I would like people’s experiences with training a with either:
Split, but really taking things to failure or close, hitting a body part 2 times per week
Full body, more Waterbury style - just to a few reps short of failure, but hitting each body part ~4 times per week, but less volume each time (ie ONE-TWO big moves per session per body part rather than 4-6 for just 1 part)
What has worked best for size and strength gains? In #1 there is more net rest for each part between sessions. BUT can muscles grow even when you are hitting them more frequently if you never take them to failure? Is this better?
“Better” is dependent on who were talking about. I hit each body part once in 7 days like madman because that is what I’ve found works best for me. Usually failure is involved, but not always and not every set. Sometimes I go way past failure on some sets.
There are guys here I know know what they’re talking about who do not favor this approach for the very good reason that it isn’t what works best for them. I’m referring to physique centric training. If I were a powerlifter even I would go for more frequency. It’s not possible for somebody else to say what will work best for you.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
“Better” is dependent on who were talking about. I hit each body part once in 7 days like madman because that is what I’ve found works best for me.>>>[/quote]
Me too, I don’t really understand why anyone would train a bodypart more than once a week. Hasn’t it been proven that it takes at least 7 days for a muscle to rebuild and overcompensate? If so then wouldn’t training before then cause a negative feedback loop?
[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
“Better” is dependent on who were talking about. I hit each body part once in 7 days like madman because that is what I’ve found works best for me.>>>
Me too, I don’t really understand why anyone would train a bodypart more than once a week. Hasn’t it been proven that it takes at least 7 days for a muscle to rebuild and overcompensate? If so then wouldn’t training before then cause a negative feedback loop?[/quote]
It hasn’t been proven. Maybe if you are doing multiple exercises for many work sets it takes that long. Myself I keep the volume low on purpose(intensity is 11/10-Spinal Tap–though) so it CAN recover faster than 7 days so I can hit it again.
[quote]LiftSmart wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
Hasn’t it been proven that it takes at least 7 days for a muscle to rebuild and overcompensate? If so then wouldn’t training before then cause a negative feedback loop?[/quote]
no, hasn’t been proven.
What works, works. When it doesn’t, don’t do it anymore and change things? Homeostasis.
Once a week for me just does not cut it. I hit each part at least twice a week when I did splits. Lately, I have been incorporating more full body workouts and movements and feel it is working well for me.
Measure yourself and try one type for a month/6 weeks. Measure again. Try the other style for a month/6 weeks. Measure again. Then ask yourself, which worked better? which could I do more intensely? Did I eat enough to maximize my gains?
All methods work. Some work better and for longer periods of time depending on the individual.
The latest fad here seems to be “there is no overtraining” and high frequency.
What works for ME, in order of effectivenes:
Push/Pull, heavy/light format (2x week)
TBT (3x week)
1x week volume program
HIT-type failure training
I would give each approach a min of 8 weeks to determine it’s effectiveness. Then choose the 2 or 3 best formats and rotate those throughout your training year acc to your goals.
How to evaluate the formats? My criteria are simple: strength increases, girth measurements, scale and last but certainly not least, overall energy levels/fatigue.
[quote]Scott M wrote:
LiftSmart wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
“Better” is dependent on who were talking about. I hit each body part once in 7 days like madman because that is what I’ve found works best for me.>>>
Me too, I don’t really understand why anyone would train a bodypart more than once a week. Hasn’t it been proven that it takes at least 7 days for a muscle to rebuild and overcompensate? If so then wouldn’t training before then cause a negative feedback loop?
It hasn’t been proven. Maybe if you are doing multiple exercises for many work sets it takes that long. Myself I keep the volume low on purpose(intensity is 11/10-Spinal Tap–though) so it CAN recover faster than 7 days so I can hit it again. [/quote]
The only thing that’s been proven is how little has actually been “proven”.
Just about every sane method has brought success for somebody if done hard and consistently. Some are more universally applicable than others though.
I’ve done both styles. And I still do. I vary it after a while to keep my body doing different things.
