Training frequency - less is more?

hamlet1222

I read this article a few years back and was recently reminded of it:

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

The conclusion is that you can achieve a great deal just going to the gym once a week, doing a couple of minutes high intensity cardio, and just two sets of the usual push/pull/legs weights movements.

"Less is more" isn't quite right, but the analysis concluded that "Less is not that much less".

Perhaps I'm just looking for an excuse for only working out every 5-6 days. But wondering what others opinions and experiences are.

I especially like the author's statement:

"Bodybuilders and gym nuts, 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. We all know that you would exert 50% more effort to get a 5% greater reward, and good for you. But most people have exactly the opposite priorities: we would love to sacrifice 5% of our results if it meant we could spend (!) 50% less time at the gym."

jacksonpt

I have read articles that make similar claims. Logically, it makes sense to me, especially within the context of the average person simply looking to improve health, look a little better, be a little stronger. *most* people don't want to (or can't) dedicate an hour+ per day to the gym.

As with most things, it comes down to goals and expectations.

jemhh

Right, your goals are going to make a big difference here.

Earlier this year, I was squatting four times a week. Could I have gotten stronger doing it 2 or 3 times a week, maybe even just once a week? Sure, absolutely. But my goal wasn't just strength. Squats are my most difficult exercise and I found that squatting more often helped me to get better at it. Even now I arrange my 4 day upper/lower split in a way that allows me to squat 3x/wk because I, personally, need to do it at least that often to stay comfortable with the movement. Once a week would be terrible for me, technique-wise.

SezxyStef

See I read a study that said even if you exercise 45mins 5x a week but sit most of the day you aren't doing as much good if you made an effort to move more during the day.

So this less is more eh...

I was working out 5-6 days a week but not for long periods. 5/3/1 with no accessory work takes up to 15mins max and a walk is 30-60mins and a run is 30mins.

I can make that time for my health any day...I mean really 45mins...spend less time on the forums and it's not a big deal.

msf74

hamlet1222 wrote: »

I especially like the author's statement:

"Bodybuilders and gym nuts, 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. We all know that you would exert 50% more effort to get a 5% greater reward, and good for you. But most people have exactly the opposite priorities: we would love to sacrifice 5% of our results if it meant we could spend (!) 50% less time at the gym."

So do I (I haven't read the whole article so I won't comment on it.)

Fitness is much like diet: the best programme for most people is the one you can follow consistently and which has the right balance of intensity, frequency, duration and intensity to align with your individual preference and goals.

Too often volume is used as an insurance policy against lack of intelligent and realistic planning.

Cherimoose

A couple minutes of cardio each week? Uh, no.

Sam_I_Am77

hamlet1222 wrote: »

I read this article a few years back and was recently reminded of it:

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

The conclusion is that you can achieve a great deal just going to the gym once a week, doing a couple of minutes high intensity cardio, and just two sets of the usual push/pull/legs weights movements.

"Less is more" isn't quite right, but the analysis concluded that "Less is not that much less".

Perhaps I'm just looking for an excuse for only working out every 5-6 days. But wondering what others opinions and experiences are.

I especially like the author's statement:

"Bodybuilders and gym nuts, 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. We all know that you would exert 50% more effort to get a 5% greater reward, and good for you. But most people have exactly the opposite priorities: we would love to sacrifice 5% of our results if it meant we could spend (!) 50% less time at the gym."

Here's the thing, you have to understand what you're trying to accomplish in the gym which help you dictate your training plan. Secondly, when reading articles like these, it's very important to read the actual research being cited and see what aspects of the citations the author is taking. Are they being correctly represented? Are the studies even good in the first place? I read through the different citations and here are my takeaways:

1. 3 of the citations were related to training maintenance and one of the studies was specific to in-season athletes. Unless you're training just to maintain or you're currently in the middle of the season for a team-sport, this does not apply to you.

2. 1 study was specific to lumbar strength. Since many exercises train the movers and stabilizers of the lumbar region, it is logical that an individual would not need high frequency or volume to improve strength in their lumbar region.

3. 2 of the studies are related to strength improvement in the elderly, ages 65+. Unless you're in that age range, those studies are out-of-context for you.

4. A couple noted that it was more of a factor of total volume versus frequency. So if you train your *kitten* off on that 1 day, then the volume may be appropriate to just train once per week.

Considerations for applying this information:
1. What are your goals? Maintenance or Growth?
2. If growth, what does your volume look for that one training day and is it adequate?

I'm not judging anything or saying one was is wrong, just what I took from the information.

Edit: This is just anecdotal based on my own experience and from what I've heard from other experienced lifters. Especially compound movements have not only the aspect of moving the weight, but making sure you're using a correct movement pattern. More or less, you need practice at something in-order to get better at it. As another example, if you enjoy golf and you're working towards becoming a par golfer, going to the driving range once per week is probably not enough to make you that level of golfer. Take that for what it's worth.

hamlet1222

Thanks guys for the analysis, especially to Sam for going through the citations.

I enjoy my workouts so would certainly miss them if I dropped to one every 14 days. My current modified knocks-me-for-dead stronglifts routine every 5-6 days is working for me, but as soon as I plateau I'll look to change, perhaps to a split routine.

It is interesting to consider what the best bang-for-buck workout frequency is.

I see a lot of people (myself in the past included) start in January 1st with a totally unrealistic and unsustainable program, which they give up on after a few weeks, so better to find something that fits your life and you can keep up, than something that doesn't and quit.

hill8570

Considering that DOMS has me hobbling after taking a week off, I'd say at least twice a week for strength is probably the minimum, unless you just like being in pain after every workout (yeah, I know some folks don't consider it a workout unless they have DOMS the next day, but that ain't how I roll).

Sam_I_Am77

hamlet1222 wrote: »

Thanks guys for the analysis, especially to Sam for going through the citations.

I enjoy my workouts so would certainly miss them if I dropped to one every 14 days. My current modified knocks-me-for-dead stronglifts routine every 5-6 days is working for me, but as soon as I plateau I'll look to change, perhaps to a split routine.

It is interesting to consider what the best bang-for-buck workout frequency is.

I see a lot of people (myself in the past included) start in January 1st with a totally unrealistic and unsustainable program, which they give up on after a few weeks, so better to find something that fits your life and you can keep up, than something that doesn't and quit.

No problem. Going through school made me very critical of non-peer reviewed reading. That doesn't mean I'm negative about it, but I want to see the data that the claims are based on. The author wasn't wrong as long as the information is kept in-context to the individual and their goals.

I know a few very strong guys that only lift twice per week, but when they train they absolutely kill it; so I definitely believe it can be done. It's just not going to be done by the folks (young folks at least) that want to go in and do a set of lat-pulldowns, set of machine chest presses, some leg press, calf raises, 60-min's on the hamster wheel and then go home.

The key to long-term success in anything are realistic practices that support your long-term goals. Going in and puking your brains out from an intense session all the time is not sustainable for most people.

Sam_I_Am77

hill8570 wrote: »

Considering that DOMS has me hobbling after taking a week off, I'd say at least twice a week for strength is probably the minimum, unless you just like being in pain after every workout (yeah, I know some folks don't consider it a workout unless they have DOMS the next day, but that ain't how I roll).

Yeah unfortunately many people think DOMS and / or puking is the sign of a good workout. I don't know if it's those weight-loss reality shows or where it comes from, but it's pretty bad. In my mind, DOMS at first is good because it's a sign of what you need to work on. However, DOMS weeks later is probably a sign you're not doing something right.

Yi5hedr3

Age plays a role too. The older you are, the longer it takes to recover. Generally though, intense workouts require 6-7 days rest in between.

christch

I suffer a bit from the "go hard or go home" school of thought. I would love to be lifting heavy 5 sessions a week in a row - weekends off. But I found that by Friday my lifts were suffering so I've gone to M,W,F for compound lifts with T and Th accessory work though if by W I feel tired I'll take Th as a rest day. And when I'm lifting it's 85%+ of 1RM no mucking round.

Timshel_

I read that Hugh Jackman or the Thor guy did msucle isolated workouts only once a week, doing a different group each day. So one day chest. Next day Arms, then back, then core, then legs, etc. Might even have been more isolate, but the muscle group was only exercised to failure once a week, and we all saw those gains.

Sam_I_Am77

Chaelaz wrote: »

I read that Hugh Jackman or the Thor guy did msucle isolated workouts only once a week, doing a different group each day. So one day chest. Next day Arms, then back, then core, then legs, etc. Might even have been more isolate, but the muscle group was only exercised to failure once a week, and we all saw those gains.

Yeah, the actor for Thor actually had to stop working out because he didn't fit into his suit. If the volume is there then the results should follow.

hamlet1222

Most actors seem to do split routines, and it would appear that more IS definitely more:

http://www.popworkouts.com/henry-cavill-workout-superman/

http://www.popworkouts.com/chris-hemsworth-workout-thor-too-big/

http://www.popworkouts.com/mark-wahlberg-workout-diet/

According to the above, Wahlberg's one gained him 40lb of muscle in 7 seven weeks - I wonder what supplements he was taking?

LivingtheLeanDream

I feel better and fitter than ever in my life and I know its down to working out most days - Mons - Fris I do mix of strength/yoga/running for approx 60 mins each day, sometimes more.
On the weekends I walk for around 60 mins or til I get to minimum of 10000 steps. I'm healthy and happy - I enjoy moving, its such a great feeling being full of energy Life is good!

lemmie177

I actually recently read "Body by Science," the book referenced in the article. It's super interesting and has some really exciting implications for public health (particularly for the untrained, infirm, and elderly), but you have to consider where the author's coming from and what exactly he's using all the research to support.

Dr. McGuff (the author) trains people using highly controlled machines doing HIT. In a nut shell, they do super slow movements under continuous tension and very precise muscle isolation until absolute muscle failure. They move quickly from machine to machine such that the entire full-body workout is done in under 20 minutes (no volume training here). He has everything boiled down to an exact science where, instead of counting reps, he'll calculate time under tension with that resistance and is able to determine sufficient recovery when he sees increasing numbers at the next workout. A lot of beginners start out only needing 4 days or so to recover, but as they start moving more and more weight, they'll need 7 to up to 14 days depending on the individual. He's not making a case for infrequent training so much as failure training, which requires longer recovery.

IMO, a workout focused on muscular failure is very different from one focused on volume, and many of the supporting citations involve the former. The strength of someone training to deep muscular failure(breakdown) would be much more dependent on recovery, hence why they show increased training frequency being useless or minimally beneficial. They were worked before recovering. I have no idea how volume vs failure training compare in terms of muscle growth, BUT, as McGuff has shown, reaching muscular failure can be incredibly time-efficient AND a sufficient stimulus for muscle growth.

Sam_I_Am77

lemmie177 wrote: »

I actually recently read "Body by Science," the book referenced in the article. It's super interesting and has some really exciting implications for public health (particularly for the untrained, infirm, and elderly), but you have to consider where the author's coming from and what exactly he's using all the research to support.

Dr. McGuff (the author) trains people using highly controlled machines doing HIT. In a nut shell, they do super slow movements under continuous tension and very precise muscle isolation until absolute muscle failure. They move quickly from machine to machine such that the entire full-body workout is done in under 20 minutes (no volume training here). He has everything boiled down to an exact science where, instead of counting reps, he'll calculate time under tension with that resistance and is able to determine sufficient recovery when he sees increasing numbers at the next workout. A lot of beginners start out only needing 4 days or so to recover, but as they start moving more and more weight, they'll need 7 to up to 14 days depending on the individual. He's not making a case for infrequent training so much as failure training, which requires longer recovery.

IMO, a workout focused on muscular failure is very different from one focused on volume, and many of the supporting citations involve the former. The strength of someone training to deep muscular failure(breakdown) would be much more dependent on recovery, hence why they show increased training frequency being useless or minimally beneficial. They were worked before recovering. I have no idea how volume vs failure training compare in terms of muscle growth, BUT, as McGuff has shown, reaching muscular failure can be incredibly time-efficient AND a sufficient stimulus for muscle growth.

