CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 365Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyMuscle metabolism and nutrition

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 76 of the 76 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Open access
Grgic, Jozo, Schoenfeld, Brad J., Davies, Timothy B., Lazinica, Bruno, Krieger, James W., Pedisic, Zeljko·2018·Sports Medicine
DOI 10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background Current recommendations on resistance training (RT) frequency for gains in muscular strength are based on extrapolations from limited evidence on the topic, and thus their practical applicability remains questionable.Objective To elucidate this issue, we conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the studies that compared muscular strength outcomes with different RT frequencies.Methods To carry out this review, English-language literature searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and SPORTDiscus databases were conducted. The meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. The meta-analysis models were generated with RT frequencies classified as a categorical variable as either 1, 2, 3, or 4+ times/week, or, if there were insufficient data in subgroup analyses, the training frequencies were categorized as 1, 2, or 3 times/week. Subgroup analyses were performed for potential moderators, including (1) training volume; (2) exercise selection for the 1 repetition maximum (RM) test (for both multi-joint and single-joint exercises); (3) upper and lower body strength gains; (4) training to muscular failure (for studies involving and not involving training to muscular failure); (5) age (for both middle-aged/older adults and young adults); and (6) sex (for men and for women). The methodological quality of studies was appraised using the modified Downs and Black checklist.Results A total of 22 studies were found to meet the inclusion criteria. The average score on the Downs and Black checklist was 18 (range 13-22 points). Four studies were classified as being of good methodological quality, while the rest were classified as being of moderate methodological quality. Results of the meta-analysis showed a significant effect (p = 0.003) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Effect sizes increased in magnitude from 0.74, 0.82, 0.93, and 1.08 for training 1, 2, 3, and 4+ times per week, respectively. A subgroup analysis of volume-equated studies showed no significant effect (p = 0.421) of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. The subgroup analysis for exercise selection for the 1RM test suggested a significant effect of RT frequency on multi-joint (p < 0.001), but not single-joint, 1RM test results (p = 0.324). The subgroup analysis for upper and lower body showed a significant effect of frequency (p = 0.004) for upper body, but not lower body, strength gains (p = 0.070). In the subgroup analysis for studies in which the training was and was not carried out to muscular failure, no significant effect of RT frequency was found. The subgroup analysis for the age groups suggested a significant effect of training frequency among young adults (p = 0.024), but not among middle-aged and older adults (p = 0.093). Finally, the subgroup analysis for sex indicated a significant effect of RT frequency on strength gains in women (p = 0.030), but not men (p = 0.190).Conclusions The results of the present systematic review and meta-analysis suggest a significant effect of RT frequency as higher training frequencies are translated into greater muscular strength gains. However, these effects seem to be primarily driven by training volume because when the volume is equated, there was no significant effect of RT frequency on muscular strength gains. Thus, from a practical standpoint, greater training frequencies can be used for additional RT volume, which is then likely to result in greater muscular strength gains. However, it remains unclear whether RT frequency on its own has significant effects on strength gain. It seems that higher RT frequencies result in greater gains in muscular strength on multi-joint exercises in the upper body and in women, and, finally, in contrast to older adults, young individuals seem to respond more positively to greater RT frequencies. More evidence among resistance-trained individuals is needed as most of the current studies were performed in untrained participants.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x

Cites

76 of 76 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 75 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Arazi H, Asadi A. Effects of 8 weeks equal-volume resistance training with different workout frequency on maximal strength, endurance and body composition. Int J Sports Sci Eng. 2011;5(2):11–8.
  2. Raastad T, Kirketeig A, Wolf D, et al. 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 European College of Sport Science, Brugge.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 362

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Grgic, J., Schoenfeld, B. J., Davies, T. B., Lazinica, B., Krieger, J. W., & Pedisic, Z.
Affiliations
  • Lehman College (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
  • University of Osijek (HR)
ORCID
Venue
Sports Medicine
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-02-22
Volume
48
Issue
5
Pages
1207-1220
ISSN
  • 0112-1642 (ISSN-L)
  • 1179-2035
DOI
10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x
OpenAlex
W2792557164
Cited by
365
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 34 · 2025: 42 · 2024: 37 · 2023: 64 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 36 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 9
FWCI
5.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Victoria University Research Repository (Victoria University) (submittedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology (medical) › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
training volume, one-repetition maximum, multi-joint exercises, single-joint exercises, sex differences, age differences, exercise selection, methodological quality
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Rest, Exercise, Muscle, Skeletal, Muscle Strength, Resistance Training, Young Adult

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