@thebelovedofgod When certain muscles are highly susceptible to muscle damage and need more then 3 days to get back to maximal force capability. Like the chest, if you were able to recover perfectly from PPL then no one would need to deload, but that isn't the case.
@michael67 Unless you max out every session, or you're spectacularly unfit, there's no way you can't recover enough to do chest twice a week.
You should be able to do hit it 3x/week during a specialisation meso by dropping the volume in each individual session.
This is a bodybuilding sub. The objective isn't to recover to maximal force capability, it's recover enough for another good, stimulating session without disrupting growth.
@thebelovedofgod This is the study most people refer to when it comes to training frequency.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27102172/. This is a 2016 study from Brad Schoenfeld, and was used as the marker for why 2x frequency is superior. But what most people don't do is look into this https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30558493/ same researcher 3 years later, completely different conclusion.
@tay796 Just checked out the abstract and the key term is "volume-equated". Can you get more volume out of one chest session or two chest sessions 3 days apart? Your conclusion would hold true if you train that muscle 1x a week with 6 days' worth of volume.
Of course, that's not to say that you can't make gains training a muscle 1x a week.
@thebelovedofgod If someones training a muscle once a week, then they will be maxing out every session since the volume is so low. This guy isn't running a specialization meso, he's probably not periodizing. But the chest takes a longer time to recover then most muscles, so if you plan on maintaining high intensity for your training, 2x a week for chest training is a no go. If the chest could recover 3x times over a week someone should be able to run a LP 3x a week and never have to deload, but that's not happening.
@michael67 Literally how are you coming up with this stuff? It goes against every training principle we see repeated, and literally against every single popular, proven program.
2x/week per muscle group is the standard you should aim for, including quads and chest. If you can't recover from that, your training, sleep and/or nutrition are subpar. That's really all there is to it.
@thebelovedofgod The current science has very clearly shown that frequency is not important. 2x and 1x a week will grow muscle similarly if volume is equated. What you're referencing is old Schonfeld study that he's updated. And it's so obvious that not all muscles recover at the same rate. Chris Beardsley pulled up a study on how long it takes muscles to recover back to baseline, I'll find it when I get back from work if I'm not too busy.
@michael67 Is it time for another brief bout of influencers overhyping a single study, and people eager to workout less eating it up? It always ends up the same way - the observable truth that higher frequency wins out is validated.
@thebelovedofgod I'm quoting the study everyone uses for frequency, like Brad Schoenfeld's study on frequency. Every source that you find that says 2x frequency is best, is taken from that study, and that has since been updated.
The entire point of upping your frequency is that you can then handle more (sub-maximal) volume. Seeing how you want to hit 10 - 20 sets for a muscle group per week when you're trying to grow it, it's ridiculous to expect to hit that in a single session.
@thebelovedofgod You can still get 8-10 sets in a session which is very close to the optimal range. Plus, muscle growth is logarithmic and the gap between optimal and suboptimal narrows quickly over time. In the medium to long term, you end up at the same spot. Possibly even quicker on a 3 day PPL, since you’re injured less, your joints are healthier, and its far easier to remain consistent.
@htb33rod Perhaps on a long enough timeline it all ends up in the same place, given such things as genetic potential, but self-sabotaging by ignoring basic training principles to take significantly longer to achieve the same results just seems... pointless.
It's fine if you're just lifting for fun and don't really care about your results very much, I just thought a bodybuilding sub would have a higher standard than that.
@thebelovedofgod It doesn’t take “significantly” longer though, thats incorrect. The research shows its like a 10-20% difference, and narrows quickly as you gain. If science isnt your thing just take a look at the real world, plenty of guys get big very quickly off of once per week frequency.
Doing a 3 day full body routine once you’re actually big and strong is much more difficult and way easier to get injured. Its hell on your joints as well. If anything, its the casual people who just “go for fun” that do better with this style, not the other way around. The only way you survive that type of training at that level is if you’re pissing around with pump weights.
A handful of N = 11 studies following untrained ungrads for a few months aren't my thing, for sure. Almost all of them are garbage, which is why we get a whole new conversation every few months when they inevitably contradict each other.
If you just lift, you know you don't need a whole week to recover, and if you even just run a newbie program ever in your life you know full body doesn't mean you're blasting everything at full intensity each day. Doing some leg extensions after a day of bench and rows isn't going to destroy your joints, I promise.
