Strength training: what do you think about this article?

amusedmonkey

I've come across a peculiar article, and since I'm not trying to maximize results, merely looking to help preserve a little bit more muscle while losing weight and gain a little bit more strength than I currently have, it piqued my interest. I've only been cleared to do a limited variety of movements (long story). Basically squats with a hip belt and bench presses + body weight exercises. The thing is I happen to dislike strength training, so doing it once a week would be something I could get through. Anyway, here is the article, what do you think?

https://www.painscience.com/articles/strength-training-frequency.php

Francl27

But but... I need to do it more often so I can eat more.

cajuntank

I see this as a recipe for soreness. I know for me, as I age, frequency plays a major part in motor pattern upkeep and causing me not to de-train. I also tend to get sore more easily if I dial my frequency back.

determined_14

Francl27 wrote: »

But but... I need to do it more often so I can eat more.

I guess this falls under the *other* variables he mentions-- not all of us are into exercise just for strength gains; we're also looking for heightened calorie burn, among other things. Training just once a week, to me, is a depressing thought. I love to workout, and feel that it comes with many benefits, not just strength/muscle gains. However, this evidence is reassuring, as I foresee upcoming seasons of my life in which I won't be able to get my sweat on every morning. It would be nice to still get decent results with reduced training, if I needed to do less.

Kida_Adeylne

That was an interesting read, and I like that he presented a large number of studies. It does seem like you can maintain strength at 1x a week, which is something I am interested in, not enjoying strength training all that much. But I will probably stick to 3X until I am at a point where I'm happy with my strength, at the least, because I want to build a habit and strength.
The second part where he discusses number of sets - well, I knew the subsequent sets weren't proportionally related to strength gain, but I shall still be going for three sets of my current work-out.
There weren't any studies cited that toggled both frequency and number of sets, which I would like to see. Knowing how much you need to do to maintain strength would be very useful knowledge for those of us who aren't enamoured with strength training, or for periods of life when training falls to the back burner.

I didn't read the cardio section - I swim, and I love it. How much I go has very little to do with science.

amusedmonkey

Francl27 wrote: »

But but... I need to do it more often so I can eat more.

That's what cardio is for, and I don't mind doing my cardio 6 times a week when I can!

WeaponXI

It was interesting, however, you can find just as many studies that say the opposite, so who do you believe? My question with the article is, what happens to your cardiovascular system, when you reduce the aerobic and anaerobic activities, what effect does it have on the cardiovascular system? Article seems to claim no effect loss, but is that true?

Hollywood_Porky

Yeah there's just so much out there and so many workout styles - so many different ways to do weight training - cardio zone training, crossfit...

Best piece of advice - just workout - does the body good!

usmcmp

I see it mentioned multiple times that the results were ideal for the frequency. Meaning training one time per week resulted in ideal results for one time per week and three times per week resulted in ideal results for training three times per week. They also state that there were less results at lower frequencies.

There were two studies done that seems to support only training once or twice per week. They were done using 21 year olds and then compared to adults or senior citizens lifting 3 times per week. Meaning an adult needs to do more work for the same results as a 21 year old and a senior citizen needs to do more work for the same results as an adult.

usmcmp

The findings suggest that a higher frequency of resistance training, even when volume is held constant, produces superior gains in 1RM. However, training only 1 day per week was an effective means of increasing strength, even in experienced recreational weight trainers.

I really think the whole article is saying you can get some results only lifting once per week. Their studies show that you'll get better results lifting more often. If you don't have any real goals with lifting or body composition then maybe once a week could work for you if you put in solid effort (as they state, brief but not easy). For anyone with bigger body composition goals or lifting goals then lifting more often is important to getting superior results.

ninerbuff

I train each body part 1 day a week (intense) for the past 10 years now. Obviously not increasing strength or size, but as a MAINTENANCE program, it's fine.

A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
IDEA Fitness member
Kickboxing Certified Instructor
Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition

TR0berts

There was a whole lot of "no $h!*" in that article.

Yes, you can maintain strength working out once per week - even get stronger. For example, 5/3/1 has you working out each body part once per week - in the standard template, anyway.

But, as the article also showed, higher frequency had considerably higher gains than once per week. I truly have no idea how the author thinks that 60% is anywhere near 100% of strength gains - as mentioned between working a group 1x per week, vice 3x, respectively.

Sure, for the average Joe, once per week just to maintain is fine. For anyone that wants to be better than average, the results clearly showed that a higher frequency is often better.

usmcmp

One of their studies had untrained women perform a single set (6-10 reps) of leg press either once or twice a week for 8 weeks. I don't consider this a decent study. A single set is hardly what most people would do at the gym and is not progressive overload.

