training each body part once a week vs. two

Well, I guess no one has a reasonable answer to the question so no need for me to continue asking it.  I thought for sure at least one person out of all the people here who swear by hitting a muscle 1 X weekly would be all over this offering up reasons for doing so..? 
 
Deadly.. you said..
 
"Also, I never said hitting a muscle group 2X or more is over training. I said hitting a muscle group MORE THAN 2X/week is over training. 
 
What is your definition of over-training?
 
You also said,
 
 "3 each workout 3X/week isn't going to cause the same damage as 9 sets 1X/week. You'll be recovering in between workouts." 
 
So are you implying that you need a full 6-7 days of recovery  before hitting the muscle again.. in another post you clearly stated that you thought it only took as little as 48 hours for a muscle to recover?
 
I guess I'm a little puzzled on your training philosophy.. Do you hit each muscle 1 X weekly or 2X? You stated in another post you go to failure every training session.. Do you go to failure on each and every set? 
 
If so, how do you manage to keep a progressive overload going and how do you deal with stalling?
 
If a person consistently lifts the same weight without progressing, the muscles will eventually stop responding.. how do you deal with this?
 
You're not a teenager.. you look like your pushing 30 years old.. maybe even older.. How to you incorporate lifting to failure every workout and still continue to progress? If you have no system to deal with this.. you would have stalled out years ago and just be lifting the same amount of weight week after week..
 
Are you suggesting that you've been training for years and your still getting stronger workout to workout..week to week or Month to month? At some point, the weight must be dropped down and some type of progression must take place.. if not, we would all be benching 1000 lbs and squatting 2 tons within a few years.. Most who have reached this point in their training use some type of periodized platform to deal with this problem, but all I've heard from you so far is you go to the gym day after day and lift to failure???  
 
I'm not trying to be a smartass by any means but I certainly understand the difficulties of trying to gain strength and size after years of training, and certain training techniques have to be initiated in order to continue moving forward and avoiding going to the gym day after day lifting the same amount of weight and getting no where..  If you're using PH's this might somewhat help the problem but isn't going to be an end all solution.. PH's are only good for so much.. again, I'm curious to hear your replies and maybe get a better understanding of your training philosophy..
 
 

There is never enough time to do everything, but there is always enough time to do the most important thing

 

David-TBH i havent read all the thread, too long in a subject im not terribly bothered about so i dont know peoples opinions on the matter, i just skim read a bit of everyones post.
 
I wasnt trying to contend with smound, more just ask questions in an enquiring way and saying something to state against what id read him say to see his reply.
If that makes sense....
 
If i misinterpreted smoundzou then sorry, i didnt realise.
 
If im repeating what smoundzou has already said, again, sorry

you're preaching to the choir my friend.. in most cases I think its perfectly acceptable to train a muscle within 36 hours.. however, it's just not practical for most..
 
For someone who has never worked out before, I think the frequency is fine, it's the intensity of the workout that may need to be lower.  I far less amount of stress on an untrained muscle is needed.  The problem being is.. most who are new to training listen to the muscle comics and go to the gym 5-6 days a week, train to failiure and end up getting injured.. that was my entire point in another post.. in another thread..
 
But thanks for jumping in and point that out.. the more who agree, the better the chances of some new person reading it and actually following it greatly increases...
 

ORIGINAL: twistedlink

smoundzou, a muscle can be trained within a 48-72 hour period and not have much detrimental effect.

However

A.Would you get a new lifter to do this?

I remember when i was new, and with the most shytest of workouts that involved simple curls and bench my entire body felt like it was hit by a truck for about 1 1/2 weeks, i could hardly move.

I agree with you that working muscle groups more than once per week is great, i just dont think its a good idea for anyone new into lifting until there body becomes more adapted to dealing with that kind of damage.

B.While a muscle can be hit again and still grow bigger the next time, there is a factor of metabolites which could bottleneck, certain other compounds might be detrimental or put unneeded stress on the body, a full 7 day recovery as they say is this, how the body flushes out all the metabolites and excess it used for the repair, if you dont give your body the needed time it could bottleneck, especially if youre a newb.

Overall though i agree with you, however hitting the muscles 100% 2 times or 3 times a week is something only roiders could do effectively.

When doing full body routines i personally find it best to do most sets to a 60-80% level, there is no point making 100% damage if the muscle can grow with 60% damage x 3 during the week.

Nobody can workout 180%, but do 3 days of 60%, you have the same microdamage.




What im about to post here ISNT ABSOLUTE, it is just a SUBJECTIVE experience

My biggest weight and strength gains has come about from doing a HST derivative/hybrid.
I find my results are better when my muscles are stressed more frequently.

However i find this to be possibly genetic, as ive seen split workers gain lots of muscle (albeit no way of saying whether theyre on anything) and seen full body workouts go to pot.

Ive also seen the opposite.

There is never enough time to do everything, but there is always enough time to do the most important thing

 

ORIGINAL: deadlysuperstar

3 each workout 3X/week isn't going to cause the same damage as 9 sets 1X/week. You'll be recovering in between workouts.

Plus, if I did 3 sets per muscle and hit my entire body, it wouldn't make any sense. I do 3 sets just for my rear delts.

Meaning...

3 chest + 3 back + 3 traps + 3 bis + 3 tris + 3 shoulder (lets just say that's all I do, but I don't) + 3 squats + 3 deads + 3 calves + 3 abs = 30 sets or 21 sets on upper body day w/my shoulders being neglected because I like doing presses, reverse pec dec, upright rows, and front/side lateral raises.

That's why.

Also, I never said hitting a muscle group 2X or more is overtraining. I said hitting a muscle group MORE THAN 2X/week is overtraining.

The volume of workout I do can't be filled in one day (something is gonna get neglected on my shoulders, I actually spend an entire workout on traps- hence them being the freakish part of my physique, and I have xtra testosterone in my system because I add it), and trying to cram it in, wash, rinse, repeat, just doesn't work for me.

I'm not telling anyone not to do it, I'm just saying it's garbage for me and nothing you or anyone else can say will make me change into some minimalist workout where muscles don't get damaged enough in one sitting.

Usually, "full body" workouts include no more than 3-5 compound exercies like squats, some pulls and some presses. Doing it the way you suggested with 30 sets would be silly indeed and can't be done with high intensity.

You can't really say something like 3 times a week is overtraining. It depends on too much things like volume, intensity and the lifter himself.

Also, you won't be recovered between the workouts unless you are a beginner, so you accumulate the stress.

I think you have a different picture of what is training the whole body, than most people here.

ORIGINAL: coldfire
I think you have a different picture of what is training the whole body, than most people here.

 
I'm still trying to figure out what his general training philosophies are in general.

There is never enough time to do everything, but there is always enough time to do the most important thing

 

This is all way too vague.  It's not even worth the discussion.

The hypothesis; "Training X times per week per muscle group is too much / too little" is void for the sole fact that the overall structure of the routine isn't available to be considered, not to mentioned individual reponse or initial requirement,

"Push / Pull / Legs isn't an established static routine.  It's merely a method of training constructed around the primary functions of the limbs of the human body.

There are so many potential variations individual circumstances which render an assumed hypothetical circumstance 100% redundant, which reflectively render the Internet a useless medium to prescribe a guessing game routine to people we haven't even met - certainly to the extent of presenting the detais that are here.

It's the equivalent of commenting on the benefits and requirements of running whilst there are 1001 variations of doing so and many types of people with different individual requirements who take part in the activity...

Training will differ regardless.  Some might benefit from the initial stage of overall stimulus via full body compound routines whilst others might be more established requiring more focus isolated work according to requirements, response and goal. An isolation movement could hypothetically be priority an an attempt to mend an imbalance before an individual indulges in more distrubuted overall stimulus (which might maintain or even worsen an existing imbalance).

Taring everyone with the beginner brush (as much as people portray themselves to be) isn't always appropriate.

A muscle doesn't need to fully recover before it's worked again.  It's mandatory tissue to move the limbs.  It doesn't die.  Lookup "dual factor theory" which staggers stimulus / induced hypertrophy with recovery.  By common sense alone we don't have to reach any preconceived "recovered" state before we can work (whilst stimulating growth) to any considerable degree again. 

The caveman didn't mature to hunt whilst he starved....

While I agree with most of what you've said.. There are still training protocols that accommodate 99% of the natural lifting population.. People are people, although some do respond differently, better or worse to particular types of training.. the variance is usually very small..  However the major differences are usually more apparent down the road by mature lifters.. It's what their muscles have adapted to.. as apposed to how their muscles responded in the beginning of their particular type of training.
 
 
 
My question regarding this entire conversation was, can anyone post any solid information, scientific, medical or biological that gives solid unbiased information on it being detrimental to work a muscle more than 1 X per week. As of yet, no one has posted any information from any noted sources that elaborates on this topic from a medial, scientific standpoint.
 
As your last sentence read...."The caveman didn't mature to hunt whilst he starved...."
 
I couldn't agree more...
 

ORIGINAL: kingkebabs

This is all way too vague.  It's not even worth the discussion.

The hypothesis; "Training X times per week per muscle group is too much / too little" is void for the sole fact that the overall structure of the routine isn't available to be considered, not to mentioned individual reponse or initial requirement,

"Push / Pull / Legs isn't an established static routine.  It's merely a method of training constructed around the primary functions of the limbs of the human body.

There are so many potential variations individual circumstances which render an assumed hypothetical circumstance 100% redundant, which reflectively render the Internet a useless medium to prescribe a guessing game routine to people we haven't even met - certainly to the extent of presenting the detais that are here.

It's the equivalent of commenting on the benefits and requirements of running whilst there are 1001 variations of doing so and many types of people with different individual requirements who take part in the activity...

Training will differ regardless.  Some might benefit from the initial stage of overall stimulus via full body compound routines whilst others might be more established requiring more focus isolated work according to requirements, response and goal. An isolation movement could hypothetically be priority an an attempt to mend an imbalance before an individual indulges in more distrubuted overall stimulus (which might maintain or even worsen an existing imbalance).

Taring everyone with the beginner brush (as much as people portray themselves to be) isn't always appropriate.

A muscle doesn't need to fully recover before it's worked again.  It's mandatory tissue to move the limbs.  It doesn't die.  Lookup "dual factor theory" which staggers stimulus / induced hypertrophy with recovery.  By common sense alone we don't have to reach any preconceived "recovered" state before we can work (whilst stimulating growth) to any considerable degree again. 

The caveman didn't mature to hunt whilst he starved....

There is never enough time to do everything, but there is always enough time to do the most important thing

 

I brought up Bill Starrs routine as an example of why it's more beneficial to work muscles that aren't fully recovered.

President of the Emancipation Detoxification. DBB's oldest forum group, punching baby seals since 2/12/08

its funny you say that because i am in "ED", and i have plenty of pictures of myself up btw

ask yet then if you don't believe me...  and i understand you need to keep up this hard ass facade because you think someone someday may use some random post on forum (which is ridiculous in itself) against you but seriously you are just really pathetic all the way around, give it up, i would venture a guess and say not to many people actually like you here, they may think you're funny but dont like you, you're a troll pretty simple.

What does that tell you if you need to keep blocking people?  Let me take a stab at this, you pussy out and dont have anything to actually say (which is true 100% of the time) other than repeating and reposting the same garbage you always have, does that sound about right.

You are right this is a place to discuss bodybuilding what % of your posts actually do that? I'll answer that for you, very few. 

OFF TOPIC: Carrot top has a better physique than you

ORIGINAL: deadlysuperstar

I just noticed the "Remove Subscription" link.

Usually I just stop returning to a thread to unsubscribe, but then shxtheads like you post immediately after me to pester me through my inbox.

SoccerPrincess, I don't care who likes me on this board. It's not a popularity contest, it's a place to discuss bodybuilding. You follow me around like a sick puppy trolling me. You are not the first. Go back to my first posts, you'll see jackasses like you are as cliche as dummies that type the phrase "wrestling is fake" and think they're accomplishing something clever.

Nothing you are doing is new, and guess what jackass? I have the largest blocked list on here, and fxck faces like you would rather talk shxt than block me. I don't think anyone has ever blocked me, so why don't you break some ground and be the first one to BLOCK ME, if I'm so unpopular. I've blocked you for good now, I can use the "Remove Subscription" link.

OFF TOPIC: Serena Williams has a bigger physique than you.


UNSUBSCRIBED USING THE "REMOVE SUBSCRIPTION" LINK.

 
his back is pretty impressive, besides..didnt u know serena's a man??? LOL

it seems to me itd be safe to say that deadly would benefit more from a split than most of tha ppl on this board because of his stage of development.  If he suddenly lowered tha volume way down and doing fullbody routines he wouldnt be progressing anymore. 

But for most ppl tha fullbody is tha best choice.

I find it ridiculous how i feel like im reading tha same post everytime i read what deadly has to say.  We get it. Youre bigger than everyone.  Its getting old.

18 yo
6'0" 208 lbs.
bulking

Deadly is too big???
 
I'm not seeing it.. From the setup posed pics he's posted of him and the ladies.. And I say that loosely.. he doesn't look 6'5 to me.. and his level of muscle development is no where near the point of being mature enough to need steroids to keep growing..... He'd do just fine on a fullbody.. would probably see more growth in a year than he's seen in the last two... if he's been training that long..
 
All this ****z about him needing to do this and do that in order to stimulate growth is nothing more than a big smoke screen.... To hear him talk you would think he was up for MR. Universe....
 
 
 
 

ORIGINAL: RollingStone

it seems to me itd be safe to say that deadly would benefit more from a split than most of tha ppl on this board because of his stage of development.  If he suddenly lowered tha volume way down and doing fullbody routines he wouldnt be progressing anymore. 

But for most ppl tha fullbody is tha best choice.

I find it ridiculous how i feel like im reading tha same post everytime i read what deadly has to say.  We get it. Youre bigger than everyone.  Its getting old.

There is never enough time to do everything, but there is always enough time to do the most important thing

 

well it seems to be me tha fullbody wouldnt get him enough, i mean hes been training for years...how can you keep progressing like that for that long with a fullbody?  Your pretty damn developed too smound.  How have your gains been on tha fullbody?  Seems like you would have to be putting in a lot of volume to be gaining at tha stage you are at.  Then again you must be sticking with what youre doing for a reason...

18 yo
6'0" 208 lbs.
bulking