BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > General information > General training questions
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Unread 05-18-2015, 10:42 PM
Jackedtastic Jackedtastic is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 205
Default

No, in the real world people might take short rests between sets but I'd say they rarely go through an entire workout with only 90 sec between everything. There's time involved in getting set up for the next exercise and such. And there's definately no rules that say rest periods have to change with workout setup. Lots of people do split routines and volume training and still rest 2-3 minutes between sets and train in a "tension training" manner.

And why can't you keep the variables "as separate as possible"? I mean, I can definately see how it could be problematic to separate things to the point where you create artificial/non-real world conditions, and then try to take the results and piece things together to come to real world conclusions. But that's not what we're talking about here...more just like not unnecessarily emphasizing variables that aren't part of what we're trying to test. But then again, maybe the authors weren't simply just trying to test 1 vs 3 times per week frequency....but IMO that's all they should have tried to test, since it doesn't seem to me like the research (as a whole) is far enough along to start mixing in multiple variables. It just clouds the emerging picture...that's all.

But anyway, what do you guys think of the results seen in the triceps and vastus lateralis? Even though it didn't reach statistical significance, would you say the difference was great enough that we should be "taking notice"?

Last edited by Jackedtastic : 05-18-2015 at 11:19 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Unread 05-19-2015, 01:59 AM
FistOfFury FistOfFury is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 78
Default

wrt rest times Brad & Menno did a paper on that not long ago and concluded (at least given current evidence) that as long as volume was equated it didn't matter if you took 3 minutes or 90 secs or rest pause or whatever.

One thing about the split they used is that really the arms were hit twice a week (once indirectly and once directly) given that earlier studies have shown decent growth in biceps from compound only work.

I won't pretend I know how to properly interpret studies but is it reasonable to say that it does show a dose/ response relationship for frequency? The quads got the most growth because it really was a 1 vs 3 times a week comparison whereas the arms were closer in results as it was more of 2 vs 3 times per week comparison?

Still, I'm surprised the guys in the total group got any growth at all given it was what I would have thought as a beginner routine.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Unread 05-19-2015, 07:16 AM
mrlakramondas's Avatar
mrlakramondas mrlakramondas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,815
Default

I think when it comes to frequency an important factor to consider is weekly training volume. I think if someone is for example doing 10-15 sets per week and muscle group it's generally not going to make that much of a difference if you train the muscle group 1,2 or 3x/week. It's when/if you need to go beyond that you need to increase frequency to accommodate a higher weekly volume.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Unread 05-19-2015, 08:22 AM
lylemcd's Avatar
lylemcd lylemcd is offline
Administrator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 22,641
Default

At the same time, you need some minimum training stimulus. Too much distribution means less training per session unless you incrase total volume. Which adds another variable.

So say you're doing 12 sets/week
Twice/week: 6 sets/workout
Thrice: 4 sets/workout
Six/wee: 2 sets/worklut

IF 2 sets isn't enough, yo udouble that to 4. Now doing 24 sets. Are you growin better due to increased frequency or volume.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Unread 05-19-2015, 10:31 AM
T.G. T.G. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lylemcd View Post
At the same time, you need some minimum training stimulus. Too much distribution means less training per session unless you incrase total volume. Which adds another variable.

So say you're doing 12 sets/week
Twice/week: 6 sets/workout
Thrice: 4 sets/workout
Six/wee: 2 sets/worklut

IF 2 sets isn't enough, yo udouble that to 4. Now doing 24 sets. Are you growin better due to increased frequency or volume.
This makes a lot of sense...what I can't figure out is everyone tends to be jumping on the high...HIGH...frequency bandwagon...I did to for a while and tried it!

I know Borge is advocating 6 days a week full body training at times...with Light,Heavy,Medium, Off then repeat set up.

I think I remember reading that advanced lifters protein synthesis drop around 12 hours or so.

So "in theory" training the next day makes sense to keep protein synthesis up.

But what about connective tissue and muscle damage / repair?

In my own expierence with this I took up the above training split and did high frequency for 2 months.

After about 2 weeks all of my nagging injuries went away and my body never felt better...(which was weird b/c I didn't rest hardly at all).

Then at the 2 month mark my body completely fell apart and tendon pain was terrible.

Just my expierence...
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Unread 05-19-2015, 11:28 AM
mrlakramondas's Avatar
mrlakramondas mrlakramondas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by T.G. View Post
This makes a lot of sense...what I can't figure out is everyone tends to be jumping on the high...HIGH...frequency bandwagon...I did to for a while and tried it!

I know Borge is advocating 6 days a week full body training at times...with Light,Heavy,Medium, Off then repeat set up.

I think I remember reading that advanced lifters protein synthesis drop around 12 hours or so.

So "in theory" training the next day makes sense to keep protein synthesis up.

But what about connective tissue and muscle damage / repair?

In my own expierence with this I took up the above training split and did high frequency for 2 months.

After about 2 weeks all of my nagging injuries went away and my body never felt better...(which was weird b/c I didn't rest hardly at all).

Then at the 2 month mark my body completely fell apart and tendon pain was terrible.

Just my expierence...
I think 6x/week 2sets per bodypart and such is crap for bodybuilding. What's the point of diluting such a low weekly volume? It's a result of reading too much into short term protein synthesis studies. A recreational bodybuilder doesn't need to use anything close to that type of frequency because they aren't doing anywhere near the weekly volume that would necessitate it.

6x2=12 sets per week. That type of volume is better off distributed over 1-2 sessions.

And what you report in regards to joints/tendons is common too, initially the body feels warmed up but after a couple of months everything hurts.

Last edited by mrlakramondas : 05-19-2015 at 11:33 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Unread 05-19-2015, 11:44 AM
LightCrow LightCrow is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,015
Default

Wasn't the high frequency 6x a week studies that Borge based his recommendation on done on Nordic powerlifters? Not necessarily applicable to bodybuilding.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Unread 05-19-2015, 11:57 AM
T.G. T.G. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 220
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mrlakramondas View Post
And what you report in regards to joints/tendons is common too, initially the body feels warmed up but after a couple of months everything hurts.
Any idea on why in my case my bummed shoulder and tendons initially started feeling better after about 2 weeks then they FELT GREAT at about 3 weeks to 1 month and felt GREAT all the way to 2nd month and then BOOM...really bad tendonitis.

To the point It felt bad to sleep on it.

I wonder why this routine initially makes the body feel better before tearing it up?

That's what I couldn't figure out???
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Unread 05-19-2015, 11:58 AM
mrlakramondas's Avatar
mrlakramondas mrlakramondas is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,815
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LightCrow View Post
Wasn't the high frequency 6x a week studies that Borge based his recommendation on done on Nordic powerlifters? Not necessarily applicable to bodybuilding.
That's one factor, so is how many reps you average per set and also what their weekly volume is etc.

Yeah, if you do 50 sets per week you will need to increase frequency beyond 2x/week. But that doesn't mean that someone who is doing 10-30 sets per week needs the same frequency.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Unread 05-19-2015, 01:02 PM
T.G. T.G. is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 220
Default

4 to 8 sets per Bodypart twice a week for the win!

Cant go wrong with Lyle Bulking routine IMO.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.