Frequency of training

How often should one train? Is it small volume every day, a la Pavel, or more intensive/higher volume sessions less frequently? This post will discuss one of the views.

A while ago Mike Mentzer created a little revolution in the bodybuilding world when he stated that one should train less frequently. The actual interval, he said, depends on the recovery ability of a particular athlete and, therefore, must be chosen individually. For some trainees training as infrequently as once a week would be the most beneficial. Mentzer supported his claims by many observations of his clients and himself. His methodology also implied training to complete muscular failure and only one set per body part (something like this, anyway). And, of course, the methodology implies primary application in bodybuilding.

About a year ago I came across a book by Vadim Protasenko written in Russian on the same subject. His goal was to verify Mentzer’s claims with published research. He started from the very beginning, what causes muscular failure on the physiological level. Next – what makes muscle tissue grow and so on. His conclusion was similar to Mentzer’s, that long recovery intervals are beneficial for training. However, the premise behind it was different. Mentzer claimed that the improved result is due to recovery. According to Protasenko, allowing long intervals between training session leads to some degree of detraining and increases the sensitivity of the muscle to training stimuli. Never mind the actual reason behind it, both authors claimed that long intervals between training sessions are good. Protasenko, however, instead of complete rest, rather favored infrequent heavy sessions with light sessions in between. Cycling loads leads exactly to this way of training: the load increases from session to session, and as soon as you hit a new high you start the cycle with much lower all over again, thus working maximally only once every two weeks or so.

Beautiful theories are nice, but is there a confirmation to it? Can a method developed for bodybuilding be relevant for other sports too? In turns out yes, there is. In April this year there was a post on the Rybinsk Girevoy Sport forum with the link to an article by Protasenko which discusses much earlier publication by Sergeev and which has direct relevance to the topic of the frequency of training. The discussion is in Russian and can be found at http://www.shtanga.kcn.ru/sergeev.htm I will try and recite it here as close as I can.

Sergeev was a Professor, holder of Doctorate in Medical Sciences and the Head of the Department of the Functional Morphology of the Institute of Physical Culture of USSR. The name of the article was “About some theoretical research and the experience of implementation into coaching practice achievements of biological science” It had been published in the “Nauchno-sportivny vestnik” (Scientific sport newsletter), a peer reviewed journal devoted to the sport science in 1980. According to Y Verchoshansky, the rejection of the ideas expressed in this article by the Soviet sports establishment was the key reason of Sergeev’s resignation from the Institute. I am too lazy to translate the whole article here and will only cover its main points.

According to the previous research by Sergeev on the muscle, heart and liver of rats his group came out with the theory of training process. According to that there were several phases of adaptation. The diagram of the process is below.

The first section s the period of fatigue, the actual training session.
ФОУ - the Phase of the Residual Fatigue
ФПвР. After that – the Phase of Increased Work Capacity
ФПнР, the Phase of Decreased Work Capacity
ФСР the Phase of the Stabilization of Work Capacity and finally,
НУР New Level of Work Capacity.

Solid line marked “Исходный уровень работоспособности” is the Initial Level of Work Capacity, dotted line marked “Новый урoвень работоспособности (адаптации)” is the New Level of Work Capacity. The blue line is the actual Work Capacity.

According to the author’s theory is that the phase of the Increased Work Capacity is not the conclusive stage of adaptation to training session and is its transitional phase only. New level of adaptation at the end of the process lasts 3-4 days, and if no stimulus is applied again, the effect may be lost. In other words, de-adaptation occurs.

Experimental data has also shown that the application of repeated training stimuli before the adaptation process is complete (such as during supercompensation phase) indeed leads to the increased work capacity, but eventually ends up with the state of chronic physical strain or, in other words, overtraining and eventual decrease of work capacity. From the point of view of biological science it is the least efficient way of adaptation.

Based on the above theory, the author and his coworkers came up with the biologically based system of training (BBST). Its main premise is that after completing the training session and the organism reaches the new level of adaptation, this level is maintained with training load of low volume applied every 1-2 days during which the organism must be put in conditions reflecting new level of adaptation. УДН is the maintenance load, or literally “holding load”. This is shown on the diagram below: when a new level of work capacity is reached several stimuli (training session) are applied in order to stabilise the achievement.

In practice the method is implemented in the following way. The athlete is assessed in terms of his physical level and bioenergetics and the goal is set (for instance, maximal strength of strength endurance). The type (specificity) of load is chosen according to the goal. The athlete then is given training session until fatigued. The phases of adaptation are monitored and the process can take from 1 to 7 days. As soon as the new level of adaptation is achieved, the athlete is loaded with the new stimuli for the maintenance of the new level. The idea behind these maintaining sessions is to every time get the athlete to the level of the initial loading level (as during first training session). The duration of the adaptation period, as confirmed by experience, is 7-18 calendar days, of which training days are 4-7. Total volume of training – that includes initial as well as maintenance loading – is within 3-7 hours, and is sufficient for the achievement of the training effect close to maximal. DURING THE ACTUAL PHASES OF ADAPTATION THERE IS NO TRAINING.

In order to test the theory in 1977 the Institute of Physical Culture and Central Sports Club of the Soviet Army signed a contract. The following was decided.

1. To select the experimental group of young athletes of 18-20 years of age who have never done sports before, but have the physical characteristics suitable for training in rowing.
2. To refine the practical aspects of BBST in its application to rowing, including the initial and maintenance loading and the general system of training.
3. As the result to have highly trained athletes based on BBST.

The experiment started in 1977. Individuals for the experiment were carefully selected, and after deriving suitable loading parameters the training process has started. During the period from 24 May to 14 July 3 training cycles were completed, 14-16 days each. The results were impressive. In fact, the results in testing parameters were similar to that among athletes who were earlier included in the national team.

However, from August 1977 this experiment was interrupted. The coach working with the athletes realized that the group consists of unique sportsmen who are able to achieve high results. He obtained the approval of the sports bureaucrats to train them according to “his” method, which was the accepted methodology at the time (the volume of training was significantly increased, training two-three times a day was introduced, training with barbells, long distance running etc.). One week cycle was also introduced. As the result after 2.5 months the testing parameters returned to the pre-experimental level. And only after a year of such training they came back to the levels achieved at the end of the experiment (July 1977).

After that, of course, the relationship between the scientist and the Army Club went sour. However, they were given a group of junior rowers to experiment with, and the results were outstanding. From the tables of the results it follows that in one cycle that lasted 17-19 calendar days, out of which 6 were training days and pure training time (rest time subtracted) from 1hour 44 min to 3 hours 52 minutes the average power of work increased from 200 to 520 kgm/min. This fact was used during the preparation of the “silver eight”, when rest period of one and a half months before USSR Spartakiade did not negatively affect the results of that group. The BBST was applied to other groups of athletes with equally impressive results.

Here it is. Benefits of less frequent training confirmed by serious research. Unfortunately, the article does not discuss the process of identification of the phases of adaptation, and I would guess it is done by observing symptoms and signs (feeling rested, resting heart rate, reaction of heart rate to stimulation etc.) as well as measuring some physical and biochemical parameters.

How is it applicable to Girevoy Sport? Well, one of the methods of training for GS developed by Ryabchenko in a way reflects ideas expressed in the text above. I will discuss this method in detail in future postings. For now I will mention that Ryabchenko’s system implies working with kettlebells significantly lower than competition bells and utilizing training volumes well below competition numbers.