Optimal Training Program Design Volume Frequency Intensity

Bayesianbodybuilding.
com
OPTIMAL TRAINING PROGRAM DESIGN

VOLUME, FREQUENCY AN D INTENSITY
Training intensity
Training intensity in exercise science is defined as the percentage of your one repetition
maximum (% 1RM) with which you’re training, i.e. the relative load. This should be distinguished
from training intensiveness, which is a subjective measure of how effortful the training is.
One of the greatest broscience myths that persists to this date is that there is an optimal
hypertrophy zone of 6 – 12 repetitions (reps) which is best for muscle growth. Why would a
heavier weight be inferior to a lighter weight? You get more tension on the muscle fibers and
more muscle activation. Theoretically, you’d expect that total training volume is the primary
determinant of the magnitude of muscle growth, not reps per set.
More importantly, not a single study has ever found that a given volume of low rep work
results in less muscle growth than that volume in the form of higher rep work.
In fact, all the way back in 2002, Campos et al. clearly demonstrated that a supposedly strength
focused program of 4 sets of 3 – 5 reps results in just as much muscle growth in all muscle
fibers as a supposedly bodybuilding focused program of 3 sets of 9 – 11 reps.
All research to date has consistently confirmed that a given volume of low rep work results in
similar levels of muscle hypertrophy as that volume in the form of higher reps per set while
often providing better strength development to boot [2, 3].
Note the emphasis on volume equation. At very high training intensities (~90% 1RM), you may
be unable to accumulate enough volume for optimal muscle hypertrophy unless you’re doing
many sets. So when your leg training program consists of nothing but 4 sets of squats 3x per
1
Bayesianbodybuilding.com
week, performing only 3-5 reps per set is inferior to training with a lower training intensity with
more reps per set.
The broscience myth of the hypertrophy range, in spite of not having any scientific basis to
begin with, didn’t die for many years, however.
The hypertrophy range myth finally started to crumble after repeated studies, notably the work
of Brad Schoenfeld’s and Stuart Phillips’s labs, showed that even very high reps (30% 1RM) are
just as good as the traditional bodybuilding rep range (80% 1RM) at building muscle in novice
strength trainees and this knowledge reached the bro bodybuilding community.
In history’s usual pendulum like nature of idea formation, the evidence-based fitness industry
then nihilistically swung in the complete opposite direction. ‘Training intensity doesn’t matter at
all for muscle growth, as long as you train (close to) failure. So you don’t need to use heavy
weights to get big.’
However, the whole of the evidence still suggests that the traditional wisdom to use heavy
weights isn’t misguided. There’s a minimum threshold intensity required to reach maximal
muscle activation levels and thus there is likely a minimum intensity for maximal muscle growth.
Even strength trained men going to complete concentric failure in the leg press do not reach
the same mean or peak muscle activation levels with 30% (LL) as with 75% (HL) (see graphs
below).
2
Peak muscle activation
Mean muscle activation
Similarly, untrained men performing leg extensions to failure with 50% and 70% of their 1RM
only barely reach quadriceps muscle activation levels at the end of the set with 50% that they
achieve from the very first rep with 70%.
To give you an idea of how muscle activation levels develop across a set with low and high
intensity exercise to failure, see the graphs below. The first graph shows muscle activation
levels across 3 sets of dumbbell curls to failure with an intensity of 30% and 80%. Even the last
repetitions performed with 30% barely rival the first reps performed with 80% and only during
the first set. (This graph also nicely illustrates how noisy electromyography (EMG) data is, even
when averaged out.)
3
4
A comparison of the mean (±95% confidence interval) EMG amplitude responses during the final
common repetitions for the 80% versus 30% 1 RM groups during (A) set 1; (B) set 2; and (C) set 3.
The number of repetitions analyzed for each set was based on the minimum number of repetitions
achieved by any one subject in each group. Source
The following graph shows the same data for leg extensions (source). Here the final repetitions
with 30% do rival the first with 80%, but both peak and average muscle activation levels are
clearly higher with 80% than with 30% at every time point (84% - 127% difference in EMG
amplitude), consistent with previous research.
5
6
In support of the importance of training intensity for maximal muscle growth, Fry (2004)’s
literature review on the ideal training intensity for muscle growth concluded that “maximal
hypertrophy occurs with loads from 80 - 95% 1 RM” (see graphs below). However, many
studies have been published since then and Fry didn’t control for training proximity to failure,
which is crucial for low intensity training to be effective.
Plus, the majority of studies clearly indicate that training intensity matters for strength
development and explosiveness (rate of force development): heavier weights generally lead to
greater strength development [2, 3, 4].
Even if you don’t care about strength per se, training for strength and explosiveness can
increase your nervous system’s ability to recruit motor units. This results in higher levels of
muscle activity during training. Combined with the higher mechanical muscle tension of using
heavier weights and likely greater adaptations in connective tissue strength, it is plausible that
greater strength will over the course of months or years translate into greater muscle growth.
7
Still, you’d expect to see more evidence for that in experimental studies. What explains the
absence of superior muscle growth in the groups using a higher training intensity in many
studies?
For one, some research does find that heavier weights lead to more muscle growth, but the
difference with the lighter weight group doesn’t reach statistical significance. (See the course topic
on KAATSU training for more research in this area.)
More importantly perhaps, there is another factor that distinguishes the importance of training
intensity.
Context. Specifically the training status of the individual. Most of the research has been done on
untrained or at best intermediate level lifters. Beginners don’t need a high training intensity yet,
because they don’t need to reach very high levels of muscle activation yet to cause muscular
adaptations. Excessively heavy weights only disrupt the development of technique. As you get
more advanced, however, this changes. Advanced trainees can achieve higher levels of muscle
activation during high intensity strength training than lesser trained individuals, to the point off
knocking out motor units.
Rhea’s meta-analyses about the optimal training intensity for strength development show this
quite well: the more advanced you are, the greater the benefits you get from higher training
intensities.
8
In 2015, Magine et al. (2015) confirmed that strength trained individuals develop more strength
ánd more muscle mass when performing 4 sets with 90% compared with 70% over the course
of a 2.5 month study. This study was unique in that the subjects’ diets were tracked, a
preparatory training phase was implemented to avoid confounding effects of the prior training
program, muscle mass was measured via both DXA and ultrasonography at several locations
and the subjects were legitimately intermediate level lifters with a pre-study average 1RM bench
press of 235 lb (107 kg) at 198 lb (90 kg).
How come such high intensities are useful? The usefulness of heavy weights may be as simple as
the need for near maximum muscle activation to achieve near maximum muscle growth in a
muscle.
As you’ve seen, in contrast to popular belief, maximum muscle activation levels are not easily
reached. For example, in strength trained men, muscle activation levels continue to increase
every repetition throughout a 6 RM bench press set [2] (see data below). So lighter weights
may simply not provide a maximal anabolic stimulus in advanced trainees.
9
It’s worth noting though that a different study found that during a 6 RM squat, maximal muscle
activation already seems to be achieved around the 4th repetition. This may be a result of
insufficient statistical power. But it’s likely that the greater technical requirements of the squat
exercise prohibit even advanced trainees from reaching higher muscle activation levels when
training close to failure. The motor cortex may reach a plateau in neural drive when it has to
simultaneously control a difficult movement, akin to the effect of unstable surface training
(discussed in the topic on exercise selection).
The difficulty in achieving near maximal muscle activation levels for advanced trainees is greater
because trained individuals have a higher tolerance to metabolic stress than lesser trained
individuals. Specifically, trained individuals have a greater ability to remove metabolic waste
products like lactate during exercise. This increases their lactate threshold and improves their
10
work capacity in the presence of metabolic stress. Since metabolic stress increases muscle
activation levels (discussed in greater detail during the topic on blood flow restriction exercise),
advanced trainees have a harder time achieving high muscle activation levels with low training
intensities, at least during non-explosive exercise.
Before we get to concrete recommendations of which training intensity to use, we’ll discuss
training volume, since the 2 are highly interrelated as we’ve just discussed.
11
Training volume
Training volume is a measure of the total amount of work done in a training session. The
following definitions are used in the scientific literature.
 Training volume load (sometimes called total work) = sets x reps x weight
 Repetition volume = sets x reps
 Set volume = number of sets
Example: 2 sets of 9 reps of squats with 100 kg have a total training workload of 2 * 9 * 100 =
1800 kg, a repetition volume of 2 * 9 = 18 reps and a set volume of 2.
When scientists speak of ‘training volume’, they are often referring to training volume load.
However, volume load often has little practical meaning. For one, it is confounded by the
person’s strength level. If you perform 4 sets of 7 squats with 200 lbs now, your training load is
5600 lbs. Yet 8 weeks later you may be able to do that workout with 220 lbs. Then your
training load is 10% higher. Yet the stimulation of your muscles is very similar. Add to that all
other factors, biomechanical, morphological and neural, that change someone’s strength even
with the same amount of muscle mass performing the same amount of internal work, and it’s
clear that training load often doesn’t say much about your training program.
Repetition volume is more useful, since by removing the training load from the equation you
remove the confounder of strength. However, as we discussed in the course topic on training
intensity, between roughly 30 and 90% of 1RM, training intensity often doesn’t greatly affect the
amount of muscle growth stimulated by the training, at least not in the short term in non-
advanced trainees.
As such, it is advisable for practitioners to use set volume as the primary measure of training
volume. It is the most practical measure of the amount of neuromuscular fatigue you actually
induce when you are already controlling for the training intensity and the proximity to
repetition failure within the range of 30 - 90% 1RM.
12
It is important to understand though that this is only one method. Other programming
methods can benefit from monitoring training volume in different ways. For example, you will
learn about the myo-reps method, which monitors ‘effective reps’, in the advanced training
techniques topic.
Another thing that is very important to emphasize is that training volume should always be
monitored per muscle group. As you’ve learned in the topic on strength training adaptations,
muscle hypertrophy is primarily a local, intrinsic process.
So now we’ve determined our measure of training volume: number of training sets per
muscle group over time. The next step is: how much is optimal?
