CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 2Sports Performance and TrainingCardiovascular and exercise physiologyMuscle metabolism and nutrition

The effectiveness of frequency-based resistance training protocols on muscular performance and hypertrophy in trained males: a critically appraised topic.

Open access
Kessinger, Theodore Kent, Melton, Bridget, Miyashita, Theresa, Ryan, Greg·2020·Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
DOI 10.1123/jsr.2019-0491
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Clinical Scenario: Manipulation of exercise variables in resistance training (RT) is an important component in the development of muscular strength, power, and hypertrophy. Currently, most research centers on untrained or recreationally trained subjects. This critically appraised topic focuses on studies that center on the well-trained subject with regard to frequency of training. Clinical Question: In well-trained male subjects, is there an association between RT frequency and the development of muscular strength and hypertrophy? Summary of Key Findings: Four studies met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. All studies showed that lower-frequency training could elicit muscular strength and hypertrophy increases. One study suggested that a higher frequency compared with a lower frequency may provide a slight benefit to hypertrophic development. One study reported a greater level of delayed onset muscle soreness with lower frequency training. The 4 studies demonstrate support for the clinical question. Clinical Bottom Line: Current evidence suggests that lower-frequency RT produces equal to greater improvements on muscular strength and hypertrophy in comparison to higher-frequency RT when volume is equated. The evidence is particularly convincing when lower-frequency RT is associated with a total-body training protocol in well-trained male subjects. Strength of Recommendation: There is moderate-to-strong evidence to suggest that lower-frequency RT, when volume is equated, will produce equal to greater improvements on muscular strength and hypertrophy in comparison to higher-frequency RT.

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 · 10.1123/jsr.2019-0491

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • Muscle hypertrophy is not affected by training frequency, including low versus high frequency when total volume is equated.

    “RT did not influence hypertrophy performed with low (1 d/wk) versus high (>5 d/wk) frequency when total volume was equated; low (30% 1RM) to high (100% 1RM) loads; contractions to muscle failure/fatigue; blood flow restriction; varying loads during repetitions; fast (0.5 s) versus slow (8 s) repetitions; power training techniques; periodization (linear, undulating, and nonperiodized); or exercise”

    From American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Clinical Bottom Line (Abstract; page not available) says that, in well-trained males, lower-frequency resistance training produces equal to greater hypertrophy gains than higher-frequency training when volume is equated. That supports the broad comparison, but not the categorical claim that frequency does not affect hypertrophy: the paper also reports a possible slight benefit from higher frequency. The reviewed protocols do not establish the stated comparison of 1 day/week with more than 5 days/week. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Resistance training frequency impacts strength, but there is insufficient evidence to conclude a dose-response relationship, and the impact is diminished when volume is equated.

    “RT frequency was found to impact strength; however, there was insufficient evidence to conclude a dose-response relationship, and the impact is diminished when volume is equated (73,76,90).”

    From American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [73]

    The Clinical Bottom Line (page unavailable) reports that, in well-trained males, lower-frequency training produced equal or sometimes greater strength gains than higher-frequency training when volume was equated. This supports the claim that frequency and volume matter, but the paper does not conclude that evidence is insufficient for a dose-response relationship or directly compare frequency effects with and without volume equated. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Voluntary strength is enhanced by training ≥2 sessions per week.

    “However, voluntary strength was enhanced by lifting heavier loads (≥80% one-repetition maximum), through a complete range of motion, for 2–3 sets, at the beginning of training sessions, and ≥2 sessions/wk.”

    From American College of Sports Medicine Position Stand. Resistance Training Prescription for Muscle Function, Hypertrophy, and Physical Performance in Healthy Adults: An Overview of Reviews (2026) · cites this paper as [73]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Hoffman JR, Kraemer WJ, Fry AC, Deschenes M, Kemp M. The effects of self-selection for frequency of training in a winter condi- tioning program for football. J Strength Cond Res. 1990;4(3):76-82.
  2. Rhea MR, Ball SD, Phillips WT, Burkett LN. A comparison of linear and daily undulating periodized programs with equated volume and intensity for strength. J Strength Cond Res. 2002;16(2):250-255. PubMed ID: 11991778
  3. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group*. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https:// www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=5653

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Kessinger, T. K., Melton, B., Miyashita, T., & Ryan, G.
Affiliations
Concordia University Chicago (US)
Corresponding author
Kessinger, Theodore Kent
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Sport Rehabilitation
Publisher
Human Kinetics
Published
2020-09-01
Volume
29
Issue
7
Pages
1024-1031
ISSN
  • 1056-6716 (ISSN-L)
  • 1543-3072
DOI
10.1123/jsr.2019-0491
OpenAlex
W3020578295
Cited by
2
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 1
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Sport Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Orthopedics and Sports Medicine › Sports Performance and Training
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Cell Biology › Muscle metabolism and nutrition
Keywords
resistance training, exercise frequency, muscle strength, muscle hypertrophy, trained men, exercise volume, delayed onset muscle soreness, muscle performance
MeSH terms
Humans, Hypertrophy, Male, 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