Why ULTRA HIGH Frequency Training Might Be Best For Building Muscle
Summary
TLDRThe video features a discussion between Dr. Mike and Menno Henselmans on the merits of high-frequency weight training for muscle growth. Menno argues that higher training frequencies can increase total weekly training volume and better stimulate muscle protein synthesis over time. He notes research showing equal or better results with higher frequencies when equating for volume. Potential downsides like joint issues can be mitigated by modulating intensity over the week. Mike adds that far higher volumes are possible by splitting workouts, expanding genetic potential. Ultimately, evidence suggests higher frequencies could be beneficial, especially when managing fatigue and tissue recovery.
Takeaways
- 😀 Higher training frequency can increase total weekly volume and muscle growth potential
- 👍 Higher frequency may improve stimulus:fatigue ratio and recovery ability
- 🧠 There's theoretical rationale and empirical evidence for benefits of higher frequency
- 💪 Full body workouts every day can work very well and expand genetic potential
- ⛔ High frequency risks joint issues if always training heavy - vary intensity
- 😊 Can learn from high frequency that just a few very hard sets stimulate growth
- ⚡ High frequency allows huge time savings via circuits and supersets
- 👣 Monitor fatigue and connective tissue health closely with higher frequency
- 📈 Try adding frequency for lagging muscle groups, up to tolerable recovery ability
- 🏋️♂️ 2-4 times per week still great, experiment to find optimal personal frequency
Q & A
What evidence does Meno present for the potential benefits of high training frequency?
-Meno cites research trends showing benefits or no difference compared to lower frequencies when volume is equated. He also notes mechanisms like higher total weekly training volume and greater muscle protein synthesis response when splitting workouts.
What are some theoretical rationales Meno provides for why higher training frequencies could be beneficial?
-Meno discusses the extended muscle protein synthesis response after training, which correlates with long-term growth. Splitting workouts may extend this response through the week. He also notes higher total weekly volume is possible with greater frequency.
How could higher training frequency allow greater total weekly volume?
-By splitting workout volume into smaller sessions across more days, average fatigue is lower. This allows completion of more total reps/sets without excessive fatigue inhibiting performance.
What are some problems Mike sees in how people implement high frequency training?
-Mike notes people often continue lifting very heavy each session. He suggests varying intensity over the microcycle, like sets of 5-10, 10-20, and 20-30 reps to reduce joint stress.
What does Meno say is a common reason higher frequency may increase injury risk?
-Meno explains that people train through pain signals on consecutive days instead of giving injured tissues adequate rest. This continually aggravates the injury site.
What frequency range do Mike and Meno generally suggest as reasonable?
-They suggest a frequency of 2-4 times per week as a good general range for most goals, with experimentation to find optimal personal frequency.
How could you apply a minimum effective volume approach with higher frequency training?
-Meno notes just 1-2 hard sets after warmup every session, like 7 sets per week, already exceeds minimum volumes for most people to see growth.
What are potential time efficiencies of higher frequency training?
-Full body circuits with higher frequency allow completion of effective workouts in 30-45 minutes. This saves time and works for tight schedules.
What does research show about potential quadriceps growth with high volumes?
-Studies have shown recreationally trained subjects can grow with over 50 quad sets per week for weeks when only that muscle is trained.
Why can higher frequency help break through plateaus for lagging muscle groups?
-Growth highly depends on achieving sufficient weekly volumes. By spreading volume over more sessions, higher totals are realistic before overreaching fatigue.
Outlines
🏋️♂️ High Frequency Training: A Deep Dive
Dr. Mike from Renaissance Periodization and Meno Henmans discuss the benefits and theories behind high-frequency training (HFT) for muscle growth. They argue that HFT allows for higher weekly volume, better recovery, and maximized genetic potential. The discussion starts with Meno's research, which challenges the traditional once-per-week muscle training paradigm, showing a trend towards the superiority of higher training frequencies. They discuss historical contexts, the evolution of training splits, and empirical data supporting HFT. Meno explains that spreading workouts across days increases total volume and recovery, debunking the idea that high volume should be confined to fewer sessions. The conversation covers the physiological basis for HFT, noting that muscle protein synthesis after training suggests frequent, recoverable sessions are optimal for growth.