The following graphs provide an overview of the literature to answer this question. They are
part of an ongoing meta-analysis on this subject by the Bayesian research team and include all
known English literature that compared different strength training volumes and measured long
term muscle hypertrophy.
13
14
Two trends are apparent in the literature.
Training status
For one, the more advanced you are, the higher your optimal training volume.
Advanced trainees are more resistant to muscle damage and neuromuscular fatigue. Advanced
trainees also show a blunted hormonal-anabolic response to a given training volume. As a
result, a higher training stress is required to stimulate further training adaptations. Low volume
training often works well in beginners, but many studies show that a single set, even if taken to
complete failure, results in very little or even zero further muscle growth in more advanced
individuals.
In untrained individuals, maximum muscle growth seems to be attained for the majority of
15
people by just 9 sets a week. In more advanced trainees, however, it’s clear that the benefits
extend well beyond this range. In the overall literature, there are significant benefits for muscle
growth up to at least 10 sets per week per muscle group.
More is not always better
Secondly, there are diminishing returns to training volume [2, 3]. Every additional set you do
results in an increasingly smaller additional benefit for your progress. This principle is illustrated
in the 2 graphs below.
16
Contrary to popular belief, these data also show that the optimal training volume for strength
development and muscle growth is very similar. After the lectures on strength training
adaptations, this should not come as a surprise to you anymore. Strength and size are strongly
correlated, at least within natural trainees.
Not only are there diminishing returns to your training volume, at some point additional
volume becomes detrimental. You will exceed your body’s capacity to recover from the
training stress and your body becomes incapable of adapting before your next training session:
you overtrain. As such, there is an optimum training volume compared to which, doing less or
more both result in less results [2]. The U-shaped optimum curve to training volume is
17
illustrated below. (Overtraining will be discussed in more detail in the topic below on training
frequency and the course topic on periodization.)
A particularly nice study on the optimal training volume comes from Amirthalingam et al.
(2016). They compared German Volume Training (GVT), a popular bodybuilding split routine,
against a lower volume variant with 5 instead of 10 sets for the primary exercises. Here are the
training protocols. The subjecs trained 3x per week.
18
And here’s an overview of the results.
Note how the higher volume group gained less arm and trunk muscle, yet for the lower body
there were no significant differences between groups. There was a trend (p < 0.1) for less
muscle growth in the anterior thigh muscle thickness (the quadriceps) in the GVT group
though. These findings make sense, because the training volume for the arms, quadriceps and
shoulders was extremely high in the 10-set group, since these body parts were semi-
unintentionally trained twice per week, a common oversight in split routines that try to target
each muscle group only once per week. A similarly common bias in bro bodybuilding routines is
that ‘the legs’ are treated as a single muscle group and most exercises for this body part actually
preferentially target the quadriceps, neglecting the posterior chain (hamstrings, calves and
gluteus muscles). Due to the compound exercises targeting the arms, quadriceps and shoulders
as well, the total weekly training for the triceps, biceps and quadriceps was over 20 sets and for
the anterior deltoids the training volume was over 30 sets. Since the subjects were mostly
novices, these kind of training volumes are highly excessive.
19
Note: we’ll get to how you determine which exercise stimulates which muscle group to what degree in
the course topic on exercise selection.
With all the above in mind, we can now get to concrete recommendations on how to set your
training volume and intensity. We will first deal with these variables at a more abstract level
before we zoom in on how this looks in terms of individual workouts, just like we did with the
macronutrients for nutritional program design.
lecture
The optimal training volume and intensity
20
Training frequency
In 2012 Wernbom et al. published their famous review paper “The influence of frequency,
intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in
humans”. Guess what the training frequency was of the study that elicited the highest rate of
muscle growth in the entire exercise science literature. 12 Training sessions a week. It was
actually a study of KAATSU, which we’ll go into later, but this study serves to illustrate that
when implemented properly, high frequency training can be extremely effective.
Yet most coaches recommend training each body part ~2 times per week. Why? Because they
ignore the effect of training status. In untrained individuals, there is plenty of research showing
just 1 day a week can suffice to maximize training adaptations. Based on what you’ve seen in the
lectures, however, this is not true for more advanced lifters.
Let’s look at the relevant studies in people who actually lift.
McLester et al. (2000) studied barely intermediate level trainees performing a very low volume
of training performed in either one or split over 3 full-body training sessions per week. Lower
body strength increased by 23.5% and 37.4% in favor of the 3-day group. Upper body strength
increased by 20.2% and 32.4% in favor of the 3-day group. Total lean body mass increased by
1% and 8% in favor of the 3-day group.
The only between-group comparison that actually reached statistical significance was the leg
press (22% vs. 46%), but the trend throughout all time-points and for all measurements – even
diastolic blood pressure – is pretty damn clear. The researchers called it a ‘definite trend’.
Statistical power was almost certainly too low to reach statistical significance, because:
 There was no diet control.

 The volume was extremely low: 3 sets per week.
 Calipers were used to estimate body composition.
 There was large variance in the samples in gender and training experience.
21
So a better controlled study would most likely have found these effects to be statistically
significant in favor of the higher training frequency.
The same methodological problems were faced by Heke (2010). This study compared 2 groups
training 3 times per week on either a full-body or a bro body part split program with the same
total training volume. Although there were no statistically significant differences between the
whole-body and the brosplit group, look at the actual results and tell me which group you’d
rather be in. If the study had been extended beyond just 4 weeks or they had trained with a
remotely optimal volume, it’s likely these differences would have become significant.
And indeed, a very similar study from Schoenfeld et al. (2015) found significantly superior
muscle growth for the 3x per week full-body training group compared to the bro-split hitting
each body part only once a week with the same total weekly volume. Progress in strength was
also greater for the full-body group by 56% in the bench press and 7% for the squat, but this
once again did not reach statistical significance, likely for the same reasons mentioned above.
22
Another similar study by Thomas & Burns (2016) found no advantage of training each muscle
group 3 times compared to once per week, but many of the participants were novice level
lifters: there was no minimum training experience beyond not being completely untrained. With
19 participants, including both genders, and no a priori statistical power testing for the study, on
top of no statistically significant increases in lean body mass for either group throughout the
study, this 8 week study cannot tell us much about the benefits of high frequency training in
advanced trainees and is mostly another data point showing that novices do not yet need to
train body parts more than once a week.
Schoenfeld et al. (2014) is worth mentioning too, although this study manipulated several
training variables at once by comparing traditional powerlifting training with a thrice a week
training frequency per body part to traditional bodybuilding training with a once a week training
frequency per body part. The group training more frequently gained significantly more strength
in this study but not more size. Due to a problem with data collection for the quads, muscle
growth here was measured only in the biceps. Since the study didn’t train the biceps very
effectively, using only pull-downs and rows, it’s hard to conclude much from the lack of a
significant size difference. It’s also worth noting that the higher frequency group was 6.1 kg
heavier and had 1.2 years more training experience at the start of the study, even though this
difference was not statistically significant and strength was similar between groups.
Häkkinen & Kallinen (1994) studied female athletes repeating a 3 week training cycle with the
same volume split into 2 sessions per day instead of 1. During the first cycle the athletes didn’t
gain any strength or size, but during the second cycle, even though the volume was the same as
before, they gained a statistically significant 5% strength and 4% size as measured by ultrasound.
This corresponded with a trend for increased neuromuscular activation (IEMG) in the twice a
day phase.
Kilen et al. (2015) went to extremes and compared 3 vs. 9 sessions per week of mixed strength
and endurance training in somewhat strength trained military personnel. Their results are
shown below. Although again none of the between-group differences reached statistical
significance, the 9 session group lost fat and gained muscle while the 3 session group gained fat
23
and lost muscle. Both triceps and quad strength changes were more positive in the 9x group
and several other endurance measures trended in favor of the 9x group as well. Like much of
the other research, this study suffered from several causes of poor statistical power: a very low
training volume, the strength-endurance interference effect, a short study duration and a small
sample size.
Best of all, we have the Norwegian Frequency Project. Norway’s top strength coach Børge
Fagerli discussed the details of that study in this article (heading: “The Frequency Project”), so
go and read that before continuing.
For those interested in more advanced statistics, Menno also went into detail on the
Norwegian Frequency Project’s results and Lyle McDonald’s critique of this study in this blog
post.
24
A very important point about all of the above studies is that volume was equated between
groups. In practice this is never the case. In fact, one of the main benefits of higher frequency
training is that you’ll automatically use a higher training volume. If you normally do leg
extensions after squats, you are already fatigued and you’ll be able to do less work than if you
did the leg extensions in a separate session. So in practice a higher training frequency per body
part automatically results in a higher weekly training volume. Thus, equating volume in a study
in essence creates a bias against higher training frequencies by removing one of the main
benefits of training more often.
Interim conclusion
In trained individuals, there is a trend towards greater muscle growth or strength development
of the higher training frequency group in most studies, amongst other benefits like muscle
activation, fat loss and health.
The superior results of the higher frequency groups often don’t reach statistical significance, but
this is to be expected because of serious methodological limitations that result in low statistical
power.
Moreover, all studies controlled for training volume, which means that the key benefit of a
higher training frequency – being able to perform more work because your muscles are less
fatigued – is not accounted for in the research.
At this point you may wonder…
What about recovery?
Jones et al. (2006) studied the time-course of full strength recovery after a full-body training
session of 3 sets to failure for each body part in reasonably advanced male trainees (see table
below).
25
Height 171 cm / 5’7”

