Landmonster
New member
- Awards
- 0
I have long pondered the importance between training volume ( sets per session), and training frequency (times trained per week).
I realize that this is a sliding scale. Let's consider chest, as a sample bodypart. Lets pick a weekly volume, of say 24 sets.
On one end of the spectrum (the volume end), you could train chest once a week, and do 24 sets that session. Next, you could train chest twice a week at 12 sets. Next, you could train chest 3 times a week at 8 sets each. Finally, for the other end of the spectrum (the frequency end), you could train chest 6 days a week, and just do 4 sets a day.
Each of these breakdowns equals the exact same training TOTAL (same weekly volume), yet it would probably affect the msucle in a significantly different way. Doing 24 sets in a single workout would completely exhaust the muscle, giving it plenty of time to recover (maybe too much). Doing 4 sets every day never truly exhausts the muscle, but it gives its tons of stimulation to grow.... but not much rest (maybe not enough?)
Which of these programs is optimal for muscle SIZE? and which of these programs is optimal for muscle strenght? and why!
I have tried both, I am curious as to other peoples input.
This is the most simple way I can think to analyze frequency vs. volume, because I know often times when people simply increase the frequency, they dont cut back on volume, and then blame "FREQUENCY" as overtraining!
However, say you wanted to train a bodypart 24 sets as a weekly load, as I pointed out theres A LOT of ways you can go about it.
I would just like to know, on a cellular, or scientific level which program is best for growth, and which program is best for strength.... if indeed there is a difference.
:squat: :dl:
I realize that this is a sliding scale. Let's consider chest, as a sample bodypart. Lets pick a weekly volume, of say 24 sets.
On one end of the spectrum (the volume end), you could train chest once a week, and do 24 sets that session. Next, you could train chest twice a week at 12 sets. Next, you could train chest 3 times a week at 8 sets each. Finally, for the other end of the spectrum (the frequency end), you could train chest 6 days a week, and just do 4 sets a day.
Each of these breakdowns equals the exact same training TOTAL (same weekly volume), yet it would probably affect the msucle in a significantly different way. Doing 24 sets in a single workout would completely exhaust the muscle, giving it plenty of time to recover (maybe too much). Doing 4 sets every day never truly exhausts the muscle, but it gives its tons of stimulation to grow.... but not much rest (maybe not enough?)
Which of these programs is optimal for muscle SIZE? and which of these programs is optimal for muscle strenght? and why!
I have tried both, I am curious as to other peoples input.
This is the most simple way I can think to analyze frequency vs. volume, because I know often times when people simply increase the frequency, they dont cut back on volume, and then blame "FREQUENCY" as overtraining!
However, say you wanted to train a bodypart 24 sets as a weekly load, as I pointed out theres A LOT of ways you can go about it.
I would just like to know, on a cellular, or scientific level which program is best for growth, and which program is best for strength.... if indeed there is a difference.
:squat: :dl: