Hey all! I hope the video was interesting! FREE Ultimate Guide to Bench Pressing for Strength & Hypertrophy: www.houseofhypertrophy.com/free-e-book/ Read more for timestamps + the details of the other group in the study 0:00 Intro 0:31 Part I: New Data on 1X vs 3X per Week Training 3:53 Part II: You MATTER 4:50 Part III: What About the Cross-Education Effect? 6:48 Part IV: The Rest of the Hypertrophy Training Frequency Research 8:56 Part V: The Rest of the Strength Training Frequency Research 9:43 Part VI: Summary Okay, here are the details of the other group in the new study: Subjects also had one leg assigned to train once a week and their other leg assigned to train three times per week. With the leg assigned to train once a week, subjects performed 9 sets of the max reps they could on the unilateral leg press all in one session per week. The targeted rep numbers for each set differed depending on what week it was, but subjects adjusted the load each set when necessary to make sure they hit that week's rep number target. With the other leg assigned to train three times a week, they still performed 9 total weekly sets on the unilateral leg press, by performing 3 sets in each session. But the subjects aimed to match the tonnage performed by the once-a-week leg. As an example, let's say the once a week leg performed 90 reps across 9 sets with an average 100kg load per repetition. This equals a tonnage of 9,000kg. So for the three times per week leg to attain this tonnage, they would have trained with a 100kg load on all three sets across the three days and peformed 10 reps per set. Doing this actually meant not all of this leg's sets would have been to failure. How precisely far from failure and how many sets this applied to is impossible to know, as the researchers frustratingly didn't measure or mention this. Nevertheless, it was ultimately found both strength (measured by unilateral leg press one-rep max) and muscle growth (measured by quadriceps cross-sectional area at around the 50% region) were not statistically different between the one and three times per week leg. The other statistics (effect sizes and confidence intervals) also point towards there being similar strength and muscle gains between both legs on average. The individual data generally showed minminal differences between both legs too, but there were outliers as you'd expect (some seeing more gains with the once per week leg, others seeing more gains with the three times per week leg). These results imply that training further from failure with a higher frequency may be able to produce equivalent hypertrophy and strength to training closer to failure each set with a lower frequency *on average*. But again, given the researchers failed to specify the precise proximity to failure of the three times per week leg, it's difficult to formulate this into explicit recommendations.
The frequency you can stick with for the long term is obviously the best, everyone has scheduling needs, preferences etc...that will make one routine preferably to others. That said I find training each muscle group once ever 3-4 days with moderate volume and undulating intensity to be the best personally.
Thank you for combining science and the love of working out into a channel. Your videos are very well done, I always come away more informed then I was before I clicked on the video. Much love 💪🏾
I do Fullbody workouts for 6 months now, training each body part 6x a week. And ill tell you all this frequency build me noticeable gains!!. I even took a picture of every single day of that 6 months. And if you want i will send the picture. I am 13 years on and off training. And this is the best routine i got so far. I tried the others but this is for me. Fullbody forever.
@@HouseofHypertrophy if you knew team 3d alpha here in youtube. That person change my life. I seriously tried every other program, PPL, Bros Split, Upper lower. And i even did a supplement , but i gaines only a small amount of muscle compaired to Fullbody. My routine is giving me unbelievable strength and gains. i teached this method to my gym mates but they didnt see any gains.
Is that the same set rep scheme every day or do you vary it? When I started many years ago I did full body 3 times a week and made amazing progress but to do that 6 times a week I don't think my body would recover. I am aware of 3D Alpha but is not the principle to use lighter weights with higher reps everyday allowing the body to recover more quickly and therefore you can train every day.
@@roobsrooby6589 one thing i notice is, if i do more volume, my gains are far better than usual bodybuilder technique. I just did 4 sets each every exercise. Then just continue progresive overload if i can. If not, i just add reps, and if still cannot, i just stay and wait days or weeks to get stronger then add 2.5lbs plates. I did 24 sets per week total. When i did Fullbody im always excited, more strength and most of all my shoulders are far bigger than the splits i did in my recent years.
Awesome review as usual. Frequency is an individual response based on my own experimentation over the years. I perform as well or better with reduced frequency, say every 5 days. I am happy to see your channel is approaching 100K. Good job, my friend!
I am currently doing two full body workouts per week (A/B) and seem to have better results than three times a week. I'm certain that the extra recovery time is key.
Thanks for the comment. I wondered about that. I'm training full body 3x per week (A/B/C). I wondered whether I could switch to a 2x per week routine without losing any gains. It works for you. I'll give it a try. Best wishes.
@@tonyanderton3521 3 times a week is possible but you absolutely need to be killing it with eating and actually have a very good diet healthy wise and high in protein if you’re working out hard or your body will not be able to keep up and you’ll be losing out on gains
Man I'm kind of excited by the new findings that will be made in the near future, it seems like we are finally understanding the anatomy of muscles and muscle growth, and like you said maybe one day we might even know what the individual differences are and to me that's amazing. When it comes to this type of content of scientific research about muscle your channel is the best on this platform.
I like higher frequency (2-3 times a week), because it allows you to hit your muscle with higher quality sets without any junk volume For example: Instead of 15 sets on Chest Day, you spread it across 3 days with 5 sets for that muscle
It probably takes me 5 or more sets of progressive weights before am fully warmed up and ready to go heavy(ish). Once my two sets I think of as the real ones, I then only do two or three more on another exercise and am able to go heavy straight away. Works for me. I really only do two exercises per body part.
3:10 to me it makes sense that some legs on the 3x group saw loss in size and strength, simply because it was stated that the 3x leg had to hold back in reps to make load volume (sets x load x reps) equal across both legs, so those who lost gains in the 3x leg might have not been pushing close enough to failure to stimulate meaningful growth.
Personally speaking, I train each body part twice a week. Push day, pull day, rest day, push day, pull day. Two rest days. This works very well for me. I'm 55 and been training off and on since I was 12 and I've tried every method under the sun. My training is much more scientific now due to this channel and others. Less sets, more rest between sets. But always intense. Reps vary between low and high. If its too easy and I can get to 15 or more, I put the weight up. If I'm aiming for 8 or 10 but feeling strong, I'll carry on to failure.
@@ArturB69 Weirdly, due to 25 years playing football and good genetics, my legs and calves are my best body parts 😁. I do a lot of walking and free squats before every workout.
@@ArturB69 lol push typically includes squats or leg press, and pull includes deadlift or other hip hinges. But good guess haha I was wondering the same.. you found out the truth !
Kudos for including the info about statistical significance. In terms of hypertrophy, we are dealing with tiny amounts per session in optimal conditions. A tiny percentage difference might not be within the certainty of the study (usually p value of 5% or less), but, like hypertrophy in general, a small amount over time makes a big difference.
Potentially so! though weekly "work" in terms of sets performed with max reps were the same between both legs. But even so, those factors could still matter.
I was the biggest in my life when I worked out each body part once a week. I've tried all kinds of frequency and the higher frequency just left me more tired and sore. I may be one the odd ones who responds to once a week better. I would like to see a similar study with 1 vs 2 times per week as that is what I feel most people have time for.
@@HouseofHypertrophy the main factor on which frequency works for the individual is recovery. People with better recovery can train more frequently per week. Guys with slower recovery get better results with a lower frequency training per week.
What people fail to see is that "a week" is just a measurement of time invented by humans. Your body does not reset on Monday, time is continuous. Some people see better results resting roughly 72 hours (again, hour as a unit is just an abstract value we assigned to time), and some see better results resting 48 hours.
