Who Trains High Frequency?

[quote]whatever2k wrote:

[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.[/quote]

I was in no way stating that this is the optimal way to train for everyone. I was merely stating that there is validity in training with high frequency. Most people think they should drill chest hard then wait 7 days. Works for some, but few take the time to consider other options. That was all I was getting at. As far as legs, that is one bodypart that I actually think would respond really well if almost anyone trained it high volume+frequency. Legs can handle a lot if you challenge them. I think that staying away from failure would allow almsot anyone to hit legs at least 2 times a week and they might find it more effective. Just a suggestion but I was really just trying to say that people shouldn’t close the door to a training method without any knowledge. Oh and btw, squats 3-4 times a week and deadlifting 3 times is why I have legs that are 28.5 inches at 5’7.

Good heavens I’m so sick of seeing “CNS this CNS that” as an apparently legitimate reason to not train the same muscles often. Look, there are certain disadvantages to training the same muscle 3-5x per week, but if you’re not a dumbass, the CNS is not one of them in my opinion.

Look, it’s this simple; more frequency means you need to do less volume. Bam, was that hard?

I don’t think that approach is good for prolonged periods of time for most people, because it makes it easy to keep strengthening strong points, while allowing weak points to be neglected, if you’re not careful (and sometimes even if you are). It’s generally advantageous for strength gains (to a point), less than ideal for hypertrophy.

[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]

Straining for maximal reps does alot for muscle stimulation, and the inflamation and massive soreness as a result does diminishes with repeated use. I have no scientific evidence to support this, but I actually believe some inflamation as a result of loading the muscle is optimal for maximal mass.

You’re right though about fatiguing the nervous system, but as long as the nervous system is not exhausted with repeated bouts of this training (ala alot of rest between sessions), you will neither get nervous system burnout AND your muscles will grow. I will say that for me, straining then resting has resulted in much more muscle accumulation and strength gain than high frequency training has.

Then again, I haven’t done high frequency long enough, but I’m pretty sure I can already say (for me), that Olympic weightlifting style methods (high frequency; minimal eccentric; explosive concentric) as applied to the goal of achieving maximum muscle mass are not better at all to traditional bodybuilding methods. Maybe for those seeking athletic builds it is optimal, but not best for maximal mass.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Good heavens I’m so sick of seeing “CNS this CNS that” as an apparently legitimate reason to not train the same muscles often. Look, there are certain disadvantages to training the same muscle 3-5x per week, but if you’re not a dumbass, the CNS is not one of them in my opinion.

Look, it’s this simple; more frequency means you need to do less volume. Bam, was that hard?

I don’t think that approach is good for prolonged periods of time for most people, because it makes it easy to keep strengthening strong points, while allowing weak points to be neglected, if you’re not careful (and sometimes even if you are). It’s generally advantageous for strength gains (to a point), less than ideal for hypertrophy. [/quote]

The methods promoted by CT and Waterbury though are NOT low volume. They are high frequency, high volume. In this sense, I think this can work up to a point as well. It depends on an individuals goals again. If one does not have time to train everyday all the time, then training like this is almost impossible, and the traditional methods of loading makes more sense. If one is after the best of all worlds (Jack of all trades) and have the balance of size, strength, and athleticism, then this is a great way to train.

But if it is maximal mass, then no, I don’t believe it is.

[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:

[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]

Straining for maximal reps does alot for muscle stimulation, and the inflamation and massive soreness as a result does diminishes with repeated use. I have no scientific evidence to support this, but I actually believe some inflamation as a result of loading the muscle is optimal for maximal mass.

You’re right though about fatiguing the nervous system, but as long as the nervous system is not exhausted with repeated bouts of this training (ala alot of rest between sessions), you will neither get nervous system burnout AND your muscles will grow. I will say that for me, straining then resting has resulted in much more muscle accumulation and strength gain than high frequency training has.

Then again, I haven’t done high frequency long enough, but I’m pretty sure I can already say (for me), that Olympic weightlifting style methods (high frequency; minimal eccentric; explosive concentric) as applied to the goal of achieving maximum muscle mass are not better at all to traditional bodybuilding methods. Maybe for those seeking athletic builds it is optimal, but not best for maximal mass.

