Title: Training Frequency for Strength Development: What the Data Say
Headings: Training Frequency for Strength Development: What the Data Say
Training Frequency for Strength Development: What the Data Say
Technical Notes
Results
Discussion
Practical Recommendations for Training Frequency
Edit/Correction

Content: Thank you Neyeloff et al.!) with frequency as a binary term (i.e. higher frequency vs. lower frequency), including all exercises from all studies. I also calculated the pooled average percent strength gains, pooled weekly percent strength gains, and difference between groups for all exercises in all studies as a more easily interpretable meta-analysis, since effect sizes can sometimes seem somewhat abstract. I made two tables for further analysis: one table of the weekly percentage strength gains for each frequency in all studies, and one table of the difference in weekly percentage strength gains for each frequency. In this second table, for example, a frequency of three per week was occasionally the high frequency condition, and occasionally the low frequency condition; this allows for comparisons between a given frequency and all other frequencies (both higher and lower) to see if there’s a frequency “sweet spot” or a range of frequencies that tends to perform best. As a sub-analysis, I analyzed studies comparing frequencies of once or twice per week to frequencies of 3+ times per week, and studies comparing frequencies of 1-3x per week to 4+ times per week using weekly percent strength gains. As further sub-analyses, I analyzed frequency as a binary term using percentage weekly strength gains in studies on trained lifters, studies on untrained lifters, measures of pressing strength, and measures of quad-dominant compound lower body strength. Results
Thirteen studies with a total of 328 subjects met the inclusion criteria, allowing for 31 comparisons.