To complete my 3 part article that covers the balance between training volume, frequency, and intensity, I shall explain,

1 – What intensity is

2 – How we may need to adjust it

3 – The relationship between all 3 aspects to bring about maximal muscle gains.

Intensity is usually defined as the percentage of 1rm we are lifting at.

A typical hypertrophy percentage range is deemed to be 60-85percent 1rm, as here the loading is sufficient to stimulate high threshold motor units which have the greatest propensity for growth. This range also brings about the greatest levels of hormonal response, through elevated test,(1) gh and igf-1 levels.

However further research has shown us that working across a multitude of rep ranges is likely to illicit the greatest adaptations. So encompassing work in a higher percentage will help increase strength, and working in a lower percentage will increase the metabolic stress we place on a muscle.

From an optimal hypertrophy perspective , placing the largest amount of mechanical tension ( load ) is a sure way to bring about muscle growth, but increasing metabolic stress ,(essentially, getting a better pump) will also pose hypertrophy benefits. (2)

Both of these approaches will lend themselves to greater hypertrophy over a longer period of time vs not incorporating  them into our training.

The idea of sticking to just one set rep range to stimulate muscle fibers is also potentially flawed due to the fact that the body will recruit muscle fibers based on the scenario. By this I mean, if we use a lighter load, initially this will only recruit slow twitch muscle fibers. As we get closer to failure, and those slow twitch fibers cannot perform the work alone, our body will recruit more fast twitch fibers to perform the work. This is referred to as Hennemans size principle. Therefore we will still eventually tap into both fibre types by taking a lighter load to absolute failure.

With that idea in mind, that gives us  greater flexibility to the rep ranges we train in.

When training at higher frequencies, (which I strongly advocate!) it may be even more advantageous to move away from one strict rep parameter.

For example; when training legs 3 times a week, I feel it would be difficult to recover if the intensity at which we lifted was 85% of our 1rm for all sets in all 3 sessions, it would become apparent quickly that this set up would cause us to over reach and therefore fail to progress, counteracting the purpose of training more frequently.

Therefore in one of the sessions it maybe wise to dedicate work to 15-20 reps, and pick exercises that won’t crush us metabolically, so a deadlift here is usually a bad choice, but a leg press would be a great exercise here to ensure we can adequately recover.

Intensity can be looked at another way, and this is in its literal sense: how intense are you working/ how hard are you working ? So this could be measured via perceived rate of exertion. The RPE scale scores difficulty from a 1-10 level. And this is a good way to illustrate how sets in a typical high volume program may compare to that of a low volume program. If you have ever watched blood and guts , by Dorian Yates, you will know that to really make the most of a low volume program, it needs to be 9-10 on an RPE. Dorian was likely a number 11 so he would of had a new category just for him! But when it is simply one work set to get the job done, and it’s going to be an all time 8-12 rep personal best, beating your log book, you need to attack that set. This is my favored way of training as I feel it’s very easy to quantify. ‘Did I progress my lifts or not?’

However with a typical high volume program where set one may only be 7 out of 10 difficulty , and then set two gets a little harder and by set 3 it finally is hard, I believe that’s much more difficult to really know if you have placed a demand on your body that will force an adaptation.

So to summarize , when using a high frequency program, I feel we need to use weights across a wide rep range , some sessions lighter , some heavier, to ensure we recover optimally.

In a low volume high frequency program, I feel every set we do perform needs to taken all the way to failure, or at least very close. There is no room for feeder sets here, bring the intensity, every set, think ‘Dorian intense’ !

JP

Use Code: TBJP10 for 10% Off on RedCon1

In my previous article , I focused on the importance of training at higher frequencies and maximizing the potential to train body parts sooner, and bring about an adaptive response from the training stimulus sooner, however to effectively achieve this, we must be constantly re evaluating our training volume. 

What is training volume? – in short it’s the total amount of work we do, be it in a session, across a week, or across a larger training block of 6-12 weeks. As we increase training volume, our ability to train at higher frequency is diminished, as we are placing larger recovery demands on our bodies. The more damage we cause, the longer it takes to be able to efficiently train that body part again, often in sessions of 20+ sets on a single body part, a trainee may feel the need to wait 6-7 days before being able to re-train that body part. In the last article we established this wasn’t optimal, therefore a reduction in volume is needed to allow for increased frequency.

One of the most simplistic approaches is to take your normal training volume, be it 20 sets, and divide this now across two sessions. So both leg sessions in a weekly period would only have 10 sets. What is now different is all of these ten sets are taken to failure or very close. So the intensity at which you are working has considerably increased. The number of those sets which you do take to failure and the total amount of work in general, is person specific, and the best feedback tool for addressing training volume, is to monitor your log book , to see which sets are consistently increasing , and those which are stalling , or even regressing. Some trainees can train at high volume , high frequency and high intensity, I.e Ronnie. Others who train at such incredibly high intensity need much less volume to get the job done, i.e Dorian.

Monitoring your ability to progress your lifts will dictate if you can afford to slide your volume up or down, as we all know, progressively overloading mechanical tension ( while maintaining perfect form) is the most efficient way to bring about hypertrophy. 

