A
Achilles
Mecca V.I.P.
VIP
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2006
- Messages
- 765
- Points
- 18
Could someone refresh my mind. Why is more frequent training like fullbody or upperbody lowerbody better than split training?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Yates, 6X Mr Olympia
If you hit a nail bang on the head the first time and drive it straight into the wood,
whats the point of hitting the nail again?
You'll only damage the wood and destroy your own initial efforts.
Nothing scientific about that.
Frequency is good because you work your muscles again as soon as your muscles have recovered from the time before (typically 36-48 hours I believe). Training a body part once a week means there is a lot of down time where little to no hypertrophy is happening.
Frequency generally goes right along with full body or upper/lower esque routines, which allow for greater hormone release due to the entire body being worked versus just, say for example, the arms (small muscle groups).
So you believe that the more you hit a muscle the more it will grow? Because it's only lifting that matters? Not recovery period or food, or other factors!
I don't recall ever saying that
As for nothing is happening on off days, I strongly disagree.
When you work your chest you have other muscles that are involved (i.e. Shoulders, triceps) Same goes with all muscles. So your actually hitting each muscle at least twice a week or more. Once directly and two more times indirectly!
bulkboy said:but do u have any direct evidence that frequency works better, or is this just ur assumption? as musclejock said alot of other factors come into play. also i think it varies alot, for some maybe frequency is the way to go, but i have had, and alot of others have had much success by utilizing split training. when i started training i was 63 kg skin and bone, im no 91 with not too much more bf than i had then, all natural training. i have never used a frequency based approach except one time, and i found it didnt work for me and i changed back.
after a brutal back workout for instance, my back is sore for 3-4 days afterwards, to me it makes sense to let it recuperate entirely. small musclegroups seem to recover faster though...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorian Yates, 6X Mr Olympia
If you hit a nail bang on the head the first time and drive it straight into the wood,
whats the point of hitting the nail again?
You'll only damage the wood and destroy your own initial efforts.
Problem is there are too many variables to do a strict study. You need to control genetics, one's progression, nutrition, rest, and so forth. In truth, in my opinion, what matters is progressive overload. If you can work up to doing say 315 for a set of 12 on the bench press, you'll have a massive chest. Progressive overload is by far #1.
ROFL
EPIC lack of reason. My son - you have been charmed by pseudo bodybuilding philosophy. Sounds like something Shawn Ray or the Barbarian Brothers could have come up with :wutyousay: Hitting a nail... lulz.
Science: Muscles recover from stimulus within 48-72 hours.
Reason: Why wait 7 days to train again when you're ready in 3?
I honestly don't know how you guys are sore for so many days. I could go do 20 sets of just chest (but I wont, thats just dumb, I only do about 10 sets total per session) and the next day I'll barely have any sort of tenderness. This being sore for 4,5, 7 days, what in the world. My legs barely ever get tender the day after as well. I'm a bit confused.