This is an approach that has been crossing my mind recently and can be used as a 2 week long mini cycle.

The idea is to combine 1 week of traditional volume training of hitting 1 body part per week over a 4/5 day split using 3-4 exercises per muscle group and 3-4 full on working sets per exercise. Week 2 would follow an Upper/Lower split using more of a maintanance approach with only 1-2 exercises per muscle group and 2 working sets per exercise.

For gains you would use week 2 to maintain the weights used in week 1 and then for the following week 1 split make the improvements and so on. Week 2 would use the core exercises from week 1.

What does 3-4 full on sets mean and how long rests? Pyramiding the weight up or stickign to the same weight and letting the reps decrease as you go through the 3-4 working sets?

Resting time would generally be 90 secs but for stull like Squats and Deads this would be more in the 120-180 secs range. Working sets would be sticking to the same weight and working within a set rep range with 1 or 2 warm up sets before hand.

Youd need a cut off or rest period of 3-4 days between the switch over to make it optimal Id say

Would be an interesting approach and probably work well. Am assuming you mean to do a week high volume, a week lower, then repeat for a set number of cycles? My only concern in theory might be the interupted progression of changing between loads every week - but then maybe mixing it up this way would keep adaptation coming anyway?

There are schools of thought citing 7+ plus days are optimum for muscle recovery so I'm chancing that the lower volume phase is a compromise between rest and maintaining gains. The loads as such wouldn't change as the idea is to maintain the same weight used but simply reduce the number of working sets (and exercises in some cases) but in theory this could help to sustain (increased) gains every 2 weeks over prolonged periods of time rather than resorting to weeks of deloading.

Makes sense I guess. Maybe 2 weeks high volume/1 week low would work well, too.

Alex wrote:The idea is to combine 1 week of traditional volume training of hitting 1 body part per week over a 4/5 day split using 3-4 exercises per muscle group and 3-4 full on working sets per exercise. Week 2 would follow an Upper/Lower split using more of a maintanance approach with only 1-2 exercises per muscle group and 2 working sets per exercise.

How about instead of Upper/Lower do 3 Full Body sessions?

Especially for you due to rugby.

That way one week is 4-5 sessions in a week (a lot imo for just lifting weights), then week two is 3 full body workouts. That allows you to hit legs all three sessions but for just 1 exercise per session and with low volume (2 balls-to-the-walls sets).

I don't think it would maximise recovery time per muscle group plus full body sessions hitting antagonistic muscle groups also won't allow to hit each muscle group optimally and inflict as much hypertophy as hitting an individual muscle group.

I'm not viewing this to be sport specific but more as an alternative for potentially adding muscle mass.

Full recovery takes only 48hrs. So, Mon, Wed & Fri for 3 full body sessions. Plus the volume will be lower so not to destroy yourself.

"hitting antagonistic muscle groups also won't allow to hit each muscle group optimally and inflict as much hypertophy as hitting an individual muscle group." -- but you'll do this in week 1 with body part splits. On week 2 you do full body... and if you do as you stated which is upper/lower split your comment applies the same to upper/lower split. So not sure what you mean.

And anyway, what's the optimal amount to elicit hypertrophy? imo it's not 10 sets on the same muscle group once a week. Splitting it over 2/3 sessions a week is better... but as you're alluding too, a combo of the both over a 2 week period is certainly a way to see what happens.

tbh to add muscle mass I think you need to eat lots and lift heavy. And by that I mean you could try a 3-4 week prog of deadlifts, squats, bench, chins (and a little bit of assistance work). That's it. In fact, I'm gonna sort a prog out just like that now for me. I'll post it later.

health4ni wrote:Full recovery takes only 48hrs.

kp1512 wrote:

health4ni wrote:Full recovery takes only 48hrs.

I'm not sure you are right. I think that full recover can take anwhere from 48 hours+ as a minimum.