A mistake people often make with their log book, is to repeat the same sessions too often. When training at higher frequencies , I would favour 3 variations to each session. If training legs twice a week, I would make leg session 1 quad dominant with maybe 6 sets for quads, 4 for hamstrings. And then the second session of the week the reverse. Of these there would be 3 variations to each. Therefore we only repeat a session once every 3 weeks. This will then allow us to make log book progress every time we repeat a session, and the stronger we can get with perfect form, over a long period of time, without having to change exercises, will see huge leaps forward in muscle mass. 

Do we need more volume to make more progress? This idea is often pushed forward. However this idea is flawed in that training volume is not an infinitely progress-able tool. We reach a point of diminishing returns which then costs us our ability to train at higher frequency. Strength progression is however , pretty much infinitely progress able. Ask yourself, are you as strong as Dallas? I’m guessing the answer is no. Therefore you can keep progressing your lifts in the pursuit of obtaining that level of muscle mass. If you are progressing lifts frequently , because your volume allows for that sufficient recovery, you will make larger progress in the long run. 

So now we understand the balance between training volume and frequency , the final aspect that needs discussing is intensity. Which I will cover in my next article.

For more from me, please check out www.trajnedbyjp.com , we run one of the largest members sites in bodybuilding and provide full info on everything we do, to get results, so no holding back vital bits of info that you just can’t get from the pros  

-JP 

Shop online at RedCon1 using code TBJP10 to receive 10% off all orders. 

When looking to make big leaps forward in progress, I feel an area we must look at, is training frequency.

This is often an under utilized tool in the modern bodybuilders arsenal in the battle to attain freakish levels of muscle mass. 

A typical bodybuilder split, is training one body part per day, with a total volume on average, of around 16-25 working sets. This often breaks down to 4-5 exercise of 4-5 sets. Although this unquestionably can illicit superb results, this is often down to the trainee and not the training itself. A hardcore trainer will make progress regardless of the approach! However, when looking for the most efficient route to gaining muscle and fully maximizing growth potential, it’s likely that only training a body part once a week is limiting the individuals ability. 

A recent survey by Dr Brad Schoenfeld, analysed the number of times a week a 128 bodybuilders trained a bodypart. Of the total number questioned  2/3 trained with a split routine and none a higher frequency than twice a week (1) This is surprising, as bodybuilders often use training frequency to bring up a lagging bodypart, but the notion of increasing overall size in this manner is totally overlooked.

Perhaps we should view all body parts as a weakness and then see what happens to growth?! 

Following a resistance session, muscle protein synthesis rapidly increases within the first 4 hours and at 24 hours is elevated by 104 percent. At 36 hours it has returned to near baseline (2). In certain trainees, it could even be the case that protein synthesis returns to baseline within 24 hours(3).  This is referred to as the ‘Repeated Bout Effect’ and is more commonly displayed in advanced trainees. The idea underpinning this is that the body adapts even faster to exercise stimulus and therefore the recovery period is shortened (4). So what does this mean for a trainee looking to grow as fast as possible? 

The adaptations from training have fully ceased at 48 hours post session. Therefore does it make sense to wait a full week to train a body part again? 

 Let’s look at this scenario : two identical twins , with the same reactions to training undergo a training plan. Twin 1 , trains legs once per week. Twin 2, trains them Monday, Wednesday , Friday , waiting 48 hours between each session. Over the course of a year , twin 1 has given himself 52 chances to grow, twin two has given himself 106 chances to grow, provided at each session there has been adequate steps taken to maximise recovery (correct training volume, accurate nutrition , sleep, hydration) , it’s obvious who will end the year with bigger legs. 

Recent work by Shoenfeld et all, compared the rates of improvements in trained Individuals, training bodyparts 1 time per week to 3 times per week. The total volume between the study groups was equated, so overall work for each across the week was the same. The group training bodyparts 3 times per week saw greater improvements in muscle mass over the study period. (5)

So do we ignore common practise or would it be advantageous to listen to the science? In my opinion we need to find a common ground between acknowledging the evidence we have (increased frequency works) but also ensuring the trainee isn’t left feeling frustrated with a huge shift in training approach. Dante Trudel, the creator of DC training , often commented on how hard it was, to shift advanced trainees away from their current approach to increased frequency, but those that are able to make the adjustment always made huge leaps forward. SO, being open minded is the ultimate key to progression. Avoid being married to any one strategy , as a lack of flexibility in a trainees approach will see them stalling quickly in the pursuit of freaky size. 

Training frequency can’t be fully understood without laying mention to training volume. The next article will look at strategies for adjusting volume to allow for optimal recovery at higher frequency training.

References

1. http://www.lookgreatnaked.com/blog/bro-split-versus-total-body-training-which-builds-more-muscle/

2. MacDougall JD, “The time course for elevated muscle protein synthesis following heavy resistance exercise” 1995 , Can J Appl Physiol

3. Chesley A, et al “Changes in human muscle protein synthesis after resistance” 1992. J Appl Physiol 

4. McHugh MP. 2003 “Recent advances in the understanding of the repeated bout effect: the protective effect against muscle damage from a single bout of eccentric exercise”

Scand J Med Sci Sports. .

5. Schoenfeld et al. “Influence of Resistance Training Frequency on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men.” Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 

Shop Online at https://www.redcon1.com/ Use Code: TBJP10 To receive 10% OFF