should you work each body part 1 a week

[grubb]

I have had big prob i'm doing cardio 2-3 times a week 20 min. get alot of protein and carbs but i'm not really getting any stronger i've weighed around 170 for about 4 months now what do and i'm not getting and defintion and would you do it seems i have alot of problems but I love to work out more than anything? Do I need also to work out each body part more than once a week?

[PALACE_GUARD]

I have had big prob i'm doing cardio 2-3 times a week 20 min. get alot of protein and carbs but i'm not really getting any stronger i've weighed around 170 for about 4 months now what do and i'm not getting and defintion and would you do it seems i have alot of problems but I love to work out more than anything? Do I need also to work out each body part more than once a week?

Once a week is not nearly enough to stimulate muscle growth. Train each muscle 2 x a week & you'll see a big difference with defintion & added muscle. Training once a week is for the gifted or guys that take anabolics.

[elcid2007]

I don't think he necessarily meant working out only once a week. I think he stated working out bodyparts more than once a week. As to your question of definition and weight, your diet is what will determine your weight and state of definition. Without a proper diet you will never get shredded. Cardio, lifting, diet are all important parts of the bodybuilding world and you must perfect your diet before you expect to see some really good gains

[PALACE_GUARD]

I don't think he necessarily meant working out only once a week. I think he stated working out bodyparts more than once a week. As to your question of definition and weight, your diet is what will determine your weight and state of definition. Without a proper diet you will never get shredded. Cardio, lifting, diet are all important parts of the bodybuilding world and you must perfect your diet before you expect to see some really good gains

Yah, meant to say working 1 bodypart once a week.

And yes, the eating is vital!

[grubb]

So I do need to work out each body part 2 a week so how much time do you give your body parts to rest? So how mny diffent sets and reps is really needed what i'm asking is how much is enough of a work out for each body part say i only need 4 differnt exercises 10-12 reps or what and how many times a week should I do cardio and how long? how many times a week should I do abs and what kind and Calorie fat and proteinintake should I be looking at if i weigh around 166 about 5'10 realy need t help with these things neve really kne about this place!!!!!

[Defiant1]

I have had big prob i'm doing cardio 2-3 times a week 20 min. get alot of protein and carbs but i'm not really getting any stronger i've weighed around 170 for about 4 months now what do and i'm not getting and defintion and would you do it seems i have alot of problems but I love to work out more than anything? Do I need also to work out each body part more than once a week?

Beginners should train each bodypart 3x per week. If you only train 1x per week you are adapting then de-adapting to each workout so you will make little if any progress.

You only need 1 exercise to start for each bp. It sounds like you are doing an advanced workout as a beginner....doesn't work.

You have to crawl before you walk and walk before you run.

[paul e]

Once a week is not nearly enough to stimulate muscle growth. Train each muscle 2 x a week & you'll see a big difference with defintion & added muscle. Training once a week is for the gifted or guys that take anabolics.

Im afraid you couldnt be more wrong. YOu have it Totally Backwards!!!!!!!

Why do we train muscle grps once per wk? Because, IF YOURE TRAINING WITH HIGH INTENSITY, if you dont use a low volume approach, and your a natural lifter, youre muscles wont recover completely so that a growh cycle is completed before you lift again. What you have backwards is that, its precisely those lifters who DO use steroids who CAN train muscle grps multiple times per wk.. Why is that? Because the gear AIDS THEM IN RECOVERY.. Its all about the recovery. The better your body is at recovery, the more times per wk you can train muscle grps; in other words, exactly the opposite of what you said.

think about it......


>>Beginners should train each bodypart 3x per week. If you only train 1x per week you are adapting then de-adapting to each workout so you will make little if any progress.
You only need 1 exercise to start for each bp. It sounds like you are doing an advanced workout as a beginner....doesn't work.
You have to crawl before you walk and walk before you run.
<<

Yes, I agree with this. Beginners can start with a cycle that goes something like this:
M: chest/tris; T: Back/Bis; W: Shoulders/Legs; R: chest/tris: F:Back/Bis; Sa: Shoulders/Legs; Su: OFF; M: repeat..............

iow, twice per wk per body part. Thats how I started. .BUT, after about 3 mos, I had to scale back.. Why? Because symptoms of overtraining were beginning to appear. When you first start, just practically looking at a weight will get you growing, and changing your body composition. But in short order, this all stops, and its then that youve got to lengthen your recovery/growth cycle, and take to heart the well worn addage: "You stimulate in the gym, but you Grow AWAY from the gym". Its in your rest days that your muscle grp grows.

There is constant argument about whether 3 days, or 6 days, or anything in between, between muscle grp workouts works best. The more chemically created you are, the more times you can work out. .Its all a matter of how well you can recover, and gear does wonders for recovery. .But if you are a committed natural lifter, once a wk is safe.. That way, youll be sure of giving yourself enough time to grow maximally between tearing it down again. You need more time than your gear aided friends. You can try multiples, but be sure and read up on overtraining symptoms.. over training is very counter productive; the more you lift the smaller you get... Youre always aching, have trouble sleeping, cant relax, dont grow, lose muscle mass, either shrink or get fat, get physical ailments, colds, etc.., etc..

