Body adaptation to exercise routine.

xareik

Basically I wanted to discuss the theory that your body adapts to exercise routines and your progress begins to plateau as a result...

The idea is that, by doing the same type of exercise over and over again, our bodies stop improving at the same rate (if at all). Many people believe that you need to keep changing the types of workouts that you do in order to avoid this.

However, I don't agree with this at all tbh. I'm not sure why people feel like they stop making progress... It could be any number of reasons really.

Maybe they aren't getting enough rest. Maybe they have hit a wall genetically speaking and can't get any stronger, faster etc. Maybe it's purely a mental thing and their mind is getting bored of the same routines - who knows really?

But I don't believe the underlying theory about adaptation and exercise plateau to be true - based on two things really.

Firstly, I think my own fitness efforts have proven to be very successful - despite the fact that I have spent the last 3 years doing precisely the same exercises consistently week after week. (Basically, cardio and strength exercises which are always the same methods - I never vary my workouts)

I am fortunate in the sense that I don't get bored of routines very easily. And even on the rare occasions that bordem is a factor, I continue through it and don't find myself hitting any plateaus.

Secondly, I think the world of professional sport blows this theory out of the water too. Soccer, rugby, tennis, gymnastics... you name it really - they all have the same thing in common: To get REALLY good at any of these sports, you must repeat and practice the same movements over and over again until you reach something approaching perfection. And then you keep repeating the process to stay at that level.

I'll deal with one of the sports I know best, which is soccer. I see young kids and teens playing football at times from when the sun comes up, to when it goes down. Repeating the same movements over and over again. And they are extremely healthy and fit imo.

The same is true of many other sports. How many hours do young aspiring golf players put in to have a chance at reaching the top? They pretty much repeat the same movements over and over... to the point where many even pick up overuse injuries in certain parts of their bodies.

BUT despite injuries or bordem, they do get better the more they repeat these movements.

Gymnastics too. Those guys & girls spend countless hours repeating the same routines with almost military precision. Why would anyone do this if they wern't getting better!?

Anyway that's my perspective on this theory... I would be very interested to read others opinions on this.

Thanks,
Xareik

nice_guy80

xareik wrote: »

Basically I wanted to discuss the theory that your body adapts to exercise routines and your progress begins to plateau as a result...

The idea is that, by doing the same type of exercise over and over again, our bodies stop improving at the same rate (if at all). Many people believe that you need to keep changing the types of workouts that you do in order to avoid this.

However, I don't agree with this at all tbh. I'm not sure why people feel like they stop making progress... It could be any number of reasons really.

Maybe they aren't getting enough rest. Maybe they have hit a wall genetically speaking and can't get any stronger, faster etc. Maybe it's purely a mental thing and their mind is getting bored of the same routines - who knows really?

But I don't believe the underlying theory about adaptation and exercise plateau to be true - based on two things really.

Firstly, I think my own fitness efforts have proven to be very successful - despite the fact that I have spent the last 3 years doing precisely the same exercises consistently week after week. (Basically, cardio and strength exercises which are always the same methods - I never vary my workouts)

I am fortunate in the sense that I don't get bored of routines very easily. And even on the rare occasions that bordem is a factor, I continue through it and don't find myself hitting any plateaus.

Secondly, I think the world of professional sport blows this theory out of the water too. Soccer, rugby, tennis, gymnastics... you name it really - they all have the same thing in common: To get REALLY good at any of these sports, you must repeat and practice the same movements over and over again until you reach something approaching perfection. And then you keep repeating the process to stay at that level.

I'll deal with one of the sports I know best, which is soccer. I see young kids and teens playing football at times from when the sun comes up, to when it goes down. Repeating the same movements over and over again. And they are extremely healthy and fit imo.

The same is true of many other sports. How many hours do young aspiring golf players put in to have a chance at reaching the top? They pretty much repeat the same movements over and over... to the point where many even pick up overuse injuries in certain parts of their bodies.

BUT despite injuries or bordem, they do get better the more they repeat these movements.

Gymnastics too. Those guys & girls spend countless hours repeating the same routines with almost military precision. Why would anyone do this if they wern't getting better!?

Anyway that's my perspective on this theory... I would be very interested to read others opinions on this.

Thanks,
Xareik

what sport do you play?

Will Heffernan

xareik wrote: »

Basically I wanted to discuss the theory that your body adapts to exercise routines and your progress begins to plateau as a result...

Cool.

The idea is that, by doing the same type of exercise over and over again, our bodies stop improving at the same rate (if at all). Many people believe that you need to keep changing the types of workouts that you do in order to avoid this.

Absolutely.

However, I don't agree with this at all tbh.

That's cool but you'd be wrong.

I'm not sure why people feel like they stop making progress... It could be any number of reasons really.

It's basically just one reason...human physiology.

Maybe they aren't getting enough rest. Maybe they have hit a wall genetically speaking and can't get any stronger, faster etc. Maybe it's purely a mental thing and their mind is getting bored of the same routines - who knows really?

I know...that's who knows

But I don't believe the underlying theory about adaptation and exercise plateau to be true - based on two things really.

Firstly, I think my own fitness efforts have proven to be very successful - despite the fact that I have spent the last 3 years doing precisely the same exercises consistently week after week. (Basically, cardio and strength exercises which are always the same methods - I never vary my workouts)

Yes, but you've probably 1. been improving incredibly slowly. 2. done 95% of your improving then progressing incredibly slowly now. or 3. Don't really understand the area of fitness and health at all and have no understanding of exercise physiology.

I am fortunate in the sense that I don't get bored of routines very easily. And even on the rare occasions that bordem is a factor, I continue through it and don't find myself hitting any plateaus.

If that's the case...I don't think you know what a plateau is.

Secondly, I think the world of professional sport blows this theory out of the water too. Soccer, rugby, tennis, gymnastics... you name it really - they all have the same thing in common: To get REALLY good at any of these sports, you must repeat and practice the same movements over and over again until you reach something approaching perfection. And then you keep repeating the process to stay at that level.

This is so far from the truth. 1. Yes, a certain (I'll even go so far as to say huge) amount of deliberate practice is needed to gain skill mastery but the acquisition of these skills is not linear and includes many plateaus. 2. When you work in professional sport as a coach once you get to an elite level you spend most of your time trying to come up with something 'different' just so the athletes/players don't get bored and don't plateau which is absolutely what will happen if you don't.

I'll deal with one of the sports I know best, which is soccer. I see young kids and teens playing football at times from when the sun comes up, to when it goes down. Repeating the same movements over and over again. And they are extremely healthy and fit imo.

What you have just said here is a perfect example of exactly what your AREN'T talking about. 'Play' is absolutely the most random and 'different' type of exposure to training and skill development you could possibly imagine. So much so it is actually an example to counter your argument not reinforce it.

The same is true of many other sports. How many hours do young aspiring golf players put in to have a chance at reaching the top? They pretty much repeat the same movements over and over... to the point where many even pick up overuse injuries in certain parts of their bodies.

....and yet I don't think there is a single golfer who got to the top of the game playing a single hole on a single course?

BUT despite injuries or bordem, they do get better the more they repeat these movements.

Yes, they repeat these movements in lots of ways, in lots of places, under lots of different conditions.

