T Nation

Ideal Training Frequency for Natty's

Hey guys… I’m not looking to start a shit storm here but the TBT thread has brought up a lot of debate, that to be honest I didn’t even know really existed.

So I’m just looking for some general opinions here and not necessarily a debate. What do you feel is the ideal training frequency for natty’s.

I know there are several other components to factor in such as Intensity, Volume, etc… I’m just looking for general opinions, seeing as we’re all different and there is no one answer that would be perfect for all of us.

As this is a BB’ing forum, I am obviously referring to Hypertrophy (and Strength). I think we sometimes forget that elements like TBT-splits-HIT-Dumbells-ramping-foam rolling etc etc etc are all means to an end, which in our case is to develop a BB’ers physique.

cheers

Read more

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

Read more[/quote]

You could have just posted the link, minus the comment at the end.
Thanks for the link anyways.

The Eastern Europeans (Zatsiorsky) laid out the following:

Training Load of 1 Workout (bodypart)/ Restoration Time (in hours)
Extreme --> >72
Large --> 48-72
Substantial -->24-48
Medium --> 12-24
Small --> 12

Bear in mind most all european weightlifters weren’t natty, but their overall tranining volume (on a daily, weekly and monthly basis) dwarfs whatever you could hope to do, so the guidelines still work. Also, there is no elaboration on the training loads for each, so experiment, but remember that you get better at something by doing more of it more often. A typical 5x5 workout for chest where you ramp would probably (hopefully) be in the medium/substantial range, whereas if you wanted to hit calves with some 2x20 (using relatively light weight) every day for a week, you cold probably do that. The Hungarian Oak Leg Blast program (use the search function) would be on the large/extreme side and require you resting your legs for 3 days before working them again.

Also note that you can (and should) build up your work capacity over time, and that if you take a “destroy the muscle completely every session” approach you may need to adjust. Personally, I think it’s better to stimulate growth/adaptation sufficiently, but stop short of “annihilating” the muscles chasing extra DOMS–that isn’t productive and having to wait a week to train a muscle because you did 20 sets of chest seems stupid (e.g. Dante’s argument regarding having 104 stimulation events per year > than 52).

Experiment, but that is my $0.02.

I grew on hitting each body part once a week with high volume and I am growing on my current split of hitting every body part twice a week with lower volume.

The thread that CountingBeans posted was the influence to change my training style to more frequency for a period of time. It is very informative.

Trextacy is right in that you must experiment. The reason the big guys are big is because they have experimented and found the frequency that works best for them. You must do the same. I cannot say which frequency I prefer as of yet because not enough time has elapsed to make a conclusive decision.

Thats why a training log is important. With a training log you can see which frequency benefited you more (if such things as diet and rest are controlled for). Scientists write every variable and piece of data down when researching so why not do the same.

You can adjust volume and intensity from once a week to 3 times a week, the latter would work more in specialization phases (reducing workload of the other muscle groups) though.