Periodization for Bodybuilders

[gian90]

Metto un'articolo (anche se non è nuovo...) di Lyle MCdonald sulla periodizzazione per bodybuilders:




Periodization for Bodybuilders

Periodization is one of those terms that gets thrown around a lot and can have many many many meanings, depending on who you’re talking to. From fairly generic approaches to cycling training to meticulously planned out programs where ever set and rep is set ahead of time, you can find many different intrepretations of periodization and what it means. In this article series, I want to discuss periodization as it applies to bodybuilding specifically. Now, if you go into most gyms, you’ll usually find people working out in vastly different ways: there are your pumpers, the guys who go heavy all the time, etc. But, for the most part, the guys who pump always pump and the guys who go heavy always go heavy. Most bodybuilders tend to stick in a fairly static rep range (could be 6-8 or 10-12 depending on what theory of growth they ascribe to) but it’s rare to see a given individual change that much. There are, of course exceptions.
Basically, it seems like bodybuilders are pretty much the last folks to jump on the periodization bandwagon. As above, most of them tend to stick with the same types of training year round and they pretty much always go balls to the wall. The idea of changing anything (except maybe exercise choice to ‘shock the muscle’ or what have you) just doesn’t seem to be as prevalent among that subculture.

The Problem with Non-Periodized Training
Before tackling the issues of periodization, let’s look at some of the problems inherent in non-periodized training. One is simply that people get bored doing the same thing all the time. Mental staleness can be as real as physical staleness (and recent research suggests that they are related anyhow) and changing something about training (whether it’s exercise selection, exercise order, rep count, or whatever) can get people more interested in training. More interest usually makes people work harder and that alone can generate results.
A second issue is that, even for bodybuilders, there are different components that contribute to maximal size; and each can be trained somewhat differentially. Of course there’s actual myofibrillar hypertrophy (an increase in the size of the contractile fibers). There’s also sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (an increase in non-contractile components of the muscle such as glycogen, water, minerals, mitochondria, etc). Capillary density can be improved (increasing nutrient availability to muscle fibers). You get the idea (note: this topic is discussed in greater detail in my Ultimate Diet 2.0).
A third issue, of course, is one of physical accommodation. Over time, the body often accommodates to a given training style. More accurately, it stops adapting (positively anyhow) and may actually start regressing. Changing training variables from time to time (even if it’s simply to back off the intensity and build back up again) can help to prevent physical staleness.

What is Periodization?
At its simplest, periodization simply refers to some sort of methodical (or semi-methodical) variation in training. Changes can occur in terms of volume, intensity, exercise selection, rep speeds, rest intervals and any other of the myriad training variables. Most athletes periodize to one degree or another. Usually the goal of periodization is to develop fitness towards specific competition periods. Some will even target a single competition and train an entire year exclusively for that (e.g. Lance Armstrong trained towards the Tour De France as his only major competition).
Obviously competitive bodybuilders will periodize towards their competition but I think that even recreational bodybuilders (guys who just want to be big and ripped or just bit) can benefit from structuring their training as well. That structuring, regardless of the specific type, goes under the heading of periodization. So with that basic introduction, I want to look at some of the common models of periodization and then move into how bodybuilders might approach periodizing their training.

Linear Periodization
Perhaps the most common (at least the most well known) model for periodization is the simple linear periodization model (usually being accredited to a Russian scientist named Matveyev). It starts from a fairly high volume of low intensity activity and moves gradually towards a lower volume of high intensity activity (the model is actually a bit more complicated than that and I’d suggest anyone who is truly interested in the topic pick up Mel Siff’s Supertraining book for a more detailed discussion).
So an Olympic or powerlifter would move from fairly high volumes with a low intensity (intensity being defined here as % of 1 rep maximum) to a low volume of high intensity activity. So the powerlifter might move, over the span of 16 weeks, from a rep count of 12-15 to 10-12 to 8-10 to 6-8 to 5 then to triples and doubles, finally peaking for the meet.
Bryan Haycock’s Hypertrophy Specific Training (HST) program essentially a linear periodized model moving from 2 weeks of 15’s to 2 weeks of 10’s to 2 weeks of 8’s to 2 weeks of 5’s to 1-2 weeks of negatives, then a week break and start over again. I should note that it is also periodized within a given 2 week cycle, moving from a submaximal weight to basically a repetition maximum (RM) load by the end of the 2 week cycle.
There are other linear approaches to periodization out there as well although they may be structured a little bit differently. Ironman magazine has long recommended that bodybuilders train in 8 week blocks, taking 2 weeks to ramp up the intensity (in this case defined as effort, taking each set to positive failure) and then working full bore for the next 6 weeks to make strength and size gains before backing off for 2 weeks and ramping up again.
I take the same approach in my generic bulking routine, 2 weeks of sub-maximal work followed by 4-6 weeks really pushing hard before backing off and building up again. Doggcrapp (DC) training is simlar, alternating 2 week ‘cruises’ with 4-6 week ‘blasts’. You get the idea.
Anyone familiar with the basic Hardgainer magazine approach should know that Stuart and the rest of the HG crew has generally recommended a similar approach, take several weeks to ramp up training and then work full bore for some period of time (some HG authors use cycles of 12-16 weeks while at least one recommends extending the cycle, adding weight to the bar, for as long as you can).
Tudor Bompa and Fred Koch (who seems to hav stolen Bompa’s approach pretty much verbatim) have both suggested a linear periodized scheme for bodybuilders that is more along the lines of bulking and then cutting. You start with a few weeks of anatomical adaptation (basically low intensity training to condition connective tissues), then move into hypertrophy training (generally a fairly high volume of work in the 75-85% 1RM range), then to maximal strength work (85% 1RM or less) then to cutting (a strange program centered around 100-200 reps per exercise, something I find profoundly silly).
On and on it goes, as I said above, linear periodization is probably the most common approach to periodizing. But it has problems.

