So I recently read and article by Greg Nuckols titled high frequency training for a bigger total. I was curious if you were familiar with this article and if so if you could chime in on your two cents about this concept. I’ve also read Martijn Koevoets’s book about this style of training and I find it very appealing, especially for times when work is more busy and I have less time in a day, but a lot of time when I view my time as spread out over many days.
Like Greg says
“What now?
So there you have it. If you want to be bigger and stronger, you should try to divide your current training program into smaller, but more frequent sessions. It can skyrocket your strength and size. Just make sure to keep your intensity in check.”
Thanks, I really just wanted to hear you guys take on this.
As brief as I can put it I understand it as managing the right amount of stress but in shorter training sessions and more days in the gym. Same work done just spread out, maybe even a bit more. For example 3 day routine 3 lifts a day with conditioning moved to 5-6 days a week 2 main lifts a day. Less time daily bit more over all volume and frequency, that’s the basic idea and I think it’s awesome. I’ve always found my mental focus better on the first two lifts in a session than the last. I used to do something similarly to practice for sports and I always liked it, it also gave me time to do more on the days I was feeling it and get in get out when I wasn’t busy.
My personal .02, I do find it interesting, but I don’t think it changes anything that I didn’t believe prior to reading his articles on frequency. It mainly reenforces my existing beliefs. Greg came to the conclusion that frequency is a bit more important for hypertrophy outcomes than it is for strength outcomes, which makes sense because it does extend the hours of the week with elevated MPS. Adding in extra sessions can also aid most lifters in increasing total weekly volume, and we already know how important volume is. I also think that adding in extra frequency helps to train the skill aspect of strength, as skill does tend to have a dose/response training effect with frequency. In general I still think that the most important factor is total weekly volume, but aside from that there are some slight benefits to increased frequency if it fits in someones schedule. I think in retrospect that this is likely what you guys were thinking in keeping 4 day templates/programs as full body instead of a split.
I don’t think that’s what he is saying at all in the article actually. Rather, I think he is saying that more training tends to produce better results when appropriate and that this may be best accomplished by spreading it out over multiple training sessions vs. adding more sets within a single workout.
I have a similar limitation on my training time for each session, as I go to the gym at my lunch time from work. I simply cannot take a 1.5+ hours for each workout.
I transitioned from a 3 day schedule to a 4 day split, which got me back to weekly progress. I was still pressed for time, so I changed my workouts from upper/lower body split, to squat/press one day, then DL/bench the next. This allowed me to overlap warm up sets with my first exercise, and also allowed me to work at a higher intensity on my 2nd exercises.
My squat and press stalled again, so I am going to train 5 days per week, M-F. I will do my squat/press workout M-W-F, in an HLM format, and do DL/bench on Tuesday and Thursday. Adding the 5th day will increase my weekly volume on my stalled lifts, while still fitting each workout into my “lunch” break.
In summary, I like the idea of training more often to get desired volume, rather than increasing each training session.
Yes, that is what I took away from it as well, Jordan. So, would it be possible to spread out the 4 sessions over 5-6 days? I am somewhat time constrained and prefer to have shorter more frequent sessions.
I understood that, maybe I should not have said anything about “a bit more” or been more clearly about my comprehension of the article. I would assume an extra set if you have the time and effort and it’s appropriate would not matter all that much depending on the circumstance. I just wanted your thoughts on the approach of “spreading it out”. ie hey Jordan have you done this, do you like it, is it a waste of time. No worries though. I generally see spreading it out as giving myself more mental focus during a given training session because it’s a getin get out approach, vs shit I have to do 3 lifts and GPP then go backwork, guess I’ll just give it a go and find out.
Would you argue that spreading the same volume out over more days (i.e. lifts that came 3rd/4th in the original order are now 1st and 2nd etc) might lead to an inappropriate amount of training stress generated?
My thinking is that potentially greater intensities used when lifts are “fresh”, as opposed to pre-fatigued, might result in greater-than-intended training stress per unit of time.
I think that is a reasonable initial strategy, but at some point the volume of each workout will have to go up for continued progress. Alternatively, you can change the goal posts too
Is it possible? Sure. I just don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest it is always a beneficial change for the assumed outcomes (demonstrable improvements in strength in a particular set of movements and hypertrophy, for instance).
I understand that, but is there reason to believe it will be harmful or less effective? It works better for my schedule, which is why I am asking. I have a home gym so it is easy to get out for 1-2 lifts most days.
Yes, but admittedly the science is not terribly specific.
Some evidence suggests having preserved days off leads to better performance given the same amount of volume between two groups- one who trained daily and one who did 2x/day with days off.
Additionally, limiting stress/fatigue generation might make the response to said stress more productive.
I don’t think there is really enough of a difference to matter. Yes, the volume/intensity over a week is different; but If I understand the premise correctly it seems that by the end of say a six-month block the volume/intensity would be so negligible that it would be inconsequential. Please allow me to through in the caveat that I am slightly more knowledgeable than a Noob.
Obviously, I stand corrected. Dang man. I thought I was going to get a “Gold Star” for my answer. I will have to do a bit more digging so that I can figure out how to come up with the right conclusion. I thought I was on track.
