T Nation

Protein Synthesis Dictate Training Frequency


#1

If you search online for the words 'protein synthesis 48 hours' you can find other discussions, articles and even and ncbi entry.

The low down is that heightened protein synthesis after exercise lasts about 48 hours (well, maybe 72ish) and that therefore one should train a muscle when its done with

that's used in support of TBT 3/week, upper/lower splits and as criticism for long bodypart splits

however what i'd like is your ideas and importantly your experiences of gaining on different training frequencies. We have to accept there are too many other variables in our histories to be conclusive - just interested

for me, i tried training very infrequently before when caught up in HIT and no surprise, the gains were very slow. 2 x week per major 'function' (arms pushing, arms pulling, legs) seems ok for me


#2

I’ve done Big Beyond Belief, lifting 6x a week, hitting every body part 3x a week, and what seemed to respond most was upper back, legs, and biceps which are typically more ‘endurance’ muscles anyways.


#3

No way could I do the volume I enjoy 3 times a week. Push pull legs repeat then arms day 7 and start over is my fav and I love it. Worrying about protein syntheiss and the workout window is majoring in the minors IMO. Train and eat for your goals and train and eat the way you enjoy. This endeavor should enhance your life


#4

^ that’s the point, you have to split up the volume you usually do. So you end up doing more per week, but less in each workout.

I think that without ruining your life with flowcharts and structuring your entire existence around working out, you can train the whole body 2-3 times per week. Usually in 5-6 workouts. More than that just isn’t worth it to me because of diminishing returns for the maxed out efforts. And then you have to plan off weeks…it’s just a mess.


#5

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Train and eat for your goals and train and eat the way you enjoy. This endeavor should enhance your life [/quote]

Good way to phrase it.

If you’re training often and enjoy “pushing” yourself, progress is basically guaranteed.


#6

[quote]chillain wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
Train and eat for your goals and train and eat the way you enjoy. This endeavor should enhance your life [/quote]

Good way to phrase it.

If you’re training often and enjoy “pushing” yourself, progress is basically guaranteed.
[/quote]

That’s exactly what I do now I push myself to that days limits some days are phenomenal and others not as much but as soon as stopped worrying bout progressing every single workout or death. And stopped worry about timing food to the millisecond. My progress and how much fun I have shot through the roof


#7

From an athlete standpoint, upper/lower does it for me and seems to be the most common routine for players that have enough “free” time to put in work 4 - even 3, sometimes - days a week. When training for a sport, practices get in the way and you end up having to go for the best bang for your buck when it comes to exercise selection.

I can not remember the last time I had an arm day or shoulder day or anything alike.


#8

protein synthesis is only one mere factor, IMO it should NOT dictate your training.

what science preaches as optimal isnt always the best option for some people for a number of reasons.


#9

Just because you are still recovering from your last workout doesn’t mean you can’t stimulate more growth. I believe that you can get into “recovery debt” meaning your body just recovers more later when given the chance.


#10

All good points. Enjoying it is important too even if it might in some way be 'suboptimal ’ it makes up for that


#11

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
protein synthesis is only one mere factor, IMO it should NOT dictate your training.

what science preaches as optimal isnt always the best option for some people for a number of reasons. [/quote]
Could you elaborate on this? I’m not disagreeing, but I don’t really see what you mean.


#12

[quote]DAVE101 wrote:

[quote]ryan.b_96 wrote:
protein synthesis is only one mere factor, IMO it should NOT dictate your training.

what science preaches as optimal isnt always the best option for some people for a number of reasons. [/quote]
Could you elaborate on this? I’m not disagreeing, but I don’t really see what you mean.[/quote]

i mean just because sciences indicates you should train a muscle every 48-72 hours doesn’t mean that will provide the best gains. joints and tendons dont recover as fast as muscles neither does your cns unless you a beginner. there is also the enjoyment factor, if someone truly enjoys larger amounts of volume hitting a bodypart once per week. they will make better gains then following what is considered an “optimal” workout by science because they do not enjoy their training as much.

hope that clarified.


#13

If science indicates one way as the best to train, how does that mean it won’t provide the best gains? If it doesn’t, than it wouldn’t point to it in the first place.

If the goal is just muscle mass, than we don’t need to consider the other factors unless they remove the person from training (like an injury). HFT research says that complete CNS recovery is not necessary to stimulate protein synthesis.

