More Volume Is Not Always Better

More Volume is Not Always Better
Volume 1, Issue 1
Study Reviewed: Effects of a modified German Volume Training program

on muscular hypertrophy and strength. Amirthalingam et al. (2016)
Key Points
1. This study compared 10 sets of 10 versus 5 sets of 10 for 6 weeks.
2. Muscle thickness changes were not different between groups.
3. The 5-set group had greater increases in strength than the 10-set group.
4. Some changes in body composition seemed to favor the 5-set group.
5. In moderately trained lifters, moderate volume may be better than high
volume for strength progress.
A popular training program among individuals looking to increase size and strength
is German Volume Training (GVT), which involves performing 10 sets of a specific
exercise (often 10 sets of 10 repetitions), thus resulting in high volume training. This
study compared a modified GVT program (10-set) with 10 sets of 10 repetitions for
the main exercises, to a more traditional program with 5 sets of 10 repetitions for
the main exercises (5-set). Each group trained three times per week for 6 weeks,
and measurements of hypertrophy, strength, and body composition were assessed
and compared between groups before and after training.
Neither group experienced significant hypertrophy, in terms of either increases in

muscle thickness or gains in leg lean body mass. However, the 5-set group had
larger increases in trunk and arm lean body mass than the 10-set group.
Furthermore, both groups increased all strength measures, but again, the 5-set
group had greater increases in bench press and lat pull-down strength than the GVT
group.
Despite the popularity in the practical realm, GVT did not yield better results than 5
sets of 10 repetitions. Actually, 5 sets of 10 repetitions produced larger gains in
strength and lean body mass in some cases than a modified GVT program over a
short-term, 6-week training cycle.
Purpose and Research Questions

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of 10 sets of 10 repetitions
(10-set) versus 5 sets of 10 repetitions (5-set) for hypertrophy, strength, and lean
body mass outcomes over 6 weeks in males with at least one year of previous
resistance training experience.
Research question 1: Does the added volume of 10-set (10×10) produce greater
hypertrophy compared to 5-set (5×10) in a 6-week training cycle in previously
trained males?
Research question 2: Does the added volume of 10-set produce greater strength
gains compared to 5-set in a short-term, 6-week training cycle in previously trained
males?
The authors hypothesized: 1.) That 10-set (i.e. modified GVT) would produce
greater hypertrophy than 5-set due to the increased volume; however, they also
hypothesized 2.) There would be no difference in strength because relative training
intensities were designed to be similar.
Subjects and Methods

Subjects
Subjects were 19 drug-free males with at least 1 year of previous resistance training
experience and 3 months of at least 3 sessions per week training frequency.
There were 10 subjects in the 10-set group, and 9 subjects in the 5-set group.
Both groups trained for 6 weeks. Muscle size (via muscle thicknesses), body
composition (via DXA), and strength (via 1RM tests) were assessed before and after
the 6 weeks of training. The lifts that were 1RM tested at the beginning and end of
the study were bench press, lat-pulldown, and leg press. Each group trained three
days per week on non-consecutive days (i.e. Monday, Wednesday, and Friday).
The training program for both groups can be seen below in Table 1. Only the first
two exercises of each training session differed between groups, meaning the 10-set
program and 5-set program only differed in volume for the first two exercises of
each day, while all other exercises were done for the same sets and repetitions for
both groups (i.e. 4×10 for exercises 3 and 4 each day; and 3×20 for the last
exercise of each day). Thus, a total of 31 sets were performed per session for the
10-set program, and a total of 21 sets were performed per session for the 5-set
program (we will return to this point later).
On the last set of each of the first two exercises on each day, subjects performed as
many reps as possible up to 10 repetitions (they stopped at 10, even if they could do
more). This set was used to dictate weekly load progression.
Additionally, as you can see in Table 1, squats and deadlifts were not performed in
this study. The authors noted the reason for their exclusion was that many of the
subjects did not regularly perform those exercises. This is a valid reason for
exclusion of those exercises, but this also gives further insight into the training
status of the participants and decreases the ability to extrapolate these findings to
those lifts.
RM = Repetition Maximum. Percentages (%) are % of one-repetition maximum

(1RM).
*10 or 5 sets of 5 depending on if the subject was in the 10-set (10×10) or 5-set
(10×5) group. Adapted from Amirthalingam et al. Epub Ahead of Print (1).
Load progression
A 5-10% load increase occurred from one session to the next (not week-to-week,
but session-to-session) when 10 repetitions were completed on the as-many-reps-
as-possible set. However, it was also noted that “load was not reduced to enable the
targeted number of repetitions to be performed.” Further, there was no description
of how “assistance work” load was altered, so it seems the starting percentages
were used throughout, but we cannot be sure. Further, since no 1RM was performed
on the assistance exercises, it is not clear exactly how the load was established
based upon percentages for those exercises.
Note: The lack of clarity in load progression and assignment is a common flaw in
resistance training literature. When reading a methods section, a researcher should
be able to replicate a study exactly without contacting the authors. I do not feel that
I could do that here. Methods in a training study should be reproducible and clearly
state every circumstance of progression, such as in this citation (2).
Rest intervals
60 seconds were allotted for rest; however, the authors noted that 90 seconds were
given over the last few sets (this is vague as well). 60 seconds were allotted
between exercises.
Pre- and post-testing measurements
Body composition (i.e., lean mass) was assessed via Dual X-ray Energy
Absorptiometry (DXA).
Hypertrophy was assessed by taking muscle thickness with ultrasonography.
Strength was assessed by a 1RM test for bench press, lat-pulldown, and leg press.
Dietary control
3 day food logs were obtained before and after the training period, and subjects
were instructed to increase caloric intake throughout the study.
30g of whey protein was fed to all subjects immediately following each training
session.
Findings
Muscle thickness (MT)
There were no significant increases in muscle thickness for either group, nor were
there any significant differences between groups. However, there were small effects
(according to effect size, which can detect “meaningful” change) in favor of the 10-
set program for triceps muscle thickness (10-set: +10.7% vs. 5-set: +5.6%), and in
favor of the 5-set program for biceps muscle thickness (5-set: +7.3% vs. 10-set:
+0.9%). There may have been small but meaningful changes in muscle thickness. It
should also be noted that the small effect sizes alluded to were 0.35 and -0.40
respectively (the second one is negative because it favored the 5-set program, which
was contradictory to the hypothesis). In other words, the small changes in muscle
thickness mean these guys are not ready for spring break.
Strength
All 1RM measures (bench press, lat-pulldown, and leg press) increased over the 6
weeks for both groups. Importantly, there was a significantly greater increase in
bench press (p=0.014) and lat-pulldown (p=0.003) 1RM in the 5-set group (bench
press: +14.9% and lat-pulldown: +15.1%) versus the 10-set group (bench press:
+6.2%, lat-pulldown: +4.5%). However, there was no significant difference
(p=0.27) between groups for increases in leg press 1RM, but a small effect size (-
0.36) did favor the 5-set group; thus, there may have been a meaningful difference
in strength gains in favor of the 5-set group for leg press. Overall, where differences
or effects occurred for strength gains, they were all in favor of the 5-set group.
Body composition
As assessed by DXA, several measures of lean body mass increased (total lean body
mass, trunk lean body mass, and arm lean body mass) over the 6 weeks in both
groups. Lean leg mass did not increase. The only body composition change in which
there was a significant difference between groups was trunk lean mass in favor of
the 5-set group (p=0.043). There were no significant differences for any other body
composition measure between groups. However, the p-value for the interaction
regarding arm lean mass approached significance in favor of the 5-set group. This p-
value was p=0.083 and is said to be approaching significance because it was greater
than the significance threshold of 0.05, but less than 0.10. Similarly to the findings
for strength, all significant or meaningful differences between groups for body
composition favored the 5-set program.
Interpretation
Overall, there were no significant differences between groups for hypertrophy, with
one small effect in favor of the 10-set program (triceps) and one small effect in favor
of the 5-set program (biceps). For strength, it seems clear that the 5-set program
produced superior results to the 10-set program, as there were significant
differences for bench press and lat-pulldown, and the effect that existed for leg
press favored the 5-set program. In terms of body composition, there was one
significant group difference (trunk lean tissue) and a possible meaningful group
difference (arm lean mass) – both favoring the 5-set program.
By design, total volume load (load × repetitions) was significantly greater for the 10-
set program versus the 5-set program, and total volume was fairly substantial in
each group. At first glance, the fact that only small changes in MT exist might seem
surprising since it is well-known that volume is a primary driver of hypertrophy.
However, when we look at the distribution of training frequency (Table 1), some
muscle groups were only trained directly 1x/week in the present investigation, even
though current data suggests that 2-3x/week may be most appropriate for muscle
growth (3). It is true that some muscle groups were trained indirectly more than
1x/week in the present study (i.e. triceps were trained with triceps pushdowns and
bench press); however, the main lifts were only performed once during the week,
and some large muscle groups (i.e. legs and chest) were only trained at all once per
week. Ultimately, muscle growth is indeed related to training volume (4); however, it
is difficult to detect this finding in a short-term (6-week) training cycle in already-
trained individuals with only a 1x/week frequency per muscle group. Therefore, it
seems that in a real-world setting, volume should be split up into multiple sessions
across a week to comply with both frequency and volume recommendations. In
order to understand how these findings fit into the bigger picture of everyday
training, it’s necessary to examine a training program’s details in this way.
The 5-set program produced larger strength gains than the 10-set modified GVT
program. Similar to hypertrophy, this seems to be surprising at first since greater
volume is positively correlated with strength (5). However, two clear explanations
exist to explain the current findings in favor of 5-set despite less volume: 1.) The 5-
set group actually ended up training at a higher relative percentage of 1RM in the
final week of the study, even though the study design intended intensities to be
similar in both groups (about 4% higher for bench press and lat-pulldown and 2%
higher for leg press); and 2.) There is strong evidence that in the short-term, a
moderate amount of volume actually yields larger strength gains than a high amount
of volume (6).
It takes time to adapt to an increase in volume. Thus, while more volume is likely
better for strength gains over time, if an individual is not of a high enough training
status and is not yet ready for a given level of volume, recovery might be disrupted,
and somewhat lower volume might therefore be superior. To illustrate, the
individuals in this study had some training experience, but were not especially well-
trained: Starting bench press 1RMs were 79.7kg in the 10-set group and 70.7kg in
the 5-set group.
This brings us to a third and less clear explanation of the strength results. When
comparing the starting 1RMs, the 10-set group had a 9kg greater 1RM than the 5-
set group (the 5-set group also had a 11kg lower lat-pulldown and 10kg lower leg
press at pre-testing). These differences are non-significant; however, it is worth
noting that the 5-set group simply had a lower starting point, thus the 5-set group
may have simply had more strength to gain. Ultimately, volume is important for
strength, but too much volume too soon in a training career may overwhelm one’s
ability to recover. Volume should be progressed methodically over time.
Both groups did demonstrate positive changes in body composition, and the
significant or meaningful group differences all favored the 5-set group.
Consequently, moderate volume may be superior for gaining lean body mass in the
short term (6 weeks) versus high volume in moderately trained individuals. It is
possible that, similar to strength, the 10-set program caused short-term
overreaching, which would have had a negative effect on these body composition
measures, even though high volume may be better at a much higher training age.
In summary, the moderate volume 5 sets of 10 training program produced similar

