Ok, valid points (and I agree completely that being on cycle allows you to recover way quicker)........however, with what we know about the impact of aas and protein synthesis plus the frequency of training needed to elicit a maximal natural anabolic response to resistance training I personally don’t think for many that a 3 day a week program can be optimal (of course if you look at mentzer who I believe was more a full body 3x a week proponent as opposed to Yates who was a 1-2 body parts a session guy then the situation is better with 3x full body a week but I still don’t believe optimal). We know natural lifters need to hit a muscle with more frequency than those who are enhanced, and whilst you are right in that recovery is important, I’d suggest that for those on cycle the ‘recovery’ doesn’t need to be as long but that doesn’t mean that time isn’t spent growing, being able to train with greater frequency doesn’t mean that actually training with more frequency is optimal.
Most of the big boys used to train 3-4 days a week and they were on cycle more often than not. Most coaches I’ve read suggest 5 or 6 days for natural lifters.
Massive caveat to the above though, this is hugely individual. Ones ability to recover varies hugely in my experience. A good lifter will try a variety of programs and establish what works best for them. Just from my experience most nattys benefit from greater frequency despite less ability to recover than someone on cycle who trains less but will grow more through increased protein synthesis.
Of course there’s the question of whether a lifter has the ability to actually do a set to all out failure (or beyond a la Yates) - that’s not a given for many but is a whole other topic.
Valid points as well, and I agree that most people do see benefits in the manner you are suggesting...but...
I truly, truly believe thile bolded portion is the key here. It isn't that natural lifters benefit from more frequency - it is that most lifters benefit from more volume and frequency because they are not truly using 100% intensity. It is kind of cheating by doing more to make up for a lack of effort. This is not a knock either...I find myself doing this myself. Sometimes I would just rather do 3 sets than leave it all on the table in 1 set. Sometimes I just give up too soon.
Mentzer actually recommended a split with lifters starting of training 1x every 4 days...you would train your entire body about 1x every 2 weeks. This was the starting point.
The premise, which just about everyone seems to overlook - but once you fully accept it it is like a switch going off - is that you train for ONE reason. The only reason you train today is to be better the next time. You need to stimulate a response that leads to super compensation when you train, and if you have done this, then you should be stronger in the next workout.
And the process is to stimulate ---> recover ---> grow (super compensate/adapt)
Ine key to note here - it isn't recover AND grow. It is recover THEN grow. They are two separate steps and you cannot perform step 2 (recover) until you have created a need for recovery in step 1, and you cannot perform step 3 (grow) until AFTER you have fully recovered.
And if you KNOW you have stimulated a response by training to 100% failure - and you come back next time and you are not stronger, then this can ONLY mean one thing. You are training too frequently...you have not finished steps 2 and 3. Maybe you have not even started step 3.
Now, this assumes that 100% intensity is the signal for growth (you have pushed the muscle to its absolute limit), and while this is logical it may not be necessary and doesn't appear to be. Volume can also trigger this response/adaptation. And if you are training with less than 100% intensity and not driving yourself into the ground, you may be making a trade off where you are stimulating a much smaller response, but also recovering sooner and allowing for growth in less time...which would mean frequency can and should be modulated up. In other words, you can make smaller gains in less time so making those gains as often as possible is ideal. (This is also true of high intensity - making bigger gains as often as possible would be ideal, but recovery/growth requires more time).
Mentzer's point was, start with 1 set and with very little frequency and all put intensity - this way, you can always add volume/frequency if needed because you are starting at the bare minimum prescription...but if you start at 10 sets 3x per week and don't see gains, where do you go? Do you need to do more or less volume? More or less intensity? More or less frequency?