Is this enough volume? [1x Per week frequency]

[Joshyb90]

P.s go easy on the pull-ups, just started doing them

[Meadey]

Honestly if I was going 1x a week frequency I'd be doing a lot more than that, I do that at 2x per week

[Joshyb90]

Honestly if I was going 1x a week frequency I'd be doing a lot more than that, I do that at 2x per week

Hmm, see the problem I got is that upper lower isn't suiting me, and I don't have 6 days per week to do a PPL. I don't believe the PPL is effective if you can't do it 2x per week, I'm going to have to increase volume.

Thnx meadey

[JaredPunch]

Honestly if I was going 1x a week frequency I'd be doing a lot more than that, I do that at 2x per week

why? the higher frequency is a full-body 3 times a week
on a full body you do 1 exercise per body part. So provided you do a different exercise for body part at each workout that would be 3 exercises per bodypart at week

there's no reason why a lower frequency would have more total volume than the highest frequency so, as you decrease the frequency the goal is still to maintain the same volume of a full body. That means 2 exercises per body part if hitting muscle 2x a week and 3 exercises per body part if hitting muscles 1x a week. 6 exercises per body part on a 1x a week frequency is useless, has no measurable benefit except if one likes spending time at the gym

[Meadey]

why? the higher frequency is a full-body 3 times a week
on a full body you do 1 exercise per body part. So provided you do a different exercise for body part at each workout that would be 3 exercises per bodypart at week

there's no reason why a lower frequency would have more total volume than the highest frequency so, as you decrease the frequency the goal is still to maintain the same volume of a full body. That means 2 exercises per body part if hitting muscle 2x a week and 3 exercises per body part if hitting muscles 1x a week. 6 exercises per body part on a 1x a week frequency is useless, has no measurable benefit except if one likes spending time at the gym

what are you trying to tell me? that I'm doing it wrong? lol

[Joshyb90]

why? the higher frequency is a full-body 3 times a week
on a full body you do 1 exercise per body part. So provided you do a different exercise for body part at each workout that would be 3 exercises per bodypart at week

there's no reason why a lower frequency would have more total volume than the highest frequency so, as you decrease the frequency the goal is still to maintain the same volume of a full body. That means 2 exercises per body part if hitting muscle 2x a week and 3 exercises per body part if hitting muscles 1x a week. 6 exercises per body part on a 1x a week frequency is useless, has no measurable benefit except if one likes spending time at the gym

I didn't do 6 I did 4 for back + 2 for biceps.

[JaredPunch]

what are you trying to tell me? that I'm doing it wrong? lol

There's no wrong, if you like working out and want more variety but it doesn't have any benefit over doing a normal 3 exercises per body part and 4 sets volume. For example many studies showed no benefit of 5, 6 or more sets over 4 sets, still it's not wrong if one likes doing more set.

I didn't do 6 I did 4 for back + 2 for biceps.

even 3 back and 3 biceps would have been enough to break the fibers up and trigger hypertrophy, the point is that waiting 7 days to train a muscle again is too much rest time and adding a lot more sets or more exercises won't change the fact that the body will never need more than 3 days to recover. It's not like, adding more set or more exercises causes more tears and hence more growth and so you need more rest. It doesn't work that way.

[Meadey]

There's no wrong, if you like working out and want more variety but it doesn't have any benefit over doing a normal 3 exercises per body part and 4 sets volume. For example many studies showed no benefit of 5, 6 or more sets over 4 sets, still it's not wrong if one likes doing more set.

sounds like you're afraid of hard work

[JaredPunch]

sounds like you're afraid of hard work

I like working hard for fun, I don't like working more then necessary believing I would get more out of it when I won't.
There are days I do super high volume but just because I'm having fun and want to train more, but I know better than believing I'm creating more or faster growth or better shape, simmetry or strenght that way. You know it's like the difference between eating 300g of protein because you love meat so much that you can't help me versus eating 300g of protein because you think it has benefits over 200g

[Meadey]

I like working hard for fun, I don't like working more then necessary believing I would get more out of it when I won't.
There are days I do super high volume but just because I'm having fun and want to train more, but I know better than believing I'm creating more or faster growth or better shape, simmetry or strenght that way.

for the record, there are studies showing that from a single workout, higher volume = more muscle growth.
Then obviously overall muscle growth over time depends on recovery and how often you hit the muscles.;
If you hit the muscles once a week, recovery for that group is not an issue, so up the volume

[JaredPunch]

for the record, there are studies showing that from a single workout, higher volume = more muscle growth.

I'd like to see these studies, as far as I know volume has a diminishing return, (just like calorie, protein and everything else) there's a point where adding more volume won't lead to any extra benefit or better result. It seems further benefits or results stop at 15 sets per muscle group weekly or else 90-110 reps per muscle group. But if other studies contradict these findings I'm interested in reading their conclusions.

[Meadey]

I'd like to see these studies, as far as I know volume has a diminishing return, (just like calorie, protein and everything else) there's a point where adding more volume won't lead to any extra benefit or better result. It seems further benefits or results stop at 15 sets per muscle group weekly or else 90-110 reps per muscle group.

a diminishing return certainly, i never said it was linear.
Yes adding 10 sets to a 10 set program will have much more benefit than adding 10 sets to a 100 set program, but the benefit is there.
just like continually halving numbers never reaches 0, the benefit never reaches 0

[IvanKoay]

Twice a week

[Joshyb90]

Twice a week

Nice to hear from another 'bodybuilding.com parrot'

[Jovaye]

Are you training traps with shoulders?

[Broscientist88]

I train 1.5 times a week frequency. Srs. 4 on 1 off. Like mentioned already if i was doing a bro split id make sure i cant move the muscle afterwards, just because recovery isnt an issue and its fun.