Trainings frequency

[German_Joe]

at the end of the week doing fullbody workouts, my volume (sets, reps, weight lifted) are nearly the same as doing a conventional split. It comes down to personal preference, I for one cannot do high volume bodypart specific splits even with consistent diet and 8-9 hours of sleep. Thats just my personal recovery ability.

I prefer to split my volume near equally amongst 3 sessions a week, this is good for me because it gives me time to do school work and work a 12 hour shift on friday

again personal preference

 

[tim290280]

I can't be bothered addressing individual points here so I'll just make a short list.

I agree with IS that progression is #1.
Increasing frequency allows athletes to improve neural efficiency (skill).
Increased frequency gives faster adaptation thus greater chance for progression.
Increased frequency allows for training of multiple factors in one meso cycle rather than long term periodisation. This leads to better progression.
Increased frequency allows for more movement patterns to be trained.
By training more frequently you disallow the use of over-reaching until planned intervals. This stimulation rather than annihilation means that strength training can be used in conjuction with other aspects of life (sport, recreation, sex, etc) without leaving you too sore to enjoy/conduct them fully.
There are plenty of studies around looking at the optimal number of sets, reps, exercises, etc. There are also plenty of studies that look at what programs work best. Kraemer and Zatorisky to name but a couple of experts have written books on the subject that talk about frequency of training.
Frequency programs can also increase fitness and recovery.

Not writing off splits or anything here. You can never train on the absolute best routine, as it depends on what your goals and abilities are. If you don't mind not being able to walk for 3-4 days because you train legs too hard once a week then thats fine. But if you have to be able to run around at footy training or be active at work all day, then you have to think about less intense bouts more frequently.

 

[curtisymoo]

well said tim

 

[Braaq]

^^ Well said Tim

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 would add that intensity is a key argument against the standard 48-72 hour recovery period. With the intensity in which I train it usually takes about 5 days minimum so I usually give them 6 or 7 days. However, I listen to my body. Sometimes a given amount of time is not enough when including factors like sleep and eating and these are effected by everyday life activities like work and school.

 

[PrinceVegeta]

I can't be bothered addressing individual points here so I'll just make a short list.

I agree with IS that progression is #1.
Increasing frequency allows athletes to improve neural efficiency (skill).
Increased frequency gives faster adaptation thus greater chance for progression.
Increased frequency allows for training of multiple factors in one meso cycle rather than long term periodisation. This leads to better progression.
Increased frequency allows for more movement patterns to be trained.
By training more frequently you disallow the use of over-reaching until planned intervals. This stimulation rather than annihilation means that strength training can be used in conjuction with other aspects of life (sport, recreation, sex, etc) without leaving you too sore to enjoy/conduct them fully.
There are plenty of studies around looking at the optimal number of sets, reps, exercises, etc. There are also plenty of studies that look at what programs work best. Kraemer and Zatorisky to name but a couple of experts have written books on the subject that talk about frequency of training.
Frequency programs can also increase fitness and recovery.

Not writing off splits or anything here. You can never train on the absolute best routine, as it depends on what your goals and abilities are. If you don't mind not being able to walk for 3-4 days because you train legs too hard once a week then thats fine. But if you have to be able to run around at footy training or be active at work all day, then you have to think about less intense bouts more frequently.

Nice post Tim!

 

[Big_Guns_Lance]

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.

Maybe you don't train hard enough? I train really hard and most of the time I go beyond failure with intensity techniques with only just one working set per exercise. The only muscle for me that doesn't get sore the next couple of days afterwards is my biceps, thats all.

If I don't train hard or I take it easy (which i rarely do) then I'm not sore the days later like i would be if i went on a balls to the walls workout.

 

[The Creator]

I have a couple things to say on this matter (as I have in the other 5 or 6 threads that have been just like this).
As IS said, I dont think you will find science that says an upper/lower split is better than a body part split. There are far too many other factors that will depend on growth before your exact training split. As long as both are done correctly, I dont think that one is far superior to the other. At the beginning level, I believe that the upper/lower split (if not full body) is the ideal routine. After the beginning stage, the ideal routine is arguable.
For those of you who train a muscle group and have that debilitating soreness that lasts for a week, thats over training. Once the cup is empty, you cant empty it anymore. I recently read a study that took a group of trained individuals and looked at muscle glycogen depletion through bicep curls. After 3 sets to failure, muscle glycogen was already 80% depleted. There is no need to beat a dead horse, when your done, your done.
Furthermore, I would like to emphasize that there are far to many factors that come into play to pick the exact correct split. I would add to that, that I see way too many people do way too much in the gym in hopes of correlating hypertrophy.

 

[Ironslave]

^good post by creator.

