Training frequency study

[Ratfish]

Cliffs:

Do what you like and what works for you.

/thread

that's really what it's going to come down to

everyone should ask themselves if they're going to be able to realistically do their routine for the next 10 years. if not, modify it until you say yes

i'm looking forward to making some 2019 gains

[Jax05]

I made the most strength gains doing a 1 day full body (deads, squat, bench, row, 2 core exercises) then two days off.

Work, rest, rest, work, rest, rest, work

tempted to neg for ignoring the fact that this is about hypertrophy

[HockeyBacon18]

Brb doing the volume I'd usually do in an entire month, in 1 week.

Yep, the results will definitely be the same.

Right... yea... yea...
[/img]

good luck with that

225x10 on the bench for 3 sets. once a week. thats 12 sets over the month

LMAO if u think you can recover quickly enough in a week to do that 4 times

[devin45k]

Cliffs:

Do what you like and what works for you.

/thread

This is it basically. Everyone is genetically, physically, and mentally different. Some people respond well to certain training and some people dont. There is no magic formula.

[AlexTheNewbie]

This is it basically. Everyone is genetically, physically, and mentally different. Some people respond well to certain training and some people dont. There is no magic formula.

Definitely. You could even base training intensity off your slow/fast-twitch fiber ratio.

[arn710]

Definitely. You could even base training intensity off your slow/fast-twitch fiber ratio.

My last reply was dick-ish. You didn't deserve that. My bad

MPS is the mechanism by which muscle is built and repaired. The primary driver here is training stimulus. Secondary, in some cases, is anabolic steroids. This is also the primary method in which they work (not going to dicuss ancillary benefits). This is why you see people gain muscle while using them with no training stimulus.

I think you're confusing muscle repair with recovery.

Recovery is primarily driven by nutrient replenishment and partitioning. Anabolic steroids are a driver here but to a much lesser degree than other factors and certainly not as much as they facilitate MPS.

[Schnitzl]

From all the research I've done on this (I haven't read this study) I found that each muscle is different. During the beginning (first year or two of lifting) you can get away with doing things once a week. This isn't preferred. With time you'll see better results with +frequency, and like I said, each muscle is different. Fast twitch, slow twitch etc. For example, training hamstrings for growth should involve mostly hip hinge movements (stiff legged deads, good morning, GHR) with heavy heavy sets, 4-8 reps, performing the sets slowly. You also can't slam hamstrings for 15-20 sets/week like you can for something like shoulder.


I lift 6 days a week.

Of course. The thing with scientific studies is, they apply to the general population. That's the whole point of a scientific study. Schoenfeld himself has researched chest hypertrophy in terms of frequency and says the more the merrier.

The recovery time is real, as a seasoned lifter even if you eat 99.9% perfectly, your MAV(max adaptive volume aka. max gainz) will pass MRV(max recoverable volume). That's why its best to periodize your training into cycles. I prefer concurrent where I flip it upside down every other day in terms of strength & hypertrophy focused training. For example I might do 6x5 @ 225lb bench with 2.5min rest and 2 days later will go for 6x10 @ 185 with a minute rest.

Good read from Dr. Israetel who created Renaissance Periodization https://renaissanceperiodization.com...muscle-growth/



PSA. The studies are all hypertrophy based, you can't umbrella it over every single different type of training out there(power, cardio, strength etc.)

[AlexTheNewbie]

My last reply was dick-ish. You didn't deserve that. My bad

MPS is the mechanism by which muscle is built and repaired. The primary driver here is training stimulus. Secondary, in some cases, is anabolic steroids. This is also the primary method in which they work (not going to dicuss ancillary benefits). This is why you see people gain muscle while using them with no training stimulus.

I think you're confusing muscle repair with recovery.

Recovery is primarily driven by nutrient replenishment and partitioning. Anabolic steroids are a driver here but to a much lesser degree than other factors and certainly not as much as they facilitate MPS.

No hard feelings mate

I'm definitely confusing the two terms then... As far as I could see, muscle repair was part of the "recovery" process. I didn't realize you would separate the two!

In that regard I agree. They can influence insulin response as far as I've heard. Some substances actually promote insulin resistance. But I'm not familiar enough with those to have a proper discussion about it.

[nyknicks500]

https://bodyrecomposition.com/resear...h-part-3.html/

"If you add up the reps on my GBR you can see where my numbers come from. I use a combination of heavy 6-8’s for tension and 10-12 or 12-15 for more fatigue which is why I mix them but you end up with roughly that number of reps for every muscle group (you can count reps on compound chest/back/legs as half the reps for arms but it should all math out more or less correctly because that’s how I set it up).

No Wernbom wasn’t on well trained subjects but none of the above studies used elite guys either because a 1.1 bodyweight bench is not elite in men, it’s advanced noob. Wernbom was basing on a limited data set in, at best, limited work on even intermediate trainees (again, just like the above studies) and still concluded 40-70 contractions twice a week gave optimal growth compared to lower and higher values.

So we double 40-70 and that’s 80-140 repetitions per week per muscle group. Some quick maths.

At 10 reps per set 80-140 reps per week yields 8-14 sets per week.
At 8 reps per set 80-140 reps per week yields 10-16 sets per week.
A mix of 4X8 (32 reps) and 3×12-15 (36-45) for 68-77 reps per week is 14 sets/week.
A mix of say 5X5 (25 reps) and 3-4X1012 (30-36 reps) for 55-71 reps twice a week is 16-18 sets/week.

So for any rational workout design an optimal repetition count of 40-70 reps/workout done twice per week for 80-140 total reps per week put us somewhere in the realm of 8-18 sets/week for the optimal growth response."

[flexnation]

They specifically said the difference was not meaningful. They did find that many of the studies they analyzed showed that more frequency was better, but only because it usually resulted in more volume.

Exactly this. These studies and this specific meta analysis is potato to base your training off if you're serious about hypertrophy. Ultimately, Volume is king and will forever be king. The entire benefit of increasing frequency comes with the presupposition that you will be increasing volume as a by product of that. Increasing volume with increasing frequency can come by adding more sets per week or keeping the sets the same but now instead of having to complete 8 sets of squats in 1 day, you'll do 4 sets 2x/week for example which should allow you to lift heavier loads thus increasing volume.

Again, and this cant be stressed enough, Volume is King.

How are you defining intensity and what evidence do you have that it effects hypertrophy? Srs question.


I have a pretty solid idea of what I think you are referring to, but I think it's important to answer those two questions before we talk about it.

99% of people here use the term intensity rather than exertion which is what they really mean. Not a lot of solid training knowledge on this board anymore unfortunately.

I think the people are completely missing the entire point of the study.

Total training volume if the driver of hypertrophy

So if you cant accumulate enough total volume to progress with your current amount of training, then increase training frequency. If you can...vice versa

This guy gets it

[anonymous]

By the time most lifters realize the single most important role of frequency is preserving joint and tendon health, its sadly too late.

[Jrd86]

Genetics are a big factor with this. Like with anything, results will vary based on that, nutrition, sleep, ect. Basically know your limits and push them to get the best bang for your buck. Water is also wet...

[NicholasMango]

Exactly this. These studies and this specific meta analysis is potato to base your training off if you're serious about hypertrophy. Ultimately, Volume is king and will forever be king. The entire benefit of increasing frequency comes with the presupposition that you will be increasing volume as a by product of that. Increasing volume with increasing frequency can come by adding more sets per week or keeping the sets the same but now instead of having to complete 8 sets of squats in 1 day, you'll do 4 sets 2x/week for example which should allow you to lift heavier loads thus increasing volume.

Again, and this cant be stressed enough, Volume is King.

99% of people here use the term intensity rather than exertion which is what they really mean. Not a lot of solid training knowledge on this board anymore unfortunately.

It actually isn't potato at all. The study literally says that volume is the only thing that matters on a weekly basis.

It doesn't matter how many days you workout.
It doesn't matter what reps you do.
It doesn't matter what sets you do.
It doesn't matter how "intense/hard" it feels.
It doesn't matter what %1rm you use.
It doesn't matter if you get a pump
It doesn't matter if you get sore.

It matters how much volume you move.


I can quite easily bench over 10,000lb in a week. It's trivial.
I cannot bench 10,000lb in on set. It's impossible.
So obviously if I spread it out I can get more volume. But it doesn't matter that I have it spread out more, it matters that I have more volume.

Lets say the absolute most I can bench in a week is 21,000lb.

Lets say if I lift 3x a week I can manage 7,000lb in one session, but no more.
Lets say if I lift 2x a week I can manage 10,500 in one session, but no more.


Makes no difference which one I choose.


The entire point is that whatever your max volume is, you can likely adjust your frequency +/- a day and still be able to pull off that number. At that point it doesn't matter which you pick.



Honestly it doesn't surprise me that that logical leap is too much for a lot of miscers. And honestly, that's fine. Not everyone can make those leaps (srs) and it doesn't really matter.

What really grinds my gears is that people who cant figure it out on their own sit here and argue like they actually know ****.

brb "my intuition" > meta analysis of many scientific studies


like gtfo.
If you are old enough to post on the big boy misc, you really should have taken the time to seriously think how good you are at figuring **** out. Because if you aren't good at it, maybe leave it to someone who is? like idk the scientists who actually did research?

[flexnation]

It actually isn't potato at all. The study literally says that volume is the only thing that matters on a weekly basis.

It doesn't matter how many days you workout.
It doesn't matter what reps you do.
It doesn't matter what sets you do.
It doesn't matter how "intense/hard" it feels.
It doesn't matter what %1rm you use.
It doesn't matter if you get a pump
It doesn't matter if you get sore.

It matters how much volume you move.


I can quite easily bench over 10,000lb in a week. It's trivial.
I cannot bench 10,000lb in on set. It's impossible.
So obviously if I spread it out I can get more volume. But it doesn't matter that I have it spread out more, it matters that I have more volume.

Lets say the absolute most I can bench in a week is 21,000lb.

Lets say if I lift 3x a week I can manage 7,000lb in one session, but no more.
Lets say if I lift 2x a week I can manage 10,500 in one session, but no more.


Makes no difference which one I choose.


The entire point is that whatever your max volume is, you can likely adjust your frequency +/- a day and still be able to pull off that number. At that point it doesn't matter which you pick.



Honestly it doesn't surprise me that that logical leap is too much for a lot of miscers. And honestly, that's fine. Not everyone can make those leaps (srs) and it doesn't really matter.

What really grinds my gears is that people who cant figure it out on their own sit here and argue like they actually know ****.

brb "my intuition" > meta analysis of many scientific studies


like gtfo.
If you are old enough to post on the big boy misc, you really should have taken the time to seriously think how good you are at figuring **** out. Because if you aren't good at it, maybe leave it to someone who is? like idk the scientists who actually did research?

We agree with each other for the most part you pretentious prick.

I phrased the section of my post that you're responding too poorly and it looks like you stopped reading right there. I literally said that volume is king multiple times.

What I meant was that people who read that frequency doesnt matter when it comes to lifting and that volume is all that matters are potato because most of the time they will state that as the reason they decide to do less work overall. Yes, if you're MRV 20 sets per week, it doesnt matter how you split up the sets per workout. You can get all 20 in one day or you can spread those 20 sets over the course of 3 workouts and you'll get similar results. I wouldnt say that you'll get the same results as chances are that if you split up the workload over 3 workouts in a week, you'll be able to do more quality work in those workouts thus increasing the total tonnage that you did that week.


And since you wanna be a prick, your entire example is based on tonnage, not volume. Yes, there's a difference.

Literally everything you posted that "doesnt matter", matters except for the pump.
And yes, you can absolutely lift 10,000lbs of tonnage in one set.

Now again, we agree overall. I agree with the meta analysis. Volume is king. I was a potato for phrasing that section of my post poorly.

[nyknicks500]

I'm a fan of 4x a week on an upper lower split style like WS4SB. There's plenty of soreness possible, and it'll wane on Sunday a bit so good for domesticated debauchery

Upper/Lower splits are my favorite.

[HMFIC_BROWSIN]

Good topic. I do my training around the 70%-80% level of what Im capable. So i always have gas in the tank and have increased total volume which has DRASTICALLY improved performance.

Dropping intensity has literally tripled my volume and boosted performance way more than i would have guessed.

This applies to skill-based stuff like technical mountain biking. Im finding the less-is-more approach to be especially prominent in that regard. Doing micky mouse balance chit is a thousand times more productive, which is why pro athletes spend the bulk of their training volume on that. Low intensity, high volume. Feels good man.

[NicholasMango]

We agree with each other for the most part you pretentious prick.

I phrased the section of my post that you're responding too poorly and it looks like you stopped reading right there. I literally said that volume is king multiple times.

What I meant was that people who read that frequency doesnt matter when it comes to lifting and that volume is all that matters are potato because most of the time they will state that as the reason they decide to do less work overall. Yes, if you're MRV 20 sets per week, it doesnt matter how you split up the sets per workout. You can get all 20 in one day or you can spread those 20 sets over the course of 3 workouts and you'll get similar results. I wouldnt say that you'll get the same results as chances are that if you split up the workload over 3 workouts in a week, you'll be able to do more quality work in those workouts thus increasing the total tonnage that you did that week.


And since you wanna be a prick, your entire example is based on tonnage, not volume. Yes, there's a difference.

Literally everything you posted that "doesnt matter", matters except for the pump.
And yes, you can absolutely lift 10,000lbs of tonnage in one set.

Now again, we agree overall. I agree with the meta analysis. Volume is king. I was a potato for phrasing that section of my post poorly.

Most of my post wasn't meant for you actually.


I can't lift 10,000lb in a single bench set. Maybe I deads/squats. Not in bench. The number wasn't really my point though.
There is other research that suggests rep ranges really aren't that important either (hypertrophy speaking)
Do they matter a bit? sure. Are they worth the attention these autists give them? nope.

Generally speaking, just do whatever fits your schedule and lets you lift the maximum amount of weight overall. You'll be fine.

[flexnation]

Most of my post wasn't meant for you actually.


I can't lift 10,000lb in a single bench set. Maybe I deads/squats. Not in bench. The number wasn't really my point though.
There is other research that suggests rep ranges really aren't that important either (hypertrophy speaking)
Do they matter a bit? sure. Are they worth the attention these autists give them? nope.

Generally speaking, just do whatever fits your schedule and lets you lift the maximum amount of weight overall. You'll be fine.

Bolded is the most important take away here. For the general population, these things shouldn't be worried about. High level athletes, powerlifters, bodybuilders, etc are the ones that need to pay attention to the minutiae.

Good convo overall tho. Repped you and a few other solid posts

[dunnie]

Basically says your it doesn't matter how frequently you train provided your volume is the same.



So 3x5 2x a week is the same as 6x5 1x a week.

Also just lmao at thinking a mod cares if you neg them.

LOL training articles . All of them are wrong

[NicholasMango]

Bolded is the most important take away here. For the general population, these things shouldn't be worried about. High level athletes, powerlifters, bodybuilders, etc are the ones that need to pay attention to the minutiae.

