Workout Routine

[monty2589]

I would just like to know if I should work out like mondays, wednesdays, and fridays and should I work out everything those days? Like should I work my arms, chest, back, shoulder, legs, and abs each monday, wednesday, and friday? Or should I work like my chest and shoulders monday, then my arms, back and abs tuesday, then legs and abs wednesday and then take thursday off and then start that routine over again?

 

[big angry hippo]

Well, you're trying to figure out which to choose between a full-body workout and a split routine I presume.

I've always been a fan of the split routine:
M: Chest Tris
W: Bi's Back
F: Legs Shoulders

Here's more info on it:

Good luck.

 

[junkfoodbad]

hippo suggested a good split. just be sure you dont switch things around. Chest/tri day works your shoulders pretty good too. so keep your shoulder day as far away from those as possible to give them ample time for recovery.

 

[buzz]

i would go fullbody its your choice though
squat
benchpress
deadlift
shoulder press
pulldowns or chins
dips

 

[bipennate]

hippo suggested a good split. just be sure you dont switch things around. Chest/tri day works your shoulders pretty good too. so keep your shoulder day as far away from those as possible to give them ample time for recovery.

Why is that a good split? At once/week each muscle group (preferably movement pattern), the frequency of stimulus is far too low to maintain adaptations and ignores fatigue accumulation. That's actually an awful design.

Take a look at this summary from hypertrophy-research.com :

Training Frequency

Training frequency is a much debated and apparently, variable part of training. Multiple aspects of recovery and adaptation are blended together, such as rest, sleep, mental state, nutrition, age, and immune function. Prescribing a fixed and/or perfect frequency is thus very difficult. What is usually needed is a conditional prescription. i.e. If a person pays close attention to all controllable factors, rest, sleep, diet, etc. a general recommendation can be made.

Another point of consideration is optimal vs. workable. It's obvious that more equally productive sessions per time period will result in faster progress. Adjustments in the program may also be considered as a variable. A trainee may choose to alter the intensity and/or duration of training sessions while keeping a fixed frequency, or, they may adjust frequency while keeping a fixed intensity and/or duration. Both sides have 'logical' reasoning for each action. What is superior has not been proven.

What science has to say

Busso (1) compared training frequencies of 3d vs 5d per week. The conclusions were that 5d per week led to a higher level of fatigue and thus a longer recovery time. Obviously, the subjects were not recovering between sessions. If one is training in a 'single factor' model, the goal is to replicate a 'stimulation -> rest -> recover -> adapt' scenario before a subsequent stimulation is induced.

DeMichele (2) Tested rotational torso strength gains between 1d, 2d, and 3d per week subjects. No difference between 2d or 3d per week were found, but both 2d and 3d were superior to 1d per week.

Carroll (3) tested strength and MHC gains in the leg muscles for 2d vs. 3d per week training. In this study, results were similar but higher strength gains were seen in the 2d per week subjects. Other work (4) by some of the same researches earlier had shown that 3X week training for 12 weeks increased increased arm girth (5%) and forearm extensor strength (39%), associated with the triceps brachii muscle.

Significant changes in hypertrophy have been seen using various training frequencies. Abe (6) used a 3X weekly protocol, Staron (5,7) used 2X weekly both training programs produced significant increases in mass. Hakkinen (8) also used a 3X weekly approach but divided the daily volume into two daily sessions. No systematic changes took place in the cross-sectional area (CSA) of the quadriceps femoris muscle or in maximal voluntary isometric strength of the leg extensor muscles over training period I with one daily sessions. However, a significant (p < 0.05) enlargement in the cross-sectional area of the muscle occurred during period II. Both phases where 3 weeks in length and this could account for not seeing changes in the initial phase simply too short of a duration to see any change but we will discuss this in our “Duration” section.

Looking at exercise frequency in older adults, Taafe(9) shows that training more frequently than one time per week had little impact compared to higher frequencies (2 or 3 times per week). Using three sets of eight exercises targeting major muscle groups of the upper and lower body, at 80% of one-repetition maximum (1-RM) for eight repetitions, muscle strength and lean body mass increased in the exercise groups relative to control, with no difference among frequency groups at any measurement interval.

Too much, too little too late?

One last consideration is recognizing over training. There are two ways the term 'over training' appears to be used.

Training more often than optimal, with no ill effect

Training more often than optimal, with ill effects (over training syndrome)

The latter is usually seen in high caliber athletes, and over a longer period of training time. The common ground being, the former will or could lead to the latter. Many researchers are looking at the over training syndrome and some new light is being shed on it. Smith (10) puts forth a hypothesis that over training compromises immune function, leading to a signaling of the CNS. This signaling generally leaves one feeling lack luster, depressed, or other feelings of malaise.

The 'take home' message

If one is willing, and/or able, to adjust the factors needed for proper recovery, and are a healthy adult, twice weekly training per muscle or muscle group appears to be the optimal prescription. Superior results have not been found for higher frequencies of stimulation (in longer term situations), but lesser results have been found for lower frequencies.

A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link, and results are the final proof of a program. Intelligent trainees will note progress, and adjust factors such as sleep, nutrition, and the like, so that recovery and adaptation may take place at the fastest pace. If a factor is unalterable, and progress cannot be made with an optimal frequency, the trainee must then, decide to either adjust the amount of work or the training frequency (11-13).

Dan and Ron

(1.)Busso, T. Effects of training frequency on the dynamics of performance response to a single training bout. J Appl Physiol. 2002 Feb;92(2):572-80.

(2.)DeMichele, PL.Isometric torso rotation strength: effect of training frequency on its development.Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997 Jan;78(1):64-9.

(3.)Carroll, TJ. Resistance training frequency: strength and myosin heavy chain responses to two and three bouts per week.Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1998 Aug;78(3):270-5.

(4.)Jurimae, J. Changes in the myosin heavy chain isoform profile of the triceps brachii muscle following 12 weeks of resistance training.Eur J Appl Physiol Occup Physiol. 1996;74(3):287-92.

(5.)STARON, R. S., Skeletalmuscle adaptations during early phase of heavy-resistance training in men and women. J. Appl. Physiol. 76:1247–1255, 1994.

(6.) ABE, T. Whole body muscle hypertrophy from resistance training: distribution and total mass Br J Sports Med 2003;37:543-545

(7.)STARON, R. S. Muscle hypertrophy and fast fiber type conversions in heavy resistance-trained women. Eur.J. Appl. Physiol. 60:71–79, 1989.

(8.)HAKKINEN, K. Distribution of strength training volume into one or two daily sessions and neuromuscular adaptations in female athletes. Electromyogr. Clin. Neurophysiol.34:117–124, 1994.

(9.)Taafe, D. Once-weekly resistance exercise improves muscle strength and neuromuscular performance in older adults.J Am Geriatr Soc. 1999 Oct;47(10):1208-14.

(10.)SMITH, L. L. Cytokine hypothesis of overtraining: a physiological adaptation to excessive stress? Med. Sci. Sports Exerc., Vol. 32, No. 2, pp. 317-331, 2000

(11.)Cronin, J. Training volume and strength and power development. J Sci Med Sport. 2004 Jun;7(2):144-55.

(12.) American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002 Feb;34(2):364-80. Review.

(13.)Halson, SL. Does overtraining exist? An analysis of overreaching and overtraining research. Sports Med. 2004;34(14):967-81. Review.

 

[junkfoodbad]

Why is that a good split? At once/week each muscle group (preferably movement pattern), the frequency of stimulus is far too low to maintain adaptations and ignores fatigue accumulation. That's actually an awful design.

I guess that makes sense. Althought, I used a similar routine back when i was younger and saw results. But this may have been attributed to being new to strength training.

 

[bipennate]

I guess that makes sense. Althought, I used a similar routine back when i was younger and saw results. But this may have been attributed to being new to strength training.

Exactly right . Even a bad routine will help to make improvements for a short time, assuming that it represents something different than what you had done previously. everyone, at one time or another, has sweated through foolish bobybuilder splits and have seen results. The thing that you have to ask yourself is, could you have had better results had you chosen something else?

 

[buzz]

Exactly right . Even a bad routine will help to make improvements for a short time, assuming that it represents something different than what you had done previously. everyone, at one time or another, has sweated through foolish bobybuilder splits and have seen results. The thing that you have to ask yourself is, could you have had better results had you chosen something else?

i also like dans site..and HST

 

[big angry hippo]

What you posted may be true but there's a reason why this subject is controversial. There are plenty of experts arguing once per week, twice per week, and even three times per week, each with their individual studies. Read the article in this link sponsored by Testosterone Nation.

http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=265game2

Christian Thibaudeau says that for maximum progress, regardless of how many weekly sessions you have for each muscle group, you should do the same weekly training volume. For example, if you do 120 total reps per muscle group per week, you can do either one session of 120 total reps, two sessions of 60 reps, or three sessions of 40 reps. When you add weekly training sessions, don't double or triple total weekly volume. This will lead to stagnation.

So could it be true that the study that you offered is optimal for training 2 x per week but not 1 x per week? However, if you increased the volume of training, it would be optimal for 1 x per week but not 2 x per week?

 

[buzz]

The reason HST calls for more frequent training is because the acute anabolic effects of training, such as increased protein synthesis, muscle-specific IGF-1 expression, and other factors involved in modulation of short term protein synthesis, only last for 36-48 hours. There is also mounting evidence of a "summation" effect by exercising while levels of these signals and responses are elevated, as should be expected.

This does not mean that the structural repairs to the tissue have been completed. Research has demonstrated that you can train a muscle before it is fully recovered structurally and not inhibit its ability to continue to recover. So, HST uses this evidence and calls for repeated loading (training) every 48 hours or so to keep the anabolic activity of the muscle high, while trying to stay slightly ahead of the structural recovery curve by constantly increasing the load each workout. Staying ahead of the structural recovery curve is really key to elicit real growth in a person who has lifted for quite a while. Of course, injuries can develop over time if care isn't taken to take time to heal, and prepare the tendons for repeated heavy bouts of lifting (SD and 15s serve this purpose in HST).

"Recovery" can refer to several different things.

1) "Recovery" can refer to the structural repair process of fixing the microtrauma. The damaged proteins can takes several days to be repaired and all evidence of damage removed. Even at the end of seven days after significant muscle damage from eccentric muscle actions, you may still see some small fibers regenerating.

2) Strength - this can be acute recovery as in the necessary time to rest between sets. Or it can mean the days that it usually takes to regain baseline strength after muscle damaging exercise.

So the trick is to have the CNS "recover" just in time to hit the muscle again as the acute anabolic effects are wearing off. That way you can stay anabolic more of the time. Training once every 7 days will still allow you to grow, it just takes longer for the gains to accumulate. Training more frequently is more efficient if your goal is just to get bigger

To understand, you have to consider the total volume over time. A week is easiest to consider, so, over the course of a week, it is the total volume that is important. So 9 total sets for chest can be done in one workout or in several workouts. Both will stimulate growth. However, you will be anabolic more of the time if you can actually create that stimulus more often. In the case of HST, 3 times as often. There is a physiological benefit (acute anabolic effects of training) in doing 9 sets as 3 sets X 3 workouts, as opposed to 9 sets all at once - and then nothing for the next 7 days

 

[buzz]

What you posted may be true but there's a reason why this subject is controversial. There are plenty of experts arguing once per week, twice per week, and even three times per week, each with their individual studies. Read the article in this link sponsored by Testosterone Nation.

http://www.t-nation.com/findArticle.do?article=265game2

Christian Thibaudeau says that for maximum progress, regardless of how many weekly sessions you have for each muscle group, you should do the same weekly training volume. For example, if you do 120 total reps per muscle group per week, you can do either one session of 120 total reps, two sessions of 60 reps, or three sessions of 40 reps. When you add weekly training sessions, don't double or triple total weekly volume. This will lead to stagnation.

So could it be true that the study that you offered is optimal for training 2 x per week but not 1 x per week? However, if you increased the volume of training, it would be optimal for 1 x per week but not 2 x per week?

ALSO this is an article there are no studies to back up what he says

 

[big angry hippo]

That article was meant to reveal that you can't make conclusions based off of a single study. Is it possible that through a different method of training (more sets, lower reps, high weight for example) working out once per week may be effective as well? Is it possible that people react differently to different methods? And also, what may have been true for "rotational torso strength" as the study bipennate so kindly bolded may not have been applicable for other muscles.
This article shows that there were not any significant statistical differences (in the lower back) in results between training 1x,2x, and 3x per week but a large difference in training 1x every 2 weeks and those mentioned above.

I never said working out 2 times a week wasn't a good method, I would have no basis in doing so. But the statement bipennate made about training one muscle a week being awful basically throws away years of controversial issues with a large arsenal of research from both sides. And frankly, if it was that simple, we wouldn't be talking about this.