Same. Been doing resistance work for over 40 years and tried about all the training frequency regimens. Ideally, once every fifth day worked best but was too difficult to adhere to. Once a week was easiest for me.
I'm pretty sure one of the big individual differences is, how hard somebody can push himself and thus how much recovery they need and maybe also how long the MPS stimulus is active.
@@HouseofHypertrophy I think it also depends on someone's leverage. For example, I have short arms, short legs, and a long torso, therefore, I can only deadlift once a week because it fatigues my body a lot. But, I'm built really well for the squat and can do it 3 times a week using DUP. I remember starting out I tried to do 2 heavy deadlift sessions a week because I thought more frequency would get me stronger faster. Instead, at the end of my 2nd week of doing that, I failed my 3rd rep at less than 80% of my 1rm. Why did that happen? My body built up too much fatigue too soon, and couldn't recover by the time I had my next session(SRA model). I had to deload at end of the second week as a novice... I came back just 5lbs stronger lol. Now instead of trying to deadlift twice a week, I have a day where I do RDL's since they aren't as taxing on the body. You could replace RDL's with SLDL's or Snatch grip, depending on your weakness.
since muscle and strength growth is impacted the most by progressive overload principles, i think the answer to the gigantic spread between the results is simply about what were the individuals used to within a month before starting these experiments... i'd say that the less advanced the individual is - meaning the less workload and frequency is the subject used to, the more likely he/she is to seize maximal potential gains with lower frequencies and maybe even overtrain with higher ones while the more advanced group will naturally benefit from more workload and frequency to reach their maximal potential growth rate
Nine weekly sets seem very few for trained individuals, and trying to increase the number of weekly sets may be a significant setback for frequency 1x per week. A future study with more weekly sets may have a more pronounced effect. I'm interested in knowing what causes the differences between individuals.
Consistency, enjoyment (tied to consistency), and avoidance of injury should be major considerations. Also remember that 1 set of anything is much greater than 0 sets. In other words, do what you can, when you can. Don't be married to any form/style/frequency at the cost of missing a week of training. There is no destination, just the journey.
Thank you for the info. Your videos are always thorough and well done. It’s a shame these studies never seem to highlight age of participants. I’m interested in the correlation between the results of gain based on frequency, recovery, percentage of 1 rep max etc - with age also taken into account. I suspect the longer rest periods would benefit older individuals - I wish this detail was teased out of the data.
Exercise tolerance is an important factor that is commonly neglected in these studies. With a frequency of three times per week, my exercise tolerance improves, and I no longer experience soreness. However, if I only train each muscle once per week, then I experience a lot of fatigue and soreness after my workouts.
Every 5 days is what works for me. Effort day and a volume day. It isn't for everyone cause of the lack of rigid schedule. But I feel everyone could loosen up a bit when it comes to training. I don't force myself into a box anymore.
Within subject design doesn’t necessarily eliminate confounding variables such as nutrition, sleep, and other lifestyle factors. If these variables have any effect on recovery rates and training adaptations, then they might effect an individual’s response to 1x vs 3x/week training frequency. It is possible that if you optimize these variables for the subject that didn’t respond well to higher frequency, they might then show a better response to higher frequency.
So when I say it eliminates those things, I'm referring to the between condition comparison (a within subject design means the two different conditions won't have different genetics, nutrition, or outside lifestyle factors). But yep, on an individual level, those things do matter :)
Your information came at a good time for me. I am older so I find it harder to recover from frequent trainings. Using the information from your video, I will likely reduce the frequency of my trainings so that I get a chance to recover. Thanks!
It's really good that the study shows that there are always going to be outliers in every group. As it shows people need to not rely on studies solely for 'what works best' as with bodybuilding being very individual it comes down to (or should do) trial and error in finding what works best FOR YOU. Ive lifted since the early 90s and over the years (decades) have found I make most of my gains whilst targeting each muscle group only once per week hard with as much volume and intensity as can get away with and allowing that muscle 7 days to recover (as in not hitting it directly) Yet people will always cite studies stating frequency is the most optimal, as if somehow ive got it all wrong and were simply not working out properly lol. I've always suspected it can also come down to fast vs slow twitch muscle fibres in any individuals given muscle group? as interestingly my chest DOES actually respond better to more frequency in terms of strength and growth yet my other muscle groups respond better with less frequency and more recovery
A couple of questions that came to mind while watching things: (1) was the 1RM the same for both legs? And (2) were there any counter-balancing measures in place with regards to whether people were left or right side dominant? Both questions come from personal experience due to my right leg being slightly stronger than my left leg, which may be as a result of me being right-side dominant (I appreciate this is more applicable when it comes to arms, but could be an interesting to see). Again, another excellent video and thanks for taking the time to make it and sharing!
1) No "statistical differences" between 1RM leg strength, but the averages are slighly different 2) The researchers counter balanced the left and right legs between the once and three times per week frequency :)
I think a lot of these studies fail to control for training history, even lifetime athletic experience. You might expect a lifetime 12-15 rep guy to get increased mass and strength gains if switching to a 5X5 program for 6 weeks or so (and vice versa). Studies are great to give us clues, but there are so many things to control for (like calorie intake and macronutrient ratios, sleep, etc) that might mess up the results. I love these videos, though. Such great analysis!
Currently training full body 6x/week (A*3/B*2/C*1), A = horizontal push/pull focus, B = vertical push/pull focus, C = Deadlift and arm focus. Best split I've ever done. When daily/weekly volume and average intensity are skillfully modulated, relative to a more orthodox split you get higher quality hard-set volume with faster day-to-day recovery. I honestly recommend full body splits over any other for their flexibility: it's no big deal if you miss a day, just systematically add sets to the rest of the week's days or just use it as an additional rest day (unlike with a PPL split where missing even one day throws you off the rest of the week); it's super easy to modulate weekly volume, just start your meso with lower frequency weeks and work your way up; you can auto-regulate volume/frequency relative to fatigue MUCH more simply since the split is more tolerant of skipping days/exercises here and there as needed.
To me it always made the most sense to do the least amount possible to elicit a change. This allows your body adaptation to the training stimulus. If your frequency/volume is way too high, all your body does is focus on recovery and you stall with no progress. Sometimes the protocol that's optimal is way less than what you feel you can do. I've seen consistent progress with doing upper and lower every other day with only 8-10 sets per workout. I take full 2-3 min rest periods between sets and I'm out of the gym in 30 min. My only goal is to keep using progressive overload gradually over time.
So, you inadvertently made me want to get back to strength training. Inadvertently because you seem to encourage high frequency training, but you showed that once a week isn't so bad. I think I might be in the group that performs better with once a week training, because I get so sore after failure I need a whole week to recover. The problem is all the iron pumping bros got me to believe that it's worthless to train once a week, that I had to push through my pain etc... I wasn't willing to train sore, so every attempt at lifting ended in me giving up after a month or two.
Overall the difference is still rather small and seing that a number of people actually had better gains with 1x/week training I think, that's still a feasable way of training, if that's what you like to do. You certainly will make gains.
I find it funny when people argue over what's best (low volume vs high volume, low frequency vs high frequency, etc.) because they forget that we are all unique. While we are all human beings we do not respond to every stimulus the same way. In my opinion, that's part of what makes training interesting and personal - discovering what works best for you.
Great video as always. I am in the 1x per week side. I was doing 3x per week with medium weight and reps to failure, but after a while i noticed my joints weren't strong enough to keep up this pace. I dropped to 2x per week, and lowered the weight but it was still too much for my joints. Later i gave myself a big, nice rest and started again with 1x per week. Not feeling any joint pain right now. Also, while reading a book (The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge) i saw an interesting part in it. It briefly mentioned a study (Guang Yue & Kelly Cole, 1996) about imagining doing exercise versus actually doing it. The book says those who actually exercised their thumb muscle have increased muscle strenght by %30, while those who imagined doing it have increased it by %22. I did not check the study myself, and i don't know if there are more research about this but i wanted to share it.
Thank you for sharing all this! I wish you continued gainz. As for imagining exercise, yep there's more research on this and at some point I'll have a video on it :)
It makes sense to me that stimulating muscle growth more frequently through lifting would result in more gains, for most people. Also doing all that volume on one day is just so hard. Quality of reps probably goes down, less fibres might fire because of exhaustion on the day of
So basically supercompensation happens after the body receives stimuli and gets enough rest and time to fully recover. So the magic happens during the rest periods. The mitochondrial biogenesis and the ability to produce more atp is the result of consistly putting the body under stress to adjust for example. At some point habitation kicks in and the body responds less, so adding volume wont be effective. Its good to consider changing the routine or take a deload or rest periode. Maybe this explanation is more clear.
There is a thin line between gaining the benefits of super compensation and over training. But from what i experienced and learned from veterans its good to plan deload weeks in workout blocks or even a time off. Our bodies will react better to training stimuli and need a time off once in a while.
A comment from the perspective of an econometrician... 1- Having non-statistically significant results just means that whatever our hypothesis testing, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, and if this is the mean comparison, then we assume that means across both groups in terms of growth do not statistically significantly differ from each other. That is, the average from all individuals in each groups is not different. 2- When we get into this kind of results in the treatment and comparison groups, we say that treatment does not shifted the outcome different than the control group in average. 3- The outliers, given why these characteristics sometimes report different gains in muscles by certain individuals, is in fact the true question as appointed. For now, the Average Treatment Effect (different training frequencies) are in average, no different from each in terms of the outcome (muscle growth)
More research studies need to be broken down this way. There's a major trend towards overgeneralizing findings based on the average in almost every study I see. The interesting science is in identifying differences between individuals or groups of individuals and trying to find out why.
The data distributes in a bell curve. There are individual outlyers on both ends and that's why you should not look at the top's surface and claim this or that method is best
I love hearing about studies like this, because I'm addicted to training and prefer data that validates this practice. Another great vid. Also yeah those Indian bodybuilders are amazing, would love to know what their training was like. I would imagine they were packing in enormous training volumes but I don't know. But the 1920s was probably quite a boring time in some ways so they might have just trained constantly, especially as I doubt there was a concept of overtraining back then. Also, why is there an image of saturn in your video?
So I found out those images were originally from a book: Muscle Control & Barbell Exercise by Keshub Ch. Sen Gupta and Bishnu Charan Ghosh - I have not read this book but I presume they detail the training. I might have to check it out sometime! As for saturn, there's no specific reason. I just like to add unrelated graphics throughout the video as I feel it creates a nicer "vibe", haha
@@HouseofHypertrophy I didn't know their training was documented, I shall check it out also! Yeah I scrolled further through the video and noticed other unrelated imagery. I am very wary of occult/satanic imagery, hence why I asked! But clearly unintended on your part.
@@HouseofHypertrophy also, do you plan to do any videos on the potential benefits and/or pitfalls of training the same muscles twice a day? I've always wondered if there's any utility to it, as I like to train A LOT
what about leg dominance? was that a factor of the research? if you are right handed, your right hand might be stronger than your left....? Just wondering
Just here to say your content is really great. I am a training nerd (and have a MSc in physiology) and your content is great, well backed and well researched.
If you're doing 9 sets to failure once a week, you'll likely end up doing fewer total reps compared to 3 sets x 3, no? Could it be the extra reps might be the reason for more growth?
What work do these trained folk do. Sit at desk, dig all day. Recovery is key. Kcal is key. Age. Still not enough controls. What muscle fibre dominance types? Previous injuries? Do they have families to support or are they single. Medical history. Until controls are strict, plenty and many studies done you just have to see what works best for you. Great video as always.
Dude, who *are* you??!! You have/Your channel has quickly become one of my top 5 favourite fitness-based YT channels, and we'd all love to know more about you! What do you do? What are your qualifications? Is the 'voice over' your voice, or a robo-/auto-/computer-voice?
This video is by far the most interesting. Finding the right intensity and frequency of training for athletes is a big thing to consider. Perhaps training 2x per week is superior to 1 big session a week due to mental and physiological fatigue? Definitely seems like it for athletes. As for novices the same thing could be applicable.
Excellent video as always Could you make a video on how to understand scientific studies? I have tried to read some studies on fitness but I can never quite understand many terms, graphs and explanations that appear, nor how to interpret them for practical application.
Thank you! and I'll have to think about it. I'm not too sure how many people would be interested in it, and some specific statistical stuff requires a fair bit of math involvement unfortunately. Yet, if you're interested in learning about the various maths commonly used in studies, this channel is very useful: th-cam.com/channels/FrjdcImgcQVyFbK04MBEhA.html
What we don't know about this study is if the subjects were natural, which is quite important. Science says that on natural advanced lifters, protein synthesis lasts only 24 hours, while on enhanced advanced lifters up to 72 hours. On beginners it can last up to 72 hours, even if they are natural.
It seems they overlooked an important factor. They didn't account for muscle fiber types such a 1A, 2A, 2X. I would be curious to know the differences.
Actually according to the study, and research of Arthur Jones, and Mike Mentzer of Heavy Duty Training exercising a body part directly once within a week is what is effectively going to gain strength, and muscular mass. In my case I exercise three times a week whereby I work a body part directly anywhere as soon as 6 days within a week; but mostly upon complete recovery it is more up to 7 to 10, sometimes up to 11 days. However, I still get up to exercise 3 times within a span of 7 days. Maybe a muscle-group can be worked twice within a week is possible, but according to the research done by Arthur Jones who also invented the Nautilus exercise machines, he has discovered that less training frequency is to be practiced as a trainee evolves beyond a rank beginner. Exercise was performed 3 times a week full body, but then it was done twice within a week. Furthermore, as Mike Mentzer had found on training of his own body, and the results of his clients who exercised using a HIT method, by splitting up the body into three exercise sessions. As a trainee becomes stronger he or she requires more rest between a workout session to fully recover for a muscle-group to be exercised again to an optimal level. Training was at least 2 to three times a week, whereby a body part was worked directly Once within a week! Therefore, muscle-mass increased at a later time, then it was exercised again for a further increase in mass, and strength.🏋
Great video! On studies in which the participants train each limb differently, do you think the data can be off by the simple fact that each of us can be more dominant with one side of our body vs the other? When performing unilateral exercises (such as bicep curls or DB rows) I'm typically better with my right vs my left. Do you think the researchers account for this in the organization of their studies?
So it probably would not impact the average result, as the researchers counterbalanced right and left legs between the two conditions (1x and 3x training). But it certainly could influence the individual data, to what extent though it's difficult to know :(
If you look at pro natural bodybuilders, they train 1x to 2x frequency and can see that high and low frequency, both works. Some follow push pull legs, but doesn’t fit in the typical 7 day cycle so they train the same muscle every 5 days. Everything works as long as it’s smart programming, high effort and consistent diet
Amazing video! I've been watching your videos for some time and I can't say enough how great they are! Your videos show pure data compared to other youtuber channels that show biased data w/ biased opinion. You do not show any bias towards the data and if you've ever had a bias in the video, you acknowledged it. I want to ask you a question, we know about the repeated bout effect and how the repeated bout effect can help people train more frequent due to the lack of muscle soreness, but are we suppose to want this repeated bout effect to happen or not? While it is great that we will be able to train our muscles more frequently, do we want the repeated bout effect to happen? I have a hypothesis that switching out your workout plan every 6-8 weeks would be more beneficial than every 12 weeks.
Thank you for the kind words, and your question is an interesting one. The truth is I don't know the answer as there's minimal research in this area. Presumably the RBE can help you handle more volume later on and this may benefit gains, but there are other alternative hypotheses one could put forth to suggest the RBE could not be the most favorable. For example, some research indicating training breaks *might* help you build more muscle in the long term, and this break would probably reduce the RBE to a degree, but whether this lower RBE is in anyway responsible for the potential benefits of breaks is unknown
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thank you for the reply. It's been something i've been trying to research myself but sadly have found no evidence about it. I hope there is a study about this so I learn more. Thank you for your knowledge and insight for all of this.
@houseofhyperothy what would you hypothesis is the reason some individuals respond best too lower frequencies of training. Do you think they need more recovery or that their rate of protein synthesis is different etc
It would be better to look at frequency differences for various muscle groups. I tend to find that the bigger or stronger the muscle group the more recovery they need. For example, lower seems to do well at 2x while most upper body muscles like 3x.
Just so I understand correctly, when people say low frequency such as once a week, does that mean you train the legs just once a week doing only one set to failure? If so does that mean you do 1 set of Squats as heavy as you can until you can do no more, 1 set of Lunges, one set of leg curls and so on? If that's the case then heck I would be bed ridden for a few days after that! Please clarify if you can. Thank you
A low frequency like once a week does imply people train each muscle group only once in a week. But this does not necessarily mean you do one set to failure per exercise, it can be whatever you want in that session
Excuse me, 9 sets till failure might just kill progress. They should've tested usual 3 sets during 1 training per week VS with 3 sets during each training per week.
I truly enjoy your videos but, always question the parameters of the studies. When will we see a real world study involving total body workouts which would be much harder to recover from rather than single muscle group tests? Plus, one person's training intensity greatly varies from another. Recovery time differs from one person to another which brings in many other factors to consider. Keep up the excellent work and your summaries are always well thought-out.
It would be useful to have a video on the consistent findings we can get from research, the things that we can be confident there is a better way of doing things.
Could you do a video on how much calorie surplus and protein is really necessary? Would be interesting as from what I research the protein requirements are not that high as some people say and calorie surplus depends on your bodyfat%, but then I see a lot of calisthenics guys packing a lot of lean muscle and strength without having a bulking phase. I think there are a lot of myths here. AWESOME VIDEOS BTW!
The problem from having personal experience is I don't really know anyone who feels 3 times a week is even possible if you are training to near failure. If it goes to failure it just takes more time to recover so you can't even squeeze twice a week. Legs tend to take more time to recover. So again a study that isn't really designed with applicable experience. You could try once a week to once 5 days that would feel more realistic. Enough time to actually recover. Different for upper body that tends to be higher frequency.
For the 1x a week, did they do the 9 sets consecutively? Is that realistic? Most people would do 4 sets of an exercise, and would do 2 similar exercises to get 8ish total sets hitting the target muscle(s). You had done a video showing differences in consecutive sets with a general trend downward after 3-4 I believe.
9 sets all in one session, yep! So I haven't ever said a downward trend after 3 or 4 sets, rather I speculated in my older sets video ( th-cam.com/video/MW99hv5M1Yg/w-d-xo.html )that 8-12 sets per session could be the limit to the effective sets per muscle, but as noted in that video this is based on limited data :)
![⭐ฮิตในTikTok!! ( มะมะมะหมูเด้ง MooDeng ) Ver. แดนซ์ ReMix BY [ ดีเจกิต รีมิกซ์ ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/4noyAoMa7bQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Hey all! I hope the video was interesting! FREE Ultimate Guide to Bench Pressing for Strength & Hypertrophy: www.houseofhypertrophy.com/free-e-book/
Read more for timestamps + the details of the other group in the study
0:00 Intro
0:31 Part I: New Data on 1X vs 3X per Week Training
3:53 Part II: You MATTER
4:50 Part III: What About the Cross-Education Effect?
6:48 Part IV: The Rest of the Hypertrophy Training Frequency Research
8:56 Part V: The Rest of the Strength Training Frequency Research
9:43 Part VI: Summary
Okay, here are the details of the other group in the new study:
Subjects also had one leg assigned to train once a week and their other leg assigned to train three times per week.
With the leg assigned to train once a week, subjects performed 9 sets of the max reps they could on the unilateral leg press all in one session per week.
The targeted rep numbers for each set differed depending on what week it was, but subjects adjusted the load each set when necessary to make sure they hit that week's rep number target.
With the other leg assigned to train three times a week, they still performed 9 total weekly sets on the unilateral leg press, by performing 3 sets in each session.
But the subjects aimed to match the tonnage performed by the once-a-week leg.
As an example, let's say the once a week leg performed 90 reps across 9 sets with an average 100kg load per repetition. This equals a tonnage of 9,000kg.
So for the three times per week leg to attain this tonnage, they would have trained with a 100kg load on all three sets across the three days and peformed 10 reps per set. Doing this actually meant not all of this leg's sets would have been to failure. How precisely far from failure and how many sets this applied to is impossible to know, as the researchers frustratingly didn't measure or mention this.
Nevertheless, it was ultimately found both strength (measured by unilateral leg press one-rep max) and muscle growth (measured by quadriceps cross-sectional area at around the 50% region) were not statistically different between the one and three times per week leg.
The other statistics (effect sizes and confidence intervals) also point towards there being similar strength and muscle gains between both legs on average.
The individual data generally showed minminal differences between both legs too, but there were outliers as you'd expect (some seeing more gains with the once per week leg, others seeing more gains with the three times per week leg).
These results imply that training further from failure with a higher frequency may be able to produce equivalent hypertrophy and strength to training closer to failure each set with a lower frequency *on average*. But again, given the researchers failed to specify the precise proximity to failure of the three times per week leg, it's difficult to formulate this into explicit recommendations.
The frequency you can stick with for the long term is obviously the best, everyone has scheduling needs, preferences etc...that will make one routine preferably to others. That said I find training each muscle group once ever 3-4 days with moderate volume and undulating intensity to be the best personally.
All great points my friend! :)
Thank you for combining science and the love of working out into a channel. Your videos are very well done, I always come away more informed then I was before I clicked on the video. Much love 💪🏾
This is really kind of you, thank YOU for the kind words. Much love!
I do Fullbody workouts for 6 months now, training each body part 6x a week. And ill tell you all this frequency build me noticeable gains!!. I even took a picture of every single day of that 6 months. And if you want i will send the picture. I am 13 years on and off training. And this is the best routine i got so far. I tried the others but this is for me. Fullbody forever.
Really awesome to hear that, I wish you continued gainz! :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy if you knew team 3d alpha here in youtube. That person change my life. I seriously tried every other program, PPL, Bros Split, Upper lower. And i even did a supplement , but i gaines only a small amount of muscle compaired to Fullbody. My routine is giving me unbelievable strength and gains. i teached this method to my gym mates but they didnt see any gains.
@@HouseofHypertrophy i forgot to thank you for your effort to post Meta Analysis sir.
Is that the same set rep scheme every day or do you vary it? When I started many years ago I did full body 3 times a week and made amazing progress but to do that 6 times a week I don't think my body would recover. I am aware of 3D Alpha but is not the principle to use lighter weights with higher reps everyday allowing the body to recover more quickly and therefore you can train every day.
