Bryan, What Are Your Thoughts On Higher Frequency Training?

Here is something that matches what Bryan posted earlier.
that RBE is not something to always avoid, but is a 'good thing'.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5157116/

And this abstract sums it up well
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5023708/


The large MPS seen after the first few bouts in a program, do seem to be directed toward repair, and have no correlation with hypertrophy. Later, when MPS is blunted by RBE, it's due to the reason that it's just the MPS needed for hypertrophy, rather than a rise for damage repair.

Maybe resetting RBE though, is good due in that it does cause some damage at the start of the program, which 'may' (?) stimulate satellite cells, which will then assist PS/PD levels later in the program? (in addition to high metabolic methods, I've seen a lot about damage and satellite cells..)?

(I'm amazed though now, at how far ahead HST is, it's almost like Bryan had a crystal ball and saw studies from now (the future) way back when he created HST, they seem to just now be finding info. that HST already fits, ... almost freaky!)
 
Here is another 'frequency' related study, it pertains to 2 bouts a day. At least in mice, it's not helpful

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5704086/

These results suggest that repeated bouts of resistance exercise with 8 h of recovery periods do not effectively increase the levels of muscle protein synthesis despite activation of the mTOR signaling pathway, which likely involves oxidative stress.
 
Last spam post ( ;) )
this study still bothers me
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4836564/

If hypertrophy, long term, is (and must be) the overall average, over that time period, of PS vs PD, then 'more less often' must somehow pretty much equal 'less more often'. Maybe higher frequency has more PS attenuation, due to RBE, where lower frequency has larger longer lasting increases?
 
I won’t go into depth on all of these studies, let’s hope Bryan chimes in, though - but the last study contradicts several other studies on the topic.

I would think the reason for the discrepancy is:
- Training status
- When and how the subjects were measured. CSA is incredibly difficult to get an accurate measure of, even with DEXA that was used in this study, and the LFT group would have more swelling and inflammation skewing the numbers in their favor.
- Training volume - both groups already hit a given threshold of volume that seems to be around 9-18 sets/week - but higher frequency training allows better recovery and higher weekly volume than the bro-splits.
- Again the difference between upper body and lower body that I alluded to earlier. Legs seem to get away with lower frequency and higher overall volume, whereas upper body strength gains were clearly in favor of the HFT group - even if not deemed statistically significant it was almost a two-fold difference.

As for the RBE and damage studies, I think high rep occlusion does lead to some damage - especially after SD - but with lighter loads I also believe it is quickly repaired, which is probably why the extremely high frequency protocols have offered such impressive hypertrophy in various studies (up to 3x/day).

So I can fully support Bryan’s earlier recommendation to increase frequency for the 15s phase, up to daily training if possible, but 1 set only - then adding in Myo-reps for the last 1-2 workouts of the 15s phase when you are approaching RM loads.
 
Blade said:
So I can fully support Bryan’s earlier recommendation to increase frequency for the 15s phase, up to daily training if possible, but 1 set only - then adding in Myo-reps for the last 1-2 workouts of the 15s phase when you are approaching RM loads.
Click to expand...
I think this is how I will start out after my current break. I will go high frequency for two weeks and then I will play with doing some drop sets. I only want to specialize like this on one muscle, while the rest of the body I will maintain with regular HST maybe twice a week.
 
Blade said:
I won’t go into depth on all of these studies, let’s hope Bryan chimes in, though - but the last study contradicts several other studies on the topic.

I would think the reason for the discrepancy is:
- Training status
- When and how the subjects were measured. CSA is incredibly difficult to get an accurate measure of, even with DEXA that was used in this study, and the LFT group would have more swelling and inflammation skewing the numbers in their favor.
- Training volume - both groups already hit a given threshold of volume that seems to be around 9-18 sets/week - but higher frequency training allows better recovery and higher weekly volume than the bro-splits.
- Again the difference between upper body and lower body that I alluded to earlier. Legs seem to get away with lower frequency and higher overall volume, whereas upper body strength gains were clearly in favor of the HFT group - even if not deemed statistically significant it was almost a two-fold difference.

