Bryan, What Are Your Thoughts On Higher Frequency Training?

Blade said:
Awesome to see Bryan posting here again - long time, no see buddy! And also good to see many of the veterans still active here. I check in from time to time to see if there are any good discussions going, and haven’t been disappointed so far :) It’s a shame that "everyone" is on Facebook, as it is an extremely poor and messy platform for following discussions and quickly finding information.

Ok, so years have passed since the inception of HST, and it is pretty cool to see that what relevant research has been posted since then have validated the original format again and again.

We now have various studies showing that a rest period of 10 days-3 weeks does indeed resensitize the muscle to a growth stimulus, as per Strategic Deconditioning. What we still don’t know is whether that provides and advantage in the long term, i.e. so far it only seems as if we get "catch-up" growth - so it’s not hurting growth over 3-6 months but it doesn’t seem to provide an advantage either. Well, at least wrt muscle growth - there are obvious benefits when it comes to recovery and connective tissue health - and closing in on 44 years of age I can now say that I regret not following this principle throughout my training career.

We also now have good reason to believe that we can go all the way down into the 40-50% of 1RM range and get significant muscle growth, especially when combined with occlusion - or in my honest opinion, with Myo-reps ;)

At these lighter loads, growth seems to stagnate faster, though - as Bryan also alluded to here - so progressive resistance is essential for any muscle growth beyond 1-2 weeks of this type of training.

The range of 60-80% of 1RM seems to work for much longer, though - so a suggested modification to the original HST format could be to prolong cycles by incrementing every 2-3 workouts instead of every workout. It is still difficult to say exactly how long one could (or should) extend a cycle, given the crude measurement methods we have available (even DEXA is too inaccurate to measure a difference of a few hundred grams of lean tissue growth), but I also think we should consider the connective tissue and joint health - we all know that full-body training 3x/week does take its toll on the body after 8-12 weeks.

Then we have the issue of volume. Bryan’s recommendation of 30 total reps for upper body in someone more advanced make a lot of sense, but there is also good research to suggest that due to the time-tension integral - and the enhanced mechano-transduction at higher relative loads - we can instead provide recommendations for "hard" sets. "Hard" meaning close to - but not necessarily to failure, so the submax periods when working within the next rep range should still be respected IMO.

So I think: 2 sets at 60% of 1RM (15-20 reps) or 1 Myo-rep set = 3 sets of 70-75% of 1RM (10-12 reps) = 4 sets of 80-85% of 1RM (5-8 reps).

This is also a conservative estimate given that 6 sets of 5 reps in a full-body workout 3x/week would for sure kill me, too :D

Keeping the stimulus "pure" also seems to make sense, and although there are a couple of cool studies where adding a high rep set either right before or right after heavy sets increase hypertrophy - this could simply be temporary swelling or caused by the added volume (since the groups weren’t volume matched).

I have a feeling that heavy, low-rep training provides a type of deconditioning and resensitizing effect to high-rep metabolic work, so not having the dropsets during the 5s phase makes sense from that perspective. Then you go into SD followed by high rep training and this deconditions the tissue to the heavy, low-rep training.

And the cycle repeats.

Also, considering the increased connective tissue stress at heavier loads - one *could* make a case for reducing frequency when you get to 5s - but as Bryan said, but I also think that reducing volume will take care of most of that.

Another thing to consider for advanced lifters is to start figuring out individual volume per muscle group, where some muscle groups and lifts just seem to respond better to higher reps and/or volumes, and vice versa.

Example, which I thought was pretty cool, was this study showing how higher volume/lower intensity leg training improved upper body gains:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29257792

This was also suggested in this article, although I don’t agree with everything the author said it is still food for thought that resonated with my own experience:
https://www.t-nation.com/training/the-best-training-split-youve-never-tried
Click to expand...
Wow, so awesome to hear from you Borge :), yeah still a few veterans around, I can't tell you how many old forum threads I've read with you guys and the epic discussions haha.

That was a really insightful post, got a lot from that. What I'm wondering is what the difference would be (ie which would be more effective or in line with hypertrophy principles) doing a straight HST cycle vs a HST cycle whilst using myoreps. I know myos aren't generally used for lower reps, but it seems that myoreps really get more reps at full activation for those higher reps. Would love to hear Bryan's thoughts too on whether it's necessary to reach full activation (ie closer to failure training) or whether progressive load is more important in the long run. I guess both used in their respective times/context they both contribute and have there place (not an either/or)? Like you said, higher reps training takes quicker to adapt to, so progressive loading keeps things moving.

Both work I guess, and I have done both styles and seen similar results, but found that I did burn out a bit with myoreps, but am now using them smarter and not pushing too far with then (ie being brutally honest when I'm done in a set haha).

Btw thanks for your training thoughts, articles and interviews, they've truly changed how I train completely, especially your stuff on auto-regulation and on not smashing yourself every single time. I pushed myself too hard for years and years, so this definitely helped in easing up and being kinder to myself, so thank you :)
 
Glad to hear it, Simon :)

Well, as I have pointed out in both the articles and the e-book, I think Myo-reps really shines at lighter loads where you need to work closer to failure - and stay there - to reach all available motor units.

When working submaximally with 40-50% loads - i.e. more than 5-6 reps from failure - it fails to produce significant hypertrophy. So this is where you should use Myo-reps.

As you get closer to the 70-80% of 1RM loads, you can - and in my opinion should - train submaximally (2-4 reps from failure) and still get high MU recruitment. As we already know from the HST principles, this period of submaximal training also ensures you are able to keep up the volume and frequency of full-body training.

Then the last 1-2 workouts of the training cycle you push closer to the failure point - and this is usually more than enough for most people before they switch into a lower rep range and submaximal work. I have myself tried pushing to failure for another few workouts, but quickly get signs of overreaching.

I do not think Myo-reps is really necessary at this loading range, although it can be used as a time saver if you only have, say, 20-30mins available for a workout. The fatigue generated from Myo-reps training is still higher than traditional sets, so I would suggest you use Myo-reps sparingly at anything over 10-12 reps.
 
Hey Borge/(Blade, your still Blade to me! )

Good post, you hit on some things I've posted about on here too recently. I had even setup a prototype HST (in another thread on here) routine, where as the RM's increased, so did the volume and the frequency lowered with each step up on RM loads.

I've thought about 'good reps' a lot too. What's interesting, is all reps, are good reps for earlier recruited MU's since they are fully active for the whole set, and as the set progresses, more and more MU's increase activation levels and experience 'good reps' too. What I've wondered, is some research shows that ST fibers might need more 'work' than FT fibers, if so then maybe some of the sets where only the earlier recruited ST fibers are experiencing 'good reps', might not be such a bad format. At the end, the ST fibers end up with way more 'good reps' than the FT fibers, maybe that isn't such an inferior method? I've had good luck with Gironda style training which ends up like that. I'm doing it again right now, but last summer I had continual gains with the lighter loads for about 10 or 11 weeks, then some 'life' stuff happened and I bailed on it, but was still gaining when I ceased it, so for 'me' anyway, the light loads did keep working for a lot longer than 2-3 weeks.
 
Blade said:
Glad to hear it, Simon :)

Well, as I have pointed out in both the articles and the e-book, I think Myo-reps really shines at lighter loads where you need to work closer to failure - and stay there - to reach all available motor units.

When working submaximally with 40-50% loads - i.e. more than 5-6 reps from failure - it fails to produce significant hypertrophy. So this is where you should use Myo-reps.

As you get closer to the 70-80% of 1RM loads, you can - and in my opinion should - train submaximally (2-4 reps from failure) and still get high MU recruitment. As we already know from the HST principles, this period of submaximal training also ensures you are able to keep up the volume and frequency of full-body training.

Then the last 1-2 workouts of the training cycle you push closer to the failure point - and this is usually more than enough for most people before they switch into a lower rep range and submaximal work. I have myself tried pushing to failure for another few workouts, but quickly get signs of overreaching.