The Problems with Linear Periodization
In recent years, linear periodization has come under fire from a number of different strength experts. Vladimir Zatsiorsky (author of “Science and Practice of Strength Training”) Charles Poliquin and powerlifting guru Louie Simmons all jump to mind. The problem, they note is this: while you are training one biomotor capacity (i.e. muscular endurance, hypertrophy, maximal strength), the ones not being trained are going to hell (ok, not their exact words). But you end up detraining one capacity while you’re developing another.
For example, a powerlifter working in the 10-12 rep range (more of a hypertrophy range) is going to be losing maximal strength capacity (and all of the adaptations that go along with that). An endurance athlete doing nothing but low intensity endurance training is detraining leg speed (for sprinting) and lactate threshold capacity (the highest intensity that they can maintain without accumulating too much lactic acid). Studies done years ago found that athletes moving into low rep ranges (for maximal strength) frequently lost muscle size. Adding back even one high rep set (remember this, it’s important) frequently prevented the problem.
I’d note that, for bodybuilders this isn’t quite so much of an issue as, outside of the different components that contribute to size I mentioned above, bodybuilders aren’t really training different biomotor capacities throughout the year. Rather, everything they are doing is going towards muscular size (or maintenance during dieting). So the criticisms of linear periodization in this context aren’t exactly right.
As well, many of the criticisms of linear periodization are based on the old idea of one long annual cycle starting from low-intensity and high-volume and moving towards high-intensity and low-volume. Modern training uses shorter cycles and HST, DC, my generic bulking approach, etc. are all based around repeating 8 week cycles rather than absurdly long 52 week cycles. So, again, the criticisms against linear periodization here aren’t exactly correct. However, I’m going to finish out this article as if there were better ways of doing it and look at them next.

Solution Number One: Nonlinear Periodization
One of the first proposed solutions for the problems above was something usually referred to as nonlinear or undulating periodization. Both Poliquin and Zatsiorsky recommended alternating 2-3 week blocks where a given capacity was emphasized and others were trained at maintenance.
So a Poliquin type of program might entail 2-3 weeks of 10-12 reps, 2-3 weeks of 5-6 reps, 2-3 weeks of 7-9 reps (the return to high reps help to avoid muscle loss), 2-3 weeks of 3-5 reps, etc.
Zatsiorsky’s approach was slightly different but he was addressing other types of athletes than simply bodybuilders. Basically, working in 2-3 week blocks, specific biomotor capacities (i.e. strength, power, endurance) would be emphasized while other capacities were trained at maintenance. So a 3 week block where aerobic endurance was emphasized would see lactate threshold training worked at maintenance and then the focus would switch, lactate threshold would be emphasized while aerobic endurance was maintained. I should mention that Bompa did occasionally give lip service to that type of alternation in his books, you’d alternate a few weeks of maximal strength training with a few weeks of hypertrophy training.

Solution Number Two: ‘Conjugate’ Periodization

Pedantic note: although it has come to be called ‘conjugate periodization’ popularly is not what was originally mean by the term. What I am going to describe below is really concurrent periodization where all different capacities are trained to some degree each week and throughout the year.
Conjugate periodization has probably been promoted most heavily by aforementioned powerlifting guru Louie Simmons. Claiming that old school linear periodization is dead (nobody tell Ed Coan), he believes that conjugate periodization (developed, of course, in Russia) is a superior way to train. For a more detailed examination of the conjugate system, I’d suggest “Supertraining” by Mel Siff.
In his system, all aspects of powerlifting performance (bar speed/technique, maximal strength, hypertrophy, general physical preparation) are trained at the same time, simply with a different emphasis on each. Bar speed and technique are trained with speed work (10 sets of 2 or 8 sets of 3 with a submaximal weight), maximum strength is trained with multiple low rep sets and hypertrophy is trained with multiple higher rep sets. All three rep ranges are used every week of the year (more or less). There’s more to it, of course and anyone interested in learning more about Louie’s system can check out Westside barbell or Elite Fitness’s website.

Other Options
Of course, the above hardly describes all of the possible options available. One is to simply combine training and train different aspects of muscle in the same training cycle. An old school approach to training was to follow warmups with 3-5 heavy sets of 5 (training a combination of maximal strength and myofibrillar hypertrophy) with multiple sets of 12-15 (training sarcoplasmic elements). First you go heavy, then you get a little bit of a pump. Technically, I’d describe this as a combination of tension and fatigue training and my generic bulking program is built around that idea.
Another is to hit each type of training but in different workouts per week. This is also sometimes referred to as non-linear or undulating periodization and you might do sets of 3-5 one day, 8-10 another, and 10-15 on the third. My Ultimate Diet 2.0 is structured in this fashion with each type of training (power, tension, depletion) set up to optimize with that day’s daily diet.
Others will do one heavy power workout and one higher rep pump workout per week, hitting each bodypart roughly twice per week. Bodybuilder and all-around smart guy Layne Norton is a big proponent of this and he’s got the results to back it up.
As you can see, there are lots of options and ways to get around the ‘problems’ which can be associated with linear periodization. However, rather than detail the above types of programs, I want to talk about some other ways that bodybuilders can periodize their training.
In Periodization for Bodybuilders: Part 1, I discussed some basic periodization concepts and mentioned some of the major writers on the topic. Yet, somehow I managed to miss one of the primary proponents of having bodybuilders perform different types of training to maximize appearance: Fred Hatfield. With his concept of Holistic Training, Dr. Squat may have been one of the first to formalize the idea of training different ‘components’ of a muscle to maximize/optimize growth and appearance. So let’s look at that briefly.

