Hey all! I hope the video was interesting! FREE Ultimate Guide to Bench Pressing for Strength & Hypertrophy: www.houseofhypertrophy.com/free-e-book/ Read more for timestamps + the details of the other group in the study 0:00 Intro 0:31 Part I: New Data on 1X vs 3X per Week Training 3:53 Part II: You MATTER 4:50 Part III: What About the Cross-Education Effect? 6:48 Part IV: The Rest of the Hypertrophy Training Frequency Research 8:56 Part V: The Rest of the Strength Training Frequency Research 9:43 Part VI: Summary Okay, here are the details of the other group in the new study: Subjects also had one leg assigned to train once a week and their other leg assigned to train three times per week. With the leg assigned to train once a week, subjects performed 9 sets of the max reps they could on the unilateral leg press all in one session per week. The targeted rep numbers for each set differed depending on what week it was, but subjects adjusted the load each set when necessary to make sure they hit that week's rep number target. With the other leg assigned to train three times a week, they still performed 9 total weekly sets on the unilateral leg press, by performing 3 sets in each session. But the subjects aimed to match the tonnage performed by the once-a-week leg. As an example, let's say the once a week leg performed 90 reps across 9 sets with an average 100kg load per repetition. This equals a tonnage of 9,000kg. So for the three times per week leg to attain this tonnage, they would have trained with a 100kg load on all three sets across the three days and peformed 10 reps per set. Doing this actually meant not all of this leg's sets would have been to failure. How precisely far from failure and how many sets this applied to is impossible to know, as the researchers frustratingly didn't measure or mention this. Nevertheless, it was ultimately found both strength (measured by unilateral leg press one-rep max) and muscle growth (measured by quadriceps cross-sectional area at around the 50% region) were not statistically different between the one and three times per week leg. The other statistics (effect sizes and confidence intervals) also point towards there being similar strength and muscle gains between both legs on average. The individual data generally showed minminal differences between both legs too, but there were outliers as you'd expect (some seeing more gains with the once per week leg, others seeing more gains with the three times per week leg). These results imply that training further from failure with a higher frequency may be able to produce equivalent hypertrophy and strength to training closer to failure each set with a lower frequency *on average*. But again, given the researchers failed to specify the precise proximity to failure of the three times per week leg, it's difficult to formulate this into explicit recommendations.

The frequency you can stick with for the long term is obviously the best, everyone has scheduling needs, preferences etc...that will make one routine preferably to others. That said I find training each muscle group once ever 3-4 days with moderate volume and undulating intensity to be the best personally.

Thank you for combining science and the love of working out into a channel. Your videos are very well done, I always come away more informed then I was before I clicked on the video. Much love 💪🏾

I do Fullbody workouts for 6 months now, training each body part 6x a week. And ill tell you all this frequency build me noticeable gains!!. I even took a picture of every single day of that 6 months. And if you want i will send the picture. I am 13 years on and off training. And this is the best routine i got so far. I tried the others but this is for me. Fullbody forever.

Great video as always! In terms of information, editing, presenting statistics in an easy way. Excellent.

I like this man’s videos before I even fully finish them. When House Of Hypertrophy uploads, you already know it’s about to be a quality video

I am currently doing two full body workouts per week (A/B) and seem to have better results than three times a week. I'm certain that the extra recovery time is key.

I like higher frequency (2-3 times a week), because it allows you to hit your muscle with higher quality sets without any junk volume For example: Instead of 15 sets on Chest Day, you spread it across 3 days with 5 sets for that muscle

Awesome review as usual. Frequency is an individual response based on my own experimentation over the years. I perform as well or better with reduced frequency, say every 5 days. I am happy to see your channel is approaching 100K. Good job, my friend!

Personally speaking, I train each body part twice a week. Push day, pull day, rest day, push day, pull day. Two rest days. This works very well for me. I'm 55 and been training off and on since I was 12 and I've tried every method under the sun. My training is much more scientific now due to this channel and others. Less sets, more rest between sets. But always intense. Reps vary between low and high. If its too easy and I can get to 15 or more, I put the weight up. If I'm aiming for 8 or 10 but feeling strong, I'll carry on to failure.

I'm an educated statistician and I'm elated with the quality of this video compared to what we get on other topics. Gymbros stay winning.

I was the biggest in my life when I worked out each body part once a week. I've tried all kinds of frequency and the higher frequency just left me more tired and sore. I may be one the odd ones who responds to once a week better. I would like to see a similar study with 1 vs 2 times per week as that is what I feel most people have time for.

Man I'm kind of excited by the new findings that will be made in the near future, it seems like we are finally understanding the anatomy of muscles and muscle growth, and like you said maybe one day we might even know what the individual differences are and to me that's amazing. When it comes to this type of content of scientific research about muscle your channel is the best on this platform.

Volume helps me tremendously. I swing around the same 60-pound car-part 500+ times a day at a car plant. It's lightweight but the repetitiveness of lifting it makes you feel strong as hell. Especially doing that 6 days a week for 10 hours. And that's not even including my strength training routine outside of my 60 hour work weeks. I do lots and lots of physical activity and the more I do the bigger I get. The less volume and more weight seems to make me feel stronger though. But I personally see more growth off of volume then I do with intensity.

I'm pretty sure one of the big individual differences is, how hard somebody can push himself and thus how much recovery they need and maybe also how long the MPS stimulus is active.

Could poor recovery (lack of sleep, non-optimal diet, age?) explain why some of the participants experienced better results training 1 x per week 🤔

Consistency, enjoyment (tied to consistency), and avoidance of injury should be major considerations. Also remember that 1 set of anything is much greater than 0 sets. In other words, do what you can, when you can. Don't be married to any form/style/frequency at the cost of missing a week of training. There is no destination, just the journey.

Day 1: Chest Day 2: Chest Day 3: Chest Day 4: Chest Day 5: Chest Day 6: Chest Day 7: Rest (chest)

Nine weekly sets seem very few for trained individuals, and trying to increase the number of weekly sets may be a significant setback for frequency 1x per week. A future study with more weekly sets may have a more pronounced effect. I'm interested in knowing what causes the differences between individuals.

Thanks for updating on older topics.

Gigachad channel dude. The knowledge is helping a lot of people

Kudos for including the info about statistical significance. In terms of hypertrophy, we are dealing with tiny amounts per session in optimal conditions. A tiny percentage difference might not be within the certainty of the study (usually p value of 5% or less), but, like hypertrophy in general, a small amount over time makes a big difference.

Your Chanel, website and ebooks are the best things since sliced bread. I have found my self reading your guide in your voice lol

Exercise tolerance is an important factor that is commonly neglected in these studies. With a frequency of three times per week, my exercise tolerance improves, and I no longer experience soreness. However, if I only train each muscle once per week, then I experience a lot of fatigue and soreness after my workouts.

Probably the greatest channel discussing and breaking down real science studies on sports, can't praise the work enough!

3:10 to me it makes sense that some legs on the 3x group saw loss in size and strength, simply because it was stated that the 3x leg had to hold back in reps to make load volume (sets x load x reps) equal across both legs, so those who lost gains in the 3x leg might have not been pushing close enough to failure to stimulate meaningful growth.

Love this. Everyone has to Train, sleep, and nourish themselves and see what works best.

Found your channel about a month ago and I've been binge watching. Excellent coverage on research, awesome takeaways, and super solid editing

God, how much I love this channel

i love your videos! i love training once a week, been doing it for a month and a half and it has done wonders for me, and saves a lot of time

love working out to these videos, really gives me a stronger mind muscle connection while i get a pump

Within subject design doesn’t necessarily eliminate confounding variables such as nutrition, sleep, and other lifestyle factors. If these variables have any effect on recovery rates and training adaptations, then they might effect an individual’s response to 1x vs 3x/week training frequency. It is possible that if you optimize these variables for the subject that didn’t respond well to higher frequency, they might then show a better response to higher frequency.

Notification squad, PRESENT!! 🔔

This is how a lot of old school lifters trained, 3 sets per lift 3 times a week, seemed to work very well for them.

Every 5 days is what works for me. Effort day and a volume day. It isn't for everyone cause of the lack of rigid schedule. But I feel everyone could loosen up a bit when it comes to training. I don't force myself into a box anymore.

To me it always made the most sense to do the least amount possible to elicit a change. This allows your body adaptation to the training stimulus. If your frequency/volume is way too high, all your body does is focus on recovery and you stall with no progress. Sometimes the protocol that's optimal is way less than what you feel you can do. I've seen consistent progress with doing upper and lower every other day with only 8-10 sets per workout. I take full 2-3 min rest periods between sets and I'm out of the gym in 30 min. My only goal is to keep using progressive overload gradually over time.

since muscle and strength growth is impacted the most by progressive overload principles, i think the answer to the gigantic spread between the results is simply about what were the individuals used to within a month before starting these experiments... i'd say that the less advanced the individual is - meaning the less workload and frequency is the subject used to, the more likely he/she is to seize maximal potential gains with lower frequencies and maybe even overtrain with higher ones while the more advanced group will naturally benefit from more workload and frequency to reach their maximal potential growth rate

really loved the way the information was presented, it made the video really enjoyable and easy to understand 👍

I was on my motorbike and just got home. Late notif squad 🔔 😂

A couple of questions that came to mind while watching things: (1) was the 1RM the same for both legs? And (2) were there any counter-balancing measures in place with regards to whether people were left or right side dominant? Both questions come from personal experience due to my right leg being slightly stronger than my left leg, which may be as a result of me being right-side dominant (I appreciate this is more applicable when it comes to arms, but could be an interesting to see). Again, another excellent video and thanks for taking the time to make it and sharing!

I think a lot of these studies fail to control for training history, even lifetime athletic experience. You might expect a lifetime 12-15 rep guy to get increased mass and strength gains if switching to a 5X5 program for 6 weeks or so (and vice versa). Studies are great to give us clues, but there are so many things to control for (like calorie intake and macronutrient ratios, sleep, etc) that might mess up the results. I love these videos, though. Such great analysis!

Extraordinary as always Sir! Thank you very much. ❤

So, you inadvertently made me want to get back to strength training. Inadvertently because you seem to encourage high frequency training, but you showed that once a week isn't so bad. I think I might be in the group that performs better with once a week training, because I get so sore after failure I need a whole week to recover. The problem is all the iron pumping bros got me to believe that it's worthless to train once a week, that I had to push through my pain etc... I wasn't willing to train sore, so every attempt at lifting ended in me giving up after a month or two.

Congrats on 100k!!!

Great video as always!

These videos are too good.

I saw this pop a few hours ago and I was pumped to watch! Didn't disappoint of course 😎😎😎

Overall the difference is still rather small and seing that a number of people actually had better gains with 1x/week training I think, that's still a feasable way of training, if that's what you like to do. You certainly will make gains.

Great video as always. I am in the 1x per week side. I was doing 3x per week with medium weight and reps to failure, but after a while i noticed my joints weren't strong enough to keep up this pace. I dropped to 2x per week, and lowered the weight but it was still too much for my joints. Later i gave myself a big, nice rest and started again with 1x per week. Not feeling any joint pain right now. Also, while reading a book (The Brain That Changes Itself by Norman Doidge) i saw an interesting part in it. It briefly mentioned a study (Guang Yue & Kelly Cole, 1996) about imagining doing exercise versus actually doing it. The book says those who actually exercised their thumb muscle have increased muscle strenght by %30, while those who imagined doing it have increased it by %22. I did not check the study myself, and i don't know if there are more research about this but i wanted to share it.

Great breakdown. The first study is interesting in that the 3× per week leg had three sets over three days. Which is still less volume than most people I enjoyed three full body work outs a week for years and felt good/got strong Swapping to higher intensity, a 3 day split with one balls-to-the-wall set per exercise, has been great for hypertrophy. I do back/shoulder,legs/abs/rehb,chest/arms/conditioning

Currently training full body 6x/week (A*3/B*2/C*1), A = horizontal push/pull focus, B = vertical push/pull focus, C = Deadlift and arm focus. Best split I've ever done. When daily/weekly volume and average intensity are skillfully modulated, relative to a more orthodox split you get higher quality hard-set volume with faster day-to-day recovery. I honestly recommend full body splits over any other for their flexibility: it's no big deal if you miss a day, just systematically add sets to the rest of the week's days or just use it as an additional rest day (unlike with a PPL split where missing even one day throws you off the rest of the week); it's super easy to modulate weekly volume, just start your meso with lower frequency weeks and work your way up; you can auto-regulate volume/frequency relative to fatigue MUCH more simply since the split is more tolerant of skipping days/exercises here and there as needed.

Your information came at a good time for me. I am older so I find it harder to recover from frequent trainings. Using the information from your video, I will likely reduce the frequency of my trainings so that I get a chance to recover. Thanks!

It makes sense to me that stimulating muscle growth more frequently through lifting would result in more gains, for most people. Also doing all that volume on one day is just so hard. Quality of reps probably goes down, less fibres might fire because of exhaustion on the day of

Nice information🔥 And thanks for taking example of Indian bodybuilders 👍

I find it funny when people argue over what's best (low volume vs high volume, low frequency vs high frequency, etc.) because they forget that we are all unique. While we are all human beings we do not respond to every stimulus the same way. In my opinion, that's part of what makes training interesting and personal - discovering what works best for you.

HIT has been a game-changer for *me* 😃

Im happy your channel is still doing great. Btw your editing has improved a lot

Full body 5/5 4x8-35 reps failure 3 min rest Squats Romanian deathlifts or leg curls Pull ups Dips Trx side delts

algorithm,great video anyway,it changed my mind about the 3x per week training,i believe it was true before with little individual differences

It's really good that the study shows that there are always going to be outliers in every group. As it shows people need to not rely on studies solely for 'what works best' as with bodybuilding being very individual it comes down to (or should do) trial and error in finding what works best FOR YOU. Ive lifted since the early 90s and over the years (decades) have found I make most of my gains whilst targeting each muscle group only once per week hard with as much volume and intensity as can get away with and allowing that muscle 7 days to recover (as in not hitting it directly) Yet people will always cite studies stating frequency is the most optimal, as if somehow ive got it all wrong and were simply not working out properly lol. I've always suspected it can also come down to fast vs slow twitch muscle fibres in any individuals given muscle group? as interestingly my chest DOES actually respond better to more frequency in terms of strength and growth yet my other muscle groups respond better with less frequency and more recovery

What work do these trained folk do. Sit at desk, dig all day. Recovery is key. Kcal is key. Age. Still not enough controls. What muscle fibre dominance types? Previous injuries? Do they have families to support or are they single. Medical history. Until controls are strict, plenty and many studies done you just have to see what works best for you. Great video as always.

So basically supercompensation happens after the body receives stimuli and gets enough rest and time to fully recover. So the magic happens during the rest periods. The mitochondrial biogenesis and the ability to produce more atp is the result of consistly putting the body under stress to adjust for example. At some point habitation kicks in and the body responds less, so adding volume wont be effective. Its good to consider changing the routine or take a deload or rest periode. Maybe this explanation is more clear.

A like and a comment for the algorithm and HoH❤️

channel is experiencing hypertrophy, 100k soon

Thank you for the info. Your videos are always thorough and well done. It’s a shame these studies never seem to highlight age of participants. I’m interested in the correlation between the results of gain based on frequency, recovery, percentage of 1 rep max etc - with age also taken into account. I suspect the longer rest periods would benefit older individuals - I wish this detail was teased out of the data.

What we don't know about this study is if the subjects were natural, which is quite important. Science says that on natural advanced lifters, protein synthesis lasts only 24 hours, while on enhanced advanced lifters up to 72 hours. On beginners it can last up to 72 hours, even if they are natural.

Nice video great summary information

I love this guys voice man it makes me all tingly inside 🥰

More research studies need to be broken down this way. There's a major trend towards overgeneralizing findings based on the average in almost every study I see. The interesting science is in identifying differences between individuals or groups of individuals and trying to find out why.

A comment from the perspective of an econometrician... 1- Having non-statistically significant results just means that whatever our hypothesis testing, we cannot reject the null hypothesis, and if this is the mean comparison, then we assume that means across both groups in terms of growth do not statistically significantly differ from each other. That is, the average from all individuals in each groups is not different. 2- When we get into this kind of results in the treatment and comparison groups, we say that treatment does not shifted the outcome different than the control group in average. 3- The outliers, given why these characteristics sometimes report different gains in muscles by certain individuals, is in fact the true question as appointed. For now, the Average Treatment Effect (different training frequencies) are in average, no different from each in terms of the outcome (muscle growth)

I love hearing about studies like this, because I'm addicted to training and prefer data that validates this practice. Another great vid. Also yeah those Indian bodybuilders are amazing, would love to know what their training was like. I would imagine they were packing in enormous training volumes but I don't know. But the 1920s was probably quite a boring time in some ways so they might have just trained constantly, especially as I doubt there was a concept of overtraining back then. Also, why is there an image of saturn in your video?

There is a thin line between gaining the benefits of super compensation and over training. But from what i experienced and learned from veterans its good to plan deload weeks in workout blocks or even a time off. Our bodies will react better to training stimuli and need a time off once in a while.

This video is by far the most interesting. Finding the right intensity and frequency of training for athletes is a big thing to consider. Perhaps training 2x per week is superior to 1 big session a week due to mental and physiological fatigue? Definitely seems like it for athletes. As for novices the same thing could be applicable.

House of Bashtar, excellent!

Actually according to the study, and research of Arthur Jones, and Mike Mentzer of Heavy Duty Training exercising a body part directly once within a week is what is effectively going to gain strength, and muscular mass. In my case I exercise three times a week whereby I work a body part directly anywhere as soon as 6 days within a week; but mostly upon complete recovery it is more up to 7 to 10, sometimes up to 11 days. However, I still get up to exercise 3 times within a span of 7 days. Maybe a muscle-group can be worked twice within a week is possible, but according to the research done by Arthur Jones who also invented the Nautilus exercise machines, he has discovered that less training frequency is to be practiced as a trainee evolves beyond a rank beginner. Exercise was performed 3 times a week full body, but then it was done twice within a week. Furthermore, as Mike Mentzer had found on training of his own body, and the results of his clients who exercised using a HIT method, by splitting up the body into three exercise sessions. As a trainee becomes stronger he or she requires more rest between a workout session to fully recover for a muscle-group to be exercised again to an optimal level. Training was at least 2 to three times a week, whereby a body part was worked directly Once within a week! Therefore, muscle-mass increased at a later time, then it was exercised again for a further increase in mass, and strength.🏋

I don't always agree with your conclusion, but the fact that you show the research mostly unbiased, it doesn't matter. Great video as always

Superb finding and reporting. Thank you!!!

I wish this study would of also included working out 0 days per week compared to those who worked each muscle 1 and 3 times per week. I want to compare my gains to the other groups.

Another fantastic review. Thank you :D

I haven't watched the video as yet, but I highly recommend people do a Push, Pull, Leg programme over a 5 repetive cycle. That is: Push, Pull, Leg, Wednesday/Rest, Push, Pull, Sunday/Rest Leg, Push, Pull, Wednesday/Rest, Leg, Push, Sunday/Rest Pull, Push, Wednesday/Rest, Leg, Pull, Sunday/Rest etc, etc, etc. This way, each of Push, Pull and Leg days gets 1.66 times per week, you can go hard and get good rest with overcompensation, allowing for you to increase your weights in shorter time and gain more muscle. (note: you can change the days, either have 3 days on, 1 day off, 2 days on, 1 day off, you can adjust and have you off days on wed/sun, or shift it as you wish/need.) Liiiiiiift.

If you look at pro natural bodybuilders, they train 1x to 2x frequency and can see that high and low frequency, both works. Some follow push pull legs, but doesn’t fit in the typical 7 day cycle so they train the same muscle every 5 days. Everything works as long as it’s smart programming, high effort and consistent diet

Excellent video as always Could you make a video on how to understand scientific studies? I have tried to read some studies on fitness but I can never quite understand many terms, graphs and explanations that appear, nor how to interpret them for practical application.

I made some of my best gains on twice weekly, full-body workouts.

Just here to say your content is really great. I am a training nerd (and have a MSc in physiology) and your content is great, well backed and well researched.

this is truly an amazing study

This guy is like a professor hot damn!

Very interesting, a month ago I started lifting again to help with grappling arts and just twice a week made an increment of a kilo in muscle mass and I already feel stronger. Of course my nutritionist said muscle memory has something to do as I used to lift years ago but doing one day of deadlift, rows and another day of squats and presses seems to work so far. I cannot do the typical recommendation of 3 days so I´d love to see as you said at the end, other frequencies comparisons. Thank you for sharing.

It would be useful to have a video on the consistent findings we can get from research, the things that we can be confident there is a better way of doing things.

Amazing video

Great video, subscribed

Great video! On studies in which the participants train each limb differently, do you think the data can be off by the simple fact that each of us can be more dominant with one side of our body vs the other? When performing unilateral exercises (such as bicep curls or DB rows) I'm typically better with my right vs my left. Do you think the researchers account for this in the organization of their studies?

Your video is awesome @House of Hypertrophic. I am learning a lot. I’m just wondering can you do a video on Anabolic Window.

Could you do a video on how much calorie surplus and protein is really necessary? Would be interesting as from what I research the protein requirements are not that high as some people say and calorie surplus depends on your bodyfat%, but then I see a lot of calisthenics guys packing a lot of lean muscle and strength without having a bulking phase. I think there are a lot of myths here. AWESOME VIDEOS BTW!

It would be better to look at frequency differences for various muscle groups. I tend to find that the bigger or stronger the muscle group the more recovery they need. For example, lower seems to do well at 2x while most upper body muscles like 3x.

Helpoin on treenata kerran viikossa lihasryhmä. Mutta jos treenaa samaa lihasryhmää useampia kertoja, joutuu säätelemään enemmän kuormaa ja toistojen kokonaismäärää että palautuu. On helpompi treenata kerran vikkossa kovaa ja odottaa että on palautunut kunnolla. Itse kuuun tuohon kerran viikossa systeemin kannattajiin. Toki toisen treenin voi ottaa samalle lihasryhmälle viikossa jos se on vaikka nopeusvoimaa 50% 8x3. Semmosista nyt palautuu kyllä.

Would be great to know if the left and the right leg had the same diet.

I love your animations. 😀

The problem from having personal experience is I don't really know anyone who feels 3 times a week is even possible if you are training to near failure. If it goes to failure it just takes more time to recover so you can't even squeeze twice a week. Legs tend to take more time to recover. So again a study that isn't really designed with applicable experience. You could try once a week to once 5 days that would feel more realistic. Enough time to actually recover. Different for upper body that tends to be higher frequency.

To me, it comes down to an individual's recovery ability. Some recover faster than others.

Excuse me, 9 sets till failure might just kill progress. They should've tested usual 3 sets during 1 training per week VS with 3 sets during each training per week.