Training a Muscle 2x vs 3x a Week for Growth (New Study)

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Hey All, Feel free to check out the Alpha Progression App: alphaprogression.com/HOUSEOFHYPERTROPHY Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 0:55 Part I: Deconstructing the Data 5:25 Part II: Frequency & Volume for Hypertrophy 8:19 Part III: Summary

[@sebastianpero2646]

Dear friend someone it’s using part of your work without giving you credit this is one of the videos Thanks you for all your hard work and knowledge kzbin.info/www/bejne/n4eskGughM1pkK8si=I5wipsgPbm1t6Jew

[@darlenedunn5693]

Hi .. interesting video. I liked it. Does muscle grow at the same speed using kettlebells? Or does using KBs to grow muscles have be done 5X/week (example) (using different exercises) to be equivalent to 'gains' vs dumbbells/barbells?

[@Zombies8MyPizza]

Really don't understand why they wouldn't make the total weekly volume the same between groups so we can get a more true picture. Based on what we know already, the outcome of this study the way it was conducted was pretty obvious.

[@damanOts]

Seriously. This study is pretty useless.

[@Locke19901]

Was going to write this comment myself. Useless study, why do they even bother?

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Indeed, I would like to see that done too. But this study still holds value. It appears the researchers primary investigation was the influence of fiber type, and if those more slow twitch benefit from more frequent training and more work (sets), while if the opposite was true for fast-twitch folks. I personally think this was a solid research question, with potentially important implications. As we saw, the answer (based on the subjects and variables used) was no. I also think the insight into the individual data was highly insightful, since the data indicates most grew better from more training. Other variables, such as rep ranges, may display more pronunced individual differences: kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHKpf5ilmdZqqq8 Finally, I thought this study was a good opportunity to dive into other studies (and done later in the video) which helps us understand the overall current state of the literature on volume and frequency, and hopefully this provided some value for folks :)

[@_7.8.6]

lol “scientists “

[@_7.8.6]

People, just get in the gym and perform. These “studies” don’t really add anything to 99% of gym goers unless your a pro athlete

[@patrickh709]

I've always worked out doing multiple sets per muscle at normal speed and my workouts lasted over an hour. I was doing 3x per week. Recently, I discovered Fred Hahn's method of high intensity, super slow reps. It only demands one set per muscle to failure. So now my full body workouts only take less than 30 minutes and due to the high intensity required, I only do 2x per week now and I feel much stronger doing this new method of training. BTW, I'm 65 and workout at home with only a pair of Bow-flex adjustable dumbbells.

[@jylongbun8790]

no wonder you look small

[@Jimmy29li]

The fact that many of these studies use "non-trained" individuals, which leaves a lot of questions for us moderate to advanced lifters.

[@lakin3979]

best hypertrophy channel for sure

[@Myytzlplk]

50yo I vary between 2 or 3 days a week, just depends on how long it takes me to recover, that's it. If I cannot perform with at least the same weight and reps, I need more recovery. Proper nutrition, sleep, obviously effect recovery. As does intensity of workout. Took me forever to be patient enough to do this, and the gains are every bit I was told. Best shape of my life. And i still smoke. Couldn't quit everything yet.

[@anthonydecarvalho652]

I've been training for 50 years the best results for the last 20 years is training with great intensity one time a week, 1 set per muscle group. I regularly get compliments and i do not use and enhancements of any kind with the exception of creatine.

[@ernestcieslak762]

One of the best channels when it comes to pure knowledge

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you so much my friend!

[@Muphenz]

Great work! I can't get enough of your content.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you dude! :)

[@Abe_3000]

A few questions: - How accurate is measuring muscle carnosine using proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy machine? - How does this fit into the overall literature for advanced lifters into their 30s, 40s, and beyond? Doesn't age require more volume to maintain? - Genral question about most strength and hypertrophy studies. How applicable are they to advanced lifters since most subjects are beginners?

[@imshrpysart3672]

I hardly understand any of this but I feel smart and cool for being interested in it, very cool👍

[@patrickrutherford5553]

Haha

[@doggo64]

Always gotta help with the algorithm 💪

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you my friend!

[@yoonvsaechao]

Uploaded just in time! I recently accepted a promotion at work but will cause me to work more hours, giving me less time to train. Was trying to figure out a 2x full body workout plan. Thank you for the great info 🙏

[@GUITARTIME2024]

Mostly compounds. 15 sets total per session. Done.

[@yoonvsaechao]

@@GUITARTIME2024 just at the top of your head, what compoound exercises would you do on a 2x weekly?

[@GUITARTIME2024]

@yoonvsaechao 4 sets incline dumbell press (setting 3), 4 sets standing (or sitting a setting 7) dumbell overhead press, 4 sets dumbell bench row (pull towards lower back a bit diagonally), 3 dumbell farmer walks of 1 minute each or whatever works for you ( works the traps, legs, arms). Slow down all eccentrics to milk every rep (trust me). Still have energy? Finish with 1 myorep set of incline dumbell curls (setting 5) to really torch arms. Leave gym.

[@yoonvsaechao]

@@GUITARTIME2024 thanks! I will be sure to incorporate all of that 🙏

[@matiasparra375]

Ok, so no legs and one pulling excercise. Great!

