Here is the question: Is High Frequency Better for Muscle Growth in Advanced?

1. Post any studies on advanced lifters looking at frequency and muscle growth/frequency and fatigue.
2. If there is a reason which makes some biological sense of why advanced lifters should do high frequency/not do high frequency.
3. Any anecdotal evidence of programs or people you know of or expert opinion. Obviosuly, this occupies the last tier of evidence.

Let’s see where the evidence leans. Where is Karky gone??

anoopbal - 08 November 2010 11:11 PM

Here is the question: Is High Frequency Better for Muscle Growth in Advanced?

1. Post any studies on advanced lifters looking at frequency and muscle growth/frequency and fatigue.

Distribution of strength training volume into one or two daily sessions and neuromuscular adaptations in female athletes.

Häkkinen K, Kallinen M.
Department of Biology of Physical Activity, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.
Neuromuscular adaptations were investigated in ten female athletes during a “normal” intensive strength training period for 3-weeks (I) as well as during a separate second 3-week training period (II), when the same total training volume was distributed into two daily sessions. No systematic changes took place in the maximal voluntary neural activation (averaged integrated EMG) of the leg extensor muscles, in the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the quadriceps femoris muscle or in maximal voluntary isometric strength of the leg extensor muscles over training period I with one daily sessions. However, a significant increase was observed in maximal strength from 2493 +/- 553 to 2620 +/- 598 N (p < 0.05) during period II accompanied also by a significant (p < 0.05) enlargement in the cross-sectional area of the muscle and by slight (ns.) increases in the maximum IEMGs of the trained muscles. The individual changes in the maximum IEMGs of the trained muscles during period II correlated significantly (p < 0.01) with the individual changes in maximal strength. The present results with female athletes suggest that the distribution of the volume of intensive strength training into smaller units, such as two daily sessions, may create more optimal conditions not only for muscular hypertrophy but by producing effective training stimuli especially for the nervous system. These kinds of training conditions may lead to further strength development in athletes being greater than obtained during “normal” strength training of the same duration.

Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1991;63(3-4):194-9.

Serum hormones in male strength athletes during intensive short term strength training.
Häkkinen K, Pakarinen A.

Department of Biology, University of Jyväskylä, Finland.

Training-induced adaptations in the endocrine system and strength development were investigated in nine male strength athletes during two separate 3-week intensive strength training periods. The overall amount of training in the periods was maintained at the same level. In both cases the training in the first 2 weeks was very intensive: this was followed by a 3rd week when the overall amount of training was greatly decreased. The two training periods differed only in that training period I included one daily session, while during the first 2 weeks of period II the same amount of training was divided between two daily sessions. In general, only slight and statistically insignificant changes occurred during training period I in mean concentrations of serum hormones examined or sex hormone-binding globulin as well as in maximal isometric leg extensor force. However, during training period II after 2 weeks of intensive strength training a significant decrease (P<0.05) was observed in serum free testosterone concentration [from 98.4 (SD 24.5) to 83.8 (SD 14.7) pmol · l–1] during the subsequent week of reduced training. No change in the concentration of total testosterone was observed. This training phase was also accompanied by significant increases (P<0.05) in serum luteinizing hormone (LH) and cortisol concentrations. After 2 successive days of rest serum free testosterone and LH returned to (P<0.05) their basal concentrations. Training period II led also to a significant increase (P<0.05) [from 3942 (SD 767) to 4151 (SD 926) N] in maximal force. These findings suggest that in male strength athletes dividing the amount of training into smaller units may create more effective training stimuli leading to further strength development.

In Werbon study the greatest hypertrophy increases were in case of 12 workouts weekly(occlusion study), although there are claims that this hypertrophy primary due to glycogen and water

anoopbal - 08 November 2010 11:11 PM

Here is the question: Is High Frequency Better for Muscle Growth in Advanced?

2. If there is a reason which makes some biological sense of why advanced lifters should do high frequency/not do high frequency.

In hst forum Bryan post a image from some study that shows that MPS response duration is shorter in advanced lifters, may be about 24 hours or so. That the good reason to use more frequent workouts for advanced

anoopbal - 08 November 2010 11:11 PM

3. Any anecdotal evidence of programs or people you know of or expert opinion. Obviosuly, this occupies the last tier of evidence.

I know that Matt Perryman tries high frequency workouts. I think he likes the results:
http://www.ampedtraining.com/2010/strength/observations-bulgarian-strength-training

Nice! Thanks for the studies. I will post a few more.

Matt got the idea from Average Bro Gym.They do some insane weights and they do a high frequency routine ( kind of the bulgarian training). I think he is backing off and going to more intensity type workout. I do think for strength gains there is the benefit of working on technique with more and more sessions. I know Glen Pendaly has some of his lifters with very high frequency. But these guys never go to failure and just go by feel.

And as I said part of the problem with these high frequency studies is that they are using just one muscle group like elbow flexors and hammering it. In real world, this might only work with a specialization routine.

Matt thinks that the “right now” effect necessitates a moderate loading volume with a pretty heavy load to get the advanced trainee to respond to a single session.  And that trying to do that very often is limited by CNS recovery,etc…  So doing easier/lighter workouts will boost muscle protein synthetic rates, since they drop as quickly as 8 hours post workout, to aid in the overall anabolic process that is still going on as far as inflammation being a trigger for sattelite cell proliferation. 

Basically:

1.  have a moderately high volume day with some pretty heavy loading on Monday (or wherever you want to start your training week) to create a large enough stimulus for an advanced lifter to actually get the body to respond at all.

2. capitalize on the inflammatory response to Mondays workout by doing a lighter/easier workout on Wednesday that will re-start protein synthesis in the trained muscles, but hopefully wont strain the connective tissue or CNS but will still stimulate the muscle itself enough to get protein synthesis working in concert with the inflammation that stimulates sattelite cells.

If we wait until full recovery of the CNS, connective tissues etc.. then aspects of muscle anabolism will have actually begun to drop off or even recede.

I believe this is the rationale given by Starr, as well as by Dr. Casey Butt.

Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research:

Comparison of 1 Day and 3 Days Per Week of Equal-Volume Resistance Training in Experienced Subjects

There is not a strong research basis for current views of the importance of individual training variables in strength training protocol design. This study compared 1 day versus 3 days of resistance training per week in recreational weight trainers with the training volume held constant between the treatments. Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: 1 day per week of 3 sets to failure (1DAY) or 3 days per week of 1 set to failure (3DAY). Relative intensity (percent of initial 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) was varied throughout the study in both groups by using a periodized repetition range of 3-10. Volume (repetitions x mass) did not differ (p <= 0.05) between the groups over the 12 weeks. The 1RMs of various upper-and lower-body exercises were assessed at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12. The 1RMs increased (p <= 0.05) significantly for the combined groups over time. The 1DAY group achieved ~62% of the 1RM increases observed in the 3DAY group in both upper-body and lower-body lifts. Larger increases in lean body mass were apparent in the 3DAY group. The findings suggest that a higher frequency of resistance training, even when volume is held constant, produces superior gains in 1RM. However, training only 1 day per week was an effective means of increasing strength, even in experienced recreational weight trainers. From a dose-response perspective, with the total volume of exercise held constant, spreading the training frequency to 3 doses per week produced superior results.

2. capitalize on the inflammatory response to Mondays workout by doing a lighter/easier workout on Wednesday that will re-start protein synthesis in the trained muscles, but hopefully wont strain the connective tissue or CNS but will still stimulate the muscle itself enough to get protein synthesis working in concert with the inflammation that stimulates sattelite cells.

I don’t think we know well enough about inflammatory response to make a rationale of how a program would work.

I guess the straight forward logic would be to have more days and hence a greater summation effect on protein synthesis.

Another way to look at this is via the dual factor theory too.  For an advanced lifter, maybe it takes several sessions to get enough stimulus to trigger the genes for growth.  So you hit a high frequency for a period of time (a few weeks usually) and then deload to allow accomodation to occur and get rebound growth. 

So something like HST with some more volume for advanced.  Byran told me, in personal email correspondence, that he uses about 3-6 sets per bodypart and usually gets a per session volume of 30-50 reps.  In fact here are portions of our correspondence:

Bryan Haycock: I tend to do 2 exercises per body part; 3 sets of one and 2 sets of another. 15s are a little different. Many times the first week of 15s after deconditioning I will train the same body parts everyday while the weight loads are relatively light. This soon becomes too much to continue so 1 week is about as long as I do this.

Bryan Haycock: Keep in mind that with HST it is important to use “as much volume as is necessary” to elicit an adequate growth response. I offer an example on the HST website, but I also explain that a person should use whatever volume of sets/reps as they have been conditioned to perform. After all, the effectiveness of any set (or rep for that matter) is dependent on the condition of the tissue at the time the load is applied. To say that HST doesn’t induce enough fatigue is a misunderstanding of HST principles.

As far as Zatsiorsky is concerned, he speaks from a strength background. His emphasis is on fatigue because fatigue is a primary stimulus for strength gains. I/HST focus on load, not fatigue. It is the mechanical strain on the tissue itself that is the primary stimulus for hypertrophy. This is not to say that it isn’t important for a fiber to actively contract against the force of the load, it is simply stating that mechanotransduction is the primary mechanism of hypertrophy from weight training.

I also highly value Wernbom’s paper. I’ve read it thoroughly on numerous occasions. He notes that in the studies he used for his paper that growth from a workout seemed most efficient between 30-60 total reps per session…that means per muscle group. That equates to 2 sets of 15 or 3 sets of 10 on the low end. I often do 6 sets of 5 during my fives. I don’t know many who would argue that 6 sets of 5 doesn’t induce enough “fatigue”... I tend to do 5-6 sets per muscle group during the 10s as well. None of this violates any supposed HST principle. Once again, it all depends on the level of conditioning of the lifter. I have been lifting steady for over 30 years and I have to balance the minimum effective volume with the maximum risk of injury that I can afford. Getting old isn’t good for growth.

Once again, from my experience, both in grad school, and in the gym, and examining research such as Wernbom’s I feel that it is tension, not fatigue, that is the primary stimulus for growth in adult natural lifters. Wernbom alludes to this when he mentions that high loads with very low volume (e.g. ~12-14 total reps) also lead to significant hypertrophy. This is a high-load/low fatigue situation. And there are mechanisms and pathways that have been elucidated to account for load induced hypertrophy (sans dependency on fatigue)...it’s not “magic” and there is no need to fall back on “we don’t really know how lifting weights causes muscle to grow”.

Anyway, if you are using an HST approach and you feel your weights are too light, start your 15s heavier and repeat 3 increments instead of using 6. If you feel you aren’t tired enough do another set. HST has never said there was anything magical about the number of sets and reps. They are just a way us to keep track of what we are doing in the gym from workout to workout.

I hope I’m making sense.

-bryan

anoopbal - 11 November 2010 01:00 AM

2. capitalize on the inflammatory response to Mondays workout by doing a lighter/easier workout on Wednesday that will re-start protein synthesis in the trained muscles, but hopefully wont strain the connective tissue or CNS but will still stimulate the muscle itself enough to get protein synthesis working in concert with the inflammation that stimulates sattelite cells.

I don’t think we know well enough about inflammatory response to make a rationale of how a program would work.

I guess the straight forward logic would be to have more days and hence a greater summation effect on protein synthesis.

——
True.  But I do think Matt is “on” to something with respect to inflammation mediated sattelite cell stimulation.  He goes into it pretty well in his e-book.  But he does say that he is speculating, of course.

It just seems to me that the best anecdotal evidence is from the golden era lifters like Park, Grimek, etc..  They almost always went 3x per week, or at least 2x per week. 

Modern guys like Layne Norton also claim that growth was much improved when frequency was bumped from a once-a-week scheme to a 2x per week.  Layne credits this for a big boost in his own physique. 

There was a recent study discussed on Lyles site about frequency being divided for experienced Norwegian powerlifters too.  I will see if I can find it.  I believe the results are preliminary and not yet published (I think).

From Steve Shaw’s Muscle & Strength site:

This study was brought up to me by a lifting buddy who lives and trains in the area in which this study was performed.

http://www.styrkeloft.no/nyheter/fre…vensprosjektet

(There are online page translators if you wish to read it in more detail)

Here are the basics of the study:

—The study group consisted of experienced powerlifters. They were routinely drug tested.
—Weekly (total) training volume was kept the same, but training frequency was increased. So the powerlifters worked out more frequently, but with less volume.
—Group A worked out 3 times per week with a higher daily volume.
—Group B worked out 6 times per week with a lower daily volume.

Results:

—After 3 months, Group B was stronger by 22 pounds in the squat.

Possible Bodybuilding Application

While I do not wish to read too deeply into a single study, the results hint at the reasoning and effectiveness behind the use of fullbody routines. Increased strength has the potential to yield increased muscle mass.

Full body routines have you using greater frequency but lower volume…or about the same weekly volume as a conventional Weider-style split.

Again, I do not post this to proclaim full body programs are kind, splits are not. My hope was to open the floor to some discussion on this study and what it speaks to you about strength and size training…

Here is the link in English:

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=no&tl=en&u=http://www.styrkeloft.no/nyheter/frekvensprosjektet/1437-resultater-fra-frekvensprosjektet

In context of alternating between hard and easy sessions I was thinking on alternating between “regular” high intensity (70% and up) sessions and occlusion training. I saw some occlusion studies where were no fiber damage involved, so, no damage - no inflammation.
occlusion training also eases on joints and tendons. What left it’s CNS drain, but at least we eliminate all other components of “why we can’t train daily” problem.

I don’t think that we can directly apply high frequency strength studies for muscular growth.
Obviously there is a neural adaptation effect, effect of motor skills learning, and not so much with muscular growth.

Anatoly - 11 November 2010 07:44 AM

I don’t think that we can directly apply high frequency strength studies for muscular growth.
Obviously there is a neural adaptation effect, effect of motor skills learning, and not so much with muscular growth.

If I recall correctly, the high frequency group also gained significantly more muscle as well.

I think the biggest variable here is the trainee level of the individual. Almost all studies are done on intermediates or beginners. They can get away with a lighter volume and intensity.

And I would wait for them to publish the study before jumping into conclusions.

And why do you want to go back to Reg Park and Steve Reeves when there are natural bodybuilders who are still competing? The problem is that almost all of them do once a week routine. That’s the problem with anecdotes. You can easily pick and choose your side.

Now can anyone argue against this high frequency training. Why advanced people get or people think they get results with low frequency training?

I was under expression that Steve Reeves uses 3 times a week full body routine most of times.
I have a copy of Steve Reeves book where he states that he never train more then 3 times a week

Am I wrong on that?