Holistic Training
In his original holistic training schema, Dr. Hatfield proposed using three different intensity/rep ranges to optimally stimulate a muscle. This included sets of 4-6 done explosively, sets of 12-15 done rhythmically and sets of 40 done fairly slowly. Different types of workouts were done in a fairly complicated cycling pattern (Hatfield called this ABC training) and, frankly, keeping everything straight was a huge pain in the ass.
As a starting point, there’s fundamentally nothing wrong with this schema although I’m going to tech it up a little bit in a second. I also feel that Dr. Squat left out a type of training of utmost importance to the bodybuilder: pure strength training. I’ll discuss that below.

Different Fibers, Different ‘parts’ of the Muscle, Different Types of Growth
I’m going to assume that anybody reading this magazine has a basic understanding of fiber types. In (very) brief, there are three major types of muscle fibers: Type I (or slow oxidative), Type IIa (fast oxidative/glycolytic) and Type IIx (fast glycolytic). The old Type IIb fibers turn out only to exist in animal models, IIx describes the highest threshold fibers in humans.
Each fiber type has a distinctive physiology in terms of force and growth capability, fatigueability, etc. Type I fibers have the lowest force output and growth potential and take the longest to fatigue and Type II fibers have a higher force output and growth capacity and fatigue more quickly with Type IIa being intermediate between Type I and Type IIx. We might simplistically look at the rep schemes of holistic training as hitting a given pool of motor units: sets of 4-6 for Type IIx, sets of 12-15 for Type IIa and sets of 40 for Type I. This isn’t necessarily incorrect although it goes a little beyond that.
Dr. Hatfield may have been one of the first Americans to latch onto the idea that there were different components of a muscle that contributed to muscle growth. This goes along with the European idea of myofibrillar vs. sarcoplasmic hypertrophy (this topic is discussed in greater detail in my Ultimate Diet 2.0). Myofibrillar hypertrophy refers to growth of the actual contractile component of the muscle fiber while sarcoplasmic hypertrophy refers to growth of everything else: glycogen, water, minerals, mitochondria and capillaries. The key thing to note is that each component requires a differential type of stress to stimulate growth.

Pure strength training
As I mentioned above, the one thing that Hatfield (as I recall anyhow) left out of his holistic training was pure strength training. This can describe a lot of different types of training but let’s define it hear as anything below 5 reps. Heavy sets of 2 and 3 (doubles and triples) with a near maximum weight for example.
The key thing to realize is that strength production is a combination of both muscular and neurological factors: a variety of neural adaptations takes place in response to pure strength training that increases strength output without making people bigger. I know that there is a long-held belief that there is an absolute relationship between strength and size but it’s not that simple: athletes like power- and Olympic lifters increase strength without getting any bigger all the time and they do it by maximizing neural factors.
Now, I suspect that most bodybuilders could give the first shit about being strong, the sport is all about being big and freaky. But I will argue that improving the neural components of strength will help you get even bigger in the long run. The reason, actually, is fairly simple.
Stimulating myofibrillar growth means imposing some combination of tension, fatigue and damage components onto muscle fibers (stimulating sarcoplasmic hypertrophy is more about fatigue and energy depletion than tension per se). By improving strength in low rep ranges with pure strength training, bodybuilders can use more weight in higher rep ranges. This means more tension, more damage and more ultimate growth. It’s also nice to actually be as strong as you look: too many big but ultimately weak bodybuilders walking around out there in my opinion.
Intensity Zones

So with that introduction taken care of, let’s talk about intensity zones, since that is a key concept to all periodization schemes. The one problem I had with Hatfield’s scheme is that it wasn’t necessarily specific enough. As coaches like Charles Poliquin have pointed out, the issue of time under tension may be just as important to the overall growth stimulus as rep count per se. That is to say that 5 reps done in 60 seconds (a very slow tempo) isn’t the same as 5 reps done in 30 seconds or 5 reps done in 5 seconds. The first would be most likely to stimulate sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, the second myofibrillar hypertrophy and the third pure strength and power. As another example, I’ve seen folks perform 40 reps (Hatfield’s ‘long’ set) in 40 seconds which is defeating the purpose: a timed set of 60-120 seconds with no focus on reps would be more beneficial. So let’s look at the different intensity zones.

Strength training: The goal of pure strength training is to improve the neural components of strength production. Weight should be 85% of 1 repetition maximum or higher. Sets should last 20 seconds or less. Generally 5 reps or less done with a 2-3 second negative. Lift as fast as possible. Typically compound exercises such as squats, bench press, power clean, deadlift, etc. are chosen. Isolation exercises can be used for this type of training but your form has to be perfect or you’ll probably get hurt. Strength athletes commonly do many, many sets (6-10 sets of 2-3) but they are usually only focusing on a handful of lifts. A bodybuilder may need to hit more bodyparts which would mean cutting the total number of sets done.

Intensive bodybuilding method (or power bodybuilding): The goal of this zone is to increase myofibrillar size and muscle density. This zone also increases maximal strength although not to the degree that pure strength training does. Weight would be in the 80-85% of 1 RM range. Set length ranges from 20-30 seconds. A generic approach might be repeat sets of 4-6 reps on a 3-4 second down, no pause, 1 up tempo. Rest periods should be about 3 minutes between sets. Depending on volume tolerance and the number of exercises performed, anywhere from 2 to 8 sets per bodypart might be done. As with strength training, compound exercises are usually preferred; isolation exercises can be done but only with picture perfect form.

