Training frequency is measured as the number of workouts per muscle in a given period of time, or it is tracked instead by specific exercises over a set period, that is, the training frequency of different lifts
(e.g. the deadlift, press or squat).
For training to stay continually stimulating, or to preserve the changes gained from the stimulating effect of the previous workout,
we have to train at a certain frequency. For the adaptive processes to proceed to the maximum, the recovery time between workouts, and its length, is of key importance.
As a rule of thumb, we should take the view that as the intensity of the training stimulus rises, frequency should fall.
In strength training practice, the schools of thought on frequency are worlds apart. For example, Rich Weil, who has also held the world record in the bench press, recommends a frequency of one workout per muscle group a week. (Translator’s note: I dare to conclude here that this applies to the lift as well. At the other end of the spectrum are Olympic weightlifting teams that do 9–12 workouts a week. For example, Tara Nott, America’s first gold medalist in weightlifting, regularly squatted 9 times a week to reach her level.)
Members of some countries’ national weightlifting teams do four to five workouts a day for the hip extensors (the glutes together with the biceps femoris) and the knee extensors (the quadriceps). Science can’t be relied on here, since practice has often proven the opposite. Data obtained from untrained and unmotivated test subjects evidently shows nothing.
(Translator’s note: the last position needs some explaining on my part, not to say that it is even quite confusing. On the whole this is a fascinating and educational piece of writing, but in my view the article has one flaw. Namely, Poliquin leaves it very open what exactly he means by intensity. He presents the whole story in such a way that I, as a reader, can treat intensity one way at one point and another way at another.
In places he understands intensity in the article as a high degree of effort, going to failure, and work done per unit of time (or per set) measured by rep count; at other times, though, it feels as if intensity still means the size of the weight lifted. The latter would in fact be the correct meaning, and it is the one I am used to as well.
Why am I confused? If we take it that we are talking about developing strength and rely on the rule of thumb given in the first paragraph, then that rule can’t actually hold. At least, that’s not how it’s done in practice. In no powerlifting program (as you progress), as training intensity advances (as the weights increase), does training frequency decrease, as far as I know. Or how do you see it?
The rule of thumb he gives can undoubtedly hold if we understand intensity as doing long sets, using special methods (supersets, tri-sets, drop sets, burnouts, pre-exhaustion, negatives, etc.) and going to failure. In that case it is logical that the more we “push” ourselves to exhaustion, the longer the nervous system needs to recover.
A good article, but the man still leaves it oddly open whether we are talking about frequency for hypertrophy-oriented training or primarily for developing strength. When three different schools of frequency are discussed later on, I can conclude that the classification of these schools is preferably based on strength development, at least the first two. The first school of course also applies when we talk about “fullbody” training.)
Three main schools of frequency exist:
1. Train three times a week. Bompa follows or followed this school, as did Chuck Sipes, a very strong bodybuilder of the sixties. It is the most common training frequency system or variant in the world. (Translator’s note: it can be concluded that this is the traditional “fullbody” approach)
2. Train a lift or a variation of it at least six times a week. A successful follower of this school is Mel Hennessey, and Bulgarian weightlifters also favor this training concept.
3. Train hard, recover, and come back only when you can lift a little more than last time. In other words, this school holds that you should return to the gym once supercompensation (overcompensation) has taken place. Under this theory, training frequency per muscle group ranges from 3-10 days. A strong proponent of this theory is Fred Hatfield (translator’s note: who, as far as I know, is a powerlifter), as well as Mike McDonald, one of the most successful bench pressers of all time.
I remember that Terry Todd tested the readiness of his muscles and their supercompensation on the press with a very light weight. If his muscles felt somehow off, he took an extra day off. This could happen even several times in a row.
My (the article author’s) conclusions regarding training frequency:
1. Of all the parameters that describe training, I think training frequency is the one most influenced by genetic differences, regardless of whether you train with steroids or without. I think it is the aspect of training that probably needs the most experimenting to find out which option suits you best.
I have seen and worked with elite athletes who reached the top training one muscle (or lift) once every 10 days, and I have worked with top athletes who train a single lift as often as 10 times a week. At both extremes there were athletes who used chemical aid, but also athletes who did not.
2. Training frequency varies greatly with the athlete’s stage of development. At the start of gym training, all beginners have relatively similar prescriptions, but after a while, as the individual gets stronger, genetic differences begin to play an ever greater role.
3. When defining and planning frequency, you definitely need to take into account the principle of training economy: how much of the time spent in the gym we actually devote specifically to training, to lifting weights.
4. Assuming that training volume and intensity are both challenging and significant, it seems to me that training once every five days works best for most individuals. I train 70% of my clients on this principle, with good results.
(Translator’s note: I’d like to ask right away whether you train your athletes for strength or for hypertrophy. They’re not quite the same thing. I’m somewhat familiar with powerlifting programs too, and I don’t know of any that train each lift only once every five days (5 x 5, 3 x 3). For hypertrophy, “every 5 days” seems quite suitable, but for powerlifting definitely never.)
5. The training method has a major influence on training frequency. For example, the greater the eccentric load we train with, the longer the recovery. Squats 4 x 8 with chains are considerably harder than squatting 8 x 3 explosively, even taking into account that the total rep count is the same.
6. All other factors being equal, frequency, and accounting for it, is considerably more important for strength development than for hypertrophy. (Translator’s note: all the more reason, in my view, to treat training frequency for strength development and training frequency for hypertrophy separately.)
7. If time isn’t a problem for you, I believe training the same body part twice a day is still the best option. The morning workout would have a priming or easing effect on the evening workout. Five days later, you could train the same body part again.
(Translator’s note: the last sentence of point 7 reads as follows: “The trainee will train 3 days out of five twice a day for 10 days, then go on to once a day for 5 days.” I’m very sorry, but I can’t make sense of this sentence at all. I’ve studied and puzzled over it for a long time, but in vain.)
8. When working out or finding your training frequency, you have to take the whole training system into account. For example, Louie Simmons’ Westside system is successful with its training loads that vary over the week, but only if you actually use the whole system at once. You can’t run Westside for the press and deadlift alongside a Finnish deadlift cycle and the Russian system for the squat. Always try to stick to the original program. Combined training tends to fail.
(Translator’s note: I can’t fully agree with this one either. I’ve successfully used the Russian system and 5 x 5 in combination. Likewise, it’s possible to combine Wendler and Westside.)
9. Training a lift more than three times a week is a good way to break out of a plateau. Support for this concept can also be found in the scientific literature. However, with this concept as with other more serious training systems, men should reduce their training volume once every three weeks.
10. Undoubtedly, those who want to reach an elite level must be prepared to train a lift in several workouts a week. Experienced former Eastern Bloc coaches say that tolerating such a frequency requires several years of prior training experience.
In summary, training frequency depends largely on your goals, sex, age, training methodology, the intensity you train at, and, above all, of course, your genetics. In other words, what matters is finding what works well for you.
(Translator’s note: all in all, an interesting topic that deserves further discussion. I, too, believe that progress begins with putting together and finding a good split, but in my opinion Poliquin has made this analysis extremely muddled this time!)
Poliquin, Charles. The frequency of strength training.
Author: Janar Rückenberg (translation)
Come and train! ArtGym
