Training frequency - less is more?

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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....

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.

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.