Question:

How long should I rest between exercises?

Answer:

It depends on your goals and your current level of conditioning.

If you’re just starting out I recommend resting just long enough after an exercise to not feel winded when starting the next. Depending on your condition you may not feel winded at all, especially since your focus during the first few weeks should be on learning and practicing proper form rather than training intensely. However, as you become more skilled, learn to train more intensely, and gradually use more resistance you will start to experience a greater metabolic and cardiovascular demand, especially during compound exercises involving large muscle groups.

At this point, if you are only concerned with increasing muscular strength and size it probably makes little difference whether you rest a few minutes between exercises or rush from one to the next. I’ve worked out and trained clients both ways with good results.

If you want to maximally improve overall functional ability including cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning you should attempt to progressively reduce the time you rest between exercises until you are able to move from one to the next with only a few seconds in between. Research on sprint interval training shows is possible to improve cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning with work intervals similar to typical high intensity training set durations and longer rest intervals (around four minutes), however the shorter the rest interval the more effective the stimulus should be for improvement.

This might seem counterproductive for strength and size increases because the more rapid systemic fatigue with shorter rest intervals reduces the resistance you can use for subsequent exercises, however keep in mind those have more to do with relative effort than absolute load. Also consider that as your metabolic conditioning improves systemic fatigue becomes less of a limiting factor. If you are still concerned about load you can mitigate the effects of local muscular fatigue somewhat by alternating exercises for different muscle groups. With very short rest periods I recommend alternating compound pulling movements with other exercises to minimize the effect on your grip.

Unfortunately, unless you have a home gym with enough equipment to set everything up in advance,work out in a private training studio, or only go to the gym during off-peak hours it isn’t always possible to move quickly between exercises. Fortunately, there are a few ways around this.

If you have a training partner they can set up your next exercise so you can start it right after the one you’re doing, as long as you don’t need them there to spot you. If the equipment you need for the next exercise in your workout is in use they can determine which other exercise to do next based on available equipment and set that up, so you don’t have to take the time to look around and decide and can stay focused on your workout. If you use a barbell or plateloaded machine they can also go back and put the plates away when you’re done.

If you don’t have a training partner and can’t get to the gym during slower hours but want to emphasize metabolic conditioning you can minimize rest between exercises by performing two or three circuits of a three or four exercises that can be performed on or around one piece of equipment or a few that can be positioned right next to each other. A popular high intensity training version of this is the 3×3 (“three by three”) workout which consists of three circuits of three compound exercises performed non-stop.

A 3×3 HIT workout at home: shrug bar deadlifts, chin ups, push ups

If the equipment at your gym is laid out for full-body circuits this is easier, but many gyms organize equipment into groups based on the muscles worked because of the popularity of split routines. If this is the case the best option is often to set up in front of a chin up and dip station or a power rack with a chinning bar and a barbell or dumbbells. While occupying the same few pieces of equipment for fifteen minutes might be considered poor gym etiquette, it wouldn’t be necessary if gyms provided adequate equipment and enforced policies preventing people from tying up other equipment preventing people from training efficiently.

The following are examples of  three 3×3 workouts with different equipment set ups:

Power rack with chin up bar and barbell:

1. Squat
2. Chin Up
3. Push Up

Position the hooks so the bar is out of the way for chin ups, and stop short of failure on the first two sets of squats so you can re-rack it on the hooks. Do the push ups inside the squat rack so people will know you are still using it.

Chin up and dip station and barbell, dumbbells or shrug bar:

1. Deadlift
2. Dip
3. Chin Up

Set the bar or dumbbells directly in front of the chin up and dip station so you can quickly move from one to the next and so people can’t cut in on the station while you’re deadlifting. If you perform the deadlift with dumbbells do so facing the chin up/dip station. If you use a barbell face away so you do not have to step over it going to the dips.

With another barbell or set of dumbbells you could substitute rows for the pulling exercise and/or overhead presses for the pushing exercise.

Dumbbells:

1. Squat
2. Row
3. Push Up

Depending on your level of strength you can do the squats with only bodyweight or dumbbells. Most people underestimate them, but when performed correctly bodyweight squats are extremely challenging. If you think you need a large amount of weight to squat effectively you don’t know how.

Consider these routines are typically done with moderate repetition speeds and ranges and the individual sets often last around 60 to 90 seconds. A similar effect can also be achieved performing only one circuit of a few exercises using much slower reps and a a higher time under load, although above some TUL I suspect the effectiveness for strength and size increases might be compromised. This is less ideal than performing a workout with separate exercises which more effectively target different muscle groups.

Realize the 3×3 is not ideal. It compromises the effectiveness of the workout for individual muscle groups by limiting the number of exercises for the sake of minimizing rest time to emphasize metabolic conditioning. If you decide to do these I suggest alternating them with regular workouts performing only one set of different exercises covering all the major muscle groups.

If you don’t want to compromise either go to the gym during off-peak hours when you can set up your equipment ahead of time or wait less for equipment, or set up a home gym with enough equipment that you can move between exercises with minimal adjustments or plate changes. One way to minimize the equipment required and maximize space is to get extra sets of collars for each barbell and load a single barbell for multiple exercises. For example, if you are going to use the same bar for rows and curls, load the weight you will use for curls first, put on the collars, then load the additional weight required for rows. When it’s time to do curls you only have to remove the weight from the rows and you’re set to go.

If you’re really pressed for space my UXS bodyweight multi-exercise station was designed with these kinds of workouts in mind, and since it requires no adjustment other than to open or close the roller pad arm on the new design for chin ups you can move between any of over two dozen exercises in seconds. An example of a full-body routine that could be performed entirely on the new UXS is:

1. Knee Flexion
2. Knee Extension
3. Squat
4. Chin Up
   
5. Dip OR Push Up
6. Inverted Row
7. Shoulder Press Up OR Handstand Push Up (regular or “half”)
8. Inverted Curl OR TSC Arm Curl
9. Triceps Press Up OR TSC Triceps Extension
10. Heel Raise

Lastly, for more advanced trainees capable of working at a very high level of intensity it is common to experience dizziness, light-headedness, and nausea when moving quickly between exercises. If you begin to experience any of these wait until they subside before moving on to your next exercise. While some view puking or passing out as a badge of honor and proof of their commitment to going all-out during their workouts it is not necessary and puts you at unnecessary risk. Also, while they might be impressed with your effort, most gym and studio owners do not appreciate people who puke every time they work out.

How much exercise you should do and how often depends on several factors. Due to genetic differences individuals vary in how much of any kind of physical stress their bodies can tolerate within some time period, and how quickly they recover from and adapt to it. This is also heavily influenced by your diet, how much sleep you get, and other stresses including the demands of your job and other activities. All else being equal, someone with a desk job who does a few hours of light recreational activity a few days a week can train longer and more frequently without overtraining than someone who has a very physically demanding job or does several hours of hard athletic training most days of the week.

Your goals must also be considered because some aspects of recovery may require more or less time than others, some adaptations may be produced or lost more slowly or quickly, and some goals may benefit from the acute effects of exercise thus more frequent training. For example, the optimal frequency for improving metabolic conditioning may be higher than for improving muscular strength and size for some individuals, so one might train with more or less volume or frequency depending on their priorities.

Fortunately, although the range of volume and frequency that is optimal for any particular goal (produces the fastest possible improvement) may be narrow (and is also a moving target since it is affected by many other non-constant variables), the range that is effective (produces consistent, measurable or noticeable improvement) is a bit broader, so for most people it is not necessary to fuss too much over it. If the requirements for effectively stimulating improvements in functional ability were too precise the adaptive responses would have been of no survival value and not have evolved.

My contest preparation workout charts from spring 1995

As long as you train consistently and with a high level of effort very little exercise is required for good results. Minimally, you need to perform one set each of enough exercises to work all the major muscle groups (those involved in gross body movement as opposed to fine movements of the hands, fingers, feet, toes, mouth, etc.), and work out just frequently enough that you do not allow any improvements produced in response to the workout to be lost due to detraining. Considering clients consistently match or exceed their previous workout performance after being gone for a month or more due to work or vacations I suspect the minimum effective frequency for most people is very, very low. As your workout volume and frequency increases you will very quickly hit a point of diminishing returns; research shows no significant differences in strength increases between performing single and multiple sets of an exercise and little difference in results between training once, twice, or three times per week.

I recommend twice-weekly full body workouts as a starting point for most people because beginners usually don’t train hard enough to get as much out of less training and the higher frequency benefits learning and skill practice and neural adaptations, and once a trainee has become more skilled and capable of training more intensely it isn’t too much for most people to recover from and adapt to. That being said, for the majority of people just one, brief full-body workout a week is effective as long as they are training hard enough.

Diminishing returns is not the same as no returns, however, and while for most of people it makes little sense to invest fifty to one hundred percent more time and effort for only a few percent more improvement over weeks or months, for a few it does. If you are a competitive athlete or work in a profession where your life or the lives of others may depend on your physical capabilities a small percent can make a big difference. If you want to improve as quickly as possible you have to go past the point of diminishing returns to the point where any further training results in a reduction in progress, but no further. You must also optimize your eating, sleep, and other factors influencing response to exercise.

The principles for determining it are the same; keep accurate records of your workout performance and other goal specific measurements and other factors affecting your response to exercise for regular evaluation. Gradually adjust your training volume upwards (primarily frequency, you only need so many exercises to effectively hit all the major muscle groups) while paying very close attention to your rate of progress. When you reach a point where you begin to see a reduction in rate of progress, take a brief layoff to allow for full recovery, then resume training at the volume and frequency which produced the fastest improvement.

I think most people will be surprised to find this is still much lower than what is typically recommended, especially when it is combined with intense physical athletic or work training. I suspect most people will find a frequency of once every three to four days, around twice-weekly, to be as much as necessary for optimal results, and that in most cases doing more will result in slower rather than faster improvement if they really are training intensely. And, while there will be a few “fast responders” who do better with more there will probably be even more “hard gainers” who require significantly less volume and frequency just to avoid overtraining.

Keep in mind all of this assumes you are training as hard as possible. Your results have far more to do with the effort you put into your training than the volume and frequency of your workouts and you can not make up for a lack of effort by doing more work.

One of the most important things to take away from this is, no matter how little free time you have you can exercise long enough and often enough to get worthwhile results, because very little volume and frequency is required for an exercise program to be effective. A lot of people believe you need to work out most days of the week for an hour or more to get something out of it and that if they aren’t willing to commit to that kind of schedule they might as well not bother, but that’s simply not true. You do have to commit to training  hard, progressively, and consistently if you want results, but you absolutely do not have to spend several hours a week exercising to get something out of it, much less live in the gym like some people do.

Each of the following workouts effectively works all the major muscle groups and requires less than twenty minutes to complete if you move quickly between exercises. Most people can get good results doing this just once a week, but I recommend twice as a starting point if you are able. If you are really pressed for time, you can even shorten it to just the first six exercises in each workout and still effectively work all the major muscle groups in the body.

Machines

1. Leg Press
2. Pull Down
3. Chest Press
4. Compound Row
5. Overhead Press
6. Trunk Extension
7. Trunk Flexion
8. Heel Raise
9. TSC Neck Extension
10. TSC Neck Flexion

Free Weights

1. Squat
2. Pullover (or Chin Up)
3. Bench Press
4. Bent Row
5. Standing Press
6. Stiff Legged Deadlift
7. Push Crunch
8. Heel Raise
9. TSC Neck Extension
10. TSC Neck Flexion

Bodyweight-Only

1. Squat
2. Chin Up
3. Push Up or Dip
4. Inverted Row
5. Shoulder Press Up or Handstand Push UP
6. Prone Trunk Extension
7. Crunch
8. Heel Raise
9. TSC Neck Extension
10. TSC Neck Flexion

Last week while driving to Melbourne, Florida with my brother Wil for a friend’s bachelor party we started talking about politics. Melbourne is about an hour and a half long drive from Orlando, and the discussion segued from politics to personal responsibility, to health care, to nutrition and diet, to disciplined eating and deferring gratification. While talking about ways people could improve their self discipline and make better choices, Wil suggested that before you do something you should consider whether if your future self were standing there watching would they give you a high five or look at you disapprovingly and say, “What the fuck?!”

This reminded me of a scene in the movie Timecop starring Jean Claude Van Damme where the villain, Senator Aaron McComb, illegally travels back in time to warn his younger self to not sell his share of a company whose microchip will earn him billions of dollars. During the scene McComb says to his younger, leaner self, “…will you do me a favor? Will you lay off the fucking candy bars?”

The next time you are tempted to choose the momentary enjoyment of consuming too much of a favorite food or drink when it is counterproductive for your long term goals, imagine your fatter, sloppier future self looking at you disapprovingly, saying, “What the fuck?!” When you resist that temptation imagine your leaner, better looking future self raising their hand to give you a high five.

The next time you’re doing an exercise and your muscles are on fire, your heart is pounding so hard you hear it echoing in your skull, and you’re gasping for breath and you’re tempted to quit instead of giving your best effort, imaging your smaller, weaker self looking at you disapprovingly, saying “What the fuck?!” When you resist that temptation and continue to work through it, imagine your bigger, stronger self smiling and nodding approvingly (because you don’t high five someone doing an exercise).

The recent review by James Fisher, James Steele, Stewart Bruce-Low and Dave Smith should be on the “must read” list for everyone with an interest in exercise. In fact, you should download and read it before you read the rest of this post which is the fourth of several commentaries I will be writing on their review.

Click here to read part 1 on anti-HIT bias, intensity and one rep max testing

Click here to read part 2 on momentary muscular failure

Click here to read part 3 on rating of perceived exertion and load and repetition range

Click here to read part 4 on muscular endurance

Resistance Types, Free Weights and Machines

Over the past twenty years I have used and trained people with free weights, body weight, manual resistance, and a variety of plate-loaded, selectorized, and motorized machines, including some of the best and worst ever made. While each has it’s advantages and disadvantages and I have my preferences, in my experience how you train is far more important than the equipment you use. As long as you train hard, progressively, and consistently you can get good results using any of them. This isn’t just my experience or opinion, though. The Free Weights and Machines section of the paper begins,

Research has reported no significant difference in strength gains between groups training on resistance machines and undertaking free weight exercises [77-79]. Other research has utilized a leg extension machine but compared variable to constant resistance (by switching between a cam and a circular disc), once again reporting no significant difference in the strength increases between groups [80].

Whatever advantages different types of equipment may have, none can claim to produce better general strength gains (as opposed exercise specific skill improvements, which many people tend to confuse for increases in strength).

Contrary to the claims of free weight proponents the additional balance required during free weight exercises does not increase neural activation and exercise effectiveness.  One study mentioned showed force production in the target muscles may even be reduced when additional balance is required. It is also important to note that balance is not a general skill but specific to particular postures and movements, and improving the skill of maintaining balance during a free weight exercise does not transfer to improved balance in other activities.

Contrary to the claims of many machine proponents the balanced variable resistance provided by some machines may not provide better strength increases than constant resistance, or by extension other equipment and modalities which provide less “congruent” resistance curves (read Constant vs Variable Resistance Knee Extension Training). Some might argue either the repetition speed was too fast for meaningful loading with any cam (subjects followed the traditional Nautilus protocol of a two second lifting and four second lowering cadence) or the cam used wasn’t actually properly balanced to the resistance curve (they used a Nautilus Leg Extension machine which some people believe doesn’t provide enough of a resistance “fall-off” towards the end point when used with controlled speeds), or both. Speed of movement does affect resistance curve requirements – the faster the speed the less resistance needs to fall off because the extra is necessary to balance out the additional kinetic energy imparted during positive acceleration at the start of the positive.

