Thread 76506652

>Most old school bodybuilders used a brosplit (even natty bodybuilders)
>Reducing frequency brings down systemic fatigue,
>with less fatigue you can do more sets per bodypart
>The brosplit actually allows you to do more volume per bodypart despite it having lower frequency
>In fact, the low frequency is the reason why it can be hit with more volume

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHS-fm_B8pc

Have we been to lied to by the science guys on frequency?

>>76506652 (OP)
Before steroids bodybuilders didn't train muscles once a week.
In the silver era the biggest bodybuilders trained muscles up to every single day(george hackenschmidt), in the silver era everyone trained muscles at least 2x a week and up to 7 times a week.

Training a muscle once a week isn't superior, and in fact it can never even be equal to training a muscle multiple times a week.
These broscientists don't understand how muscles grow, how muscle damage and CNS fatigue works, or how muscle activity overlaps in resistance exercises and as such mislead people including themselves into believing in false methods.

>>76507127
Explain how muscle damage plays into growth.... I'll wait lol

>>76507141
>Explain how muscle damage plays into growth
It doesn't, muscle damage is catabolic.

Next question.

>>76507148
Correct. Now post a sample routine that hits a muscle 7 days a week

>>76507154
I don't train like bronze or early silver era bodybuilders so I wouldn't know what to post.
They just warmed up to a heavy set and then switched to another exercise they wanted to do, and would do only as few/many exercises as they wanted and train every day with few exceptions.

>>76507184
Oh okay into the trash

>>76507127
Practically every single bodybuilder from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and even 2000's trained with a brosplit and they all got just as big as anyone else.

>>76507127
>These broscientists don't understand how muscles grow, how muscle damage and CNS fatigue works, or how muscle activity overlaps in resistance exercises and as such mislead people including themselves into believing in false methods.
Exactly and that is why the once per week is superior for muscle growth. Anything more then that you get the modern fried out CNS and overtraining and zero gains.

Jeff nippard built all his muscles on a brosplit and haven't made any progress since he changed to the modern "high frequency science routines". The only reason they invented the high frequency bullshit was to sell more routines to people by claiming training is more complicated then what it is.

>>76507189
Better than any brosplit.
>>76507258
>Practically every single bodybuilder from the 60's, 70's, 80's, 90's and even 2000's trained with a brosplit and they all got just as big as anyone else.
The biggest names in the 60s and 70s didn't use brosplits, it only became a thing with the 80s.
Arnold trained full body 3x a week back in austria and eventually started splitting his workouts throughout the week, arnold split has you train legs/chest/arms/back/shoulders 2x a week each(4x a week frequency for triceps and biceps), he never used a brosplit leading to and at his peak.
>>76507269
Once a week will always be inferior to multiple times a week, the more you work you do in a session the less efficient it is and the more damage you induce, damage is what causes fatigue after you train, this alone makes it so lower training frequency will always be inferior.

Also this isn't addressing the undeniable fact that many muscles aren't trained only once a week in brosplits, no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level, if it was possible to do so it would be possible to make gains training full body once a week.
>jeff nippard
He's been training for 15 years and his brosplit had a 5-6 day rotation, not a 7 day one, and he trained many muscles 2x a week if not 3x a week like the triceps due to how retarded brosplits are and have you do "arm" "shoulder" "chest" "back" days.
>they invented high frequency bullshit
High frequency was the norm up until the 80s.

>>76507346
>The biggest names in the 60s and 70s didn't use brosplits
Yes, a lot of them did. And we are talking about once a week frequency, not necessarily "the" brosplit.

The biggest names you are thinking off all did steroids and its those steroids that allowed them to lift with more frequency. Without the steroids they would never have been able to recover from the workouts they did.

Arnold is a great example of this. In Austria he did powerlifting. And then when he got in to steroids and bodybuilding that is when he started doing the Arnold split with the insane volumes and frequency. He would never be able to do that without the steroids.

>Once a week will always be inferior to multiple times a week,
To this day, this has not been proven.
>the more you work you do in a session the less efficient it is and the more damage you induce, damage is what causes fatigue after you train
If you do not "induce damage" you do not induce growth. In fact most people induce to much damage trough training a bodypart multiple times per week and do not recover from it adequately so they make less gains. Does that sound familiar? If so you should give the once a week frequency a try!

>no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level
Most professional bodybuilders do this. The people in the world with the most muscle that is humanely possible to build do this.

>his brosplit had a 5-6 day rotation, not a 7 day one
So training every muscle group per 5th or 6th day. Pretty close to the once a week frequency which is the superior way to train. Notice that Jeff has not made any progress what so ever since he stopped doing that sort of training. That should really tell you something.

>>76507346
>if it was possible to do so it would be possible to make gains training full body once a week
I have done exactly this. It IS possible. You don't have a clue.

>>76507127
Remember that one time Dorian Yates destroyed all of his competitors six years in a row... while doing a 4-day weekly split?

>>76508332
People on steroids have muscle synthesis on all the time. If you're natty, you need more frequency for optimal growth.

>>76508603
>If you're natty, you need more frequency for optimal growth.
>muh optimal
>muh science studies

Do you have any clue how many british bodybuilders only hit their muscles groups one time per week on a 4 day split?

>>76508675
I cannot name a single british bodybuilder besides yates

>>76508603
Have you considered that there's more to bodybuilding than MPS? What about your joints? Your connective tissues. Your bones, even, have to get stronger over time. These things take longer to recover than the muscle. If you don't let them recover, they will become the limiting factor and you will go no further.
Have you ever tried a full body every day routine?

>>76508675
Bodybuilders are almost all on steroids. You can find bodybuilders on steroids that do any routine with success.
>>76508816
>Have you considered that there's more to bodybuilding than MPS? What about your joints? Your connective tissues. Your bones, even, have to get stronger over time. These things take longer to recover than the muscle.
This is true, and that's why going to failure is foolish.

>Have you ever tried a full body every day routine?
Yes.

>>76506652 (OP)
Fuck all those science bro talking heads. This science, recent science as if it is some flexible thing. Dorian and Mike have achieved all that with less.

>>76508824
>>Have you ever tried a full body every day routine?
>Yes.
And how did that go?

>>76508877
I avoided going to failure, so it went fine. I didn't get any pain, despite the fact that in the past I used to do twice a week, with higher intensity, and basically developed arthritis and tendinosis.

>>76507127
>>76507346
Why do you always post Chris Beardsley instead of yourself?

>>76508881
Why did you stop?

>>76508891
Because it was a calisthenics program, and find calisthenics kind of lame. Also I'm obsessed with the idea of trying to make isometrics work instead, so I went back to that. Right now I'm doing 3 days a week isometrics and I think it's starting to pay off.

>>76508807
Yeah not many people can. Take this channel for example, its full of interviews with british bodybuilders. Notice how many of them train similar to Yates with once a week frequency on a 4-5 day split. https://www.youtube.com/@longevitymuscle/videos

Something is not right with modern fitness when it shits so hard on this type of training but it has been so popular and created so many top physiques, and that is natural and enhanced.

>>76508824
No they are not all on steroids you fucking freak retard

>>76506652 (OP)
3 day split (for beginners to allow enough time for joints to develop & adapt to increased physical strain)
5 days a week (actually not a big deal to anyone with a year or two's worth of experience)
You most likely notice significant difference in your own capabilities after the first 3-6 months in between beginner DOMS

dont be afraid to make a 2 week rest phase once or twice a year if you feel llike your back is an over-nerved mess.

>>76506652 (OP)
>>Most old school bodybuilders used a brosplit (even natty bodybuilders)
no they didn't

you are retarded

>>76510500
they did.

>>76507127
>In the silver era the biggest bodybuilders trained muscles up to every single day
*bronze era
>>76507443
>And we are talking about once a week frequency, not necessarily "the" brosplit.
How many trained muscles only 1x every 7 days at the elite level and made progress?
>The biggest names you are thinking off all did steroids
They were all on back then.
> and its those steroids that allowed them to lift with more frequency
Steroids make you able to get away with training too much or too little.
>Arnold is a great example of this. In Austria he did powerlifting.
He trained full body 3x a week when he was building most of his mass and eventually started splitting his workouts in half when he was building the last few kilograms of mass he has ever built right around the time he moved the california.
Pic related is what he looked like while training muscles directly 3x a week back in austria as a 20 year old.
>If you do not "induce damage" you do not induce growth.
We have studies clearly showing that muscle damage is a completely seperate phenomenon from hypertrophy and directly catabolic.
> In fact most people induce to much damage trough training a bodypart multiple times per week
Depends on how hard they train.
>Most professional bodybuilders do this.
Most of them have a poor memory of what they do, they say they train muscles "once a week" but then do 5 day rotations or add days where they work on their weakpoints, and this gets lost in transmission.
Also, how many of them are on tons of gear?
No one knows, safer to stick with what worked in the natty past.
>Pretty close to the once a week frequency which is the superior way to train.
It can never be superior and there is a difference in atrophy.
>>76508247
Making progress like that at the elite level?
>>76508332
N=1 genetic phenom on steroids and peptides.
>>76508675
It's just inefficient.
>>76508816
LowER volume fixes that.
>>76508824
Dorian made his pre-GH/slin gains on more than 1x/week frequency.

>>76506652 (OP)
If you exercise a muscle too infrequently, you get underuse atrophy.
If you exercise a muscle too frequently, you get overuse atrophy.
Therfore, every person has a frequency window within which you will gain size and strength, and outside of which you will maintain or lose.
The high end of the window is higher than most people think, somewhere around three weeks. You can drive the low end lower with drugs, but I don't see the point.
Individual experimentation is required to find the upper and lower bounds. I'd recommend doing full body and then altering frequency as a trial.

Just find a middle ground, there’s of course a lot of studies that say that high frequencies make you build muscle faster. I fell for the FB EOD psyop this year and I can tell you from experience that it doesn’t work. I got strong but the fatigue was too much I stopped gaining muscle since may. And this thread reminded me that in 2023 I was doing a high volume bro split and made most of my gains there so you might be into something. I don’t believe tho in infrequent programs like heavy duty and those extremes. I need to find the middle ground but at the end of the day you can grow with every program if you put the effort

>>76511974
>Therfore, every person has a frequency window within which you will gain size and strength, and outside of which you will maintain or lose.
Intensity and volume can take the ideal frequency from every day to every 5 days or so. After several months lifting you feel it unless you're oblivious.

>>76507346
>no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level, if it was possible to do so it would be possible to make gains training full body once a week.
Marty Gallagher has trained champion powerlifters once per week

>>76507346
>no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level
Really, are you sure? Did you ask all of them?
t. has never heard of Mark Chaillet.
See, this is how I know you're a pseud. You make statements like the one above, even though we all know you could not possibly be familiar with the training styles of EVERY SINGLE professional lifter/bodybuilder.

>>76512133
If you make progress doing an ideal program, and you make progress doing a less-than-ideal program, how would you know the difference between the two while you're doing them?

>>76506652 (OP)
Nah, over the years I noticed that training legs once every 3 days works the best for me.

Muscles arent the same
some need more some need less

>>76507346
>no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level
John Heart was the oldest man to ever win the Natural Mr America and he did an upper/lower, one workout every four days to prepare for that competition.

>>76512253
Dorian won Mr. Olympia 6 times with that but people are still fucking oblivious. MOAR MOARRR I FEARRR God I hate fitness influencers and old-recent whatever science-based bullshiters so much

>>76506652 (OP)
>Have we been to lied to by the science guys on frequency?
Science? The anti volume meme was always an imageboard meme,.

Mark Chaillet trained legs 2 times per week and bench 1 time per week. Ed Coan and Kirk Korwaski did bench 2 times per week and legs 2 times per week.

You are ignoring that Squat day and Deadlift day are not once a week frequency since those movements have a lot in common.

Regarding Dorian Yates, if you look at his log book, he was running a frequency closer to 2x per week than 1x per week for most of his career. For example an AB split every other day.

>>76513423
>You are ignoring
No I'm not. I'm aware. He's a powerlifter, so that's to be expected.
Look at the bench. Do you really think Mark Chaillet would just sit at a frequency of 1x per week for bench, with no progress, for 25 years?
The deadlift also works the entirety of the back, and is the only one of the three that trains grip strength. Only the quads, glutes, and hamstrings are at a 2x frequency. Every other muscle is at a 1x frequency.
>>76513423
>closer to 2x per week than 1x per week for most of his career
That logbook only goes to 1990. Why did he reduce the frequency later? Do you really think he went "yeah, hitting a muscle every five days is objectively better, but I'm just gonna do every seven days because fuck it"?
https://youtu.be/4ymp_taa7GY?si=31BgyjbpbMzqJs0V
Here he recommends a simple push/pull/legs 1x per week.
It works. It's time-tested. It's not fancy. It's like the AR-15 of workout routines.
That's not to say it's "the most optimal" but internet autists will argue about optimalisms until the sun burns out. I don't care. As long as you're getting stronger, you're on the right path.

>>76513639
This.

>>76513639
>Here he recommends a simple push/pull/legs 1x per week.
with 2 warm up sets and one all out working set.
people think that's way too low

>>76513824
He did this when he was geared. He recommends doing 3 times per week and 4 workouts if you're natural.

>>76511974
>If you exercise a muscle too infrequently, you get underuse atrophy.
>If you exercise a muscle too frequently, you get overuse atrophy.
This shouldn't be controversial.
>The high end of the window is higher than most people think, somewhere around three weeks.
There hasn't been a single study that showed muscle cross sectional area or muscle thickness maintenance was possible with training cessation of longer than 2 weeks, and that's already being generous.
>>76512030
Yes one should experiment on himself.
>>76512133
This.
>>76512180
Marty Gallagher has trained genetic phenoms who abused drugs, a bunch of them trained way more than that too.
>>76512253
Mark chaillet was a genetic freak who was 220lbs 8% bf at 5'9 and 20 years old, he abused drugs and he never experimented with his training, so who cares?
>>76512259
Just follow the training that allows you to make comparable progress with less effort or time commitment, or the one that allows you to make progress without stalling.
>>76513154
Upper lower every 4 days =\= training a muscle once every 7 days. Once every 4 days is basically a 2x a week frequency.
>>76513423
All of those people are genetic freaks who abused drugs.
>>76513639
>>76513824
That's not how dorian trained before he hopped on GH/slin, training doesn't even matter once you're permanently injecting yourself with myofibrillar protein synthesis spiking injectable drugs every ~10 hours.

>>76514597
>>If you exercise a muscle too infrequently, you get underuse atrophy.
And it seems like once a week does not cause underuse atrophy

Just gonna leave this here.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30558493/

>In conclusion, there is strong evidence that resistance training frequency does not significantly or meaningfully impact muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated. Thus, for a given training volume, individuals can choose a weekly frequency per muscle groups based on personal preference.

>>76515409
>And it seems like once a week does not cause underuse atrophy
we have evidence showing that atrophy does happen in under a week of disuse.
But if you train hard enough you might not experience any atrophy by the end of the week and even gain a little due to the magnitude of the stimulus obtained earlier in the week, but a stage of atrophy will still be there.
>>76515421
>In conclusion, there is strong evidence that resistance training frequency does not significantly or meaningfully impact muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated
Has any natural ever grown from training a muscle once a month?
I mean according to that study's conclusions "resistance training frequency does not significantly impact muscle hypertrophy", so why not put that to the test?

3x a week split between push, pull and legs will be more than sufficient to get you either incredibly strong or a very good physique
>will it win you competitions
Not in of itself, no. But it’s a proven approach that is effective for whatever you are trying to do
>but Schwarzenegger did thi-
He was one of the greatest ever but he was also a liar. Millions of people have attempted to ape his methods and got precisely nowhere

Frequency is a mental trap

>>76515981
Because there is clearly a point in which you do need to do something regularly enough that you gain benefits from it, but it isn’t anywhere near what people think it is.

Broadly speaking, do you think the people who go to your gym don’t go enough? Is it the case that those who spend 5,6, 7 days in there are all huge?

>>76516021
>Is it the case that those who spend 5,6, 7 days in there are all huge?
It's not about the days, you can get more frequency on FB EOD (4 days a week) vs a 6 day PPL for example. That's the argument of this thread i guess, that frequency is king.

As i said earlier ITT i did experiment with high frequency and I came to conlusion that x2 frequency is better that x3, so you have to find a middle ground, even x1 frequency can work for some but the average genetics guy might have to go x2 per week.

>>76515981
>we have evidence showing that atrophy does happen in under a week of disuse.
How good is this evidence? We also have evidence from the millions of people that have trained with brosplits and built maxed out physiques both natty and sauced.

>Has any natural ever grown from training a muscle once a month?
Why do you use once a month as a timeframe? In this thread its once a week training.

>I mean according to that study's conclusions "resistance training frequency does not significantly impact muscle hypertrophy", so why not put that to the test?
Again, that is weekly frequency not monthly. I will put it to the test and do a brosplit.

>>76514597
>There hasn't been a single study that showed muscle cross sectional area or muscle thickness maintenance was possible with training cessation of longer than 2 weeks
Really? Have you read every single study on atrophy? You couldn't possibly have, so why make a statement like this? It makes it sound like you have some kind of agenda to push.
Without very much time spent digging, I found three:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21771261/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23053130/
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7241623/
This is, of course, ignoring the fact that CSA and muscle thickness are flawed metrics to begin with. Your CSA/thickness are greatest directly after a workout due to the pump. Surely you wouldn't suggest that you're at your strongest (or even healed) an hour after the workout, right? It's nonsense.
>or the one that allows you to make progress without stalling
So if I've stalled doing full body every five days, then decreased frequency to every seven days, then saw progress again, that would prove definitively that the lower frequency was better, right? I have had this exact experience.
It could have simply been the case that the bottom end of the frequency window changed due to lifestyle/stress/work, etc, At the bare minimum I proved that, for myself, full body 1x per week is viable.
I have also had the experience of occasionally skipping some of these weekly workouts due to schedule constraints and still came back stronger.
>All these people used drugs, so it's irrelevant.
Drug users can tolerate a higher frequency. It is relevant. For some small portions of the population, once per week is actually too much.
>Upper lower every 4 days =\= training a muscle once every 7 days. Once every 4 days is basically a 2x a week frequency.
Now I think that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. There's no way you actually believe this, right? If you're sincere about that, then there's nothing else to talk about. It's completely delusional.

>>76516060
>I proved that, for myself, full body 1x per week is viable.
Not trying to hate here but are you 40 years old or something? x1 full body per week is the bare minimum a lifter can do

>>76516071
I'm 30 and I work a lot, is all. Sometimes I work 12-hour days for 13 days in a row. Per the union contract, I'm required to get the 14th day off. The OT sure is nice, though.

>>76516053
It comes from:
>the human tendency to overthink things
And
>the mental trap of “if I do this more often I will get better at it”
Frequency of exercise is rarely the issue. As long as there is a base level and a consistency to the plan then the frequency in which the muscle, or area of the body, is exercised is never really going to be what is holding it back from developing. Advocates for high frequency can’t see this. They assume that they are either:
>not doing it enough
Or
>not doing it in complex enough of a manner
These are always the same people. They make no real progress. They advocate for more complicated, more exotic, more esoteric methods of training. If someone is telling you about the methods of Soviet weightlifters in the 1970s then they are also in this camp. It is the refuge of the excuse maker, the “genetics” obsessed. If you suggest that they should:
>simplify
>intensify
>exercise with brevity
They will make ridiculous statements such as “well if you work out incredibly hard once a year you’ll make the best gains ever”, even though you have claimed or advocated nothing of the sort

Just ignore them. The principal of exercise was figured out centuries ago. Do it regularly, rest in between, keep it simple and go hard. Or buy their Arnold snake oil and do two sessions a day five days a week and look like a fitness girl

>>76516076
Damn what job? 12h are brutal i did it earlier in the summer but for 2 or 3 days per week (actually it was 15h jobs) but yeah my lifts suffered a lot this summer

>>76516085
Engineer at a shipyard.
We typically only do this type of schedule during testing after the carriers finish a maintenance period.
I'm sorry to hear about the 15hr shifts.

>>76516021
What frequency/volume do you believe is the minimum for one to grow muscle?
>Broadly speaking, do you think the people who go to your gym don’t go enough?
The average person at the gym is inconsistent and uses too much volume with not enough intensity.
>>76516036
There are many factors that impact ideal training frequency.
>>76516053
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/fulltext/2011/07000/exercise_dosing_to_retain_resistance_training.7.aspx
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/12/7/198
How do you explain these results without admitting that atrophy happens within a training week?
Muscle size measurements might be picking up some loss in edema and not actual contractile tissue loss, but what about the strength results?
>We also have evidence from the millions of people that have trained with brosplits and built maxed out physiques both natty and sauced.
How many millions tried and failed?
Bodybuilders also seem to suffer from at least some form of training amnesia.
>Why do you use once a month as a timeframe?
To drive my point home that frequency matters.
>>76516060
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21771261/
This shows that the group that followed a 3-week detraining block lost muscle, but regained lost size fast.
All the subjects were beginners and the group that detrained was smaller to begin with which might have skewed the percentage changes.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23053130/
Same thing.
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7241623/
That one is tricky to explain away, all I have is that the subjects were beginners.
>So if I've stalled doing full body every five days, then decreased frequency to every seven days, then saw progress again
With high volume it might work.
>Drug users can tolerate a higher frequency.
They can also get away with lower frequency.
>I think that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Trust me I'm not this is exactly the type of thing that people miss which leads them to believe frequency is somewhat irrelevant.

