- Joined
- Sep 1, 2022
- Messages
- 30
- Reaction score
- 20
- Points
- 3
Hey UGBB Friends,
Seems like many intelligent folks in the evidence-based fitness realm agree that (population average) hypertrophy gains are likely similar between training programs, so long as weekly training volume (number of hard sets) is equal between the two programs, and a sufficient relative intensity is being met per-set.
I have experimented over the past couple of years and have found that for me, spreading the training volume for a particular muscle group over a high number of sessions (i.e. training pressing movements 4 - 5 times per week at a fairly low volume per session), while beneficial in terms of producing gains in absolute strength, does not seem to work as well as increasing cross sectional area as performing 6 - 10ish hard sets per session, but only training the muscle once every 3 or 3.5 days.
On the far other side of the spectrum, training a particular muscle group once per week for 12 - 20 hard sets seems to be suboptimal for both strength and hypertrophy development when compared with either of the other two paradigms I just discussed.
I program for and train my wife, and have found that she tends to respond the best overall to a high frequency approach. We've iterated into a routine for her wherein she trains each muscle group on average 4 times per week, and is making generally better progress across the board vs when we experimented with lower frequencies.
Now, I acknowledge frequency isn't the only variable at play when designing a training program. But for this experiment for both my wife and myself, we've kept most other variables constant: weekly set volume (12 - 32 sets per week, depending on muscle group and where we are at in a mesocycle), absolute intensity (set using 4 - 20 rm load with most time spent in the 8 - 15 rm range), relative intensity (0 - 3 rir, depending again on movement and where we're at in our accumulation phase), movement patters are unique - we mainly make use of ones that fit our anthropometry and that we enjoy doing.
Research may say that all else equal, different methods of dividing up training volume over the week won't lead to dramatically different results. My N=1 experience diverges from the empirical evidence somewhat.
Wanted to throw this out there and see what others thoughts were on how they conceptualize and organize training volume over the course of a mesocycle, what adaptations different frequencies seem to generate, and overall what others have found to be successful for them as a genetically unique individual.
Seems like many intelligent folks in the evidence-based fitness realm agree that (population average) hypertrophy gains are likely similar between training programs, so long as weekly training volume (number of hard sets) is equal between the two programs, and a sufficient relative intensity is being met per-set.
I have experimented over the past couple of years and have found that for me, spreading the training volume for a particular muscle group over a high number of sessions (i.e. training pressing movements 4 - 5 times per week at a fairly low volume per session), while beneficial in terms of producing gains in absolute strength, does not seem to work as well as increasing cross sectional area as performing 6 - 10ish hard sets per session, but only training the muscle once every 3 or 3.5 days.
On the far other side of the spectrum, training a particular muscle group once per week for 12 - 20 hard sets seems to be suboptimal for both strength and hypertrophy development when compared with either of the other two paradigms I just discussed.
I program for and train my wife, and have found that she tends to respond the best overall to a high frequency approach. We've iterated into a routine for her wherein she trains each muscle group on average 4 times per week, and is making generally better progress across the board vs when we experimented with lower frequencies.
Now, I acknowledge frequency isn't the only variable at play when designing a training program. But for this experiment for both my wife and myself, we've kept most other variables constant: weekly set volume (12 - 32 sets per week, depending on muscle group and where we are at in a mesocycle), absolute intensity (set using 4 - 20 rm load with most time spent in the 8 - 15 rm range), relative intensity (0 - 3 rir, depending again on movement and where we're at in our accumulation phase), movement patters are unique - we mainly make use of ones that fit our anthropometry and that we enjoy doing.
Research may say that all else equal, different methods of dividing up training volume over the week won't lead to dramatically different results. My N=1 experience diverges from the empirical evidence somewhat.
Wanted to throw this out there and see what others thoughts were on how they conceptualize and organize training volume over the course of a mesocycle, what adaptations different frequencies seem to generate, and overall what others have found to be successful for them as a genetically unique individual.
