PLOS ONE

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Effect of different training frequencies on

maximal strength performance and muscle
hypertrophy in trained individuals—a within-
subject design
Ricardo P. Neves ID1☯*, Felipe C. Vechin1☯, Emerson L. Teixeira1, Demostenys D. da
Silva1, Carlos Ugrinowitsch1, Hamilton Roschel1, André Y. Aihara2, Valmor Tricoli1

1 School of Physical Education and Sport, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil, 2 Diagnostics of
the Americas S/A (DASA), São Paulo, SP, Brazil

a1111111111 ☯ These authors contributed equally to this work.

a1111111111 * [email protected]
a1111111111
a1111111111
a1111111111 Abstract
Several studies comparing resistance training (RT) frequencies may have been affected by
the large between-subject variability. This study aimed to compare the changes in lower
limbs maximal dynamic strength (1RM) and quadriceps femoris cross-sectional area (CSA)
OPEN ACCESS
after a RT with different weekly frequencies in strength-trained individuals using a within-
Citation: Neves RP, Vechin FC, Teixeira EL, da Silva
DD, Ugrinowitsch C, Roschel H, et al. (2022) Effect
subject design. Twenty-four men participated in a 9-week RT program, being randomly
of different training frequencies on maximal divided into two conditions: resistance training with equalized total training volume (RTEV)
strength performance and muscle hypertrophy in and with unequalized total training volume (RTUV). The RT protocol used the unilateral leg
trained individuals—a within-subject design. PLoS
press 45˚ exercise and each subject’s lower limb executed one of the proposed frequencies
ONE 17(10): e0276154. https://doi.org/10.1371/
journal.pone.0276154 (one and three times/week). All conditions effectively increased 1RM and CSA (p<0.001);
however, no significant differences were observed in the values of 1RM (p = 0.454) and
Editor: Daniel Boullosa, Universidade Federal de
Mato Grosso do Sul, BRAZIL CSA (p = 0.310) between the RT frequencies in the RTEV and RTUV conditions. Therefore,
RT performed three times a week showed similar increases in 1RM and CSA to the program
Received: March 1, 2022
performed once a week, regardless of training volume equalization. Nevertheless, when the
Accepted: September 29, 2022
higher RT frequency allowed the application of a greater TTV (i.e., RTUV), higher effect size
Published: October 13, 2022 (ES) values (0.51 and 0.63, 1RM and CSA, respectively) were observed for the adaptations.
Copyright: © 2022 Neves et al. This is an open
access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the original Introduction
author and source are credited.
The main adaptations induced by resistance training (RT) are increased strength and skeletal
Data Availability Statement: All relevant data are muscle cross-sectional area (i.e., muscle hypertrophy). The magnitude of these adaptations can
within the paper and its Supporting Information be modulated through the adequate manipulation of some training variables such as intensity,
files.
volume, rest interval, and frequency [1, 2]. Among these, training frequency may be defined as
Funding: The author(s) received no specific the number of weekly sessions [3, 4]. In RT, frequency is usually expressed by the number of
funding for this work. times certain muscle groups are exercised in a given period [5], which in turn is influenced by
Competing interests: The authors have declared factors such as training intensity and volume, number of muscle groups trained per session,
that no competing interests exist. and practitioner training status [6].

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 1 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

Important guidelines on RT prescription [4, 7] based their training frequency recommen-

dations mostly on studies with untrained individuals, hindering the application of their results
to individuals with a higher training status. Moreover, in some of these studies, total training
volume (TTV, total amount of weight lifted) was not always equalized for comparison of the
effects of different RT frequencies, increasing the risk of mistaken conclusions, since TTV can
be determinant for increases in muscle strength [8] and mass [9–11].
It should be mentioned that a high TTV in one training session may result in an increased
rate of perceived exertion (RPE) [12, 13], greater fatigue accumulation, and slower rate of neu-
romuscular recovery [14]. On the other hand, increasing RT frequency facilitates TTV distri-
bution over a larger number of sessions, providing favorable conditions for neuromuscular
adaptations [15, 16]. Thus, an increase in RT frequency might be an effective strategy to stimu-
late the neuromuscular system and, consequently, increase strength performance [12, 17, 18].
Regarding muscle hypertrophy, the importance of a higher RT frequency may be related to
the maintenance of elevated rates of post-training muscle protein synthesis (MPS). Trained
individuals appear to have a shorter period of MPS compared to untrained individuals [19,
20]. Considering that muscle hypertrophy may be affected by accumulated periods of
increased post-exercise MPS [21], keeping a higher RT frequency would be an effective strat-
egy to contribute to such adaptation [20, 22]. Furthermore, TTV can be increased with a
higher RT frequency [9], and this increase might be related to ribosomal biogenesis [23], satel-
lite cell activation and proliferation, and myonuclear addition which in turn could influence
MPS in long term training conditions [24].
Recent reviews and meta-analyzes [2, 25–27] suggest that there is no significant effect of
training frequency on either strength performance or muscle hypertrophy when TTV is equal-
ized. However, the results of several studies in these meta-analyzes may have been affected by
the large inter-subject variability when different RT frequencies are compared [28]. The com-
parison of different RT frequencies with between-subject experimental designs and training
volume equalization by number of sets and repetitions may not be the most appropriate
approach to this problem [29]. Thus, within-subject experimental design should be prioritized
[23] if the aim is to evaluate training frequencies with equalized and unequalized TTV. To the
best of our knowledge this is the first study, with trained individuals, comparing the effects of
RT frequency applying a within-subject experimental design.
Thus, the present study aimed to compare the effects of different weekly RT frequencies (i.
e., one and three times), on maximal strength performance and muscle hypertrophy in trained
individuals, using a within- and between- subject experimental designs in two conditions:
resistance training with equalized total training volume (RTEV) and with unequalized total
training volume (RTUV). This approach tried to reduce the variability existing in the
between-subject designs. We hypothesized that the higher RT frequency would result in larger
responses in the dependent variables for both conditions, but in the RTUV condition, they
would have a greater effect in consequence of a higher TTV over the training period.

Methods
Experimental design
The present study followed a longitudinal within and between-subject experimental designs,
which investigated the effect of different weekly RT frequencies (i.e., one and three times) on
maximal dynamic strength (1RM) and quadriceps muscle cross-sectional area (CSA) in
trained individuals. The participants were classified based on their baseline values of each
dependent variable, and counterbalanced divided into two conditions: RTEV—resistance
training with equalized TTV (i.e., training volume in the lower limb trained three times being

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 2 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

Table 1. Distribution of subjects’ lower limbs among conditions.

Conditions Distribution
RTEV (24 lower limbs) (n = 12 lower limbs) - 1x/week

(n = 12 lower limbs) - 3x/week

RTUV (24 lower limbs) (n = 12 lower limbs) - 1x/week

(n = 12 lower limbs) - 3x/week

RTEV, resistance training with equalized total training volume; RTUV, resistance training with unequalized total
training volume. Note: In both conditions, the lower limbs were distributed in a balanced way in the different
frequencies (i.e., right lower limbs 1x/week n = 6; left lower limbs 3x/week n = 6; right lower limbs 3x/week n = 6; left
lower limbs 1x/week n = 6).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154.t001

limited by the training volume of the lower limb trained only once) and RTUV—resistance
training with unequalized TTV (i.e., training volume in the lower limb trained three times not
being limited by the training volume of the lower limb trained only once). All participants per-
formed the unilateral leg press 45˚ as the RT exercise with each lower limbs submitted to one
of the weekly frequencies. The RTEV and RTUV conditions allowed us to investigate the
responses of different RT frequencies in a within-subject experimental design (i.e., RTEV 1x
vs. RTEV 3x and RTUV 1x vs. RTUV 3x) (See Table 1).
Four weeks before the beginning of the training period, two half-squat 1RM testing sessions
were performed (Smith Machine, Hammer Strength1, Rosemont, IL, USA) 72-hours apart.
To ensure reproducibility of the test, steps of varying heights (5, 10, and 15 cm) and tapes on
the floor were used to determine range of motion (~90˚ of knee flexion) and feet positioning,
respectively. This test was used only to select subjects based on their relative maximum
dynamic strength. In the following week, familiarization sessions with the 1RM test in the uni-
lateral leg press 45˚ were carried on. A minimum of two and a maximum of four sessions (48
hours apart) were necessary to find a reproducible result (variation � 5%) in this test. In the
week preceding the beginning of the RT period, all subjects that met the selection criteria per-
formed two evaluation sessions to measure the unilateral leg press 45˚ 1RM and quadriceps
femoris CSA. The same measurements were done one week after the end of the RT program.
All participants were instructed not to start any other RT activity for the lower limbs, to main-
tain their eating habits, and not to use dietary supplements of any category.

Participants
Twenty-four male participants (26.0 ± 4.0 years; 85.8 ± 15.0 kg and 177.4 ± 6.6 cm), experi-
enced in RT (6.2 ± 4.2 years) were selected for the study. According to the inclusion criteria,
all subjects presented a relative maximum dynamic strength (i.e., 1RM/body mass) in the half-
squat exercise � 1.5 (2.1 ± 0.4 kg.kg-1). They were free from musculoeskeletal injuries and any
other health problems that could prevent them from participating in the study or could affect
the results. All participants voluntarily signed, before participation, an informed consent form
containing information about the experimental procedures, possible risks and benefits
involved. The research project was approved by the by the School of Physical Education and
Sport, University of São Paulo Research Ethics Committee (Of.CEP/0317/EEFE/09032017).

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 3 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

Maximum dynamic strength test (1RM)

The 1RM tests procedures followed the guidelines of the American Society of Exercise Physiol-
ogy [30]. Participants performed a general warm-up on a treadmill (E750; Movement1, Pom-
peia, SP, Brazil) running at 9 km/h for five minutes. Then, they performed a specific warm-up
with the unilateral leg press 45˚, consisting of a set of eight repetitions with an estimated 50%
1RM followed by a set of three repetitions with an estimated 70% 1RM, two minutes apart.
The 1RM test started three minutes after the end of the specific warm up. The first leg to be
tested was randomly selected, independent of limb dominance. The test measured the maxi-
mum amount of weight that could be lifted in a complete movement cycle, which began and
ended with the knees in full extension, whereas reaching 90˚ flexion in the descendent phase
of the movement.
The individual adjustments in the leg press 45˚ equipment (Bolt; Movement1, Pompeia,
SP, Brasil) were determined in the first familiarization session. The backrest height was
adjusted to individual preference. The foot was comfortably positioned in the middle third of
the equipment platform. A goniometer (Shopfisio1, Mogi Guaçu, SP, Brazil) was used to
determine the 90˚ knee range of motion which was marked on the left lateral column of the
equipment with the aid of a measuring tape. In order to ensure reproducibility of subsequent
tests, all adjustments were recorded in the participants’ assessment sheets. The 1RM value was
determined with a maximum of five attempts with three minutes of rest between them.

Muscle cross-sectional area measurement (CSA)

Quadriceps femoris CSA was obtained by magnetic resonance imaging (Signa LX 9.1; GE
Healthcare1, Milwaukee, WI, USA), performed on both lower limbs with the participants
positioned supine with their knees extended. An inelastic band was placed on the participants’
feet to contain hip external rotation movement during the measurement. Initially a reference
image of the perpendicular distance between the greater trochanter and the lower edge of the
lateral epicondyle of the femur was obtained, which was defined as the segment length. Muscle
CSA was measured at 50% of the segment length with 0.8 cm scan slice thickness of 3 s dura-
tion. The pulse sequence was performed with a field of view between 400 and 420 mm, repeti-
tion time of 350 ms, echo time of 9 to 11 ms, two signal acquisitions, and a 256 x 256 mm
reconstruction matrix. The CSA was determined using computerized planimetry (Advantage
Workstation 4.3; GE Healthcare1, Milwaukee, WI, USA). The image was divided into skeletal
muscle, bone and subcutaneous adipose tissue. Next, quadriceps femoris CSA was determined
by subtracting bone and subcutaneous adipose tissue area. Images were plotted (OsiriX Lite;
Pixmeo Sarl1, Bernex, GE, Switzerland) in duplicate by a specialized blinded researcher, and
the mean value between two measurements was used for further analysis.

Resistance training protocols

The unilateral leg press 45˚ was the exercise performed during the 9-week RT program. Each
participants’ lower limb was submitted to one of the proposed weekly training frequencies (i.
e., one and three times). The participants were divided under two experimental conditions:
RTEV—resistance training with equalized TTV and, RTUV—resistance training with
unequalized TTV (Table 1).
Nine exercise sets were performed weekly at both RT frequencies throughout the experi-
mental period, with the number of maximum repetitions changing every three weeks (i.e., lin-
ear periodization model): weeks 1–3 = 12RM; weeks 4–6 = 10RM, and weeks 7–9 = 8RM. All
training sessions started with a general warm-up in a treadmill (E720; Movement1, Pompeia,
SP, Brazil) running at 9 km/h for five minutes. Next, a specific warm-up composed by 15

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 4 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

Table 2. Unilateral leg press 45˚ 1RM and quadriceps femoris CSA values for RTEV and RTUV conditions.
Conditions Frequency 1RM (kg) % Δ (kg) MD CSA (cm2) % Δ (cm2)
pre post (13.7 kg) pre post
RTEV 1x/week 215.6 ± 53.2 246.8 ± 50.9� " 16.0 ± 10.0 31.2 ± 18.1 " 17.5 ± 18.1 100.2 ± 10.6 102.3 ± 11.4� " 2.1 ± 2.1 2.1 ± 2.3
3x/week 219.0 ± 53.4 252.9 ± 54.3� " 17.2 ± 12.2 33.9 ± 21.6 " 20.2 ± 21.6 101.3 ± 10.8 103.3 ± 11.2� " 2.0 ± 2.8 2.0 ± 3.0
� �
RTUV 1x/week 186.1 ± 60.7 219.0 ± 65.0 " 19.4 ± 13.1 32.9 ± 19.5 " 19.2 ± 19.5 100.4 ± 16.4 101.8 ± 16.4 " 1.5 ± 2.6 1.4 ± 3.0
3x/week 192.3 ± 65.6 235.9 ± 75.1� " 24.6 ± 14.2 43.7 ± 22.9 " 30.0 ± 22.9 100.9 ± 18.7 104.8 ± 17.9� " 4.1 ± 5.0 3.9 ± 4.6

1RM, maximal dynamic strength in the unilateral leg press 45˚; Δ, absolute difference; MD, minimum difference; CSA, quadriceps femoris cross-sectional area; RTEV,
resistance training
with equalized total training volume; RTUV, resistance training with unequalized total training volume; ", increase.
�
p<0.001 (time effect).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154.t002

repetitions in the unilateral leg press 45˚ exercise at submaximal intensity (~50%1RM) was
done. In the first training session of a week, the lower limb intended for lower RT frequency
(once/week) began training by performing nine total sets. Next, the lower limb intended for
the higher RT frequency (three times/week) performed only three sets. The other six sets were
distributed in the next two RT sessions, separated by a 48-hour interval. In the RTEV condi-
tion, repetitions in the higher RT frequency were performed with the average weight (i.e.,
TTV/number of repetitions performed) obtained with the lower RT frequency of the contralat-
eral lower limb. A fractional number was often obtained but weight adjustments in sets
guaranteed the same TTV for 1x and 3x/week. As an example, the lower limb that trained 1x/
week performed a total of 108 repetitions over nine sets, resulting in a TTV of 14,220 kg with
an average weight of 131.7 kg/repetition. Therefore, the contralateral lower limb trained with
the same TTV executing three sets with 131 kg in day one, and three sets with 132 kg in day
two and three with the same number of total repetitions.

Statistical analysis
Initially the data were analyzed qualitatively and visually for their normal distribution by the
Shapiro-Wilk test and the homogeneity of the variances was confirmed by the Levene test. A
one-way ANOVA was used to test for initial differences in unilateral leg press 45˚ 1RM and
quadriceps femoris CSA between experimental conditions. To evaluate the effect of different
weekly RT frequencies on the 1RM and CSA values, a mixed model for repeated measures was
used with frequencies (one and three times) and time (pre- and post-training) as fixed factors,
and subjects as random factors (SAS 9.3; SAS Institute Inc.1, Cary, NC, USA). Data were
reported as mean and standard deviation, with significance level adopted of p�0.05.
The standard error of measurement (SEM) between two 1RM testing sessions before the
training period (i.e., last familiarization session and pre-training period assessment) and the
minimum difference (MD) were calculated based on Weir [31]. Absolute increases above the
MD to be considered were reported at the different weekly RT frequencies under the RTEV
and RTUV conditions. For CSA the SEM between two different measurements of the same
image was used for calculating the within-researcher reproducibility.
Finally, the effect size (ES) was used to determine the magnitude of the changes, bringing a
more practical approach to the obtained results [32, 33]. The ES and confidence interval (CI)
were calculated from the mean and standard deviation of Δ at 1RM and CSA values, according
to the equation 3 found in Nakagawa and Cuthill [33]. Comparisons were made between the
different weekly RT frequencies in the conditions RTEV and RTUV. The ES was classified as

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 5 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

insignificant (<0.19), small (0.20–0.49), medium (0.50–0.79) and large (0.80–1.29) [34]. The
upper and lower CI limits that did not cross zero were considered significant.

Results
Unilateral leg press 45˚ 1RM and quadriceps femoris CSA baseline values showed no signifi-
cant differences between RTEV and RTUV conditions (1RM: F = 0.95536 p = 0.422; CSA:
F = 0.01339 p = 0.998) (Table 2).
There were no significant differences in the average TTV throughout the study between fre-
quencies in the RTEV condition (167,582 ± 13,673 kg and 167,586 ± 13,661 kg one and three
times/week, respectively, p = 0.999) (Fig 1). On the other hand, in the RTUV condition, there
were significant differences in TTV between one and three times a week (137,986 ± 8,126 kg
and 164,894 ± 12,855 kg, respectively, p = 0.00005) (Fig 2).
In both RTEV and RTUV conditions, there were significant increases (p<0.001) in the uni-
lateral leg press 45˚ 1RM after training. However, no significant differences were observed
between RT frequencies in each condition (p = 0.454). Similarly, there were significant
increases (p<0.001) in the quadriceps femoris CSA values; however, no significant differences
(p = 0.310) between RT frequencies were observed (see Table 2). The SEM between 1RM tests
was 5.0 kg, which resulted in a MD to be considered of 13.7 kg. The variation between two dif-
ferent measurements of the same image for CSA was 0.2 cm2, resulting in a reproducibility of
99.8%.

Fig 1. Total training volume per week at different frequencies of RTEV. TTV, total training volume; RTEV, resistance training with equalized total training
volume.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154.g001

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 6 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

Fig 2. Total training volume per week at different frequencies of RTUV. TTV, total training volume; RTUV, resistance training with
unequalized total training volume. � p�0.05.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154.g002

The ES was 0.15 (i.e., insignificant) with a 95% CI from -0.26 to 0.57 between 1RM values of
the different frequencies for the RTEV condition. On the other hand, in the RTUV condition
the ES was 0.51 (i.e., medium) with 95% CI from 0.09 to 0.97 (Fig 3A). For CSA values, the ES

Fig 3. Effect sizes with the confidence interval for 1RM (A) and CSA (B) values at different resistance training frequencies of RTEV and RTUV. ES, effect size;
1RM, maximum dynamic strength; CSA, quadriceps femoris cross-sectional area; RTEV, resistance training with equalized total training volume and; RTUV,
resistance training with unequalized total training volume.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154.g003

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 7 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

Fig 4. Individual percentage change in the values of 1RM (A) and CSA (B) in the RTEV. 1RM, maximum dynamic strength; CSA, quadriceps femoris cross-
sectional area; RTEV, resistance training with equalized total training volume; ———, average of the percentage change 1x/week;–––––, average of the
percentage 3x/week.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154.g004

between the different frequencies of the RTEV condition was -0.02 (i.e., insignificant) with a
95% CI from -0.43 to 0.40 while in the RTUV condition the ES was 0.63 (i.e., medium) with
95% CI from 0.21 to 1.10 (Fig 3B). Therefore, the higher RT frequency (higher TTV) induced
significant increases in the RTUV condition for 1RM and CSA, since for both variables the
upper and lower CI limits did not crossing zero (Fig 3A and 3B).
Considering the individual changes in the 1RM and CSA values (percentage changes), the
mean of individual % changes between 1x and 3x were smaller in the RTEV condition (Fig 4A
and 4B) compared to RTUV condition (Fig 5A and 5B).

Discussion
The present study verified the changes in lower limbs 1RM performance and quadriceps femo-
ris muscle CSA after a 9-week RT program executed at different weekly frequencies (one and
three times) in a group of trained individuals with a within-subject design. Our main findings

Fig 5. Individual percentage change in the values of 1RM (A) and CSA (B) in the RTUV. 1RM, maximum dynamic strength; CSA, quadriceps femoris cross-
sectional area; RTUV, resistance training with unequalized total training volume; ———, average of the percentage change 1x/week;–––––, average of the
percentage change 3x/week.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154.g005

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 8 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

