Volume: How many sets per week?

Table of Contents

Strength training programs involve several key components, and one of the most significant components is volume. Volume has been the subject of extensive research, and there has been a lot of discourse online about volume. In this article, I aim to provide you with an overview of the research on volume and offer recommendations to help you design strength programs that are tailored to your needs.

If you want to read about the research, then continue reading. If you want to skip to the recommendations, then click here.

Table of Contents

Introduction

What is Volume?

It’s important to define what is meant by volume.

There are a lot of different definitions floating around. Some research articles will define volume as the total weight lifted (meaning weight x sets x reps), or in other words, the total tonnage. However, very often these same research articles will categorize volume as the number of sets each participant performs per exercise.

This is perhaps a more useful definition of volume: the number of meaningful sets performed (note that I have added the word “meaningful” deliberately!).

Helms et al. (2018) describes volume as the number of hard sets per week, and offers recommendations of the number of sets per muscle group. I think the number of sets is a fairly useful way to consider what volume is, however I would also recommend being open to the idea of classifying volume as the number of meaningful sets performed for each lift per microcycle. For example: a microcycle may consist of 5 sets of squats, 5 sets of pause squats and 5 sets of leg press, totalling 15 sets of a microcycle.

Whilst you are lifting weights in your warm-up, I would recommend discounting warm-up sets on the basis that they are usually far enough from failure to not be “meaningful” (that is, they will not create any positive adaptation on their own).

Initial Information to consider

Before delving into the specifics of volume, it’s essential to consider a few critical points. Strength is influenced by skill, neurological adaptations, and muscle size. Improving any of these factors can enhance strength. Therefore, it is necessary to examine research on hypertrophy, even if the primary goal is strength, and vice versa.

Moreover, performing more volume usually means that you will perform a lift more frequently meaning you’ll practise a lift more often. This will lead to an increase in your skill level and the amount of weight you can lift. This is particularly true for novice lifters, and obviously less so for advanced lifters who already have an excellent skill-base. 

Specificity should also be considered. If the goal is to increase Squat 1RM, then a workout consisting of three sets of 5 squats will be more effective than one consisting of three sets of 10 leg extensions, despite the volume (at least by our definition of volume) remaining the same.

Finally, whilst I’ll be considering volume independent of other variables, it is not independent of other variables. Another obvious variable is intensity: 3 sets of five squats at 70% is less taxing than 3 sets of five at 80%. Both would be the same amount of volume, however they are clearly not equal. Of course, 3×5 at 70% is not better or worse than 3×5 at 80%, it is dependent on the rest of the program and the athlete’s response. The main takeaway is that not all volume is created equal.

Research Overview

Volume has been extensively researched, however there is a lot of noise and difficulty when trying to get volume recommendations. Consequently, I’ll briefly discuss some of the difficulties with research, then look at general observations from the research, and then look at what the actual research says. If you want to skip this bit, I’d suggest jumping to the “meta-analysis” section instead, or the “Recommendations” section. 

The majority of research articles compares differences between doing 3 sets of an exercise versus 1 set of an exercise, comparing both hypertrophy increases and strength increases. However, the training program participants are on generally differs significantly. For example, Bottaro et al. (2010) had participants train twice per week, each session having one exercise for the upper body and one per lower body, with some participants performing 3 sets, the other performing 1 set. 

Meanwhile, Rønnestad et al. (2007) had participants training three times per week, with each session doing 3 lower body exercises and 5 upper-body exercises. If you then look at the exercises, the lower body consisted of leg press, leg extensions and leg curls. This means that the 3 set group were actually doing 6 sets of exercises three times a week that had a clear and direct impact on your quads (leg press and leg extensions), totalling 18 sets for the quads, versus just 6 sets per week or the 1 set group. Whereas other muscle groups may only be worked by just one exercise, meaning you’d be comparing 9 sets per week to 3 sets per week, yet the results would attempt to group the 9 sets per week and the 18 sets per week together since they both did 3 sets of each exercise, despite there clearly being a huge difference in volume. To make comparisons within this one study is difficult, but to then make comparisons with other studies (such as the Bottaro et al. one mentioned) is even harder. These aren’t even two studies that have been cherry-picked for the example, these discrepancies are pretty common throughout the research.