That would be an interesting read. The volume, even with muscle failure, would have to be correct. You could throw a weight that somebody could only move once and then be at failure and that wouldn't be enough volume, so it would have to be a factor I would imagine.

lemmie177

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

lemmie177 wrote: »

I actually recently read "Body by Science," the book referenced in the article. It's super interesting and has some really exciting implications for public health (particularly for the untrained, infirm, and elderly), but you have to consider where the author's coming from and what exactly he's using all the research to support.

Dr. McGuff (the author) trains people using highly controlled machines doing HIT. In a nut shell, they do super slow movements under continuous tension and very precise muscle isolation until absolute muscle failure. They move quickly from machine to machine such that the entire full-body workout is done in under 20 minutes (no volume training here). He has everything boiled down to an exact science where, instead of counting reps, he'll calculate time under tension with that resistance and is able to determine sufficient recovery when he sees increasing numbers at the next workout. A lot of beginners start out only needing 4 days or so to recover, but as they start moving more and more weight, they'll need 7 to up to 14 days depending on the individual. He's not making a case for infrequent training so much as failure training, which requires longer recovery.

IMO, a workout focused on muscular failure is very different from one focused on volume, and many of the supporting citations involve the former. The strength of someone training to deep muscular failure(breakdown) would be much more dependent on recovery, hence why they show increased training frequency being useless or minimally beneficial. They were worked before recovering. I have no idea how volume vs failure training compare in terms of muscle growth, BUT, as McGuff has shown, reaching muscular failure can be incredibly time-efficient AND a sufficient stimulus for muscle growth.

That would be an interesting read. The volume, even with muscle failure, would have to be correct. You could throw a weight that somebody could only move once and then be at failure and that wouldn't be enough volume, so it would have to be a factor I would imagine.

McGuff's claim to fame is a full body workout in under 12 minutes, and that's once a week. It's actually the subtitle on the book cover. I could go back and look up his optimal #'s for time-under-tension for individual exercises, but its obviously significantly less volume than what most people practice.

Muscular failure and volume both being stimuli for muscle growth, is not to say you need both. McGuff put his focus on the failure. His reasoning for it is that muscular failure sends a urgent physiological message to the body. To a body undergoing the fight-of-flight response (as it does during intense exercise), muscle failure is a catastrophic event that could mean the difference between life or death. The body adapts to make sure it doesn't happen again. It's apparently enough to tip the scales in favor of growth over maintenance.

I would guess that training with volume or combining volume and close-to-failure training would lead to more growth, but whether the additional gym time would be worth the increase would be anyone's guess... and also subjective. The speed with which someone can achieve muscular failure is really the key here. For someone just looking to grow muscle, its pretty time-efficient.

lemmie177

Sam_I_Am77 wrote: »

lemmie177 wrote: »

I actually recently read "Body by Science," the book referenced in the article. It's super interesting and has some really exciting implications for public health (particularly for the untrained, infirm, and elderly), but you have to consider where the author's coming from and what exactly he's using all the research to support.

Dr. McGuff (the author) trains people using highly controlled machines doing HIT. In a nut shell, they do super slow movements under continuous tension and very precise muscle isolation until absolute muscle failure. They move quickly from machine to machine such that the entire full-body workout is done in under 20 minutes (no volume training here). He has everything boiled down to an exact science where, instead of counting reps, he'll calculate time under tension with that resistance and is able to determine sufficient recovery when he sees increasing numbers at the next workout. A lot of beginners start out only needing 4 days or so to recover, but as they start moving more and more weight, they'll need 7 to up to 14 days depending on the individual. He's not making a case for infrequent training so much as failure training, which requires longer recovery.

IMO, a workout focused on muscular failure is very different from one focused on volume, and many of the supporting citations involve the former. The strength of someone training to deep muscular failure(breakdown) would be much more dependent on recovery, hence why they show increased training frequency being useless or minimally beneficial. They were worked before recovering. I have no idea how volume vs failure training compare in terms of muscle growth, BUT, as McGuff has shown, reaching muscular failure can be incredibly time-efficient AND a sufficient stimulus for muscle growth.

