low volume, high frequency

[Necroticism]

Guess I wasn't exactly clear. I didn't mean any specific type of training but I meant high volume but the volume, intensity, overload or whatever you prefer to call it must be enough to stimulate hypertrophy. You mention minor stimulation. That is not possible. Either a muscle is stimulated or it isn't.

i understand that, and i may not have worded that clearly. my goal is to cause just enough stimulation to cause growth, but no more than that. per muscle, i will do as much total volume in 3 workouts as most would do in 1.

 

[MrSquat]

i understand that, and i may not have worded that clearly. my goal is to cause just enough stimulation to cause growth, but no more than that. per muscle, i will do as much total volume in 3 workouts as most would do in 1.

Perfect, any more "damage" after stimulation is counterproductive. And since we just had many posts "arguing" and agreeing that stimulation is caused by muscular contraction we can find that "point of stimulation" based on a scientific approach. Why do so many bodybuilders say weightlifting is experimental?

 

[Necroticism]

Perfect, any more "damage" after stimulation is counterproductive. And since we just had many posts "arguing" and agreeing that stimulation is caused by muscular contraction we can find that "point of stimulation" based on a scientific approach. Why do so many bodybuilders say weightlifting is experimental?

the basic premise behind lifting weights to build muscle isnt experimental, but the manner in which the weight is lifted, i.e. frequency, volume, TUT, overload, rep schemes etc. is still something that hasnt been fully proven. there are so many possible ways you could approach to training, some of which work better for different people, that you can not definitively say that one is better than the other. so you experiment with different approaches to training to find what works best for yourself.

 

[MrSquat]

the basic premise behind lifting weights to build muscle isnt experimental

True

, but the manner in which the weight is lifted, i.e. frequency, volume, TUT, overload, rep schemes etc. is still something that hasnt been fully proven.

True but that is not how it should be. If we agree that hypertrophy is stimulated by muscular contraction there can only be ONE OPTIMAL way to do it. Not saying that there is only one way but anything other than the optimal way is secondary.

there are so many possible ways you could approach to training, some of which work better for different people, that you can not definitively say that one is better than the other.

Yes, there are some fairly basic differences between people as far as body mechanics but hypertrophy is stimulated the same in everybody.

so you experiment with different approaches to training to find what works best for yourself.

Considering how long people have been lifting weights, why are they still experimenting?

BTW, listening to Watershed right now.

 

[Necroticism]

Considering how long people have been lifting weights, why are they still experimenting?

BTW, listening to Watershed right now.

if you are talking about people in general, and going into the history of how long mankind has been lifting, it is because each person is different, and wants to find the optimal approach to suit them, because they have only been lifting for so long. if you are talking about a particular person, it is possible that they have been on the same, or similiar, programs for a long period of time and the gains they are making from this program start to become scarce, so they decide it is time to try something completely different to see how they react to it. or, their general goal changes and they are no longer training for hypertrophy, but for strength, power, speed etc. there are so many factors that play into that, that i can not give a solid answer to it. for me personally, i have found that in the past, when i did something similiar to what i am doing now, but in a 3 day split, opposed to 2, i made my best natural gains doing a volume higher than i currently am. i have recently been doing the typical 5 day split, training a single body part at a time and my gains came slower (except for when i was on about 5 months ago) and recently my gains have come to a halt, and my strength has plummeted. with the factors that i mentioned in some previous posts along with my personal history on a higher frequency program, i am choosing to train in such a manner to assess how my body reacts to it.

 

[MrSquat]

if you are talking about people in general, and going into the history of how long mankind has been lifting, it is because each person is different, and wants to find the optimal approach to suit them

Subtle differences as far as mechanics (for example on may benefit more from preacher curls and another from concentration curls) I agree but as far as hypertrophy and what stimulates it, it is the same for everybody provided they are human.

 

[Necroticism]

yes, muscle contraction is what stimulates hypertrophy. i am not arguing against that. i am just varying the volume and frequency in which i am contracting my muscles. instead of contracting said muscle for 9-12 sets, and waiting a week to contract it again, i am doing it in 3 sets and waiting 2 days.

 

[MrSquat]

yes, muscle contraction is what stimulates hypertrophy. i am not arguing against that. i am just varying the volume and frequency in which i am contracting my muscles. instead of contracting said muscle for 9-12 sets, and waiting a week to contract it again, i am doing it in 3 sets and waiting 2 days.

Yes I understand but I do not agree (as far as volume and frequency). As far as contraction goes what does a weak contraction cause as far as fiber recruitment, same question for a moderate contraction, and finally an intense contraction?

 

[Necroticism]

Yes I understand but I do not agree (as far as volume and frequency). As far as contraction goes what does a weak contraction cause as far as fiber recruitment, same question for a moderate contraction, and finally an intense contraction?

i dont have an exact answer to your question, but based on logic i would imagine a weak contraction would recruit less fibers than an intense contraction. you may not agree with my training approach, and that is fine, but i am going to test it out, and in 6 weeks time i will see where i am at and let the results speak for themselves. if it does not work, i will be the first to say you were right, i was wrong and i will go back to a more traditional approach. if it is successful though, i will continue to train in this nature. either way, i am indifferent to the outcome because in the end atleast i will know if it works or if it does not, which to me is a better choice than continuing to use the traditional approach, making average gains and left wondering.

 

[jasonschaffin]

I could see this as a very beneficial method to train.
Lifting with a high frequency, low volume, and mixed intensities (IMO) should be great for training the CNS and by mixing up the intensities and taking rest as/when needed can keep from overstressing it. By training the CNS we will be able to get stronger. When we get stronger we will be able to use more weight in the hypertrophy workouts. Also by not doing umpteen million sets one should be able to keep stricter form through all sets/reps. Stricter form will result in more strength and size.
Here is what would make most sense to me.
A. A period of training for the CNS
B. A period of strength based period of training
C. A hypertrophy based period of training.
Then based on what your MAIN goal is, spend some more time in that training period.
If anyone thinks there is only one way of training then they're insane. And we all know the definition of insanity.

 

[MrSquat]

i dont have an exact answer to your question, but based on logic i would imagine a weak contraction would recruit less fibers than an intense contraction. you may not agree with my training approach, and that is fine, but i am going to test it out, and in 6 weeks time i will see where i am at and let the results speak for themselves. if it does not work, i will be the first to say you were right, i was wrong and i will go back to a more traditional approach. if it is successful though, i will continue to train in this nature. either way, i am indifferent to the outcome because in the end atleast i will know if it works or if it does not, which to me is a better choice than continuing to use the traditional approach, making average gains and left wondering.

Here is the answer as far as fiber recruitment. A weak contraction utilizes slow twitch fibers (that is why factory workers don't get bulky from lifting boxes at work). A medium contraction utilizes a mixture of both fast and slow twitch which is better than a weak contraction. An intense contraction utilizes ALL fast and slow twitch in a muscle. Physiologically hypertrophy is stimulated only when a fiber is contracted accros it's entire length.

 

[Necroticism]

Here is the answer as far as fiber recruitment. A weak contraction utilizes slow twitch fibers (that is why factory workers don't get bulky from lifting boxes at work). A medium contraction utilizes a mixture of both fast and slow twitch which is better than a weak contraction. An intense contraction utilizes ALL fast and slow twitch in a muscle. Physiologically hypertrophy is stimulated only when a fiber is contracted accros it's entire length.

fair enough, i fail to see how this pertains to why less frequent with more volume is superior to more frequent with less volume though...

 

[MrSquat]

fair enough, i fail to see how this pertains to why less frequent with more volume is superior to more frequent with less volume though...

Directly it says nothing about high volume, low frequency or low volume, high frequency. It does however show that what you need for hypertrophy is an intense contraction and intensity has an inverse relationship with volume. High volume means less intensity towards the end of the workout. If you want to use the numbers celc5 posted, frequency shouldn't be greater than the body's ability to recover. His number for full systemic recovery was 5-7 days.

