2 times a week volume for full body workout

J

Joe.Muscle

Active Member
Poll for reps per muscle group on 2 a week full body training.

example 10 reps per muscle group would equal 20 total reps a week per muscle group.
 
Im putting together a little research of my own...getting various opinons from different points of view and groups.

Its not for me!
biggrin.gif
 
Small muscles/Large muscle groups. I couldn't answer the poll either, as I treat them differently.
Then there's goals/needs and bulking/cutting.
The poll makes no sense.
 
Well the poll was suppose to make sense.

I was considering compounds only routine...thats my mistake for not clarifying it.

I am putting together a paper / report from various sources to draw some of my own OCD conclusions.

So far it looks like a little higher volume than the average will not overtrain the majority if the people will just suck it up.
 
I train full-body 2 times a week.Doing more than 20 total reps per compound and you get fatigued and your training will last more than 60 min(this working whit 5 rm
 
<div>
(cgutcu @ Dec. 07 2007,03:40)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I train full-body 2 times a week.Doing more than 20 total reps per compound and you get fatigued and your training will last more than 60 min(this working whit 5 rm</div>
Yes 5 rep max at 40 reps is insane.
 
I do one set of 4 exercises for the main body parts on my double split twice per week routine (legs, chest, shoulders and back). That does not vary whether I am on a day calling for 12 reps or a day calling for 8 reps. Bi's and tri's are limited to one direct set each. I believe one should look at total work performed, not just the number of reps. If my goal were 30 reps and one day I do 2 sets of 15 reps at 150 pounds, I will have &quot;worked&quot; 4500 pounds. The next day I am doing 5's and have to do 6 sets to get my 30 reps and I lift 300 pounds, I will have worked 9000 pounds. That isn't necessary or desirable, in my opinion. Therefore, I could not find a suitable category for me in your poll Joe.  
sad.gif


I agree that there are exceptions to this such as doing max stim where your goal is, for example, 15 reps using 85% of your one rep maximum. However, that is a method of training that you do not vary your total rep goal from workout to workout. I don't believe your question was adressing that type of training.
 
I have problems with this guy. First he recommends two exersizes I wouldn't: situps and sidebends. Situps have been proven lousy for the abs and are hard on the spine, and sidebends would only be needed for certain type waistlines. OTOH, he then advocates weighted situps with a db on the neck and flexing the biceps whilst holding the db. I certainly wouldn't benefit from them. Then he goes on to say that squatting is a great bicep exersize...WHAT? Oh, I'm supposed to be flexing my biceps here too...even though isometric contractions have been repeatedly proven insufficient...
His program seems to be a mixture of sound advice, conjecture, and brologic. I just skimmed the rest, losing interest. Sorry for the bad review; it's just what I see here.
Oh, and nothing wrong with 2x/wk workouts, as long as you make them count - even with HST. We have threads on that.
 
Maybe that's why my legs never got to 30&quot;. I didn't use my biceps enough!

Come to think of it. Why do squats at all when my legs can get a great indirect workout with bench presses, all my DB work, shoulder presses. Curls (if i cheat enough),  etc. I obviously overtrained my quads.

No more squats for this old man! Hoorah! Thank you John Christy. You da man (even though a lot of your other articles do make a lot of sense).
 
I thought this was the site where members advocate heavy compounds and feel that direct arm work is optional. That's exactly what the author of that article is recommending. He might be taking it to a different level, but isn't the underlying concept is the same?
 
<div>
(Franko @ Feb. 11 2008,21:58)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">I thought this was the site where members advocate heavy compounds and feel that direct arm work is optional.  That's exactly what the author of that article is recommending.  He might be taking it to a different level, but isn't the underlying concept is the same?</div>
I advocate heavy compounds for arms...chinups and dips. But certainly not squatting.
rock.gif
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 12 2008,04:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Perhaps you could do overhead presses for your calves while you're at it...</div>
Hmmm ... I don't think this is entirely fair.  My take was that he's just saying that muscles undergo some tension even when they aren't the prime movers, like when the biceps get worked during rows and chins, and the like.
 
<div>
(navigator @ Feb. 12 2008,01:23)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(quadancer @ Feb. 12 2008,04:08)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Perhaps you could do overhead presses for your calves while you're at it...</div>
Hmmm ... I don't this is entirely fair.  My take was that he's just saying that muscles undergo some tension even when they aren't the prime movers, like when the biceps get worked during rows and chins, and the like.</div>
I agree.
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top