Background:

Ever since I began weight training as a 13 year old, the objective was always to lift heavy weights. This has been true through every training incarnation that has spanned a half century. It was even true in more recent years when I have used much better form and longer duration repetitions.

It always made sense because I was quite good at using lots of resistance in most movements. I enjoyed training that way and rarely got hurt. I also was able to continue to use amounts of resistance in many exercises well into my 50's that were about the same as resistance that I used in the same or similar exercises many years before. There was no reason to change something that worked so well.

The Impetus to Change - Reaching an Impasse:

A few years ago, things began to change. My joints, particularly elbows and shoulders, became inflamed when I used a high level of resistance in certain movements. There seemed to be a threshold of force that my joints could no longer accommodate. I was smart enough to stay below that level of force.

In 2005 and 2006, I sustained a number of major muscle strains and tears in my quadriceps and hamstrings. In each instance, I was not doing anything unusual. I simply seemed to exceed a level of force for a given range of motion.

I also realized that there were other aspects of my training that didn't make physiological sense. It really didn't make sense to split the upper-body as I'd done for decades in a 'three-way split routine'. To split the upper-body muscle groups means we believe that exercises are so specific that they do not target many muscle groups at the same time. The height of the nonsense was that I've always used a form of the dips in my 'shoulders and arms' routine. Yes, dips do affect triceps. Dips are also a great exercise for chest and also affect the upper back. In fact, I 'feel' dips more in my chest than any other chest exercise that I've ever performed in my 'chest and upper-back' routine.

Physiologically, there also is no basis for training lower-body exercises at a lower frequency than upper-body exercises. I do not believe that anyone has demonstrated that the quadriceps recover more slowly than the pectorals, for example. I think that training routines have evolved this way for one simple reason. Lower-body exercises are generally harder than many upper-body exercises. So, training routines have evolved to avoid lower body exercises as much as possible. It takes more energy and likely a bit more dedication to squat in some form than to lie on a bench and press.

It addition, it was obvious that continuing to train with a high level of resistance was creating a situation, aside from injuries, that wasn't very healthful. Because it had become harder to recover from training, more recovery days seemed required. This meant that both training frequency and volume were decreased. A good case can be made that positively affecting a number of health-related mechanisms requires training at a reasonable frequency.

There also is no real greater benefit derived from using very heavy resistance. The size principle indicates that it is the degree of effort, and not the amount of external force (resistance), that determines the optimization of motor unit recruitment. This means that as long as a set for a given exercise ends with a high degree of effort, then more moderate resistance and a longer time under tension will produce about the same strength outcomes and muscular hypertrophy as using a heavier resistance and a shorter time under tension.

This is an extremely important finding that has been detailed in a number of issues of the Master Trainer. It is contrary to most of the 'conventional wisdom' and principles about training and protocols that are recommended by the National Strength and Conditioning Association, to some extent, the American College of Sports Medicine, and, of course, the muscle magazines.

Think about what this means. An exercise set with very heavy resistance and rapidly performed, 'explosive' repetitions may take about 20 seconds time under tension. A great deal of momentum is used so that with free weight and machine exercises the resistance is actually 'thrown'. Despite a good risk of injury given the degree of force and repetition form, such training is performed because it's believed that it is necessary to assure strength gains and muscular hypertrophy.

For most long-term trainees and virtually all middle-aged to older trainees, this is disastrous prescription.

Research and a proper interpretation of the size principle point to a safer and more effective prescription. This involves more moderate resistance, controlled repetitions, a longer time under tension, maintaining excellent form for every repetition, with the last repetition in a set representing a maximal or near maximal effort at that point, but without any breakdown in excellent form.

This is true - likely safer - 'high intensity training'.

A Different Approach:

Based on the idea of true high intensity training, I developed a lower-body, upper-body split routine and train four or sometimes five days per week.

I've been following this routine for 17 months. So, this is certainly an adequate time for a 'test period'.

The approach fits me very well.