Good convo overall tho. Repped you and a few other solid posts

I think it's also worth mentioning that 99% of the misc doesn't fit into the "bodybuilder" category that needs to worry about that level of minutia. You could certainly compete in low level tournaments without ever worrying about stuff that small.
And if you aren't competing. Holy **** who cares.

[Croatbrah]

Good thread and interesting study. I'm curious if anyone has a reputable source on the impact of rest time in between sets or is that "too minutia" to matter/even be accounted for. Reason I ask is I used to do heavy weight with decently long rest time in between but that got time consuming af and I'm at the point where'd I'd rather workout for 45 minutes-1 hour tops and be on my way, so long as overall volume stays the same. [ie less than 30 seconds rest in between sets except the one heavy lift of the day (5/3/1)]

[phikappa]

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...alCode=rjsp20&
Pretty good stuff for those who lift.

Based on my personal experience of over 30 years, I agree.

[2RDEYE]

dropped the weight low to try for a volume workout today. i felt good but i don't really feel that my muscles were worked. i went from 6-8 reps to aiming for 10 reps. anyone have an example of workouts with adequate volume? i'm thinking like german volume training 10 reps every set or something

[Comstarr]

Good thread and interesting study. I'm curious if anyone has a reputable source on the impact of rest time in between sets or is that "too minutia" to matter/even be accounted for. Reason I ask is I used to do heavy weight with decently long rest time in between but that got time consuming af and I'm at the point where'd I'd rather workout for 45 minutes-1 hour tops and be on my way, so long as overall volume stays the same. [ie less than 30 seconds rest in between sets except the one heavy lift of the day (5/3/1)]

There was a legit study I read a month or two ago posted here that concluded that longer rest times between sets are actually more beneficial for muscle growth, when compared to shorter rests between sets.

I don't remember the specifics of it and I don't have a link to the study itself, unfortunately, but if you're interested enough to dig around on Google for it then it's definitely out there somewhere.


As for the study in the OP: it makes sense. Volume is important for achieving hypertrophy to an extent, however once the muscle is sufficiently broken down enough then increasing the volume during that session won't do anything for it, if anything it will be counter-productive for growth and could potentially turn into rhabdomyolysis or myositis if you continue.

[nyknicks500]

dropped the weight low to try for a volume workout today. i felt good but i don't really feel that my muscles were worked. i went from 6-8 reps to aiming for 10 reps. anyone have an example of workouts with adequate volume? i'm thinking like german volume training 10 reps every set or something

Dr. Israetel sells Male Physique templates. Most are in that rep range.https://renaissanceperiodization.com...ning-templates

[nvrstopworking]

It's actually pretty clear that the total volume needs to be the same. So if you want to do less days per week, you need to have work harder on the days you do go.
Doesn't really give anyone any excuses.

I'm 43 and I've naturally gravitated to this over the past few years. I do an Upper/Lower/Off split and spend a while in the gym each time I'm there (2+hrs) due to the volume and have actually found that I feel BETTER now and stronger than when I trained muscle groups more frequently. Amazing for my joints too.

[BostonRockets]

Did not read but even if true, what about affects on strength? And then possibly higher loads affecting your ability to gain muscle? Idk, but increasing my training frequency was probably the best thing I've ever done training wise.

Also you will probably get to a point where your work capacity is maxed out and you simply cannot add the necessary volume required at a certain intensity to increase your strength. Which is why you would break it up and have separate training days.

[eod8989]

Doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things when natural lifting takes forever. We are talking years for transformations and months for visible changes. Going 6 days per week instead of 4 isn't going to make a big difference.

[Motiviert]

Pretty neato

[AlexTheNewbie]

Doesn't really matter much in the grand scheme of things when natural lifting takes forever. We are talking years for transformations and months for visible changes. Going 6 days per week instead of 4 isn't going to make a big difference.

Of course it is going to make a big difference. Going 6 days will allow you to get more volume in. And volume is the main driver of progress.

Do you even read bro?