So what’s the point of doing 4 days if 3 days is just as good?
In the 4 day split you’re not training as long because you have more days to train, thus volume is spread out over that extra day. Meaning, you also have the ability to put in some extra work on anything lagging behind. Where with the three day a week whole body split those things tend to come off the table.
If you’re in here posting I’m sure you could sit down and figure that out without having to ask. Again, arguing for the sake of it.
1 Like
No I was just wondering. I don’t know everything like some people.
3 days means you hit some things twice one week and other things twice the next, or everything 3x. If 2x a week is optimal, then 2x a week is better than 3x a week, and also better than 2x every other week. Seriously, this is a weird argument.
Studies tend to compare fixed routines not 2x every 2nd week and once every 2nd week.
I haven’t had a chance to read the article through and through, but I did read the abstract which led me to think about full-body three times a week where two sessions are hypertrophy-oriented and one strength oriented. Would that also see diminishing returns? Or two full-body sessions (strength-focus on one, hypertrophy on the other) and then one upper- and one lower-body session(hypertrophy/hypertrophy)
Makes sense. 8 to 12 reps twice. 3 to 5 once.
The underlying processes are:
-
Sarcoplasmic hypertrophy: Gain in muscle mass caused by an increase in the volume of fluid in the muscle cell. This hypertrophy gain does not reflect an associated gain in strength.
-
Myofibrillar hypertrophy: Gain in muscle mass caused by an increase in the size of the contractile proteins. This hypertrophy gain is reflected by an associated gain in strength.
Because he’s only here to argue and act like a turd bucket.
Yes weird. 2x =3× according to the study.
1.5x is less but better he says. Don’t dare ask why otherwise you get abused.
I think Paul’s been pretty clear in his reccomendations from the start. Arguing about it isn’t going to change them, just dilute the information available for those looking to learn.
Where does the study say 2x = 3x? I love how people read studies on the internet. Hand over a source they’ll still get it wrong.
However, effect size differences favored SPLIT for all hypertrophy measures, indicating a potential benefit for training two versus three days a week when the goal is to maximize gains in muscle mass.
2 Likes
Paul is saying if you train with DC, Yates, HIT intensity, 2x week isn’t a recoverable split for most mortals.
If you look at JMs 2x week programs the second day is “pump” work. No sets to failure, super sets, pumping blood through the muscle.
There’s no way most could do 2-3 exercises of quads taking sets to failure and then 72h later doing it again and recovering. Now you could do it one day, then 72h later doing active recovery/blood flow maximizing training
3 Likes
2x week each muscle ^^^^
1 Like
Totally. Thank you for your common training sense. I appreciate you.
1 Like
I didn’t say better, I said it was middle ground.
Dude find another forum to learn at. You’re not here to exchange information or learn. You’re only here to argue for the sake of it. I’m not sure how that benefits you.
1 Like
From personal experience I done 5/3/1 BBB (upper body only) where you work the chest, shoulders and upper back twice a week. This was hard. Even when
I was eating 4/5,000 cals and sleeping like a baby come month 3 it was dire. I used to walk into the gym 4 whole days after doing 5x10 with 70% and still feel depleted.
I can not imagine how this would feel with dead lifts or squats.
3x a week does not allow enough time to recover before starting again. Unless you’re a noob. In which case it is plenty of time.
exactly. whatever split i do, PPL, UL, Mountain dog-(c/s,legs,arms,back) i try to set frequency every 4th-5th day. I like a middle ground, i like 2-3 exercises per bodypart, a couple hard feeder sets, then 1 set balls to the wall lift or die set.
most would call this low volume, but those feeder sets are hard. maybe like an RPE of 7 1/2 to 8
100% agree with you.
I was doing a set leg programme but I feel out of love with it. So I started to do my own thing.
1 balls to the wall set of squats - working a 5-10-5 double progression model.
2 sets of smith machine “1.5” squats working in 8-15 range
2 sets of RDL in the smith machine working in the 8-15 range
This would be considered “low volume” I’m sure. Just 5 working sets. But do it right and you don’t need too much more volume.
I “could” do some lunges - I’m sure. But I’m normally to blitzed to think about them.
I’ll leave this here for people educating themselves, Planned Brutality Maybe it will help some people see more nuance to HIT than going to muscular failure on every set for all exercises.
1 Like