Not everyone who exercises is training for a goal. Non-organised movement and haphazard approaches to exercise can fit the motivations of many people perfectly. For some, the metrics most of us are interested in tracking, particularly skills here, measures of strength, or flexibility, are just not important. Today's post is going to discuss the rationale and science behind a very low requirement, both equipment and time-wise, exercise program, that doesn't take much brain power to implement. This program is aimed at people who simply need to move more.
Exercise has been shown multiple times to clearly improve many health outcomes, but the exact dose-response is hard to determine [sup][1-pdf][2-pdf],[/sup] as many of the methods of tracking the dose (duration/intensity/modality) are heterogeneous (dissimilar), and the defining a minimum effective dose is nearly impossible.
When it comes to resistance training, we know that for untrained populations over significant periods of time (>3 months training) multiple sets have a positive dose response for markers of hypertrophy and strength, both of which are predictive of other health measures, up to at least 5 sets [sup][3][4][5][6][7].[/sup]
We also know that frequency of training increases the response almost linearly at least up to 3 times per week [sup][6].[/sup]
The literature has shown for circuits with little to no rest, that alternately used muscle groups have very similar results to traditional strength training straight sets in trained men building muscle and strength [sup][8].[/sup] This also seems likely to hold true for sedentary, low muscle, fatter, older adults too [sup][9].[/sup]
So with that in mind. Here is the minimalist program:
The exercises have some level of scalability; push ups and rows can be adjusted by their incline, as described in their respective links; the lunges can be progressed until full ROM is accomplished, but then are harder to progress, unless carrying a weight; the plank can be progressed by narrowing the feet (base of support) and/or slowing down the speed of repetitions while improving the stability of the hips.
While having set rep ranges can be useful for achieving specific fitness goals, it isn't as important for general health goals. Allowing all ranges of reps allows for easy progression.
The range of sets reflects the efficacy of only one or two sets, but also the increasing response of further sets if one wishes to sink more time into it.
Having a day off can help optimise your strength and muscle results, but for general health, you could do this every day if you preferred. Pick another habit you can tie workout to, then do it consistently; 3 times a week, every day, every week day, whatever works for you.
When you're feeling like you're doing too many reps or it feels like it's pretty easy, you can try and make the exercise harder. Whenever.
Walking
Walking is extra good for you. 10k steps per day is the absolute bare minimum for the most sedentary person, but again a pretty strong response to increase dosage for at least triple that amount exists.
To get the most bang for your buck, walk on uneven terrain with pliable soled shoes, and up and down inclines. Stairs are also good.
Other Resistance
"What about my lower back?!" I hear you cry, probably thinking about how to make your back bulletproof against injury, or to relieve some already existing back pain. But when we take into account that the vast vast majority of us barely use 1% of the capacity of our "core" musculature in standing, and not much more than that during bending and lifting [sup][10-pdf],[/sup] how much help is building that capacity anyway? Numerous investigations have found that exercises targeting the lower back or core control are no more efficacious than general exercise [sup][11][12][13].[/sup]
But if you want you can add in some not-really-necessary-but-bonus exercises:
Do this if you just don't care. Whatever.
References:
Exercise has been shown multiple times to clearly improve many health outcomes, but the exact dose-response is hard to determine [sup][1-pdf][2-pdf],[/sup] as many of the methods of tracking the dose (duration/intensity/modality) are heterogeneous (dissimilar), and the defining a minimum effective dose is nearly impossible.
When it comes to resistance training, we know that for untrained populations over significant periods of time (>3 months training) multiple sets have a positive dose response for markers of hypertrophy and strength, both of which are predictive of other health measures, up to at least 5 sets [sup][3][4][5][6][7].[/sup]
We also know that frequency of training increases the response almost linearly at least up to 3 times per week [sup][6].[/sup]
The literature has shown for circuits with little to no rest, that alternately used muscle groups have very similar results to traditional strength training straight sets in trained men building muscle and strength [sup][8].[/sup] This also seems likely to hold true for sedentary, low muscle, fatter, older adults too [sup][9].[/sup]
The Program
So with that in mind. Here is the minimalist program:
- 2-6 circuits of:
- Lunge x ~1-2 reps short of failure
- Push Up x ~1-2 reps short of failure
- Rows x ~1-2 reps short of failure - Here's like 5 ways to get your row on with minimal equipment. If you can't find one, you'll enjoy my next post: "Glenohumeral Instability, Capsule Laxity, Shoulder Pain, Weakness, Bad Posture and YOU!"
- Plank Shoulder Taps x ~1-2 reps short of failure
The exercises have some level of scalability; push ups and rows can be adjusted by their incline, as described in their respective links; the lunges can be progressed until full ROM is accomplished, but then are harder to progress, unless carrying a weight; the plank can be progressed by narrowing the feet (base of support) and/or slowing down the speed of repetitions while improving the stability of the hips.
