Hitting muncle 2x or 1x?
- Thread starter Qonix
- Start date
Tagger
Well-known member
Was going to ask this.
braskibra
Active member
This is such a misunderstood subject. Full recovery is not always optimal, time periods involving training with only partial recovery can be very effective. The goal should be to increase volume and intensity over the long term. Majority of the year moderate intensity moderate volume with short periods of increase and decreases in volume and intensity
NattyForLife
Well-known member
Trying doing a split were you dont have specific days you do stuff. For example, my current split i work each body part every 6th day! Say for instance:
Monday: chest/back
Tuesday: abs, cardio, orOFF
Wednesday: legs
Thursday: shoulders
Friday: bis, tris, and forearms
Saturday: cardio or OFF
Sunday chest/back
And then just keep going! You could swap the mixture of bodyparts up any way you like.
Monday: chest/back
Tuesday: abs, cardio, orOFF
Wednesday: legs
Thursday: shoulders
Friday: bis, tris, and forearms
Saturday: cardio or OFF
Sunday chest/back
And then just keep going! You could swap the mixture of bodyparts up any way you like.
asooneyeonig
Well-known member
can you be more specific on your routine and what your goals are.
Abe Lincoln
Well-known member
Depends on rep/recovery/diet/etc. I have a two day split that I repeat, so two days of volume and two days of low volume strength. So far I find it is working pretty well for me, but I'm also on cycle
hewhoisripped
Active member
Exactly this. Volume=growth. Doesn't matter how you feel. You may be 'pushing yourself too hard' aka 'overtraining' and that's FINE. Just don't do it year round. I basically push myself 80% year round and then go balls to the wall for a month or whatever I can to finals, trips, etc. Basically just plan my periodization (period of going hams+period of not going that hard) around the rest of my life.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
I don't see how people train any body part head-on twice a week. By this I mean, I can see doing back one day and biceps on another, which "kind of" trains the biceps twice that week. But the fact of the matter is, after doing a leg workout (which for me is typically about 8 sets), I can't walk right for 2-3 days.
I don't see the logic in "optimal recovery is not necessary"? Obviously you need to recover. If you train your chest in the morning and then go back later in the day and train it again, you won't be any stronger and you won't be able to stimulate any additional growth from this. I'm not saying you can't train something when it is still sore...but that doesn't make sense to me.
If you are training with a high intensity, then 1X per week is plenty if you are natural. If you are training with lower intensities, which has its place, then I can see more volume being helpful.
These conversations always remind me of a friend I'd argue this with in HS. He had been working out for a while and thought a lot of volume was important. He came to workout with my training partner and I on day, and before we started the workout we wrote out what we would be doing in our journals. The friend looked at me and said, "That's ALL you guys do?" I just said, "Yeah".
He got to the end of the workout and said, "I get it now. I couldn't do anymore if you made me."
If you train like that, you need time to recover. If you train differently, you need more volume. Both methods may work, but you can't mix the two.
I don't see the logic in "optimal recovery is not necessary"? Obviously you need to recover. If you train your chest in the morning and then go back later in the day and train it again, you won't be any stronger and you won't be able to stimulate any additional growth from this. I'm not saying you can't train something when it is still sore...but that doesn't make sense to me.
If you are training with a high intensity, then 1X per week is plenty if you are natural. If you are training with lower intensities, which has its place, then I can see more volume being helpful.
These conversations always remind me of a friend I'd argue this with in HS. He had been working out for a while and thought a lot of volume was important. He came to workout with my training partner and I on day, and before we started the workout we wrote out what we would be doing in our journals. The friend looked at me and said, "That's ALL you guys do?" I just said, "Yeah".
He got to the end of the workout and said, "I get it now. I couldn't do anymore if you made me."
If you train like that, you need time to recover. If you train differently, you need more volume. Both methods may work, but you can't mix the two.
braskibra
Active member
This is completely erroneous.
First of all if your going to train body parts multiple times per week it would require that your work capacity is high enough to accommodate this, clearly yours was not.
