How can I go from flat to round butt?

[SAD]

You can't pick freaks of nature as examples. They are on the far far end of the bell curve. I'm not saying that people won't get results from once a week bodypart training, but to make a blanket statement that 2x per week squatting isn't effective, is ludicrous. Smolov and sheiko have built massive quads and glutes for years and years.

 

[Hardatit]

Squat, eat, rest, repeat !

 

[GiantSlayer]

One's ability to recover from a workout has about a million variables. In general, if the overall volume and intensity is split between the two days, then there is no reason you could not recover. Likewise, if the muscle groups are split into hams one day and quads on the second day, that is also recoverable. And if your on 5 grams of gear and your a pro who has nothing to do but sleep eat and workout, you will probably recover from 2x week training.

 

[Dr_jitsu]

One's ability to recover from a workout has about a million variables. In general, if the overall volume and intensity is split between the two days, then there is no reason you could not recover. Likewise, if the muscle groups are split into hams one day and quads on the second day, that is also recoverable. And if your on 5 grams of gear and your a pro who has nothing to do but sleep eat and workout, you will probably recover from 2x week training.

Lets examine the logic: Tons of drugs, won the genetic lottery, and the argument is that only then can they recover from 2 a week. Regular Joes and Jolenes need more recovery. Furthermore, very few pros, at least those I knew when I lived in CA, train a bp more than once every 6-7 days, unless it is pre contest time. If they do one a week, us mortals certainly can't recover from more frequency. I am surprised that so many here advocate 2 a week, since 95% of your top competitors abandoned that frequency in the 70's.

Training a bp twice a week will skyrocket your cortisol levels.

OK, just posted a recent pic of me on my avatar....seriously, that ass is huge


And I am 51

 

[FLEXjs]

OK, just posted a recent pic of me on my avatar....seriously, that ass is huge

 

[SAD]

Lets examine the logic: Tons of drugs, won the genetic lottery, and the argument is that only then can they recover from 2 a week. Regular Joes and Jolenes need more recovery. Furthermore, very few pros, at least those I knew when I lived in CA, train a bp more than once every 6-7 days, unless it is pre contest time. If they do one a week, us mortals certainly can't recover from more frequency. I am surprised that so many here advocate 2 a week, since 95% of your top competitors abandoned that frequency in the 70's.

Training a bp twice a week will skyrocket your cortisol levels.

First of all, I was unaware that cortisol understands how many times per week you train a certain bodypart. I was under the impression it was a systemic adrenal response to intense, acute exercise. Are you saying that LESS cortisol is produced by lifting 4 times per week but never the same bodypart twice, than if I trained just twice per week but did squats both days? You realize this entire discussion started by you saying that squats twice per week was too much with too little rest. So please don't start saying that ANYBODY recommended hitting EVERY bodypart twice per week.

Secondly, in regards to the freaks of nature on high doses of gear, maybe they grow like weeds and don't need to squat twice per week. Again, we are talking about squats here, as we were from the beginning. Only in your recent posts have you started trying to change the nature of the debate to save face. This is about whether or not squatting twice per week is too much to see growth in the muscles worked. There are thousands of natural athletes, tens of thousands, that squat many more than 2x per week, and they have VERY well developed quads and glutes. Top level Olympic lifters will do squats, whether they be back squats, front squats, or overhead squats, 3x and more each week for months and years on end. Show me a top level Olympic weightlifter that doesn't have great quads and glutes. Many of these guys are lifetime natural, and not all of them are freaks of nature when it comes to physique.

Lastly, look at cyclists. They do one legged squats (everytime they push the pedal down) and they do it with incredible frequency and duration. Show me a cyclist that's been training for more than a year and doesn't have a well developed lower body.

 

[IronSoul]

One's ability to recover from a workout has about a million variables. In general, if the overall volume and intensity is split between the two days, then there is no reason you could not recover. Likewise, if the muscle groups are split into hams one day and quads on the second day, that is also recoverable. And if your on 5 grams of gear and your a pro who has nothing to do but sleep eat and workout, you will probably recover from 2x week training.

Lol nailed it with this one

 

[BrotherIron]

You can't pick freaks of nature as examples. They are on the far far end of the bell curve. I'm not saying that people won't get results from once a week bodypart training, but to make a blanket statement that 2x per week squatting isn't effective, is ludicrous. Smolov and sheiko have built massive quads and glutes for years and years.

Also think about all the Oly lifters who squat 5x week and their legs and glutes are BIG.

 

[CBS]

Lets examine the logic: Tons of drugs, won the genetic lottery, and the argument is that only then can they recover from 2 a week. Regular Joes and Jolenes need more recovery. Furthermore, very few pros, at least those I knew when I lived in CA, train a bp more than once every 6-7 days, unless it is pre contest time. If they do one a week, us mortals certainly can't recover from more frequency. I am surprised that so many here advocate 2 a week, since 95% of your top competitors abandoned that frequency in the 70's.

