Optimal Training Frequency for Muscle Growth Ft. Lyle McDonald

0:06Why don't you like one time per week

0:09training frequencies? So I go back, I

0:11wrote an article about this like a

0:13million years ago, like everything I

0:14wrote about and at the time, you know,

0:18the data seemed to support and this

0:20again came from the wor the worm bomb

0:23analysis that twice a week was the

0:27optimal frequency for hypertrophy

0:28compared to like one or three when he

0:31when he examined the data, right?

0:33Basically, that's where my generic

0:34bulking routine came from. He showed

0:36that 40 to 70 reps per workout twice a

0:38week was about optimal. And if you go

0:40through and math out that work out,

0:42that's pretty much where that comes

0:43from. So then we get into the more

0:44recent data on frequency that depending

0:48on how you parse it, there's two

0:49problems because again all the studies

0:51tend to have confounds. So in many

0:54studies when they increase frequency,

0:57they increase the volume. But if you see

0:59more growth, is it because they increase

1:01the frequency or is it because they

1:03increase the volume? Right? There is

1:04we've got two variables now. High

1:06frequency is superior if you don't match

1:09volume because they're doing more total

1:11sets within some range. If you match

1:15volume, there doesn't seem to be a

1:17superiority of any frequency. That one

1:21time a week is as good as anything else.

1:23I get why they do that for science,

1:24right? You you have to limit

1:27variables, but the study designs, and I

1:29did a big article on my website about

1:31this where I pulled them all out. Again,

1:32it gets back to the meta analysis thing.

1:34You take 12 different colors of paint

1:36and you throw them together and you

1:37pretend they're all gray because you've

1:40got there were sort of three groups of

1:44studies. One were super low volume. It

1:46was like three sets once a week

1:48versus one set three times a week.

1:51Fascinating stuff. Don't care. I don't

1:54see how this is relevant to modern

1:55training volumes. We had others that

1:59used like 10 sets once a week

2:02versus two sets five times a week.

2:04Fascinating. Irrelevant to what we're

2:06discussing. Then there was the

2:08impossible studies. There was the Bgato

2:10study that claimed to do 16 sets to

2:12failure on a one minute rest interval

2:13twice a week. I call that the impossible

2:16study because show me show me eight

2:18eight sets of 10 squats on one minute

2:21followed by eight sets of 10 leg

2:22extensions on one one minute to failure.

2:25I want to see it. And then there was a

2:27couple studies where

2:29actually lower frequency was better. It

2:32was a different analysis. I looked at

2:34like four different meta analyses and

2:36they kind of changed subtly as they went

2:38because they were including different

2:39sets of data. And what you found was

2:41that with very low volumes of training,

2:44lower frequency was actually better. And

2:46I want to look at this sort of

2:47hypothetically because there was a paper

2:49that came out and it was very

2:50hypothetical and I think it and it

2:52hasn't really been examined in detail

2:54and I'm going to since as much as he you

2:57know I'm going to bring up James Kger's

2:59volume bible which is not a pretentious

3:01name at all and I think Chris would

3:03probably agree with this on some

3:05fundamental level and and the the idea

3:08of the paper is that there is probably

3:10some upper limit of per workout volume

3:14above which there is no further

3:16stimulus, right? So, there is some point

3:18above which you are wasting sets. Now,

3:20we don't know where it is because

3:21they've only tested lower volume, right?

3:23We know that three sets will stimulate

3:25muscle protein since it's more than one.

3:27I think somebody did six versus three,

3:29but don't swear me to that. But there's

3:31got to be an upper limit that either

3:33there is no that the muscle becomes

3:35refractory to stimulus. Now, this we

3:37know this happens to other tissues,

3:39right? With bone, once you've loaded a

3:41bone impact like 20 times, it becomes

3:44refractory to further stimulus. You can

3:46do a 100 more loading cycles. It won't

3:48make a damn difference. It seems logical

3:51and logic has nothing to do with

3:52physiology. But there must be an upper

3:55limit above which more and more sets

3:58either does not further stimulate growth

4:00or it's causing excessive fatigue and or

4:03muscle protein breakdown. But we don't

4:05know where that is. So what this P paper

4:07argued this theory paper was that if we

4:11assume that's true that means that any

4:14sets above this upper limit are wasted.

4:16So for a given weekly volume right th

4:19those those sets would be better put on

4:20another day but this only is going to

4:22apply to higher volumes. Okay. Now at

4:25the same time so let's say we assume

4:26there's an upper limit but there's

4:28probably there may be a lower limit as

4:30far as generating an optimal stimulus.

4:32Now the worm boom analysis doesn't

4:35actually support that one set stimulated

4:37growth but again without pulling every

4:39study maybe that was an untrained like I

4:41don't know I didn't ever he

4:43unfortunately the way he did the paper

4:46you couldn't tell which data points came

4:48from which studies and even I wasn't

4:50crazy enough to go pull them all but

4:52let's say that there is a lower a lower

4:54optimal limit per workout right like

4:58you'll get the op like at least a

5:00minimal optimal growth stimulus at say

5:02five sets and let's say 10 is the upper

5:04limit. Okay, that seems good enough of a

5:08working assumption. Now, if you're doing

5:09low set volume, if you're only doing 10

5:12sets a week, it may not matter whether

5:14you train once a week or twice a week

5:16because you would either be doing 10

5:17sets once a week or five sets twice a

5:19week. You're within that range. Now, in

5:20the studies that showed that low

5:21frequency was better, was very low set

5:23volumes. If you're only doing four sets

5:25a week and you split that into two days,

5:27well, that's only two sets a week, two

5:28sets twice a week. That's probably too

5:30low of a per workout volume to do any

5:32good. And I think that explains that.

5:35But I don't give a what happens

5:36with three sets a week. That doesn't

5:38tell us anything. I don't care what

5:40happens with third 16 sets twice a week

5:42when the workouts are impossible and

5:44you're just using volume to make up for

5:46poor quality training. So let's say

5:48you're going to do 20 sets a week per

5:49muscle group, right? You're going to be

5:51the upper end of the supposed limit, the

5:53theoretical limit. Well, if you train

5:55once a week on a bro split, if we assume

5:57that 10 is the upper limit of maximal

5:59stimulus, those extra 10 sets are

6:01wasted. Not only are they not generating

6:03more growth, they're generating more

6:04fatigue. Whereas doing 10 sets twice a

6:07week, you know, have two optimal

6:09workouts. The idea is that above a

6:11certain point, those sets may simply be

6:13wasted. Not only are they not

6:15beneficial, they might be negative. And

6:17so what my conclusion was in this

6:18article was because well when I wrote

6:20the original article and again in

6:23hindsight I think I was conflating

6:25issues in the sense of typically when I

6:29saw people in the gym doing these once a

6:31week bros my assumption was that it was

6:34the frequency that was the problem and

6:36in hindsight I don't think that was the

6:38case the problem was that piss ass

6:41intensity no

6:43progression the people I know that have

6:45made that work incling people in my

6:47group who I actually do respect their

6:49opinion. I know for a fact they are

6:51training intensely and focusing on

6:53progressive overload. So that may be the

6:56difference here. I think I was thought

6:58it was a frequency issue but I think

7:00there were other issues at play because

7:02I never really saw anybody doing a bro

7:04split that ever tried to train harder at

7:06weight which I think is also a

7:08fundamental problem. If you have 20 sets

7:09you're going to piss ass through most of

7:11them. You cannot apply high intensity to

7:15that much volume. But I think it would

7:16come down to what whether I would say a

7:19higher or lower frequency I think would

7:21depend on set volume. Like well here's

7:23the study I would like to see. Low

7:25volumes don't tell us anything. Three

7:27sets once a week versus one set three

7:28times a week. Who cares? At 20 sets I

7:32would predict that 20 sets once a week

7:35would be inferior to 10 sets twice a

7:37week. Two workouts of seven sets and one

7:39workout of six. Would that be better

7:42than 10 twice a week? I don't know.

