High training frequency debunked

Wait, so should I stop doing push/pull/legs and do a bro split?

Can any educated anons explain plz because I'm only in highschool so the study looks very confusing to me.

cool but a meta study from 2016 states that there's a hypertrophy increase of 6.8% versus 3.7% for higher vs lower frequencies. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27102172

also, overtraining obviously can happen but it can be supplemented with deloads and periodization.

>also what is a controversially debated topic
things don't just become debunked by one study, we learn more about the topic over time and have to look at it in holistically with other variables in training, what type of training, goals, etc.

So what you're saying is, we should train each muscle group once a week? hmm...

Want me to post the video of boxer who did deadlifted 500lbs the first time he even attemptd it?
The one who does nothing more then calisthenics and train for boxing with rocks and kettlebelles?

Cause...that shit will straight embarass you. Face it bro. Super specialization when it comes to resistance training is a myth perpetrated by steroid addled trainers and athletes.

This. OP, if you're too lazy to go frequently, then don't. Only your results will show

The article doesn't support the OP's assertion.

It only says that post work-out your body repairs muscle and hypertrophy continues at a baseline. But it does not say how often you have to exercise to continue hypertrophy.

No shit, Mike Mentzer wrote the book on this 40 years ago. HIT and machines are the way you get big

I have made the fastest strength gains squatting and benching everyday too, it's a shame the gains stopped after 2-3 months, and I kept at it for 2 year and basically just stagnated.
Fast forward and I made way more gains not just strength but also size gains training a bodypart relatively hard once a week.

High frequency training is at best only good for very short term progress.

>test performed on untrained population

...

I'm not that guy but that video sounds interesting

>Does meme exercises
>Knowledge of exercise

Okay, pal. All he said was high-frequency training wasn't DA WAY. And it's not if you actually want to build some decent form of strength. That is, however, unless you're a super fucking advanced athlete.

Yep just do an intense fullbody workout with lots of volume once a week

>Wrong, literally every single natural bodybuilder popular nowadays trains or used to train a muscle group hard once a week, in fact a lot of even strength athletes do this including drug tested powerlifters in the IPF.

Advanced lifters train different then novices and intermediate lifters. If you been bodybuilding for a long time 4-5 years then your muscle need a lot of work to cause enough stress to them. In that case it can make sense going all out and hammering that muscle in one session.

For powerlifters they are moving so much weight that a few sets of high intensity work for them is so much weight moved that they simply can't do anything more then that. When you squat 200kilo you don't do that several times a week, you do it once and then recover.

What about all the studies that say 3 day a week is best for muscle growth? Were they lying?

What?
That actually states that you can build even if you work one muscle group once a week.
So PPL(unless I'm mistaken)is vindicated by the research.

Fucking THIS.

All of them are.

youtube.com/watch?v=95D7lj-A6tA

Ah, Ross. Takes me back to when he cared about his forums.

Please do l want to see

That does not fucking matter.
They still grow off of that shit.

By the way, you forgot that they are fucktons of gear. So what they can do relative to what they can recover from is completely different from what a natural can do.

Natural can grow and maintain from one damned good hard as fuck workout once a week.
Period.
Where do you think the whole weekend warrior thing came from?

Ntayrtb
Army reserves

Point being that an untrained individual will not benefit from higher frequency training because they exceed their maximum recoverable volume so quickly.

By contrast a more advanced lifter requires a lot more volume to achieve a training effect and this is easier split throughout the week then all in one workout.

How long do you have to lift over one day for it to be enough to last a week? Like should I carve out 6 hours on Saturday to lift or what?

This is poor trolling

What the fuck are you smoking user. A novice athlete adapts differently than an advanced athlete would with the same stressors. Also fuck off if you think gear affects how your body adapts to stress.

srsly what are you fucking smoking because I want some of that shit bro

Awesome thanks.

He looks like he's naturally strong as shit. Really impressive how boxing training got him there.

My reasoning is that people have used and still use low frequency training with success, and that this notion that you need to base your whole training around some single isolated anabolic mechanism doesn't make sense.

I'm not saying you cannot make gains training whenever you feel like, what I'm saying is that there is no reason why you cannot make gains training a muscle once a week since so many people have done and still do it.

Mike Mentzer was a little to overzealous in his HIT method of training desu.

I have literally tried everything under the sun, and I stalled for 2 whole straight years training a bodypart at least 5x a week because of the bulgarian meme.

No, what I'm saying is that training a muscle group infrequently(once every 5-14 days) makes training easier and more sustainable. You don't have to worry about things like "fatigue" as much, and when you actually train a bodypart you break pr's almost every single time you do it.

So you can still base your training around progressing on the weights and reps despite having a "bro split" sort of weekly routine so to speak. Bro splits just have way too much volume and too many exercises and quite often ignore long term progression which is why they get a bad reputation.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27219125
>Initial MyoPS response post-RE in an RT programme is not directed to support muscle hypertrophy, coinciding with the greatest muscle damage.
>However, integrated MyoPS is quickly 'refined' by 3 weeks of RT, and is related to muscle hypertrophy.

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29282529
>Intriguingly, even acute RE-induced increases in myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS), while potent in the untrained state, fail to correlate with eventual RT-induced muscle hypertrophy (Damas etal. 2016b; Mitchell etal. 2014).
>However, as RT progresses the overall magnitude of MPS and MyoPS post-RE and associated muscle damage are attenuated (Damas etal. 2015; Tang etal. 2008) and a correlation between the magnitude of MyoPS and eventual increase in muscle CSA develops (Brook etal. 2015; Damas etal. 2016b)

Drugs change the game completely user.
If you are a fucking natural you are not going to get to a point where you can do what those guys are doing and survive. It just ain't gonna happen.
Even attempting their intensity level will completely fry you for weeks and maybe even injure you.

Welcome to the natural world.

Problem is, most of the programs shlled here take advantage of how quickly an untrained indiviidual can grow from this and just pile on the volume till they're either fucked or they hit the wall hard.
A more advanced NATURAL lifter is knowledgable enough to get in get a hard ball busting workout done in under a fucking hour then get out.
They aren't geared up athletes who needs hundreds of reps with hundreds of pounds to kickstart the adaptation response.
It's a different ballgame for natties.

>
That graph makes no sense considering muscle damage is always occuring when you train regardless of training experience.
Try and do 10 sets of pushups every single day to failure and see how you fare gains wise, you will not progress and you might actually get smaller because even though muscle protein synthesis is elevated right after training you are still also causing more damage every single time you train.

Veeky Forums is my favorite because it has genuinely mentally ill people posting unintentionally hilarious OP's instead of retarded mental midgets just spamming nonsense to amuse themselves. best board.

>Point being that an untrained individual will not benefit from higher frequency training because they exceed their maximum recoverable volume so quickly.

this is absolutely wrong and there are studies finding the opposite. also when it comes to beginners,
>what is periodization
>what are deloads
>what is heavy, medium, light days

>Bro splits just have way too much volume and too many exercises and quite often ignore long term progression

What routine do you recommend for a newfag skinny guy? I've been doing 3 day full body or the last few months and have little progress, what type of bro split should I do instead?

Post a link to a good routine if you can.

>Mike Mentzer was a little to overzealous in his HIT method of training desu.

Well, you can complain about it when you look like pic related, but my point stands, we've known that high intensity works better than volume for a very long time

How about posting a picture of how much "mass" you have.

I like it when people are blown out then sockpuppet insults to no one in particular rather then answer.
You know.
Because they're fucking stupid or never actually thought about why they do things but will fight hard to defend whatever it is they do.

>people have been gaining muscle for thousands of years doing absolutely fucking everything from lifting heavy rocks once a week to lifting rocks every day
>people are STILL bitching about which program is 'best'
You fucking people. Just shut the fuck up and lift up things and put them down again in whatever fashion you think is best and leave everyone else alone. Why do you have to fuck with my rocks.

if you're not seeing real progress as a newfag, i guarantee you're not actually EATING.
start eating.

this is my favourite picture on the entire internet

Holy shit.
Fat faggot powerlifter shill got blown out so thoroughly he has to pull that shit.

Post a pic of your mass and video of your lifts little buddy.

Thanks for the bump

>When you squat 200kilo you don't do that several times a week, you do it once and then recover.

I don't think it matters much how much weight you're lifting at all, blaine sumner squats like 3x a week and he's strong as shit.
I think a lot of RTS lifters in the USAPL also squat like 3-4 times a week

No.
We'll fucking discuss what we want when we want.
Go back to whatever fucking hugbox you came from.

>My reasoning is that people have used and still use low frequency training with success
As they have with high volume, which is far more popular and statistically shown to work

So fuck off with your failed attempt at being novel.

>WAAAH MY WAY IS BEST WHY DOESNT EVERYONE SEE IM GREAT
This isnt a discussion, its a shit attempt by you to try and justify why your program is better when it isnt.

Fuck off newfag.

The best looking guys iv ever seen are swimmers, gymnasts and bodybuilders who all do high volume training with heavy compounds and lighter accessory work. The worst iv ever seen are bear tier 'strongmen' who do nothing but low volume high weight compounds.