[@PARTYManagementARG]

the sweet spot is, do the max THAT let you recover healthily. You must meassure your capacity from one week to another. If you cant match your last training volume/max rep, then you didnt recover.

[@consciousmatter5414]

I still think there is value in 3x a week. Most people have a large program with a whole bunch of exercises and do things like half ass bicep curls at the end of their exercise due to fatigue. Having a large exercise program divided up throughout the week will allow you to be more fresh and may influence the amount of muscle hypertrophy a person may get. I would like to see studies where they factor in fatigue in the equation and actually use a full exercise program or involve exercises that meaningfully fatigue like multiple compound exercises instead of just doing isolation exercises.

[@johnwinchell1029]

How do US Navy SEALS do so well by exercising every day???

[@robhar6866]

I wonder what would happen if you did 3x per week vs 6x per week (but the 6x was actually 3 days split into 2-a-days and volume was kept the same). Would an individual be able to get more quality sets in due to the rest between the morning and the evening workout on their working days? Would they get more average “anabolic window” time? I’d like to see that investigated.

[@so8060]

That's why I do full body 3x a week, the best program ever

[@PPYTAO]

Statistical significance is, in fact, everything. Statistical significance literally means that we can say with confidence that the outcome is a result of x, without statistical significance any findings cannot be attributed with confidence to x. It's not a weaker relationship, it's questioning whether or not the relationship exists at all. Incredible video, thanks for the amazing content and sharing it with us.

[@gladiator7652]

Obviously it is important. But lets say we have study with p-value of 0.051 and another study with p=0.049. Those two values are VERY close to each other numerically, and they both indicate similar level of evidence against the null hypothesis. However, due to the arbitrary nature of using a specific alpha level (usually 0.05), one p-value falls on one side of the threshold and is deemed statistically significant, while the other does not. So no, its not everything.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Hey dude, I'm going to have to disagree with you hard on this one. P-values purely tell us the probability of getting our results assuming our null is true. The 0.05 cut off is purely arbitrary. As another commenter said, should we really treat at 0.049 p-value much differently than a 0.051? In these scenarios, not much with regards to confidence can be said. Moreover, even if we get a p-value below 0.05, type 1 error exists. Statistical signficance doesn't neccessarily mean a true difference (and vice versa, that is no stat sig difference doesn't neccessarily mean no difference) There are some great articles out there on the pitfalls of statistical signifcance, such as this one: media.nature.com/original/magazine-assets/d41586-019-00857-9/d41586-019-00857-9.pdf I'd also recommend reading the statistic sections of some papers that have opted to ditch statistical significance overall, such as these two: sportrxiv.org/index.php/server/preprint/view/302/604 + www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2023/06/24/2023.06.21.545949.full.pdf#zoom=75

[@PPYTAO]

@@HouseofHypertrophy cheers for the links! I will definitely have a read 🤙🤙

[@kay8379]

i have seen a lot of natural bodybuilder athletes arguing that frequency is important to maintain a great mechanical tension (the most important thing to hypertrophy) though all the weekly volume, for example: if you do 16 sets for chest in one day on the last exercise you will be fatigued and will perform bad, but if you divide 16 sets in 2 days every exercise you do will have your best performance, because you are not fatigued. Sorry for any grammar error in this comment, im brazillian haha

[@jordixboy]

"not fatigued" yeah sure.. I do powerbuilding. I bench 120kg for 8 reps, only from the bench im fatigued at least 3 days lol.

[@zerrodefex]

I heard similarly and months back went to 2-3 full body days per week spreading out my sets across the sessions and it has worked very well.

[@eutiger4789]

if you actually properly do just 1 exercise for 3 sets you will be done for at least 2 days

[@ChristopherRobin58]

Consistently great content! Your channel is so underrated. Keep up the great work! 👍

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you dude!

[@LevysFitness]

Wow. What an in depth analysis. Very Understandable and fun to watch due to the awesome editing style!! Another great video! looking forward for the next one❤

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you so much my friend! :)

[@BodyweightBeastFitness]

I mostly listen to my body if I need a day or even two off but I mostly do 4 days on 1 day off . I'm 38 years old and I just started taking working out seriously and I made my channel to hold myself accountable. I started off at 155lbs I'm currently 167 and my goal is 180-200 lbs. I stand at 6'1. Any encouragement, support and help would be greatly appreciated. I love your channel.

[@SachaBernasconi]

Great video as usual, I just feel the volume variable was not discussed. Your speculation that the study outcomes could have been the same if the number of sets were equal makes sense. However when looking at volume, if working out at the same intensity the volume done in 3 separate rested days will always be superior to doing it on a single day.

[@MrZillaman73]

Age Test levels Stress levels Diet intake % Sleep Water Intake

[@shantanusapru]

Great breakdown, as always!!

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you my friend!

[@deyan1812]

HAVE ANY OF YOU SEEN THE PEOPLE WHO participated in the research? Before and after? I really want to see these people.