7:46At this point, we're in an optimal, you

7:49know, two workouts of 10 is in the

7:52optimal range. Three workouts of six and

7:54seven is in the optimal range. Like,

7:56let's say we're doing 12 sets. 12 sets

7:59once a week in theory has two wasted

8:01sets. I would expect six sets twice a

8:04week to be superior, but would four sets

8:06three times a week be better? I doubt it

8:09because now we've dropped below a

8:11supposed optimal minimum. And we're just

8:13physiology here. We also get into the

8:15practical issues of it can't be

8:16programmed. That is the problem with

8:18high frequency bodybuilding. It's one

8:20thing to go I'm going to squat three

8:21times a week. That's one movement to

8:24there's no pragmatic way to like set up

8:28high frequency bodybuilding with any

8:29because there's too many muscle groups

8:31to train like there that's a practical

8:33issue. But I think the way the studies

8:36have been designed the volume's either

8:38too low or okay great we compared one

8:41day a week to five days a week. That's

8:43not the comparison I'm interested in.

8:45Like, okay, would maybe 20 sets once a

8:47week versus four sets five days a week.

8:51I don't know. like I think that might be

8:52better for strength because you got more

8:54practice but from a hypertrophy

8:56standpoint you know and like so again

8:57this paper this frequency thing they

8:59were much theorizing similar to what

9:01what what uh Chris does and they're like

9:04well we know that protein synthesis you

9:06know falls back to normal by 48 hours

9:08and it might make logical sense to train

9:10more frequently with a lower volume so

9:13you don't have wasted sets. So, you

9:16know, then again, one thing I do think

9:19people don't realize when they look at,

9:21you know, Arnold's training and the the

9:23training of that

9:24day, I those 20 sets per muscle group,

9:28those were not all work sets. At least

9:30that's not the impression I ever got.

9:33They kind of pyramided up to like maybe,

9:35you know, one or two hard sets for any

9:38given exercise. Like, you know, they did

9:39the 15, 12, 10, eight. And I don't I

9:42wouldn't like it was not 20 hard sets

9:44because 20 hard sets can't be done. Then

9:46again, you look at Dorian's training and

9:48actually as much as the hit guys like to

9:50claim him, his training was more it was

9:54more similar to what Arnold and them

9:55were doing than it wasn't when you

9:57actually look at what he did because,

9:59you know, he would do four exercises per

10:01muscle group on average, but he would do

10:03like two or three warm-ups per exercise.

10:06Everyone was like, "But he did he did

10:07one set to failure." No, no, no, no, no.

10:09He did one top set to failure. That's a

10:12very different sentence. He didn't get

10:14on the hammer incline and go straight to

10:15four wheels and a quarter per side. You

10:17know, he would do one wheel by 15 and

10:19two wheels by 12 and three wheels by,

10:21you know, and maybe only that that

10:23three-wheel set was, you know, kind of a

10:25work set, but you know, his total

10:27workout was like 12 to 15 sets. It was

10:30simply only like, you know, four truly

10:33hard work sets, which I think if you

10:36look at, you know, what Arnold were

10:37doing, it's not it's not as different as

10:39people think it is. So, like I said, I'm

10:43not a fan of once per week. Again, I

10:44think it lets people do too much volume,

10:47too many exercises. And maybe I should

10:50ask the guys in my group that I know

10:51have used it. like I should see exactly

10:52how they're for all I know they're just

10:54doing 10 hard subs and making

10:56intelligent exercise selections but I

10:58don't know exactly what they're doing

11:00but I think in general I just prefer

11:04that because like because then you had

11:05HST right which is like three times a

11:06week and he Brian traded frequency for

11:10intensity because most of his workouts

11:12are very submaximal only the sixth

11:15workout of every two weeks is is an

11:17allout workout right once a week trains

11:21volume for frequency. My generic bulking

11:25routine, I just split the middle. I'm

11:27like rather than once a week all the

11:28volume, three times a week with moderate

11:30volumes, twice a week mid-range volumes,

11:34not too failure, not too far away from

11:35failure. You know, it was a very split

11:38the middle kind of thing.