• 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.

Fadi

...
I say frequency would win all the time over density. But first let me explain what I mean by frequency and how is it different from density.

Frequency is the number of times you train a particular muscle or muscle group in a week. Density is the amount of work, or volume of work you can squeeze within one particular workout.

So I would suggest to you based on the above information, the higher the density, the lower the intensity would be by default. And the higher the frequency, the higher the intensity (again) by default.

Looking at this from a practical point of view, we learn that the old school bodybuilders trained full body three times a week, and had some impressive muscle as a result. Fast forward to an era where steroids use/abuse is prevalent, and what we encounter is many a bodybuilder opting to train their muscles once per week (and get amazing result as well).

Is there a contradiction between the two groups of bodybuilders mentioned above? The answer is yes most definitely. Since anabolic steroids allows the bodybuilder to maintain a high level of anabolism/muscle protein synthesis over a period of a week or two (compared to a day or two) when bodybuilding is done naturally, then there really is nothing to compare between the two groups. One belongs to exogenously enhanced bodybuilding, whilst the other sport is called natural bodybuilding. To equate the two is to live in dreamland or in denial land, for without the ability to maximise on MPS, one can never achieve the level of muscularity achieved by bodybuilders belonging to the enhanced group.

There's a lot more to be said about the effect anabolic steroids play, and/or the way they affect one's training, diet, recovery, and even motivation, that to underestimate their influential effect on our whole body mind and spirit, would be to reveal some grave misunderstanding of what power these substances truly possess on the human physiology.

So in conclusion, I'd say that the natural bodybuilder is better served utilising the higher frequency method of training, where not only a higher volume spread over a period of a week can be achieved, but that volume can now be injected with high intensity also, an element that was out of reach without the higher training frequency.

In one sentence: only high frequency training allows one to combine high volume with high intensity during a one week period, whilst simultaneously maximising on one's ability to recover from such a training protocol.

Your thoughts are welcomed.
 
What's going here? A training related thread - a bit off topic isn't it?

What do you think of Trump's about face on a lot of things [MENTION=2727]Fadi[/MENTION];

He won't pursue Hillary, and he's already cozy with Saudi Arabia.
 
Good thread. I look forward to reading people's thoughts on this.

Tim.

Thanks Tim.

Please note that if we were to restrict ourselves to maximising on muscle hypertrophy, we'd be better served training a muscle twice a week instead of once. If however we were to discuss what is the best frequency for strength and power sport such as Olympic weightlifting for example, than here we'd be much better served training more than three times a week, with three times being the absolute bare minimum. I've got a lot more to say on this, however I'd rather give others an opportunity to express their opinion based on their experience and knowledge of the subject.

Thanks again.
 
I think with any form of training, the use of a higher frequency (higher than the seemingly traditional once per week) is always going to be closer to optimal for acheiving the desired result.

Of course total volume and intensity are still the leading determinants of progress, so these variables also need to be addressed accordingly to fit within the high frequency model in order for it to "work" for the athlete. And again, periodization needs to also be considered.

Tim.
 
I think with any form of training, the use of a higher frequency (higher than the seemingly traditional once per week) is always going to be closer to optimal for acheiving the desired result.

Of course total volume and intensity are still the leading determinants of progress, so these variables also need to be addressed accordingly to fit within the high frequency model in order for it to "work" for the athlete. And again, periodization needs to also be considered.

Tim.

You've raised some essential points there strong Tim, so I'll address them accordingly.

1. You're 100% correct when you say that volume and intensity are still the leading determinants of progress. I say that's more of a reason as to why a high frequency training system is of particular importance here, because its presence is the gateway that leads one, or allows one to tweak these two determinants factors that you've correctly identified. But how do you tweak?

2. Again, you did not leave the most critical element in these symphony of players out. On the contrary, you've mentioned it by name, i.e. periodisation. That's how one is now able to tweak the volume and intensity as one sees fit to do.

What I'm suggesting here is the fact that without the foundation (the open door) if you like, that is the higher frequency training system, one is unable to fit all these variables, or rather combine all these variables into the one small package some call week, and some call a microcycle.

Granted most of what I wrote above is mainly focused on the strength and power athlete, however that ought not exclude the bodybuilder who also wishes to utilise the benefits of a periodisation system in his training. I find that one (the bodybuilder) can be a lot more liberal with the method of periodisation than a power and/or strength orientated specialist athlete.
 
I think that is probably true - being able to be a little more liberal.

For hypertrophy ive always liked a 4 week block followed by a deload before going at it again perhaps twice more.
Within that block, i like to increase volume from micro cycle (week generally, but can be a little longer) to micro cycle by 10-20%. Where one mind end up doing nearly twice the work in that final week. For the following blocks, 5% more is enough i feel to acheive progress, without running you into the ground.