hypertrophy and greater strength improvements compared to a modified German
Volume Training (i.e. 10×10) program in a short-term, 6-week mesocycle. However,
this is not to say that GVT doesn’t “work.” Remember, the GVT group did get
stronger over the 6 weeks because the basic principle of progressive overload was
adhered to. However, even though volume is important for hypertrophy and
strength, too much volume too soon is not a good idea. Judging by the starting
bench press 1RMs (<80kg), these individuals had a very young training age despite
lifting for 1 year.
Knowing all of this, there are a few things to keep in mind:
1.) Excessive training volumes that you aren’t ready for may decrease rate of
progression in the short-term.
2.) A higher training frequency may have made the 10-set program more effective,
as volume could have been dispersed more efficiently throughout the training week.
3) Do not look at things in a vacuum (i.e., seeing GVT as good or bad). Extreme
volumes within one training session (i.e. 10×10) might impede recovery and limit
muscle adaptations in the short term; however, as training age increases, the
amount of volume one can handle will increase. Therefore, a high volume phase can
still fit within a periodized training plan (such as early on in a macrocycle when
volume is high or as a short-term overreaching strategy). The goal is to understand
data and training conceptually, and when you do that, you’ll realize why modified
German Volume Training was not superior here, but also why high volume may have
a place at some point.
Next Steps
The concept of GVT – or in more general terms, high volume training within a single
session – should be investigated in a more well-trained population who may have a
better ability to recover from higher training volumes. Easy-to-collect indirect
markers of muscle damage (such as soreness, range of motion changes, limb girth,
isometric force, etc.) can be taken in the days following the high session volume to
assess temporal recovery. Further, high session volume should be incorporated into
modern periodization designs in future studies to understand the placing of this
strategy within a macrocycle.
Application and Takeaways

1. In moderately trained lifters, moderate training volume might produce larger
strength gains than high volume in the short term.
2. This provides evidence that volume should not be increased too quickly for
lifters with a relatively low training age.
3. Rather than looking for high volume in one session, it is likely better to
disperse volume for an exercise or muscle group over a frequency of 2-3
sessions/wk.
4. This strategy allows for a quicker recovery from one session without
diminishing total weekly volume.
References
1. Amirthalingam T, Mavros Y, Wilson GC, Clarke JL, Mitchell L, Hackett
DA. Effects of a Modified German Volume Training Program on Muscular
Hypertrophy and Strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
[Epub Ahead of Print]
2. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Blanco R, Zoeller RF, Graves BS, Zourdos
MC. Volume-equated high-and low-repetition daily undulating programming
strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations. Applied
Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2016 Feb 16;41(7):699-705.
3. Schoenfeld BJ, Ogborn D, Krieger JW. Effects of resistance training frequency
on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Sports Medicine. 2016 Nov 1;46(11):1689-97.
4. Flann KL, LaStayo PC, McClain DA, Hazel M, Lindstedt SL. Muscle damage and
muscle remodeling: no pain, no gain?. Journal of Experimental Biology. 2011
Feb 15;214(4):674-9.
5. Zourdos MC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, Lee SR, Park BS, Ormsbee MJ, Panton LB,
Contreras RJ, Kim JS. Modified daily undulating periodization model produces
greater performance than a traditional configuration in powerlifters. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Mar 1;30(3):784-91.
6. González-Badillo JJ, Gorostiaga EM, Arellano R, Izquierdo M. Moderate
resistance training volume produces more favorable strength gains than high
or low volumes during a short-term training cycle. The Journal of Strength &
Conditioning Research. 2005 Aug 1;19(3):689-97.
Sure, More Volume is Not Always Better,
but What’s the Right Amount?
Volume 1, Issue 9
by Michael C. Zourdos
A previous MASS article established that “More Volume is Not Always Better” for
hypertrophy, but how much volume is the right amount of volume? And, does that
amount differ between the upper and lower body? This article provides insight into
each of these questions.
Study Reviewed: Effect of resistance training set volume on upper body muscle
hypertrophy: are more sets really better than less? Teixeira et al. (2017)
Key Points
1. This review aimed to determine how many sets should be performed on an

upper body muscle group per training session to optimize hypertrophy and
concluded < 3 is similar to ≥ 3 sets.
2. Despite the conclusions of this review, it’s necessary to take into account that
a recent meta-analysis has concluded that 10+ sets per week is ideal for
muscle growth.
3. It’s possible that it takes a lower amount of volume to maximize upper body
compared to lower body hypertrophy.
It’s Monday, otherwise known as international bench press day, and after three solid
sets of bench presses, sometimes we think “one more, let’s do one more,” then we
knock out another set. However, is this really the best strategy? There are recent
meta-analyses showing that frequencies of 2-3 times per week (2) and 10+ sets per
week (3) are likely your best bet to maximize hypertrophy of a specific muscle group
(on average). However, since another meta-analysis in 2010 (4), there hasn’t been
much attention paid to the number of sets per session that will deliver the ideal
hypertrophic stimulus. Additionally, none of the previous meta-analyses assessed if a
different magnitude of volume is needed to maximize upper versus lower body
muscle growth. This review paper aimed to answer those exact questions by
examining if ≥ 3 sets per muscle group per session produces greater hypertrophy
than < 3 sets per muscle group per session for the upper body. While this did not
quite qualify as a systematic review, it did follow specific guidelines and use specific
search terms to identify the studies it reviewed. The main conclusion was that < 3
sets per muscle group per session were as effective as ≥ 3 sets per muscle group
per session for upper body hypertrophy, in both untrained and trained individuals.
However, the authors also pointed out that effect sizes (ES) and relative changes
may indicate slightly larger upper body hypertrophy when ≥ 3 sets per session are
performed in trained individuals; however, this paper points out that there is limited
evidence on trained individuals. Since volume is such an important training variable,
these findings allow us to focus on three factors in our interpretation: 1) Since we
already have weekly set targets (i.e. 10+), how can we determine our session set
targets? 2) Are there differences between the magnitude of volume needed for
upper versus lower body hypertrophy? and 3) What are the limitations of the
existing data for the volume/hypertrophy paradigm?
Purpose and Main Question
The purpose of this review was to examine if < 3 sets or ≥ 3 sets per muscle group
per training session is superior for upper body muscle hypertrophy.
Hypotheses
There was no traditional hypothesis, as this was a review paper; however, in the
introduction, the authors suggest that the upper body requires lower volumes per
session and per week than the lower body to achieve similar hypertrophy. The
authors also note that one of the reasons for analyzing this topic is that a recent
meta-analysis (3) on volume and hypertrophy did not distinguish if different volumes
were recommended for upper and lower body muscle growth. Therefore, it seems as
though the authors anticipated that upper body muscles would require less volume
than is often recommended to maximize hypertrophy.
Subjects
Since this is a review paper, there aren’t subjects in the typical sense, but this paper
provided results on trained and untrained young people, both of which are relevant
to MASS.
Construction of the Review
The following search terms were used to identify papers for this review: strength
training, resistance training, hypertrophy, muscle thickness, cross-sectional area, low
volume training, and volume sets. Furthermore, the review paid special attention to
human studies, which reported weekly training frequency, training load (i.e.
intensity), the duration of training, and the method used to determine hypertrophy
(i.e. ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging – MRI, muscle biopsy, etc.).
Further, this paper classified < 3 sets per muscle group per session as “low volume”
and ≥ 3 per muscle group per session as “high volume.”
Findings
The conclusions of this review are relatively straightforward:
1) < 3 sets per muscle group per session produces statistically similar hypertrophy
to ≥ 3 sets per muscle group per session.
2) Although overall statistical differences were not found in favor of > 3 sets for
upper body hypertrophy, some individual studies do show ≥ 3 sets to produce more
upper body hypertrophy compared to < 3 sets per muscle group.
3) The amount of sets per upper body muscle group per session required to
maximize hypertrophy is lower than the number of sets needed for the lower body.
These main conclusions are summarized in Table 1.
Interpretation
The conclusions of this review paper are a little surprising when you truly consider
what it is saying, which is that doing < 3 sets per session for a muscle group is
sufficient to maximize hypertrophy for the upper body. That’s kind of extraordinary
when you think about it, as this is not three sets per exercise, but rather three sets
per muscle group. If you trained a muscle group 2-3 times per week, as is
recommended (2), this would mean that only 4-6 total sets per week are needed to
maximize upper body hypertrophy. While that may certainly be the case for
untrained individuals, that seems really low for trained lifters. I think these
conclusions are important because many people program too much volume;
however, I believe these recommendations are undershooting the ideal volume
threshold for trained lifters. With that in mind, let’s focus on three questions to
understand the dosage of volume needed to maximize upper body hypertrophy:
1) How do we determine session volume to meet previously established weekly set

targets?
2) Is there indeed a difference between the ideal upper and lower body volume
dosage for muscle growth?
3) What are the limitations of the existing meta-analyses?