No one said optimal recovery, the term full and partial were used. Partial recovery can be optimal recovery at times.
The most effective systems of training use repeat sessions during the week in phases of not only full restoration but also partial. How many of each depends on many factors.
Also twice a day workouts are superior to once a day. Especially if you split one workout volume in half and complete over two sessions.
Apparently you have never heard of concentrated strength blocks and overreaching, the goal is to make functional parameters drop (ie lose strength) when you taper or reduce training loads your body experiences a super compensatory phase.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Braskibra - can you explain to me your current routine and your reasoning behind things? It may be different than what I believe, but you seem to have a high-volume approach and it isn't like I haven't experimented with things....always looking to learn more.
braskibra
Active member
I can certainly try although its hard to elaborate on such a complex topic over a keyboard
You probably do not want my current split or training regime. Due to the nature of my work, I deal with overhead athletes (mainly baseball), and also my past as an overhead athlete I continue to train for athletic purposes. Mostly because I think if your going to be good at something u better have experience doing it. Don't get me wrong I have done my fair share of hypertrophy training as well.
Generally when I put together a hypertrophy phase it looks something like this
4 -6 weeks of hypertrophy of type 1 fibers and non contractile sarcoplasmic and ramping up work capacity. This would include anything from drop sets super sets occlusion training. Volume is medium intensity is medium
Some aerobic recovery work can be done
4 to 8 weeks developing strength and hypertrophy of contractile tissue ( type 2a). Get stronger. Working towards higher Intensity and slowly ramping up volume Overall it would still be considered med vol med intensity eventually I try to reach previous phase volume but obviously now your at a higher intensity
2 week over reach
I usually will go lower body/upper body alternating 6 days a week each 3 times a week
2 week taper
Volume cut down big time and intensity high might lift 2 to 3 a week
Potentially a week or two off completely after this
You probably do not want my current split or training regime. Due to the nature of my work, I deal with overhead athletes (mainly baseball), and also my past as an overhead athlete I continue to train for athletic purposes. Mostly because I think if your going to be good at something u better have experience doing it. Don't get me wrong I have done my fair share of hypertrophy training as well.
Generally when I put together a hypertrophy phase it looks something like this
4 -6 weeks of hypertrophy of type 1 fibers and non contractile sarcoplasmic and ramping up work capacity. This would include anything from drop sets super sets occlusion training. Volume is medium intensity is medium
Some aerobic recovery work can be done
4 to 8 weeks developing strength and hypertrophy of contractile tissue ( type 2a). Get stronger. Working towards higher Intensity and slowly ramping up volume Overall it would still be considered med vol med intensity eventually I try to reach previous phase volume but obviously now your at a higher intensity
2 week over reach
I usually will go lower body/upper body alternating 6 days a week each 3 times a week
2 week taper
Volume cut down big time and intensity high might lift 2 to 3 a week
Potentially a week or two off completely after this
Abe Lincoln
Well-known member
Is an overhead athlete short for top heavy? Because never heard of that term..
bolt10
Well-known member
Sport athlete with a lot if overhead actions ex: baseball volleyball etc
HIT4ME
Well-known member
See, I don't disagree with your layout there. I think it follows a lot of what I was saying and maybe not communicating well. You have to modulate intensity, volume and frequency. There is a specific mixture of these 3 factors that is necessary for a response - and that response is not always just "growth". You are clearly modulating intensity/volume in this layout and this can work for "growth" and may be superior in other respects when compared to a high-intensity low-volume workout. Sports specific goals often require repetitive practice, and if you're training for a sport - killing yourself on deadlifts probably isn't going to help you improve much.
Having said that, from a "get stronger and grow" perspective, I think that we have similar thoughts but different dosing protocol.
My thinking on this is along these lines: no one REALLY knows why a muscle gets stronger and grows. We have theories. But the actual mechanism for growth and how a muscle knows or decides to grow is elusive. Is it TUT, is it a chemical signal, is it strictly over-compensation from damage? We don't really know - which means - we don't know much about what triggers growth, how to trigger it, and how much is necessary to trigger it.
