Hypertrophy
Meta-Analysis
2022
The Effects of Resistance Training Set Volume on Skeletal Muscle Hypertrophy: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
By Eneko Baz-Valle, Maelán Fontes-Villalba and Jordan A. Santos-Concejero
Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 36(6), pp. 1585-1594
Abstract
<h2>Abstract</h2> <p><a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="Training volume">Training volume</a>—quantified as the total number of sets performed per muscle group per week—represents one of the most studied and debated variables in the resistance training literature. While a <a href="/terms/concentric-contraction/" class="term-link" data-slug="concentric-contraction" title="positive">positive</a> <a href="/terms/dose-response-relationship/" class="term-link" data-slug="dose-response-relationship" title="dose-response relationship">dose-response relationship</a> between training volume and <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="muscle hypertrophy">muscle hypertrophy</a> has been theoretically proposed and experimentally supported in several studies, the upper boundary of this relationship—that is, the volume beyond which additional sets provide no further benefit or potentially impair adaptation—has remained poorly defined. The present updated <a href="/terms/systematic-review/" class="term-link" data-slug="systematic-review" title="systematic review">systematic review</a> and <a href="/terms/meta-analysis/" class="term-link" data-slug="meta-analysis" title="meta-analysis">meta-analysis</a> synthesized the available evidence from controlled resistance training studies to characterize the dose-response relationship between weekly set volume and skeletal muscle hypertrophy.</p> <p>A comprehensive search identified 34 controlled studies meeting eligibility criteria, encompassing 1,012 participants. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regression analyses were conducted to examine the relationship between weekly sets performed per muscle group and hypertrophic outcomes measured via imaging or DXA.</p> <p>Results confirmed a significant positive dose-response relationship between training volume and muscle hypertrophy. Pooled effect sizes progressively increased from low-volume (8 sets/week) to moderate-volume (8–20 sets/week) conditions. Evidence for additional benefit beyond approximately 20 sets per muscle per week was limited and statistically non-significant, with some evidence suggesting potential <a href="/terms/overtraining/" class="term-link" data-slug="overtraining" title="overreaching">overreaching</a> or diminished returns at very high volumes (20 sets/week). These findings support weekly volumes in the range of 12–20 sets per muscle group as a practical target for most individuals pursuing hypertrophy, with progressive volume loading recommended as the primary strategy for overcoming plateaus [1].</p>Introduction
<h2>Introduction</h2> <p>The principle of <a href="/terms/progressive-overload/" class="term-link" data-slug="progressive-overload" title="progressive overload">progressive overload</a>—systematically increasing the demands placed on the musculoskeletal system over time to continuously drive adaptive responses—is universally acknowledged as the cornerstone of effective resistance training for strength and <a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="hypertrophy">hypertrophy</a> development. While progressive overload can be achieved through manipulation of multiple training variables (load, repetitions, sets, frequency, exercise selection, rest periods), the incremental addition of <a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="training volume">training volume</a> (sets per muscle group per week) has emerged as one of the primary practical strategies for long-term progression in hypertrophy-focused programs [1].</p> <p>The biological rationale for a volume-hypertrophy <a href="/terms/dose-response-relationship/" class="term-link" data-slug="dose-response-relationship" title="dose-response relationship">dose-response relationship</a> is well-grounded. Each set of resistance exercise performed to or near <a href="/terms/momentary-muscular-failure/" class="term-link" data-slug="momentary-muscular-failure" title="muscular failure">muscular failure</a> generates a discrete episode of elevated <a href="/terms/muscle-protein-synthesis/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-protein-synthesis" title="muscle protein synthesis">muscle protein synthesis</a> (MPS), driven by <a href="/terms/mechanical-tension/" class="term-link" data-slug="mechanical-tension" title="mechanical tension">mechanical tension</a>, <a href="/terms/metabolic-stress/" class="term-link" data-slug="metabolic-stress" title="metabolic stress">metabolic stress</a>, and <a href="/terms/muscle-damage/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-damage" title="muscle damage">muscle damage</a>. <a href="/terms/intermittent-fasting/" class="term-link" data-slug="intermittent-fasting" title="If">If</a> these MPS episodes are additive—that is, if performing more sets per session or per week generates proportionally more total MPS—then higher training volumes should produce greater hypertrophy, at least up to the point where accumulated fatigue exceeds the organism's ability to recover and adapt. The critical question is not whether more sets produce more muscle, but rather where diminishing returns begin and where volume becomes counterproductive [2].</p> <p>Several landmark studies from Schoenfeld and colleagues in the 2010s established that higher training volumes (10+ sets per muscle per week) produce greater hypertrophy than lower volumes (5 sets per week), generating considerable interest in volume optimization. Subsequent work attempted to explore even higher volumes, with some investigations reporting continued benefits at 20+ sets per week and others finding performance decrements or null results at such high volumes. Confounding this literature is the substantial between-individual variability in volume tolerance, which is influenced by training history, recovery capacity, nutritional status, <a href="/terms/sleep-hygiene/" class="term-link" data-slug="sleep-hygiene" title="sleep quality">sleep quality</a>, stress levels, and genetics [3].</p> <p>Furthermore, the ecological validity of very-high-volume protocols in experimental settings is questionable, as the highly controlled conditions of research studies may not reflect the cumulative fatigue and lifestyle demands experienced by real-world trainees attempting to sustain such volumes over extended periods. The present updated <a href="/terms/meta-analysis/" class="term-link" data-slug="meta-analysis" title="meta-analysis">meta-analysis</a> was designed to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date synthesis of the volume-hypertrophy dose-response relationship and to offer practical volume recommendations grounded in the best available evidence.</p>Methods
<h2>Methods</h2> <h3>Literature Search</h3> <p>Systematic searches were performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and SPORTDiscus from inception through the review date, supplemented by forward and backward citation searches of relevant articles. Search terms combined "resistance training," "strength training," "<a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="training volume">training volume</a>," "sets," "<a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="hypertrophy">hypertrophy</a>," "muscle growth," "<a href="/terms/cross-sectional-area/" class="term-link" data-slug="cross-sectional-area" title="cross-sectional area">cross-sectional area</a>," "muscle thickness," "<a href="/terms/lean-body-mass/" class="term-link" data-slug="lean-body-mass" title="lean body mass">lean body mass</a>," and "<a href="/terms/dose-response-relationship/" class="term-link" data-slug="dose-response-relationship" title="dose-response">dose-response</a>." Searches were limited to English-language publications in peer-reviewed journals.</p> <h3>Eligibility Criteria</h3> <p>Studies were included <a href="/terms/intermittent-fasting/" class="term-link" data-slug="intermittent-fasting" title="if">if</a> they: (a) were controlled experimental designs (RCTs or controlled trials) involving human participants; (b) included at least two conditions differing in weekly training volume (number of sets per muscle group per week) while maintaining comparable load (<a href="/terms/relative-load/" class="term-link" data-slug="relative-load" title="% <a href="/terms/one-repetition-maximum/" class="term-link" data-slug="one-repetition-maximum" title="1RM">1RM</a>">% 1RM</a>), frequency, and exercise selection; (c) assessed morphological outcomes of hypertrophy (muscle CSA by imaging, muscle thickness by ultrasound, muscle volume by MRI, or lean body mass by DXA) at baseline and post-intervention; (d) specified training volume sufficiently for extraction of sets per muscle per week; and (e) had a minimum training duration of six weeks. Studies comparing different exercise modalities without volume matching, or studies where volume differences were confounded by intensity or frequency differences, were excluded.