Recent articles in Master Trainer have advocated progressing in workouts with small marginal increases in workload. A workload is not increased unless there is evidence of adaptation. This means in cardiovascular training that a workload is only increased when a heart rate monitor or other monitoring and feedback methods show that a prescribed workload now takes you just below your target heart rate. In resistance training, this means that over the course of workouts while keeping the same excellent form you have increased repetitions and time under load to a target level. It is now time to marginally increase the resistance.

This type of training and progression requires consistency and patience. It also helps a great deal if the training itself is enjoyable and feedback showing some marginal improvement is just part of the process and not the whole matter.

The approach is the opposite of what you will find in most magazines, books, and websites that have anything to do with bodybuilding, weight loss, or related activity. What’s promoted are techniques, supplements, diets, and routines that will lead to instant transformation and presumably, instant gratification.

Most experienced trainees know that quick metamorphoses really are not possible.

In theory using a long string of marginal improvements seems possible. But how does this approach work in practice?

Putting This Into Practice

I have three different examples with accompanying data of putting this theory into practice. The examples are works in progress because I do not believe I am near the end of progressing with the exercises.

The use of small marginal increases in a training load only makes sense if you stick to a given protocol and do it correctly. If you are all over the place with a protocol, you can’t readily see if you’ve actually improved. For example, let’s say one time you do the workpart of an aerobic training protocol at 80% of your maximum heart rate as called for by the protocol. The next time you increase the workload and your heart rate is close to 90% of maximum at the end. Then it’s not clear how the two can be compared or how you would know if you improved.

You also have to do the protocol correctly. If, you are supposed to do the workpart of an aerobic training protocol at 85% of your maximum heart rate then do it at 85%.

The same points pertain to resistance training. If it’s repetitions that are performed taking 4 seconds to raise the weight and 4 seconds to lower the weight, then that’s the protocol. You can’t drift to 3,3 reps and count those reps.

And, here is another point to consider that at first will seem redundant but it isn’t. Only try to progress on movements where you currently are doing the exercise in absolutely perfect form. If you’re not using perfect form, you are likely using a resistance that is really too heavy for you. One outcome from use of less than perfect form is that you will add more weight and reps and continue with less than perfect form.

Another potential outcome is that if the resistance is really too much for you-hence, your form is compromised-you will add weight and reps and then end up injuring yourself.

A more benign outcome is that because the weight is really too heavy for you, you will simply make no progress.

My Concept 2 Rower

The first example involves the Concept 2 Rower. I just started to use the rower again after an 18-month hiatus.

My goal is obtaining and maintaining a ‘good level of fitness’. It’s important to concretely define your goals.

My fitness goal is to be able to do the workpart of my aerobic training protocol at 80% to 85% of my maximum heart rate with a workload of 12 METs (42 mL/kg/min). I picked 12 METS for two reasons. First, I’m confident that I can reach that level over time on the Concept 2 Rower because I can do that on the Air Dyne. Second, based on data from thousands of men and women1, the ability to regularly achieve that level signifies that I’m in the top group for aerobic fitness for my gender and age group. There’s no reason for health and disease prevention to get any fitter.

Walking at four miles per hour on about 13% grade is another example of about a 12 METs workload. On the Air Dyne, it’s level 4.2 that’s 12 METs for a 150 lb person. These are not spectacular ‘age group’ marks but they are good benchmarks for fitness at my age if you’re at this workload but with only 80% to 85% of your aerobic capacity.

I’ve also given myself some leeway. I’m not a machine and some training days I may be tired or perhaps distressed about work or some personal matters. I’m not going to have as a standard never going beyond 80%. But, it is pretty obvious during a workpart of a protocol if you are getting well into the anaerobic range and your heart rate is rapidly increasing. If that happened, then I’d be doing a different protocol and the work level I achieved would not be meaningful and could not be compared to workouts performed at a lower percent of my aerobic capacity.

Enter The GXP

Consistent with tracking my progress and achieving this goal, I’ve performed the same protocol on the rower with the same heart rate guidelines as I’ve done before with the Air Dyne. It’s an extended Graded Exercise Protocol, or GXP.

I do a graded 8-minute warm-up that takes me to about 80% of my maximum heart rate. I then do a 5-minute workpart at about 80% to 85% of my maximum heart rate. This is followed by 12 minutes at about 75% to 80% of my maximum heart rate. Finally, I do a 5-minute graded cooldown where I end at about 55% to 60% of my maximum heart rate.

I’ve found the 30-minute sessions are enjoyable and with some favorite music in the background, the time goes by quickly.

I wanted to approach progressions in a way that was systematic and painless. That’s different from how I used to use the rower. Years ago every workout on the rower was done with very hard intervals and a great deal of soreness the next day. The way I had used the rower made overall recovery from training difficult and undermined resistance training.

Because of the seated and bent forward position on the rower, I also found in the past that very hard rowing led to a breathless sensation that was not very pleasant. At this point with the goal of fitness and 12 METs in the workpart, I did not want to do anything that I find aversive. Nor, is there ever any reason to do so.

My Experiment With Incline Curls

How well can the same approach work with a resistance training exercise I’ve been using for years?

The first exercise that I choose was the low incline dumbbell curl, with the incline set at 30 degrees. I use the same exact position for my body and the same range of motion and time (8 seconds up and 4 seconds down) for each repetition. In the past, whenever I tried to increase resistance, I always increased resistance too quickly and inevitably got stuck (too few reps) with 46 lb dumbbells. I had not used more than that in this exercise for years often staying at 43lbs to 44lbs. Years ago when I was using more resistance, my reps were done for a much shorter duration and my range of motion was not as complete as it is now. I also was not nearly as consistent with my form or repetition duration meaning that one workout could not be legitimately compared to another. (Editor’s Note: Dr. Winett makes use of small magnets to increase dumbbell and barbell weight in very slight incriments. An example would be PlateMates.

The incline curls were performed once per week at the same point in a particular workout. I did each repetition in exactly the same way. I took 8 seconds to raise the weight and 4 seconds to lower the weight. It took me 6 to 8 weeks to progress from 3 repetitions (36 seconds) to 5 complete repetitions (60 seconds) with the same resistance, e.g., 44lb dumbbells. That means for some weeks I did not progress or barely progressed. When I could do 5 perfect repetitions, I increased the dumbbells by 1lb each and started with 3 repetitions and a couple of times, with 4 repetitions. Last week I used 50lb dumbbells and performed 5 perfect repetitions. Based on my beginning weight, my increase has been about 13%, an increase that is excellent for a very long-time trainee. Because the repetitions are precise as is my timing of the set, I know the increment is real.

To read this article in its entirety, see the complete article on Dr. Winett’s website.

Dr. Richard Winett is the founder of The Center for Research in Health Behavior at Virginia Tech and the author of “Master Trainer”, an e-zine dedicated to scientific training protocols for those interested in lifelong progression. Dr. Winett is an advocate of slower repetitions and HIT training, and continues to research and document his passion of “realistic bodybuilding” at the age of 60. Dr. Winett is also one of my personal mentors, having achieved and maintained a muscular, lean physique for well over 35 years.

You can reach Dr by email at ageless@pcr-inc.com or on the web at www.ageless-athletes.com.