Cited by 114Muscle metabolism and nutritionSports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiology

Frequency: The overlooked resistance training variable for inducing muscle hypertrophy?

Dankel, Scott J., Mattocks, Kevin T., Jessee, Matthew B., Buckner, Samuel L., Mouser, J. Grant, Counts, Brittany R., Laurentino, Gilberto C., Loenneke, Jeremy P.·2017·Sports Medicine

Abstract

The principle of progressive overload must be adhered to for individuals to continually increase muscle size with resistance training. While the majority of trained individuals adhere to this principle by increasing the number of sets performed per exercise session, this does not appear to be an effective method for increasing muscle size once a given threshold is surpassed. Opposite the numerous studies examining differences in training loads and sets of exercise performed, a few studies have assessed the importance of training frequency with respect to muscle growth, none of which have tested very high frequencies of training (e.g., 7 days a week). The lack of studies examining such frequencies may be related to the American College of Sports Medicine recommendation that trained individuals use split routines allowing at least 48 h of rest between exercises that stress the same muscle groups. Given the attenuated muscle protein synthetic response to resistance exercise present in trained individuals, it can be hypothesized that increasing the training frequency would allow for more frequent elevations in muscle protein synthesis and more time spent in a positive net protein balance. We hypothesize that increasing the training frequency, as opposed to the training load or sets performed, may be a more appropriate strategy for trained individuals to progress a resistance exercise program aimed at increasing muscle size.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40279-016-0640-8

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 43 · Cited by 114

Authors
Dankel, S. J., Mattocks, K. T., Jessee, M. B., Buckner, S. L., Mouser, J. G., Counts, B. R., Laurentino, G. C., & Loenneke, J. P.
Affiliations
University of Mississippi (US)
Corresponding author
Loenneke, Jeremy P.
Venue
Sports Medicine
Published
2016-10-17
Volume
47
Issue
5
Pages
799-805
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
OpenAlex
W2534786478
Cited by
114
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 7
FWCI
8.03
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
Keywords
exercise frequency, resistance training, muscle hypertrophy, progressive overload, muscle protein synthesis, trained individuals, net protein balance, training load
MeSH terms
Humans, Hypertrophy, Exercise, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review