Extensive bodybuilding method: The goal of this zone is a combination of myofibrillar and sarcoplasmic hypertrophy with the lower end of the range (6-8 reps) being more geared towards myofibrillar growth (with some strength gains) and the higher end of the range (10-12 or even 15 reps) geared towards more sarcoplasmic hypertrophy. Due to glycogen depletion, there will be an increase in glycogen and water (pump growth) storage, especially in the higher rep ranges. Weights should be in the 70-80% of 1RM range with set length lasting from 30-45 (or 60) seconds. Rest periods are generally 1-2 minutes. Anywhere from 6-12 repetitions or so on a 3 down, 2 up tempo. Anywhere from 3-6 sets might be done. Anal compulsive bodybuilders could probably subdivide this category into two different ranges, one spanning the 6-8 rep range and the other spanning the 12-15 rep range. A mix of compound or isolation exercises can be done in this zone.

Really extensive bodybuilding method (I’m not good at thinking up clever names for training like the other writers in this field): The goal of this zone is purely sarcoplasmic hypertrophy, with the emphasis on capillarization and mitochondria moreso than on the other components such as glycogen. As I mentioned above, I think the best approach to this type of training is to forget about reps and do 1 or 2 timed sets of 1-2 minutes with the goal being continuous movement. I would generally recommend isolation exercises above the compounds on this one. Admittedly, you’ll see god if you try to squat continuously for 2 minutes (which I once had a mountain biker I was training do) but you tend to fatigue cardiovascularly when you use those types of exercises.

Training vs. maintaining loads
Ok, now you’re thinking that there’s no way in hell you can possibly hit everything I described above, you’d be in the gym for 4 hours every day. Obviously trying to follow 6 sets of 2 in the squat with 4-5 sets of 4-6 with 2-3 sets of 12-15 with 1-2 sets of 1-2 minutes would be an absurd workload.
One thing to realize is that though I’ve made it look like each intensity zone is a distinct entity, please understand that that’s not the case. As I indicated above, there is a certain amount of carryover between zones and it’s better to think of training on a continuum. So even though intensive bodybuilding has as its main goal myofibrillar growth, there are still going to be strength gains. Sets of 6-8 will generate similar (but not identical) adaptations to the 4-6 rep range and the 12-15 rep range will generate similar (but not identical) adaptations to the 1-2 minute range. This allows for some consolidation of training when you start designing programs.
This is also where the whole concept of periodization comes in. The thing to realize is that it’s unrealistic to try and hit all components of a muscle sufficiently all at once. Even endurance weenies, who are known for trying to shotgun their training (distance one day, hills another, intervals a third, technique a fourth) are learning that it’s better to focus on one or two components of training during a given cycle and maintain everything else with the focus changing throughout the training year.
So in any given 6-8 week cycle, you would choose to focus on one or two of the above components (there are 4 total but remember the overlap) and simply maintain the others. What does this mean exactly?
Research has found that, in both endurance and strength training, the amount of work you need to maintain something is far far less than what’s needed to increase it. In general, you can cut the volume and frequency by 2/3rds as long as you maintain the intensity and you can maintain a given capacity for quite some time. So say you were doing 6 set of 2 twice per week to improve strength in the squat during one cycle. In the next you could maintain by performing 2 sets of 2 once or twice per week. The same would hold for the other components of training.
I guess while I’m on the topic, I should address training frequency briefly. In the example workouts I’m going to present in part 3 (sorry, I have to get this finished or Justin will have me head), I’m going to assume a body part training frequency of twice per week since I consider that, on average, to be the minimum for natural trainees to make good gains in strength or size. All of the numbers below assume that frequency. Obviously if you use a different bodypart training frequency, you’ll have to adjust training to compensate.
With that said, here’s a chart indicating both training and maintaining loads for each of the different intensity zones of training.
Type Training Load Maintaining Load Strength Training 6-10 sets 2-3 sets Intensive Bodybuilding 2-8 sets 1-2 sets Extensive Bodybuilding 3-6 sets 1-2 sets Really Extensive Bodybuilding 1-2 sets 1-2 set




Now that you’ve read Periodization for Bodybuilders: Part 2 and understand the different training zones, I want to start to apply all of this information with explanations of how to set up workouts and training programs.

Training zone recap
I finished the second part by giving some volume recommendations for both training and maintaining loads for the different components (4 of them) of training: pure strength, intensive bodybuilding, extensive bodybuilding and really extensive bodybuilding. Without recapping that entire article, I’ll simply summarize the loading parameters for each below.
Type of Training Reps (%1RM) Rest Interval Tempo Set Length Exercise Strength Training 1-5 (85%+) 3-5′ 2-3/0/X 20″ or less Compound Int. Bodybuilding 4-6 (80-85%) 2-3′ 3-4/0/1 20-30″ Compound Ext. Bodybuilding 6-8 (75-80%) 1-2′ 3/0/2 30-40″ Compound 10-15 (70-75%) 1-2′ 3/0/2 40-60″ OR Isolation Really Extensive N/A (60-65%) 1′ 2/0/2 60-120″ Isolation
Notes: Tempo reads X/Y/Z where X is the lowering speed, Y is the pause, Z is the lifting speed. Some coaches add fourth value for the pause at the top. Rest intervals are in minutes, set length is in seconds. The really extensive zone should be timed for 1 to 2 minutes (up to maybe 3 if you’re a masochist) without focusing so much on reps. If you must count reps, 15-30 reps on a 2/0/2 tempo works fine.

Volume Recommendation Recap
Along with that I gave some volume recommendations for both training and maintaining loads, recapped below. I should probably have noted that these volumes aren’t necessarily volumes per exercise but rather volume/bodypart. So if you want to do two exercises for chest in a pure strength training cycle, you could do 3-5 sets of flat and incline or what have you. Same for the other loading zones.
Type Training Load Maintaining Load Strength Training 6-10 sets 2-3 sets Intensive Bodybuilding 2-8 sets 1-2 sets Extensive Bodybuilding 3-6 sets 1-2 sets Really Extensive Bodybuilding 1-2 sets 1-2 set
One thing I didn’t mention is that, in general, within any given workout, you would work in the same order. So for any given bodypart, strength training comes first (if it’s being done at all), intensive bodybuilding second, extensive bodybuilding third, really extensive bodybuilding last. Additionally, if you’ve never worked in the pure strength training rep range, you should spend at least 6 weeks (if not longer) working in the intensive bodybuilding zone to prepare your connective tissues for the heavier loading.
So now I can finally give some sample routines, right? Well, not quite, I have a few more topics to cover first.