Training a bp twice a week will skyrocket your cortisol levels.

OK, just posted a recent pic of me on my avatar....seriously, that ass is huge


And I am 51

Here is a good piece on training frequency from Ironman mag. The author is John Hansen. While I did not write it, it reflects my position:

http://www.ironmanmagazine.com/how-often-should-i-train-each-bodypart/

I wasn't going to reply here because I'm sure you'll start whining that I'm dogging you but the misinformation to which you're subjecting TID is too much to ignore, PC.

And why do you continue to rely on blogs and anecdotes to support your arguments, "Doctor?" There are peer reviewed studies that have looked at this very issue.


Your assertion that if elite level bodybuilders need a week to recover (which isn't true) then the average gym rat "certainly can't recover from more frequency" is absurd. It has been shown repeatedly that the time needed for recovery increases the more advanced a lifter is. The reason is the more advanced one becomes, the greater the intensity the lifter is capable of generating AND the greater the intensity needed to elicit a response from training. It stands to reason this necessitates a greater recovery period. A beginning lifter is physically UNABLE to stress their muscles to the same extent as Dorian Yates, even if he trained everyday. That's just basic exercise physiology. To suggest someone at the Olympia level is training with the same intensity (and that's exactly what you'd have to do for your argument to make ANY sense) as most people reading this is utter nonsense.

Looking at the evidence, there are studies that show training a muscle once per week works and there are studies that show training a muscle several times per weeks works also. Personally, I prefer something in the middle - maybe training a muscle once every 4 or 5 days and most studies that I've seen seem to agree with this.

I've appended a few studies that I located after a cursory search of the literature that look at both the efficacy of training frequency as well as the time it takes for muscle to recover from resistance exercise. No doubt there are better studies available but these will do for now. If you wish to refute my post, I ask that you do it with evidence and not personal opinion, links to blogs or ad hominems.



Regards

CBS


Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 2000, 14(3), 273–281
Comparison of 1 Day and 3 Days Per Week of
Equal-Volume Resistance Training in
Experienced Subjects http://www.setantacollege.com/wp-content/uploads/Journal_db/00124278-200008000-00006.pdf
JOHN R. MCLESTER, JR.1, P. BISHOP1, AND M.E. GUILLIAMS2


ABSTRACT
There is not a strong research basis for current views of the
importance of individual training variables in strength training
protocol design. This study compared 1 day versus 3
days of resistance training per week in recreational weight
trainers with the training volume held constant between the
treatments. Subjects were randomly assigned to 1 of 2
groups: 1 day per week of 3 sets to failure (1DAY) or 3 days
per week of 1 set to failure (3DAY). Relative intensity (percent
of initial 1 repetition maximum [1RM]) was varied
throughout the study in both groups by using a periodized
repetition range of 3–10. Volume (repetitions 3 mass) did
not differ (p # 0.05) between the groups over the 12 weeks.
The 1RMs of various upper- and lower-body exercises were
assessed at baseline and at weeks 6 and 12. The 1RMs increased
(p # 0.05) significantly for the combined groups over
time. The 1DAY group achieved ;62% of the 1RM increases
observed in the 3DAY group in both upper-body and lowerbody
lifts. Larger increases in lean body mass were apparent
in the 3DAY group. The findings suggest that a higher frequency
of resistance training, even when volume is held constant,
produces superior gains in 1RM. However, training
only 1 day per week was an effective means of increasing
strength, even in experienced recreational weight trainers.
From a dose-response perspective, with the total volume of
exercise held constant, spreading the training frequency to 3
doses per week produced superior results.



J Strength Cond Res. 2005 Nov;19(4):950-8.Applications of the dose-response for muscular strength development: a review of meta-analytic efficacy and reliability for designing training prescription. Peterson MD[SUP]1[/SUP], Rhea MR, Alvar BA.


Abstract

There has been a proliferation in recent scholarly discussion regarding the scientific validity of single vs. multiple sets of resistance training (dose) to optimize muscular strength development (response). Recent meta-analytical research indicates that there exist distinct muscular adaptations, and dose-response relationships, that correspond to certain populations. It seems that training status influences the requisite doses as well as the potential magnitude of response. Specifically, for individuals seeking to experience muscular strength development beyond that of general health, an increase in resistance-training dosage must accompany increases in training experience. The purpose of this document is to analyze and apply the findings of 2 meta-analytical investigations that identified dose-response relationships for 3 populations: previously untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete; and thereby reveal distinct, quantified, dose-response trends for each population segment. Two meta-analytical investigations, consisting of 177 studies and 1,803 effect sizes (ES) were examined to extract the dose-response continuums for intensity, frequency, volume of training, and the resultant strength increases, specific to each population. ES data demonstrate unique dose-response relationships per population. For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group. These meta-analyses demonstrate that the effort-to-benefit ratio is different for untrained, recreationally trained, and athlete populations; thus, emphasizing the necessity of appropriate exercise prescription to optimize training effect. Exercise professionals may apply these dose-response trends to prescribe appropriate, goal-oriented training programs.









