Started to write a reply to Alex's current thread about short cycling of intensity and got thinking about factors that influence recovery, and how long a recovery is required for different styles of training and different training goals... and thought I'd post my thoughts on this and ask what you guys think.

Firstly, I think the word 'recovery' in a training context is often generalised to when you can train at the same intensity again but actually covers much more than just that -

replenishment of energy stores (muscle and liver glycogen,ATP, phosphocreatine, intracellular fat),
restoration of hormonal balance,
reduction of localised inflammation,
rehydration,
protein synthesis to account for oxidised muscle tissue,
new protein synthesis due to adaptation,
psychological recovery,
immune system recovery,
synaptic and CNS recovery

Many different things all of which take different amounts of time than each other, with some taking just a few mins and some several days. Overall recovery (ie when you are capable of training at the same intensity again and are able to progress) will also vary according to -

current training level (elite, newb or intermediate),
presence of/limitations due to injury,
style of training (big load vs big volume or somewhere in between),
current diet,
current state of health,
concurrent activity such as participation in a sport (like Alex and many of the others here with their rugby),
AAS use,
and individual genetic differences (size of energy stores, the amount of food you can eat, muscle fibre distribution etc).

Probably more factors I've missed too.

With all this variability it's hard to generalise how long optimal recovery will take - and the answer is certainly going to differ according to what you are doing and looking to achieve. There's then also the question of peridoisation - sometimes you might want to be overreaching, and sometimes you might be looking to deload!

From a combination of what I've read (i mean from studies and comments from respected coaches) and how things seem to work for me, I would say that -

higher frquency + lower volume + heavy loads (but NOT going to failure) + long rest between sets is best for strength adaptations,

moderate frequency + moderate volume + moderate loads (including an element of going to failure but not all the time) + moderate rest between sets is best for growth adaptations,

moderate frequency + high volume + light loads + hardly any rest between sets is best for fitness and endurance adaptations.

I would also add though that once past the beginner stage, imo periodisation is almost certainly the way to go to keep gains coming consistenly and without burnout. My real discovery of the last two years has been the 'heavy, medium, light' - or in fancy 'daily undulating periodisation' -

Training the whole body for low-moderate volume every 48-72 hours with either fullbody workouts or a two way split on a 2 on/one off, and alternating between -

heavy sessions (reps per set no higher than 5),
light sessions (reps no lower than 12)
and medium sessions (reps between 6 and 11).

Failure is only on the latter sets of an exercise.

I find this approach the one i respond best to (in terms of a mix of strength gain and hypertrophy) and is also the training style which I find least taxing and best for feeling recovered. The only bodypart which i'm not sure this is totally optimum for is arms, which I think require more dedicated volume than the routine allows.

What are your thoughts?

Great post that Det. Similar to you, i train medium, light, heavy (volume- med, high, low), 3 fullbody sessions. This is awesome for recovery, but i've found it's imperative to stay away from failure, even the slowing of rep execution is too far as i found out last week.

As far as true periodisation, planning sucks imo, just work for increases and when you feel burnt out 2 weeks in a row, do a deload.

Well, not really. If you look closely det is saying it depends on the training approach. If you're doing a low frequency programme (bodypart splits) then failure can be used more often as you'll have ample recovery time, but if you're doing higher frequency (3 fullbody sessions) failure should be avoided most of the time.

Moderate weights would mean between 6-12 reps mostly i would imagine. These sets are still gut busting, going to failure can be implemented, i think det is saying.

Gym-Pig - when I say moderate weights for growth am not talking pussy weight low intensity. For me a moderate weight would be one where i can do say 10 reps on the first set (where failure would be if i'd carried on to around 12) - 45-60 second rest, 10 reps second set (pretty much close to failure), and the third set would be to failure and possibly as low as 6-8 reps only. Once I can hit 10 reps with that weight on that third set then load goes up and pattern repeats.

As karlos says, I don't at all think going to failure is to be avoided, it's just not essential on every single set if training with high frequency - same exercise three times per week for example. If going down the once a week training route I'd be more inclined to kill the muscle in a higher number of sets. I think the once a week all out approach works, but for me personally with my own make up of muscle fibres and recovery ability it is not as effective or as sustainable long term as higher frequency with less work to direct failure.

When doing the heavy, medium, light seesions, even the light session is intense and brutal - 3x15 with 15-20 seconds rest between sets and total failure only on the last set is like someone taking a blowtorch to the muscle... or should be if you are doing it right!

Yeah well am mr insomnia today and for the last few days - general brain power and ability to recognise irony or humor has gone down the toilet!

Yes, I think the main the main thing is not so much 'which is better, HIT, high frequency or high volume'... is more a case of doing which ever you chose PROPERLY.

As cleaver said in a thread on UKM not that long ago, the worst things to do are HIT with not enough effort, or high frequency with too much of a workload.