@@roobsrooby6589 one thing i notice is, if i do more volume, my gains are far better than usual bodybuilder technique. I just did 4 sets each every exercise. Then just continue progresive overload if i can. If not, i just add reps, and if still cannot, i just stay and wait days or weeks to get stronger then add 2.5lbs plates.
I did 24 sets per week total.
When i did Fullbody im always excited, more strength and most of all my shoulders are far bigger than the splits i did in my recent years.
I like this man’s videos before I even fully finish them. When House Of Hypertrophy uploads, you already know it’s about to be a quality video
Haha, thank you so much dude!
Awesome review as usual. Frequency is an individual response based on my own experimentation over the years. I perform as well or better with reduced frequency, say every 5 days. I am happy to see your channel is approaching 100K. Good job, my friend!
Really interesting to hear, and thank you for those kind words my friend! :)
Great video as always! In terms of information, editing, presenting statistics in an easy way. Excellent.
Thank YOU, as always! :)
I am currently doing two full body workouts per week (A/B) and seem to have better results than three times a week. I'm certain that the extra recovery time is key.
Very interesting to hear that, I wish you continued gainzz!
Exact same for me works best and seeing the gains add up
Thanks for the comment. I wondered about that. I'm training full body 3x per week (A/B/C). I wondered whether I could switch to a 2x per week routine without losing any gains. It works for you. I'll give it a try. Best wishes.
@@tonyanderton3521 3 times a week is possible but you absolutely need to be killing it with eating and actually have a very good diet healthy wise and high in protein if you’re working out hard or your body will not be able to keep up and you’ll be losing out on gains
@@Crispious Thanks for the tips, I appreciate it.
Man I'm kind of excited by the new findings that will be made in the near future, it seems like we are finally understanding the anatomy of muscles and muscle growth, and like you said maybe one day we might even know what the individual differences are and to me that's amazing. When it comes to this type of content of scientific research about muscle your channel is the best on this platform.
Thank you so much my friend, and I agree. The potential stuff that could be uncovered could be awesome :)
I like higher frequency (2-3 times a week), because it allows you to hit your muscle with higher quality sets without any junk volume
For example: Instead of 15 sets on Chest Day, you spread it across 3 days with 5 sets for that muscle
Yep, the quality of each set will certainly be smoother with more frequent training :)
It probably takes me 5 or more sets of progressive weights before am fully warmed up and ready to go heavy(ish). Once my two sets I think of as the real ones, I then only do two or three more on another exercise and am able to go heavy straight away. Works for me. I really only do two exercises per body part.
@@DudeSilad How many times per week per body part?
So you live in the gyms if you train each muscle 2-3 times a week! And when do you recover from training btw?! And I bet your strength is average!
@@davidwelburn5950 each body part twice a week. I've tried once a week and don't get the same results. But everybody is different
3:10 to me it makes sense that some legs on the 3x group saw loss in size and strength, simply because it was stated that the 3x leg had to hold back in reps to make load volume (sets x load x reps) equal across both legs, so those who lost gains in the 3x leg might have not been pushing close enough to failure to stimulate meaningful growth.
Gigachad channel dude. The knowledge is helping a lot of people
Haha, thank you dude :)
Personally speaking, I train each body part twice a week. Push day, pull day, rest day, push day, pull day. Two rest days. This works very well for me. I'm 55 and been training off and on since I was 12 and I've tried every method under the sun. My training is much more scientific now due to this channel and others. Less sets, more rest between sets. But always intense. Reps vary between low and high. If its too easy and I can get to 15 or more, I put the weight up. If I'm aiming for 8 or 10 but feeling strong, I'll carry on to failure.
Really awesome to hear, I wish you continued progress! :)
Skipping leg day I see
@@ArturB69 Weirdly, due to 25 years playing football and good genetics, my legs and calves are my best body parts 😁. I do a lot of walking and free squats before every workout.
@@DudeSilad still need to load the legs imho brother
@@ArturB69 lol push typically includes squats or leg press, and pull includes deadlift or other hip hinges. But good guess haha I was wondering the same.. you found out the truth !
Kudos for including the info about statistical significance. In terms of hypertrophy, we are dealing with tiny amounts per session in optimal conditions. A tiny percentage difference might not be within the certainty of the study (usually p value of 5% or less), but, like hypertrophy in general, a small amount over time makes a big difference.
Could poor recovery (lack of sleep, non-optimal diet, age?) explain why some of the participants experienced better results training 1 x per week 🤔
Potentially so! though weekly "work" in terms of sets performed with max reps were the same between both legs. But even so, those factors could still matter.
Thanks for updating on older topics.
No problemo, thank you for checking out the updated video haha
I was the biggest in my life when I worked out each body part once a week. I've tried all kinds of frequency and the higher frequency just left me more tired and sore. I may be one the odd ones who responds to once a week better.
I would like to see a similar study with 1 vs 2 times per week as that is what I feel most people have time for.
Very interesting to hear, thank you for sharing. Hopefully we get a 1 vs 2x comparison!
@@HouseofHypertrophy the main factor on which frequency works for the individual is recovery. People with better recovery can train more frequently per week. Guys with slower recovery get better results with a lower frequency training per week.
When you switched from 1x week to 4x a week let's say, did you also divide the sets per session by 4?
What people fail to see is that "a week" is just a measurement of time invented by humans. Your body does not reset on Monday, time is continuous. Some people see better results resting roughly 72 hours (again, hour as a unit is just an abstract value we assigned to time), and some see better results resting 48 hours.
Same. Been doing resistance work for over 40 years and tried about all the training frequency regimens. Ideally, once every fifth day worked best but was too difficult to adhere to. Once a week was easiest for me.
Your Chanel, website and ebooks are the best things since sliced bread. I have found my self reading your guide in your voice lol
Hahaha, thank you so much for the kind words dude!!!
Probably the greatest channel discussing and breaking down real science studies on sports, can't praise the work enough!
Thank you so much my friend! :)
I'm pretty sure one of the big individual differences is, how hard somebody can push himself and thus how much recovery they need and maybe also how long the MPS stimulus is active.
Potentially, I think there are many potential mechanisms! Hopefully future research can assess them
@@HouseofHypertrophy I think it also depends on someone's leverage. For example, I have short arms, short legs, and a long torso, therefore, I can only deadlift once a week because it fatigues my body a lot. But, I'm built really well for the squat and can do it 3 times a week using DUP.
I remember starting out I tried to do 2 heavy deadlift sessions a week because I thought more frequency would get me stronger faster. Instead, at the end of my 2nd week of doing that, I failed my 3rd rep at less than 80% of my 1rm. Why did that happen? My body built up too much fatigue too soon, and couldn't recover by the time I had my next session(SRA model). I had to deload at end of the second week as a novice... I came back just 5lbs stronger lol.
Now instead of trying to deadlift twice a week, I have a day where I do RDL's since they aren't as taxing on the body. You could replace RDL's with SLDL's or Snatch grip, depending on your weakness.
Love this.
Everyone has to Train, sleep, and nourish themselves and see what works best.
Yep, finding what works for your is certainly key :)
I'm an educated statistician and I'm elated with the quality of this video compared to what we get on other topics. Gymbros stay winning.
Thank you my friend, that's really cool to hear!
since muscle and strength growth is impacted the most by progressive overload principles, i think the answer to the gigantic spread between the results is simply about what were the individuals used to within a month before starting these experiments... i'd say that the less advanced the individual is - meaning the less workload and frequency is the subject used to, the more likely he/she is to seize maximal potential gains with lower frequencies and maybe even overtrain with higher ones while the more advanced group will naturally benefit from more workload and frequency to reach their maximal potential growth rate
Nine weekly sets seem very few for trained individuals, and trying to increase the number of weekly sets may be a significant setback for frequency 1x per week. A future study with more weekly sets may have a more pronounced effect.
I'm interested in knowing what causes the differences between individuals.
Yep, this is very possible!
Found your channel about a month ago and I've been binge watching. Excellent coverage on research, awesome takeaways, and super solid editing
Thank you so much my friend, that's very kind of you! :)
Consistency, enjoyment (tied to consistency), and avoidance of injury should be major considerations. Also remember that 1 set of anything is much greater than 0 sets. In other words, do what you can, when you can. Don't be married to any form/style/frequency at the cost of missing a week of training. There is no destination, just the journey.
God, how much I love this channel
Thank you dude, that's really nice to hear :)
i love your videos! i love training once a week, been doing it for a month and a half and it has done wonders for me, and saves a lot of time
Awesome to hear my friend, I wish you continued progress :)
love working out to these videos, really gives me a stronger mind muscle connection while i get a pump
Haha, awesome to hear :)
I love this guys voice man it makes me all tingly inside 🥰
No homosexual intentions I swear
Thank you for the info. Your videos are always thorough and well done.
It’s a shame these studies never seem to highlight age of participants. I’m interested in the correlation between the results of gain based on frequency, recovery, percentage of 1 rep max etc - with age also taken into account. I suspect the longer rest periods would benefit older individuals - I wish this detail was teased out of the data.
Day 1: Chest
Day 2: Chest
Day 3: Chest
Day 4: Chest
Day 5: Chest
Day 6: Chest
Day 7: Rest (chest)
The most effective split, haha :)
The Gigachad Routine™
I saw this pop a few hours ago and I was pumped to watch! Didn't disappoint of course 😎😎😎
Awesome to hear, thank you dude :)
Exercise tolerance is an important factor that is commonly neglected in these studies. With a frequency of three times per week, my exercise tolerance improves, and I no longer experience soreness. However, if I only train each muscle once per week, then I experience a lot of fatigue and soreness after my workouts.
Soreness doesn’t correlate to muscle growth or strength
Every 5 days is what works for me. Effort day and a volume day. It isn't for everyone cause of the lack of rigid schedule. But I feel everyone could loosen up a bit when it comes to training. I don't force myself into a box anymore.
Awesome to hear! :)
Completely agree. Forcing yourself into a box makes it miserable
This sounds like PHUL
This is how a lot of old school lifters trained, 3 sets per lift 3 times a week, seemed to work very well for them.
Yup!
Congrats on 100k!!!
Thank you my friend, it's surreal I've reached this point haha
really loved the way the information was presented, it made the video really enjoyable and easy to understand 👍
Thank you! this is great to hear :)
Within subject design doesn’t necessarily eliminate confounding variables such as nutrition, sleep, and other lifestyle factors. If these variables have any effect on recovery rates and training adaptations, then they might effect an individual’s response to 1x vs 3x/week training frequency. It is possible that if you optimize these variables for the subject that didn’t respond well to higher frequency, they might then show a better response to higher frequency.
So when I say it eliminates those things, I'm referring to the between condition comparison (a within subject design means the two different conditions won't have different genetics, nutrition, or outside lifestyle factors).
But yep, on an individual level, those things do matter :)
Your information came at a good time for me. I am older so I find it harder to recover from frequent trainings. Using the information from your video, I will likely reduce the frequency of my trainings so that I get a chance to recover. Thanks!
Really nice to hear, I wish you awesome gains!
Extraordinary as always Sir!
Thank you very much. ❤
Thank you for checking out the video!
Im happy your channel is still doing great. Btw your editing has improved a lot
Thank you so much my friend, that's very kind of you :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy np
It's really good that the study shows that there are always going to be outliers in every group. As it shows people need to not rely on studies solely for 'what works best' as with bodybuilding being very individual it comes down to (or should do) trial and error in finding what works best FOR YOU.
Ive lifted since the early 90s and over the years (decades) have found I make most of my gains whilst targeting each muscle group only once per week hard with as much volume and intensity as can get away with and allowing that muscle 7 days to recover (as in not hitting it directly)
Yet people will always cite studies stating frequency is the most optimal, as if somehow ive got it all wrong and were simply not working out properly lol.
I've always suspected it can also come down to fast vs slow twitch muscle fibres in any individuals given muscle group? as interestingly my chest DOES actually respond better to more frequency in terms of strength and growth yet my other muscle groups respond better with less frequency and more recovery
A couple of questions that came to mind while watching things: (1) was the 1RM the same for both legs? And (2) were there any counter-balancing measures in place with regards to whether people were left or right side dominant?
Both questions come from personal experience due to my right leg being slightly stronger than my left leg, which may be as a result of me being right-side dominant (I appreciate this is more applicable when it comes to arms, but could be an interesting to see).
Again, another excellent video and thanks for taking the time to make it and sharing!
1) No "statistical differences" between 1RM leg strength, but the averages are slighly different
2) The researchers counter balanced the left and right legs between the once and three times per week frequency
:)
I think a lot of these studies fail to control for training history, even lifetime athletic experience. You might expect a lifetime 12-15 rep guy to get increased mass and strength gains if switching to a 5X5 program for 6 weeks or so (and vice versa). Studies are great to give us clues, but there are so many things to control for (like calorie intake and macronutrient ratios, sleep, etc) that might mess up the results.
I love these videos, though. Such great analysis!
Currently training full body 6x/week (A*3/B*2/C*1), A = horizontal push/pull focus, B = vertical push/pull focus, C = Deadlift and arm focus. Best split I've ever done. When daily/weekly volume and average intensity are skillfully modulated, relative to a more orthodox split you get higher quality hard-set volume with faster day-to-day recovery.
I honestly recommend full body splits over any other for their flexibility: it's no big deal if you miss a day, just systematically add sets to the rest of the week's days or just use it as an additional rest day (unlike with a PPL split where missing even one day throws you off the rest of the week); it's super easy to modulate weekly volume, just start your meso with lower frequency weeks and work your way up; you can auto-regulate volume/frequency relative to fatigue MUCH more simply since the split is more tolerant of skipping days/exercises here and there as needed.
To me it always made the most sense to do the least amount possible to elicit a change. This allows your body adaptation to the training stimulus.
If your frequency/volume is way too high, all your body does is focus on recovery and you stall with no progress. Sometimes the protocol that's optimal is way less than what you feel you can do.
I've seen consistent progress with doing upper and lower every other day with only 8-10 sets per workout. I take full 2-3 min rest periods between sets and I'm out of the gym in 30 min. My only goal is to keep using progressive overload gradually over time.
Great video as always!
I appreciate that dude, thank YOU!
So, you inadvertently made me want to get back to strength training.
Inadvertently because you seem to encourage high frequency training, but you showed that once a week isn't so bad.
I think I might be in the group that performs better with once a week training, because I get so sore after failure I need a whole week to recover.
The problem is all the iron pumping bros got me to believe that it's worthless to train once a week, that I had to push through my pain etc...
I wasn't willing to train sore, so every attempt at lifting ended in me giving up after a month or two.
Oh that's a shame! a low frequency is perfectly fine, as shown in this video :)
Overall the difference is still rather small and seing that a number of people actually had better gains with 1x/week training I think, that's still a feasable way of training, if that's what you like to do. You certainly will make gains.
