If You’re Not Measuring M.E.T. You Could Be Missing Out

There’s a hundred and one million spins on the weight training routine. Most of us will adopt a few over our training careers and some will fully commit to one or two and never waver. Sort of like adopting a child on TV for seven cents a day compared to flying half-way across the globe and putting down thirty thousand dollars to bring home the child you’re going to raise as your very own for the rest their life and yours. Both are commendable acts but there is an obvious contrast in the level of commitment between them. Some people jump from one training program to the next and others remains steadfast to one and only one approach.

Each looks at the other questioning (and often ridiculing) their methods. Arguments rage about intensity versus volume, volume versus frequency,frequency versus intensity, load versus effort, training to failure versus sub-failure, periodizaton versus standardization, powerlifting versus bodybuilding, longworkouts, short workouts, mud wrestling workouts, pole dancing workouts, circus act workouts, or any number of factors and combinations.

Lost in all of this is the single feature of any program or approach to training that ultimately drives results and that’s M.E.T. (Max Effort Time). The reason why so many dissimilar workouts produce similar results is because of the total amount of time the muscles experience a degree of strain suitable to trigger an adaptive response.

A twenty minute high-intensity, training to muscular failure workout can be equally effective as a ninety minute high-volume, load-centric, sub-failure routine in stimulating strength and muscular gains if the M.E.T. turns out equal or similar. The pros and cons of each approach in the big picture are debatable but of no consequence when measuring M.E.T.

Individual genetic factors, nutrition and recovery time play major roles in the final result but as the stimulus for change goes M.E.T. is where we should focus our attention.

• For the frequent adopter of new training programs he/she may notice that the reason they don’t make any greater gains from one routine to the next is because despite the changes the M.E.T. remains relatively similar and could be either too much or too little.
• For the long term adopter a M.E.T. that once was a sufficient stimulus can become routine and is no longer challenging enough to elicit a response.

Training patterns and ensuing results—or lack thereof—leave vital clues that can reveal the M.E.T. range that’s right for each of us. Knowing this will forever change how you view and judge other training programs as well as determine their effectiveness and practicality for you or those you train.