The theory that using a machine or exercise technique which balances the resistance to the strength of the muscles over the full range of joint motion of an exercise is more effective is based on several premises. It is assumed that strength gains are specific to the positions or portions of the range of motion trained. It is assumed that continuous loading results in more efficient inroad thus faster motor unit recruitment, greater  metabolic demand, and more efficient achievement of momentary muscular failure (100% intensity). The effectiveness of isometrics and rest-pause training throws a huge wrench in this.

I’ve read different studies on isometrics which show a range of specificity of strength gains from within around fifteen to twenty degrees of the position trained to full range of motion. Some times the results varied significantly between individuals within a study. Based on my experiences with various isometric protocols over the years, including Mike Mentzer’s static holds, John Little’s static contraction training and Max Contraction, and Ken Hutchins timed static contraction, I believe strength gains from isometrics result in full range strength increases in most exercises. The exceptions might be exercises where the relative involvement of different muscle groups varies considerably over the full range of the exercise if the isometric exercise isn’t performed in a position where the majority of these are significantly involved. Even if this is the case for some exercises, as long as the overall routine effectively addresses all the major muscle groups it shouldn’t be a problem. I suspect the specificity has more to do with skill in the specific exercise performed and testing equipment and that if a muscle gets stronger in any position, it is proportionally stronger in all positions in general task performance.

Training on a RenEx Compound Row machine with adjustable cam timing

I’ve had good results with rest-pause training and in an identical twin experiment I performed the twin who did rest-pause had a slightly greater strength increase than the one doing continuous repetitions. Unloading and resting the target muscles between repetitions didn’t hurt her progress at all. You can’t say it’s less effective. The only thing that might be considered a negative is significantly more weight is required to achieve momentary muscular failure with the same number of repetitions or in a similar duration, and this could be considered less efficient and also increases the stress on all the tissues involved (which is an important concern when you are working with frail or injured subjects).

We don’t need perfectly balanced variable resistance. We don’t need continuous muscular loading. While these things might provide an advantage over the long run in terms of efficiency or rate of progress it appears to be possible to achieve equally good results without them. Perhaps this is because as long as the effort is high enough and the load is adequate to achieve momentary muscular failure within a reasonable time frame it all averages out? Like many factors, there is probably a point of diminishing returns beyond which these things stop making a difference. Maybe, as long as the cam or technique used provides a resistance curve that roughly approximates the strength curve without any huge sticking points that’s all we need?

This doesn’t mean I don’t think there are advantages to training with properly designed machines. Since I plan to write a lot more about this elsewhere I’m not going to go into it in detail here, but a properly designed machine allows you to train more safely and more efficiently, and some muscles can only be worked directly with machines which is necessary when working with certain injuries, conditions, and physical limitations. I prefer machines for these and many other reasons. When it really comes down to it though, like I’ve been saying all along, how you train is far more important than the equipment you use.

Last Friday as I was finishing my workout another trainer who rents from the gym came in with three obese clients. She led them right past the MedX machines, past the barbells and dumbbells, had them pick up sledgehammers, then took them outside behind the building. One of the bay doors was open, so I walked over to get a closer look at what she had them doing. I expected something stupid, but what I saw shocked me.

All three were standing around the same tire swinging sledgehammers at it. Having obese people in obviously poor condition performing hard physical work in the hot sun is stupid. Sledgehammer training is stupid. Having people swing any hard, heavy object while standing as close to one another as they were is really stupid. If one of them lost their grip or balance the situation could have very quickly gone from stupidity to tragedy. If you have three obese people standing outside in the hot sun around the same tire swinging sledgehammers at it you have no business training anyone.

Sledgehammers: great for breaking up concrete or pounding fence posts, NOT for exercise.

There are three rules every trainee or personal trainer should follow and this breaks all of them.

1. Do what works best for each individual and their goals

Use the most effective methods and tools available for yours or your clients’ goals. Not what is popular, trendy, or fun. Not what they think they need because their friends or some celebrity, athlete, or television doctor or “trainer” recommends it.  What matters most is whether and how well it works.

Proponents claim sledgehammer training is an effective way to improve metabolic and cardiovascular conditioning, core strength, and grip and forearm strength. However, since it does not provide relatively balanced, continuous loading for any of the muscles involved it is relatively inefficient and ineffective for all of these goals. Chin ups or close, underhand-grip pull downs and deadlifts or trunk extensions and compound rows would be far more effective and allow for more efficient resistance progression.

There is no general factor of functional ability, health, or physical appearance that can’t be improved more effectively by proper training with conventional bodyweight, free weight and machine exercises. If you have some empty floor space and a chin up bar, an adjustable barbell or dumbbells, or a basic line of decent machines, you have no reason to swing sledgehammers or kettlebells, flip tires, drag sleds, throw medicine balls, lift sandbags, wave ropes, do Olympic lifting or plyometrics, balance on Bosu balls or wobble boards, or any similar nonsense.

It makes no sense for that “trainer” to have those people swinging sledgehammers at a tire when there are barbells, dumbbells, and MedX  machines inside the building only a few feet away.

2. Don’t hurt anyone

All else being equal, use the safest methods and tools available.

A major goal of any exercise program should be to improve your long term health and functional ability. Obviously, getting injured or putting a lot of unnecessary wear and tear on your body is counterproductive to this. While any physically demanding activity carries some risk of injury and causes some wear, when done properly and with proper equipment exercise is one of the safest and least damaging things you can do.

To minimize the risk of injury during exercise it is necessary to move in a slow and controlled manner to avoid rapid acceleration and positions where the involved tissues might be excessively stretched or compressed so the force the body encounters stays within safe levels. This means lifting and lowering the weights or your body under strict control, not swinging, flipping, throwing, yanking, jerking, bouncing, etc.

Any exercise that requires a weight or the body to be swung, jerked, etc. should be avoided. Whatever muscles are involved can be trained more safely and effectively with an exercise which can be performed with a strict lifting and lowering movement.

Having people perform any exercise that involves people swinging or throwing any heavy weight within arms reach of another person is almost unbelievably stupid and if you tell people to do this you deserve to be punched in the face.

3. Don’t waste time

All else being equal, use the most efficient methods and tools available.

If you have a choice between different methods and tools which are similarly safe and effective, choose the one that makes the most economical use of your resources. You have a limited amount of time, money, and space, and life is too short and there are too many worthwhile things to do to waste any of them.

If you are a personal trainer, respect your clients’ time and money as well and don’t waste it. Don’t tell them to work out for an hour three or four times a week when they can get the same or better results training less than half an hour once or twice weekly. Don’t charge them for an hour, and have them spend half of that or more doing things they could have done just as well without your supervision or instruction or don’t need or benefit from (like warming up on a “cardio” machine for fifteen minutes or doing fifteen to twenty minutes of “core” work).

Be flexible, but don’t compromise results, safety, or efficiency.

Individual goals, health and functional ability, and response to exercise varies. Constraints like scheduling, space, and available equipment varies. Although the principles of effective exercise are the same for everyone there is a lot of flexibility in how they can and should be applied based on these things. Exercise programming needs to fit the individual, not the other way around. As Ryan Hall put it in his 2005 Indy High Intensity Training Seminar presentation on genetics and individual variability in response to exercise, “…all cookie-cutter programs are null and void”.

This flexibility should exist within an objective framework, though, which in addition to being based on evidence of what does and does not work prioritizes results, safety, and efficiency. Treat everyone as an individual, but use what works best for them and don’t hurt anyone or waste their time.

Update: I forgot to mention although sledgehammers should not be swung for exercise, they are well suited to and can be used safely and effectively for strengthening the grip and forearm in wrist adduction and abduction when lifted and lowered in a slow and controlled manner. Systematic resistance progression in these exercises can be achieved by adjusting the distance of the grip from the head of the hammer, with the distance in inches or centimeters marked along the handle.

The recent review by James Fisher, James Steele, Stewart Bruce-Low and Dave Smith should be on the “must read” list for everyone with an interest in exercise. In fact, you should download and read it before you read the rest of this post which is the fourth of several commentaries I will be writing on their review.

Click here to read part 1 on anti-HIT bias, intensity and one rep max testing

Click here to read part 2 on momentary muscular failure

Click here to read part 3 on rating of perceived exertion and load and repetition range

Muscular Endurance

Over forty years ago in Nautilus Training Principles Bulletin Number 1, Chapter 15, Arthur Jones wrote,

There is no slightest evidence which indicates a difference between strength and endurance; accurately measuring one of these factors clearly indicates the existing level of the other. That is to say; if you know how much endurance a man has, then you should also know how strong he is – or vice versa. But such a relationship between strength and endurance is only meaningful in individual cases; it does not hold true for the purpose of comparing one individual to that of another – thus you cannot fairly compare one man’s endurance to another man’s strength. Secondly, I am using the term “endurance” only in the sense of “muscular endurance”, the ability of a muscle to perform repeatedly under a particular load – I am not momentarily concerned with cardiovascular endurance, which is an entirely different matter.

and

By training for endurance, increases in strength are produced in direct proportion to increases in endurance – and vice versa.

The majority of studies on muscular endurance performed since confirms this. Muscular strength and endurance are related. If you become stronger in an exercise you will be able to perform more repetitions with a specific amount of weight or perform some task involving the same muscles longer or more times because it requires a smaller percentage of your strength to do so.

For example, you can complete many more repetitions of an exercise with a quarter of your one repetition maximum (1RM) than with half. If you double your strength the amount of weight that used to be half of your 1RM will now be only a quarter and you will be able to complete many more repetitions with it than you could previously.

Relative muscular endurance – the ratio of muscular strength to endurance – appears to be largely genetically dictated and not trainable. If you become stronger you will be able to perform more repetitions with some absolute weight, but all else being equal the number of repetitions you can perform with an amount of weight relative your 1RM will be around the same.

Suppose when you started doing an exercise your 1RM was one hundred pounds. At the time you could perform a certain number of repetitions with seventy pounds, or seventy percent of your 1RM (which is a measure of relative load, and not intensity, as discussed in part 1). If you increase your 1RM for that exercise to two hundred pounds you will be able to perform many more repetitions with seventy pounds because it is now only thirty five percent of your 1RM (absolute muscular endurance), but you will be able to perform around the same number of repetitions with seventy percent of your 1RM as when you started (relative muscular endurance).

I wrote “all else being equal” above because there are other factors which can affect this, neural adaptations and skill being big ones. This is part of the reason muscular strength increases may not always appear to translate into muscular endurance increases when comparing workout performance with other activities. As you practice and improve a particular athletic or vocational skill your movement will become more economical, resulting in less wasted energy and reduced rate of fatigue. This will result in a greater improvement in endurance than would come from muscular strength increases alone.

What does this mean in practical terms? If you want to improve your general muscular endurance you should focus on becoming stronger and use a repetition range that works well for you for that purpose. You could also do this by performing more repetitions with less weight, however it is not necessary to do so. If you want to improve your muscular endurance in a specific activity focus on both becoming stronger and improving your skill in that activity.

Part 5: Resistance Types

The recent review by James Fisher, James Steele, Stewart Bruce-Low and Dave Smith should be on the “must read” list for everyone with an interest in exercise. In fact, you should download and read it before you read the rest of this post which is the third of several commentaries I will be writing on their review.

Click here to read part 1 on anti-HIT bias, intensity and one rep max testing

Click here to read part 2 on momentary muscular failure

Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE)

In addition to the problems with the designs of studies comparing RPE between different repetition methods and load and repetition combinations, its subjectivity makes RPE a poor choice for measuring intensity. The perception of intensity is relative, and even training to momentary muscular failure (maximum possible intensity) will be perceived differently between those who are and aren’t accustomed to it.

Even if it is a poor measure of intensity I have found RPE to be useful for determining the starting resistance for new trainees. When teaching a new exercise I purposefully set the starting resistance at what I estimate to be low. After going over proper performance and having the subject perform a few repetitions I instruct them to stop and unload or transfer the weight back to me and ask them to rate the difficulty of those reps on a scale of one to ten, with one being so easy it barely requires any effort and ten being so hard it can barely be done with a maximum effort. Depending on their answers I will increase or decrease the weight until they perceive it as being about a “five” or only moderately hard, since when learning a new exercise I want them to focus on doing it correctly rather than doing it intensely.

Since I do not perform or recommend one repetition maximum testing to determine starting resistance and the initial selection doesn’t have to be precise RPE is practical for this purpose.

Load and Repetition Range

Research shows a wide variety of repetition ranges can be used to effectively improve muscular strength, however some individuals may respond better to higher or lower ranges or set durations based on genetic factors such as predominant muscle fiber types. There is no validity to claims like those made by the proponents of periodization and similar training approaches that different set and rep ranges are required to improve different types of muscular strength or strength versus hypertrophy. Rather, as you get stronger all of these things improve proportionally (muscular endurance, speed, size, etc.), in a ratio that is mostly genetically dictated.

Other factors to consider include safety and bone density. If set duration is too short the resistance required may be too high for the subject to use with adequately strict form. If set duration is too long the resistance may be too low to stimulate meaningful improvements in bone density.

Note I wrote “set duration” and not “repetition range”. It is important to distinguish between the two since the duration of a set of a certain number of repetitions can vary considerably depending on the repetition speed. As I mentioned in Thoughts On Relative Volume Of Single And Multi-Set Workouts, “Most exercise research . . . doesn’t specify or standardize repetition cadence, and when it does it is usually not supervised and timed to ensure strict compliance. Instead, subjects are often self-supervised and most people without proper instruction will use relatively poor form, moving in a fast and sloppy manner not representative of what is often recommended for high intensity training.”

Unless a paper states otherwise I assume the reps were performed at typically fast speeds and the resulting sets are of relatively short duration. This is important to consider when extrapolating the results of these studies to prescriptions for exercises performed at the slower cadences typical of high intensity training protocols.

Higher rep ranges may be prudent for exercises like squats and deadlifts

My personal preference is to use a moderate repetition range with most subjects after the initial learning stage; six to ten repetitions at a 4/2/4 cadence. This results in set durations of approximately 60 to 90 seconds which seems to be a good, conservative starting point for most people.

I do not recommend the method Darden uses to determine repetition range based on a fatigue response test mentioned in the paper due to the problems with one repetition maximum testing discussed in part 1. Instead, I prefer to start with a moderate range and adjust it based on individual response. I have observed subjects who tend to respond better to lower repetition ranges have difficulty progressing beyond some range but are able to consistently perform within it with small resistance increases, while subjects who tend to respond better to higher repetition ranges have difficulty staying within a range with small resistance increases unless it is higher.

Part 4: Muscular Endurance

The studio I train at rents to several other personal trainers, and while most of them are okay there are a few who have no idea what they’re doing. I usually ignore them, but last week during a session I overheard one start training her client on the overhead press behind me and was surprised to hear what sounded like cadence counting. Her instructing and the form her clients usually demonstrate is horrible, so I was happy to hear her trying to do something right even if her cadence was a little too fast.

Then I realized she wasn’t counting cadence; she was counting repetitions. More than one per second.

The only reason I didn’t notice at first was her client wasn’t performing the exercise with a full range of motion and starting each rep at bottom-out, which is a good thing because on subsequent exercises when he did he allowed the weight stack to slam down. From what I was able to observe she had him perform at least three sets of each exercise, and the more he did the worse his form became. Her client was rushing through a full set in less time than my client spent performing only two repetitions.

A few years ago I recorded one of my clients workouts at the house, during which I bumped my head on the Nautilus OME while standing after loading a barbell on the floor near it. Afterwards I was watching the video on fast-forward looking for the part where I screwed up to see if it was obvious and noticed even when viewed at four times normal speed Joe appeared to be moving more slowly and with better control than most people you see in the gym.

I’ve trained people who previously did CrossFit or similar programs emphasizing fast movement and a high volume of mechanical work over quality or efficiency of muscular loading. They always comment on how much harder an exercise is when done at a slow, controlled pace. While part of the increase in difficulty has to do with moving in a manner that more effectively loads the targeted muscles, a lot of it has to do with the longer duration. All else being equal, it is harder to perform ten eight-second repetitions than ten one or two-second repetitions simply because of the longer time under load.

This is one of the biggest problems when comparing single and multiple set programs or discussing single versus multiple sets with most trainees; most people have a very different idea of a set than the kind of strict, slow, controlled form involved in most high intensity training protocols.

Before even thinking about comparing the effectiveness of a different number of sets it is necessary to determine the most effective style of performance.  Otherwise you’re just comparing the relative effectiveness of doing it very poorly one or more times.

Most exercise research on single versus multiple sets doesn’t specify or standardize repetition cadence, and when it does it is usually not supervised and timed to ensure strict compliance. Instead, subjects are often self-supervised and most people without proper instruction will use relatively poor form, moving in a fast and sloppy manner not representative of what is often recommended for high intensity training. I have trained bodybuilders and professional athletes who were convinced they had already been training with a high level of intensity comment after a workout with me how much harder it was, so  I am also highly skeptical of the average subject’s ability or willingness to push themselves to train as intensely as is often recommended for high intensity training.

The majority of published research and an even larger amount of unpublished research shows little or no difference in results between performing one or more sets of an exercise (research showing no difference in the effect of independent variables tends not to be published). Considering the above, what this really means is there is little or no difference in results between performing one or more sets of an exercise with crappy form.

If we were to compare either a single or multiple set protocol performed in typically sloppy, quick fashion with a single set protocol performed in strict, slow, fashion I suspect the results would still be similar assuming both were done with a high intensity of effort. However, in the long run the group performing a single set of strict, slow reps would suffer less wear and tear and fewer training related injuries.

As for optimal training volume I don’t think the issue is the number of sets or reps or the mechanical work performed so much as the metabolic work and stress on the body, which is more a matter of set duration. This is another reason not specifying and ensuring compliance with a specific repetition protocols in exercise studies is such a huge mistake. As the stress on the body increases you will reach a point of diminishing returns, and beyond some point you will begin to plateau or even regress. While a longer set duration allows the use of a safer level of resistance the longer the time under load the more each set contributes to the overall stress on the body and the fewer can be performed before reaching a point of diminishing returns or overtraining. While there may be little or no difference in results between performing one or more sets in typical fashion, the higher the set duration and relative effort the more of a negative effect on results additional sets are likely to have.

Single set high intensity training protocols makes sense for several reasons. Safety and preservation of long-term functional ability should be the highest priority of program design, so exercises should be performed at a reasonably slow speed and using a level of resistance that can be used for a reasonable number of repetitions in strict form. Because this will result in a longer set duration it is necessary to be more conservative with the number of sets and since research shows little or no difference between performing one or more sets at typical faster speeds and very short durations it is unlikely there would be a benefit to performing more than one set of a longer duration.

With a single set protocol you can perform more exercises or more directly work more muscle groups in a single workout without exceeding an optimal volume of exercise.

It is easier to objectively compare performance of a single sets of an exercise over time than multiple sets without perfectly standardizing interset rest intervals.

All else being equal (duration of sets and rest intervals) single set programs are more time efficient.

References:

Carpinelli RN, Otto RM, Winett RA. A Critical Analysis of the ACSM Position Stand on Resistance Training: Insufficient Evidence to Support Recommended Training Protocols. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 2004;7(3):1-60

Fisher J, Steele J, Bruce-Low S, Smith D. Evidence Based Resistance Training Recommendations. Medicine Sportiva Med Sport 01/2011; 15:147-162.

Maisch B, Baum E, Grimm W. Die Auswirkungen dynamischen Krafttrainings nach dem Nautilus-Prinzip auf kardiozirkulatorische Parameter und Ausdauerleistungsfähigkeit (The effects of resistance training according to the Nautilus principles on cardiocirculatory parameters and endurance). Angenommen vom Fachbereich Humanmedizin der Philipps-Universität Marburg am 11. Dezember 2003

Smith D, Bruce-Low, S. Strength Training Methods and The Work of Arthur Jones. Journal of Exercise Physiology Online 2004;7(6): 52-68

Westcott WL, Winett RA, Anderson ES, Wojcik JR, Loud RL, Cleggett E, Glover S. Effects of regular and slow speed resistance training on muscle strength. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness. 2001 Jun;41(2):154-8

How you train is far more important than the equipment you use. Proper training with very limited or basic equipment will produce better results, more quickly, more efficiently, and more safely than training incorrectly on the best equipment in the world. There is no specific piece of exercise equipment you must have, no specific exercises you must teach your clients to produce good results. I have trained people at home with a basic free weight set up consisting of nothing more than a power rack, adjustable bench, and a few Olympic bars and dumbbell handles. I have also trained people in facilities equipped with a large selection of the best machines in the world. I was able to provide clients with safe, effective, and efficient workouts with both.

