High-Frequency Resistance Training Is Not More Effective Than Low-Frequency Resistance Training in Increasing Muscle Mass and Strength in Well-Trained Men

Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT

Ramos-Campo, DJ, Benito-Peinado, PJ, Caravaca, LA, Rojo-Tirado, MA, and Rubio-Arias, JÁ. Efficacy of split versus full-body resistance training on strength and muscle growth: a systematic review with meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res 38(7): 1330-1340, 2024-No previous study has systematically compared the effect of 2 resistance training routines commonly used to increase muscle mass and strength (i.e., split [Sp] and full-body [FB] routines). Our objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis following PRISMA guidelines to compare the effects on strength gains and muscle growth in healthy adults. 14 studies (392 subjects) that compared Sp and FB routines in terms of strength adaptations and muscle growth were included. Regarding the effects of the Sp or FB routine on both bench press and lower limbs strength, the magnitude of the change produced by both routines was similar (bench press: mean difference [MD] = 1.19; [-1.28, 3.65]; p = 0.34; k = 14; lower limb: MD = 2.47; [-2.11, 7.05]; p = 0.29; k = 14). Concerning the effect of the Sp vs. FB routine on muscle growth, similar effects were observed after both routines in the cross-sectional area of the elbow extensors (MD = 0.30; [-2.65, 3.24]; p = 0.84; k = 4), elbow flexors (MD = 0.17; [-2.54, 2.88]; p = 0.91; k = 5), vastus lateralis (MD = -0.08; [-1.82, 1.66]; p = 0.93; k = 5), or lean body mass (MD = -0.07; [-1.59, 1.44]; p = 0.92; k = 6). In conclusion, the present systematic review and meta-analysis provides solid evidence that the use of Sp or FB routines within a resistance training program does not significantly impact either strength gains or muscle hypertrophy when volume is equated. Consequently, individuals are free to confidently select a resistance training routine based on their personal preferences.

Full-body resistance training promotes greater fat mass loss than a split-body routine in well-trained males: A randomized trial

While significant progress has been made in understanding the resistance training (RT) strategy for muscle hypertrophy increase, there remains limited knowledge about its impact on fat mass loss. This study aimed to investigate whether full-body is superior to split-body routine in promoting fat mass loss among well-trained males. Twenty-three participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: full-body (n = 11, training muscle groups 5 days per week) and split-body (n = 12, training muscle groups 1 day per week). Both groups performed a weekly set volume-matched condition (75 sets/week, 8-12 repetition maximum at 70%-80 % of 1RM) for 8 weeks, 5 days per week with differences only in the routine. Whole-body and regional fat were assessed using DXA at the beginning and at the end of the study. Full-body RT elicited greater losses compared to split-body in whole-body fat mass (-0.775 ± 1.120 kg vs. +0.317 ± 1.260 kg; p = 0.040), upper-limb fat mass (-0.085 ± 0.118 kg vs. +0.066 ± 0.162 kg; p = 0.019), gynoid fat mass (-0.142 ± 0.230 kg vs. +0.123 ± 0.230 kg; p = 0.012), lower-limb fat mass (-0.197 ± 0.204 kg vs. +0.055 ± 0.328 kg; p = 0.040), and a trend in interaction in android fat mass (-0.116 ± 0.153 kg vs. +0.026 ± 0.174 kg; p = 0.051), with large effects sizes (η2 p ≥ 0.17). This study provides evidence that full-body is more effective in reducing whole-body and regional fat mass compared to split-body routine in well-trained males.

Off- to in-season body composition adaptations in elite male and female endurance and power event athletics competitors: an observational study

BACKGROUND

Monitoring elite athletes' body composition (BC) is vital for health and optimizing performance in sports emphasizing leanness, such as athletics. This study aims to investigate and compare sex- and event-specific off-to in-season BC changes in endurance and power event athletics competitors.

METHODS

Elite male and female endurance athletes (> 800 m runners; n = 21) and power event athletes (sprinters, jumpers; n = 32) underwent dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) scans for whole and regional lean mass (LM), fat mass (FM), bone mineral content (BMC), and density (BMD) during off-season (September-October) and in-season (April-May). Linear mixed models tested between-group off-season differences in BC, within-group off-season to in-season changes, and between-group differences in change. To assess meaningful or least significant changes (LSC) in BC, DXA precision errors were determined from two consecutive total body scans in a subsample of athletes (n = 30).

RESULTS

Male athletes (n = 26) gained significantly (p < 0.05) more body mass (BM; mean difference 1.5 [95% confidence interval (CI):0.5-2.4] kg), LM (843 [95% CI:-253:1459] g), and trunk LM (756 [-502:1156] g) than female athletes (n = 27). The proportion of changes in athlete's BC exceeding the LSC threshold for LM and trunk LM were 70% and 65% in males, and 48% and 26% in females. Significant (p < 0.05) within-group off-season to in-season increases in LM were found for male endurance and power athletes, and female power athletes. All groups significantly increased BMD (p < 0.05). Only male and female power athletes had significant in- to-off-season increases in BMC. 80% of all athletes who had a meaningful increase in BMC belonged to the power event group. No significant within- or between group change in FM was observed.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study found that male athletes gained more BM, LM and trunk LM than females. Within-group increases in regional and whole-body LM and BMC were predominantly found among power event competitors. Incorporating individual meaningful changes alongside traditional statistics provided additional insights into sex and event-group differences. Future research on elite athletic event groups should include DXA measurements closer to major outdoor-season competitions, coupled with site-specific measures (ultrasound, MRI) for better detection of subtle changes in LM and FM.

Minimalist Training: Is Lower Dosage or Intensity Resistance Training Effective to Improve Physical Fitness? A Narrative Review

BACKGROUND

Findings from original research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses have demonstrated the effectiveness of resistance training (RT) on markers of performance and health. However, the literature is inconsistent with regards to the dosage effects (frequency, intensity, time, type) of RT to maximize training-induced improvements. This is most likely due to moderating factors such as age, sex, and training status. Moreover, individuals with limited time to exercise or who lack motivation to perform RT are interested in the least amount of RT to improve physical fitness.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this review was to investigate and identify lower than typically recommended RT dosages (i.e., shorter durations, lower volumes, and intensity activities) that can improve fitness components such as muscle strength and endurance for sedentary individuals or beginners not meeting the minimal recommendation of exercise.

METHODS

Due to the broad research question involving different RT types, cohorts, and outcome measures (i.e., high heterogeneity), a narrative review was selected instead of a systematic meta-analysis approach.

RESULTS

It seems that one weekly RT session is sufficient to induce strength gains in RT beginners with < 3 sets and loads below 50% of one-repetition maximum (1RM). With regards to the number of repetitions, the literature is controversial and some authors report that repetition to failure is key to achieve optimal adaptations, while other authors report similar adaptations with fewer repetitions. Additionally, higher intensity or heavier loads tend to provide superior results. With regards to the RT type, multi-joint exercises induce similar or even larger effects than single-joint exercises.

CONCLUSION

The least amount of RT that can be performed to improve physical fitness for beginners for at least the first 12 weeks is one weekly session at intensities below 50% 1RM, with < 3 sets per multi-joint exercise.

Muscle hypertrophy training does not suppress the GH/IGF axis in young adult males

PURPOSE

This study aimed to analyze the expression of the IGF type-1 receptor gene (IGF-1r) and IGF-I, GH, testosterone, and IGFBP-3 concentrations in young people subjected to 10 weeks of muscle hypertrophy training.

METHODS

IGF-1r expression, serum concentrations of IGF-I, IGFBP-3, GH, and total testosterone, as well as body composition, fat percentage, and body mass index, were determined for 22 healthy young males at three moments of resistance training (first, fifth, and tenth week of training).

RESULTS

Throughout the 10 weeks of training, a reduction was observed in the relative expression of the IGF-1r gene (2-ΔΔCT) and an increase in IGF-I and GH concentrations. A reduction in total testosterone concentrations was detected during the recovery period in the fifth week. The IGFBP-3 concentrations did not change throughout the training.

CONCLUSIONS

The resistance training protocol prescribed for muscle hypertrophy did not suppress the GH-IGF-I axis, but it did cause alterations in IGF-1r gene expression and in IGF-I kinetics compatible with increased IGF bioactivity.

Effects of manual resistance versus weight resistance training on body composition and strength in young adults after a 14-week intervention

Manual Resistance Training (MRT) is an alternative training modality where the external resistance is provided by a spotter.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to observe changes in body composition and muscular fitness after a 14-week MRT intervention compared to changes elicited by a Weight Resistance Training (WRT) intervention.

METHODS

Eighty-four young adults were randomly assigned to either the MRT (n = 53, height 170.1 ± 8.1 cm, body mass 73.9 ± 16.0 kg, and body fat 24.6 ± 8.7%) or WRT (n = 31, mean ± SD: height 169.6 ± 10.1 cm, body mass 75.0 ± 17.4 kg, and body fat 24.7 ± 8.5%) group. Body composition was assessed by Dual-energy X-ray Absorptiometry (DEXA), muscular strength and muscular endurance were tested before and after the intervention.

RESULTS

Findings indicated that trunk, arm, leg, and total lean mass increased in both groups after the intervention (p < 0.05). Moreover, total fat mass significantly decreased compared to baseline in both groups (p < 0.05). However, no statistically significant changes were observed in Bone Mineral Density and Bone Mineral Content in response to the intervention. Both MRT and WRT programs were successful at significantly increasing muscular strength and endurance (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The changes in body composition after a 14-week MRT program were similar to those of the WRT intervention. Hence, an MRT program may be effectively used to increase lean mass and decrease fat mass.

Effect of different training frequencies on maximal strength performance and muscle hypertrophy in trained individuals-a within-subject design

Several studies comparing resistance training (RT) frequencies may have been affected by the large between-subject variability. This study aimed to compare the changes in lower limbs maximal dynamic strength (1RM) and quadriceps femoris cross-sectional area (CSA) after a RT with different weekly frequencies in strength-trained individuals using a within-subject design. Twenty-four men participated in a 9-week RT program, being randomly divided into two conditions: resistance training with equalized total training volume (RTEV) and with unequalized total training volume (RTUV). The RT protocol used the unilateral leg press 45° exercise and each subject’s lower limb executed one of the proposed frequencies (one and three times/week). All conditions effectively increased 1RM and CSA (p<0.001); however, no significant differences were observed in the values of 1RM (p = 0.454) and CSA (p = 0.310) between the RT frequencies in the RTEV and RTUV conditions. Therefore, RT performed three times a week showed similar increases in 1RM and CSA to the program performed once a week, regardless of training volume equalization. Nevertheless, when the higher RT frequency allowed the application of a greater TTV (i.e., RTUV), higher effect size (ES) values (0.51 and 0.63, 1RM and CSA, respectively) were observed for the adaptations.

A randomised controlled trial of 1- versus 2-day per week formats of Nordic hamstring training on explosive athletic tasks in prepubertal soccer players

This randomised controlled trial examined the effect of volume-equated programmes of Nordic hamstring exercise (NHE) training, executed at frequencies of 1- or 2-days per week, on explosive athletic tasks (30 m sprint, 15 m manoeuvrability and standing long jump [SLJ]) in male youth soccer players (mean age: 10.3 ± 0.5 years). Players were divided into an experimental group (n = 31) which was further subdivided into 1-day (n = 16) and 2-days (n = 15) per week training conditions, and a control group (n = 14). There were significant group-by-time interactions for 30-m sprint (p < 0.001, d = 0.6), SLJ (p = 0.001, d = 1.27) and 15 m manoeuvrability (p < 0.001, d = 0.61). The experimental group demonstrated small to moderate effect sizes in 30-m sprint (d = 0.42, p = 0.077), SLJ (d = 0.97, p < 0.001) and 15 m manoeuvrability (d = 0.61, p < 0.001). The control group showed small significant performance decrements or no change in these variables. There were no significant differences between the 1-day and 2-day training groups. In two of the three tests (30 m sprint, SLJ) the 2-day group demonstrated larger effect sizes. The NHE enhances explosive athletic task performance in prepubertal youth soccer players and there may be only small advantages to spreading training over two days instead of one.

Protein Supplement Perceptions, Use, and Associated Performance in Young Lebanese Resistance-Training Athletes

The aims of this study were first to evaluate the nutritional knowledge, perception, and source of nutrition information among resistance-trained individuals consuming protein supplements (PS), to determine whether a correlation exists between nutrition-related knowledge and the use of PS, and finally to compare the impact of PS use among participants classified as nonprotein supplement users (NPSUs) and protein supplement users (PSUs). A cross-sectional study was conducted among a highly selected group of resistance-specialized trainees (RSTs). Among the 100 RST participants recruited, the Internet and coaches were the most common source of nutritional information. About one-third of participants believed that there were no health risks after consuming PS. Both NPSU and PSU exhibit performance improvement that was significantly lessened in PSU compared to NPSU. This study demonstrated that RST may have misconceptions regarding the benefits of PS usage to increase strength. Our data also suggest a shortage of knowledge about PS and confirm that PSUs lack proper professional guidance. These findings highlight the need for proper monitoring to ensure adequate perception, awareness, and safety in the Lebanese sports sector.

Equal-Volume Strength Training With Different Training Frequencies Induces Similar Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Improvement in Trained Participants

The main goal of the current study was to compare the effects of volume-equated training frequency on gains in muscle mass and strength. In addition, we aimed to investigate whether the effect of training frequency was affected by the complexity, concerning the degrees of freedom, of an exercise. Participants were randomized to a moderate training frequency group (two weekly sessions) or high training frequency group (four weekly sessions). Twenty-one participants (male: 11, female: 10, age: 25.9 ± 4.0) completed the 9-week whole-body progressive heavy resistance training intervention with moderate (n = 13) or high (n = 8) training frequency. Whole-body and regional changes in lean mass were measured using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry, while the vastus lateralis thickness was measured by ultrasound. Changes in muscle strength were measured as one repetition maximum for squat, hack squat, bench press, and chest press. No differences between groups were observed for any of the measures of muscle growth or muscle strength. Muscle strength increased to a greater extent in hack squat and chest press than squat and bench press for both moderate (50 and 21% vs. 19 and 14%, respectively) and high-frequency groups (63 and 31% vs. 19 and 16%, respectively), with no differences between groups. These results suggest that training frequency is less decisive when weekly training volume is equated. Further, familiarity with an exercise seems to be of greater importance for strength adaptations than the complexity of the exercise.

May the Force and Mass Be With You-Evidence-Based Contribution of Mechano-Biological Descriptors of Resistance Exercise

Skeletal muscle is one of the most important tissues of the human body. It comprises up to 40% of the body mass and is crucial to survival. Hence, the maintenance of skeletal muscle mass and strength is pivotal. It is well-established that resistance exercise provides a potent anabolic stimulus to increase muscle mass and strength in men and women of all ages. Resistance exercise consists of mechano-biological descriptors, such as load, muscle action, number of repetitions, repetition duration, number of sets, rest interval between sets, frequency, volitional muscular failure, and range of motion, which can be manipulated. Herein, we discuss the evidence-based contribution of these mechano-biological descriptors to muscle mass and strength.

Effects of Variations in Resistance Training Frequency on Strength Development in Well-Trained Populations and Implications for In-Season Athlete Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In-season competition and tournaments for team sports can be both long and congested, with some sports competing up to three times per week. During these periods of time, athletes need to prepare technically, tactically and physically for the next fixture and the short duration between fixtures means that, in some cases, physical preparation ceases, or training focus moves to recovery as opposed to progressing adaptations.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this review was to investigate the effect of training frequency on muscular strength to determine if a potential method to accommodate in-season resistance training, during busy training schedules, could be achieved by utilizing shorter more frequent training sessions across a training week.

METHODS

A literature search was conducted using the SPORTDiscus, Ovid, PubMed and Scopus databases. 2134 studies were identified prior to application of the following inclusion criteria: (1) maximal strength was assessed, (2) a minimum of two different training frequency groups were included, (3) participants were well trained, and finally (4) compound exercises were included within the training programmes. A Cochrane risk of bias assessment was applied to studies that performed randomized controlled trials and consistency of studies was analysed using I² as a test of heterogeneity. Secondary analysis of studies included Hedges' g effect sizes (g) and between-study differences were estimated using a random-effects model.

RESULTS

Inconsistency of effects between pre- and post-intervention was low within-group (I² = 0%), and moderate between-group (I² ≤ 73.95%). Risk of bias was also low based upon the Cochrane risk of bias assessment. Significant increases were observed overall for both upper (p ≤ 0.022) and lower (p ≤ 0.008) body strength, pre- to post-intervention, when all frequencies were assessed. A small effect was observed between training frequencies for upper (g ≤ 0.58) and lower body (g ≤ 0.45).

CONCLUSION

Over a 6-12-week period, there are no clear differences in maximal strength development between training frequencies, in well-trained populations. Such observations may permit the potential for training to be manipulated around competition schedules and volume to be distributed across shorter, but more frequent training sessions within a micro-cycle rather than being condensed into 1-2 sessions per week, in effect, allowing for a micro-dosing of the strength stimuli.

Effects of different resistance training frequencies on body composition and muscular performance adaptations in men

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 8 weeks resistance training (RT) with two sessions versus four sessions per week under volume load-equated conditions on body composition, maximal strength, and explosive actions performance in recreationally trained men.

METHODS

Thirty-five healthy young men participated in the study and were randomly divided into a two sessions per-week RT (RT2, n = 12), four sessions per-week RT (RT4, n = 13) or a control group (CG, n = 10). All subjects were evaluated for thigh, chest and arm circumference, countermovement jump (CMJ), medicine ball throw (MBT), 1-repetition maximum (1RM) leg press, bench press, arm curl, muscular endurance (i.e., 60% of 1RM to failure) for leg press, and bench press at pre, mid (week 4) and post an 8-week training intervention.

RESULTS

A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures (3 [group] × 3 [time]) revealed that both training groups increased chest and thigh circumferences, strength and explosive actions performance tests in comparison to CG following 8 weeks of training (p = 0.01 to 0.04). Group × time interactions were also noted in 1RM bench press (effects size [ES] = 1.07 vs. 0.89) and arm curl (ES = 1.15 vs. 0.89), with greater gains for RT4 than RT2 (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

RT improved muscle strength, explosive actions performance and markers of muscle size in recreationally trained men; however, four sessions of resistance training per week produced greater gains in muscular strength for the upper body measures (i.e., 1RM bench press and arm curl) when compared to two sessions per week under volume-equated conditions.

Equating Resistance-Training Volume Between Programs Focused on Muscle Hypertrophy

Calculating resistance-training volume in programs focused on muscle hypertrophy is an attempt to quantify the external workload carried out, then to estimate the dose of stimulus imposed on targeted muscles. The volume is usually expressed in some variables that directly affected the total training work, such as the number of sets, repetitions, and volume-load. These variables are used to try to quantify the training work easily, for the subsequent organization and prescription of training programs. One of the main uses of measures of volume quantification is seen in studies in which the purpose is to compare the effects of different training protocols on muscle growth in a volume-equated format. However, it seems that not all measures of volume are always appropriate for equating training protocols. In the current paper, it is discussed what training volume is and the potentials and shortcomings of each one of the most common ways to equate it between groups depending on the independent variable to be compared (e.g., weekly frequency, intensity of load, and advanced techniques).

The Minimum Effective Training Dose Required to Increase 1RM Strength in Resistance-Trained Men: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Increases in muscular strength may increase sports performance, reduce injury risk, are associated with a plethora of health markers, as well as exerting positive psychological effects. Due to their efficiency and effectiveness in increasing total body muscular strength, multi-joint exercises like the powerlifts, i.e.: the squat (SQ), bench-press (BP) and deadlift (DL), are widely used by active individuals as well as athletes in the pursuit of increasing strength. To date, the concept of a minimum dose, i.e. "what is the minimum one needs to do to increase 1-repetition maximum (1RM) strength?" has not been directly examined in the literature, especially in the context of the powerlifts. This review aims to explore the current available evidence around the minimum effective training dose required to increase 1RM strength in trained individuals in an attempt to enhance the practical guidelines around resistance-training as well as provide active individuals, athletes and coaches with more flexibility when designing a training protocol.

METHODS

One reviewer independently conducted the search in a PRISMA systematic approach using PubMed, SportDiscus and Google Scholar databases. The databases were searched with the following search terms/phrases and Boolean operators: "training volume" AND "powerlifting" OR "1RM strength" OR "powerlifters", "low volume" AND "powerlifting" OR "powerlifting" OR "1RM strength", "high vs low volume" AND "powerlifting" OR "1RM strength", "minimum effective training dose 1RM". Meta-analyses were performed to estimate the change in 1RM strength for the lowest dose group in the included studies.

RESULTS

From the initial 2629 studies, 6 studies met our inclusion criteria. All identified studies showed that a single set performed minimum 1 time and maximum 3 times per week was sufficient to induce significant 1RM strength gains. Meta-analysis of 5 studies showed an estimated increase for overall 1RM of 12.09 kg [95% CIs 8.16 kg-16.03 kg], an increase of 17.48 kg [95% CIs 8.51 kg-26.46 kg] for the SQ, and 8.25 kg [95% CIs 0.68 kg-15.83 kg] for the BP. All of the included studies contained details on most of the variables comprising "training dose", such as: weekly and per session sets and repetitions as well as intensity of effort. Specific information regarding load (%1RM) was not provided by all studies.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present systematic review suggest that performing a single set of 6-12 repetitions with loads ranging from approximately 70-85% 1RM 2-3 times per week with high intensity of effort (reaching volitional or momentary failure) for 8-12 weeks can produce suboptimal, yet significant increases in SQ and BP 1RM strength in resistance-trained men. However, because of the lack of research, it is less clear as to whether these improvements may also be achievable in DL 1RM strength or in trained women and highly trained strength athletes.

REGISTRATION

This systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018108911).

Effects of training frequency on muscular strength for trained men under volume matched conditions

Background

In resistance training, the role of training frequency to increase maximal strength is often debated. However, the limited data available does not allow for clear training frequency “optimization” recommendations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of training frequency on maximal muscular strength and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). The total weekly training volume was equally distributed between two and four sessions per muscle group.

Methods

Twenty-one experienced resistance-trained male subjects (height: 1.85 ± 0.06 m, body mass: 85.3 ± 12.3 kg, age: 27.6 ± 7.6 years) were tested prior to and after an 8-week training period in one-repetition maximum (1RM) barbell back squat and bench press. Subjects were randomly assigned to a SPLIT group (n = 10), in which there were two training sessions of squats and lower-body exercises and two training sessions of bench press and upper-body exercises, or a FULLBODY group (n = 11), in which four sessions with squats, bench press and supplementary exercises were conducted every session. In each session, the subjects rated their RPE after barbell back squat, bench press, and the full session.

Results

Both groups significantly increased 1RM strength in barbell back squat (SPLIT group: +13.25 kg; FULLBODY group: +14.31 kg) and bench press (SPLIT group: +7.75 kg; FULLBODY group: +8.86 kg) but training frequency did not affect this increase for squat (p = 0.640) or bench press (p = 0.431). Both groups showed a significant effect for time on RPE on all three measurements. The analyses showed only an interaction effect between groups on time for the RPE after the squat exercise (p = 0.002).

Conclusion

We conclude that there are no additional benefits of increasing the training frequency from two to four sessions under volume-equated conditions, but it could be favorable to spread the total training volume into several training bouts through the week to avoid potential increases in RPE, especially after the squat exercise.

Daily Myofibrillar Protein Synthesis Rates in Response to Low- and High-Frequency Resistance Exercise Training in Healthy, Young Men

The impact of resistance exercise frequency on muscle protein synthesis rates remains unknown. The aim of this study was to compare daily myofibrillar protein synthesis rates over a 7-day period of low-frequency (LF) versus high-frequency (HF) resistance exercise training. Nine young men (21 ± 2 years) completed a 7-day period of habitual physical activity (BASAL). This was followed by a 7-day exercise period of volume-matched, LF (10 × 10 repetitions at 70% one-repetition maximum, once per week) or HF (2 × 10 repetitions at ∼70% one-repetition maximum, five times per week) resistance exercise training. The participants had one leg randomly allocated to LF and the other to HF. Skeletal muscle biopsies and daily saliva samples were collected to determine myofibrillar protein synthesis rates using 2H2O, with intracellular signaling determined using Western blotting. The myofibrillar protein synthesis rates did not differ between the LF (1.46 ± 0.26%/day) and HF (1.48 ± 0.33%/day) conditions over the 7-day exercise training period (p > .05). There were no significant differences between the LF and HF conditions over the first 2 days (1.45 ± 0.41%/day vs. 1.25 ± 0.46%/day) or last 5 days (1.47 ± 0.30%/day vs. 1.50 ± 0.41%/day) of the exercise training period (p > .05). Daily myofibrillar protein synthesis rates were not different from BASAL at any time point during LF or HF (p > .05). The phosphorylation status and total protein content of selected proteins implicated in skeletal muscle ribosomal biogenesis were not different between conditions (p > .05). Under the conditions of the present study, resistance exercise training frequency did not modulate daily myofibrillar protein synthesis rates in young men.