Thought I'd add this on the debate of muscle soreness, for anyone looking for a reference from a high level journal.


The role of muscle damage in muscle remodeling: No pain, no gain?
Kyle Flann1, Paul C LaStayo2 and Stan L Lindstedt1
(The FASEB Journal. 2006;20:A397)


ABSTRACT

Skeletal muscle is a dynamic tissue that responds adaptively to both the nature and intensity of muscle use. This study tested the hypothesis that a damaging bout of exercise is pre-requisite for muscle hypertrophy. Although this hypothesis has been widely accepted, there is surprisingly scant evidence that muscle damage, accompanied by an inflammatory response, is a necessary precursor to muscle hypertrophy. Subjects were divided into two experimental populations: (PT) pre-trained (n=7) and (NA) naïve (n=7). Muscle damage was avoided in the pre-trained group by a 3 week gradual "ramp-up" program before both groups were subjected to an 11 week high force eccentric cycle ergometry program (20min, 3x/week). Work totals throughout the 11 week session were the same for both groups. The naïve group experienced damage, whereas the pre-trained group did not, as indicated by: >5 times higher plasma CK levels and self reporting of perceived soreness, fatigue and exertion. The observed increase in mean cross sectional area (and total muscle volume) was significant for both groups (p<0.01) but not different between groups (NA=7.0% and PT=6.1%). Strength increases were also observed for all subjects in the study (PT=20% and NA=24% improvement) again, no significant difference was found between the groups. Independent of any initial muscle damage, muscle volume increases and quadriceps strength increases were found to be the same for both groups indicating that a damaging bout may not be a prerequisite to muscle hypertrophy

 

[Clint]

Maybe you don't train hard enough? I train really hard and most of the time I go beyond failure with intensity techniques with only just one working set per exercise. The only muscle for me that doesn't get sore the next couple of days afterwards is my biceps, thats all.

If I don't train hard or I take it easy (which i rarely do) then I'm not sore the days later like i would be if i went on a balls to the walls workout.

I train plenty hard and effective, so watch how you put your words here, I could have taken this the wrong way and accused you of saying I trained weak.

I've never been one to get sore, even when I started training one day would be all I was sore for. I just find it rather odd that a person can be sore for so long, it almost seems unhealthy.

props to tim for his post, and to IS as well.

 

[Ironslave]

There are other very important factors nobody has yet mentioned.

1) Motivation. Some people aren't able to do a workout of 5 sets of squats, deadlifts, followed up by supersetting chins and dips or whatever. For people like this, it doesn't make sense for them to do these half assed workouts.

2) Time. Some people have the luxury to train 2x a day, eat tons and tons of food, get enough rest, and so on. Others can only workout 3 days a week. This will also impact things.

 

[The Creator]

^^ Good points. I am so busy right now it only makes sense for me to do upper/lower. However, when I was cutting and I had more time, I did more body part stuff.

 

[Big_Guns_Lance]

I train plenty hard and effective, so watch how you put your words here, I could have taken this the wrong way and accused you of saying I trained weak.

I've never been one to get sore, even when I started training one day would be all I was sore for. I just find it rather odd that a person can be sore for so long, it almost seems unhealthy.

props to tim for his post, and to IS as well.

Don't tell me how to put my words gad dammit, i can put them the hell i like. i didnt insult u did i. i just asked a question thats all. i wasn't implying that you trained weak, now why don't you watch your words

Maybe if you trained with me, you'd sure no about the soreness that i'm talking about...

 

[Clint]

Don't tell me how to put my words gad dammit, i can put them the hell i like. i didnt insult u did i. i just asked a question thats all. i wasn't implying that you trained weak, now why don't you watch your words

Maybe if you trained with me, you'd sure no about the soreness that i'm talking about...

why the aggression? I said be careful how you choose your words, that just means if you don't intend to offend somebody (I wasn't offended anyway, but could have taken that way quite easily) then make that noticeable, which you did not. I responded humble, your response here is unnecessary.

Also, hypertrophy isn't based off soreness (like previously stated) so even if I did train with you, I'd highly doubt I'd be sore. I'm just not the type of person that experiences DOMS, and I never have been, it's not dependent on your training style, more so genetics.

 

[PrinceVegeta]

^^ no need for E-arguing in this lovely thread guys! Some guys jsut dont get sore and grow like weeds! i know people that squat like crazy mad man and dont get sore and i know guys that do machines 2xweek and are sore all week long!

 

[Big_Guns_Lance]

why the aggression? I said be careful how you choose your words, that just means if you don't intend to offend somebody (I wasn't offended anyway, but could have taken that way quite easily) then make that noticeable, which you did not. I responded humble, your response here is unnecessary.