Determining Session Volume
Although this review paper concludes that < 3 sets is sufficient to maximize upper
body hypertrophy, the criteria of this paper only allowed for analysis of studies that
compared different amounts of sets per session, leaving very few studies to analyze.
However, one of the studies analyzed, from Radaelli et al. (2015), is worth
highlighting here because it lasted for six months, which is uncommon for practical
training studies. Radaelli compared three groups using one, three, or five sets three
times per week for six months and found muscle growth to be dose-dependent (5
sets > 3 sets > 1 set) (5). The subjects were untrained at the beginning, but after
six months, they were getting past the primarily neuromuscular adaptation phase
and becoming more consistent with what the scientific literature considered “trained”
lifters. Therefore, in a world lacking in hypertrophy research in truly trained lifters, a
six-month training study becomes quite important despite the untrained starting
status. As MASS has discussed before, you can easily overshoot volume in the short
term (6), but I believe the analysis criteria in this review has caused too
conservative of a recommendation. So, exactly how many sets should be performed
each session? Let’s revisit that question later in the interpretation when we discuss
the recent meta-analyses on this concept. The protocol and results of the very
applicable Radaelli study are in Table 2.
Upper Versus Lower Body Volume Dosage
Of the limited studies included, this paper concludes that lower body muscle groups
may need more volume than upper body muscle groups to maximize hypertrophy;
however, the results of the Wernbom et al. (2007) comprehensive review are not as
clear regarding this notion (7). Let’s take a look at one of the more important
studies, from Ronnestad et al. (2007) (8), which compared the dosage of upper
body versus lower body volume for hypertrophy. Ronnestad had untrained lifters
perform either one set or three sets of three lower body and five upper body
exercises three times per week for 11 weeks. The authors found that three sets per
session produced greater lower body hypertrophy than one set per session,
however, there was no statistical difference in upper body hypertrophy between the
one and three set groups (8). So, does the current review have it right that the
upper body doesn’t need quite as much volume as the lower body to progress? Let’s
take a look at Table 3 to use the number of sets per muscle group per session and
per week to decide.
First, as revealed in Table 3, the amount of sets per week for the lower body
exceeds 10 sets for each muscle group for the three-set group and is < 10 sets for
each lower body muscle group in the one-set group; thus, it’s not surprising that the
three-set group produced greater lower body hypertrophy, as the aforementioned
meta-analysis stipulates 10+ sets per week per muscle group. For the upper body,
there was no statistical difference for hypertrophy between groups, but a closer look
reveals a more nuanced interpretation. The back musculature was trained with nine
sets per session and 27 sets per week in the three-set groups, and with only three
sets per session and nine sets per week in the one-set group, as there was 4.2%
greater trapezius hypertrophy in the three-set group (as noted at the bottom of
Table 3). The p-value didn’t reach significance for trapezius hypertrophy, but 4.2%
is certainly an important practical difference. Therefore, it may be the case that
upper body progress can occur with a lower dosage of volume than is needed for
the lower body. However, there is evidence to show that > 3 sets per session is
advisable for upper body hypertrophy, so I think the recommendations in the
present review are a bit low.
Limitations of Existing Meta-Analyses
There are two main meta-analyses in this area, and each comes from a giant in our
field: Krieger (2010) (4) and Schoenfeld et al. (2017) (3). In short, Krieger concludes
there is a better hypertrophic response with multiple sets versus one set per exercise
(4); Schoenfeld concludes that 10+ sets per week is better for hypertrophy than <
10 sets, but that conclusions can’t be made regarding how much more than 10 sets
is optimal. For example, are 15 sets per week better than 12 sets per week? We
simply don’t know that.
What I want to do here is speculate on why we can’t conclude if 15 > 12. This has
to do with limitations of conducting a meta-analysis. In my opinion, both of these
meta-analyses are excellent and provide some of the best information we have on
this topic; however, they can only analyze the data that exists in the scientific
literature. What I mean is well-trained or highly trained subjects (by our standards in
the practical world) are not often used in the scientific literature, so a meta-analysis
simply can’t analyze their needs. Additionally, it’s not often that a study using 30 or
40 sets per week on a muscle group is conducted, so a meta-analysis can’t analyze
this either. Because of these limitations, we have to use our practical knowledge and
experiences, in conjunction with the existing data, when programming for truly well-
trained lifters. To illustrate this, take a look at Figure 1, which depicts the range of
training status throughout a career and the status of most individuals included in
scientific studies.
Ultimately, when using the results of the Schoenfeld meta-analyses (2, 3) to plan
session volume, it’s advisable to start with the weekly target and work backward.
This means if you are using 10 sets per week on squat, try to split that up as evenly
as possible so that you can recover from each session and meet a frequency of 2-3
times per week. With a training program of Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, this
would be three or four sets per session. Next, consider that your longest time
between sessions is 72 hours (Friday to Monday), then plan the four-set session on
Friday so it occurs before the longest break. Finally, consider Eric’s article from
November 2017, which shows that training to failure delays recovery, and avoid
failure for the most part. If those guidelines are met, you’ll end up with something
similar to what is displayed below in Table 4 for squat training. Finally, remember
that all of this is a starting point. Meta-analyses tell us about population averages,
and some people will respond better to higher or lower training volumes than others.
So, using the frequency and volume guidelines laid out here as a starting point, be
prepared to adjust over time based on individual results.
Next Steps
Picking up where the interpretation left off is the next step, which means it’s time to
analyze the ideal dosage of volume in lifters who are truly well-trained (as depicted
in Figure 1). Including lifters more in line with what the MASS reader would typically
think of as “well-trained” or even intermediate would allow for more specific
recommendations beyond the current 10+ weekly set target. Finally, longer term
studies are always advisable; however, the practicality of carrying out long-term
studies is difficult for researchers.
Applications and Takeaways
1. Although this review concludes < 3 sets per session is sufficient to maximize
muscle growth for the upper body, trained lifters almost certainly need more
than that.
2. It is possible that upper body hypertrophy is maximized with less volume than
is needed for the lower body.
3. A 10+ set weekly target per muscle group is a good starting point; however,
make sure to spread your sets out over 2-3 sessions per week, avoid failure
most of the time, and progress volume when needed, not just for the sake of
progressing it.
References
1. La Scala Teixeira, Cauê V., et al. Effect of resistance training set volume on
upper body muscle hypertrophy: are more sets really better than less? Clinical
Physiology and Functional Imaging (2017).
on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016 Nov 1;46(11):1689-97.
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. Journal of sports sciences. 2017 Jun
3;35(11):1073-82.
4. Krieger JW. Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle
hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research. 2010 Apr 1;24(4):1150-9.
5. Radaelli R, Fleck SJ, Leite T, Leite RD, Pinto RS, Fernandes L, Simão R. Dose-
response of 1, 3, and 5 sets of resistance exercise on strength, local muscular
endurance, and hypertrophy. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research. 2015 May 1;29(5):1349-58.
DA. Effects of a modified German volume training program on muscular
hypertrophy and strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
2017 Nov 1;31(11):3109-19.
7. Wernbom M, Augustsson J, Thomeé R. The influence of frequency, intensity,
volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional area in
humans. Sports medicine. 2007 Mar 1;37(3):225-64.
8. Rønnestad BR, Egeland W, Kvamme NH, Refsnes PE. Dissimilar effects of
one-and three-set strength training on strength and muscle mass gains in
upper and lower body in untrained subjects. Journal of Strength and
Conditioning Research. 2007 Feb 1;21(1):157.
High-Volume Training Decreases
Strength and Volume Capability
Differently
Volume 1, Issue 6
The term “volume” gets thrown around a lot. But how long does it take to recover
from a single high-volume session? Consider that too much volume in one session
may prolong recovery, resulting in less total volume per week. This article examines
the time course of recovery and provides recommendations for volume allocation to
avoid excessive fatigue.
Study Reviewed: Dissociated Time Course Between Peak Torque and Total Work
Recovery Following Bench Press Training in Resistance Trained Men. Ferreira et al.
(2017)
Key Points
1. High-volume bench press training to failure decreases strength for 72 hours