[@Dennis_0]

it highly depends on how long these individuals with over 9 sets trained for. Whats their training experience if a person is weak > over 9 sets per muscle is easier to recover from per week if a person is strong > over 9 sets per muscle is not easy to recover from per week

[@orlando9923]

Good video countering all this high intensity guys on KZbin pushing 1 set to failure 1xper wk. Bullshit selling their books or programs

[@SuperBC10]

Wrong! These were new individuals. It wouldn't have mattered if they'd trained EVERY single day, they still would have gained up until around 6 weeks. Once they had achieved a sufficient stimulation and grown muscle and strength then they would obviously need more rest. It's not a good example at all. It would've been far better to have had intermediate bodybuilders that had hit a plateau. It's not rocket science.

[@yaseenyahya]

Can we have a video about blood flow restricted training? Love your channel by the way, been watching since you had 25k subs.

[@tanvirzuhayrkhan1729]

The more frequently you train, the better coz u can keep ur muscle protein synthesis constantly elevated

[@damanOts]

I thought that was determined by eating food

[@Limbaugh_]

@@damanOtsneed both

[@carnivore-muscle]

​@@damanOtsyou are correct. Training is catabolic, the anabolic phase of rest/feeding is the focal point of any successful training plan. Well said

[@DudeSilad]

You probably can but the intensity would have a factor. I saw a video on KZbin once of a fella who trained every day and was in amazing shape. But I've seen vids of people who train only a bodypart once a week to extreme and look great. Just gotta find out what works. Going to the gym is time consuming for most of us though.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

This isn't inherently true. As noted in the video, with total sets per muscle equated, very similar growth can be achieved with lower and higher frequencies. Think of it like this: Fewer sets per session with higher frequency = more consistent protein synthesis elevations BUT more sets per session with lower frequency = larger protein synthesis spikes (I think this is why both ultimately can be similar) However, quite importantly, individual differences exist as noted in the video (for reasons currently not known). Some people may indeed grow more from higher frequecies, while others don't

[@thegame3661]

I used to do full body 3 days a week but I enjoy training with intensity. I swear I improve much better when I do 6 days ppl. 6 sets per muscle group per week.

[@hmquadros]

Forget about studies and do what you enjoy the most, this will bring better gains despite the frequency.

[@Egoliftdaily]

Noti gang gang 🔔 I prefer at least 2x, maybe 4x at most.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you my friend, and that sounds perfectly fine for gainz! :)

[@grottphd9090]

Due to higher set volumes, higher circumference measurements could literally just be inflammation. Not a particularly valuable study in regards to frequency, but interesting results about fiber types

[@Sheeshening]

3:30 1-3 percent… tage points. Big difference! I think your phrasing was a bit misleading as this means leaving about 30% of gains, which is of course highly significant!

[@Haama10]

Noticed the same, came looking for a comment to bump up.

[@corenko]

9-12 weekly sets per muscle is a really good range for natural lifters who train HARD and rest well. I remember following these 'fitness influencer' workouts with like 20 sets per muscle per workout and not progressing at all

[@corenko]

@HandsomeTouchdown Junk volume, doing 20 sets for one muscle per workout, can’t progress with that. Now I’m literally doing 2 exercises per muscle per workout and my strength and muscle is up

[@ew-zd1th]

​@HandsomeTouchdown20 hard Sets are to much on Most Guys.

[@Insp.CountMortisWinshipKlaw]

That’s way too much . 2 exercises, 2 sets per exercise per muscle group 1-2 times a week is enough

[@DudeSilad]

@@corenko Yeah, I only do two exericses per bodypart. Takes me awhile to warm up these old bones but generally, a maximum of 5 sets for my second and third bodypart. Maybe 7 or 8 for shoulders which are three different muscles anyway. Too many sets is just a waste of time and energy.

[@ew-zd1th]

@HandsomeTouchdown yes. And i cant Progress the Same way at extrem very high hard Set numbers

[@joshuaezekiel6157]

Simple explination here. All subjects performed at lower volume per week on one side without increasing intensity. That is, neither overall volume nor total weight lifted were matched on a weekly basis, and as such the only variable which affected results for both groups was volume. With respect to muscle fibre type, expressing results in terms of %muscle volume increases may be misleading as fast twitch fibres are naturally larger in diameter, hence fast twitch dominant subjects may have had larger muscles to begin with. To explain this further, assuming one subject had a bicpep diameter of 250mm, and another 200mm, and both had a 10% increase in volume over the period. The former would have a 5mm greater increase than the latter. It would be interesting to see what they'd find if a)results were expressed in quantities rather than %, b) to test the effect of volume vs fibre type, they assessed the whole cohort, using a 2 way ANOVA rather than splitting subjects into groups. Or they could compare the means with respect volume and then correlate results with respect % muscle fibre type for each subject. No need to split the groups, but then the results may be less surprising if data were analysed as mentioned here 🙄. Remember "There are lies, damned lies, and statistics" and academics get paid to publish articles.

[@michaelpease2103]

I train just under 2 hours per session, 6 days a week on a Pull, push, legs split. I hit between 14-20 sets per muscle group (higher for biceps and triceps due to indirect targeting) per week. My growth is actually INSANE compared to 5 years ago when i trained 6-10 sets per muscle group, per week (push pull legs but only 3 days a week). Frequency and volume matter so much more than intensity for hypertrophy (for me).

