I have been hearing and answering this same question for some time, not only in my work, but also in Men’s Health forums. It seems that little by little we are winning the battle to those who consider that more is better and that if with an amount X of days you do not get the desired results you must go to X + 1, then X + 2, until 6 days to week.

And you know why not 7 in many cases? Because Saturday plays drunk and Sunday hangover. Given how alcohol affects recovery and therefore results, do not you find it a bit contradictory? Every time I think about it I get the laugh, maybe deserve a space in the comedy club.

Lately several people have explained to me that their coach tells them that two days is better than one, three better than two, and four better than three. He even notes them, as if it were an examination. Four days is the outstanding clear is. In all this I can only agree that it does not exceed four days.

Do not it seem a little illogical that the results depend on a certain number of weekly days instead of taking into account what you do those days? Do not you think it will also have something to do with intensity, training volume or time spent? Will it be the same 3 days twenty minutes walking on a tape that the same days working at a high level of intensity?

In that sense I have observed better results with three days than two, both in strength and in gaining muscle mass, but not in all cases, two days being better in those cases where the genetics or lifestyle are not adequate for Promote a correct recovery. In these cases, obviously, moving to four days would be crazy that would end up with any chance of getting results in the future. This possibility is reserved for those athletes who, in addition to having the desire and determination necessary, also have the appropriate genetics and lifestyle, in addition to having at least a year and a half of experience with serious training. However, it would not even be an option in those athletes whose main objective was to gain muscle mass. In these cases my limit would be three days a week.

In the end, the number of days spent per week is the least. The only thing you need to worry about is to train at the right intensity to cause adaptation and re-train in the interval since you have completely recovered and adaptation has occurred until the moment of over-recovery is lost. This depends directly on the stress that you have submitted to the body, a factor that will directly determine the necessary days of recovery. In the end, one of the few questions that no one doubts in exercise physiology is that adaptation to a stimulus (training), and hence evolution, comes hand in hand with total recovery. Re-train before this happens and you will soon stagnate.

This would be a classic example, with which more than one will be identified: Male, begins to train at age 20, progresses slowly, stagnates, finds work, meets girl, has children, can no longer go to the gym with The usual assiduity, so he decides to reduce to two-three days of training per week, with the aim of maintaining the results or even curb the loss. He has already lost everything he achieved during those years when, alleluia, he begins to break all the limits reached in his best form.

How is this possible? In my case, the question that would ask you would be How can you, after this lesson, go back to the gym every day as soon as life allows you? In the end, what I was saying, a space in the comedy club.