Scoring v0.1 - AI v0.1

How Often Should You Train a Muscle? - This NEW Study Is Epic

By House of Hypertrophy

Our Score

11 / 100
0 / 100

Main point

The frequency of training a muscle in a week does not seem to have a significant impact on muscle hypertrophy when the total number of weekly sets are equated.

Tl;Dw:

  • Training a muscle more often in a week does not make it bigger faster
  • What matters most is doing enough sets and getting close to failure
  • Everyone's body is different, so you might need to try different training frequencies to see what works best for you
  • Getting enough rest and recovery is important for muscle growth
  • You can train a muscle once, twice, or three times a week and still get similar results

Summary

A new meta-analysis of 35 studies with over 1,000 subjects examined the effects of training frequency on muscle growth, finding no constant or large effect of frequency when the total number of weekly sets are equated. The study suggests that training a muscle more often in a week does not seem to matter much for muscle hypertrophy, and the choice of frequency should be based on individual preferences, schedule, and recovery capabilities. The researchers also found that indirect sets are less effective than direct sets for stimulating a muscle, but still provide some degree of stimulus. Additionally, the study highlights the importance of considering individual differences in recovery abilities and training needs. Helpful pieces of knowledge for readers include the idea that getting to or close to failure and performing a sufficient number of sets are more reliably related to muscle growth, and that training frequency may be highly individualized, with some people benefiting from training a muscle more often while others may not.

Evidence from Author

The main Assertions by importance (2)

  • The total number of weekly sets is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a training program.

    ( 1 ) 1/100
    ( 1 ) 1/100

    Explained:The assertion is made in the context of discussing the importance of considering the total number of weekly sets when evaluating training frequency. The text explains that the total number of weekly sets is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a training program, and that training frequency is not the only factor to consider. The assertion is relevant because it highlights the importance of considering the total number of weekly sets when evaluating training frequency.

    Context:The context of this assertion is the discussion of training frequency and its impact on muscle hypertrophy. The text provides an overview of different training splits, such as bro splits, lower splits, and full body, and explains how the total number of weekly sets is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a training program.

    At: 1:08:

    "It's critical to know the researchers examine the impact of training a muscle a different number of times per week when the total number of sets performed for that muscle per week is equated"

    Evidence (2)
    1 / 100
    From Author
    Why true:The study found that highly trained individuals can recover from 4 hard sets per muscle group in 24 hours, which supports the assertion that the total number of weekly sets is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a training program.
    How it is true:The study conducted an experiment to examine the recovery time of highly trained individuals after performing 4 hard sets per muscle group, and found that they can recover in 24 hours.
    ELI5
    • The study examined the recovery time of highly trained individuals after performing 4 hard sets per muscle group.
    • The study found that highly trained individuals can recover from 4 hard sets per muscle group in 24 hours, which means that the total number of weekly sets is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a training program.
    • This finding is important because it highlights the importance of considering the total number of weekly sets when evaluating training frequency.
    Can Highly Trained Individuals Recover From 4 Hard Sets Per Muscle Group in 24 Hours?
    Study Type:Other Study
    DOI:N/a
    b477b853-832e-4f85-9605-faf9b644447f
    Expert Opinion/Editorial
    Other
    NONE
    Publication 01/01/1970
    1 / 100
    AI Research
    Why assertion is false:The meta-analysis found that increasing training frequency did not lead to significantly greater muscle hypertrophy when total weekly sets were equal, thereby suggesting that total sets might be more critical than frequency in determining training efficacy.
    How the study proves this is false:The study includes a meta-analysis of multiple high-quality studies, indicating it is a thorough examination of the research rather than an opinion.
    ELI5
    • The study looked at many previous studies to see how training frequency affected muscle growth.
    • They found that changing how often people train a muscle (e.g., 2 times vs. 3 times a week) didn't really change how much muscle they built if the total number of sets was the same.
    • This suggests that the total number of sets is more important than how often you train, meaning the original claim about training frequency being critical is not supported.
    DOI Not Found
    Study Type:Other Study
    DOI:10.3390/nu12082617
    70d500a3-6955-412a-b0aa-db3c7c1e8efb
    Expert Opinion/Editorial
    Other
    Unknown
    Publication 01/01/1970
    PRO
    PRO

  • Training a muscle more frequently does not necessarily lead to better muscle hypertrophy.

    ( 1 ) 20/100

    Explained:The assertion is made in the context of discussing the optimal frequency for training a muscle in a week. The text explains that while some may believe training a muscle more frequently allows for more frequent elevations in muscle protein synthesis and more time spent in a muscle-building state, the scientific literature does not strongly support this claim. The assertion is relevant because it challenges a common belief in the fitness community and highlights the importance of considering the total number of weekly sets when evaluating training frequency.

    Context:The context of this assertion is the discussion of training frequency and its impact on muscle hypertrophy. The text provides an overview of different training splits, such as bro splits, lower splits, and full body, and explains how the total number of weekly sets is a critical factor in determining the effectiveness of a training program.

    At: 9:28:

    "Thus, when the total number of weekly sets are equated, how often you choose to train a muscle in a week doesn't seem to matter all that much."

    Evidence (1)
    20 / 100
    From Author
    Why true:The meta-analysis found that the relationship between training frequency and muscle hypertrophy is not significant, which supports the assertion.
    How it is true:The meta-analysis conducted a comprehensive review of existing studies and found that the evidence does not support a significant relationship between training frequency and muscle hypertrophy.
    ELI5
    • The study combined the results of many previous studies to examine the relationship between training frequency and muscle hypertrophy.
    • The analysis found that the relationship between training frequency and muscle hypertrophy is not significant, which means that training a muscle more frequently does not necessarily lead to better muscle hypertrophy.
    • This finding is important because it challenges a common belief in the fitness community and highlights the importance of considering the total number of weekly sets when evaluating training frequency.
    The Resistance Training Dose-Response: Meta-Regressions Exploring the Eÿtects of Weekly Volume and Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy and Strength Gain
    Study Type:Human Study
    DOI:N/a
    7ba89ecb-636a-46d9-8949-2cfeed72c1ba
    Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Human
    n=2058
    p≤0.05
    Unknown Journal
    Publication
    PRO
    PRO
(2)