optimum frequency & rep cadence

J

jack32

New Member
hi guys,

i was kicking around the subject of frequency today w/ a friend of mine.

we discussed mcguff and little's new book (1x weekly training), the old bulgarian program (frequent bodypart training), mentzer's training and arthur jones oldest version of hit, training 3x weekly.
i was discussing what, for me, produced my best results, and every time, frequency was high and some form of cycling/periodization was involved to some degree.
koch's old ironman program was tremendous.
costa's bulgarian program worked real well.
and 2 summers ago hst worked very, very well.
i even received compliments at our local neighbor pool!

interestingly enough, using hst for 4 to 5 weekly, full body hits seemed (at least for me) even better than 3 workouts. my metabolism seemed to be on overdrive and i was as cut as i ever was.

since then i've done a lot of hit training along w/ max stim.

now, in my perfect world (i'll be 53 next month) w/ plenty of rest and outside stress at a minimum, i just embarked, after some SD work, on my hst program.
my goal is to get in optimum shape by summertime.

i just joined a local gym that is co-owned by an IFBB pro.
i had a lot of fun today, talking training w/ him. i can really feel the motivation and energy in me. i think this will be a good, positive environment.

for the lab geeks (no offense intended) in our audience, is it at all realistic to see better results from the extra weekly hits (assuming i balance total # of exercises, avoid injury and recover).
what i define as better results is simply a more improved metabolism resulting in lower bf%.

regarding rep cadence-- i use primarily nautilus, cybex and medx equipment. i'm a bit hesitant to follow a waterbury approach (move fast). 2 second positive/ controlled negative is more to my liking.

thoughts, comments, experiences are welcome.

thanks!
jack
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"> is it at all realistic to see better results from the extra weekly hits (assuming i balance total # of exercises, avoid injury and recover).
what i define as better results is simply a more improved metabolism resulting in lower bf%.</div>
the more you do the more cals you use so yes,it should lower bodyfat.
 
I personally dont know if the increased frequency in hst workouts a week will give you more hypertrophy.

You have some that believe it will (Watebury) and some that believe that to much has to compromise (volume/work/intensity) to keep up that insane amount of frequency.

However it all you are looking to do is get cut...then I think it would work well...just by the insane amount of calories you will be burning by doing compound exercises 5 to 6 times a week.

However the argument could be made that is if all you want to do is maintain current muscle and rip up then why not do basic compounds 2 a week heavy with just enough volume to maintain muscle mass and up the protein and up the cardio.

What I am trying to say...is fromt the research I have read outside of waterbury I dont think you are going to find a coach that says that more is better for hypertrophy (at least outside of 3 fullbody workouts a week).

So if you look at it from the standpoint of more is not better for hypertrophy...then what does MORE actually do in this example.

The answer is more frequent workouts will burn more calories making you leaner.

So if we know thats the only real advantage to it then why not just do cardio and lean out even more than the frequent compounds will do for you.

My 6 dollars worth!
biggrin.gif
 
<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">for the lab geeks (no offense intended) in our audience, is it at all realistic to see better results from the extra weekly hits (assuming i balance total # of exercises, avoid injury and recover).
what i define as better results is simply a more improved metabolism resulting in lower bf%.</div>

Although my opinion is only worth a few cents, it kind of reflects tha same opinion as that of Joe's and faz for that matter.

I'd say most definitely yes, specially for lower BF, you can monitor it and perhaps only lower the frequency some once things start getting too heavy, prehaps then increase rest and reduce frequency, without sacrificing the volume (only if you can of course).

Its really a matter of keeping a fine balance, rest, calory intake and enough stimulus to keep the metabolism on high! Go Jack!
wink.gif
 
thanks guys for the positive, NON-condescending replies, i appreciate it!
i'm agreeing (after 2 weeks of 15s) that 3x weekly is plenty.
i trained on tuesday, and wasn't ready to go on thursday, so i rested an xtra day.
one thing i'm noticing as i age, is that not using drugs, with a 10-15% calorie debit and eating low carb for those days (monday thru thursday) really can take a toll on my recovery and ability to maintain higher frequency.
more attention needs to be given to the post recovery window i suppose, which brings me to this post workout question...am i better served foregoing my typical low carb, protein drink (55g protein and 10 carbs in favor of the something like biotest's surge post recovery drink (27g protein and 55 or so carbs)?
if anyone has experienced good results with any other post workout formulas, please offer opinions and thoughts.
thanks,
jack
 
If you are looking to cut while maintaining muscle and you are really motivated (maybe insanely so is required) check out Lyle McDonald's UD2.0 book/routine. It is a routine and diet plan for cutting specially for people that are already on low bf %s.
 
electric,
i will do that. thanks.
coincidentally, i stumbled upon dan duchaine's old book- bodyopus, which is also geared for folks already in decent shape.
for anyone who's read both-- any similarities between the two books?
jack
 
UD2.0 is somewhat based on bodyopus but with many &quot;improvements&quot; due to more recent researches on the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top