Who here trains high frequency (certain muscles 4+ per week) with bodybuilding and strength as thier main goal?
Anyone tried it? Good/bad results.
How do those approach it?
I think that depends on a lot of things… I had great success when I was still lifting weight that wasn’t exactly heavy, as I’ve made improvements I’ve had to lower the frequency bit by bit.
I think it makes sense to train more often if you are relatively new to training because of various neural adaptations and of course recovery is just that much quicker when you don’t have to lift more than 1.5/2x your bodyweight when you already weight like 200lbs and up.
I doubt there are many advances trainees here who hit their bodyparts more than twice weekly.
[quote]Mr_White wrote:
I think that depends on a lot of things… I had great success when I was still lifting weight that wasn’t exactly heavy, as I’ve made improvements I’ve had to lower the frequency bit by bit.
I think it makes sense to train more often if you are relatively new to training because of various neural adaptations and of course recovery is just that much quicker when you don’t have to lift more than 1.5/2x your bodyweight when you already weight like 200lbs and up.
I doubt there are many advances trainees here who hit their bodyparts more than twice weekly.[/quote]
To be more clear, i meant intermediate to advanced.
i.e at least 1.5 x bw bench , 2x bw deadlift and squat
[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
[quote]Mr_White wrote:
I think that depends on a lot of things… I had great success when I was still lifting weight that wasn’t exactly heavy, as I’ve made improvements I’ve had to lower the frequency bit by bit.
I think it makes sense to train more often if you are relatively new to training because of various neural adaptations and of course recovery is just that much quicker when you don’t have to lift more than 1.5/2x your bodyweight when you already weight like 200lbs and up.
I doubt there are many advances trainees here who hit their bodyparts more than twice weekly.[/quote]
To be more clear, i meant intermediate to advanced.
i.e at least 1.5 x bw bench , 2x bw deadlift and squat [/quote]
Honestly, I think that if you can hit a bodypart 4x a week, 90% it is indicitive of lack of effort. The reason pros don’t do this is because they can’t. The weights they use are way to heavy and as recuperative as their bodies are, 4x a week after completely annihlating a muscle group just isn’t going to happen. Although it also depends what you mean by “work” a muscle. You can do 3 sets four days a week, but then I question whether those three sets are enough volume to stimulate anything.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
[quote]Mr_White wrote:
I think that depends on a lot of things… I had great success when I was still lifting weight that wasn’t exactly heavy, as I’ve made improvements I’ve had to lower the frequency bit by bit.
I think it makes sense to train more often if you are relatively new to training because of various neural adaptations and of course recovery is just that much quicker when you don’t have to lift more than 1.5/2x your bodyweight when you already weight like 200lbs and up.
I doubt there are many advances trainees here who hit their bodyparts more than twice weekly.[/quote]
To be more clear, i meant intermediate to advanced.
i.e at least 1.5 x bw bench , 2x bw deadlift and squat [/quote]
Honestly, I think that if you can hit a bodypart 4x a week, 90% it is indicitive of lack of effort. The reason pros don’t do this is because they can’t. The weights they use are way to heavy and as recuperative as their bodies are, 4x a week after completely annihlating a muscle group just isn’t going to happen. Although it also depends what you mean by “work” a muscle. You can do 3 sets four days a week, but then I question whether those three sets are enough volume to stimulate anything.[/quote]
The intensity would be less, yes, but lack of effort? No, oly lifters train even more frequently and they apply anything but little effort.
In terms of overall volume argument, you are certainly correct. I merely was curious as to whether others on this board have opted for a very high frequency of stimulous as apposed to overall volume during 1 day.
I usually train my back around 3-4 times a week. How I train it varies by session, but my back seems to be able to handle more frequency than other bodyparts.
if i remember correctly hungry4more has used like5-6X a week for each bodypart, dont remember specifics but hes big and strong as fuck
Love High frequency training, always made good progress when using it.
[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
[quote]Mr_White wrote:
I think that depends on a lot of things… I had great success when I was still lifting weight that wasn’t exactly heavy, as I’ve made improvements I’ve had to lower the frequency bit by bit.
I think it makes sense to train more often if you are relatively new to training because of various neural adaptations and of course recovery is just that much quicker when you don’t have to lift more than 1.5/2x your bodyweight when you already weight like 200lbs and up.
I doubt there are many advances trainees here who hit their bodyparts more than twice weekly.[/quote]
To be more clear, i meant intermediate to advanced.
i.e at least 1.5 x bw bench , 2x bw deadlift and squat [/quote]
Honestly, I think that if you can hit a bodypart 4x a week, 90% it is indicitive of lack of effort. The reason pros don’t do this is because they can’t. The weights they use are way to heavy and as recuperative as their bodies are, 4x a week after completely annihlating a muscle group just isn’t going to happen. Although it also depends what you mean by “work” a muscle. You can do 3 sets four days a week, but then I question whether those three sets are enough volume to stimulate anything.[/quote]
The intensity would be less, yes, but lack of effort? No, oly lifters train even more frequently and they apply anything but little effort.
In terms of overall volume argument, you are certainly correct. I merely was curious as to whether others on this board have opted for a very high frequency of stimulous as apposed to overall volume during 1 day. [/quote]
People regulary refernce Oly lifters and their high frequency. But, seem to forget that they didn’t start lifting last week. Much like College football players, their lives are generally devoted to the sport. Having spent a ‘lifetime’ training for the event, the body has adapted to suit the demand placed on it. Everything they do is in some way devoted to improving their skills. Our lives generally aren’t.
The local Oly gym in the town where I live, trains 4 times a week, with a competition more often than not once a month on the Saturday. That is high frequency. But, thats what the members do. They have been training all their lives for it, and it shows.
Is it a reasonable approach for BB? Probably not, but H4M seems to do it, and he isn’t exactly the size of a kid in highschool.
[quote]sexyxe wrote:
[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
[quote]Mr_White wrote:
I think that depends on a lot of things… I had great success when I was still lifting weight that wasn’t exactly heavy, as I’ve made improvements I’ve had to lower the frequency bit by bit.
I think it makes sense to train more often if you are relatively new to training because of various neural adaptations and of course recovery is just that much quicker when you don’t have to lift more than 1.5/2x your bodyweight when you already weight like 200lbs and up.
I doubt there are many advances trainees here who hit their bodyparts more than twice weekly.[/quote]
To be more clear, i meant intermediate to advanced.
i.e at least 1.5 x bw bench , 2x bw deadlift and squat [/quote]
Honestly, I think that if you can hit a bodypart 4x a week, 90% it is indicitive of lack of effort. The reason pros don’t do this is because they can’t. The weights they use are way to heavy and as recuperative as their bodies are, 4x a week after completely annihlating a muscle group just isn’t going to happen. Although it also depends what you mean by “work” a muscle. You can do 3 sets four days a week, but then I question whether those three sets are enough volume to stimulate anything.[/quote]
The intensity would be less, yes, but lack of effort? No, oly lifters train even more frequently and they apply anything but little effort.
In terms of overall volume argument, you are certainly correct. I merely was curious as to whether others on this board have opted for a very high frequency of stimulous as apposed to overall volume during 1 day. [/quote]
People regulary refernce Oly lifters and their high frequency. But, seem to forget that they didn’t start lifting last week. Much like College football players, their lives are generally devoted to the sport. Having spent a ‘lifetime’ training for the event, the body has adapted to suit the demand placed on it. Everything they do is in some way devoted to improving their skills. Our lives generally aren’t.
The local Oly gym in the town where I live, trains 4 times a week, with a competition more often than not once a month on the Saturday. That is high frequency. But, thats what the members do. They have been training all their lives for it, and it shows.
Is it a reasonable approach for BB? Probably not, but H4M seems to do it, and he isn’t exactly the size of a kid in highschool. [/quote]
A better question is “What’s the point?” Even if training a bodypart at a higher frequency worked better, I think its safe to say it wouldn’t be THAT much better. Personally, in my opinion high frequency training is extremely valuable for strength gains but that’s about it. I find it becoming an obsessive task. At some point I wonder if spending time training something that much specifically is even worth it. I get stuck in a mode where I begin to think “shoot, I only hit my calves three times this week, I’m going to shrink”. The mentality is something, at least for me, something I try to avoid.
College Football Player.
I train upwards of twice a day, five to six days a week. At least, I have been, some issues with my sleep and psyche are starting to somewhat detrimentally effect me, but I’m confident I’ll figure it out soon and get right back to top form.
I usually hit 2 leg days, 2 heavy push days, and 2 heavy pull days, with daily sprints, jumps, and football drills.
All I do is eat, sleep, and breathe athletics though, that’s how I’ve been since, well, forever.
I love training, I love eating a lot, and I love studying how it all effects my body.
This is why I wouldn’t call my lifestyle “hard,” because it’s what I’m passionate about.
I’m even pursuing a degree in Physiology because it all interests me so much.
I realize I’m anomalous though.
I consume upwards of 5500 calories every single day, and that’s not sustainable behavior for most people.
I understand this, hence I appreciate my situation and my opportunity to train and eat the way I do.
Do I notice considerably more muscular gains from this approach?
No.
Do I notice considerable increases in overall athletic ability, health, and work capacity?
Resounding Yes.
It all depends on your goals.
[quote]fibroblaster wrote:
A better question is “What’s the point?” Even if training a bodypart at a higher frequency worked better, I think its safe to say it wouldn’t be THAT much better. Personally, in my opinion high frequency training is extremely valuable for strength gains but that’s about it. I find it becoming an obsessive task. At some point I wonder if spending time training something that much specifically is even worth it. I get stuck in a mode where I begin to think “shoot, I only hit my calves three times this week, I’m going to shrink”. The mentality is something, at least for me, something I try to avoid.
