Resistance Training Frequency and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Volume-Equated Trials
- 1The University of the Sunshine Coast
Abstract
Weekly training volume is the primary driver of resistance-training hypertrophy, but the independent role of frequency can be isolated only when weekly volume is equated. We quantified the effect of training frequency on hypertrophy across one to three volume-equated sessions per muscle per week. Following PRISMA 2020, five databases were searched to October 2026 for trials of at least six weeks that equated weekly volume between per-muscle frequencies and measured muscle size. One change-score standardized mean difference per trial (Hedges g; negative favoring higher frequency) was pooled with a random-effects model, and certainty was rated with GRADE. Sixteen trials (380 participants) were pooled. The frequency effect was trivial and non-significant (g = -0.02; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.16; I{superscript 2} = 0%; prediction interval -0.23 to 0.18); the interval admits at most a small effect favoring the higher frequency. Contrast-specific estimates were similarly trivial, and no moderator was significant, although the moderator analyses could detect only large effects. Certainty was low to very low. Within this range, the data give no basis for preferring one, two or three sessions at a fixed weekly volume. Most trials measured muscle thickness, which does not track whole-muscle growth reliably.
Related
- Impact of different protein sources on acute muscle protein synthesis following resistance training: a systematic review with standard and dose–response network meta-analyses
- Effects of high-intensity resistance training within concurrent training programs on athletic performance in elite athletes: a systematic review
- Effect of resistance, balance, and aerobic training on strength, mobility, balance, and quality of life in older adults with sarcopenia: a systematic review and meta-analysis
- Effects of flywheel resistance training on jump, sprint, and change-of-direction performance in basketball players: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Comparative efficacy of aerobic training, resistance training, combined training, and multicomponent exercise on interleukin-6, C-reactive protein, and tumor necrosis factor-α levels in older adults (≥60 years): a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BibTeX
@misc{boutagy2026resistance,
title = {{Resistance Training Frequency and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Volume-Equated Trials}},
author = {A. G. Boutagy and M. R. McKean},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.64898/2026.10.07.26365015},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.07.26365015v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Resistance Training Frequency and Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Volume-Equated Trials
AU - A. G. Boutagy
AU - M. R. McKean
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/07
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.10.07.26365015
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.10.07.26365015v1
AB - Weekly training volume is the primary driver of resistance-training hypertrophy, but the independent role of frequency can be isolated only when weekly volume is equated. We quantified the effect of training frequency on hypertrophy across one to three volume-equated sessions per muscle per week. Following PRISMA 2020, five databases were searched to October 2026 for trials of at least six weeks that equated weekly volume between per-muscle frequencies and measured muscle size. One change-score standardized mean difference per trial (Hedges g; negative favoring higher frequency) was pooled with a random-effects model, and certainty was rated with GRADE. Sixteen trials (380 participants) were pooled. The frequency effect was trivial and non-significant (g = -0.02; 95% CI -0.21 to 0.16; I{superscript 2} = 0%; prediction interval -0.23 to 0.18); the interval admits at most a small effect favoring the higher frequency. Contrast-specific estimates were similarly trivial, and no moderator was significant, although the moderator analyses could detect only large effects. Certainty was low to very low. Within this range, the data give no basis for preferring one, two or three sessions at a fixed weekly volume. Most trials measured muscle thickness, which does not track whole-muscle growth reliably.
ER -