While having set rep ranges can be useful for achieving specific fitness goals, it isn't as important for general health goals. Allowing all ranges of reps allows for easy progression.
The range of sets reflects the efficacy of only one or two sets, but also the increasing response of further sets if one wishes to sink more time into it.
Having a day off can help optimise your strength and muscle results, but for general health, you could do this every day if you preferred. Pick another habit you can tie workout to, then do it consistently; 3 times a week, every day, every week day, whatever works for you.
When you're feeling like you're doing too many reps or it feels like it's pretty easy, you can try and make the exercise harder. Whenever.
Extras
Walking
Walking is extra good for you. 10k steps per day is the absolute bare minimum for the most sedentary person, but again a pretty strong response to increase dosage for at least triple that amount exists.
To get the most bang for your buck, walk on uneven terrain with pliable soled shoes, and up and down inclines. Stairs are also good.
Other Resistance
"What about my lower back?!" I hear you cry, probably thinking about how to make your back bulletproof against injury, or to relieve some already existing back pain. But when we take into account that the vast vast majority of us barely use 1% of the capacity of our "core" musculature in standing, and not much more than that during bending and lifting [sup][10-pdf],[/sup] how much help is building that capacity anyway? Numerous investigations have found that exercises targeting the lower back or core control are no more efficacious than general exercise [sup][11][12][13].[/sup]
But if you want you can add in some not-really-necessary-but-bonus exercises:
- Superman x 10+ - for all those back muscles
- Squats x 10+ helps maintain that excellent ankle range as a bonus. Key if you like the ability to walk.
- Calf Raises x 20+ - do double or single leg. Easy to do anywhere while waiting for something.
Conclusion
Do this if you just don't care. Whatever.
References:
- Kesaniemi, Y. A., Danforth, E., Jensen, M. D., Kopelman, P. G., LefÈbvre, P., & Reeder, B. A. (2001). Dose-response issues concerning physical activity and health: an evidence-based symposium. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 33(6), S351-S358.
- Garber, C. E., Blissmer, B., Deschenes, M. R., Franklin, B. A., Lamonte, M. J., Lee, I. M., ... & Swain, D. P. (2011). Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 43(7), 1334-1359.
- Hass, C. J., Garzarella, L., De Hoyos, D., & Pollock, M. L. (2000). Single versus multiple sets in long-term recreational weightlifters. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 32(1), 235-242.
- Krieger, J. W. (2010). Single vs. Multiple Sets of Resistance Exercise for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Meta-Analysis. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 24(4), 1150-1159. doi:10.1519/JSC.0b013e3181d4d436
- Radaelli, R., Fleck, S. J., Leite, T., Leite, R. D., Pinto, R. S., Fernandes, L., & Simão, R. (2014). Dose Response of 1, 3 and 5 Sets of Resistance Exercise on Strength, Local Muscular Endurance and Hypertrophy. Journal of strength and conditioning research/National Strength & Conditioning Association.
- Rhea, M. R., Alvar, B. A., Burkett, L. N., & Ball, S. D. (2003). A meta-analysis to determine the dose response for strength development. Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 35(3), 456-464.
- WOLFE, B. L., LEMURA, L. M., & COLE, P. J. (2004). QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS OF SINGLE- VS. MULTIPLE-SET PROGRAMS IN RESISTANCE TRAINING. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18(1), 35-47. Retrieved from http://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/F...E_ANALYSIS_OF_SINGLE__VS__MULTIPLE_SET.5.aspx
- Alcaraz, P. E., Perez-Gomez, J., Chavarrias, M., & Blazevich, A. J. (2011). Similarity in adaptations to high-resistance circuit vs. traditional strength training in resistance-trained men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 25(9), 2519-2527.
- Balachandran, A., Krawczyk, S. N., Potiaumpai, M., & Signorile, J. F. (2014). High-speed circuit training vs hypertrophy training to improve physical function in sarcopenic obese adults: a randomized controlled trial. Experimental gerontology, 60, 64-71.
- Lederman, E. (2010). The myth of core stability. Journal of bodywork and movement therapies, 14(1), 84-98.
- Costa, L. O., Maher, C. G., Latimer, J., Hodges, P. W., Herbert, R. D., Refshauge, K. M., ... & Jennings, M. D. (2009). Motor control exercise for chronic low back pain: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Physical therapy, 89(12), 1275-1286.
- Ferreira, M. L., Ferreira, P. H., Latimer, J., Herbert, R. D., Hodges, P. W., Jennings, M. D., ... & Refshauge, K. M. (2007). Comparison of general exercise, motor control exercise and spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized trial. Pain, 131(1), 31-37.
- Cairns, M. C., Foster, N. E., & Wright, C. (2006). Randomized controlled trial of specific spinal stabilization exercises and conventional physiotherapy for recurrent low back pain. Spine, 31(19), E670-E681.