t.

celestial

Hanley wrote: »

I spent 2 hours in the gym today. I was in for about 70 mins yesterday, probably 90ish mins on Friday and another 2 hours on Sunday. All weights.

I've done 2 4 week cycles in the last 6 months where I spent 3 hours a day, 4x a week lifting.

Since May I've put on 12kg. No more than 3-4kg of that is fat. I'd quite happily go out on a limb and say from my own empirical evidence that the 45 mins "rule" is bullsh!t.

TBH it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to me either and I hope it isn't true - think I want to get myself a degree in exercise science so I can find out the truth about these things rather than relying on magazines and hearsay...ever feel like that?

rubadub

I think the 45min "rule" is more to do with efficiency of workouts. Many here enjoy working out for hours. Some do not and want to do it in the most efficient manner possible.

So doing 45mins 3 times a week might result in say 1lb muscle gain per month. Doing 90mins 3 times a week might give 1.5lb muscle gain per month. And say 30mins results in 0.5lb per month

So if your aim is building max muscle and you like working out and time is not an issue then go all out and go longer. If you want the most muscle growth per minute then go for the 45mins.

celestial

rubadub wrote: »

I think the 45min "rule" is more to do with efficiency of workouts. Many here enjoy working out for hours. Some do not and want to do it in the most efficient manner possible.

So doing 45mins 3 times a week might result in say 1lb muscle gain per month. Doing 90mins 3 times a week might give 1.5lb muscle gain per month. And say 30mins results in 0.5lb per month

So if your aim is building max muscle and you like working out and time is not an issue then go all out and go longer. If you want the most muscle growth per minute then go for the 45mins.

And for fat loss..?

rubadub

celestial wrote: »

And for fat loss..?

I don't know, I am just giving my understanding on the 45min thing.

As for fat loss you hear of "fat burning zones" related to heart rate for cardio. So say you cycle a fixed distance 10miles, then according to the theory you will burn more fat if you cycle maintaining a certain heart rate. Of course if you cycle like a lunatic you will burn more fat and calories PER MINUTE, BUT it will be a short duration of cycle. This is where people get annoyed and confused with the "fat burning zone" theory.

If you have 60mins to workout then put max effort in for that hour and you will burn the max fat. If you have a fixed distance then maintain the fat burning zone for max fat burned.

I posted a while ago comparing it to car engine fuel efficiency, there is a certain speed where the engine has its lowest "mile per gallon". The other confusion is when sportsmen are talking to people trying to burn calories, e.g. they might be recommending the most efficient way of doing something, while the fat person might be better of using the most inefficient method. e.g. a marathon runner wants to conserve energy, they are not going to compete in a marathon with ankle weights and swinging their arms wildly. A pro cyclist will not compete on a mountain bike, while for exercise it might be preferred as it is usually more comfortable and expends the same energy per hour, you just travel a shorter distance.

celestial

rubadub wrote: »

I don't know, I am just giving my understanding on the 45min thing.

As for fat loss you hear of "fat burning zones" related to heart rate for cardio. So say you cycle a fixed distance 10miles, then according to the theory you will burn more fat if you cycle maintaining a certain heart rate. Of course if you cycle like a lunatic you will burn more fat and calories PER MINUTE, BUT it will be a short duration of cycle. This is where people get annoyed and confused with the "fat burning zone" theory.

If you have 60mins to workout then put max effort in for that hour and you will burn the max fat. If you have a fixed distance then maintain the fat burning zone for max fat burned.

I posted a while ago comparing it to car engine fuel efficiency, there is a certain speed where the engine has its lowest "mile per gallon". The other confusion is when sportsmen are talking to people trying to burn calories, e.g. they might be recommending the most efficient way of doing something, while the fat person might be better of using the most inefficient method. e.g. a marathon runner wants to conserve energy, they are not going to compete in a marathon with ankle weights and swinging their arms wildly. A pro cyclist will not compete on a mountain bike, while for exercise it might be preferred as it is usually more comfortable and expends the same energy per hour, you just travel a shorter distance.

Yeah I don't know for sure either and don't think there is one answer anyway.

If a person looking to lose fat works out for 45 minutes at say an intensity of 8 on a 10 point scale, and wants to increase duration to say 60 minutes, and does so maintaining intensity at 8 throughout, I figure this equals increased fat burning. However, if you were to increase duration to 1 hour 15 minutes, or greater, you could find it harder to maintain that intensity and could slip to 7 or 7.5 overall...which could result in the the same or reduced fat burn than at the 45 or 60 intensity. That is almost definitely over-simplified, but I think the law of diminishing returns plays a big part, so to speak.

Hanley

celestial wrote: »

I want to get myself a degree in exercise science so I can find out the truth about these things rather than relying on magazines and hearsay...ever feel like that?

Nah, I'd rather just train.