How many days of rest should you allow for building muscle?

This particular query can't be answered with a universally numerical conclusion.  Many variables factor into how many days of rest one should have for optimal muscle building results.  However, I will go over a few scenarios in hopes that it helps paint a clearer picture.

First of all, no matter what type of Health & Fitness Guru Blog you are reading from, the best knowledge comes from personal experience.  Yeah, the stuff you have personally tried, tested and adjusted to your own genetic makeup.

While browsing through the Internet, I was surprised to see many of the health blogs saying the exact same answer, which was 24 to 48 hours of rest between workouts.  Personally, I disagree. For one, what type of workout?  How intense is it?  Are you concentrating on certain muscle groups per each workout or are you taking the shotgun approach?  How old are you?  Are you a beginner just starting to workout or are you a professional bodybuilder building massive muscles?  All of these things and many more factor into how many days of rest your muscles need for optimal growth and/or safe methods of building lean body mass.

The small groups of muscles like what are found in your forearms, for example, could be worked thoroughly almost daily while larger muscles like what are found in your chest, shoulders, hamstrings, etc., will most likely need more time to fully recover from a hard workout.  Your genetic makeup, hormone levels, overall health, age, hours of daily sleep, and so on, all affect how quickly your body recovers.

I have heard of many professional bodybuilders training 6 days a week, with only one off day.  But guess what?  They only train certain groups of muscles once a week.  Yep, so that means that they allow 7 days of rest per muscle group for building mass quantities of muscle.  However, you can rest assured that they totally tear down each muscle group during those days of pumping iron/working out.

The other thing you need to do is simply listen to your own body.  If you go back to the bench press and you still feel weak from a workout you did a couple days ago, wait a few more days before trying again.  I try to wait an extra day or two after I feel ready for another intense weightlifting session.  Always try to keep in mind, your muscles grow when you are resting, not when working 'em to the point of exhaustion.

With that being said, aerobic-style workouts don't really need "days of rest" in between, but it never hurts to have a couple off days during the week, right?  As for building muscle, lifting weights, intense training, etc., I like to take 6 to 7 days off between working that same muscle again.  For optimal gains, even if I was in a big rush, I still wouldn't want to take any less than 4 or 5 days off, but that's just my opinion; cheers!

Image Credit: Wikimedia Commons

End of Post "How many days of rest should you allow for building muscle?"

Related Post:
http://health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com/2010/12/gain-mass-dont-overtrain-your-muscles.html

Recent Post:
http://health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com/2015/01/the-reason-pork-rinds-skins-are-not.html

Does Vitamin C help with Muscle Soreness?

Now here is another debatable subject in the health & fitness genre...  Does the antioxidant properties of the beloved Vitamin C really have much impact when concerning muscle soreness?  I suppose the best answer may be:  "It couldn't hurt."

Before we go any further, there are now major debates and issues with what causes muscle soreness.  Yeah, can you believe that?  Ha!  But seriously, now that many trending scientific articles say that lactic acid isn't to blame for that delayed soreness you feel after an intense workout the next day or even the day after the next, things have gotten a bit complicated and, uh, stupid.

Of course lactic acid buildup would actually cause soreness, but since the lactic acid is said to leave the area quickly after your moments of exertion, they are blaming it mostly on microscopic muscle tears.  This sounds cute and all, but why can you simply get sore from an odd movement, prolonged flexing, or even cramps, for example?  Does that involve microscopic tissue tears?  LOL! Muscular acidosis can occur any time your oxygen is depleted in a certain area of your muscles, but that's another subject.

Before anybody gets their panties in a wad, of course a lot of the soreness comes from muscle tears and strains, whether it is micro or macro in size.  However, to sweep lactic acid under the rug while ignoring all of the other metabolic byproducts that occur at the scene of stress during strenuous exercise, is a bit ignorant to say the least.  At any rate, let's just drop the whole "what causes muscle soreness?" debate, and quickly move right through this Vitamin C craze.

In a thumbnail, Vitamin C can help pull out some of the acid buildup and byproducts that puddle around the strained muscles in question.  It is no miracle cure or anything, but there is some evidence that shows it could help.  The inflammation and tissue damage that occurs is a good thing, though, if you plan on building bigger muscles.  As you should all know, your muscles grow while resting, not when getting worked and/or stripped down during intense exercise. I've read some scientific evidence before that states that taking too many anti-inflammatory substances to combat muscle soreness may actually hinder the recovery process.  Hey, what's that old adage again: "No pain; no gain!"  Anyway...

Vitamin C can also help build collagen, which is very important for the repair of connective tissues, muscles, etc.  In fact, if you don't believe me, perform a quick web search with the keywords "collagen helps build muscles" or "how exercising produces collagen" or "vitamin c helps build collagen," and so on.

I may have slightly got off topic here, but the point is, Vitamin C definitely doesn't hurt anything when concerning muscle soreness and the recovery process. 

Image Credit/Source:
http://health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com/2014/12/grapefruit-is-not-good-for-detox-or.html

End of Post "Does Vitamin C help with Muscle Soreness?"

Random Health & Fitness Posts:

* http://health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com/2010/11/creatine-is-waste-of-money-for-most.html
* http://health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com/2010/11/methods-for-building-powerful-forearms.html
* http://health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com/2010/11/mystery-of-muscle-memory.html

Eating every 3 hours is not required for Bodybuilding

This particular 'frequent eating for bodybuilding' subject has really gained momentum over the last few years.  I'm not exactly sure why, but, like most things, it has probably propagated online more than anywhere else.

At any gluttonous rate, there are some pros to eating smaller, more frequent meals for some folks. Will it ultimately lead to enhanced muscle growth?  Not normally.  I'm yet to see any conclusive evidence that proves that eating protein (or whatever) every 3 hours is required for enhanced muscle growth, when compared to the traditional 3 meals a day - with or without a few snacks.

Two primary food-related things to factor in outside of your exercise regimen for the semi-normal person that isn't taking steroids and/or growth hormones:  1) Total caloric intake 2) Quality protein intake

3 meals of the same caloric value as 6, 7, or 8 meals shouldn't make a difference when concerning muscle growth and/or bodybuilding.  Since protein is overrated, it shouldn't be hard for a human being living in the 21st century to find enough quality protein with 3 fairly balanced meals per day.  However, since the body can only process so much protein at once, it would be a good idea to somewhat spread it out as opposed to consuming 90% of your protein in one meal.  You know, common sense can go a long way; ha!

Perhaps where this "eating every 3 hours is required for building massive muscles" thing gets more credit, is from the steroid-abusing bodybuilding freaks that inject "juice," workout constantly and eat all day to achieve monster status.  If that is your goal, then please ignore this common sense post.  I'm not about to type out a long post about the dangers of PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) or steroids, etc.  It is your body and it is up to you to decide on how you want to tax it.  And no, I'm not talking about natural supplements like Force Factor - Natural Testosterone Boosters. On the other hand, I did once write a post about alcohol abuse and how to combat the withdrawal symptoms.

In conclusion, this post was merely written in an opinion-style and didn't really provide scientific evidence for or against frequent eating for enhanced muscle gains. However, I have read numerous scientific pages and claims from both sides in the past, and my opinion still stands.  On the other hand, if you think that you have a valid point in favor for eating every three hours and really believe that it's required for ultimate bodybuilding, feel free to share your comments below; cheers!

If not, here is another debatable subject:
http://health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com/2012/10/working-out-your-lower-body-to-build.html

Image Credit: Public Domain - Wikimedia Commons

---End of Post "Eating every 3 hours is not required for Bodybuilding"

Random Post:
http://health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com/2011/05/peaked-stuck-leveled-out-in-progress.html

Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) - Do they really have any negative impact on human health?

A long while back I was reading an article about perfluorinated compounds. Within that health-related post, they mentioned that researchers from Denmark think that chemicals used (PFCs) to keep stuff grease-free and stain-free could be predisposing children to metabolic disorders later in life.
PFCs are everywhere, evidently, and are not limited to food packaging like you find with microwave popcorn bags, etc. Here is a quote from the page that I was recently reading: "...they keep your upholstered furniture and carpets stain-repellant and water-repellant and your drapes wrinkle-free. The chemicals serve the same function on permanent-press clothing and any outerwear, backpacks or other accessories that are advertised as water-repellent. While you'll wind up eating PFCs that are used in food packaging, you'll most likely inhale PFCs in all the other applications listed, since the chemicals bind to dust floating around your home." Source = healthyliving.msn.com/pregnancy-parenting/kids-health/harmful-food-packaging-putting-kids-at-risk

On the other hand, after reading more about the recent study they mentioned, it made me less sure if the perfluorinated compounds really have any negative impact on human health. I mean, they were basically using overweight kids to prove their point. Yet, within that study, they plainly said that normal-weight kids that had high levels of PFCs in their body didn't show any ill effects. WTF? In conclusion, they assume that people who are already overweight would be more sensitive to these supposedly dangerous PFCs. Once again, WTF?

Now, what does seem to suck, is that it takes humans much longer to rid their self of the PFCs than it would for animals out in the wild, lab rats, etc. In fact, it takes several years for a typical humanoid to flush their current PFCs out of their biological system that they often refer to as a body. If you'd like to read more about that subject, go here: www.environmentalhealthnews.org/ehs/newscience/half-life-of-perfluorooctanesulfonate-perfluorohexanesulfonate-and-perfluorooctanoate-in-retired-fluorochemical-workers-olsen-et-al/

If you'd like to read another negative article about perfluorinated compounds, go here: pollutioninpeople.org/toxics/pfcs

Now, here is where the "do they really have any negative impact on human health?" part of this post begins. What about the retired workers from places that manufacture stuff that is loaded with PFCs? You'd think they would have never lived to retirement age and/or would have all dropped dead by now or had severe problems if these particular chemical compounds were highly hazardous to human health, wouldn't ya say? Well, apparently not, since many of them are totally healthy. Could this latest PFC scare tactic all be a lie or simply some hyped-up hulajula mawktooey hoopla and ballyhoo? Either way, feel free to go visit an article about another study concerning this subject, except this one says that PFCs have no negative impact on human health: solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/3M/en_US/PFOS/PFOA/Information/Health-Environment/

At any rate, I'm getting tired of these studies that are constantly picking on my damn microwave popcorn! LOL!

---End of Post "Perfluorinated Compounds (PFCs) - Do they really have any negative impact on human health?"

Semi-related Post: Worried about Popcorn Lung?

Will chocolate pills be the next health craze in the future?

Side Note:  This post is about 10 months old, as I recently moved it to this Health & Fitness Blog from another location/website.  Anyway...

 In today's 'health supplement' market, you never know which supplement will really hit the floor running until after the commercial hype turns into a trending craze. In the past, one of the biggest pills to take the market by storm was the fish oil supplements. Like fish oil, these chocolate pills are also going to be aimed at cardiovascular and heart health. Numerous studies are underway, of course, so expect to see these chocolate pills explode in the coming years.

"The study will be the first large test of cocoa flavanols, which in previous smaller studies improved blood pressure, cholesterol, the body's use of insulin, artery health and other heart-related factors." Read more about the potential use of chocolate pills, here: news.msn.com/science-technology/study-to-test-chocolate-pills-for-heart-health

Personally, I'm not that impressed that they found a way to extract the goodness of chocolate into a mega dose and/or high-concentration pill form. Like most of y'all, I also already knew that chocolate was good for you; duh! Dark chocolate has the most health benefits, of course, but I'd much rather have it in the candy bar/brownie format; ha!

What I'm leery about is this "mega-dose" craze. Many studies of the past have shown that basically mega anything either has no additional benefits or, in some cases, causes more harm than good. For example, a lot of people now think that extremely high doses of antioxidants that you'd find in certain supplements actually raises your risk for cancer and/or causes it. As always, moderation wins again. The bottom line is, unless they find chocolate pills to be a good drug-replacement therapy for heart patients (or something along those lines), it will be nothing more than marketing hype. Simply eating dark chocolate on a regular basis should provide all the health benefits from this substance your body needs without expensive chocolate pills.

