How about very high frequency?

A

ajntorinj

New Member
I'd like to hear the group's opinion on the following idea I've been kicking around.

Suppose a kept a dumbbell at my desk at all times. Let's suppose I can curl this dumbbell 10 times. If I were to regularly curl this weight or use it for tricep extensions, say at least four times a day for about 3-5 reps, would this provide enough stimulus for growth?

I am suggesting this approach because I don't really enjoy doing isolation movements after all the compound lifts I do, but I still want larger arms.
 
I played around with the idea before. However, when it came to implementing it I fell short (even though I am my own boss and could of easily).

In any case, you may find that the following compound lifts are better for arm development when going very heavy.

-deads
-weighted inner pullups
-dips
-inner grip bench



Eat enough to put on the weight and the arms will grow. A rule of thumb is every 10lbs = 1" on the guns.





I guess I didn't help to answer the question though, as I don't have an educated answer to give you on what you asked specifically, but I would be interested in hearing what others comment on it.
 
Four times a day goes back to my anabolism questions; that no one has satisfactorily answered yet.
And we consider: are you using the same weight? That would seem to lend itself to neural conditioning up to a point, where it no longer constitutes exersize and needs more intensity (weight, range, less rest or more speed)
I've always said this to the couch potatoes:
If you walk after laying around; that's exersizes. Walking consistently will be training.
When used to walking, fast walking is needed.
After that, a trot, or more distance, or incline.
After that, a jog, or same as above.
After that, sprints.
After that, a rest period (SD).
Exersize is useless. Consistent exersize is training, which forces the body to adapt. If our couch potatoe continues to walk, he may lose some fat, but will not progress in strength or muscle. He MUST increase the load/duration/intensity in some way, in a consistent manner. If he walks four times a day, is he gonna get bigger? No, smaller, unless I've missed something really important these last few years.
 
<div>
(quadancer @ Jan. 06 2008,08:24)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Four times a day goes back to my anabolism questions; that no one has satisfactorily answered yet.
And we consider: are you using the same weight? That would seem to lend itself to neural conditioning up to a point, where it no longer constitutes exersize and needs more intensity (weight, range, less rest or more speed)
I've always said this to the couch potatoes:
If you walk after laying around; that's exersizes. Walking consistently will be training.
When used to walking, fast walking is needed.
After that, a trot, or more distance, or incline.
After that, a jog, or same as above.
After that, sprints.
After that, a rest period (SD).
Exersize is useless. Consistent exersize is training, which forces the body to adapt. If our couch potatoe continues to walk, he may lose some fat, but will not progress in strength or muscle. He MUST increase the load/duration/intensity in some way, in a consistent manner. If he walks four times a day, is he gonna get bigger? No, smaller, unless I've missed something really important these last few years.</div>
quadancer, I agree with what you say about needing to change the demand with adaptation. There was an article on T-Nation recently where the author talked about increasing frequency to stimulate hypertrophy and suggested adding another &quot;session&quot; a week, then after a few weeks resetting (with more weight presumably), and then building up the frequency again.

jwbond, you're right about the effectiveness of compounds for building size. I'm just impatient and looking for something that'll do the job quicker.

It is funny that you mention pull-ups, since my post was partially inspired by a DragonDoor.com article addressing how to increase max reps on pull-ups. The answer was very high frequency, according to the author.
 
Muscle requires protein to grow. It will not grow without it regardless of how many times you lift the object. This means it will grow only as much as the protein you eat. So eat more protein.

On the other hand, you can do what you want and if you want to lift the object all day long, go ahead. There are jobs where we lift objects all day long. Those who work in these jobs grow to adapt. Eventually, they stop growing because the objects are only so heavy and because they've grown resistant to the object's weight. They may continue to improve their strength as they repeat the same lifts over and over. But basically, once they've grown to their needed size, growth stops.
 
Which brings us back to progressive load. Like Quad alluded to, you'd have to increase the weight you are using over time.
 
