Once a week frequency? Why?

[JollyRogers]

I'll tell you why once a week. It feeds into our obsession with easy numbers. It has nothing to do with what works best. I guarantee if our weeks were 9 days, that's the frequency you'd see people hitting a muscle group.

lets pretend there is no week at all, just nights and days, now what??

 

[casualbb]

Then it depends on what you're training for. If you want size, it would make sense to see how long muscle grows after a training bout at then hit it again at the end of that period so you're always growing. For strength, it'd be whenever you recover strength from the first workout.

 

[louden_swain]

Obviously, there is plenty of literature out there. . . .

Even in my study area, scholars can't seem to reach an agreement, rather its a constant debate and opinionated atmoshpere.

 

[Maccer101]

What is DC Training? Please explain

 

[FatRat]

What is DC Training? Please explain

Take a look at the Training Methods sticky. Basically single set per body part, each bodypart 3 times over 2 weeks, pos rest pause, plus some other good stuff.....

 

[FatRat]

This is an interesting discussion, but a couple of points that may be relevant to a lot of trainers are convenience and enjoyment (stepping away from ideal world “optimum” training for a second)

We live in a 7-day week world, people have jobs, school, college, kids, partners etc. etc. Having a regular weekly schedule works for them and means they get to the gym. Again, maybe not optimal, but the best for their situation!

Also, everyone needs to enjoy what he or she are doing. We know that “pump” and “the burn” have nothing to do with a productive workout, but if it keeps THEM coming back to the gym, then that’s got be good. In fact, I think the place where people struggle most with their progress is less in the gym, but more in the kitchen and the bedroom (i.e. sleeping! ). These are much harder for most people to master…

 

[latinus_spicticus]

My question is, why do people piddle around with set after set?

What is the benefit of performing:?

5 x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5
225lbs x 5

Isn't this a bit redundant? Why is this necessary?

Why not take that 225lbs and pound out 8 or 9 reps for 1 set?

After taking it to the maximum, there is no need for an additional 4 sets.

Shouldn't training be about causing extensive muscle damage then getting out of the gym so you can grow?

The rest of the time can be devoted towards rest and feeding the machine.

Because 5x5 w/ 225 = 25 reps with 225. That totals 5625 lbs moved. 1x8-9 w/225 = 1800-2025 total lbs. moved. Additionally, you can exert more force when doing more sets of fewer reps while not going to failure than by doing one or two sets to failure. Think about it. Your first few reps of your sets, you are exerting much more than 225 lbs-- the weight goes up much faster on the first few reps than it does on the last few. Therefore, in addition to moving over twice the total weight per workout (which will undoubtedly lead to greater muscle growth), you are exerting more force per rep, which increases muscle tension and power, which also leads to greater muscle growth.

If that is too complex for you to comprehend, just look at it this way-- why would 9 reps with 225 per workout lead to greater growth or strength than 25 reps with 225 per workout? Doesn't it make sense that someone who lifts nearly 2.5 times the amount of weight (5000+lbs) would be stronger and bigger than the other (2000lbs)?

 

[louden_swain]

Because 5x5 w/ 225 = 25 reps with 225. That totals 5625 lbs moved. 1x8-9 w/225 = 1800-2025 total lbs. moved. Additionally, you can exert more force when doing more sets of fewer reps while not going to failure than by doing one or two sets to failure. Think about it. Your first few reps of your sets, you are exerting much more than 225 lbs-- the weight goes up much faster on the first few reps than it does on the last few. Therefore, in addition to moving over twice the total weight per workout (which will undoubtedly lead to greater muscle growth), you are exerting more force per rep, which increases muscle tension and power, which also leads to greater muscle growth.

If that is too complex for you to comprehend, just look at it this way-- why would 9 reps with 225 per workout lead to greater growth or strength than 25 reps with 225 per workout? Doesn't it make sense that someone who lifts nearly 2.5 times the amount of weight (5000+lbs) would be stronger and bigger than the other (2000lbs)?

You are clearly missing my point. . .

you are under the assumption that more is better, and thats not the case.

My point is, that you don't need 5 sets to break down muscle tissue. . . I pound it out with one set.

Look at some of my sample workouts I have distributed throughout this forum.

 

[Backlash]

Latinus, the main argument against that (in my opinion), is that doing the 25 reps takes longer to recover from. Thus, you can only do that once per week. If you just do one set of 8-9 reps, it's less for that workout, but you can do it three times per week. Thus, you have more periods of growth. That's kind of part of the HST principals - check out www.hypertrophy-specific.com

 

[louden_swain]

Overall, the issue is breaking down muscle tissue, but not breaking it down to where you cannot recover sufficiently.