Three times a week!?!
- 03-27-2006, 01:04 AM
Three times a week!?!
Have any of you tried a program where you would work each muscle group 3 times a week? I just read a few interviews with ed corney and he had mentioned a few times he trained 6 days a week, hitting each muscle group 3 times a week.
I am personally an Ed Corney fan and naturally i am temped to give this method a try...untill reality sets in and i realize what that actually means. But I was wondering if anyone has tried anything along these lines.
- 03-27-2006, 01:41 AM
If you could go with something that was spaced out and balanced, it may work for you. Personally, I would never try that kind of program out just because of the lack of rest.
If you're that interested, you could give it a shot for 5 weeks or so.
- 03-27-2006, 02:17 AM
Never tried it...wouldn't ever try it either.
03-27-2006, 02:41 AM
Originally Posted by BPB
I've done a program like that and it worked as a natural.
I have to bed now is 0350 hes est and i just got home from work. I will answer your psot indepth later this morning.
03-27-2006, 07:23 AM
Pheonix Rising I am looking forward to hearing your thoughts. If you could explain in greater detail your comment "...as a natural" I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks!
03-27-2006, 08:38 AM
there's another thread in this forum where someone asked that same question .. check it out for responses
03-27-2006, 09:03 AM
I have done a power lifting program that is similar to this and have gotten very good results from it. I am actually starting it up again today. It concentrates on a heavy, medium, light days throughout the week. So even though you are hitting a muscle 3 times a week, its not as ridiculous as you think. For instance, Squat on monday 5x5 with a backoff of 8, wed would be squat 5x5 but 50 lbs lighter than monday and friday would be squat 5x3 and 2x3. Bill Starr wrote a book on the program, "Only the strong shall survive" It is pretty much a full body workout everyday of the program. It integrates the big three in exercises.
03-27-2006, 10:19 AM
You may find this thread intresting:
I have used full-body 3x/week and liked it but I found that 2x/week upper/lower split worked betetr and both are definately superior imo to 1x/week
03-27-2006, 11:17 AM
I apologize if this was already a topic that has been discussed. I tried the search function but i must have either looked over the thread or not made the topic specific enough. I will check it out.
03-27-2006, 11:48 AM
Natural as no ph's or aasOriginally Posted by BPB
03-27-2006, 01:07 PM
Sorry Pheonix Rising, i should have been more specific. I knew what you meant but from what i have read and it seems whenever i read about a volume/frequency debate i read the "this program will cause you to overtrain in no time since you dont have the enhanced recovery ability of an individual who is using ph's or aas."
On other boards when someone would post a workout by a pro bb, well i guess a big example would be arnolds encyclopedia. When people ask about the routines, even the most basic, the first reply is "Steriods." So i was wondering what the thought was in saying being natural (which i currently am) would yield better results. I dont mean to sound like i am questioning your comment but i am interested in your reasoning.
I looked again at corney's routine, the sample he gave, and it ends up being 30+ sets per muscle group/per week.
03-27-2006, 01:17 PM
You can train muscle groups 2 or 3 times a week without the doing the massive amoutns of volume that you read in pros' workouts as that volume cannot be sustained naturally but a 2 or 3/week frequency at a sensible volume can be done naturally and can be very effective.
03-27-2006, 02:10 PM
if you were to do the 3x a week gig, hitting your muscles in different ways i am assuming has to be a must. Would you recommend maybe, day 1 4-6 reps, 2 6-8, and 3 10-12? Hypertrophy would be my goal out of this, and I would take day 1 to failure, day 2 one or two reps shy of failure, and day 3 would mostly be to get blood in the muscles again. Is this sensible or am i completely out of my tree?
03-27-2006, 10:56 PM
I would do days 1,2 15-12 reps days, 3,4 10-8 reps, and days 5,6 8-6 repsOriginally Posted by BPB
I would also go easy on the volume say 3-5 sets per body part
No sets to failure
I would advise doing 1 exercise per body part.
The body parts that you are gifted with you may want to cut the volume down to the min. That will give you better energy and recovery for your lagging body parts.
There is alot of room to tweak with the variables
03-28-2006, 07:23 AM
yeah 3x per week without roids seems like overkill. The most I've done was each bodypart twice a week and that beat the **** outta me
03-28-2006, 07:52 AM
i hit each body part 3 times in 10 days. They are lower volume, but VERY intense. I'm still sore, and have seen the best growth EVER, hands-down.
I just don't understand routines that hit each bodypart once per week. With the high volume of reps/different exercises per bodypart, you just can't effectively train one body part that much. It's a waste to do 4 chest exercises, of 4 sets a piece. If your going hard, you've burned your chest out after one exercise.
Why not go hard on lower volume, give your body enough rest time (3-4 days) then hit it again?
Perhaps I'm oversimplifying, but this type of training has been so far superior to other routines it's not even close.
