How Often?

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 going to gym as infrequently as once a week could be most beneficial. Mentzer claimed that his view is supported by many observations of his clients and himself. His methodology implied training to complete muscular failure and only one set per body part (something like this, anyway). And, of course, his methodology was primarily applicable to 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. His book is all about the physiology of muscular hypertrophy. He starts asking questions from the very beginning: what causes muscular failure on the physiological level? 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. One way or another, both authors claimed that long rest intervals between training sessions are beneficial for muscle growth. However, instead of complete rest, Protasenko favored infrequent light sessions between the heavy ones. Pretty much periodization the way we know it: increasing the intensity from session to session, and as soon as you hit a new high you start the cycle with lower load all over again, hitting maxes only once every now and again.

In April 2008 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, this time in endurance sports. The discussion is in Russian and can be found at http://www.shtanga.kcn.ru/sergeev.htm The post that follows is the loose translation of this article.

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 Prof. Yuri Verkhoshansky, 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.

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 solid horizontal line in the middle of the graph represents the initial level of work capacity. After the application of the work capacity drops and after some time reaches a new level, depicted by the dotted line. This is the phase of super-compensation, as it has been known for a long time. What’s new in Sergeyev’s theory is the second dip of the blue line. In other words, the period of super-compensation is not the conclusive stage of adaptation to training session and is its transitional phase only. Eventually new level adaptation is achieved at the end of the process. If no stimulus is applied at this stage the effect may be lost. Sergeyev’s experimental data has also shown that the application of repeated training stimuli before the adaptation process is complete – for instance during super-compensation phase – does lead to the increased work capacity, but eventually ends up with the state of overtraining and consequent 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. This idea is depicted on the diagram below: new level of work capacity represented by horizontal blue line at the end of the adaptation process is maintained by several sessions of what Sergeyev called the maintenance load.


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 get the athlete to the level of the initial loading level (as during first training session) every time. The duration of the adaptation period, as confirmed by experience, is between seven and eighteen days. Overall, during the process of adaptation between four and seven days are training days. 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 head 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 methodology accepted at the time - the volume of training was significantly increased, training was done two to three times a day and was supplemented with training with barbells, long distance running etc. Training reverted to one week cycle. As the result after 2.5 months the testing parameters returned to the pre-experimental level. And it took the whole 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.

Unfortunately it is impossible to get the specifics of Sergeyev’s coaching. Neither it is possible to obtain the details of how phases of adaptation were identified.

In terms of applicability of Sergeyev’s research to girevoy sport I can think of one example, training methodology of Ryabchenko discussed later in this blog. Ryabchenko’s system implies working with kettlebells significantly lower than competition bells and utilizing training volumes well below competition numbers.

Sergeyev’s conclusions are also in keeping with the latest training ideas of Pavel and Dan John. According to them most training loads should be in the moderate range (according to Dan John, as much as 80% of all training should be at that intensity). For more detail refer to Easy Strength or Intervention.