What is the deload? A drop in working volume that is enough to facilitate near full recovery and to desensitize the body to the training to aid in maximizing adaptation throughout the following block of work. This is part of the tweaking. Some guys, not knowing any different (or perhaps better?) think it ok to just push on endlessly week in week out without as much as even a small tweak of any of the variables. More than most of the time leading to stagnation, boredom and often total failure of the training program or routine or whatever they choose to call it.

Im getting a little off topic here, but i feel this is all relevant.

These topics are of high interest to myself. And that interest increases more and more than more i read and study the topic.

Tim.
 
I think that is probably true - being able to be a little more liberal.

For hypertrophy ive always liked a 4 week block followed by a deload before going at it again perhaps twice more.
Within that block, i like to increase volume from micro cycle (week generally, but can be a little longer) to micro cycle by 10-20%. Where one mind end up doing nearly twice the work in that final week. For the following blocks, 5% more is enough i feel to acheive progress, without running you into the ground.

What is the deload? A drop in working volume that is enough to facilitate near full recovery and to desensitize the body to the training to aid in maximizing adaptation throughout the following block of work. This is part of the tweaking. Some guys, not knowing any different (or perhaps better?) think it ok to just push on endlessly week in week out without as much as even a small tweak of any of the variables. More than most of the time leading to stagnation, boredom and often total failure of the training program or routine or whatever they choose to call it.

Im getting a little off topic here, but i feel this is all relevant.

These topics are of high interest to myself. And that interest increases more and more than more i read and study the topic.

Tim.

You're not off topic you're fine as is.

Now based on the above post, you may be interested in reading about the autoregulation method to progress. This isn't so much saying that hey you fools, drop these deload nonsense and rely on your work capacity to dictate the path the workout ought to travel in no..., it's saying yes we do deload, but it's not us (i.e. we do not plan it or factor it in before hand), but instead, we wait and see how our body reacts, then we follow its lead.

Now you may remember Ivan Abadjiev, the world famous (or infamous depending on your point of view), had his Olympic weightlifters basically autoregulate as well based on the training session. His way was based on adaptation to a maximum or near maximum load, and specialisation based on your competition lifts, i.e. if you back squat, bench press, and deadlift, then you really have no business doing all the other so called accessary work. If I could clean and jerk 160kg, then you have every right to say show me how you do that in good form, instead of me saying I'll show you how I clean and jerk 140kg in good form.

Training with maximum weight leads to lifting near perfectly with maximum weights. Adding accessory work to my main two lifts (as a former Olympic weightlifter), and you adding accessory/additional work to or on top of your main three competition lifts as a powerlifter, serves to harm your progress rather than aid it. Why is that so? According to Abadjiev, if your accessory lifting is done wrong, i.e. your lifting path is wrong, then that would be transferred onto your main lifts. A bad explosive clean pull for example, isn't going to do much for me when it comes to fully cleaning a weight for example. I'll put up the two links and leave you read them at your own good time Tim.

http://bayesianbodybuilding.com/autoregulation-reactive-deloading-avt/

http://www.theironsamurai.com/the-secret-to-bulgarian-training-in-olympic-weightlifting/

Don't let the above throw you off track Tim, as it's just another view point that has also worked and produced world class achievements.
 
Last edited:
I do know of Abadjiev yes. Great man!
I do like the highly specific approach as you have probably noticed haha. Im not the biggest fan of accessory work as ive always felt that it was time i could be spending on furthering technique.

I very much like the idea of autoregulated training. Have read alot from the work of Mike Tsucherer and company. Where by his system is heavily influenced by the bulgarians of that time.
In his examples ones volume and load is determined by the fatigue created by that very session.

I will read those links this weekend.

Tim.
 
I find these sorts of debates go around in circles; there is no definitive proof of the superiority of any training method in terms of specific training getting specific results, beyond the need for each athlete to give important attention to intensity, rest, volume and diet.

All these factors can be mixed up so much that any discussion of their relationship is almost impossible to break down.

In the end, that is why so many champions in power sorts achieve great success with vastly different training methods.
 
I find these sorts of debates go around in circles; there is no definitive proof of the superiority of any training method in terms of specific training getting specific results, beyond the need for each athlete to give important attention to intensity, rest, volume and diet.

All these factors can be mixed up so much that any discussion of their relationship is almost impossible to break down.

In the end, that is why so many champions in power sorts achieve great success with vastly different training methods.

I wasn't going to comment on this but
You've summed up my thoughts pretty well too.

i like my workouts and the protocol pretty simple.

only to add; if a trainee uses a low intensity/long duration style workout or a max load minimal rep with long rest between set type workout, then I suggest they also incorporate a good cardio type workout as an adjunct
 
I wasn't going to comment on this but
You've summed up my thoughts pretty well too.

i like my workouts and the protocol pretty simple.

only to add; if a trainee uses a low intensity/long duration style workout or a max load minimal rep with long rest between set type workout, then I suggest they also incorporate a good cardio type workout as an adjunct
Sure but not straight after a weights session. ;)

There is a key difference to training for a sport (PL, BB, SM, WL), and traning for health/general wellbeing. Which is infact what you are referring to.

Tim.
 
Top