>>76515421
>Brad Jon Schoenfeld
Not reading lmao

>>76516268
>https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/fulltext/2011/07000/exercise_dosing_to_retain_resistance_training.7.aspx

>We have demonstrated sustainability for up to 8 months with our 1-d·wk−1 maintenance dosing in young adults. Enhanced muscle performance was also sustained among the old; yet they seem to require more frequent dosing to maintain the muscle mass gains realized from RT.
Old people required more frequency while the young adults group did fine?

You gotta explain the second one cus that is to much.

>How many millions tried and failed?
Not enough to justify the current consensus that the brosplit is a terrible routine that does not work. And how many millions failed on pplpplx and so on?

>To drive my point home that frequency matters.
This thread, talking about brosplits or once per week frequency, does not say that frequency does not count. The opening post is making points for why once a week is a good training frequency.

>>76507346
>no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level
>>76511110
>Making progress like that at the elite level?
>Natural????
Here's another for the list: David Kaye, British pro bodybuilder. He's been doing a bro split for basically his whole career.
Another W for the bro-split chads.
Cope/seethe/dilate, Beardsley-fags.
https://youtu.be/oCJKFa1OTow?si=-XJfi2_8O8QnJFhs
inb4
>bu-bu-but what about the overlap?!
>That's not a REAL bro-split!
More cope. You think pro bodybuilders don't know how to isolate bodyparts? You think they haven't already considered overlap between movements?
Same thing with the retard claiming that John Heart was actually using double the frequency he claimed in his video.
If the only equipment available to them was dumbbells, then yeah obviously overlap is impossible to avoid, but nowadays there are machines for every individual muscle. If you want to isolate every muscle in the body, you can.

>>76507346
>>76506652 (OP)
>no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level
Another: Kevin Richardson, competitive WNBF bodybuilder. He hits everything once per week, split over three days, with very low per-session volume.
https://youtu.be/QriBDy_Phj0?si=cotZxiO-uRMon20C

>>76517568
>>76517640
Fake natties don't count.

>Once a week
How much of the volume would be fluff after you do your real working sets, totally stupid.

Just let the insatiable golems infinitesimally torture themselves 30 or goziliion sets per a bodypart a week as they please like fat guys endlessly shove food down their throats. For them the fear never goes away, and I see that's why those science bro fitness influencers make money. Always spamming catchy fearmongering titles and all those fear-driven golem-like optimizers will be baited like moths to a light. It will never be fucking enough for them.

>>76517660
Cope seethe dilate

>>76517693
To fully recover the nervous system you need at least a week so brosplit is good. I was talking about volume maniacs

>>76517765
you arms need one week to recover?

>>76516496
>Old people required more frequency while the young adults group did fine?
Old adults lost muscle on 3 sets once a week, Young adults stagnated on 3 sets once a week.
Young adults managed to gain on 9 sets once a week.
Old adults didn't even achieve maintenance on 9 sets once a week.
>You gotta explain the second one cus that is to much.
You mean the second study?
Women at the start of a study were put on two groups, a continuous training block of 12 weeks and a control group that did nothing.
The group that trained did 4 sets on each session of leg presses, 2x a week.
After these 12 weeks of training they separated the training group into 3 groups for another 12 weeks of the experiment:
-One group that did the same 4 sets but once every 7 days.
-One group that did the same 4 sets but only once every 14 days.
-One group that stopped training completely.

After the last 12 week block was completed the subjects that were still training were then made to completely stop training.
Pic related are the results.
4 sets once a week wasn't enough to grow muscle.
4 sets once every other week was not enough to even just maintain size.
>And how many millions failed on pplpplx and so on?
Many probably, there are many ways to screw up pretty much any type of split, and some people just don't have what it takes.
>The opening post is making points for why once a week is a good training frequency.
If we accept that frequency matters we then should be able to assess just how much it matters, I wasn't banking on the numeric value of "once a month" or anything like that.
>>76517568
First he says he trains muscles once a week, then that he does a brosplit with some adjustments...
Back
Shoulders&Triceps
Rest
Legs
Chest&Biceps
Shoulders(He specifically says he does this more than once a week because he wants to bring these up)

He doesn't say how many sets or what exercises he uses which will greatly impact results in a bodypart split.
This is what I'm talking about.

>>76517640
How come countless others training similarly to that end up looking like they don't even lift?
Seems awfully similar to what the HIT people do.

Did that one(1) singular bodybuilder always train like that?
Does he train like that all year long?
Is this just branding?
Is he actually natural?
Has he made any progress in the last years training like that?
>>76517692
Another reason why frequency has to matter more than people believe it does.
>>76517693
We have studies showing that 1 set every ~72h is enough to grow muscle, but that 3-4 sets once a week isn't.
>>76517765
Completely arbitrary, recovery depends on what type and amount of fatigue you are in which will depend on the volume/frequency/intensity you're using.

>>76517693
I've thought for a long time now that all these exercise science "studies" really are about as useful as reading chicken bones on the floor.
And they always end with the phrase "more funding/research is required..."
Almost like it's just a way to justify a paycheck.

>>76518063
>How come countless others training similarly to that end up looking like they don't even lift?
Could you name one of these countless others?
Do you have a double-blind, multi-cock, extra super meta study to prove that abbreviated routines don't work?

>>76518305
>Could you name one of these countless others?
Just one?
Pic related.
I was gonna check on the baye forums but it seems like the place is now locked to a monthly subscription(lol).
Try to google it.
Try to find any HIT circle that is still alive and and you will see exactly what I'm talking about.

>>76518344
Ofc I forgot to upload.
Here's baye one of the biggest HIT proponents today, after years and years of HIT, and before he hopped on exogenous testosterone.

>>76518344
I'm not exactly sure what you mean. It sounds like you can't even name one, out of the many countless people that have tried abbreviated routines and don't look like they lift.
The closest HIT circle I see at hand is the Kevin Richardson video linked above. The comments section is full of nothing but people exclaiming how great his training methods are.
In the comments section of all of John Heart's videos, it's full of nothing but people exclaiming how great his training methods are.
Are these the 'countless others' you're talking about?

>>76518290
I collect chicken bones and other meat bones from my food scraps so I can make a nourishing bone broth.

>>76518391
Pic related is him just 2 years after hopping on gear and keeping his training exactly the same as he's been doing for 20+ years.

Drugs make up for and hide any training deficiency.

>>76518414
Those are no good bro. Chris Beardsley says the chicken bones need to be fresh in order to tell you your ideal frequency/volume/Chakra alignment.
If you killed the chicken that same day, Chris Beardsley can tell your ideal frequency down to the millisecond.
You can trust him because he's bald and very serious-looking.

>>76518411
>The comments section is full of nothing but people exclaiming how great his training methods are.
How many of those people actually get good results? Let's not even go to the who
You couldn't possibly know, which is why anecdotes shared online are basically useless for any assessment of effectiveness on different training methods.
>>76518290
>>76518414
>>76518432
You got the whole squad laughing.

>>76518344
>I was gonna check on the baye forums but it seems like the place is now locked to a monthly subscription(lol).
My gym bro is a sub there and he told me has pretty good information, unfortunetly i got him into the HIT cult but he lost his mind and he just goes to the gym x2 per week doing 1 set and like 3-4 excercises.

>>76518440
>all of those people are lying!
>all of them!
>the coaches, the trainers, the contest winners, they're all lying!
>you cannot possibly make gains doing anything besides what I say you can do!
>YOU'RE ALL CONSPIRING AGAINST MEEEEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHCHRISBEARDSLEYYYYYYJWJRITJRBNWNAKWHRYT

>>76518344
Thank you for taking the time to name one of The Countless Others, but Drew Baye does not train with a bro split like Kevin Richardson does. The contest requirements stated in this comment: >>76518063 require that the Named One train similar to Kevin Richardson.
As such, you have been disqualified from the raffle drawing. We're terribly sorry for the inconvenience.

>>76518411
>The comments section is full of nothing but people exclaiming how great his training methods are.
>In the comments section of all of John Heart's videos, it's full of nothing but people exclaiming how great his training methods are.
>Are these the 'countless others' you're talking about?
>>76518523
To be fair, this happens to any kind of fitness online youtuber/blogger/whatever who preaches whatver method. There will be tons of comments saying they changed to that method and how superior it is. Full body, ppl, u/l, brosplit, high volume, low volume and so on and so on. They all get comments like that

>>76518523
>all of those people are lying!
Is this not the board where every other post used to amount to "post body" in response to dubious advice or anecdotes for almost 10 year straight?
If someone claims he only does a miniscule amount of work very infrequently while supposedly making all kinds of gains it is normal to be sceptical specially since we know what happens to lifters that actually train like that under expert supervision.
>>76518546
>Thank you for taking the time to name one of The Countless Others
You asked for one name and you have it now, one of the main proponents of that style of training too.
>but drew baye does not train with a brosplit like kevin richardson does
They both claim to do HIT and use identical training frequency and volumes but please feel free to post both of their training so we can know for sure!
>>76519654
>There will be tons of comments saying they changed to that method and how superior it is. Full body, ppl, u/l, brosplit, high volume, low volume and so on and so on. They all get comments like that
Exactly, but when it comes to these HIT very low volume very low frequency types you just know that almost every single one of them is a DYEL or a liar, there is a reason why these people have been mocked since before the internet or labelled as frauds.

>>76519825
>since we know what happens to lifters that actually train like that under expert supervision.
https://www.trulyhuge.com/sergio-oliva-interview.html

>>76519839
The type of HIT that arthur jones was promoting was completely different, he had viator, mentzer, olivia and other bodybuilders do full body workouts multiple times a week.
It says so in that very article.

>>76519878
>HIT doesn't work. They're all DYELs or liars. They're mocked by all people for all time.
>we know what happens to lifters that actually train like that under expert supervision.
>Arthur Jones (expert supervision) takes a huge man AND MAKES HIM EVEN BIGGER
>nooooooo that doesn't coooouuuunnnnt!
You're arguing just to argue. You don't care about what's true. You don't care about what's viable. You don't bother to actually look into the feasibilty of other training styles that differ from what you believe is optimal. There's no point to this.

I'm doing two high intensity workouts a week.
FBW / each exercise is taken to failure with two further attempts after taking five deep breaths, so technically it's a bit more than just one set.
Three workouts a week would be doable short term but not sustainable, I tried that and I quickly stalled or couldn't recover properly, so two trainings a week were determined through natural elimination.
Hard to say if it's ideal but I make strength gains as an advanced lifter and save a lot of time.

>>76519939
More like:
>HIT doesn't work because volume and frequency are too low
"Oh yeah, what about this genetic phenom who abused steroids and trained for like a year under arthur jones, after having already built almost all of his physique, who had him do full body workouts ~3x a week?"
>You're arguing just to argue.
You seem to have missed the point of this thread which is literally titled "Once a week frequency".

Did arthur jones have sergio olivia train muscles only once a week?
Yes or no. Should be easy to answer.

>>76519839
>t says so in that very article
Where?

>>76520092
>Did arthur jones have sergio olivia train muscles only once a week?
Did I claim that he did? Oliva doesn't specify a frequency in that article. Knowing Jones of the 1970s, it was probably full body, 3x per week, like you said. That's not why I posted it. I didn't claim that it was 1x per week frequency.
>after having already built almost all of his physique
Lmao. The last pound of muscle is always the most difficult to build. The last centimeter of circumference is always the most difficult to add. It literally doesn't matter if a bodybuilder built 99% of his physique with routine A. If routine B built the very last pound, that proves routine B is superior. But that's a separate discussion.
>You seem to have missed the point of this thread which is literally titled "Once a week frequency".
You are the one that deviated from the topic of the thread! The first two mentions of HIT in this thread were from your comments here: >>76518063 & >>76518344
I was content to talk about Heart and Richardson, both naturals, both using the 1x per week frequency you demanded.

I'd like to add something on the topic of Jones. He later revised his frequency downward, dramatically. I would recommend reading his 1997 publication. See picrel.

>>76507346
>no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level,
Got another one for you: Andy Palmer.
>ANB British Title winner in 1997.
>UIBBN Natural World Champion in 1997.
>Competed in the WNBF Worlds three times. Places 5th out of 48. Does a two-way split, frequency of 1x per week.

>>76507346
>no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level
Here's another: Ben Howard, another British pro bodybuilder that went on to win the WNBF pro lightweight division.
He trains a 1x per week frequency, sort of PushPullLegs, but it seems like there's a couple things moved around.
https://youtu.be/O6msx-fweoE?si=3ng8VbO72B2soehU

>>76507346
>no one has ever truly trained a muscle only once a week and made gains at an advanced level
I'm going to keep posting these until you swallow your pride and admit that you're wrong.
Matt Argall was a UIBBN world champion and a WNBF pro competitor. He says in the video linked below that he does a traditional PushPullLegs split MonWedFri.
https://youtu.be/lDuWLv6HYMY?si=46iEH-CZIgd8QhfP
It looks to me like there's a lot of merit to this comment here >>76508675. It seems to be really popular in the UK.

>>76520540
>knowing it was probably full body 3x a week like you said
Yes!
>You are the one that deviated from the topic of the thread
My critique of HIT is related to the ridiculously low frequency and volume frequently used.
>Heart
>Richardson
I don't know how these people actually train or trained at their peak, all I have is their word and taking a look at their photos years previously I can't tell if they even maintained size.
>pic
You should have highlighted all the "ifs" of the last paragraph.
Arthur jones never had a bodybuilder train once every third week.
Arthur jones just like mentzer after him lost the plot close to the end of their careers.
This is what arthur jones believed was the ideal routine, at least for a time.
>>76520543
The highlighted text makes sense, if you check some of the templates like pic related you can find that the rest times are ridiculously short and some muscles do get like 3-5 sets all to failure, doing that 3x a week is likely to be way too much for average people, but the fact he had to address that shows that his version of HIT was indeed originally full body 3x a week.
This matters because a lot of people will attach themselves onto some training style or scene and then justify their loyalty by pointing out examples of success from the past which don't actually represent what they are defending.
>>76520857
Never heard of him to be frank.
>>76520991
I like that dude followed, tried training like him and got nowhere.
It's safe to assume his alleged results with such minimalistic training aren't replicable by the average person knowing what happens when real people have their training supervised and there's no room for obfuscations or leaving things out.
>>76521047
>He says in the video linked below that he does a traditional PushPullLegs split MonWedFri.
He says.
Has he made any gains training like that?
>It seems to be really popular in the UK
Might have something to do with the laws pertaining to steroid possession/use.

>>76517693
You're right. It's delusion. I give up.

When I was a teenager getting into lifting I just did everything everyday making some steady gains.
This obviously didn't last long so the first program I learned about was the brosplit, hitting the muscle once a week.
I dropped that dumbass shit so fast, you'd have better progress going by intuition alone.

>>76506652 (OP)
>Just train once a week bro
Is this for giga-old natties who are so "natty" they don't even believe in cherry juice?

I get how doing Rich's 8 hour arm workout every day is gonna keep your cytokines so high you turn into a big fibrosis, but training only once a week just seems like some kinda lazy skill issues.

>>76522288
>Is this for giga-old natties who are so "natty" they don't even believe in cherry juice?
I think it's especially inappropriate for natties, young or old, they'd have trouble recovering from the stimulus and volume crammed in one day.

>>76522310
just do upper/lower x4 per week

>>76506652 (OP)
this is not news. It is well known that a proper brosplit 6days/wk will make you bigger than your standard PPL. The reason PPL is more popular is that it allows for 3days/wk routines which more people can manage.

>>76507127
Just because you hide it under a fancy nostalgic 'silver era' name doesn't mean the guys looked good.

>>76522263
>>76522288
>>76522310
When you are a beginner you can get away with training a lot but intermediates and advanced will always get recovery problems because they are able to recruit more motor units and thus activate more muscle fibers higher up in the motor unit pool which are more easily damaged and actually have potential to grow.
Well trained people need to juggle recovery with stimulus and atrophy,
>>76522362
That's hackenschmidt from the bronze era, he looked way more impressive when he was lean.
Pic related is bobby pandour also from the bronze era, if you check his training methods you might just get a heart attack.

Seems like you guys are in the know ITT, are there any studies or people who advocate for high frequency, very low intensity training, in the 50-65% of 1rm range? Is that a thing anyone suggests?

You will NEVER be real scientists and you will always be scammers and chumps. Fear-driven cattle who hinder real independent and critical thinkers.

>>76522457
>are there any studies or people who advocate for high frequency
All of the muscle physiology literature does.
>very low intensity training, in the 50-65% of 1rm range?
It wouldn't work well.
50-65% loads are what you could do for 20 reps to failure
If you don't go to failure with such light loads you will accumulate less fatigue but you also won't stimulate any appreciable amount of growth, and if you go to failure with such warmup weights you will stimulate growth but also impair your recovery far more than you would with heavier loads.

>>76522803
>14-18 sets a week
>deloads every 5 weeks
>3 plate deadlift, 2 plate squat, 1.5 plate bench
>"feels" recovered
He fell for the high volume RP/Stronger by science meme, many such cases.

>>76523090
>growth
Oddly enough, I'm doing it for strength. I'm 36, been lifting on and off for years, completely unable to "muscle memory" my way back to the lifts I got in my 20s. Last time I attempted a strength program I got tendinitis all over, from squat and bench.
On a whim I deloaded and started doing 20 rep sets, and the PRs in this range have been slowly increasing my 1rm.

>>76523144
I'm in my 30's too and I don't have any pain or discomfort on any of my joints while training close to failure with heavy loads(80%+ of 1RM) even training muscles multiple times a week.
I experimented with high volumes years back and I did start to feel pain around the bicep tendon but I just dropped volume a ton and it went away.
I find that people that have tendon pain tend to have very high volume training backgrounds which leaves them with lingering tendon/cartilage damage and they "feel" like light-load high rep work helps with the pain, but I bet that does absolutely nothing for tendon stiffness or tendon damage recovery and in fact it just wears your tendons out even more.
I don't have a source for this, it's just what I find to be the case from training with dozens of people with such problems, they never get tendon pain just from training heavy, there's always something in the past that they used to do which was excessive in volume and it's just that training heavy after the fact just exposes that damage.
>Last time I got tendinitis all over, from squat and bench
You don't have to do those exercises if they hurt your knees/back/shoulders.
If your pec tendon attaching to the shoulder is what hurts in a bench consider doing a close grip bench or just use machines that alleviate the stretched position somewhat.
If squats hurt your knees try to focus on the muscles behind the kneecap, maybe you have some severe muscle imbalance.

Idk just some thoughts.
>On a whim I deloaded and started doing 20 rep sets
If you go to failure on those you will still stimulate growth and even strength, it's just that it will be less efficient and harder to recover from.
You will probably have to do less sets than the average person to compensate for the harder recovery.

But if that's really the only way you can train then keep doing it, pretend I never said anything, motivation+consistency matters.

>>76523233
>I'm in my 30's too and I don't have any pain or discomfort on any of my joints while training close to failure with heavy loads(80%+ of 1RM) even training muscles multiple times a week.
For many years I didn't have any pain, it appeared recently like half a year ago, but before that the issue with not being able to get my previous strength back persisted.
>damage and they "feel" like light-load high rep work helps with the pain
Not just help, it stopped within a week. I don't think I have damage but there's definitely something wrong with me, I mean Rippetoe has geezers doing starting strength and I couldn't handle that.
>You don't have to do those exercises if they hurt your knees/back/shoulders.
If your pec tendon attaching to the shoulder is what hurts in a bench consider doing a close grip bench or just use machines that alleviate the stretched position somewhat.
May as well kill myself. Thankfully I don't have to avoid them or switch exercises.
>If you go to failure on those
I do a lot of pause rest sets of 20, I don't go all out often. I feel fresh all the time. It's almost like just putting the reps in is slowly working, without maxing out for stimulus.
>But if that's really the only way you can train then keep doing it
Seems so, I haven't tried going back to training 75%+ to see if I'm cured, I'm just glad even when I test my 1rm the pain is gone.

>>76516268
>https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/fulltext/2011/07000/exercise_dosing_to_retain_resistance_training.7.aspx
Figure 3:
The G7 group did not lose strength during the 'reduced training' period.
From the discussion:
>after a 12-week period of forced reduced training frequency, it seems that muscle strength, muscle mass, and aerobic power could only be preserved at the same levels as those at the end of a systematic training period if training stimulus is provided every 7 days
This study was also done on "young females". How hard were they really pushing? The participants were doing concurrent aerobic training? How much could they have grown if they had cut that out?
>ttps://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/12/7/198
Table 2:
One-ninth young, one-ninth old, one-third young, and one-third old groups all got stronger between the 16wk to 48wk marks.
TLDR: The two studies you linked show that you can maintain or grow using a 1x per week frequency.