I do not think Myo-reps is really necessary at this loading range, although it can be used as a time saver if you only have, say, 20-30mins available for a workout. The fatigue generated from Myo-reps training is still higher than traditional sets, so I would suggest you use Myo-reps sparingly at anything over 10-12 reps.
Click to expand...
Awesome, thanks heaps Borge that clarified alot :)
 
Good to see you here, NWlifter - always enjoyed your posts :) You can call me Blade, I have no issue with that. Hell, you could call me Shirley and sprinkle cinnamon on me for all I care - I have adopted the Stoic philosophy in recent years :D

NWlifter said:
Hey Borge/(Blade, your still Blade to me! )

Good post, you hit on some things I've posted about on here too recently. I had even setup a prototype HST (in another thread on here) routine, where as the RM's increased, so did the volume and the frequency lowered with each step up on RM loads.

I've thought about 'good reps' a lot too. What's interesting, is all reps, are good reps for earlier recruited MU's since they are fully active for the whole set, and as the set progresses, more and more MU's increase activation levels and experience 'good reps' too. What I've wondered, is some research shows that ST fibers might need more 'work' than FT fibers, if so then maybe some of the sets where only the earlier recruited ST fibers are experiencing 'good reps', might not be such a bad format. At the end, the ST fibers end up with way more 'good reps' than the FT fibers, maybe that isn't such an inferior method? I've had good luck with Gironda style training which ends up like that. I'm doing it again right now, but last summer I had continual gains with the lighter loads for about 10 or 11 weeks, then some 'life' stuff happened and I bailed on it, but was still gaining when I ceased it, so for 'me' anyway, the light loads did keep working for a lot longer than 2-3 weeks.
Click to expand...

That might be the case, but IMO ST fibers don’t have a huge growth potential in the first place, and from what little literature exists (Schoenfeld recently published a review here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.00402/full) it seems as if ST fibers are preferentially growing from low-load training already. Having said that, Myo-reps training can be brutal, especially when training full body (strength recovery is actually slower with high rep training than low rep training, contrary to belief) - so for most lifters I would indeed agree that some or most of the high rep phase should be spent doing regular sets, with Myo-reps only being used towards the latter part when one is closing in on the 15RM loads.
 
Blade said:
Having said that, Myo-reps training can be brutal, especially when training full body (strength recovery is actually slower with high rep training than low rep training, contrary to belief) - so for most lifters I would indeed agree that some or most of the high rep phase should be spent doing regular sets, with Myo-reps only being used towards the latter part when one is closing in on the 15RM loads.
Click to expand...

Ah interesting, yeah best to be cautious, I've even used myoreps for only a couple of muscle groups during a HST cycle and just normal sets for the rest, just to see what happens and so I don't overdo things. Definitely paying more attention to the body and listening to it, being kinder to myself ;). Truly does pay off, and I'm enjoying training so much more as a result, much more motivated and not as burnt out all the time.

I think I actually used myoreps the opposite way one cycle, myoreps during the earlier parts of the cycle, and normal straight sets as I was closing in on the RM weight (my rationale was that those submax weights weren't as stimulating, so I was making sure they were effective reps, then by the time of the RM weights it was fine to lay off myoreps). But your way makes more sense, and it's as though you're having more minibreaks at the start of a rep range. Building intensity and progression then backing off. The way I did it there always the going close to failure, so no chance for much recovery haha..
 
Blade said:
Good to see you here, NWlifter - always enjoyed your posts :) You can call me Blade, I have no issue with that. Hell, you could call me Shirley and sprinkle cinnamon on me for all I care - I have adopted the Stoic philosophy in recent years :D
Click to expand...

LOL that's hilarious!
And thanks! Me too, the old fast and furious posts on here with you, Dan, Mikey, and many others were GREAT! We all learned so much


That might be the case, but IMO ST fibers don’t have a huge growth potential in the first place, and from what little literature exists (Schoenfeld recently published a review here: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.00402/full) it seems as if ST fibers are preferentially growing from low-load training already. Having said that, Myo-reps training can be brutal, especially when training full body (strength recovery is actually slower with high rep training than low rep training, contrary to belief) - so for most lifters I would indeed agree that some or most of the high rep phase should be spent doing regular sets, with Myo-reps only being used towards the latter part when one is closing in on the 15RM loads.
Click to expand...

Ah interesting, great info. thanks Borge.. um Blade.. Um Shirley.. ;) (seriously, good info.! )
 
Good news Bryan. I know both you and Blade have been doing some work on occlusion. Hopefully that will become a topic here and energize everything and everybody.
 
Not yet, its at the thesis office getting the formatting edited. Although its generally not kosher to talk about the results until it is published, I can certainly talk about what I learned.
 
Renky said:
@Blade - What does your training routine look like these days?
Click to expand...

My routine these days is really minimalistic as I have a lot going on at the moment, and I’m also trying out different volume and frequency combinations to see what affects what. So it’s hard to tell you specifically. But just to give you an idea, I recently dropped down from 4 workouts to 3 workouts per week, due to being in a slight calorie deficit - but still using the same overall template.

At one point this was:

A:
RDL
Split Squat
OHP

B:
Bench
Dips
Face Pulls
Chins

C:
Squat
Leg Curl
OHP

D:
Bench
Feet Elevated Pushups
Shoulder Pulls
Chins

Then I noticed that both my Bench and OHP were kinda stagnant, so I tried upping the frequency for chest work and lowering it for shoulder work - while also increasing the frequency for pulling (both a horizontal and vertical pull in a single workout was too draining). So the routine is currently:

A:
RDL
Split Squat
Dips
Chins

B:
Bench
Face Pulls
OHP

C:
Squat
Leg Curl
Feet Elevated Pushups
Chins

D:
Bench
Shoulder Pulls
OHP

The next step will be to do an SD and go back to an alternating A/B setup with the HST progression.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sci
Thanks Blade! So it looks like you are working a muscle twice a week? What are your thoughts on frequency for a lagging muscle? On some occasions, I have gone as frequent as training 3X a day (lower volume) for short bursts of 2-3 weeks.
 
Blade said:
My routine these days is really minimalistic as I have a lot going on at the moment, and I’m also trying out different volume and frequency combinations to see what affects what. So it’s hard to tell you specifically. But just to give you an idea, I recently dropped down from 4 workouts to 3 workouts per week, due to being in a slight calorie deficit - but still using the same overall template.

At one point this was:

A:
RDL
Split Squat
OHP

B:
Bench
Dips
Face Pulls
Chins

C:
Squat
Leg Curl
OHP

D:
Bench
Feet Elevated Pushups
Shoulder Pulls
Chins

Then I noticed that both my Bench and OHP were kinda stagnant, so I tried upping the frequency for chest work and lowering it for shoulder work - while also increasing the frequency for pulling (both a horizontal and vertical pull in a single workout was too draining). So the routine is currently:

A:
RDL
Split Squat
Dips
Chins

B:
Bench
Face Pulls
OHP

C:
Squat
Leg Curl
Feet Elevated Pushups
Chins

D:
Bench
Shoulder Pulls
OHP

The next step will be to do an SD and go back to an alternating A/B setup with the HST progression.
Click to expand...

Great choice of movements. Those are all my favorite, (except bench, for shoulder reasons)
Especially like the feet elevated pushups, which are amazing for the serratus, and pecs/delts as well
 
Renky said:
Thanks Blade! So it looks like you are working a muscle twice a week? What are your thoughts on frequency for a lagging muscle? On some occasions, I have gone as frequent as training 3X a day (lower volume) for short bursts of 2-3 weeks.
Click to expand...