showed that there were no significant differences in 1RM and CSA values between the differ-
ent RT frequencies, regardless of whether or not TTV was equalized. However, ES and CI sug-
gested a greater training effect on 1RM and CSA induced by higher RT frequency compared
with lower in the RTUV condition, where the lower limb that trained three times a week
showed a higher TTV compared to the contralateral limb once/week. On the other hand, in
the RTEV a small training effect was induced by 3x/week compared with 1x/week. In this con-
dition, lower limbs TTV was equalized between different RT frequencies.
McLester Jr. et al. [35] were the first to compare different RT frequencies with equalized
volumes in trained individuals. In that study, they compared RT protocols where each muscle
group was trained one or three times/week, and significant increases in leg press 1RM values
were observed in the group with higher weekly frequency (22.3% vs. 46.1% for one and three
times/week, respectively). The divergence found between these results and ours may be
explained by two important facts. 1) McLester Jr. et al. [35] applied a between-subject design,
which favors higher data variability in RT-induced changes in strength gains [28] which
might, at least partially, explain the differences between intervention groups; and 2) the initial
diferences in 1RM values presented by the participants of both studies. In the study of McLes-
ter Jr. et al. [35] the baseline values of 1RM in the bilateral leg press were 200.3 ± 83.1 kg and
191.2 ± 96.3 kg, for the frequencies of one and three times/week, respectively. In our study,
these values were higher (Table 2) considering that the unilateral leg press 45˚ was the applied
test. Apparently, there is a negative relationship between the initial strength level and the per-
centage of its increase during the training period [36]. According to the American College of
Sports Medicine [7], untrained individuals can increase muscle strength by approximately
40% over training periods ranging from four weeks to two years. In contrast, in trained indi-
viduals these increases may be approximately 16% for the same period, closer to the results
found in this study.
Also comparing weekly RT frequencies of one or three times/week in trained individuals,
Schoenfeld et al. [22] did not found significant differences in 1RM increases in the bench press
(6.8% and 10.2%) and squat (10.6% and 11.3%) exercises, for the RT performed one and three
times a week, respectively. Indeed, the literature has not shown differences in muscle strength
gains when different RT frequencies were compared in trained individuals, regardless of
whether the TTV was equalized [22, 37–41] or not [42–45]. However, these studies also have
not considered between-subjects’ data variability in their design. An important feature of the
present study was the use of a within-subject design to decrease this variability, also allowing a
rigorous equalization of the TTV performed weekly. Moreover, this is the first study to bring
in the same experimental design the comparison of different RT frequencies with equalized
(RTEV) and unequalized (RTUV) TTV.
From a more practical approach, in the present study, RTEV and RTUV conditions
allowed to us making within- and between-subject comparisons. Considering the within-sub-
ject comparison, in the RTEV condition (i.e., different RT frequencies with same TTV), the
training effect on strength performance was, in fact, similar between low and high RT frequen-
cies. However, in the RTUV condition (i.e., different RT frequencies and TTV), the training
effect on strength gain was more pronounced in the high RT frequency and high TTV (sup-
ported by the use of the ES and CI). It is noteworthy that in between-subject approach, the
comparison between high RT frequencies (i.e., 3x/week) in the RTEV and RTUV conditions,
showed that the RTUV condition presented better results on strength performance (S1 Fig).
Considering the same TTV between the different conditions (RTEV and RTUV), one could
expect the same training-induced adaptation in muscle strength performance. Even though
this result would be hard to reconcile, the between-subjects data variability seems to be a rea-
sonable explanation for the observed difference [28]. Thus, it is possible to suggest that the

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 9 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

between-subject approach may be less appropriate for investigating the effects of RT frequency
and volume on muscular adaptations.
Differently from the McLester Jr. et al. [35], that estimated muscle mass increase and body
composition alterations through skinfold measurements, most recent studies performed these
same measurements through dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry [38, 39, 42, 45], air displace-
ment plethysmography [46], and ultrasound images [22, 37, 39–41, 43, 44, 46]. In many of
these studies [22, 39–41, 44, 46] authors did not find differences in lower limbs muscle CSA
when different RT frequencies were compared. However, Zaroni et al. [43] demonstrated that
a greater TTV provided by the higher RT frequencies could contribute to the increase in lower
limb muscle CSA. As far as we know, this is the first study with trained individuals that used
magnetic resonance imaging to assess changes in muscle CSA following a protocol with differ-
ent weekly RT frequencies. In the present study no significant differences were observed in
increases of quadriceps femoris CSA between the different frequencies of the RTEV condition.
In fact, studies with trained individuals have not shown additional benefits to hypertrophic
adaptations when the same TTV is distributed with different strategies [47, 48]. In the RTUV
condition, no significant differences in CSA increases were also observed between the different
RT frequencies; however, the ES and CI suggest a great effect on CSA induced by the higher
RT frequency, probably due to the higher TTV (i.e., ES = 0.63; CI = 0.21 to 1.10). The ES inter-
pretation corroborates the recent evidence demonstrating the importance of training volume
in muscle adaptations [9, 10]. In practice, increasing the RT frequency would be one of the
possible ways to increase TTV over a specific period of time [9, 15, 42–45].
Finally, as similarly discussed for the strength gains, the comparisons between high training
frequency in the RTEV and RTUV conditions (i.e., between-subjects’ comparisons) showed
that RTUV presented greater muscle CSA increments (see S1 Fig). In both conditions, the sub-
jects trained three times per week and the TTV was similar, so similar adaptations would be
expected for both groups, as observed in within-subject comparisons. The reasonable explana-
tion for data discrepancy, strengthened by our experimental design, is also that between-sub-
ject data variability is imperative to interfere in the results, likely adding bias to the results.
It is important to mention some limitations of the present study: (a) CSA was measured
only in the middle portion of the quadriceps femoris muscle (i.e., 50% of the distance between
the greater trochanter and the lateral femoral epicondyle), precluding any speculation about
hypertrophic adaptations in the proximal and distal regions; (b) only one exercise (unilateral
leg press 45˚) was performed during the 9-week RT program and it has been shown that vary-
ing exercises may result in larger hypertrophy adaptations [49]; (c) the unilateral RT protocol
may promote a cross-education effect, which would increase contralateral limb strength gains
[50]; however, this effect is less likely to occur in trained individuals that perform unilateral RT
in both lower limbs [47]. In addition, the within-subject experimental design proposed in this
study attempted to reduce the interference of the variability found in the between-subject
experimental designs; (d) in the RTEV condition, the repetitions performed in the higher RT
frequency could not always be considered maximum repetitions, as they were performed with
the average weight obtained with the lower weekly frequency of the contralateral lower limb.
However, recent evidence has shown that trained individuals in RT programs with equalized
TTV can achieve similar or even higher results in both strength [51, 52] and muscle hypertro-
phy [53], even when maximum repetitions are not performed.

