# poll: frequency vs volume



## rangers97 (Nov 17, 2004)

Who thinks which is better? Less volume per workout, but more frequent workouts, or more volume per workout with less frequent workouts?


----------



## Flex (Nov 17, 2004)

more volume/w.o. w/less w.o.'s, mos. def.

you need adequate rest time, bro.

If you think you're gonna train your entire body within 2 days, and 3x's/week like Arnold, and grow, you've got another thing coming.


----------



## rangers97 (Nov 17, 2004)

ok when i say more frequent i dont mean every day.  I mean this...say you nomally do a chest/tri day with this: 3 sets bench press, 3 sets incline db press, 3 sets dips, 3 sets close grip bench presses.  By more frequent, less volume, I mean splitting up this workout into 2 days and adding other stuff along the way.  So on say monday you do 3 sets bench press, 3 sets dips, and on thursday you do 3 sets incline db press, 3 sets close grip bp.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 17, 2004)

I really enjoy doing full body routines.  As well, the current routine I am doing, Westside, calls for working the same body parts twice per week.  So, I voted for less volume but higher frequency.  However, I feel either way is just fine.  Both work, as long as you balance the levels of intensity and volume with the frequency.


----------



## Robboe (Nov 17, 2004)

Too many variables to properly estimate. It's more theoretical than anything.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 17, 2004)

TCD said:
			
		

> Too many variables to properly estimate. It's more theoretical than anything.



I voted based on preference, although I guess that's not what was asked.


----------



## Luke9583 (Nov 17, 2004)

everybody's different, and I bet everybody could still benefit from switching between the two periodically


----------



## rangers97 (Nov 17, 2004)

i guess it would be a preference thing, there is no scientific evidence that states either way is better.  I like the theory behind  the less volume more frequency thing though.  You can pound your chest to oblivion on a monday and have it be sore for 3 days and rest till the next monday, or use less volume on monday and then hit the chest again 3 or 4 days later as opposed to 7.  On the surface, one would think this is better, since you are using the muscles more and at the same time with the reduced volume allowing them to recover.  Who the hell knows, we just try and learn I guess.


----------



## dnale48 (Nov 17, 2004)

well right now im doing about 30 sets a day 5 days a week and i seem to be growing, but then again im a meso with good genetics and only 20 years old.


----------



## BigDyl (Nov 17, 2004)

This thread looks like a damn star wars reunion with darth vader, Luke, Superman and Cows.

I have no clue which method works better for hitting the muscle.  I have never tried the twice a week approach.  I think i may have to though.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 17, 2004)

rangers97 said:
			
		

> i guess it would be a preference thing, there is no scientific evidence that states either way is better.



This is not true, actually.  HST believes in using greater frequency for various reasons.  Here is the second princple of HST as stated on their website:



> *2) Acute vs. Chronic Stimuli*
> In order for the loading to result in significant hypertrophy, the stimulus must be applied with sufficient frequency to create a new "environment", as opposed to seemingly random and acute assaults on the mechanical integrity of the tissue. The downside of taking a week of rest every time you load a muscle is that many of the acute responses to training like increased protein synthesis, prostaglandins, IGF-1 levels, and mRNA levels all return to normal in about 36 hours. So, you spend 2 days growing and half a week in a semi-anticatabolic state returning to normal (some people call this recovery), when research shows us that recovery can take place unabated even if a the muscle is loaded again in 48 hours. So true anabolism from loading only lasts 2 days at best once the load is removed. The rest of the time you are simply balancing nitrogen retention without adding to it.


----------



## rangers97 (Nov 17, 2004)

well, like i said, the theory sounds good, but I would like some real world evidence.  CowPimp, you said you are doing a routine where you work each part twice a week.  Have you done once a week prior to this so that you can compare the two and tell us which worked better for you?