---End of Post "Will chocolate pills be the next health craze in the future?"

Drinking Alcohol helps combat Food Poisoning

Instead of the usual negative posts you read about alcohol from the Internet, I thought I'd change it up a bit and actually write something good about alcohol. I've known about this for a long while, but drinking booze just before a meal actually helps combat food poisoning. Now, don't go out and try to get food poisoning just to test this theory; ha! I'm not sure what the current research says about why this is true, but in the past it had something to do with alcohol breaking down the cellular membranes of certain types of bacteria and whatnot, that would then allow your stomach acid to kill the rest of it. Research has also demonstrated the ability of alcohol to kill salmonella, shigella and E-coli in the laboratory. One would have to drink a few drinks, though, and just sipping on a couple of light beers would most likely not be enough.

The research for the effects of alcohol being able to combat food poisoning most likely spawned from large crowds of people at restaurants that had an outbreak of food poisoning. People began to notice that the ones drinking alcohol prior to the poisoned food, were less likely to become ill. This is easily witnessed when everybody at the table is eating the same food, with the only variable being alcohol. You can check online for more resources, if you like. I didn't check for additional sources because this is a well-established fact. The first page I read the other day that was related to this subject, is located here: www2.potsdam.edu/alcohol/HealthIssues/1110384069.html

If you'd rather read about the health benefits of beer & alcohol, go here:
perpendicularity.org/blog/2010/05/04/health-benefits-of-beer-alcohol-cheers/

---End of Post "Drinking Alcohol helps combat Food Poisoning"

Semi-related Post:  Natural ways to combat symptoms of alcohol withdrawal

Bench Shirts and Excessive Gear has ruined the concept of Bench Pressing

Over the last few years, I have witnessed the glorious bench press competitions turn into a freakish event that looks more like a clip from a movie that features a cyborg version of an armored Frankenstein trying to pump iron. I mean, for the ones that don't know, the bench shirts are strapped on so tight and act as a spring of some sorts, that if you master the technique they can actually add a few hundred pounds to your bench press. Is that fair? Does it boil down to who has the best bench shirt wins?

The rules obviously don't apply in most of these competitions or claims or displays via YouTube, and I've seen people with their back arched so high that their butt doesn't even touch the bench. The last time I checked, bench pressing was about lifting weights, not about how close you can get your ass to your shoulder blades! Many of these people are so jacked up with equipment/excessive gear and upper body apparatuses (bench shirts), that they look like a freakish padded warrior that can't even put their arms down (due to the advantageous bench shirt) while walking to the damn bench. I just seen a person lift an enormous amount of weight without even bending his elbows. How does that count? The spotters lifted the weight down for him, then he lowered it a couple inches and rolled/squirmed it back to the spotters and they called that a bench press even though he never pressed anything!

At any feign rate of lifting, I just think this sport/competition has turned into a complete joke. Unless it is raw/natural with no equipment involved whatsoever and no spotters that help you lift it off the bench for you, it shouldn't count; period! If you need excessive gear, pads, supports, braces, tightly strapped upper body apparatuses and additional people just to perform YOUR bench press, you need to find another hobby or at the very least, quit claiming to lift several hundreds of pounds more than you can actually lift yourself!

Besides, the short-armed wide gripped tactic that involves the arched spring method is basically 80% technique and 20% strength. At one time, the bench press was one of the standard measures of strength, but now, going by what I've seen during the last few years, it means absolutely nothing!

Related Links to further your reading:
* www.slate.com/articles/sports/left_field/2004/08/one_giant_lift_for_mankind.html
* forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread.php?t=146545&;
* health-fitness-guru.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-to-estimate-your-max-bench-press.html

---End of Post "Bench Shirts and Excessive Gear has ruined the concept of Bench Pressing"


Recent Blog Post:
http://random-twaddle.blogspot.com/2015/03/free-radicals-vs-exercise.html