I've always enjoyed performing a wide variety of movements. I've also always liked training at a good pace with about a minute between most exercise sets. Such a training pace may have some added conditioning benefits to the more usual snail-like pace of some training protocols. And contrary to what is often promoted, there is little evidence that a long time between exercise sets is required to produce strength gains.

So, for each major muscle group, I perform several exercises for one set each, alternating some exercises between workouts and sometimes changing the order of exercises for a muscle group.

I also create variety in other ways. While I usually stay within about 60-75 seconds time under tension for each exercise, I vary the repetition duration. For example, for a few weeks, I may use a 4-second concentric, 4-second eccentric repetition for a number of exercises. Then, for a few weeks, I may use an 8, 4 repetition duration or even 10,5. I also sometimes vary the rep duration for a given exercise in a workout simply on a whim.

There also are a few exercises where I aim for about 90 seconds time under tension.

Changing the order of exercises and repetition duration creates a great deal of variety.

Here's an important point that is worth noting again. While heavy resistance is not used, all the exercises are performed with a high degree of intensity. That is, the last repetition in a set is a maximal or near maximal effort without breaking form. So, the approach is high intensity with more moderate force.

Without a fixation on resistance, it is still possible to progress. Progression does not involve trying to pile on more and more resistance. Progression generally involves increasing repetitions and time under tension. Progression also involves reducing resistance, further improving form, and then adding repetitions and time under tension through a series of workouts. If I reach the end point of time under tension for an exercise, only then will I add a small amount of resistance.

Progression also becomes possible even after many years of training by significantly altering how an exercise is performed. For example, for the regular barbell squat, my range of motion and overall form are the best I've ever had. I squat to parallel or slightly below and stay very straight. Gone is a modified 'good-morning' squat exercise. So, essentially, I'm performing a different exercise with some room for improvement. I've also made some analogous changes in machine-based exercises. Of course, with these changes the resistance used is considerably less than years ago Ð but they are really different exercises because my form is so much better..

Aerobic Training:

My aerobic training consists of performing the Graded Exercise Protocol (GXP). I do a five-minute graded warm-up to reach about 75% of my aerobic capacity. I then perform a five-minute workpart at about 80% of my aerobic capacity, followed by a 5-minute cool down that reverses the warm-up. I perform this twice per week on the Concept 2 Rower about 15 minutes after upper-body training. On one of the sessions in a week, usually the second session, I may do the workpart of the GXP at 85% of my aerobic capacity.

My goal with the GXP is to maintain aerobic fitness. It is not to see how hard I can perform a GXP or to see if in my 60's I can markedly improve my already good level of fitness.

Over decades of training, I've found that if aerobic training is too long, too hard, or too frequent, it undermines resistance training and makes overall recovery difficult.

Based on preferences, most people can do well at and enjoy resistance training and aerobic training. But, often one type of training will need to be prioritized over the other type of training.

I do though incorporate physical activity into my daily life and I believe that is very important for many of us who have otherwise a sedentary lifestyle and occupations.

I walk every day for about 35-40 minutes on training days. On my off-days I walk about an hour. All the walking is with my dog, Jeter, and it is at a comfortable pace. He seems to like to walk me and has nicely trained me to hold his leash and walk next to him.

Outcomes and Applications for You:

A major impetus to change my approach to training was a series of leg injuries occurring every 6 to 8 weeks. Over the 17 months and about 150 lower-body workouts, I've experienced none of those lower-body injuries.

I have, to be honest, experienced some periods of upper-body soreness. It has taken awhile to figure out more precisely the cause of the soreness in my upper-body, particularly my elbows and shoulders. The major cause was an exercise not often considered an upper-body movement. In fact, it's listed as one of my lower-body movements.

The exercise is the stiff-legged deadlift that I had performed for decades. The problem was caused by the extreme stretch position with still too much resistance. I found that by only going down to shin level, using a slight bend in my knees, and using less resistance with 75 to 90 seconds time under tension, that the problem with my elbows and shoulders was greatly alleviated.

