If you are interested in training and how to maximize your muscle mass<\/a>, then I recommend you read on.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The answer to this question is simpler than it seems. Training frequency is no more than\u00a0the number of times you train each muscle group per week<\/strong><\/a>.<\/strong> To make it easier to explain and understand, we are going to use the one-week period as a metric for this variable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But we could also establish another period that suits us better like 10 days, 14 days, a full mesocycle of one month for example, etc. Therefore, when I refer to the training frequency in this article, we will talk about a period of one week, to make it easier and more educational for us.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At this point is where I reveal the mystery that interests you so much: What is the best possible training frequency? And I will answer this question with this one:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do you equal or not the training volume? But, why am I answering this? Because today the most accurate thing we can say about the Training frequency is that it becomes a secondary variable equal to Training volume. Let’s put an example to understand it even better:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Imagine we have two bodybuilders, Michael and John. We are going to add the same weekly training volume to both of them:<\/p>\n\n\n\n 8 series (for example) with the difference that Michael will do them in two days (one day he will do 4 series and the other day another 4) and John will do them in 4 days (2 series each day).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Who trains better then? Michael or John? The answer is that it depends on the training volume that each can tolerate. It is the maximum recoverable training volume.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We will talk about this in future sections so that you can understand it much better. For now, keep in mind that regardless of the training volume, the frequency is not so important. But you will see how as we raise these variables.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In a review study by Dankel et<\/em> al. 2017 was established as the most interesting conclusion that in training we have what he calls as an \u201canabolic limit\u201d per session. Below which is the optimal number of effective series (those that will stimulate muscle protein <\/a>synthesis). Above that limit is what he calls the “wasted series” because they are not effective for hypertrophy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Well, precisely this “anabolism limit” is the maximum recoverable training volume that we have talked about previously. The maximum number of effective series from which our body is able to recover in order to perform optimally in the next training session.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Source: Dankel et al. 2017. Figure taken from Research Gate <\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n This is very much related to the concept of hormesis. That is, a stimulus (in this case training) which applied in a certain amount is positive for us (to gain muscle mass in this case). But that when it exceeds a certain limit it becomes a negative stimulus. (Continuing with the training analogy, is more muscle damage, more stiffness and less performance in future sessions).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Do you understand now why in the previous example Michael and John could end up doing the same number of series per week? However, we could not know who was training better because of the way to divide them. It is because we did not know the maximum recoverable training volume (MVR) and the Minimum effective volume of each? (both per week and per training session).<\/p>\n\n\n\n That is because we cannot know if 2 sets of pectorals per training session. For example, under real conditions, 2 sets for a muscle group ARE too little volume. This is enough to stimulate John’s muscle mass. Or if 4 series per session is too much volume for Michael.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In the first case, John would not reach the (minimum effective volume) and Michael would exceed the maximum recoverable volume. Neither of them is training well and what science has told us so far is that they would both improve in a similar way. It is because they have the same training volume. Personally, I have some things to clarify regarding this. I clarify it in the following sections. Continue reading! <\/p>\n\n\n\n The review study by Dankel et al. dates from 2017. This study suggested that there is a volume limit per session. Until then, the systematic review with meta-analysis existing up to now was (of course) by Schoenfeld et al. 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As we know, a review study has much less scientific evidence than a systematic review of the literature with meta-analysis. So when in doubt, we will always have to pay more attention to studies with greater methodological rigor and scientific evidence. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As long as the training volume is equalized, the frequency becomes a secondary variable. In addition to pointing out that higher frequencies like 2 or 3 seem to be higher than lower frequencies like frequency 1.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Larger muscle groups trained at least twice a week to maximize hypertrophy. Due to a lack of data, it is unclear whether training muscle groups more than 3 times per week could improve the hypertrophy response.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The limited body of evidence does not support the greater benefits of manipulating the frequency per training session when the training volume of the groups is equal. The frequency varies throughout the periodization of the training cycle.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Given the potential for over-training that exists, it is advisable to vary the frequency of training throughout the prioritization of the training cycle. In other words, it depends on the mesocycle in which we find ourselves. It may be more convenient for us to do a frequency 1, 2, or 3. This is important in order to give different stimuli to the muscle. Also, it is good to reduce the probability of injury due to excessive overload.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A limitation of this study is that only 7 studies were included in the meta-analysis. There was a lot of heterogeneity between subjects from the different studies. This means that the established conclusions cannot be applied to everyone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, in beginning subjects, we know that using higher frequencies than those proposed in the Schoenfeld study is beneficial for the reasons. There is a new systematic review with a more updated meta-analysis by Schoenfeld et al. 2018. It is a statistical analysis of all the scientific literature published from 2016 to 2018. <\/p>\n\n\n\nWhat is the frequency of training?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What is the best frequency of training? <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
EXAMPLE<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
What factors determine the frequency of training?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bestfitnesslifee.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/frequency-of-training.png\")
<\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/www.bestfitnesslifee.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/04\/frequency-of-training-1.jpg\")
What is the importance of volume to establish frequency of training?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Training frequencies 2 to 3 times weekly seemed to be higher than frequencies 1<\/h4>\n\n\n\n
Training volume prevails over frequency of training <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
What if we have a very high training volume?<\/h2>\n\n\n\n