/thread

>A more advanced NATURAL lifter is knowledgable enough to get in get a hard ball busting workout done in under a fucking hour then get out.

Would you post a routine then?

The graph is plotted against post-exercise increases in muscle proteosynthesis and not magnitude of damage. Any damage that does occur does not impact this variable after several weeks of training on a defined program.

DAILY REMINDER THAT 60% OF MEDICAL STUDIES CAN'T BE REPLICATED

1xf hard ball busting by thicc goddess

2x/wk full body is goat though
best gains/time spent

It does, because volume accumulates fatigue and muscle damage in a dose response but not actual gains, I know.

But I only have issues with the extreme level of failure he advocated at least later on.
I think a regular set/rep scheme is superior to basically crippling yourself with one all out torture set.

I get what you mean, I'm not against "doing what works for you" at all to be honest.
It's just that I made mistakes that I don't want people to make.

There are many good routines out there.
The most safest one is probably a weekly schedule that has you squattin, benching and deadlifting once a week each, doing 3-6 sets per each exercise and then maybe adding one or two exercises for bodyparts that you still have to hit.

Monday
Squat
Bench
Press
Lateral raises

Thursday
Deadlift
Pullups/Rows
Calves

Don't do too many sets in any given session, just do enough, 6 sets per big compound lift(3 sets for deadlifts only though), 2-3 sets on the smaller exercises.
Reps don't matter much, just aim for lifting more weight with any given repetitions or doing more reps with any given weight.
Try to progress every session.

Hahaha he BTFO you in one post. If you're going to preach about the one true way to build mass, you better be a monster. No pic, no dice.

this

Tell me what's wrong and why you're so upset.
>As they have with high volume
You can do high volume while training infrequently, you don't understand my point at all. There are outliers in most studies done comparing training methods and variables, you can't just look at statistics or averages to determine if this is better for you or not.

web.archive.org/web/20150304214814/https://www.nih.no/Documents/1_SFP/ICST 2012/ICST Book of abstract Final 291012.pdf

In the first years with the new training regime in Norway, the work started with experienced senior powerlifters, formerly used to low volume, low frequency, high intensity training. Most Norwegian powerlifters were at this time training 3 days a week, were each exercise were trained once to twice a week. The senior lifters were slowly adapting to the new routines and gradually increasing frequency and volume. Coming in to the 21st century, when younger athletes started training with the new routines, both the training frequency and the total training volume, were dramatically increased, but intensity was reduced. Today, the best lifters typical train squat, bench press and deadlift 5-6 days a week, some even train two times a day.

Practical experience indicated that the new routine with more frequent but smaller training session, a higher volume, and lower intensity, increased performance and reduced the incidence of injuries during training. Importantly, the progress of the training load is carefully monitored and always follows a predetermined plan for a given period. Normally, the progress in training loads is estimated to be slower than what is possible for and inexperienced lifter in order to avoid overuse injuries.

A basic full body routine that hits everything done with moderately heavy weight done to near or if you have time to recover full exhaustion.

If you're even a a moderately well informed trainer who's been working out for 4 years you SHOULD be able to figure that out on your own.

Right? Giving someone who's obviously not at that level yet an advanced program is meaningless.

Scientific support for the new training regime was also found in a recent study on national level lifters (Raastad et al. 2012). In this study a group of talented young lifters were divided into two training groups; one group trained the traditional 3 sessions per week routine, while the other group divided each of the three session in two smaller sessions; training 6 small sessions per week. However, the total training volume and the intensity of the training was kept equal in the two groups. The results showed that the lifters in the 6 sessions per week group increased both performance (figure 1) and muscular adaptations (figure 2) more than the traditional 3 sessions per week group during a 15 week intervention period leading up to the national championship.

