>>76516496
>Old people required more frequency while the young adults group did fine?
Old adults lost muscle on 3 sets once a week, Young adults stagnated on 3 sets once a week.
Young adults managed to gain on 9 sets once a week.
Old adults didn't even achieve maintenance on 9 sets once a week.
>You gotta explain the second one cus that is to much.
You mean the second study?
Women at the start of a study were put on two groups, a continuous training block of 12 weeks and a control group that did nothing.
The group that trained did 4 sets on each session of leg presses, 2x a week.
After these 12 weeks of training they separated the training group into 3 groups for another 12 weeks of the experiment:
-One group that did the same 4 sets but once every 7 days.
-One group that did the same 4 sets but only once every 14 days.
-One group that stopped training completely.

After the last 12 week block was completed the subjects that were still training were then made to completely stop training.
Pic related are the results.
4 sets once a week wasn't enough to grow muscle.
4 sets once every other week was not enough to even just maintain size.
>And how many millions failed on pplpplx and so on?
Many probably, there are many ways to screw up pretty much any type of split, and some people just don't have what it takes.
>The opening post is making points for why once a week is a good training frequency.
If we accept that frequency matters we then should be able to assess just how much it matters, I wasn't banking on the numeric value of "once a month" or anything like that.
>>76517568
First he says he trains muscles once a week, then that he does a brosplit with some adjustments...
Back
Shoulders&Triceps
Rest
Legs
Chest&Biceps
Shoulders(He specifically says he does this more than once a week because he wants to bring these up)

He doesn't say how many sets or what exercises he uses which will greatly impact results in a bodypart split.
This is what I'm talking about.