Also, hypertrophy isn't based off soreness (like previously stated) so even if I did train with you, I'd highly doubt I'd be sore. I'm just not the type of person that experiences DOMS, and I never have been, it's not dependent on your training style, more so genetics.

lol why should i be carfull with how i choose my words, if it didnt offend you then wahst the problem? But anyways Im sorry for the aggresion.

 

[Ironslave]

lol why should i be carfull with how i choose my words, if it didnt offend you then wahst the problem? But anyways Im sorry for the aggresion.

Because he knew what you meant, someone else could take it as an insult.

 

[Big_Guns_Lance]

^^

Yes I know that but he didn't take it as an insult so what was the point in telling me as if it was such of a big deal. But ive appologised now for how i responded.

 

[tim290280]

There are other very important factors nobody has yet mentioned.

1) Motivation. Some people aren't able to do a workout of 5 sets of squats, deadlifts, followed up by supersetting chins and dips or whatever. For people like this, it doesn't make sense for them to do these half assed workouts.

2) Time. Some people have the luxury to train 2x a day, eat tons and tons of food, get enough rest, and so on. Others can only workout 3 days a week. This will also impact things.

Good post. Also liked the study.

You start getting into the life factors (like Creator said). If I'm stressed by work, or on the road a lot, or haven't been sleeping well, or the weather is shit then my training will be affected. I'm not a professional athlete who has options of recovery and rest, I have commitments. So as a result training is always a compromise of what is most effective given our daily lives.

I see upper/lower and fullbody as great programs that can be the best training regime but they are also able to fill the role as a compromise for busy people as well. Splits don't have that option as much. So I think any program has to have your lifestyle programmed in, otherwise it won't work.

 

[The_KM]

This is A quality thread, despite the bickering.

Like said, there are far too many variables to say frequency is the most important part of a training regime. Not just stabilizing genetics, caloric expenditure and body composition play roles in training routines that most people forget about. For instance, training my entire musculature 2x/wk, using a complex split strains my neural system. Thus, i'm able to a body split, excluding frequency as a principle. Bottom line: it's the person's decision.

Scientifically speaking, frequency is a component of hypertrophy.

As far as DOMS; it is is not a sign of growth. As far as other variables, it can be a result of:

Poor conditioning
Change in training principles (sets, reps, exercises)
Workload/frequency
New fiberal patterns

The CNS plays a huge role here, and is probably the biggest factor to including frequency or to not. Your muscles will recover much faster than you will neurologically, that's a fact. Most people believe soreness is caused within the neuromuscular junction, rather than the sacrolemma.

Either way, protein synthesis is reduced.

just my take on it. As all hypertrophy component threads generally turn to DOMS.

Thought I'd add this on the debate of muscle soreness, for anyone looking for a reference from a high level journal.

Great study!

 

[tim290280]

^^ I'll just add this on DOMS; the groundbreaking research that showed it isn't related to lactic acid:

Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2004 Sep;287(3)
Robergs RA, Ghiasvand F, Parker D.

The development of acidosis during intense exercise has traditionally been explained by the increased production of lactic acid, causing the release of a proton and the formation of the acid salt sodium lactate. On the basis of this explanation, if the rate of lactate production is high enough, the cellular proton buffering capacity can be exceeded, resulting in a decrease in cellular pH. These biochemical events have been termed lactic acidosis. The lactic acidosis of exercise has been a classic explanation of the biochemistry of acidosis for more than 80 years. This belief has led to the interpretation that lactate production causes acidosis and, in turn, that increased lactate production is one of the several causes of muscle fatigue during intense exercise. This review presents clear evidence that there is no biochemical support for lactate production causing acidosis. Lactate production retards, not causes, acidosis. Similarly, there is a wealth of research evidence to show that acidosis is caused by reactions other than lactate production. Every time ATP is broken down to ADP and P(i), a proton is released. When the ATP demand of muscle contraction is met by mitochondrial respiration, there is no proton accumulation in the cell, as protons are used by the mitochondria for oxidative phosphorylation and to maintain the proton gradient in the intermembranous space. It is only when the exercise intensity increases beyond steady state that there is a need for greater reliance on ATP regeneration from glycolysis and the phosphagen system. The ATP that is supplied from these nonmitochondrial sources and is eventually used to fuel muscle contraction increases proton release and causes the acidosis of intense exercise. Lactate production increases under these cellular conditions to prevent pyruvate accumulation and supply the NAD(+) needed for phase 2 of glycolysis. Thus increased lactate production coincides with cellular acidosis and remains a good indirect marker for cell metabolic conditions that induce metabolic acidosis. If muscle did not produce lactate, acidosis and muscle fatigue would occur more quickly and exercise performance would be severely impaired.

So DOMS isn't related to what we like to think it is at all.