One more thing.. Keep in mind as you read my answer that Im speaking ONLY about Hi Intensity kinds of training... ie, lifting to within a rep or two of failure each set, as defined as an outright failed lift, or failure in terms of severe form breakdown. If you only lift moderate weights, as defined as being able to do more than about 10 reps for several sets as one definition, then what ive written above doesnt apply so much. Overall, Id say over time, just listen to your body.. It will tell you what is too much.

[Defiant1]

Im afraid you couldnt be more wrong. YOu have it Totally Backwards!!!!!!!

Why do we train muscle grps once per wk? Because, IF YOURE TRAINING WITH HIGH INTENSITY, if you dont use a low volume approach, and your a natural lifter, youre muscles wont recover completely so that a growh cycle is completed before you lift again. What you have backwards is that, its precisely those lifters who DO use steroids who CAN train muscle grps multiple times per wk.. Why is that? Because the gear AIDS THEM IN RECOVERY.. Its all about the recovery. The better your body is at recovery, the more times per wk you can train muscle grps; in other words, exactly the opposite of what you said.

think about it......

Paul, I know you're pretty reasonable so I'll give you a reasonable response.

I do believe that some guys will eventually need to use a 1 bodypart per week routine as they advance in training.

But what causes a need for LONG recover is Nervous system stress not muscular stress. If one does not train to failure, then one can train more frequently. And training to failure is not necessary or desirable for full fiber recruitment. The muscles themselves basically recover in at most 48 hours or so. The nervous system recovery varies wildly though depending on the "intensity" of the workout, with the recovery time increasing exponentially based on how close to or past one trains past muscular "failure" which is in reality nervous system failure.

From what is known about neuro-muscular fatigue and muscular recovery, training to failure with low volume to MAXIMIZE recovery is actually a step in the wrong direction. Volume on it's own is not the problem (though volume contributes in "total" stress). It is fatigue of the CNS and PNS (peripheral nervous system) due to inhibitory reactions caused by repeated nervous system stress.

Here's another "think about it"...

Why do routines that espouse low volume but HIGH intensity require so much recovery time? Including maximum attempts at 1rm?

Yet, why do activities that are at a HARD intensity but not FULL (to failure), even if done at EXTREME volumes (i.e. athletic training, military training, volume training 60's/70's style, Eastern European weightlifting etc) allow for frequent even daily training with multiple sessions?

[paul e]

>>But what causes a need for LONG recover is Nervous system stress not muscular stress. If one does not train to failure, then one can train more frequently<<

For me, it doesnt matter much which it is, because I dont use that as the gauge which tells me I need a full wk.. its the overtraining symptoms Ive trained myself to recognize. I sense that you are correct.. I mean, just look at the typical symptoms: overtired and insomnia, more frequent colds, increased irritability as just a few.. To me, they sound A LOT more like CNS related symtoms, and not muscular ones.. And so, just intuitively from looking at the symptoms, id say you were right. BTW, since i dont usually have the benefit of a training partner, I have to stop a rep or two shy of complete failure, which I define as either outright failure to perform a lift, or an abysmal breakdown in form.. I stop a rep or two shy of this. This is also the Max-ot style, lifting with this intensity, using the amount of wt which allows you to perform 4-6 reps per set before failure.. I change it slightly by sometimes allowing myself to go to 8 reps instead of always using 6 as the number after which I will increase the wt again forcing me back down to 4 reps, before I build back up.

As we know, weve had this discussion elsewhere... All I know is that for me, and for an awful lot of others which Im sure youve heard from, even lifting in the fashion I described, ie, what is essentially this max-ot way, after 8 - 10 wks, Im shot unless I take a full wk off. And its not even to total failure. It will be sometimes, but usually thats from a slight miscalculation. Often times when I go up in poundage and back down to an attempt of 4 reps with it, if its right after the increase, the first couple of sessions with this weight, Ill use some controlled cheating to get the weight up, and then take advantage of the wt increase to maximize the eccentric portion of the lift, which for me seems to work better than going completely strictly with less weight. The way I view it, in a couple of sessions, Ill handle it without the controlled cheats anyway, so I make use of the heavier negative lifts at the begnning of a wt increase on the bar, and from strictness as i can raise the reps... I feel Im covering both bases, whichever works best, Im doing it!

>>Eastern European weightlifting etc) allow for frequent even daily training with multiple sessions<<

All I know is, I cant do this. Im sick of being overtrained. I hate being rundown. I hate insomnia. .I hate constant tension, and feeling wk and rundown... If training my way 5 days per wk, but once per wk per muscle grp can minimize these symptoms, then I dont see the harm in going with it.

To train 2 or more times per wk per muscle grp, we have to lessen the intensity.. Lets say Im using a 90 lb barbell for 4 sets of 5 reps currently for part of my curl workout. If I wanted to do this twice per wk, what would I do.. drop down to 65-70 lbs? Would this really benefit me more than what IM doing now? I do know this: That once ive trained up to my current 90 lb bb curls, the next wk, this 90 lbs will be 'easier' for me to lift.. And the follwoing wk, Ill advance to 6 reps, with less cheat.. And after 1 or 2 more wks, Ill be ready to bump that to 95 or 100 lbs. .I started with about 65 lbs not that long ago, and Ive seen it work for every body part. I could be wrong, but I just dont thing Id be sending the same 'growth' signal if I were to be using relatively less intensity.

Keeping in the same vein, lets say a lifter was using 100 lb bb for his curls doing 4 sets of 5 reps, and the question were posed, whats the best and/or quickest way for him to get to 120 lbs peforming the same number of reps/sets in a fairly strict form. Would he do it by decreasing his poundage from the current 100 lbs down to, say 75 lbs, and doing it twice a wk, or by staying with the 100 lbs in a manner I would, as explained above?

BTW, I think this is a great discussion, because its a question that has plagued the community for a long time, and as yet, I dont think there is a definitive answer, although devotees of both sides are pretty certain theyve 'won the day'!!

[Defiant1]

I'm not sure if YOU do this, but I see guys who say they eventually came to a 1 bp per day split, and then say the "original" way they trained was wrong, which was 2 or 3x per week. In reality it's just that they needed to progress. Their original training was correct AT THAT STAGE OF THEIR TRAINING.

My context is for beginners.

Past the intermediate stage, anything goes.

[paul e]

I'm not sure if YOU do this, but I see guys who say they eventually came to a 1 bp per day split, and then say the "original" way they trained was wrong, which was 2 or 3x per week. In reality it's just that they needed to progress. Their original training was correct AT THAT STAGE OF THEIR TRAINING.

My context is for beginners.

Past the intermediate stage, anything goes.

Let me clear that up.. When I started, 2 times per wk was Fine.. It was enjoyable, it felt good, and if I only did once per wk then, I felt I lost strength. It felt like the muscles got soft while waiting to be worked again. Somewhere after about 3 mos of this, it all had to change, as I started feeling differently. I started needing more rest in between; the muscles were always tense, and were suffering DOMS and it never cleared up, because it would seem one workout would blend into the next for that body part.. It was clear what was needed, at least for me, was more rest. And when I got it, I started growing again.

Clearly at first, multiple times per bp is what was called for. but that was then. ITs all different now.

[RobDude]

Here's what I'd recommend, to find out what works for *you*. Because really, you don't care if your style of lifting doesn't work for 99% of everyone else, you care if you are improving.

I know a lot of people have different opinions on how many times per week you should do an exercise. Let's just look at the flat bench, but really you can do this with as many or even all of the exercises you want....

Start by working it 3x a week...there are 7 days in a week so you'll end up with this:

Lift/Rest/Lift/Rest/Lift/Rest/Rest
We'll just assume you start your first lift day on Monday, but you can do it however you like. This means you are the most 'fresh' on Monday.

Decide how many sets you are going to do (probably 3) and do that each time you lift. Write down the weight and the reps for each set. When you get home use a 1 rep max calculator (http://www.bodybuilding.com/fun/1rm.htm - use this one or find your own. Just use the same one each time) to find out how much work you really did. So get the 1 rep max for each set, then add them up and divide by 3. That's the average, estimated 1 rep max for your workout.

So if you did
175 X 8
175 X 7
165 X 8

You'd get 217, 210, 205 add em up and divide by 3 and you get 211.

Now, everyone has good days and bad days, but if you notice that, consistantly, you come in fresh on a Monday and can lift more than you can on Wed or Friday, then you would probably benefit from dropping down to two days, or maybe even one. If you come in and can do the same you did before and seem to just randomly have small increases, then 3x a week is probably exactly what you want.

If you want to see what I mean, look at this http://forum.bodybuilding.com/attach...hmentid=219837

I've been benching for a while and you can see that I go up, then down, then up a little, then I hit my two days of rest and go up (my chart is a little messed up though because I changed from a W/F/Sun to a T/Th/Sat). I'm new to squatting and you can see how it either goes up or stays the same. I want to have a balanced upper and lower body, so I don't mind waiting for my squat to catch up, and as long as I'm see small gains I'm okay, but I expect my bench to completely plateu soon.

If you try the 3x a week and you keep hitting the exact same number then you should look into some periodization techniques. I could be wrong about this, but I was under the impression that most people didn't really benefit form periodization until they had maxed out on the newbie gains - so I haven't looked into it too much, but if you've been lifting for 4 solid months it might be something to look at.

EDIT:
P.S. This is just what I do personally, and I'm not very big or very rip and I haven't taken any sort of training classes so take my advice with a grain of salt - I might be completely wrong about everything

[Defiant1]

Let me clear that up.. When I started, 2 times per wk was Fine.. It was enjoyable, it felt good, and if I only did once per wk then, I felt I lost strength. It felt like the muscles got soft while waiting to be worked again. Somewhere after about 3 mos of this, it all had to change, as I started feeling differently. I started needing more rest in between; the muscles were always tense, and were suffering DOMS and it never cleared up, because it would seem one workout would blend into the next for that body part.. It was clear what was needed, at least for me, was more rest. And when I got it, I started growing again.

Clearly at first, multiple times per bp is what was called for. but that was then. ITs all different now.

We are on the EXACT same page.

[Madcow2]

Keep in mind when discussing elite weightlifters that they have spent years gradually making themselves accustomed to higher workloads.

If you look at Wichta Falls Weightlifting's deloading phase before nationals they were still doing 3 heavy backsquat, 3 heavy front squat, 6 heavy C&J and Snatch sessions, (all of this was M/W/F on AM/PM), and then lighter assistance work and technique work in the C&J and Snatch on T/R/Sat. Keep in mind that the full clean and snatch involve recovery from the full squat position and are full body lifts. The is deloading for them and not considered high at all by elite standards worldwide.

When people look at Arnold's workouts in the '70s they say he was overtrained but in reality he was growing and getting stronger which can't happen in an overtrained state. He was accustomed and had built tolerance to workload over time.

It is very much a factor of the individual and what he/she has conditioned themselves to over time.

[Defiant1]

When people look at Arnold's workouts in the '70s they say he was overtrained but in reality he was growing and getting stronger which can't happen in an overtrained state. He was accustomed and had built tolerance to workload over time.

I'm going to talk myself into doing them again.

I personally give high level bodybuilders enough credit to understand their own bodies.

Arnold understood his options. Frank Zane tried his workouts but coudn't do them, but COULD do them 2x per week not 3x. Arnold said that some people were 2x per week BBs and some were 3x, so the option for him to train less was there and part of the "doctrine" of the time.

[paul e]

I'm going to talk myself into doing them again.

I personally give high level bodybuilders enough credit to understand their own bodies.

Arnold understood his options. Frank Zane tried his workouts but coudn't do them, but COULD do them 2x per week not 3x. Arnold said that some people were 2x per week BBs and some were 3x, so the option for him to train less was there and part of the "doctrine" of the time.

So when, then, historically, did it become 'vogue' to do the once per wk thing? If Arnold and those boys had set the precedent for what today is often described as unworkable amounts of training, when did it go 'bad' in terms of volume? What turned the tide to the current trend toward once per wk bp training? Did it have anything to do with an assumption that Arnold and the boys were working with gear, and therefore we couldnt use those principles of training if we were going natural? Im just curious to know what triggered the trend away from that style of training...

[dookie1481]

So when, then, historically, did it become 'vogue' to do the once per wk thing? If Arnold and those boys had set the precedent for what today is often described as unworkable amounts of training, when did it go 'bad' in terms of volume? What turned the tide to the current trend toward once per wk bp training? Did it have anything to do with an assumption that Arnold and the boys were working with gear, and therefore we couldnt use those principles of training if we were going natural? Im just curious to know what triggered the trend away from that style of training...

As Madcow has posted before, some of them took time off and found themselves making better gains. So in a leap of logic, they decided that giving the bodypart longer to recover must be helping them. They failed to take into account the effect of deloading (because these guys certainly were loading).

Protein synthesis, mRNA, and ribo****l upregulation return to baseline at workout + ~48 hours. What the hell are you doing for the other 5 days if your muscles aren't repairing themselves any further?

[AKEOD]

I'm new to this forum (and forums in general), but I thought I would give my two cents.

IMO, whether you work on a bodypart one or two times per week really depends on you, and even what supplements you are taking. After lifting for a while you should start to learn what method your body best responds to.

The last year or so, I have been lifting each bodypart just one per week. I've done some growing, but nothing amazing. When I deploy to the middle east, I work each part twice per week. I saw really good results doing that, but that could have been because of a really clean diet and a fair amount of cardio. Starting Monday, I'll be doing each body part twice per week again, simply to change up the workouts and give my muscles a different pace.

Taking supps. like creatine and NO2 should help with recovery time, so working each part 2 times per week should be a feasible thing.

Ronnie Coleman works each part 2 times per week, but (I think) Cutler works each part once per week.

I suggest experimenting with what your body responds to, and always switch up, maybe with cycling. For 12 weeks do each body part once per week, and the next 12 do each body part 2 times per week.

When I start my 2 times per week schedule, I'll do Chest/Tris/Shoulders on the same day, and do it twice/week. The first time I do that routine, I'll do chest 1st, tris 2nd, and then shoulders. The second day for that routine, I'll do tris first/chest 2nd/and shoulders 3rd. I've never done this exact program, but like everything else, its trial and error.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

[dookie1481]

I'm new to this forum (and forums in general), but I thought I would give my two cents.

IMO, whether you work on a bodypart one or two times per week really depends on you, and even what supplements you are taking. After lifting for a while you should start to learn what method your body best responds to.