As for the RBE and damage studies, I think high rep occlusion does lead to some damage - especially after SD - but with lighter loads I also believe it is quickly repaired, which is probably why the extremely high frequency protocols have offered such impressive hypertrophy in various studies (up to 3x/day).

So I can fully support Bryan’s earlier recommendation to increase frequency for the 15s phase, up to daily training if possible, but 1 set only - then adding in Myo-reps for the last 1-2 workouts of the 15s phase when you are approaching RM loads.
Click to expand...

OK, cool info, thanks for the run down on all that :)
 
Yeah, that's right along the lines of what I've been thinking. So many things seem to turn on protein synthesis, but there is still uncertainty about what leads to an actual increase in muscle mass. Although it is still a matter of synthesis vs breakdown, its becoming clear that if your capacity for synthesis (how many ribosomes are producing protein at the same time) isn't high enough, very little net growth manifests.

I like to think it like two pipes, one with a small diameter the other with a large diameter. Water flows through both pipes at the same fixed speed, but the difference in diameter of the pipes leads to greatly different volumes of water coming out of the pipe. More ribosomes equals bigger pipe.
 
That's a good analogy.
I guess there is a lot more to it than that post workout protein synthesis we always focus on.
I was reading some more on satellite cells last night, one study mentioned that a lot of the time, a satellite cell with fuse, 'help' repair damage, then return to 'quiescence'. So that's annoying, sometimes they don't even donate, they just pull up like road side assistance, help out, then leave.

It seems like to me, that if you have some number of nuclei , if they run at basal, the total of their synthesis keeps the cell at some size, if you force them to increase PS by training, they will have an AUC of higher PS so the cell will be larger, but that will be the upper limit unless you can increase the number of nuclei (and looks like ribosomes too). A person then would have an untrained size and a little bigger trained size, but be stuck in that 'bracketed' range.
 
Bryan Haycock said:
Yeah, that's right along the lines of what I've been thinking. So many things seem to turn on protein synthesis, but there is still uncertainty about what leads to an actual increase in muscle mass. Although it is still a matter of synthesis vs breakdown, its becoming clear that if your capacity for synthesis (how many ribosomes are producing protein at the same time) isn't high enough, very little net growth manifests.

I like to think it like two pipes, one with a small diameter the other with a large diameter. Water flows through both pipes at the same fixed speed, but the difference in diameter of the pipes leads to greatly different volumes of water coming out of the pipe. More ribosomes equals bigger pipe.
Click to expand...

Great analogy. Research also seems to be mapping out more of the pathways involved in muscle growth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29621305

My question is - and has always been - are there any practical applications that we can actually use to modify our training approach?

I.e. (and I know this has been discussed before) - what, if any, changes would you make if you were to set up an "optimal" HST cycle today?
 
Blade said:
Great analogy. Research also seems to be mapping out more of the pathways involved in muscle growth.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29621305

My question is - and has always been - are there any practical applications that we can actually use to modify our training approach?

I.e. (and I know this has been discussed before) - what, if any, changes would you make if you were to set up an "optimal" HST cycle today?
Click to expand...

*waiting with bated breath.....* ;D
 
Yes, me too, I think I asked that in another thread, if there now would be any changes if HST were being created....
It almost seems we need a 'start' with something that might have potential to increase satellite cell activity, then move to a phase where those are used for frequent PS increases. I'm not sure on this, but I saw some studies showing mTOR was a stimulator of ribosomes, yet if damage occured, they would increase even if mTOR was blunted. It seems like (from what Blade showed with myo-reps and occlusion being strong for satellite cells, that the basic HST setup fits that (lighter fatigue moving to heavier and heavier mTOR focused). Maybe lighter myo-reps, slowly morphing into a heavier max-stim kinda thing? With always a known fixed rep total just with the loads increasing? So it's always say 15 or 20 reps?
 
