On Mon, 19 Mar 2001, Philip Thrift wrote:

> >That gives me more reason to drop back to one session per week
> >then.
>
> But one session is not the same as whole body spread over four sessions --
> because of the isolation factor. (and of course you don't want to
> do chest on Monday and back on Wednesday -- 48 hours is not enough.)

What's the isolation factor?  If each muscle group gets trained
once per week, what's the advantage of isolating?

> >Are you suggesting, then, that I minimize my activity levels on
> >the days when I'm not strength training?
>
> Yes. Maybe walking.

Walking is aerobic exercise, but it only recruits the legs.

Do you have any idea how absurd this sounds?  You are suggesting
that I do multiple split strength training sessions each week, in
order to *maintain* muscle, not build it, but the rest of the
time I should use it as little as possible.  I'm telling you that
I can maintain muscle mass on a single whole-body workout per
week, or less.  The fact is, I haven't lost muscle in years, even
with occasional lapses of no strength training at all.  So, loss
of LBM is not an issue; I have that covered.  Given that, is
there some other reason why I should do as little as possible the
rest of the time, given that I still want to lose fat?  Would TV
watching be better than walking?

To summarize, the only justification that I've heard yet for
strength training is (a) to build muscle, or (b) to maintain it.
Regarding (a), I've already done it.  183 lbs. of LBM is enough.
Regarding (b), I also know that I don't need more than one
whole-body workout per week to maintain LBM.  In the absence of
any further justification, I can find no reason to do more than a
single whole-body workout per week.  You appear to be saying that
any further exercise would be counterproductive.  That appears to
entail that from an exercise standpoint there is nothing further
I can do to reduce body fat.  Is that correct?

Todd Moody
[log in to unmask]