[@DudeSilad]

For me, because I get bored and don't want to go to the gym 6 days a week, I do a push/pull split like you but only one or two sets which are to failure. I do a fairly high number of sets for the first exercise so I'm fully warmed up but they're not heavy. And only two exercises. Example, chest I will do incline press, work my way through the dumbells unilt I'm ready for my heavy set and most likely, that will be a pause set (rest 20 seconds then to maximum again and repeat) or a drop set, to failure. Then I will do pec dec or flys, 2 sets to failure. Around 2 mins rest between sets although that's an estimate. That's chest done. That works well for me. Its good that you've found what works for you. My workouts are probably around 45mins maximum.

[@djjankov6667]

The Problem is when you get really strong and Train with Progression you cant do so much Volume.. yes more Volume is better more Sets If you Bench squat 100 kg...If you Squat 180 Bench 120 for Reps yoh cant so 20 Sets

[@leylol6655]

Im the oposite. More rest more adaptations

[@michaelpease2103]

@@djjankov6667 it's important for me to add: I was in a "detrained" state for the past 5 years. At my peak I was deadlifting 455, squat 365, bench 265 (pounds) and was training on a 5x5 or 5-3-1 type program. Now that I'm in my 30's and back into lifting I am far more interested in aesthetics and hypertrophy than strength. Being detrained and muscle memory are definitely having an impact on my growth rate. But you are absolutely making a good point. If you train for very high strength, you definitely CANNOT do 20 sets a week. 10-12 sets of like 1-5 reps at the most.

[@DudeSilad]

@@michaelpease2103 Yeah, wanting to be stronger is more a of a younger fellas thing. I'm 56 and far stronger than the average man my age and most far younger, but not at the level some fellas who train for strength are. But they're in the gym for ages. That way of training would absolutely bore me. Get in, get exhausted, get out! When you get older, you're thinking about your old age more, not so much a vanity thing, looking good in a t-shirt. Altough you do get a kick out of bumping into an old school friend who looks like shit 😊

[@elriks2858]

It's 3 weeks so i don't see a lot of change aside capacity to increase weight at most exercices but i currently train 2x/week full body for a total of 36 sets (so 72/weeks) with machines and around 65 000 - 70 000kg per week lifted in total (1m72 - 66kg)

[@yoelmorales208]

Another good video

[@bthvnyt]

More and longer work-workouts will make you tired all the time. Anyway I got a perfect routine from I think it was Joe Weider wayyyy back 1960s. He said 15 minutes /work-out 3X week full body was perfect and proven for me. 3 sets of 10 reps. 5 different exercises covering whole body. Moderate weight and effort. So you stay fresh and recoup fast. And you save your nerves. Add a set if you need more work.

[@gvngbvngiggy]

15 sets in 15 minutes? So you dont rest at all lol? And including all the time it takes to warm up and set up the weights?

[@ozzy6162]

BTW thank you for these very interesting videos. What did the authors say was regarded as "going to failure" by these newbies? It took quite a while for me to develop the intensity needed to go to proper failure when I started in the 80s. Also as recovery time increases as you age, but testosterone decreases with age, it seems unlikely that the knowledge gained by the usual studies of workout numbers (total sets) & hypertrophy will hold across all age groups. The studies are nevertheless interesting of course.

[@Limbaugh_]

My face when the researching decide to change multiple variables because of course they fucking would

[@Blaize__]

No way! I was just structuring a new split!

[@doggo64]

I also kinda want obliques (and rectus abdominis) and forearms science :)

[@imimpo9316]

`Thanks for a very well done video!

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank YOU for checking it out! :)

[@vvlaunay]

10 sets to failure per muscles groups ? That is a lot of quality work. I am sure most of the sets are far far away from failure and thus that a much lower volume of work would provide the same stimulus. If you are doing 10 sets of squat/leg press at 70% of 1RM… probably that you are doing less than 5 reps per set on average or training at an intensity much lower than 70% on the subsequent sets.

[@vasst4506]

True, also there is the factor of fatigue vs stimulus in these rep ranges

[@vvlaunay]

@@vasst4506 Yes probably that when you are very tired after 3-4 hard sets the subsequent sets are much less effective to induce a growth stimulation. It is probably one of the reason which explains the relation between volume and stimulation. More reps/sets tend to induce more growth but not that much, very far from a proportional relation. One possibility is to increase time between sets but anyway...

[@kneewizard6246]

So the thumbnail implies this is a comparison of frequency, but it seems to be rather a comparison of fiber type distributions. It was very odd though that the study design manipulated both frequency AND volume. Just adds confounding variables for no obvious reason. It was probably a practical limitation, saved the subjects/researchers time or money i bet.

[@nazim9639]

Based content, liked before even watching

[@changestudioss]

00:00 📚 This study compares training a muscle two times a week vs. three times a week for muscle hypertrophy with different set numbers. 01:10 📈 Both slow twitch and fast twitch fiber groups saw more muscle growth with a three times per week training frequency. 03:01 💪 The majority of individuals grew better training three times per week compared to two times per week, with an extra 1 to 3% growth in quads, hamstrings, and biceps. 03:44 🔍 Fiber type is just one factor that determines muscle growth, as having more fast twitch fibers doesn't always lead to greater gains than having more slow twitch fibers. 05:36 🔄 Training frequency plays a role in muscle growth, with the three times per week frequency leading to slightly better gains. 07:04 📉 Lower set numbers can still achieve substantial muscle hypertrophy, but performing nine or more sets per week for a muscle group tends to produce more growth. 08:26 ✅ Training three times per week with more sets generally leads to greater muscle hypertrophy compared to training two times per week with fewer sets.