This is not meant as an endorsement of free weights or criticism of machines; both have advantages and disadvantages. My point is you shouldn’t obsess over a particular type or brand of equipment if you don’t have the budget or space for it when starting out. The most important thing is providing your clients with exercises for all the major muscle groups which are safe, effective, and efficient and this can be done with a variety of equipment.

Overload Fitness’ state-of-the-art machine based studio in Altamonte Springs, FL

That being said, if you do have the space and you can afford it I recommend selectorized machines for several reasons.

Machine exercises are generally easier for you to teach and for clients to learn and master than free weight and body weight exercises which require additional elements of balance and control. When used properly most machine exercises are also safer than free weight and body weight exercises since the resistance is confined to a set path and range of motion and usually can not be dropped onto the client like a barbell or dumbbells and the client is generally in a position where there is no risk of them losing their balance or grip and falling which can be a concern during some body weight exercises.

Selectorized machines can be set up in seconds which is important if you want clients to move quickly between exercises or are sharing a studio with one or more busy trainers and only have a single line of machines or use certain ones frequently. Loading and unloading barbells and plate-loaded machines is inefficient and requires you either to take your attention off the client while setting up their next exercise or to allow them to rest longer between exercises when you are not able to set up all their bars or machines ahead of time or when you are using the same bar for several exercises. Moving plates around all day can also be hard on trainers, especially smaller females and older people.

If you don’t mind dealing with plates plate-loaded machines tend to cost less and are low maintenance, however it is important to consider the additional cost of plates, plate storage (some plate-loaded machines have built-in storage), and the additional space required to be able to load the machines. If you are a smaller female or older person or employ one I recommend having plenty of twenty five pound plates so they aren’t required to spend a lot of time moving around forty fives. I also recommend buying forty five pound plates with built in grips to make carrying easier.

A minimalist home-based personal training studio

If you can only afford or only have space for a few machines when starting out prioritize machines which replace higher risk or more challenging free weight and body weight exercises so you can better accommodate a greater number of potential clients. For example, not everybody can squat safely and not everybody can perform chin ups but most people can perform leg presses and pulldowns. A good basic line includes a leg press, pull down, chest press, compound row, overhead press, and trunk extension. More machines are nice to have and allow you to provide a greater variety of exercises and work around certain physical limitations more easily but these few are all most people really need.

Stay away from multi-exercise stations like those commonly found in hotel and apartment fitness centers. Most are very poorly designed, compromising the quality of exercise movements for the sake of quantity. If you have very limited space you are better off getting a good power rack and adjustable bench or dumbbells and a chin up and dip station or multi-exercise bodyweight station like the UXS.

The original UXS bodyweight multi-exercise station

I prefer fixed, hexagonal dumbbells as they are durable and won’t roll when set down and take up little space if you have a vertical or three-level rack. Adjustable dumbbells like PowerBlocks and the Nautilus SelectTech are far more space efficient but a pair can only be used by one person at a time. Stay away from adjustable plate loaded dumbbells, especially those with screw-on collars; they take much longer to load and unload than a barbell which can be a problem if you plan to use them for more than one or two exercises in a workout with different weights. While this might not seem like a big deal when you have to do it multiple times per hour all day long it adds up.

Adjustable dual cable machines like the Nautilus Freedom Trainer and the FreeMotion Dual Cable Cross can be used with different grip and bar attachments for a variety of exercises and also take up little space. If you have the budget for one it is a better option than dumbbells because it provides a greater variety of exercises and clients can’t drop anything on themselves.

If you work with people in wheelchairs you can adjust the booms around them to perform different exercises which is safer and more efficient than having them move between and transfer into and out of several different machines with progressively more fatigued arms. I was able to put a paraplegic woman I trained through most of her workouts using just the Nautilus Freedom Trainer pictured below.

The Nautilus Freedom Trainer dual cable machine (photo courtesy of Mike Lauro)

Some of you might be wondering why I haven’t mentioned “cardio” equipment like elliptical machines, stationary cycles, and stair climbers, “functional training”  staples like stability balls, wobble boards, and plyo boxes, and similar equipment; they are a waste of your clients’ time and a waste of your money and space. Every general, trainable factor of functional ability – muscular strength and stamina, cardiovascular and metabolic conditioning, flexibility, structural integrity/resistance to injury, and body composition – can be improved to a greater degree more quickly, more efficiently, and more safely through the proper use of weight machines, free weights and body weight than through any of the popular alternatives. Don’t do things or buy equipment because you think clients will expect it. Educate them on proper training and why certain things are unnecessary and counterproductive thus not found in your studio.

Since circumstances can vary considerably between training start ups in terms of budget, space, approach to teaching high intensity training, and other factors this may not apply to everybody. If you have questions related to equipping a studio not covered here please post them below. If there is enough interest in this I will write a more detailed guide.