Stronger 24/7 - Stronger Everyday
Stronger 24/7 Forum
NewbieSplit AdviceTraining Programs

Training Frequency? Opinions?18167

Benzenunovic private msg quote post Address this user


Just uploaded a video on training frequency. What is your current split and what split do you believe is optimal?

As for beginners who don't know how often to train their muscles a week. Here's my opinion on the subject and hopefully it can help someone out.
Post 1 IP   flag post
The Dark
Knight
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
Twice a week for all muscle groups; once every ~72 hours to optimize MPS. -3X
Post 2 IP   flag post
Benzenunovic private msg quote post Address this user
@eknight yessir!!!
Post 3 IP   flag post
Rawsteel private msg quote post Address this user
Any split were you hit each muscle twice (or more) each week, below is a pretty recent meta-analysis about this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Schoenfeld
Background A number of resistance training (RT) program variables can be manipulated to maximize muscular hypertrophy. One variable of primary interest in this regard is RT frequency. Frequency can refer to the number of resistance training sessions performed in a given period of time, as well as to the number of times a specific muscle group is trained over a given period of time. Objective We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the effects of resistance training frequency on hypertrophic outcomes. Methods Studies were deemed eligible for inclusion if they met the following criteria: (1) were an experimental trial published in an English-language refereed journal; (2) directly compared different weekly resistance training frequencies in traditional dynamic exercise using coupled concentric and eccentric actions; (3) measured morphologic changes via biopsy, imaging, circumference, and/or densitometry; (4) had a minimum duration of 4 weeks; and (5) used human participants without chronic disease or injury. A total of ten studies were identified that investigated RT frequency in accordance with the criteria outlined. Results Analysis using binary frequency as a predictor variable revealed a significant impact of training frequency on hypertrophy effect size (P = 0.002), with higher frequency being associated with a greater effect size than lower frequency (0.49 ± 0.08 vs. 0.30 ± 0.07, respectively). Statistical analyses of studies investigating training session frequency when groups are matched for frequency of training per muscle group could not be carried out and reliable estimates could not be generated due to inadequate sample size. Conclusions When comparing studies that investigated training muscle groups between 1 to 3 days per week on a volume-equated basis, the current body of evidence indicates that frequencies of training twice a week promote superior hypertrophic outcomes to once a week. It can therefore be inferred that the major muscle groups should be trained at least twice a week to maximize muscle growth; whether training a muscle group three times per week is superior to a twice-per-week protocol remains to be determined.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301578131_Effects_of_Resistance_Training_Frequency_on_Measures_of_Muscle_Hypertrophy_A_Systematic_Review_and_Meta-Analysis
Post 4 IP   flag post
ATN_Coaching private msg quote post Address this user
Aside from the evidence and someone who support mutli frequency training i.e. each body part 2-4 times a week. There are benefits to performing quote unquote bro splits on an individual basis. I have clients who I have put on frequency based regimens and have little/hindered progress due to lack of recovery and more, even with optimized nutrition in place. Once put on a bro split progression came and came nicely. Other things like a better pump which is a variable/contributor to some hypertrophy. A great mental break, hitting each body part in higher frequency can burn some people out and not be fun so taking a break helps refresh. As well from a personal observance level have noticed when taking clients off a high frequency regimen down to a bro split for a decent period of time 3-6 months then back to a high frequency regimen there is a quote un quote newbie gain effect. There is no science to support this just a general observation I have made over the years. So this is not a post to be counter productive to the video or post but just some general insight, feedback, and more.
Post 5 IP   flag post
Benzenunovic private msg quote post Address this user
@ATN_Coaching I agree completely, for some high frequency training might not work as well as a bro split. Just like you, personally with some of my clients I noticed gains progress a lot faster with high frequency. It all could come down to the individual really
Post 6 IP   flag post
Rawsteel private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATN_Coaching
I have clients who I have put on frequency based regimens and have little/hindered progress due to lack of recovery and more, even with optimized nutrition in place. Once put on a bro split progression came and came nicely.


There could be several reasons for this, like too much volume, too many sets taken to failure, much stress in their daily lifes, not enough sleep etc.
The more frequent you train the more these factors matter, but if your clients can't fully recover a muscle with ~3 days off full rest, then either the program sucks or they don't sleep.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Benzenunovic
It all could come down to the individual really


Not unless they're 60+ or have some illness that hiners they're recovery.
Post 7 IP   flag post
ATN_Coaching private msg quote post Address this user
@Rawsteel

Of course there are always variables as such mentioned by you as well lack of hydration, sodium intake, and more. As a coach if I am not asking, paying attention to these details and more then I am not doing my job. Even when 100% execution of sleep, hydration. regimenting, programming, and more this does not mean that multi frequency training is optimal/elite for every/any individual. You even mentioned age, though age again is another factor/variable I fee people still miss the point of genetic individuality/make up. Regardless of what science and research shows it does not speak for everyone in the world. Would I prefer and ideally aim to put someone on a higher frequency regimen of course and nail it to the T this does not mean it is optimal for every specific person.
Post 8 IP   flag post
Hamb0 private msg quote post Address this user
@Rawsteel it probably isn't as black and white as that. While there hasn't (yet?) been a study going into details on the topic, there are pretty good reasons to believe, that higher frequency isn't always the better option for strength/hypertrophy, and there is an element of variance based on the individual, training age, development and recent training protocols. This is common concensus between many of the brightest heads in the science based community of exercise.

When studies on training frequency get evaluated, it is often off the basis of measuring for how long, and to which degree muscle protein synthesis is elevated. The duration of elevated MPS then becomes a reference of time, for when you can hit the same muscle again, to repeat the stimulation of increased MPS. The fact is though, that resistance training pulls on a variety of different systems, that each have their own recovery/adaptaion curve, with muscles having one of the shortest. Of the others, off the top of my head i'll mention endocrine/hormonal, passive structure, and CNS + PNS. Sure, a muscle probably doesn't take longer than a few days to recover, but that isn't the case for other systems, when put under significant stress.

Aside from people's individual capacities for recovery, just from a genetic, birthgiven perspective, trainers who are very developed, strong and have many years under their belts can easily be able to disrupt their physiology to such a degree, and need to, to get further progress, might just not be sufficiently recovered, across all the different systems involved, to train the same muscle several times per week. Another factor is, that there is such a thing as a minimum threshold of exposure to overload for adaptation to occur. That means that some people need such a high degree of overload, to achieve ANY significant adaptive response, that it isn't realistic for them to be recovered 3 days later.

Studies on training frequencies often puts the topic in a vacuum, and paints a picture that is pretty black and white, but in reality much more context dependant. Novelty stimulus is a pretty significant factor in resistance training and adaptive response, so while one can easily argue that training a muscle 2 times or more per week is most often the best for the majority, switching from a higher frequency program to maybe even a bro split, might be able to provide a new adaptation simply because the change in per-session-volume is so disruptive.

And then there are obviously the mental factors, which were already mentioned. If one thinks in terms of providing good coaching, adherence trumps "optimal training frequency".
Post 9 IP   flag post
ATN_Coaching private msg quote post Address this user
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hamb0
@Rawsteel it probably isn't as black and white as that. While there hasn't (yet?) been a study going into details on the topic, there are pretty good reasons to believe, that higher frequency isn't always the better option for strength/hypertrophy, and there is an element of variance based on the individual, training age, development and recent training protocols. This is common concensus between many of the brightest heads in the science based community of exercise.

When studies on training frequency get evaluated, it is often off the basis of measuring for how long, and to which degree muscle protein synthesis is elevated. The duration of elevated MPS then becomes a reference of time, for when you can hit the same muscle again, to repeat the stimulation of increased MPS. The fact is though, that resistance training pulls on a variety of different systems, that each have their own recovery/adaptaion curve, with muscles having one of the shortest. Of the others, off the top of my head i'll mention endocrine/hormonal, passive structure, and CNS + PNS. Sure, a muscle probably doesn't take longer than a few days to recover, but that isn't the case for other systems, when put under significant stress.

Aside from people's individual capacities for recovery, just from a genetic, birthgiven perspective, trainers who are very developed, strong and have many years under their belts can easily be able to disrupt their physiology to such a degree, and need to, to get further progress, might just not be sufficiently recovered, across all the different systems involved, to train the same muscle several times per week. Another factor is, that there is such a thing as a minimum threshold of exposure to overload for adaptation to occur. That means that some people need such a high degree of overload, to achieve ANY significant adaptive response, that it isn't realistic for them to be recovered 3 days later.

Studies on training frequencies often puts the topic in a vacuum, and paints a picture that is pretty black and white, but in reality much more context dependant. Novelty stimulus is a pretty significant factor in resistance training and adaptive response, so while one can easily argue that training a muscle 2 times or more per week is most often the best for the majority, switching from a higher frequency program to maybe even a bro split, might be able to provide a new adaptation simply because the change in per-session-volume is so disruptive.

And then there are obviously the mental factors, which were already mentioned. If one thinks in terms of providing good coaching, adherence trumps "optimal training frequency".


Got damn dude you write fucking stories lol but I can appreciate and respect that hahah
Post 10 IP   flag post
The Dark
Knight
eknight private msg quote post Address this user
I would propose that since MPS is at least in part affected by both the endocrine and nervous systems, using data that shows MPS elevations as a reference point de facto takes into account limitations on those systems' recovery times. -3X
Post 11 IP   flag post
340762 11 11
destitute