Bill pointed me to this really good piece by Paul Ingraham:
Less is Not Less
Go to the gym much less frequently and still gain strength just as quickly
It is interesting in the light of what Doug McGuff wrote last week: The Adaptive Time-Course
Less is Not Less
Go to the gym much less frequently and still gain strength just as quickly
This article thoroughly summarizes scientific research on the question of strength training frequency, and it is a rare example of consensus in exercise science. There is no controversy here: 20+ years of evidence is overwhelmingly clear that most people train more often than they need to.Read the rest of the article here.
It is interesting in the light of what Doug McGuff wrote last week: The Adaptive Time-Course
This experience has got me thinking that we really have everything about the HIT approach well worked out, except our understanding of the time course of the adaptive process. Ed Garbe discussed his observations that clients always perform better when they come back from vacation and have been off for 14 days. His guess was that for hard-training clients every 9-10 days might be optimal. John Little’s BodPod data shows a range of 10-12 days as an average. In many ways I think that anabolic steroid use may increase the rate of DNA transcription and turnover to compress this time course to accommodate the higher training frequencies of the athletes that are prone to use performance-enhancing agents. It may be that a relatively small portion of their effect is related to supranormal adaptations. Stated differently, perhaps this kind of response could be experienced by natural trainees if we were just patient enough to wait.
Comments
http://www.zeitschrift-sportmedizin.de/Inhalt/images/Heft208/888_Frohlich_080206_BB_rma_BB_A_rma_rmaindd.pdf
I think the take-home point for me is that adequate strength training progress is still possible with less-than-recommended training frequency. That opens up a sky of possibilities.
Thanks for posting this, Chris.
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CCAQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.zeitschrift-sportmedizin.de%2FInhalt%2Fimages%2FHeft0607%2F178-183.pdf&ei=3f2hTL2-CMLHswaJrc2KBQ&usg=AFQjCNFMch2c37REftEr3sc6yaX--RT3wg&sig2=SfK3Ijc-2Xj5w2vsO-vG_Q
Three times per week achieved the best hypertrophy and strength results but not far ahead of two times per week. For beginners training once a week hypertrophy gains were lower (but not significant) than training two/three times week. The advanced group did not show any hypertrophy gains training once a week.
The study was done on biceps training and lasted 8 weeks. Maybe things start to change when you train bigger muscle groups.
They somehow manage to train twice a day, 6 or 7 times a week without running into over training.
I think the general idea is that this works as long as the lifts aren't so heavy as to be mentally exhaustive.
"Two meta-analytical investigations, consisting of 177 studies and 1,803 effect sizes (ES) were examined to extract the dose-response continuums for intensity, frequency, volume of training, and the resultant strength increases... For untrained individuals, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 60% of 1 repetition maximum (1RM), 3 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 4 sets per muscle group. Recreationally trained nonathletes exhibit maximal strength gains with a mean training intensity of 80% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and a mean volume of 4 sets. For athlete populations, maximal strength gains are elicited at a mean training intensity of 85% of 1RM, 2 days per week, and with a mean training volume of 8 sets per muscle group."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16287373
Thanks for pointing that paper out, Anonymous. Very interesting. However, it does not contradict the consensus I’ve reported. Quite the contrary, it is consistent with the consensus that there is a diminishing returns problem. It states only that that 3 days per week produces maximal strength gains in untrained individuals. Fine. I do not dispute that this may be so. But “maximal” is not the same as “proportionately superior to lower frequencies.”
And the evidence is unanimously clear that 3/week is not proportionately superior to lower frequencies. For the vast majority of people, the time and energy saved by working out less is “the story” here. I have yet to see any evidence that isn’t consistent with that story. That’s the consensus. Show me evidence that 3/week is at least proportionately superior to 2/week or 1/week and that would wreck the consensus!
But the consensus thing is only an interesting angle. With or without consensus, there would be interesting science to discuss!
Look at the study I posted. Regarding hypertrophy you see diminishing returns when you compare 3 times a week with 2 times a week, but not when you compare 2 times a week with once a week.
The advanced group (more than 1 year training experience):
Muscle hypertrophy
1 p.w.: +2,5%
2 p.w.: +4,6%
3 p.w.: +5,3%
1 RM
1 p.w.: +2,7%
2 p.w.: +7,3%
3 p.w.: +12,8%
http://saveyourself.ca/articles/strength-training-frequency.php
1/ Only represents an ability to maintain strength for 12 weeks on one day per week. This is not the same as what you say in the header to your article: “Go to the gym much less frequently and still gain strength”.
2/ Does support your new position of proportionality but does not support your original assertion in the article: “The evidence that lower training frequency is more effective seems to be quite substantial”. Less is still less, there was roughly a 10% increase in strength between three workouts per week vs. one per week. It is also possible that insufficient volume further diminished the difference between one day per week and three. See my post where four sets was the mean for maximal gains.
3/ Same as for number one above. Good for maintaining strength not gaining strength.
4/ Same as for number two above. It does support proportionality but, again, two days resulted in roughly a 10% increase in strength over one which is not equivalent to one being “more effective”. Interestingly there was a slight decline in strength for three days per week, possibly due to overtraining given the ages 65 – 79, and the volume and intensity – three sets of eight exercises done at 80% 1RM.
5/ You conceded that less was less here but still managed to misrepresent the study. It specifically represents equal volume regardless of one day or three so your comment about “reclaiming the time spent on two workouts per week” would be factually incorrect.
6/ The information on this study makes it hard to draw conclusions. They used 1RM scores to determine outcome but there is no reference as to what % of 1RM was used for the actual exercise protocol. Apples and oranges?!? Also single sets for nine weeks is not strong data.
7/ This one looks better than number six above, apples to apples, but still is measuring only single sets for eight weeks. Plus it doesn’t quantify the results only stating that they were “statistically similar” which is too vague to hang your hat on.
8/ This study is equal volume like number five above which negates your premise of less time.
9/ Makes no specific claims about frequency.
There are additional issues concerning small sample sizes and potentially better strength gains for untrained people which suggests that one day a week will leave something to be desired beyond a brief initial training period.
All in all I think you overstate your case in the article.
You make some good points and managed to find a couple trivial inconsistencies in a long article — good work and thanks for the editing. But I can easily debate half your criticisms of the studies, while the other half are minor flaws. And your conclusion that I have “overstated” my case strikes me as being quite non-dire. In a world overflowing with egregious hype and hyperbole and barely ever a mention of actual evidence, I think my article is sober and diligent.
As to your disinclination to debate an anonymous critic I will simply point out that people tend to unquestioningly accept information if they think it comes from a credible source. I choose to post anonymously because I want to promote discovery on the part of interested individuals so they can make their own informed decisions. I make a living in the fitness world. I work with elite athletes and also specialize in rehab (if you're curious about my background) but I don't seek to adorn my comments with a name or reputation for the reason stated above. I am not looking for recognition, prefer my privacy, and am only interested in the quality of the discourse and keeping people honest. The discussion should be focused in the facts and not names and reputations.
As for the anonymity thing, rest assured I wasn’t offended or outraged. My reluctance to engage much was just a primate thing: I just like to know who I’m talking to. But point well taken that there’s a lot to be said for debating the evidence and not a personality.
Has nutrition been adequately addressed in these studies? Is it possible that the nutrition variable could explain the proportionately seen in the German study?
It would be interesting to live in a world where there was enough respect for science, and a high enough value placed upon it, that we actually could get questions like this answered!
Thanks to this article...
Check out Denver Chiropractor for our healthy tips and wellness.