and the ability to perform volume for at least 96 hours.
2. Muscle soreness may be increased for up to 72 hours in trained individuals
following a very high-volume training session.
3. Because a single session of high-volume training to failure may compromise
strength and volume capabilities for at least 72 hours, it may be
advantageous to perform less volume in one session to allow for quicker
recovery, increased training frequency, and greater total weekly volume.
Over the past few years, there has been constant talk about training volume
influencing both muscle growth and strength. However, is it possible this concept
has been taken too far? Many lifters have taken this principle as a guideline to pack
as much volume as possible into one session, which may not be the best strategy.
Rather, greater attention needs to be paid to the dissemination of weekly training
volume. If volume is disseminated appropriately throughout two or three training
sessions per week on a specific exercise, then there might be less volume performed
in one session, but lower session volume will result in less muscle damage per
session and faster recovery to allow for greater weekly volume. The presently
reviewed study provides evidence for this concept. This study examined the time
course of recovery in trained males after performing eight sets of bench press to
failure in previously trained males. To measure recovery at all time points, both peak
torque (PT) and total work (TW) were measured by testing shoulder adduction force
during 2 sets of 4 repetitions and 1 set of 20 repetitions. Further, delayed onset
muscle soreness of the pectoralis major was assessed, and subjective physical
fitness (perception of recovery) was rated on a Likert scale to gauge muscle damage
and recovery. All measurements were taken immediately before and after training,
then repeated at 24, 48, 72, and 96 hours following training. Both PT and TW
decreased, as expected, immediately after training. However, even though both PT
and TW gradually recovered throughout the week, there was a significantly greater
decrease in TW than in PT at 24, 48, and 96 hours. Additionally, at 96 hours, PT had
statistically recovered (-2.46%), while TW was still significantly lower (-8.89%) than
it was at the pre-training time point. Further, DOMS was significantly increased for
72 hours, but was back to baseline at 96 hours following training, and subjective
physical fitness was recovered at 72 hours.
The important take home from these results is that following a damaging bench
press training session, maximal force output recovers more quickly than the ability to
perform training volume. Therefore, when training in a volume block, it may be wise
to not pack too much volume into one session; doing so will impede recovery and
possibly impede total training volume and frequency for the remainder of the week.
Further, a lifter may consider a lower volume power-type session following a high-
volume session since force output returns to baseline more quickly than the ability to
effectively perform high-repetition sets.
Purpose
The aim of this study was to examine the time course of recovery throughout one
week following a high-volume bench press session in which all sets were taken to
failure by assessing PT, TW, DOMS, and subjective physical fitness.
Research Question 1
How many days does it take for maximal force production, the ability to perform
volume, muscle damage, and perception of recovery (as measured by PT, TW,
DOMS, and subjective physical fitness respectively) to recover following a damaging
training session of bench press?
Research Question 2
Are the time courses of recovery for PT and TW similar following a damaging
training session, or do these measures recover at different rates?
Hypotheses
There was no hypothesis regarding exactly how quickly PT and TW would recover;
however, it was hypothesized that recovery of PT and TW throughout the week
would be dissociated. Also, while not explicitly stated in the hypothesis, reading the
introduction indicates the authors expected PT to recover more quickly than TW.
Subjects
There were 26 trained men in this study. To be included, subjects had to have
trained continuously for one year prior to the study and must have been performing
the bench press regularly. Although, training age was – on average – higher (four
years) than the minimum criteria. Specific subject characteristics are provided in
Table 1.
Overall Study Procedures
Subjects completed the study over seven days. On day 1, the participants were
familiarized with the protocol, anthropometric measurements were taken, and 10-
repetition maximum (RM) bench press was tested. On day 2, which was 72 hours
after day 1, a retest of the 10RM occurred to ensure accuracy of the measurement.
Subjects then completed the study over five consecutive days (i.e. Monday-Friday),
with the next session occurring 72 hours after day 2. On Monday, subjects were
tested on all recovery measures immediately before training, then performed the
bench press training session. The recovery measurements were re-assessed
immediately after training. Over the next four days, which were 24, 48, 72, and 96
hours post-training, testing was repeated on all recovery measures with no further
bench press training. A timeline of the study procedures can be seen in Figure 1.
Resistance Training Protocol
The training session was eight sets of bench press to failure. The load used for the
first four sets were at 90% of the subjects’ 10RMs, and the load was reduced by
20% for the last four sets. Participants rested for two minutes between each set. An
example of the loading scheme can be seen in Table 2, using the example of an
individual with a 10RM bench press of 100kg. After looking at Table 2, we can
roughly determine that sets 1-4 were at 67.5% of 1RM and sets 5-8 were at 54% of
1RM. We can do this because a 10RM is roughly 75% of a 1RM. So, in this example,
if 100kg is 75% of 1RM, then the 1RM would be 133.33kg. With that projected 1RM,
the loads of 90kg and 72kg (Table 2) would correspond to the aforementioned
67.5% and 54% of 1RM. Obviously, repetitions performed at a given intensity are
individualized (repetitions allowed), and we are projecting a 1RM, so these
percentages are not exact; however, they do provide us with an approximation to
gauge how many reps were performed in each set, which will help us to interpret
the findings.
Recovery Measures
The four recovery measures assessed at each time point were PT, TW, DOMS, and
subjective perception of fitness (SPF). A dynamometer was used to test PT and TW
of the shoulders’ adductor muscles. To do this, subjects laid on their backs and
attempted to produce the greatest force output possible for each repetition by
horizontally adducting their arm from 90° to 0°. For reference, 90° of shoulder
adduction would be holding your arm out to your side so that it is parallel to the
floor, and 0° would be holding your arm straight up from your body so that it is
perpendicular to the floor (parallel to the wall) For a clear description of the previous
sentence, please view Figure 1 (the starting point) and Figure 2 (the ending point) in
this related paper. For PT, subjects performed 2 sets of 4 reps at 60°.s-1 , and the
highest torque of all 8 reps was used for analysis. For TW, the subjects performed 1
set of 20 reps at 120°.s-1, and TW of the entire set was calculated. Participants
rested for two minutes between sets of PT, as well as between the last set of PT and
the TW test. To test DOMS, the investigators palpated the pectoralis major in
different spots and the subjects indicated their level of soreness between 0 and 100.
Subjects also rated SPF between 0 and 100, in which a score of 0 indicated
“maximum fatigue and not recovered,” while a score of 100 indicated “maximum
physical fitness recovery.”
Findings
Peak Torque and Total Work
The time courses of recovery for PT and TW are displayed in Figure 2. The important
message is that recovery for PT and TW are dissociated: PT had already recovered
more than TW at 24 hours following training, and PT was fully recovered at 96 hours
while TW was still not fully recovered (-8.89% versus pre-training) at 96 hours. The
exact percentage declines in PT and TW were not reported in the manuscript;
however, since mean data were reported for each time point, I was able to calculate
the percentage declines in PT and TW from pre-training to each time point.
Therefore, the time course of recovery along with percentage changes compared to
pre-training for PT and TW can be seen in Figure 2.
Delayed Onset Muscle Soreness and Subjective Physical Fitness
There was a significant increase in DOMS at 24, 48, and 72 hours post-training,
while SPF was decreased significantly at 24 and 48 hours. DOMS and subjective
physical fitness returned to baseline at 72 and 96 hours respectively. The time
course of percentage increase in DOMS compared to pre-training is provided in
Table 3.
Interpretation
These results are interesting for lifters on a few levels. First, it seems that PT and
TW – which can be translated to maximal strength and the ability to perform volume
– recovered at different rates following a high-volume bench press session. Further,
there was still significant DOMS at 72 hours post-training, yet strength performance
had recovered. To frame this interpretation, let’s first discuss why recovery was
different for strength and volume performance, then analyze what implications these
results have for configuring a training week.
Why Did This Happen?
We cannot be 100% sure why the dissociated recovery responses occurred, but the
high-volume protocol likely caused significant muscle damage, which is associated
with reduced muscle glycogen (2). This possible reduction in glycogen is likely to
affect volume capability more than maximal strength performance, and the authors
of the paper state that this is likely the primary mechanism to explain these results.
In fact, data have shown decreased leg press repetition performance in a low
glycogen state (3). However, it is necessary to point out that muscle glycogen is
replenished after 24 hours of depletion, assuming adequate carbohydrate
consumption (4); therefore, it is difficult to rectify this as the sole mechanism for TW
to still be suppressed at 96 hours following training.
Another explanation for the dissociated recovery of PT and TW is impaired calcium

handling due to fatigue. In short, calcium (Ca2+) is stored in the sarcoplasmic
reticulum of skeletal muscle and its release allows for the contractile proteins (actin
and myosin) to interact as the final step for muscle contraction, and there is a direct
relationship between the magnitude of Ca2+ release and the degree of contraction
force. Importantly, proteins within muscle continually cause Ca2+ reuptake into the
sarcoplasmic reticulum to prepare for another possible contraction; however,
reuptake can be impaired when damage is present (5). Therefore, it is possible that
in the present study, there was enough Ca2+ stored in the sarcoplasmic reticulum to
perform a few contractions, but the impaired reuptake harmed the continual
contractions required to optimize TW; thus, compromised Ca2+ handling is a plausible
explanation for the dissociated recovery.
Additionally, despite DOMS fully recovering at 96 hours, TW was still decreased by

8.89%. However, DOMS is an indirect measure of muscle damage (6), as opposed to
a muscle biopsy, which would be a direct measure (7). Thus, muscle damage may
have still been present despite the lack of DOMS at 96 hours. Ultimately, the
damage theory is speculation and the “why” of the extended recovery of TW
remains equivocal. Nevertheless, the dissociated time course of recovery does exist,
so let’s now turn our attention to how we can use these results to influence our
weekly program design.
Implications for Weekly Program Configuration
Let’s first discuss the obvious takeaway for program design, then we’ll tackle a more
nuanced analysis. The obvious takeaway is that following a very high-volume
training session, you may want to wait 96 hours to perform heavy work and perhaps
about a week to perform another high-volume training session for the same muscle
group. Although, as we’ll discuss later, it is likely that recovery for both PT and TW
would happen more quickly than in the present study if lower volume was performed
in the training session. Therefore, we should understand these findings conceptually,
which means the time frames mentioned above (96 hours and 1 week) aren’t as
important as understanding that it is difficult to perform high-volume sessions back-
to-back. In fact, research has shown that the ability to perform volume on the squat
and bench press was greater at 96 hours following a high-volume training session
when a light session was performed at 48 hours post-training compared to doing
back-to-back volume sessions within 48 hours of each other (8).
The obvious takeaway discussed above brings us to a more nuanced discussion of

