Content uploaded by Paulo Gentil
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paulo Gentil on Apr 21, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Effects of different resistance training
frequencies on body composition and
muscular performance adaptations in men
Hamid Arazi
1
, Abbas Asadi
2
, Paulo Gentil
3
,
Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo
4,7
, Pooria Jahangiri
1
, Adel Ghorbani
1
,
Anthony C. Hackney
5
and Hassane Zouhal
6
1Department of Exercise Physiology, Faculty of Sport Sciences, University of Guilan, Rasht,
Guilan, Iran
2Department of Physical Education and Sport Sciences, Payame Noor University, Rasht, Guilan, Iran
3Faculdade de Educação Física e Dança, Universidade Federal de Goiás, Goias, Brazil
4Department of Physical Activity Sciences, Universidad de Los Lagos, Osorno, Chile
5Department of Exercise & Sport Science; Department of Nutrition, University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States
6M2S (Laboratoire Mouvement, Sport, Santé) –EA 1274, Univ Rennes, Rennes, France
7Centro de Investigación en Fisiología del Ejercicio, Facultad de Ciencias, Universidad Mayor,
Santiago, Chile
ABSTRACT
Background: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of 8 weeks resistance
training (RT) with two sessions versus four sessions per week under volume
load-equated conditions on body composition, maximal strength, and explosive
actions performance in recreationally trained men.
Methods: Thirty-five healthy young men participated in the study and were
randomly divided into a two sessions per-week RT (RT2, n= 12), four sessions
per-week RT (RT4, n= 13) or a control group (CG, n= 10). All subjects were
evaluated for thigh, chest and arm circumference, countermovement jump (CMJ),
medicine ball throw (MBT), 1-repetition maximum (1RM) leg press, bench press,
arm curl, muscular endurance (i.e., 60% of 1RM to failure) for leg press, and bench
press at pre, mid (week 4) and post an 8-week training intervention.
Results: A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures (3 [group] × 3
[time]) revealed that both training groups increased chest and thigh circumferences,
strength and explosive actions performance tests in comparison to CG following
8 weeks of training (p= 0.01 to 0.04). Group × time interactions were also noted in
1RM bench press (effects size [ES] = 1.07 vs. 0.89) and arm curl (ES = 1.15 vs. 0.89),
with greater gains for RT4 than RT2 (p= 0.03).
Conclusion: RT improved muscle strength, explosive actions performance and
markers of muscle size in recreationally trained men; however, four sessions of
resistance training per week produced greater gains in muscular strength for the
upper body measures (i.e., 1RM bench press and arm curl) when compared to two
sessions per week under volume-equated conditions.
Subjects Anthropology, Anatomy and Physiology, Clinical Trials, Kinesiology
Keywords Athletic performance, Body composition, Human physical conditioning, Recovery,
Strength training
How to cite this article Arazi H, Asadi A, Gentil P, Ramírez-Campillo R, Jahangiri P, Ghorbani A, Hackney AC, Zouhal H. 2021. Effects of
different resistance training frequencies on body composition and muscular performance adaptations in men. PeerJ 9:e10537
DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537
Submitted 16 June 2020
Accepted 19 November 2020
Published 21 April 2021
Corresponding author
Hamid Arazi,
hamid.arazi@guilan.ac.ir
Academic editor
Michelle Ploughman
Additional Information and
Declarations can be found on
page 13
DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537
Copyright
2021 Arazi et al.
Distributed under
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0
INTRODUCTION
Resistance training (RT) is an exercise modality commonly used to improve muscle
hypertrophy and strength (ACSM, 2009;Fleck & Kraemer, 2004). Designing an optimum
RT program requires controlling variables such as the number of sets, repetitions,
intensity, exercise selection–sequence, and rest intervals (Fleck & Kraemer, 2004).
Recently, some studies have focused on the effects of RT frequency on muscular
adaptations (Arazi & Asadi, 2011;Dankel et al., 2017;Saric et al., 2018;Gentil et al., 2015).
The frequency of RT describe the number of training sessions performed per muscle
group in a given period (ACSM, 2009), which is commonly restricted to a week (Dankel
et al., 2017).
Previous studies have typically compared 1 vs. 2, 1 vs. 3, 3 vs. 4, and 3 vs. 6 times per
week RT frequencies on muscular adaptations, with controversial findings (Arazi & Asadi,
2011;Dankel et al., 2017;Saric et al., 2018;Gentil et al., 2015,2018;Brigatto et al.,
2018;Colquhoun et al., 2018;Gomes et al., 2018;Häkkinen & Kallinen, 1994;Raastad et al.,
2012;Zaroni et al., 2019;Schoenfeld et al., 2015;Yue et al., 2018). For example, when
Colquhoun et al. (2018) and Saric et al. (2018) compared 3 vs. 6 days per week RT on
muscular adaptations in resistance-trained men, with volume equated, both frequencies
induced similar gains in strength and muscle hypertrophy. In addition, Brigatto et al.
(2018) concluded that both one and two RT session per week promoted neuromuscular
adaptations including muscular strength and endurance with a similar change between
experimental conditions. Similarly, other authors reported similar changes in muscle
strength and hypertrophy with equal volume RT performed one or two times per week
in untrained (Gentil et al., 2015) and trained men (Gentil et al., 2018). In contrast, Zaroni
et al. (2019) examined well-trained men, with a split training routine with muscle
groups trained once per week vs. whole-body split training routine with muscle groups
trained 5 days per week, and found that higher frequencies induced superior hypertrophic
effect. Moreover, in a series of systematic review studies by Schoenfeld, Ogborn & Krieger
(2016) and Schoenfeld, Grgic & Krieger (2018) the authors addressed that twice weekly
RT in more effective than once a week RT to increase muscle hypertrophy.
The controversy between studies may derive from previous limitations among
published studies. For example, when RT programs of different frequency are performed
under volume-equated conditions, muscle strength gain is similar between different
frequencies (ACSM, 2009;Schoenfeld, Ogborn & Krieger, 2016;Schoenfeld, Grgic & Krieger,
2018). Another caveat in the literature is that comparisons are usually limited to muscle
strength and hypertrophy (Saric et al., 2018;Brigatto et al., 2018;Gomes et al., 2018;
Zaroni et al., 2019;Schoenfeld et al., 2015), and little is known about the effects of RT
frequencies on muscle power and endurance performance in recreationally trained
individuals. Moreover, randomized-controlled interventions, with an equated volume
load between different training frequencies are lacking. Therefore, the purpose of this
study was to investigate the effects of volume load-equated RT frequencies of 2 vs. 4 times
per week on muscular strength, endurance, power performances, and muscle size in
recreationally trained young men.
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 2/16
METHODS
Study design
In a randomized-controlled longitudinal design, subjects were divided into 3 groups,
including RT performed 2 times per week (RT2), 4 times per week (RT4) and a control
group (CG). The study duration lasted 12 weeks (Fig. 1). The main training intervention
period lasted 8 weeks and the subjects performed equal volume training with differing
training frequencies (i.e., 2 vs. 4 times per week). Pre, mid and post 8-week training,
one repetition maximum (1RM) of leg press, bench press, and arm curl, muscular
endurance (i.e., 60% of 1RM to failure) for the upper- and lower-body (i.e., bench press
and leg press), countermovement jump and medicine ball throw, in addition to thigh,
chest and arm circumferences were measured. Two measurements with 96 h apart were
used to determine the reliability of tests and the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of
all tests were r ≥0.95.
Participants
Thirty-five young men who recreationally trained RT (i.e., 2 or 3 days per week for at least
2 years) participated in this study. Inclusion criterions for the study were (1) no upper- and
lower-body injuries or orthopedic problems as screened by physician, (2) no medical
problems or any history of ankle, knee, or back pathology in the 3 months before the study,
(3) no lower or upper-body reconstructive surgery of any type in the past 2 years or
unresolved musculoskeletal disorders, (4) no problems of the cardiovascular and
endocrine systems. Furthermore, the subjects were required to not have used any
supplement or drug within the past 6 months prior to inclusion in this study which was
confirmed by a personal interview. The subjects were assigned to 3 groups including:
2 times per week RT (RT2; n= 12, age = 19.8 ± 1.8 y, height = 1.75 ± 0.5 m, mass =
64.2 ± 5.7 kg, body fat = 16.6 ± 4.9%, and training age = 2.5 ± 0.5 y), 4 times per week RT
(RT4; n= 13, age = 19.9 ± 1.6 y, height = 1.77 ± 0.4 m, mass = 70.6 ± 8.2 kg, body fat =
18.0 ± 4.1%, and training age = 2.8 ± 0.7 y) and a control group (CG; n= 10, age =
20.4 ± 1.4 y, height = 1.78 ± 0.8 m, mass = 69.1 ± 8.0 kg, body fat = 18.4 ± 3.7%, and
training age = 2.3 ± 0.4 y) using computer-generated random numbers (Fig. 2). After being
informed about the study procedures, benefits and possible risks, the participants signed
an informed consent form in accordance with the guidelines of the Institutional Review
Board at the University of Guilan (Project. 1398/2019).
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Weeks
Familiarizaon
Pre-test
Post-test
Training Period
Mid-test
Training Period
Figure 1 Study design. Full-size
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10537/fig-1
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 3/16
Procedures
The volunteers visited the laboratory 9 times for testing including 3 days for pre-test (24 h
apart between testing sessions), 3 days for mid-test (24 h apart between testing sessions),
and 3 days for post-test (24 h apart between testing sessions). The subjects were tested
at the same time of day (4 to 6 P.M.) and in the same order to minimize the effect of
circadian variations in the test results. All subjects were instructed to continue with their
normal daily life activities and dietary intake throughout the study duration.
Anthropometric measures
Height was measured using a wall-mounted stadiometer (Seca 222, Terre Haute, IN, USA),
body mass was measured using a medical scale (BC-418MA; Tanita, Tokyo, Japan), and
skinfold thickness was measured at 3 sites (i.e., pectoral, quadriceps, and abdominal)
on the right side of the body using calipers (model 01128; Lafayette Caliper, Lafayette, IN,
USA) (Jackson & Pollock, 1985). Each site measurement was assessed 3 times and the
average of 3 trials was recorded for analysis. The circumferences of chest, mid-thigh, and
mid-arm on the right side of the body were assessed using tape measure with nearest
to 0.1 cm (Arazi, Damirchi & Asadi, 2013). The arm and thigh circumferences were
measured with the muscle maximally contracted. All anthropometric measures were
assessed by the same researcher who was experienced and qualified for the measurements.
Parcipants inclusion for the study
n = 40
Allocated
n = 35
RT2
n = 12
CG
n = 10
First
assessment
Second
assessment
Stascal
analysis
Removed based on
inclusion criteria
n = 5
RT4
n = 13
RT2
n = 12
RT4
n = 13
CG
n = 10
RT2
n = 12
RT4
n = 13
CG
n = 10
Figure 2 Study flow. Full-size
DOI: 10.7717/peerj.10537/fig-2
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 4/16
Diet control
To avoid potential dietary confounding of results, 3-day diet recalls were completed at pre-
and mid study duration, and the subjects were advised to maintain their customary
nutritional regimen (i.e., approximately 25% protein, 25% fat and 50% carbohydrate) and
to avoid taking any supplements during the study period. The nutrition specialist
continued to meet with the subjects each week to assess adherence to their food and liquid
instructions and avoidance of drugs and ergogenic supplements using interview before the
initiation of each training session (Table 1).
Muscular strength
Lower body muscular strength was assessed with the leg press exercise, upper-body
muscular strength was assessed using the free-weight barbell bench press and arm curl
exercises, respectively. The one repetition maximum (1RM) testing was performed
according to method previously described in detail (Arazi, Damirchi & Asadi, 2013;
Fleck & Kraemer, 2004). Briefly, the subjects performed a warm-up set of 8 to 10
repetitions at a light weight (∼50% of 1RM). A second warm-up consisted a set of three to
five repetitions with a moderate weight (∼75% of 1RM), and third warm-up included
one to three repetitions with a heavy weight (∼90% of 1RM). After the warm-up, each
subject was tested for the 1RM by increasing the load during consecutive trials until the
subjects were unable to perform a proper lift, complete the range of motion, and/or
maintain correct technique. The 1RM test was determined by ∼5 sets of one repetition,
with 3–5 min of rest among attempts.
A bilateral leg press test was selected to provide data on maximal dynamic strength
through the full range of motion of the muscles involved. Bilateral leg press tests were
completed using standard a 45leg press machine (Nebula Fitness, Inc., Versailles, OH,
USA), with the subjects assuming a sitting position (about 120flexion at the hips, 80
flexion at the knees, and 10dorsiflexion) and the weight sliding obliquely at 45.
Table 1 Dietary intake assessed for the RT2, RT4 and control groups at pre and in the middle of the
training period (mean ± SD).
RT2 RT4 Control
Energy intake (kcal) Pre 2,632 ± 310 2,521 ± 276 2,618 ± 288
Mid 2,991 ± 298 2,892 ± 199 2,632 ± 299
Carbohydrate (g) Pre 270 ± 33 269 ± 39 272 ± 37
Mid 292 ± 41 298 ± 41 288 ± 33
Fat (g) Pre 85 ± 21 87 ± 23 81 ± 33
Mid 94 ± 24 92 ± 21 82 ± 38
Protein (g) Pre 108 ± 22 105 ± 21 100 ± 19
Mid 129 ± 26 125 ± 30 98 ± 22
Vitamin E (mg) Pre 9.6 ± 1.0 9.3 ± 1.2 9.1 ± 1.1
Mid 11.0 ± 1.5 10.7 ± 1.4 9.0 ± 0.8
Vitamin C (mg) Pre 72 ± 18 71 ± 17 70 ± 15
Mid 79 ± 21 78 ± 13 71 ± 18
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 5/16
A manual goniometer (Q-TEC Electronic Co. Ltd., Gyeonggi-do, South Korea) was used at
the knee to standardize the range of motion. On command, the subjects performed a
concentric leg extension (as fast as possible) starting from the flexed position (85) to reach
the full extension of 180against the resistance determined by the weight. The free-weight
barbell (DHZ Barbell Model, Tehran, Iran) bench press is a valid and specific method
to assess upper-body strength performance. This test initiated with the arms fully
extended, holding the weight directly above the chest. The weight is lowered at a controlled
speed and with a smooth motion, to just touch the chest then returned to the starting
position. The free-weight barbell (DHZ Barbell Model, Tehran, Iran) arm curl is used as a
valid method to assess hand muscle strength. This test initiated in standing position
holding barbell using two hands with the arms hanging by the side of body. The elbows
were in extending position and then the elbows are closed up to shoulder level while
contracting the biceps muscle. The spotters and an experienced strength and conditioning
coach provided verbal encouragement and ensure safety.
Muscular endurance
Before the endurance test, the subjects performed a short period of warm-up including
5 min of running and 5 min of stretching exercise and then performed 10 repetitions with
30–40% of 1RM for each exercise test. The muscular endurance tests were performed
according to method previously described in detail (Arazi, Asadi & Roohi, 2014). Briefly,
after warm-up, the subjects performed as many repetitions as possible without stopping or
pausing between repetitions with 60% of 1RM to exhaustion with 1 h rest between the two
tests (i.e., bench press and leg press) (Arazi & Asadi, 2011).
Lower and upper body power performance
Lower body power performance was measured at first, using the countermovement jump
test (CMJ). For the CMJ, subjects performed standard warm-up including 10 min light
running and ballistic movements and then performed five CMJs without arms akimbo
with 30-s rest period (Arazi, Asadi & Roohi, 2014). The Vertec (Muscle LabV718; Ergo
Jump Plus Bosco System, Langesund, Norway) was adjusted to match the height of the
individual participant by having him stand with the dominant side to the base of the
testing device. The dominant hand was raised and the Vertec was adjusted so that the
hand was the appropriate distance away from the marker based on markings on the device
itself. The subjects were instructed to flex their knees until 90according to previously
established methods (Arazi, Asadi & Roohi, 2014). Each subject performed 3 maximal CMJ
with 30-s rest period and the greatest jump recorded for further analysis.
Upper body power performance was measured 30 min post CMJ test, using the
medicine ball throw (MBT). For the MBT, subjects performed standard warm-up
including 10 min of light stretching and ballistic movements for the upper body and then
performed five balls throwing with 30-s rest period. The subjects sat on the floor and flexed
their elbow similar to basketball chest pass and push the ball (3 kg Rubber Medicine
Ball; Champion Sports, Taiwan) as far as possible. There was a floor-mounted tape
measure that was used to record distance from sitting position to first contact of the ball.
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 6/16
In fact, the distance of the throw of the medicine ball from sat position up to its first
contact with the ground was measured as upper body power. Each subject performed five
maximal MBT with 30-s rest period (Abe et al., 2000) and the greatest distance recorded
for further analysis.
Resistance training program
Table 2 presented the summary of the RT program. The training protocol included a
mixture of single-joint and multi-joint exercises with equated training volume load
(repetitions × external load [kg]) between experimental groups. A 60 to 90 s period of rest
between sets and 2 to 3 min of rest between exercises were allowed. The RT intensity
was between 70% to 80% of 1RM which determined by 1RM testing prior to inclusion in
study schedule and weight was increased systematically if the prescribed amount of
repetitions were completed. Each training session was supervised by a researcher and
Certificated Strength and Conditioning Specialist, with a coach: trainee ratio of 1:5
(Gentil & Bottaro, 2013). To continuously provide appropriate loading based on the
current strength levels of the subjects, they tested at pre-training and after 4 weeks of
training to modify RT intensity.
Statistical analyses
A two-way analysis of variance with repeated measures (3 [group] × 3 [time]) was used
to determine significant differences among groups. Assumptions of sphericity were
assessed using Mauchly’s test of sphericity, with any violations adjusted by use of the
Greenhouse-Geisser (GG) correction. When a significant F value was achieved, Bonferroni
post hoc procedures were performed to identify the pairwise differences between the
Table 2 Resistance training protocol.
RT2 group Saturday Repetitions Tuesday Repetitions
Leg press 10-10-8-8 Leg extension 10-10-8-8
Lying leg curl 10-10-8-8 Deadlift 10-10-8-8
Lat pull down 10-10-8-8 Lat rowing 10-10-8-8
Bench press 10-10-8-8 Incline bench press 10-10-8-8
Lateral raises 10-10-8-8 Military press 10-10-8-8
Machine biceps curl 10-10-8-8 Arm curl 10-10-8-8
Machine triceps extension 10-10-8-8 Lying triceps extension 10-10-8-8
RT4 group Saturday and Tuesday Repetitions Sunday and Wednesday Repetitions
Leg press 10-8 Leg extension 10-8
Lying leg curl 10-8 Deadlift 10-8
Lat pull down 10-8 Lat rowing 10-8
Bench press 10-8 Incline bench press 10-8
Lateral raises 10-8 Military press 10-8
Machine biceps curl 10-8 Arm curl 10-8
Machine triceps extension 10-8 Lying triceps extension 10-8
Note:
RT2: 2 times per week resistance training, RT4: 4 times per week resistance training, RM: repetition maximum.
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 7/16
means. Customized excel spread sheets were used to calculate all effect size (ES) statistics.
Hedge’s g (g = (Mpost –Mpre)/SDpooled) was utilized to calculate an effect size for all
measures. Threshold values for assessing magnitudes of ES were <0.2, trivial; 0.2–0.6,
small; 0.6–1.2, moderate; 1.2–2.0, large; 2.0–4.0, very large; and >4.0, nearly perfect
(Hopkins, Marshall & Batterham, 2009). The effect size is reported with the 95%
confidence interval (CI) for all analysed measures. All data are presented as mean ± SD.
The ICC was used to determine the reliability of the measurements. The level of
significance was set at p≤0.05. The statistical tests were performed using the SPSS
statistical package version 21 (Chicago, IL, USA).
RESULTS
The test–retest reliability coefficient of all variable tests was r ≥0.95. At baseline, no
significant differences were observed among groups in any dependent variables (p= 0.642).
In addition, the CG did not show significant changes at any time point in the variables
(p= 0.211).
There was no significant difference between the RT2 (week 4 = 45.37 ± 5.62 kg, week
8 = 91.37 ± 11.51 kg) and RT4 (week 4 = 48.68 ± 6.77 kg, week 8 = 93.28 ± 12.42 kg) in the
training volume load at week 4 (p= 0.52) and week 8 (p= 0.46).
There were significant time effects which indicated significant increases in chest and
thigh circumferences at mid and post-training intervention for both the RT2 and RT4
(p= 0.01). No significant increase was seen in the arm circumference for both the groups
(p= 0.6). There were significant group by time interaction in chest (p= 0.018) and
thigh (p= 0.026) circumference increases following 8 weeks of training which indicated
significant differences between trained groups than CG at mid and post-test values.
However, no significant differences were observed between RT2 and RT4 in chest and
thigh circumferences at mid and post-test (Tables 3 and 4).
There were time effects which indicated significant increases in 1RM of bench press, leg
press and arm curl at mid and post-training intervention for both the RT2 and RT4
(p= 0.001). There were group by time interaction in 1RM of bench press (p= 0.031)
and arm curl (p= 0.022) following 8 weeks of training which indicated statistically
significant differences between the RT4 compared with RT2 at post-test. Compared with
CG, both the RT2 and RT4 groups indicated significant differences at mid- and post-test
(p= 0.001) in all strength measures (Tables 3 and 4).
There was a time effect which indicated significant increases in leg press endurance at
mid and post-training intervention for both the RT2 and RT4 (p= 0.001). There was a
significant group by time interaction (p= 0.041) in leg press endurance which indicated
significant increases between the trained groups than the CG at mid and post-test
values. However, no significant differences were observed between RT2 and RT4 in leg
press endurance at mid and post-test (Tables 2 and 3). In bench press endurance,
there was a time effect which indicated significant increases at mid and post-training
intervention for the RT4 (p= 0.001). There was a significant group by time interaction
(p= 0.032) in bench press endurance which indicated significant differences between the
RT4 than the CG at mid and post-test values (Tables 2 and 3). However, no significant
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 8/16
differences were observed between RT2 and RT4 in bench press endurance at mid and
post-test (Tables 2 and 3).
There were time effects which indicated significant increases in CMJ and MBT at mid
and post-training intervention for both the RT2 and RT4 (p= 0.02). There were significant
Table 3 Changes in anthropometric and performance variables in response to 8 weeks training intervention (mean ± SD).
Variable Group Testing time Statistics
Pre Mid Post
Chest circumference (cm) RT2 86.4 ± 4 88.7 ± 4.3*89.8 ± 4.5*
‡
G = 0.08
RT4 86.5 ± 7.3 91.3 ± 8.6*
‡
92.5 ± 8.1*
‡
T = 0.001
CG 86.3 ± 6.8 87.1 ± 7.5 86.8 ± 7.2 G × T = 0.018
Thigh circumference (cm) RT2 53.6 ± 3.3 56.0 ± 3.7*
‡
56.1 ± 3.4*
‡
G = 0.54
RT4 54.7 ± 7.6 56.2 ± 6.0*
‡
56.3 ± 6.3*
‡
T = 0.001
CG 53.5 ± 4.4 52.1 ± 3.4 51.8 ± 4.2 G × T = 0.026
Arm circumference (cm) RT2 27.2 ± 2.5 28.2 ± 2.9 28.8 ± 2.5 G = 0.1
RT4 29.3 ± 3.4 29.8 ± 3.4 29.5 ± 3.1 T = 0.6
CG 27.6 ± 2.1 27.0 ± 1.2 26.6 ± 1.2 G × T = 0.12
1RM bench press (kg) RT2 63.5 ± 6.4 70.3 ± 7.3*
‡
71.5 ± 10.5*
‡
G = 0.12
RT4 64.6 ± 5.3 69.8 ± 10.6*
‡
75.5 ± 12.8*
†‡
** T = 0.001
CG 64.4 ± 7.5 63.5 ± 7.5 64.8 ± 6.2 G × T = 0.031
1RM leg press (kg) RT2 201.2 ± 36.6 260.6 ± 48.0*
‡
310.3 ± 52.5*
†‡
G = 0.48
RT4 203.4 ± 51.7 263.9 ± 68.5*
‡
299.8 ± 64.2*
†‡
T = 0.01
CG 202.8 ± 45.2 204.1 ± 39.8 203.4 ± 41.2 G × T = 0.47
1RM arm curl (kg) RT2 28.7 ± 4.0 33.6 ± 4.0*
‡
34.3 ± 8.2*
‡
G = 0.1
RT4 28.6 ± 5.3 35.8 ± 6.2*
‡
37.2 ± 8.7*
‡
** T = 0.001
CG 29.1 ± 3.1 29.1 ± 2.5 29.9 ± 3.1 G × T = 0.022
Bench press endurance (repetitions) RT2 21.1 ± 3.6 21.5 ± 3.6 21.5 ± 3.8 G = 0.11
RT4 21.5 ± 2.6 23.0 ± 3.1*
‡
23.5 ± 2.3*
‡
T = 0.01
CG 19.4 ± 4.4 19.8 ± 4.6 20.1 ± 3.5 G × T = 0.032
Leg press endurance (repetitions) RT2 20.7 ± 7.0 24.1 ± 4.2*
‡
26.5 ± 5.4*
‡
G = 0.07
RT4 19.4 ± 4.8 27.0 ± 4.9*
‡
27.2 ± 6.4*
‡
T = 0.001
CG 20.2 ± 3.3 20.8 ± 5.5 19.3 ± 4.2 G × T = 0.041
Countermovement jump (cm) RT2 37.3 ± 4.4 41.7 ± 5.2*
‡
43.7 ± 3.3*
‡
G = 0.36
RT4 37.8 ± 4.6 41.6 ± 3.4*
‡
42.8 ± 5.5*
‡
T = 0.021
CG 37.4 ± 3.7 37.0 ± 3.9 37.1 ± 4.6 G × T = 0.047
Medicine ball throw (m) RT2 3.49 ± 0.52 3.64 ± 0.45*
‡
3.72 ± 0.37*
‡
G = 0.87
RT4 3.72 ± 0.5 3.86 ± 0.58*
‡
3.99 ± 0.65*
‡
T = 0.029
CG 3.49 ± 0.35 3.48 ± 0.4 3.49 ± 0.51 G × T = 0.048
Notes:
*
Significant differences compared to pre-value.
†
Significant differences compared to mid-value.
‡
Significant differences compared to CG.
**
Significant differences between training groups.
RT2: 2 times per week resistance training, RT4: 4 times per week resistance training, CG: control group.
G: group, T: time.
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 9/16
group by time interaction (p= 0.04) in CMJ and MBT which indicated significant
differences between the trained groups than the CG at mid and post-test values (Tables 2
and 3). However, no significant differences were observed between the RT2 and RT4 in
CMJ and MBT at mid and post-test (Tables 3 and 4).
Table 4 Time point ES in anthropometric and performance variables in response to 8 weeks training intervention.
Variable Group ES (95% Cl)
Pre to mid Mid to post Pre to post
Chest circumference (cm) RT2 0.53 [−0.28 to 1.35]
b
0.24 [−0.56 to 1.04]
b
0.77 [−0.06 to 1.6]
c
RT4 0.58 [−0.2 to 1.37]
b
0.14 [−0.63 to 0.91]
a
0.75 [−0.04 to 1.55]
c
CG 0.11 [−0.77 to 0.98] −0.04 [−0.92 to 0.84] 0.07 [−0.81 to 0.95]
Thigh circumference (cm) RT2 0.66 [−0.13 to 1.45]
c
0.03 [−0.74 to 0.8]
a
0.72 [−0.07 to 1.52]
c
RT4 0.21 [−0.59 to 1.01]
b
0.02 [−0.78 to 0.82]
a
0.22 [−0.58 to 1.02]
b
CG −0.22 [−1.1 to 0.65] −0.08 [−0.95 to 0.8] −0.38 [−1.26 to 0.51]
Arm circumference (cm) RT2 0.36 [−0.42 to 1.13]
b
0.21 [−0.56 to 0.99]
b
0.62 [−0.17 to 1.41]
c
RT4 0.14 [−0.66 to 0.94]
a
0.09 [−0.71 to 0.89]
a
0.06 [−0.74 to 0.86]
a
CG −0.34 [−1.22 to 0.55] −0.32 [−1.2 to 0.56] −0.56 [−1.45 to 0.33]
1RM bench press (kg) RT2 0.96 [0−.15 to 1.77]
c
0.13 [−0.64 to 0.9]
a
0.89 [−0.08 to 1.7]
c
RT4 0.6 [−0.22 to 1.42]
b
0.47 [−0.34 to 1.28]
b
1.07 [−0.22 to 1.93]
c
CG −0.11 [−0.99 to 0.76] 0.18 [−0.7 to 1.06] 0.06 [−0.82 to 0.93]
1RM leg press (kg) RT2 1.35 [0.5 to 2.2]
d
0.96 [0.15 to 1.77]
c
2.33 [1.34 to 3.33]
e
RT4 0.96 [0.12 to 1.81]
c
0.52 [0.29 to 1.34]
b
1.6 [0.68 to 2.52]
d
CG 0.03 [−0.85 to 0.91] −0.02 [−0.89 to 0.86] 0.01 [−0.86 to 0.89]
1RM arm curl (kg) RT2 1.17 [0.22 to 2.12]
c
0.11 [−0.66 to 0.87]
a
0.84 [−0.04 to 1.64]
c
RT4 1.21 [0.34 to 2.08]
d
0.18 [−0.62 to 0.98]
a
1.15 [0.29 to 2.02]
c
CG 0.0 [−0.88 to 0.88] 0.27 [−0.61 to 1.15] 0.25 [−0.63 to 1.13]
Bench press endurance (repetitions) RT2 0.11 [−0.66 to 0.88]
a
0.0 [−0.77 to 0.77]
a
0.1 [−0.66 to 0.87]
a
RT4 0.51 [−0.31 to 1.32]
b
0.18 [−0.62 to 0.98]
a
0.79 [−0.04 to 1.62]
c
CG 0.09 [−0.79 to 0.96] 0.07 [−0.81 to 0.95] 0.17 [−0.71 to 1.05]
Leg press endurance (repetitions) RT2 0.57 [−0.21 to 1.35]
b
0.48 [−0.3 to 1.26]
b
0.9 [−0.09 to 1.71]
c
RT4 1.51 [0.61 to 2.42]
d
0.03 [−0.77 to 0.83]
a
1.33 [0.45 to 2.22]
d
CG 0.13 [−0.75 to 1] −0.29 [−1.17 to 0.59] −0.23 [−1.11 to 0.65]
Countermovement jump (cm) RT2 0.88 [0.08 to 1.69]
c
0.44 [−0.33 to 1.22]
b
1.59 [0.71 to 2.48]
d
RT4 0.91 [0.07 to 1.75]
c
0.25 [−0.55 to 1.06]
b
0.95 [0.11 to 1.8]
c
CG 0.1 [−0.78 to 0.98] 0.02 [−0.85 to 0.9] 0.07 [−0.81 to 0.95]
Medicine ball throw (m) RT2 0.3 [−0.47 to 1.07]
b
0.19 [−0.58 to 0.96]
a
0.49 [−0.29 to 1.27]
b
RT4 0.25 [−0.55 to 1.05]
b
0.2 [−0.6 to 1.01]
a
0.45 [−0.36 to 1.26]
b
CG 0.03 [−0.85 to 0.9] 0.0 [−0.88 to 0.88] 0.02 [−0.85 to 0.9]
Notes:
a
Trivial.
b
Small.
c
Moderate.
d
Large.
e
Very large ES.
RT2: 2 times per week resistance training, RT4: 4 times per week resistance training, CG: control group.
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 10/16
DISCUSSION
The aim of the present study was to examine the effects of an 8-week RT program
performed two or four times per week RT with equal weekly training volume on thigh,
arm, and chest circumferences, 1RM of back squat, bench press, and arm curl, muscular
endurance and explosive actions performance for the upper- and lower-body in
recreationally trained young men.
In circumference measures, both the training groups significantly increased from
pre-to-post RT intervention in the chest and thigh circumferences, without significant
change for the arm circumference. In addition, the gains in this marker of muscle size were
similar between the RT2 and RT4 groups (small to moderate ES, Table 3), with the
exception of pre-to-mid and pre- to-post, where the RT2 group that indicated moderate ES
while the RT4 group indicated small ES without statistically significant differences.
The findings of the present study are in accordance with other studies that have reported
improvements in muscle size after RT with varied training frequencies (Arazi & Asadi,
2011;Saric et al., 2018;Colquhoun et al., 2018;Schoenfeld, Ogborn & Krieger, 2016;
Schoenfeld, Grgic & Krieger, 2018). In relation to the effects of training frequency on
changes in muscle size or muscular hypertrophy, Schoenfeld, Ogborn & Krieger (2016;
Schoenfeld, Grgic & Krieger, 2018) and Grgic, Schoenfeld & Latella (2018) reported
small (i.e., range between ES = 0.22 to 0.51) gains using different RT frequencies, while in
this study we found moderate (0.75 to 0.77 ES) gains in chest circumference after both
RT2 and RT4. Previous experimental studies reported that RT interventions with two
sessions per week induced small gains (i.e., 0.33 ES) but in this study we found moderate
(range between 0.62 to 0.77 ES) increases in arm, thigh and chest muscle size. This suggest
that RT with a frequency of at least 2 days per week is adequate to enhance muscle
size (Gentil et al., 2015;Colquhoun et al., 2018;Zaroni et al., 2019;Yue et al., 2018).
The RT2 group performed 4 sets per exercise in each training session, which may induce
stimulation of muscular hypertrophy, by signalling pathways that increase protein
synthesis and providing mechanical stress in the muscle fibers (Fernandes et al., 2012
Padilha et al., 2019). However, it seems that the muscle hypertrophy expansion is more
impressed by volume of training and, considering that both groups trained at what has
been shown to be the optimal dose (Barbalho et al., 2019), it can be derived that frequency
of RT might play a subsidiary figure relevant to this and further investigations are needed
to illuminate the effects of training frequency under volume-equated conditions on
muscle size. In addition, whilst circumference measures has been shown to be reliable and
reproducible and might be an appropriate field-centred criterion (De França et al.,
2015), to make careful deductions based on the evidence, subsequent studies should focus
on the use of direct gauges of muscle mass increase using MRI, DXA, ultrasound or
BIA; however, previous studies used the aforementioned equipment and reported small
gains in muscle hypertrophy using different training frequencies (Gentil et al., 2015,
Colquhoun et al., 2018;Zaroni et al., 2019;Yue et al., 2018;Schoenfeld, Ogborn & Krieger,
2016;Schoenfeld, Grgic & Krieger, 2018).
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 11/16
Both RT groups increased their 1RM after 4 and 8 weeks training intervention. To date,
a large number of studies reported that RT is an optimum training modality for strength
enhancement in men and women (Abe et al., 2000;Arazi, Damirchi & Asadi, 2013;
Arazi, Asadi & Roohi, 2014). In relation to strength gains following the first 4 weeks of
training, aside from muscular hypertrophy, neuromuscular changes may have taken place
(i.e., inter-muscular consonance ameliorations, augmented alpha motor-neurons firing
rate, modified mechanical specifications of the muscle-tendon complex, ordonnance
and/or individual-fiber mechanics) (Loenneke et al., 2019).
The RT4 group gained significantly greater strength than the RT2 in 1RM of bench
press and arm curl following 8 weeks of training. However, with comparing ES the RT2
indicated large and very large changes in 1RM of leg press following 4 and 8 weeks training
intervention. Grgic et al. (2018) in the review article addressed that muscular strength is
increased due to more training frequencies; however, RT frequency does not show
meaningful effect on muscular strength improvements while equated training volume.
They reported moderate ES for 2 and 4 times per week RT frequency (i.e., 0.83 and
1.08, respectively), whereas we found similar gains in bench press and arm curl but
large and very large ES in the 1RM leg press. The possible discrepancy in results could be
due to type of test measures such as multi-joint vs. single joint (i.e., leg press vs. knee
extension) and upper vs. lower body tests. Another possible mechanism for the greater
strength gains in bench press and arm curl 1RM after the RT4 compared to the RT2 could
be due to motor learning viewpoint. In fact, multi-joint motions including more mixed
RT exercises need to an accurate coordination and timing of muscle recruitment and a
greater grade of motor efficiency (Carroll, Riek & Carson, 2001). Therefore, increases in RT
frequency from 3 to 4 sessions per week would provide more exposure to a given test/
exercise, which can lead to a higher performance on that test (Mattocks et al., 2017) and
hence resulted in greater upper body strength gains in the RT4 group.
Our findings demonstrated significant changes in lower and upper-extremity muscular
endurance for the RT2 and RT4 groups after 4 and 8 weeks training intervention. These
results are according to the last studies that displayed improvements in muscular
endurance following RT (Aagaard et al., 2002;Arazi, Damirchi & Asadi, 2013). When
comparing the ES, the RT4 showed more gains than RT2 in the endurance tests belonging
to leg press and bench press (Table 3). The possible explanation for these findings could be
due to the greater possibility of higher frequencies to enhance cellular adaptations
(i.e., mitochondrial biogenesis) to increase muscle endurance; however, the information
respective to this issue is rare and further studies are needed to explain the influence of
different RT frequencies on muscular endurance performance.
Both RT groups increased their upper- and-lower body power performance after 4 and
8 weeks training intervention. In line with the results of this study, previous studies
reported improvements in power performance after RT (Arazi & Asadi, 2011;Arazi,
Asadi & Roohi, 2014). Typically, increases in CMJ and MBT performance following first
4 weeks of training and continually to 8 weeks training intervention could induced by
neuromuscular adaptations (Aagaard et al., 2002). In fact, an improvement in power
performance in the early stages of a strength training program is likely the result of
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 12/16
adaptations in the nervous system (Assunção et al., 2016). In fact, Aagaard et al. (2002)
reported that the principal components of the training enforced progressions following
RT were elucidated by elevations in efferent neural drive. This may be one explanation
for the changes in lower- and upper-body power performance (i.e., CMJ and MBT)
after the RT intervention. However, this is the first study that compared the effects of an
8 week RT with either 2 or 4 weekly training sessions on upper and lower-body power
performance. The distribution of training volume on either 2 or 4 weekly training sessions
yielded similar effects on power performance for stretch-shortening cycle tasks in CMJ and
MBT tests. The observed performance enhancements could be explained by inter-
muscular coordination improvements, increased alpha motor-neurons firing rate,
improved mechanical characteristics of the muscle-tendon complex, improved muscle
size, architecture and/or single-fiber mechanics (Arazi & Asadi, 2011;Arazi, Asadi &
Roohi, 2014); however, more studies are needed to clarify the impact of training
frequencies on power related performance adaptation following RT.
CONCLUSION
RT improved muscle strength, power performance and markers of muscle size in
recreationally trained men; however, four sessions of resistance training per week
produced greater gains in muscular strength when compared to two session per week
under volume load-equated conditions. Two and four times per week RT induced
significant effects on muscular adaptations following 8 weeks of training in recreationally
trained young men. In addition, RT for 4 times per week induced further adaptive
responses in muscular strength in bench press and arm curl. It can be recommended that
strength and conditioning professionals keep in their mind that 4 times a week RT could be
adequate for muscular strength gains and 2 times a week RT could be suitable for the
muscle size and power performance under volume load-equated conditions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors are thankful to the participants of this study for their excellent collaborations.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND DECLARATIONS
Funding
The authors received no funding for this work.
Competing Interests
Rodrigo Ramirez Campillo is an Academic Editor for PeerJ.
Author Contributions
Hamid Arazi conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, authored or
reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final draft.
Abbas Asadi conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared
figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved the final
draft.
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 13/16
Paulo Gentil analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and approved
the final draft.
Rodrigo Ramírez-Campillo analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper,
and approved the final draft.
Pooria Jahangiri performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and
approved the final draft.
Adel Ghorbani performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and
approved the final draft.
Anthony C. Hackney analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and
approved the final draft.
Hassane Zouhal analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the paper, and
approved the final draft.
Human Ethics
The following information was supplied relating to ethical approvals (i.e., approving body
and any reference numbers):
The Institutional Review Board at the University of Guilan approved this study
(Project.1398/2019).
Data Availability
The following information was supplied regarding data availability:
The raw measurements are available in the Supplemental Files.
Supplemental Information
Supplemental information for this article can be found online at http://dx.doi.org/10.7717/
peerj.10537#supplemental-information.
REFERENCES
Aagaard P, Erik B, Jesper S, Andersen L, Magnusson P, Dyhre-Poulsen P. 2002. Increased rate of
force development and neural drive of human skeletal muscle following resistance training.
Journal of Applied Physiology 93(4):1318–1326 DOI 10.1152/japplphysiol.00283.2002.
Abe T, DeHoyos DV, Pollock ML, Garzarella L. 2000. Time course for strength and muscle
thickness changes following upper and lower body resistance training in men and women.
European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology 81(3):174–180
DOI 10.1007/s004210050027.
ACSM. 2009. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression models in
resistance training for healthy adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41:687–708.
Arazi H, Asadi A. 2011. Effects of 8 weeks equal-volume resistance training with different workout
frequency on maximal strength, endurance and body composition. International Journal of
Sports Science and Engineering 5:112–118.
Arazi H, Asadi A, Roohi S. 2014. Enhancing muscular performance in women: compound versus
complex, traditional resistance and plyometric training alone. Journal of Musculoskeletal
Research 17(2):1450007 DOI 10.1142/S0218957714500079.
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 14/16
Arazi H, Damirchi A, Asadi A. 2013. Age-related muscle circumference, strength development
and hormonal adaptations with 8 weeks moderate intensity resistance training. Annals de
Endocrinology 74(1):30–35 DOI 10.1016/j.ando.2012.11.004.
Assunção AR, Bottaro M, Ferreira-Junior JB, Izquierdo M, Cadore EL, Gentil P. 2016. The
Chronic effects of low- and high-intensity resistance training on muscular fitness in adolescents.
PLOS ONE 11(8):e0160650 DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0160650.
Barbalho M, Coswig VS, Steele J, Fisher JP, Giessing J, Gentil P. 2019. Evidence of a ceiling effect
for training volume in muscle hypertrophy and strength in trained men—less is more?
International Journal of Sports Physiology and Performance 12:1–23.
Brigatto FA, Braz TV, Zanini T, Germano MD, Aoki MS, Schoenfeld BJ. 2018. Effect of
resistance training frequency on neuromuscular performance and muscle morphology after
eight weeks in trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 33(8):2104–2116
DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002563.
Carroll TJ, Riek S, Carson RG. 2001. Neural adaptations to resistance training: implications for
movement control. Sports Medicine 31(12):829–840 DOI 10.2165/00007256-200131120-00001.
Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Aguilar D, Bove D, Dolan J, Vargas A. 2018. Training volume, not
frequency, indicative of maximal strength adaptations to resistance training. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research 32(5):1207–1213 DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002414.
Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Counts BR, Laurentino GC,
Loenneke JP. 2017. Frequency: the overlooked resistance training variable for inducing muscle
hypertrophy? Sports Medicine 47(S1):79–805 DOI 10.1007/s40279-017-0687-1.
De França HS, Branco PA, Guedes Junior DP, Gentil P, Steele J, Teixeira CV. 2015. The effects
of adding single-joint exercises to a multi-joint exercise resistance training program on upper
body muscle strength and size in trained men. Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism
40(8):822–826 DOI 10.1139/apnm-2015-0109.
Fernandes T, Úrsula PR, Soci Stéphano FS, MeloCléber R, Alves Edilamar M. 2012. Signaling
pathways that mediate skeletal muscle hypertrophy: effects of exercise training, skeletal muscle.
Myogenesis to Clinical Relations, Julianna Cseri, IntechOpen.
Fleck SJ, Kraemer WJ. 2004. Designing resistance training programs. Third Edition. Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Gentil P, Bottaro M. 2013. Effects of training attendance on muscle strength of young men after 11
weeks of resistance training. Asian Journal of Sports Medicine 4(2):101–106
DOI 10.5812/asjsm.34489.
Gentil P, Fischer B, Martorelli AS, Lima RM, Bottaro M. 2015. Effects of equal-volume resistance
training performed one or two times a week in upper body muscle size and strength of untrained
young men. Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 55:144–149.
Gentil P, Fisher J, Steele J, Campos MH, Silva MH, Paoli A. 2018. Effects of equal-volume
resistance training with different training frequencies in muscle size and strength in trained men.
Peer J 6(1):e5020 DOI 10.7717/peerj.5020.
Gomes GK, Franco CM, Nunes PRP, Orsatti FL. 2018. High frequency resistance training is not
more effective than low frequency resistance training in increasing muscle mass and strength in
well-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 33(1):S130–S139
DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002559.
Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Latella C. 2018. Resistance training frequency and skeletal muscle
hypertrophy: a review of available evidence. Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
22(3):361–370 DOI 10.1016/j.jsams.2018.09.223.
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 15/16
Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, Lazinica B, Krieger JW, Pedisic Z. 2018. Effect of resistance
training frequency on gains in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports
Medicine 48(5):1207–1220 DOI 10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x.
Häkkinen K, Kallinen M. 1994. Distribution of strength training volume into one or two daily
sessions and neuromuscular adaptations in female athletes. Electromyography and Clinical
Neurophysiology 34:117–124.
Hopkins WG, Marshall S, Batterham A. 2009. Progressive statistics for studies in sports medicine
and exercise science. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise 41(1):3–13
DOI 10.1249/MSS.0b013e31818cb278.
Jackson AS, Pollock ML. 1985. Practical assessment of body composition. Physician and Sports
Medicine 13(4):82–90 DOI 10.1080/00913847.1985.11708770.
Loenneke JP, Buckner SL, Dankel SJ, Abe T. 2019. Exercise-induced changes in muscle size do
not contribute to exercise-induced changes in muscle strength. Sports Medicine 49(7):987–991
DOI 10.1007/s40279-019-01106-9.
Mattocks KT, Buckner SL, Jessee MB, Dankel SJ, Mouser JG, Loenneke JP. 2017. Practicing the
test produces strength equivalent to higher volume training. Medicine and Science in Sports and
Exercise 49(9):1945–1954 DOI 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001300.
Padilha CS, Cella PS, Ribeiro AS, Voltaelli FA, Testa MTJ, Marinello PC, Iarosz KC, Guirro PB,
Meminice R. 2019. Moderate vs high-load resistance training on muscular adaptations in rats.
Life Science 238(1):116964 DOI 10.1016/j.lfs.2019.116964.
Raastad T, Kirketeig A, Wolf D, Paulsen G. 2012. Powerlifters improved strength and muscular
adaptations to a greater extent when equal total training volume was divided into 6 compared to
3 training sessions per week. In: 17th Annual Conference of the ECSS,4–7 July 2012,Brugge,
Belgium.
Saric J, Lisica D, Orlic I, Grgic J, Krieger JW, Vuk S, Schoenfeld BJ. 2018. Resistance training
frequencies of 3 and 6 times per week produce similar muscular adaptations in
resistance-trained men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research 33(1):S122–S129
DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002909.
Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Krieger J. 2018. How many times per week should a muscle be trained to
maximize muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the
effects of resistance training frequency. Journal of Sports Sciences 37(11):1286–1295
DOI 10.1080/02640414.2018.1555906.
Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. 2016. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures
of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine
46(11):1689–1697 DOI 10.1007/s40279-016-0543-8.
Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Tiryaki-Sonmez G. 2015. Influence of
resistance training frequency on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research 29(7):1821–1829 DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000000970.
Yue FL, Karsten B, Larumbe-Zabala E, Seijo M, Naclerio F. 2018. Comparison of 2
weekly-equalized volume resistance-training routines using different frequencies on body
composition and performance in trained males. Applied Physiology Nutrition and Metabolism
43(5):475–481 DOI 10.1139/apnm-2017-0575.
Zaroni R, Brigatto F, Schoenfeld BJ, Braz TV, Camargo J, Germano M. 2019. High resistance
training frequency enhances muscle thickness in resistance trained men. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research 33(1):140–151 DOI 10.1519/JSC.0000000000002643.
Arazi et al. (2021), PeerJ, DOI 10.7717/peerj.10537 16/16