I know Bryan doesn’t frequent here much, but I would definitely love his input.

I have gone through basically all types of permutations of programming, and I have done well with higher frequencies at 3x+/week per muscle group, but my connective tissue doesn’t always keep up with the demands and when I get into the 5-8 rep range I seem to do better with 2x/week frequency.

It also seems as if full body is better from an overall fatigue perspective, but upper/lower split alternating over 3 days/week (so every muscle group 3 times in 2 weeks) also seems to work well if you want to stay at the 3 workouts/week template.

Volume-wise, I see different volume and work tolerance between muscle groups. For pressing, I may get a good set of 10 reps on the first set, but even with 3+ minutes of rest I will struggle to get more than 6 reps on the second set. Row movements I can get 10,9 - chins is somewhere in between etc etc. So, I tend to use an auto-regulation approach here, where a 30% dropoff in performance means I end that exercise. So for bench 10, 6 (stop), for rows it can be 10,9,7 (stop).

This is obviously for the workouts at the end of the 10s cycle, but the start of the cycle also tends to auto-regulate as I will hit failure on my 3rd set of 10s for bench, but get all 3 sets of 10 easily and might do a 4th set for rows.

I guess I’m basically just more intuitive these days and going for that "worked" feeling that Bryan alluded to way back 10-12 years ago (I believe it is in the FAQ somewhere). The more I analyze and think, the more I tend to overcomplicate and overdo things and stagnate or lose motivation...
 
Blade said:
I know Bryan doesn’t frequent here much, but I would definitely love his input.

I have gone through basically all types of permutations of programming, and I have done well with higher frequencies at 3x+/week per muscle group, but my connective tissue doesn’t always keep up with the demands and when I get into the 5-8 rep range I seem to do better with 2x/week frequency.

It also seems as if full body is better from an overall fatigue perspective, but upper/lower split alternating over 3 days/week (so every muscle group 3 times in 2 weeks) also seems to work well if you want to stay at the 3 workouts/week template.

Volume-wise, I see different volume and work tolerance between muscle groups. For pressing, I may get a good set of 10 reps on the first set, but even with 3+ minutes of rest I will struggle to get more than 6 reps on the second set. Row movements I can get 10,9 - chins is somewhere in between etc etc. So, I tend to use an auto-regulation approach here, where a 30% dropoff in performance means I end that exercise. So for bench 10, 6 (stop), for rows it can be 10,9,7 (stop).

This is obviously for the workouts at the end of the 10s cycle, but the start of the cycle also tends to auto-regulate as I will hit failure on my 3rd set of 10s for bench, but get all 3 sets of 10 easily and might do a 4th set for rows.

I guess I’m basically just more intuitive these days and going for that "worked" feeling that Bryan alluded to way back 10-12 years ago (I believe it is in the FAQ somewhere). The more I analyze and think, the more I tend to overcomplicate and overdo things and stagnate or lose motivation...
Click to expand...

Interesting stuff!
Have you noticed much change in progress with the 3 times every 2 weeks vs 3x per week per muscle?
 
Blade said:
I know Bryan doesn’t frequent here much, but I would definitely love his input.

I have gone through basically all types of permutations of programming, and I have done well with higher frequencies at 3x+/week per muscle group, but my connective tissue doesn’t always keep up with the demands and when I get into the 5-8 rep range I seem to do better with 2x/week frequency.

It also seems as if full body is better from an overall fatigue perspective, but upper/lower split alternating over 3 days/week (so every muscle group 3 times in 2 weeks) also seems to work well if you want to stay at the 3 workouts/week template.

