Please redpill me on this, is it a meme? I find the site and video not very credible. Could it work anyway?
sciencestrength.com
Should you train every muscle group everyday?
Mason Reyes
Brandon Fisher
it probably does have an advantage, but the more time you spend the more marginal benefit you get
Wyatt Parker
Yes.
But no one here knows ANYTHING about how their bodies work or how to just go get a decent workout then go home.
They're heads have been filled with GO HARD AS FUCK and BILLION SETS OF THIS AND THAT and WHO CARES THAT YOURE PISSING BLOOD AND YOU SNAPPED YOUR QUADS
YOURE RITUALISTICALLY FLOGGING YOURSELF WITH EXERCISE LIKE A GODDAMNED LUNATIC!!
on an unrelated note...girls who workout hard like that? masochistic as fuuuuuUUUUUUUUUCCCCKkkkkk.
The russkies talk about strength as a daily practice and to leave something in the tank.
The idea that you NEED to just blow yourself out every workout or for the designated 3 days week to gain is...i don't know where that came from or the roots of it or why it's popularized now.
Why workout on mwf and not when you feel like it or your body tells you that yuo can do it?
It ruins the organic nature of self mastery and understanding how your body works and why it does certain things.
Thomas Myers
I like fullbody 3-5x/wk personally. You can always do calisthenics on off days for active recovery/more strength and conditioning work.
I've also done fullbody 6x/wk (with half the number of sets as I do 3-4x)/wk.
As far as every day (or almost every day) training goes...
Pros:
-LOTS of practice doing main lifts
-Can correct asymmetries fairly easily
-Train the body to work as a unit
-Get used to fatigue and DOMS
-Generally speaking, more technical and athletic possibilities
-Excellent for retaining strength while cutting
Cons:
-Probably not the best for muscle gain/bulking
-Have to be really conscientious about when to push, causing muscle damage and subsequently repair = growth, because chances are you'll be back in the gym tomorrow working up to a daily max on squats, DLs, push press, and a few other things
I'm an underweight fuck (in strength terms, not general social terms) so I actually feel like a slight reduction in frequency and a huge increase in pump-chasing is necessary to stimulate my appetite and help me gain weight semi-intelligently. I've struggled to gain weight (and/or with digestion) for literally years
t. 5'11 who once weighed 180 and now weighs 160 qq
Joshua Hernandez
are you okay m8?
Josiah Cruz
Hard to say, but we do know of roided up strength athletes getting big results by training every day, so if you can recover from it ofc it's a great idea.
For a natty guy? You'll NEED some rest days. Maybe active rest, but still you can't do more work than you can recover from, not on the long term. You could train everyday with light weights and low volume, and go heavy a couple days per week, but that's just 5 days of active rest. A lot of aesthetic muscles respond well to that tho (delts, bis).
If you want an easy parallel: think of runners. Athletes run every day, but those are just easy pace runs. The important, hard parts, the sprints and the competition distance runs, are maybe once or twice per week.
Wyatt Gomez
im young, stupid, and literally have nothing better to do than do to the gym 6 days a week.
i do something similar to Tom mutaffs PPL, but i do it P/P/L/P/PL/x
the split allows me to workout every day as i get a 2 day rest between compounds,
and volume-wise is great. I sometimes stick around longer to practice oly lifts.
i like it, works great.
Luke Ward
Because we train to get stronger, and to get stronger loads of an appropriate intensity need to be applied. And whenever we subject our body to large stresses, it takes time to recover, typically between 48-72 hours, during which point the body actually enters supercompensation, ie experiences a short period of being stronger than the stress it has adapted to as the muscles overcompensate, then settle.
From Practical Programming Ed3 "light weights cannot drive an increased force production adaptation because it doesn't require high force production to lift light weights."
The article linked doesn't even refer to a study, but a report on an amalgamation of studies - no actual numerical data is given to compare the strength increased of beginners on the 6 day program as compared to someone following Starting Strength.
They claim "Individuals are likely completing a volume of
resistance exercise above that which is beneficial for
muscle hypertrophy."
which for many individuals is probably true, however for training for strength intensity is the goal, not volume.
>amalgamation of so many studies that multiple different claims could be extracted from the source. If it isn't a study with empirical data, it's someone trying to fill the books. Next?
Eli Brooks
You know, you don't have to train like a first year powerlifer/strength traininer/bodybuilder/athlete/gear head every day?
You can use half of the volume and do a full body routine 6 days a week correct?
Hell you can completely wreck yourself once a week and gain strength size endurance etc etc.
The world dosn't revolve around the current lifting status quo. As a matter of fact, it's actually inferior to learning how your own body works in terms of strenght mass athleticism health fitness and progression.
William Jackson
Can you show me a single atlhete or powerlifter or strength athlete or even shit tier low level lifter who isn't blessed with good genetics who follows ripps advice and did anything except ruin their joints and be a faggot?
GtG works.
Famous strongmen of the past would lift heavily frequently but never to exhaustion and they had amazing results
You don't have to follow that kind of program to progress and gain. You just don't.
You have to show me something other then anecdotes and slavish adherence to tradition with nothing to show for it.
Adrian Brown
Holy fuck calm down
Aaron Adams
Not that guy you're responding to, and let me preface this by saying that I probably won't agree 100% with anybody posting in this thread, but you are making some mistakes due to oversimplifying things.
