BACKGROUND: In resistance training, the role of training frequency to increase maximal strength is often debated. However, the limited data available does not allow for clear training frequency "optimization" recommendations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of training frequency on maximal muscular strength and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). The total weekly training volume was equally distributed between two and four sessions per muscle group. METHODS: Twenty-one experienced resistance-trained male subjects (height: 1.85 ± 0.06 m, body mass: 85.3 ± 12.3 kg, age: 27.6 ± 7.6 years) were tested prior to and after an 8-week training period in one-repetition maximum (1RM) barbell back squat and bench press. Subjects were randomly assigned to a SPLIT group (n = 10), in which there were two training sessions of squats and lower-body exercises and two training sessions of bench press and upper-body exercises, or a FULLBODY group (n = 11), in which four sessions with squats, bench press and supplementary exercises were conducted every session. In each session, the subjects rated their RPE after barbell back squat, bench press, and the full session. RESULTS: Both groups significantly increased 1RM strength in barbell back squat (SPLIT group: +13.25 kg; FULLBODY group: +14.31 kg) and bench press (SPLIT group: +7.75 kg; FULLBODY group: +8.86 kg) but training frequency did not affect this increase for squat (p = 0.640) or bench press (p = 0.431). Both groups showed a significant effect for time on RPE on all three measurements. The analyses showed only an interaction effect between groups on time for the RPE after the squat exercise (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: We conclude that there are no additional benefits of increasing the training frequency from two to four sessions under volume-equated conditions, but it could be favorable to spread the total training volume into several training bouts through the week to avoid potential increases in RPE, especially after the squat exercise.
BACKGROUND: In resistance training, the role of training frequency to increase maximal strength is often debated. However, the limited data available does not allow for clear training frequency "optimization" recommendations. The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of training frequency on maximal muscular strength and rate of perceived exertion (RPE). The total weekly training volume was equally distributed between two and four sessions per muscle group. METHODS: Twenty-one experienced resistance-trained male subjects (height: 1.85 ± 0.06 m, body mass: 85.3 ± 12.3 kg, age: 27.6 ± 7.6 years) were tested prior to and after an 8-week training period in one-repetition maximum (1RM) barbell back squat and bench press. Subjects were randomly assigned to a SPLIT group (n = 10), in which there were two training sessions of squats and lower-body exercises and two training sessions of bench press and upper-body exercises, or a FULLBODY group (n = 11), in which four sessions with squats, bench press and supplementary exercises were conducted every session. In each session, the subjects rated their RPE after barbell back squat, bench press, and the full session. RESULTS: Both groups significantly increased 1RM strength in barbell back squat (SPLIT group: +13.25 kg; FULLBODY group: +14.31 kg) and bench press (SPLIT group: +7.75 kg; FULLBODY group: +8.86 kg) but training frequency did not affect this increase for squat (p = 0.640) or bench press (p = 0.431). Both groups showed a significant effect for time on RPE on all three measurements. The analyses showed only an interaction effect between groups on time for the RPE after the squat exercise (p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: We conclude that there are no additional benefits of increasing the training frequency from two to four sessions under volume-equated conditions, but it could be favorable to spread the total training volume into several training bouts through the week to avoid potential increases in RPE, especially after the squat exercise.
Authors: C Foster; J A Florhaug; J Franklin; L Gottschall; L A Hrovatin; S Parker; P Doleshal; C Dodge Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2001-02 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Brad J Schoenfeld; Nicholas A Ratamess; Mark D Peterson; Bret Contreras; Gul Tiryaki-Sonmez Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2015-07 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Ryan J Colquhoun; Christopher M Gai; Danielle Aguilar; Daniel Bove; Jeffrey Dolan; Andres Vargas; Kaylee Couvillion; Nathaniel D M Jenkins; Bill I Campbell Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2018-05 Impact factor: 3.775
Authors: Paulo Gentil; James Fisher; James Steele; Mario H Campos; Marcelo H Silva; Antonio Paoli; Jurgen Giessing; Martim Bottaro Journal: PeerJ Date: 2018-06-22 Impact factor: 2.984
Authors: Ricardo P Neves; Felipe C Vechin; Emerson L Teixeira; Demostenys D da Silva; Carlos Ugrinowitsch; Hamilton Roschel; André Y Aihara; Valmor Tricoli Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-10-13 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Håvard Hamarsland; Hermann Moen; Ole Johannes Skaar; Preben Wahlstrøm Jorang; Håvard Saeterøy Rødahl; Bent R Rønnestad Journal: Front Physiol Date: 2022-01-05 Impact factor: 4.566