Volume-wise, I see different volume and work tolerance between muscle groups. For pressing, I may get a good set of 10 reps on the first set, but even with 3+ minutes of rest I will struggle to get more than 6 reps on the second set. Row movements I can get 10,9 - chins is somewhere in between etc etc. So, I tend to use an auto-regulation approach here, where a 30% dropoff in performance means I end that exercise. So for bench 10, 6 (stop), for rows it can be 10,9,7 (stop).

This is obviously for the workouts at the end of the 10s cycle, but the start of the cycle also tends to auto-regulate as I will hit failure on my 3rd set of 10s for bench, but get all 3 sets of 10 easily and might do a 4th set for rows.

I guess I’m basically just more intuitive these days and going for that "worked" feeling that Bryan alluded to way back 10-12 years ago (I believe it is in the FAQ somewhere). The more I analyze and think, the more I tend to overcomplicate and overdo things and stagnate or lose motivation...
Click to expand...

Ah very interesting stuff. Yeah am coming up to the 5s soon and I may reduce frequency depending, as I'm also training for a martial arts tournament so don't wanna overdo things.

I've also in the past still trained 3x week, but hit each muscle group twice, just a matter of staggering it out a bit,

E.g.

DAY 1
Back
Chest
Bis
Hams

DAY 2
Delts
Bis
Tris
Quads
Hams

DAY 3
Chest
Back
Tris
Quads
Delts


So this way they're still getting hit twice a week at least but reduced workload for each session makes it a bit more manageable.

Sometimes on the day that a part isn't getting trained I might even do a touch-up set/slight myoreps set for it, say just 60% of the weight I was using, just to bump the frequency up without overdoing it. And it can be a really quick set too without taking out too much time out of the session (and compound movements still would keep them active anyway on these days).

But I'll keep in mind the every muscle group 3 times in 2 weeks if things get too fatigued.

Have also noticed different work tolerance between different exercises... Yeah that's something I really want to develop more the intuitive side... I've really been trying to implement it, but there are times when in my mind something says "nah maybe you haven't done enough for it" or "I've gotta reach the exact same reps or more this session to progress". Amazing how silly the mind can be haha. A work in progress this...
 
Interesting...
see I started a thread a while back with similar ideas (frequency with heavier), even included the 2x per week on a 3 day a week routine idea. Take a look?
http://thinkmuscle.com/community/threads/thinking-of-trying-this.43414/

First two weeks 1x15
Sunday, Tuesday & Thursday
Squats
Standing Calves
Bench Press
OHP
Rows
Un. Pulldowns

Next block 2x8
3 weeks ( 2/3rds of body each workout, LegPush, PushPull, PullLegs)
Sunday
Squats
Standing Calves
Bench Press
OHP

Tuesday
Bench Press
OHP
Rows
Un. Pulldowns

Thursday
Rows
Pulldowns
Squats
Standing Calves

Last block 3x5
4+ weeks if all going well ABA BAB (sun/tues/thur)
A
Bench
OHP
Stand Calves

B
Squats
Rows
Un. Pulldowns

Man, now I'm seeing people doing ABA BAB, and 2x per week, this idea I had is now sounding more enticing... (never did try it)
 
NWlifter said:
Interesting...
see I started a thread a while back with similar ideas (frequency with heavier), even included the 2x per week on a 3 day a week routine idea. Take a look?
http://thinkmuscle.com/community/threads/thinking-of-trying-this.43414/

First two weeks 1x15
Sunday, Tuesday & Thursday
Squats
Standing Calves
Bench Press
OHP
Rows
Un. Pulldowns

Next block 2x8
3 weeks ( 2/3rds of body each workout, LegPush, PushPull, PullLegs)
Sunday
Squats
Standing Calves
Bench Press
OHP

Tuesday
Bench Press
OHP
Rows
Un. Pulldowns

Thursday
Rows
Pulldowns
Squats
Standing Calves

Last block 3x5
4+ weeks if all going well ABA BAB (sun/tues/thur)
A
Bench
OHP
Stand Calves

B
Squats
Rows
Un. Pulldowns

Man, now I'm seeing people doing ABA BAB, and 2x per week, this idea I had is now sounding more enticing... (never did try it)
Click to expand...
Ah yep I remember that thread, yeah that does make sense, and I love those changes you implement throughout the cycle.