My point exactly, better said.
I often say, &quot;work breaks you down&quot; &quot;exersize builds you up&quot;, but that's in the context of someone who does both. I hate what my job does to me in terms of MESSING UP my workouts, depleting my glycogen, energy, diet, outlook, etc.
It's usually after that statement &quot;Isn't work enough exersize for you?&quot; when you say you have to go lift after you get off work.
 
The problem with progressive load (required) AND high frequency is the possibility of overtraining. Certainly, it's a delicate balance.

About your arm idea, have you read about Poliquin's arm cure? Consensus is that it's worthless, but it's an interesting read if you can find it.
 
<div>
(Martin Levac @ Jan. 08 2008,00:19)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">This means it will grow only as much as the protein you eat. So eat more protein.</div>
Since Martin mentioned this I am asking this trick question so beware
wink.gif


What is the ratio of protein eaten to protein deposited into muscle tissue?
 
<div>
(Dan Moore @ Jan. 08 2008,09:13)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">What is the ratio of protein eaten to protein deposited into muscle tissue?</div>
I would like to know the answer, but I suspect the amount of protein needed for synthesis is a lot lower than most people think.
 
<div>
(drpierredebs @ Jan. 08 2008,09:28)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Proteins are not deposited into muscle, amino acids are.

Re: turnover rates

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi....ieSet=1</div>
Of course proteins are not actually deposited into the muscle, but amino acids make up protein. We do not measure caloric intake based on amino acids, but rather protein.
 
Words have meanings and proteins are not deposited into muscle for building muscle. Amino acids are deposited, or taken-up or delivered into muscle cells for anabolic purposes.
 
<div>
(colby2152 @ Jan. 08 2008,09:52)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> We do not measure caloric intake based on amino acids, but rather protein.</div>
the caloric content of a protein is based on its amino acid composition.

1 kilogram of egg white is not calorically equivalent to 1 kilo of red meat and this is due to the difference in amino acid content of each protein source. (water, fat content aside)
 
Dr. Pierre makes a good point. Also in answer to Dan's trick question. There is no ratio of protein eaten to protein deposited into muscle. The muscles can only uptake so much amino acids at a time regardless of how much we eat. So long as the minimum caloric and amino ingestion is there protein synthesis will occur as a result of training stimulus. Eating an extra 50 grams of protein on top of what is needed will do absolutely nothing but add bodyfat or be converted to energy.
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">
J Appl Physiol. 2002 Jul;93(1):394-403.
Selected contribution: acute cellular and molecular responses to resistance exercise.
Haddad F, Adams GR.
Department of Physiology and Biophysics, University of California, Irvine 92697, USA.

Training protocols apply sequential bouts of resistance exercise (RE) to induce the cellular and molecular responses necessary to produce compensatory hypertrophy. This study was designed to 1) define the time course of selected cellular and molecular responses to a single bout of RE and 2) examine the effects of interbout rest intervals on the summation of these responses. Rat muscles were exposed to RE via stimulation of the sciatic nerve in vivo. Stimulated and control muscles were obtained at various time points post-RE and analyzed via Western blot and RT-PCR. A single bout of RE increased intracellular signaling (i.e., phosphorylations) and expression of mRNAs for insulin-like growth factor-I system components and myogenic markers (e.g., cyclin D1, myogenin). A rest interval of 48 h between RE bouts resulted in much greater summation of myogenic responses than 24- or 8-h rest intervals. This experimental approach should be useful for studying the regulatory mechanisms that control the hypertrophy response. These methods could also be used to compare and contrast different exercise parameters (e.g., concentric vs. eccentric, etc.).</div>
I was lazy and just posted this study done on rats. There have been similar studies done on human subjects. Training more frequently than 48 hr.s does not have any benefit in hypertrophy stimulus and actually gains seem to be diminished with more frequency than that.
 
Dr. Pierre, thank you but I know all of this. I was merely mentioning that we measure and record protein intake rather than the actual amino acids breakdown.
 
The same as playing &quot;Stairway to Heaven&quot; in a guitar shop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top