>>76516021
What frequency/volume do you believe is the minimum for one to grow muscle?
>Broadly speaking, do you think the people who go to your gym don’t go enough?
The average person at the gym is inconsistent and uses too much volume with not enough intensity.
>>76516036
There are many factors that impact ideal training frequency.
>>76516053
https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/fulltext/2011/07000/exercise_dosing_to_retain_resistance_training.7.aspx
https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4663/12/7/198
How do you explain these results without admitting that atrophy happens within a training week?
Muscle size measurements might be picking up some loss in edema and not actual contractile tissue loss, but what about the strength results?
>We also have evidence from the millions of people that have trained with brosplits and built maxed out physiques both natty and sauced.
How many millions tried and failed?
Bodybuilders also seem to suffer from at least some form of training amnesia.
>Why do you use once a month as a timeframe?
To drive my point home that frequency matters.
>>76516060
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21771261/
This shows that the group that followed a 3-week detraining block lost muscle, but regained lost size fast.
All the subjects were beginners and the group that detrained was smaller to begin with which might have skewed the percentage changes.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23053130/
Same thing.
>https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7241623/
That one is tricky to explain away, all I have is that the subjects were beginners.
>So if I've stalled doing full body every five days, then decreased frequency to every seven days, then saw progress again
With high volume it might work.
>Drug users can tolerate a higher frequency.
They can also get away with lower frequency.
>I think that you're just arguing for the sake of arguing.
Trust me I'm not this is exactly the type of thing that people miss which leads them to believe frequency is somewhat irrelevant.