It's so hard to pinpoint what's going to offer the greatest stimulus, just taking into account everyone's recovery abilities and current minimum threshold of volume.. as Bryan says in that thread that you'd be better off reducing volume rather than frequency which makes sense.

But on the other hand it ALSO makes sense that as things get heavier to reduce the frequency of lifts slightly to account for increased intensity and need for recovery. Although powerlifters do frequent heavy lifting all the time with successful recovery (Mick and Jester's logs have some heavy lifting pretty frequently!)

I'm potentially more confused than before haha. Maybe there is no optimal, but just depends on the person and how well they respond and recover. I'll continue my cycle frequency of 3x week for bodyparts when moving into the 5s, and assess from there maybe if I should scale it back a bit..
 
Given that I have pretty much reached my genetic potential, and also leaning out from a Keto/Carnivore approach, it’s really hard to tell if it makes any difference with the lower frequency - but I can definitely say that it takes up to 48hrs just to recover my strength for some exercises (validated through conservative 1RM testing and handgrip dynamometer), and another 24-48hrs to supercompensate strength.

This was also the case when measuring thousands of subjects in Wayne Westcott’s lab, the more advanced and the older the lifter, the more recovery tended to require up to 72-96hrs (for some even longer, but I will assume this is due to an exaggerated inflammatory response):
https://www.15minutecorporatewarrior.com/podcast/dr-wayne-westcott/

Not that strength is a reliable marker for hypertrophy, but given that we do want to load the tissue with progressively heavier loads it only makes sense to wait until strength is up instead of just maintaining.

There is also the subjective benefit of better recovery, although there is sometimes a slight increase of soreness after workouts, but only in some muscle groups.
 
_Simon_ said:
Ah yep I remember that thread, yeah that does make sense, and I love those changes you implement throughout the cycle.

It's so hard to pinpoint what's going to offer the greatest stimulus, just taking into account everyone's recovery abilities and current minimum threshold of volume.. as Bryan says in that thread that you'd be better off reducing volume rather than frequency which makes sense.

But on the other hand it ALSO makes sense that as things get heavier to reduce the frequency of lifts slightly to account for increased intensity and need for recovery. Although powerlifters do frequent heavy lifting all the time with successful recovery (Mick and Jester's logs have some heavy lifting pretty frequently!)

I'm potentially more confused than before haha. Maybe there is no optimal, but just depends on the person and how well they respond and recover. I'll continue my cycle frequency of 3x week for bodyparts when moving into the 5s, and assess from there maybe if I should scale it back a bit..
Click to expand...

Man, I know... see that's what tricky about trying for 'optimal'. If we look at tons of training studies...
There are studies that showed these results with the subjects
* 1x a week per muscle, as good as 2 or 3
* 3x a week per muscle superior
* 2x a week the same as 3x a week
* 2x a week better for trained people than 3x, but 3x better for beginners

then it's the same variations with load, volume, 'failure or not', etc.

So the real thing is, 'why' or 'what is different' that caused those results? We can look at one study and say 'See, 2x per week is good enough', well it was for those people, in that study, with that training setup, etc. but why did people in another study do well with 1x per week? or why did another one show better with 3x? How do we know which we ourselves fit into?

So to me, our best approach is doing what allows best recovery without 'over' recovering or under recovering, then that would be optimal for each person. I mean seriously, if 3x per week drives a person into the ground, is that actually optimal for that person? Not EVEN close then, it's worse then. You can try to stimulate PS all you want, but your not going to grow and keep with a progressive program if your performance is going down rather than up from trying to match 'optimal' in some study you read.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top