[/quote]

I don’t think this debate was ever about whether or not it’s the BEST way to attain hypertrophy, but rather if it has any use at all.

[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Good heavens I’m so sick of seeing “CNS this CNS that” as an apparently legitimate reason to not train the same muscles often. Look, there are certain disadvantages to training the same muscle 3-5x per week, but if you’re not a dumbass, the CNS is not one of them in my opinion.

Look, it’s this simple; more frequency means you need to do less volume. Bam, was that hard?

I don’t think that approach is good for prolonged periods of time for most people, because it makes it easy to keep strengthening strong points, while allowing weak points to be neglected, if you’re not careful (and sometimes even if you are). It’s generally advantageous for strength gains (to a point), less than ideal for hypertrophy. [/quote]

The methods promoted by CT and Waterbury though are NOT low volume. They are high frequency, high volume. In this sense, I think this can work up to a point as well. It depends on an individuals goals again. If one does not have time to train everyday all the time, then training like this is almost impossible, and the traditional methods of loading makes more sense. If one is after the best of all worlds (Jack of all trades) and have the balance of size, strength, and athleticism, then this is a great way to train.

But if it is maximal mass, then no, I don’t believe it is. [/quote]

With all due respect to CT and Waterbury’s training programs they’ve come up with, those aren’t the point of the discussion. It’s simply about whether or not there is anything to be gained from training high frequency, in any way, shape or form.

[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I don’t think this debate was ever about whether or not it’s the BEST way to attain hypertrophy, but rather if it has any use at all. [/quote]

In that case, then I think it definitely has uses already specified in my posts.
And I think I read the OP intent: he did ask if high frequency training was good for bodybuilding and strength. To me, that means maximal mass…but I can see how it might have a different definition for others.

I train certain body parts directly/indirectly 4 times per week.

As H4M already said: volume needs to be cut down for this to work long-term.

++ My General Take On HFT ++

Unless you’re doing it the way laid out by Thibaudeau or Waterbury (high frequency + high volume), I only see two perks / use cases for high frequency training:

  • on a (severe) hypocaloric diet
  • if you need to lift every day (for whatever reason)

If hypertrophy is your goal, I’d rather go with more specific set-ups, of which I think the way John Meadows summarized it is most easily adoptable.

In my experience, high frequency + high volume is a pretty powerful tool, but it takes some serious experience and sound self-assessment to not fuck yourself up with it: it allows you to cram in so much more work than you’re used to do, which can lead to dysbalances: I’m getting the best/fastest strength increases this way - usually, my joints can’t keep up with that, though.

Having said that, I think that dabbling in high frequency training helps trainees to get to know their bodies, work capacity and stuff better: fatigue management is key with this approach.

++ My Current Implementation ++

Right now, I’m training the most important (read: lagging) muscle groups 4 x / week.
There are muscle groups that don’t need much attention or even none at all unless on a prolonged diet. That makes it easier to get the most out of the allotted volume.
Also, I’m employing a TBT-ish programming with my HFT, since it allows me to stay flexible: missing a training session doesn’t have a big impact.

  • hypertrophy isn’t my main goal
  • reasonable high frequency training makes me feel and perform better all across the board
  • this is the fastest way I know of to fix lagging muscle groups

I think some of you guys would sincerely benefit from doing some research…

  1. There is plenty of studies that show that no matter what the hell you do, muscle fibers are fully recovered in 36 hours. There may be prolonged growth for slightly longer, but essentially - 48 hours lets say.

  2. DOMS and prolonged fatigue from training (IE waiting a week before being ready to train) is because of processes that require way longer to recuperate from like reducing inflammation and yes, recovering the neural connections.

So on that note… Yes, there is great value to training high volume, high frequency and relatively low intensity. Very high intensity (1rm or max rep attempts) is the biggest culprit for causing major inflammation and damage to neural connections.

