HIT4ME
Well-known member
See above. "Training a body part more than once a week is definitely not overtraining, if not done properly" (Which I believe you meant to say, "if done properly")
Not reaching, just applying logic. What if you train with super high intensity....is it still not overtraining if you hit it once per week?
You can certainly overtrain working out once per week. Some people can do more. Some may even need less. The average person may be able to do it 1-2x per week.
The articles you link clearly state that reduced volume and increased frequency were a method of increasing total "workload". His big point he makes, which is pretty good actually - is that if you do a bunch of exercises in one session, you will actually have a decreased workload using the same weights and sets because by the time you get to the last exercise you will be tired and you will do less work with that third exercise than if you went and hit it on a second day after you recovered. But this could be said of a single exercise as well. If you do 3 sets today, you will be tired on the 3rd set - so you would be better off spacing it out over 3 days so that you can hit each set with more intensity.
Quote:
"If you train a muscle group more often, you increase total work output. Many people, including scientists and not just the authors of this review, continuously neglect this crucial fact. If it doesn’t click, consider a typical bro leg day performed once a week on Wednesday: 3 sets for as many reps as possible of squats, deadlifts, leg presses and leg extensions. Now put the deadlifts and leg extensions on Friday and move the squats and leg presses to Monday. You’re obviously going to be able to achieve a higher total work output (weight x reps x sets) with the split workout compared to the all-in-one workout, because you’re performing 3 of the 4 exercises in a much less fatigued condition. How many reps of leg presses at say 70% of 1RM can you do after squats and deadlifts? You’re gassed. I sometimes see clients double their repetition performance, such as going from 5 to 10 reps, when they move an exercise to its own day instead of performing it after several other exercises for its target muscle groups."
Applying logic to his statement, between the lines he is saying - volume is not as important as intensity. You can get more over-all workload with lower volume more frequently. This, to a large degree, I can agree with. Which is why I suggested the lowest possible volume - 1 set. Again, logically, if we are doing 1 set, we can only do one exercise. I've merely taken his statements (which again, I agree with this part) to their extreme and applied his 3-5X per week suggestions.
Further, the very article headline you link is "5x beats 2x". What am I making up or reaching for here?
Only problem is, for most natural lifters, squatting with any real intensity (sufficient to cause muscle growth) will become counter productive for most lifters at 3-5X per week. I am so certain of this, I will reduce it to just 1 set per workout and just 5 sets per week.
And you believe this too, or else why aren't you doing it? Just 5 sets per week on one exercise, applying the logic in the articles you linked. If you think it won't work because it's not enough...do more. I'm fine with that. If you want to do 4 sets a day, 5 days a week...you could REALLY prove me wrong. Just make sure each set is taken to true failure. Hell, if you're going to do 4 sets, 5 days per week, I'm cool with you leaving a little in the tank even.
I have no issue with you having a different opinion, and appreciate the debate - but I am going to be honest here. I've been on this site a long time, and I've heard all the people saying overtraining isn't real and that 2X per week is best for results. I've heard it so much and seen so many "studies" that I bought into it too. I've spent the last 3 years trying 3-4 different training regimens to try to find the right balance where training 2x per week or more could be beneficial. I learned some things but beyond that, it's been a complete waste. Low volume, high intensity work has built most of my strength and gets the best results. It is not even comparable.
Is this true for everyone? Probably not. Some of you probably DO get the best results 2X per week. I may have an ability to generate a slightly higher momentary output than some of you, but many of you may be able to tolerate more of a workload than me. Who knows. But I have to provide the other side, because I've wasted time and people are so sure of themselves and a lot of those people (not saying you) aren't even aware that they aren't getting results. There are a lot of people who, if training at truly high intensities, cannot train more than 1x per week or so.
And a lot of these people who make blanket "2X a week" statements are ignoring a lot of factors. 2X per week may work well for the balance of volume/intensity they do. Some people are freaks and can tolerate huge workloads and probably won't even grow unless they are going at it daily. And some people may not even be able to make continuous progress at 1X per week without additional rest periods.
I was just pointing out that people put up these "scientific" articles but they know, deep down, that it is not the entire story and far from definitive - because they don't really train that way either. I'd be interested to see how you are actually training and how it lines up with the 5X per week bit.