The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness
Latest Article

The Five Biggest Contradictions in Fitness

Itís no secret that when people contradict themselves, it has the effect of making the flaws in their actions or statements seem glaringly obvious. But what about when WE ourselves get caught contradicting ourselves by someone else?

By: Nick Tumminello Added: January 6th, 2014
More Recent Articles
Contrast Training for Size
By: Lee Boyce
An Interview with Marianne Kane of Girls Gone Strong
By: Jordan Syatt
What Supplements Should I be Taking? By: Jay Wainwright
Bench Like a Girl By: Julia Ladewski
Some Thoughts on Building a Big Pull By: Christopher Mason

Facebook Join Facebook Group       Twitter Follow on Twitter       rss Subscribe via RSS
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 54 of 54
  1. #51
    Proud Father Maki Riddington's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    Vancouver, B.C.
    Posts
    5,324
    According to science higher frequency should provide better results, at least provided overall volume stays the same.

    Personally I do everything three times a week.
    *** This is what I do and agree with.
    Maki Fit Blog

    At Large: Optimize Your Body | Dynamic Conditioning |
    My articles on Wannabebig

    "Soli Deo Gloria"
    "Test all things; hold fast what is good.": 1 Thessalonians 5:21

    "I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do--this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
    So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? Thanks be to God--through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
    Romans 7:14-25

    "Judo is not about strength. Yet in the learning curve, all Judokas get strong. Only with time do you learn where to apply that strength."
    The Art of Judo

  2. #52
    headbutting mirrors
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    158
    I wish I could do everything 3 times a week, but my shoulders say "No."

    They are the boss.
    give me gains or i will headbutt every mirror in the gym...

    bring the pain...

  3. #53
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    108
    Quote Originally Posted by ExtremeAnabolic
    Right. We experiment (i.e. "trial and error"). That's is how we find out what DOESN'T work. 3 times a week didn't work for me. That is what I am pointing out. My best and fastest gains came from training each bodypart once a week. Keep in mind, it is not just about training. It has to do with what the CNS can tolerate and the connective tissue can handle. Obviously some people can handle a lot more volume then other people. If they are on gear and have fantastic genetics this "correct volume" increases greatly.

    Surely you are NOT advocating that EVERYONE train the same way? i.e 3 times a week? This would mean that you think it is the best way to train, and not a single 'guru' or bodybuilder to my knowledge (with the exception of Mike Mentzer) has ever claimed that they "know the best way to train".

    Taking your logic about how training more often is better, then we should be all training six days a week. Because if three is better than one why is 4 not better than three, and five not better than 4? See where I am heading here? Why is 3 the magic number? Why not 1 or 2 or 4 or 5 or 6 or 7?
    I'm saying that I'm not sure how you could definitively know that 'three days per week doesn't work for you.' Three days of...what? Full body? To failure? What volume? What incrementation week to week? Etc.

    For example, have you tried the default HST program?

    Also, the point isn't that 'three is best' but up to a POINT 'more is better' in terms of hypertrophy (from the various lines of research I was pointing at). I consider this reasoning vastly superior to 'lots of people's anecdotes,' which have changed with the times. Full body, semi-frequent (2 or three times weekly) routines occupied much of bodybuilding for the beginning of the 20th century - why do we discard those anecdotes now? Why were 'split' routines even popularized?

    Three is just a nice number that puts us sort of in line with protein synthesis, allows recovery of CNS if you manage fatigue and 'intensity' well, and is a 'significant' increase in frequency that research has implied is beneficial. Four might work too, I don't know. But three is just an easy number - it's not MEANT to be magical. It's just a consolidation of implementation that's created from understanding research on muscle hypertrophy that people can use to achieve some effect, probably more effect than once a week.

    For GROWTH.

    So yah...like I've already said, I'm not saying 'one routine fits all.' I'm saying the principles apply to EVERYBODY. More frequent training, all else constant, will make EVERYBODY grow better if the principles underlying such an idea are true. That's my point.

    That doesn't mean implementation has to be identical. It doesn't mean it HAS to be three times a week. For that matter, not everybody's primary goal is even muscle hypertrophy.

    I acknowledge all that. But what you seem to fail to grasp is the idea that the principles of muscle growth are not variable, and the idea of 'more frequent exposure to load' being more conducive to hypertrophy than 'less frequent exposure' is something that will apply to EVERYBODY if it is true.

