Why ULTRA HIGH Frequency Training Might Be Best For Building Muscle

Summary

The 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

00:00

🏋️‍♂️ 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.

05:01

📊 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.

10:03

🔬 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.

15:03

🚀 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.

20:04

🤕 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.

25:07

📝 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.

Keywords

💡frequency

Frequency refers to how often a muscle is trained per week. The video discusses research on training muscle groups with high vs low weekly frequency. High frequency (3+ times per week) may allow greater total weekly training volume and could be optimal for maximizing muscle growth.

💡volume

Training volume refers to the total number of hard sets performed for a muscle group per week. The video argues higher training frequency allows greater total weekly volume which drives muscle growth. For example, a muscle trained 3x/week may tolerate 30 total sets versus 20 sets if trained once weekly.

💡recovery

Recovery refers to the body's ability to regenerate and adapt between training sessions. Faster recovery allows higher training frequency and greater total volume. The video claims muscles may recover faster than connective tissues, so joint pain may limit frequency.

💡hypertrophy

Hypertrophy means muscle growth and size increases. The video examines if higher training frequency stimulates greater long-term hypertrophy compared to lower frequencies when weekly volume is equalized.

💡MPS

MPS stands for muscle protein synthesis and refers to the biochemical process of building new muscle tissue. The video cites research correlating acute MPS responses with long-term hypertrophy to theoretically justify higher training frequencies.

💡joints

Joints refers to the connections between bones which can become injured if stressed excessively. The video warns that very high training frequencies may overtax joints even if muscles recover well between sessions.

💡stimulus

Training stimulus means the signal triggering physiological adaptations like muscle growth. The video argues higher frequency provides greater weekly stimulus which could drive superior hypertrophy.

💡fatigue

Fatigue refers to transient exercise-induced tiredness which inhibits performance. The video claims higher training frequencies may better manage fatigue so athletes can sustain a greater training stimulus.

💡injury

Injuries like muscle strains or joint issues can result from excessive training loads. The video advises carefully managing fatigue and load with higher frequencies to avoid overuse injuries.

💡intensity

Training intensity describes the amount of effort or percentage of max capability used in training. The video suggests varying intensities over the week to reduce injury risk with very high frequencies.

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