I find it funny when people argue over what's best (low volume vs high volume, low frequency vs high frequency, etc.) because they forget that we are all unique. While we are all human beings we do not respond to every stimulus the same way. In my opinion, that's part of what makes training interesting and personal - discovering what works best for you.
Nice information🔥
And thanks for taking example of Indian bodybuilders 👍
No problemo, thank you for checking out the video!
Great video as always. I am in the 1x per week side. I was doing 3x per week with medium weight and reps to failure, but after a while i noticed my joints weren't strong enough to keep up this pace. I dropped to 2x per week, and lowered the weight but it was still too much for my joints. Later i gave myself a big, nice rest and started again with 1x per week. Not feeling any joint pain right now.
Also, while reading a book (The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge) i saw an interesting part in it. It briefly mentioned a study (Guang Yue & Kelly Cole, 1996) about imagining doing exercise versus actually doing it. The book says those who actually exercised their thumb muscle have increased muscle strenght by %30, while those who imagined doing it have increased it by %22. I did not check the study myself, and i don't know if there are more research about this but i wanted to share it.
Thank you for sharing all this! I wish you continued gainz. As for imagining exercise, yep there's more research on this and at some point I'll have a video on it :)
This is how my lower body is. I have to do two times per week max. My upper body can handle 3 times a week and higher volume
It’s called motor imagery. Pretty cool stuff!
It makes sense to me that stimulating muscle growth more frequently through lifting would result in more gains, for most people. Also doing all that volume on one day is just so hard. Quality of reps probably goes down, less fibres might fire because of exhaustion on the day of
Yep, but still worth noting (as you allude to) some people may see simlar gains if not more with lower frequencies (for unknown reasons).
True, self experimentation is key in everything including fitness. This study highlights the dangers of dogma.
So basically supercompensation happens after the body receives stimuli and gets enough rest and time to fully recover. So the magic happens during the rest periods. The mitochondrial biogenesis and the ability to produce more atp is the result of consistly putting the body under stress to adjust for example. At some point habitation kicks in and the body responds less, so adding volume wont be effective. Its good to consider changing the routine or take a deload or rest periode. Maybe this explanation is more clear.
I don't always agree with your conclusion, but the fact that you show the research mostly unbiased, it doesn't matter.
Great video as always
Thank you! It would be awesome to hear your alternate conclusion :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy I think the research is inconclusive most of the time and often it doesn't matter, just train like whatever
There is a thin line between gaining the benefits of super compensation and over training. But from what i experienced and learned from veterans its good to plan deload weeks in workout blocks or even a time off. Our bodies will react better to training stimuli and need a time off once in a while.
These videos are too good.
Thank you my friend!
algorithm,great video anyway,it changed my mind about the 3x per week training,i believe it was true before with little individual differences
curious about the cause of individual differences,i hope it will be discovered soon
Awesome to hear, thank you my friend!
A comment from the perspective of an econometrician...
1- Having non-statistically significant results just means that whatever our hypothesis testing, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, and if this is the mean comparison, then we assume that means across both groups in terms of growth do not statistically significantly differ from each other. That is, the average from all individuals in each groups is not different.
2- When we get into this kind of results in the treatment and comparison groups, we say that treatment does not shifted the outcome different than the control group in average.
3- The outliers, given why these characteristics sometimes report different gains in muscles by certain individuals, is in fact the true question as appointed.
For now, the Average Treatment Effect (different training frequencies) are in average, no different from each in terms of the outcome (muscle growth)
What's your opinion on doing full body everyday? Is it optimal for strength growth?
Superb finding and reporting. Thank you!!!
No problemo, thank you for checking it out :)
Full body 5/5
4x8-35 reps failure
3 min rest
Squats
Romanian deathlifts or leg curls
Pull ups
Dips
Trx side delts
HIT has been a game-changer for *me* 😃
More research studies need to be broken down this way. There's a major trend towards overgeneralizing findings based on the average in almost every study I see. The interesting science is in identifying differences between individuals or groups of individuals and trying to find out why.
Agreed. Fortunately more and more studies are doing this, so more of videos wil include this info :)
The data distributes in a bell curve.
There are individual outlyers on both ends and that's why you should not look at the top's surface and claim this or that method is best
Your video is awesome @House of Hypertrophic. I am learning a lot. I’m just wondering can you do a video on Anabolic Window.
Thank you! and I should have something on that one day
I love hearing about studies like this, because I'm addicted to training and prefer data that validates this practice. Another great vid. Also yeah those Indian bodybuilders are amazing, would love to know what their training was like. I would imagine they were packing in enormous training volumes but I don't know. But the 1920s was probably quite a boring time in some ways so they might have just trained constantly, especially as I doubt there was a concept of overtraining back then.
Also, why is there an image of saturn in your video?
So I found out those images were originally from a book: Muscle Control & Barbell Exercise by Keshub Ch. Sen Gupta and Bishnu Charan Ghosh - I have not read this book but I presume they detail the training. I might have to check it out sometime!
As for saturn, there's no specific reason. I just like to add unrelated graphics throughout the video as I feel it creates a nicer "vibe", haha
@@HouseofHypertrophy I didn't know their training was documented, I shall check it out also!
Yeah I scrolled further through the video and noticed other unrelated imagery. I am very wary of occult/satanic imagery, hence why I asked! But clearly unintended on your part.
Oh, I did not know Saturn had any relation to satanic stuff, I'm going to have to look this up haha.
@@HouseofHypertrophy it's a deep, dark rabbit hole. Enjoy!
@@HouseofHypertrophy also, do you plan to do any videos on the potential benefits and/or pitfalls of training the same muscles twice a day? I've always wondered if there's any utility to it, as I like to train A LOT
what about leg dominance? was that a factor of the research? if you are right handed, your right hand might be stronger than your left....? Just wondering
Just here to say your content is really great. I am a training nerd (and have a MSc in physiology) and your content is great, well backed and well researched.
That's super kind of you dude, thank you!
If you're doing 9 sets to failure once a week, you'll likely end up doing fewer total reps compared to 3 sets x 3, no? Could it be the extra reps might be the reason for more growth?
What work do these trained folk do. Sit at desk, dig all day. Recovery is key. Kcal is key. Age. Still not enough controls. What muscle fibre dominance types? Previous injuries? Do they have families to support or are they single. Medical history. Until controls are strict, plenty and many studies done you just have to see what works best for you. Great video as always.
Thank you, and for sure there are many factors involved!
Notification squad, PRESENT!! 🔔
Haha, thank YOU so much for the support!
Squad 🔔 😂
I made some of my best gains on twice weekly, full-body workouts.
Dude, who *are* you??!!
You have/Your channel has quickly become one of my top 5 favourite fitness-based YT channels, and we'd all love to know more about you!
What do you do? What are your qualifications?
Is the 'voice over' your voice, or a robo-/auto-/computer-voice?
Thank you dude, and I'm keeping myself mysterious 👻
@@HouseofHypertrophy 😄😄👍
Another fantastic review. Thank you :D
Thank you for checking it out :)
This video is by far the most interesting. Finding the right intensity and frequency of training for athletes is a big thing to consider. Perhaps training 2x per week is superior to 1 big session a week due to mental and physiological fatigue? Definitely seems like it for athletes. As for novices the same thing could be applicable.
Potentially so, individual differences likely do exist though, as shown here :)
Nice video great summary information
Thank you ! :)
What mechanisms allow some individuals to grow more training once a week as opposed to 3 times? Recovery and perhaps age.
Those are some canditates for sure!
House of Bashtar, excellent!
Excellent video as always
Could you make a video on how to understand scientific studies?