📊 Analyzing the Science and Strategy Behind HFT
Meno Henmans continues the conversation by discussing the scientific basis of high-frequency training, including a meta-analysis by James Kreiger, which suggests diminishing returns after exceeding a certain volume per session. He emphasizes that beyond a threshold, distributing volume across sessions improves outcomes. Meno also shares his personal success with daily full-body workouts, highlighting their efficiency and practicality. Dr. Mike adds his perspective, noting that not all studies capture the real-world applicability of HFT, especially when not accounting for total volume. He shares anecdotal evidence suggesting that distributing a large weekly set volume into smaller, more frequent sessions leads to better quality workouts and easier recovery.
🔬 The Practical Implications and Limitations of HFT
The conversation shifts to the practical aspects of high-frequency training, addressing systemic constraints and individual muscle group focus. They discuss studies showing that significant weekly volumes (like 50 sets) can lead to superior growth when spread out, challenging traditional single-session approaches. The dialogue touches on the misunderstandings about muscle recovery times and the arbitrary nature of a seven-day training cycle. They suggest experimenting with training frequencies, especially for lagging muscle groups, and caution against overreliance on conventional wisdom that ignores physiological evidence for more frequent, recoverable workouts.
🚀 Implementing HFT: Strategies and Potential Pitfalls
The discussion delves into implementing high-frequency training effectively, addressing common mistakes and practical strategies. They emphasize the importance of varying intensity and types of exercise across sessions to avoid joint stress and optimize recovery. Dr. Mike suggests a structured approach, varying rep ranges and intensities throughout the week to maintain joint health and overall recovery. They also discuss the risks of overtraining and injury, particularly when not properly managing volume and recovery, and the importance of listening to one's body and adjusting training accordingly.
🤕 Managing Risks and Understanding the Nuances of HFT
Meno Henmans elaborates on the risks associated with high-frequency training, particularly the potential for increased injury rates due to insufficient recovery and overuse of certain movements. He shares observations from his experience and others’, noting that aches and pains can quickly escalate into serious injuries if not managed properly. The discussion includes the importance of volume management, proper exercise selection, and the need for rest, especially when dealing with joint or muscle discomfort. Meno advises on the careful implementation of HFT to avoid exacerbating existing injuries and stresses the importance of distinguishing between muscle soreness and joint pain.
📝 High-Frequency Training: A Balanced Perspective
The final part of the conversation covers the practical and theoretical benefits of high-frequency training while acknowledging its potential drawbacks. Meno and Dr. Mike suggest starting with moderate frequency and gradually increasing to assess individual tolerance and recovery capabilities. They discuss how experimenting with frequency can reveal personal thresholds for volume and recovery, advocating for a balanced approach based on empirical evidence and personal experience. They conclude by encouraging listeners to explore high-frequency training as a way to potentially enhance muscle growth and workout efficiency.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡frequency
💡volume
💡recovery
💡hypertrophy
💡MPS
💡joints
💡stimulus
💡fatigue
💡injury
💡intensity
Highlights
Higher training frequencies may be better than lower frequencies, especially for well-trained individuals doing high volume
Most studies find no difference or a slight benefit for higher training frequencies when equating for volume
Higher frequencies have a theoretical rationale - more frequent stimulation of muscle protein synthesis
Without controlling volume, higher frequencies allow greater total volume due to decreased fatigue per session
Higher frequencies may be the only way to train muscles close to their maximum recoverable volume
Studies show recreational lifters can benefit from very high weekly set volumes (50+ sets) when split over more sessions
Higher frequencies may have better stimulus:fatigue ratio - less soreness, higher testosterone, similar injury rates
Higher frequencies can greatly increase total weekly volume compared to lower frequencies
With higher frequencies, differentiate the stimulus - don't keep lifting heavy day after day
Vary intensities over the week - heavy, moderate, light days to manage fatigue
Give injured/painful areas an actual break to avoid continually aggravating tissues
Higher frequencies are time efficient - full body workouts possible in 30-45 minutes
Higher frequencies show significant muscle growth possible from very low volumes if done frequently
Minimum muscle growth threshold is low - even 1 hard set daily can exceed minimums for many people
Ideal frequency likely 2-4 times per week, but experiment with adding sessions
Transcripts
if you split up something into higher
frequencies your total weekly volume can
become so much higher and still
recoverable high frequency is the only
realistic way to train your muscles as
much as they can recover from and really
expand on your genetic
potential hey folks Dr Mike here from
Renaissance priorization I am here with
my friend in real life do I have a
friend but he only comes to visit me
once every two years so that's my
friendship Mr meno henman's a true
Authority in the science-based fitness
realm Mano it is absolutely great to
have you thank you well but that is
exactly where our cordial attitude is
going to end because meno and I are
enemies in the science Community because
we hold diametrically opposing totally
irreconcilable views such as our views
on training frequency MH meno
what is your deal with high frequency
training and how and why do you see it
at least in some cases Superior to lower
frequencies give us a lay of the land
all right so it all
started with the research
that I I think I was the first to
popularize the idea at least that's what
I'm known for and that's why I'm the
high frequency guy that if you look at
all the available research on training
frequency they were not at all
consistent with the idea of brol that
training a muscle once per week is ideal
historically also natural bodybuilders
have pretty much always done full body
workouts up until 1950s or so and only
then did we start getting into training
splits with the the weer Empire and uh
the like
so if you looked at the research is
already s years ago or something the
trend was decisively in favor of higher
frequencies and that's still largely the
case although most studies Now find no
effect so if you just look at the
research right no mechanisms
nothing and you look at all available
studies you see that they are either in
favor of the higher frequency group in
comparison six versus three 5 versus two
one versus three lots of different
comparisons most of them find that if
you equate for the volume there is no
difference and there's only one with
very low quality evidence in one out of
four studied muscle groups which is
mostly probably a fluke in the other
group but anyway that's there might be
lower muscle growth in the lower
frequency so just empirically I think a
good argument can be made that if there
is a training technique and I would tell
you about this about anything else like
protein intake or whatever like you can
schedule your program like this or like
this and there's no real
other um like if you just go by the data
this might be better or at least equal
than this so my idea in that sense
empirically is okay high frequency and
theoretically I think I popularized the
idea that the muscle growth response
after the workout muscle protein
symphysis that anabolic window which is
not one hour it's not two hours it's
many hours in fact it can be multiple
days but in most research it's about one
day so it given that we know that the
area under the curve like the total
response of muscle protein symphysis
especially myof fibr muscle protein
symphysis over time very strongly
correlates with longitudinal muscle
growth so that the acute response of
Muscle Pro emphasis is a significant
predictor in the most well-controlled
research of long-term muscle growth I
thought it may this makes sense like we
have the theory and the empirical data
now since then research has not been
super fond of higher frequencies most
Studies have come out with a null effect
but that is with the control for
training volume and recently a study
came out where they tested with and
without the control of higher volume so
basically if you do one workout on
Monday let's say chess day Monday is
chess day everybody knows that and now
you're doing 10 sets of bench presses
now we're going to split that up we're
going to split up the incline the
decline and the flat bench press or
whatever type of work that you're doing
not just all on Monday we're going to do
it Monday Wednesday Friday let's say
it's nine sets and now we're do three
three exactly let's say nine sets on
Monday versus free free free now what's
going to happen to your total weekly
volume the total amount of reps that you
can do or total amount of weight that
you can lift it's going to
increase because you're not as tired
simply the average fatigue in your
workout is lower because you're not
doing it all at once when you're super
fatigued and the fatigue just goes like
you're doing some fatigue recover some
fatigue recover some fatigue so you get
more total volume and we see that
especially in that in that recent study
that when you don't control for the
volume the trend quite decisively goes
in favor of higher frequency being
better because of the volume so
basically I would say that there's kind
of free argument there is a freal
argument which is yeah it's not great
but there is at least some theoretical
rationale for why higher frequencies
might be better especially in well
trained individuals empirically we do
see this trend again especially in well-
trained individuals doing high volume
training which also aligns with the
other research like James creger we also
follow has done a good met analysis
where he found that more than six sets
per muscle group per session there are
very strong diminishing returns after
that point so it makes sense that after
that point you would switch the volume
you put it in another session rather
than just keep layering on the volume to
that session so I would say you have
that theoretical argument there's some
of that Empirical research the
interaction with volume and yeah some
Theory overall not a lot of Reason to
Believe purely based on the science at
least that higher frequencies would be
detrimental in any way and there is
reason to believe that they might be
superior so basically I do full body
every single day works out very well
it's also super time efficient because
you can pair up all these different
exercises and I can be out of the gym in