[/quote]
Well, if you can effectively train a muscle 90 times in a year versus 52, which do you think would yield better results?
To the OP: I got great results off a 3 on/1 off split, so 2x weekly, but it was too difficult to do long-term. Now I do 4on/1 off and like it.
IMO, the higher frequency you can handle, the better results you will see.
I am:
198lb BW: 485sq, 360bp, 551dl
I train high frequency… I squat 3-4 times a week, deadlift/deadlift variation 3 times a week, OHP 2 times a week and bench/close grip 4-5 times a week. High frequency is the way to train. I have moved from a class 2 lifter to a CMS lifter in about 1.3 year time by training this way because it is the best way to ttrain fro strength. Being strong is about being good at what you want to be good at. How do you become good at something??? You practice. As much. As often. As hard. As you can.
PS: Most of these sessions are something like 80% 5x3
EDIT: Whoops, from class III to CMS.
[quote]CarltonJ wrote:
The intensity would be less, yes, but lack of effort? No, oly lifters train even more frequently and they apply anything but little effort.
[/quote]
Remember olympic lifters at least on olympic moves don’t perform the negative element of each rep.
I apologize for the length of this. That being said:
I have now tried it for almost 2 months (high frequency training) ala the CT I Bodybuilding approach, and I like it. I like it alot. Before that, my training has been based solely on traditional bodybuilding and powerlifting philosophies, which for me has worked beautifully over the decades. He/she who claims the “old methods” don’t work are full of crap.
That being said, does it (high frequency training) work better than traditional methods as far as building muscle and power? In my conclusions, the answer is no. HOWEVER, I have now found yet another training methodology that I will use in my rotation of effective training cycles. I think CT and Waterbury are definitely onto something.
For the record, and now based upon my personal experience, I believe low frequency gut busting training is the way to go IF your goal is maximum muscle size and strength at the expense of “athleticism”. I believe this whether one is using steroids or not. I HAD believed that the high frequency approach as touted (i.e. no grinding, minimize eccentric, absolutely no training to failure…i.e. basically training like Olympic weightlifters) I think the high frequency training is WAY better for developing the neural system needed to develop strength…but only up to a point. I DO NOT believe it is optimal for muscle size. At least for me.
Everyone has different goals and different amount of training time available to them. Some people have the time to train everyday, others do not. For those who are too busy to deal with high frequency training, the standard methods can work great with less time in the gym. The individual who trains this way WILL have to deal with systemic fatigue more often, but if done intelligently, avoidance of systematic fatigue while doing the traditional methods is not impossible. Not at all.
I truly believe there is no one training methodology that will work all the time. I strongly believe methods need to be cycled to realize maximum gains in muscle size and power. High frequency training is but one very good method to utilize and perfect.
In closing, there is one thing that CT has indicated time and time again that is spot on…and this is irrespective of whatever training method or technique is used: the focus should be on the execution of the single rep as dictated by the program you are following. If you are doing CT’s I, Bodybuilder, then the “perfect rep” technique needs to be mastered. As CT indicates in that article, this is the basis for everything. And this statement also applies to whether or not you are using “slo-mo”, focused eccentrics, etc. Singular focus on the execution of the singular rep is where it is at.
I don’t believe in high frequency. It’s basically imposible to really stimulate the muscles and challenge the spirit in a way that results can be delivered in an optimal manner.
The grind is where the growing is at.
[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:
I apologize for the length of this. That being said:
I have now tried it for almost 2 months (high frequency training) ala the CT I Bodybuilding approach, and I like it. I like it alot. Before that, my training has been based solely on traditional bodybuilding and powerlifting philosophies, which for me has worked beautifully over the decades. He/she who claims the “old methods” don’t work are full of crap.
That being said, does it (high frequency training) work better than traditional methods as far as building muscle and power? In my conclusions, the answer is no. HOWEVER, I have now found yet another training methodology that I will use in my rotation of effective training cycles. I think CT and Waterbury are definitely onto something.
For the record, and now based upon my personal experience, I believe low frequency gut busting training is the way to go IF your goal is maximum muscle size and strength at the expense of “athleticism”. I believe this whether one is using steroids or not. I HAD believed that the high frequency approach as touted (i.e. no grinding, minimize eccentric, absolutely no training to failure…i.e. basically training like Olympic weightlifters) I think the high frequency training is WAY better for developing the neural system needed to develop strength…but only up to a point. I DO NOT believe it is optimal for muscle size. At least for me.
Everyone has different goals and different amount of training time available to them. Some people have the time to train everyday, others do not. For those who are too busy to deal with high frequency training, the standard methods can work great with less time in the gym. The individual who trains this way WILL have to deal with systemic fatigue more often, but if done intelligently, avoidance of systematic fatigue while doing the traditional methods is not impossible. Not at all.
I truly believe there is no one training methodology that will work all the time. I strongly believe methods need to be cycled to realize maximum gains in muscle size and power. High frequency training is but one very good method to utilize and perfect.
In closing, there is one thing that CT has indicated time and time again that is spot on…and this is irrespective of whatever training method or technique is used: the focus should be on the execution of the single rep as dictated by the program you are following. If you are doing CT’s I, Bodybuilder, then the “perfect rep” technique needs to be mastered. As CT indicates in that article, this is the basis for everything. And this statement also applies to whether or not you are using “slo-mo”, focused eccentrics, etc. Singular focus on the execution of the singular rep is where it is at. [/quote]
I’ve also tried high frequency as opposed to low frequency.
My results were interesting… When I did high frequency I had excellent results but they weren’t that much better than when I did low frequency a few years ago.
The main thing to note though is when I used to do low frequency I didn’t eat right and as a result I was only 150lbs. Last year when I was doing high frequency my diet was a lot better and I went from 155-180lbs but my strength wasn’t that different. Basically when I was lifting low frequency and 150lbs my bench was relatively stronger than my bench was last year.
For that reason, this year I’m going to try low frequency again and see exactly what results I get when eating properly - though I’m still working on that as I want to lose some of the fat from those 25lbs I gained lol. But I’ll be significantly happier with the low frequency approach if I can get the same amount of gains while having significantly better lifts.
Perhaps what I’m getting at here, is that low frequency perhaps allows you to trash your muscles with more weight and that the high frequency approach makes up for lesser weight by hitting the muscles more often. Both approaches work but whatever one works best for you is the best one to do. If you can still lift the same amount of weight on high frequency as you can on low I would do that. Personally I can’t.
[quote]Arturo_Roberto wrote:
I don’t believe in high frequency. It’s basically imposible to really stimulate the muscles and challenge the spirit in a way that results can be delivered in an optimal manner.
The grind is where the growing is at. [/quote]
Insanely innacurate. Straining for maximal reps does nothing but start really fatiguing the nervous system and generating major inflamation. Did you ever take the time to realize that muscles repair in 48 hours no matter what you do to them, but CNS can honestly take 1-4 weeks? In other words, if you can train with minimal CNS fatigue then you can stimulate growth in the muscles every 48 hours… Seems pretty optimal to me versus training super hard… Muscles recover in 2 days… Then I have to wait 5 days for CNS recovery. THEN I can finally stimulate the muscles again…
[quote]arramzy wrote:
[quote]Arturo_Roberto wrote:
I don’t believe in high frequency. It’s basically imposible to really stimulate the muscles and challenge the spirit in a way that results can be delivered in an optimal manner.
The grind is where the growing is at. [/quote]
Insanely innacurate. Straining for maximal reps does nothing but start really fatiguing the nervous system and generating major inflamation. Did you ever take the time to realize that muscles repair in 48 hours no matter what you do to them, but CNS can honestly take 1-4 weeks? In other words, if you can train with minimal CNS fatigue then you can stimulate growth in the muscles every 48 hours… Seems pretty optimal to me versus training super hard… Muscles recover in 2 days… Then I have to wait 5 days for CNS recovery. THEN I can finally stimulate the muscles again…[/quote]
but you’re not challenging the spirit! THE SPIRIT
[quote]arramzy wrote:
[quote]Arturo_Roberto wrote:
I don’t believe in high frequency. It’s basically imposible to really stimulate the muscles and challenge the spirit in a way that results can be delivered in an optimal manner.
The grind is where the growing is at. [/quote]
Insanely innacurate. Straining for maximal reps does nothing but start really fatiguing the nervous system and generating major inflamation. Did you ever take the time to realize that muscles repair in 48 hours no matter what you do to them, but CNS can honestly take 1-4 weeks? In other words, if you can train with minimal CNS fatigue then you can stimulate growth in the muscles every 48 hours… Seems pretty optimal to me versus training super hard… Muscles recover in 2 days… Then I have to wait 5 days for CNS recovery. THEN I can finally stimulate the muscles again…[/quote]
How do you explain the fact that some people respond better to once a week split training then? Or the fact that extremely few bodybuilders train the way you advocate?
Actually you’re answer is just as dogmatic as his. There is no one size fits all answer when it comes to recovery. Way too many variables, like age, muscle fiber distribution, sleep, diet etc.
For me personally, there is no way I would be able to train legs again 48 hours after hitting em. Its a muscle group that for me responds better to higher volume and intensity then frequency. For you it may be different, or you may have other goals then hypertrophy. But still, claiming 48 hours as optimal recovery time for EVERYONE is just silly.