The Effectiveness of Frequency-Based Resistance Training Protocols on Muscular Performance and Hypertrophy in Trained Males: A Critically Appraised Topic

Clinical Scenario: Manipulation of exercise variables in resistance training (RT) is an important component in the development of muscular strength, power, and hypertrophy. Currently, most research centers on untrained or recreationally trained subjects. This critically appraised topic focuses on studies that center on the well-trained subject with regard to frequency of training. Clinical Question: In well-trained male subjects, is there an association between RT frequency and the development of muscular strength and hypertrophy? Summary of Key Findings: Four studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. All studies showed that lower-frequency training could elicit muscular strength and hypertrophy increases. One study suggested that a higher frequency compared with a lower frequency may provide a slight benefit to hypertrophic development. One study reported a greater level of delayed onset muscle soreness with lower frequency training. The 4 studies demonstrate support for the clinical question. Clinical Bottom Line: Current evidence suggests that lower-frequency RT produces equal to greater improvements on muscular strength and hypertrophy in comparison to higher-frequency RT when volume is equated. The evidence is particularly convincing when lower-frequency RT is associated with a total-body training protocol in well-trained male subjects. Strength of Recommendation: There is moderate-to-strong evidence to suggest that lower-frequency RT, when volume is equated, will produce equal to greater improvements on muscular strength and hypertrophy in comparison to higher-frequency RT.

Effects of Six Weeks of High-Intensity Functional Training on Physical Performance in Participants with Different Training Volumes and Frequencies

High-intensity functional training (HIFT) is characterized by presenting high volumes and training intensities with constantly varied exercises. The aim of this study was to analyze the internal training load and the effects of high-intensity functional training on physical performance in subjects with different training volumes and frequencies. A total of 31 volunteers involved in high-intensity functional training (14 men and 17 women) were divided according to their training volumes and frequencies (high training-volume and frequency-HTVF; (n = 17) (nine women and eight men; age: 31.0 ± 6.3 years; height: 168.8 ± 8.1 cm, body weight: 73.6 ± 11.9 kg; BMI: 25.96 kg/m²) and moderate training volume and frequency-MTVF; (n = 14) (eight women and six men; age: 26.6 ± 4.7 years; height: 167.2 ± 8.6 cm, body weight: 75.8 ± 18.0 kg; BMI: 27.33 kg/m²)). The internal training load was determined using the session-rating of perceived exertion method. The monotony index (MI) and training strain (TS) were used to determine training variability during the training weeks. Countermovement vertical jump height, 20-m sprinting and handgrip strength were assessed at baseline and after six weeks of training. There was a time effect for MI ((F_{(5, 145)} = 5.942; p = 0.0001)), TS ((F_{(5, 145)} = 5.734; p = 0.0001)), weekly internal training load ((F_{(4.006, 116.87)} = 4.188; p = 0.003)) and mean weekly internal training load ((F_{(4.006, 116.87)} = 4.188; p = 0.003)). There was no increase in performance in either group for countermovement vertical jump height ((F_(1,29) = 6.081; p = 0.050)), sprinting ((F_(1,29) = 1.014; p = 0.322)), right handgrip strength ((F_(1,29) = 2.522; p = 0.123)) or left handgrip strength ((F_(1,29) = 2.550; p = 0.121)). The current findings suggest that six weeks of high-intensity functional training was not able to increase performance in either group. Therefore, different volumes and frequencies do not seem to influence the increase in physical performance of HIFT practitioners.

Protocol for Minute Calisthenics: a randomized controlled study of a daily, habit-based, bodyweight resistance training program

BACKGROUND

Resistance-training (RT) provides significant health benefits. However, roughly 3/4 of adults in the United States do not meet current Physical Activity Guidelines in this regard. There has been a call for research examining the effectiveness of interventions to increase participation in physical activity and to better understand the dose response relationship upon health outcomes. Studies are needed that assess the effectiveness of RT programs that are time-efficient and simple to perform. This fully-powered, randomized controlled study will assess a habit-based RT program consisting of one set of push-ups, angled-rows, and bodyweight-squats performed every weekday for 12-24 weeks in untrained individuals.

METHODS

Forty-60 untrained osteopathic medical students and college/university employees who work in an office setting will be recruited and randomized (1:1) to an intervention or waitlist control group. After 12-week follow-up assessment, the intervention group will continue the program and the control group will initiate the program for 12 weeks. In addition to the equipment and training needed to safely perform the exercises, all participants will receive training in the Tiny Habits® Method (THM) and digital coaching for the duration of the study. Participants will complete weekly assessments regarding the program during their initial 12-week intervention phase. The primary outcome is the change from baseline to 12 weeks in the intervention group versus the control group, in the combined number of repetitions performed in one set of each of the three exercises (composite repetitions) under a standardized protocol. Secondary outcomes include adherence to and satisfaction with the program, and change from baseline to 12- and 24-week follow-up in blood pressure, fasting lipid panel, hemoglobin A1c, body mass index, anthropometry, body composition, mid-thigh muscle thickness, and habit strength.

DISCUSSION

This study will evaluate a simple, habit-based RT intervention in untrained individuals. The approach is unique in that it utilizes brief but frequent bodyweight exercises and, via the THM, focuses on consistency and habit formation first, with effort being increased as participants are motivated and able. If effective, the program can be easily scaled for wider adoption.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study was prospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT04207567 , on December 23rd, 2019.