The thing that interests me is that when you are doing multiple set, multiple exercise routines, even say 6-9 total SETS per week for chest for example, is that when you finish that first set, the rest of the sets go downhill, to an extent so to speak.  If you did 3 sets of bench press first, and then 3 sets of incline db presses, the 1st set of the bench presses will be your best, and all subsequent sets will suffer at least a little bit.  If you did your benching on one day and incline presses on a DIFFERENT day, you will get the advantage on the inclines of being fresh that you would not get the other way, so i see it as a way to improve at least STRENGTH on all your lifts, maybe not size, but I can see how this could improve strength.  but you know what they say, strength breeds size, so who knows.....


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 17, 2004)

rangers97 said:
			
		

> well, like i said, the theory sounds good, but I would like some real world evidence.  CowPimp, you said you are doing a routine where you work each part twice a week.  Have you done once a week prior to this so that you can compare the two and tell us which worked better for you?
> 
> The thing that interests me is that when you are doing multiple set, multiple exercise routines, even say 6-9 total SETS per week for chest for example, is that when you finish that first set, the rest of the sets go downhill, to an extent so to speak.  If you did 3 sets of bench press first, and then 3 sets of incline db presses, the 1st set of the bench presses will be your best, and all subsequent sets will suffer at least a little bit.  If you did your benching on one day and incline presses on a DIFFERENT day, you will get the advantage on the inclines of being fresh that you would not get the other way, so i see it as a way to improve at least STRENGTH on all your lifts, maybe not size, but I can see how this could improve strength.  but you know what they say, strength breeds size, so who knows.....



Actually, you said, "there is no scientific evidence that states either way is better."  That is scientific evidence.  I do, however, have one problem with that HST principle.  If you do a lot of compound exercises, then even doing body parts one day per week isn't really doing body parts one day per week.  You will reuse those same muscles again, even if they just act as stabilizers.

Yes, I have done a more traditional split, I have done a full body split three time per week, and now I am doing a strength training routine which calls for hitting the same muscles twice per week.  To be honest, they have all garnered pretty similar results in the mass category.  In terms of mass, I noticed the most gains once I got my diet in gear, irrespective of the training protocol I was using.  In terms of strength, I notice the most gains with my current training protocol, as it is a powerlifting protocol.

If you want to gain strength, then train like a powerlifter.  I think training methods for a powerlifter are more important than training methods for a bodybuilder.  Granted, I do believe that training methods have a significant effect on how one's physique develops, but not to the same extent that it affects one's level of strength.


----------



## sabre81 (Nov 17, 2004)

i prefer less frequent , more volume.


----------



## rangers97 (Nov 17, 2004)

cowpimp......can you discuss your current training routine or post a link where I can read more info about it? Thanks!  just an fyi, I am going to try a new routine i just made up, it kind of incorporates a lot of things I have read, whether or not it works in the real world, i guess we shall see if i stick with it  

it goes like this:
monday-bench press 3 sets, dips 3 sets, db shoulder presses 3 sets, leg press 3 sets, calf raise 3 sets

tuesday-deadlift 3 sets, v-bar row 3 sets, lat pd 3 sets, db curls 3 sets, ham curls 3 sets

thursday-incline db press 3 sets, close grip bp 3 sets, military press 3 sets, squats 3 sets, calf raise 3 sets

friday-weighted back ext 3 sets, bb row 3 sets, chinups 3 sets, incline curls 3 sets, ham curls 3 sets

I thought up a wierd protocol as well...instead of picking say 3 sets of 6 for an exercise, I choose a total number of reps that I want to achieve in 3 sets (kind of like what doggcrapp training does, except it isnt a rest/pause set-it is 3 actual sets) and when i exceed that total number i would up the weight.

maybe i am thinking too much, maybe i should just shut up and lift


----------



## camarosuper6 (Nov 18, 2004)

How about less volume and less workouts.

IMO intensity is the key.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 18, 2004)

Check out my journal if you want to see an example of the routine.  Other people who are have used, or are currently using, Westside are SaturdayFever and atherjen.  Both of their journals contain examples as well.

www.elitefts.com is a good website to get further information about this protocol.


----------



## LAM (Nov 18, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> How about less volume and less workouts.
> 
> IMO intensity is the key.


----------



## BulkMeUp (Nov 18, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> IMO intensity is the key.


When you say intensity, does that mean one should strive to go to failure? Maybe not at every set but lets say at least on the last set of every exercise.


----------



## sabre81 (Nov 18, 2004)

err yeah im confused over the intensity/volume thing. 

i meant i prefer less volume, less frequent, high intensity.


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 18, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> How about less volume and less workouts.
> 
> IMO intensity is the key.



Or, you could do the smart thing, and cycle intensity, volume and frequency.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Nov 18, 2004)

Twin Peak said:
			
		

> Or, you could do the smart thing, and cycle intensity, volume and frequency.




Fucker took my answer.

If I had a choice in the matter, I would PREFER to go for a shorter amount of time each time and go more times.


----------



## Pirate! (Nov 18, 2004)

camarosuper6 said:
			
		

> IMO intensity is the key.


I agree. Whatever you do, make it count. Hit it hard and fast, then go home.


----------



## Pirate! (Nov 18, 2004)

BulkMeUp said:
			
		

> When you say intensity, does that mean one should strive to go to failure?


Intensity involves more work in less time.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 19, 2004)

Twin Peak said:
			
		

> Or, you could do the smart thing, and cycle intensity, volume and frequency.



That's one way to look at it.  However, some people are very successful with forms of high intensity training.


----------



## rangers97 (Nov 19, 2004)

ok let me ask this another way.....lets say you normally do 6 sets for chest in a week, one day per week, say monday.  If you were to break this up into 3 sets on monday and 3 sets on say thursday, you are doing the same weekly volume for chest, but how would the results be different?  Would you still be recovering from the monday workout on thursday, even though you halved the volume, or would it provide a better stimulus since you are doing it more often but keeping volume and recovery in check?
Or is it better to do all 6 sets at once since that will have a better cumulative effect than doing the 3 and 3?

so many questions, so few answers


----------



## Flex (Nov 19, 2004)

the key, regardless of your volume/frequency, is M2M connection. that, and a helluva lot of intensity...


----------



## rangers97 (Nov 19, 2004)

flex, whats up////whats your current routine like? i tried reading through a little of your journal, but didnt find any training, just some pretty funny shit in there .  Could you just outline what you do in a week? Thanks


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 19, 2004)

rangers97 said:
			
		

> ok let me ask this another way.....lets say you normally do 6 sets for chest in a week, one day per week, say monday.  If you were to break this up into 3 sets on monday and 3 sets on say thursday, you are doing the same weekly volume for chest, but how would the results be different?  Would you still be recovering from the monday workout on thursday, even though you halved the volume, or would it provide a better stimulus since you are doing it more often but keeping volume and recovery in check?
> Or is it better to do all 6 sets at once since that will have a better cumulative effect than doing the 3 and 3?
> 
> so many questions, so few answers



Well, there isn't going to be as much microtrauma to the skeletal muscle if you do fewer sets at the same level of intensity.  Therefore, you don't need to rest as much.  There are hormonal benefits and such to greater frequency, as was mentioned in the principle of HST that I posted.

Both ways work.  Try each one.  See which one you prefer, or which one produces better results.  Make sure to keep your diet the same to limit the variables as much as possible.  Personally, as I said, I haven't noticed much of a difference between any of the methods.  

They all work, and I just make sure to cycle through them periodically to keep things interesting.  Although it is good to worry about the most effective methods, it is even more important to worry about which method is effective and enjoyable.  If you don't enjoy your routine, then you won't stick with it, and your results are going to be sub par no matter what method you use.


----------



## SuperFlex (Nov 24, 2004)

rangers97 said:
			
		

> Who thinks which is better? Less volume per workout, but more frequent workouts, or more volume per workout with less frequent workouts?


In my opinion there is a fine line. Just about everybody is different. Some of us are extremely gifted with great genetics and others are just on the average. For me I like going fairly heavy with solid form. I like working for reps in the 12-7 range cycling down in reps and up in weight with each set. For the larger muscle groups anywhere between 14-20 sets and 7-10 sets for smaller groups. My favorite and most productive split is training four days on and one off. That's hitting every bodypart pretty hard once every five days. *= GREAT RESULTS!!!*


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 25, 2004)

bkc said:
			
		

> In my opinion there is a fine line. Just about everybody is different. Some of us are extremely gifted with great genetics and others are just on the average. For me I like going fairly heavy with solid form. I like working for reps in the 12-7 range cycling down in reps and up in weight with each set. For the larger muscle groups anywhere between 14-20 sets and 7-10 sets for smaller groups. My favorite and most productive split is training four days on and one off. That's hitting every bodypart pretty hard once every five days. *= GREAT RESULTS!!!*



From the sound of it, you like fairly high volume and high frequency.


----------



## Egoatdoor (Nov 25, 2004)

BulkMeUp said:
			
		

> When you say intensity, does that mean one should strive to go to failure? Maybe not at every set but lets say at least on the last set of every exercise.


Until a year ago, I primarily used high intensity, low volume, training to failure the last set or two of each exercise. I was reading more and more about high volume and gave it a try. It really worked also. My muscle size and density definitely increased. Both systems worked for me, so now I interchange them.

The number of workouts a week did not change. Difference was with high volume, I shortened the rest periods substantially, did more exercises and DID NOT train to failure. On both programs, I pyramid the weights.


----------



## Tha Don (Nov 25, 2004)

Twin Peak said:
			
		

> Or, you could do the smart thing, and cycle intensity, volume and frequency.



this is what i'm looking to do, i've always trained in the typical high volume muscle mag weider style, 9-12 sets per bodypart, 4 day split etc... worked for a bit but now progress is coming at a snails pace... some months not a all!

i've being doing a lot of reading on HIT and Max-OT and i've decided to do HIT for 2-4 weeks, Max-OT for 2-4 weeks, High Volume for 2-4 weeks, then take things from there depending on how i feel i reacted to each cycle, this way intensity, volume and rest periods are constantly being cycled

i didn't think i could ever see myself on a HIT routine 100% of the time but something like this might be the answer


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 25, 2004)

Then read my article on Tri-Phase Progressive Training.


----------



## tucker01 (Nov 25, 2004)

Maybe you should provide a link


----------



## BulkMeUp (Nov 25, 2004)

Egoatdoor said:
			
		

> Until a year ago, I primarily used high intensity, low volume, training to failure the last set or two of each exercise. I was reading more and more about high volume and gave it a try. It really worked also. My muscle size and density definitely increased. Both systems worked for me, so now I interchange them.
> 
> The number of workouts a week did not change. Difference was with high volume, I shortened the rest periods substantially, did more exercises and DID NOT train to failure. On both programs, I pyramid the weights.


Thanks for this info/feedback. Very helpful for me. I have been doing a pyramid training (BFL) for several months. While i am not really fedup of the routine, it is kinda difficult to do on a cut. Also i think i need to give up doing one half of the body twice a week for a while.

So i am going to change it to a 3 day split(instead of upper/lower rotation), reduce the weights a bit, shorten the  rest period and maybe increase the reps as well.


----------



## Tha Don (Nov 25, 2004)

Twin Peak said:
			
		

> Then read my article on Tri-Phase Progressive Training.



yeah i will.. if you tell me where i can find it?


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 25, 2004)

young d said:
			
		

> yeah i will.. if you tell me where i can find it?



http://magazine.mindandmuscle.net/magmain.php?issueID=19&pageID=249
http://magazine.mindandmuscle.net/magmain.php?issueID=20&pageID=253

Those are the two articles that outlines Twin Peak's program.


----------



## Tha Don (Nov 25, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> http://magazine.mindandmuscle.net/magmain.php?issueID=19&pageID=249
> http://magazine.mindandmuscle.net/magmain.php?issueID=20&pageID=253
> 
> Those are the two articles that outlines Twin Peak's program.



good look bro, i'ma read these now, sounds hot from the intro 'the big 3' damm right! this is what i'm looking for


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 25, 2004)

young d said:
			
		

> good look bro, i'ma read these now, sounds hot from the intro 'the big 3' damm right! this is what i'm looking for



The progressive volume phase is too ridiculous for me.  That would result in 2-2.5 hour workouts by the end of week 4 of that phase.  I think I would have to tone the volume down more.