Oh, and this works FOR ME. Everybody is different, but I've seen maximum growth this way... but good luck in whatever approach you take!
03-28-2006, 12:03 PM
Training multiple times per week works.. as long as you don't go to failure... There is quite a bit of research to support this....
And it makes sense...
Do you eat one huge meal a day or do you break it up into six?
Is it better to pull an all-nighter cramer study fest or study a little each day?
(although many people prefer procrastinating research shows gradually studying is superior to cramming)
03-28-2006, 02:37 PM
Yeah, there are some advantages to keeping the bodypart "stimulated" more than once weekly, but three times is probably unecessary and most likely more destructive than constructive.Originally Posted by agentgt
03-28-2006, 03:31 PM
Isn't this HST training style? Or is it different from that in some way? I know that is 3x a week for each muscle, as weeks go on you decrease reps.
03-28-2006, 04:47 PM
Originally Posted by The Godfather
Yea both are def superior to 1x, I like 3x full body, some guys like the 2x upper/lower.
03-28-2006, 04:57 PM
How could you allow for recovery and over compensation when hitting a muscle this often? Remember you must recover before you could over compensate and that does take some time
Last edited by phil216; 03-28-2006 at 04:59 PM. Reason: typo
03-28-2006, 05:10 PM
03-28-2006, 06:15 PM
Definitely, eh? Okay...now you have to explain.Originally Posted by CDONDICI
03-28-2006, 06:40 PM
I would also love to hear the reasoning behind this great ideaOriginally Posted by kwyckemynd00
03-28-2006, 07:22 PM
Well I should have clarified, It is only better If you are looking to gain mass(hypertrophy) fast.Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
When you hit a muscle 3 times per week with less volume than you would with a 1x per week split it will induce more hypertrophy(muscle mass).
http://nsca.allenpress.com/nscaonlin...P%3E2.0.CO%3B2The University of Alabama, Department of Human Performance Studies, PO Box 870312, Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35487
KRUG Life Sciences, Inc., Houston, Texas.
There is not a strong research basis for current views of the importance of individual training variables in strength training protocol design. This study compared 1 day versus 3 days of resistance training per week in recreational weight trainers with the training volume held constant between the treatments. Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: 1 day per week of 3 sets to failure (1DAY) or 3 days per week of 1 set to failure (3DAY). Relative intensity (percent of initial 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) was varied throughout the study in both groups by using a periodized repetition range of 3–10. Volume (repetitions × mass) did not differ (p 0.05) between the groups over the 12 weeks. The 1RMs of various upper- and lower-body exercises were assessed at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12. The 1RMs increased (p 0.05) significantly for the combined groups over time. The 1DAY group achieved 62% of the 1RM increases observed in the 3DAY group in both upper-body and lower-body lifts. Larger increases in lean body mass were apparent in the 3DAY group.The findings suggest that a higher frequency of resistance training, even when volume is held constant, produces superior gains in 1RM. However, training only 1 day per week was an effective means of increasing strength, even in experienced recreational weight trainers. From a dose-response perspective, with the total volume of exercise held constant, spreading the training frequency to 3 doses per week produced superior results.
03-28-2006, 07:31 PM
Originally Posted by phil216
The key is volume.
Say you do chest once per week and do 6 sets.
Say I do it 3x per week and do 2 sets each time.
Were both doing 6 sets per week.
Once you start doing higher frequency workouts, and spreading out your volume your recovery ability will actually increase, and you will be able to progressively add more volume, more than you could efectively fit into a 1x per week workout.
03-28-2006, 07:53 PM
Eh, I'm not convinced.
If you want to increase sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, yes, lifting more frequently will probalby do it. More demand on intracellular fluids in that case. But, we want a combination. Sarcoplasmin hypertrophy is very limited.
03-29-2006, 12:42 AM
Interesting study. Whats the best search engine to find exercise science studies?
03-29-2006, 01:58 AM
Thanks all for the discussion, i am learning a lot from this. I have another question though, quick and easy, but i am thinking i am going to go to a 2x a week. The more I am thinking about 3x the more I am not liking it. My question is, when figuring out if you are recovered enough for another workout, do you go by feel? for example, i worked chest on sunday. (16 sets to failure) I right now do not feel sore, and feel like they are workable again. Is that sufficient evidence, or enough to bank on that fact that i could handle another chest workout tomorrow? Thanks in advance and sorry for the subtopic.