disseminating volume appropriately throughout a week. In the example from Table
2, an individual in this study with a 10RM bench press of 100kg would have
completed 6,480kg of volume during the study’s training session if he averaged 10
repetitions per set, which is feasible based upon the estimated percentages above.
To put it simply, that’s a lot of volume. So, we have to ask ourselves, “How quickly
would recovery have occurred if only half the volume was performed in that
session?” While it’s difficult to say exactly at what time point performance would be
restored, it’s safe to say that full recovery would have occurred sooner than
observed in the present study – perhaps 48-72 hours following training. Additionally,
all eight sets were taken to failure during the training session in the present study;
however, as we know from a meta-analysis (9) and recent MASS article, training to
failure is not necessary to maximize strength. Moreover, it’s likely that performing all
sets to failure exacerbated the damage response and prolonged the recovery time.
These results suggest that less volume in one session may actually allow for more
volume within a week, and that taking all sets in a high-volume session to failure
may also diminish weekly volume. Table 4A illustrates an inappropriate
dissemination of volume, as performed in this study, while Table 4B presents a
training week in which daily volume is lower than in Table 4A, but total weekly
volume is consequently greater due to appropriate allocation of volume.
Consistent with our discussion, the tables above demonstrate that less volume in
one day can result in more volume throughout a given week compared to excessive
volume in one day. Further, the appropriate dissemination of volume (Table 4B)
does not utilize failure training as to not impede recovery. Rather, failure training
could be incorporated on assistance exercises or during the Friday session, since it
has the lowest volume and is followed by two full rest days. Specifically, Table 4B
keeps the lifter training in a rating of perceived exertion (RPE) range of about 5-8
(2-5 repetitions in reserve) (10,11). Finally, data have indicated that a frequency of
2-3 times per week on a muscle group is superior to one session per week for
hypertrophy (12); thus, performing excessive volume in one day might harm training
frequency as outlined in Table 4A. Consequently, the diminished frequency could
drop the lifter below the 2-3 time per week frequency recommendation, which could,
in turn, result in lower-than-adequate weekly volume.
Despite our suggestion above that eight sets of max reps at a decent load is too
much volume in one session, it must also be stressed that how much volume
someone can perform, how quickly they can recover from it, and ultimately how
much volume they should do at a specific phase of their training (and at different
stages of long-term training development) is individualized. This means that well-
trained lifters can likely handle more volume than moderately trained individuals. So,
if the present protocol was repeated, it is also likely that a lifter would adapt to the
volume over time, which would eventually result in an accelerated rate of recovery.
Therefore, it is quite difficult to give a set recommendation of how much volume
should be done in one day; it will vary for each person. However, for intermediate
lifters, Table 4B provides a solid option, while novice lifters could possibly cut the
volume in Table 4B by at least half (if not more).
Previously, MASS has covered the idea of performing a low volume power-type
sessionin the middle of the week, between high volume and high intensity-type
sessions. This programming strategy also warrants mention in this interpretation as
a way to increase training frequency and, subsequently, volume. If we think about
DOMS being elevated and performance being lower at 48 hours post-training in this
study, it becomes apparent that it would be difficult to train with high-volume again.
However, a low volume power session (3 sets of 1 @80%, for example) could be
used at the 48-hour time point as a way to maintain frequency, and then more
challenging training could be performed again at 96 hours after the first session.
Remember, you don’t have to absolutely crush yourself every time you train, and
perhaps a mid-week low volume session can help manage fatigue and even improve
performance for a session 24-48 hours later (13).
It is necessary to point out a limitation of this study: During the recovery days,
subjects performed 28 total contractions on horizontal shoulder adduction, which
may have attenuated the rate of recovery by causing minimal amounts of muscle
damage. While this limitation would not affect the differential rate of recovery of PT
and TW, it could affect the duration of recovery for both measures. Thus, it is
possible that both PT and TW would have recovered more quickly without these
contractions during the recovery days.
Next Steps
I think a few things could be done to follow this up. First, it would be nice to gather
feedback on subjects’ training volume prior to the beginning of the study. If we
knew this information, we could provide more specific recommendations to
individualize training volume. Ideally, we would have a study that collected
information regarding the exact training program a subject was doing prior, and
then researchers could report individual subject data for strength/volume recovery
and DOMS. Reporting the individual data would allow us to see if there was a
relationship between the training volume they were doing prior to the study and the
magnitude of damage they experienced; I suspect there would be a relationship.
Actually, gathering greater details regarding previous training experience is
something that would vastly advance the applicability of training studies as a whole.
Further, a follow-up study should be done using the training session exercise – in
this case bench press – as the testing exercise, instead of a minor movement such
as shoulder adduction. Last, it would be interesting to see another study with
equivalent volume on the training day, but with individuals stopping each set
between a 5-8 RPE to see if damage is lower in the non-failure condition and if the
non-failure condition results in more rapid recovery.
1. Following high-volume training to failure, maximal strength is decreased for

72 hours, while volume capability is decreased for at least 96 hours.
2. Performing very high volume in one training session may create excessive
muscle damage and actually decrease weekly training volume and frequency.
3. Volume should be allocated appropriately throughout a week, which includes
being careful about how often and when failure training is used. Thus, if
recovery takes more than 48-72 hours, it is advisable to decrease single-
session volume and disseminate volume across 2-3 days per week.
References
1. Ferreira DV, Gentil P, Ferreira-Junior JB, Soares SR, Brown LE, Bottaro
M. Dissociated time course between peak torque and total work recovery
following bench press training in resistance trained men. Physiology &
Behavior. 2017 Oct 1;179:143-7.
2. Asp S, Richter EA. Decreased insulin action on muscle glucose transport after
eccentric contractions in rats. Journal of Applied Physiology. 1996 Nov
1;81(5):1924-8.
3. Sporer BC, Wenger HA. Effects of aerobic exercise on strength performance
following various periods of recovery. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning
Research. 2003 Nov 1;17(4):638-44.
4. Ivy JL. Glycogen resynthesis after exercise: effect of carbohydrate intake.
International journal of sports medicine. 1998 Jun;19(S 2):S142-5.
5. Summermatter S, Thurnheer R, Santos G, Mosca B, Baum O, Treves S,
Hoppeler H, Zorzato F, Handschin C. Remodeling of calcium handling in
skeletal muscle through PGC-1α: impact on force, fatigability, and fiber
type. American journal of physiology-cell physiology. 2012 Jan 1;302(1):C88-
99.
6. Nosaka K, Newton M, Sacco P. Delayed‐onset muscle soreness does not
reflect the magnitude of eccentric exercise‐induced muscle
damage. Scandinavian journal of medicine & science in sports. 2002 Dec
1;12(6):337-46.
7. Barash IA, Peters D, Fridén J, Lutz GJ, Lieber RL. Desmin cytoskeletal
modifications after a bout of eccentric exercise in the rat. American Journal of
Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology. 2002 Oct
1;283(4):R958-63.
8. Zourdos MC, Jo E, Khamoui AV, Lee SR, Park BS, Ormsbee MJ, Panton LB,
Contreras RJ, Kim JS. Modified daily undulating periodization model produces
greater performance than a traditional configuration in powerlifters. The
Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Mar 1;30(3):784-91.
9. Davies T, Orr R, Halaki M, Hackett D. Effect of training leading to repetition
failure on muscular strength: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Sports
Medicine. 2016 Apr 1;46(4):487-502.
10. Zourdos MC, Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Schau KA, Jo E, Helms E, Esgro B,
Duncan S, Merino SG, Blanco R. Novel resistance training–specific rating of
perceived exertion scale measuring repetitions in reserve. The Journal of
Strength & Conditioning Research. 2016 Jan 1;30(1):267-75.
11. Helms ER, Cronin J, Storey A, Zourdos MC. Application of the repetitions in
reserve-based rating of perceived exertion scale for resistance
training. Strength and conditioning journal. 2016 Aug;38(4):42.
on measures of muscle hypertrophy: a systematic review and meta-
analysis. Sports Medicine. 2016 Nov 1;46(11):1689-97.
13. Tsoukos A, Veligekas P, Brown LE, Terzis G, Bogdanis GC. Delayed effects of
a low volume, power-type resistance exercise session on explosive
performance. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2017 May 25.
Recovery from Training: High Intensity
vs. High Volume
Volume 1, Issue 5
by Eric Helms
Depending on who you talk to, they might tell you that their recovery is hindered by
heavy training or by performing a lot of volume. Which type of training causes more
muscle damage, inflammation, and force production suppression? Read here to find
out.
Study Reviewed: Comparison of the recovery response from high-intensity and

high-volume resistance exercise in trained men. Bartolomei et al. (2017)
Key Points
1. An acute bout of high volume, moderate load training with short rest intervals
(8 sets of 10 reps at 70% 1RM with 75 seconds rest between sets)
suppresses force production to a greater degree and for a longer period than
a bout of moderate volume, high load training with longer rest intervals (8
sets of 3 reps at 90% 1RM with 3 minutes rest between sets).
2. In the 72-hour period after high volume training, increases in cross-sectional
area (CSA) occurred as a result of inflammation, evidenced by relationships
(r=0.60-0.66, p<0.05) between increases in CSA and interleukin-6 (a myokine
which increases in response to contraction induced inflammation) and
creatine kinase (a biomarker for muscle damage).
3. Additionally, changes in CSA were inversely related (r=-0.58- -0.80, p<0.05)
with various measures of muscular strength and power. Thus, performance is
impeded proportionally to the degree of inflammation and muscle damage
from high volume training for at least 72 hours. Therefore, volume should be
distributed over a microcycle so as not to impede performance in subsequent
sessions. Additionally, volume should be increased gradually (on an as-
needed basis) so the repeated bout effect is elicited, protecting against
excessive damage while accomplishing progressive overload.
An appropriate training configuration within a microcycle of training depends

partially on managing fatigue from previous training sessions. To better understand
how to distribute training sessions, you have to know which days produce more
fatigue than others. In this study, 12 males (18-35 years old) with at least two years
of training experience and a minimum squat one-repetition maximum (1RM) of 1.5
times bodyweight completed two protocols – a high volume (HV, 8x10x70% 1RM),
and a high intensity (HI, 8x3x90% 1RM) protocol – in a counterbalanced crossover
design. Various tests were then conducted after this protocol at 30 minutes, 24
hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours post-training. Specifically, performance was assessed
via counter-movement jump (CMJ) peak power, isokinetic (fixed speed) leg
extension strength, isometric (a fixed joint position) leg extension maximum
voluntary contraction (MVC) strength, isometric mid-thigh pull strength, and
isometric half squat strength. Additionally, vastus lateralis (a muscle of the
quadriceps group) cross-sectional area (CSA) was assessed at each time point to
determine the degree of swelling and inflammation in response to training. Finally,
blood draws were taken from the participants to assess changes in endocrine
(testosterone and cortisol), inflammatory (interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein), and
muscle damage (creatine kinase, lactate dehydrogenase, and myoglobin) markers, in
addition to subjective ratings of pain and soreness. In response to training, the HI
group had lower levels of soreness and blood lactate, and had higher CMJ, isometric
leg extension, and MVC strength compared to HV at various time points.
Additionally, cortisol, interleukin-6, and vastus lateralis CSA were elevated from
baseline only in HV at specific time points, but not HI. Thus, it seems that the HV
protocol produced more damage, soreness, and suppressed force production to a
greater degree than the HI protocol over a 72-hour period.
Purpose
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the acute effects of an HV and HI
training protocol on performance and recovery post-exercise in experienced,
resistance-trained men.
Hypotheses
While not directly stated, the authors cited previous work showing HV training to
suppress force production. Much of the prior work cited, however, was in untrained
individuals, and the authors stated that the acute response to training is dependent
on training experience and the protocol utilized. Thus, while the authors likely
expected HV training to suppress force production more and require a longer
recovery period, they left the door open for the possibility that the trained males in
this study might have responses that diverged from those seen in prior research.

