Initially I saw this thread, had a quick look, and didn’t want to waste my time.
Seeing it was still high on the list, I thought I’d jump in for a look. Lo and behold, a new argument kicked in (BTW, beansie, I’ll be your official nuthugger, you make me laugh).
Couldn’t resist after reading this,
[quote]trextacy wrote:
those programs are superior at building strength than a traditional bodybuilding routine (3-6 way split). ultimately, hypertrophy is a volume response, but strength allows you to recruit more motor units and muscle fibers, thereby making the volume more effective.
so, a program that leads to quickest strength gains and motor unit recruitment sets someone up for a bodybuilding program later. simple.[/quote]
There is absolutely no proof regarding the superiority of higher volume training (referring to higher frequency per muscle group per week) being a prerequisite for more hypertrophy and strength (although I would enter discussion related to different muscle groups and this approach working, but I think the lack of physiology understanding by the quoted poster makes this redundant).
For example, when working with Olympic lifters, the focus on high volume is more about skill repetition for the big movements than it is trying to build more strength. These types of athletes train twice, sometimes three times per day for a period of weeks in a loading phase. They don’t get appreciably stronger or bigger even though they are lifting high volumes in excess of 90% 1RM.
Hypertrophy is about the delivery of an appropriate volume that doesn’t lead to an overreaching effect, manifest as either CNS impairment or hormonal alterations (decreases in resting testosterone levels as one example). Hypertrophy is about protein accretion in the myofibrils, which is a result of delivering an appropriate dose within a high intensity range (60-85% for appropriate intensity, with matching RM ranges) that stimulates the appropriate genetic pathway, having appropriate nutrition, then allowing appropriate rest for the adaptation to occur.
As I have stated elsewhere, full body, high frequency type work can, and does often work. However these types of programs have such little room for error that unless they are well controlled I wouldn’t recommend them.
Beginners respond to just about any weight training stimulus in the same way. They will make very rapid strength gains (3-4 weeks) owing primarily to neural adaptation, then start to make rapid, albeit brief (up to the 12 week point), increases in size as the muscle structure starts to change and catch up…long term, it’s about how they progress individually and how their program is adapted for what best makes them respond.
Anyone advocating one particular approach for beginners as the best way is naive as to what works, and to what the physiology is of the human body in a resistance exercise context. A beginner should train for, lets be nice and say 6-months to start with, try a variety of programs cause it won’t matter, and see how they best respond.
Hmmm, I think I just wasted my time typing all this…fuck.
