Over the
years, one of the subjects most discussed is the issue of how frequently one should work a given body part. When I first started training in 1974 (at the age of 14), many of the bodybuilding magazines (...the early versions of Muscular Development, Iron Man Magazine, Strength and Health, Muscle Builder Power, etc.) often printed profiles of the top names at the time, along with their workout programs.
In the mid 70s, the popular belief was that a bodybuilder should ideally train a body part three times per week. For example, it was common to see an article about Arnold Schwarzenegger, outlining his workout program as follows:Chest, Back and Shoulders on Monday, Wednesday and Friday..... Arms and Legs on Tuesday, Thursday and Saturday. Of course, many of the guys back then would spend half the day in the gym. They’d work chest in the morning, their back in the afternoon, and their shoulders in the evening. That’s right - those guys were doing 20 sets (or more) per body part, three times per week ! I don’t know anyone who does that today, and I know a lot of people.
The trend today is much less frequency, and high volume. I’ve recently spoken with numerous bodybuilders who only work one body part per day. It takes them a week to work each of their muscle groups one time - but when they work it, they kill it. “Volume” training is now in vogue - so guys (and gals) do super-high-intensity workouts consisting often times of marathon sets. They work a given muscle until it’s so fatigued they can barely move it - and then they rest it for a week. I’m not saying this is wrong, necessarily. These guys are often huge, so clearly they’re doing something right. But not all of us are born with excellent genetics, nor willing to take as many “supplements” as some are willing to take.
I read an interesting article recently, which brought up some compelling questions, which are at the heart of this discussion. Here are the questions we should all be asking ourselves, in seeking the ideal “frequency” of workout.
1. Are 20 sets for a body part in a given workout, four times more productive 5 sets?
2. Does doing 20 sets for a body part require four times more recovery time, than doing 5 sets?
3. At what point (how many sets for a body part, in a given workout) does “over-training occur”, and what is the consequence of it ?
4. How many days does it take for a muscle to fully adapt to (achieve full benefit from) a given workout ?
5. How many days does it take for a muscle to fully de-condition (lose the benefit) from a given workout ?
So, let’s examine the first question. Assuming our goal is achieve maximum stimulation of a muscle, during a given workout, how many sets is “ideal”? According to some studies (1), sufficient stimulation can be had with an intense few sets. In other words, if we are to believe what these studies suggest, doing more than 3 or 4 sets for a body part does not necessarily produce significantly more stimulation for the muscle to grow. It would, however, require more time to recover - which begins addressing the second question. We’ll come back to that one in a minute.
It’s not clear at what point “over training” occurs, but we can surmise that it occurs sometime after “optimum stimulation”. If optimum stimulation occurs after about 3 or 4 intense sets, over-training might begin to occur after about 5 or 6 sets (assuming they are intense sets). So - let’s speculate a bit - if a person did 15 sets for a particular muscle, in a given workout, he (or she) could be in the over-training zone for the last 10 of those sets. That would mean that those last 10 sets were unproductive, and a waste of precious resources. Worse - it could be catabolic (destructive).
After slamming a particular muscle with 15 intense sets, 10 of which might have been over-depleting the muscle to a degree bordering on “injury”, the muscle may now need to recover (heal) for about 3 days or more (as many as 6 days?), before being worked again.
If a muscle that is optimally stimulated reaches its “peak” - in terms of hypertrophy (growth inducement) - two days after a workout, it could be productively worked again at that point.
However, if a person has over-worked that muscle, it can’t be worked after only two days. It needs extra days of rest which could have otherwise been used to again stimulate the muscle. Further, there is a catabolic (destructive) effect in over-training, so now that muscle has taken a step or two backward. And, finally, let’s not forget that during that healing time, the muscle is likely de-conditioning.
Would it not have been better to not over-work the muscle during that workout, spare ourselves the required healing time (and possibly also the lost muscle), and have been able to work that muscle again sooner, thereby inducing more growth as soon as possible? This is the suggestion of Ryan Patrick - the author of that article - and I believe it makes good sense.
This analogy is like the concept of tanning. If one were to lay out in the sun for an “ideal” amount of time (15 minutes front, and 15 minutes back), they could lay out again the following day (for the same amount of time), and continue the “productive” process of having their skin get darker. But if they laid out the first day for an hour each side, it would have been “too much” (equivalent to “over-training”). Now, they are unable to lay out the following day, because they need to heal (i.e., they’re sun-burned). This results in lost opportunity for more productive sun the next day or two, as well as the breakdown of their skin, which now will take a step or two backwards, before it can begin moving forward again.
For the purpose of bodybuilding, the solution may be fewer sets, with more frequent workouts. The problem is, old habits are hard to break. We are accustomed to working a body part until it feels “adequately fatigued” - but that could be entirely the wrong method of measuring how much is “enough” muscle stimulation.
Here’s what I suggest. If you’re dissatisfied with the gains you’ve been making in your pursuit of muscle growth, take a break (assuming you’ve been training hard, of course). You may have been over-training. After a few days rest, start with a new approach. Begin testing how few sets you can do, and still create muscle growth.
Start with a full-body workout, three times per week. Work each muscle with just one exercise, doing about 3 intense sets for each (30 reps, 20 reps and 10 reps - adding weight each set). Rotate the exercises (if possible) for a each muscle, each time you work that muscle. For example, today you might do 3 sets of flat dumbbell presses for pecs. Next time you do pecs (two days later), you can do incline dumbbell presses. The following chest workout, you can do decline cables. And so on. Try that for about a month.
Then, the following month, you can try doing a two-way split: half the body on Monday, and the other half on Tuesday. Skip Wednesday, and work the first half again on Thursday, and the second half again on Friday. Skip Saturday and Sunday (or do only cardio exercise on your “off” days). This sort of split will allow you to do 4 or 5 sets per exercise - but still only one exercise per body part, per workout. Remember - the goal is to stimulate more often, so don’t work a muscle so hard that it requires more than two days of recovery.
You can continue experimenting, if you feel a need to do so (i.e., try to three way split, but still with fewer sets). But I suspect that greater gains will be realized with one of these two programs, than was occurring with the previous 15 to 20 sets per muscle, per workout, program. Less volume (still high intensity), but more frequency, makes sense. And it’s certainly worth a try, if for no other reason than that it’s easier (more rest days). It’s also likely that you’ve been over-training. In fact, it’s likely I’ve been over-training. And this experiment seems like a one that will result in success.
1. McLester, JR et al (2000), Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 14 (3); 273-81
Subscribe to RxMuscle on Youtube
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|||