When do people really go out of their way to spread such bullshit as truth
>High training frequency debunked
Not really, those were on untrained individuals
>People need to stop spreading this meme that "muscles only grow for 24-48 hours after training".
This is actually true, based on several factors people are subject to changes only after a period of time.
>This is usually spread by people who don't even look like they lift like jason blaha [...]
Nice appeal to person fallacy, this completely validates your point
>The best physiques in the world were developed on minimal training frequency[...]
Wrong
>Wrong, high frequency training literally makes your muscles more resistant to anabolism [...]
Training makes you more resistant to training, that's why periodization is a thing.
>Wrong.Training frequently is literally the fastest way to overreach and eventually overtrain and burn out.
Volume is what causes overtraining, overreaching and burn out, if you don't know how to manage those will happen regardless of frequency.
>Training infrequently pretty much makes it so you can go all out and still recover from session[...]
You have pretty much no way to prove this, meanwhile it has been proven and tested that by spreading volume across microcycles(aka increasing frequency) ensures that the subject will have enough rest time to meet they load to make progress. Frequency not only serves to increase volume, but also to regulate effort and manage recovery.
>Only roidfags make progress training a muscle once a week
That's because people don't know how to lift and imitating those lifters won't help much. I'm not saying natties can't make progress 1x a week, people are just dumb about it.
>Wrong, literally every single natural bodybuilder popular nowadays trains or used to train a muscle group hard once a week[...]
You pretty much can't prove this, or prove the fact that they are natural, being tested doesn't mean you aren't using PEDs.

>If you're even a a moderately well informed trainer who's been working out for 4 years you SHOULD be able to figure that out on your own.

My gripe was with the idea that you can hit every area to near exhaustion in less than an hour. Even my four exercise workouts take longer and some exercises are only three sets.

Is your rest period nonexistent? Post exactly what you do.

>Not really, those were on untrained individuals
So you're saying that the high frequency stuff that's constantly pushed here as the best for untrained individuals is wrong?
And since almost no one who works out in a gym will ever be what you consider advanced this program will work perfectly for them.
Right?

Okay. So the OP is correct.
I don't have to read the rest of your post.

1.The norwegians can't even compete in raw powerlifting with people who train a bodypart once a week like the poles and the ukrainians
2.Doubling your training sessions makes it so you HAVE to be coached on your training or you will overreach and not make any progress, you can't just train more and not suffer any consequences.
3.There are studies done on muscle growth that show once a week is as good if not better than 3x a week in trained individuals when volume is not out of control in the 1x a week groups.
4.Higher frequency training is better for short term results, as is shown by the norwegian training frequency project where even the people that worked in it have admitted that if they wanted to make better progress they would have to reduce frequency and volume for long term progress.
5.The people in the norwegian powerlifting team are coached and have good genetics and ungodly recovery, and they STILL cannot compete with lifters who do like 1/5th of the work. In fact the norwegian powerlifting team only had TWO lifters in the podium in both classic and equipped ipf championships last year COMBINED.

>from brosplit to full body and makes the same gains
there's a connection ther that I don't think you're making
your anecdote would be more credible if you went from fullbody 3-4x a week to 2x a week

>has never seen pic of petite blonde eating her own pussy

>people have been making fires for thousands of years
>stop studying fire and just enjoy it

>people have been travelling long distances for thousands of years
>stop tinkering with cars and shit and learn to walk

If everyone thought of things like this then we'd still be living in mud huts. I get what you're saying, but there is nothing wrong with trying to find the reason 'why' things happen and trying to optimize the way you do things. Humans are the only animals that can do this. It is our evolutionary advantage and everyone should use it.

I'l start with a half mile jog then pick a few workouts that will hit everything and just hammer that group or muscle into the ground or do just enough to get a good burn.

Would pick and choose what group or particular muscles I want to just destroy.

As for rest I don't use a specific time I go by feel. If I can breathe normally and the burn is gone I will do another set. If the muscle or group is too fucked I'll move on to another group.

Not pretty, not focused but it works and it's fun.

I COULD spend all day in the gym working out for 4 hours if I wnated, but fuck that. It's a badge of honor to some but it's a drain that takes a full week to bounce back from.

PPL 6 days a week is still too much. PPxLx repeat makes the most sense

>lateral raises and calves once a week
I can buy that training once or twice a week is as/more effective in terms of strength gains than higher frequency, but I find it hard to believe that you'll gain any significant mass in terms of delts and calves. I have yet to see a natty lifter with huge delts that doesn't have a 365+ bench or does lateral raises nearly every damn day

Dude, I know it's you.
Don't pretend to be someone else. It makes you look like a bitch.

I'm not him. If you paid attention to the individual IP counter at the bottom of the thread, you'd have caught that.

Uh huh...

Holy shit, did anyone in this thread even read the God damned paper? How stupid is this board?

The paper says NOTHING about training frequency, the word "frequency" is not even in the paper at all. The paper set out to test the hypothesis that those exercisers who had the biggest boost in post-exercise muscle protein synthesis following their first workout (untrained), would also have the biggest increases in muscle size by the end of the 16 week experimental training regimen. This makes sense, because you would think that someone who has a bigger jump in MPS would be able to make more muscle tissue. This hypothesis was proved false. There was no significant correlation between the two variables. There are several explanations for this, and some are discussed in the paper, and none of them have anything to do with training frequency.

To reiterate: this paper did NOT examine training frequency. ALL subjects trained 4 times per week (two upper and two lower workouts), and the researchers did NOT MEASURE ANYTHING DURING THE 16 WEEKS, only at the beginning and end.

TLDR: everyone kill yourselves

>it's impossible more than one person disagrees with me!

...

I sure do, and I want to know how he didn't end up breaking world records. Ed Coan only deadlifted in the 400s his first time, so I have a hard time believing even a heavyweight could pull 500.

Translate to english

you need to change the exercises about every month, dummy

Finally this thread. A bro split is the best training method and that's a science proven undeniable fact

Read the entire thread before posting you twat.

Post-exercise muscle protein synthesis IS NOT correlated with muscle hypertrophy in individuals who have been lifting 3 weeks. OP only reference (which doesn't support any of the broscience claims he's making anyway) didn't adjust for this time dependence and was published before it was discovered.

OP, you're retarded.

The paper finds that:

>Acute post-exercise myofibrillar protein synthesis is not correlated with resistance training-induced muscle hypertrophy in young men.

Simply put (though it already is very simple), the rate of protein synthesis 1-6 hours after exercise is not correlated with muscle size. If anything, this is about debunking the anabolic window nonsense. To reiterate, all this is saying is that looking at muscle growth in the very short term (1-6 hours) tells you little information about how much the muscle will grow.

See this 2016 paper for further discussion:

McLester et al. in a similar study, presented results that differ from the current study (10). McLester et al. had participants exercising with three sets once per week vs. one set three times per week, for 12 weeks (10). Their results demonstrated greater gains in strength (62%) for the higher frequency group. The current study had participants exercising with three times as many sets per week, nine vs. three in McLester et al. Perhaps volume of training (number of sets × reps) is more important than frequency per week for increasing lean mass and strength, as Candow and Burke concluded when they compared a frequency of two versus three times per week of equal volume (1). Several studies have investigated changes in lean mass and strength comparing low volume (1 set) vs. higher volume (3 or more sets per week) resulting in superior improvements in lean mass and strength for higher volume programs (9, 11, 15).

In other words, volume is the only thing that matters. In my experience, higher frequency is higher volume.

What about the Norwegian powerlifter study that showed superior size and strength gains training under the same volume but splitting it up into more frequent training sessions?

>Raastad T, Kirketeig, A, Wolf, D, Paulsen G. Powerlifters improved strength and muscular adaptations to a greater extent when equal total training volume was divided into 6 compared to 3 training sessions per week (abstract). Book of abstracts, 17th annual conference of the ECSS, Brugge 4-7 July, 2012

3 is high frequency? 1 is enough? lmao. more is more idiot

thats not "a boxer" thats ROSS THE BOSS

How about you train your arms every other day and see if they don't grow

The more you train, the bigger you will grow period end of story

If you actually manage to train so much that over train you are the 1% that actually have the respect and love for bodybuilding and nothing can stop you, just ease off the gas 1%

having sex with high est women and maintaining a proper erection for a long time will make your dick bigger and improve erections for long periods of time, boost test, increase gains, make your face look flush handsome, release pheromones, pussies are good for dicks and masculinity this is serious information all of it

>the video of boxer who did deadlifted 500lbs the first time he even attempted it
wanna show us the videos where he sticks a needle in his ass too buddybud?

why do people just go online and tell lies

>implying Mentzer actually followed Arthur Jones' methodology
>implying that HIT doesn't work better on roided athletes

Shucky ducky dingdong.

Mentzer had a brutally thick physique tho

It all works. Start obsessing less over the methods and instead focus on the goddamn PRINCIPLES. Respect these and you can grow bigger and stronger using many, many different kinds of training,

Start looking for similarities between effective training styles rather than differences, if you want to get anywhere.

All roads lead to Rome.

Even if one kind of training approach is indeed more effective than another, do you realize how many people aren't getting ANY results at all? Just get the fucking basics in check, and over time try to optimize from there, rather than obsess over this futile search for the "best program".
Besides, individual variation is huge. That's a fact you don't understand if you only look at the reported averages. Look at the raw data and you'll see.

Forget the theorycrafting. Respect the principles: Specificity & Progressive Overload.
Get these two in check and you'll grow bigger and stronger.

One time a week? Three times a week?
Supinated or pronated grip?
3 sets or 5 sets?
Low bar or high bar?

IT DOESN'T FUCKING MATTER. We're talking about neglible differences.
How about doing what you might actually enjoy? Or train one way for 6 months, then try something entirely different? It all works.