----------



## Tha Don (Nov 25, 2004)

dammit man, all the routines are in excel, and i've got XP Home Edition ain't I!! so I can't view the f$*(&%ing files!

oh well i'll check it out at my Uni tomorrow and let you know if i'll be trying it in the near future or not


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 25, 2004)

You can certainly tone the volume down, and many people should, physiologically speaking.

One way to do this would be to do the 8 workouts (4 weeks) as follows: 2, 3, 4, 4, 5, 5, 6, 6.

Also, don't forget, its only a week with the 2 hour workouts.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 25, 2004)

Twin Peak said:
			
		

> Also, don't forget, its only a week with the 2 hour workouts.



True, but I still don't like the idea of quite that many sets.  5x sets in a session seems way overboard, even considering the fact that the following week will be somewhat of an active rest week.  I'm not doubting your work; I'm not even being skeptical.  I think I'm just being a pussy.


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 25, 2004)

I think so too.


----------



## Tha Don (Nov 26, 2004)

I still haven't managed to get into the volume workout files, but i'll try later

the rest of the workout looks really good to me, has this workout being tested out by people? what were the results like? (any link avaliable?)

I like the principles and the strict layout... then change/tone down bits that are too much or to suit personal needs, the important thing is the progression and the emphasis on creating hypertrophy from different components (volume, frequency and intensity) which should allow for continous progress and prevent hitting plateaus?

like I said I've only trained one way before... 3-4 sets per exercise to failiure, basically another average guy mimmicking the pros and now i've read up on this its pretty obvious that i'm doing way to much and not getting enough recovery, i'm not sure how i will respond to each factor (I assume some will respond better than others), say for example I respond great to intensity but rubbish to volume (i probably won't, but IF I do...) then I can say just do volume for 2 weeks and intensity for 6 weeks in my 2nd cycle? is this a good way to adapt the program?

i'm almoast definately going to give this a shot

nice work TP


----------



## Twin Peak (Nov 26, 2004)

Its been "tested" by over 30 people.  Results, of course vary, and many folks never finished, as if often the case.  There are a number of threads and journals here, as well as on avantlabs.com.


----------



## Robboe (Nov 26, 2004)

CowPimp said:
			
		

> True, but I still don't like the idea of quite that many sets.  5x sets in a session seems way overboard



That's the idea.

Overtraining is a long-term affect remember. In the true sense of the phrase.


----------



## Robboe (Nov 26, 2004)

young d said:
			
		

> I still haven't managed to get into the volume workout files, but i'll try later



PM me your email address and i'll cut and paste the workouts into MS Word so you can view them.


----------



## CowPimp (Nov 27, 2004)

TCD said:
			
		

> That's the idea.
> 
> Overtraining is a long-term affect remember. In the true sense of the phrase.



I understand this.  Just because I don't like the idea, doesn't mean I don't realize the potential benefits.


----------



## MikeSimms (Feb 22, 2005)

Wade McNutt addresses this very issue in his Freaky Big Naturally training program.  He states that there are two types of volume.  System volume where you are overloading the system and bodypart volume which is not as system draining.  Cycling between the two results in the best gains except for vary advance trainees who stick to bodypart volume as they can train at superintense levels.  His stuff makes a lot of sense and I have only been doing his program for a little over 2 weeks and I gained 7 pounds.  I am doing a lot of volume 5 days per week.  His program is availably at www.freakygrowth.com


----------



## SlimShady (Feb 22, 2005)

MikeSimms said:
			
		

> Wade McNutt addresses this very issue in his Freaky Big Naturally training program. He states that there are two types of volume. System volume where you are overloading the system and bodypart volume which is not as system draining. Cycling between the two results in the best gains except for vary advance trainees who stick to bodypart volume as they can train at superintense levels. His stuff makes a lot of sense and I have only been doing his program for a little over 2 weeks and I gained 7 pounds. I am doing a lot of volume 5 days per week. His program is availably at www.freakygrowth.com


 Is your name Wade by any chance?


----------



## Missfit4all (Mar 20, 2005)

SlimShady said:
			
		

> Is your name Wade by any chance?



lol.


----------

