resting period

[brmiau]

hey

i was told that working each muscle group once a week is more beneficial than working them 2/3 times a week. is that true?

i have based my routine round this... ie, monday chest/tri's, tuesday back/abs, wednesday legs, thursday shoulders/forearms, friday bi's/abs

giving the muscles a week to recover was better than hitting them 2/3 time a weeks. just would like some advice please.

thanks

 

[gopro]

I recommend to most (there ARE exceptions with superior recovery ability) trainees...especially drug free one's...to train each bodypart intensely once per week.

If over time you find that you have a lagging bodypart, it is perfectly fine to train it twice per week for 4-6 week periods to help bring it up to pace. This would require removing some volume from other bodyparts so that overall sets stay the same.

 

[GFR]

2x a week is best for young men 13-25 or so, once you get a bit older 1x a week is best.....I am talking about natural trainers only here.

 

[brmiau]

hrm ok... one says once a week and the other says twice a week...

i spose ill try just once a week for now, see how that goes

 

[GFR]

hrm ok... one says once a week and the other says twice a week...

i spose ill try just once a week for now, see how that goes

Nope, I said twice a week if you are a very young man, once if you are not. If you are high school or college age 2x a week is good, once you pass that age it might not be best.

 

[brmiau]

ok, twice weekly it is... im only 20

could you recommend a routine for me now? maybe a 4 day split or something. day1- chest/tri's, day2- legs/bi's/forearms, day3- back/shoulders, day4- off.

thanks mate.

 

[GFR]

ok, twice weekly it is... im only 20

could you recommend a routine for me now? maybe a 4 day split or something. day1- chest/tri's, day2- legs/bi's/forearms, day3- back/shoulders, day4- off.

thanks mate.

chest, delts, triceps ( push)
legs
lats, traps, biceps ( pull)
off
chest, delts, triceps ( push)..50% sets
legs.50% sets
lats, traps, biceps ( pull).50% sets

 

[brmiau]

alrightey then... so prob along the lines of

sun- bench, incline bench, military press, upright row, rear delt row, tri kickback
mon- squat, deadlift, calf raise, wrist curl, reverse wrist curl
tues-barbell pullover, bentover row, shrug, bicep curl, preacher curl
weds-off
thurs-same as sun just less weights
fri-same as mon just less weights
sat-same as tues just less weights

yes/no?

 

[KillahBee]

once a week no matter how old.

 

[brmiau]

haha ok.. getting confused now

 

[KillahBee]

i'm your age myself bor and i can tell you from experience, twice a week you will be overtraining. Simple! If you are looking for big fat free muscle gains, you need to stick with the basics, i.e. bench, deads, presses, squats etc, and work them HARD. You will NOT be getting adequate rest if your are doing this twice a week.

Rest and nutrition makes up 90% of how you look. Just remember that!

 

[gopro]

haha ok.. getting confused now

Train each bodypart once per week very intensely. Any bodypart that is falling behind can receive a few extra work sets at another workout during the week. Here is an example of what I might have someone do if their pecs were lagging...

-chest (full workout)/biceps
-legs
-off
-lats/traps/lowback
-chest (half workout)/shoulders/tris
-rest
-rest

 

[Tough Old Man]

Train each bodypart once per week very intensely. Any bodypart that is falling behind can receive a few extra work sets at another workout during the week. Here is an example of what I might have someone do if their pecs were lagging...

-chest (full workout)/biceps
-legs
-off
-lats/traps/lowback
-chest (half workout)/shoulders/tris
-rest
-rest

Gopro's under new management by Toughy. So that will be $100 please.

Send to;

Gopro / Toughy
Po Box 1000
Wolf Arena Circle, Florida
1000-0555

 

[CowPimp]

I prefer doing a lower level of volume per session and increasing the frequency. That is, I like training body parts 2-3 times per week. However, the volume per session is quite a bit lower than you might see with your typical bodybuilder split.

 

[dontsurfonmytur]

I prefer doing a lower level of volume per session and increasing the frequency. That is, I like training body parts 2-3 times per week. However, the volume per session is quite a bit lower than you might see with your typical bodybuilder split.

cowpimp, is 3 sets of bb bench, and 3 sets of incline bb bench, and 3 sets of DB flat flies, low or high volume for chest only
I also do 6 sets of shoulders and 3-6 sets of tri's on the same day, and my question is could i add another day later in the week for chest again?

 

[assassin]

what about once every 5-6 days

 

[CowPimp]

cowpimp, is 3 sets of bb bench, and 3 sets of incline bb bench, and 3 sets of DB flat flies, low or high volume for chest only
I also do 6 sets of shoulders and 3-6 sets of tri's on the same day, and my question is could i add another day later in the week for chest again?

With that level of volume one day should be sufficient. If I train upper body twice each week I usually include maybe two pressing movements each session and that's it. You could do it for a brief period to bring up a weak point, but I wouldn't inecessantly pound away at your pressing muscles so much more than everything else for an indefinite period of time.

 

[gopro]

I prefer doing a lower level of volume per session and increasing the frequency. That is, I like training body parts 2-3 times per week. However, the volume per session is quite a bit lower than you might see with your typical bodybuilder split.

Do you do this with the main goal being hypertrophy? Or are you geared more toward strength and functionality?

 

[gopro]

Gopro's under new management by Toughy. So that will be $100 please.

Send to;

Gopro / Toughy
Po Box 1000
Wolf Arena Circle, Florida
1000-0555

I knew I hired the right guy!

 

[CowPimp]

Do you do this with the main goal being hypertrophy? Or are you geared more toward strength and functionality?

Strength is the real goal. I just increase my calories to gain mass, and it has worked quite well on higher frequency routines. The level of success I experienced, mass wise, on said routines have been just as good as what I experienced when doing more traditional bodybuilding protocols.

Also, yes, I have tried P-RR-S. Excellent protocol. Of the bodybuilding programs that I have tried, it wins hands down. Of course, it is certainly possible to implement the parameters of P-RR-S with a higher frequency program, but I have come to have much success with undulating and conjugate periodization in terms of strength qualities.

My philosophy is to train for strength and eat for size. It has worked well for me thus far. I think eating is far more important, as evidenced by the fact that sumo wrestlers have the highest levels of absolute LBM on the planet, and powerlifters are right behind them.

 

[gopro]

Strength is the real goal. I just increase my calories to gain mass, and it has worked quite well on higher frequency routines. The level of success I experienced, mass wise, on said routines have been just as good as what I experienced when doing more traditional bodybuilding protocols.

Also, yes, I have tried P-RR-S. Excellent protocol. Of the bodybuilding programs that I have tried, it wins hands down. Of course, it is certainly possible to implement the parameters of P-RR-S with a higher frequency program, but I have come to have much success with undulating and conjugate periodization in terms of strength qualities.

My philosophy is to train for strength and eat for size. It has worked well for me thus far. I think eating is far more important, as evidenced by the fact that sumo wrestlers have the highest levels of absolute LBM on the planet, and powerlifters are right behind them.

Well, I am glad that your methods have been working for you. I agree that eating is extremely important to the equation, but that given two equivalent diets in two genetically identical people, it would be the type of training that would make the difference (obviously)....and that if pure muscle size was the desire, than moderate to low volume, less frequent training would produce the superior results. Training for strength would yield equal results in the first few years of training, but once going from a beginner to intermediate stage (and beyond), strength gains become less and less of a factor to gaining mass.

 

[CowPimp]

Well, I am glad that your methods have been working for you. I agree that eating is extremely important to the equation, but that given two equivalent diets in two genetically identical people, it would be the type of training that would make the difference (obviously)....and that if pure muscle size was the desire, than moderate to low volume, less frequent training would produce the superior results. Training for strength would yield equal results in the first few years of training, but once going from a beginner to intermediate stage (and beyond), strength gains become less and less of a factor to gaining mass.

Well, your routine calls for a reasonable amount of strength training. Power week is essentially riding the fine line between purely neural adaptations and hypertrophy. I don't necessarily feel that everyone should perform maximal effort attempts, but going heavy enough to allow for CNS adapatation is a good idea for bodybuilders in my opinion. Again, it all comes down to periodization. You need to cycle volume and intensity to manage fatigue and keep progressing naturally. That's one of the reasons I respect your program; it is actually a planned out program, and you tailor the cycling of phases based on the needs and goals of the user. I also like how it alternates training phases more frequently than with your standard linear periodization model so that you don't detrain any specific biomotor abilities significantly between phases.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the subject of training frequency though. I feel both methods are workable, but it is my opinion that higher frequency training can be just as effective or more effective than low frequency training, even though the reverse may be true for someone with poor genetics in the recovery department. Perhaps through time, more experience, and increased empirical evidence I will come to think otherwise. However, based on my current level of experience this is what has worked for me and plenty of others, and there is plenty of literature to support the idea.

 

[gopro]

Well, your routine calls for a reasonable amount of strength training. Power week is essentially riding the fine line between purely neural adaptations and hypertrophy. I don't necessarily feel that everyone should perform maximal effort attempts, but going heavy enough to allow for CNS adapatation is a good idea for bodybuilders in my opinion. Again, it all comes down to periodization. You need to cycle volume and intensity to manage fatigue and keep progressing naturally. That's one of the reasons I respect your program; it is actually a planned out program, and you tailor the cycling of phases based on the needs and goals of the user. I also like how it alternates training phases more frequently than with your standard linear periodization model so that you don't detrain any specific biomotor abilities significantly between phases.

I'm going to respectfully disagree with you on the subject of training frequency though. I feel both methods are workable, but it is my opinion that higher frequency training can be just as effective or more effective than low frequency training, even though the reverse may be true for someone with poor genetics in the recovery department. Perhaps through time, more experience, and increased empirical evidence I will come to think otherwise. However, based on my current level of experience this is what has worked for me and plenty of others, and there is plenty of literature to support the idea.

Well, actually, even my POWER weeks call for hypertrophy-based TUT times if you follow the program exactly. With each repetition talking 4-5 seconds (4/0/X), you can still work up to 20 second plus TUT. But of course, when I am personally involved in one's training, the POWER week can take on slightly different forms.

If you have noticed the trend toward less training frequency amongst bodybuilders in recent years, it is NOT because of some fad started by Dorian Yates or other low volume trainers...but rather because most everyone is finding (even steroid using athletes) that higher intensity and less frequency is working better than greater frequency and/or greater volume. This pretty much holds across the board, with the exception of a person here and there.

I know I have been in this game for 20 years now, 15 as a trainer and this has borne out over and over again with myself and clients. And there is literature to support this idea as well...although I don't pay much attention to scientific studies of this nature.

While not everyone needs a once per week frequency (some do better at 5-6 days), it is a RARE individual that can handle 2-3 bodypart workouts per week and respond with hypertrophy with an extended period.

Of course, some people WILL respond favorably if they do what is needed to recover, but it is my belief that they will repsond BETTER if they reduce frequency when hypertrophy is the MAIN goal.

 

[CowPimp]

I don't think the trend is entirely the result of the success of low frequency training splits. Much of it has to do with the fact that many people don't know how to competently design a higher frequency training program. I'm not indicting you of this, but it is a takes a more thorough understanding of how to balance the various training parameters to do it properly. Another reason it has moved in this direction is because of the popular media in bodybuilding culture supporting this idea.

Also, it's probably rare you find someone who responds favorably to higher frequency routines for one, the aforementioned reason of being incapable of putting together a properly designed program utilizing higher frequency training; two, because not that many people even try it! I have seriously never talked to a single person in real life who trains frequently and does it right, and I rarely talk to anyone who trains frequently at all. Never; not once. Hell, most personal trainers don't know how to do it properly.

If you take a look at other competitive arenas outside of bodybuilding where the people have a lot of LBM, you will notice that they utilize higher frequency training sessions. Look at strongman competitors. Those are some massive bastards, and much of their training is high frequency and doesn't utilize barbells and dumbbells for that matter. Look at powerlifting. Yeah, there are some serious fatasses (Who also happen to be packing massive amounts of LBM), but there are also lots of lean and muscular guys tearing it up. PL programs generally call for more frequent training. Weightlifters? Also, these are all sports where their main goal is not hypertrophy, yet they have no problem achieving it by training for their sport and eating like crazy.

 

[gopro]

I don't think the trend is entirely the result of the success of low frequency training splits. Much of it has to do with the fact that many people don't know how to competently design a higher frequency training program. I'm not indicting you of this, but it is a takes a more thorough understanding of how to balance the various training parameters to do it properly. Another reason it has moved in this direction is because of the popular media in bodybuilding culture supporting this idea.

Also, it's probably rare you find someone who responds favorably to higher frequency routines for one, the aforementioned reason of being incapable of putting together a properly designed program utilizing higher frequency training; two, because not that many people even try it! I have seriously never talked to a single person in real life who trains frequently and does it right, and I rarely talk to anyone who trains frequently at all. Never; not once. Hell, most personal trainers don't know how to do it properly.

If you take a look at other competitive arenas outside of bodybuilding where the people have a lot of LBM, you will notice that they utilize higher frequency training sessions. Look at strongman competitors. Those are some massive bastards, and much of their training is high frequency and doesn't utilize barbells and dumbbells for that matter. Look at powerlifting. Yeah, there are some serious fatasses (Who also happen to be packing massive amounts of LBM), but there are also lots of lean and muscular guys tearing it up. PL programs generally call for more frequent training. Weightlifters? Also, these are all sports where their main goal is not hypertrophy, yet they have no problem achieving it by training for their sport and eating like crazy.

Well, I agree that many people do not have a clue as to how to set up a higher frequency training program. However, obviously I do, and am reporting to you MY findings after 20 years, using the gym as my laboratory.

And yes, I also agree that there are many massive individuals in other sports where training is more frequent and hypertrophy is not the main goal, however, while it certainly is possible to achieve tremendous levels of muscle growth using "non-bodybuilding" methodologies, it is still not OPTIMAL if size is the goal. If any of these men who have achieved great mass as powerlifters, weightlifters, or strongmen, it is my contention that they would be EVEN more massive, if they followed a more "bodybuilding-like" protocol.

