On Frequency
Discover more from The Power of BroScience by AJAC
With exercise programming, specifically for strength and muscle development, there are three primary factors to be considered
-Volume, how many sets, which was covered here, and here
-Intensity, how heavy are the weights we are using, which was explained here
-And Frequency, which we are finally covering in this post
Is there a Best Frequency? A Most Optimal? Is More Better? Lets Figure that out
To understand frequency, let us clearly define what we are talking about.
Frequency refers to how many times you are exposed to a specific stressor over a 7 day period of time
Or said more simple, it refers to how often you train a muscle over the course of a week.
If you squat heavy on monday and thursday, your frequency was twice a week.
If you squat heavy monday and thursday, but on wednesday you did some easy bodyweight squats and stretched as part of a warmup, your frequency was still Twice a Week.
Like volume, you do not count warmups as part of frequency.
The Minimal Frequency you could train a muscle over the course of a week is ONE time.
Training a muscle one time weekly is typically referred to as a BRO Split. While this term is often used derisively, research is very clear that Bro splits WORK.
So long as sufficient volume is performed, a muscle will grow.
Does Training a muscle more lead to MORE growth though?
For the past 3 decades or so, fitness has generally been divided into two camps
-Those in favor of “Bro splits”, where each muscle is trained once a week in a long workout. A basic bro split is Push Pull Legs (PPL). In a 4 day PPL programs, only one of the days repeats each week.
The proponents of these splits argue that they allow ample time for recovery, and on a long enough timeline it is consistency and progressive strength gains that matter more for growth
-those in favor of double or greater frequency, and who firmly believe that more training is better.
The Bro Split people usually argue that less is more with training, while the frequency people accuse them of being on steroids and claim that “naturals” need 2x weekly frequency otherwise they wont grow, because protein synthesis is not elevated like in steroid using lifters.
This argument can devolve into stupidity fast as you might imagine.
What does the SCIENCE say about frequency though?
The “more is better” principle certainly applies to many areas in life: practicing an instrument, playing a sport, learning a new language, making money.
Of course it should apply to lifting weights. Training 6 days a week should double your gains shouldn’t it? The difference must be substantial, right?
WRONG.
There is in fact a great deal of research on the most optimal training frequencies and volume...and training multiple times a week does NOT produce significantly more muscle growth than training once per week
To be very clear, high training frequencies DO produce SLIGHTLY more growth.
But the emphasis is on slightly for a reason
Research has show the muscle growth for intermediate and advanced lifters is SLOW
In this study, the average gain of lean mass over 8 weeks was 2.33lbs for those training each muscle 3x weekly and 2.17lbs for training 1x weekly.
If we break that down into ounces, the group training each muscle 3x a week gained about 2.5 OUNCES more muscle, over 8 weeks of training.
Training a muscle 2-3+ times weekly IS NOT building POUNDS more muscle
Genetics aside, the difference in twice weekly training is going to be, at best, a few additional ounces over the course of multiple months
This small effect size is consistent across multiple studies, but its also so small that to say that high frequency training is superior would be overstated.
Professor James Krieger found that twice weekly frequency is slightly better, but this because it allows for greater weekly volume
The number of effective sets per workout caps out at about 10 sets. Do more than 10 sets for a muscle, you’re overtraining at that point.
Doing 10-20 sets for a muscle is overkill in one workout.
But if you do TWO workouts of 8 sets each, that could lead to more muscle growth (again, SLIGHTLY)
Greg Nuckols did a Review of Frequency and Hypertrophy in 2018, and had similar conclusions
While Gregs analysis also demonstrates that higher frequency (2x or more per week) reliably produced more muscle growth, the actual effect was trivial
When using direct measures of hypertrophy (N=19 comparisons across 7 studies), subjects in lower frequency groups grew at a rate of 0.72% per week, while subjects in higher frequency groups grew at a rate of 0.85% per week. The average difference in size gains between groups was 0.12% per week (CI=-0.01-0.26%), meaning the higher frequency groups grew about 17% faster, on average. This would be classified as a small effect (d=0.35; CI=-0.02-0.72), and the difference was not significant (p=0.079).
WTF Do These Numbers Mean Though?
They mean that the difference in REAL muscle gain was miniscule. The difference in muscle growth was in ounces, not pounds.
The Belief that you MUST train a muscle twice a week for growth if you are natural is simply False,
However, training twice a week might get to your natural muscular limits FASTER…
Muscle growth for natural trainees happens on a curve of diminishing returns. The first year of training yields the most muscle, and then gains decrease by half each subsequent year. By 4-5, a natural trainee would have hit his or her genetic limits. Any gains after that will be very slow, 1lb a year at most, and that is assuming constant progressive overload and dialed in nutrition to increase bodyweight.
The following Chart is credited to Lyle Mcdonald
1 Year Of Proper Training = 20-25 lbs of lean muscle per year
2 Years Of Proper Training = 10-12 lbs of lean muscle per year
3 Years Of Proper Training = 5-6 lbs of lean muscle per year
4+ Years Of Proper Training = 2-3 lbs of lean muscle per year (not worth calculating)
It is hypothetically possible that higher volume and higher frequency training could facilitate reaching one's upper genetic limit in a shorter amount of time.
I believe this, and it's why the majority of my programs use increased frequency, and higher training volumes,
and why they deliver exceptional results for the men that follow them.
(Theres 20lbs of lean mass gain between the before and after. My methods WORK)
But regardless if you train with higher volume and frequency, you still end up at the same place.
It might happen in only 3 years, not 4, but eventually everyone hits their respective limit where gaining additional muscle mass becomes a slow, incremental process.
Additionally, the more advanced one becomes, the more intense and damaging workouts are on the body. Performing a set of hack squats with 400 lbs is a much greater effort and digs a deep ditch for recovery than hack squats with 100lbs.
Advanced trainees who have been training with progressive overload and gotten substantially stronger with time, they learn by experience that they NEED to be more expedient and efficient with their workouts and their training volume if they want to keep making gains.
Additionally, the biggest factor for most people in using double frequency is TIME
Training ALL of your muscles twice a week simply requires more workouts, and if you don’t want to train 6 days a week, then you must do total body workouts which can be be time consuming.
This is why my favorite training split is the classical PPL, with one day repeating. It gives you the benefits of double frequency for a different set of muscles each week, and maximizes recovery. It also keeps the workouts reasonable in regards to time.
Steve Reeves trained 3x a week, total body. His workouts were also 3-4 hours because of the sheer number of exercises and sets he did.
You also have to consider genetic Individuality
It would be a false assumption to assume that ALL of your muscles require twice weekly frequency to maximize growth.
Some muscles might require more stimulus, while some may be overtrained easily and require LESS.
You also must consider your ability to recover. Training 7 days a week is meaningless if you are overexercised by day 4 and your body’s fatigue is overwhelming.
On a Long Enough Timeline, I do not believe frequency makes a substantial difference for muscle growth. What matters is CONSISTENCY, and Progressive Strength Gains
Closing Thoughts
On a long enough timeline, ALL programs work provided they can be consistently and provide sufficient volume and stimulus
Hypothetically people that train muscle groups with twice a week might make gains marginally faster, but someone that trains with once a week frequency will be only slightly behind them, and all other factors being equal, at the 5 year mark their results would probably be the same.
Training volume matters as much as frequency, and training intensity with progressive overload matters as much as volume. The person who gets stronger and bigger over the long term is the person who objectively trained to get bigger and stronger over the long term. Progression is not accident. If the weights NEVER go up, your training is not working
You can find examples of people who achieved maximum muscular development with Bro Splits, 2x Split, and total body splits. What did they all have in common? Consistency, and getting strong as possible over time