The Science of Body Metamorphosis
- About Us
- Articles
- Can Calcium and Vitamin D Help Reduce Fat Gain?
- Coaching Clients With Obesity Course
- Do Dietitians Accurately Report Their Food Intake?
- Eat Slow, Eat Less
- Fat Loss
- FREE Research Reviews!
- General Guidelines for Training Programs
- Get Access to the Weightology Archives!
- How Successful Are U.S. Citizens at Maintaining Long-Term Weight Loss?
- Increasing Protein, or Decreasing Carbohydrate…Which Gives You a Metabolic Advantage?
- Insulin, an Undeserved Bad Reputation: The Biggest Insulin Myth, Continued…
- Insulin, An Undeserved Bad Reputation: The Finale
- Insulin…an Undeserved Bad Reputation
- Insulin…Still an Undeserved Bad Reputation After 10 Years
- Insulin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation, Part 2
- Insulin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation, Part 3…MOOOOO!!!!
- Insulin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation, Part 4: The Biggest Insulin Myth of Them All
- Insulin: An Undeserved Bad Reputation, Part 5: Addressing the Critics
- Is High Fructose Corn Syrup Worse Than Regular Sugar?
- Jello to Rid the Jiggles? The Effects of Gelatin on Weight Maintenance
- Latest Content
- Miscellaneous Articles
- Muscle Gain
- Omron Exam: How Accurate Are These Pedometers?
- Online Coaching
- Physical Activity and Weight Regain
- Podcast Appearances
- Protein Before Or After Your Workout?
- Shop
- Sitting Too Much May Be Hazardous to Your Health
- Snooze to Lose
- Speed Eating: Do You Feel Less Full?
- Test Menu
- Testing the Phillips DirectLife Accelerometer
- Thank you!
- The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”, Part 3: Bod Pod
- The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”, Part 5: Skinfolds
- The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”, Part 6: Dual-Energy X-Ray Absorptiometry (DEXA)
- The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”, The Final Chapter
- The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”: Part 1
- The Pitfalls of Body Fat “Measurement”: Part 2
- The Pitfalls of Bodyfat “Measurement”, Part 4: Bioelectrical Impedance (BIA)
- The Use of Weighted Apparel During Contest Prep: The Science and Practical Application
- The Weightology Archives
- Thinking Better, Part 1: The False Dichotomy
- Thinking Better, Part 2: Confirmation Bias
- Thinking Better, Part 3: Non Causa Pro Causa
- Thinking Better, Part 4: The Straw Man
- Thinking Better, Part 5: The Ad Hominem
- Weightology Archives Terms & Conditions
- Weightology LLC Terms & Conditions and Privacy Policy
- What’s In the Weightology Research Review?
- Why Is It So Easy To Regain Weight?
- Speaking
- Testimonials
- Contact
- How Much Do Variations in Physiological Testosterone Matter To Your Gains?
- Periodization / Variation in Repetition Ranges for Muscle Size: Your Complete Evidence Based Guide
- Set Volume for Muscle Size: The Ultimate Evidence Based Bible
- Training Frequency for Hypertrophy: The Evidence-Based Bible
- Post-Exercise Energy Expenditure, Part 4: The Effect of Low Volume Weight Training
- Post-Exercise Energy Expenditure, Part 6: The Effect of Weight Training Volume
- Research Review: How Much Does Weight Training Help With Fat Loss?
- Research Review: Intermittent vs. Continuous Calorie Restriction for Fat Loss
- Why Do Meal Replacements Work?
Hey James, it’s me again … sorry for the many questions I’m asking….
If we ignore all other recovery factors and consider only MPS. Can we say that ,ore frequent stimulation of MPS is beneficial up to a point. Do you think we can train and produce an elevation in MPS while there is still one happening from the last workout? How likely it is to have a smaller effect if we try and elevate MPS when it is still elevated?
Yes, I do think you can stimulate MPS even if it’s elevated from a previous workout. This would be no different from taking a particular set volume (say, 6 sets), and doing 3 sets one day and 3 sets the next. The cumulative MPS response over the 2 days will be the same as if you did all 6 sets in one day.
Hi James! Love your work and thanks a lot.
One clarification question. From your volume bible, if I got it right, the max number of effective sets per session may be towards the upper end (likely towards 13) if we use compound movements. From frequency bible, I’m left w/ the impression that fatiguing big movements require lower per session volume (probably 8 sets). What are your thoughts on that now? I know articles have been written at different time span and ideas and conclusions always change/develop.
We really don’t know whether the max number of effective sets is different between isolation and compound movements. That said, the upper end is more on the peak of the curve of 8-10 sets, which is consistent with fatiguing big movements requiring lower session volume of 8 sets as you mentioned.
James (sorry to pester so much lately, my mind has been on full throttle), since it appears that frequency is a non-issue (within reason) are we them left with one of two likely conclusions: 1. The MPS cycle is not the best proxy for assessing optimal frequency for hypertrophy Or 2. Doing more sets per session results in a larger MPS curve that ends up matching (as to total area under curve) the smaller MPS “hits” from lower volume / higher frequency schemes As in perhaps 10 sets stimulates a theoretical 100 growth units (made up, obviously) and 3 sets… Read more »
Hi, Chris,
First, we still don’t know a whole lot about the length of the MPS cycle, and also how it might vary with factors like training volume. So, for now, yes, it’s not the best proxy.
#2 appears true to a point until the volume in a single session gets beyond a threshold. Once it gets too high in a single session, there may be too much muscle damage or the response may be impaired.
Do I understand correctly that whole the data do seem to point to 4-5 days between body parts, the crux of that conclusion comes from the limited time duration of study? What makes you so strongly suspect that being trained makes the much of a difference, James?
Just trying to wrap my head around whether there is enough evidence to justify shortening the optimal rest between like sessions.
Thanks
Hi, Chris, the problem with that conclusion is that the data is derived from people who are not accustomed to the protocol. When you embark on a new protocol, or you train with a low frequency, you will get significant muscle damage (even if you’re experienced). This delays recovery. However, with repeated bouts, muscle damage is reduced, if not eliminated (this is why you don’t get sore with more frequent training). This is why the 4-5 day window is probably not accurate if you’ve become accustomed to the protocol.
Thank you James. So despite having years of experience (basically the same as yourself), it likely may not be the most prudent choice to go with a upper / lower split over 3 days per week?
Mon: A
Wed: B
Fri: A
Mon: B
Wed: A
Fri: B
Once I’ve ran this for a while, you feel I may be not optimizing my results by taking these 4-5 days between similar sessions?
I do think you might get slightly better results with a bit more frequency (i.e., 4-day per week upper/lower split) so that you get more repeated bout effect
For clarity, I’m referring to this one…
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02640414.2018.1555906?journalCode=rjsp20&fbclid=IwAR13tXgpj8lF2ZfrdrSxnqPdzrmokzBbw59AhzDKY9kZepJeh21dqiNP9wA
James, how does the new Meta from Brad that came out in November affect your conclusions, if at all?
The one where they determine frequency doesn’t seem to matter at all with equated volume.
It doesn’t really affect it (note that I was one of the authors that paper…I ran the stats). In fact, our conclusions are fairly similar. I included more studies in this analysis, and also dove a bit deeper into a few of the low frequency/high volume studies.
Overall, frequency likely doesn’t matter much, unless it’s very low (i.e., bro-split) and per-session volume gets very high (>10 sets), then it might be better to split the volume up into more frequent sessions.
James for an advanced bodybuilder is there any such thing as too few assets per session to reach a growth threshold? Specifically I’m thinking of using five sets per body part three times per week contrasted with 8 to 10 sets per body part twice per week. Using the 8 to 10 from your volume update with these numbers being where hypertrophy seems to be capped per session. Thank you, Chris Blair
“assets” = of sets. Text to speech…Lol
Hi, Chris,
I would say theoretically, yes, but it’s hard to say what that minimum threshold is for advanced trainees. I think you’ll be perfectly fine with 5 sets 3x per week compared to 8-10 twice per week.
Sorry, one more Q: How resistance to damage differs between beginner vs advanced lifter? Do muscles become more resistant to damage or training experience improves recovery capacity too, or both? If muscles become more resistant to damage, perhaps we need to increase volume but not frequency. But if recovery capacity improves, advanced lifter would benefit from higher frequency.
Hi, Boz,
Advanced lifters are more resistant to muscle damage. There is also evidence that recovery capacity can improve as you become more advanced. So advanced lifters might benefit from both an increase in volume and frequency. However, this is highly individual and dependent upon a number of factors that are outlined both in this article and in the Volume Bible.
Hi James! Great analysis and appreciate new updates. Have couple of questions: (1) You say 1-2 RTF would not make a difference for muscle damage compared to training to failure, because damage is mostly result of mechanical loading, rather than fatigue. Have you come across data that shows relationship between fatigue and muscle damage? I read somewhere that calcium and inflammatory agents build up may degrade the inside of the muscle cell, causing damage. (2) How do you define low, medium, and high volume sessions in terms of number of sets to (near)failure? (3) I remember, there was a study… Read more »
Hi, Boz. 1. There’s some evidence that fatigue can contribute to muscle damage, although the data is not consistent. That said, 1-2 RIR isn’t enough to cause significantly less damage than going to failure. You would need something like 5 RIR to perhaps see a difference, but then that’s where you are getting less high threshold motor unit recruitment. 2. Check out the Volume Bible for definitions of low, medium, and high volumes in a session. 3. The frequency study you refer to was done on beginners and only lasted 8 weeks. Thus, it’s hard to make inferences from this… Read more »
James, building on your last point in the update, what seems to be the best per session volume? In the context of your 10 sets moving to 20 sets by dividing the increase over more sessions.
Are maybe @ 10 sets close to max “per session” response?
I think the best “per session” volume is highly individual. It may also depend upon the types of exercises being performed. For example, if you’re doing highly fatiguing compound movements like squats, your per session volume might be better towards the lower end, compared to if you’re doing a bunch of single joint movements which aren’t as systemically taxing.