Thoughts on training frequency

Reading through some articles on HST (hypertrophy specific training) website got me thinking about training frequency. That is, how many times per week is it optimal to have resistance training sessions. Of course, "optimal" assumes certain criteria. In other words, optimal in what sense.

So I went on a quest to find out how often is too often and where the golden optimum lies. I ran into a couple of articles on that very topic. The first one suggests that 3 times a week sessions produce more strength and lean mass gains than 1 time a week in trained subjects - with the SAME total volume of exercise! In other words, they claim that if you split the same training volume (# sets X reps X weight) into 3 separate sessions you will get better gains than if you do them all in a single weekly session. It makes sense to me although the key here appears to be the same weekly volume, which I think is extremely important and adds a lot of value to the study.

At the same time there was another article I stumbled onto with a similar setup. The only difference was they used two groups of untrained individuals (both men and women) and had 2 sessions per week vs 3 sessions. The volume (sets * reps * weight) was the same, again. At the end of 6 week training period no distinct differences were observed between the two groups. I.e. the results appeared very similar in terms of strength and lean mass gains. They suggested that it's the total weekly volume that matters - not so much the frequency per week.

Now, of course there were differences in the initial setup - trained vs untrained so that could be a factor as well. Plus no two environments are absolutely identical. However, those results still carry some value and may contain important clues.

Namely, it seems natural to conclude that there indeed is such a thing as optimal frequency given the same total weekly volume under certain criteria (for instance, maximum lean mass gains or strength with minimum sessions per week, etc.) and of course it would vary from person to person.

Let's compare three programs: P1, where weekly volume is done in one session; P2 (where it's split into two sessions) and P3 (when it's split into three smaller sessions - 1/3 volume each). Now if we assume that for a given person P1 turns out to be less efficient than P3 and there's no apparent difference between the results produced by P2 and P3, then we will have to conclude that P2 is the optimal program based on our set criteria simply because it produces higher gains with fewer sessions per week.

So does it mean that 2 sessions a week is a magic number? Well, not necessarily. First, everyone is different. I am sure that among the tested individuals there were fast gainers (those who gained more on P1 than most on P3) and slow gainers (those who had low or no gains regardless of the program). Secondly, it would be nice to see if an even higher frequency (say, 4 or 5 smaller sessions a week) would produce higher or lower gains - again, under the same volume. Also, it would be really interesting to see if higher volume would produce even greater gains and to what degree (clearly there would be a limit to the volume after which overtraining will set in and hinder the progress).

Now the question remains: why is it that 3 smaller sessions a week turn out to be more effective than a single big session in terms of muscle gains and strength even if total volume stays the same? The mechanism is not quite clear to me, however, I could see a couple of possible reasons. First, possibly because of the body's limited ability to recover and supercompensate for damaged fibers after a single higher volume session. Second, possibly because of some muscle loss due to several days of deconditioning, although I doubt that 7 days of relative inactivity is a period long enough to cause any significant loss in lean mass. One other thing, we don't know if nutrition and rest pattern could be a factor. Hypothetically, it is easy to imagine that a higher nutritional and caloric intake might be required for the body to promote optimal post-exercise recovery and ensure growth after a very intense single session compared to a smaller session, especially in the first 24-48 hours, so I wonder if that was taken into consideration or not.

The take-away message... Frequency is great but let's not forget that the most critical part here was, again, the controlled overall volume, which was kept constant for both tested groups! It's just that the post on the HST blog (written by the HST founder Bryan Haycock, who I deeply respect) that quoted the first article made it sound as if working out 3 times a week is better than once a week, period. But it may create a false impression that frequency is the single critical factor without much regard for overall volume, which can be a dangerous conclusion. Yes, the study suggests that working out 3 times proved to be more efficient than 1 single session, but each of those 3 sessions was only 1/3 of the volume of that single session!! I'm sure that's what Brian had in mind but somehow it wasn't made very clear in the post - well, not to me anyway. So if I were to summarize the main idea of the study it would sound something like: Weekly training volume (# of sets X reps X exercises) split into several smaller sessions (2 or 3) proves to be more effective than when done in one single session a week. Now that goes well along with the idea of HST, which makes a lot of sense to me.

The trick is, in my opinion, to find such weekly volume that doesn't lead to overtraining and yet provides enough stimuli to make body grow. Once we found it - then we can tweak the frequency till our heart's content - for instance, split the volume in two, three or even four smaller sessions a week. And then see what works best for you.

P.S. Btw, training volumes in both studies were different. In study 1 (1 vs 3) they used 3 sets to failure for each exercise - either done in one session or split into three. In the second study the weekly volume was 6 sets to fatigue for 9 exercises, split into two or three sessions respectively...

Maximum Muscle, Minimum Fat (cycles). Continued

So... cycles. From what I understand building tissue (muscle) and burning fat are two separate processes - opposite to each other in a way. I am not totally sure why but apparently because they require completely diffirent hormonal environments; backgrounds, if you will. Insulin plays a key role in creating/promoting anabolic environment for the new tissue to be built, however at the same time it effectively shuts down fat burning cycle as it inhibits lypolisis. Additionally, it seems that lypolisis runs most efficiently when the glycogene pool is depleted, which makes sense because it forces the body to switch from carbs to fats as the main fuel. At the same time, lack of carbs appears to slow down protein synthesis. So in theory even if it is possible for synthesis and glycolisis to run in parallel it will definitely be far from optimal.

That logically brings us to the cycling concept. Namely, that processes of building new tissue and breaking down fats for energy take place - at most optimal level - at different times.

Now I don't really believe that the only way to do that (or most efficient way for that matter) is to phase it like professional bodybuilders have been doing for years. I.e. you go muscle building in the off-season for months on end and then cut your calories drastically to trim down in pre-season for another 2 or 3 months (and those seem to be months from hell). I do believe that there is a way to utilize much smaller cycles - like 48-72 hour cycles, for example. The rates of muscle gain (as well as fat loss) will probably be smaller as you won't be able to exercise 5-6 times a week with high intensity but I feel that this can be a milder alternative which will also allow you to stay lean and still build muscle throughout the year.

For example I could imagine a cycle consisting of a 48 hour muscle building phase following an intensive resistance training session with muscle building type of diet/nutrition (proper combination of carbs, protein and calories); then switching to fat loss phase for the next 48-72 hours and so on.

...to be continued

Diet/Training (five weeks in) - Aug 22, 2009

Ok, now 5 weeks into IF. I am sticking to 16/8 regime, which means 16 hours of undereating and 8 hours of overeating, which is really eating - I don't think I overdo it. During undereating phase, which usually lasts from 11pm till 3pm the next day all I eat is fresh veggies throughout the morning and early afternoon. It usually totals to about 2 servings of veggies - those include broccoli, cauliflower, celery, cherry tomatoes and - of course - pickles. I may have an occasional cup of coffee (although I'm not huge on coffee) to stimulate adrenaline just a tad bit - to add fuel into fat burning furnace. I am not afraid to overdo it because I'm not really a coffee fan - so two cups a day would be rare.

Last Saturday caliper measurements showed 9 mm vs. 10 mm the week before. It was great! Other measurements also slightly improved last week. However this Saturday caliper showed 10mm again which was a little disappointing as I thought I was sticking to my regime pretty strictly. On a bright side my waist shrunk by 1/2" and the weight went down to 204.6 from 205.2 last week. So I decided to not let the subtle increase in caliper readings set me back. Let's see what happens in the next couple of weeks. People keep commenting on me looking leaner so that's a good sign no matter what caliper says.

Monday through Wednesday I spent with friends at a cabin they rented on Clear Lake - absolutely gorgeous and peaceful place - a true sanctuary of tranquility. Didn't exercise much - but we walked a lot - on average 3-4 hours daily.

This Saturday I had a great workout at the gym. My weights went slightly up. I still do mostly legs (squats, leg presses and leg extensions) and back (pullovers, cable rows and cable pulldowns) plus I throw in a couple of other exercises. Usually DB curls, and cable crossovers or dumbell flyes. I don't do bench and I avoid any presses that involve shoulders because my LC joints are still bothering me - although not as much as a couple weeks before.

I make sure to take in simple carbs before and during workout. I find that it keeps me energized throughout my routine (which does not exceed 45-60 min). I also eat a protein bar right after my workout, followed by a hearty protein/complex carb meal about 30-40 min later. One thing I noticed since I had started the program is that I feel GREAT after my Saturday workouts. I no longer feel exhausted, sleepy and fatigued the way I used to and I LOVE this feeling!!

I chant my "lean body" mantra every day as well plus I use Frank Zane's images on my desktop for motivation. I also have his little quarterly magazines laying all over the place so I run into his extremely balanced and lean physique wherever I go around the house. His physique (as it was in early 80's) is the type I visualize myself developing.

So, another great day and off to a leaner and more muscular body!!

Maximum Muscle, Minimum Fat (cycles)

I have been reading Ori Hofmekler's "Maximum Muscle - Minimum Fat". What can I say - I love this book! It's a little deep into biochemistry and physiological terminology, so I can see how it may scare off some readers. Most important thing for me is that it "rings my truth" meaning that reading this book makes me feel that I'm getting somewhere, that I'm on the right track in my quest. It makes sense to me. To a significant degree.

I've been getting increasingly tired and frustrated from hearing things and rules served as ultimate truths over the last few years. They are usually referred to as "myths", although in truth I wouldn't always call them that. I believe that all they are is partial truths, or opinions/beliefs based on partial truths. The funny part about partial truths is that they can even seemingly contradict to each other and still be valid to a point. Partial point, that is. A few simple examples:

• "To build muscle you should eat plenty of protein, otherwise you body will not grow". It certainly makes sense, since protein is a critical tissue building component, however the key questions to ask are "How much is 'plenty'?", "How much is 'too little'?" and "How much is 'too much'?". I remember seeing studies where much smaller amounts of protein intake than those widely accepted in bodybuilding community (1 g per lb) were found sufficient to sustain muscle and stimulate growth.
• "When you're hungry - your body is already losing muscle". Although it is true that long periods of fasting may indeed lead to some muscle proteins being metabolized for energy, there is sufficient evidence that such breakdown does not happen until after 24-48 hours of fasting.
• "To burn fat you need to do lots of cardio". This has been around for years as well. It too makes certain sense and is based on a well supported claim that low-to-moderate intensity aerobic exercise indeed uses fat as fuel in a higher degree than higher intensity (anaerobic) exercises. That doesn't mean though that, say, resistance training is totally useless for fat burning purposes. There is also evidence that high intensity exercise triggers certain hormonal response that raises metabolic rate for up to 24 hours, which means that the body tends to use more energy in post-exercise period. That's why interval training has become very popular in the recent years.
• "You have to work your body at least 3 times a week, otherwise you start losing muscle". This rule caused me a lot of grief. As obsessed as I was overtraining almost became my constant companion for years. I realize that for an average person three times a week with fairly light weights might be a good enough starting point. But I was never able to maintain heavy workouts three times a week for any extensive periods of time. After a few weeks fatigue would start setting in and I remember cutting my training short simply because I couldn't maintain the intensity I thought I needed to maintain. There is evidence of people working out twice or even once a week (for some HIT supporters, for instance) and still growing muscle and getting amazing results.
• "Free weights are the way to go. Machines are for wussies." vs "Machines allow you to hit your muscles from various angles better than free weights can." Both ar partial truths and/or opinions.

So why was I getting tired of those? Because, like many of us, I, too, had been conditioned to following the rules. There was always some authority figure (parent, teacher, government, supervisor, fitness guru) to tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing - what to eat, how to study, who to marry. And of course how to exercise. I was religiously following advices abundantly given away in many bodybuilding and fitness books. Listening to my own body wasn't really one of them. So I kept ignoring my body's cry for help until I could no longer ignore it. Linear mindset made me keep pushing. "The more - the better", "The harder the better", "No pain - no gain". I thought the reason I wasn't getting results was because I wasn't trying hard enough, so I kept pushing and pushing and pushing. Until one day I finally realized that years of pushing and following different advices didn't really get me any closer to the body of my dreams. Fatigue and frustration seemed to be the only things that I was left with at the end of the day - after 20 years of trying. Time came to face a painful question: WHAT TO DO NOW?

Why can't I get the body I want? By that time I pretty much realized that systems and approaches I had used didn't yield the results I wanted. Not because they didn't work in general. Most of them had some partial truths behind them. But because they didn't work for me. So it was time to start my own quest...

That's some long intro now, isn't it? :-))

Now back to Ori's book. He's a big supporter of what is now known as Intermittent Fasting (IF). I read his "The Warrior Diet" before and it makes a lot of sense to me. The main idea that really appeals to me is that there is cycle to any physiological process in our body. We sleep - we are awake, we feel full - we feel hungry, we feel tired - we feel rested, and so on. Everything fluctuates in our bodies, pretty much like in all of nature. Heart beat, blood pressure, hormonal levels, etc. What if linearity is not inherent to our bodies? Would it make sense that body loses fat and builds muscle in cycles rather than at a steady pace?

What if the fact that many women fail to drop weight despite very restricted daily calories (sometimes down to 800-1000) has something to do with this "linearity issue"? What if body simply adjusts to living off a very "fixed income"? Think about it. Let's say you live in a big house with a wife, two kids, two dogs and two cars. You make $5000 a month between you and your spouse. Then all of a sudden she loses her job. You income drops to, say, $3500 a month. What do you do? Well for the first couple of weeks you may try to maintain the same lifestyle. However, after a while you realize that something has to change. What? Well, first you cut back on some expenditures. Most likely you won't go cutting grocery list - not in the first place anyway. First to go will likely be your son's soccer class, your daughter's dance studio, and your weekly dining at a local steak house. Along follows high-speed internet (you switch to "light"), second phone line and 1000 channels satelite package (you can get away with "basic" plan). Then you switch to lower premiums on your second car and your wife starts using email instead of spending hours on the phone with her girlfriend in Europe. Then your Hawaiian vacation may be put on hold. But even now, you still live in the same house, you don't give up on your kids or your dogs. You don't go renting out your wife either (just joking). You don't cut back on food or health - at least not for awhile and not until it gets worse. Well, you get the picture.

So in comes premise #1. I suspect that something like that happens to our body when put under caloric restriction. It strives to live on reduced "income" while maintaining as much of its functionality as it can.

Premise #2. Non-linearity. The book contains some indication that fat-burning (lipolytic) and muscle-building (anabolic) processes do not occur simultaneously. In fact they seem to be almost antagonistic in nature. For instance, insulin - known as an anabolic precursor - is also known to severely reduce lipolysis (the main fat-burning process). In other words, when insulin level raises (usually after food, especially rich in carbohydrates) it effectively shuts down the fat burning factory. And it makes sense if you think about it. Carbs appear to be the "fastest" fuel for the body to metabolize because they require fewer steps to convert them into energy compared to proteins or lipids. So body prefers them whenever they become available. However (fortunately or unfortunately) body can only store this much glycogen (up to 400 g on average) which doesn't last very long. When the body runs low of glycogene it is forced to switch to two of the other sources: stored fat and proteins. This is apparently where the fat-burning furnace gets to work. I am not 100% sure how exactly body decides which source to use when it runs out of glycogen. There is some evidence that when subjected to low-to-moderate intensity exercise body uses fat acids as a primary source (when glycogen is not available), whereas under a heavy load more protein starts breaking down for energy.

The important part is that in order to make the body switch from glycogen to fat acids as a primary source of energy (which seems to be the main process behind fat loss) it is reasonable to suggest that two conditions must be met:

• Glycogene pool must be depleted (at least to some degree)
• Exercise (if any) has to be kept at low-to-moderate intensity (to minimize muscle breakdown)

So, in theory, if you engage in low-to-moderate intensity exercise when your body is in the fasting or near-fasting state (glycogene depleted) it will be forced to burn fat for fuel as a primary source.

But if that's the case then let's take it to the extreme and ask ourselves: why can't we simply stop eating for a week and go on a treadmill for 3 hours a day and burn 7 lbs of fat in a week - clean and simple?

Here's my take on it. Aforementioned conditions must be met but it's not enough. I suspect that two things prevent it from happening. First, it seems like fat cells in our body are not only used as a convenient energy deposit boxes but also as containers for toxins. When toxins enter our body and when it can't neutralize and dispose of them immediately it will wrap them in fat and put them away. Much like criminals frozen in cryocells in futuristic movies. When a fat cell gets pulled off the shelf and broken down for energy it may also release toxins into the blood stream. Too many of those can overwhelm the immune system and cause mild-to-severe poisoning (symptoms of poisoning occurring after 3-4 days of fasting are very well documented - I actually experienced it myself about 20 years ago) so the body will try to wrap them back in fat in a desperate attempt to keep the system clean. At which time I would assume it would trigger some mechanism that would start breaking down more and more of muscle protein to provide energy.

Secondly, it appears, that there's some kind of regulatory mechanism that is dependent on a level of ketones in the blood...

Therefore, timing-wise it makes sense to separate those two processes - building muscle and cutting fat. So the idea of cycles makes a lot of sense to me. Or I should mini-cycles...

(to be continued)

Diet/Training (three weeks in)

Here's what happened. I have effectively switched to a slightly different variation of IF (intermittent fasting) after the first week of being on a Warrior Diet. I found it difficult for me to fit enough calories into one huge meal a day so I decided to switch to a 16/8 schema (see Martin Berkhan's site for more info on it) which means 16 hours of underfeeding/fasting and 8 hours (feeding phase). Actually with my work schedule it works out more like 17/7 or even 18/6, where I eat my first meal of the day when I get home at 5pm and I'm usually done eating before 11pm anyway as I go to bed around 11:30.

I also slightly diverted from Martin's original plan (he assumes complete fasting during those 16 hours - no food, only drinks with no calories). I do eat during the underfeeding phase - only I limit myself to fresh veggies, which includes broccoli, califlower, celery, cherry tomatoes (yumm! love those) and, of course, pickles - up to a total of 1-1.5 portions (one Ziploc container) spread throughout the morning and afternoon. Whenever I feel hungry I just open my Ziploc container and pop a piece of celery, a little bit of cauliflower or broccoli, a cherry tomato and half a pickle and I'm good to go again. I have to say that bouts of hunger are a lot less severe now and I usually don't put anything in my mouth till about 9-9:15am and then I spread the rest over remaining hours till about 4pm which is just before I leave the office. Plus, every now and then I would mix some whey protein - about half a scoop - with hot water (tastes like hot chocolate) and sometimes add a bit of coffee as well. So it totals to a 1-1.5 scoops which gives me about 24-36 g of additional protein. I would estimate the total caloric intake during the underfeeding phase somewhere between ~80-100 (veggies only) and ~200-280 (veggies + protein).

After the first week I estimated my weight loss at about 2 lbs (I wasn't thoughtful enough to weigh in right before I started), which sounds about right for me, as I plan on maintaining my lean muscle mass as much as possible and going over 2 lbs per week usually means that more muscle is metabolized for energy along with fat. So the weigh-in was at 206.8.

After the second week I was down to 204.8, which meant another 2 lbs off. Also, sadly enough, I didn't even measure myself which I usually do quite religiously. But judging by the fact that I started using the next hole on my belt that I hadn't used for a loooooong while looks like I made some progress since those holes are about 2/3 of an inch apart so it's safe to assume that my waistline shrunk by about that much as well.

Half way through week 3 I pulled out my old caliper and measured the IC (iliac crest) fold - why didn't I think about it sooner? It measured at 10mm and I plan on doing it from this point on.

As far as exercise goes: I do my kung fu classes 3 times a week (2 times during summer) and I do my 4-minute Tabata cycles twice a week and I decided to do weights once a week as well. So I went to the "Y" on Saturday afternoon for a full body workout. I enjoyed it a lot - especially because Saturday afternoon is not the busiest time - so I had all the racks and machines readily available. I focused on major groups: did squats, pullovers, rows, pulldowns. My shoulder joints were really sore last week so I had to take it easy on them this last Saturday. I avoided any pressing movements that put a lot of stress on my joints and did more pulls and flyes instead.

To my surprise, my muscles were not as sore as I could have expected. Usually they are very sore the second next day but these last two times they weren't - only slightly. And I like that feeling!

The not so inspiring news - week 3 weigh-in was 205.4 - which means I gained about half a pound compared to a week before. Although I decided that it may have been due to some added lean mass. So I'll wait to see week 4 results before I go and make adjustments.

I feel energized and not nearly as lethargic as I used to be. So on to new hights - towards that lean and shining muscular physique!!