The last year or so, I have been lifting each bodypart just one per week. I've done some growing, but nothing amazing. When I deploy to the middle east, I work each part twice per week. I saw really good results doing that, but that could have been because of a really clean diet and a fair amount of cardio. Starting Monday, I'll be doing each body part twice per week again, simply to change up the workouts and give my muscles a different pace.

Taking supps. like creatine and NO2 should help with recovery time, so working each part 2 times per week should be a feasible thing.

Ronnie Coleman works each part 2 times per week, but (I think) Cutler works each part once per week.

I suggest experimenting with what your body responds to, and always switch up, maybe with cycling. For 12 weeks do each body part once per week, and the next 12 do each body part 2 times per week.

When I start my 2 times per week schedule, I'll do Chest/Tris/Shoulders on the same day, and do it twice/week. The first time I do that routine, I'll do chest 1st, tris 2nd, and then shoulders. The second day for that routine, I'll do tris first/chest 2nd/and shoulders 3rd. I've never done this exact program, but like everything else, its trial and error.

Anyway, that's just my opinion.

Supplements probably won't help to any degree. Don't believe the marketing bull****.

[paul e]

Please, Guys, dont start quoting what Ronnie, or Cutler, or any of them do... Because, as soon as you do, you start confusing whats possible with Gear with whats NOT possible without it!

to keep this discussion meaningful, lets for the moment continue to leave the Drug improved athlete out of this.

[AKEOD]

Please, Guys, dont start quoting what Ronnie, or Cutler, or any of them do... Because, as soon as you do, you start confusing whats possible with Gear with whats NOT possible without it!

to keep this discussion meaningful, lets for the moment continue to leave the Drug improved athlete out of this.

You are correct. I wasn't trying to infer that "regulars" should follow the Coleman or Cutler programs. Most folks don't have the assistance that they do.

My point was that everyone's body responds differently. I wasn't trying to say that because Coleman lifts one way, we all should lift that way. I obviously didn't get that point across the way I wanted to.

[Defiant1]

So when, then, historically, did it become 'vogue' to do the once per wk thing? If Arnold and those boys had set the precedent for what today is often described as unworkable amounts of training, when did it go 'bad' in terms of volume? What turned the tide to the current trend toward once per wk bp training? Did it have anything to do with an assumption that Arnold and the boys were working with gear, and therefore we couldnt use those principles of training if we were going natural? Im just curious to know what triggered the trend away from that style of training...

There were some guys who trained each bp 1x per week before. Chet Yorton a Mr. U who didn't start training until his 30's used a 1x per week system. But the natural guys of old did NOT use that system that I know of. In fact, they trained more often than today, and were bigger than the natural competitors of today (though not as lean of course).

I think the 3x per week (split) system came directly from a. the WORK ETHIC of the old school guys and b. the transfer of the full body frequency in vogue. Even though they started doing a "split", they kept the same frequency.

I personally started using it after a series of articles by Greg Zulak in MMI from the early 90's (issue 128 if anyone is interested). But his recommendation was for high level natty trainers, not for a. drug users or b. beginners or intermediates. At that time, a few pros had begun using it, namely Shane DiMora, Joe Meeko and Steve Brisbois. Pete Gymkowski had used a 1x per week system with "HIT" type training (though with much higher volume per bp), at a time when HIT did NOT recommend 1x per week training. The Golds Gym Mass building book from 1992 lists 1x per week training as "the latest rage".

In regards to what you are saying about the impetus of the 1x per week thing, I don't think it anything to do with "natural" guys. In fact, I think it may have something to do with "leak down" of the Nautilus/Mike Mentzer influence on conventional wisdom.

Prior to Arthur Jones' bulletins in the early 70's, weight athletes did NOT as a rule train to failure. They had derogatory terms for it like training to "nervous exhaustion" or training "on the nerve". The conventional wisdom was that is was not good for you.

While many athletes tried the Nautilus/HIT system, very few stayed with it except the guys that worked for Jones or were making money off of promoting the system. What DID take place though was that some his ideas "dripped into" training wisdom because of their "scientific" and "logical" sounding explanations. One of these was training "to failure". Case in point: even Arnolds "Encyclopedia" even recommends it, though in previous writings Arnold warns against it.

Now, combine "training to failure" which is going to cause a GREAT increase in recovery needed, with a high volume system....and you are going to get a DEFINATE need for increased recovery time.

FYI, other than Zulaks article, of the few training books I have aimed at "naturals" in particular, like John Hansens "Natural Bodybuilding" book (new), a book by Peter Neff "Natural Bodybuilding", Robert Wolffs "Bodybuilding 101,102, Great Workouts" and old school books like "Weight Lifting and Weight training" by George Kirkley, "Here's Power for You" by David Manners, Vince Gironda "Unleashing the Wild Physique" and some others, not ONE mentions once per week training, though Robert Wolffs "Home Bodybuilding" DOES in one chapter.

Important: NO ONE advocates it for beginners. Nothing I have read, no research (research shows the opposite) not a thing.

Robert Kennedy advocates in his new "Muscle-Up!!", but that book is 180 degrees away from his previous books, so I don't know what is going on there.