Now IMO, this proposition is only useful for very heavy compound movements: squat, bench, deadlift etc… This allows me to train squat something like this (PS: I am a powerlifter, though odds are that I have larger legs than most of you. No disrespect intended but it’s true.):

Session 1: Work up to 535 5x3 - suit bottoms
Session 2: Work up to 445 5x4 - belt/wrap
Session 3: Work up to 535 5x3 - suit bottoms
Session 4 (about every second week): Work up to 365 5x5 in a belt

This can allow me to hit like 30,000 - 40,000lb of squat volume a week. If that doesn’t stimulate muscle growth then nothing will.

[quote]arramzy wrote:
I think some of you guys would sincerely benefit from doing some research…

  1. There is plenty of studies that show that no matter what the hell you do, muscle fibers are fully recovered in 36 hours. There may be prolonged growth for slightly longer, but essentially - 48 hours lets say.

  2. DOMS and prolonged fatigue from training (IE waiting a week before being ready to train) is because of processes that require way longer to recuperate from like reducing inflammation and yes, recovering the neural connections.

So on that note… Yes, there is great value to training high volume, high frequency and relatively low intensity. Very high intensity (1rm or max rep attempts) is the biggest culprit for causing major inflammation and damage to neural connections.

Now IMO, this proposition is only useful for very heavy compound movements: squat, bench, deadlift etc… This allows me to train squat something like this (PS: I am a powerlifter, though odds are that I have larger legs than most of you. No disrespect intended but it’s true.):

Session 1: Work up to 535 5x3 - suit bottoms
Session 2: Work up to 445 5x4 - belt/wrap
Session 3: Work up to 535 5x3 - suit bottoms
Session 4 (about every second week): Work up to 365 5x5 in a belt

This can allow me to hit like 30,000 - 40,000lb of squat volume a week. If that doesn’t stimulate muscle growth then nothing will.[/quote]

Sorry, I don’t need just “research” to prove to me that traditional bodybuilding training works. Powerlifting by itself is not the way to maximum muscle size. Sorry, it isn’t. I train both ways…cycles of bodybuilding only training, and cycles of pure powerlifting cycles. And I grow on bodybuilding training cycles…I “maintain” size on powerlifting ones though strength increases.

But hey, this (HFT) works well for you, so that’s great. I’m telling you it is NOT better than traditional methods for me…DOMS, inflamation, several days off…whatever. Even in spite of those “horrible” side effects from tradional training that you mention, I still grow better on traditional methods.

And no…I don’t care how much volume you do. If you are not loading the muscle properly WITH time under proper tension (yeah, something that is so poo-pooed on this site nowadays), you are not going to get the muscle size building training effect you think you’re getting with amount of “work” done.

I know…scientific measurements like total volume (work done) should equate logically to muscle fiber increases. But total work volume is NOT the whole story.

I’ve changed my training for the past few months and have seen considerable growth in my legs. I used to think they wouldn’t take it but it’s been worth it and I’m no longer afraid to push them far.

I train 6 days a week and workout twice 2 days out of 6.

I squat 3 times a week (2 heavy and 1 light sessions), Deadlift twice a week (1 heavy and 1 light session).

As for upper body, shoulders, back, and arms, twice a week (1 heavy and 1 light session) and chest only once a week.

I’m not fatigued mentally or physically now but I won’t lie that it was quite hard at first to follow this. I just stretch a lot, eat shit loads, sleep well and time my recovery accordingly.

[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:

And no…I don’t care how much volume you do. If you are not loading the muscle properly WITH time under proper tension (yeah, something that is so poo-pooed on this site nowadays), you are not going to get the muscle size building training effect you think you’re getting with amount of “work” done.
[/quote]

ive always wonder if theres any merit to TUT. do you mean TOTAL time under tension of a workout, or the amount of time it takes you to complete a set?

There is no scientific definition for tension. It’s just another word for FORCE.

F=MA
Force equals mass times acceleration

Well well, where have we heard this formula on the nation before? Lol.

So basically your body doesn’t see or feel a poundage, it only can respond to how much force is placed on it.

Sooooo you basically defeat your own TUT argument. Cause the way to produce the most TUT is by high frequency high volume low intensity(intensity isn’t referring to weight but how close to failure the set is taken)

We should start calling this TIME UNDER FORCE

[quote]Cichlidkid wrote:
There is no scientific definition for tension. It’s just another word for FORCE.

F=MA
Force equals mass times acceleration

Well well, where have we heard this formula on the nation before? Lol.

So basically your body doesn’t see or feel a poundage, it only can respond to how much force is placed on it.

Sooooo you basically defeat your own TUT argument. Cause the way to produce the most TUT is by high frequency high volume low intensity(intensity isn’t referring to weight but how close to failure the set is taken)

We should start calling this TIME UNDER FORCE[/quote]

There are tensile forces and compression forces…sure. You can place something under tension by applying force in opposite directions…you are placing a tensile load on that member. The member is applying equal and opposite force to the applied tensile force to keep it together. That is what I am calling tension.

This is what I refer to for time under tension. It is the amount of time the muscle fiber is placed in this tensile shearing load period that I believe strongly stimulates growth. So no…it isn’t as simple as how much force you generate equals how much muscle stimulation you get. You need much higher volume of low intensity work in order to achieve total time under tension for the muscle you are training.

Concentric contractions do indeed put the muscle in this loaded state, but you need lots and lots of them to add up to the time needed to get a muscle building response. Note, I’m not talking about neural building response…actual muscle stimulation response.

Soooo, my argument is not defeated.

[quote]wannabebig25 wrote:

[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:

And no…I don’t care how much volume you do. If you are not loading the muscle properly WITH time under proper tension (yeah, something that is so poo-pooed on this site nowadays), you are not going to get the muscle size building training effect you think you’re getting with amount of “work” done.
[/quote]

ive always wonder if theres any merit to TUT. do you mean TOTAL time under tension of a workout, or the amount of time it takes you to complete a set?[/quote]

Both actually.

I DO think there is merit to time under tension…whether it is the duration of the set itself with “tension” on the muscle, or accumulated time via aggregate of lots of short term contractions (which produce tension in the muscles). Some of the best muscle building techniques involve extended sets, etc. The main problem as many have noted is how to deal with the neural fatigue…but from a muscle stimulation standpoint, to me it is the predominant factor in stimulating muscle growth.

These are just my findings on myself. I do realize that what works for me might not work for everyone. This is why I simply don’t like or accept the “one way, one explanation” approach to training, nutrition, or supplementation. No one way works for everyone.

<------Not going to stop training at a high frequency any time soon.

Neural fatigue is pretty easily manageable… DMAE with fats postworkout is a pretty good start on that front.

[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
<------Not going to stop training at a high frequency any time soon.

Neural fatigue is pretty easily manageable…
[/quote]

Ack.
But it’s still some kind of paradigm shift if one has trained more traditionally (from a BB perspective), so far.
I’ve seen it time and again: happy haribo kids wanting to switch to HFT and going full force, from zero to wanna-be hero in no time instead of easing into a HFT scheme, playing it by ear and sensibly accumulating session volume.
Then they quit.

[quote]FattyFat wrote:

[quote]bigmac73nh wrote:
<------Not going to stop training at a high frequency any time soon.

Neural fatigue is pretty easily manageable…
[/quote]

Ack.
But it’s still some kind of paradigm shift if one has trained more traditionally (from a BB perspective), so far.
I’ve seen it time and again: happy haribo kids wanting to switch to HFT and going full force, from zero to wanna-be hero in no time instead of easing into a HFT scheme, playing it by ear and sensibly accumulating session volume.
Then they quit.

[/quote]

My experience as well.

However, to be fair, alot of my observations on myself with regards to high frequency training (as promoted by T-Nation)are based on only a small amount of time trying it out. It has only been 2 months. And though I don’t think (yet) that it compares better than traditional methods, I do have to say I do indeed like it. And for the experienced lifter, I think it should be seriously considered in their arsenal of methods to cycle training styles with.

But this is AFTER attaining a great amount of mass and strength 1st.

[quote]buffd_samurai wrote:
But this is AFTER attaining a great amount of mass and strength 1st. [/quote]

Is that attaining a great amount of mass and strength while staying lean year round?