Rep ranges and workout splits for 2 to 5 days a week

Muscle grows across a wide range of reps when sets are taken close to failure, while maximal strength favors heavier loads (Schoenfeld et al., 2017). When weekly volume is equal, training a muscle once or several times a week gives similar growth (Schoenfeld et al., 2019). So choose the split that fits the days you can actually train.

Published Last updated By ArchiFit

Which rep range is best for muscle and for strength?

A meta-analysis of studies where every set went to momentary muscular failure found similar muscle growth with low and high loads. Maximal strength still came out ahead with heavy loads (Schoenfeld et al., 2017). A later review proposed that muscular adaptations can be obtained "across a wide spectrum of loading zones" (Schoenfeld et al., 2021).

What the evidence says about common rep ranges
RangeMuscle growthMaximal strength
About 1–6 reps (heavy)Similar to lighter loads when sets go to failureLargest gains
6–12 reps (moderate)The ACSM's emphasis for hypertrophyBuilds strength, less than the heaviest loads
12–15+ reps (light)Similar growth when sets go to failureSmaller gains than heavy loads

The American College of Sports Medicine recommends 8–12 repetition maximum loads for novices, and for hypertrophy, loads of 1–12 RM with an emphasis on 6–12 RM (ACSM, 2009).

How many sets per muscle per week?

More sets tend to bring more growth. A meta-analysis found a graded dose-response: each extra weekly set was associated with a slightly larger gain in muscle (Schoenfeld et al., 2017). Grouped as fewer than 5, 5–9 and 10 or more sets per muscle per week, the data showed a trend toward the higher groups, but not a firm threshold. A practical approach is to start at a weekly number you can recover from and add sets when progress slows.

How often should you train each muscle?

Two meta-analyses from the same group are worth reading together. A 2016 analysis found that training a muscle twice a week beat once a week, on equal volume (Schoenfeld et al., 2016). A larger 2019 analysis found no significant difference between higher and lower frequencies when weekly volume was equated. It concluded that, for a given volume, "individuals can choose a weekly frequency per muscle groups based on personal preference" (Schoenfeld et al., 2019). When volume was not equated, higher frequencies did modestly better. That suggests the benefit of training a muscle more often comes mostly from the extra weekly sets it makes room for.

Which split fits 2, 3, 4 or 5 days a week?

A split decides which muscles share a day. Run in order, the number of times each muscle comes round per week is the days you train divided by the days in the split:

How often each muscle is trained per week, by days per week and split
Days per weekFull body2-day split (upper / lower, or push / pull)3-day split (push / pull / legs)
22×1×0.67×
33×1.5×1×
44×2×1.33×
55×2.5×1.67×

With frequency mattering little at equal volume, the deciding factors are your week and your recovery. Fewer days call for more muscles per session, and more days allow shorter sessions. The ACSM's frequency recommendation is 2–3 days a week for novices, 3–4 for intermediate lifters and 4–5 for advanced lifters.

Push, pull, legs or upper and lower?

Both are ways to spread the same weekly sets. On 4 days, an upper and lower split trains each muscle twice a week. Push, pull and legs on 3 days trains each muscle once, with longer sessions, and on 5 or 6 days it comes round more often. Pick the one whose session length and order you will keep doing.

How ArchiFit picks a split and rep range

ArchiFit workout plan screen with split choices: 2-day upper and lower recommended, 2-day push and pull, two 3-day splits, a custom split, and the heavy 6–8 reps or light 12–15 reps style

See how the plan is picked, how long to rest between sets, or how to choose bulk, maintain or cut from an InBody result.

General fitness information, not medical advice.

Sources

  1. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- vs. high-load resistance training: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res. 2017;31(12):3508-3523. doi.org/10.1519/JSC.0000000000002200
  2. Schoenfeld BJ, Grgic J, Van Every DW, Plotkin DL. Loading recommendations for muscle strength, hypertrophy, and local endurance: a re-examination of the repetition continuum. Sports (Basel). 2021;9(2):32. doi.org/10.3390/sports9020032
  3. 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. doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2016.1210197
  4. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports Med. 2016;46(11):1689-1697. doi.org/10.1007/s40279-016-0543-8
  5. 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. doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2018.1555906
  6. American College of Sports Medicine. Progression models in resistance training for healthy adults. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2009;41(3):687-708. doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0b013e3181915670