"ultra high frequency bodypart specialization"

[joe shumsky]

i recall reading in a semi-recent post that, apart from such and such's "I.V. Drip Fantasy," ultra high frequency bodypart specialization was the most optimum route to hypertrophy. i've been doing alot of thinking on this matter... if you consider each rep of each set a stimulus for growth, which it could be, provided that load/intensity were great enough, wouldn't doing an unusually high number of sets (meaning that the total number of sets of an exercise performed in one session were substantially greater than the total volume of an exercise that would usually be performed over the course of a week,) lead to greater hypertrophy? to clarify, wouldn't performing multiple sets, back to back, be a somewhat practical method of implementing "ultra high frequency bodypart specialization?" i mean, i'm in th gym for about 90 minutes a day...  total body. i don't think i could really get to the gym more than once a day... for me, it's just not practical. the majority of my gym time seems to be spent making transitions from exercise to exercise (and, just to avoid the inevitable, the only rest i get between exercises is loading up the bar or walking to the next exercise.) i guess what i'm wondering is this: couldn't you consider multiple sets (and, by multiple, i mean more than 6 or 7) of the same exercise a form of "ultra high frequency bodypart specialization?" i'm anxious to see what the experts have to say on this matter.

 

[Old and Grey]

Joe

I think you are mixing up high frequency with high volume. High volume (multiple sets) has a significant amount of downside associated with it due to the law of diminishing returns. After a certain number of sets, the hypertrophic response becomes almost minimal. High frequency, on the other hand, overcomes that to some extent via mini recuperation periods and is, therefore, in my opinion, much more efficient.

My own guestimate, that is not backed up by a lot of scientific research, is that each successive set loses about 50% of its effectiveness. Thus, a second set is only 1/2 as effective as the first set and the third set is 1/4 as effective as the first set, and so on. There may or may not be studies out there that confirm or refute the above, My guesstimate is based solely on my own experience.

Obviously, if you do not have access to equipment more than once per day, ultra high frequency is not feasible. Obviously high volume is the next best alternative but not a very efficient one. I would tend to go with a higher number of different exercises to activate different muscle fibers more directly than repeating the same exercise over and over.

Bear in mind, however, that high volume, used in conjuntion with a typical HST style workout where you hit each bodypart 3 times per week, can quickly lead to stagnation and, perhaps, overtraining.

Likewise, if you do choose to go ultra high frequency, it is important to keep the number of sets and the number of exercises low to avoid the same result as above.

Everybody is different and I think it makes sense for people to experiment and see what works best for themselves.

 

[joe shumsky]

old and grey, thank you very much for your articulate response. the points you raised are right on... since i began lifitng in an hst-like manner, i've seen the best results of my life (size wise.) i think i, in my haste, may not have been as clear as i could have been in my post, though. let's say a person, in entry level hst fashion, performs a total body workout 3 times per week. we would tend to say that that person's "frequency" of training is 3 times per week. let's take another person, maybe someone who has never even heard of hst (typical bodybuilder,) who follows a common split routine. this person splits up his bodyparts and may only train each group once or twice a week. here's the catch: the bodybuilder performs multiple sets of the same/similar exercises per session... at least equalling, if not surpassing, the weekly volume, per exercise, of a typical hst routine. my question, then, can be clarified into this: can we view each set as an assault on frequency, or must we strictly speak in terms of actual trips to the gym? example: john hst performs 7 sets of an exercise spread out over 7 days. john bodybuilder performs 7 sets of an exercise in one workout. the volume, in these examples, is the same. the frequency, however, is drastically different. in these examples, who actually uses a higher frequency? i guess this is my question.

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] ]There may or may not be studies out there that confirm or refute the above, My guesstimate is based solely on my own experience.

O&G, I haven't seen any that break it down to percentages as such, it would be interesting though. Remember those that you sent me a while back? They seem to show basically this same conclusion.

With respect to the original questions by Joe.

What O&G said

 

[imported_dkm1987]

Quote[/b] (joe shumsky @ Mar. 04 2005,7:59)]let's say a person, in entry level hst fashion, performs a total body workout 3 times per week. we would tend to say that that person's "frequency" of training is 3 times per week. let's take another person, maybe someone who has never even heard of hst (typical bodybuilder,) who follows a common split routine. this person splits up his bodyparts and may only train each group once or twice a week. here's the catch: the bodybuilder performs multiple sets of the same/similar exercises per session... at least equalling, if not surpassing, the weekly volume, per exercise, of a typical hst routine.

my question, then, can be clarified into this: can we view each set as an assault on frequency, or must we strictly speak in terms of actual trips to the gym? example: john hst performs 7 sets of an exercise spread out over 7 days. john bodybuilder performs 7 sets of an exercise in one workout. the volume, in these examples, is the same. the frequency, however, is drastically different. in these examples, who actually uses a higher frequency? i guess this is my question.

I think you are still confusing the difference between Frequency and TUT (Time Under Tension). TUT would be the same when looking at weekly TUT. Freq as you said would be different with HST'er having a higher freq. The stimulus involved is differing between the two. Freq is related to the time windows involved in protein synthesis, having a more frequent activity improves this because we are working out the tissue again within the optimum window of opportunity.

 

[Old and Grey]

John HST performs the same volume as John Bodybuilder but John HST has a higher frequency. One of the premises of HST is that frequency is more important than volume. Therefore, under the theory and science of HST, John HST will have spent his time working out more efficiently, hypertrophy-wise, than John Bodybuilder. Probably 95% of the world's lifters disagree with that principle but, then again, they don't seem to take a scientific approach to bodybuilder. More volume, more steroids, more weight, more failure, more grunting is a mantra heard in more gyms than frequency, SD and then volume. Bryan is attempting to change that.    

So, as Dan has alluded to, the answer to your question is the number of trips to the gym constitues frequency.