Gymnastics too. Those guys & girls spend countless hours repeating the same routines with almost military precision.

That doesn't happen.

[/QUOTE]Why would anyone do this if they wern't getting better!?[/QUOTE]
They don't...no elite athletes or players do.

Anyway that's my perspective on this theory... I would be very interested to read others opinions on this.

Thanks,
Xareik

That's all it is though...just an opinion.

xareik

Will Heffernan wrote: »

Cool.


Absolutely.


That's cool but you'd be wrong.


It's basically just one reason...human physiology.


I know...that's who knows

Yes, but you've probably 1. been improving incredibly slowly. 2. done 95% of your improving then progressing incredibly slowly now. or 3. Don't really understand the area of fitness and health at all and have no understanding of exercise physiology.

If that's the case...I don't think you know what a plateau is.


This is so far from the truth. 1. Yes, a certain (I'll even go so far as to say huge) amount of deliberate practice is needed to gain skill mastery but the acquisition of these skills is not linear and includes many plateaus. 2. When you work in professional sport as a coach once you get to an elite level you spend most of your time trying to come up with something 'different' just so the athletes/players don't get bored and don't plateau which is absolutely what will happen if you don't.


What you have just said here is a perfect example of exactly what your AREN'T talking about. 'Play' is absolutely the most random and 'different' type of exposure to training and skill development you could possibly imagine. So much so it is actually an example to counter your argument not reinforce it.


....and yet I don't think there is a single golfer who got to the top of the game playing a single hole on a single course?


Yes, they repeat these movements in lots of ways, in lots of places, under lots of different conditions.


That doesn't happen.

Actually no, I haven't progressed slowly at all... Quite the opposite in fact. My body is becoming extremely efficient at the exercises I'm doing.

Coaches look for new methods to tackle the problem of bordem - you are right there. But just the bordem imo, and not the fictitious "plateau".

The play I was referring to in respect to football, is pretty much identical to what these guys would be doing in match situations - most of the time they are actually playing 5-a-side matches... Little or no difference here except it's on a smaller scale.

5-a-sides was pretty much all some professional teams used to play in training in the old days - worked fine for them too.

We understand rest and recovery better now as well as diet. Those are the main factors that have allowed professional footballers to improve physically imo, not varied training methods.

Brian?

xareik wrote: »

Basically I wanted to discuss the theory that your body adapts to exercise routines and your progress begins to plateau as a result...

Isn't "getting fit" your body adapting to the stimulus provided?

xareik

Brian? wrote: »

Isn't "getting fit" your body adapting to the stimulus provided?

Yes, you are right Brian. I would class that as positive adaptation.

I was referring more to the idea of negative adaptation - in terms of a plateau from doing the same exercises all the time. (something I believe doesn't exist)

I don't believe the human body can distinguish between what exercise you are doing. It just keeps working away and attempts to become more and more efficient at performing a given exercise.

If you swim up and down a pool doing the same stroke week after week (and provided you get enough rest and recovery), Your body will get stronger and more effiecient at that task. There is no need for any variety - other than to alliviate bordem.... Which is obviously a big issue for the majority of people.

Will Heffernan

xareik wrote: »

Actually no, I haven't progressed slowly at all... Quite the opposite in fact. My body is becoming extremely efficient at the exercises I'm doing.

What you are saying just doesn't make any sense at all.

If you have been weight training and have progressed week by week without plateau adding just a 500gram your barbell bicep curls have gone from 10 reps at 15kg to 10 reps with 90kg? If you've added just 1kg a week to your bench it has gone from 50kg for 10 reps to 200kg for 10 reps.

If you are talking about running...lets say you started off running a mile in say 8 mins 30 secs and you've taken just 2 secs off your time every week without plateau you are now running a sub 4 minute mile?

What you are talking about just doesn't exist in reality....it doesn't even exist in your unreality.

Coaches look for new methods to tackle the problem of bordem - you are right there. But just the bordem imo, and not the fictitious "plateau".

Ahhhh nope. You will not find a single coach of any merit anywhere that will agree with you.

Some athletes will respond very well to linear programming...Milo of Croton being the most famous. But I am sure that even Milo's training plateaued occasionally.

The play I was referring to in respect to football, is pretty much identical to what these guys would be doing in match situations - most of the time they are actually playing 5-a-side matches... Little or no difference here except it's on a smaller scale.

I know exactly what you are describing....unfortunately you don't. What you are describing is not an example of what your proposition.

5-a-sides was pretty much all some professional teams used to play in training in the old days - worked fine for them too.

Yes, and this is an example of random training stimulus in that NO game is EVER the same. So is actually the complete opposite of what you're proposing.

We understand rest and recovery better now as well as diet. Those are the main factors that have allowed professional footballers to improve physically imo, not varied training methods.

You only think that because you have no idea what you are talking about...and I can't think of any nicer to way to say it.

Yes, we do understand rest and recovery better. Training methods have not actually changed that much BUT and this is a big BUT...what has changed is our understanding of how to apply them.

Will Heffernan

xareik wrote: »

Yes, you are right Brian. I would class that as positive adaptation.

I would as well and the result of this positive adaptation is an inevitable and unavoidable plateau.

I was referring more to the idea of negative adaptation - in terms of a plateau from doing the same exercises all the time. (something I believe doesn't exist)

Have you heard of the term PB? Do you know why PB is a term? Do you realise that other than COH no one has the term PB in every entry in their training log? You realise that there is good reason for this...in that you can't just do even a tiny bit more EVERY session....and that if you fail to get better EVERY session you have hit a plateau? The only thing to be distinguished is it's length from there.

I don't believe the human body can distinguish between what exercise you are doing. It just keeps working away and attempts to become more and more efficient at performing a given exercise.

It might try this...but unfortunately it fails do do so. At least not infinitely and most certainly not without plateauing before inevitably reaching it's limits.

If you swim up and down a pool doing the same stroke week after week (and provided you get enough rest and recovery), Your body will get stronger and more effiecient at that task.

You don't swim faster and faster every week though do you?

There is no need for any variety - other than to alliviate bordem.... Which is obviously a big issue for the majority of people.

There is no need to...you only need to if you want to improve AFTER you inevitably plateau.

xareik

Will Heffernan wrote: »

What you are saying just doesn't make any sense at all.

If you have been weight training and have progressed week by week without plateau adding just a 500gram your barbell bicep curls have gone from 10 reps at 15kg to 10 reps with 90kg? If you've added just 1kg a week to your bench it has gone from 50kg for 10 reps to 200kg for 10 reps.

If you are talking about running...lets say you started off running a mile in say 8 mins 30 secs and you've taken just 2 secs off your time every week without plateau you are now running a sub 4 minute mile?

What you are talking about just doesn't exist in reality....it doesn't even exist in your unreality.

Ahhhh nope. You will not find a single coach of any merit anywhere that will agree with you.

Some athletes will respond very well to linear programming...Milo of Croton being the most famous. But I am sure that even Milo's training plateaued occasionally.


I know exactly what you are describing....unfortunately you don't. What you are describing is not an example of what your proposition.


Yes, and this is an example of random training stimulus in that NO game is EVER the same. So is actually the complete opposite of what you're proposing.

You only think that because you have no idea what you are talking about...and I can't think of any nicer to way to say it.

Yes, we do understand rest and recovery better. Training methods have not actually changed that much BUT and this is a big BUT...what has changed is our understanding of how to apply them.

I think it's you that doesn't seem to understand what I'm trying to say.

You are choosing to take my comments about plateau far too literally. In any given workout regime, you have the factors frequency, duration and intensity at play.

Theses factors of course change marginally from session to session, from week to week and month to month. That is pretty much a given. (meaning I didn't think I had to point that out it's so obvious)

I listen to my body and respond accordingly with all three factors.

But the crux of my point and this whole thread, is that I don't alter my workout methods at all... I do the same workouts over and over. And I'm making excellent progress.

The differences in any given football match/training game are not significant enough to be considered random training stimulus. You are being quite pedantic here I feel.

When footballers kick a ball around in match type scenarios, they are performing fairly general movements and skills each and every time. (Jogging, walking, sprinting, jumping - shooting, passing, heading, tackling etc etc)

Is there some randomness? Of course, but the repetitive movements far outweight any element of randomness.

Football is only one of many examples. There are much better and clearer examples of sports that require highly repetitive movements.

If one can overcome the bordem of repetitive exercise routines, I believe there is nothing physiologically that can stop you from getting fit. And just as efficiently (or more so) as any varied routine.

JJayoo

I do the same workouts over and over. And I'm making excellent progress.

You might be doing the same movement ie Bench, but I'm sure your changing up the weight/amount of reps.

xareik

Will Heffernan wrote: »

You don't swim faster and faster every week though do you?

I never said you would.

But over time (meaning months & possibly years) you will inevitably get faster and more efficient at the exercise - without any need for introducing variety.

And btw I don't consider changes in duration, frequency or intensity to be 'variety'.... Unless you want to call them variety of the same exercise.

When I say no variety, I am referring to not introducing different exercises entirely. (just to clarify, as it seems you like to take my points far too literally)

xareik

JJayoo wrote: »

You might be doing the same movement ie Bench, but I'm sure your changing up the weight/amount of reps.

But that's not what I'm talking about JJayoo. I've already said that intensity, duration and frequency may change according to how my body is feeling at any particular time.

But I do not change the exercise types.

And that is the arguement I am making here - there is no need to change the types of exercises you are doing in order to achieve results... Your body can't tell the difference!

Will Heffernan

xareik wrote: »

I think it's you that doesn't seem to understand what I'm trying to say.

On this point you are absolutely correct.

You are choosing to take my comments about plateau far too literally. In any given workout regime, you have the factors frequency, duration and intensity at play.

I can agree with this as well...that's two for two so far.

Theses factors of course change marginally from session to session, from week to week and month to month. That is pretty much a given. (meaning I didn't think I had to point that out it's so obvious)

In fairness all I had to go on was what you said...not what you meant in your head. That's fine though...that's one of the things forums about...you get to post, I reply, you clarify and on and on we go.

I listen to my body and respond accordingly with all three factors.

That's fine also.

But the crux of my point and this whole thread, is that I don't alter my workout methods at all... I do the same workouts over and over. And I'm making excellent progress.

You are going to have to define excellent progress for me and you are going to have to do so with regard to your contention that you don't believe training plateaus are real.

Well you don't have to...but I would like you to.

The differences in any given football match/training game are not significant enough to be considered random training stimulus. You are being quite pedantic here I feel.

They absolutely are. I would be happy to break it down for you but no player plays the same game twice...they head the ball a different number of times, they kick the ball a different number of times, they kick it in different directions over different distances, they have different number of shots on goal, they sprint, jog, walk different numbers of times in different orders and for different durations with differing periods of recovery with varying frequency and on and on and on I could go. I am being anything but pedantic. The only thing that is the same is the game....absolutely everything to with the stimulus is different.

When footballers kick a ball around in match type scenarios, they are performing fairly general movements and skills each and every time. (Jogging, walking, sprinting, jumping - shooting, passing, heading, tackling etc etc).

Only they are doing it at different intensities, for different durations, with different rest periods and on and on and on we go. What you are saying is the equivalent of all running is the same whether it be 40 metres or 40 kilometres and therefore so long as I am running I am doing the same thing...whether I am running 100 metre intervals of 1000 metre intervals....whether I am taking 10 seconds recovery or 10 minutes recovery...it's just running.

Is there some randomness? Of course, but the repetitive movements far outweight any element of randomness.

No it doesn't. You can say it but it isn't true.

Football is only one of many examples. There are much better and clearer examples of sports that require highly repetitive movements.

I gave you an example of an activity more structured and more repetitive....golf. Like I said...no one plays one hole on one course and becomes great. No one spends 10,000 hours at a driving range and then enters the Master's and wins.

If one can overcome the bordem of repetitive exercise routines, I believe there is nothing physiologically that can stop you from getting fit. And just as efficiently (or more so) as any varied routine.

That is not what you said in your first post?

Is that your point? You can pick a routine, do it forever and be 'fit'?

Will Heffernan

xareik wrote: »

But that's not what I'm talking about JJayoo. I've already said that intensity, duration and frequency may change according to how my body is feeling at any particular time.

But I do not change the exercise types.

And that is the arguement I am making here - there is no need to change the types of exercises you are doing in order to achieve results... Your body can't tell the difference!

So basically what you are saying is that if my program had say these exercises:
Snatch
Clean and Jerk
Squats
Deadlifts
Lunges
Step Ups
Bench Pressing
Dips
Push Ups
Pull Ups
Bent Over Rows
Inverted Rows
Military Pressing

....and that I constantly changed the frequency, intensity, duration, rest period and recovery between sets, reps and training sessions that I wouldn't need to do anything else? Is that what you are getting at?

xareik

On this point you are absolutely correct.


I can agree with this as well...that's two for two so far.

In fairness all I had to go on was what you said...not what you meant in your head. That's fine though...that's one of the things forums about...you get to post, I reply, you clarify and on and on we go.

I'm not sure you read my OP correctly or understood what I was trying to say.

That's fine also.


You are going to have to define excellent progress for me and you are going to have to do so with regard to your contention that you don't believe training plateaus are real.

Well you don't have to...but I would like you to.

How would you like me to define it? I don't record resting heart rates, I don't using training logs or count my reps etc.

I think those measurements can become an obstacle to someone getting fitter, as they often prevent people from doing the most fundamental and vital thing - which is listening to their body!

I know when I'm feeling tired, but also I have learned to distinguish between mild tiredness and genuine exhaustion (brought on from accumulated fatigue).

I also understand short term recovery, and long term recovery. Both are essential - but imo everybody must gauge this for themselves, not by using training logs, milleage or rep counts.


They absolutely are. I would be happy to break it down for you but no player plays the same game twice...they head the ball a different number of times, they kick the ball a different number of times, they kick it in different directions over different distances, they have different number of shots on goal, they sprint, jog, walk different numbers of times in different orders and for different durations with differing periods of recovery with varying frequency and on and on and on I could go. I am being anything but pedantic. The only thing that is the same is the game....absolutely everything to with the stimulus is different.

Only they are doing it at different intensities, for different durations, with different rest periods and on and on and on we go. What you are saying is the equivalent of all running is the same whether it be 40 metres or 40 kilometres and therefore so long as I am running I am doing the same thing...whether I am running 100 metre intervals of 1000 metre intervals....whether I am taking 10 seconds recovery or 10 minutes recovery...it's just running.

Players do play the same game twice. NBA basketball players play the same game 82 times in a season - it's called BASKETBALL. You are picking out marginal differences in games - I am talking about the bigger picture here.

If you play basketball for your whole life - and no other form of exercise... You will build a physique and fitness that is specific to that sport. (regardless of any marginal randomness in games) And you will be very very fit, without the need for any other variety of exercise.

No it doesn't. You can say it but it isn't true.


I gave you an example of an activity more structured and more repetitive....golf. Like I said...no one plays one hole on one course and becomes great. No one spends 10,000 hours at a driving range and then enters the Master's and wins.

I never said anyone does that. I'm saying they perform the same general movements over and over again.

Picking up a tennis racket and hitting some balls around a court might add some variety to their training, for example, but it would not be necessary in order for them to improve as a golfer.

But golf is a bad example as it is mostly skill based, and improvements in general fitness or strength can be of some benefit.

But in other sports, variety of exercises are not really necessary to see improvements in performance.

For example, a triathlete could hit the gym to do some weights (many do) and it would add some variety to their training. It might also alleviate some bordem too... but it's not actually necessary for them to become a better triathlete. Many of the best triathletes stick to course training and have no interest in gym work...


That is not what you said in your first post?

Is that your point? You can pick a routine, do it forever and be 'fit'?

I felt I was very clear in my OP.... Exercise variety is not necessary in order to see improvements in physical fitness.

One will not simply stop making progress because the body "gets too used to a given exercise". Our bodies are intelligent, but not quite THAT intelligent imo.

Exercise variety is good for those who get bored easily, but it's not actually necessary.

COH

xareik wrote: »

On this point you are absolutely correct.


I can agree with this as well...that's two for two so far.

In fairness all I had to go on was what you said...not what you meant in your head. That's fine though...that's one of the things forums about...you get to post, I reply, you clarify and on and on we go.

I'm not sure you read my OP correctly or understood what I was trying to say.

That's fine also.


You are going to have to define excellent progress for me and you are going to have to do so with regard to your contention that you don't believe training plateaus are real.

Well you don't have to...but I would like you to.

How would you like me to define it? I don't record resting heart rates, I don't using training logs or count my reps etc.

I think those measurements can become an obstacle to someone getting fitter, as they often prevent people from doing the most fundamental and vital thing - which is listening to their body!

I know when I'm feeling tired, but also I have learned to distinguish between mild tiredness and genuine exhaustion (brought on from accumulated fatigue).

I also understand short term recovery, and long term recovery. Both are essential - but imo everybody must gauge this for themselves, not by using training logs, milleage or rep counts.


They absolutely are. I would be happy to break it down for you but no player plays the same game twice...they head the ball a different number of times, they kick the ball a different number of times, they kick it in different directions over different distances, they have different number of shots on goal, they sprint, jog, walk different numbers of times in different orders and for different durations with differing periods of recovery with varying frequency and on and on and on I could go. I am being anything but pedantic. The only thing that is the same is the game....absolutely everything to with the stimulus is different.

Only they are doing it at different intensities, for different durations, with different rest periods and on and on and on we go. What you are saying is the equivalent of all running is the same whether it be 40 metres or 40 kilometres and therefore so long as I am running I am doing the same thing...whether I am running 100 metre intervals of 1000 metre intervals....whether I am taking 10 seconds recovery or 10 minutes recovery...it's just running.

Players do play the same game twice. NBA basketball players play the same game 82 times in a season - it's called BASKETBALL. You are picking out marginal differences in games - I am talking about the bigger picture here.

If you play basketball for your whole life - and no other form of exercise... You will build a physique and fitness that is specific to that sport. (regardless of any marginal randomness in games) And you will be very very fit, without the need for any other variety of exercise.

No it doesn't. You can say it but it isn't true.


I gave you an example of an activity more structured and more repetitive....golf. Like I said...no one plays one hole on one course and becomes great. No one spends 10,000 hours at a driving range and then enters the Master's and wins.

I never said anyone does that. I'm saying they perform the same general movements over and over again.

Picking up a tennis racket and hitting some balls around a court might add some variety to their training, for example, but it would not be necessary in order for them to improve as a golfer.

But golf is a bad example as it is mostly skill based, and improvements in general fitness or strength can be of some benefit.

But in other sports, variety of exercises are not really necessary to see improvements in performance.

For example, a triathlete could hit the gym to do some weights (many do) and it would add some variety to their training. It might also alleviate some bordem too... but it's not actually necessary for them to become a better triathlete. Many of the best triathletes stick to course training and have no interest in gym work...


That is not what you said in your first post?

Is that your point? You can pick a routine, do it forever and be 'fit'?

I felt I was very clear in my OP.... Exercise variety is not necessary in order to see improvements in physical fitness.

One will not simply stop making progress because the body "gets too used to a given exercise". Our bodies are intelligent, but not quite THAT intelligent imo.

Exercise variety is good for those who get bored easily, but it's not actually necessary.

cmyk

xareik wrote: »

I think it's you that doesn't seem to understand what I'm trying to say.

It's not just Will that doesn't understand to be fair.

Will Heffernan

I think I will leave you guys to this now because essentially what I am getting from this after we boil it all down is that you think being active is good and that it doesn't matter what you choose to do that whatever it is will be all you need.

That is it...that's basically everything you have to say in a nutshell.

xareik

Will Heffernan wrote: »

So basically what you are saying is that if my program had say these exercises:
Snatch
Clean and Jerk
Squats
Deadlifts
Lunges
Step Ups
Bench Pressing
Dips
Push Ups
Pull Ups
Bent Over Rows
Inverted Rows
Military Pressing

....and that I constantly changed the frequency, intensity, duration, rest period and recovery between sets, reps and training sessions that I wouldn't need to do anything else? Is that what you are getting at?

Not exactly... That is a hard question to answer as I'm not a bodybuilder. And that seems like the workouts of a bodybuilder.

Firstly, for me there is far too many exercises there. (just my opinion)

Secondly, what is the goal of the training? To get bigger?

I train for fitness. When I train for strength I don't really do it to get bigger... I do it for the right balance between strength, speed and endurance.

But for arguements sake, my only strength exercise is Chin Ups.

I chose Chin ups because they pretty much hit most muscles north of the waistline and are nice and hard - so they never stop being challenging. (particularly on days when I attempt up to 1 hour of them)

If I wanted to bulk up, it would be very easy... just eat more protein and calories. I don't see much need to target individual muscles as your list would suggest.

Targeting particular muscles makes people's bodies look unnatural and out of proportion (imho). If I want more definition, I simply lower my calories - not by counting either.. Just consciously eating slightly less than I neeed. (leaving a bit of every meal on your plate is a good method)

So basically, imo you don't need 20 exercises to get strong. One can be enough if you choose wisely.

cmyk

xareik wrote: »

Firstly, I think my own fitness efforts have proven to be very successful - despite the fact that I have spent the last 3 years doing precisely the same exercises consistently week after week. (Basically, cardio and strength exercises which are always the same methods - I never vary my workouts)

I am fortunate in the sense that I don't get bored of routines very easily. And even on the rare occasions that bordem is a factor, I continue through it and don't find myself hitting any plateaus.

I still don't understand?

Can you explain the above, it's a pretty strong statement that you've basically improved strength linearly for the last 156 weeks with the same routine?

xareik

cmyk wrote: »

I still don't understand?

Can you explain the above, it's a pretty strong statement that you've basically improved strength linearly for the last 156 weeks with the same routine?

No problem.

Some people suggest that you can't improve your fitness by doing the same types of exercise over and over again. They say you require variety in order to shock your body and continue making progress - I disagree with this.

So for example: I run & I do Chin Ups. I don't do anything else & my workouts contain no variety other than tiredness forcing me to lower the intensity/duration/frequency (or all 3 on occasions)

So basically, if today is strength day.... I do chin ups. Some days I feel great, other days not so great. I adapt the three factors above to suit but I never do anything different for strength.

I have no measurements to give you regarding how much stronger I am, or how fast my progress is... Other than the fact that 3 years ago I could barely do 5 minutes of CU's and now I regularly do up to 1 hour. (I don't count sets or reps - just as many as I can confortably do, then get my breath back for a min or two and go again)

To go from 5 mins to 1 hour is, I think, an impressive improvement over 3 years.

Mostly I would do strength every 3rd day - but that can change sometimes if I feel there is some accumulated fatigue going on.

Some days I might do less than I hour, however usually not less than 30 mins (but of course that's not set in stone as I believe you should always listen to what your body is telling you - I have quit after 10 mins when on occasions when suffering from illness)

But yea, basically I have made considerable improvements over the past 3 years doing nothing but the same 2 exercises!

Clearlier

xareik wrote: »

No problem.

Some people suggest that you can't improve your fitness by doing the same types of exercise over and over again. They say you require variety in order to shock your body and continue making progress - I disagree with this.

This is the crux of what xareik is trying to say. I believe that (s)he has misinterpreted what 'some people' have said. I don't know anybody who thinks this (no doubt there is somebody though). The plateau that is typically referred to relates to doing the same amount and intensity of exercise week after week not doing the same exercises. To get fitter you need to consider your overall training load. It's not an exact science but (unless you overtrain) increasing your training stimulus will lead to an increase in fitness or at least the ability to do the exercises that you are doing.

Mellor

xareik wrote: »

Not exactly... That is a hard question to answer as I'm not a bodybuilder. And that seems like the workouts of a bodybuilder.

Firstly, for me there is far too many exercises there. (just my opinion)

Thats not a routine. It's a list of exercises.
Secondly, its not a list of exercises a bodybuilder would use.

Secondly, what is the goal of the training? To get bigger?

Those of pretty typical strength exercises. I imagine Will was suggesting them for Strength/performance increases.

I chose Chin ups because they pretty much hit most muscles north of the waistline and are nice and hard - so they never stop being challenging. (particularly on days when I attempt up to 1 hour of them)

Chins up don't hit most muscles north of the waist. They basically target your back and maybe biceps (depending on grip) but your chest and triceps are not doing much.

If I wanted to bulk up, it would be very easy... just eat more protein and calories. I don't see much need to target individual muscles as your list would suggest.

None of the exercises on that list target individual muscles. They are all compound moves, just like chin ups.

Targeting particular muscles makes people's bodies look unnatural and out of proportion (imho).

Relevance?

So basically, imo you don't need 20 exercises to get strong. One can be enough if you choose wisely.

Are you forgetting legs?
(Please don't say running builds leg strength)

xareik wrote: »

I have no measurements to give you regarding how much stronger I am, or how fast my progress is... Other than the fact that 3 years ago I could barely do 5 minutes of CU's and now I regularly do up to 1 hour. (I don't count sets or reps - just as many as I can confortably do, then get my breath back for a min or two and go again)

To go from 5 mins to 1 hour is, I think, an impressive improvement over 3 years.

You could be doing 3 chin ups per set or 30 chin ups per set. Taking 1 min rest, or 10 minute rest. So no, "1 hour" on its own isn't impressive, as it is completely unquantified and doesn't tell us anything.

How many can you do in one set?

You must have an idea, even if you don't count. A rough number.
If you absolutely have no idea, then you have no way of knowing if you've improved in the last 12 months. Maybe your just spending a bit longer doing them without improving ability.
You could be in the middle of a year long plateau.

Mellor

Xareik, I think you are misunderstanding the very theory you are trying to discuss.
When you train, your body adapts, that's the whole point of training. Specific adaption to imposed demands.
Over time, adaption will slow and to improve further, quicker, you may need to change use more advanced training.

Basic example. Somebody strength training. Follows a simple linear progressive 5x5 routine. They plateau and reset the loads a few times. After the third time they decided they've milked linear progression for all its worth and switch to Smolov (which is a very dynamic program in its self) and go further.

That's pretty basic sports science. And most lot level guys would follow that.

What you are confusing it with is the idea propagated in glossy magazines that you should "change it up" every few weeks to keep your muscles guessing. In that instance, printed routines are all essentially the same, and equally useless. Changing from one bad routine to another.
The problem with the magazines pieces (and also this thread) is that the person who wrote it didn't understand the theory to begin with.

Will Heffernan

Clearlier wrote: »

This is the crux of what xareik is trying to say. I believe that (s)he has misinterpreted what 'some people' have said. I don't know anybody who thinks this (no doubt there is somebody though). The plateau that is typically referred to relates to doing the same amount and intensity of exercise week after week not doing the same exercises. To get fitter you need to consider your overall training load. It's not an exact science but (unless you overtrain) increasing your training stimulus will lead to an increase in fitness or at least the ability to do the exercises that you are doing.

The crux of what xareik is trying to say is this....that he does a variety of running and does a variety of pull ups and over the last few years he thinks he's got pretty fit and healthy and that he doesn't think he need to do anything else.

Which is just fine. Can you achieve a level of fitness and health from running and doing pull ups....of course you can. If it makes him/her happy then good for them.

As for his post here....he attempted either purposefully or not to start a discussion where there is none.

If he had of said:

Hi my name is xareik and I like running and and doing pull ups and have gotten fit and healthy doing just a mix of these over the last 3 years.

People would of said good for you. All the stuff about plateaus, skill acquisition and the variety of sports he/she mentioned were completely irrelevant and displayed nothing more than a misunderstanding of exercise physiology and the terms in general.

xareik

Clearlier wrote: »

This is the crux of what xareik is trying to say. I believe that (s)he has misinterpreted what 'some people' have said. I don't know anybody who thinks this (no doubt there is somebody though). The plateau that is typically referred to relates to doing the same amount and intensity of exercise week after week not doing the same exercises. To get fitter you need to consider your overall training load. It's not an exact science but (unless you overtrain) increasing your training stimulus will lead to an increase in fitness or at least the ability to do the exercises that you are doing.

No that is not true. There are a huge amount of people who believe exactly what I was suggesting.

CrossFit, for example, has a heavy emphasis on variety and randomness of it's workouts. This is partly to 'keep things interesting', but it is also a philosophy they believe in to avoid the 'plateau effect' of repetitive routines...

I have no doubt that people get fit using CrossFit methods, but I just don't think it has very much to do with the variety in those workouts... It is mostly due to the duration and intensity of those workouts imo.

The Plateau effect, in my experience, is most often a reference to not having enough variety in your workouts (ie completely different exercises)...

This is what I am in disagreement with, not the fairly obvious fact that we all hit periods of stagnation when attempting to get in shape.

That stagnation is NOT because you are doing repetitive movements... it is because your body has started to accumulate fatigue and requires time to recover and adapt. (This is where short & long term rest/recovery planning is essential)

btkm8unsl0w5r4

If you only do the same exercises all the time how do you know you are fit. Fit for what? Is it better to be generally fit at a range of movements and situations or specialised?

xareik

@Mellor


Thats not a routine. It's a list of exercises.
Secondly, its not a list of exercises a bodybuilder would use.

Looks to me like a list that many bodybuilders would use when putting together a routine.



Those of pretty typical strength exercises. I imagine Will was suggesting them for Strength/performance increases.

Bodyweight exercises will ultimately build better and more functional strength than free weights or exercises that only target certain muscle groups...

The best exercises are ones that target many different areas at once. As targeting certain areas builds lobsided strength and poor functionality. (as well as looking unnatural - who looked more natural at their peak fitness level, Bruce Lee or Arnold Schwartznegger?)



Chins up don't hit most muscles north of the waist. They basically target your back and maybe biceps (depending on grip) but your chest and triceps are not doing much.

Respectfully disagree with you on this. They obviously target certain muscles more than others - but they do an excellent job of hitting pretty much every muscle in your upper body imo.


None of the exercises on that list target individual muscles. They are all compound moves, just like chin ups.

Yes they do.


Relevance?


Are you forgetting legs?
(Please don't say running builds leg strength)

Running up hills - does that not target leg strength?

I don't jog either btw... jogging also builds unnatural fitness imo. Anaerobic fitness is far more natural for your body and builds superior fitness.

My running is actually very similar to my CU routine in the sense that I push myself hard for short periods, then recover and go again.


You could be doing 3 chin ups per set or 30 chin ups per set. Taking 1 min rest, or 10 minute rest. So no, "1 hour" on its own isn't impressive, as it is completely unquantified and doesn't tell us anything.

How many can you do in one set?

You must have an idea, even if you don't count. A rough number.
If you absolutely have no idea, then you have no way of knowing if you've improved in the last 12 months. Maybe your just spending a bit longer doing them without improving ability.
You could be in the middle of a year long plateau.

Did you read my comments? I already stated that I rest for a minute or 2... So I'm clearly not taking 10 minutes to get my breath back!

Reps are irrelevant to me. I normally push myself close to failure, but not always. Really depends - there is no great structure to them. And that is part of why it is so successful for me.

Trying to stick rigidly to a certain amount of sets & reps, is simply not compatible with the idea of listening to your body. It is counter productive in that sense...

xareik

Mellor wrote: »

Xareik, I think you are misunderstanding the very theory you are trying to discuss.
When you train, your body adapts, that's the whole point of training. Specific adaption to imposed demands.
Over time, adaption will slow and to improve further, quicker, you may need to change use more advanced training.

Basic example. Somebody strength training. Follows a simple linear progressive 5x5 routine. They plateau and reset the loads a few times. After the third time they decided they've milked linear progression for all its worth and switch to Smolov (which is a very dynamic program in its self) and go further.

That's pretty basic sports science. And most lot level guys would follow that.

What you are confusing it with is the idea propagated in glossy magazines that you should "change it up" every few weeks to keep your muscles guessing. In that instance, printed routines are all essentially the same, and equally useless. Changing from one bad routine to another.
The problem with the magazines pieces (and also this thread) is that the person who wrote it didn't understand the theory to begin with.

No, I think you are misunderstanding my points.

I know your body adapts to stimuli... that is quite obvious.

The point I'm making is that I disagree with the idea that your body gets used to certain types of exercise and stops making progress as a result.

And it is not just "glossy mags" that peddle that notion either btw. Many respected trainers and coaches like to push this idea.

If you misinterpreted my OP, that is fine. I felt it was worded quite clearly. Perhaps you use the word plateau in a different context - but that phrase is quite interchangable and many use it in different ways to suit their points.

xareik

Will Heffernan wrote: »

The crux of what xareik is trying to say is this....that he does a variety of running and does a variety of pull ups and over the last few years he thinks he's got pretty fit and healthy and that he doesn't think he need to do anything else.

Which is just fine. Can you achieve a level of fitness and health from running and doing pull ups....of course you can. If it makes him/her happy then good for them.

As for his post here....he attempted either purposefully or not to start a discussion where there is none.

If he had of said:

Hi my name is xareik and I like running and and doing pull ups and have gotten fit and healthy doing just a mix of these over the last 3 years.

People would of said good for you. All the stuff about plateaus, skill acquisition and the variety of sports he/she mentioned were completely irrelevant and displayed nothing more than a misunderstanding of exercise physiology and the terms in general.

Wrong. I don't use any variety in my workouts - they are the same exercises, performed in the same manner.

When I talk about a lack of variety, I am talking about a lack of alternative exercises... Like people using CrossFit techniques would practice for example.

The whole point of this thread was to dispute the idea that using just 2 exercises repetitively (like running & CU's), your body will eventually stop making progress and essentially plateau (I am using that word in the context which I have read it in articles from respected trainers and coaches)

I think some on here have deliberately chosen to take my OP out of context and interpret it in a way that suited their views. (some perhaps did not do this deliberately)

Does anyone wish to discuss the OP in the context in which it was intended, or just continue to be pedantic?

Mellor

xareik wrote: »

Looks to me like a list that many bodybuilders would use when putting together a routine.

Seriously?
You think many bodybuilders would do snatches and clean & jerks

A lot of what you said after that was also way off the mark.

Hanley

xareik wrote: »

Wrong. I don't use any variety in my workouts - they are the same exercises, performed in the same manner.

When I talk about a lack of variety, I am talking about a lack of alternative exercises... Like people using CrossFit techniques would practice for example.

The whole point of this thread was to dispute the idea that using just 2 exercises repetitively (like running & CU's), your body will eventually stop making progress and essentially plateau (I am using that word in the context which I have read it in articles from respected trainers and coaches)

I think some on here have deliberately chosen to take my OP out of context and interpret it in a way that suited their views. (some perhaps did not do this deliberately)

Does anyone wish to discuss the OP in the context in which it was intended, or just continue to be pedantic?

So your question is ACTUALLY "would anyone like to discuss not using variety in their workouts, but only if you're prepared to discuss "variety" in my very narrow definition of what I believe the word to actually mean"?

No one has taken anything out of context. You've just asked a question that makes no sense.

This thread is about how you define a word. Not about your training program.

The answer is, you can use the same exercises and structure but change how they are delivered and continue to see progress.

xareik

Aurora Breezy Antenna wrote: »

If you only do the same exercises all the time how do you know you are fit. Fit for what? Is it better to be generally fit at a range of movements and situations or specialised?

Actually, the fact I do the same exercises all the time makes it far easier for me to gauge my fitness levels.

Fit for what? Fit for life...

Fit to lift my bodyweight up and down on a bar for an extended period.

Fit to run up a very steep hill several times over and certain period etc...

Let's say I was being chased by a wild animal or a vicious dog... (or a vicious person lol) I have the physical strength to lift my bodyweight up, so I could climb a tree or scale a wall.

I can run fast, so I stand a chance of reaching said tree/wall in the first place! lol

What about the muscle head in the gym lifting dumbells and doing leg extensions. Ok he has bulk and size - but is this actually functional fitness? Could he climb a tree or lift his bodyweight for extended periods. Or run up a hill without having a heart attack?

When you train with the intention of building mass and size, you are essentially just a well sculpted fat guy/girl imo... Alot of that volume is unnatural and useless in real world scenarios.

Btw I'm not saying everyone in a gym is one of those muscle heads... But many would aspire to be in my experience.

I'm just not a big fan of that kind of training... especially the idea of targeting specific muscle groups.

xareik

Mellor wrote: »

A lot of what you said after that was also way off the mark.

No it really wasn't... but go ahead and explain why you think so. (I was expecting a stronger response than that tbh)

xareik

Hanley wrote: »

So your question is ACTUALLY "would anyone like to discuss not using variety in their workouts, but only if you're prepared to discuss "variety" in my very narrow definition of what I believe the word to actually mean"?

No one has taken anything out of context. You've just asked a question that makes no sense.

This thread is about how you define a word. Not about your training program.

The answer is, you can use the same exercises and structure but change how they are delivered and continue to see progress.

No. I was very clear in my OP... Some chose to misinterpret it, deliberately or otherwise.

I explained how many people suggest that lack of variety (we're all clear on what I mean by that now, right?) prevents the body from progressing and improving - and how I disagreed with this notion.

I made that very clear in my OP.

Clearlier

xareik wrote: »

No. I was very clear in my OP... Some chose to misinterpret it, deliberately or otherwise.

I explained how many people suggest that lack of variety (we're all clear on what I mean by that now, right?) prevents the body from progressing and improving - and how I disagreed with this notion.

I made that very clear in my OP.

I don't think that you did make it clear at all, possibly because as a theory it's way out there IMO.

Apparently the people behind the Crossfit thingy are also the ones behind the recently published research saying that too much running is bad for you. They have been fairly widely pilloried and castigated for having an agenda with their research.

To get fitter increase your workload (without overtraining). This can be done by doing more of the same thing or a greater variety of activities. The key is to increase your training workload. This is a position which I understand the majority of posters on this board to hold.

If your post has been misunderstood it is because the original post failed to recognise and thus explain what kind of a straw man was being set up.

If you think that there is a serious discussion to be had here (I don't see how there could be) then I suggest starting a new thread and stating a lot more clearly the position/idea/theory/assumption/supposition that you wish to disagree with.

xareik

Clearlier wrote: »

I don't think that you did make it clear at all, possibly because as a theory it's way out there IMO.

Apparently the people behind the Crossfit thingy are also the ones behind the recently published research saying that too much running is bad for you. They have been fairly widely pilloried and castigated for having an agenda with their research.

To get fitter increase your workload (without overtraining). This can be done by doing more of the same thing or a greater variety of activities. The key is to increase your training workload. This is a position which I understand the majority of posters on this board to hold.

If your post has been misunderstood it is because the original post failed to recognise and thus explain what kind of a straw man was being set up.

If you think that there is a serious discussion to be had here (I don't see how there could be) then I suggest starting a new thread and stating a lot more clearly the position/idea/theory/assumption/supposition that you wish to disagree with.

Tbh I would have to say that too much running (or more specifically, too much endurance running) can be bad for you. And there is some medical studies that have attempted to prove this... Some ultra endurance athletes were shown to have scaring on their hearts, micro fractures in their bones, lower immunity to illness etc...

So I wouldn't completely discount that idea. Just look at how old and drained some famous endurance athletes look... (I know that's not scientific - but my instincts tell me they are not as healthy as some might think)

My post was misunderstood both unintentionally and intentionally. And there is PLENTY to be discussed in what I posted.

If you google the any word combination like "exercise plateau" or similar... the most common description you'll find will be quite similar to the one I have tried to use in this thread.

I have not tried to use that word in any context/definition that is not fequently used by many other people in the world of sport and exercise (many of whom are better qualified than me...)

I feel my OP was well worded and not in any way confusing. Some posters chose to deliberately take a certain word out of context in an attempt to side track any discussion... (quite pedantic & obtuse behaviour really)

btkm8unsl0w5r4

xareik wrote: »

Actually, the fact I do the same exercises all the time makes it far easier for me to gauge my fitness levels.

Fit for what? Fit for life...

Fit to lift my bodyweight up and down on a bar for an extended period.

Fit to run up a very steep hill several times over and certain period etc...

Let's say I was being chased by a wild animal or a vicious dog... (or a vicious person lol) I have the physical strength to lift my bodyweight up, so I could climb a tree or scale a wall.

I can run fast, so I stand a chance of reaching said tree/wall in the first place! lol

What about the muscle head in the gym lifting dumbells and doing leg extensions. Ok he has bulk and size - but is this actually functional fitness? Could he climb a tree or lift his bodyweight for extended periods. Or run up a hill without having a heart attack?

When you train with the intention of building mass and size, you are essentially just a well sculpted fat guy/girl imo... Alot of that volume is unnatural and useless in real world scenarios.

Btw I'm not saying everyone in a gym is one of those muscle heads... But many would aspire to be in my experience.

I'm just not a big fan of that kind of training... especially the idea of targeting specific muscle groups.

What if you had to pick up something heavy off the floor...the dead lifter would be fitter, or push start a car - the bench presser would be stronger, or carry a person on your shoulders the squatter would be fitter. I am being facetious of course, but what I am getting at it that the notion of fitness for purpose depends on your purpose. Buy doing a variety of strength, movement, bodyweight, cardio and other exercises you stand the best chance of being fit for life's challenges.

Clearlier

xareik wrote: »

Tbh I would have to say that too much running (or more specifically, too much endurance running) can be bad for you. And there is some medical studies that have attempted to prove this... Some ultra endurance athletes were shown to have scaring on their hearts, micro fractures in their bones, lower immunity to illness etc...

So I wouldn't completely discount that idea. Just look at how old and drained some famous endurance athletes look... (I know that's not scientific - but my instincts tell me they are not as healthy as some might think)

My post was misunderstood both unintentionally and intentionally. And there is PLENTY to be discussed in what I posted.

If you google the any word combination like "exercise plateau" or similar... the most common description you'll find will be quite similar to the one I have tried to use in this thread.

I have not tried to use that word in any context/definition that is not fequently used by many other people in the world of sport and exercise (many of whom are better qualified than me...)

I feel my OP was well worded and not in any way confusing. Some posters chose to deliberately take a certain word out of context in an attempt to side track any discussion... (quite pedantic & obtuse behaviour really)

I disagree about your original post. It was poorly worded and confusing at many turns and I explained what I believe was the main reason for that. It didn't help that you confused skill with fitness or have an unusual definition of fitness. The very fact that so many people appear to have misunderstood your post and points is in itself evidence that your points were not clearly made (aside of course from the posters you think are deliberately misunderstanding you which while not unheard is quite obtuse in this context).

To go back to your original post (which I now understand better).

Your body does adapt to exercise routines. If you change nothing about those routines including the frequency, duration, intensity, volume then you will plateau. If you change to another exercise whilst maintaining your workload (hard to measure) then you will increase your skill at the new exercise but make no difference to your fitness.

It seems obvious to me that if people reach their genetic limits then they will not be able to increase their fitness as distinct from their skills but perhaps you disagree?

I'll bet that your own fitness routines are largely aerobic in nature. You could also be quite young although this is not necessary.

Re: Professional sports and soccer. You are confusing skill and fitness.

Bruce7

Extracts from the original post

xareik wrote: »

Basically I wanted to discuss the theory that your body adapts to exercise routines and your progress begins to plateau as a result...

I don't agree with this at all

xareik wrote: »

I think the world of professional sport blows this theory out of the water too. Soccer, rugby, tennis, gymnastics... you name it really - they all have the same thing in common ... you must repeat and practice the same movements over and over again until you reach something approaching perfection. And then you keep repeating the process to stay at that level.

xareik

Aurora Breezy Antenna wrote: »

What if you had to pick up something heavy off the floor...the dead lifter would be fitter, or push start a car - the bench presser would be stronger, or carry a person on your shoulders the squatter would be fitter. I am being facetious of course, but what I am getting at it that the notion of fitness for purpose depends on your purpose. Buy doing a variety of strength, movement, bodyweight, cardio and other exercises you stand the best chance of being fit for life's challenges.

I think the workouts I use DO give me all-round fitness tho.

I don't think Chin-ups only allow you to climb a tree... Imo they do a good job of working most/all of my upper body without the need for variety.

The best thing about bodyweight exercises tho, is that they build fitness more naturally. So you don't get lob-sided strength like you would when targeting individual muscle groups.

Some muscle heads would probably take one look at me and think I'm not very strong, as I'm not particularly big. But I carry less than 8% body fat (last time I checked) and would put money on the fact that my muscle strength would far outlast theirs.

I suppose in that earlier example of being chased by something... The muscle head could maybe sit on the animal/person - or maybe eat them! (for extra protein) :P

Alot of people go to extremes with strength training or endurance... Meaning they are building very lob-sided fitness imo. Getting the balance right is important.

I don't think most people in gyms are getting that balance right. Some over train too... And some are undertrained as well. (standing around admiring their bodies in the mirror or relaxing in the sauna)

So, I'm sure you're right about a bench presser having the odd advantage in some cases etc... but overall I think I'd have a more balanced fitness (despite only using 2 exercise types - or perhaps because of this)

papu

Balance...

You can't have a balanced diet eating only two foods , you can't have a balanced body doing only 2 exercises! Pullups are not a complete upperbody exercise!

xareik

Clearlier wrote: »

I disagree about your original post. It was poorly worded and confusing at many turns and I explained what I believe was the main reason for that. It didn't help that you confused skill with fitness or have an unusual definition of fitness. The very fact that so many people appear to have misunderstood your post and points is in itself evidence that your points were not clearly made (aside of course from the posters you think are deliberately misunderstanding you which while not unheard is quite obtuse in this context).

To go back to your original post (which I now understand better).

Your body does adapt to exercise routines. If you change nothing about those routines including the frequency, duration, intensity, volume then you will plateau. If you change to another exercise whilst maintaining your workload (hard to measure) then you will increase your skill at the new exercise but make no difference to your fitness.

It seems obvious to me that if people reach their genetic limits then they will not be able to increase their fitness as distinct from their skills but perhaps you disagree?

I'll bet that your own fitness routines are largely aerobic in nature. You could also be quite young although this is not necessary.

Re: Professional sports and soccer. You are confusing skill and fitness.

You are entitled to that opinion, but as I stated, if you google "exercise plateau" I think you will find a large quantity of articles that define this plateau in a very similar way to my definition...

I didn't confuse skill with fitness. In a sense both are related anyway tho... As you repeat a skill you get better at it.

Playing football you repeat certain movements (skill is obviously a part of those movements - but only a part) The actual movements generally speaking are basically the same in each match. You sprint, jog, walk, jump etc...

I was not referring to duration, frequency or intensity as any form of significant variety in a given workout - and I think people understood that.

I was referring to the common perception that a lack of variety in exercise type, can lead to a plateau effect. (which IS a very common interpretation)

I disagree with THAT perception.

Genetic limits..? Tbh I see that as a bit of a non-issue. Is it possible - sure probably. But how many people realistically get to that point in their life?

Do I have a genetic limit with CU's or running..? Possibly, but I'm unlikely to ever find out... And even if I did, I would have reached amazing fitness level - so I think i'd be quite content to maintain that level for as long as possible!

My routines are mostly anaerobic in nature actually... Have you ever tried doing hill sprints up a short steep hill? I've seen joggers trying to run up some of the hills where I sprint and they are basically going so slow, they might as well be walking up the hill - because they sure ain't running imo! lol

runawaybishop

xareik wrote: »

I don't think Chin-ups only allow you to climb a tree... Imo they do a good job of working most/all of my upper body without the need for variety.

Adding IMO to a statement doesn't make it any less false.

xareik

papu wrote: »

Balance...

You can't have a balanced diet eating only two foods , you can't have a balanced body doing only 2 exercises! Pullups are not a complete upperbody exercise!

I disagree... it very much depends on the exercises in question.

CU's are as close to a full upper body workout as one can get. I know this because when I go a week or two without doing any (if I'm sick or injured)... the day after I do them again - most muscles in my upper body are sore!

People who only do a few of them as part of their overall routine, might not feel this... But when you do the sheer volume I do sometimes, it's noticable.

I don't get that pain when I do them regularly tho...

Hanley

Found the answer.

xareik

Hanley wrote: »

Found the answer.

Very funny Hanley.

I'm not trying to convert people to my way of exercising...

Although if a picture indeed does paint a thousand words, then the physique I've built just using 2 workouts would probably convince alot more people than anything I could ever write on here.

But I doubt many could tolerate what I do anyway, as it would be very boring and repetitive from most people.

I'm actually amazed myself at what I've managed to achieve, considering how many so-called "professionals" would take one look at my routine and laugh at it...

But then mine is far from an isolated example of how this kind of simplistic approach can work. Inmates stuck on death row and 23-hour lock down have been known to build great physiques with nothing more than 2 or 3 exercises repeated over and over!

runawaybishop

xareik wrote: »

Inmates stuck on death row and 23-hour lock down have been known to build great physiques with nothing more than 2 or 3 exercises repeated over and over!

3 exercises is 3 times more than you are doing.

xareik

runawaybishop wrote: »

3 exercises is 3 times more than you are doing.

So, math clearly isn't your strong point then..!? :rolleyes:

runawaybishop

xareik wrote: »

So, math clearly isn't your strong point then..!? :rolleyes:

You do one strength exercise. Rolleyes yourself.

Antisocialiser

xareik wrote: »

Although if a picture indeed does paint a thousand words, then the physique I've built just using 2 workouts would probably convince alot more people than anything I could ever write on here.

Can you post a picture please?