Subjects
Twelve experienced, resistance-trained men (body mass, 82.3 ± 8.4 kg; height,
175.2 ± 5.5 cm; body fat, 13.5 ± 3.4%) volunteered to participate in this study.
Participants had to be between 18 and 35 years old with at least two years of
resistance training experience (actual, 6.3 ± 3.4 years). Additionally, participants
had to be able to squat at least 1.5 times their body mass (actual, 173.4 ± 31.7 kg).
Participants could not use dietary supplements or performance enhancing drugs
during the trial and were screened for prior use.
Overall Design
In this crossover design, the participants were assessed a total of 11 times. The first
assessment was to test their squat 1RM and to have their descriptive characteristics
measured (height, weight, body composition, etc.). After at least 72 hours, the
participants returned to perform either the HI or HV protocol (half started with one,
half the other) after baseline assessment of muscle CSA and baseline blood
collection. Then, at 30 minutes, 24 hours, 48 hours, and 72 hours post-training,
blood, CSA, and performance analyses were conducted. The participants then
performed the opposite training protocol, and this process was repeated. This is
shown schematically in Figure 1.
Figure 1
Reproduced from Bartolomei et al. 2017 (1)
Resistance Training
After a standardized warm-up, participants performed either the HI or HV protocol.
Both HI and HV were comprised of only the squat. During HI, participants performed
8 sets of 3 repetitions at 90% of their previously measured 1RM with three-minute
rest intervals between sets. During HV, participants performed 8 sets of 10
repetitions at 70% 1RM with 75 seconds between sets. During both protocols, if the
required number of repetitions per set was not completed, the load was reduced in
the subsequent set to allow participants to complete the required number of
repetitions. No forced repetitions were performed and all training was supervised.
Performance, Biochemical, Ultrasound, and Subjective Testing
At each testing time interval, CMJ peak power, isokinetic leg extension strength at a
speed of 60 and 180 degrees per second, isometric leg extension MVC, isometric
mid-thigh pull, and isometric half squat were assessed. Prior to performance testing,
serum concentrations of testosterone, cortisol, myoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase
(LDH) activity, and creatine kinase (CK), as well as plasma interleukin-6 (IL-6) and
C-reactive protein (CRP) were assayed. Additionally, muscle CSA of the vastus
lateralis was measured via ultrasound. Finally, participants were asked to assess
their perception of pain and soreness on a 0-100 visual scale.
Dietary Control
Participants were instructed to record everything they consumed during both the HI
and HV four-day trial. For the second experimental trial, participants were required
to duplicate the content, quantity, and timing of their daily diet from the first trial.
Participants were instructed not to eat or drink anything except water within 10
hours of reporting to the laboratory for testing sessions.
Findings
Table 1 below lists all variables where significant differences were reported in the HV
group relative to baseline and relative to the HI group. It’s worth pointing out that
mean changes in many of the performance metrics that were not significantly
different between groups still followed a similar pattern of greater suppression in HV
than HI, and a slower return to baseline levels over 72 hours. For example, in the HI
group, the mid-thigh pull peak force bottomed out at 98% and was slightly higher
than baseline levels at some time points during the post-training measurement
period, while the HV group dropped to 92% of baseline values at 30 minutes post
and gradually recovered back up to 97.5% of baseline at 72 hours. Similarly, the
isometric half squat peak force dropped to 85% of baseline values at 30 minutes
post-training in the HV group then returned to 95% baseline values at 48 hours,
while the HI group dropped to 93% at 30 minutes post-training and returned to
95% in only 24 hours. Likewise, cortisol reached a peak at 24 hours relative to
baseline in both groups, increasing by roughly two-thirds in the HI group, but by
over two-fold in the HV group. The p-values were relatively low, yet not quite
significant in the above examples. They likely would have reached significance with
more precise measurements or a larger sample size.
Table 1 – Significant Changes in High Volume Group

Relative to Baseline and High-Intensity Group
CMJ: counter-movement jump peak power, MVC: maximum voluntary isometric leg
extension strength, Iso60: isometric leg extension strength at 60 degrees per
second, CSA: vastus lateralis cross sectional area, IL-6: interleukin-6.
Correlation between variables
The change in CSA from baseline to 30 minutes post-training in HV was inversely

related to changes in CMJ (r = -0.68; p = 0.01), MVC (r = -0.58; p=0.05), and
isokinetic leg extension strength at 180 degrees per second (r = -0.80; p=0.001).
Inverse relationships were also reported for changes in CSA from baseline to 24
hours post-training in both isokinetic leg extension strength at 60 (r = -0.787; p =
0.002) and 180 degrees per second (r = -0.678; p = 0.015) after HV training.
Additionally, correlations were reported between IL-6 and the magnitude of

reduction in CMJ performance at both 30 minutes (r = 0.76; p = 0.004) and 48
hours post-training (r = 0.66; p = 0.798) in the HV group. In addition, a significant
correlation (r = 0.660; p = 0.019) was reported between IL-6 and the increase in
CSA at 24 hours post-training in the HV group. Finally, a correlation was also
observed between CK levels 72 hours post-training and the change in CSA from
baseline to 72 hours post-training in HV (r = 0.60; p = 0.037).
Interpretation
At first glance, this study seems to simply answer the question, “What is more
fatiguing, high volume or high intensity training?” While the data do convincingly
demonstrate that, indeed, high volume training causes more inflammation, causes
more muscle damage, and suppresses force production to a greater degree, and for
a longer time period than high intensity training, it does more than that. This acute
study is also illustrative of a number of concepts we’ve discussed previously in
MASS, yet also combines them in such a way to show the practical relevance in the
immediate microcycle-length term.
While there is a clear relationship between training volume and hypertrophy (2, 3)
and, to a lesser degree, strength (4, 5), we’ve previously discussed why more
volume is not always better and that prematurely increasing training volume beyond
what is appropriate for one’s training age can actually be counterproductive (6). This
study gives more mechanistic insight into why doing massive volumes in a single
session is counterproductive. If one were to simplistically consider the relationship of
volume with hypertrophy and strength, they might conclude that doing as much
volume as possible at all times would be optimal. However, volume is only useful if
one can recover from it and, as demonstrated by this study, doing a massive volume
of work you are not accustomed to in a single session can negatively impact your
performance for at least 72 hours. Getting stronger over time is a result of stringing
multiple days, weeks, months, and years of effective training together, meaning that
your training configuration in the short term should pay respect to the long term. In
fact, we’ve previously discussed the merits of setting up a microcycle of training in
an intelligent way to manage fatigue, and how doing so in a logical way can improve
performance over an entire mesocycle (7).
Also, another thing you’ve probably heard about lifting heavy is that it will cause
“CNS burnout” if done too often. While this study didn’t address that (and I’m not
sure that is something I would even know how to quantify or measure), it did show
that on a per set basis, heavy lifting actually did not suppress force production to the
same degree as moderate load lifting. With that said, if you were to actually match
volume (not just the number of sets), you would more than likely run into issues
lifting heavy exclusively in the long term. It would result in greater joint stress,
higher injury risk, and more generalized “burn out,” as sessions would take much
longer because you’d have to perform many more sets to equal the workload of the
higher-repetition group (8).
Finally, it’s also worth addressing the potential conclusion some people might draw
when reading this study: that the damage and inflammation from HV training is an
inherently good thing for hypertrophy. While it is true that muscle damage likely
plays a role in muscle growth (9), in this previous review I discussed why muscle
damage should not be viewed as having a direct causative and proportional
relationship with hypertrophy, and why it likely doesn’t need to be deliberately
sought out in training. Indeed, a systematic review from 2007 found that rates of
hypertrophy peaked in the bicep and quadriceps when performing ~40-70
repetitions 2-3 times per week (for a total of ~80-210 repetitions), and then slowed
when more volume was performed (on average, in a mixed group of studies
primarily on untrained and recreationally trained lifters, with only some well-trained
lifters) (10). While the subjects in the present study were actually quite well-trained
(on average, over two times bodyweight squat with about six years in the gym),
achieving the low end of the volume range presented in the aforementioned
systematic review (~80 repetitions) in a single session, from just a single exercise, is
probably overkill (even more so if it was performed in addition to other exercises for
other multiple groups with similar levels of volume). If you still remain unconvinced,
I’d also refer you back to our review of the now infamous “German volume training”
study in which trained (not well-trained, but trained nonetheless) lifters gained less
muscle performing 10 sets per muscle group three times per week compared to
performing five sets.
Next Steps
So much can be done in the area of acute recovery from training. Most obviously,
different amounts of volume at different intensities could be compared. However, no
matter how much of this type of data is collected, the response will always be
impacted by the previous training of the participants and what type and how much
training they were previously acclimated to. It would also be interesting to see the
effects of different lengths and types of introductory microcycles designed to
acclimate the participants to the HV training protocol to come. This would allow us
to see how much the inflammation and muscle damage response could be mitigated,
and if this results in a faster recovery of performance.
1. In the short term, 8 sets of 10 reps at 70% of 1RM will produce a large level
of fatigue that will suppress strength for at least 72 hours to a larger degree
than performing 8 sets of 3 reps at 90% 1RM.
2. While this level of volume is not a realistic example for most people, when
performing a high-volume session relative to your own work capacity, it would
be tactically advantageous to place an easier training day (one that could be
accomplished with strength levels below normal) after this session (and
maybe in conjunction with a rest day) to allow more time for intra-week
recovery before performing any heavy sessions.
3. When you do attempt to increase volume or overreach through an increase in
total number of sets, it would behoove you to perform a microcycle (or two)
in which you gradually build up to the target volume. This will elicit the
repeated bout effect and make the coming sessions less damaging and
fatiguing, so that you can complete more of the prescribed workload.
References
1. Bartolomei, S., et al., Comparison of the recovery response from high-intensity

and high-volume resistance exercise in trained men. Eur J Appl Physiol, 2017.
117(7): p. 1287-1298.
2. Krieger, J.W., Single vs. multiple sets of resistance exercise for muscle
hypertrophy: a meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res, 2010. 24(4): p. 1150-9.
3. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, 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): p. 1073-1082.
4. Krieger, J.W., Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-

regression. J Strength Cond Res, 2009. 23(6): p. 1890-901.
5. Robbins, D.W., P.W. Marshall, and M. McEwen, The effect of training volume on
lower-body strength. J Strength Cond Res, 2012. 26(1): p. 34-9.
6. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J., et al., Moderate resistance training volume produces more

favorable strength gains than high or low volumes during a short-term training cycle.
J Strength Cond Res, 2005. 19(3): p. 689-97.
7. Zourdos, M.C., et al., Modified Daily Undulating Periodization Model Produces

Greater Performance Than a Traditional Configuration in Powerlifters. J Strength
Cond Res, 2016. 30(3): p. 784-91.
8. Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Effects of different volume-equated resistance training
loading strategies on muscular adaptations in well-trained men. Journal of Strength
and Conditioning Research, 2014. 29(10): p. 2909-18.
9. Schoenfeld, B., Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in skeletal

muscle hypertrophy? J Strength Cond Res, 2012. 26(5): p. 1441-53.
10. Wernbom, M., J. Augustsson, and R. Thomee, The influence of frequency,

intensity, volume and mode of strength training on whole muscle cross-sectional
area in humans. Sports Med, 2007. 37(3): p. 225-64.
Can You Simply Count the Number of Sets

to Quantify Volume?
Volume 2, Issue 9
The discussion of training volume is everywhere, but are we overcomplicating it?

Can we just simply track the number of sets to quantify volume?
Study Reviewed: Total Volume of Sets as a Training Volume Quantification Method

for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review. Baz-Valle et al. (2018)
Key Points
1. This systematic review looked at 14 studies to determine if simply counting

the number of sets performed can be used to quantify training volume for
hypertrophy purposes.
2. The conclusions determined that counting the number of sets can accurately
quantify volume and predict hypertrophy outcomes.
3. However, the review concluded that the number of reps per set should be at
least six and each set should conclude three reps or fewer from failure to be
included in the set count.
The concept of optimizing training volume for hypertrophy has taken over our lives.
It’s been at every turn for the past 5-10 years, and we do have some answers.
There’s a strong relationship between volume and muscle growth, and at least 10
sets per muscle group per week is a good idea (2) – although, on average, the
highest hypertrophy rates probably occur when performing more than 10 sets. Also,
we know that rep range isn’t that important when volume is equated, but if the rep
range is really low, you may need more sets (3). And, of course, we know “More
Volume is Not Always Better” (4). However, despite all that, tracking total volume
load (Sets X Reps X Weight Lifted) to quantify volume and subsequently predict
hypertrophy outcomes is still most commonly recommended in the literature. Is it
possible that simply counting the number of sets performed is just as good as
volume load? A new systematic review (1) scanned the literature in an attempt to
determine if the total number of sets performed can be used as a standalone volume
metric to maximize hypertrophy. The review concluded “yes,” total number of sets
can be used to quantify volume if the amount of reps per set is between 6-20+ and
proximity to failure of each set is similar (i.e. ≥7RPE). The short interpretation is that
this finding simplifies the volume quantification process: If you perform each set for
at least six reps, you can just track number of sets when tracking volume. One of
the positive aspects of this systematic review is that it only included studies that
used trained lifters. The conclusions are simple and quite useful from a practical
perspective (and I largely agree with them), but let’s use the interpretation to
provide some context to the rep range guidelines and proximity to failure thresholds.
Purpose
The purpose of this systematic review was to determine if simply counting number
of sets performed can be used as a standalone method to quantify training volume
to optimize muscle hypertrophy.
Research Questions
Can trained lifters simply use the number of reasonably hard sets to quantify training
volume?
Hypothesis
There was no formal hypothesis as is typical of a systematic review. The

introduction, however, presented the case of total volume or volume load (Sets X
Reps X Weight Lifted), then the authors cited data suggesting that total number of
sets would be a good volume metric. So, it seems that they thought total number of
sets would at least be a decent method of volume quantification.
Subjects
Fourteen total studies that included data on 352 men and 7 women were included in
the systematic review. All subjects had at least one year of training experience and
were 18-35 years old.
Protocol and Study Inclusion
Fourteen studies met the review criteria, which followed the Preferred Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Studies were included
if they met the criteria laid out in Table 1.
Analysis
To determine if total sets could be used to effectively quantify volume, the authors
broke down the studies into four categories. Those categories and the number of
studies that fell into each category are in Table 2.
Before presenting the findings, let’s be clear about what the authors were
examining. If in an individual study, the number of sets between groups was the
same but repetition range differed, then no difference between groups would
provide an answer of “yes” to the question: “Is number of sets effective to quantify
volume for hypertrophy?” In other words, number of sets in this example would
have been predictive of hypertrophy, even if total volume was different.
Findings
To present the findings, let’s use the study categorization that the authors made and
give the conclusion for each category, and then discuss an overall conclusion based
on all 14 studies. One category – “equal volume load with different number of sets”
– assessed differing numbers of sets between groups; thus, as you can see in Table
3, that category actually examined if volume load was predictive of hypertrophy.
Based on this table, the answer the authors came up with was “yes,” the number of
sets is an effective way to quantify volume for hypertrophy; you can simply calculate
your volume by number of sets if your goal is hypertrophy. However, the authors
added a few more caveats when simply using number of sets: sets should be
between 6-20+ reps, and they needed to reach at least an RPE of 7 (i.e. RIR ≤3) for
a set to count in this quantification.
Interpretation
I agree with the authors’ conclusions that when reps are performed between 6-20+
per set and sets are ≥7RPE, simply counting number of sets is a pretty good metric
of volume quantification and prediction of hypertrophy outcomes. However, I do
think some context is needed surrounding some of the caveats, so we’ll use this
interpretation to do that.
The authors note that if reps are between 6-20+, then you can count number of
sets even though total volume might be different. While that might be surprising to
some, the available evidence does support this notion. Indeed, Schoenfeld found
similar hypertrophy using muscle thickness measurements when comparing 3 sets of
25-35RM and 3 sets of 8-12RM over 8 weeks despite the higher rep group in each
study performing greater total volume (5). Further, Morton et al (6) reported similar
cross-sectional area changes with 3 sets of 20RM versus 3 sets of 10RM despite
more volume in the 20RM group over 12 weeks. Au et al (7) also observed similar
muscle morphology outcomes when comparing 3 sets of 20-25RM and 8-12RM over
12 weeks, but Au used skinfolds, which are less robust than muscle thickness or
cross-sectional area, to assess morphological changes. Thus, different volumes in
those studies still produced similar hypertrophy when the amount of reps per set
was >6, which lends credence to the authors’ conclusions. I want to be clear – I do
not disagree with the author’s conclusions based upon the available data; however, I
believe it is worth pointing out that a person with a 100kg squat max who does 3
sets of 6 at 77.5% would perform ~1400kg of volume, while someone doing 3 sets
of 15 at 60% of 1RM would perform 2700kg of volume (nearly twice the volume
load). So while there isn’t necessarily sufficient evidence to say that the 15 reps
would yield greater hypertrophy than the 6-rep example when sets are equated,
without long-term data, it’s worth considering differential hypertrophy outcomes
could occur over the very long term (i.e. >1 year).
Let’s now consider studies where the primary number of repetitions in one group
was below the 6-rep threshold. For example, in Klemp et al (2016), which was
included in the systematic review, a low rep group (2-6 reps) needed to perform 24
weekly sets of the squat and bench each to equal the total volume load of the high
rep group (8-12 reps) that only performed 13 sets (3). Hypertrophy in Klemp et al
was the same between groups; however, the low rep group performed almost
double the number of sets. Therefore, you could probably count total number of sets
if someone trained with 6 reps and another person with 4 reps or if you’re
comparing training with 10 reps versus 8 reps. However, counting total number of
sets in Klemp et al would likely miss the mark for hypertrophy prediction, as it’s
doubtful 13 sets in the low rep group would have produced the same hypertrophy as
the high rep group. In further support of the 6-rep threshold, Schoenfeld et al
(2016) observed greater quadriceps hypertrophy with 3 sets of an 8-12RM versus 3
sets of a 2-4RM over eight weeks (8). It is worth noting that Mangine et al produced
contrasting evidence by reporting that 4 sets of 3-5RM improved lean arm mass
more than 4 sets of 10-12RM; however, upper and lower body cross-sectional area
changes were the same in that study (9). Obviously, volume load wasn’t equated
here either, which shows that when reps are low, the number of hard sets is not a
good proxy for hypertrophy. Rather, when reps are low, total volume should be
calculated (or maybe total reps should be counted?). So again, as the authors
say: To count number of sets, the amount of repetitions performed per set should
be ≥6, presumably because really low rep sets do not provide adequate volume per
set.
In addition to the number of reps per set needing to be ≥6, the authors also
concluded that sets should be performed to at least a 7RPE or 3RIR to be counted
as a set toward hypertrophy. I agree in part with this notion but would like to
provide some additional context. First, this statement is not based on any study
included in this systematic review. To my knowledge, all studies included had similar
RPE between groups or did not report set difficulty. So, while I understand the
recommendation of similar difficulty level across sets, I don’t believe the available
evidence supports such a hard line at 7RPE. Sure, if two people have the same 1RM
and perform 100kg on the squat for 3 sets of 10 all at a 9RPE (person A) and 3 sets
of 6 all at a 5RPE (person B), then person A may achieve superior hypertrophy. I
don’t fully believe that’s because of being closer to failure for the sake of it, though;
it could be due to increased total volume load (3000kg vs. 1800kg, in the above
example). Practically, person B could simply add two sets and make it 5 sets of 6,
which would equate for volume. In that case, I would then be quite surprised if
hypertrophy outcomes weren’t similar. I realize an immediate retort to that is “why
do more sets if it takes more time.” Well, let’s take another look at the example.
Although we gave person A 3X10 with 100kg all at a 9RPE, that’s unlikely to actually
occur, because if the first set was at a 9, the RPE would likely climb to a 10 at some
point, or they would actually fail a rep. So sure, this is more efficient than 5X6 at
5RPE within that day, but as we discussed in my other written article this issue,
training to failure elongates recovery and may hurt volume later in the week. So, in
isolation, training at higher RPEs may be better, but I don’t think you can nor should
train at high RPEs all the time. Further, it’s pretty easy to add a set when you are
training around a 5RPE, so I don’t really see much additional training stress by
adding more sets in this example’s lower RPE group.
Additionally, we have evidence to make the claim that training at different RPEs
provides similar hypertrophy. In Eric’s dissertation (10), his participants had the
highest training status out of the studies looking at the longitudinal effects of
training at different RPEs. As you can see in Figure 1 of that study, one group
trained between a 5-6RPE on average for 8 weeks while the other trained between a
7-9RPE in the latter weeks. Then, if you look at Table 4 in the same study, you can
see there was no difference in hypertrophy outcomes between groups (effect sizes
were trivial). Interestingly, in Eric’s study, the number of sets between groups was
the same, which tells me that the additional volume in the higher RPE group wasn’t
enough to cause additional hypertrophy; so this study actually lends support to
number of sets being used to quantify volume for hypertrophy, but it does so with a
lower per-set RPE threshold (i.e. 5RPE). It’s also worth pointing out that in this
study, the intensities used were primarily between 70-90% of 1RM, so training to a
5RPE may only be appropriate at moderate loads. Despite this, I don’t mind the
7RPE threshold from the authors. Just keep a few things in mind:
1. Despite potentially more fibers being recruited closer to failure, the literature
doesn’t always reveal more hypertrophy when training with high RPEs.
2. It’s probably easier to add more sets when training at lower RPEs.
3. Remember the consequences of failure from my other written article this
month. Training close to failure or at failure may lead to more volume in one
session than not training to failure, but less weekly volume due to longer
recovery times.
I think, overall, the authors did a nice job on this paper; however, one point of
clarification is needed regarding how they analyzed a few individual studies. The
authors correctly point out that there is no difference in hypertrophy when volume is
equated between groups training in different repetition ranges, and they go on to
state that “effect sizes favored training programs with moderate loads” versus high
loads and low reps for hypertrophy in some studies. One of the outcomes they are
pointing to was quadriceps hypertrophy in the Klemp study (3); however, the
problem with this is that they are comparing within-group effect sizes, which is an
inappropriate comparison. A between-group effect size calculation in this study
reveals a trivial effect (0.12) for this measurement. The authors also made the same
error in Schoenfeld et al (5) suggesting that when number of sets was equated in
groups performing 8-12 or 25-35 reps per set, that the 8-12 rep group had greater
quadriceps hypertrophy; however, a between-group effect size calculation shows an
effect of 0.0, as both groups had a change of 5.2mm of quad muscle thickness.
The last point to make is that counting number of sets is probably best to use
within a single exercise. For example, while bench press can contribute to triceps
hypertrophy, they likely don’t contribute as much as triceps extensions. So, if during
one training block you did 8 sets of direct triceps per week and 8 sets of bench and
count that as 16 sets for triceps (as some meta-analyses do), then you do 12 sets of
triceps and 4 sets of bench per week in the next training block (again 16 sets total),
it’s likely that you are getting a greater triceps hypertrophy stimulus in the latter
training block due to more direct sets per muscle group. So, when counting sets as a
quantification of volume, just be sure to understand that all exercises aren’t created
equal in terms of hypertrophy stimulus. You should be consistent in how you count
sets so you can make appropriate comparisons over time.
Next Steps
Going forward, a study that tests the hypothesis I put forth earlier in this article is
what I would like to see: equate for number of sets when reps are within the 6-20
range, but not total volume load. An example would be one group training with 3X15
at 60% of 1RM and the other group training with 3X8 at 75% of 1RM. Another
example would be 4X10 at 70% of 1RM versus 4X7 at 77.5% of 1RM. These
programs would produce different total volumes loads but equate for set number
and leave a similar RIR after each set. If hypertrophy is the same in these
hypotheticals, that would be another huge step forward for just counting sets in the
6-20+ range. However, for these potential studies to have a lot of merit, a robust
measure of hypertrophy needs to be used. Additionally, the study should be carried
out over at least six months, which would be enough time to determine if the added
volume of the higher rep group produces more muscle growth.
Application and Takeaways
1. The amount of hard or effective sets performed can simply be counted to

quantify volume toward hypertrophy.
2. To classify as a hard or effective set, the review concluded that reps per set
should be between 6-20+ and should be taken to at least a 7RPE.
3. However, I don’t necessarily agree with the 7RPE threshold. There is evidence
that when sets are equated, training to a 5-6RPE produces similar
hypertrophy to training to a 7-9RPE in trained lifters; however, this may only
be the case when training with moderate to high loads. Therefore, the jury is
still out on how close to failure a set needs to be so that it is “effective.” My
opinion is that the RPE is lower than the 7RPE threshold presented in this
study.
References
1. Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero J. Total Number of Sets as a

Training Volume Quantification Method for Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic
Review. Journal of strength and conditioning research. 2018 Jul.
2. 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. Journal of sports sciences. 2017 Jun
3;35(11):1073-82.
3. Klemp A, Dolan C, Quiles JM, Blanco R, Zoeller RF, Graves BS, Zourdos MC.
Volume-equated high-and low-repetition daily undulating programming
strategies produce similar hypertrophy and strength adaptations. Applied
Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism. 2016 Feb 16;41(7):699-705.
DA. Effects of a modified German volume training program on muscular
hypertrophy and strength. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research.
2017 Nov 1;31(11):3109-19.
5. Schoenfeld BJ, Peterson MD, Ogborn D, Contreras B, Sonmez GT. Effects of
low-vs. high-load resistance training on muscle strength and hypertrophy in
well-trained men. The Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research. 2015 Oct
1;29(10):2954-63.
6. Morton RW, Oikawa SY, Wavell CG, Mazara N, McGlory C, Quadrilatero J,
Baechler BL, Baker SK, Phillips SM. Neither load nor systemic hormones
determine resistance training-mediated hypertrophy or strength gains in
resistance-trained young men. Journal of Applied Physiology. 2016 May
12;121(1):129-38.
7. Au JS, Oikawa SY, Morton RW, MacDonald MJ, Phillips SM. Arterial Stiffness Is
Reduced Regardless of Resistance Training Load in Young Men. Medicine and
science in sports and exercise. 2017 Feb;49(2):342-8.
8. Schoenfeld BJ, Contreras B, Vigotsky AD, Peterson M. Differential effects of
heavy versus moderate loads on measures of strength and hypertrophy in
resistance-trained men. Journal of sports science & medicine. 2016
Dec;15(4):715.
9. Mangine GT, Hoffman JR, Gonzalez AM, Townsend JR, Wells AJ, Jajtner AR,
Beyer KS, Boone CH, Miramonti AA, Wang R, LaMonica MB. The effect of
training volume and intensity on improvements in muscular strength and size
in resistance‐trained men. Physiological reports. 2015 Aug 1;3(8).
10. Helms ER, Byrnes RK, Cooke DM, Haischer MH, Carzoli JP, Johnson TK, Cross
MR, Cronin JB, Storey AG, Zourdos MC. RPE vs. Percentage 1RM Loading in
Periodized Programs Matched for Sets and Repetitions. Frontiers in
physiology. 2018 Mar 21;9:247.

More Volume Is Not Always Better

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

More Volume Is Not Always Better

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

More Volume is Not Always Better

Study Reviewed: Effects of a modified German Volume Training program

Neither group experienced significant hypertrophy, in terms of either increases in

Purpose and Research Questions

Subjects and Methods

RM = Repetition Maximum. Percentages (%) are % of one-repetition maximum

Pre- and post-testing measurements

Hypertrophy was assessed by taking muscle thickness with ultrasonography.

In summary, the moderate volume 5 sets of 10 training program produced similar

Knowing all of this, there are a few things to keep in mind:

Application and Takeaways

1. This review aimed to determine how many sets should be performed on an

Purpose and Research Questions

Purpose and Main Question

Construction of the Review

The conclusions of this review are relatively straightforward:

1) How do we determine session volume to meet previously established weekly set

3) What are the limitations of the existing meta-analyses?

Upper Versus Lower Body Volume Dosage

Applications and Takeaways

1. High-volume bench press training to failure decreases strength for 72 hours

Purpose and Research Questions

Subjects and Methods

Overall Study Procedures

Peak Torque and Total Work

Why Did This Happen?

Another explanation for the dissociated recovery of PT and TW is impaired calcium

Additionally, despite DOMS fully recovering at 96 hours, TW was still decreased by

Implications for Weekly Program Configuration

The obvious takeaway discussed above brings us to a more nuanced discussion of

Applications and Takeaways

1. Following high-volume training to failure, maximal strength is decreased for

Study Reviewed: Comparison of the recovery response from high-intensity and

An appropriate training configuration within a microcycle of training depends

Purpose and Research Questions

Subjects and Methods

Reproduced from Bartolomei et al. 2017 (1)

Performance, Biochemical, Ultrasound, and Subjective Testing

Table 1 – Significant Changes in High Volume Group

The change in CSA from baseline to 30 minutes post-training in HV was inversely

Additionally, correlations were reported between IL-6 and the magnitude of

1. Bartolomei, S., et al., Comparison of the recovery response from high-intensity

3. Schoenfeld, B.J., D. Ogborn, and J.W. Krieger, Dose-response relationship

4. Krieger, J.W., Single versus multiple sets of resistance exercise: a meta-

6. Gonzalez-Badillo, J.J., et al., Moderate resistance training volume produces more

7. Zourdos, M.C., et al., Modified Daily Undulating Periodization Model Produces

9. Schoenfeld, B., Does exercise-induced muscle damage play a role in skeletal

10. Wernbom, M., J. Augustsson, and R. Thomee, The influence of frequency,

Can You Simply Count the Number of Sets

The discussion of training volume is everywhere, but are we overcomplicating it?

Study Reviewed: Total Volume of Sets as a Training Volume Quantification Method

1. This systematic review looked at 14 studies to determine if simply counting

Purpose and Research Questions

There was no formal hypothesis as is typical of a systematic review. The

Subjects and Methods

Protocol and Study Inclusion

Application and Takeaways

1. The amount of hard or effective sets performed can simply be counted to

1. Baz-Valle E, Fontes-Villalba M, Santos-Concejero J. Total Number of Sets as a

Anda mungkin juga menyukai