Confused

[scottlove]

So, I've never understood the phrase, 'you grow when you're not at the gym", as a reason to get lazy with your workouts. If this is, in fact, true, then I'm still growing 22 1/2 hours per day. I think this is adequate.

[steve_d]

I think everyone's heard the phrase, but do people really use it as an excuse to be lazy in the gym!?

What I am more sick of is people talking bad about individuals who might 'over-train'. As in, they spend over an hour in the gym 6 days a week... Or they might train double sessions in a single day. Since when did people decide less is more when it came to bodybuilding? Sure, there is a point where the law of diminishing returns kick in, and I am sure there is a point where you actually hurt yourself... But any elite athlete, take any olympian for example... They all train more than an hour a day. Why would bodybuilding be any different?

Over-training is real, and its real in any sport, but the elite from any sport would likely benefit from longer training sessions. The problem is that the elite in any sport also have the genetic advantage of being able to handle the extra training without ill effect.

I've read on other forums, particularly related to women, saying that doing cardio for an hour a day for more than a few weeks is horrible. Sure, for some, extra cardio without adequate food for an extended period of time could be a bad thing. But again, is it really bad for an athlete to be training an hour in the gym, and doing 2 hours of activity? That's less 'work' than I used to do when training for the Canada Games as a teenage in cycling, and certainly a lot less work than Most elite athletes. Is it necessary for a local bodybuilding event? Perhaps not... But if one is training smart (both in the gym and in the kitchen), and has the time without neglecting family and friends, then I can't see how more training is worse.

Thoughts?