The MYTH of higher frequency for 'smaller' muscles b/c they recover faster?

[jamierite74]

@tarper How would you practically apply this to your split set up? I wanna take recovery times into consideration when setting up my next split but it feels unorganized and all over the place haha. Dont wanna cause imbalances either. Seems like on average my strong points (chest/lats) are more susceptible to damage and weak points (quads/hams/delts) less.

 

[tarper]

@jamierite74 not imo but in the words of Jordan Peters, unless you have put on 30lbs of pure tissue you likely don’t have imbalances or lagging body parts, your whole body is lagging meaning you just need to get bigger.

 

[jamierite74]

@tarper JP is the man and I just heard him say this in the new video series, haha. But Id say Im fairly experienced for a natural lifter after spending 14 years training. Going by his guidelines based on development (full body --> UL --> PPL --> body part split) Id say my upper body is at the PPL stage but my legs are at the UL stage. So I almost feel like Im doing one of them a disservice if I choose one or the other, lol. Also spent the last year experimenting with RDL on Pull and I like it but it adds a whole new level to programming for recovery across the training week.

 

[tarper]

@jamierite74 yes bro that video series is amazing i personally am following it starting from full body bc even if i may be developed enough for UL then i’ll know soon enough when i stall out on full body or just am physically unable to complete the sessions

 

[jamierite74]

@tarper Im close to just starting at the upper/lower and seeing how it plays out but im a big supporter of more moderate training frequencies for longevity (tendons, ligaments, joints, etc) especially since im 30+ y/o now. Right now I train my major muscles 2x every 9 days and this would be 2x every 6.

 

[parodyofjay]

@vsw874 In my opinion, you are looking at this the wrong way. The problem is things like connective tissues, not mucle recovery. Connective tissue generally takes a pounding if you train with a high frequency, though admittedly some of this can be mitigated if you go easy on the per-session volume. Regardles, in my opinion the risk/reward ratio starts to become unfavorable with any frequencies over 2x/week in trained lifters. In my experience, 3x+ weekly frequencies are more likely to result in impingements and overuse injuries, especially as you begin to get older (30+)

Once you have recurring tendonitis or serious shoulder problems you are seriously fucked. This not only impacts your ability to train hard in the gym, it impacts many things in your life right down to playing with your kids, sleeping properly, etc.

If you are not a serious competitive bodybuilder, I think it's best to train in a sustainable manner which keeps you injury free. Splits such as upper/lower do a great job of limiting elbow and shoulder usage (all pushing and pulling goes through the shoulder girdle). This is my personal opinion, but I would limit my shoulder and elbow usage to 3 days per week maximum as a very general principle. If you are looking for a good source on how to structure things for longevity I would recommend joining Lyle McDonalds facebook group. There are plenty of people there that can talk about the theory around structuring a sustainable split, along with problems they ran into with certain splits and frequencies. For example, quite a few people have noted that doing a PPL 2x/week where you train push and pull consecutively can lead to shoulder problems. Too many people just throw together a split without thinking of factors like this.

I'm not suggesting you WILL get hurt or injured when training with higher frequencies, it is dependent on age, genetics, total weekly volume, etc. Just that it is more of a risk, in my experience.

 

[laura02375]

@parodyofjay No.

Connective tissues damage is more directly related to weight and impact forces rather than volume.

That’s why high joint-impact sports can fuck your tendons and ligaments up (tennis, golf, baseball) very quickly, and why heavy weight sports (powerlifting, strong-man) also do the same.

And that’s why walking miles a day won’t fuck up your knees, but running (high impact) for less distance will.

 

[parodyofjay]

@laura02375 Right, and natural bodybuilding (real natural bodybuilding) definitely requires weights that have the potential to create damage in the same way as your other examples, especially as you slowly progressively overload over time and become advanced. My point is that doing those high joint-impact activities more frequently creates less room for connective tissues to recover overall.

I mean, there are plenty of people who have had recovery issues when moving to 3x+ frequencies per week unless they really lower the volume, so anecdotally we know this can be problematic...

 

[rmmc]

@vsw874 It's a load of shit. Imagine, the body has to recover a 10 lb quad. It will take more time and energy to repair the quad versus a 2 lb bicep. It's not that it can handle more frequency, it is that it takes less to recover because it is less volume to repair. Usually these studies are riddled with holes.

I could be totally wrong. Do not quote this to anyone with confidence.

 

[lovethechrist]

@vsw874 The subjectivity to the individual is paramount. A smaller muscle MAY be more type 1 fibers, but it may also be untrained and more type 2. The only way to know is to train in multiple rep ranges for different mesocycles, and see which kne creates the most growth. There is some truth in this myth: calves for example, may very well be more responsive to higher volume, as their very function usually demands high endurance. Some individuals may differ but id say its likely that for calves this us true.

So this "myth" ignores the most important factor - muscle fiber type. So you can't really make a judgement without knowing that kind of Information, and finding that Information takes time. A newcomer to the gym can't get that infor action as newbie gains will bring growth almost regardless of what they do. Once some experience is gained, and progress slows, then they can focus on training a specific muscle in a specific loading range for a period, then trying another and making a conclusion on how that muscle responds - and this csn vary from muscle group to muscle group, even from sub muscle to muscle (I.e. upper and lower pecs may respond differently to different stimulus), and how long you've been training as well as your actual biological age can also Impact it, as can whether you're in a calorie surplus or deficit.

There is no one size fits all answer to this; it's very subjective

 

[tarper]

@lovethechrist fiber types don’t affect the way you train. you have Type IA and Type IX which are the ones you can hypertrophy. The amount of those fibers is genetic and therefore limits how much you can grow.

 

[shutupandrock94]

@vsw874 Could you link the posts where Beardsley and Krieger mention this? I couldn't find it after a quick search.

The article you link is pretty mediocre. A lot of assumptions based on weak evidence or no evidence at all.

It directly contradicts the things we see irl. Hamstrings is one of least frequent muscles trained for lots of ppl. Quads also. They both require low volume ( for the average trainee) and thus low frequency.
I think ROM/ loaded stretch is way more important than fiber type or activation. Load itself is correlated with muscle size. Doing 3 sets of RDL's and doing 3 sets of lying leg curls will give different stimulus and different recovery timelines.

For example female powerlifters train bench 5+ times a week. Why? Big arch -> limited ROM. Smaller size -> smaller load. Big male benchers train heavy bench maybe 1x week.

You could prob do 4 sets of leg curls every other day. Try doing it with SLDL or RDL.