EDIT: Here's a link to a John Berardi article on rcovery. I think he's way too cautious on this, but interesting: http://www.johnberardi.com/articles/tra ... ifting.htm

kp1512 wrote:

health4ni wrote:Full recovery takes only 48hrs.

I should've clarified...

when training smartly with an upper/lower or full body protocol. And in these sessions you do only 2 or 3 working sets.

With traditional body part splits you destroy the muscles and so longer recovery is needed... but doesn't mean it results in greater hypertrophy or strength. One reason you need longer is that due to increased volume per body part the eccentric TUT for the whole session is far greater so more muscle damage occurs. But as I say I don't feel that is necessarily ideal for hypertrophy.

health4ni wrote:

kp1512 wrote:

health4ni wrote:Full recovery takes only 48hrs.

I should've clarified...

when training smartly with an upper/lower or full body protocol. And in these sessions you do only 2 or 3 working sets.

With traditional body part splits you destroy the muscles and so longer recovery is needed... but doesn't mean it results in greater hypertrophy or strength. One reason you need longer is that due to increased volume per body part the eccentric TUT for the whole session is far greater so more muscle damage occurs. But as I say I don't feel that is necessarily ideal for hypertrophy.

So you are saying Scott that a very carefully selected programme you would expect a 3 day ful body workout to be more effective in gaining muscle mass.

I take it you would you look at different exercises, rep and weights schemes at each session then. In my case, if I adopted this, my weekly chest work would look something like: Session 1 incline DB press, Session 2 Heavy Flat Flys, Session 3 Machine Press.


Sounds interesting. I just need to find some leg exercises which won't cripple me as the constant damp is playing hell with my ankle!

Simon - what yuu are saying is DC mate.

3 sets, one exercise, one movement per part except back and legs

thats the entire premise and why it delivers.

Yes Si, exactly that... imo.

For most people that work Mon-Fri 9-5 and have weekends off (or do some conditioning or leisure fitness on weekends) then I've found that the following works well:

Mon: highest reps
Wed: medium reps
Fri: lowest reps

Thus you end the week using the heaviest weight and have a good 2 days of no weights being lifted to recover.
Amending the rep ranges within a week allows you to hit all the different muscle fibres; plus you get the "pump" (if you like that stuff) on a higher rep day, and yet still get to shift some heavy weights on the 3rd session.

My own recent training has been like this. Although I am going to change as I've being doing that for a number of months now and want to do some other stuff.

As we know there is no one way to train, but I think this works really well.

The same concept can be done on an upper/lower split... but it will be over say a 2 week period.

@KP: it's not DC at all (that I'm suggesting anyway). There's no rest-pause. There's no 9 reps, rest, then 4 reps, rest, then 2 reps. It's 2-3 sets hitting reps within a rep range of say 10-12 on Day 1. Then 7-9 on day 2 and finally 3-5 on day 3 (as an example).

health4ni wrote:Yes Si, exactly that... imo.

For most people that work Mon-Fri 9-5 and have weekends off (or do some conditioning or leisure fitness on weekends) then I've found that the following works well:

Mon: highest reps
Wed: medium reps
Fri: lowest reps

Thus you end the week using the heaviest weight and have a good 2 days of no weights being lifted to recover.
Amending the rep ranges within a week allows you to hit all the different muscle fibres; plus you get the "pump" (if you like that stuff) on a higher rep day, and yet still get to shift some heavy weights on the 3rd session.

My own recent training has been like this. Although I am going to change as I've being doing that for a number of months now and want to do some other stuff.

As we know there is no one way to train, but I think this works really well.

The same concept can be done on an upper/lower split... but it will be over say a 2 week period.

@KP: it's not DC at all (that I'm suggesting anyway). There's no rest-pause. There's no 9 reps, rest, then 4 reps, rest, then 2 reps. It's 2-3 sets hitting reps within a rep range of say 10-12 on Day 1. Then 7-9 on day 2 and finally 3-5 on day 3 (as an example).

"thats the entire premise and why it delivers."

the multi freq/low volume - its the same.

During the cruise you dont do the rest pause but 2-3 sets. During the blast phases - you change the total reps in the rest pause - so it could be total 15 reps over 3 rest pause on Day 1 or 30 reps over 3 rest pause on Day 3 - so similar to what youve outlined. Additionaly - you are constantly changing the TUT so one can argue the benefits their as well.

concept is the same and done to death and does work...its only now people are waking up after how long?

but its not about the name of the system - its about the fact that multi freq / low volume does work very well if done and planned in phases with targets

You'd only be hitting a body part split with Arms and to be honest thats not such a big deal with smaller muscle groups. If you're working to 4 days then perhaps Chest and Back as well but ideally you'd be aiming for a 5 day split.

While I see what you're saying regards spliting over 3 sessions rather than 10 sets in one session I don't think you can get optimum volume of heavy working sets with a full body split due to time and energy levels that each takes up. Whereas with single split I can get in all my heavy working sets in well under an hour but there's no way I could manage the same in 3 full body splits as 5 days doesn't divide into 3 days without some form of compromise.

Anyway all are different methods and I've not realy seen this sort of thing implemented before which could well mean that it doesn't work or it's simply not really been tried.

@Alex: for you then, as you say, an Upper/Lower split is better after the body part split (which I still don't like as much, but there you go).

The thing is Alex, does doing 3 sets of back squats, then 3 sets of split squats, then 2 sets of leg extensions & 2 sets of ham curls done once a week (as an example of a lower workout), result in better gains than if you did all of that but split over 2 or 3 sessions?

One way to think about it is this: lower body work with exercises like squats and deadlifts are the biggest "anabolic" exercises there are. So, if you do them twice a week, you're going to get two big "anabolic releases". Whereas done just once a week you'll get one. Now you may say done once a week will be a "bigger release" (hormone wise and other stuff that the body produces), but by the time you get to doing say the latter exercises like leg extensions and curls, you're fecked and the body is done. And I'm not so sure you'll get a bigger release anyway. Mainly cos you know you have to leave some in the tank for the other lower exercises. That is a certainty.

@KP: yeah, it's very similar. Still, not quite the same as DC. I'd make the prog pair exercises; so chest, rest, back, chest, etc etc... rather than all "sets" (rest-pause efforts) all in a row.

I see what you're driving at but personally I'd do Squat and Deadlift on seperate days anyway on a single body part style of split. I also think for Legs that you need to think of the anatagonists so Squat, Glute Bridge, Calf Raise and a Lunge/Split Squat variation would be enough to cover it as a single day split and wouldn't vary much from the upper lower style of split apart from the volume.

Picking up on your point regarding the efficiency of the single body part split you said in the Hydro Protein thread about today's physiques not looking as good as as in the 70's and 80's and mentioning that perhaps it could be nutrition related. It could also be training related as the old mantra of 2 hours in the gym hitting a body part as hard and as much as possible has died out somewhat as many alternative methods of training have been developed and come to the fore. I always maintained in the past that volume training gives a denser look to the muscle mass thats developed so you've got to wonder whether more modern techniques are any better.

Alex wrote:Picking up on your point regarding the efficiency of the single body part split you said in the Hydro Protein thread about today's physiques not looking as good as as in the 70's and 80's and mentioning that perhaps it could be nutrition related. It could also be training related as the old mantra of 2 hours in the gym hitting a body part as hard and as much as possible has died out somewhat as many alternative methods of training have been developed and come to the fore. I always maintained in the past that volume training gives a denser look to the muscle mass thats developed so you've got to wonder whether more modern techniques are any better.

Good point.

I think if someone was gonna spend 2hrs in the gym then they'd be better off to hit more than one body part though. That old mantra was probably used by AAS users though (but I don't know for sure).

I think tbh it's the increase in machines (the widespread availability of them) and thus the lack of the good ol movements like, squats, deadlifts, muscle clean & presses, overhead BB presses. Sometimes I think that simply picking heavy shit off the floor and putting it over head is so god damn effective.