Influence of High- and Low-Frequency Resistance Training on Lean Body Mass and Muscle Strength Gains in Untrained Men

Abstract

Franco, CMC, Carneiro, MAS, de Sousa, JFR, Gomes, GK, and Orsatti, FL. Influence of high- and low-frequency resistance training on lean body mass and muscle strength gains in untrained men. J Strength Cond Res 35(8): 2089–2094, 2021—The aim of this study was to investigate whether high-frequency resistance training (HFRT) performs better in lean body mass (LBM) and muscle strength gains when compared with low-frequency resistance training (LFRT). Eighteen untrained males (height: 1.76 ± 0.05 m, body mass: 78.3 ± 13.5 kg, and age: 22.1 ± 2.2 years) were randomly allocated into HFRT (n = 9) and LFRT (n = 9). Muscle strength {1 repetition maximum (RM) (bench press [BP] and unilateral leg extension [LE])} and LBM (DXA) were assessed at before and after 8 weeks of training. Both groups performed 7 whole-body resistance exercises, standardized to 10 sets per week, 8–12 maximal repetitions, and 90–120 seconds of rest in a 5-day resistance training routine. The LFRT performed a split-body routine, training each specific muscle group once a week. The HFRT performed a total-body routine, training all muscle groups every session and progressed from a training frequency of once per week to a training frequency of 5 times per week. Lean body mass increased without differences between groups (HFRT = 1.0 kg vs. LFRT = 1.5 kg; p = 0.377). Similarly, 1RM increased without differences between groups (right LE, HFRT = 21.2 kg vs. LFRT = 19.7 kg, p = 0.782; BP, HFRT = 7.1 kg vs. LFRT = 4.5 kg, p = 0.293). These findings suggest that in young untrained men, progressing from a training frequency of once per week to a training frequency of 5 times per week with equated volume produces similar gains in LBM and muscle strength as a constant training frequency of once per week, over an 8-week training period.

Efficacy of Split Versus Full-Body Resistance Training on Strength and Muscle Growth: A Systematic Review With Meta-Analysis

“…However, controversial results are obtained in studies comparing the effect of split vs. full-body routines on muscle growth and strength gains. For example, similar gains in muscle mass and strength performance have been reported after split and full-body routines between untrained (10,13,25) and trained (12,22) people. By contrast, other studies reported that full-body routines may be more effective at improving cross-sectional area than split routines (34,39) .…”

“…In addition, in the leave-one-out meta-analysis test, no study was found that significantly altered the direction or statistical value of the effect on the variables of 1RM bench press, 1RM lower-limb, and elbow flexors cross-sectional area (see Table 2, Supplemental Digital Content, http://links.lww.com/JSCR/A477). However, in the vastus lateralis cross-sectional area, the study by Schoenfeld et al (34) modified the direction of the effect without significant changes ( p = 0.972), and in the lean body mass, the study by Franco et al (10) also modified the direction of the effect without significant changes ( p = 0.972).…”

“…It should be noted that all articles included in this metaanalysis, which looked at muscle hypertrophy, observed improvements in muscle hypertrophy in both groups. This could be attributed to the correct manipulation of training variables to enhance hypertrophy, including intensities near failure (2) and even to failure (5,7,10,12,22,25,33,35,39) and training frequencies ( 14) ranging from 2 (5,10,25) to 5 days (10,12,39), although significant increases in muscle mass have also been reported at low intensities (30).…”

“…This systematic review only considered controlled interventions that investigated the comparative effects of split vs full-body routines within a strength training program. Split-routine resistance training consists of dividing all the exercises in a program into 2 or more groups and doing each group of exercise on separate days of the week (10). To be included, studies had to meet the following criteria: be published in English, involved subjects aged ≥18 and <40 years, compared split vs. full-body routines, and assess strength (one repetition maximum) or muscle mass (lean body mass, fat-free mass, or cross-sectional area) as outcomes.…”

Does Varying Resistance Exercises for the Same Muscle Group Promote Greater Strength Gains?

“…In other words, performing the same exercises during the RT program allows the adjustment of the other acute prescription variables, such as intensity and volume, besides providing a faster and more pronounced workload (e.g., volumeload) progression. However, the influence of volume-load on the muscle strength response is still not completely elucidated because some studies show similar results for this capacity even with different volume-load (14,15,29). Given all the information mentioned above, it is not yet known whether there is a difference between a routine RT that maintains the exercises fixed or varied on muscle strength because both strategies have possible advantages and disadvantages.…”