In regards to appropriateness, I personally feel that as one advances and needs more work, recovery ability does not keep pace. So it is appropriate for advanced trainers. Others argue (Madcow ) that recovery increases with conditioning (I agree it increases, just not at the pace of training ability or need). Though I haven't seen clear "proof", just anecdotal evidence both ways.

Anyway....

[Madcow2]

So when, then, historically, did it become 'vogue' to do the once per wk thing? If Arnold and those boys had set the precedent for what today is often described as unworkable amounts of training, when did it go 'bad' in terms of volume? What turned the tide to the current trend toward once per wk bp training? Did it have anything to do with an assumption that Arnold and the boys were working with gear, and therefore we couldnt use those principles of training if we were going natural? Im just curious to know what triggered the trend away from that style of training...

Pretty much as already covered, this really started coming about in the very late 1980s and early 1990's. I'm sure someone used this frequency before but this was really the point where the whole "overtraining" thing started to become a big concern and people started to pay attention to workout spacing. They noticed layoffs seemed to be productive (i.e. they came back bigger and stronger) and felt they were overtraining and not allowing enough time for recovery between each workout. Of course the magnitude of the recovery never seemed odd to them nor did they ever really think past the Mentzer single factor mentality and realize that this was the disipation of fatigue from accrued stimulus.

Equating a recovery and uptick in performance with serious long-term over training requiring a massive decrease in volume and frequency is a freaking stretch. Like I've said before, you know when someone repeatedly stomps on your nutsack with steeltoes and you know when you are seriously overtrained - it really really feels like ****. If you don't believe me, I'll give you a nice protocol to run for 8 weeks and it'll break you in half and take a month just to get back to being able to train decently again.

[Defiant1]

Pretty much as already covered, this really started coming about in the very late 1980s and early 1990's. I'm sure someone used this frequency before but this was really the point where the whole "overtraining" thing started to become a big concern and people started to pay attention to workout spacing. They noticed layoffs seemed to be productive (i.e. they came back bigger and stronger) and felt they were overtraining and not allowing enough time for recovery between each workout. Of course the magnitude of the recovery never seemed odd to them nor did they ever really think past the Mentzer single factor mentality and realize that this was the disipation of fatigue from accrued stimulus.

Equating a recovery and uptick in performance with serious long-term over training requiring a massive decrease in volume and frequency is a freaking stretch. Like I've said before, you know when someone repeatedly stomps on your nutsack with steeltoes and you know when you are seriously overtrained - it really really feels like ****. If you don't believe me, I'll give you a nice protocol to run for 8 weeks and it'll break you in half and take a month just to get back to being able to train decently again.

My belief is to UP the volume and decrease the frequency.

Do you have any lit. on recovery rates of advanced guys? I can't find any. Like I said, everything is anecdotal and experiential. I'd like to take a look. I've seen the rates of repair/replenishment of glycogen, atp etc with a general "CNS 48 hours" but nothing on a. advanced guys in particular and also nothing giving the "cascade" effect of higher workload ESP. volume.

Then factor in varying intensity protocols.....

[paul e]

My belief is to UP the volume and decrease the frequency.

Do you have any lit. on recovery rates of advanced guys? I can't find any. Like I said, everything is anecdotal and experiential. I'd like to take a look. I've seen the rates of repair/replenishment of glycogen, atp etc with a general "CNS 48 hours" but nothing on a. advanced guys in particular and also nothing giving the "cascade" effect of higher workload ESP. volume.

Then factor in varying intensity protocols.....

So, assuming a 48 hr recovery.. if you do benchpressing Monday, would you be good to go again, Wed, or Thurs? And how would you handle Arms, which get worked every time you to chest, back, and shoulders? Lets say you wanted to try for twice a wk per bodypart. Lets say you used a schedule similar to what I used when I first started, ie, Mon: Chest/Tris; Tues: Back/Bis; Wed: Shoulders/Legs; Thurs: Chest/Tris; Fri: Back/Bis; Sat: Shoulders/Legs: Sun: OFF; Mon: Repeat.....................................

Could something like this work? I know it worked well for me the first 3 mos.. But then the newbie gains stopped, I became overtrained, and reverted to my current once per wk schedule. Im thinking when my current Max OT cycle ends after 8-10 wks, maybe I should try to reenter the world of twice per wk again. Although I dont know why the result would be any different, exceptt that perhaps, in the interim, Ive built my body up enough so that it could better endure the twice per wk effort than it did when I first tried it. Perhaps, what I should try is to perform my training such that the first time for each bp in a week, I should lift as I do now, ie, with enough wt to perform 4-6 reps before a big form breakdown, ie, failure, and the second time within the week for each body part, peform lifts with a weight I can handle somewhere between 8-12 reps with, ie, less intensity.. Once a wk would be done with intensity, and the second time would be with less intensity, but more reps. Maybe this makes more sense. ..... So much to try, so little time!!

[Defiant1]

So, assuming a 48 hr recovery.. if you do benchpressing Monday, would you be good to go again, Wed, or Thurs? And how would you handle Arms, which get worked every time you to chest, back, and shoulders? Lets say you wanted to try for twice a wk per bodypart. Lets say you used a schedule similar to what I used when I first started, ie, Mon: Chest/Tris; Tues: Back/Bis; Wed: Shoulders/Legs; Thurs: Chest/Tris; Fri: Back/Bis; Sat: Shoulders/Legs: Sun: OFF; Mon: Repeat.....................................

Could something like this work? I know it worked well for me the first 3 mos.. But then the newbie gains stopped, I became overtrained, and reverted to my current once per wk schedule. Im thinking when my current Max OT cycle ends after 8-10 wks, maybe I should try to reenter the world of twice per wk again. Although I dont know why the result would be any different, exceptt that perhaps, in the interim, Ive built my body up enough so that it could better endure the twice per wk effort than it did when I first tried it. Perhaps, what I should try is to perform my training such that the first time for each bp in a week, I should lift as I do now, ie, with enough wt to perform 4-6 reps before a big form breakdown, ie, failure, and the second time within the week for each body part, peform lifts with a weight I can handle somewhere between 8-12 reps with, ie, less intensity.. Once a wk would be done with intensity, and the second time would be with less intensity, but more reps. Maybe this makes more sense. ..... So much to try, so little time!!

Those questions you asked are all valid, so you that's why you have to listen to yourself.

I'm not sure, but it SOUNDS like you went from a 3 day per week to a 1 bodypart per week split.

I would recommend this (graduated scale):

3-5x per week full body
4x per week each bp 2x
3 on 1 off (or 3 on 1 off, 3 on 2 off) 3 way split
2 on 1 off, 1 on 1 off-3 way split
THEN the 5x per week, 5 way split.

Each decrease in frequency per bp would have a concurrent increase in volume.

[Madcow2]

So, assuming a 48 hr recovery.. if you do benchpressing Monday, would you be good to go again, Wed, or Thurs? And how would you handle Arms, which get worked every time you to chest, back, and shoulders? Lets say you wanted to try for twice a wk per bodypart. Lets say you used a schedule similar to what I used when I first started, ie, Mon: Chest/Tris; Tues: Back/Bis; Wed: Shoulders/Legs; Thurs: Chest/Tris; Fri: Back/Bis; Sat: Shoulders/Legs: Sun: OFF; Mon: Repeat.....................................

Could something like this work? I know it worked well for me the first 3 mos.. But then the newbie gains stopped, I became overtrained, and reverted to my current once per wk schedule. Im thinking when my current Max OT cycle ends after 8-10 wks, maybe I should try to reenter the world of twice per wk again. Although I dont know why the result would be any different, exceptt that perhaps, in the interim, Ive built my body up enough so that it could better endure the twice per wk effort than it did when I first tried it. Perhaps, what I should try is to perform my training such that the first time for each bp in a week, I should lift as I do now, ie, with enough wt to perform 4-6 reps before a big form breakdown, ie, failure, and the second time within the week for each body part, peform lifts with a weight I can handle somewhere between 8-12 reps with, ie, less intensity.. Once a wk would be done with intensity, and the second time would be with less intensity, but more reps. Maybe this makes more sense. ..... So much to try, so little time!!

It really boils down to workload and proper management of the factors. Defiant and I have already gone into the whole failure thing exhaustively in other threads so I'm not exactly sure why you'd want to push that. You don't really have the background at this point to properly understand your conditioning and design a program without a lot of fumbling in the dark - which makes any conclusions you might draw from your results highly suspect.

If you want frequency, why not try something already known to be well balanced and work very well for a broad spectrum of lifters. Providing you know the lifts, you should do very well. http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/sh...4&postcount=15

I'd also invest some time reading the Squat, Bench, and Deadlift links on this page http://www.midwestbarbell.com/totale...p?showtopic=14. This is some of the better info you will find on the classic lifts.

[Madcow2]

My belief is to UP the volume and decrease the frequency.

That can work. Then again there's really a lot of benefit to frequency from a specificity and adaptation standpoint. This is why you see the back squat used in particular. If you are going to adapt the body and allow it to really excel at one lift, why not make it the most effective one to drive full body gains.

What they are doing is that they are increasing the volume over a period (say a week) but distributing that volume more evenly by increasing the frequency. So the volume per squat workout will be down relative to only training it 1x per week but the total volume will be held constant for the week. This is often very beneficial in that people improve and adapt at a faster rate and almost always find they can tolerate higher weekly workloads and increase this faster than when using a 1x per week protocol. Granted there are times when a 1x per week might be preferable but generally this is what most have found.

FI might have a study or some research handy on this. It's tougher with advanced or elite lifters because you are basically wedding yourself to the Russians and Eastern Bloc and they typically already use higher frequency so I'm not sure you'll find a baseline of 1x per week protocol in this population.