With any routine, however good it may be, vigilance is still needed to be sure that an injury is not developing or that you are not starting to become overtrained. Paying attention to how you are responding and recovering and making changes to defuse any adverse effects are critical factors in effective training.

The training routine shown in detail later at first appears fairly inflexible and difficult to accommodate to busy and sometimes not altogether predictable schedules. Over the 17 months, it's proven not to be the case. For example, if I'm tired, a bit sore and obviously not completely recovered, or not enthused about training on a given day (examples of paying attention to how you are responding and recovering), I can easily insert an extra rest day and simply pick up where I left off (an example of making a simple change to ward off adverse effects). Extra rest days can be important. They help you avoid overtraining and enable you to train under more optimal conditions.

I also can adapt the schedule to a busy week. If I know something is coming up in the following week and I may be short of time, I've occasionally trained 5 days in a week by having only 1 and not 2 rest days at the end of the week. Then, the next week, 3 and not 4 of the workouts are performed.

A few times when traveling I've also compressed the lower-body and upper-body routines into one workout and that has also been successful.

So, a routine that at first appears inflexible and unrelenting can be made more flexible to fit circumstances.

In addition, adaptations and variations of the same basic routine can include an every other day lower-body, upper-body split routine or a whole body routine performed two to three times per week or five times in two weeks.

It also is not necessary to perform all the exercises shown in the routine, below. I simply enjoy performing that many exercises. Compared to the routine shown below, outcomes would be about the same from using one compound and one isolation movement for large muscle groups and just one exercise for small muscle groups. This variation would reduce the duration of workouts and easily allow 'A' and 'B' lower-body and 'A' and 'B' upper-body routines.

Here is an important point, again worth repeating. I enjoy performing each exercise. I do not perform exercises that I do not like to perform.

The whole idea is to make training enjoyable and something we look forward to. In the long-run, it's improbable that we can 'make' ourselves continue to train in ways we do not enjoy and do not look forward to.

Lifting:

Occasionally I miss my heavy lifting. I've tried a few times using heavier resistance in a few exercises. The results were immediate and predictable. My joints hurt the next day.

I realize that I simply can't continue to train with heavy resistance and remain functional. It is a losing battle. And, based on the size principle, using heavy resistance is not required to produce good outcomes.

But, yes, occasionally something was missing.

I realized, however, that whatever I felt was missing by not lifting can be satisfied by the performance of only a few movements. In other words, while every exercise movement can still be included in a routine and performed in a precise way, a few could sometimes be performed with very explicit resistance and repetition goals. The difference now is that for a few movements, the goal is 90 seconds time under tension.

This really is not a 'big deal'. I use 90 seconds time under tension for a number of movements. But, I've rarely if ever seen trainees do barbell squats and deadlifts for that long time under tension with longer, controlled repetitions. The other exercise main exercises performed with that goal are regular chins, albeit now without any added resistance, and dips, now with a seated dips machine..

Performing these exercises in this goal oriented way is enough to fulfill any 'lifting need'.

However, I've come to two realizations. They are about what I'm good at and where I'm going.

• I'm actually better at training with my new overall approach than I was when every exercise was performed with a 'lifting mentality'. My past training sessions involved fewer exercises and a slower pace. Training the way I am now seems to require some greater degree of conditioning.
• About 17 months ago, I felt that I was reaching a dead-end with nowhere to go. Now I have an approach to training that I can use with variations for many years to come. That's quite a difference.

So, as a saying goes: 'When one door closes, another opens'.

Conclusion:

Likely, the most important point for you is based on two questions I recently asked myself after completing a lower-body workout and then an upper-body workout the next day.

The first question was: 'Based on science and my experiences training for five decades and considering such variations of the basic routine as an every other day split routine, a compressed whole body routine, or fewer exercises per muscle group, can I conceive of any better way to train?'

My answer was 'No'.

This is it!

The second question was:

Can this routine be used and adapted by virtually everyone?

My answer was 'Yes'.

Of course.