 

[Necroticism]

but he also said that muscle recover takes 36-48 hours to recover, and that is the frequency in which i am training each muscle, every 48 hours. now remember, i am taking rest days. i am working out between 5-6 days a week depending on how intense i take each workout. so i am training no more than many people do train, just the frequency in which i am training each muscle is greater and the central nervous system gets exhausted regardless of which muscle is being trained. i am actually spending less time in the gym now that i am training in this manner, before i trained 5 days a week at an 45min-an hour and 15 min. a session, and now i am training 5-6 days a week at 30-45 days a session. so if anything, i am causing less strain on my nervous system.

 

[MrSquat]

but he also said that muscle recover takes 36-48 hours to recover,

Yes...that is local recovery not full systemic recovery though and if the entire system isn't recovered, any work is counterproductive at that point.

depending on how intense i take each workout

And if you are looking for hypertrophy as you saw in earlier posts you need full muscular contraction (meaning full intensity however you get there), anything less will not cause hypertrophy.

so i am training no more than many people do train

Yes and many people believed the world to be flat. Mass appeal doesn't make something right.

. so if anything, i am causing less strain on my nervous system.

Stress is stress and like damage to muscle (microtrauma) it is cumulative.

 

[Necroticism]

well you disagree with this system, and because i have only been using it 4 days now, i do not know if it does or does not work, and in all reality neither do you and we will leave it at that for the time being. i will report back in a couple weeks with how i responded to it, and if i am correct and it is succesful, i will tell you. If you were correct and it is counterproductive though, i will be the first to admit you are right. until then, i do not know the outcome, and am currently in the process of finding out.

 

[B5150]

Periodization!!!

No ONE method works forever!

Adaptation!!!

Don't do the same thing forever. Your physiology is much smarter than you and your weights are.

 

[xtraflossy]

Act as if you don't care. I find it funny how you disagree with what I said yet you post a bunch of papers that point to hypertrophy caused by muscular contraction.

:yawn:

Alright- this has gotten old as hell by page 3... :rofl:

Where is the study showing positive vs negative movements??? (ITs to early in the am for me to go digging through everything)..
Anyways, Your using the logic that after every negative, there isa positive (on contraction) back to the top of the movement.

I challenge you to look for research based on static holds. hell, eliminate the movement.

Muscle growth, is based on stress against muscle fibers. contractions, negatives, holds,.. does not matter. You will grow as long as your body needs to adapt to that stress.

Doing negatives causes stress becasue A) you can use more weight. B) it goes against the normal movement of the muscle.

It is possible to never use a concentric motion and train with static holds and looooooooong negatives.

Your CNS will become taxed for many and any reason in which it fires off too many signals for contraction/static or negatives.

If you REALLY want to bring cns burn down, then do isolation movements.
Studies will show you can lift more weight with one body part then by doing the same excercise with both (like bd rows)
...of course, you may be using more weight this way which would make up the balence, but thats beside the point.

CNS burnout has happened to be my biggest problem the past few years it seems.

 

[jasonschaffin]

Directly it says nothing about high volume, low frequency or low volume, high frequency. It does however show that what you need for hypertrophy is an intense contraction and intensity has an inverse relationship with volume. High volume means less intensity towards the end of the workout. If you want to use the numbers celc5 posted, frequency shouldn't be greater than the body's ability to recover. His number for full systemic recovery was 5-7 days.

So anybody who works out more than 1-2x a week won't get results?
If you wanna argue that intensity of the contraction is important. Try this. Do a chest day. Flat Bench first, incline bench second, and decline bench third. Then the next week, Flat bench on Monday, Incline Bench on Wednesday, and Decline bench on Saturday. Multiply the weight x the reps for each exercise and add them up. I would say which ever week has a higher total has a higher intensity. I'm not saying that it is necessarily better for hypertrophy, just using your own logic against you.

 

[jasonschaffin]

Periodization!!!

No ONE method works forever!

Adaptation!!!

Don't do the same thing forever. Your physiology is much smarter than you and your weights are.

Yeah! Somebody got my definition of insanity!
Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results!

 

[MrSquat]

Anyways, Your using the logic that after every negative, there isa positive (on contraction) back to the top of the movement.

Quite an interesting twist on my saying an eccentric follows a contraction.

I challenge you to look for research based on static holds. hell, eliminate the movement.

Why? Static holds are isometric. Did I say otherwise?

Muscle growth, is based on stress against muscle fibers. contractions, negatives, holds,.. does not matter. You will grow as long as your body needs to adapt to that stress.

Really? Show me some evidence that weak contractions grow the slow twitch fibers they activate and also show me evidence saying that hypertrophy can be obtained without contracting a fiber along it's full length. Then show me evidence that a fiber's full length is given a stimulus promoting hypertrophy without an intense contraction.

Doing negatives causes stress becasue A) you can use more weight. B) it goes against the normal movement of the muscle.

You apparently didn't read the thread otherwise you wouldn't think anyone said negatives don't cause contraction of the muscle.

It is possible to never use a concentric motion and train with static holds and looooooooong negatives.

Yeah...static holds were tried, a book was even written about it. Didn't work and was against scientific principles of hypertrophy.

 

[v1hyp]

DC Baby!!

 

[Apowerz6]

Lol at v1hyp, bro Dc works but because you are not Mr Squat and you have no medical background and espouse articles with no refs-it will not work.

 

[v1hyp]

That must be an inside joke bro because I have no idea what your trying to say. :think: Don’t be scared, spit it out and who's Mr Squat??

Lol at v1hyp, bro Dc works but because you are not Mr Squat and you have no medical background and espouse articles with no refs-it will not work.

 

[MrSquat]

That must be an inside joke bro because I have no idea what your trying to say. :think: Don’t be scared, spit it out and who's Mr Squat??

A new poster that some jerks with a PhD in broscience think is a sock of someone. Have no idea why they think that. Must have been some really bad drugs.

 

[Apowerz6]

A new poster that some jerks with a PhD in broscience think is a sock of someone. Have no idea why they think that. Must have been some really bad drugs.

It was a joke, if you had of read the thread Mr. Squat is who i describe him as a person who thinks he knows every damn thing, and asks for science, and when given actual article ref. to prove that persons point he spouts his theories.

Necro I am sorry to hijack your thread bro.
And for the record, I have a BA in BroScience :cheers:

 

[v1hyp]

Ok, guess I need a few more days in here to get all thr under line jokes and read all the threads..lol


:toofunny:.....:wtf:......:toofunny:.......:head:.......:ntome:

 

[Necroticism]

It was a joke, if you had of read the thread Mr. Squat is who i describe him as a person who thinks he knows every damn thing, and asks for science, and when given actual article ref. to prove that persons point he spouts his theories.

Necro I am sorry to hijack your thread bro.
And for the record, I have a BA in BroScience :cheers:

its all good. im actually in pre-bro right now...working on my doctorate in bro science.

 

[Necroticism]

well ive been doing this for a week now and here are a few things i noticed:

ive become leaner and more vascular. i am on a cut, but it seems this method is better than the standard method for this purpose.
my strength/ endurance is up too. on day 1 for incline Db press for instance(heavy day) i got 100sx6, then on my light day i got 90x12, then on my next heavy day i got 110x3 dropped to 100x6, and then today on my light day i got 90sx14. Obviously my strength is improving so far. my muscles also seem considerably fuller, so as of now everything is a plus.

 

[Resolve]

Just skimmed over the thread - I've trained very similarly in the past and still use a variation of high frequency with fairly low volume. Recovery speed increases exponentially as you become accustomed to it. I got to the point where I could do two-a-days, 4 days a week (lower body in the am, and upper in the pm) without overtraining. Then I had to go back to school for my senior year and haven't been able to work out that frequently since.

Still, low vol, high freq is my preference.

 

[Necroticism]

ive really been liking it so far.