I was shown this graph in a college PE class on general fitness. I remember the general shape, and that the bottom metric was in reference to the number of days per week that a person exercised. The general point was that if you worked out 1-2 days per week you saw some but little benefit. If you exercised 3-4 days per week, there were dramatic increases. 5 days still got a measurable increase, but 6-7 days were pretty much a waste of "efficient" time. Can you tell me where this came from, what the metric on the left side is, and if it still holds true with today's knowledge.
-
Data above is fictitious and is made-up in an attempt to recreate the one I saw.– Jammin4COJun 22, 2015 at 17:28
-
+1 Seems like a question I wouldn't mind seeing the answer to :).– Kneel-Before-ZODJun 22, 2015 at 17:32
-
argh. I know I've seen this somewhere as well.– JohnP ♦Jun 22, 2015 at 21:44
-
I suppose I'll have to leave this question unanswered. CanESER provided a very nice current alternative so I granted a +1, but it did not answer this question.– Jammin4COJun 29, 2015 at 17:03
Add a comment
|
1 Answer
-
1
-
1
-
I could be wrong, but, I think FredrikD meant a generic explanation rather than a copy of the formula from the web page.– rrirowerJun 23, 2015 at 13:13
-
1This is the right concept. But figure 3 in the referenced article shows large gains on day 1. The graph I saw showed the most gains on day 4, next best was day 3, third best on day 5. With moderate gains on days 2 and 6. Looks like we are on the right track though. Also, the article referenced was published on Jan. 6 2015 and I saw this data in 1996-7. Perhaps it has been superseded? Jun 23, 2015 at 13:25
-
In my opinion there is so much difference between person who doesn't train and train once a week. So decreasingly growing seems more logical for me. @Jammin4CO– CanESERJun 23, 2015 at 13:33