Is there ever a point in which you can work the same muscles daily (doing the exactly same exercise)?

Also, is doing slight variations of a lift still considered lifting the same muscle group, in terms of 'one should always rest a muscle group at least 1 day between workouts' mind set. For example, if on Monday I do Hammer Curls and Tuesday I do Barbell Curls, am I making enough of a change in the movements, that I am ok?

You really don't want to work the same muscle group two days in a row. You might think you'd get faster results that way, but you'd be wrong.

When you work a muscle with heavy weight with the intention of making it stronger, you are creating microtears in that muscle...little muscle tears that then need to recover. It is during the recovery of those tears that a muscle gets stronger, not in the actual lifting. If you're sore at all, you've got some microtears going on. And if you keep working that muscle group day after day, you're never going to get stronger, because you're always going to be in the "tearing" phase and not in the "recovering" phase.

Working the same muscle, but with a different exercise, has the same problem - you're still not allowing the muscle that needs repair to repair itself, which will prevent you from getting stronger.

If you're looking to lift most days a week, you can always work individual body parts or a half (Jillian Michaels sometimes recommends doing 2 days a week working the muscles on the front of the body (quads, chest, biceps, front of the shoulder) and two days doing the back (hamstrings, calves, lower and upper back, triceps, back of the shoulder).

That is what I have always read. However, my trainer has me doing the same exact exercises every day. She says I am not lifting enough to for it to be a problem. I am doing 2x25 with getting fatigued by the end of the 2nd set. When doing this light yet long, are the microtears still occuring?

Ugh, YOU NEED A NEW TRAINER!

If you aren't lifting enough weight to require a rest period, then you aren't lifting enough weight - honestly, I wouldn't even consider it strength training. 50 reps for one exercise (2 x 25) must be a very low weight.

Doing 2-3 sets of 6-8 or 10-12 reps with a heavier weight will provide you with much better results.

I hate to say this - but a lot of "personal trainers" feel that people who are overweight need nothing but cardio and little resistance work until the weight is off. This is incorrect.

quiffy, I do a total of 35 reps in my entire workout (Squat 3x5, Bench 3x5, Deadlift 1x5) and I have very significant muscle strength from it. Why?? Cause I lift heavy .. very heavy ... 145lb deadlifts when I am 120lbs myself.

Push yourself & hire someone who will help you do that!

Sadly, this "trainer" sounds like a Tracy Anderson devotee.

YIKES!

I agree

Hmm.. I read alittle about Tracy Anderson's method. I'm not so sure she's a devotee of that method as I am lifting higher weights than 3 lbs. However, the ~60 reps per exercise between all the sets is accurate.

Lat's I'm doing 50lbs, and row I am doing 100lbs, ab machine is 60 lbs, bench is 60 lbs (1RM is 145 lbs) , but shoulder press is only 5 and bicep is 12 (granted that is all I can do and go for the number of reps she is requesting). We also do very little cardio.

I have been thinking of changing trainer mostly because of the lack of explanation to her madness. We have 4 more sessions. I kinda just wish I understood what this method was suppose to be doing.

Not to hijack the thread, but I was curious about who Tracy Anderson is. I haven't heard of her. So I did a bit of research and it seems that her method is based on high high reps of basically dance based calesthenics with (or without) super-low weights.

And I was just wondering why this method is frowned upon, because it seems to me that the results would be different from traditional weight training results, but isn't necessarily a bad thing. After all, dancers are strong and cardiovascularily fit and have a different fundamental body shape than, say, a fitness model. So what is it about her method that is unsound?

I don't know much about her method except for what I've read, and if this post should be a separate thread, PLEASE move it...Thanks!

Kira

Oh, not to say her method isn't working. Weight loss has slowed a little but still lossing and muscularly I feel stronger and there is more muscle definition. Also, my posture has improved. So there has been progress. I just don't understand the science behind it. Also, I don't like the slowing in weight loss (I was lossing at about 2 lbs a week, now I am down to about .8 lbs a week).

Kira, I think it's mostly related to the goal you're trying to accomplish.

Typically, if you're lifting weights for weight loss purposes, part of your goal is to gain muscle mass (because additional muscle mass burns additional calories at rest and thus has a pronounced effect on metabolism, in addition to making you look/measure leaner at higher weights). To do that, you have to microtear the muscle and allow it to repair...it's the act of the repair that builds the muscle fiber. So if that's your goal, you're going to have a hard time getting there with low weights/high reps, simply because you're not going to be creating the strain on your muscles to microtear with the smaller weight, so they're not going to repair and gain mass.

Tracy Anderson also has lots to say about other forms of exercise, including her belief that running will give you "an ugly butt" and that pilates and yoga, particularly Bikram yoga, decrease performance.

I will say, though, that reviews for her method show that lots of people really do feel that her method works, and it may, for the goals of her method (which are, as far as I can gather, giving everyone teeny tiny dancer bodies). But if that's not your goal (and its just not realistic for everyone to be a teeny tiny dancer, and that isn't everyones favorite aesthetic), lifting light weights may not be the way you want to go.

Thanks, Ms Mandalinn. All I could find online was either biased "OMG I LOVE HER because I work for her website" or "SHE'S A FRAUD"...and it was the first time I'd heard of her so I was wondering what the scoop was...

If I understand you correctly, I imagine that her method is not dissimilar to those weight loss belt thingees that make your muscles move and claim to build abs because the muscle is moving. If you don't stress or load the muscle, it is just twitching and won't grow because a load is required to change the muscle fibers themselves...

Thanks for the info..

Kira

Wasn't she the one that said no woman should ever lift more than 3 lbs? I think that was my issue with her (if that is her)

hmm..well starting out I am using my 5lb weights I have had since college. I believe even if I can only do 2 sets of 5 if I am feeling the burn, I am working that muscle. I agree. I would move up to higher weights. NO 20 reps without results for me.

Yes she was. 3lbs? She can kiss my bum that lifted 160lbs today. I look a lot more feminine than she does - she promotes a sickly looking physique at extreme calorie deficit.