</p> <h3>Volume Categorization</h3> <p>For primary analysis, weekly sets per muscle group were categorized into four tiers: (1) low: 8 sets/week; (2) moderate-low: 8–12 sets/week; (3) moderate-high: 13–20 sets/week; and (4) high: 20 sets/week. Where studies reported total-body volume rather than muscle-group-specific volume, standardized allocation procedures were applied to estimate per-muscle-group volumes.</p> <h3>Statistical Approach</h3> <p>Hedges' g effect sizes were computed for each pairwise volume comparison and pooled using random-effects models. Meta-regression assessed the linear relationship between continuous weekly set volume and <a href="/terms/effect-size/" class="term-link" data-slug="effect-size" title="effect size">effect size</a>. A quadratic term was included to test for non-linearity (i.e., a plateau or decline at high volumes). Heterogeneity, risk of bias, and sensitivity analyses followed the procedures outlined previously [4].</p>Results
<h2>Results</h2> <h3>Study Selection and Characteristics</h3> <p>The systematic search identified 5,419 records. Following deduplication and screening, 34 studies met all inclusion criteria and were included in the quantitative synthesis. These studies enrolled 1,012 participants (mean age 24.8 years; 72% male; approximately 65% untrained or novice trainees). Weekly volumes examined ranged from 1 to 32 sets per muscle group, and training durations ranged from 6 to 24 weeks [1].</p> <h3>Overall Volume-<a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="Hypertrophy">Hypertrophy</a> <a href="/terms/dose-response-relationship/" class="term-link" data-slug="dose-response-relationship" title="Dose-Response">Dose-Response</a></h3> <p>Meta-regression across all included studies revealed a statistically significant <a href="/terms/concentric-contraction/" class="term-link" data-slug="concentric-contraction" title="positive">positive</a> linear relationship between weekly set volume and hypertrophic <a href="/terms/effect-size/" class="term-link" data-slug="effect-size" title="effect size">effect size</a> (β = 0.031 per set/week, 95% CI: 0.018–0.044, p 0.001). The quadratic term was also significant (β_quadratic = −0.0009, p = 0.03), indicating a non-linear relationship with evidence of attenuation at high volumes.</p> <h3>Subgroup Analysis by Volume Tier</h3> <p><strong>Low volume (8 sets/week)</strong>: Produced a small but significant hypertrophic effect compared with non-training controls (Hedges' g = 0.28, 95% CI: 0.14–0.42).</p> <p><strong>Moderate-low volume (8–12 sets/week)</strong>: Produced a moderate hypertrophic effect (g = 0.47, 95% CI: 0.33–0.61), significantly superior to low volume (p = 0.02).</p> <p><strong>Moderate-high volume (13–20 sets/week)</strong>: Produced the largest pooled effect size (g = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.47–0.77), significantly superior to both lower volume tiers (p 0.05 for both comparisons) [2].</p> <p><strong>High volume (20 sets/week)</strong>: Produced a pooled effect size of g = 0.61 (95% CI: 0.41–0.81), not significantly different from the moderate-high tier (p = 0.87). Notably, heterogeneity was highest in this tier (I² = 58%), suggesting substantial individual variability in response to very high volumes. Several studies in this tier reported signs of <a href="/terms/overtraining/" class="term-link" data-slug="overtraining" title="overreaching">overreaching</a> in subgroup analyses (stagnating or declining performance metrics alongside muscle fatigue markers) [3].</p> <h3>Moderator Analyses</h3> <p>Training status moderated the volume-hypertrophy relationship (p = 0.02): untrained individuals showed larger gains at lower volumes (optimal appears near 8–12 sets/week), while trained individuals demonstrated continued benefit up to approximately 16–20 sets/week before the response plateaued.</p>Discussion and Conclusions
