Training a muscle every 48 hours really IS optimal for growth...

Discussion in 'Hypertrophy-Specific Training (HST)' started by anab0lic_, Apr 29, 2012.

  1. anab0lic_

    anab0lic_ New Member

    And I hate it that its true, because you really do need to invest a lot of gym time if you want to fully develop every part of your physique... I've tried just about every frequency per bp part there is and nothing makes me grow as well as every 48 hours, infact if I wait much longer than this the muscle trained seems to start to deteriorate and return to its size/strength it was prior to the last time it was trained.... which means I cant progressively overload it with more weight/reps next session.

    I dunno about you guys but I dont like the 3x a week setup, you cant really hit everything and have a well rounded physiqe with enough intensity when the volumes that high.... I like to split the workload in half and do the 1st half Monday second half Tuesday then 1st half again Wednesday etc.... I think Bryan Trains this way too? Interestingly this is how arnold trained back in the day from the info I've gathered from his book and other sources.... and some days hed training morning then again at night to split the workload up even further.... actually if you look around theres quite a few people who champion this high frequency training. The 1x a week thing never worked for me, yet it seems it does for some? I dont know whats up with that, do some people retain muscle far better than others? That's my current theory anyway. When i take a week off from training I lose an amount of size that is very noticeable yet other guys can go on a two week vacation and come back only slightly worse off...

    The nice thing is once you build the muscle up to a certain size/strength level you can cut back on the frequency to maintain its current size where you kind of build it up lose some between sessions if they are spread out further...then build it up again.... you just need very dedicated bursts/cycles where you are training it hard every 48 hours to take it to new size levels. Another thing I like to do when im feeling run down but still want to grow is run some bodyparts at high frequency while other bodyparts are put on the back-burner for a while and run at lower frequency.... this works especially well if you have some bodyparts that are lagging and others that are overly developed in proportion to the rest of you...

    It amazes me that more people havent figured this stuff out yet and 99% of routines you will see on the net have people training a bodypart just once a week.... I guess people just want to believe thats best, because lets be honest high frequency training is hard work and the average person would rather spend time watching tv, than put in the work to achieve their goals/dreams in life.
    Bryan Haycock likes this.
  2. CDB

    CDB New Member

    A sub optimal route can get you to the same destination. It'll just be slower.
  3. anab0lic_

    anab0lic_ New Member

    Like I said, didnt work for me. My muscle grows gets stronger and bigger and is ready to train again by around the 36 hour mark... I want till 48 hours due to my schedule and if i am to wait longer... say an extra day, the muscle seems to break down and not be as strong as if id trained it at 48 hours.... I can still sometimes progress at 72 hours frequency, but not by as many reps or as much weight as i could have if id not waited for it to start degenerating... waiting longer than 72 hours? Forget about it, I don't just make sub optimal progress I make ZERO progress.
  4. TangoDown

    TangoDown Member

    Muscles don't atrophy that quickly. If that was the case then after you came back from SD you'd be emaciated.

    It's all mental. Albeit HST works well for a high frequency program.
  5. thegentleman1981

    thegentleman1981 New Member

    well it seems that there is a thresold for a minimum volume/frequency/weight for a person to grow.

    Its also possible to compensate to an EXTEND one through the other: Higher volume but lesser frequency and so on, but within a frame.
    My minimum frequncy is 2xthe week per muscle group. So if i go2x instead of 3x it sill works, but i have to up the volume a bit.
    But a classic split-even when driving the volume much-doesn´t work.

    SO there is a lowest thresold in all 3 variables you have to take in account.
  6. wwazza

    wwazza New Member

    I have always trained every 48hrs and found it worked for me doing the standard vanilla routine. I'd like to cut the frequency to every 3 or 4 days. I've been sticking to 3x5rm and wondered whether starting another cycle at this frequency will be enough to maintain my current muscle mass.

    I'm not looking to grow immensely as I need to stay lean over the next 5 months whilst competing in triathlons.
  7. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    I don't grow that fast either. But I do grow. In case you don't, try increasing your volume a bit, i.e. don't do 1 set, do 2.

    p.s.: Any new science behind HST? Any new offerings, suggestions? The HST FAQ E-Book is dated around 10 years ago. Is what it says still true?
  8. k_dean_curtis

    k_dean_curtis Member

    Yes, the FAQ is still true. The laws of physics have not changed in billions of years, but they are still true too. :cool:
    The only changes would be refinements of the application for an individual. An example would be:
    what type of person at what stage of their cycle improves most from drop sets?

