How Often Should I Train?
It Depends Heavily on the Volume.
The ideal volume of training, rather than the opposite, determines the appropriate frequency of training.
If imagining the extremes of a scale helps you better understand the middle, then why not do the same with training frequency?
Training once a week would take 4-6 hours, at least if you're aiming to perform enough work for every muscle group, so you'd probably (and correctly) doubt my legitimacy if I suggested it. Therefore, it's clear that once a week isn't an option.
Now think about the other end of the spectrum: training 14 times a week. However, on the bright side, you'd be able to cram a lot more intensity into each exercise if they were all very brief. However, it's very clear that going to the gym twice a day to do a total of four sets isn't the most efficient use of time.
The sweet spot for training sessions is somewhere between these two extremes, with the specific number determined by how much overall work you complete each week. To rephrase: you wouldn't train hamstrings once a week, but you also wouldn't train them eight times a week if you needed to complete 16 sets for them each week in order for them to grow. The optimal frequency for most weightlifters is between three and four times weekly.
Muscle growth is ultimately driven by VOLUME, not frequency, so choose a training frequency that facilitates reaching your volume goals.
So what does this all mean?
In my opinion, we may derive numerous high-level ideas from these patterns.
High intensity sets are required to effectively recruit and exhaust all muscle fibres. It is normally important to push sets within a few repetitions of failure, while the precise effort threshold needed to trigger hypertrophy is unclear and many people accomplish incredible muscular development without lifting to failure.
As long as the intensity of each set remains constant, the number of repetitions performed does not affect hypertrophy (at least up to 30 reps/set for experienced lifters and 100 reps/set for untrained old people). It appears that the same amount of muscle growth occurs whether you perform three repetitions to failure or one hundred reps to failure. It remains to be seen if muscle growth is similar with something like 70% effort balanced across groups rather than lifting to failure, but I assume it would.
Gains in strength are very dependent on the repetition ranges employed. To improve your performance on one-rep max efforts, it is necessary to train with loads near to your maximum. High repetitions are easier to perform with lesser weights. Exercising at both low and high repetition levels will most likely improve your performance across the board. The process of building muscle is like to preparing for a test on a certain topic.
When you increase your sets or volume (it's still debatable whether predicts growth better), you see improvements..
This data makes it simple to respond to a question posed previously in the piece: What accounts for the inherent size and strength discrepancy between strength athletes and bodybuilders? The discrepancy in rep ranges is the cause of the strength disparity. While many bodybuilders choose to stick to the lower-risk rep ranges chosen by strength athletes, strength athletes often incorporate heavier rep ranges.
Yet many athletes who focus on bodybuilding find success in powerlifting competitions by simply lifting more weight.
