Training Frequency for Strength Development: What the Data Say, by Greg Nuckols

[PatrickDB]

This just arrived in my email inbox from @gnuckols. It’s so good.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/training-frequency/

There’s a lot to dig into, but here are two things that surprised me.

1) High frequency training is more effective for upper body pressing than for lower body movements, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear.

2) The benefit of higher frequency training may not be primarily due to improved motor learning.

[quark]

It is a very good paper.

The studies were volume and intensity matched (although apparently this does not count warm-up volume). He guesses the effects may be due to better learning and better average training quality.

[perman]

@Hanley needs to release his 4-day MM. I'd like to test out a 4-day per week benching scheme.

[Shaun]

This just arrived in my email inbox from @gnuckols. It’s so good.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/training-frequency/

There’s a lot to dig into, but here are two things that surprised me.

1) High frequency training is more effective for upper body pressing than for lower body movements, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear.

2) The benefit of higher frequency training may not be primarily due to improved motor learning.

1) Could because it's easier to recover from the upper body pressing movements, as they are using less muscle mass and weight?

[Marenghi]

I dont know if thats the case: Muscle damage is on a local level, for each muscle fiber. It could be true for systemic neuro or metabolic regeneration, although CNS regeneration has been shown to be pretty quick.

[PatrickDB]

1) Could because it's easier to recover from the upper body pressing movements, as they are using less muscle mass and weight?

That's what Greg seems to think.

[chrisd]

This just arrived in my email inbox from @gnuckols. It’s so good.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/training-frequency/

There’s a lot to dig into, but here are two things that surprised me.

1) High frequency training is more effective for upper body pressing than for lower body movements, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear.

2) The benefit of higher frequency training may not be primarily due to improved motor learning.

1) I'm not surprised that high frequency is beneficial for upper body, but I guess I'll have to read this and see what the conclusions mean for lower body. Does this mean that increasing squat frequency beyond a certain level is unrewarding, or just less rewarding.

I don't know what to think about 2) I'm not so sure I'm bothered about mechanisms. They're fascinating to study, but ultimately I just have to pick things up and put them down again. I guess this would mean that I'm getting a physical change, not just thicker axons.

[Hanley]

@Hanley needs to release his 4-day MM. I'd like to test out a 4-day per week benching scheme.

I'll post the bench/press portion of it soon.

I think it's the most effective program I've ever written (or used).

[Kregna]

This just arrived in my email inbox from @gnuckols. It’s so good.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/training-frequency/

There’s a lot to dig into, but here are two things that surprised me.

1) High frequency training is more effective for upper body pressing than for lower body movements, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear.

2) The benefit of higher frequency training may not be primarily due to improved motor learning.

I haven't yet read the paper, but my best Squat / Deadlift results have come from one main session a week of each, whereas my best upper body results have come from high frequency. So my experience is similar!

[PatrickDB]

1) I'm not surprised that high frequency is beneficial for upper body, but I guess I'll have to read this and see what the conclusions mean for lower body. Does this mean that increasing squat frequency beyond a certain level is unrewarding, or just less rewarding.

I'm not looking at the article at the moment, but I believe that higher frequencies produced slightly greater strength gains in the lower body in the available studies in aggregate (than lower frequency programs with the same total volume). However, the effect is not large enough to conclude that it's real and not just a produce of chance (from having a small number of studies with few participants and lots of noise).

I don't know what to think about 2) I'm not so sure I'm bothered about mechanisms. They're fascinating to study, but ultimately I just have to pick things up and put them down again. I guess this would mean that I'm getting a physical change, not just thicker axons.

I think reasonable people can differ on this point. I want the girthiest possible axons.

[mgil]

1) Could because it's easier to recover from the upper body pressing movements, as they are using less muscle mass and weight?

That's what Greg seems to think.

Humans don’t walk on their hands.

[Kregna]

I wonder if with lower body higher frequency training, the risk of overtraining/underrecovering between workouts is higher?

If you're squatting 3 times a week, you probably have to be more careful recovering than you do once a week (even if the total tonnage is the same in both scenarios).

If you squat once a week, you have so many more days to recover that if your recovery is off one on day, you can probably get it back on another. Whereas if you mess up and your next squat session is in 48 hours, it's much less time to make up for

[Marenghi]

I'm not looking at the article at the moment, but I believe that higher frequencies produced slightly greater strength gains in the lower body in the available studies in aggregate (than lower frequency programs with the same total volume). However, the effect is not large enough to conclude that it's real and not just a produce of chance (from having a small number of studies with few participants and lots of noise).

Ofc, thats often the case. But here, it really is a small difference in effects: 1.92 vs 2.19, d = 0.35, p = 0.27. d is not too bad because of low SD, I guess. All the effect sizes reported would not be too shabby in fields like medicine. I think in strngth training, people expect too big differences.

[PatrickDB]

Well, we don't "know" (I use this term loosely) there "really is a small difference in effects," at least under a classical null hypothesis testing framework, since the 95% confidence interval is (-0.24, 0.94) and includes zero. It's not just the effect size itself that's the problem. It's also that we don't have enough studies with enough participants to be sure it's positive. I agree the effect is likely real. The data is even consistent with it being as strong as the upper body frequency effect, though I think this is also unlikely.

[damufunman]

This just arrived in my email inbox from @gnuckols. It’s so good.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/training-frequency/

There’s a lot to dig into, but here are two things that surprised me.

1) High frequency training is more effective for upper body pressing than for lower body movements, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear.

2) The benefit of higher frequency training may not be primarily due to improved motor learning.

1) Could because it's easier to recover from the upper body pressing movements, as they are using less muscle mass and weight?

I dont know if thats the case: Muscle damage is on a local level, for each muscle fiber. It could be true for systemic neuro or metabolic regeneration, although CNS regeneration has been shown to be pretty quick.

I wonder if it has something to do with volume/surface area of the different muscle groups? Larger muscles will typically have higher volume/surface area. Not sure how muscle vascularity works, but if it's surface-supplied and then blood diffuses into the muscle then the V/SA could explain larger muscles taking longer to recover (though I believe this is not how muscles are supplied with blood... so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). To Marenghi's point, each muscle fiber is likely seeing the same mechanical tension and damage, so muscle mass and weight ought to be unimportant.

[Marenghi]

Well, we don't "know" (I use this term loosely) there "really is a small difference in effects,"

Ahh, my intent was to suggest something similar, stressing the "small" in "really is [better: would be] a small difference in effects", not the "is": Even if we had higher N and a significant result, the effect itself would probably be very small, smaller than in the upper body.

-------------------------------

I wonder if it has something to do with volume/surface area of the different muscle groups?

Very interesting point! Havent thought of that.

[PatrickDB]

Well, we don't "know" (I use this term loosely) there "really is a small difference in effects,"

Ahh, my intent was to suggest something similar, stressing the "small" in "really is [better: would be] a small difference in effects", not the "is": Even if we had higher N and a significant result, the effect itself would probably be very small, smaller than in the upper body.

I agree.

Just a priori I would expect the effect to be non-negative and probably positive, for instance. So the real question is whether it's practically significant.

[Marenghi]

Yes, agreed!

[Murelli]

This just arrived in my email inbox from @gnuckols. It’s so good.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/training-frequency/

There’s a lot to dig into, but here are two things that surprised me.

1) High frequency training is more effective for upper body pressing than for lower body movements, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear.

2) The benefit of higher frequency training may not be primarily due to improved motor learning.

1) Could because it's easier to recover from the upper body pressing movements, as they are using less muscle mass and weight?

I dont know if thats the case: Muscle damage is on a local level, for each muscle fiber. It could be true for systemic neuro or metabolic regeneration, although CNS regeneration has been shown to be pretty quick.

I wonder if it has something to do with volume/surface area of the different muscle groups? Larger muscles will typically have higher volume/surface area. Not sure how muscle vascularity works, but if it's surface-supplied and then blood diffuses into the muscle then the V/SA could explain larger muscles taking longer to recover (though I believe this is not how muscles are supplied with blood... so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). To Marenghi's point, each muscle fiber is likely seeing the same mechanical tension and damage, so muscle mass and weight ought to be unimportant.

I think you're partially right. My idea is that lifting will create a lot of metabolites inside the muscles - bigger muscles = more metabolites. Now you only have one liver, one pancreas, two kidneys, etc. and the same circulatory system that doesn't care where the things it transports are coming from. To put it in a more "mathematical" context, humans have a constant metabolite removal rate for the whole body (in a given time span) and, assuming the amount of metabolites is proportional to the mass of the muscles but their circulatory output is also proportional, bigger muscles = more time to get back to baseline.

- not a doctor

[damufunman]

This just arrived in my email inbox from @gnuckols. It’s so good.

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/training-frequency/

There’s a lot to dig into, but here are two things that surprised me.

1) High frequency training is more effective for upper body pressing than for lower body movements, for reasons that remain somewhat unclear.

2) The benefit of higher frequency training may not be primarily due to improved motor learning.

1) Could because it's easier to recover from the upper body pressing movements, as they are using less muscle mass and weight?

I dont know if thats the case: Muscle damage is on a local level, for each muscle fiber. It could be true for systemic neuro or metabolic regeneration, although CNS regeneration has been shown to be pretty quick.

I wonder if it has something to do with volume/surface area of the different muscle groups? Larger muscles will typically have higher volume/surface area. Not sure how muscle vascularity works, but if it's surface-supplied and then blood diffuses into the muscle then the V/SA could explain larger muscles taking longer to recover (though I believe this is not how muscles are supplied with blood... so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯). To Marenghi's point, each muscle fiber is likely seeing the same mechanical tension and damage, so muscle mass and weight ought to be unimportant.

I think you're partially right. My idea is that lifting will create a lot of metabolites inside the muscles - bigger muscles = more metabolites. Now you only have one liver, one pancreas, two kidneys, etc. and the same circulatory system that doesn't care where the things it transports are coming from. To put it in a more "mathematical" context, humans have a constant metabolite removal rate for the whole body (in a given time span) and, assuming the amount of metabolites is proportional to the mass of the muscles but their circulatory output is also proportional, bigger muscles = more time to get back to baseline.

- not a doctor

Oooh, good point here as well. Presumably the metabolite removal rate also adapts, but can only adapt so much, similar to how everything else adapts (to say increased volume for example).