Packerjohn

I question the validity of any resistance training article that begins with a picture of someone doing concentration curls.

usmcmp

TR0berts wrote: »

There was a whole lot of "no $h!*" in that article.

Yes, you can maintain strength working out once per week - even get stronger. For example, 5/3/1 has you working out each body part once per week - in the standard template, anyway.

But, as the article also showed, higher frequency had considerably higher gains than once per week. I truly have no idea how the author thinks that 60% is anywhere near 100% of strength gains - as mentioned between working a group 1x per week, vice 3x, respectively.

Sure, for the average Joe, once per week just to maintain is fine. For anyone that wants to be better than average, the results clearly showed that a higher frequency is often better.

Glad I'm not the only one who saw that.

usmcmp

Some of his bullet points:

-Please try to bear in mind that most people aren’t interested in optimization/maximization of results, but in a balance of effort and reward.
-The article simply presents evidence that is strongly suggestive that you might want to consider trying a lower frequency. It might work out.

TR0berts

And just to be clear - for someone with goals (and/or medical concerns) such as OP - 1x per week will likely be fine. If you don't like going to the gym, 1x per week is better (IMHO) than 0x per week. If you don't really care that much about getting stronger, fine.

Lofteren

You might be able to maintain strength by training 1 day a week if you aren't very strong to begin with but if you want to have any appreciable amount of strength or muscle mass you are going to need to lift more frequently than that.

dbmata

cajuntank wrote: »

I see this as a recipe for soreness. I know for me, as I age, frequency plays a major part in motor pattern upkeep and causing me not to de-train. I also tend to get sore more easily if I dial my frequency back.

Yup.

If I did that, I'd be hurting all the time. I see it as useful thing for the infirm and elderly though.

JoRocka

usmcmp wrote: »

Some of his bullet points:

-Please try to bear in mind that most people aren’t interested in optimization/maximization of results, but in a balance of effort and reward.
-The article simply presents evidence that is strongly suggestive that you might want to consider trying a lower frequency. It might work out.

which makes me stabby- balance of effort and reward- that's vague- and honestly- so what- going for a walk is effort and reward.

Agree with TRO- a whole lot of "no *kitten*" going on.

amusedmonkey

Well, to be honest this is new to me. Knowing I could get 60% of the results doing 1/3 of the work is well worth it and a very respectable result for someone who isn't looking to maximize. I used to think that 1x a week would do nothing, or at least do something akin to 10% due to strength tapering off because of lack of consistent stimulation. You live you learn!

dbmata

amusedmonkey wrote: »

Well, to be honest this is new to me. Knowing I could get 60% of the results doing 1/3 of the work is well worth it and a very respectable result for someone who isn't looking to maximize. I used to think that 1x a week would do nothing, or at least do something akin to 10% due to strength tapering off because of lack of consistent stimulation. You live you learn!

well, going from full stop to something/anything will help.

1x a week will be something that is effective for the infirm and elderly population. There will be limits to the effectiveness, but I doubt we'd legitimately see 60% benefit in 1 session as is derived from a basic 3 session weekly.

usmcmp

amusedmonkey wrote: »

Well, to be honest this is new to me. Knowing I could get 60% of the results doing 1/3 of the work is well worth it and a very respectable result for someone who isn't looking to maximize. I used to think that 1x a week would do nothing, or at least do something akin to 10% due to strength tapering off because of lack of consistent stimulation. You live you learn!

A big part of that (as the article pointed out) is doing effective things.

DavPul

i skimmed because i have a pretty good idea of what i believe they are saying. Yes, you can make improvements training once per week. At the very least, you can maintain.

But "gain fast enough for anyone (except bodybuilders)"??? what even is that? the gains, if any, are the DEAD MINIMAL that can be qualified as gains. i can't speak for everyone else in the world, but why would I want to get the absolute lowest and slowest amount of gains available? when you ask your boss for a raise, do you start by inquiring what is the very very minimum amount they can give you? the very very very least is acceptable to everyone (except bodybuilders, but don't get me started on how the article is talking out of it's butt on that one).

for all practical purposes, if I'm putting my energy and recover ability to something more important, I'll train X muscle group once per week to attempt to ***maintain*** my strength there while I focus on other things. I'm never expecting to gain. But that's at my level. A relative newcomer to training will have more success.

For a base newbie, almost anything will lead to gains, so if you if anyone out there is a newbie and had been looking for a reason to train the least amount possible, this article should be pinned to your refrigerator.

cwolfman13

TR0berts wrote: »

There was a whole lot of "no $h!*" in that article.

