• Keep up to date with Ausbb via Twitter and Facebook. Please add us!
  • Join the Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

    The Ausbb - Australian BodyBuilding forum is dedicated to no nonsense muscle and strength building. If you need advice that works, you have come to the right place. This forum focuses on building strength and muscle using the basics. You will also find that the Ausbb- Australian Bodybuilding Forum stresses encouragement and respect. Trolls and name calling are not allowed here. No matter what your personal goals are, you will be given effective advice that produces results.

    Please consider registering. It takes 30 seconds, and will allow you to get the most out of the forum.
Well done with your performance today big R, and brilliant consistency of effort which facilitated and made such a day turn out as it did for you today Champ. Congratulations, as I'm confident you'll come bigger and better next time 'round, with such experience under your belt now.
 
Well done with your performance today big R, and brilliant consistency of effort which facilitated and made such a day turn out as it did for you today Champ. Congratulations, as I'm confident you'll come bigger and better next time 'round, with such experience under your belt now.

Thanks mate, makes the hard work worthwhile. Have to put a plan in place for the next one well ahead of time.
 
Thanks mate, makes the hard work worthwhile. Have to put a plan in place for the next one well ahead of time.
Well, you seem to like what muscle fiber likes...volume. And I know you're a serious man, very serious in fact when the need calls for it hence, I believe that you also like the other side of the coin that muscle fiber likes, and that is applied effort. I also know (based on reading few of your training posts), that your wish and want is to combine the best of what volume and intensity has to offer you in the way of muscle growth on the one hand, but to also find a way where if you were to maximise on these crucial elements that are the main catalysts for muscle growth initiation, you want/need/must recover from it all. Would I be right in stating the above? If yes, then what you're looking for has arrived few years ago in the way of high frequency training (which would enable the input of the right amount of volume needed to maximise on muscle growth [on the one hand]), and inject maximum intensity through your muscle fibers in the form of effective reps application.

Your 2 hours of training would be cut in half as a bare minimum, allowing not only time for more "play", but also effecting a better overall recovery due to the total elimination of unproductive reps. And since recovery and further adaptation to a hard-ass muscle fiber stimulation at the gym has been combined into a one small, yet dangerously effective package, the result would be a new 110kg Big R..., for starters.

Please note that I used the term muscle fiber stimulation and not muscle fiber activation. I believe one of the downfall of many would be top bodybuilders, is the over-emphasise on muscle fiber activation. I know about MFA, as that's an absolute King when it comes to Olympic weightlifting, but I don't believe its use, or rather overuse in bodybuilding is warranted, as here we're after muscle size growth instead of maximising on our neural efficiency. I may have mixed two forms of muscle fiber activation here, so rather than continue with this novel of mine (sorry about that Big R), I'll stop right here and wish you the very best.
 
Well, you seem to like what muscle fiber likes...volume. And I know you're a serious man, very serious in fact when the need calls for it hence, I believe that you also like the other side of the coin that muscle fiber likes, and that is applied effort. I also know (based on reading few of your training posts), that your wish and want is to combine the best of what volume and intensity has to offer you in the way of muscle growth on the one hand, but to also find a way where if you were to maximise on these crucial elements that are the main catalysts for muscle growth initiation, you want/need/must recover from it all. Would I be right in stating the above? If yes, then what you're looking for has arrived few years ago in the way of high frequency training (which would enable the input of the right amount of volume needed to maximise on muscle growth [on the one hand]), and inject maximum intensity through your muscle fibers in the form of effective reps application.

Your 2 hours of training would be cut in half as a bare minimum, allowing not only time for more "play", but also effecting a better overall recovery due to the total elimination of unproductive reps. And since recovery and further adaptation to a hard-ass muscle fiber stimulation at the gym has been combined into a one small, yet dangerously effective package, the result would be a new 110kg Big R..., for starters.

Please note that I used the term muscle fiber stimulation and not muscle fiber activation. I believe one of the downfall of many would be top bodybuilders, is the over-emphasise on muscle fiber activation. I know about MFA, as that's an absolute King when it comes to Olympic weightlifting, but I don't believe its use, or rather overuse in bodybuilding is warranted, as here we're after muscle size growth instead of maximising on our neural efficiency. I may have mixed two forms of muscle fiber activation here, so rather than continue with this novel of mine (sorry about that Big R), I'll stop right here and wish you the very best.

Your assertion would be correct. I think we all want the best of both worlds. For the past few months I have employed a higher frequency routine whereby every body part is trained twice a week for two weeks and once on the third week, so five times in a three week period. With the group(s) being trained once getting rotated every week. I think the key to your statement above is 'the input of the right amount of volume' which I believe I have kept too high. I will be formulating a new program over the next couple of weeks which will employ higher frequency, lower volume in a given session I think. I think based on either an upper/lower or full body foundation, with more regular de-loads.
 
Your assertion would be correct. I think we all want the best of both worlds. For the past few months I have employed a higher frequency routine whereby every body part is trained twice a week for two weeks and once on the third week, so five times in a three week period.
I'll give it to you straight Big R, the more (as in with higher frequency) you stimulate a muscle, the more that muscle would have to adapt by growing further. Yes, it's a case of as much stimulation as possible, if you can master the recovery process. And I believe you can..., I'll get to that in a minute.

With the group(s) being trained once getting rotated every week.
This point would not be one I'd even factor in, and again, I'll get to that in a minute.
I think the key to your statement above is 'the input of the right amount of volume' which I believe I have kept too high.
Volume for its own sake won't cut it for you or anyone seeking top notch results. Volume has to be matched with the right amount of intensity. Can we do or achieve both parameters at the same time? I wouldn't be wasting your time or mine writing what I am if I didn't know we could now would I!

I will be formulating a new program over the next couple of weeks which will employ higher frequency, lower volume in a given session I think.
Brilliant thinking, simply because of your last few words: "in a given session." Why am I impressed? Because you've differentiated between the necessity and importance of a high volume "diet" for your muscles, yet were intelligent enough to realise the fact that one needs to and must spread this volume through a time zone we call frequency. There's no other way around it, or you'd be entering into the over-reaching state of training, where both volume and intensity are combined into the one session. Something I've written about here before, but not something I'd recommend for you, (at least not within the next 12 months of working out).

I think based on either an upper/lower or full body foundation, with more regular de-loads.
This brings me to my final point/s, where I can categorically tell you no, you won't have to concern yourself with the word "de-load" again. At least not for a while. OK, I've been saying above "I'll get to it in a minute", well here it is. Frequency we know we need as much as possible (and your muscle will adapt) by getting larger. So hey Fadi, are you suggesting (for example) working out the arms 4x/week or 7x/fortnight? You bet, and if you haven't tried it then please don't judge it based on some other criteria that is outlined by some different training protocol. Here, we're talking about self-regulation, that is to say, the working muscle will self-regulate the effective reps for you based on the homeostasis your muscles as well as your endocrine and nervous system find you in. Perhaps an example is in order, however I'll leave that out for now just in case you're feeling that I may be trying to force my way through here and take over whatever you had planned for your upcoming 12 months. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. Thank you.
 
Last edited:
Your assertion would be correct. I think we all want the best of both worlds. For the past few months I have employed a higher frequency routine whereby every body part is trained twice a week for two weeks and once on the third week, so five times in a three week period. With the group(s) being trained once getting rotated every week. I think the key to your statement above is 'the input of the right amount of volume' which I believe I have kept too high. I will be formulating a new program over the next couple of weeks which will employ higher frequency, lower volume in a given session I think. I think based on either an upper/lower or full body foundation, with more regular de-loads.

The beauty of the PPL is that you can train every body part every 4 days, 5 days, 6 days, 7 days or any longer frequency.
 
The beauty of the PPL is that you can train every body part every 4 days, 5 days, 6 days, 7 days or any longer frequency.

Yeah a formal PPL split is an option. What I have been doing is actually basically a PPL split e.g. chest, shoulders, traps, forearms / quads, glutes & hams, calves, abs / back, bis, tris. A little bit of mixing the two e.g. tris in with back and bis but PPL'ish.

I have 1,2 and 3A and 1,2 and 3B workouts (so essentially two varying 3 day splits forming a 6 day program) run 5 days on two days off, so every two sessions, say 2A and 2B (both legs) will be performed twice a week for two weeks and then once on the third week. Every week you are doing two sessions twice and one session once. Every workout (and the specific muscle groups in that workout) gets performed 5 times every three weeks.
 
I'll give it to you straight Big R, the more (as in with higher frequency) you stimulate a muscle, the more that muscle would have to adapt by growing further. Yes, it's a case of as much stimulation as possible, if you can master the recovery process. And I believe you can..., I'll get to that in a minute.

This point would not be one I'd even factor in, and again, I'll get to that in a minute.Volume for its own sake won't cut it for you or anyone seeking top notch results. Volume has to be matched with the right amount of intensity. Can we do or achieve both parameters at the same time? I wouldn't be wasting your time or mine writing what I am if I didn't know we could now would I!

Brilliant thinking, simply because of your last few words: "in a given session." Why am I impressed? Because you've differentiated between the necessity and importance of a high volume "diet" for your muscles, yet were intelligent enough to realise the fact that one needs to and must spread this volume through a time zone we call frequency. There's no other way around it, or you'd be entering into the over-reaching state of training, where both volume and intensity are combined into the one session. Something I've written about here before, but not something I'd recommend for you, (at least not within the next 12 months of working out).

This brings me to my final point/s, where I can categorically tell you no, you won't have to concern yourself with the word "de-load" again. At least not for a while. OK, I've been saying above "I'll get to it in a minute", well here it is. Frequency we know we need as much as possible (and your muscle will adapt) by getting larger. So hey Fadi, are you suggesting (for example) working out the arms 4x/week or 7x/fortnight? You bet, and if you haven't tried it then please don't judge it based on some other criteria that is outlined by some different training protocol. Here, we're talking about self-regulation, that is to say, the working muscle will self-regulate the effective reps for you based on the homeostasis your muscles as well as your endocrine and nervous system find you in. Perhaps an example is in order, however I'll leave that out for now just in case you're feeling that I may be trying to force my way through here and take over whatever you had planned for your upcoming 12 months. I'm here if you wish to discuss further. Thank you.

Are you heading towards a high frequency, low volume, high intensity auto-regulated routine? Please continue...
 
Are you heading towards a high frequency, low volume, high intensity auto-regulated routine? Please continue...
Only 20 hours ago I had about one hour conversation with a brother of mine re three very different protocols of stimulating a muscle, as well as maintaining a high level of protein synthesis throughout the day. The brother is a competitive bodybuilder who I've been in contact with for some time now. He is currently hitting the scale at 115kg (I think he's about 5,8") and cut. Perhaps I can put up a shot of him here after I ask him about it. I'll share but one protocol with you here Champ, and we can discuss the other two at some other time if your wish.


Are you heading towards a high frequency?
As high as your recovery would allow Big R.


low volume?
No not low volume, but a spreadable or divided high overall volume. Don't forget Champ, a high frequency approach allows for, or opens the door to and facilitates the inclusion of a cumulative high volume over a given period of time. I was training 8x/week as an Olympic weightlifter for a very good reason. Yes, we're talking two different sports here (and that is something we can discuss and delve into later), however the point here is the fact that high frequency is your magic ticket to the combining of high intensity and high volume (not into the same workout no), but within a given week.

high intensity
Yes because we can, and we can because of opting to eliminate the excess application of activation reps. As I was saying to the brother 20 hours ago, why the hell would you want to climb back down the mountain once you've reached its summit? Sure, taking a rest of 15 seconds would see you (analogically speaking) taking a mere few steps back from the summit before you climb it up again. And the reason you're able to climb it back up again and again is because it is within your reach. You've saved a ton of energy by not going all the way back down the mountain (only to walk all the way up again just so you can be where you were only few seconds ago)..., the walking analogy is of the reps you have to do leading up to those effective reps found at the end of each set. So basically (as I've worked it out), you only need 30% of the 100% that you're currently doing, to reach the same exact place. One would be insane not to take it, or at least give it a go for few months at least, wouldn't you agree Big R?

auto-regulated routine?
Auto-regulated reps. That is when after you complete your first (and only) activation set, you rest 15 seconds before resuming lifting the weight again. The self regulation occurs between different workouts in different weeks and months. How is that? Well, this is your own body applying its own periodisation relative to the demand you're placing onto it. In other words, as you progress with this type of lifting, you will get stronger and bigger, but the body can also push you back as hard as you're attempting to push it, and it does that by forcing your muscles to provide you with less and less repetitions during those effective reps (after completing the activation set). I'll give you an example OK.

Week 1: 50kg barbell curl x10 (that's your first and activation set), now rest 15 sec and then perhaps get 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2. The reduction of the reps is your clue to terminate the exercise.

Week 2. 50kg (as above) x10, 4, 3, 3, 2 terminate the set. That was an extreme example Big R, but as you can see, your inability to continue would simply take care of itself due to the body requiring more recovery.

Furthermore (and if you really want to make this whole "exercise" more exciting), you can apply different percentages during a 2 week period for example based on your 1RM. So it might look like this:


Weeks 1 & 2: 50% x35-40 reps, followed by effective reps. Here (since the % is relatively low), it might look like this 10,8,5,5,5,4. Or depending on how well (or not) your muscles have been conditioned (ability to buffer metabolic by-products etc), your set might look more like this after the (say) 40 reps activation set: 40, 7, 7, 5, 5. Please note that all these 24 reps after the initial 40 would be effective reps, yes you'd be hating me from the burn (if you do decide to do it in the future).

Weeks 3 & 4: 60% x25-30 reps, as above (but obviously the number of reps would dictate their own number to you and not the other way around). So here it might look like this: 25, 6, 5, 5, 4, 3. That's an added 23 effective reps to your initial activation set. Just think of the reps and time and energy you're saving yourself here; energy that can go towards helping you with your recovery and muscle adaptation process.

Weeks 5 & 6: 70% x15 reps, as above
Weeks 7 & 8: 80% x10 reps, as above
And on we go...

Sorry if the above sounds a bit confusing, as it's much easier to relay my message through verbal communication instead of the written word, especially when I'm writing as I think.
 
Last edited:
Only 20 hours ago I had about one hour conversation with a brother of mine re three very different protocols of stimulating a muscle, as well as maintaining a high level of protein synthesis throughout the day. The brother is a competitive bodybuilder who I've been in contact with for some time now. He is currently hitting the scale at 115kg (I think he's about 5,8") and cut. Perhaps I can put up a shot of him here after I ask him about it. I'll share but one protocol with you here Champ, and we can discuss the other two at some other time if your wish.


As high as your recovery would allow Big R.


No not low volume, but a spreadable or divided high overall volume. Don't forget Champ, a high frequency approach allows for, or opens the door to and facilitates the inclusion of a cumulative high volume over a given period of time. I was training 8x/week as an Olympic weightlifter for a very good reason. Yes, we're talking two different sports here (and that is something we can discuss and delve into later), however the point here is the fact that high frequency is your magic ticket to the combining of high intensity and high volume (not into the same workout no), but within a given week.

Yes because we can, and we can because of opting to eliminate the excess application of activation reps. As I was saying to the brother 20 hours ago, why the hell would you want to climb back down the mountain once you've reached its summit? Sure, taking a rest of 15 seconds would see you (analogically speaking) taking a mere few steps back from the summit before you climb it up again. And the reason you're able to climb it back up again and again is because it is within your reach. You've saved a ton of energy by not going all the way back down the mountain (only to walk all the way up again just so you can be where you were only few seconds ago)..., the walking analogy is of the reps you have to do leading up to those effective reps found at the end of each set. So basically (as I've worked it out), you only need 30% of the 100% that you're currently doing, to reach the same exact place. One would be insane not to take it, or at least give it a go for few months at least, wouldn't you agree Big R?