Weight 76 kg / 168 lb
Body fat 7%
Weight-training experience 6 years
Bench press 10 RM 84 kg / 185 lb
Cambered barbell curl 10 RM 33 kg / 73 lb
75% of these guys recovered within 48 hours. Now consider the following.
 48 Hours was the first time point they looked at, so most of them must have recovered
before this time.
 Diet wasn’t controlled and the participants were in college. Sleep duration was assessed
by a questionnaire and varied from -9 to +6 hours between trials. So it’s safe to say
recovery conditions weren’t optimal.
 Before the experiment, the participants had to abstain from training for an unlisted
period of time. After detraining you are more prone to muscle damage.
 All sets were taken to complete failure. 3 Sets to failure per body part would be quite
stressful for daily training, especially under these recovery circumstances.
 The experimental training largely consisted of machine exercises, which these guys were
probably not accustomed to.
The repeated bout effect

This last point – that the study only looked at recovery from a novel exercise stress – is a
major limitation of many studies. Studying the time course of recovery after a novel training
stimulus does not tell you much about if you can tolerate a training program in the long run
because of the repeated bout effect.
Repeated what? The repeated bout effect is the phenomenon that trainees develop far less
muscle damage when they repeat a workout (‘exercise bout’) compared to the first time they
performed that workout, even if the weights they can lift are now higher. Training causes your
26
connective tissue and your muscle fibers to adapt and become stronger. Basically, what doesn’t
kill a muscle makes it stronger. Moreover, muscles also seem to become stronger as weaker
fibers die off (‘fiber necrosis’, possibly followed by complete regeneration) and only the
strongest cells survive over time.
In spite of studying novel exercise stresses, most studies conclude that recovery after very high
volume or high intensity training, sometimes using absurd protocols with many sets with
intensities over 90% taken to failure, takes less than 72 hours for almost everyone.
A pleasant exception to these kind of artificial protocols comes from Raastad & Hallén (2000).
They studied the recovery time course of a hard but realistic workout in competitive
powerlifters and strength athletes. The workout consisted of 3 maximal sets of 3 for both the
squat and the front squat with a 6 minute rest interval followed by 3 maximal sets of 6 in the
leg extension with a 4 minute rest interval. Recovery was assessed using jump height, leg
extension torque and electrical stimulation.
The conclusion: “All performance measures showed the same pattern of recovery after the
100% protocol. There was a drop in performance of 12 ± 22% post-exercise. Recovery was
biphasic, with rapid recovery occurring during the first 11 h, followed by a leveling off or a
second drop in performance until the next morning, 22 h after exercise. All variables returned
to baseline levels 33 h after exercise.”
So that’s full recovery within 33 hours after 9 all-out, high intensity sets.
Now, the question remains if your muscles only become more resistant to damage or if they
also actually recover faster. If muscles only become more resistant to damage without a change
in recovery capacity, then more developed muscles may only need to be trained with a higher
training volume without any need for an increased training frequency.
27
The answer is that more developed muscles are not only more resistant to damage, they also
recover faster. There are 2 primary mechanisms by which strength trained muscles have a
greater regenerative potential.
1. Larger muscles have more satellite cells and show greater satellite cell and other
myogenic cell activity. (If you don’t know why satellite cells increase recovery potential,
revisit the course topic on adaptations to strength training and how muscle grows.)
2. Strength training results in angiogenesis, the formation of new blood vessels. These new
blood vessels increase blood flow to your muscles, allowing faster delivery of nutrients
and removal of waste products. The result is an increased ability of your skeletal
muscles to remodel themselves after being damaged during exercise, i.e. the muscles
recover faster.
The effect of training frequency on recovery capacity