Yes, you can maintain strength working out once per week - even get stronger. For example, 5/3/1 has you working out each body part once per week - in the standard template, anyway.

But, as the article also showed, higher frequency had considerably higher gains than once per week. I truly have no idea how the author thinks that 60% is anywhere near 100% of strength gains - as mentioned between working a group 1x per week, vice 3x, respectively.

Sure, for the average Joe, once per week just to maintain is fine. For anyone that wants to be better than average, the results clearly showed that a higher frequency is often better.

Also, I've trained at a lower frequency...it was fine...it was better than the guy doing nothing...but no where near the kind of results I get with training at a higher frequency. And really, I don't think 3x weekly for 60 minutes in the weight room is anything crazy anyway. To boot, that's "my time"...as in just about the only time I get to myself to do what I want to do without a bunch of other *kitten* going on.

JoRocka

cwolfman13 wrote: »

TR0berts wrote: »

There was a whole lot of "no $h!*" in that article.

Yes, you can maintain strength working out once per week - even get stronger. For example, 5/3/1 has you working out each body part once per week - in the standard template, anyway.

But, as the article also showed, higher frequency had considerably higher gains than once per week. I truly have no idea how the author thinks that 60% is anywhere near 100% of strength gains - as mentioned between working a group 1x per week, vice 3x, respectively.

Sure, for the average Joe, once per week just to maintain is fine. For anyone that wants to be better than average, the results clearly showed that a higher frequency is often better.

Also, I've trained at a lower frequency...it was fine...it was better than the guy doing nothing...but no where near the kind of results I get with training at a higher frequency. And really, I don't think 3x weekly for 60 minutes in the weight room is anything crazy anyway. To boot, that's "my time"...as in just about the only time I get to myself to do what I want to do without a bunch of other *kitten* going on.

*nods

amusedmonkey

DavPul wrote: »

why would I want to get the absolute lowest and slowest amount of gains available?

That's the thing, it's not the absolute lowest. It's more than half, which is pretty respectable - no reason to shy away from strength training because it's "too much effort to be worth it". and why? Because people have different goals. That's like professional bodybuilders and powerlifters wondering why hobbyists do so little.

Sam_I_Am77

If you go through enough studies you'll find what you're looking for. I've heard this before and I've also heard from another PhD in Exercise Science that 1-max rep set is all you need to build strength and he has references to support it. Then there is other research out that regarding maximal loads, sub-maximal loads, eccentric loading, etc., etc.

Did anybody see the actual references that the book uses? I'm curious to see how the studies were structured, test groups (who they were), intensities used, reps, etc. Not that I'm a proponent of high-frequency training or anything, heck I only train 3-days a week myself.

EvgeniZyntx

1) Some exercise is better than none. 1 frequency will show some results
2) High intensity exercise is better than low intensity high frequency (aka lift heavy vs pink weights)
3) Return on investment on sets and frequency is diminishing
4) Rest matters

Nothing new.

What isn't mentioned (aside from huge holes on learning movements, equilibrium work, etc.) is that low frequency, high volume is the perfect recipe for soreness and injury.

Oh, and if issues in adherence to a med/high freq program results in an acceptable lower frequency and relevant results - issues with adherence on a once a week program will give you potato.

Don't go potato.

So let's say that we take the results presented and the strength developed in a 1 a week program is 40% less than 3x a week program (still getting that 60%!!) for 8 weeks. After two cycles what have we got? 36% of potential? (oh, probably not linear....) Hey, you mean to tell me these short term studies don't translate into long term results??? Oh, why didn't the author mention that.

And a personal aside, the results I saw with 1x or 2x per week are just worth LESS the effort than hitting 3x.

usmcmp

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

If you go through enough studies you'll find what you're looking for. I've heard this before and I've also heard from another PhD in Exercise Science that 1-max rep set is all you need to build strength and he has references to support it. Then there is other research out that regarding maximal loads, sub-maximal loads, eccentric loading, etc., etc.

Did anybody see the actual references that the book uses? I'm curious to see how the studies were structured, test groups (who they were), intensities used, reps, etc. Not that I'm a proponent of high-frequency training or anything, heck I only train 3-days a week myself.

I read multiple studies from there.

Most of the groups were 21 year olds. One test only had untrained women do a single set of leg press (6-10 reps) either once or twice a week for 8 weeks. Another was done on senior citizens (average age was 70). I didn't see any studies done on an average group of adults with the exercises structured like most people should normally workout.

tomatoey

I read something by Lyle McDonald where he said training once every five days might work for some people; he says "my preferred training frequency for the majority of folks seeking optimal size gains: somewhere between once every 5th day and twice per week."

http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/muscle-gain/training-frequency-for-mass-gains.html/