Hypertrophy and frequency study

[Iceman1800]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...alCode=rjsp20&
Very good read.

[ashhabah89]

My life was a lie

[SuffolkPunch]

Link doesn't work for me (maybe firewall issue) - is this the Kreiger one from the other day?

[supramax]

Link doesn't work for me (maybe firewall issue) - is this the Kreiger one from the other day?

It begins: "Physical Activity, Health and Exercise
How many times per week should a muscle be trained to maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resistance training frequency
Brad Jon Schoenfeld, Jozo Grgic & James Krieger"

... and concludes: "there is strong evidence that resistance training frequency does not significantly or meaningfully impact muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated. Thus, for a given training volume, individuals can choose a weekly frequency per muscle groups based on personal preference."

[etet1919]

I say mix it up- get the best of both worlds for a bodybuilder. Just like these experts agree with each other, people should work in different rep ranges, so why not also experiment with once/twice a week equated volume for muscle groups? See what feels and works better for an individual- and that will fluctuate for the same individual.

[rereeea]

The study says that when volume is equated then training a muscle once a week is the same as training it 3 times a week or even more.

That's the problem, everytime they mention equal volume, it's a strong point to be taken into consideration.

It's way easier to do 5 sets of bench press spread on 3 days than doing 15 sets of bench press in one day if it's even possible.

To make equal volume feasible for the people in the experiment they started off with small volumes. But when training once a week it is difficult to achieve decent volume (20 sets or more) but when training 3 or more times a week then doing 20 sets or more spread across the week is pretty easy and shouldn't take more than 1 hour of working out.

Also Bret contreras in the podcast with Jeff Nippard mentions a study showing that for people who train a muscle group only once a week it is overkill to do more than 6 sets per session and causes muscle loss, the study was 6 months long.

But many studies show that when volume is spread evenly across the week, then muscle loss doesn't happen but instead greater volumes only grant greater muscular growth. See norwegien frequency project and all the studies done by Brad Schoenfeld and Krieger.

[etet1919]

The study says that when volume is equated then training a muscle once a week is the same as training it 3 times a week or even more.

That's the problem, everytime they mention equal volume, it's a strong point to be taken into consideration.

It's way easier to do 5 sets of bench press spread on 3 days than doing 15 sets of bench press in one day if it's even possible.

To make equal volume feasible for the people in the experiment they started off with small volumes. But when training once a week it is difficult to achieve decent volume (20 sets or more) but when training 3 or more times a week then doing 20 sets or more spread across the week is pretty easy and shouldn't take more than 1 hour of working out.

Also Bret contreras in the podcast with Jeff Nippard mentions a study showing that for people who train a muscle group only once a week it is overkill to do more than 6 sets per session and causes muscle loss, the study was 6 months long.

But many studies show that when volume is spread evenly across the week, then muscle loss doesn't happen but instead greater volumes only grant greater muscular growth. See norwegien frequency project and all the studies done by Brad Schoenfeld and Krieger.

Very interesting! Your point (from the results of the studies) about sets being spread out equally across the week to ensure recovery and efficiency is common sense. I'm going to look up this Norweigen frequency project regarding muscle loss while training for volume once per week. I'm not saying I doubt the studies. The only thing I would question is, if a person using this method is gaining strength in their lifts and has gained some mass and definition, then wouldn't it be a sign that the parameter (frequency of volume) has been or is working?

[keyboardworkout]

To summarize:

3 sets of 10 done one day a week = 1 set of 10 done 3 times a week

[GeneralSerpant]

The study says that when volume is equated then training a muscle once a week is the same as training it 3 times a week or even more.

That's the problem, everytime they mention equal volume, it's a strong point to be taken into consideration.

It's way easier to do 5 sets of bench press spread on 3 days than doing 15 sets of bench press in one day if it's even possible.

To make equal volume feasible for the people in the experiment they started off with small volumes. But when training once a week it is difficult to achieve decent volume (20 sets or more) but when training 3 or more times a week then doing 20 sets or more spread across the week is pretty easy and shouldn't take more than 1 hour of working out.

Also Bret contreras in the podcast with Jeff Nippard mentions a study showing that for people who train a muscle group only once a week it is overkill to do more than 6 sets per session and causes muscle loss, the study was 6 months long.

But many studies show that when volume is spread evenly across the week, then muscle loss doesn't happen but instead greater volumes only grant greater muscular growth. See norwegien frequency project and all the studies done by Brad Schoenfeld and Krieger.

15 sets of one exercise in one day yeah, but a lot of people will do different exercises to hit the mark for the given muscle.

[Orlando1234977]

It's way easier to do 5 sets of bench press spread on 3 days than doing 15 sets of bench press in one day if it's even possible.

I can't do 5 work sets of bench press 3 times a week, but I can certainly do over 15 work sets for chest with a week to recover. Like most experienced lifters. A bit easier to maximize weekly volume when decreasing frequency.

[rereeea]

I can't do 5 work sets of bench press 3 times a week, but I can certainly do over 15 work sets for chest with a week to recover. Like most experienced lifters. A bit easier to maximize weekly volume when decreasing frequency.

Then it's pretty much experience dependant. You are so used to it the that any other way seems harder.

Cause I never met or heard of a person who thinks doing 15 exercises for one body part to be something "easier"... I mean, it's more than 40 -50 minutes to train one muscle group.

[etet1919]

Then it's pretty much experience dependant. You are so used to it the that any other way seems harder.

Cause I never met or heard of a person who thinks doing 15 exercises for one body part to be something "easier"... I mean, it's more than 40 -50 minutes to train one muscle group.

Nothing is "easy".....just different, maybe.

Women have different hormones. Wouldn't that come into play?

[gcoulson]

The problem is that while volume may be equated, intensity often is not.

[etet1919]

The problem is that while volume may be equated, intensity often is not.

Oh, man!!! If you saw me in the gym doing my thing, you would not for a second, question my intensity level!!

[Pumpinmirin]

GVT looking thick solid tight.

[GeneralSerpant]

I thought Suffolk was a proponent of higher frequency.

[SuffolkPunch]

I thought Suffolk was a proponent of higher frequency.

I'm a proponent of science first and foremost. I like to experiment though and high(ish) frequency seems to suit me personally.

[GeneralSerpant]

I'm a proponent of science first and foremost. I like to experiment though and high(ish) frequency seems to suit me personally.

For sure, was not trying to weigh in for you.

Just poking fun at Orlando's assertion.

[Ghawk21]

Oh, man!!! If you saw me in the gym doing my thing, you would not for a second, question my intensity level!!

For future reference, intensity in regards to weightlifting is your %1RM. Training at a high intensity means heavier weights, not sweating your arse off/ going all out. Its common for people to come on here and say they train very intensely when in fact they are doing cardio with weights.

[etet1919]

For future reference, intensity in regards to weightlifting is your %1RM. Training at a high intensity means heavier weights, not sweating your arse off/ going all out. Its common for people to come on here and say they train very intensely when in fact they are doing cardio with weights.

I'm going to take a chance and ask if you think I'm "doing cardio with weights" because I'm a woman...lol..? JK. How can you assume what weights I'm actually lifting without asking me? You guys ask the men!!! Why not me?

[Ghawk21]

I'm going to take a chance and ask if you think I'm "doing cardio with weights" because I'm a woman...lol..? JK. How can you assume what weights I'm actually lifting without asking me? You guys ask the men!!! Why not me?

Sorry, bad wording. Not directed at you specifically. It was in regards to the post you commented on where even if volume was equated, intensity would not be. Example, person benching 3x5 twice a week vs some one benching 6x5 once per week. Intensity wise, its likely the person who did 6x5 would need to train with less intensity (lighter weight) even though they complete the same number of reps as the person who split it into 2 sessions.

[SuffolkPunch]

For sure, was not trying to weigh in for you.

Just poking fun at Orlando's assertion.

Well it seems it makes no odds having a preference for once a week. But there are other experienced lifters who take the opposing view - i.e. find it easier to do more volume when spreading it out. They find that the 'quality' of the work is generally higher because of doing more sets from fresh (this was mentioned in the paper).