[@HoryTB]

Appreciate the breakdown, now at least I definitely know this video was just too long for its content. I still seem to miss the point where and how the twitch type is determined per individual and/or training method. Without it this whole lot doesn't make more sense than to train your muscles 3 times a week instead of 2... 🤔

[@terenceclark6858]

2019 study...24 years ago!

[@known8172]

Love those vids. Keep going with the great work. And just to give my thoughts: I love to improve everything for myself and that´s why I always try to figure out what works best for me. But it clearly shows that it doesn´t matter too much how you train, you´ll gain anyway, just maybe not as fast. I ask myself if differences in training variables do influence ones genetical limit, or if it stays the same no matter how the exact variables look like (as long as you are training hard enough, performing more than 3-5 sets a week for a muscle at least, etc..). We really need more studies on natural guys who are training consistently for more than 10 years !

[@papaspaulding]

as someone who has trained natural since the 90s and in that time exceeded what I thought possible naturally here is my take. Of course it's purely anecdotal. What works at sometimes wont at others and to keep busting through plateaus you'll often have to switch things up such as going from a bro split to PPL or visa versa at times, or as such swapping volume for frequency just to give the muscles a new stimulus to get through the plateau and then revert back to which works best. I wouldn't do this until you get to the stage where you really need to, ie your at or near your genetic potential and your muscles require a lot of stimulus to force them to keep growing Such as for myself I've found I put on the most mass when training a muscle once per week with 16 hard sets to failure per workout was optimal, but then at times when I hit a block I would split the volume up hitting each muscle group 2-3x times a week change up exercises and get a new growth spurt over the next few weeks until that stalled and then Id revert back to a 'bro split' and build on that growth. I'm not saying this is key but more that's what worked for me but it might be different splits, different volume and frequency for someone else, but the key being to listen to your body and learn when to switch things up to get through a plateau. I also found not to ever emphasis one aspect, ie dont ever put all your focus into one style of training such as volume for the sake of volume, or intensity for the sake of intensity or load over reps etc. I found I grow best when im embracing everything in equal measures. ie im training with as much intensity with as much volume as i can recover from using different rep ranges for different excercises. I train to overtrain then I pull back once I learn where that limit is, which for me is 16 sets to failure per week per muscle group, this will be different for most people based on many factors including sleep, lifestyle, stress levels etc. But Ive found there really are no short cuts or easy ways to keep building muscle Most importantly I've found the ability to truly listen to your body is key, not just in a workout ie mind to muscle etc I mean more overtime. to know when something is no longer as effective as it once was and when and how to change it. dont get caught up in studies either as what might be optimal for 80% of lifters might not be for yourself until you find out via trial and error, or it might be at one time but then not so much as you get bigger and stronger. This is why when you see people at their genetic limit who have trained for many years their training will often look very different to others as they have found what works best for them over time, whether that's a 'wrong' looking range of motion or the way they perform an exercise/s etc, its a hard nuance to explain when I say listening to the body as there are levels to such but after many consistent years it takes on different meanings as you become more in tune with such

[@known8172]

@@papaspauldingThanks for your wise words there. I am training for more then 12 years now and I pretty much stagnate over time now. I guess I added around 0,5kg of muscle in 2 years of smart and hard training in total (in that time going up and down with gaining and dieting around +-7kg to try things out). Pretty sure I am close to my actual potential. Nevertheless I won´t stop obviously, I never will. Besides that, I will probably try out a true Bro Split again in my next training cycles, since I didn´t do that for years.

[@papaspaulding]

@@known8172 It certainly does get al ot harder to build muscle after many years once you get to a certain size the body being as economical as possible simply doesn't want to and you have to really force it to adapt. There were a few times in the past I thought I was at my genetic potential but managed to force a bit more more growth to get to the next stage

[@towithNic]

I’m a little confused. Are you saying that if exercise a muscle twice per week and perform 9 sets that I would have equal growth as 3x per week?

[@DudeSilad]

Don't forget they were untrained people and what they consider high intensity is not what the experienced gym goer would. Plus they only did one exercise per bodypart. Bodyparts need hitting from different angles. I would imagine after their initial gains, they'd plateau. Not enough versatility for their muscles to continue to grow. Great beginners way though. Or after a long spell out.

[@lucidchem]

that was never stated. it’s just that with more training you face *diminishing returns*, and hence with fewer weekly sets you can achieve significant improvements as the *pay off per workout* seems to be higher, not the total benefit. some individuals, however, might see more growth with fewer sets per week. but those are the exceptions and might be due to genetics or other factors such as lack of proper nutrition.

[@OT9999]

He's saying that there may be some advantage to working a muscle 3x per week with 9+ (withing reason) sets over two days per week of 9+ sets but the advantage seems to be small so you still get good results at less than 3x per week / 9 sets per week - that said you obviously have to do what works best for you as an individual

[@leonardmaik369]

Honestly I been doing 2-3 times for a few months. Just switched to 5-6 and holyyyy the results are amazing, so much better going more often.

[@ron_nor_]

It wasn't a 5% increase in muscle mass. It was a 5% points higher increase. So, if the triceps grew 15% with the two times group and 20% in the three times per week group, in the three times group it grew 33.3% more than in the two times group, that is significant. Even if you take the other muscles with only 1-3% points more growth, that's still somewhere between 10 to 30% more growth. For 10% more growth I'd do the third workout any time. For 30% and more, hell yeah.

[@lowellwalters]

I recently discovered your channel and am enjoying your videos, but I wish I knew more about you b4 accepting your advice. Can you do a video where you explain your background and how you know what you know? Or maybe add it to the channel description? For example, renessaince periodization always starts with the lead guy talking about his education degree; atlean X often talks of his experience as a trainer with professional athletes. The fact that we don't see you in your videos and there's no description of your qualifications is...concerning. Thanks

[@travisutrecht1542]

My Fiberz are yolked becuase of this channel.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

😂😂😂

[@thatweakpowerlifter2515]

Thank you

[@kmarshall131]

we need a study that has an n=1000 to get reliable more valid answers

[@antoinebonzon6151]

I am not sure but I think Greg Nuckols actually discusses the fact that there is not much of a difference of force between slow and fast twitch fibers.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Yep! I believe per unit of CSA, they produce the same force. But since fast-twitch fibers are generally larger, overall force is more :)

[@danieldemiray9755]

training literally every muscle 3x a week is impossible if you dont wanna fuck your body. No way to recover enough with that.

[@Han-nk3io]

Get rid of your dogma and you will grow better. i went from 2x a week to 5x a week and i growth way more.

[@geminix365]

​@@Han-nk3ioIt's not the times, it's the times per muscle group

[@MrEsPlace]

Here's some fun data: I trained for an ultramarathon and lost 5lbs of mass (as per the electro-scanner thing at the supplement store) upon completing said ultra. I took 2 weeks off from training entirely to recover. (OVER-EXTENDED SO BAD) I started a 5x5 program to rebuild missing mass and to get me back on track, quickly. After 3 weeks of sticking to a 5x5 program and a upper/lower split, I am up 7.4lbs of mass. A lot of that will be building back what was lost, which is easy and I've laid off the cardio, down to a single 10-mile run a week around a 9min/mile pace. (Super easy) My legs have never been bigger, my shoulders are like watermelons, very responsive triceps and my biceps have a distinctive peak now that they didn't have before. This is fun.

[@Jaburu]

what's that? 3 times a week?

[@MrEsPlace]

@@Jaburu yeah 3-4 times a week

[@TheSoyestToEverSoy]

FOR THEE ALGORITHM!!!

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Thank you dude, as always!

[@carveratutube]

What 😱 Shockingly, training more often leads to more muscle growth, but the relation between more training and more muscle growth is not linear 🤷‍♂️

[@grantmunday1826]

I question if you go to failure and really burn the muscle out should you have more rest days in between because it will take longer to heal and if you don't go to failure and leave some reps in the bag should you train that muscle more often with less rest days because it will heal quicker?

[@MrMroliversmith]

Same. If I train using drop sets to the point I can barely move, it takes 3 days to fully recover - so I can only do that 2x a week!

[@Rr-zc5ro]

Train every body part once every 10 to 14 days any sooner if you are over training , unless you are taking steroids

[@geminix365]

How many sets on those days

[@RakugothDajjal]

This needs to be done with 18-25 weekly sets. 9-12 weekly sets just isn't enough imo

[@EvanZamir]

Seems the article is behind a paywall. Unfortunate, because it's always best to read the source firsthand if possible.

[@Bentleemedia]

Problem with most of these studies is that they use untrained participants.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Some upcoming videos will have data from trained folks :)

[@winebartender6653]

Would need studies with both. The reasonings behind using untrained individuals is to maximize the muscles response to the training being studied. Trained individuals will be in quite a wide range of muscle states (aka their condition and the body's adjustment to resistance training). Using trained individuals would skew the study away from muscle response and more towards an individual's current state.

[@BigDome1]

What counts as one set for a muscle though? Do compound exercises that use the biceps count as one set for biceps?

[@justinsuarez2269]

Training a muscle more during a week puts more stress on your joints in the long run .

[@ZombieGermanboss]

More volume = more gains. I'd like to know at what set/frequency do the rate of gains start to plateau and then diminish

[@raiden3013]

That’s actually complete dependent on the individual unfortunately.

[@radilev1996]

The more advanced you are, the less you can train. Why, because the absolute load will be higher than those who are just starting or at intermediate at best and it's much more difficult to recover. Maybe the muscles can recover in 48-72hrs, but you have one nervous system regardless of whether you were training for months or 10 years. And the more beating you go through, the more systemic fatigue you build. So I'd recommend 1-2x frequency for advanced lifters with low to moderate volume tho. Don't tho 20 sets per muscle or else either you won't gain any additional muscle, or those sets are not intense to begin with and you are wasting time and destroying yourself for no additional results. Try 5-10 sets, spread into two sessions per muscle and perform them to 0-1 reps in reserve. Try going to failure once every 2-3 weeks on the last set and see how it goes. Take a week off every month or 5-6 weeks at least and eat and sleep like a motherfucker. There you go.

[@paulsacramento5995]

One thing that SEEMS to always get "missed" in these quests for effectiveness is efficiency. In some cases you end up doing 2X he work for 10% more gains ? In this case, you do 50% more and the typical greater gain was 2% more ??

[@Jaburu]

I was thinking that. 2% more doing 50% more work? I rather invest that work otherwise lol

[@gladiator7652]

3:25 But isn't that much more than 1-3% EXTRA growth for the 3x group. The graph shows how much the muscle volume increased by (%) if im understanding correctly? So for example if we look at the slow-twitch group for quads: The 2x grew on average by approx. 5% and the 3x group grew by approx 6,5%. That would be 6,5%/ 5 %= 1,3 => 30 % more growth for the 3x group.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

So in this scenario, I'm just subtracting the raw % gains from each group, so with your example that would be an additional 1.5% of growth. Stricly speaking, what you're saying is correct, but I think stating that would result in me vastly "overstating" the benefit of the more training, so I stuck with the subtraction method. I could have also presented the raw absolute gains which can do a better job, but these are not super easy to intuitively understand (as they are in centimeters cubed as muscle volume was the measurement)

[@gladiator7652]

Oh yeah see what you are saying. But i just think the 30% number tells a lot more, since we are mainly trying to compare the results between the different groups in this study. And since muscle growth is such a slow process, the raw % gains is heavily influenced by the length of the study, much more than the different volume/frequency approaches between the groups. Also I don't think the 30% number would be "overstating" since the 3x group also trained with 50% more volume (counted as number of sets). "Group that trained with 50% higher total volume and with higher frequency, grew 30% more" I think that sounds very reasonable statement. @@HouseofHypertrophy

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

I actually agree with that. I will consider doing that in future videos, thank you so much for the input! :)

[@Anon-gs8tn]

If study in part 2 of the video is true then wouldnt we see better growth at the bicep femoris short head with lying leg curls rather than the seated variation? Is this a case of nordic curls having more consistent resistance when the bicep femoris short head is stretched better than full ROM lying leg curl?

[@DiskoKDiskoL]

We need 3 vs 4 and 4 vs 5 times a week

[@Ignite806]

I have been training with 3x a week frequency and 12 working sets and have seen amazing growth compared to 2x a week frequency with a similar volume. I also consider myself to have a majority fast twitch fibres. 😀

[@charlesdexterward7781]

Perfect example why exercise "studies" are so very often flawed. Even a correctly designed comparison will still give EXTREMELY noisy results due to huge variation in the most important variable -- the lifter himself. The only remedy for that is an unrealistically huge sample size or, more realistically, aggregate analysis over a large number of similar studies tackling the same problem. But for God's sake, don't compound the problem by trying to compare frequency without normalizing the number of sets.

[@agustin8160]

I agree, and we need to remember that they are not measuring if all the participants are sleeping well or not, or even if they are eating well or not

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

Any "noisy" results aren't a true problem, since they reveal individual differences which is just as valuable (if not more valuable) than the averages. In this specific case, I wouldn't describe the data as noisy either. Most people grew better from training more. With regards to not normalizing sets, I see what you're saying, and I would certainly love to see future data doing this. However, It appears the researchers primary investigation was the influence of fiber type, and if those more slow twitch benefit from more frequent training and more work (sets), while if the opposite was true for fast-twitch folks. I personally think this was a solid research question, with potentially important implications. As we saw, the answer (based on the subjects and variables used) was no. Finally, I thought this study was a good opportunity to dive into other studies (and done later in the video) which helps us understand the overall current state of the literature on volume and frequency, and hopefully this provided some value for folks :)

[@hosebose7758]

Are rest times addressed with the study?

[@barackoboomer8972]

How does this affect the current popularized training style with 1-2 sets per exercise and 5-8 sets a week? Is that now “debunked”?

[@adamsloane1748]

I watched all the way through, but pretty much lost interest when I heard the studies involved previously untrained individuals and solely looked at unilateral single joint (isolation) movements, rather than any compound exercises. Generalizing from such study parameters would be pretty risky.

[@louise.4748]

How do I know if I am more slow or fast twitched?

[@iiNgONYaMa]

Wonder about Mike mentzer now

[@ChozenBardoUmbra]

I just like to imagine, the scientists making these studies as extremely jacked Daddy Noel look alikes, because it's more fun that way.

[@lucashenriques4242]

What about for strenght?

[@MarouaneLeFer]

First

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

💪

[@breathewithharry1704]

Its actually 3times a week wth reps build muscle too

[@PhiyackYuh]

Conclusion, longer duration of studies needed needed. We already know primary driver of hypertrophy is volume. Either you do it by frequency or in less days so long it works for you and can adhere to it. When it comes to strength and power, its a different ball game. I’d like to see studies of minimal effective dose in the context of getting stronger.

[@guntertorfs6486]

Aha , a study from my countrymen. ( or should that be -persons ? ) Heard of Van Vossel in other research before.