What I can say is that if one looks at weightlifting, work capacity and tolerance constantly increases through the athlete's career. Workloads rise pretty much linearly (I think there's a good chart in Dreschler's if I remember). If I do recall the very very top peg (so consider an Elite lifter at the very top of his career - something of a rarity) doesn't rise but actually is constant to just a smidgeon down - simply due to the ultra heavy weights being handled and frequently the workload is constant to slightly down. I can also say we have a pretty experienced crew at Elitefitness that's tried the periodized 5x5 with 3x per week squatting, uniformly they've gotten great results and put on a lot of bodyweight - there's really no one that hasn't. Typically BBer workloads tend to be pretty low and this gets them up fast so they see a big growth and strength spurt. This is very consistent and we have plenty of guys with years of training up 10-25lbs in a few months with squat poundages through the roof. This is natural too and a fair number of older lifters in the population late 20's through mid to late 40's. This is fairly typical of the results at Mesomorphosis and certainly outside of BBing where a lot more guys train very similarly. Basically all I can say is that all anecdotal evidence points to frequency being a very good thing as long as workload is properly controlled for. Probably something that's worth trying given the results but I'll PM FI and see if he has anything that might be relevant on the subject since it's a fairly interesting topic and underutilized.

[Defiant1]

That can work. Then again there's really a lot of benefit to frequency from a specificity and adaptation standpoint. This is why you see the back squat used in particular. If you are going to adapt the body and allow it to really excel at one lift, why not make it the most effective one to drive full body gains.

What they are doing is that they are increasing the volume over a period (say a week) but distributing that volume more evenly by increasing the frequency. So the volume per squat workout will be down relative to only training it 1x per week but the total volume will be held constant for the week. This is often very beneficial in that people improve and adapt at a faster rate and almost always find they can tolerate higher weekly workloads and increase this faster than when using a 1x per week protocol. Granted there are times when a 1x per week might be preferable but generally this is what most have found.

FI might have a study or some research handy on this. It's tougher with advanced or elite lifters because you are basically wedding yourself to the Russians and Eastern Bloc and they typically already use higher frequency so I'm not sure you'll find a baseline of 1x per week protocol in this population.

What I can say is that if one looks at weightlifting, work capacity and tolerance constantly increases through the athlete's career. Workloads rise pretty much linearly (I think there's a good chart in Dreschler's if I remember). If I do recall the very very top peg (so consider an Elite lifter at the very top of his career - something of a rarity) doesn't rise but actually is constant to just a smidgeon down - simply due to the ultra heavy weights being handled and frequently the workload is constant to slightly down. I can also say we have a pretty experienced crew at Elitefitness that's tried the periodized 5x5 with 3x per week squatting, uniformly they've gotten great results and put on a lot of bodyweight - there's really no one that hasn't. Typically BBer workloads tend to be pretty low and this gets them up fast so they see a big growth and strength spurt. This is very consistent and we have plenty of guys with years of training up 10-25lbs in a few months with squat poundages through the roof. This is natural too and a fair number of older lifters in the population late 20's through mid to late 40's. This is fairly typical of the results at Mesomorphosis and certainly outside of BBing where a lot more guys train very similarly. Basically all I can say is that all anecdotal evidence points to frequency being a very good thing as long as workload is properly controlled for. Probably something that's worth trying given the results but I'll PM FI and see if he has anything that might be relevant on the subject since it's a fairly interesting topic and underutilized.

Part of the problem in superimposing data collected on weightlifters to bodybuildering (LOL, I was going to edit that but it's too funny) is exercise variety. As I mentioned I have done a micro-periodized system where you engage in planned "overtraining", then back off and allow the body to recover.

The biggest problem I had with it was that the system advocated training to failure, so we both know what happened. There was also the problem with exercise variety from a bodybuilding perspective. Actually, knowing what I know now, I'm surprised, given that the program was based on Bulgarian research, that training to failure was advocated. As in my above post, it seemed to be the "thing to do" to marry "failure" with "bodybuilding" at the time. In addition, in order to keep workouts below the 50 minute threshold, no warm-ups were done. OUCH!! I did note that my strength was going up. I wonder what would have happened if I didn't do it to failure? Hmm.....

I definately believe in shape training-make no mistake.

A weightlifting perspective makes it easier to look at data and to plan routines.

Actually, if you go through the thought process yourself, try to reconcile YOUR routine with doing multiple exercises and rep ranges per bp. Say 3-4 for arms and 4-5 for back and chest in a single daily workout. You can see how you end up with a 1x per week split, or at least see how it becomes one of the possible answers.

[paul e]

Im just curious about something here. You guys, Madcow and Defiant, make very little reference to bodybuilding, per se. I get that its got something to do with alot of bs that emanates from that field, and the companies that promote it.

But, what im wondering is, do the lifting theories, programs, etc, that you guys are promoting have anything to do with building more strength than muscle size, or anything like that? Is there any kind of built in 'bias' here toward lifting for 'appearance sake' vs lifting for 'fitness, or strength sake', if such a dichotomy can be drawn? Will programs like the Starr 5x5 which youve mentioned several times contribute as much to visbile muscle growth as to inherent strength gained?