Also, I speculate that you adapt to your preferred training style. It would be difficult to re-acclimatise to other styles but I think anyone could do it if persistent.

[etet1919]

Sorry, bad wording. Not directed at you specifically. It was in regards to the post you commented on where even if volume was equated, intensity would not be. Example, person benching 3x5 twice a week vs some one benching 6x5 once per week. Intensity wise, its likely the person who did 6x5 would need to train with less intensity (lighter weight) even though they complete the same number of reps as the person who split it into 2 sessions.

I can understand that concept- especially with BB benching AND with men performing all strongman lifts. For me, personally, I'd rather do the once "equated" weekly volume for upper body parts (brah split) to "lay off " my elbow joints. In the past, obviously I'd split volume into two sessions, but the frequency became hard on those joints. My knees can handle twice a week- go figure...maybe because my knee ligaments are much stronger (not being sarcastic).

Regarding these studies, those scientists do state the frequency is less important than the ability to go to or close enough to failure. And whether you're a man or woman, using the weights that bring you to failure, is never "not intense enough," within any given rep range. That's what I learned here.

[Ghawk21]

And whether you're a man or woman, using the weights that bring you to failure, is never "not intense enough," within any given rep range. That's what I learned here.

Not true, you could reach failure or near failure, with a 2lb dumbbell if you do enough reps. That doesn't mean it was intense. Nothing to do with men vs women its just terminology in regards to lifting weights.

[rereeea]

I can understand that concept- especially with BB benching AND with men performing all strongman lifts. For me, personally, I'd rather do the once "equated" weekly volume for upper body parts (brah split) to "lay off " my elbow joints. In the past, obviously I'd split volume into two sessions, but the frequency became hard on those joints. My knees can handle twice a week- go figure...maybe because my knee ligaments are much stronger (not being sarcastic).

Leaving aside the sex difference in training between men and women which are minimal.
You should see a doctor, i used to have elbow and shoulder pain and I tought it was because of too many rows and curls. But my doctor said it has nothing to do with my training, but I had a (gut) infection that caused my body to react in a havoc and destroy some proteins in my joints, took some antibiotics, changed my diet as suggested by my doctor and the pain went away.

[etet1919]

Not true, you could reach failure or near failure, with a 2lb dumbbell if you do enough reps. That doesn't mean it was intense. Nothing to do with men vs women its just terminology in regards to lifting weights.

True, I think.....I've never used 5 lbs. In those regards, I get lactic acid burn just holding my arms up to blow dry my hair. Does that mean I will get a huge pump and develop my girlie guns?

[Orlando1234977]

For sure, was not trying to weigh in for you.

Just poking fun at Orlando's assertion.

Pretty easy to make a solid case for either. Remember, Defiant1 would always debate for high frequency until ~2005/6.. since then he did BP splits, once a week frequency.

[bLinkMoore]

I forget where I first read a study like this--NCBI probably--and it made such a difference in my approach to training.

Realizing that weekly sets was far more important than weekly frequency made it so much easier to put together a solid workout split. Short, intense workouts that last at MOST 45 minutes, done two or three times a week depending on the body part, is so much easier to adhere to than like a two and a half hour leg day or something like that.

[Vampirelol]

Imagine that. Busting your ass day in and out, assuming nutrition is in line with your goals, will always yield progress.

Too many frauds spilling bullchit for profit

[GeneralSerpant]

Well it seems it makes no odds having a preference for once a week. But there are other experienced lifters who take the opposing view - i.e. find it easier to do more volume when spreading it out. They find that the 'quality' of the work is generally higher because of doing more sets from fresh (this was mentioned in the paper).

Also, I speculate that you adapt to your preferred training style. It would be difficult to re-acclimatise to other styles but I think anyone could do it if persistent.

Pretty easy to make a solid case for either. Remember, Defiant1 would always debate for high frequency until ~2005/6.. since then he did BP splits, once a week frequency.

I like once a week for the long resting period. And it's easier to pile a bunch of exercises into one day.

Twice a week isn't that bad though 'cause I can still get a bit more volume in with 2 days rest. Technically my weeks are 6 days 'cause of rotation.