It may matter if one does mostly isolation exercises or does a lot of compounds because obviously there's overlap with compounds. Back is biceps, chest is triceps and delts so with compounds it's not really one body part per day nor are body parts only trained once week. I realize I'm saying very obvious things, but still. I feel once a week for any part is enough, I question if more frequent ever really gives more results. Many disagree. But I'm the guy telling others lifting twice a week may be "enough" but most don't see it that way. Three minimum and 4 if in any way serious about getting real results. I never really grew one way or the other but I was my biggest and strongest lifting once a week and doing 1-3 exercises, sometimes my whole workout was a dozen reps total including warmups 
Last year I was trying Basile's idea of keeping a body part sore most of the time. Only arms though, did them about 3 times a week for maybe 4-5 months I forget. Didn't budge my top measurements, still puny. To grow do more drugs and eat more
There are a bunch of people saying train 2-3 times even on squats and deads, nowadays aren't there?
I tried it. I'm not sure. Obviously there was lower volume. For me, it always felt right to just go to a 90% weight and hang out and then back off. Always felt like that was the best way to negotiate strength with my body.
I used to flat db press right up to something I could barely do for a rep or two and back down and that adversity seemed to work best for me. Post shoulder problems (but not fully over), I'm actually struggling to get back to normal db press strength because I can't pull that usual stunt at the moment. I feel like if my shoulder would permit me, all I need to do is go to something like 60kg dbs and say "deal with it" to my chest and I'll be back in the game.