Conclusion
The results of this study demonstrated that RT performed three times a week, increased 1RM
and quadriceps femoris CSA similarly to that performed only once a week in trained subjects.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 10 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

When the higher RT frequency resulted in a larger TTV, such as in the RTUV condition (17%
more than the lower frequency), greater ES were observed for both 1RM and CSA. Therefore,
if trained individuals need higher RT volumes to obtain gains in both strength [8] and muscle
mass [9–11], alternatives such as increasing RT frequency could be considered [21, 54]. More-
over, when the same TTV is distributed at different weekly frequencies, no additional benefits
in increases in strength and muscle mass are observed.

Supporting information
S1 Fig. Effect size with the confidence interval in the highest resistance training frequen-
cies (i.e., three times a week) in inter-subject experimental design comparisons.
1RM = 0.44 (ES) with 0.02 to 0.89 (CI) and, CSA = 0.48 (ES) with 0.05 to 0.94 (CI). ES, effect
size; 1RM, maximum dynamic strength; CSA, quadriceps femoris cross-sectional area; CI,
confidence interval.
(TIF)

Acknowledgments
We would like to acknowledge the Diagnostics of the Americas S/A (DASA) for carrying out
the magnetic resonance images of this study. In addition, we would like to express a special
thanks to all participants for their dedication and commitment during the research.

Author Contributions
Conceptualization: Ricardo P. Neves, Felipe C. Vechin.
Data curation: Ricardo P. Neves, Felipe C. Vechin, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, Hamilton Roschel.
Formal analysis: Ricardo P. Neves, Felipe C. Vechin, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, Hamilton Roschel,
Valmor Tricoli.
Funding acquisition: Ricardo P. Neves, Valmor Tricoli.
Investigation: Ricardo P. Neves, Emerson L. Teixeira, Demostenys D. da Silva.
Methodology: Ricardo P. Neves, Felipe C. Vechin, Valmor Tricoli.
Project administration: Ricardo P. Neves, Valmor Tricoli.
Resources: Ricardo P. Neves.
Software: Ricardo P. Neves, Felipe C. Vechin, André Y. Aihara.
Supervision: Ricardo P. Neves, Emerson L. Teixeira, Demostenys D. da Silva, Carlos Ugrino-
witsch, Hamilton Roschel, André Y. Aihara, Valmor Tricoli.
Validation: Ricardo P. Neves, Felipe C. Vechin, Emerson L. Teixeira, Carlos Ugrinowitsch,
Hamilton Roschel, André Y. Aihara, Valmor Tricoli.
Visualization: Ricardo P. Neves, Felipe C. Vechin, Emerson L. Teixeira, Carlos Ugrinowitsch,
Hamilton Roschel, André Y. Aihara, Valmor Tricoli.
Writing – original draft: Ricardo P. Neves, Felipe C. Vechin, Demostenys D. da Silva, Carlos
Ugrinowitsch, Hamilton Roschel, Valmor Tricoli.
Writing – review & editing: Ricardo P. Neves, Felipe C. Vechin, Emerson L. Teixeira, Demos-
tenys D. da Silva, Carlos Ugrinowitsch, Hamilton Roschel, André Y. Aihara, Valmor
Tricoli.

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 11 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

References
1. Hass CJ, Feigenbaum MS, Franklin BA. Prescription of resistance training for healthy populations.
Sports Med. 2001; 31: 953–964. https://doi.org/10.2165/00007256-200131140-00001 PMID:
11735680
2. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Buchan D, Baker JS. Weekly training frequency effects on strength
gain: a meta-analysis. Sports Med. Open 2018; 4: 36. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40798-018-0149-9
PMID: 30076500
3. Kraemer WJ, Ratamess NA. Fundamentals of resistance training: progression and exercise prescrip-
tion. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2004; 36: 674–688. https://doi.org/10.1249/01.mss.0000121945.36635.61
PMID: 15064596
4. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression
models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009; 41: 687–708. https://doi.
org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670 PMID: 19204579
5. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle
hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016; 46: 1689–1697. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s40279-016-0543-8 PMID: 27102172
6. Fisher J, Steele J, Low SB, Smith D. Evidence-based resistance training recommendations. Med Sport.
2011; 15: 147–162. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10036-011-0025-x
7. American College of Sports Medicine. American College of Sports Medicine position stand. Progression
models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2002; 34: 364–380. https://doi.
org/10.1097/00005768-200202000-00027 PMID: 11828249
8. Ralston GW, Kilgore L, Wyatt FB, Baker JS. The effect of weekly set volume on strength gain: a meta-
analysis. Sports Med. 2017; 47: 2585–2601. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-017-0762-7 PMID:
28755103
9. Figueiredo VC, de Salles BF, Trajano GS. Volume for muscle hypertrophy and health outcomes: the
most effective variable in resistance training. Sports Med. 2018; 48: 499–505. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s40279-017-0793-0 PMID: 29022275
10. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training
volume and increases in muscle mass: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Sports Sci. 2017; 35:
1073–1082. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197 PMID: 27433992
11. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Krieger J, Grgic J, Delcastillo K, Belliard R, et al. Resistance training vol-
ume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2019; 51:
94–103. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000001764 PMID: 30153194
12. Ochi E, Maruo M, Tsuchiya Y, Ishii N, Miura K, Sasaki K. Higher training frequency is important for gain-
ing muscular strength under volume-matched training. Front Physiol. 2018; 9: 744. https://doi.org/10.
3389/fphys.2018.00744 PMID: 30013480
13. Johnsen E, Tillaar R. Effects of training frequency on muscular strength for trained men under volume
matched conditions. PeerJ. 2021; 9: e10781. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.10781 PMID: 33643706
14. Blanco FP, Rosell DR, Aagaard P, Medina LS, Serna JR, Custodio RM, et al. Time course of recovery
from resistance exercise with different set configurations. J Strength Cond Res. 2020; 34: 2867–2876.
https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002756 PMID: 30036284
15. Häkkinen K, Kallinen M. Distribution of strength training volume into one or two daily sessions and neu-
romuscular adaptations in female athletes. Electromyogr Clin Neurophysiol. 1994; 34: 117–124. PMID:
8187678
16. Hartman MJ, Clark B, Bembens DA, Kilgore JL, Bemben MG. Comparisons between twice-daily and
once-daily training sessions in male weight lifters. Int J Sports Physiol Perform. 2007; 2: 159–169.
https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2.2.159 PMID: 19124903
17. Raastad T, Kirketeig A, Wolf D, Paulsen G. 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 (abstract). Book of abstracts, 17th annual conference of the European College of Sport Science;
2012.
18. Williams TD, Tolusso DV, Fedewa MV, Esco MR. Comparison of periodized and non-periodized resis-
tance training on maximal strength: a meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2017; 47: 2083–2100. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s40279-017-0734-y PMID: 28497285
19. Damas F, Phillips S, Vechin FC, Ugrinowitsch C. A review of resistance training-induced changes in
skeletal muscle protein synthesis and their contribution to hypertrophy. Sports Med. 2015; 45: 801–
807. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-015-0320-0 PMID: 25739559

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 12 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

20. Dankel SJ, Mattocks KT, Jessee MB, Buckner SL, Mouser JG, Counts BR, et al. Frequency: the over-
looked resistance training variable for inducing muscle hypertrophy? Sports Med. 2017; 47: 799–805.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0640-8 PMID: 27752983
21. Damas F, Phillips SM, Libardi CA, Vechin FC, Lixandrão ME, Jannig PR, et al. Resistance training-
induced changes in integrated myofibrillar protein synthesis are related to hypertrophy only after attenu-
ation of muscle damage. J Physiol. 2016; 594: 5209–5222. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP272472 PMID:
27219125
22. Schoenfeld BJ, Ratamess NA, Peterson MD, Contreras B, Tiryaki-Sonmez G. Influence of resistance
training frequency on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2015; 29: 1821–
1829. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000970 PMID: 25932981
23. Hammarström D, Øfsteng S, Koll L, Hanestadhaugen M, Hollan I, Apró W, et al. Benefits of higher resis-
tance-training volume are related to ribosome biogenesis. J Physiol. 2020; 598: 543–565. https://doi.
org/10.1113/JP278455 PMID: 31813190
24. Brook MS, Wilkinson DJ, Smith K, Atherton PJ. It’s not just about protein turnover: the role of ribosomal
biogenesis and satellite cells in the regulation of skeletal muscle hypertrophy. Eur J Sport Sci. 2019;
19: 952–963. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461391.2019.1569726 PMID: 30741116
25. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, Lazinica B, Krieger JW, Pedisic Z. Effect of resistance training fre-
quency on gains in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018; 48:
1207–1220. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40279-018-0872-x PMID: 29470825
26. Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Latella C. Resistance training frequency and skeletal muscle hypertrophy: a
review of available evidence. J Sci Med Sport. 2019; 22:361–370. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsams.2018.
09.223 PMID: 30236847
27. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Krieger J. How many times per week should a muscle be trained to maximize
muscle hypertrophy? A systematic review and meta-analysis of studies examining the effects of resis-
tance training frequency. J Sports Sci. 2019; 37: 1286–1295. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.
1555906 PMID: 30558493
28. Damas F, Barcelos C, Nóbrega SR, Ugrinowitsch C, Lixandrão ME, Santos LMED, et al. Individual
muscle hypertrophy and strength responses to high vs. low resistance training frequencies. J Strength
Cond Res. 2019; 33: 897–901. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002864 PMID: 30289872
29. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J. Evidence-based guidelines for resistance training volume to maximize muscle
hypertrophy. J Strength Cond Res. 2018; 40: 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1519/SSC.
0000000000000363
30. Brown LE, Weir JP. ASEP procedures recommendation I: accurate assessment of muscular strength
and power. JEPonline 2001; 4: 1–21.
31. Weir JP. Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J
Strength Cond Res. 2005; 19: 231–240. https://doi.org/10.1519/15184.1 PMID: 15705040
32. Espirı́to-Santo H, Daniel F. Calculating and reporting effect sizes on scientific papers: p < 0.05 limita-
tions in the analysis of mean differences of two groups. Port J Behav Soc Res. 2015; 1:3–16.
33. Nakagawa S, Cuthill IC. Effect size, confidence interval and statistical significance: a practical guide for
biologists. Biol Rev Camb Philos Soc. 2007; 82: 591–605. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-185X.2007.
00027.x PMID: 17944619
34. Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associ-
ates; 1988.
35. McLester JR, Bishop P, Guilliams M. Comparison of 1 day and 3 days per week of equal-volume resis-
tance training in experienced subjects. J Strength Cond Res. 2000; 14:273–281.
36. Häkkinen K. Factors influencing trainability of muscular strength during short and prolonged training.
Natl Strength Cond Assoc J. 1985; 7:32–37.
37. Colquhoun RJ, Gai CM, Aguilar D, Bove D, Dolan J, Vargas A, et al. Training volume, not frequency,
indicative of maximal strength adaptations to resistance training. J Strength Cond Res. 2018; 32:
1207–1213 https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002414 PMID: 29324578
38. Fortes LS, Costa MC, Ferreira M, Nascimento-Júnior J, Fiorese L, Lima-Júnior D, et al. Frequency of
resistance training does not affect inhibitory control or improve strength in well-trained young adults.
PLoS One 2018; 13: e0206784. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0206784 PMID: 30388181
39. Hamarsland H, Moen H, Skaar OJ, Jorang PW, Rødahl HS, Rønnestad BR. Equal-volume strength
training with different training frequencies induces similar muscle hypertrophy and strength improve-
ment in trained participants. Front Physiol. 2022; 12: 789403. https://doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2021.
789403 PMID: 35069251

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 13 / 14

PLOS ONE Effect of training frequency on muscle strength and hypertrophy

40. Lasevicius T, Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Laurentino G, Tavares LD, Tricoli V. Similar muscular adaptations
in resistance training performed two versus three days per week. J Hum Kinet. 2019; 68: 135–143.
https://doi.org/10.2478/hukin-2019-0062 PMID: 31531139
41. Saric J, Lisica D, Orlic I, Grgic J, Krieger JW, Vuk S, et al. Resistance training frequencies of 3 and 6
times per week produce similar muscular adaptations in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res.
2019; 33 (Suppl1), S122–S129. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002909 PMID: 30363041
42. Thomas MH, Burns SP. Increasing lean mass and strength: a comparison of high frequency strength
training to lower frequency strength training. Int J Exerc Sci. 2016; 9: 159–167. PMID: 27182422
43. Zaroni RS, Brigatto FA, Schoenfeld BJ, Braz TV, Benvenutti JC, Germano MD, et al. High resistance-
training frequency enhances muscle thickness in resistance-trained men. J Strength Cond Res. 2019;
33 (Suppl 1): S140–S151. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002643 PMID: 31260419
44. Brigatto FA, Braz TV, Zanini TCDC, Germano MD, Aoki MS, Schoenfeld BJ, et al. Effect of resistance
training frequency on neuromuscular performance and muscle morphology after 8 weeks in trained
men. J Strength Cond Res. 2019; 33: 2104–2116. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002563
PMID: 29528962
45. Gomes GK, Franco CM, Nunes PRP, Orsatti FL. High-frequency resistance training is not more effec-
tive than low-frequency resistance training in increasing muscle mass and strength in well-trained men.
J Strength Cond Res. 2019; 33 (Suppl1), S130–S139. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.
0000000000002559 PMID: 29489727
46. Yue FL, Karsten B, Larumbe-Zabala E, Seijo M, Naclerio F. Comparison of 2 weekly-equalized volume
resistance-training routines using different frequencies on body composition and performance in trained
males. Appl Physiol Nutr Metab. 2018; 43: 475–481. https://doi.org/10.1139/apnm-2017-0575 PMID:
29216446
47. Angleri V, Ugrinowitsch C, Libardi CA. Crescent pyramid and drop-set systems do not promote greater
strength gains, muscle hypertrophy, and changes on muscle architecture compared with traditional
resistance training in well-trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017; 117: 359–369. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s00421-016-3529-1 PMID: 28130627
48. Oliver JM, Jagim AR, Sanchez AC, Mardock MA, Kelly KA, Meredith HJ, et al. Greater gains in strength
and power with intraset rest intervals in hypertrophic training. J Strength Cond Res. 2013; 27: 3116–
3131. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0b013e3182891672 PMID: 23736782
49. Fonseca RM, Roschel H, Tricoli V, de Souza EO, Wilson JM, Laurentino GC, et al. Changes in exer-
cises are more effective than in loading schemes to improve muscle strength. J Strength Cond Res.
2014; 28: 3085–3092. https://doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000000539 PMID: 24832974
50. Manca A, Dragone D, Dvir Z, Deriu F. Cross-education of muscular strength following unilateral resis-
tance training: a meta-analysis. Eur J Appl Physiol. 2017; 117:2335–2354. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s00421-017-3720-z PMID: 28936703
51. Carroll KM, Bernards JR, Bazyler CD, Taber CB, Stuart CA, DeWeese BH, et al. Divergent performance
outcomes following resistance training using repetition maximums or relative intensity. Int J Sports Phy-
siol Perform. 2018; 29: 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1123/ijspp.2018-0045 PMID: 29809061
52. Vieira JG, Dias MRC, Lacio M, Schimitz G, Nascimento G, Panza P, et al. Resistance training with repe-
tition to failure or not on muscle strength and perceptual responses. JEPonline 2019; 22: 165–175.
53. Carroll KM, Bazyler CD, Bernards JR, Taber CB, Stuart CA, DeWeese BH, et al. Skeletal muscle fiber
adaptations following resistance training using repetition maximums or relative intensity. Sports (Basel).
2019; 7: 169. https://doi.org/10.3390/sports7070169 PMID: 31373325
54. Schoenfeld B, Fisher J, Grgic J, Haun C, Helms E, Phillips S, et al. Resistance training recommenda-
tions to maximize muscle hypertrophy in an athletic population: position stand of the IUSCA. Int J
Strength Cond. 2021; 1: 1–30. https://doi.org/10.47206/ijsc.v1i1.81

PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0276154 October 13, 2022 14 / 14