Concept Wednesday - The Minimalist Routine

davecb

New member
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]

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
This program hits the major muscle groups; pushing and pulling upper body muscles, "core" and lower body muscles. It includes an exercise that practices unilateral loading of the lower body, as well as a balance phase, a core exercise that is resisting both extension and rotation, and upper body exercises that promote large ranges of motion that stimulate both shoulder and scapula muscles (scapulohumeral, axioscapular and axiohumeral).

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:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. Lederman, E. (2010). The myth of core stability. Journal of bodywork and movement therapies, 14(1), 84-98.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
 
Movement variety is okay too.

If you don't care about progressing these in a timely manner, you can mix up the variation you do each round.

1 - Walking lunge. 2 - Reverse lunge. 3 - Side lunge.

1 - Standard push up. 2 - Close hands push up. 3 - Slightly wide push up.

1 - Palms up row. 2 - Palms down row. 3 - Palms facing each other row.

1 - Plank shoulder taps. 2 - Marching plank. 3 - Up down plank.
 
@davecb Mind specifying better what you mean by "slightly wide push up"? I pretend to link that in the future and I imagine that could be asked a lot.

By the way, why lunges over squats/step ups?
 
@rdmarita As far as lunges instead of squats or step ups, first of all step ups require "equipment" where as lunges require a floor and yourself. For the population that this is intended (those with no goals who just want to be less than sedentary), lunges are probably easier and safer. Many people don't have the hip mobility or form knowledge to do squats properly. Lunges are probably safer for the knees and hips of the unpracticed population.
 
@rdmarita Just what /@queenofhearts1992-Minion said, plus it incorporates those single leg training and balance components. More bang for your buck, more efficient.

It also leaves more room for growth without changing exercise, as lunges are more muscularly demanding for most people, so will hit the wall with lunges later than squats.
 
@rdmarita Just what /@queenofhearts1992-Minion said, plus it incorporates those single leg training and balance components. More bang for your buck, more efficient.

It also leaves more room for growth without changing exercise, as lunges are more muscularly demanding for most people, so will hit the wall with lunges later than squats.
 
@davecb I'm going to be honest with you. I'm that overweight, middle-aged guy that really needs to start moving more and I'm here to find ways to do so that are convenient to incorporate into my life. I'm not looking for a program that requires me to take a notebook and calculator to my 2 hour daily gym regimen. I'm not looking to maximize my vertical leap or bench 400 pounds. So, I was very interested in reading this program "aimed at people who simply need to move more" to begin with.

Not everyone who exercises is training for a goal.

But this article passive-aggressively vacillates between condescension and using technical jargon that needs an ELI5 for the non-physiologist.

that doesn't take much brain power to implement

At least speaking for myself, seeking a simpler workout plan has little to do with brain power and more to do with finding a starter level program and implementing sustainable changes into my current life.

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.

I'm not saying I can't follow that, but this is written more like an article submitted for publishing in some health/medical journal (which it probably was, based on the included reference list) rather than being written with the actual intent of helping people.

Non-organised movement and haphazard approaches to exercise can fit the motivations of many people perfectly.

Haphazard: lacking any obvious principle of organization.

So, if I don't want a complicated, elaborate exercise program, I'm stuck with non-organized and haphazard? This is the type of word choice that suggests the condescension I mentioned. An elitist speaking of the fumblings of the less dedicated.

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.

The average adult step is 30 inches, so 10k steps is about 4.7 miles. That's ~90 minutes of walking on average. That means someone working a desk job has to take an hour every day to dedicate to walking. I've known people that could barely walk to the end of their driveway. But, by your description, the "most sedentary person" should be walking 5 miles every day? Triple that would be over 14 miles and take several hours! I know a lot of fit people, but I don't know anyone that walks that much. At a very brisk pace of 5mph that would take nearly 3 hours!

Conclusion
Do this if you just don't care. Whatever.

Wow. Way to sell it, bro.

This article reads like, "this is some minimalist crap you can do to feel like you are trying to get healthier but when you don't really want to be serious about it." A better approach if your intention was actually to help people who want to start improving their health might be, "Here are some starter steps for exercise that can be used as a permanent means of maintaining a healthy lifestyle, or to help you get healthy enough to implement a more intensive, goal-driven, training program."
 
@timdaniel Thanks for expressing precisely what I thought while reading this!
I'm young, active, and go to the gym, and now that I'm on vacation this seems a good program to stay active without heavy weights available, but after reading everything my only thought was "wow, I'll really suck if I decide to do only this..maybe it's better to avoid exercise completely for a couple of weeks.."
Anyway, I'm sure I'll give it a try in these days, but it will be a little depressing
 
@timdaniel Yeah, the program makes a lot of sense and is good for what it is, but OP came off as kind of a dick. Like he actually wrote a lot more than he needed to just to sound condescending. But hey, fuck that guy and his opinions. You do you.
 
@timdaniel The passive aggressiveness really struck me too. I don't know what the attitude behind making this was but it feels like the author was forced to write this or something. I mean, it's probably a good allround program for beginners or casual exercise (and it has a scientific base, too) but the way it was frazed was surprising. Maybe it's a writing style, can't say.

Your last paragraph summs up my initial thought nicely. It's just weird because obviously there has been some effort to produce this.
 
I think it's a bit snarky because there was a post here a few days ago about a minimalist routine that was kinda crap.
 
@timdaniel WOW. This is an incredible example of living in 2017, where everyone is offended by everything not to their liking. Grow up, people, you are not 10 year old girls (unless you are, which is cool).
 
@timdaniel
But this article passive-aggressively vacillates between condescension

I'm sorry if you feel condescended to because you just want to move more and "be healthy", and I don't consider that a goal. That's what most of my clients need, and that's just it, I give them some simple stuff and they're happy.

technical jargon that needs an ELI5 for the non-physiologist.

There is a need for people to be able to scientifically validate what is being offered, if they want to do so. This must be in precise language, and came with an ELI5 too, so like, just read the easy parts, dude.

At least speaking for myself, seeking a simpler workout plan has little to do with brain power and more to do with finding a starter level program and implementing sustainable changes into my current life.

Well good. This isn't for you then. There's a couple of programs we already recommend that are very low starting requirements, are progressive, but require some reading and thinking to get going successfully. Try one of those.

I'm not saying I can't follow that, but this is written more like an article submitted for publishing in some health/medical journal (which it probably was, based on the included reference list) rather than being written with the actual intent of helping people.

Again, I'm writing to an audience that isn't you, obviously. There is a need to use precise language to adequately justify the scientific backing. Anything less is a disservice. This isn't necessarily aimed at the people who would do the program, but those who might recommend it. I'm sorry I didn't write it just for little old you.

Haphazard: lacking any obvious principle of organization.

So, if I don't want a complicated, elaborate exercise program, I'm stuck with non-organized and haphazard? This is the type of word choice that suggests the condescension I mentioned. An elitist speaking of the fumblings of the less dedicated.

Or maybe I'm just saying anything works for such uncomplicated desires. If you want an organised plan, we offer those too.

The average adult step is 30 inches, so 10k steps is about 4.7 miles. That's ~90 minutes of walking on average. That means someone working a desk job has to take an hour every day to dedicate to walking. I've known people that could barely walk to the end of their driveway. But, by your description, the "most sedentary person" should be walking 5 miles every day? Triple that would be over 14 miles and take several hours! I know a lot of fit people, but I don't know anyone that walks that much. At a very brisk pace of 5mph that would take nearly 3 hours!

Firstly, this is your total steps taken throughout the day. The average American already walks 5000-7000 steps a day, and this is a very long-standing recommendation from the mainstream medical community that trying to up that to 10k is a "minimum healthy dose".

I also never said to aim for triple, if you want to check the reading comprehension, I'm just stating that the literature suggests an increasing response for most people as you increase your walking. This has been consistently verified up to 30k steps. Beyond that the literature is less sure, as it isn't widely studied.

Wow. Way to sell it, bro.

This post is the response to another post that gained quite a bit of traction the other day about minimalist training, which was quite controversial, and the comment section was full of people saying they didn't care about all this minutiae, they just wanted to move without thinking about it, and they didn't want to achieve anything except health. So again, I'm sorry if me parroting back the words of the people this workout is aimed at offends you.
 
@davecb
I'm sorry if you feel condescended to because you just want to move more and "be healthy", and I don't consider that a goal.

Yeah, I got that idea from your article. You might want to remove this part:

This program is aimed at people who simply need to move more.

It's so odd to me that you wrote a technical article about a lower tier, "Minimalist Routine" when it's so clear within it that you hate the idea.

just read the easy parts, dude.

See, this is condescension. I have a college degree and I can comprehend everything you wrote. I just don't see the point of writing it like a physiology term paper if your goal is to help the people of this subreddit. My mistake was thinking that was your purpose.

This isn't necessarily aimed at the people who would do the program, but those who might recommend it.

This might be something you want to include in the introduction because putting it in this subreddit could make the average reader assume you are offering it as a program for them to try.

I'm sorry I didn't write it just for little old you.

Yep, you are a dick.

Firstly, this is your total steps taken throughout the day. The average American already walks 5000-7000 steps a day, and this is a very long-standing recommendation from the mainstream medical community that trying to up that to 10k is a "minimum healthy dose".

I am aware of that, but the inclusion of up to 30k (per the literature) steps a day was a bit much. Almost nobody walks that much. People that would/do have a job that involves a lot of walking or they would run instead. Who dedicates 5 hours a day to walking otherwise? Silly.

It's cool, though, man. I won't bug you any more about it.
 
@timdaniel
It's so odd to me that you wrote a technical article about a lower tier, "Minimalist Routine" when it's so clear within it that you hate the idea.

I clearly don't hate the idea. i wrote an article about it because I like the idea.

See, this is condescension.

Yeah, because I think you're a prick.

I am aware of that, but the inclusion of up to 30k (per the literature) steps a day was a bit much. Almost nobody walks that much.

Again, I'm not telling people to walk 30k, I'm just saying anything over the "bare minimums" is golden. There are actually plenty of people out there who enjoy walking, and approaching 30k isn't too far off for quite a few. For someone who is giving me shit about including people, you're certainly mocking the shit out of people who like walking as an activity.
 
@davecb Another good one, thanks man!

For the lazy, or perhaps those just getting started who want to give working out a shot but are overwhelmed by something like the Recommended Routine.

There is a spelling error though. "We also know that frequency of training has increases the response..."

I'm really enjoying the return of Concept Wednesdays, thanks again to all involved
 
Back
Top