Can J Appl Physiol. 1995 Dec;20(4):480-6.The time course for elevated muscle protein synthesis following heavy resistance exercise. MacDougall JD[SUP]1[/SUP], Gibala MJ, Tarnopolsky MA, MacDonald JR, Interisano SA, Yarasheski KE.


Abstract

It has been shown that muscle protein synthetic rate (MPS) is elevated in humans by 50% at 4 hrs following a bout of heavy resistance training, and by 109% at 24 hrs following training. This study further examined the time course for elevated muscle protein synthesis by examining its rate at 36 hrs following a training session. Six healthy young men performed 12 sets of 6- to 12-RM elbow flexion exercises with one arm while the opposite arm served as a control. MPS was calculated from the in vivo rate of incorporation of L-[1,2-13C2] leucine into biceps brachii of both arms using the primed constant infusion technique over 11 hrs. At an average time of 36 hrs postexercise, MPS in the exercised arm had returned to within 14% of the control arm value, the difference being nonsignificant. It is concluded that following a bout of heavy resistance training, MPS increases rapidly, is more than double at 24 hrs, and thereafter declines rapidly so that at 36 hrs it has almost returned to baseline.





Med Sci Sports Exerc. 1995 Sep;27(9):1263-9. Muscle damage following repeated bouts of high force eccentric exercise. Nosaka K[SUP]1[/SUP], Clarkson PM.


Abstract

This study was designed to test the hypothesis that performing repeated bouts of eccentric exercise when muscles were not recovered from previous exercise would exacerbate muscle damage. Twelve nonweight-trained males (21.7 +/- 2.4 yr) performed three sets of 10 eccentric actions of the elbow flexors (ECC) using a dumbbell that was set at 80% of the preexercise maximal isometric force level. This same exercise was repeated 3 and 6 d after the first exercise. Maximal isometric force, relaxed and flexed elbow joint angle, muscle soreness, plasma creatine kinase, and glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase activities were assessed. Ultrasound images were taken from the upper arm. These measures (except soreness) were assessed immediately before and after each eccentric exercise bout (ECC1, ECC2, and ECC3) and 3 d after ECC3. Soreness was assessed prior to ECC1 and once a day for 9 d thereafter. All criterion measures changed significantly (P < 0.01) after ECC1. ECC2 and ECC3 performed 3 and 6 d after ECC1 did not exacerbate damage and did not appear to slow the recovery rate. Increased echointensity in ultrasound images was demonstrated following ECC1, but no indication of increased damage was found after ECC2 and ECC3. Strenuous exercise performed with "damaged" muscles did not exacerbate damage or affect the repair process

 

[Dr_jitsu]

Correct, my comments were not directed at a beginner. The OP is long gone, and thus my comments were directed at members of this forum, who by and large are advanced trainees. Furthermore, I agree, beginners do a whole body w/out 3 days a week the first month. the a double split (A/B) the second month. If they are serious, they will be on a 4 split hitting a bp once a week by month 5.

The problem with the above ^ study, is it attempts to measure quantitatively a variable that is inherently qualitative. Thus, the validity and reliability of the argument are built upon sand. Furthermore, the participants were put into 3 groups, beginner recreational, and "athlete," but the athletes were not in any way serious trainees (they only trained 2 times a week).

The studies measure intensity as a % of 1rmax. However, the chances that the 1rmax the product of truly maximal intensity are very, very slim. thus the 80% of 1rmax is 80% of of something that is far less than 100% effort.

Go into any gym in America, and 95% of the trainees are not training at anywhere near 100%. To understand what high intensity training is start with Mike Mentzers' Heavy Duty, which of course influenced Dorian. I have worked with many many people, who thought they were going to failure, but in fact were able to get 2-3 more reps using various techniques (imaging, visualization and other psychological techniques, rest pause, etc).

Look at some of the techniques that powerlifters use. They may seem crazy, but they are effective. A good example is slapping (hard). I had a friend who, at 198lbs had a 1rmax of 650. If I slapped him hard, he would squat 681 (in a meet) and 690 at the gym. He increased his lifts by 30-40 lbs consistently.

When I was competing, I would use rest pause and visualization techniques: I would run a tape in my head, it was the night show, and the judging was down to 2 competitors, me and he other guy, and there were 1k people in the audience going nuts. Flash bulbs were going off.....finaly the other guys name was called....I was typically getting 20 reps ass to grass squats with 305. 3 weeks out, just before tapering leg training I had just finished 20 reps. I rested, ran the tape, rested ran the tape and got 27 reps.

As mentioned, this type of training elevates cortisol dramatically. However training that way, hitting 1 bp a week will produce far superior gains to any 2 a week protocol.

Also, I am certain that the subjects of the study put any where near that level of intensity.

 

[Dr_jitsu]

Ignore the above post..I timed out while editing.

Correct, my comments were not directed at a beginner. The OP is long gone, and thus my comments were directed at members of this forum, who by and large are advanced trainees. Furthermore, I agree, beginners do a whole body w/out 3 days a week the first month. the a double split (A/B) the second month. If they are serious, they will be on a 4 split hitting a bp once a week by month 5.

The problem with the above ^ study, is it attempts to measure quantitatively a variable that is inherently qualitative. Thus, the validity and reliability of the argument are built upon sand. Furthermore, the participants were put into 3 groups, beginner recreational, and "athlete," but the athletes were not in any way serious trainees (they only trained 2 times a week).

The studies measure intensity as a % of 1rmax. However, the chances that the 1rmax the product of truly maximal intensity are very, very slim. thus the 80% of 1rmax is 80% of of something that is far less than 100% effort. Keep in mind, training intensity is the key to muscular growth.

Go into any gym in America, and 95% of the trainees are not training at anywhere near 100%. To understand what high intensity training is start with Mike Mentzers' Heavy Duty, which of course influenced Dorian. I have worked with many many people, who thought they were going to failure, but in fact were able to get 2-3 more reps using various techniques (imaging, visualization and other psychological techniques, rest pause, etc).

Look at some of the techniques that powerlifters use. They may seem crazy, but they are effective. A good example is slapping (hard). I had a friend who, at 198lbs had a 1rmax of 650. If I slapped him hard, he would squat 681 (in a meet) and 690 at the gym. He increased his lifts by 30-40 lbs consistently.

When I was competing, I would use rest pause and visualization techniques: I would run a tape in my head, it was the night show, and the judging was down to 2 competitors, me and he other guy, and there were 1k people in the audience going nuts. Flash bulbs were going off.....finaly the other guys name was called....I was typically getting 20 reps ass to grass squats with 305. 3 weeks out, just before tapering leg training I had just finished 20 reps. I rested, ran the tape, rested ran the tape and got 27 reps.

As mentioned, this type of training elevates cortisol dramatically. However training that way, hitting 1 bp a week will produce far superior gains to any 2 a week protocol. Lets say an athlete is training an hour and 15 minutes a day, 4 days a wek, hitting one bodypart a week. Hitting a bodypart twice a week would require 10 hours a week of high intensity training. Even on a boatload of gear, the body would never recover from that load.

Also, I am certain that the subjects of the study put any where near that level of intensity.

Finally, he study is a meta analysis. Meta analysis have their use, but they are really a fancy form of bro science (which I do not view pejoratively, as CBS does). When I say that nearly all the top pros hit a bp once a week, that is meta analysis.

 

[CBS]

The problem with the above ^ study, is it attempts to measure quantitatively a variable that is inherently qualitative. Thus, the validity and reliability of the argument are built upon sand. Furthermore, the participants were put into 3 groups, beginner recreational, and "athlete," but the athletes were not in any way serious trainees (they only trained 2 times a week).

You infer what is NOT there. Did you even read the abstract? I don't think so. The study does NOT say the athlete populations "only trained 2 times a week." They define training frequency as the occurrence per unit of time (e.g., calendar week) that a given major muscle group, or prime mover, is trained.

Here is a link to the full study. http://www.setantacollege.com/wp-co...PMENT. A REVIEW OF META-ANALYTIC EFFICACY.pdf


You think the validity and reliability of the argument are built upon sand? Your argument is built upon quicksand and you are sinking fast.

Look at some of the techniques that powerlifters use. They may seem crazy, but they are effective. A good example is slapping (hard). I had a friend who, at 198lbs had a 1rmax of 650. If I slapped him hard, he would squat 681 (in a meet) and 690 at the gym. He increased his lifts by 30-40 lbs consistently.

So your argument is now training once a week is best, but only if someone slaps you first? If that's true, I would recommend training even LESS frequently. LMFAO!

Finally, he study is a meta analysis. Meta analysis have their use, but they are really a fancy form of bro science (which I do not view pejoratively, as CBS does). When I say that nearly all the top pros hit a bp once a week, that is meta analysis.

No, that is conjecture!