Page 1 of 7 1 2 3 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 70

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12

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

    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    112

    Default

    A sub optimal route can get you to the same destination. It'll just be slower.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    A sub optimal route can get you to the same destination. It'll just be slower.
    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    421

    Default

    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  5. #5

    Default

    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-doesnīt work.

    SO there is a lowest thresold in all 3 variables you have to take in account.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  6. #6

    Default

    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Baku, Azerbaijan
    Posts
    857

    Default

    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?
    Incline bench 72kg/158lb x 2 (Mar'14), Rack pulls (from 1 inch above kneecaps) 202kg/445lb x 10 (Mar'14) @BW 64kg/141lb @171cm/5'7"
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    52

    Default

    Yes, the FAQ is still true. The laws of physics have not changed in billions of years, but they are still true too.
    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.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Baku, Azerbaijan
    Posts
    857

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by k_dean_curtis View Post
    Yes, the FAQ is still true. The laws of physics have not changed in billions of years, but they are still true too.
    The only changes would be refinements of the application for an individual.
    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:
    http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/mus...ass-gains.html
    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."
    Incline bench 72kg/158lb x 2 (Mar'14), Rack pulls (from 1 inch above kneecaps) 202kg/445lb x 10 (Mar'14) @BW 64kg/141lb @171cm/5'7"
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

  10. #10

    Default

    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 donīt 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 canīt 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 Dcīler 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 5īs you canīt 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 donīt 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 by thegentleman1981; 05-13-2012 at 05:48 PM.
    Reply With Quote Reply With Quote Share with Facebook

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •