Why not reduce volume/load and increase frequency?

C

co1889

New Member
One of the HST training principles is that chronic stimuli is more effective than infrequent stimuli (or 1 day or less a week training), and so HST reduces volume to increase frequency.

My question is why not take it a step further and reduce volume to only 1 set a body part and experiment with loads until you can work out every day, which would be even more of a chronic stimuli?

Edit: sorry for the Double post... I pressed stop after hitting "submit thread" in order to add something and thought it didn't go through, but apparentely it did.
 
This question was just asked in the forum less than a week ago.


(omega99 @ Apr. 27 2007,17:39)
QUOTE

(scientific muscle @ Apr. 26 2007,23:33)
QUOTE
Dropping frequency to twice/week is really not a bad thing at all IMO, and may even be superior for the reason you stated about recovery and motivation.

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">Sooo, since we're discussing topic of frequency, I would be curious to know if anyone has actually INCREASED the frequency from, say 3x to 6x per week, and gotten similar hypertrophic results in half the time (i.e. cutting the cycle in half)??

This would still seem to fill all the HST principles, but obviously, burn-out would be an issue. However, making the same gains in half the time would be a big incentive.
</div>
not going to happen. You can only stimulate so much hypertrophy. 3-4x/week is pretty much the max when it comes to hypertrophy.

If it were that simple I would workout 10 times/day...

--------------
 
There is not much scientific evidence that supports 3 times a week is supior to twice a week.

Now if you are looking studies and research...you better turn to Dan, Sci or some of the other guys.

But I think they would back me up on this.

Frequency is a key to growth but LOAD is more important...(yes I forget this sometimes too).

If frequency was the key to growth one would workout all day everyday.

I personally don't think you can benefit from higher frequency anymore than you can on 3 times a week...only benefit of higher frequency would be to burn calories.

In my opinon...and I don't do this due to my schedule...but if one was completely serious about bodybuilding...Its possible that a HST cycle workout would be better on a 4 day upper lower split than 3 days full body routine...for some...just depends on how your body reponds to frequency and volume.

For most people 3 days a week is ideal around normal life / careers/ training days.
 
Basically, there is a minimum amount of work that needs to be done in order to spark growth. It would probably be hard to get that minimum amount of work done if you were working out every day with lower volume each day as opposed to two or three times a week with more volume per day.

How much work is the minimum? Uh... I'll tell you later.
 
I don't have science to back it up, only experience; I've gained well from 6x a week. I probably do better with 5x a week, and although I'm no stevejones, the loads are heavy and I can still make linear progress for up to 6 weeks before I feel I need to back off for a week, that includes deadlifting 435+ every week.

I think the optimal training frequency depends on the individual and his training experience.
 
co1889

<div></div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">My question is why not take it a step further and reduce volume to only 1 set a body part and experiment with loads until you can work out every day, which would be even more of a chronic stimuli?</div>

This has been done by various people, but the highest frequency I have seen was 6 x week and I am not sure whether 2 x day as well , but I guess the one days rest is imperative, if you want to score any growth.

It is a thin line as recuperation must be there for sure, that would be in terms of sleep/rest, the other facet is nutrition which for that frequency has to be stepped up quite a bit, but it has been done.

Obviously the voume is lowered dramatically, and splits are often created, like push/pull, upper/lower, but being honest the best, most productive is still the 3 x week with frequency 15 x 1/10 x 1.5 or 2/5 x 3.

Honestly speaking if you are new to this don't even go there, just do what is recommended until you have a good few vanilla HST programs under your belt!
 
<div>
(co1889 @ May 03 2007,20:53)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">One of the HST training principles is that chronic stimuli is more effective than infrequent stimuli (or 1 day or less a week training), and so HST reduces volume to increase frequency.

My question is why not take it a step further and reduce volume to only 1 set a body part and experiment with loads until you can work out every day, which would be even more of a chronic stimuli?

Edit: sorry for the Double post... I pressed stop after hitting &quot;submit thread&quot; in order to add something and thought it didn't go through, but apparentely it did.</div>
That's because there is a limit to the effect that chronic training brings.

2 points:
1.) Minimum stimulation needed - Depending on your conditioning and lifestyle, you will need a minimum amount of stimulation to trigger protein synthesis enough for noticeable hypertrophy in the long run. Just training frequently (chronic) won't assure you that you meet this minimum level (best bet: load)
2.) Protein synthesis lasts for 36-48 hours, and even tapers off up to 72 hours. This depends on how much stimuli there was and the available nutrients (best bet: diet). Training more frequently than 2 or 3 won't necessarily end up in better hypertrophy. Obviously this will depend on your routine (bad routine vs superior routine), but all things being equal more or less, as long as you are growing most of the week (protein synthesis levels ok), that's the best you can hope for in your quest to build muscle.


Working out everyday isn't a bad idea in that you won't grow muscle. That's ok if you can meet the demands of such training - enough food (proper nutrients) and enough rest to accomodate the frequent training (and assuming you train enough per session to meet the minimum stimulation you need). Now, the question remains whether such a setup will be better. Studies now seem to point that a properly set up routine done 2x a week will probably give you the same results, with the advantage that it is simpler and easier for you logistically (2x training only instead of every day trying to find time to workout) and psychologically.

I hope I have helped you in whatever small way.

Regards,
-JV
 
Alright, I was just curious, and thanks for the responses. It seems that except for a few gifted people training more than 3 days per week isn't worth it because you won't be able to keep up the necessary load for optimal muscle growth.
 
i think there is no clear answer &quot;or enough evidence&quot; to say how many times a wk is optimum IMO.
strength athletes train 5x 6x a wk, obviuosly they have to manage there workouts light/heavy days etc,but by doing the same exercise on a regular basis means you become better at that exercise and therefore increase the weight used in that exercise,more load=more muscle,oly and pl lifters are big guys
rock.gif


IMO &quot;and i dont care what a few studies say&quot; 2x a wkfullbody is not enough,done that when i did HIT and made minimal gains (exept for fat) 2x a wk on a split making it 4x a wk is better IMO, for fullbody i would say for me it has to be 3x or more.
 
I agree w/ Faz. For those of us who often do physical work (that can be mowing and stuff around the house too) 2x/wk gets just buried in the efforts. I need 3 to see anything at all.
Lately, long hours and hard work have totally precluded working out. I've lost 9 lbs. Steve suggested getting in there and doing whatever I can, even if it's one set, but I'm flopping on the couch so far and falling asleep.

I'll be back.
 
<div>
(faz @ May 05 2007,05:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i think there is no clear answer &quot;or enough evidence&quot; to say how many times a wk is optimum IMO.
strength athletes train 5x 6x a wk, obviuosly they have to manage there workouts light/heavy days etc,but by doing the same exercise on a regular basis means you become better at that exercise and therefore increase the weight used in that exercise,more load=more muscle,oly and pl lifters are big guys
rock.gif


IMO &quot;and i dont care what a few studies say&quot; 2x a wkfullbody is not enough,done that when i did HIT and made minimal gains (exept for fat) 2x a wk on a split making it 4x a wk is better IMO, for fullbody i would say for me it has to be 3x or more.</div>
Twice/week IS enough if you raise the volume.  HIT is not enough volume.

Just an example:
Same effect:  4 sets for chest 3x/week = 12 sets/week
                    6 sets for chest 2x/week = 12 sets/week
Same effects.  Demonstrating that total weekly volume may be more important than frequency.

Recent study frequency/total volume
 
Although my favorite setup so far is 3x/week alternating exercises.
That way the body is getting worked 3x/week, but each exercise gets 4-5 days of rest between bouts. (very important for recovery from the heavier compounds, like deadlift, etc.)
 
Yeah, volume over time, the higher the better, within reason of course don't go &quot;bananas&quot;
biggrin.gif
 
<div>
(scientific muscle @ May 04 2007,22:25)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE"><div>
(faz @ May 05 2007,05:22)</div><div id="QUOTEHEAD">QUOTE</div><div id="QUOTE">i think there is no clear answer &quot;or enough evidence&quot; to say how many times a wk is optimum IMO.
strength athletes train 5x 6x a wk, obviuosly they have to manage there workouts light/heavy days etc,but by doing the same exercise on a regular basis means you become better at that exercise and therefore increase the weight used in that exercise,more load=more muscle,oly and pl lifters are big guys
rock.gif


IMO &quot;and i dont care what a few studies say&quot; 2x a wkfullbody is not enough,done that when i did HIT and made minimal gains (exept for fat) 2x a wk on a split making it 4x a wk is better IMO, for fullbody i would say for me it has to be 3x or more.</div>
Twice/week IS enough if you raise the volume.  HIT is not enough volume.

Just an example:
Same effect:  4 sets for chest 3x/week = 12 sets/week
                    6 sets for chest 2x/week = 12 sets/week
Same effects.  Demonstrating that total weekly volume may be more important than frequency.

Recent study frequency/total volume</div>
Interesting Sci....

This is were my idea of &quot;The right now effect&quot;

Maybe twice a week is suppior in terms of volume.

I say this only b/c 12 sets is 12 sets wether its over 2 or 3 days so weekly volume is constant.

But it would be safe to say that 6 sets done twice a week &quot;may&quot; give you better results IMO...b/c of the right now effect of minimum WORK each workout to give you growth.

Whats your opinon...agree or disagree.

WE all know that Load is the most important.

Even if you look at the studies MU recruitment is best at around your 6 to 8 rep max or roughly 85% of your 1rm total.

The problem with LOAD I would think is interms of WORK or total work....hence the invention of clustering, MAX STIM...etc...even metabolic work after heavy sets.

So again...my opinon is that maybe twice a week is supior to 3 times a week? Do to the right now effect?

This could get interesting....
biggrin.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top