What Factors Influence Optimal Volumes?
Only have a second? Check out the takeaway below. Have 5 minutes? Check out the rest of the newsletter.
TRAINING TAKEAWAY: More volume generally leads to more hypertrophy, but at some point, additional volume may become less potent and potentially even counterproductive. Experience suggests this to be in the ballpark of 10-20 sets per muscle per week, but A) this may depend on how volume is quantified; B) is likely affected by program design; and C) seems to differ considerably across individuals.
Background
It’s well established that more training volume (more sets) generally leads to more hypertrophy. The best-cited meta-analysis on this topic is from 2017 by Schoenfeld and colleagues, and one of their analyses compared <5 sets (per muscle per week), 5-9 sets, 10+ sets. While there are some limitations here, when triangulating the results from this analysis (seen below) with another analysis the authors reported, I’m decently comfortable saying these data indicate an approximately linear increase in hypertrophy with additional sets.
While most researchers are confident this general relationship exists, there are multiple aspects of it that remain unclear. Perhaps most importantly, it’s unclear how additional volume beyond ~10 sets (the last cutoff in the above analysis) influences hypertrophy. While some studies show the same relationship continues to exist, others have failed to show additional hypertrophy with very high volumes. There’s even some data indicating that higher volumes can lead to worse outcomes on both the group and individual levels.
Study Overview
Luckily, a recent meta-analysis by Baz-Valle and colleagues aimed to build off of the 2017 Schoenfeld meta-analysis to explore this relationship in studies investigating volumes beyond 10 sets. Specifically, the researchers meta-analyzed studies that included trained subjects and had one group training with 12-20 sets per muscle per week (“Moderate Volume”) to another group training with 20+ sets (“High Volume”).
Six studies were included, and the authors did three separate analyses - one for each the quadriceps, biceps, and triceps. There were no significant differences in hypertrophy between Moderate and High Volume in the quadriceps (p = 0.19) and biceps (p = 0.59), but there was a significant difference in favor of High Volume for the triceps (p = 0.01).
What Does This Mean for Training?
Based on this meta-analysis, volumes greater 20 sets per week may be a bit better than 12-20 sets on average. This relationship was significant for the triceps, and results leaned in this direction for the quadriceps (small standardized mean difference of 0.20).
This concept becomes interesting when pairing these data with the mentioned data from the 2017 meta-analysis from Schoenfeld and colleagues. The Schoenfeld data arguably suggests a more robust effect of additional training volume when at lower set volumes. Although we can’t say this for certain based on the current research, triangulating these two meta-analyses seems to align with practical experience in that additional volume becomes less beneficial once in the ~10-20 set range.
For this reason, 10-20 sets per muscle per week is an excellent starting point for training volume. However, it’s just that: a starting point. For starters, I’ll again emphasize we can’t directly draw on the research to make this claim, and we have to lean into practical experience here. Additionally, there are many factors to keep in mind that may influence optimal set volumes:
Many of these studies feature program designs that are not “well-rounded.” For practical reasons, training studies will often prioritize exercises for the muscles measured and feature reduced or no training for other muscles. Given overall recovery capacity could be a bottleneck for some individuals, this is worth keeping in mind.
These studies are short-term (6-24 weeks). On one hand, the longest study (24 weeks) in the Baz-Valle meta-analysis showed the most convincing effects of High Volume. On the other hand, one could argue that some of the training volumes used are impractical on longer time scales.
Subjects are likely less trained than the average reader of this article. To be included in this meta-analysis, studies must have included subjects with at least one year of training experience. Anecdotes go both ways, but volume needs seem to change across a lifting career.
Proximity to failure and exercise selection will often differ in real world training. All but one of the included studies featured training to failure, but many will stay shy of failure in practice. Additionally, exercise selection cannot be individualized in studies, but it can be in practice; thus, each set may be more potent in practice.
Individuals may differ in their volume sweet spot. Within-subjects designs in which one limb trains at a higher volume and the other limb trains at a lower volume have reported that some individuals experience greater gains in one of the volume conditions.
Volume quantification methods may play a role. In both the 2017 Schoenfeld and recent Baz-Valle meta-analyses, indirect sets were counted the same as direct sets. For example, both a set of bench press and a set of tricep extensions would count the same towards tricep volume. While this is probably the most defensible approach based on the multi-joint vs. single-joint research, I wouldn’t take it to the bank. It may very well be that when only including direct sets or counting indirect sets as half a set, optimal volumes decrease meaningfully.
Short-term changes in training volume may play an independent role in optimal volumes. In other words, the effectiveness of a given volume level may differ depending on recent training history.
Given the large number of factors influencing optimal volumes, I prefer to avoid specific recommendations and instead comment on the general directionality of the relationship between volume and hypertrophy. Take training status for example - I’m unaware of a reason to believe that the mechanisms responsible for hypertrophy will meaningfully differ based on training status. Thus, I’m inclined to believe that this general relationship - that more volume is better, but at some point, additional volume may be less potent and potentially even become counterproductive - will occur for all individuals. So, for some individuals, the sweet spot may be 6 sets per week for a muscle, but for other folks, it may be 25 sets.
Practical Application
As volume increases, hypertrophy outcomes also tend to increase. However, at some point, some data and practical experience suggest that additional volume may be less potent and potentially even become counterproductive. The point at which this occurs likely differs depending on inherent individual differences and the context of the entire program.
In practice, volume is arguably the most important training variable to individualize. My preference is to lean on the lower side to start and ensure set quality, exercise selection, and proximity to failure are optimized. Then, if progress is not satisfactory and the individual is recovering, adjust volume upwards in reasonable yet meaningful increments (~20%). As mentioned, volume needs may change throughout a lifting career, so this volume individualization process never ends.