Member
Size vs. Strength with regard to frequency and recovery
Something I've seen on the forums a few times now is how a lifter's size might affect his or her ability to recover from workouts (i.e. the bigger the lifter, the less frequency needed for a particular lift, and vice versa).
Assuming this holds true for most people, where does strength play its role here? Let's say a big 28-year-old lifter weighing in at 265 can bench press 365x5 as a 5RM. Will his recovery from that be much slower from the 28-year-old, 195lb lifter who can also bench 365x5 as a 5RM? Can the smaller guy, in general, recover faster simply because he's smaller?
My assumption from the size thing is that the bigger guy can just lift more weight, so it's obvious that it's a bigger stressor to recover from. But when you have two lifters with a big bodyweight disparity and equal strength, when you account for age, hormonal levels, sleep, etc., does size become a factor for recovery?
Member
I would presume with the equal factors that you spelled out the larger lifter will recover quicker, the larger lifter lifting the same amount of weight as the smaller lifter is less advanced in his training.
Now change the equation and equal them up for age and training advancement, the larger lifter is now benching 455 for 5 vs the smaller lifter @365x5. The larger lifter will most likely require more time between training events to recover from significantly higher loads and stress.
Member
I'm guessing here, but I think it probably has to do with the fact that rates of muscle protein synthesis simply don't scale with absolute amount of muscle mass.Originally Posted by marcf
If there's a ceiling on rate of muscle protein synthesis, and you've got ever more muscle to repair...well, something's gotta give.
I hope this is true^ because it would neatly explain a bunch of shit that we just sort of accept...like why linear progress in short-lived. Why big dudes can't deal with crazy volume. Why there's a natural strength ceiling, etc.
Member
That was my same guess. I hope someone who knows more about this can confirm or deny.
I'm 6'2" and 240lbs, and am finally reaching intermediate stages of lifting for some of my lifts, and I'm trying to figure out how to tweak some intermediate templates out there for myself. I guess I would qualify as a bigger-ish lifter. I know, for example, that I can barely squat more than 2x a week, and I'm also at the limits of tolerating a 2x/week bench press. I still haven't figured the deadlift out, mostly because I keep hearing that they're difficult to recover from, so I'm afraid of adding more volume to my work.
At some point, I do want to just ramp up volume big time to see how I respond to it.
Member
If you are making progress on a lift do not add volume because others may do more. Run that progress out and have that extra volume in your back pocket to get you past the next sticking point. It could be as simple as 1-3 additional sets per week to get out of a stall. Once you have added a bunch of volume you no longer have that tool.
Don't think of it as "how much volume can I handle" , but rather "what is the minimum amount of volume I need to keep moving the weight up" When the time comes for more volume you will be in a position to add just a little more and see .
There are plenty of big guys 120kg and 120+ who handle and need a lot of training volume. And there are many who don't need as much. What would you rather be?
Member
Well, 240@ 15-18% bf or 25% bf?
Makes a big difference in our MPS-rate limited model.
If our MPS-rate limit idea is correct:
- It intuits that a muscular big guy (who wants to get bigger) should do lots of lower volume sessions (so, high frequency, low-dose) [or take drugs, but let's leave that alone for now].
- if big, muscular natty guy wants to maintain size, he can probably do infrequent high-intensity work.
Member
I strongly disagree with Bryan. The whole paradigm that high volume is a Pandora's box that you can never unopen has proved entirely false in my experience programming for over sixty competitive powerlifters. My experience has been that people who use only enough volume to barely progress do exactly that: they barely progress.
Volume tolerance is not a rapid adaptation. Volume sensitivity is rapidly regained even with a single taper, deload, or full week off. At least, that has been my experience over and over and over again.
Most people who stall quickly after adding immense amounts of volume do so because they leave no room to grow within each mesocycle. You cannot *start* at maximal recoverable volume because it means you cannot add more volume and progressively overload in the coming weeks. It leads to a work:deload ratio that isn't optimal for progress.
On the other hand, if you use the minimum effective dose and barely, if ever, increase from there your progress will be unnecessarily slow. You may not have to deload, ever, but you'd make more rapid gains by moving along the volume continuum more quickly. You can start week one of your cycle near the minimum effective dose, but you should build towards (near) your maximal recoverable volume by the last week of the mesocycle. This way, you have time to ramp up and accumulate several solid weeks of overload instead of immediately stalling out or missing out on faster progress because you're not aggressive enough in your programming.
Again, this whole idea of saving your high volume for later is predicated on the idea that volume tolerance is a rapidly induced, long-lasting adaptation but this is outright false in my rather extensive experience. Volume tolerance moves VERY slowly. In fact, my maximum recoverable dose of volume has changed by about one set per week on my squat in three years.
Anecdotally, I've moved right from Smolov to a deload to a minimalist LP style program and set PRs. Again, I just can't reiterate enough that volume tolerance doesn't work the way that Mike T used to teach, IME. It isn't Pandora's box and you can close/open it at will.
For OP, it is a waste of time, unless you're a coach, to figure out which demographic you fit neatly into. You're an individual not a demographic. You can get a decent starting point from the "big guy template" but if you're finding that your joints/tendons are fresh on 2x per week, and you're easily capable of overloading each session, even when you're deep into accumulation, then it is worth trying 3x per week. Likewise, if your tendons and joints are always fucked even early into your cycles, or you're just never recovered in time for the next session even with low volume sessions, you may be a once per week kind of guy.
Take tons of notes and the patterns will emerge. Stick with a certain framework and make small adjustments cycle to cycle. This is the only REAL way to optimize personal training. Coaches can cut the learn curve by using their existing frequency/volume client data for your demographic but you're still somewhat unique so changes will be made.
Member
Ouch Tom!
But I see your point as well.
Member
Let me also say that Bryan is coming from the right place. There is a trend in the lifting community right now that greatly overemphasizes high volume, high frequency. It is important to remember that outliers exist. The key is *appropriate* volume and frequency. Some people do, in fact, THRIVE on low/moderate volume programs and simply cannot handle more. They get hurt and go backwards when they try. That said, it is important to remember that certain people are vastly undertraining as welll. You can only know where you lay along the continuum through trial and error.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote