My college professor told me...

[Snuggles]

I was told by a college professor that working muscle groups once per week won't get the job done. He told me to work out every other day doing all muscle groups. He also told me that by doing one set per muscle group you get 80% of your value, 2 sets 15% and 3 sets 5%.

Also I was told that not counting your calories is fine.

Does anyone agree with these things???

[sf9ersfan8]

i hope hes not a professor in sports or nutrition science. i doubt that everyone on AM as well as every other bodybuilding site has been doing it wrong for all these years and hes just 400 pounds of shredded muscle ready to win the next 110 years of the olympia. sorry, it just goes against everything ive learned here, and ver the course of my journey for more muscle.

[Rugger]

Most pros and serious lifters workout each muscle group more than once a week....

[SilentBob187]

Most pros and serious lifters workout each muscle group more than once a week....

Is that for maintenance purposes or for maximizing growth?

[OCCFan023]

shenanigans on the professor.

[OCCFan023]

Most pros and serious lifters workout each muscle group more than once a week....

most pros also have additional recovery "tools" in their arsenals though. I think a higher frequency training protocol is certainly productive though when cycled properly.

[BodyWizard]

I was told by a college professor that working muscle groups once per week won't get the job done.

How does he define "the job", specifically?
What determines whether it's been "done"?

He told me to work out every other day doing all muscle groups.

That is a valid/useful approach - depending on your goals, and how you intend to achieve them, but it's not a one-size-fits-all solution.

I want to know what question he thinks he's answering.

He also told me that by doing one set per muscle group you get 80% of your value, 2 sets 15% and 3 sets 5%

???

Sorry, maybe I'm tired or distracted or something, but this just makes no sense to me, unless he's saying the first set on a bodypart gains the most benefit (I'd want a good breakdown on how that's supposed to work, 'cause it's arguable either way IMO)

Also I was told that not counting your calories is fine.

As with the rest of this, it depends entirely on the question, and the goals it reflects.

Does anyone agree with these things???

Not so far.

[ozarkaBRAND]

professor sounds like a D bag..

My professors (at UT) wouldn't agree with him, nor would I.

[Resolve]

Variety is the key to lifting - preventing your body from adapting to a specific routine. Full body wo's can be one phase of doing that, but I think just about every pro out there has done a split routine at some point - it allows you to better emphasize your different muscle groups.
Also, keeping at least a vague idea of your caloric intake is really beneficial. Crap if I didn't, I'd still weigh 180, and at 6'4", that's skinny. Wanna gain muscle? Gotta eat the right amount and right macronutrient ratio.
Your Prof doesn't have the whole picture. But it's not the first time a teacher didn't know his stuff - good job for doing some research on your own.

[shaddow]

Your professor is stupid!

[AE14]

most pros also have additional recovery "tools" in their arsenals though. I think a higher frequency training protocol is certainly productive though when cycled properly.

Indeed, also many work on a plan of 1x per week for most body parts, however they adjust based on need as well as "weak points"

[Nabisco]

A rough calorie count every day is not "essential" if you're a mesomorph and sprout muscle everytime you lift. But it's key to achieving your goals if you're truly serious.

Full body workouts 3 times a week is one way to go about it. Look up the HST routine, its pretty much what he's talking about. However, there is absolutely nothing wrong with focusing on specific muscle groups each day either.

As far as each successive set providing less "bang for your buck". That doesn't make sense. So according to him, its not worth doing more than one set per muscle group? So I'm only getting a good workout if I do one set of ten reps for bench press? Or is he referring to exercises? As in you get less from your second and third exercise.

I'd find a new adviser for your lifting/nutrition goals.

[kwyckemynd00]

I was told by a college professor....

What is he a professor of?

[Rodja]

He is probably referring to strength, not muscular hypertrophy.

[chim_chim]

I think exactly 0% of pro bodybuilders are doing full-body, 3x/week.

It's also a misnomer to say that there is a single, best routine for everybody. There are many approaches that can work, and none of them are going to be optimal if used continuously.

[LSU Gladiator]

I have had this debate before. The age old question:

What's better, single set or multi-set training?

The research doesn't really say what a bodybuilder wants to hear. Most of the initial studies were done with weight lifting novices, and those studies showed that people who followed a single set protocol improved in strength just as much as the people who followed a multi-set protocol. For a while we could just look back at those studies and say, "OF COURSE NOVICES ARE GOING TO IMPROVE! IT WON'T MATTER HOW THEY TRAIN!" Then a study was conducted with experienced weight lifters - same procedure (single vs multi set). This study, suprisingly, revealed similar results.

A couple of typical ACSM studies on the issue:

http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/re/msse/...195629!8091!-1

http://www.acsm-msse.org/pt/re/msse/...195628!8091!-1

He also told me that by doing one set per muscle group you get 80% of your value, 2 sets 15% and 3 sets 5%.

I have also heard this. With greater volume training, we attain greater improvement up to a point where extra sets just don't do anything. Well, why not put the above percentages into perspective. Imagine a guy bench pressing, and trying his hardest to add poundage to the lift. The guy doing sets with 100lbs will improve an extra 5% by doing a 3rd set than the guy who does 2 sets. In theory he will gain an extra 5lbs on his bench with his next 1RM. Not very dramatic. With greater poundages, that 5% benefit adds up. The guy that does sets with 200 lbs improves 10 lbs on his next 1RM. The guy that does sets with 300 lbs improves 15 lbs on his next 1RM. I know that doesn't actually happen, as we exhibit less and less improvement as we progress to elite levels of fitness.

The bottom line is this: When being strong is your business, the small percentage improvements seen with greater training volume are vital. The olympian that lifts 1 more pound than his peers wins a gold medal.

That being said, I don't think the natural athlete can stay at a high volume training routine over his lifespan without risking chronic injury to his joints. It might not be a bad idea to cycle through periods of lower training volume (like 1 set or 2 sets) during some parts of the year just to preserve our bodies in the long run. I read this YESTERDAY and it really has me thinking:

http://www.exrx.net/WeightTraining/L...eTraining.html

[Snuggles]

Bump,

So If I wanted to put muscle on fastest I should probally stick with high volume??

And he also siad that by doing a body part once a week you'll never increase your strength. But he also siad he wanted to put size on me first...so I think he was talk about strength and size.

[EasyEJL]

he is clueless. there are many ways to acheive the same goals. high volume will likely treat you well

[LSU Gladiator]

ArE yOu A nEwB? LoLz!

If so then anything is going to work. Beginners probably don't need to just work out 1 body part/day.

Hypertrophy-specific training typically involves fairly high volume.

And he also siad that by doing a body part once a week you'll never increase your strength.

I have noticed that if I work a compound movement 2x in a week as opposed to once, I get stronger WAY faster.

But he also siad he wanted to put size on me first...so I think he was talk about strength and size.

Sounds like he's trying to put you on a periodization-type plan. You start with a hypertrophy phase, and gradually build up to a strength training phase, and you continually cycle these two. The progression is usually high volume low intensity at first, and by the end it's low volume high intensity. That's how most competing athletes train, I don't know if body builders use the periodization model as much.

[BodyWizard]

As interested as I am in this, there's just nowhere to take it without some actual information: Snuggles, can you take a shot at giving us some context for him saying this? I mean, he didn't just walk up out of the blue, spout this, then walk away, right? What went down? Script it for us, please.