Hypertrophy
Meta-Analysis
2017
Dose-response relationship between weekly resistance training volume and increases in muscle mass
By Brad J. Schoenfeld and James Krieger
Journal of Sports Sciences, 35(11), pp. 1073-1082
Abstract
<h2>Abstract</h2> <p>The relationship between resistance <a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="training volume">training volume</a> and skeletal <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="muscle hypertrophy">muscle hypertrophy</a> has been a subject of considerable scientific inquiry. This <a href="/terms/meta-analysis/" class="term-link" data-slug="meta-analysis" title="meta-analysis">meta-analysis</a> by Schoenfeld and Krieger (2017) synthesized data from 15 studies encompassing 363 subjects to quantify the <a href="/terms/dose-response-relationship/" class="term-link" data-slug="dose-response-relationship" title="dose-response relationship">dose-response relationship</a> between weekly set volume and increases in muscle <a href="/terms/cross-sectional-area/" class="term-link" data-slug="cross-sectional-area" title="cross-sectional area">cross-sectional area</a>. Results demonstrated a clear and statistically significant dose-response relationship, with higher weekly set volumes producing greater hypertrophic gains across all training experience levels. Specifically, training programs prescribing 10 or more sets per muscle group per week elicited significantly greater hypertrophy compared to lower-volume protocols. Furthermore, the data revealed that gains continued to accumulate even at volumes exceeding 10 sets per week, suggesting that the meaningful upper threshold for hypertrophic benefit may be substantially higher than previously assumed. These findings challenge earlier recommendations that modest training volumes are sufficient for maximal muscle growth and provide robust quantitative support for systematic, progressive volume manipulation as a primary driver of long-term hypertrophy. Practitioners are advised to consider individualized volume progression strategies that account for recovery capacity and training history.</p>Introduction
<h2>Introduction</h2> <p>Skeletal <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="muscle hypertrophy">muscle hypertrophy</a> is a fundamental adaptation to resistance training, underpinning improvements in athletic performance, body composition, and metabolic health across the lifespan [1]. Among the key variables that govern hypertrophic adaptation, <a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="training volume">training volume</a> — typically operationalized as the total number of sets performed per muscle group per week — has long been recognized as a critical determinant of muscle growth [2]. Yet despite widespread agreement on volume's importance, the precise quantitative relationship between volume and hypertrophy remained poorly characterized prior to this <a href="/terms/meta-analysis/" class="term-link" data-slug="meta-analysis" title="meta-analysis">meta-analysis</a>.</p> <p>Early resistance training guidelines from major professional organizations often recommended relatively low training volumes, with some prescribing as few as one to three sets per exercise as sufficient for producing meaningful hypertrophy, particularly in untrained populations [3]. While these recommendations were pragmatic, subsequent longitudinal studies and meta-analyses suggested that higher volumes might confer additional hypertrophic benefit, especially in resistance-trained individuals [4, 5]. However, the absence of a formal <a href="/terms/dose-response-relationship/" class="term-link" data-slug="dose-response-relationship" title="dose-response">dose-response</a> analysis left practitioners without clear guidance on how to structure progressive volume loading.</p> <p>The dose-response concept — familiar from pharmacology, where increasing drug doses elicit graded biological responses up to a ceiling — offers a compelling framework for understanding training volume effects. Applied to resistance training, this model predicts that successive increments in weekly set volume should produce increasingly large hypertrophic adaptations, at least up to some maximal effective dose, beyond which additional volume may yield diminishing returns or even detrimental effects due to inadequate recovery.</p> <p>Schoenfeld and Krieger (2017) sought to formally test this dose-response relationship by pooling data from controlled studies that manipulated weekly set volume as the primary independent variable. Their goal was to derive quantitative effect sizes across volume categories (less than 5 sets, 5-9 sets, and 10 or more sets per muscle group per week), providing a data-driven foundation for volume prescription in hypertrophy-oriented programs. This analysis represents a landmark contribution to evidence-based resistance training, offering practitioners the first robust meta-analytic framework for progressive volume management.</p>Evidence Review
<h2>Evidence Review</h2> <h3>Literature Identification and Inclusion Criteria</h3> <p>Schoenfeld and Krieger conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Medline, SPORTDiscus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials to identify eligible studies. Inclusion criteria required studies to: (1) use direct measures of <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="muscle hypertrophy">muscle hypertrophy</a> such as ultrasonography, magnetic resonance imaging, or computed tomography rather than indirect proxies; (2) compare groups differing in weekly set volume while holding other variables (intensity, rest periods, exercise selection) constant; (3) have a minimum intervention duration of four weeks; and (4) include subjects without apparent physical impairments. Fifteen studies met these criteria, collectively involving 363 subjects.</p> <h3>Volume Classification</h3> <p>Studies were categorized into three volume groups based on weekly sets per muscle group:</p> <table> <thead> <tr> <th>Volume Category</th> <th>Weekly Sets per Muscle Group</th> </tr> </thead> <tbody> <tr> <td>Low Volume</td> <td> 5 sets</td> </tr> <tr> <td>Moderate Volume</td> <td>5-9 sets</td> </tr> <tr> <td>High Volume</td> <td>≥ 10 sets</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> <p>This classification scheme allowed comparisons across a meaningful range of training doses while ensuring sufficient study representation in each category.</p> <h3><a href="/terms/effect-size/" class="term-link" data-slug="effect-size" title="Effect Size">Effect Size</a> Analysis</h3> <p>Effect sizes were calculated using Hedges' g to account for variability in sample sizes across studies. The analysis revealed a clear stepwise pattern: low-volume training produced the smallest hypertrophic effects, moderate volume produced intermediate effects, and high volume (10 or more sets per week) produced the largest effects. Critically, the difference between the high-volume and lower-volume categories was statistically significant (p 0.05), with the high-volume group demonstrating approximately 40% greater hypertrophic gains than the low-volume group [6].</p> <h3>Heterogeneity and Moderating Factors</h3> <p>Significant between-study heterogeneity was observed (I² 50%), suggesting that additional moderating variables influenced outcomes. Training experience emerged as one potential moderator: untrained individuals demonstrated hypertrophic responses across all volume categories, while trained subjects appeared to require higher volumes to elicit continued adaptation. Muscle group specificity was also noted, with some muscles appearing more responsive to high-volume training than others, though the available data were insufficient to draw definitive conclusions at the muscle-group level [7].</p> <h3>Limitations of Included Studies</h3> <p>Several methodological limitations constrained the interpretation of findings. Most included studies had intervention durations of 8-12 weeks, which may not reflect the volume requirements for long-term (12+ month) hypertrophy. Additionally, the upper volume boundary of included studies rarely exceeded 20 sets per muscle group per week, leaving the question of true ceiling effects unresolved. Dietary protein intake was inconsistently controlled across studies, introducing a potential confound that could attenuate volume-related hypertrophy differences [8].</p>Discussion
<h2>Discussion</h2> <h3>Confirming a <a href="/terms/dose-response-relationship/" class="term-link" data-slug="dose-response-relationship" title="Dose-Response Relationship">Dose-Response Relationship</a></h3> <p>The central finding of this <a href="/terms/meta-analysis/" class="term-link" data-slug="meta-analysis" title="meta-analysis">meta-analysis</a> — that weekly resistance <a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="training volume">training volume</a> and <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="muscle hypertrophy">muscle hypertrophy</a> share a meaningful dose-response relationship — carries significant implications for program design. The data support the intuitive notion that doing more productive work produces more muscle growth, but they go further by providing quantitative boundaries that had previously existed only as practitioner lore. The statistically significant advantage of high-volume (10+ sets per week) protocols over lower-volume approaches provides formal justification for the high-volume programming characteristic of bodybuilding and physique sport traditions [9].</p> <h3>Does Volume Show Diminishing Returns?</h3> <p>A nuanced interpretation of the data suggests that while hypertrophic gains continued to increase across volume categories up to 10+ sets per week, the relationship is not likely linear indefinitely. Basic physiological reasoning — and the principle of <a href="/terms/overtraining/" class="term-link" data-slug="overtraining" title="overtraining">overtraining</a> — implies that a ceiling exists beyond which additional sets impose recovery costs that exceed anabolic benefits. The meta-analysis could not precisely locate this ceiling given the volume range of included studies. However, subsequent research has proposed that volumes in the range of 10-20 sets per muscle group per week represent a practical working range for most trained individuals, with some advanced athletes tolerating and benefiting from even higher loads under appropriately periodized conditions [10].</p> <h3>Mechanistic Considerations</h3> <p>Several mechanisms likely underlie the volume-hypertrophy relationship. Greater weekly volume increases total <a href="/terms/mechanical-tension/" class="term-link" data-slug="mechanical-tension" title="mechanical tension">mechanical tension</a> on muscle fibers, a primary driver of myofibrillar protein accretion [11]. Higher volumes also accumulate greater <a href="/terms/metabolic-stress/" class="term-link" data-slug="metabolic-stress" title="metabolic stress">metabolic stress</a>, characterized by lactate accumulation, pH reduction, and cellular swelling, which may contribute to hypertrophy through anabolic signaling pathways including <a href="/terms/mtor/" class="term-link" data-slug="mtor" title="mTORC1">mTORC1</a> activation [12]. Finally, repeated high-volume exposure may increase the magnitude and duration of post-exercise elevations in <a href="/terms/muscle-protein-synthesis/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-protein-synthesis" title="muscle protein synthesis">muscle protein synthesis</a> (MPS), effectively extending the <a href="/terms/anabolic-window/" class="term-link" data-slug="anabolic-window" title="<a href="/terms/protein-timing/" class="term-link" data-slug="protein-timing" title="anabolic window">anabolic window</a>">anabolic window</a> beyond what lower-volume sessions achieve.</p> <h3>Implications for Training Experience</h3> <p>The finding that training experience moderates volume requirements deserves special emphasis. Novice trainees can achieve meaningful hypertrophy with modest volumes because the stimulus for adaptation is relative, not absolute. Muscles unaccustomed to any resistance training stimulus respond robustly to even minimal mechanical loading. As training experience accumulates, muscles adapt to habitual training doses and require progressive increases in stimulus to continue growing — a principle directly supported by this meta-analysis and consistent with the broader overload principle [13].</p> <h3>Reconciling with Practical Constraints</h3> <p>High-volume training is time-consuming and places substantial recovery demands on the trainee. Practitioners should weigh the marginal hypertrophic benefit of additional sets against the logistical and recovery costs they impose. A progressive approach — beginning at moderate volume and increasing over weeks and months as recovery capacity develops — aligns with both the dose-response principle and the practical realities of sustainable training [14].</p>Practical Recommendations
<h2>Practical Recommendations</h2> <h3>Establishing a Volume Baseline</h3> <p>The findings of this <a href="/terms/meta-analysis/" class="term-link" data-slug="meta-analysis" title="meta-analysis">meta-analysis</a> support the following volume guidelines for individuals seeking to maximize <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="hypertrophy">hypertrophy</a>:</p> <ul> <li><strong>Beginners ( 6 months training):</strong> Start with 5-9 sets per muscle group per week. Even this moderate volume is sufficient to generate robust hypertrophy in untrained individuals.</li> <li><strong>Intermediate trainees (6-24 months):</strong> Progress toward 10-15 sets per muscle group per week as adaptation to lower volumes plateaus.</li> <li><strong>Advanced trainees ( 2 years):</strong> Consider 15-20 or more sets per muscle group per week during dedicated hypertrophy phases, with careful attention to recovery markers.</li> </ul> <p>These ranges represent starting points, not fixed prescriptions. Individual variation in recovery capacity, <a href="/terms/sleep-hygiene/" class="term-link" data-slug="sleep-hygiene" title="sleep quality">sleep quality</a>, nutritional status, and training intensity will modulate optimal volume for any given person.</p> <h3>Implementing Progressive Volume Overload</h3> <p>Volume should be increased systematically rather than abruptly. A reasonable approach is to add 1-2 sets per muscle group every 2-4 weeks, allowing the musculoskeletal and nervous systems to adapt before imposing further demands. This incremental progression mirrors the <a href="/terms/dose-response-relationship/" class="term-link" data-slug="dose-response-relationship" title="dose-response">dose-response</a> principle: each step-up in volume should produce measurable additional gains over the previous dose.</p> <h3>Distributing Volume Across Sessions</h3> <p>Research on <a href="/terms/training-frequency/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-frequency" title="training frequency">training frequency</a> suggests that the total <a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="weekly volume">weekly volume</a> is most effectively delivered across multiple sessions rather than concentrated into one or two workouts [15]. Distributing 15 sets for the quadriceps across three weekly sessions (5 sets per session) likely produces superior hypertrophy compared to performing all 15 sets in a single session, because repeated <a href="/terms/muscle-protein-synthesis/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-protein-synthesis" title="MPS">MPS</a> stimulation throughout the week creates a more favorable cumulative anabolic environment.</p> <h3>Monitoring Recovery and Adjusting Volume</h3> <p>High training volume is only beneficial <a href="/terms/intermittent-fasting/" class="term-link" data-slug="intermittent-fasting" title="if">if</a> recovery is adequate. Practical indicators that weekly volume may be exceeding recovery capacity include:</p> <ul> <li>Persistent joint tenderness or muscle soreness lasting more than 72 hours</li> <li>Declining performance over consecutive weeks</li> <li>Disrupted sleep or elevated resting heart rate</li> <li>Loss of motivation or increased perceived exertion at equivalent loads</li> </ul> <p>When these signs appear, reducing volume by 30-40% for one to two weeks (a <a href="/terms/deload/" class="term-link" data-slug="deload" title="deload">deload</a> period) before resuming progressive loading is advisable.</p> <h3>Protein Intake as a Volume Enabler</h3> <p>The hypertrophic benefit of high-volume training is contingent on adequate dietary protein intake. Consuming 1.6-2.2 g of protein per kilogram of body weight daily ensures sufficient amino acid availability to support the elevated muscle protein synthesis demands imposed by high-volume training [16]. Without adequate protein, additional training volume may produce disproportionately less hypertrophic benefit.</p>관련 논문
근비대
2022
저항 훈련 세트 볼륨이 골격근 근비대에 미치는 영향: 업데이트된 체계적 문헌고찰 및 메타분석
13개 공유 용어
근비대
2016
저항 훈련 빈도가 근비대에 미치는 영향: 체계적 문헌고찰 및 메타분석
11개 공유 용어
근비대
2012
저항 운동에 의한 근단백질 합성 변화와 근비대에서의 역할
10개 공유 용어
근비대
2017
주간 저항 훈련 볼륨과 근육량 증가 사이의 용량-반응 관계: 체계적 문헌고찰 및 메타분석
11개 공유 용어
근비대
2015
건강한 고령자에서 저항 훈련의 용량-반응 관계: 체계적 문헌고찰 및 메타분석
11개 공유 용어