How Many Times a Week Should You Work Out? Here’s What the Science (and Real Life) Says

Another common question we get at The Lab Liverpool:

“How many times a week should I train?”

And while it might sound simple, the answer depends on your goals, experience, and, most importantly, your ability to recover.

Let’s break it down using real-world context, coaching principles, and the science behind it.

🎯 What Are You Training For?

The number of sessions per week should reflect your goal:

You don’t need to train every day. In fact, recovery is where the progress actually happens.

🔄 Training Age and the "Rookie Phase"

Your training age (how long you've been training consistently) is one of the biggest factors:

• Beginners can progress rapidly on 2-3 sessions/week due to “newbie gains”
  
  

• Intermediate/advanced lifters may need more frequency and volume to see similar improvements
  
  

Why? Because the body adapts quickly to new stimuli early on. But over time, adaptation slows and more specific stimulus is needed.

📉 More Isn’t Always Better: The Volume Trap

It might be tempting to train 6-7 days a week, especially if you’re motivated.
But that overlooks a key principle: the fitness-fatigue model and general adaptation syndrome (GAS).

It’s easy to fall into the trap of thinking more training = more results. But that only works to a point, especially as you gain experience and life gets busy.

Here’s why:

🧬 General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS)

Originally proposed by endocrinologist Hans Selye, GAS explains how your body reacts to stress. It has three phases:

1. Alarm - A new stimulus (e.g. starting gym training)
   
   

2. Resistance - The body adapts and grows stronger
   
   

3. Exhaustion - Too much stress without enough recovery leads to fatigue, plateau, or even regression
   
   

In training terms, this means: stress + recovery = growth, but stress + stress = burnout.

GAS underpins many modern strength training systems, including the NSCA’s Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning and Bompa’s Periodisation Methodology.

⚖️ The Fitness-Fatigue Model

This more advanced model, originally built on Banister’s work in 1975 and widely referenced in sports science, suggests that every training session creates two simultaneous effects:

• Fitness (positive adaptations like strength, skill, or endurance)
  
  

• Fatigue (short-term stress that temporarily lowers performance)
  
  

Performance = Fitness - Fatigue

So, even when you’re getting fitter, you won’t always feel stronger, especially if fatigue is high.

This model is used in numerous periodisation reviews and consensus papers, like those from Soligard et al. (2016) and Turner (2011), to explain how overtraining or under-recovery stalls progress.

You don’t grow during the workout, you grow when you recover from it.

Training volume follows a principle known as diminishing returns, where more isn’t always better.

In the early stages, increasing volume often boosts progress. But eventually, you reach a point where:

• Progress plateaus
  
  

• Fatigue outweighs the training stimulus
  
  

• Risk of overtraining or injury increases
  
  

This forms an Inverted-U Curve, where benefits rise with volume, peak, then decline if you overshoot your recovery capacity.

📚 Schoenfeld et al. (2017) found hypertrophy increases with volume but tends to plateau beyond 10–20 sets per muscle group per week, especially in trained individuals.

📚 Baz-Valle et al. (2022) echoed this, noting a “ceiling effect” where additional training no longer improves results and may hinder recovery.

📚 Schoenfeld et al. (2021) showed more volume enhances muscle growth but not necessarily strength, particularly when fatigue becomes a limiting factor.

📚 Ogasawara et al. (2013) demonstrated that periodisation, alternating training intensity or volume over time, can sustain progress while reducing recovery demands.

Your ability to recover often dictates your ability to grow.

🧍♂️ Real-Life Constraints Matter

Your job, sleep, stress, family, and other responsibilities all affect what you can recover from, especially if you're not a full-time athlete.

Two people doing the same program may respond completely differently based on their lifestyle stressors.

At The Lab, we ask: What’s the most you can recover from, consistently?

You don’t need to be “fit” to start, just consistent. Read why recovery and real-life habits matter more than motivation.

🧱 Volume, Frequency & Intensity

These three variables make up the foundation of programming:

• Volume load = total work done (sets × reps × load)
  

• Frequency = how often you train each muscle or lift
  

• Intensity = how hard you train (relative to max effort)
  
  

They must be balanced. If volume or frequency goes up, you may need to adjust intensity, and vice versa.

Curious how we balance intensity and training load? See how we support strength gains while keeping your recovery in check.

🗣 What We Recommend at The Lab

Most clients in our SGPT or 1-2-1 coaching train 2-4 times per week, which allows for:

• Enough stimulus to drive results
  
  

• Enough recovery to avoid burnout
  
  

• Flexibility to navigate busy lives
  
  

We also tailor training plans based on:

• Weekly check-ins
  
  

• TrueCoach data
  
  

• Life circumstances (e.g. sleep, energy, illness, travel)
  
  

✅ Real Client Example

“I used to think I had to train 6 days a week to make progress. But I was exhausted and not really improving. Now I train 3-4 times with structure and coaching, and I’ve never felt stronger.”

This is where smarter > harder really shows.

Want to train smarter, not just harder? Learn more about what our SGPT programme includes and how we tailor it to you.

🔚 Final Thoughts

• The best training plan is the one you can stick to.
  
  

• Progress comes from the right amount of work, not just more work.
  
  

• Listen to your body, track your recovery, and adjust over time.
  
  

Whether your goal is fat loss, strength, or feeling better in your body, we can help you train in a way that fits your life, not the other way around.

 References

• Selye, H. (1936). A syndrome produced by diverse nocuous agents. Nature, 138, 32.
  
  

• Bompa, T. O., & Buzzichelli, C. A. (2018). Periodization: Theory and Methodology of Training. Human Kinetics.
  
  

• NSCA. (2017). Essentials of Strength Training and Conditioning (4th ed.). Human Kinetics.
  
  

• Ogasawara, R., et al. (2013). Comparison of muscle hypertrophy following 6 months of continuous and periodic strength training. European Journal of Applied Physiology.
  
  

• O'Donovan, G., et al. (2010). The ABC of physical activity for health: a consensus statement from the British Association of Sport and Exercise Sciences. British Journal of Sports Medicine.
  
  

• Turner, A. (2011). The science and practice of periodization: A brief review. Strength and Conditioning Journal, 33(1), 34–46.
  
  

• Soligard, T., et al. (2016). How much is too much? (Part 1) IOC consensus statement on load in sport and risk of injury. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 50(17), 1030–1041.
  
  

• Gentil, P., et al. (2017). Resistance training with different loads and repetition durations. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
  
  

• Schoenfeld, B. J., Ogborn, D., & Krieger, J. W. (2017). Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), 1073–1082.
  
  

• Hackett, D. A., et al. (2018). Effect of a 12-week resistance training program on muscle strength, body composition and functional fitness in older adults with and without sarcopenia. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity.
  
  

• Schoenfeld, B. J., et al. (2017). Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research.
  
  

• Baz-Valle, E., et al. (2022). Resistance training volume and muscle hypertrophy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Medicine.
  
  

• Schoenfeld, B. J., et al. (2021). Resistance training volume enhances muscle hypertrophy but not strength in trained men. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 53(11), 2498–2505.