I finished the Blast Your Bench Routine by Lee Hayward and it calls for benching 5x’s a week. It was tuff, but after 3 weeks i went from 205 to 235 on my max. Would another style have done the same thing? Who knows, but it still worked for me.
Sometimes we overanalyze things and we forget that our bodies can adapt more than we realize. You’ll see guys in prison who work out everyday and get good gains. You’ll see guys who do ‘manual’ labor every day and their body adapts. You’ll see weightlifters who always do the same thing and their body adapts to that also. Mix it up a little bit and watch how your body reacts.
IMHO (which isn’t worth 2 cents) there is no ‘right’ schedule forever. Find a program that works for a while, and when it starts to slow down, find a new one. Just remember to give them all the intensity that you can when you do them.
If you are a motor genius, you can get strong in a movement pattern without frequent exposure to the pattern.
If you are a motor moron, you need more frequent exposure or your body ‘forgets’ its strength.
Better natural athletes (or those with better ‘genetics’ if you will) are usually motor geniuses or close. They can train with less frequency and stay strong, and enjoy the advantage achieving tons of mircrotrauma in each session.
Motor morons can experience involution training this way. They need more frequent exposure to movements to get stronger, so they can’t create too much microtrauma in any one session. They may not grow as quickly overall, but this is the best they can do.
Identify yourself as quickly as possible and train in a way appropriate to your makeup. I am a motor moron. My lifts don’t go up unless I train them (or similar motor patterns) multiple times per week. One has to make an honest self assessment or they will not progress beyond the low intermediate stage of building muscle.
If you are a motor genius, you can get strong in a movement pattern without frequent exposure to the pattern.
If you are a motor moron, you need more frequent exposure or your body ‘forgets’ its strength.
Better natural athletes (or those with better ‘genetics’ if you will) are usually motor geniuses or close. They can train with less frequency and stay strong, and enjoy the advantage achieving tons of mircrotrauma in each session.
Motor morons can experience involution training this way. They need more frequent exposure to movements to get stronger, so they can’t create too much microtrauma in any one session. They may not grow as quickly overall, but this is the best they can do.
Identify yourself as quickly as possible and train in a way appropriate to your makeup. I am a motor moron. My lifts don’t go up unless I train them (or similar motor patterns) multiple times per week. One has to make an honest self assessment or they will not progress beyond the low intermediate stage of building muscle.[/quote]
Interesting method of classification Ramo.
By that classification, I’d be a motor genius (or at least closer to that end of the spectrum), which makes sense since I seem to respond better (especially from a strength perspective) to higher intensity/lower frequency training than lower intensity/high frequency training.
If you are a motor genius, you can get strong in a movement pattern without frequent exposure to the pattern.
If you are a motor moron, you need more frequent exposure or your body ‘forgets’ its strength.
Better natural athletes (or those with better ‘genetics’ if you will) are usually motor geniuses or close. They can train with less frequency and stay strong, and enjoy the advantage achieving tons of mircrotrauma in each session.
Motor morons can experience involution training this way. They need more frequent exposure to movements to get stronger, so they can’t create too much microtrauma in any one session. They may not grow as quickly overall, but this is the best they can do.
Identify yourself as quickly as possible and train in a way appropriate to your makeup. I am a motor moron. My lifts don’t go up unless I train them (or similar motor patterns) multiple times per week. One has to make an honest self assessment or they will not progress beyond the low intermediate stage of building muscle.
Interesting method of classification Ramo.
By that classification, I’d be a motor genius (or at least closer to that end of the spectrum), which makes sense since I seem to respond better (especially from a strength perspective) to higher intensity/lower frequency training than lower intensity/high frequency training.
[/quote]
I think subcultural influences have a lot to do with it also. If you take somebody who hasn’t gained much in the past year and stick him in a gym with bodybuilders or powerlifters who are bigger and stronger than him, he will gain quickly. The structure of his training won’t matter as much.
And in general, to get to the 300/400/500 level, which I think every lifter should shoot for as a baseline, almost any type of training can get someone there as long as they get after it. Having a system that you believe in is a lot more important than what that system actually is.