The discussed research findings so far may come as a surprise to people that have been
nocebo’ed to hell by the overtraining fairy and told to believe that training frequency should be
limited for the sake of your recovery.
In fact, there are several mechanisms by which training more often increases your body’s ability
to recover.
1. Exercise quality
Spreading a given training volume over more days increases the quality of that work, because
you’ll spend less of your training time in an already fatigued state.
Just after your warm-up, your nervous system is still fresh and metabolic waste has yet to
accumulate in your blood. Your body is in a perfect state to adapt to anything you throw at it.
As rigorous training commences, lactate production causes acidosis in your blood as a
byproduct of not having enough oxygen to fuel energy demands.
28
The breakdown of muscle protein floods your blood with ammonia to levels actually exceeding
those of liver disease patients, actually causing some degree of brain toxicity and various
neurological disturbances. Muscle fibers and their connective tissue tear and become inflamed
from the tension of contracting against maximal resistance.
This fatigued state is not conducive to your exercise technique and recovery capacity.
2. Sleep quality
Strength training significantly improves sleep quality. The more often you train, the better your
sleep quality over time. Even high intensity training close before bedtime generally doesn’t
adversely affect sleep quality, though many people think and subjectively report that it does.
3. Active recovery
A higher training frequency is effectively a form of active recovery. More training equals more
blood flow and a greater rate of tissue turn-over.
And the improved recovery capacity isn’t just theoretical. Several studies have investigated the
effect of training frequency on recovery capacity.
Hartman et al. (2007) studied nationally competitive male weightlifters training once or twice
daily and they measured a ton of interesting stuff. Unfortunately, since these guys were elite,
there were only 10 subjects and the study only lasted 3 weeks, neither group significantly
improved their body composition or performance. So we can’t say much about this study.
However, the twice daily group did exhibit a greater change in isometric knee extension
strength (+5.1% vs. 3.2%), neuromuscular activation (EMG +20.3% vs. 9.1%), testosterone
(10.5% vs. 6.4%), and testosterone:cortisol ratio (-10.5% vs. 1.3%). These findings siggest that
training more frequently increases recovery capacity.
29
Heke (2010), discussed previously, also found that training each body part 3x per week
compared to once a week increased resting testosterone concentrations and improved the
post-exercise testosterone:cortisol ratio.
Raastad et al. (2003) studied intermediate male trainees training either 4x per week with a
typical upper-lower split (5 exercises, 3-4 maximal sets each per session) or every day. A major
strength of this study is that all participants had to perform a standardized strength training
program for a month before the experiment started. After this period they were squatting 110
kg (242 lb) and front squatting 85 kg (187 lb) for 6 reps each at a bodyweight of 82 kg (181 lb).
The daily training group then significantly increased their lower body training volume and
started training their quads with 3 maximal sets of 2 exercises, i.e. 6 heavy sets every day. This
resulted in a significantly greater strength gain in the leg press of 12% in the daily training group
compared to 5% in the upper-lower split group. Squats increased by 19% vs. 4% in favor of the
daily training group.
Let’s make sure that got through. Daily, heavy, high volume training was well over twice
as effective as the typical upper-lower splits you see everywhere online.
Moreover, the researchers studied the recovery capacity of the participants before and after
the training program. The test workout consisted of 3 sets of 6 for squats, front squats and leg
extensions with their 6RM and a long rest interval to allow for complete recovery between sets
(8 min. for the squats; 3 min. for the leg extensions). So that’s 9 sets for the quads with heavy
loads taken one rep to failure.
A host of recovery measurements indicated the daily training significantly improved resistance
to fatigue to the point that leg extension strength recovered within 22 hours after the test
session. To quote the researchers, “In conclusion, 2 weeks of heavy training reduced acute
neuromuscular fatigue after a test workout. As a result, recovery was complete 22 h after the
workout performed after the heavy training period but not after the workout performed
30
before the heavy training period. This faster recovery may explain why daily bouts of leg
extensor strength exercise were well tolerated by most subjects.”
Hoffman et al. (1990) studied the effect of a 3-6x per week strength training frequency. The
study wasn’t very well controlled unfortunately, but it’s still worth looking at because the
sample was an NCAA Divison football team. Many of these guys were strong enough to be
competitive powerlifters.
They used a body part split training program on top of training the bench and squat 2-3x per
week: 3x for the 3 & 5 day groups and 2x for the 5 & 6 day groups. Volume was roughly
equated between groups except for a lower volume for the 4x per week group for some
reason. The training frequency was the total training frequency instead of that per body part,
diet wasn’t controlled and the players performed 2 football sessions a week on top of their
strength training. Last but certainly not least, the researchers allowed the players to self-select
their training frequency.
In spite of this high variability in the study design, a few interesting observations can be made.
 There was a very clear trend that the bigger and stronger the player, the higher the
training frequency that he selected. Assuming these guys knew what they were doing,
this supports the theory that the stronger you are – whether it’s due to genetics or
training experience – the more you’ll benefit from a higher training frequency.
 The full-body 3x per week group was the least advanced, yet they still made the least
progress overall. This supports the finding that training 3x per week just isn’t going to
cut it anymore for maximal progress when you’re reasonably advanced.
 The 5 day group made the best strength and size progress. Overall the trend was 5 > 4
> 3. You’d expect the 6 day group to do better, but remember these were already the
strongest guys and they were only training the bench and squat twice compared to 3x in
the 5 day group. Alternatively, 6 days of strength training may have been too much,
considering they were in a serious energy deficit and they were doing 2 intensive
football sessions on top of the strength training.
31
Here are the most relevant details of the training programs and the results. You probably don’t
want to read too much into them, but some people will probably want to see the numbers
anyway.
32
Interim conclusion
Overtraining is extremely overrated as a result of poor interpretations of the literature and the
simple reluctance of people wanting to work hard. Higher frequency training improves your
recovery capacity by making you more resistant against fatigue, by virtue of the repeated bout
effect, by improving your sleep quality and by improving the quality of your work because you
spend less time training in a fatigued state.
lecture
The optimal training frequency
How do volume and intensity affect the anabolic window?
Not much research has directly assessed how training volume (sets x reps x weight) and
intensity (% 1 RM) affect the anabolic window.
33
The research from Phillips et al. generally uses the same relative intensity to test post-exercise
protein synthesis before and after training, so that means total volume in terms of tonnage is
higher in the more advanced trainees in proportion to how much stronger they are. However,
that leaves the question of whether you can significantly increase the duration of the anabolic
window by performing more sets or by using heavier weights.
Kumar et al. (2012) is one of the few studies that directly studied the effects of training volume
and intensity on the muscle anabolic window. Their results are illustrated below. Muscle
protein synthesis was measured as FSR (fractional synthetic rate). As you can see, peak muscle
protein synthesis tends to be higher at a higher training intensity and at a higher volume.
However, even in the small 4 hour study window, neither volume or intensity seems to actually
prolong the duration in protein synthesis. There’s a higher peak, but it returns back to baseline
just as fast.
34
Burd et al. (2010) researched the effect of training volume – 1 vs. 3 sets of leg extensions – on
the anabolic window of recreationally trained men. Their results are illustrated below. Tripling
the training volume significantly increased protein synthesis at 5 and 29 hours post-workout: it
basically shifted the whole anabolic window MPS-time curve upward by around a third. If we
extrapolate these results linearly over time, this could postpone the anabolic window from
about a day to about two days. Given that the long tail of the anabolic window has a
considerably lower elevation of the protein synthesis ceiling than in the first hours and that any
further increase in training volume will likely result in diminishing returns of the anabolic
window length, just like its effect on subsequent muscle growth, it’s unlikely that slightly
different training volumes in advanced trainees will considerably impact the duration of the
anabolic window.
35
Additionally, if we could perfectly compensate for a reduced training frequency by performing

more volume in fewer training sessions, we would not expect such steep diminishing returns to
training volume within a training session like that in the GVT study or Krieger’s meta-analyses.
As for training intensity, we also know that a higher training intensity during aerobic exercise
increase myofibrillar protein synthesis. There is not much data on strength training, but since
training intensity has little direction short term relation to muscle growth, it is unlikely that
there is much of an acute effect on protein synthesis in most practical scenarios.
Looking across studies both training intensity and set training volume can extend the anabolic
window. So you can generally think of the optimal training frequency as a range, depending on
the volume per session, rather than one hard number. However, thei effects of volume and
training intensity on the anabolic window duration are surprisingly moderate, probably not large
enough to fully compensate for the reduction in anabolic window length as you get more
advanced.
Summary on training frequency
36
Research from protein metabolism, recovery after strength training and studies that compared
strength and muscle gains between groups with different training frequencies all converge on
the same conclusion: the more advanced you are, the higher the optimal training frequency per
muscle group.
As you get more advanced, your anabolic window shortens, there is less protein breakdown
during training and you become more resistant to muscle damage and neuromuscular fatigue.
This means you can tolerate more total and more frequent exercise. Increasing your training
frequency is an ideal way to achieve both at the same time, while simultaneously improving your
recovery capacity to recover from the higher training stress.
37

Optimal Training Program Design Volume Frequency Intensity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Optimal Training Program Design Volume Frequency Intensity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bayesianbodybuilding.

OPTIMAL TRAINING PROGRAM DESIGN

Peak muscle activation

Mean muscle activation

Two trends are apparent in the literature.

More is not always better

And here’s an overview of the results.

Let’s look at the relevant studies in people who actually lift.

 There was no diet control.

At this point you may wonder…

What about recovery?

Height 171 cm / 5’7”

The repeated bout effect

The effect of training frequency on recovery capacity

How do volume and intensity affect the anabolic window?

Additionally, if we could perfectly compensate for a reduced training frequency by performing

Summary on training frequency

You might also like