Weekly Training Frequency Effects on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThe current recommendations for resistance training (RT) frequency range from 2 to 5 days per week (days week− 1) depending on the subjects’ training status. However, the relationship between RT frequency and muscular strength remains controversial with reported variances existing across different population groups. We conducted a meta-analysis that (1) quantified the effects of low (LF; 1 day week− 1), medium (MF; 2 days week− 1), or high (HF; ≥ 3 days week− 1) RT frequency on muscular strength per exercise; (2) examined the effects of different RT frequency on one repetition maximum (1RM) strength gain profiles (multi-joint exercises and single joint exercises); (3) examined the effects of different RT frequency on 1RM strength gain when RT volume is equated; and (4) examined the effects of different RT frequency on 1RM strength gains on upper and lower body.MethodsComputerised searches were performed using the terms ‘strength training frequency’, ‘resistance training frequency’, ‘training frequency’, and ‘weekly training frequency’. After review, 12 studies were deemed suitable according to pre-set eligibility criteria. Primary data were pooled using a random-effects model. Outcomes analysed for main effects were pre- to post strength change with volume-equated studies that combined multi-joint and isolation exercise; isolation-only exercise and untrained subjects only. Heterogeneity between studies was assessed using I2 and Cochran’s Q statistics with funnel plots used to assess publication bias and sensitivity analyses calculated for subgroups.ResultsPre- versus post-training strength analysis comprised of 74 treatment groups from 12 studies. For combined multi-joint and isolation exercises, there was a trend towards higher RT frequency compared with lower frequency [mean effect size (ES) 0.09 (95% CI − 0.06–0.24)] however not significant (p = 0.25). Volume-equated pre- to post-intervention strength gain was similar when LF was compared to HF [mean ES 0.03 (95% CI − 0.20–0.27); p = 0.78]. Upper body pre- to post-intervention strength gain was greater when HF was compared with LF [mean ES 0.48 (95% CI 0.20–0.76)] with significant differences between frequencies (p < 0.01). Upper body pre- to post-intervention strength gain was similar when MF was compared with LF (ES 0.12; 95% CI − 0.22–0.47); p = 0.48]. There was no significant difference in lower body mean ES between HF and LF [mean ES 0.21(95% CI − 0.55–0.13); p = 0.22]. There was a trend towards a difference in mean ES between MF and HF [mean ES 0.41(95% CI − 0.26–1.09); however, the effect was not significant (p = 0.23).ConclusionsThe existing data does not provide a strong correlation between increased weekly training frequency (HF) and maximal strength gain in upper and lower body resistance exercises for a mixed population group. When RT is volume-equated for combined multi-joint and isolation exercises, there is no significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gain. More investigations are required to explore the effects of varyin...

Does an effective shoulder injury prevention program affect risk factors in handball? A randomized controlled study

“…One possible explanation for our results could be insufficient dosage to achieve improvements. Recommended dosage to obtain strength gain in the upper extremities is six to nine set per muscle group each training session, 33 two to three times per week, 34 with high intensity.…”

Maximizing Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review of Advanced Resistance Training Techniques and Methods

“…From the nutrition point of view, protein intake alongside RT is a potent stimulus for muscle protein synthesis. With regard to RT, manipulation of its variables such as intensity and volume of effort, exercise order, number of performed repetitions and sets, tempo of movement, and the duration of rest periods between sets and exercises and training status have been extensively explored and discussed to maximize muscle adaptations [9,10]. Volume and intensity of effort are basic components with a direct impact on muscular adaptations [11,12].…”

Viscous placebo and carbohydrate breakfasts similarly decrease appetite and increase resistance exercise performance compared with a control breakfast in trained males

“…Resistance exercise is regularly performed by athletes/recreational exercisers, and performance in such sessions might have important implications for training volume and consequently gains in muscle mass/strength (1) , as well as for prevention of/recovery from injury. The pre-exercise meal, particularly its carbohydrate content, is an important component of an athlete's nutrition plan (2) , with current guidelines recommending 1-4 g carbohydrate/kg body mass should be consumed in the 1-4 h pre-exercise (3) .…”