I have tried to read some studies on fitness but I can never quite understand many terms, graphs and explanations that appear, nor how to interpret them for practical application.
Thank you! and I'll have to think about it. I'm not too sure how many people would be interested in it, and some specific statistical stuff requires a fair bit of math involvement unfortunately.
Yet, if you're interested in learning about the various maths commonly used in studies, this channel is very useful: th-cam.com/channels/FrjdcImgcQVyFbK04MBEhA.html
What we don't know about this study is if the subjects were natural, which is quite important. Science says that on natural advanced lifters, protein synthesis lasts only 24 hours, while on enhanced advanced lifters up to 72 hours. On beginners it can last up to 72 hours, even if they are natural.
Most studies will mention if the subjects were on PEDs, this one didn't, so I'm assuming they were natty
It seems they overlooked an important factor. They didn't account for muscle fiber types such a 1A, 2A, 2X. I would be curious to know the differences.
Actually according to the study, and research of Arthur Jones, and Mike Mentzer of Heavy Duty Training exercising a body part directly once within a week is what is effectively going to gain strength, and muscular mass. In my case I exercise three times a week whereby I work a body part directly anywhere as soon as 6 days within a week; but mostly upon complete recovery it is more up to 7 to 10, sometimes up to 11 days. However, I still get up to exercise 3 times within a span of 7 days.
Maybe a muscle-group can be worked twice within a week is possible, but according to the research done by Arthur Jones who also invented the Nautilus exercise machines, he has discovered that less training frequency is to be practiced as a trainee evolves beyond a rank beginner. Exercise was performed 3 times a week full body, but then it was done twice within a week.
Furthermore, as Mike Mentzer had found on training of his own body, and the results of his clients who exercised using a HIT method, by splitting up the body into three exercise sessions. As a trainee becomes stronger he or she requires more rest between a workout session to fully recover for a muscle-group to be exercised again to an optimal level. Training was at least 2 to three times a week, whereby a body part was worked directly Once within a week! Therefore, muscle-mass increased at a later time, then it was exercised again for a further increase in mass, and strength.🏋
this is truly an amazing study
It's certainly great :)
Great video! On studies in which the participants train each limb differently, do you think the data can be off by the simple fact that each of us can be more dominant with one side of our body vs the other?
When performing unilateral exercises (such as bicep curls or DB rows) I'm typically better with my right vs my left.
Do you think the researchers account for this in the organization of their studies?
So it probably would not impact the average result, as the researchers counterbalanced right and left legs between the two conditions (1x and 3x training). But it certainly could influence the individual data, to what extent though it's difficult to know :(
I was on my motorbike and just got home. Late notif squad 🔔 😂
Haha, awesome. Hope all is well!
If you look at pro natural bodybuilders, they train 1x to 2x frequency and can see that high and low frequency, both works. Some follow push pull legs, but doesn’t fit in the typical 7 day cycle so they train the same muscle every 5 days. Everything works as long as it’s smart programming, high effort and consistent diet
Amazing video! I've been watching your videos for some time and I can't say enough how great they are! Your videos show pure data compared to other youtuber channels that show biased data w/ biased opinion. You do not show any bias towards the data and if you've ever had a bias in the video, you acknowledged it.
I want to ask you a question, we know about the repeated bout effect and how the repeated bout effect can help people train more frequent due to the lack of muscle soreness, but are we suppose to want this repeated bout effect to happen or not? While it is great that we will be able to train our muscles more frequently, do we want the repeated bout effect to happen? I have a hypothesis that switching out your workout plan every 6-8 weeks would be more beneficial than every 12 weeks.
Thank you for the kind words, and your question is an interesting one. The truth is I don't know the answer as there's minimal research in this area. Presumably the RBE can help you handle more volume later on and this may benefit gains, but there are other alternative hypotheses one could put forth to suggest the RBE could not be the most favorable.
For example, some research indicating training breaks *might* help you build more muscle in the long term, and this break would probably reduce the RBE to a degree, but whether this lower RBE is in anyway responsible for the potential benefits of breaks is unknown
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thank you for the reply. It's been something i've been trying to research myself but sadly have found no evidence about it. I hope there is a study about this so I learn more. Thank you for your knowledge and insight for all of this.
@houseofhyperothy what would you hypothesis is the reason some individuals respond best too lower frequencies of training. Do you think they need more recovery or that their rate of protein synthesis is different etc
It would be better to look at frequency differences for various muscle groups. I tend to find that the bigger or stronger the muscle group the more recovery they need. For example, lower seems to do well at 2x while most upper body muscles like 3x.
channel is experiencing hypertrophy, 100k soon
Haha, thank you dude :)
A like and a comment for the algorithm and HoH❤️
Thank YOU so much dude, this is super helpful :)
It's all about the ability to recover from your sessions. On a side note. Would it be easier to sustain a 1x week workout for life or 3x a week ?
I think it depends on the individual :)
Just so I understand correctly, when people say low frequency such as once a week, does that mean you train the legs just once a week doing only one set to failure? If so does that mean you do 1 set of Squats as heavy as you can until you can do no more, 1 set of Lunges, one set of leg curls and so on? If that's the case then heck I would be bed ridden for a few days after that! Please clarify if you can. Thank you
A low frequency like once a week does imply people train each muscle group only once in a week. But this does not necessarily mean you do one set to failure per exercise, it can be whatever you want in that session
@@HouseofHypertrophy Thanks for clarifying fren!
Excuse me, 9 sets till failure might just kill progress. They should've tested usual 3 sets during 1 training per week VS with 3 sets during each training per week.
I truly enjoy your videos but, always question the parameters of the studies. When will we see a real world study involving total body workouts which would be much harder to recover from rather than single muscle group tests? Plus, one person's training intensity greatly varies from another. Recovery time differs from one person to another which brings in many other factors to consider. Keep up the excellent work and your summaries are always well thought-out.
Thank you, and for sure limitations exist :)
It would be useful to have a video on the consistent findings we can get from research, the things that we can be confident there is a better way of doing things.
Could you do a video on how much calorie surplus and protein is really necessary? Would be interesting as from what I research the protein requirements are not that high as some people say and calorie surplus depends on your bodyfat%, but then I see a lot of calisthenics guys packing a lot of lean muscle and strength without having a bulking phase. I think there are a lot of myths here. AWESOME VIDEOS BTW!
I do plan to have more content on nutrition some time! :)
@@HouseofHypertrophy Awesome! What do you use for your animations btw?
Thanks dude, I use VSDC editor (I make the illustrations on adobe illustrator)
The problem from having personal experience is I don't really know anyone who feels 3 times a week is even possible if you are training to near failure. If it goes to failure it just takes more time to recover so you can't even squeeze twice a week. Legs tend to take more time to recover. So again a study that isn't really designed with applicable experience. You could try once a week to once 5 days that would feel more realistic. Enough time to actually recover. Different for upper body that tends to be higher frequency.
It is absoutely possible to train to or near failure three times per week, the folks in this study did that haha :)
For the 1x a week, did they do the 9 sets consecutively? Is that realistic? Most people would do 4 sets of an exercise, and would do 2 similar exercises to get 8ish total sets hitting the target muscle(s). You had done a video showing differences in consecutive sets with a general trend downward after 3-4 I believe.
9 sets all in one session, yep!
So I haven't ever said a downward trend after 3 or 4 sets, rather I speculated in my older sets video ( th-cam.com/video/MW99hv5M1Yg/w-d-xo.html )that 8-12 sets per session could be the limit to the effective sets per muscle, but as noted in that video this is based on limited data :)