Effects of a resistance training program on muscular performance adaptations: comparing three vs. four times per week

Study aim: The aim of this study was to examine the effects of 8 weeks of resistance training (RT) with three vs. four sessions per week and equated training volume on muscular adaptations in men.

Materials and methods: Thirty-three healthy young men volunteered to participate in the study and were randomly assigned to three times per week whole-body RT (RT3, n = 11), four times per week whole-body RT (RT4, n = 11) or a control group (CG, n = 11). Before and after training, participants were evaluated for one-repetition maximum (1RM) and muscular endurance (i.e., 60% of 1RM to failure) for the leg press and bench press. In addition, thigh, arm, chest, and calf circumferences, and percent body fat were assessed before and after training.

Results: The findings revealed significant main effects of time for chest and thigh circumferences (p ≤ 0.05). There were no significant group × time interactions for chest and thigh circumferences (p > 0.05), but the RT4 showed greater changes (effect size [ES]: 0.48 vs. 0.15) in chest circumference, while the RT3 showed greater changes (ES: 0.77 vs. 0.35) in thigh circumference. Significant group × time interactions were observed for the 1RM of leg and bench presses (p < 0.05). Post-hoc analyses showed greater improvements for RT3 in comparison to RT4 in 1RM bench press (p = 0.01, ES: 0.77 vs. 0.6) and leg presses (p = 0.009, ES: 0.94 vs. 0.86).

Conclusions: These results suggest that RT induces meaningful adaptive effects to improve strength and muscle size in men and RT3 appears to be more effective to induce muscular adaptations.

Resistance Training Frequencies of 3 and 6 Times Per Week Produce Similar Muscular Adaptations in Resistance-Trained Men

Saric, J, Lisica, D, Orlic, I, Grgic, J, Krieger, JW, Vuk, S, and Schoenfeld, BJ. Resistance training frequencies of 3 and 6 times per week produce similar muscular adaptations in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res 33(7S): S122-S129, 2019-We examined the effects of resistance training (RT) frequency performed 3 times per week (RT3) vs. RT performed 6 times per week (RT6) under volume-equated conditions in resistance-trained men. Twenty-seven men were randomly allocated to RT3 (n = 14) or RT6 (n = 13). The supervised training intervention lasted for 6 weeks. Upper- and lower-body strength were assessed using the 1 repetition maximum test. Also, muscular endurance (60% 1 repetition maximum performed to momentary failure) and muscle thickness (elbow flexors, elbow extensors, rectus femoris, and vastus intermedius) were measured before and after intervention. Pre-to-post intervention, both groups increased upper-body strength (RT3: +4%; RT6: +6%) and lower-body strength (RT3: +22%; RT6: +18%) with no significant between-group differences. No significant pre-to-post intervention increases in muscular endurance were seen in either of the training groups. Both groups increased elbow extensor thickness (RT3: +14%; RT6: +11%), rectus femoris thickness (RT3: +5%; RT6: +6%), and vastus intermedius thickness (RT3: +10%; RT6: +11%) with no significant between-group differences. Only the RT3 group significantly increased elbow flexor thickness from pre-to-post intervention (+7%). When training volume is equated, it seems that RT performed either 3 or 6 times per week can result in similar strength gains over a 6-week training period. Furthermore, under volume-equated conditions, comparable hypertrophy results may also be expected with both RT frequencies. Finally, no changes were seen in muscular endurance possibly because of the considerable interindividual variability in responses. The findings presented herein might be of interest to coaches, exercise practitioners, athletes, and recreational trainees.

Myofibrillar protein synthesis and muscle hypertrophy individualized responses to systematically changing resistance training variables in trained young men

The manipulation of resistance training (RT) variables is used among athletes, recreational exercisers, and compromised populations (e.g., elderly) attempting to potentiate muscle hypertrophy. However, it is unknown whether an individual’s inherent predisposition dictates the RT-induced muscle hypertrophic response. Resistance-trained young [26 (3) y] men ( n = 20) performed 8 wk unilateral RT (2 times/wk), with 1 leg randomly assigned to a standard progressive RT [control (CON)] and the contralateral leg to a variable RT (VAR; modulating exercise load, volume, contraction type, and interset rest interval). The VAR leg completed all 4 RT variations every 2 wk. Bilateral vastus lateralis cross-sectional area (CSA) was measured, pre- and post-RT and acute integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) rates were assessed at rest and over 48 h following the final RT session. Muscle CSA increase was similar between CON and VAR ( P > 0.05), despite higher total training volume (TTV) in VAR ( P < 0.05). The 0–48-h integrated MyoPS increase postexercise was slightly greater for VAR than CON ( P < 0.05). All participants were considered “responders” to RT, although none benefited to a greater extent from a specific protocol. Between-subjects variability (MyoPS, 3.30%; CSA, 37.8%) was 40-fold greater than the intrasubject (between legs) variability (MyoPS, 0.08%; CSA, 0.9%). The higher TTV and greater MyoPS response in VAR did not translate to a greater muscle hypertrophic response. Manipulating common RT variables elicited similar muscle hypertrophy than a standard progressive RT program in trained young men. Intrinsic individual factors are key determinants of the MyoPS and change in muscle CSA compared with extrinsic manipulation of common RT variables.

NEW & NOTEWORTHY Systematically manipulating resistance training (RT) variables during RT augments the stimulation of myofibrillar protein synthesis (MyoPS) and training volume but fails to potentiate muscle hypertrophy compared with a standard progressive RT. Any modest further MyoPS increase and higher training volumes do not reflect in a greater hypertrophic response. Between-subject variability was 40-fold greater than the variability promoted by extrinsic manipulation of RT variables, indicating that individual intrinsic factors are stronger determinants of the hypertrophic response.

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

Training frequency is considered an important variable in the hypertrophic response to regimented resistance exercise. The purpose of this paper was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of experimental studies designed to investigate the effects of weekly training frequency on hypertrophic adaptations. Following a systematic search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scoups, and SPORTDiscus databases, a total of 25 studies were deemed to meet inclusion criteria. Results showed no significant difference between higher and lower frequency on a volume-equated basis. Moreover, no significant differences were seen between frequencies of training across all categories when taking into account direct measures of growth, in those considered resistance-trained, and when segmenting into training for the upper body and lower body. Meta-regression analysis of non-volume-equated studies showed a significant effect favoring higher frequencies, although the overall difference in magnitude of effect between frequencies of 1 and 3+ days per week was modest. In conclusion, 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.

Resistance training frequency and skeletal muscle hypertrophy: A review of available evidence

OBJECTIVES

Current reviews and position stands on resistance training (RT) frequency and associated muscular hypertrophy are based on limited evidence holding implications for practical application and program design. Considering that several recent studies have shed new light on this topic, the present paper aimed to collate the available evidence on RT frequency and the associated effect on muscular hypertrophy.

DESIGN

Review article.

METHODS

Articles for this review were obtained through searches of PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus. Both volume-equated (studies in which RT frequency is the only manipulated variable) and non-volume-equated (studies in which both RT frequency and volume are the manipulated variables) study designs were considered.

RESULTS

Ten studies were found that used direct site-specific measures of hypertrophy, and, in general, reported that RT once per week elicits similar hypertrophy compared to training two or three times per week. In addition, 21 studies compared different RT frequencies and used lean body mass devices to estimate muscular growth; most of which reported no significant differences between training frequencies. Five studies were identified that used circumference for estimating muscular growth. These studies provided findings that are difficult to interpret, considering that circumference is a crude measure of hypertrophy (i.e., it does not allow for the differentiation between adipose tissue, intracellular fluids, and muscle mass).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of this review, it appears that under volume-equated conditions, RT frequency does not seem to have a pronounced effect of gains in muscle mass.

Weekly Training Frequency Effects on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis

Background

The current recommendations for resistance training (RT) frequency range from 2 to 5 days per week (days week^− 1) depending on the subjects’ training status. However, the relationship between RT frequency and muscular strength remains controversial with reported variances existing across different population groups. We conducted a meta-analysis that (1) quantified the effects of low (LF; 1 day week^− 1), medium (MF; 2 days week^− 1), or high (HF; ≥ 3 days week^− 1) RT frequency on muscular strength per exercise; (2) examined the effects of different RT frequency on one repetition maximum (1RM) strength gain profiles (multi-joint exercises and single joint exercises); (3) examined the effects of different RT frequency on 1RM strength gain when RT volume is equated; and (4) examined the effects of different RT frequency on 1RM strength gains on upper and lower body.

Methods

Computerised searches were performed using the terms ‘strength training frequency’, ‘resistance training frequency’, ‘training frequency’, and ‘weekly training frequency’. After review, 12 studies were deemed suitable according to pre-set eligibility criteria. Primary data were pooled using a random-effects model. Outcomes analysed for main effects were pre- to post strength change with volume-equated studies that combined multi-joint and isolation exercise; isolation-only exercise and untrained subjects only. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I² and Cochran’s Q statistics with funnel plots used to assess publication bias and sensitivity analyses calculated for subgroups.

Results

Pre- versus post-training strength analysis comprised of 74 treatment groups from 12 studies. For combined multi-joint and isolation exercises, there was a trend towards higher RT frequency compared with lower frequency [mean effect size (ES) 0.09 (95% CI − 0.06–0.24)] however not significant (p = 0.25). Volume-equated pre- to post-intervention strength gain was similar when LF was compared to HF [mean ES 0.03 (95% CI − 0.20–0.27); p = 0.78]. Upper body pre- to post-intervention strength gain was greater when HF was compared with LF [mean ES 0.48 (95% CI 0.20–0.76)] with significant differences between frequencies (p < 0.01). Upper body pre- to post-intervention strength gain was similar when MF was compared with LF (ES 0.12; 95% CI − 0.22–0.47); p = 0.48]. There was no significant difference in lower body mean ES between HF and LF [mean ES 0.21(95% CI − 0.55–0.13); p = 0.22]. There was a trend towards a difference in mean ES between MF and HF [mean ES 0.41(95% CI − 0.26–1.09); however, the effect was not significant (p = 0.23).

Conclusions

The existing data does not provide a strong correlation between increased weekly training frequency (HF) and maximal strength gain in upper and lower body resistance exercises for a mixed population group. When RT is volume-equated for combined multi-joint and isolation exercises, there is no significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gain. More investigations are required to explore the effects of varying weekly training frequencies adequately.