My connective tissue health prevents me from having a higher frequency right now, and also - as mentioned - my stress and sleep now (e.g. a 7 month old who still wakes 2x/night for extra feedings) is a variable to take into consideration.
http://borgefagerli.com/the-most-ignored-causes-when-your-results-are-lacking-part-1-stress/

I thought everyone knew my stance on higher frequencies ;)
https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/reignite-progress-with-new-science/

Having said that, I’m not really sure that 3x/day is a good way to go about it - i.e. think of frequency as another way to get in more volume, but I also think there is a lower threshold of volume. So let’s imagine for a second that 10-20 sets/week is the range where the dose-response curve pretty much flattens out, and we have good research to support this. We also know that 2-3x/week is better than 1x/week. We have a few studies indicating that even higher frequencies are better, especially as you get more advanced and recovery requirements are outpaced by volume requirements - but given that someone advanced can also induce a higher mechanical stress on a muscle (from being stronger) I find it hard to believe that the volume should increase in a linear fashion.

Also - a stubborn muscle group is often defined as such because it is, relatively speaking, weaker or smaller than other muscle groups. If we assume this is true (as some people just have a subjective experience of this that isn’t always objectively true), then in reality - that muscle group is less advanced. So my approach is first of all to reduce direct training for that muscle group. Sounds counter-intuitive, but consider this:

An 80kg lifter can do a 250kg legal depth squat, but can barely bench his own bodyweight. So his pressing muscles are "stubborn". Barring any severe genetic issues, or neural/physical issues, my take on this situation would simply be that he has been overdoing things - and where the lower body can respond well to excessive volumes and loads, the upper body won’t. So reducing volume for the upper body will most likely provide much better results than doing more.

Another common observation is the problem some guys have with getting bigger arms. They tend to forget that arms are worked indirectly with all pressing and pulling movements, so adding the same volume of direct work is overkill. Dropping direct training and relying on the indirect stimulus instead, and arms suddenly start to grow again.

Having said that, there will be a few cases where a stubborn muscle group would indeed need a higher volume and frequency to respond, but I would first try a reduction (or even SD followed by higher reps) as the default strategy.
 
Blade said:
My connective tissue health prevents me from having a higher frequency right now, and also - as mentioned - my stress and sleep now (e.g. a 7 month old who still wakes 2x/night for extra feedings) is a variable to take into consideration.
http://borgefagerli.com/the-most-ignored-causes-when-your-results-are-lacking-part-1-stress/

I thought everyone knew my stance on higher frequencies ;)
https://www.elitefts.com/education/training/reignite-progress-with-new-science/

Having said that, I’m not really sure that 3x/day is a good way to go about it - i.e. think of frequency as another way to get in more volume, but I also think there is a lower threshold of volume. So let’s imagine for a second that 10-20 sets/week is the range where the dose-response curve pretty much flattens out, and we have good research to support this. We also know that 2-3x/week is better than 1x/week. We have a few studies indicating that even higher frequencies are better, especially as you get more advanced and recovery requirements are outpaced by volume requirements - but given that someone advanced can also induce a higher mechanical stress on a muscle (from being stronger) I find it hard to believe that the volume should increase in a linear fashion.

Also - a stubborn muscle group is often defined as such because it is, relatively speaking, weaker or smaller than other muscle groups. If we assume this is true (as some people just have a subjective experience of this that isn’t always objectively true), then in reality - that muscle group is less advanced. So my approach is first of all to reduce direct training for that muscle group. Sounds counter-intuitive, but consider this:

An 80kg lifter can do a 250kg legal depth squat, but can barely bench his own bodyweight. So his pressing muscles are "stubborn". Barring any severe genetic issues, or neural/physical issues, my take on this situation would simply be that he has been overdoing things - and where the lower body can respond well to excessive volumes and loads, the upper body won’t. So reducing volume for the upper body will most likely provide much better results than doing more.

Another common observation is the problem some guys have with getting bigger arms. They tend to forget that arms are worked indirectly with all pressing and pulling movements, so adding the same volume of direct work is overkill. Dropping direct training and relying on the indirect stimulus instead, and arms suddenly start to grow again.

Having said that, there will be a few cases where a stubborn muscle group would indeed need a higher volume and frequency to respond, but I would first try a reduction (or even SD followed by higher reps) as the default strategy.
Click to expand...
Thanks Blade! I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts and experience on this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top