>light weights cannot drive an increased force production adaptation because it doesn't require high force production to lift light weights
There's truth to this, however, understand that training at a relatively low RPE doesn't necessarily mean light weights. A 5 or even 6RM weight is per definition quite high intensity. One can do "easy" training with such weights by performing only singles or doubles.
>whenever we subject our body to large stresses, it takes time to recover, typically between 48-72 hours
Only when dealing with novices are we talking about a microcycle that consists of a single training session followed by complete recovery and then adaptation. As one gets more advanced it is the combined stimuli of potentially many workouts that drive adaptation, and complete recovery is only seen occassionally.
I don't think one way of training is necessarily superior to another. Just wanted to point this out.
Nicholas Turner
Sure, but we're looking at what's more efficient.
I'd also look at what leaves you more energized for the rest of your day, and splitting a full body routine over 6 days works great for both those goals. Ofc at that point you'll want to build your homegym, your workouts will be comparatively short.
Splitting a full-body over 6 days should be very good. That's what I'm doing right now, but will need more time to say if it really works long-term or it just works because it's something different (and even then, it will be a bad sample of a single individual).
Luis Reed
>Train daily
>14-18 hours a week.
I never have doms, have really good gains, 6'0, 100kg and 11% bodyfat.
I started off at 3 sessions a week, and built up. The body adapts overtime and you gotta find your niche.
Nolan Bell
if we ignore the "everyday" part, then yes, I think hitting every muscle group in a day is the best way to train for strength.
Ryder Harris
this, you want to invest as little time as possible to gain as much as possible
not gain as much as possible at all costs (which is not sustainable)
Nolan Taylor
Who followed the principle of linear progression to build strength in the 5 rep range? Most people who go on to lift heavy start off with a program with that principle - steady increases in lifts to constantly change muscle stimuli.
As an anecdote, which you obviously won't like but most people are in the similar range, it took me 3 months to get to a 2pl8 squat. How long would it take to achieve this "greasing the groove"? Is there any data to show greasing the groove actually works, because the study referred to in that article doesn't have any.
Wheras, for example: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
It's "tradition" because it works, and gets people stronger.
That's a Rip quote. Yes, a 5RM performed @ 90% is high intensity, however GTG seems to tend to sub-60% loads. If you were training your 5RM and increasing 2.5kg each time, please do not tell me you would be able to continue doing that all the way up to a substantial weight. You would burn out far before someone lifting every other day. Again, I'm assuming strength is the goal.
>recovery time of 48-72 hours
Yes, for a novice. For an intermediate lifter training for strength, low weight work will still not drive force production - surely yes as a byproduct of increased mass, but not as much as an appropriately programmed workout regime taking advantage of supercompensation, which training 5x a week will not.
For getting bug sure, it will probably work but my grind is for people following this wanting to get strong. If you are training say squat and bench 5x a week at sub-60% you will not achieve the same strength gains as someone training training 3x a week at 90% 5RM with a clear linear progression. At an intermediate level this program will not continue the strength gains as well as something like the Texas Method. Is there any empirical data from this program? The study linked in the article is just an amalgamation of different studies.
Matthew Morris
OTOH, working out more often with less volume means shorter workouts and being more fresh under the bar
Jacob Walker
Go check out some articles on StrongFirst if you would like to broaden your horizon a little.
Jayden Cooper
How do you people not get completely bored of lifting on a split for 6 days a week?
Gonna assume most of you are 1 to 5 year lifters? That style of training eventually gets stale. You don’t see many guys left who just do some compound work with tons of fluff n pump bro’s hanging around for the long game, and I don’t blame them, that style of training is shit. Doing endless amounts of redundant sets gets boring.
What made me change the way I train is when I reduced my sets per bodypart per week from 30 to 10 and saw zero loss in muscle mass.
Aiden Nelson
Different strokes for different folks.
Personally I've always enjoyed focusing on a few top sets where I go all out. I often wonder if I'd see greater progress doing more submaximal work, but I just love training this way.
Carson Robinson
I don't understand. Was there an actual experiment ? or is this some bullshit theory ?
Camden King
There was no experiment as far as I can see - the author of the 'study' has amalgamated information from numerous other studies and tried to draw conclusions from mish mashing concepts.
Take this excerpt, which is where the basis for OP's graph comes from
>". While hypothetical, this refractory period may work in a similar manner to that of nutrition-induced muscle protein synthesis"
This is a hypothetical concept with no empirical data that has came from an amalgamation of studies.
>Just stick with starting strength.
Leo Jones
Post body
Chase Nguyen
Never listen to rippletits
sciencedaily.com
James White
>1 group did 8-12 reps per set, other did 20-25
Neither of those is optimal for strength training. 5 reps is optimum for strength, at those rep ranges you're almost into endurance.
Muscle size is not an indicator of strength so we'll rip through the original study to get the numbers.
So, in 12 weeks they made some gains, but the study notes that there is no substantial difference between both methods for strength, except in the bench press where 8-12 made 14kg increase and the 20-25 rep group made 9kg increase.
So in 12 weeks:
Leg press: 355>480kg
Bench 97 > 109kg
OHP 91 > 112kg
For 3 months, those results don't strike me as particularly impressive, you?
>t. that study group had a really fucked OHP to BP strength so I'm assuming OHP was actually a push press