How Often Should You Train a Muscle? - This NEW Study Is Epic

Summary

This video examines the impact of training frequency on muscle hypertrophy. Based on a meta-analysis of 35 studies, the results suggest that the frequency of training—whether once, twice, or three times a week—does not significantly affect muscle growth when total weekly sets are equated. The study also emphasizes that recovery times and individual variability in training and fatigue management could influence outcomes. Ultimately, the best approach is to choose a training frequency that fits your schedule and recovery abilities, focusing on consistent volume, intensity, and progressive overload for optimal muscle growth.

Takeaways

• 😀 Training frequency has long been debated in the context of muscle hypertrophy, with frequent training believed to elevate muscle protein synthesis and enhance muscle growth.
• 😀 A 2013 study of 127 bodybuilders revealed that most trained each muscle group only once per week, following traditional bro splits, though other splits like lower splits and full-body routines are also common.
• 😀 A meta-analysis of 35 studies with over 1,000 participants found that when total weekly sets are controlled, training frequency (once vs. twice vs. three times per week) does not have a significant impact on muscle hypertrophy.
• 😀 The analysis divided training frequencies into three methods: total (counting both direct and indirect sets equally), fractional (counting indirect sets as half), and direct (only counting direct sets). The fractional method was found to best explain the results.
• 😀 Training once a week shows a clear improvement over not training, but moving from once to twice per week has only a small, statistically insignificant increase in muscle growth.
• 😀 Higher frequencies (training more than twice per week) do not provide a clear benefit for muscle growth as long as the total weekly volume remains the same.
• 😀 The researchers also analyzed recoverable vs. unrecoverable volumes. Even with lower recoverable volumes, higher frequencies didn't produce better hypertrophy outcomes.
• 😀 Individual differences in recovery capacity could mean that some people recover faster and benefit from higher training frequencies, while others may struggle with increased frequency.
• 😀 Training frequency is not the make-or-break factor for hypertrophy. The most important factors remain total volume and ensuring each set is performed with adequate effort, often close to failure.
• 😀 The findings suggest it's best to choose a training frequency that fits your schedule, recovery abilities, and personal preferences rather than obsessing over frequency alone.

Q & A

What does the 2013 analysis of 127 bodybuilders suggest about muscle training frequency?

The 2013 analysis found that the majority of competitive bodybuilders trained each muscle only once per week, supporting the popularity of bro splits, where each muscle is trained once a week.

How does the new meta-analysis contribute to understanding training frequency for hypertrophy?

The new meta-analysis, which included 35 studies and over 1,000 subjects, examined the effect of training frequency on muscle growth when the total weekly sets are equated, providing more clarity on how often muscles should be trained.

What is the purpose of equating the total number of weekly sets across different frequencies in the study?

Equating the total number of weekly sets allows the researchers to isolate the effect of training frequency on muscle growth, ensuring that any observed differences are due to frequency and not volume.

What is the significance of direct and indirect sets in the context of the meta-analysis?

Direct sets target a muscle as the primary force generator (e.g., biceps curls), while indirect sets involve exercises where the muscle is not the primary force generator (e.g., rowing for biceps). The study used different methods to count these sets to assess training frequency.

Which method was found to be the best for calculating muscle training frequency?

The fractional method was found to be the best for calculating training frequency, as it considers indirect sets as half the frequency of direct sets, providing a more accurate reflection of muscle stimulation.

What were the key findings regarding the relationship between training frequency and hypertrophy?

The meta-analysis found no significant or large effect of training frequency on hypertrophy when volume is equated. There was a slight increase in muscle growth from once to twice per week, but no clear benefit from training more frequently.

What role does recovery play in determining the optimal frequency for muscle training?

Recovery plays a crucial role in determining optimal training frequency, as some individuals recover faster and can handle more frequent training, while others may need more time between sessions to recover adequately.

Did the meta-analysis find any clear benefits of higher frequencies in trained versus untrained individuals?

The analysis did not show a meaningful difference between trained and untrained individuals in terms of hypertrophy outcomes based on training frequency, suggesting that frequency may not be the main factor in muscle growth regardless of training experience.

What did the analysis reveal about the impact of training frequency when using recoverable versus unrecoverable volumes?

The analysis still did not show clear benefits of higher frequencies, even when volumes were considered recoverable. It demonstrated that higher frequencies did not produce significantly better results when total volume was controlled.

What practical advice is given for choosing a training frequency based on the findings?

The video suggests that training frequency should align with individual preferences, recovery capabilities, and schedule. If you're experimenting with higher volumes, dividing them into more frequent sessions may help maintain higher set quality, but overall, the frequency doesn’t need to exceed twice per week for optimal growth.