like half an hour many days half an hour
45 minutes if it's a longer workout with
squats or deadlift and it's also
practical in that way so that's
basically in a nutshell my views on why
High high frequency chaining should for
most individuals in my view be the
default and you need a a good reason to
make it lower volume again if you're
equating for volume and you have a
preference for doing say two you're
hitting a muscle two times per week you
can definitely get equal results that
way I just think it makes sense based on
the data we have to go with earing on
the side of higher frequencies versus
what most Bros do is earing on the side
of lower frequencies damn that's a lot
of science all at once yeah I think I'm
Dumber now but it's like the dun and
Krueger thing where all get smarter and
look back on it
fondly so I have one thing to add to
that and then some questions on
realistic
implementation the one thing I'd like to
add to that is that even most of the
studies that favor higher frequency even
if so if you control for volume and by
volume we mean number of sets yeah most
of the studies do that so just sets for
now if we only control for number of
sets we're not controlling for the
number of reps and we're not controlling
for load so like you said if we do nine
sets all at once versus
333 the 333 ends up being more reps and
usually more load so the overall
stimulus whether or not we call it
volume it's mathematical volume or if we
just so set set volume is the same but
the total stimulus is higher but that
even that is underplaying the hand at
least in some cases of how big of a deal
higher frequency can be because you know
James creger has demonstrated that you
know more than six to8 sets per session
per muscle may have some diminishing
returns fine but I think in many cases
people can comfortably do 10 working
sets per muscle and still have very
robust growth not have to worry about a
whole lot but here's the situation let's
say that you have uh an ability to do 18
sets in one
session I don't think a lot of people
are going to be able to make up the
claim that the last eight of those sets
maybe the last four for sure are ultra
high quality very stimulative sets
that's just not really reasonable to say
yeah but if we split that workout into
three workouts so we have a workout at
18 sets per muscle Group which is
already almost
untenable three sessions of six sets
each is actually quite easy and what you
find in practice if you try to train a
muscle just once a week versus if you
try to train it three times a week once
a week you may be able to do 20 sets for
that muscle and then you're just done
but three times a week you may be able
to comfortably do 10 sets each time you
go from 20 total sets to 30 total sets
and every single workout is actually
more doable not just more efficient not
just more effective but realistically
tenable possible who the does 30
sets of chest or back in one session
tell you there's plenty of people that
quote unquote do it and all them train
with an R8 and they say they train to
fail they're all Liars or they
just don't know their own bodies very
well so it turns out that if you split
up something into higher frequencies
your total weekly volume can become so
much higher and still recoverable that
that set equated studies on frequency
are really doing a not a disservice
they're theoretically very important
studies internally valid studies then in
applicability they're really
underplaying the hand of higher
frequency training so I'd say when you
can do as many sets as you can recover
from before the next session you can
repeat that session two three four times
a week even if it has five to 10 or even
more sets because recovery can be that
good so good in fact that I myself have
run into systemic recovery problems of
running highfrequency programs because I
can now realistically in a workout do so
much volume and that means locally my
volume is really big here's another
thing to add to that to to your point
about higher frequency we have seen in
the research that when systemic
constraints are not
realistic uh somebody trains only their
quads for example three times a week we
have seen in multiple studies now at
least recreationally trained
undergraduates can go upwards of 50 work
sets per week for weeks on end and get
better growth than at any number of sets
smaller than that better than 40 better
than 30 and yes there are caveats to
that but at least we know it's a
potentially High number who the is
going to do 50 sets of quads in one
session that's the I don't care what you
think about it don't bother commenting
it's irrelevant because nobody can
do it to any reasonable extent
where anything is stimulative and I
would say you run a very decent risk of
developing rabdom myis right there on
the spot if you try 50 actual work sets
but it looks like if you do maybe 10
work sets per day five days a week and
you're used to it you're trained that
might be realistic and all of a sudden
that 5050 is possible so if your local
musculature is recovering well if your
joints aren't hurting if your systemic
resources are still good high frequency
is the only realistic way to train your
muscles as much as they can recover from
and really expand on your genetic
potential because people will say things
like man man I'm struggling with calf
growth and you're like oh cool like what
do you trained how do you do for calvs
they say exercises they say loads
progression schemes and then you get to
the real thing where they train calvs
one a week or twice a week and you're
like have you tried to train Cals three
four five six times a week it often
times has never entered their mind that
if they do that they can easily get up
to 25 30 35
sets productive sets sets before which
you recovered to do them of that many
caves and all of a sudden what you
thought was bad calf genetics was just
you just didn't train nearly close to
your minimum effective volume for Cavs
not remotely close to your maximum
adaptive volume because it turns out you
needed more and the idea as you
mentioned in another one of our videos
that we did for your channel the idea
that the Gregorian calendar that the
7-Day week has anything to do with
physiology is pure impossibility of
nonsense because we just made that up we
made it up before we had MRI studies
before we had Tracer studies before we
knew it before physiology was a term and
so your muscles there's no reason to
believe that a week is some kind of
magic amount of time to rest why not not
hours why not days technique Sports and
weightlifters train two time two times a
day six days a week why can't you and
the why can't you answer is a very good
answer you cannot recover from that much
but how do you know until you try so my
humble recommendation and I train with
more moderate frequencies my normal
recommendation is two to four times per
week per muscle but if you have a muscle
that is easily able to recover there's
not a lot of joint and connective tissue
problem because if you try ultra high
frequency on joint joints that aren't so
great you will cook yourself and your
joints will break into pieces
but if you have muscles like your biceps
for me rear ads for me for example side
dos that recover quickly that can
tolerate a lot of volume that don't
impose a lot of systemic fatigue and uh
that can handle a lot of stress try to
train them a little bit more often if
you're doing once a week try two if
you're doing two try three if you're
doing three try four the worst thing
that happens is you overreach and you're
like that's too much I can't grow
anymore but you may find that with
higher frequency
you actually experience a really good
deal of growth because we already know
muscles can potentially benefit from 20
30 40 plus sets per week in some context
and you can't tell unless you try the
stimulus to fatigue ratio is a
interesting one because almost everyone
I've talked to intuitively believes that
higher training frequencies are
inherently more fatiguing and in that
case I think they're conflating volume
and frequency of course if you're doing
a heavy duty chess work on Monday you're
going to do that exact same workout now
on Wednesday and on Friday as well
rather than Distributing the same sets
over more days of course that's going to
be harder to recover from because your
total volume is simply a lot higher now
interestingly if you look at the same
number of sets even when you're doing
more reps because you're less fatigued
there is a trend in the research that
higher frequencies are easier to recover
from we have two studies showing lower
delayed onset muscle soreness which I'm
not a big fan of as that meaning much
but might mean something and anecdotally
certainly I think people get a lot less
sore when they spread out their volume
over more sessions as opposed to doing
like like you said 50 sessions one
workout you can get RAB though
so in in that line of research there is
a trend in the line of research of
testosterone to cortisol ratios again in
natural lifters we see that the
testosterone to cortisol ratio even
resting levels tends to be higher in I
think free
studies than with higher frequencies
versus with lower frequencies
with injury injury rates we don't have a
lot of research but it suggests no
effect of training frequency per se like
independent of volume or intensity on
injury rates so overall the trends
actually lean slightly in favor of the
stimulus fatig ratio being better
especially if we add if we look at the
stimulus components we just looked at
fatigue you look at the stimulus
components we can see what Mike says the
decreased quality of workout we can see
that objectively in muscle activity
levels now EMG has its limitations but
in this case I think makes perfect sense
that the quality of your work how much
you can activate a muscle how much force
you are producing we know that's all you
can also feel it like when your PCS are
fully pumped they just don't do much
anymore and people will report like I've
had in team foron Forum people say like
after XYZ number of sets of quads I
can't even Flex my quad should I still
be doing sets and we're generally like
no you should be going home to recover
so that you can come back and train
again when you're recovered and ready to
go yep I also I use those cues to a
lesser degree but I also Auto regulate a
lot based on especially work capacity
which often results in the same actual
application so I will say if your sets
go from like 12 to six to
three do you benefit from adding another
set to that maybe but if you just look
at it from a tension biomechanical point
of view the stimulus that you're going
to get is probably two repetitions maybe
one which is just not a whole lot of
tension and we know that fatigue can
increase disproportionately to the
increased muscle growth because there
are very strong diminishing returns to
the muscle growth stimulus but there are
no diminishing returns to the fatigue
fatigue just keeps Rising so in that
sense I think you also see that you get
a very poor stimulus to fatig ratio at
some point let's talk about some
problems that I see that can arise in
the implementation of high frequency in
certain scenarios and this may not even
be the correct
implementation one is people that like
you said earlier will continue to do
ultra heavy training every time they
step foot into the gym my recommendation
for that has been if you train some big
strong muscle like quads for example
three times a week at least consider for
hypertrophy by the way at least consider
something like in the first session
training it with mostly sets of five to
10 when you're fresh in the second
session on Wednesday maybe more like
sets of 10 to 15 10 to 20
repetitions your joints will still not
be super recovered because uh it's my
suspicion that joints take longer Ive
tissues and basically poor more poorly
vascularized parts of your body which
includes all connective tissues versus
muscles take longer to recover from than
your uh so than your muscles do so I say
you could have muscular recovery by
Wednesday if you train legs hard on
Monday but your knees just
experientially might not feel a th% your
back might not feel a thousand going
again in sets of 5 to 10 might be like
okay you're asking for it but if you go
sets of 10 to 20 and you do some
different movements it could be another
awesome workout and then Friday maybe
some sets of 15 to 20 maybe some sets of
20 to 30 guys remember that we know that
sets of 20 to 30 on average produce just
as much hypertrophy that's a five to 10
so if you go heavy moderate light and
you do three workouts a week you end up
obviating the problem of joint stuff
because you're aren't going heavy heavy
heavy so that's a thing I've seen people
do when they try high frequency and
they're like it doesn't work if
up my joints a lot of times they're just
going heavy heavy heavy all the time and
of course as you said it's basically a
volume artifact because they're doing
that much volume but there is only so
much heavy volume you can tolerate and
if you can't tolerate any more heavy
volume but your muscles can still
recover if you go lighter we know it
doesn't uh tax your joints as much we
know it's not acutely as much injury
risk but we also know from the
literature that light training does
promote roughly as much hypertrophy as
heavy so why wouldn't we take advantage
of that what do you think about that man
was that decent advice I would say so I
think it's very important to different
iate the training stimulus if you're
doing very high frequency training it
doesn't work as well to do the exact
same lift same reps Etc and try to do it
just every day there was this book by
Matthew Perryman I think squat every day
yeah I had an interaction with that guy
that was unpleasant on the social media
right I think that was a good example of
where he has he is also kind of in the
pain science movement where he's like
the pain that you don't you don't give
into that and it doesn't mean as much
but the take on message was essentially
that almost everybody that tries that
develops serious joint injuries at least
a lot of aches and pains I know a lot of
people that Crush themselves with squat
every day yeah so it doesn't work well
for a lot of reasons so Berger fagly and
I Norwegian strength coach good friend
of mine as well we experimented a lot
when this early research came out and we
kind of connected the MPS literature and
the training frequency literature and we
found like very strongly in our clients
it doesn't work as well if you try to do
the same stuff every time you really
need to differentiate the training
stimulus every time you do it plus there
is actually one big downside not
theoretically but in practice the way
most people Implement high frequency
training I think that on average
anecdotally people do report even given
the same number of sets more injuries
with higher frequency training my
experience is that the reason for that
is that when people get an ache or a
pain that might turn into an injury if
they do for example lag day once per
week your knees start hurting you're
good you quit what happens you did only
five of your expected 15 sets or quad
work for that week and you rested for a
whole week afterwards what happens in
hardcore traines that get some aches and
pains they squat after third set of
squatting on Monday they're like didn't
feel great Tuesday they go back they go
heavy again it's like first set was not
great third set really hurt Wednesday
they go in again they're like oh you
know different day didn't hurt while
walking into the gym so again they do
lack press or whatever first set not
great but then they try like second and
said okay now now I'm done what happened
is that they aggravated it four days in
a row and what you feel in the gym when
you're in a state where you're already
quite desensitized to pain and if you're
a very serious lifter a little bit of
pain continually building upon something
that's probably already injured tissue
that's already degraded which is already
has a weaker collagen structure can very
quickly turn into a much more serious
injury and that's what I see happening
when people do high frequency training
is that they never give the injured or
uh at least damaged body part a break
and that's what you have to be really
careful for you have to manage volume
you have to think of your total volume
and don't go in there every time
aggravating it really think about what
level of injury do I have how do I
interpret my pain signals and
differentiate the stimulus and don't go
in there every time and aggravate it
give yourself an actual break if you're
really like okay every type of quad
movement hurts my knees take some days
off great idea my summary is as follows
there is compelling
evidence that higher frequency training
