Thinking of switching over to 1x per week

[InTraining]

I've been in a kind of a rut lately training wise. No big deal but going to the gym less, anywho it actually feels like i've made more progress with the less is more approach vs. training muscle groups 2x per week as I've always done.

I heard a theory that as one gets more advanced in lifting tapering down of frequency should occur (which makes some sense as the progression up in weight will cause a greater recovery time). I should also say that I've only been lifting for 3 years.

Anyone else made the switch from 2 or even 3x a week like with HST to 1x a week and made some progress? Honestly I thought 1x a week was just some Weider BS but now I'm giving it serious consideration.

 

[Madcow2]

Okay - you are about to make the critical mistake that lead all the BBers to the 3 day split and training muscle groups 1x per week. In the late 1980's BBers would routinely train 3 days on and 1 off, some with am/pm sessions. All of a sudden a few guys started to notice that after a layoff they came back stronger and bigger.

In their woeful framework of training theory they believed that you go into the gym, workout to stimulate the muscles, recover and adapt to a bigger/stronger state, and then go back in and reapply. The idea is that you time your workouts and catch this supercompensation wave just as you recover but before the muscles attrophy. HIT training is probably the ultimate logical application of this as they seek to make minimal inroads, get the adaptation, and then return. You'll find your frequency gets less and less.

This is called single factor theory or simply supercompensation and it sounds really great and logical right? This is why BBing programs changed so drastically with regard to frequency and had impacts into training to failure also (which is flawed on a consistent basis).

Anyway, this is fucking wrong. The body doesn't work like that. I mean, it sounds good and it would be cool if it did, but you have this really sleek and simple model that doesn't hold up and there's a boatload of evidence behind this and outside of BBing, in the world of Pro, Div1, or Olympic level athletics you won't see this single factor type of program applied. The terms periodization and dual factor theory apply here.

I'm not going to type much more to explain it but here are some explanations and then below, I'll just continue and expect that you've read at least the first one. The 2nd link is part 1 of an article at Core magazine and if you like it just poke around for part 2 which lays out the program - or just PM me and I'll send you links.

Dual Factor Theory - Why this Works:
(The further one progresses the more critical it becomes to understand basic training concepts like this. If you aren't familiar with this, it is absolutely essential. This is how top athletes in sport are trained the world over and this includes adding LBM in addition to strength, speed, and power.)
JS182: http://forum.mesomorphosis.com/showpost.php?p=48&postcount=3
Matt Reynolds: http://www.readthecore.com/200501/reynolds-dual-factor-training.htm
Madcow (post #15 and on): http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=372686

So anyway, what you have basically done is gone from a higher volume/higher frequency period to a period lower in each. This is akin to loading/deloading periods. What you are noticing is the rebound/delayed compensation effect. This doesn't carry on forever because you won't be stimulating much progress on a 1x per week program to rebound or compensate from. It's interesting to note that the idea behind periodization is that the body can tolerate much higher loads over a short term as compared to an infinite term (i.e. non-periodized). This is used advantageously by loading the athelte for a period and then deloading and allowing for adaptation to take place. It's a delayed compensation. As stated in the links - this is nothing new, this is standard training theory, everyone in the world is seemingly aware of this with the exception of BBers. Go to the Olympic Training center and see how we train our sprinters, throwers, Oly lifters etc... Now go to China, Britain, Bulgaria, South Africa, everywhere - it's just totally common accross the world.

So anyway - if you only want to train 1x that's your business. But you are basically where BBing was in the early 1990s (there were other major problems too like using all machines, no planned weight progression, etc...) and I'd prefer not to see you jump off the same cliff out of ignorance that all of them did.

Here's another sample dual factor/periodized program: http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4764723&postcount=381

Here's the table of contents in the master thread where all of this stuff came from:
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/showthread.php?t=375215

 

[XenoG]

I've been doing 1X per week for about 4 to 5 months now and have had only small gains. I wouldnt recommend changing over, you probley need either to take a couple days off maybe even a week, lower your weight a bit and do more reps and try to build up to what you were lifting before doing more reps, or switch your routine up a bit.

 

[tzan]

Everybody is different. What works well for some might not work as well for others. With that being said I would deffiantly consider switching up your routine to something new. The key is finding what works for YOU. Not what other people have had sucess using.

 

[Tom Treutlein]

You can't target specific muscle fibers.

http://www.hypertrophy-specific.com/cgi-bin/ib3/ikonboard.cgi?;act=ST;f=13;t=21

 

[mrhoon]

I read a book by Ellington Dardon that was basically a rehash of Arthur Jones theory of High intensity low volume. It called for exercising each bodypart only once a week and only doing 1 set, and like 8 exercises per workout.(for advanced) Each set lasting an average of 60 seconds, and resting no more than 60 seconds between exercises. All routines should take no more than 40 minutes from start to finish, including warm up and cool down. It was a good read but it was written with such absoluteness, it smelled of pure arrogance. Though it is something I incorperate from time to time, for variety. But by his theory if I don't make gains I'm not "intense" enough. There is no flaw in the theory and you're a fucking weak half wit if you think otherwise. Yeah right. There are so many holes in his theory its not funny. Mike Metzer was a big advocate of high intensity and actually he and his brother worked for Arthur Jones (inventor of the Nautilus machines)for a time.
So you can use it for a while, slow things down, focus on the rep, the intensity, 6 sec down, 6 sec up, burn, baby, burn. 1 exercise per bodypart, 1 set per exercise. Each to absolute failure. Then rest. You will be targeting you slow twich muscle fibers.
Or not. I do it, and I like it. But it is not "THE" way.

 

[UA_Iron]

Been doing supercomposition for a while now and I really like it. I can really get each muscle group nicely and I'm seeing good results. of course I am also on AAS soo...

But here's my split:
1. Chest and calves
2. Back
3. off
4. Arms (separate arm day has helped tremendously)
5. Legs
6. Shoulders
7. off

up 8.5lbs in the past 5 weeks - This split was stolen from needsize.
the volume seems to be doing me really well, while sometimes I noticed frequency really started to hurt my joints...

 

[NYBodyguard]

its 4am maybe im not seeing something but are you saying trainign 1 time a week as in just working out once a week or as in 1 bodypart a day

 

[Tom Treutlein]

Holy shit, Debaser actually still posts here!

 

[Debaser]

Everybody is different. What works well for some might not work as well for others. With that being said I would deffiantly consider switching up your routine to something new. The key is finding what works for YOU.

So many fucking cliches. Do you realize you essentially made the same statement four times in a row? It's also the most abused claim in bodybuilding ever constructed. Sure, we have different genetics. It doesn't mean that the principles of muscle growth are changed.