Introduction
Resistance training is the primary mode via which muscle growth is achieved. When it comes to effective planning of resistance training programmes, particularly once individuals have past the newbie/beginner stage, things can become tricky. Due to individual variation and responses to training, specifically SAID (Specific Adaptation to Imposed Demands), successful programming may at times need to be a little more nuanced if plateaus are to consistently be avoided. I’m sure many reading this can relate to that frustrating feeling when, despite consistently training for weeks/months, the programme you are following no longer seems to be working! You may even know someone that is following the same or a very similar programme and they seem to be hitting personal bests most weeks, prompting you to question, what am I doing wrong? The reality is, that it probably isn’t anything you are doing wrong per se, rather a stark reality check that you cannot have a one size fits all approach to programming and expect everyone to max out on their gains. What works for you might not work for someone else and vice versa. So let’s take a deeper dive into why that might be.
Basic principles around programme design are important to understand and implement if you are to consistently make progress over time. Once you consider the interaction between the programme design variables; volume, frequency, load, intensity of effort, rep range, rep duration, muscle action, exercise selection and exercise order, it starts to become clearer about the complexities of designing, testing, and evaluating effective programmes.
Volume, defined as the total amount of exercise performed over time, and expressed as total number of sets x reps is where the main focus of this article will concentrate its discussion. Although its worthy of mention that volume load is a more accurate way to represent the total amount of work performed, and is expressed as sets x reps x load. Load and its relationship to intensity of effort will be covered separately in another article.
So how much volume is enough?
Whilst a few studies have explored the relationship between volume and muscle hypertrophy, this article will specifically look at a recent study from Schoenfeld et al. (2018), which looks at what is considered very high volumes of training. Previous research by Schoenfeld et al. (2017) concluded performing 10+ sets per muscle group per week resulted in greater hypertrophy than 1-4 sets or 5-9 sets. Despite this, 10+ sets is pretty vague, and thus further investigation was warranted in order to establish an optimal dose-response volume range in order to maximise muscle hypertrophy.
The study by Schoenfeld et al. (2018) looked at the strength and hypertrophic response of trained males, performing either; 6-9 sets, 18-27 sets or 30-45 sets per movement/muscle group per week. Important things to consider when analysing this study, is that total volume included both direct and indirect muscle stimulation per set, meaning for example exercises like pull ups and bent over rows not only counted to the prime movers (back muscles) but also the secondary movers, such as the biceps. Likewise, exercises such as the flat bench press and overhead pressing movements would count to the prime movers of the chest and anterior deltoids but also the secondary movers of the triceps. This has important implications once we try to extrapolate the data and apply context to our own training protocols. I think much of the controversy and push back to this particular study revolves around the presumption that very high volumes are guaranteed to result in greater gains in muscle growth and that the 30-45 sets per muscle group is some sort of holy grail to aim for. Anecdotally I have found very high volumes (30+), directly targeting prime movers to be detrimental to long term muscle growth, particularly in beginner and intermediately trained individuals. I think it is more important at these stages of your development that attention is paid to evaluating other variables which may be inhibiting progression (which we discuss later in this article). The Schoenfeld study also implemented an 8-12 rep range whereby each set was taken to failure. 90 seconds rest was given between sets and a 2 mins rest between sets. Again, it’s important to understand that no one single study is a blueprint for how we should plan and implement our training, but rather a data point on a much larger spectrum of training variables and their outcomes.
Based on the current Schoenfeld study, I think it is reasonable to conclude that the ‘sweet spot’ for muscle size and strength probably lies somewhere between 10-20 sets per muscle group per week. Despite this, 10-20 sets per muscle group per week is a relatively large range in which to experiment with. I would encourage those reading this article to explore other training variables before increasing volume. Once you have reviewed and optimised your quality of sleep, nutrition, general stress levels, the proximity to failure that you train per set, technical execution of the exercises you perform, the mind-muscle connection and your consistency of training, only then would it be advisable to increase volume in order to push through training plateaus.
The progressive tension overload principle can be defined as a specific kind of progressive overload that involves driving your muscles to produce greater and greater levels of tension over time. This, in turn, induces hypertrophy, which leads to the growth of bigger and stronger muscles. This is the primary mechanism which underpins resistance training induced hypertrophy. Therefore total training volume accumulated is representative of the dose of progressive tension applied to the body. This statement at face value may lead some to assume that the bigger the dose i.e.: the more volume (sets x reps) completed the greater the gains in muscle size. Whilst the Schoenfeld study is positively correlated with high volumes and increased muscle growth, future research is needed to determine a more accurate interaction between age, gender, training status, and relative strength, so that we can state with greater confidence an optimal dose-response in relation to muscle hypertrophy.
Previous literature has explored the interactions of low, moderate and high training volumes on muscular strength and hypertrophy. At present it is safe to say that the literature is far from definitive, and range significantly in their findings. One really important thing to consider when making a cross comparison of the literature (particularly if we are to extrapolate the data and use it to design our own training programmes) is the interplay between age, sex, training status and relative strength. We do not fully understand the synergistic effects of these variables, nor how they influence the maximal recoverable volume one can successfully perform in order to facilitate the greatest improvements in muscular strength and size. Therefore, it would seem logical that future research in this area focus of the interaction of these variables in relation to chronic adaptations and hypertrophy. Chronic adaption is also another key consideration when contemplating the implementation of very high training volumes. Due to funding and time constraints, most exercise science studies are conducted over a relatively short period (typically 6-12 weeks). Consequently, it is wise to exercise caution when designing very high-volume training protocols and really think about how you or your clients age, sex, training status and relative strength may respond and interact with a longitudinal high-volume approach. Again, whilst only anecdotally, I have found long-term, high-volume training programmes to be counterproductive with certain athletes/clients, particularly very strong and older individuals. If recovery from long term exposure to high training volumes was suboptimal, I found these individuals had a propensity for increased rates of injury compared to when they were engaged in more moderate training volumes. Furthermore, I think an athlete/client monitoring system that can evaluate recovery session-by-session and week-by-week in order to auto-regulate subsequent training sessions to be an invaluable tool. Observing for signs of overtraining whilst undertaking any high-volume training protocol is paramount. Readiness to train questionnaires could possibly be used to evaluate subjective measures, such as RPE (Rate of Perceived Exertion), general pain/soreness, sleep quality and levels of motivation. Objective measures such as bar speed (measured via a linear transducer), number of missed training sessions and/or the use of blood work may also be utilised to build an accurate picture of recovery.
Practical applications:
- 10-20 working sets per muscle group per week would seem to be a sensible starting range for most people looking to improve muscular size.
- Rep ranges of 6-30, providing the right proximity to failure is implemented (more on this in the next article) would appear to be appropriate in order to induce muscle hypertrophy.
- Age, training status, sex, and relative strength have a vital role and interaction when prescribing training volume, so overlook this at your peril.
- Ensure that a TRUE plateau has occurred and that it isn’t just impatience with slow progress. Remember, increasing volume should be the last variable you manipulate once you have assessed your nutrition, sleep, life stress, proximity to failure, technique, mind-muscle connection, frequency, and adherence/consistency.
- When undertaking a high-volume training approach, ensure you have appropriate systems in place to evaluate your recovery and readiness to training, so that injuries and the potential for overtraining is avoided.
References:
Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Strength and hypertrophy adaptations between low- versus high-load resistance training: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Strength Cond Res, 2017.
Schoenfeld, B.J., et al., Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy. Med Sci Sports Exerc, 2018.