03-29-2006, 02:37 AM
Personally, I go on the ammount of weight and rep's. Presuming that rep speed and form are relatively equal. If you did 225 for 8 on your first set of your 1st exercise, and if youve achieved supercompensation then youll be able to do 9 or 10 w/ 225, or 7-8 w/235. If you cant then something went wrong. Sometimes its because you hit it again just a bit to soon, sometimes it could be cuz you underestimated caloric, or protien needs, or cuz you didnt sleep enough for a couple nights, or even cuz youve been stressed out over something unrelated to training. But if you pretty sure those things are in place, and that you havent been overtraining for months w/ no break, then its probably because you needed an extra day or so to grow. Not only will different styles of trainining require diffeerent recovery time's, but also certain times (ussually when the style is new and fresh to your body) you'll need different recovery lengths with the same style. Plus theres so many ways you could interpret a chest wkout consisting of 16 sets. You could take each set to positive failure, no more no less. You could pyramid, failing at gradually lower #'s of reps, or pyramid while going 1-2 reps shy of failure except for the last set of each excercise. Or add forced reps, ect,ect. IMO soreness is only a vague indicator for anything. You can get sore and eat well and sleep well and still not grow, or vice versa. And subsiding soreness after a wkout that got you sore, only gives you a sort of "ballpark" idea of when you can hit it again, and can at times be misleading. Thats why weight and reps is the only concrete statistical way of telling if you grew. The visible growth happens to slow most of the time, so you cant really tell. Unfortunately, even the weight/reps predictor has its limitations though. IE: it fails to account for strength increases attributable to improvements in neuro muscular efficiency (motor unit recruitment), and conective tissue strength building. Plus you cant keep having the same exercises in the same order forever.
03-29-2006, 09:31 AM
Perform aboutOriginally Posted by BPB
3 sets for chest (compounds)
3 sets for back (compounds)
4-6 sets for legs (compounds)
2 sets shoulders (compounds)
1 set bis
1 set tris
1 set calves
1 set traps (optional)
1-2 sets abs (optional)
Mon - Wed - Fri
Dont train to failure
You will experience less soreness and more gains.
03-29-2006, 09:42 AM
i don't know that your body could recover fast enough in 2 days to hit everything again..... excuse me, MY BODY can't... i opt for 2 days per week...
i'm a doggcrapp guy myself. say what you want bout it, but it's worked wonders for me and i stand by what's given me, without a doubt, the best gains, bare none. i'm sure there are those that will come in and blast me or that routine, but i stick by my results.
03-29-2006, 09:53 AM
Will you really be too sore, 2 days later, from 3 sets that are not performed to failure?Originally Posted by not_big_enuf
I agree with you in your stick with what works mentallity, you say 2x per weeek gave you better results than anything you tried, but have you ever tried a 3x per week.
Im not trying to tell you what you should do, but If you like 2x per week I bet you'll love 3x per week if you spread out your volume correctly. Just something to think about.
03-29-2006, 10:06 AM
I've tried 3 like that, and with various volumes too. I couldn't get to a place where I was seeing results. either it was going to hard and I couldn't recover fast enough, or I wasn't going hard enough and didnt' see any growth.
Originally Posted by CDONDICI
03-29-2006, 10:21 AM
Originally Posted by not_big_enuf
Yea, it is tricky to get the volume rigth at first, you have to keep it low to get your body used to the high frequency, but once you get used to it you can add more volume, your recovery rate should increase, I think it works best.
But I definatley cant knock your opinion especially if you've tried 1x, 2x, and 3x.
03-29-2006, 10:27 AM
yeah, some of us like to torture ourselves and try damn near every routine, or modification we can... we're not happy just lifting and getting stronger/bigger... we wants results as fast as our bodies can handle...
that's why all of us are a little screwy in the head...
Originally Posted by CDONDICI
03-29-2006, 01:09 PM
I haven't had timew to compeltely read through the posts but let me throw this in as Bryan Hay**** does explain quite well how one can work out each muscle multiple times a week and why it is superior although I have to say some that I am not the greatest fan of HST:
03-29-2006, 03:48 PM
Originally Posted by The Godfather
LOL! the forum program automatically sensored the last part of his name cuz its Co*k. Thats classic.
03-31-2006, 01:08 AM
Those HST threads probably sum it up. Anyone that's tried HST knows that you can hit muscles 3 times a week just fine. You generally just need to use less volume and stay farther away from failure.
According to Brian H. you should have some minor aches and very light soreness, nothing like the sometimes painful DOMS you can get from doing many heavy sets near failure.
Also, a major part of HST is the "strategic deconditioning" period. That means that after 8 weeks or so you take about 2 weeks off and do nothing but recover and basically let your body get used to not lifting anything.
03-31-2006, 01:09 AM
If you're going to try the 6 day split, I would make sure that none of your muscles are getting worked every day.
Something like this would be bad (IMO):
Most of your bodyparts would be getting used at least somewhat six days a week.
I would try this instead:
You may even consider eliminating tricep isolation exercises.
Similar Forum Threads
- By Squats in forum BulkingReplies: 107Last Post: 11-09-2008, 06:59 PM
- By bkoguy07 in forum BulkingReplies: 3Last Post: 07-16-2008, 08:59 AM
- By justreading in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 22Last Post: 04-11-2006, 11:07 PM
- By mouton in forum AnabolicsReplies: 13Last Post: 04-07-2006, 02:09 PM