Ep 392 - Training Frequency for Hypertrophy

Sure.

So first we'll start with what's present, what's right now, what's hot, what's on social media, what are people aware of? And that is that there are numerous claims that taking the same dosage of training, but training more frequently, although not too frequently to avoid the fatigue boogeyman, is a better way of ensuring you grow, because if initial sets produce more hypertrophy and if, you know, between sessions you're slowly shrinking, which is a claim, then surely this means that you should, you know, if you were going to do, say, nine sets per week per a given muscle group, it would be far better to do three sessions where you did three sets versus one where you did nine or even two where you did four in one and five in the other.

And that's the current claim.

And like you said, hot off the presses research, there was a new study.

Let me make sure I pronounce the last name right.

I want to say it's Calzavara, Calzavara, perhaps.

Calzavara.

group in Brazil that recently tested exactly that comparison, the three-verse-one-with-nine-sets, as well as a pretty cool preprint that is a reanalysis of Pell and et al.' 's meta-analysis, meta-regression, I should say, that looked specifically at the distribution of dose.

So it was getting at the question of, all right, in the studies that directly compare the same weekly volume within study, not necessarily between study, and then manipulate frequency.

And if we control for certain factors, how does that come out? And they even purport to assess some of the things that people have critiqued about the overall data set here.

If we're doing ultrasound measurements too early, are these confounding the data via exercise-induced muscle swelling? Are different study qualities or measurement techniques impacting this? Is the total volume something that could be creating, uh, this artificial inflation of, uh, the effect just because, you know, it never dissipates, not even in a week when you could measure it.

So is this something that is impacting lower volume studies versus higher volume studies? So anyway, very cool, um, uh, reanalysis of that data by Butaji and McKean, uh, that only was, I think, Uh, pre-printed very recently.

So that's interesting.

But I think the first thing we should address tracks is kind of the history on this one, because like you said, I've got a lot of time and time in the game.

And so do you, you know, been lifting for a while, but I've also been paying attention to lifting space.

And there is nothing new under the sun, which is probably not true, but it certainly feels that way if you've been involved with fitness.

Because we have had this conversation before, and it has multiple elements that are repeating itself.

A focus on mechanistic outcomes versus applied outcomes in the past, and a rationale, an emphasis on higher frequency outcomes.

with an overstating of the potential effect.

However, at least back when this conversation was first going around, say, 10 years ago, maybe even 11 or 12, there was an absence of data, which I think made the speculation far more understandable.

And hey, Hand up.

I admit it.

Trex, I was on the wrong side of history.

I was one of the people who claimed that higher frequency almost assuredly did lead to greater hypertrophy, even when volume was matched, if we're talking higher volumes.

And now I'm going to be preaching the opposite gospel.

Sure.

So first we'll start with what's present, what's right now, what's hot, what's on social media, what are people aware of? And that is that there are numerous claims that taking the same dosage of training, but training more frequently, although not too frequently to avoid the fatigue boogeyman, is a better way of ensuring you grow, because if initial sets produce more hypertrophy and if, you know, between sessions you're slowly shrinking, which is a claim, then surely this means that you should, you know, if you were going to do, say, nine sets per week per a given muscle group, it would be far better to do three sessions where you did three sets versus one where you did nine or even two where you did four in one and five in the other.

And that's the current claim.

And like you said, hot off the presses research, there was a new study.

Let me make sure I pronounce the last name right.

I want to say it's Calzavara, Calzavara, perhaps.

Calzavara.

group in Brazil that recently tested exactly that comparison, the three-verse-one-with-nine-sets, as well as a pretty cool preprint that is a reanalysis of Pell and et al.' 's meta-analysis, meta-regression, I should say, that looked specifically at the distribution of dose.

So it was getting at the question of, all right, in the studies that directly compare the same weekly volume within study, not necessarily between study, and then manipulate frequency.

And if we control for certain factors, how does that come out? And they even purport to assess some of the things that people have critiqued about the overall data set here.

If we're doing ultrasound measurements too early, are these confounding the data via exercise-induced muscle swelling? Are different study qualities or measurement techniques impacting this? Is the total volume something that could be creating, uh, this artificial inflation of, uh, the effect just because, you know, it never dissipates, not even in a week when you could measure it.

So is this something that is impacting lower volume studies versus higher volume studies? So anyway, very cool, um, uh, reanalysis of that data by Butaji and McKean, uh, that only was, I think, Uh, pre-printed very recently.

So that's interesting.

But I think the first thing we should address tracks is kind of the history on this one, because like you said, I've got a lot of time and time in the game.

And so do you, you know, been lifting for a while, but I've also been paying attention to lifting space.

And there is nothing new under the sun, which is probably not true, but it certainly feels that way if you've been involved with fitness.

Because we have had this conversation before, and it has multiple elements that are repeating itself.

A focus on mechanistic outcomes versus applied outcomes in the past, and a rationale, an emphasis on higher frequency outcomes.

with an overstating of the potential effect.

However, at least back when this conversation was first going around, say, 10 years ago, maybe even 11 or 12, there was an absence of data, which I think made the speculation far more understandable.

And hey, Hand up.

I admit it.

Trex, I was on the wrong side of history.

I was one of the people who claimed that higher frequency almost assuredly did lead to greater hypertrophy, even when volume was matched, if we're talking higher volumes.

And now I'm going to be preaching the opposite gospel.