<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 "or enough evidence" 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
IMO "and i dont care what a few studies say" 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 "The right now effect"
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 "may" 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....