    I would like to see the PDF turned into a real book, and Bryan be able to sell a ton of them. Tough call on his part. Perhaps just an e-book would be the way to go. Bottom line, the FAQ fundamentals are rock solid.
  9. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    What I meant was, are the principles behind HST still solid? Some folks have claimed that less frequent training of a MG is better suited for gaining mass:
    And there's some science supporting them. See this reply by Lyle McDonald from the aforementioned link.
    "If you want some science though, I’d point you towards the Rhea meta-analyses or the giant Wernbom review on training and protein synthesis. Both of which support what I wrote in the article."
  10. thegentleman1981

    thegentleman1981 New Member

    What I never understood, was the comparison of other programms regarding the HST/principles.

    Like DC for example is claimed to be a variation of HST- I don´t get that. How much different it could get more?

    Lets look at some points HST refuses (excerpt of Blades post):

    • You must train with maximum "intensity" to elicit significant muscle growth----not DC ,BALLS to the walls

    • You must change your exercise selection regularly in order to "confuse the muscle" into continued growth. ----Yes thats DC and part of Dantes periodization concept

    • Muscle Fatigue is the primary indicator of having triggered the growth signal ---DC takes advantages of that. Failure + Rest Pause

    • Adding weight only when you can complete a certain number of additional reps at that weight. (This is a fundamental difference?) ----Totally true with DC
    • Training to failure every set and/or workout---100% DC
    • Forced reps ---well rest pause-but thats an "intensity technique/beyond failure tool too and used in DC.

    • Performing multiple exhaustive sets per exercise---Well DC yes.(pulling exercises)
    • Changing exercises to "confuse" the muscle---Changing exericse when stalling-Yes DC

    So in which way does DC follows the HST "principles" or is a variation of it?

    I never tried the HST template or DC so I can´t judge it from my experience.
    Perhaps the HST template/concept does really add more mass than DC or is just more "right" from the perspective of research.

    But is it the most practicall for the average trainee?

    I say: NO

    DC seems easier to understand and stands for a more "hard work for results" mantra. Goin balls to the walls for a period and beatin the log is easy and really motivating. Then cruise: In this time the Dc´ler still shoots for records via straght sets but he takes a break from "intensity".
    Also there are steps regarding your experience level. Sth like training to failure no rest pause/failure plus 1 rest pause rep etc.
    The frequency of the split stays the same. So 3x the week.

    In HST you have test your maxes for the 15/10 and 5´s you can´t beginn straight.
    Next you sit there with your calculator/take zig zags in consideration or not and calculate the increaments.
    Every cycle you have to take 2 weeks off for the SD and don´t train at all. No Prs
    Also in the cycles you have only one PR day per rep cycle. Thats quite low motivation.
    Also a higher frequency is suggested. thats why bryan trains 5x the week and does a am/pm split. Not practicall at all if you have a life outside the gym.

    I think the simple point is, that DC is just EASIER to implement AND MORE FUN than HST as you look at my points and so are other programms out there which follow "HST PRINCIPLES" or not. But they give

    Fun,Motivation and Results.

    And thats what a average trainee wants.
    Last edited: May 13, 2012
  11. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    Have you read the HST article and the four principles? I've done DC, and it definitely does follow HST principles.

    Mechanical Load - Dante drills it into people's heads quite often that it is the weight that makes you grow, not anything else.
    Progressive Load - DC is all about progressive load and this is something pushed very strongly by DC
    Frequency - You hit all muscle groups frequently
    SD - DC does a blast/cruise layout that is the same basic idea as an SD or deload
  12. thegentleman1981

    thegentleman1981 New Member

    I don´t agree in all points Totentanz.

    1. Mechanical load: Dante emphasizes this, although I am not aware of any programm who DOES NOT take this point in consideration. Even in GVT a rise in weight is adviced when you hit all 10x10 reps.

    2.Progressive Load: No. There is a difference in raising the weight in result of a PR or increasing the weight in the sense of a higher stimulus configuration. Also to quote Bryan here:
    "Adding weight only when you can complete a certain number of additional reps at that weight (This is a fundamental difference!)."

    High Frequency: If I am still up to date Dantes split was a A/B split alternating 3x the week. So a frequency of every 3-5 days per muscle group. Thats not training the same muscle every 48 hours and no high frequency at all.

    4. SD: NO: A strategic deconditioning might be seen as a sort of a deload, but a deload is NO SD!
    The Strategic Deconditioning has the purpose to resensitize the tissue for a lower load/ lower bouts to let hypertrophy occur again. For this purpose you DON`T TRAIN AT ALL. Otherwise it won´t work and working with lower loads will not lead to a response for hypertrophy.
    A deload is a time were you cut down your frequency,weight or volume. Bompa (2009) prefers to cut volume down and maintain intensity (weight on the bar) because this is seen as the main adaption cue.
    The deload allows in the sense of the Fit-Fat theory to let fatigue dispate and gains occur. Thats why the Dclers still get gains when they switch from rest pause to straights sets:
    Long term delayed training effect. Training in this phase is cruical and when wanting to be really correct should not be mistaken with simply '"rest" or no training at all. The (smaller) bouts have still to be present to maintain the adaption but to let the fatigue dispate.

    So SD and Deload are similar but not equal.

    Last edited: May 13, 2012
  13. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    Well, this is what I do, and I guess most of us do, when working at our maxes. It probably wouldn't do me any good to increase the working weight for my next meso-cycle if I can only push my 5RM weight 3-4 times. So next cycle I would stick with the unchanged max until I can do 5 reps with it.
  14. Totentanz

    Totentanz Super Moderator Staff Member

    An increase in load over time is an increase in load over time. "Increasing the load over time" is the same thing as saying "progressing the load over time"

    Where does HST require loading the muscle every 48 hours? Did you read the four principles or not?

    They still serve the same purpose.
  15. HST_Rihad

    HST_Rihad Active Member

    Can you give a link to that article? I thouht HST was all about progressively loading a muscle 3 times a week.
    Last edited: May 14, 2012
  16. thegentleman1981

    thegentleman1981 New Member

    Hi dude, I think you got this one wrong.
    My quote of Bryan was principles that hst REFUSES too.
    Again the CONTRA quote:
    "Adding weight only when you can complete a certain number of additional reps at that weight (This is a fundamental difference!)
    So this means that the HST programm goes for weight increases independent of PRs.

    And thats true if you look at the template and cycles. ITs about increasing the weight in a preplanned manner.
  17. CDB

    CDB New Member

    You can train a muscle every 48 hours, you don't have to do so in order to be in line with HST principles.
  18. thegentleman1981

    thegentleman1981 New Member

    No they don´t. Do you read my explanations?

    SD: Decreasing the sensitivity of the tissue to be responsive to lower (under PR) loads again to hypertrophy. So NO training at all
    Deload: STILL training, so you don´t decrease the sensitivity of the tissue BUT you train with a lower stimulus to let fatigue dispate and fitness/gains be seen.

    Simliar but not Equal.
    Last edited: May 14, 2012
  19. thegentleman1981

    thegentleman1981 New Member

    @CDB,HST Rihad

    Again the quote:
    2) Acute vs. Chronic Stimuli
    In order for the loading to result in significant hypertrophy, the stimulus must be applied with sufficient frequency to create a new "environment", as opposed to seemingly random and acute assaults on the mechanical integrity of the tissue. The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.

    FRom that the principle of sufficient frequency would suggest to load a minimum of once every 2 days.
    Thats written above and the recommondation.
    Everything outside this recomondation is not hypertrophic specific.

    "You can also train your muscle group once a week-thats still a more suffcient frequency than HD II Mentzer every 14 days so this is hypertrophic specific isn it-I don´t have to train 3x the week to be in line with the HST principles"

    No it is not. HST is about to optimize the Response to training. So follow the principles and according to them 3x the week OR MORE is in the line. 2x the week is not.

    This does not mean you won´t grow-but its NOT IN THE 'LINE of the principle-and thats what is discussed here.

    "So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed

    And this means: "Hey bro,if you wanna be smart and really grow optimal train at LEAST every 2 days, because at a lower frequency you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it."
    Last edited: May 14, 2012
  20. CDB

    CDB New Member

    I see nothing in that quote that says you have to work every muscle every 48 hours. It says recovery is not hindered with loading every 48 hours and that the adaptation to the initial loading tapers off around 48s hours, not that you have to train every 48 hours. And speaking specifically if you take the 48 hours as a hard rule for some reason then you must workout every other day, not three times a week. Working out every 48 hours would result in working out 4 times a week every other week, 3 times a week on alternating weeks.

    No, it doesn't. It means the longer you leave between workouts, the longer it will take to reach your goals. It doesn't mean you won't reach them.

Share This Page