That would be an interesting read. The volume, even with muscle failure, would have to be correct. You could throw a weight that somebody could only move once and then be at failure and that wouldn't be enough volume, so it would have to be a factor I would imagine.

Sorry, I understand more of what you were getting at about the throwing thing now. He determined "correct" volume by trying to achieve maximum motor unit recruitment. He determined this to be a resistance that one could perform against for 45-90 seconds.

scottver2

I am wondering why this is of concern? If going to gym frequently is that bothersome, then don't go. If you are concerned about your physical appearance, then it might take a little work, unless you are a genetic masterpiece. Is exercising really that boring/difficult/tedious for you? If so, possibly reevaluate what your goals are...exercising is not for everyone.

LolBroScience

scottver2 wrote: »

I am wondering why this is of concern? If going to gym frequently is that bothersome, then don't go. If you are concerned about your physical appearance, then it might take a little work, unless you are a genetic masterpiece. Is exercising really that boring/difficult/tedious for you? If so, possibly reevaluate what your goals are...exercising is not for everyone.

Frequency in relation to the amount of times a body part is hit in a given time frame.... It has to do with potential optimality....

cafeaulait7

I'm interested because I have a chronic pain problem that includes a couple of muscles that do need to be strengthened. The problem with that is that they act up the pain scale to nearly off the charts unless I do the barest of stress on them. I'd be seriously interested in training them hard 1x a week (the pain happens that often anyway) if it really would strengthen them well.

It would be safe, btw. The pain thing is a nerve/facet joint issue that's stable. I have nothing that would really be hurt by lifting heavy for them.

Physical therapy doesn't help much because I can't lift (except the barest amounts) 3x a week. It's too much flare-up and recovery time or either just too light to do much

Cherimoose

lemmie177 wrote: »

I actually recently read "Body by Science," the book referenced in the article. It's super interesting and has some really exciting implications for public health (particularly for the untrained, infirm, and elderly), but you have to consider where the author's coming from and what exactly he's using all the research to support.
A lot of beginners start out only needing 4 days or so to recover, but as they start moving more and more weight, they'll need 7 to up to 14 days depending on the individual. He's not making a case for infrequent training so much as failure training, which requires longer recovery.

I'm not seeing the advantage for an elderly or infirmed person to be recovering from anything for 4 to 14 days. That means they're in a prolonged weakened state where they're more likely to injure themselves.

nossmf

Anecdotal evidence here:

I've been lifting for 7 years now. I've gone as often as 5 days a week, found my best results at 2-3 times per week. My problem is I work 12-hr shifts, which after commute, sleep and time with kids doesn't leave me time (or energy) to workout on days I work. Since I've been working more shifts lately, that's been eating into available workout days, to the point where most weeks I only get a single lifting session per week.

Thus far I've been able to maintain my size, but my strength has tapered marginally. I can still lift the same, but it takes more effort. Hopefully my work situation will stabilize back to normal where I can return to twice per week, for sanity reasons if nothing else. (I work out a lot of stress pumping iron.) But for short periods of time at least, once per week seems to be adequate, if not satisfying.

Sam_I_Am77

Cherimoose wrote: »

lemmie177 wrote: »

I actually recently read "Body by Science," the book referenced in the article. It's super interesting and has some really exciting implications for public health (particularly for the untrained, infirm, and elderly), but you have to consider where the author's coming from and what exactly he's using all the research to support.
A lot of beginners start out only needing 4 days or so to recover, but as they start moving more and more weight, they'll need 7 to up to 14 days depending on the individual. He's not making a case for infrequent training so much as failure training, which requires longer recovery.

I'm not seeing the advantage for an elderly or infirmed person to be recovering from anything for 4 to 14 days. That means they're in a prolonged weakened state where they're more likely to injure themselves.

It is kind of counter-intuitive I would agree and 14-days seems a bit long in-consideration of the fact that de-training begins approximately 21-days of no training. The elderly population is different and I recall studying "special populations" in school and the elderly don't need a lot of training; two days a week was shown to be sufficient for improving quality of life. Now the studies were specific to "quality of life" so I'm not sure if that's the same goal as what the author mentioned above or not.