![]() Dividing your training volume across more days reduces RPEs.Other research supports that higher training frequencies may actually be easier to tolerate and recover from. This takes into account the session rating of perceived exertion (RPE). In this study, internal work load was also measured. What’s particularly great about high frequency training is that this extra volume doesn’t seem to come with extra fatigue. As long as you can recover from it, a greater training volume means more mechanical tension on the muscle fibers and that means more muscle growth. You’re tanked by that time, so you can’t lift nearly as much weight as you could if you moved those exercises to separate days. Just think about it: how productive were the hack squats in this program after these guys had done 9 other sets of squats to failure? How much work could they still produce during the seated rows after 12 other sets of pulling exercises to failure? Not very. When you split up a given number of exercises or sets across more sessions, you’ll perform more work. ![]() This one, and your program in real life, aren’t. Most training frequency studies are work-equated. This is the crucial difference that many people neglect when interpreting training frequency research. The most likely reason I’d say for the greater gains was that the full-body group achieved a significantly greater total training volume in terms of total work (sets x reps x weight). What explains these substantially greater gains that don’t show up consistently in other research? There are 2 plausible reasons: training volume and training status. Training a muscle at least twice per week is probably also beneficial for strength development. In conclusion, training a muscle 5x per week led to substantially greater muscle growth than training a muscle once or twice per week. The legs were only trained once a week in the split group, so it’s possible that the greater strength development in the squat was because squatting once a week just doesn’t cut it for maximal progress. The more than twice as great squat gains for the full-body group are also notable. The other comparisons didn’t reach statistical significance, but if you look at the graph, it’s clear the results for the triceps also trended in favor of the 5x training frequency: they gained almost twice as much muscle. The full-body group had a greater increase in muscle thickness of the forearm flexors (biceps, in bodybuilding terms) and vastus lateralis of the quads. Split squats and deadlifts to failure? I don’t think so.) Macronutrient intakes were also the same in both groups. Both groups performed all exercises to failure (supposedly: I’m always extremely skeptical of this claim by researchers. 5x.Īs you can see, the amount of sets per week, the exercises and the average intensity (RM) were exactly the same between groups. So for the arms the comparison was a training frequency of 2x vs. The authors neglected that pull day trained the biceps and push day trained the triceps. The authors said that the split program trained each muscle group once a week, but look at the programs below. (2018) involving my esteemed friend Brad Schoenfeld investigated exactly this in their paper titled: High Resistance-Training Frequency Enhances Muscle Thickness in Resistance-Trained Men.ġ8 Decently strength trained men – their average bench press exceeded 4 plates (over 100 kg) – were randomized to a program that trained each muscle either 5 times with 5 full-body workouts or once or twice with a bodybuilding split. The debate currently mostly centers on if training frequencies of 3+ per week are beneficial. We have a certain amount of time we want/can spend in the gym, often a certain amount of volume we tolerate and the practical question is: how do we distribute this number of sets across the week?Įveryone but the most bro of bros agrees by now that most people should train a muscle at least twice a week for maximum growth. But outside the lab we’re never in ‘volume-equated conditions’. Several of these studies have found no significant difference between lower and higher frequencies under volume-equated conditions (reviewed on this site or my Facebook page). ![]() With the popularity of high frequency training, a ton of new research has been done on the best training frequency for muscle growth and strength development.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |