hat der das paper überhaupt gelesen, oder wie kommt der jz auf seine aussage mit frequenz 1-1,5?
hypertrophie:
Although more data is needed to conclusively establish the dose-response of frequency on
hypertrophy, other data can be considered to generate hypotheses for future studies.
Mechanistic data indicate that muscle protein synthesis (MPS) is meaningfully reduced 48
hours after an RT bout in untrained individuals (112) and may even return to baseline in
trained individuals (113,114). When paired conceptually with the lack of a consistent,
independent effect of frequency in the present meta-analysis, multiple potential
explanations exist. These include: i) the MPS timelines reported in acute research do not
necessarily represent hypertrophic effects, perhaps in part or entirely related to muscle
damage repair confounding MPS elevations (115); ii) the collective training status of the
included participants was not sufficiently advanced, resulting in an extended anabolism
period post-training, which may have obscured the beneficial effects of higher frequency;
iii) there is no plateau in hypertrophy with increasing per session volumes; iv) the average
weekly ‘fractional’ set volume of 13.00 ± 8.87 in the included studies may have resulted in
per session volumes that were either too high or too low, preventing beneficial effects of
higher frequencies to be observed (116); v) an unidentified negative effect of higher
frequency counteracts the theoretical positive effects. Please refer to our parallel project
for additional insight on the effects of per session volume (117).
bezüglich kraft ist es logisch (und ich glaube das zweifelt in der praxis auch niemand an), dass eine höhere frequenz mehr zugewinn bringt. und das geht auch aus dem paper hervor.
