How many times a week to go to the gym and how to distribute exercises is one of the first questions that faces everyone who trains. The editorial team analyzed whom full-body suits and whom the split suits, and proposed weekly schemes for different schedules.
The choice is determined not by science but by your week
Research shows that at equal weekly volume, the split and full-body produce similar results for strength and muscle mass. This is good news: you can choose an approach based on your own schedule, experience, and preferences without fearing that you will “lose progress.”
The most important question is how many days a week you can realistically train consistently. If two or three, full-body is almost always more rational. If four to six, opportunities open up for a split or hybrid schemes.
The second question is your experience. For beginners it is important to repeat the basic movements often in order to consolidate technique. Experienced athletes may need greater volume, which is more convenient to distribute over several specialized sessions.
You will find a detailed explanation of the physiology and meta-analysis results in the article “Split or Full-Body: What's the Difference.” Here we focus on the practical choice.
Whom full-body suits
Full-body is the optimal start for most beginners. The ACSM position statement (2009) recommends whole-body training 2–3 times a week for beginners. This provides frequent repetition of the basic exercises, gradual adaptation of the joints and ligaments, and rapid learning of technique.
Full-body is ideal for busy people who can come to the gym only two or three times a week. At such a frequency, a split would lead to each muscle group being trained less than once a week, whereas full-body provides a stimulus to every muscle in every session.
Full-body is resilient to missed sessions. If you miss one workout because of work or illness, no muscle group is left without a load for a week. For people with an unstable schedule this is a significant advantage.
Full-body also suits those who combine strength training with other kinds of activity — running, team sports, combat sports. Two or three whole-body sessions leave enough time and energy for other training.
- Beginners and people returning after a break.
- A schedule of 2–3 workouts a week.
- An unstable schedule and frequent missed sessions.
- Combination with other sports.
Whom the split suits
The split becomes relevant when you train 4–6 times a week and have sufficient experience. At such a frequency, full-body in every session can lead to the accumulation of fatigue, whereas the split allows the load to be distributed and gives each group time to recover.
Experienced athletes often need greater weekly volume for further progress. The meta-analysis by Schoenfeld and colleagues (2017) showed that greater volume is associated with greater gains in muscle mass. It is easier to fit 15–20 sets per muscle group per week by distributing them across specialized sessions.
The split is convenient for those who want to focus on lagging muscle groups. A separate session or a separate block for the arms, shoulders, or hamstrings allows more attention and energy to be devoted to them.
Finally, many people simply like the split format: shorter sessions with a clear focus, the feeling of a “pump” in the target muscles. Enjoyment of training is a significant factor in regularity.
Ready-made schemes for your schedule
Below are typical options for organizing the week depending on the number of available days. These are guidelines for healthy adults without limitations, not an individual program.
| Days a week | Recommended scheme | Frequency per muscle group |
|---|---|---|
| 2 | Full-body A / Full-body B | 2 times |
| 3 | Full-body (A/B/A, alternating) | 3 times |
| 4 | Upper / Lower / Upper / Lower | 2 times |
| 5 | Upper / Lower / Pull / Push / Legs | ~2 times |
| 6 | Pull / Push / Legs × 2 | 2 times |
Note: all the schemes given ensure that each muscle group is trained roughly twice a week. Meta-analyses (Schoenfeld et al., 2019; Grgic et al., 2018) show no advantage of rigid adherence to a specific frequency, but such a frequency allows volume to be distributed conveniently.
The classic bodybuilder's “one group, one day” split can also work if the weekly volume is sufficient. However, in the case of a missed workout the muscle group is left without a load for two weeks, so for most people hybrid schemes are more practical.
Regardless of the scheme, keep track of progression: gradually increase the weight, number of reps, or sets, and record your results in a log.
Mistakes in choosing and transitioning
A common mistake is to copy a professional bodybuilder's program without accounting for your own experience and recovery. A six-day split with a large volume can overload a beginner and lead to injuries and loss of motivation.
The second mistake is changing the scheme too often. The body needs several weeks to adapt to a program, and constant changes make it hard to assess progress. It is sensible to stick with the chosen scheme for at least 8–12 weeks.
The third mistake is ignoring overall recovery. Sleep, nutrition with enough protein, and stress management affect the result no less than the training structure. The WHO (Bull et al., 2020) and the ACSM (Garber et al., 2011) also emphasize combining strength training with general physical activity.
People with chronic conditions, injuries, or after a long break should consult a doctor before starting intense training and, if possible, draw up a program together with a qualified coach.
Editorial conclusions
Full-body is the best choice for beginners, busy people with 2–3 workouts a week, and those who combine strength training with other sports. The split is more appropriate for experienced athletes who train 4–6 times a week and need greater volume.
The hybrid “upper/lower” and “push/pull/legs” schemes allow each muscle group to be trained twice a week and combine the advantages of both approaches.
The main thing is to choose a scheme that you can perform regularly, with gradual progression and adequate recovery.
We also recommend reading our articles “Strength Training vs CrossFit: What to Choose and for Whom,” on nutrition before and after training, and on the role of protein in building muscle mass.
References
- 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 resistance training frequency. J Sports Sci. 2019;37(11):1286–1295.
- Grgic J, Schoenfeld BJ, Davies TB, et al. Effect of resistance training frequency on gains in muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2018;48(5):1207–1220.
- 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(11):1073–1082.
- 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(3):687–708.
- Garber CE, Blissmer B, Deschenes MR, et al. Quantity and quality of exercise for developing and maintaining cardiorespiratory, musculoskeletal, and neuromotor fitness in apparently healthy adults: guidance for prescribing exercise. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2011;43(7):1334–1359.
- Bull FC, Al-Ansari SS, Biddle S, et al. World Health Organization 2020 guidelines on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Br J Sports Med. 2020;54(24):1451–1462.
Andriy Melnyk
A strength-sports coach and author of programs for beginner and intermediate levels. Writes about training planning.
