I am confused. Some questions for the veterans.

[BD-]

I've been training for over a year now, and been visiting this forum for half a year or so. There is so incredibly much that I've learned and I've been able to improve my training and diet very much by visiting this and other fora and browsing online sources.
Perhaps I've just browsed too many sources.
I'll try not to turn this into a "I am just as genetically ungifted as a person can possibly be" whine topic, but instead try to point out some strange theories that are in conflict with each other and thus make everything seem so difficult to believe...

Anyway, it comes down to this question: what is wrong with training one time a week; a full body workout ? Full body workouts are rated quite highly everywhere, focussed on compound exercises, starting with squats and the other muscle groups and ending with the smallest groups like biceps. And your muscles need about a week rest, no ? At least I know that if I train more often than once a week, then I am not sore at all. I never heard anyone say this, so I don't know for sure what it could mean, but I think it is because I train too often - only when I wait a week or so between consecutive workouts, I will be sore again. And overtraining is the primary cause of not being able to lift more weight each workout, right ? So better to train only once a week than twice, no ? And ectomorphs like me don't need to bother doing 5 exercises of 4 sets for each muscle group, right ?
Well then, can't I conclude that the safest and best option is to do a full body workout with low volume only once a week ? Or would it be better to split it in two workouts of half an hour ?

And don't give me the "eat more" crap. Because there were times I ate perfectly for months at a time, and I did not notice anything out of the ordinary. I only converted the extra protein into fat around my waist, which I still currently have and which will prolly never go away. Or I just ****/piss out the extra things that a normal person would convert to muscle mass. I don't how or why, but my body just refuses to build muscle mass no matter how good I eat or how I train, and I've kinda given up hope that anything will work. I simply tried everything and was pleased with nothing.

Well, there's one thing I haven't tried and will probably try soon: train twice a week (30-45 mins), and take creatine. Perhaps with the use of creatine I'll be able to put on some extra lean mass...

Sorry for the whine, just needed to let it out somewhere...
If anyone has got experience with my situation - either by having been in the same situation, or as a personal trainer who's had a client with a similar problem, please give me some advice that I hadn't heard yet and might help me ;x

 

[abear]

i can relate to you my own personal experience. when i started out i was training like the magazines said: a 3 on 1 off 2 on or whaterver split. working out for almost 2 hours doing like 4 exercises for each muscle group. 2 years and zero results.

then i tried cybergenics (you can tell this was some time ago) and again no results. quit training for a year then when i started again i did full body workouts using only compound movements twice a week. no isolation work at all, no curls, no extensions, no flyes only presses, rows, squats, chins, dips, deadlifts, etc

in 3 years in went from 125 to 180, my arms went from 12" to 15" and my chest went from 34" to 40". i wasnt huge or ripped but i damn well looked alot better than when i started.

so i wasted 3 years training like i was told to and made great progess when i just went with the basics: training, nutrition and rest.

this might not really answer your question but i know how you feel. the basics have always kicked butt and always will!!!!

 

[Judecca]

The idea of training once per week (roughly) has been explored before. Mike Mentzer wrote a book about this exact kind of weight lifting philosophy... try to check out one of his Heavy Duty books if you're interested.