can be better than lower frequency
training I would say one quick aside is
theoretically and I think empirically to
some extent it's not as much of a big
deal as you would think because the
refractory period of the MPS response is
pretty robust if you stimulate muscle
growth every day you don't get much
growth every day but you get some if you
stimulate it twice a week you're so Det
trained in a sense by the second session
that you get a lot out of both sessions
you still get more six times a week
versus two but it's like 1.25 or 1.1
times as much stimulus it's not two
times or three times as much stimulus so
that allows us to get into a good Gray
Zone where say anything between two and
four times a week frequency is totally
good professional attempt at getting
jacked but experiment in your own time
with Whatever frequency you're doing now
adding one unit of frequency to that if
you're doing two two times a week try
three try it for a while see how it goes
watch your fatigue watch your joints and
connective tissues watch your overall
volume to because that's going to be the
thing that makes you grow and can
up your recovery see how it goes at
least theoretically in a lot of practice
we know that there is some light at the
end of the highfrequency tunnel and if
you're training muscles one or two times
a week definitely give a thought to at
least one muscle at a time training it
two or three times a week and then
seeing if you get good results if you
don't whatever Mike mener was right go
back to one time a week no big deal but
if you do get some better growth think
interesting I can keep going like this
or I can go back to two times a week
frequency and then when I'm in a
specialization phase for this muscle
later I can try three or four times a
week frequency just to experiment
anything to add to that menu I think two
interesting points that you can also
learn from experimenting with high
frequency training and again high
frequency means that you're hitting a
mus muscle more times per week not
necessarily that you're going to the gym
every day because you can go to the gym
four times a week if you do full body
every time that I would say that's high
frequency training I would probably say
that high frequency training is hitting
a muscle three plus times a week agreed
yeah I think that's including three yeah
including three so like the old school
three times full body that's pretty high
frequency training and anything yeah any
other structure that hits a muscle at
least three times a week would be kind
of high frequency training so one thing
that you can learn from high frequency
training especially if you've been doing
bro workouts all your life is that only
a few sets are actually super
hypertrophic already and you get strong
diminishing returns after the very first
set if you train very hard a lot of
people have asked me isn't there like a
minimum threshold that you need to cross
and it's like yes there is but it's one
set if you're hitting that muscle every
single day of the week was probably
measured in reps and not even sets yeah
I mean we have research showing that if
you do even some body weight squats a
few times across the day you can get
some MPS response there so it's very
much a Continuum of course you need to
reach a certain level of NPS to cross
the threshold needed to build net muscle
across the weak as a hole and the more
advanced you are the higher that
threshold is exactly but even one hard
good set high quality work work set
after a warmup every single day that's
seven sets per week that's serious
that's above the minimum effective
volume for the vast majority of
individuals so you can get away with
really short workouts hitting a muscle
with one two freets is pretty hardcore
like if you do every if you train a
muscle every single day like I do freets
is ious bulk that's 21 CS per week of
high quality so 3 to four is very
serious volume one to two is perfectly
reasonable if you want to do a minimum
effective volume type approach where
you're cutting so I think that's
something you can learn from it and the
the setup is a really important part
like the time you can save because if
you do high frequency training and you
do Squat and you add L curl and you do
chin up you do bench press you can do
all of that in a circuit you can still
rest in between set in sets in which
case I would call it a combo set rather
than a circuit because a circuit is
usually associated with no rest and
that's incredibly time efficient so as I
said I can do a full body workout in 30
to 45 minutes and for for a lot of
people that are short on time especially
if you want to fit in a workout for
example in your lunch break you can get
a lot of high quality work in in one
hour also for pts that have clients and
they often they are restrained to one
hour it's a really effective time
effective way to structure your workouts
yes brilliant brilliant Mano where can
people you I'm on YouTube and Instagram
mostly and if you're new to my content
menow anal.com you can subscribe to my
newletter newsletter you get a tour of
my most popular contents and you can see
if you like anything awesome guys thanks
for tuning in see you next
[Music]
time
Посмотреть больше похожих видео
How Often Should You Train For BEST Strength
Why Men And Women MUST Train Differently
Critiquing Dr. Mike | Training for SIZE vs STRENGTH
Secret To Building Muscle FASTER [Full Body Workouts]
Why The Volume Recommendations For Muscle Growth Might Be Wrong
How Many Sets YOU Should Do For MAXIMUM Muscle Growth (ft. Dr Mike Israetel)
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)