[@JohnnyBNih]

the body doesn't know what a week is. just work muscles that aren't sore

[@SuperBC10]

Why these odd exercises? Why not Squats and/or dead lifts and Bench Press? Doing these would have promoted a systemic overload effect. Or at least even just deadlifts which would have stimulated the whole body to a degree. These exercises are not sufficient to stimulate a whole body response so are obviously set up to create an experimental bias.

[@josephohrablo4866]

I’ve always felt more frequency was always always more advantageous this low frequency. Mike mentzer is rolling over in his grave . 😂

[@josephohrablo4866]

@@antiwufei553 frequency certainly matters . Is this a real comment ? Training a muscle once a week is suboptimal

[@adrianahaverhoek]

They only performed single joint exercises.... These studies are often so one sided.

[@HouseofHypertrophy]

It's worth noting other studies which find higher volumes to be beneficial have used compound movements, so I don't anticipate this being much of a limitation :)

[@adrianahaverhoek]

@@HouseofHypertrophy okay, but what about the people participating were newbies. Most research is done on newbies.

[@CaptainCorobo]

Does a study on training frequency, does not control equal volume between groups 🤦🏼‍♂️

[@oscarinio]

Hmm I would assume the 3x time per week had better result because they had higher volume rather than the frequency. I mean it’s evident that the sweet spot is around 10-20 sets per week isn’t.

[@Jari1973]

👍

[@redicej5843]

Mike Mentzer disagrees

[@trumpdrago517]

I wholeheartedly believe it’s 99% diet. My friend looks like Brad pit in Troy with just pushups 2x a week. His diet is 100% dialed in tho.

[@damanOts]

No

[@mannyblackstar]

No

[@michaelpease2103]

He's probably just very lean, but I doubt he's got any appreciable mass on him.

[@trumpdrago517]

@@michaelpease2103 he looks EXACTLY like Brad pit in Troy. No mass monster by any means

[@oli7120]

@@trumpdrago517 So, eating well and doing push ups will grow your biceps, back, and legs. Gotcha.

[@Drunken_Hamster]

NGl I wanna see what YOUR physique looks like after all these darn videos. We need to know if you're a Jeremy Ethier/Jeff Cavaliere peddling buzz words or if you're more of Alex Leonidas/Geoff Schofield who knows some REAL shit.

[@angelamartim8337]

0:29

[@Maximum_Natural_Muscle]

High Frequency does not have a place in Natural maximum hypertrophy.(the protein synthesis window has already being debunked by the latest studies... It was just a big hoax and body builders lost mass from following the high frequency joke.) The CNS should recover from the training sessions in order to produce GROWTH . This growth is happening only AFTER the RECOVERY phase ...and this takes days...not hours! After the recovery....here comes GROWTH...and this phase also needs DAYS in order to manifest. Only steroids can boost the timings of recovery and growth. When you are training OPTIMALLY in the matter of Rep form-Intensity-Volume-Frequency then every body part should be hit once every 6 to 8 days. If you are hitting them more often....you are just robbing the gains that WOULD have happened if you would leave your muscles alone to recover and grow and you also fatigue your CNS and this leads to even less gains and possible health imbalances. In my new channel I am talking about EVERYTHING that has to do with the Max Natural Hypertrophy + my Re-transformation.

[@damanOts]

1) Studies show that higher frequency produces more growth. 2) Studies show that strength training doesnt even induce CNS fatigue if you rest long enough between sets, and when it does induce CNS fatigue its only takes 20 minutes for the CNS to recover, not days, certainly not a week. Peripheral fatigue only takes 48 hours to recover so if thats what youre talking about youre still wrong. 3) you dont RECOVER then GROW. The process of the muscle getting repaired is the exact same process that makes them grow. “…The body repairs the microtears by adding amino acids (actin and myosin) to the myofilament, which causes them to grow in size”. “…a biological effort to repair or replace damaged muscle fibers begins with the satellite cells fusing together and to the muscles fibers, often leading to increases in muscle fiber cross-sectional area or hypertrophy.”

[@ΜΑΡΙΑΝΝΑΔΕΛΕΤΖΕ]

​@@damanOtswell this google search of yours does not seem to have helped you with your physique right?lol The guy said everything right. And all the studies are contradicting themselves 180 degrees after some months with the newer studies and so on.

[@damanOts]

@@ΜΑΡΙΑΝΝΑΔΕΛΕΤΖΕ i am gaining muscle at a rate beyond my expectations so what im doing is working great, and I got all this information from people on youtube who are FAR bigger than this guy, so if you wanna equate muscle size to credibility go ahead. And why are you going to be derogatory about a google search when it is simply the middle man to present scientific research? These were from the university of phoenix and portsmouth, not some random article online. And its easy to just say “all the studies are contradicting themselves” but is that actually true, or are the majority of them showing the same results and you just happen to cherry pick the one with different results in order to support your argument? Have you actually read a large number of studies and compared them? Thats how studies work. You take the bulk of all the studies on a particular subject and then make a meta analysis to see where the weight of the evidence lies. The more studies and meta analysis, the more clear a view of reality we get. What this guy is proposing would work, but its far from optimal and its based on some fantastical philosophy he has constructed in his head that has no basis in reality.