Auto-regulated reps. That is when after you complete your first (and only) activation set, you rest 15 seconds before resuming lifting the weight again. The self regulation occurs between different workouts in different weeks and months. How is that? Well, this is your own body doing taking care of its own periodisation. In other words, as you progress with this type of lifting, you will get stronger and bigger, but the body can also push you back as hard as you're attempting to push it, and it does that by forcing your muscles to provide you with less and less repetitions during those effective reps (after completing the activation set). I'll give you an example OK.

Week 1: 50kg barbell curl x10 (that's your first and activation set), now rest 15 sec and then perhaps get 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2. The reduction of the reps is your clue to terminate the exercise.

Week 2. 50kg (as above) x10, 4, 3, 3, 2 terminate the set. That was an extreme example Big R, but as you can see, your inability to continue would simply take care of itself due to the body requiring more recovery.

Furthermore (and if you really want to make this whole "exercise" more exciting), you can apply different percentages during a 2 week period for example based on your 1RM. So it might look like this:


Weeks 1 & 2: 50% x35-40 reps, followed by effective reps. Here (since the % is relatively low), it might look like this 10,8,5,5,5,4. Or depending on how well (or not) your muscles have been conditioned (ability to buffer metabolic by-products etc), your set might look more like this after the (say) 40 reps activation set: 40, 7, 7, 5, 5. Please note that all these 24 reps after the initial 40 would be effective reps, yes you'd be hating me from the burn (if you do decide to do it in the future).

Weeks 3 & 4: 60% x25-30 reps, as above (but obviously the number of reps would dictate their own number to you and not the other way around). So here it might look like this: 25, 6, 5, 5, 4, 3. That's an added 23 effective reps to your initial activation set. Just think of the reps and time and energy you're saving yourself here; energy that can go towards helping you with your recovery and muscle adaptation process.

Weeks 5 & 6: 70% x15 reps, as above
Weeks 7 & 8: 80% x10 reps, as above
And on we go...

Sorry, when I said low volume I was referring to a given session, however higher volume accumulated through the higher frequency. Aside from the rep schemes outlined below this is similar to what I am putting together at the moment.

The only issues I can see with the 'summit rep' method are : firstly, if you are taking it to failure every set, e.g. x number of reps to failure, minimal rest, a few reps to failure, minimal rest, a few reps to failure etc. Although failure is something I have used more than is probably productive this is a very taxing way to train long term. However if you are only taking each set to say an 8 RPE then it becomes much more sustainable.

Secondly, it has been shown that one of the primary drivers of hypertrophy is volume, however this is true only over a certain intensity threshold; (otherwise we could all do a few 100 rep sets of bicep curls at 5 kg and have 22" arms). The issue I potentially foresee is that much of the volume is in the 'activation' sets which may not be intense enough to meet the required intensity threshold to provide a hypertrophy stimulus.

Additionally, to me, the term 'effective reps' applied to the sets subsequent to the first (where the lions share of the volume is found) has a connotation that doesn't sit quite right. If the primary purpose of that set is essentially to pre-fatigue the muscle in question in order to prime it for the following, much lower volume sets, then could this not be achieved more efficiently with a higher weight? This may also go further toward accumulating volume that is above the intensity threshold required to stimulate hypertrophy.

I do note that the way what you have outlined is periodised will bring you to that point anyway after several weeks, as per weeks 7 & 8 above, and that it is reflective of the various phases found in periodisation models for nearly every sport, (although sometimes called different names e.g. accumulation, preparatory, conditioning for example).

These quibbles are mainly conceptual and in practice I think these issues could be easily addressed and can see merit in perhaps adopting this strategy for, say, a high intensity block in particular.

You have piqued my interest. It is certainly food for thought.

Is this a strategy your friend has used/found effective in practice?
 
Sorry, when I said low volume I was referring to a given session, however higher volume accumulated through the higher frequency. Aside from the rep schemes outlined below this is similar to what I am putting together at the moment.?
Perfect Big R.

The only issues I can see with the 'summit rep' method are : firstly, if you are taking it to failure every set, e.g. x number of reps to failure, minimal rest, a few reps to failure, minimal rest, a few reps to failure etc. Although failure is something I have used more than is probably productive this is a very taxing way to train long term. However if you are only taking each set to say an 8 RPE then it becomes much more sustainable.
No, not failure, and not if you don't want to depending.... OK, that magical word huh, "depending". You see Repacked, if your aim is for more volume through more cumulative effective reps, then you'd need to terminate each effective set with one rep left in the tank. If on the other hand you wish for somewhat a lesser total volume and higher intensity, then you push through all the way to momentary failure, allowing for less and less reps to be completed.

Secondly, it has been shown that one of the primary drivers of hypertrophy is volume, however this is true only over a certain intensity threshold; (otherwise we could all do a few 100 rep sets of bicep curls at 5 kg and have 22" arms). The issue I potentially foresee is that much of the volume is in the 'activation' sets which may not be intense enough to meet the required intensity threshold to provide a hypertrophy stimulus.
I understand what you're saying, and the percentage that has been speculated on (by pros in both the field of science as well as bodybuilding and powerlifting) is around the 60% to 65%.That was Dr (and Champion Layne Norton). Having said that, it has been established by science according to Dr Stu Phillips (whom I've communicated with via email), that a percentage as low as 30% of your 1RM taken to failure, would see a rise in one's protein synthesis. The aim here (or back then) was taking the set to failure. I'm sure you're aware of that study. So you're right, we're not talking about lifting a pencil 1000x, but we're also now finding that we don't really have to pile on the weight to see protein synthesis taking place. As far as the high intensity junkies are concerned (that's the heavy heavy weight on the bar group), my research has led me to believe that we can reach the activation (as well as stimulation) of the very hard to reach white fast twitch muscle fibers, through a different channel. That channel? The muscle fatigue channel Big R. And I tell you brother, at 51, I think and pay due respect to my connective tissues before I think what can I do now to send my muscles to hell and back.

dditionally, to me, the term 'effective reps' applied to the sets subsequent to the first (where the lions share of the volume is found) has a connotation that doesn't sit quite right. If the primary purpose of that set is essentially to pre-fatigue the muscle in question in order to prime it for the following, much lower volume sets, then could this not be achieved more efficiently with a higher weight? This may also go further toward accumulating volume that is above the intensity threshold required to stimulate hypertrophy.
I've answered that puzzle with the previous reply (I think). But again, why lift more weight than you have to. After all, coming from Olympic weightlifting, I know the meaning of CNS fatigue, and that brother, takes a big hit the higher or closer you get to your 1RM percentages. Tired muscles? Ahh, I'd take that any day over a more exhausted nervous system.

I do note that the way what you have outlined is periodised will bring you to that point anyway after several weeks, as per weeks 7 & 8 above, and that it is reflective of the various phases found in periodisation models for nearly every sport, (although sometimes called different names e.g. accumulation, preparatory, conditioning for example).
OK.

hese quibbles are mainly conceptual and in practice I think these issues could be easily addressed and can see merit in perhaps adopting this strategy for, say, a high intensity block in particular.
Big R, as I've said to my brother, this is not some "best" training protocol out there no, we both know that no such protocol exists. This is something you do when you have not done it before, then you chalk it up as one of your tools, and given a rating by you based on its merits as far as you were concerned with its application.

You have piqued my interest. It is certainly food for thought.
That's the idea Big R.

Is this a strategy your friend has used/found effective in practice?
No yet, but it's one of the strategies I recommend to him amongst other strategies I've recommended to him. He's going on it starting next week, but he was also interested in yet another protocol where this comes into play....I thought I'll give you a funny video here since you like funny videos...



Yes, it's called doubling up. It's where you train the same muscle two days in a row, with a different emphasis on repetitions in order to feed what you hammered the day before. Make that inject rather than feed with nutrient filled blood. So yes, as you can see this protocol will not work if your nutritional intake was not 100% on the money. But that's another topic for another time....so many topics :)!
 
Top