Article: High Vs Low Frequency Training
- 09-14-2012, 08:39 AM
Article: High Vs Low Frequency Training
You can view the page at http://anabolicminds.com/forum/conte...uency-Training
- 09-14-2012, 01:51 PM
This article is a crock of ****. The author almost immediately claims high "frequency" training to yield the quickest results. Where's the evidence? The one strength coach I've never heard of? This might be true if you're juiced up whore. However, nearly every study ever conducted on the subject has determined that less is more; "low frequency", not as the author mistakenly defines it, at about 1 set per exercise for 3-5 excersises per week is optimal for 3 standard deviations around the mean individual(over 99% of the population). This type of program has the most profound effect on muscular, metabolic, and hormonal systems. Many research based programs support this frequency, like BodyByScience and Occam's Protocal. But if this concept is too difficult for you meatheads to comprehend, than by all means, continue you're bro-science methods of augmenting a few pounds of muscle per year.
- 09-14-2012, 02:50 PM
09-14-2012, 08:18 PM
09-14-2012, 10:52 PM
I am thinking he is referring to something like Starting Strength or Strong Lifts when he refers to high frequency training in this article.
09-15-2012, 01:19 AM
I just looked this up and it seems like a joke. The tag line is "A research based program to get the results you want in 12 minutes a week!". I'm just going to go ahead and say FAIL on that one. There's no way anyone will gain any appreciable amount of muscle training that way. From an Amazon reviewer: "If you look up pictures of John Little and most of his clients, you'll mostly find a group of fairly average looking men with very few impressive physical specimens. You'd be hard pressed to tell if some of them work out at all, and I think most people at least want noticable gains from their gym experience."like BodyByScience
09-15-2012, 11:24 AM
Reading the above debate cracks me up! All you morons that quote "research states this, and research states that" are full of sh*t!! Anybody can say they research something, but the only real way of knowing is by trying and doing different things. And of course you need to watch your form and intensity until you find what's comfortable and beneficial for you! Both methods work great, depending on your own preference and body type, plus if you are lifting for size or athleticism.
The only true statement is: Lifting and staying active works! Do it carefully and in a way your body responds best, high or low frequency!
09-15-2012, 08:08 PM
I agree with Wrivest on that statement. I would like to add something to support low frequency training... I found working out to "failure" absolutely beneficial for myself (2 days rest in between workout days). Evey time I do this, I am met with phenominal gains. Although I have to admit, you can't do this allthe time. You will burn out.
09-15-2012, 08:52 PM
Another false statement. Exercise alone doesn't work. Almost anything will work for a noob, but even noob gains can't make up for improper diet. Even with proper diet, just going through the motions will eventually get you nowhere. Proper diet and training are essential to continued progress. Just "lifting and staying active" are not enough, unless you don't care about looking the same year after year.The only true statement is: Lifting and staying active works!
09-16-2012, 11:37 AM
Thank you Vengeance187... I know what frequency is and yes, just about any kind of exercise will work for a noob. I'm with you on the low frequency. It's what works best for me! Usually I train high frequency when I cut up(along with HIT). IMO, it's where I see the best results for myself(not forgetting about proper diet of course; it is essential). All in all, everyone reacts differently to individual exercises. And you just have to figure out what works best for you in the years to come...
09-16-2012, 01:23 PM
Lol at opposite day. Yes, science is bad.
Having trained on both sides of the frequency spectrum, I think there is truth to this article for sure..at least looking at the very big picture. One can argue over all the minutiae forever, but I used to train hard 4 days a week and got my gains and got where I wanted to be. Life, career etc have now forced me to go with very low frequency training and I was initially terrified of losing my gains and watching my physique whither away in the absence of a gym, ideal food, etc, but I am maintaining on both size and strength. If I opted to, I could push harder on my one workout a week and probably see at least strength gains but my overall goal is simply to maintain and NOT injure myself until this contract I am working on is over. Then I can go crazy in the gym again.
09-16-2012, 05:57 PM
Obviously nutrition is a huge part of ones daily regiment, but this article is not about that, it's about workout frequency! My point was that neither one (high or low) can be considered king, no matter what you may like! I personally use both methods, and change things up to keep my muscles guessing, it's called avoiding plateaus! But you can keep lifting with the same game plan every day, and tell me how much your numbers increase!
09-16-2012, 08:48 PM
09-17-2012, 06:26 AM
09-18-2012, 04:40 AM
I personally prefer high frequency because I see good gains from it assuming I am paying attention to my diet and without going to the gym 7+ times a week I get really bored. 6 times weight training and cardio 2-6 times a week.
Similar Forum Threads
- By jumpshot903 in forum Training ForumReplies: 3Last Post: 06-16-2012, 10:13 AM
- By derker2008 in forum Weight LossReplies: 1Last Post: 01-30-2009, 08:35 PM
- By Rugger in forum Training ForumReplies: 4Last Post: 07-22-2008, 01:03 PM
- By mayneVayne in forum SupplementsReplies: 2Last Post: 08-23-2007, 12:38 PM
- By iron addict in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 2Last Post: 06-19-2004, 10:05 PM