  4. #54
    Bodybuilding Mythbuster
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Yeongsan. South Korea
    Posts
    5,907
    Quote Originally Posted by blowdpanis

    (1) I'm saying that I'm not sure how you could definitively know that 'three days per week doesn't work for you.' Three days of...what? Full body? To failure? What volume? What incrementation week to week? Etc.

    For example, have you tried the default HST program?

    (2) Also, the point isn't that 'three is best' but up to a POINT 'more is better' in terms of hypertrophy (from the various lines of research I was pointing at). I consider this reasoning vastly superior to 'lots of people's anecdotes,' which have changed with the times. Full body, semi-frequent (2 or three times weekly) routines occupied much of bodybuilding for the beginning of the 20th century - why do we discard those anecdotes now? Why were 'split' routines even popularized?

    (3) Three is just a nice number that puts us sort of in line with protein synthesis, allows recovery of CNS if you manage fatigue and 'intensity' well, and is a 'significant' increase in frequency that research has implied is beneficial. Four might work too, I don't know. But three is just an easy number - it's not MEANT to be magical. It's just a consolidation of implementation that's created from understanding research on muscle hypertrophy that people can use to achieve some effect, probably more effect than once a week.

    For GROWTH.

    (4) So yah...like I've already said, I'm not saying 'one routine fits all.' I'm saying the principles apply to EVERYBODY. More frequent training, all else constant, will make EVERYBODY grow better if the principles underlying such an idea are true. That's my point.

    That doesn't mean implementation has to be identical. It doesn't mean it HAS to be three times a week. For that matter, not everybody's primary goal is even muscle hypertrophy.

    (5) I acknowledge all that. But what you seem to fail to grasp is the idea that the principles of muscle growth are not variable, and the idea of 'more frequent exposure to load' being more conducive to hypertrophy than 'less frequent exposure' is something that will apply to EVERYBODY if it is true.

    First of all, I would like to thank you for staying on topic and not going off into personal attacks. That said I will attempt to answer your questions (again I added numbers to make reference easier).



    (1) I have been training for 14+ years. This is not to brag, just to point out that I have a ton of personal experience. For much of my years I trained three days a week (and still do). The difference NOW is that I train one bodypart a week. (I own you an apology here. Now that I look back at my posts it seems that I was advocating training once a week. I would like to clear this up. I advocate training three times a week, but training a different or different bodyparts each time.)
    Sorry for the confusion.
    Yes three times a week of full body did not work for me. Either to failure or not, either with high volume or very low. It just didn't work no matter what I tried. Sore joints were all the gains I experienced.

    (2) Full body routines did occupy much of bodybuilding during the twentieth century. This is correct. However the 'one set per exercise' also occupied much of the popular thinking back then as well. Also (I believe) many of these "bodybuilders" were also strongmen (and genetically superior to boot). They ate vast amounts of food which likely provided fuel for their training. As a result many of them tended to carry higher amounts of bodyfat then what we would regard as "in shape" today.

    (3) Yes, like I said three is just a number (which was the point of my replies to Mr. Restless)

    (4) More frequent training may cause growth. And then again it may not. In addition, like you said ,not everyone's goal is hypertrophy. What about strength? And how does one account for the great increases in mass and strength that many people have obtained from split routines? Like I said, it is still all conjecture and theory. Sounds nice, but in practice many theories that looked good have been proven not to work. Will this happen to HST? Only time will tell.

    (5). I agree that the principals of muscle growth are NOT variable. We do however disagree on what the principals are. I claim that they are training (in the correct volume and with good form) a good diet and adequate rest.
    On the other hand "more frequent exposure to load" as opposed to "less frequent exposure to load' are nice buzz phrases but don't really mean much.
    Why? Like you said, we don't know what number is optimal. (As you point out yourself "it doesn't mean it HAS to be three times a week ")

    Therefore "more frequent exposure to load" could result in overtraining, just as "less frequent exposure to load" could result in undertraining. This is why the individual has to experiment and find out for himself what loads he can tolerate and what loads he cannot. It is still all theory until put into practice. And we all know that in many cases practice can and does differ greatly from theory.

    Anyways, thanks for your reply. It was well-reasoned and argued, and stayed on topic without straying into overt (or for that matter veiled personal attacks). One of the best replies I've seen on this forum in a long time.
    Last edited by Songsangnim; 08-15-2004 at 06:26 AM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •