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!!