So, we have evidence that low-intensity, high-volume routines create growth. We have evidence that high-intensity, low-volume sets create growth. If we go low-intensity, high volume - how much intensity and how much volume is the correct mixture to create the necessary "dose" of exercise? How do you know you are putting in 75% of your effort? How do you know 4 sets or 5 sets will be necessary?
It becomes a situation where more becomes better, because if you need 6 sets and don't know it, then doing 5 will do nothing for you and you should probably do 10 just to be sure you got enough, which makes recovery harder and growth less likely.
On the other side, if you know that 100% intensity can create growth, then you can measure that. You can tell, with some training and effort, when you have gone to 100% - you just can't do anymore. The issue then becomes - training too much at that intensity impairs recovery.
I think your programs follow these guidelines and they try to take the more complex route of finding that perfect mixture of lower intensity, higher-volume. My feeling is that since I am training for a specific goal of "growth", I should hit it hard, get out, and then dedicate myself to recovery.
I think we have some agreement on things here....we just apply it differently. I personally feel your approach is a more difficult approach in some ways....
Rodja
Board Sponsor
Braskibra hit the nail right on the head: work capacity. Frequency and volume are generally the best, and most supported with data, ways to increase hypertrophy. Contrary to bro belief, hitting a muscle directly more than once per week or even training 2-3 hours per day will not lead to overtraining. Hell, that's not even what overtraining really is and, if any muscle need an entire week to recover, then your recovery is very poor.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Again - it depends on what the muscle is recovering from. To say your recovery is very poor if you can't recover in a week is making some assumptions about what you are recovering from. If you rip a muscle off your bone, recovery in a week would be phenomenal. If you do all-out balls-to-the-wall squats for 5 sets to failure followed by a couple more exercises with the same intensity on Monday, and it is truly to failure and/or beyond, then I doubt you will be looking to go at it again the same way on Thursday, Friday or even Saturday. Especially if you are training other body parts or skills in between.
Now, if you are modulating your intensity and not going all-out, then I'm sure you can get a second workout in. At the proper intensity I could do 20 sets per body part twice per week. I may even see results. It would be a colossal waste of my time though since I can probably get similar results by doing 6 sets, once per week, all-out and then recovering. I probably don't have the best results on this board, because my life isn't geared toward getting in shape....it is a hobby and I am in no rush. But my diet is very loose, and I eat around maintenance most of the time, and try to eat below maintenance when I can - and I still add a rep/week to every exercise at least 3 out of 5 weeks. This is after 2 years of training, and not eating at anywhere near an optimal level. I train less than 3 hours/week in general. That is high volume for Mentzer....
Maybe my recovery is in the toilet, maybe I am a recovery-midget. Cool. I get results anyway. Maybe nothing phenomenal, but it all adds up.
Having said that - have either of you two (Braskirbra and Rodja) ever tried any form of HIT training? Was it effective for you? If you drank the cool-aid, what was the "change" that made you go higher volume? I ask this because I try to fine-tune things and ...sometimes the opposite end of the coin has clues. For instance, I started off with 2 sets/exercise, 3 exercises/body part, and then went to Mentzer's HDII routine and I've played around with multiple changes in these routines over the past year. I record everything and as time goes on, obviously the gains are harder to come by.
braskibra
Active member
We do know how muscles get stronger its either through an increase in cross sectional area, mechanical efficiency, or neural drive
Progress in terms of either performance or muscle growth is a more complicated topic. There is certainly a threshold needed to elicit a training effect. It is well known fact that experienced athletes require a much greater training stimulus to produce an effect which is why the conjugate system was created. Generally experienced athletes need higher training intensities and higher volumes. This is where intensity techniques are useful.
Progress in terms of either performance or muscle growth is a more complicated topic. There is certainly a threshold needed to elicit a training effect. It is well known fact that experienced athletes require a much greater training stimulus to produce an effect which is why the conjugate system was created. Generally experienced athletes need higher training intensities and higher volumes. This is where intensity techniques are useful.
braskibra
Active member
Honestly I'm not here to tell you your right or wrong. If your looking to train multiple times per week I would suggest increasing your work capacity.
I think your confusing intensity with effort
Intensity is simply working weight/maximal weight
If you bench 100 pounds max and your working set is 80 pounds your working @ 80% intensity It's not in reference to training balls to wall failure etc
If your only doing 4 reps on a 5 rep max then your working at 80% effort
I haven't given an honest try of HIT the research on it has generally been negative v multiple sets and that's what I believe anecdotally as well.
I think your confusing intensity with effort
Intensity is simply working weight/maximal weight
If you bench 100 pounds max and your working set is 80 pounds your working @ 80% intensity It's not in reference to training balls to wall failure etc
If your only doing 4 reps on a 5 rep max then your working at 80% effort
I haven't given an honest try of HIT the research on it has generally been negative v multiple sets and that's what I believe anecdotally as well.
braskibra
Active member
Yes we'll said in regards to this! Good points rodja
HIT4ME
Well-known member
I didn't say we don't know HOW a muscle gets stronger, I said we don't really know the "why" of it all. What is the trigger in other words...it is very complex and I think it often overlooked. It is the elephant in the room for all these people who want to claim they are being scientific and relying on studies, etc. - not only do we not really understand what triggers these increases, we aren't really making much progress toward that end either.
My definition of intensity is the % of momentary muscular failure. So, yeah - if you know you have a 5 rep max and you do 4 reps, you could say that is 80%. However, how do you know that you could get 5 reps with it before you try? Last week you maybe got 5 reps and failed, but if you're constantly improving...maybe you can get 6 reps, or 7 reps and you stop at 4 now, as if you haven't made any progress.
I'm not arguing that you HAVE to be at 100% intensity. Plenty of power lifters, bodybuilders, athletes, etc. "leave a rep in the tank" so to speak....these also tend to be the lifters who can train 2X/week with higher volumes. And that is fine...I'm not saying it can't work.
And like I said, not trying to get you to tell me right/wrong....just trying to debate intelligently with someone else who has created their own beliefs that seem to work for them and others, so that I may learn and change my beliefs to better suit my goals. Yeah, giving up a belief system entirely is unlikely, but...I feel it would be better to understand two systems that can work than just one.
As far as research, here is my experience. I don't train anyone professionally. When I was in HS, I had lots of friends who started lifting and got nowhere following volume approaches. They would start working out with me and suddenly get stronger/bigger in a short time. They trained less, but trained harder with me. So, I believe intensity/effort is of high importance.
I know there have been a few studies comparing 1 set to 3 or 5 sets. These studies are all somewhat flawed, because they don't make any accommodation for intensity, and the programs are limited. i.e. - if all I have someone doing is leg extensions 2X per week then ...yeah, 3 sets each workout is probably going to not be too taxing and they will recover and be fine...so 3 sets provides more stimulus and would be more reliable than just 1. But if I have someone training an entire body routine ...either all in one workout or in a split...at high intensity....then we are no longer talking about just 3 sets vs. 1 set. We are now talking 6 or 7 sets vs. 18 or 21 sets (6-7 bodyparts). And, of course, I don't really abide by just 1 set. I typically do about 3-6 sets/body part over 3 exercises. So, it all adds up and things become much worse.
Of course, this gets back to goals too. If you're a baseball player, you aren't going to be hitting the deadlifts and squats quite as vigorously as you would if you were Ronnie Coleman. If you are, then you're going to risk injury and take effort away from the skills training you might be doing elsewhere. In this case, lower intensity, higher volume, and decreased recovery times are far superior to pure strength/size gains....
braskibra
Active member
My friend, not to cherry pick, but you can't provide your own definitions of terms in conversations with S&C specialists.
The actual definitions were aforementioned.
Hypertrophy is a combination of tension and metabolite buildup. Tension is manipulated in various ways, eccentric, concentric, isometric, speed etc
That is why you test periodically and run through an organized, methodological, and conjugated system.
Training to failure each and every session especially multiple sets should be done with caution:
Granted I am not saying its wrong, because clearly lots of people do with good results (branch warren) but again caution is warranted.
Few studies and reports in the body of literature have directly addressed the issue of whether resistance exercise sets should be performed to failure. Research has clearly demonstrated the superiority of performing multiple sets vs. single sets for increases in maximal strength. However, there is little direct evidence to decide conclusively whether or not multiple sets should be performed to failure. Therefore, the purpose of this research note was to discuss what is currently known concerning the application of training to failure and to stimulate further research on this topic. Although not essential for increases in muscular characteristics such as strength and hypertrophy, training to failure might allow advanced lifters to break through training plateaus when incorporated periodically into short-term microcycles. Because muscular hypertrophy is a key contributor to long-term increases in maximal strength, advanced lifters should consider training to failure occasionally. The potential mechanisms by which training to failure might provide an advantage are through greater activation of motor units and secretion of growth-promoting hormones. However, training to failure is not an effective stimulus without lifting at a sufficient intensity (percentage of 1 repetition maximum). Furthermore, training to failure should not be performed repeatedly over long periods, due to the high potential for overtraining and overuse injuries. Therefore, the training status and the goals of the lifter should guide the decision-making process on this issue.
I get that your not into training for athletic purposes but the last paragraph couldn't be any further from the truth. The back squat is generally considered king of exercises for athletic purposes. Any sport requiring a ground propulsion phase and SSC benefits from a strong BS, especially for starting acceleration. If anything bodybuilders overuse the squat, where all you have to do is look strong (hypertrophy). Now obviously the BS is an excellent exercise for overall leg development but if hypertrophy is the only goal it is far from necessary especially considering stress on the lower back and potential for FAI (anterior tilt with lots of hip flexion). I really am not going to get into sport specific training esp for overhead sports because of the complexity and uniqueness of the methodology I have developed.
As far as multiple sets this is what is out there:
There has been a proliferation in recent scholarly discussion regarding the scientific validity of single vs. multiple sets of resistance training (dose) to optimize muscular strength development (response). Recent meta-analytical research indicates that there exist distinct muscular adaptations, and dose-response relationships, that correspond to certain populations. It seems that training status influences the requisite doses as well as the potential magnitude of response. Specifically, for individuals seeking to experience muscular strength development beyond that of general health, an increase in resistance-training dosage must accompany increases in training experience. The purpose of this document is to analyze and apply the findings of 2 meta-analytical investigations that identified dose-response relationships for 3 populations: previously untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete; and thereby reveal distinct, quantified, dose-response trends for each population segment. Two meta-analytical investigations, consisting of 177 studies and 1,803 effect sizes (ES) were examined to extract the dose-response continuums for intensity, frequency, volume of training, and the resultant strength increases, specific to each population. ES data demonstrate unique dose-response relationships per population. For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. These meta-analyses demonstrate that the effort-to-benefit ratio is different for untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete populations; thus, emphasizing the necessity of appropriate exercise prescription to optimize training effect. Exercise professionals may apply these dose-response trends to prescribe appropriate, goal-oriented training programs
For hypertrophy:
There is a trend for more sets > greater hypertrophy
Previous meta-analyses have compared the effects of single to multiple sets on strength, but analyses on muscle hypertrophy are lacking. The purpose of this study was to use multilevel meta-regression to compare the effects of single and multiple sets per exercise on muscle hypertrophy. The analysis comprised 55 effect sizes (ESs), nested within 19 treatment groups and 8 studies. Multiple sets were associated with a larger ES than a single set (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.04; confidence interval [CI]: 0.02, 0.19; p = 0.016). In a dose-response model, there was a trend for 2-3 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.09 +/- 0.05; CI: -0.02, 0.20; p = 0.09), and a trend for 4-6 sets per exercise to be associated with a greater ES than 1 set (difference = 0.20 +/- 0.11; CI: -0.04, 0.43; p = 0.096). Both of these trends were significant when considering permutation test p values (p < 0.01). There was no significant difference between 2-3 sets per exercise and 4-6 sets per exercise (difference = 0.10 +/- 0.10; CI: -0.09, 0.30; p = 0.29). There was a tendency for increasing ESs for an increasing number of sets (0.24 for 1 set, 0.34 for 2-3 sets, and 0.44 for 4-6 sets). Sensitivity analysis revealed no highly influential studies that affected the magnitude of the observed differences, but one study did slightly influence the level of significance and CI width. No evidence of publication bias was observed. In conclusion, multiple sets are associated with 40% greater hypertrophy-related ESs than 1 set, in both trained and untrained subjects.
braskibra
Active member
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Good stuff. So, to define intensity, you would like that to mean strictly the % of your max reps for a given weight? That's pretty close to "% of momentary muscular failure". Not sure how different those are.
What I have said so far, is that if you are training at a high-intensity (i.e. - 90-100% or momentary muscular failure), then you cannot train for long, and you cannot do it often. I have also said that you CAN train longer and more often at a lower intensity. I personally feel higher intensity, more rest is superior (this is where we disagree I think). We seem to agree that you can't train at a high intensity 2X per day, or maybe even 2X per week.
You have said that more is better. 2X per day is better than 1X per day. You added no disclaimer about intensities. Then you mention, rightly, in your routine that you use a "medium" intensity. You now go on to say that training to failure should be done with caution and rarely.
So, what I'm getting at is that we are utilizing many of the same principles in different ways. Further, your highlighted section SUPPORTS Mentzer's theories, which are even more hard-nosed than mine. It states that untrained people will respond with 60% intensity and more volume, while moderately trained non-athletes will respond with more intensity and less volume, and more highly trained athletes will respond best with even less volume and even higher intensity.
The second study is interesting, but the problem is that it too lacks any discussion of intensity. I agree 100%. Doing 1 set at 70% intensity will not yield the results that 3 sets at 70% will yield. I think 1 set at 100% intensity may even that playing field quite a bit. Also, this leaves out the factor of accumulated stress. My body may be able to recover from 3 sets just fine on an infrequent basis. But if I'm doing that for months on end, it may become more problematic - which you indirectly admit based on your training routine, which builds to high intensity, deloads, and then takes time off entirely. I never said this can't work, but I don't see it as being the most efficient way....
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Forgot to mention - I never said the squat and deadlift are not USEFUL for sports specific training. I think they are the most functional exercises that you can do. They are also the most taxing and if you are hitting them all out with any frequency, they will detract from your goals as an athlete. Bodybuilders may "over-use" it, but that is kind of my point. The athlete won't use it in the same way as the power lifter or bodybuilder.
Rodja
Board Sponsor
There's a lot that's been added so I'll just leave some cliffs:
HIT4ME: you have a big misunderstanding on intensity and frequency and you add a lot to try to strengthen your position. Nobody is saying 2x/week at high intensity is going to happen, but you can easily add in a lower intensity session after 72 or so hours. This will not increase overall volume, but will increase frequency and work capacity aka recovery abilities. You also interchangeably use muscular and CNS recovery when they are not the same thing. It's also simple adaptation as to why we get stronger; the body views training as a stressor and we get stronger to be more prepared in the event it happens again. You have to think far more primal than just a barbell.
As far as my personal experience with HIT, I didn't enjoy it primarily because of the lack of volume and injury occurrence. Going to failure multiple times per session is asking for overuse injuries as technical failure is going to occur fat before muscular failure. This is another element that needs to added into this discussion: what constitutes failure? Is it the inability to complete another rep cleanly or is it when you've reached past the point of being able to complete a rep and have exhausted partials as well?
HIT4ME: you have a big misunderstanding on intensity and frequency and you add a lot to try to strengthen your position. Nobody is saying 2x/week at high intensity is going to happen, but you can easily add in a lower intensity session after 72 or so hours. This will not increase overall volume, but will increase frequency and work capacity aka recovery abilities. You also interchangeably use muscular and CNS recovery when they are not the same thing. It's also simple adaptation as to why we get stronger; the body views training as a stressor and we get stronger to be more prepared in the event it happens again. You have to think far more primal than just a barbell.
As far as my personal experience with HIT, I didn't enjoy it primarily because of the lack of volume and injury occurrence. Going to failure multiple times per session is asking for overuse injuries as technical failure is going to occur fat before muscular failure. This is another element that needs to added into this discussion: what constitutes failure? Is it the inability to complete another rep cleanly or is it when you've reached past the point of being able to complete a rep and have exhausted partials as well?
HIT4ME
Well-known member
Well, my case the entire time is, that if you are training at high intensity, then you shouldn't be doing 2X per week. I've said, since my first post, that if you are using a lower intensity then multiple training sessions and/or more volume can work. I've also pointed out that it seems the volume guys (you and Braskibra in this case) and I are more in agreement as it appears.
So, if you're going high intensity and recovery is important - why do a lower intensity workout later in the week? It won't stimulate growth (since it's lower intensity), and it will burn up resources needed for recovery. Strict recovery would be more efficient. This is supported by Braskibra's meta-analysis which shows increased intensity and reduced frequency is necessary as athletes become more advanced.
I view training as a stressor, which is the entire point. Exercise is inherently bad for you. It is a stressor. The benefits of exercise are from the recovery and overcompensation. Being a stress - the more chronic it becomes, the less able your body will be able to handle it. If you stay out in the sunlight all day, your body won't tan. If you worry and worry and worry, without ever having a break, you will have high blood pressure and a heart attack. Chronic stress is bad, and the standard dogma in weight lifting is that the more stress the better.
And simple adaptation isn't so simple. How does your body know when to adapt? Because adapting just to adapt isn't always in your benefit for survival. Carrying the muscle of a bodybuilder, if you were a caveman, would be a huge liability - it requires more food and resources.
You have another good point - to me, failure is being able to no longer complete a full rep. Partials, rest pause, forced reps, drop sets, to me are intensity techniques that I think should be identified as going "beyond failure".
I guess I often go beyond failure. I use a lot of these techniques on over half of my working sets. Most of the time I go to failure on my first set, then do a second set beyond failure. On every set I complete, on the last rep, I tend to hold the negative as long as I can. If I do a forced rep, R/P, etc. - I will hold those negatives also.
I trained like this for 5-6 years in HS/College without many injuries. I took about 10 years off and started training again 2 years ago at the age of 33. I've remained injury free (knock on wood) - but I think part of the key that keeps me injury free while I was only MOSTLY injury free in HS is that, being older I have let go of my ego a little and I also control the rep more. I do 3-4 seconds up, 2 second contracted pause, 3-4 second down.
Having said all of this, again, I realize that someone who powerlifts needs a slightly different approach. You need to train explosively and doing explosive reps at or near failure can be dangerous. Just like lowering the weight in a controlled fashion may not benefit you for your goal - I know people drop deadlifts and I would probably do the same if the only thing that mattered was training myself to explode off the floor with as much weight as possible. The negative hinders recovery and probably does more for hypertrophy than strength...although it probably helps strength if used periodically.
Oh, and I haven't interchanged muscular and CNS recovery ....I understand the difference. But this gets back to my point about how you are lifting/intensity being negatively correlated with volume/frequency. If you are doing heavy sets of triples, you are going to tax your CNS much more than your muscle recovery. If you're doing lighter sets of 12 reps, your CNS probably won't take such a hit.
I'm not saying that volume isn't necessary...just that it isn't always the answer and you can do very well on even just 1 set, if that set is performed with high intensity. I don't think we're that far off. I just read another post on another thread by you that told a guy doing 34 sets a week for his chest was overkill. So clearly, we agree on some of these principles...it's a matter of degree, or dosage.
The thing is, if you are training twice per week and you are not getting results, what do you do then? If I'm training 1X per week and only doing 1 set, I know exactly what the answer is at that point. More volume. I can go to 2 sets and if that doesn't work, 3 sets - I can ramp up the dosage accordingly, in a scientific, methodical way.
If I start off with 4 sets, 2X per week - is more volume the answer if it doesn't work? No, I am lost at that point. Just shooting in the dark.
Rodja
Board Sponsor
Viewing a session merely for hypertrophy is very myopic. Active recovery from a lighter session improves recovery and this is seen across a myriad of athletic activities (e.g. pitchers, powerlifting, etc.). With improved recovery comes improved adaptation and that leads me into your second point about stress. Come on...let's be serious here. Do you really think 4-6 or even 12+ hours per week in the gym qualifies as "chronic" stress? Of course it doesn't and our body is an adaptive machine. How else would we be able to live in such diverse climates, topography, etc.?
I understand the important of TUT, but the irony here is that an explosive (I hate that word, BTW, and it's used far too much) concentric actually leads to improved hypertrophy compared to a controlled concentric as it forces the contractile proteins to work harder and improves neural drive. That being said, deadlifts and squats are NOT meant for a slow eccentric as that's when injury is more likely compared to the concentric. You're on the right track regarding CNS and muscular recovery, but you have to realize that it's much harder to recover from a CNS perspective than a muscular perspective and that is another reason why I think it's suboptimal to think once per week is ideal.
You're close on the volume aspect as when training once per week it's clear how to add and where to go, but the same can be said for training twice per week even at 4 sets. 8 total sets for any movement or muscle group is by no means high volume and just the volume is only a fragment of the equation. What's the TUT, rep range, proper movement/technique, etc.? There's tons of variables in this equation and even some of the tricks that you use can be utilized as a method to improve volume. I use RP and drop sets myself from time to time, but these are merely tools and not the materials themselves.
braskibra
Active member
That's why there is a conjugated hierarchy of exercise selection.
HIT4ME
Well-known member
See, I've been reading some of your other posts and some of Braskirbra's other posts and it is funny - I really don't think we are THAT far apart on our theories. We are just coming from different directions. What I've noticed is guys on here doing a ton of sets and you've told them to pull back quite often....focus on what's important and keep it a little simpler, etc. It's usually similar advice to what I would give.
I train about 6 set/bodypart, hitting each bodypart 1X per week. I guess in a way I have built in "deloads" because I focus on improving rep ranges on a wider range than some....I can be training anywhere as low as 3 reps/set and as high as 12 reps per set. Depending on the exercise and muscle group, if I hit 8, 10 or 12 reps I will jump the weight a little. So, what happens is I may be starting out getting 3 reps (maybe 90+% of my 1RM) and then be there for about 4 weeks or so and suddenly I'm in the 8 rep range (now I'm at 80-85%), and then 4 weeks later I'm probably at about 75-80% when I'm doing 12 reps and jumping the weight. This may not be strict periodization, but it's a similar effect.
And yes, the CNS seems to be the big limiting factor, especially training under 8 reps. I agree, the muscle itself can recover faster than the CNS - but CNS effects seem to also be cumulative to me. I understand the concept of active recovery, but it doesn't seem like those workout are promoting growth to a large extent and I've seen some studies suggesting it just simply doesn't work. Of course, you can find studies to say anything, and "work" vs. "not work" is not really what studies necessarily tell us.
On the flip side, I guess if I'm saying that recovery is one of the most important factors in growing, then if active recovery aids recovery, then it is important even if it not stimulating muscle growth.
Thanks for the conversation on this guys - glad you know enough to stand your ground and can let me stand mine. I'm learning and considering some new things here....