I also want to mention that the use of steroids, GH, and other performance enhancing drugs can skew results greatly, and make even the most "non-bodybuilding-friendly" training program appear to producing wonderful results in terms of hypertrophy. And a high percentage of these massive strength athletes are in fact using these drugs.

But anyway, I agree to disagree with you CP.

 

[CowPimp]

Well, I agree that many people do not have a clue as to how to set up a higher frequency training program. However, obviously I do, and am reporting to you MY findings after 20 years, using the gym as my laboratory.

Fair enough. I'm not discounting your experiences, but there are plenty of highly respected trainers who have discovered the same about higher frequency routines through empirical evidence.

And yes, I also agree that there are many massive individuals in other sports where training is more frequent and hypertrophy is not the main goal, however, while it certainly is possible to achieve tremendous levels of muscle growth using "non-bodybuilding" methodologies, it is still not OPTIMAL if size is the goal. If any of these men who have achieved great mass as powerlifters, weightlifters, or strongmen, it is my contention that they would be EVEN more massive, if they followed a more "bodybuilding-like" protocol.

It's quite possible. That's pure speculation though. I'm not suggesting you aren't allowed to speculate. Sometimes as a professional you have to, but it is still speculation nonetheless.

I also want to mention that the use of steroids, GH, and other performance enhancing drugs can skew results greatly, and make even the most "non-bodybuilding-friendly" training program appear to producing wonderful results in terms of hypertrophy. And a high percentage of these massive strength athletes are in fact using these drugs.

Very true. However, the same supplements can skew results such that "bodybuilding-friendly" programs can appear to produce wonderful results in terms of hypertrophy, and a high percentage of bodybuilders are using these drugs as well. It can go both ways.

But anyway, I agree to disagree with you CP.

I can live with that. I think the take home message is that both types of training are quite capable of stimulating hypertrophy. As well, both types of training can be implemented in almost everyone's program at some point, even if it is just for a brief stint. Frequency can also be periodized like any other parameter, a la Twinpeak's TP-PT program. Which method is optimal is still highly debatable.

For example, a bodybuilder could step up the frequency of training for a particular lagging body part for a short mesocycle in order to spark growth once again. By the same token, a powerlifter could reduce training frequency and intensity, while increasing volume, for a short mesocycle to give their CNS a break and allow for neural supercompensation to take place.

 

[CowPimp]

By the way, thank you for having a civil discussion of this topic. It's something that could've easily turned to flaming.

 

[gopro]

By the way, thank you for having a civil discussion of this topic. It's something that could've easily turned to flaming.

Bro, I would never have a reason to flame with you. You always give respect, and thus deserve respect in return.

We could go on forever with this debate, but I think enough points were raised for others to benefit and learn from.

I believe that every high level trainer feels that their own methods are the best, or they would not use them. The only problem for me arises when I find out that another trainer makes claims WITHOUT EVER UTILIZING ANY OTHER METHOD for comparison.

Like I mentioned, I have been at this 20 years and never take anything at face value. I have purposely tried every training program ever invented (ok, I am sure I have missed a few), from HIT to high volume to GVT to Mentzer to AST to Westside, etc, and carefully and thouroughly tracked and recorded results, so that I would KNOW what works best for a specific goal. This is precisely what led to the development of my theories and of course, P/RR/S.

I have also had the opportunity to train bodybuilders, strength athletes, football players, wrestlers, golfers, tennis players, baseball players, teens, the elderly, etc...and have also done similar experimentation with all of them as well.

If I didn't, I could not stand behind my ideas as strongly as I do.

 

[assassin]

u guys are really friendly and civilized ........................ we really learn alot from ur debates

 

[CowPimp]

Bro, I would never have a reason to flame with you. You always give respect, and thus deserve respect in return.

We could go on forever with this debate, but I think enough points were raised for others to benefit and learn from.

I believe that every high level trainer feels that their own methods are the best, or they would not use them. The only problem for me arises when I find out that another trainer makes claims WITHOUT EVER UTILIZING ANY OTHER METHOD for comparison.

Like I mentioned, I have been at this 20 years and never take anything at face value. I have purposely tried every training program ever invented (ok, I am sure I have missed a few), from HIT to high volume to GVT to Mentzer to AST to Westside, etc, and carefully and thouroughly tracked and recorded results, so that I would KNOW what works best for a specific goal. This is precisely what led to the development of my theories and of course, P/RR/S.

I have also had the opportunity to train bodybuilders, strength athletes, football players, wrestlers, golfers, tennis players, baseball players, teens, the elderly, etc...and have also done similar experimentation with all of them as well.

If I didn't, I could not stand behind my ideas as strongly as I do.

Well stated. Many others in your place would have definitely flamed there though, hehe. Actual debating is very healthy though.