 

[bipennate]

That article was meant to reveal that you can't make conclusions based off of a single study. Is it possible that through a different method of training (more sets, lower reps, high weight for example) working out once per week may be effective as well? Is it possible that people react differently to different methods? And also, what may have been true for "rotational torso strength" as the study bipennate so kindly bolded may not have been applicable for other muscles.
This article shows that there were not any significant statistical differences (in the lower back) in results between training 1x,2x, and 3x per week but a large difference in training 1x every 2 weeks and those mentioned above.

I never said working out 2 times a week wasn't a good method, I would have no basis in doing so. But the statement bipennate made about training one muscle a week being awful basically throws away years of controversial issues with a large arsenal of research from both sides. And frankly, if it was that simple, we wouldn't be talking about this.

The problem with applying the Graves' study is that the subjects were previously untrained, which is a population that doesn't apply to active experienced weightlifters (it is well-established that beginners do not need a high frequency or volume to see strength improvements, and the ACSM guidelines reflect this). The essay that I posted was not just one study, but a collection of a number of studies. The large arsenal of research that you cite is based on previously untrained populations, as are most of the (limited) studies that are performed on strength training (in comparison to aerobic training).

Although it has been indicated that different muscle groups may respond to different frequency stimulus, that will also depend highly on exercise selection, % of 1RM, total volume, stress factors, nutrition, etc and cannot be evaluated by any single study. Further, while individuals may respond somewhat differently to individual factors in a program, the basics of protein synthesis in the natural drug-free athlete have been proven conclusively. There is no controvery in the basic physiology.

Finally, it is not an issue of "will 1x weekly" training work? Of course it will...anything will work, at least for a certain amount of time. The issue is "what works best" in any given situation? The only place where 1x weekly training has an advantage is when drug use is part of the equation, as protein degredation from detraining is not an issue.

 

[Proteinboy]

so for a beginner, you would recommend full body exercises 2-3 times a week? with reps 10-12?

also, i have "heard" that a 3rd set of exercises is uneccisary and that the first 2 produce a large majority of the results. is this true?

 

[bipennate]

so for a beginner, you would recommend full body exercises 2-3 times a week? with reps 10-12?

also, i have "heard" that a 3rd set of exercises is uneccisary and that the first 2 produce a large majority of the results. is this true?

For a complete beginner, my rule of thumb is 12-15 for the first 2-3 weeks or so, 10-12 reps for the next 1-2 weeks, etc. While it's generally true about 3rd sets, again, it's about the population. It's well-established that advanced trainees/athletes require higher total volumes and greater intensities to continue to see results.

 

[Proteinboy]

thanks so much for the help and everything, man i think i am finally ganna get a good routine together.

 

[buzz]

thanks so much for the help and everything, man i think i am finally ganna get a good routine together.

try this 3x a week
squat
benchpress
deadlift
shoulder press
pulldowns or chins
dips
2wks 15 reps 1 set
2wks 10 reps 2 sets
4wks 5reps 3 sets
try to increases the load every week

 

[bipennate]

try this 3x a week
squat
benchpress
deadlift
shoulder press
pulldowns or chins
dips
2wks 15 reps 1 set
2wks 10 reps 2 sets
4wks 5reps 3 sets
try to increases the load every week

That is completely unbalanced: the upper body push: pull ratio is 3:1, your upper body:lower body is 4:2, I wouldn't even dream of putting squats and deads into the same routine, and the volume is exceptionally low, even for a beginner.

 

[Proteinboy]

try this 3x a week
squat
benchpress
deadlift
shoulder press
pulldowns or chins
dips
2wks 15 reps 1 set
2wks 10 reps 2 sets
4wks 5reps 3 sets
try to increases the load every week

i like all the compound movements ect ect; i am just wondering: why 15 reps for 1 set? i usually do 2 sets for big muscle groups like back and legs. i dont have a dip stand at home so is there an alternative; and wheres the rows?

 

[Proteinboy]

That is completely unbalanced: the upper body push: pull ratio is 3:1, your upper body:lower body is 4:2, I wouldn't even dream of putting squats and deads into the same routine, and the volume is exceptionally low, even for a beginner.

uh..lol ok il stick to the menshealth log thing then; is this a good one?