Please Scroll Down to See Forums Below
napsgear
genezapharmateuticals
domestic-supply
puritysourcelabs
UGL OZ
UGFREAK
napsgeargenezapharmateuticals domestic-supplypuritysourcelabsUGL OZUGFREAK

Frequency of training

LoneTree

New member
Strength Training: Rationale for Current Guidelines for Adult Fitness Programs
Matthew S. Feigenbaum, Med; Michael L. Pollock, PhD
THE PHYSICIAN AND SPORTSMEDICINE - VOL 25 - NO. 2 - FEBRUARY 97

Frequency of Training

The frequency of training for a muscle group is also an important component of a strength training program design (18,29,30,34). The rest period must allow for muscle recuperation and development and prevent overtraining. However, too much rest between training sessions can result in detraining. A 48-hour rest between concurrent training sessions is generally recommended (18), which corresponds with a 3-days/wk frequency of training for individual muscle groups. Although 3 days/wk of strength exercise is generally recommended for maximal strength gains, the literature does not always support this. Research indicates that isolated muscle groups are unique in their trainability and adaptability to strength training (18,30,35). Table 3 (not shown) summarizes the results from strength training studies comparing frequency of training using a variety of muscle groups.

Several studies (34,36,37) evaluating the effects of frequency of training have shown that four or more training sessions per week produced optimal strength gains in several muscle groups. Using the standard bench press exercise, Gillam (34) indicated that training 5 days/wk over a 7-week period was superior to 1, 2, 3, or 4 days/wk training regimens. Interestingly, training 3 or 4 days/wk produced similar results, which were significantly greater than those obtained by the groups training 1 or 2 days/wk. Hunter (37) and Henderson (36) also found that increasing the frequency of bench press training to 4 and 3 days/wk, respectively, produced greater strength gains than lesser-frequency protocols. In contrast, Berger (38) found that bench pressing either 2 or 3 days/wk produced similar strength gains over the course of 12 weeks. Similar findings have also been reported for studies evaluating strength gains in the lower limb muscles. Braith et al (29) found 3 days/wk to be superior to 2 days/wk in increasing quadriceps (knee extension) strength, and an earlier study by Barham (39) showed that performing the squat exercise 3 days/wk was as effective as 5 days/wk, and that both training frequencies were superior to squatting 2 days/wk.

While the chest, arms, and legs may require a training frequency of 3 days/wk or more to develop optimal strength gains, additional studies suggest that the muscles supporting the spine (eg, lumbar extensors) and smaller muscles of the torso may respond maximally with fewer training sessions per week. For example, Graves et al (30) found no significant differences in dynamic and isometric strength generated by isolated lumbar extensor muscles among groups training 1, 2, or 3 days/wk for 20 weeks. In a follow-up study (40), it was demonstrated that these maximal strength gains could then be maintained for up to 12 weeks when training frequency was reduced to one training session every 2 to 4 weeks. When assessing cervical rotation strength, Leggett et al (31) and DeFilippo (41) found that training frequencies of 2 and 3 days/wk were superior to 1 day/wk or 1 day/2 wks over a 12-week training period. Pollock et al (24) indicated that training 2 days/wk is superior to 1 day/wk for increasing cervical extension strength, but because training 3 days/wk was not evaluated, no inferences can be made in this regard. As for the muscles involved in torso rotation, DeMichele et al (35) concluded that the 2 days/wk training frequency obtained better adherence and equal strength gains compared with 3 days/wk, and that both 2 and 3 days/wk programs were superior to 1 day/wk.

Based on the findings of these studies, it is clear that there is no single optimal frequency of strength training for all muscle groups. Whether the differences in the time course of strength gains occurring in isolated muscle groups are due to variations in neural integration, muscle morphology, autoregulation, or other mechanisms warrants further investigation. Although clinicians must consider the specific needs of individual patients, particularly those whose orthopedic limitations may improve or be aggravated by adjusting the frequency of training, the current guidelines seem appropriate: a minimum of 2 or 2 to 3 days/wk (table 1). When prescribing traditional strength exercise programs for beginners (8 to 10 exercises, emphasizing the major muscle groups), a minimum of 2 days per week training frequency is recommended over more frequent training sessions because it allows time for recuperation, is less time-consuming, improves compliance (2,17), and produces most of the health and fitness benefits in the untrained person.
 
"Based on the findings of these studies, it is clear that there is no single optimal frequency of strength training for all muscle groups."

This is common knowledge in the field of exercise science.

Realize that a given muscle system exposed to a certain training load under certain conditions may indeed require a true week for "full recovery."
 
Madcow2 said:
The foundations of the bodypart 1x per week split get another kick on the Elitefitness boards.

You mean Mike Menzter was wrong? :p
 
Tom Treutlein said:
There are, however, frequencies that have proven more than optimal for hypertrophy in drug-free lifters.
Please elaborate. An "optimal frequency" will differ between different muscle systems among different people under different conditions. What do you believe to be the most practical and efficient frequency?



curgeo said:
You mean Mike Menzter was wrong?
Mike Menzter was Mike Menzter. He adapted his body progressively over many years to a particular training style under specific conditions. He was very successful. Could he have progressively adapted his body using a different approach and been just as successful? Most likely.

There are lots of routes to strength and hypertrophy. Just because someone was successful with a given path does not mean that they found the most efficient path.
 
Silent Method said:
There are lots of routes to strength and hypertrophy. Just because someone was successful with a given path does not mean that they found the most efficient path.


My life would be so much easier if more people realized this.
 
I agre with silent method. Curgeo, what is facetious? Muscle need time to recup. As you age (natural lifters) you need more time to recover. Hitting one body part a week is a great theory. I mean, when you do a chest day, you are also hitting the shoulders and tricepts
 
FYI: acetious = bantering: cleverly amusing in tone; "a bantering tone"; "facetious remarks"; "tongue-in-cheek advice" <web definition>

Of course then we walk into the issue of 'full' recovery between all training sessions being desierable, ideal, or practical (i.e. fitness fatigue thoery/periodization) and whether or not it might be better to spread a given volume over a greater frequency rather than dump it all on the body at once and forcing a longer recovery cycle, more accute strain, and affecting the overall conditioning level of the body.

There are no absolutes, I'm just taking a shot at the idea that a bodypart can 'only be trained 1x per week for optimal gains'. Frequency is simply another variable like volume and intensity (%1rm). Holding it constant is undesirable and it should be determined in the context of the other variables, the individual, and the specific goal in the period rather than held as a holy sacrement to Flex magazine.
 
wtlftr said:
hahaahaha. I agree, who would listen to FLEX magazine for training advice
LOL - you'd be amazed. Pay a visit to the workout forum at bodybuilding.com some time, I guarantee a piece of your brain dies just for clicking on the link. :)
 
It's actually sad that the only advise that is readily available to most people are flex, musclemag and the like. I asked my local Border's to get in PurePowermag or Milo and they told me they couldn't. Now I know it's possible considering all the magazines that they do carry like Dog Fancy, but it's probably not on the list of Best selling mags that they want to bring in. It actually takes some time and effort to seek out information such as Glen Pendlay, Mel Siff or Verkoshansky. You won't find stuff like that in the local bookstore or on a common internet site. If I wouldn't have found elitefts a couple of years ago I never would have stumbled across half the resources I have. Thanks to MC I found Pendlay and am always impressed with what he has to write. I can't blame people starting out for that, that is why we just have to steer people in the right direction.
 
curgeo. Join NSCA and you will have a wealth of knowledge. NSCA-LIFT.org. all lower cases. I am not spamming, just ttrying to help someone out.
 
Nope...Neither. I just joined because I like reading the journals considering they have their whole archive online. My influences are Zatsiorsky, verkoshansky, Pendlay, Tate, Simmons, Bompa, Medvedyev, and Roman and the like. I try to read everything I can get my hands on as far as serious strength training. Bill Starr has some outstanding stuff that still influences many nowadays....Just look at the 5x5 post.

I'm always learning and I try and learn more everyday. Congrats on the CSCS as I really respect that cert.....(I also bought the book just to read it and have it for reference material.)
 
curgeo said:
I'm always learning and I try and learn more everyday. Congrats on the CSCS as I really respect that cert.....(I also bought the book just to read it and have it for reference material.)

me too..and me too.

wtlftr said:
nope. I have enough education. I am here only to help, not get advice

thats not a good mantra to have. There is no absolute certification, certifying body or methodology. Training methods are always changing and improving, and so should the professionals who represent them.

I've learned my share of lessons from people who have had little formal education in training but a ton of hands on experience. this teaches you to never use the words "enough education".
 
Top Bottom