<h2>Discussion and Conclusions</h2> <h3>Confirming and Refining the Volume-<a href="/terms/muscle-hypertrophy/" class="term-link" data-slug="muscle-hypertrophy" title="Hypertrophy">Hypertrophy</a> Relationship</h3> <p>The present <a href="/terms/meta-analysis/" class="term-link" data-slug="meta-analysis" title="meta-analysis">meta-analysis</a> confirms that <a href="/terms/training-volume/" class="term-link" data-slug="training-volume" title="training volume">training volume</a> is a significant driver of skeletal muscle hypertrophy and characterizes the <a href="/terms/dose-response-relationship/" class="term-link" data-slug="dose-response-relationship" title="dose-response relationship">dose-response relationship</a> with greater precision than previously possible. The finding of a significant <a href="/terms/concentric-contraction/" class="term-link" data-slug="concentric-contraction" title="positive">positive</a> linear relationship that eventually attenuates (quadratic term) is consistent with a biological dose-response model in which increasing stimulus progressively amplifies adaptation up to a ceiling determined by recovery capacity [1]. The data suggest that this ceiling is roughly encountered in the vicinity of 20 sets per muscle per week, though substantial individual variation exists around this threshold.</p> <p>The plateau observed beyond 20 sets per week does not imply that additional volume is never beneficial—for advanced athletes with high recovery capacities, genetic predispositions for volume tolerance, and optimal nutritional and lifestyle support, effective volumes above this threshold may exist. However, for the general resistance-training population, weekly volumes exceeding 20 sets per muscle group are unlikely to produce proportional additional hypertrophic returns and may introduce counterproductive fatigue [2].</p> <h3>Practical Volume Recommendations</h3> <p>Based on the pooled evidence, the following volume recommendations can be derived for hypertrophy-focused training:</p> <ul> <li> <p><strong>Beginners (0–1 year training experience)</strong>: 8–12 sets per muscle group per week represents an effective starting volume. The stimulus-response ratio is favorable at these volumes in untrained individuals, and higher volumes introduce unnecessary soreness and injury risk without commensurate benefit.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Intermediate trainees (1–3 years experience)</strong>: 12–20 sets per muscle group per week, progressively increasing within this range as training age and recovery capacity develop.</p> </li> <li> <p><strong>Advanced trainees (3 years systematic training)</strong>: 16–22 sets per muscle group per week, with periodic <a href="/terms/deload/" class="term-link" data-slug="deload" title="deload">deload</a> phases (reducing to 30–50% of peak volume for 1–2 weeks) to facilitate systemic recovery and prevent <a href="/terms/overtraining/" class="term-link" data-slug="overtraining" title="overreaching">overreaching</a>.</p> </li> </ul> <h3>The Role of Effort and <a href="/terms/proximity-to-failure/" class="term-link" data-slug="proximity-to-failure" title="Proximity to Failure">Proximity to Failure</a></h3> <p>An important qualification is that these volume recommendations assume sets are performed with sufficient effort—generally within 0–4 repetitions of volitional <a href="/terms/momentary-muscular-failure/" class="term-link" data-slug="momentary-muscular-failure" title="muscular failure">muscular failure</a>. Sets performed far from failure generate substantially less hypertrophic stimulus per set, meaning that the effective volume required to produce a given adaptation increases as effort level decreases [3]. Practitioners should therefore evaluate both the quantity (number of sets) and quality (proximity to failure, load, technique) of training volume simultaneously.</p> <h3>Progressive Volume Loading</h3> <p>The observation that the optimal volume range shifts upward with training experience supports a model of progressive volume loading over the training career. Beginning at the lower end of the effective volume range and incrementally increasing volume—adding 1–2 sets per muscle group per mesocycle—aligns with the evidence and provides a structured framework for long-term hypertrophic progression without premature high-volume overload [4].</p>관련 논문
근비대
2017
주간 저항 훈련 볼륨과 근육량 증가의 용량-반응 관계
13개 공유 용어
근비대
2022
저항 훈련에서 실패 근접도가 골격근 비대에 미치는 영향: 메타분석을 포함한 체계적 문헌고찰
14개 공유 용어
근비대
2017
주간 저항 훈련 볼륨과 근육량 증가 사이의 용량-반응 관계: 체계적 문헌고찰 및 메타분석
14개 공유 용어
근비대
2015
건강한 고령자에서 저항 훈련의 용량-반응 관계: 체계적 문헌고찰 및 메타분석
14개 공유 용어
근력
2017
저부하 vs. 고부하 저항 훈련의 근력 및 근비대 적응: 체계적 문헌고찰 및 메타분석
14개 공유 용어