Another Comment on Rep Range Emphasis
Within any given cycle, unless you are specializing (see below), you’re probably best off picking a primary training emphasis, a secondary training emphasis and a maintenance training emphasis. Once again, this is simply to avoid having to try and hit everything at once. As you progress through a training year, obviously those training emphases will change (this is the whole point of periodizing in the first place).
So you might the intensive bodybuilding method as your primary emphasis, pure strength as a secondary emphasis and extensive bodybuilding (picking the higher end of the range since that overlaps with the really extensive range) for maintenance. This might mean warmups followed by 2-3 sets of 2-3 for maintenance of pure strength (which always goes first), then anywhere from 2-8 sets of intensive bodybuilding work (your primary emphasis which always goes second). Finally finish up with 1-2 sets of 12-15 to cover extensive bodybuilding and really extensive bodybuilding zones. Alternately you could do 1-2 sets of 10-12 and 1 timed set to finish out the bodypart.

Bodypart Overlap
In part 2 I talked about the issue of rep range overlap, pointing out that the training zone overlap with one another, allowing for consolidation of training (since it would be impossible to hit everything in a single workout).
In addition, I want to mention the issue of bodypart overlap since this further allow bodybuilders to decrease how many sets are necessary. For example, consider a workout where your training bench press extremely heavy, you’ve done 6 sets of 2 for pure strength work, 2-3 sets of 6-8 for intensive bodybuilding work, and 1-2 sets of extensive work. Let’s also say that you’re training shoulders and triceps in the same workout, both of which are worked during the heavy chest work.
Obviously it would be overkill to try and work either shoulders or triceps at full volume. It might even be overkill to do either in all repetition ranges. That is, during heavy bench sets of triples, triceps and delts are both getting some work in that rep range. You would only need a few total sets for each to round out the workout. Basically, this allows you to use heavy compound exercises to get a lot of work done for the smaller muscle groups so that fewer sets are necessary in the first place. Frankly, outside of the occasional arm specialization routine, it’s rare for me to prescribe more than a couple of direct sets for biceps or triceps: I let heavy pushing and pulling take care of it.
The same goes for pulling exercises: if you’ve worked the hell out of your back, your biceps have already gotten a ton of work. Doing more than a few sets for biceps would be not only unnecessary but complete overkill.

Bodypart Emphasis
Which leads into my final comments on bodypart emphasis (which could and should be an article all in itself). I want to introduce this by saying that, for all but beginner and maybe intermediate bodybuilders, it’s usually impossible to bring up all bodyparts at once. Rather, focusing on one or two upper body and one or two lower body bodyparts, while maintaining the others, works much much better. So in most of my sample workouts, at most two bodyparts are emphasized with the others at maintenance levels.
On that note, the first bodypart (or two) that you work in a workout will generally receive the greatest training effect. So if you want to bring up your delts (strength or size), train them first in the workout, putting chest second and working it at maintenance levels. Will this hurt your chest poundages? Yes. But it’s better than the converse where chest training will limit how much emphasis you can put into your delts.
o when you’re focusing heavily on chest and back, plan on working delts and arms at maintenance. If you want to focus on delts, work chest and triceps at maintenance. If you want to focus on triceps, work on chest and delts at maintenance. The same goes for pulling exercises.
Legs are a little more complicated because the amount of overlap isn’t necessarily as great. Hamstrings are certainly worked during compound leg stuff but it’s not quite the same as how hard delts or tris are worked during heavy benching. This means that you can use more volume for leg exercises (there are also fewer bodyparts to worry about: quads, hams/glutes/ calves) and the sample workouts will be set up that way.
At the same time, my comments on bodypart emphasis still hold: if you always train quads (squats) first, this will limit how much energy you have left to train hamstrings and I think that’s a big part of why so many bodybuilders have terrible hamstrings. Putting hamstrings first and quads at maintenance is a way to avoid this common problem.
Another approach (that can also be used for upper body) is to make one leg workout a quad emphasis workout and the other a hamstring workout emphasis with volume set accordingly. For upper body you might make one workout a push emphasis (with light pull meaning back/bis worked at maintenance) and the other a pull emphasis (with light push meaning chest/delts/tris worked at maintenance).

Training Frequency, Splits and Volume
Although I could most assuredly write pages on this topic itself (I need to get off my ass and stop with the fat loss shit and write a training manual), I only want to make a couple of comments for the purposes of this article.
As I said in Periodization for Bodybuilders: Part 2, I don’t think naturals should train a bodypart any less frequently than about once every 5th day (or twice a week on average). Of course, this isn’t an absolute but I find it to be generally true: any less than this and growth simply isn’t optimal. This gives a few workable possibilities for splits depending on recovery. One would be to use a Charles Poliquin split like

• Day 1: Chest/Back
• Day 2: legs/abs
• Day 3: Off
• Day 4: Shoulders/arms
• Day 5: Off
• Repeat

I would probably personally put some maintenance chest/back work on day 4 but that type of split would be workable for folks who have very flexible schedule during the week, overall good recovery or are using steroids or even some of the new prohormones.
Arguably my favorite split is an upper/lower split (also workable for powerlifting). This is good for people who need to train on the same days each week or who don’t have the recovery to train as often as the above split.

• Monday: Lower body (squat emphasis for PL’ing, or quad emphasis for bodybuilding)
• Tuesday: Upper body (bench emphasis for PL’ing or push emphasis for bodybuilding)
• Thursday: Lower body (DL emphasis for PL’ing or hamstring emphasis for bodybuilding)
• Friday: Upper body (light bench + back emphasis for PL’ing, pull emphasis for bodybuilding)

For folks with even poorer recovery ability, the above could be changed to a three day/week program alternating workouts. So each workout gets hit three times every two weeks.

• Monday: Lower body
• Wed: Upper body
• Fri: Lower body
• Mon: Upper body
• Wed: Lower body
• Fri: Upper body

In this scheme, I wouldn’t make any of the days a specific emphasis but volume could be cut back to allow everything to be hit.
On the topic of volume, you’ll note that I gave somewhat large set ranges for the different types of training. I wanted to comment on that for a second. I have found, over the years, that individual volume tolerance is, well, individual. Young males with high testosterone can adapt to higher volumes of training while your classic ‘hardgainer’ frequently does better with lower volumes (but higher frequencies and avoiding failure). Women generally need less volume than men and older individuals can’t handle the same volume as younger folks.
So whereas a young male with high testosterone might do 8 sets of 6-8 Intensive bodybuilding) for a given bodypart, a similarly aged male with low testosterone or a female or older male might only need/be able to handle 2-3 sets of 6-8 per bodypart. Just keep that in mind in the sample workouts; I’ll be using rather ‘average’ volume recommendations but you can adjust them up or down depending on your own personal recovery capacity.
Too much variety for me to give you more recommendations like that. Alternately, you could probably apply some of the autoregulatory concepts going around, training a given exercise until a given % strength cutoff if you don’t know how much volume you can handle. I’ll also note that volume tolerance can both be improved (by gradual volume increases over time) and detrained (by doing HIT/low volume shit all the time).

A Word on Progression
Bodybuilders make a lot of mistakes that prevent them from realizing their goals. That alone could make an entire book. Here I want to focus only on one thing: progression. Unless you’re drugged or genetically superior, your muscles only respond by getting bigger if you continue to challenge them. Within the context of this article series, progression means adding weight to the bar. Now, there are tons of different ways to progress weights and this is too long (and overdue) as it is. I’ll only make this comment: you should strive to add weight to the bar whenever you can do so in good form.
So if you get to the high end of a rep range and feel like you have a rep left over, add weight at the next workout. This will probably drop you to the low end of the rep range and then build up again. For really extensive bodybuilding, you would increase weight when you got to the high end of the time range.
Note that this doesn’t apply to pure strength training methods but explaining how best to progress this would take too long. Just remember that, in general, if you’re not getting stronger, you’re not getting bigger. And if you’re not getting bigger, you’re not getting stronger. So if you’re not adding weight to the bar over time, you’re just another bozo wasting his life in the gym with nothing to show for it.

Sample Workouts
Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like I’m ever going to get around to writing Part 4 of this series which would have had some sample workouts. Maybe someday or when I write my training book I’ll get back to it. Hopefully the above at least gives you some ideas about how you might set things up

Per quanto riguarda la frequenza di allenamento:
Training Frequency for Mass Gains

In recent years, bodybuilding/hypertrophy training has divided itself into a number of different ‘camps’ with quite a bit of argument and debate going on over what the optimal training frequency for muscle growth is.
In this article, I want to look at the three most common training frequencies (in terms of how often a given muscle group is hit each week, I’m not talking about overall training frequency) and some of their pros and cons. First I’m going to look at the two opposite extremes of training each muscle group before giving my own preferred training frequency.
I want to make it clear that I’m looking only at training frequency as it applies to explicit mass gains and hypertrophy type goals. I’m not talking about athletes or strength per se (although the recommendations end up being fairly similar) but focusing only on muscle growth as an explicit end goal of training.

Three Times Per Week for Each Muscle Group
It’s often claimed that historically, bodybuilders trained every bodypart three times per week and there is certainly some indication that that is the case (especially in the pre-steroid era). Training systems that look a lot like the heavy/light/medium systems first advocated by Bill Starr and re-popularized in recent years by coaches such as Mark Rippetoe and Glenn Pendlay (as discussed in my article The 5X5 Program) seem to crop up fairly commonly when you look at the workouts of old time lifters.
It’s worth noting that many lifters of that era trained primarily for strength with size gains being more of a ’side-effect’ of the training, rather than being such an explicit goal. Still, there is a point to be made that training for strength gains (plus sufficient food) tends to result in size gains. Whether or not they are a ’side-effect’ or however you want to look at it doesn’t change the overall success of that approach: grow stronger and eat and you will grow.
More modern training systems such as Bryan Haycock’s Hypertrophy Specific Training are also based around that type of higher training frequency. I’m sure there are others.
Typical arguments for a higher frequency of training revolve around gene expression and keeping the genes involved in hypertrophy running more constantly by training at a higher frequency and, again, there is certainly some truth to that idea; arguments about the type course of increased protein synthesis often crop up as well. Typically full body workouts ranging from as few as three exercises per workout to as many as perhaps 8-10 depending on the specific implementation are performed with this type of training.
An additional potential benefit to a higher frequency of training, and this is especially true for beginning training, is that performing movements more frequently tends to improve motor learning. And since a majority of the adaptations that occur initially to training are neural in nature, the faster you can get through them adaptation, the sooner you can get into real growth.
However, outside of that one situation, I find that there are some major drawbacks to the idea of training full body three times per week for optimal growth. One of these is that once trainees start handling heavy loads, full body workouts can become incredibly difficult to complete: the loading used in exercises done early in the workout tend to severely limit what can be done later in the workout and something invariably suffers.
This is especially true if heavy leg training is done at the front of the workout: this often leaves about zero energy for the rest of the workout. And performing leg training last often means that it suffers. Back squatting heavily with a tired shoudler girdle after upper body training is problematic at best and dangerous at worst.
Additionally, there is at least some indication that there is an optimal training volume per muscle group (a topic I’ll cover in a later article) and achieving that volume in the context of a full body workout tends to become nearly impossible without the workout being several hours long.
So under most circumstances, I don’t find that hitting each muscle group three times per week is optimal for most trainees. It can be accomplished with proper cycling of intensity for the different bodyparts but since, in my experience, bodybuilders like to train hard pretty much all of the time, suggestions to do that often fall on deaf ears.

Blast Every Muscle Group Once Per Week
At the other extreme of training is the idea, that seems to have primarily developed as steroids started to enter the picture, that a muscle group should be blasted into oblivion once per week and then allowed to rest before training again. Many critics of higher frequency training will point to successful elite (read: drug using) bodybuilders who train that way. Or who at least claim to train that way.
Typically in this approach, one or perhaps two muscle groups would be chosen for a single workout with a fairly large volume of training (often 15-20 sets of 3-4 different exercises) performed for each. Hitting all of the angles, blitzing and bombing were all ideas that came out of this type of approach and generally the body is split across 4 or more workouts which each muscle group getting blasted once every 7 days.
Now, there is no denying that this approach seems to work at the elite level of bodybuilding. However, there are often a lot of other factors involved that people tend to ignore. The main one, of course, is drugs especially steroids (it’s no coincidence that this approach to training developed primarily as steroid use was starting to increase among bodybuilders).
People don’t like to hear it but anabolic steroids will generate muscle growth without training at all and, to a great degree, many elite bodybuilders seem to succeed in spite of their training rather than because of it. In that context, I know of several coaches who work with drug using bodybuilders and invariably growth is better with a higher frequency of training, even in the context of steroid use.
Another factor is that even if top level bodybuilders only hit every bodypart once per week after they have been training for 10 or more years, that’s usually not how they built the majority of their muscle mass (if their reports of what they did earlier in their career are accurate).
Basically, looking at the elite level of any sport and how they train after 15 years of training is usually a losing proposition, what they might be doing at the peak of their career and what they did to get there are often very different things indeed.
But of perhaps more relevance, outside of a small percentage of folks, I simply haven’t seen the majority of natural trainees grow optimally training in this fashion. Basically, it just doesn’t work for the majority in my experience (and in the experience of a lot of coaches I know). Sure, we can always look at the ‘big guys’ in the gym who are doing fine hitting everything once per week but the fact is that the majority of folks training that way aren’t usually growing well at all.
As well, for naturals, the lower frequency of training tends to lead people to do far too much volume at any given workout. As I mentioned above, there appears to be an optimal volume of training for each bodypart with both too little and too much volume being a problem. Naturals who do endless sets in a given workout (which is not only allowed but usually mandated by low frequency training) not only aren’t stimulating better growth, they end up cutting into their recovery with excessive volume.
Few bodyparts in my experience need more than two exercises (back is possibly an exception) in the first place and being able to do a zillion overlapping and redundant exercises is usually pointless for most trainees anyhow.
For the most part, I can’t think of any situation where I’d recommend only hitting a bodypart once per week for growth unless the goal was to simply maintain a given muscle group. And that’s usually in the context of a specialization cycle (a topic for another day) when other bodyparts are being trained more frequently.
One that I might mention (in a sarcastic way) would be for people who are addicted to being sore or exhausted from training. At least one of the reasons that I think people stick with low frequency training in the absence of good results is that they always get to walk out of the gym feeling like they have completely exhausted a given muscle group. As well, low frequency training tends to get people sore more consistently than a higher training frequency.
People who are more concerned with acute exhaustion or crippling soreness rather than actual progress may want to just keep on doing what they are doing….like I said, just a bit sarcastic.

Hit Each Muscle Group Between Every 5th Day and Twice Per Week
Which brings us to my preferred training frequency. Which, given my tendency to middle of the road types of recommendations for most things probably won’t surprise anybody at all. For most applications, for the average trainee, I think hitting each muscle group somewhere between twice per week or a minimum of every 5th day yields about optimal results. Which is best for a given individual depends on individual recovery and how often they can be in the gym.
Again, here I’m talking about an optimal training frequency for the majority of natural trainees. Again, as I noted above, I know of several coaches who work with steroid using bodybuilders who report better results with this type of training frequency.
Generally speaking, you might see this frequency of training implemented as some type of upper/lower split routine (which is the basis of my generic bulking routine) although there are many other workable options to achieve this training frequency per bodypart.
And it’s worth noting that a lot of successful training systems (whether strength or hypertrophy oriented) use this type of training frequency. Most powerlifting programs use a generic template with two upper body and two lower body workouts per week; although the exercises may differ on each day, there is generally sufficient overlap that each muscle group is being hit about twice per week.
Doggcrapp training, for example, uses a split of chest/shoulders/triceps/back for one workout and legs/arms for the other. The workouts are alternated on a three days per week program which means that each muscle group is being hit every 5 days.
To give you an idea of how this might be implemented weekly, I’ve shown how the two different training frequencies could be achieved in several different ways depending on the circumstances. Although, I’ve used an upper/lower body template in the example below, any type of approach that divided up the body into two different workouts would work just as well. I’ve also shown a higher weekly training frequency for people with that kind of flexibility and/or who want to be in the gym more often.
I’m also assuming that most people will train on the same days each week which I find is the most common pattern for people with a job, families, etc. Of course, people who can train different days each week can use other variations of the below approaches since they can vary the days of the week that they are in the gym.
Oh yeah, blank days would either be taken off or could be used for metabolic work (e.g. the type of thing I described in the article Cardio and Mass Gains).

Day Twice Per Week Twice Per Week (No Weekend) Higher Frequency* Every 5th Day Monday Lower Body Lower Body
Lower Body Tuesday
Upper Body Chest/Back
Wednesday Upper Body
Legs/Abs Upper Body Thursday
Lower Body Delts/Arms
Friday Lower Body Upper Body
Lower Body Saturday Upper Body
Upper Body
Sunday

Lower Body
Monday Lower Body Lower Body
Upper Body Tuesday
Upper body Chest/Back
Wednesday Upper Body
Legs/Abs Lower Body Thursday
Lower Body Delts/Arms
Friday Lower Body Upper Body
Upper Body Saturday Upper Body
Upper Body
Sunday

Lower Body
* On the higher training frequency option, it’s important to keep the volumes of the split workouts (on Tue/Wed/Thu) down. Trainees who are prone to overdo it (you know who you are) probably shouldn’t use that option.
As you can see, all three of the first options hit each muscle group twice per week in varying combinations depending on the specifics. The first one gives better recovery during the week (since there’s a day off between several of the workouts) but not everybody can train weekends. That’s option two which is for folks who can recover from four weekly training sessions per week but can’t get to the gym on weekends.
Option three might be for someone who works late during the week and wants to keep the weekly workouts a bit shorter by splitting things up, but who has time to train for longer on the weekends. The last option shows how a once every 5th day frequency would be achieved, while also avoiding weekends. This tends to be good for folks with poorer recovery and/or who simply need or want more recovery between workouts.
Again, the workouts don’t have to be upper/lower, that just tends to be my default choice for a variety of reasons I’m not going to go into here. Any reasonable split can be used effectively in the above types of templates.
As you might imagine, I find that this type of training frequency tends to strike a balance between the other two extremes of frequency which is why I prefer it.
Since the body is split up a bit more compare to three full body workouts per week, individual workouts tend not to be quite so daunting with exercises early in the session not impacting as badly on later exercises.
And, as noted above, compared to the typical ‘hit everything once and then let it rest a week’, while soreness and acute exhaustion is lower, growth is almost invariably better. At the same time, the frequency is low enough that trainees can go pretty hard in the gym while still being able to recover by the time the next workout rolls around so that they can do it again, allowing them to make progressive strength gains. Which isn’t to say that I suggest going all out all the time but intensity cycling is another topic for another day.

Summing Up
So that’s a quick look at optimal training frequencies for muscle growth. For the most part, I find that the cons of full body training three times per week tends to offset any potential benefits in terms of gene expression or what have you.
And while it’s still common to emulate the training pattern of elite (read: drug using) bodybuilders and bomb and blast everything once per week, my experience (and that of many others) is simply that the majority of natural trainees (and even many drug users) simply don’t get optimal growth that way. This is one of those cases where the athletes seem to be succeeding in spite of the training rather than due to it.
Which brings us to my preferred training frequency for the majority of folks seeking optimal size gains: somewhere between once every 5th day and twice per week. I find that this yields about optimal results for most people (and recent research supports that recommendation anyhow), offsetting the cons of both the higher and lower training frequencies.

[gian90]

Personalmente non lo avevo mai letto ma mi sembra esaustivo. Che ne pensate?

[Dimitry]

Mi riprometto di leggerlo tutto perchè sembra completo su molti fronti.

Solo una cosa a completare.
Dirigere l'allenamento alla risoluzione di pochi compiti consente adattamenti molto più profondi che cercare di fare mille cose nello stesso periodo.

Il problema del mantenimento delle qualità esiste nei termini evidenziati da Simmons, ma solo limitatamente alla sua visione.

Con una mobilitazione profonda e concentrata delle riserve dell'organismo fino al limite dell'overtraining, le qualità non solo si mantengono, ma raggiungono il picco anche dopo mesi che quelle qualità sono state abbandonate.

[gian90]

Quindi per te un coniugato ME DE o ME RE è gia' far "troppo"?

Mi sembra una lettura completa che analizza piu' o meno tutti i problemi di periodizzazione e split d'allenamento rimanendo comunque abbastanza sintetico. Forse mi sono perso io ma non ho ancora capito che periodizzazione sia meglio per lui segure (quella non lineare di polquin?) anche se afferma che il compromesso migliore sia serie pesanti sul multiarticolare e pompaggio poi, pero' questa non è periodizzazione!
Da importanza anche al continuo aumento del carico sul bilanciere, essenziale per il natural (niente di nuovo insomma..)

Invece sull'organizzione delle schede afferma esplicitamente che per il natural deve allenarsi spesso (minimo 1 volta ogni 5gg per lo stesso "gruppo") e predilige le divisioni upper-lower. Su questo sembra essere molto chiaro...
Io mi trovo d'accordo con lui praticamente su tutto...

ps: purtroppo le tabelle non sono venute fuori col copia incolla, si vedono sul suo sito che non ho linkato per non violare il regolamento

[Dimitry]

Il sistema di Simmons è quello che è, è un coniugato per cui è lontano da quello che dicevo.

In realtà le cose nel Pling sono molto semplici, perchè è come uno sport olimpico, c'è una prestazione. Volendo è facilissimo programmare (per chi sa farlo).

Nel BBIng è un pò più difficile, quali qualità influenzano la prestazione nel BBing? Separare ipertrofia sarcomerica e sarcoplasmatica??? Non ne conosco uno di atleta. Ne conosco di pragmatici che hanno saputo trarre il meglio dai due metodi, fino a chi ha enfatizzato solo uno dei due estremi.

Cmq utlizzare qualità "olimpiche" come forza assoluta, forza esplosiva, forza reattiva-riflessa, può essere una natural-via percorribile.



La forza assoluta storicamente ha sempre fatto parte del BBing, a cominciare da Sandow, Oliva, Arnold, Columbu, fino a Coleman.

Con l'evoluzione delle metodiche vedrai che ci sarà spazio per altre qualità "olimpiche" con obiettivo finale ipertrofia.

[gian90]

Nessuno ha avuto voglia di leggerlo?