For strength over 8 weeks, in the one trial that tested it, the answer was close to yes. Three one-set squat bouts spread across the day built strength that was not significantly different from one three-set session with the same total reps4.
That comes with real limits: one exercise, light loads, trained young men and a small sample. Below is what was tested, what the numbers show, and what they cannot tell you.
What was studied
The trial was run at a university in China and published in 20264. It was randomised: a computer sequence, not the lifters, decided the groups. The people measuring the results did not know who was in which group.
Forty-five male students aged 18 to 25 took part. All had done regular lower-body resistance training for at least six months. They were split into three groups of 154:
- Three mini-workouts (the "fragmented" group): on each training day, three separate bouts at least an hour apart, in a morning, afternoon and evening window. Each bout was a brief warm-up and one set of 20 squats, lasting about a minute.
- One session: a warm-up, then three sets of 20 squats with 3 minutes of rest between sets.
- Control: carried on with usual daily activities and their habitual training.
Both training groups did exactly 60 squats per training day, three days a week, for 8 weeks4. That is what "volume-matched" means: the same total reps, at the same load, on the same days. Only the timing differed. The load started at 40% of each person's one-rep max and rose to 55% in the last two weeks. The one-rep max (1RM) is the heaviest load a person can lift once with good form. All squats were done on a Smith machine, a barbell that runs on fixed rails, and every bout was supervised.
The idea being tested is "exercise snacking": brief bouts of structured exercise, about a minute each, done several times through the day4.
| What | Three mini-workouts | One session | Control |
|---|---|---|---|
| People | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Squats per training day | 60 (3 × 1 set of 20) | 60 (3 sets of 20) | usual training |
| Training days | 24 over 8 weeks | 24 over 8 weeks | none added |
| Load | 40% → 55% of 1RM | 40% → 55% of 1RM | none |
| Attendance | 92.8% | 91.5% | not applicable |
In plain terms: the same squats, the same days, the same light loads. One group did them in one visit, the other in three short ones.
What the trial found
Both training groups got stronger than the control group. The results are "adjusted" changes, meaning the statistics accounted for where each person started4.
- Squat 1RM: the mini-workout group added 32.74 kg to the bar, the single-session group 41.08 kg and the control group 12.15 kg4. Compared with control, that is 20.59 kg more for the mini-workouts and 28.93 kg more for the single session.
- Between the two formats: the single session came out 8.34 kg ahead (41.08 minus 32.74), with a 95% confidence interval running from more than 20 kg in its favour to several kg in favour of the mini-workouts. The difference was not statistically significant4.
Change in squat one-rep max over 8 weeks · kg on the bar
A confidence interval is the range the true difference most likely sits in. This one is wide. It includes no difference at all, and it also includes a sizeable edge for the single session. So "no significant difference" here means the trial could not tell the two apart, not that it proved them identical.
Two more measures told the same story4:
- Isometric squat force (how hard a person can push in a fixed squat position without moving): both groups beat control by a similar margin, with no significant difference between them.
- Reps to fatigue at 40% of the current 1RM: the mini-workout group gained 6.21 reps and the single-session group 10.35, while the control group changed by −3.76 (not significant). The gap between formats was not significant either.
Change in reps to fatigue at 40% of current 1RM · reps
Enjoyment went the other way. On the Physical Activity Enjoyment Scale, a questionnaire scored 1 to 7, the mini-workout group's median was 5.94 and the single-session group's 5.50, a statistically significant difference4. It was asked only once, at the final session.
In plain terms: both ways of doing the same squats built strength. The single session was a little ahead on every measure, but not by enough for this trial to call it a real difference.
What the result does and does not mean
The authors put it carefully. Their data "do not support the conclusion that traditional continuous resistance training is superior under volume-equated conditions", and any advantage of the single session "is likely small" under these conditions4. They also warn against reading too much into enjoyment: the findings "should not be interpreted as evidence that fragmented resistance training improves long-term exercise adherence"4.
A few common misreadings to avoid:
- "You don't need the gym." Every bout was on a machine, supervised, in the ground floor of the students' dormitory. The authors note that feasibility depends on things like access and schedules4.
- "Mini-workouts build as much muscle." Muscle size was not measured. The trial tested strength and reps, not growth.
- "It works for any program." One exercise, one loading range and one set-and-rep scheme were tested. The authors say the findings should not be generalised beyond that.
- "The control group did nothing." They kept their usual training, and they gained a little strength too, partly from getting used to the test4.
In plain terms: the trial shows the same squats can be split across a day without a clear loss of strength, in this setting. It does not show that three short bouts can stand in for a full training program.
What wider research adds
Splitting exercise into short bouts has been studied far more for aerobic exercise than for lifting.
A 2019 meta-analysis pooled 19 studies with 1,080 adults. Each compared one continuous bout with the same total minutes, intensity and type of exercise accumulated in shorter bouts across the day. There were no differences between the two patterns for any cardiorespiratory fitness outcome1. Cardiorespiratory fitness means how well the heart, lungs and muscles use oxygen during sustained effort.
A 2026 meta-analysis looked at "exercise snacks", bouts of 5 minutes or less done at least twice a day, in physically inactive adults and older adults. It pooled 11 randomised trials with 414 people, compared against groups that did no exercise2. Snacks raised cardiorespiratory fitness in adults (a standardised effect of 1.37) and muscular endurance in older adults (0.40, very low certainty). They showed no significant effect on lower-limb strength.
A standardised effect, or effect size, expresses a difference in units of the spread between people. By a common rule of thumb, around 0.2 is called small, 0.5 moderate and 0.8 large.
That lower-limb result is worth reading next to the 2026 squat trial. The snack meta-analysis compared snacks with no exercise in inactive people. The squat trial compared loaded, supervised bouts with the same work done in one session, in people who already trained. They answer different questions.
In plain terms: for aerobic fitness, splitting the minutes has held up well. For strength, the only direct comparison is one trial.
Where this fits in a training week
The squat trial used three sets per training day, three days a week, for one exercise. That is a small slice of a typical program. Weekly sets per muscle are covered in how many sets per muscle group per week, and rest between sets in how long to rest between sets. A related question, whether two full sessions a day add muscle, has its own article on this site.
What the trial describes is a way to fit the same sets into a busy day. Whether that suits a whole program, heavier loads or many exercises was not tested.
What the studies found
| Study | Who was studied | Key result | Year |
|---|---|---|---|
| Murphy et al., *Sports Med*1 | Meta-analysis of 19 studies, 1,080 adults; aerobic exercise, same total minutes | No difference in cardiorespiratory fitness between one bout and shorter accumulated bouts | 2019 |
| Rodríguez et al., *Br J Sports Med*2 | Meta-analysis of 11 randomised trials, 414 inactive adults and older adults, snacks vs no exercise | Fitness rose (effect 1.37); no significant effect on leg strength | 2026 |
| Wang et al., *Complement Ther Med*3 | Meta-analysis of 9 studies, 313 insufficiently active adults | Small overall effect on neuromuscular performance (effect 0.37), low certainty | 2026 |
| Zhai et al., *J Exerc Sci Fit*4 | 45 trained young men, randomised, 8 weeks, same squat reps | Squat 1RM +32.74 kg (three bouts) vs +41.08 kg (one session) vs +12.15 kg (control); formats not significantly different | 2026 |
Limits worth knowing
- One small trial. Forty-five people, 15 per group, for 8 weeks4.
- Narrow population. Resistance-trained young male students only; the authors say the results may not apply to women, older adults, untrained people or clinical groups4.
- One exercise, light loads. Smith-machine squats at 40% to 55% of 1RM, three sets of 204.
- Not measured. Muscle size, long-term adherence, and any effect beyond 8 weeks.
- Enjoyment asked once. Pre-existing preferences could not be ruled out4.
- Abstracts only for the meta-analyses. We read the full text of the squat trial (not its supplementary files) and the abstracts of the three reviews.
Latest research
The newest study we opened is a 2026 meta-analysis of exercise snacking and neuromuscular performance in insufficiently active adults3. It pooled 9 studies with 313 people and found a small overall positive effect (effect size 0.37, 95% CI 0.16 to 0.58). The separate estimates for strength, power and functional tasks were positive but imprecise, and certainty was low for every outcome. It did not compare snacks with the same work done in one session. The 2026 squat trial remains the only head-to-head test we found.
The short version
- In one trial of trained young men, three one-set squat bouts a day built strength not significantly different from one three-set session with the same reps.
- The single session was numerically ahead on every measure, and the uncertainty was wide.
- The mini-workout group enjoyed it more, asked once at the end.
- Muscle size, other exercises, heavier loads and other people were not tested.
Educational overview only — not medical advice.