I believe you are mis-analyzing the “enjoyment factor.” If something is proven to be optimal, it would be the best method no matter what. Enjoyment only counts for program compliance, but as long as they stick with the progam enjoyment will not be any indicator for progress. I certainly don’t enjoy a grueling full body 5x5 or doing hill sprints, but we know they’ll provide better results.

However, we should always take results from research with a grain of salt and always be a little skeptical. This is how we’re able to refine what we know.


#14

[quote]DAVE101 wrote:
If science indicates one way as the best to train, how does that mean it won’t provide the best gains? If it doesn’t, than it wouldn’t point to it in the first place.

If the goal is just muscle mass, than we don’t need to consider the other factors unless they remove the person from training (like an injury). HFT research says that complete CNS recovery is not necessary to stimulate protein synthesis.

I believe you are mis-analyzing the “enjoyment factor.” If something is proven to be optimal, it would be the best method no matter what. Enjoyment only counts for program compliance, but as long as they stick with the progam enjoyment will not be any indicator for progress. I certainly don’t enjoy a grueling full body 5x5 or doing hill sprints, but we know they’ll provide better results.

However, we should always take results from research with a grain of salt and always be a little skeptical. This is how we’re able to refine what we know.[/quote]

I disagree about enjoyment. If someone truly loves a “sub optimal” program but gives it 110% everytime at the gym and never. Misses a session. But on the optimal program can barely give 75% and doesn’t mind missing sessions you will quite a difference in progress IMO


#15

[quote]gswork wrote:
If you search online for the words ‘protein synthesis 48 hours’ you can find other discussions, articles and even and ncbi entry.

The low down is that heightened protein synthesis after exercise lasts about 48 hours (well, maybe 72ish) and that therefore one should train a muscle when its done with

that’s used in support of TBT 3/week, upper/lower splits and as criticism for long bodypart splits

however what i’d like is your ideas and importantly your experiences of gaining on different training frequencies. We have to accept there are too many other variables in our histories to be conclusive - just interested

for me, i tried training very infrequently before when caught up in HIT and no surprise, the gains were very slow. 2 x week per major ‘function’ (arms pushing, arms pulling, legs) seems ok for me[/quote]

My view:

Protein synthesis and muscle/tendon/system “healing” are different things. Protein systhesis is mostly done in 48 hours and basically done within 72 hours, but you may not have completely healed which means that training again could end up making you catabolic.

If you choose muscularly stressful, but “joint friendly” exercises and methods of execution and don’t get to the point of running on cortisol/protein degradation then I think you can grow from hitting a muscle every 48-96 hours.

If I train a muscle 1 x per week, I get NOTHING!. As I shorten the period to less than a week I get better results while I cut the volume in proportion. I mean if I HAD to just make my triceps bigger I would definitely do 5-10 sets at least every second day.

Frequency is the most critical factor. Volume matters little. The difference between a 10 set tricep workout and a 25 set tricep workout is virtually nil. “Intensity” and load can vary too. 5 x 10 at 60% strict or 1 x 25 balls out, or 30 heavy singles all work. I’d go 75% on intensity to train twice as often without any hesitation with regard to building muscle.

Also its not necessarily about when protein synthesis is done. It is about when catabolism has wiped away the gains, which I think is about a week for me. You have to wait long enough to heal but soon enough to beat catabolism of the gained muscle.

Also while training may cause PS, it also can possibly trigger anti-catabolic forces. Lets say PS is done in 72 hours, some kind of training might delay the catabolic effect.


#16

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I disagree about enjoyment. If someone truly loves a “sub optimal” program but gives it 110% everytime at the gym and never. Misses a session. But on the optimal program can barely give 75% and doesn’t mind missing sessions you will quite a difference in progress IMO [/quote]
100% compliance and intensity on a crappy program still equals crappy results. Why are we wasting time talking about people that only put in 75% and don’t care about missing a workout? I will only speak for myself: I train to get better, the enjoyment is just a side effect. I know I’m not going to waste my time going half-assed in training, so why not pick the most proven program?


#17

[quote]DAVE101 wrote:
If science indicates one way as the best to train, how does that mean it won’t provide the best gains? If it doesn’t, than it wouldn’t point to it in the first place.

If the goal is just muscle mass, than we don’t need to consider the other factors unless they remove the person from training (like an injury). HFT research says that complete CNS recovery is not necessary to stimulate protein synthesis.

I believe you are mis-analyzing the “enjoyment factor.” If something is proven to be optimal, it would be the best method no matter what. Enjoyment only counts for program compliance, but as long as they stick with the progam enjoyment will not be any indicator for progress. I certainly don’t enjoy a grueling full body 5x5 or doing hill sprints, but we know they’ll provide better results.

However, we should always take results from research with a grain of salt and always be a little skeptical. This is how we’re able to refine what we know.[/quote]

individuality is a wonderful thing man. i completely disagree about fullbody 5x5’s providing better results than anything else because i simply hate training like that… so I WOULD make BETTER gains on another style of training.

here another little thing science will never be able to prove that one training methodology is optimal for every weight training individual, it just wont happen.

take power lifting for example.

westside is heavily based on science and works very well, for some.

sheiko is heaviy based on science and works well, for some.

then you have people like ed coan (one of the best power lifters to ever live) who trained using a very basic approach mainly built on experience.

no one training methodology is superior for everyone!


#18

Most pros train once a week high volume, some don’t. Point is it doesn’t really matter how you train as long as you’re stimulating the muscle it’ll grow, how fast depends on nutrition and other factors. Of course you should be pushing yourself no matter what you’re doing


#19

[quote]DAVE101 wrote:

[quote]ryanbCXG wrote:
I disagree about enjoyment. If someone truly loves a “sub optimal” program but gives it 110% everytime at the gym and never. Misses a session. But on the optimal program can barely give 75% and doesn’t mind missing sessions you will quite a difference in progress IMO [/quote]
100% compliance and intensity on a crappy program still equals crappy results. Why are we wasting time talking about people that only put in 75% and don’t care about missing a workout? I will only speak for myself: I train to get better, the enjoyment is just a side effect. I know I’m not going to waste my time going half-assed in training, so why not pick the most proven program?[/quote]

Lol what program is most proven?


#20

[quote]mertdawg wrote:

[quote]gswork wrote:
If you search online for the words ‘protein synthesis 48 hours’ you can find other discussions, articles and even and ncbi entry.

The low down is that heightened protein synthesis after exercise lasts about 48 hours (well, maybe 72ish) and that therefore one should train a muscle when its done with

that’s used in support of TBT 3/week, upper/lower splits and as criticism for long bodypart splits

however what i’d like is your ideas and importantly your experiences of gaining on different training frequencies. We have to accept there are too many other variables in our histories to be conclusive - just interested

for me, i tried training very infrequently before when caught up in HIT and no surprise, the gains were very slow. 2 x week per major ‘function’ (arms pushing, arms pulling, legs) seems ok for me[/quote]

My view:

Protein synthesis and muscle/tendon/system “healing” are different things. Protein systhesis is mostly done in 48 hours and basically done within 72 hours, but you may not have completely healed which means that training again could end up making you catabolic.

If you choose muscularly stressful, but “joint friendly” exercises and methods of execution and don’t get to the point of running on cortisol/protein degradation then I think you can grow from hitting a muscle every 48-96 hours.

If I train a muscle 1 x per week, I get NOTHING!. As I shorten the period to less than a week I get better results while I cut the volume in proportion. I mean if I HAD to just make my triceps bigger I would definitely do 5-10 sets at least every second day.

Frequency is the most critical factor. Volume matters little. The difference between a 10 set tricep workout and a 25 set tricep workout is virtually nil. “Intensity” and load can vary too. 5 x 10 at 60% strict or 1 x 25 balls out, or 30 heavy singles all work. I’d go 75% on intensity to train twice as often without any hesitation with regard to building muscle.

Also its not necessarily about when protein synthesis is done. It is about when catabolism has wiped away the gains, which I think is about a week for me. You have to wait long enough to heal but soon enough to beat catabolism of the gained muscle.

Also while training may cause PS, it also can possibly trigger anti-catabolic forces. Lets say PS is done in 72 hours, some kind of training might delay the catabolic effect. [/quote]

I agree with this. Once a week also does nothing for me. Hitting a muscle three times a week and limiting my sets to 5 per session has worked well for me lately.