This also doesn’t take into account differences that may be experienced from performing isolation versus compound movements, or differences in experience, ability of the researchers to actually coach and measure 1RM the lifts being performed. This all means that the research has a huge amount of noise and contrasting results may not be too surprising. However, the meta-analysis does offer some clarity and definitive recommendations.

Despite this, reading all the articles I could find did offer the following observations:

  • The majority of studies looked at untrained lifters. Most acknowledged how the initial phase of strength gains is primarily based on the neurological system adapting and someone’s skill improving, and hypertrophy may not follow immediately. The studies that did explore hypertrophy tended to last for 3 months or so, acknowledging that hypertrophy may not be noticeable or measurable after just 6 weeks. This does mean that there are only a few articles dedicated to trained lifters.
  • All the studies that had participants perform just 1 set of each exercise to failure (this as still usually 2-3 times per week) still had significant gains in strength. It is always better to do some hard work, however minimal than to skip out on everything totally.
  • Most studies took every set to technical failure, with the weight changed between sets to allow for failure at a similar rep count each time. This means there isn’t as much data on how non-maximal sets interact with volume.
  • A lot of studies varied rep ranges, doing blocks of lower reps (5 RM) and blocks of higher reps (8 RM – 12 RM), whilst some kept the rep range similar.
  • All studies shown one of two results: Either 3 sets per exercise gave better progress than 1 set, or 3 sets gave the same progress as 1 set. There were no studies that shown 1 set to be superior. The studies which concluded that 3 sets and 1 sets were equal also nearly always came to these conclusions despite 3 sets performing marginally better than 1 set, its just the difference was not significant enough for them to make a claim otherwise. However, when this marginal difference is consistently showing up in almost every study, I think this is noteworthy. 

The actual research

Here’s a summary of some of the studies into volume. I have ignored control groups for simplicity.

The studies where increased volume resulted in higher strength and/or hypertrophy gains:

Radaelli et al. (2015) – Three groups of participants performing 1 set, 3 set or 5 set per exercise, with 3 sessions per week (meaning a minimum of 3 sets per week versus 15 sets per week). All participants were untrained. The 5 set group generally shown the best results, followed by 3 sets followed by the 1 set group.

Robbins et al. (2012) – Three groups of participants perform 1 set, 4 sets or 8 sets. The study only lasted 6 weeks. All participants were untrained men. They concluded that their research “provides support for the notion that high volumes, as compared with low volumes, are superior with respect to strength development. It is possible that higher volumes are associated with relatively greater central and peripheral adaptation.” 

Sooneste et al. (2013) – Participants did three sets of curls with one arm and one set with another arm twice per week. The three set group experienced significantly greater hypertrophy.

Bottaro et al. (2010) – two groups of participants. One group performed three sets of knee extensions and one set of preacher curl, the other did three sets of preacher curls and one set of knee extensions, training twice per week. Three sets of Knee extensions shown better strength outcomes than one set, however there were no hypertrophy differences between the two groups. The preacher curls yielded similar results between both groups. 

Rønnestad et al. (2007) – Two groups of participants. One group performed 3 sets per exercise, the other performed one set per exercise. Three lower-body exercises (leg press, leg curl and leg extension) and five upper-body exercises (chest press, row, pull-down, biceps curl and shoulder press). The three set group had far better strength and hypertrophy gains for the lower body than the one set group. However there were no differences in the upper-body gains between the two groups. This is likely due to exercise choice as the lower-body had far more crossover meaning the lower-body group were performing far more sets per week per muscle group. 

Galvao and Taafe (2005) – Two groups of participants aged between 65-70, with 12 women and 20 men. One group performed 3 sets per exercise, the other one set per exercise, performing twice per week for 20 weeks. Exercises were seated row, tricep extension, leg extension and bicep curl. The three set group had better outcomes, but also concluded that “given the detrained state of many older people, it is possible that substantial and similar improvements in strength may be observed with a modest volume of work.”

Marzolini et al. (2008) – Three groups of participants. One group did just aerobic training, one did aerobic training with strength training using one-set per exercise, the third did aerobic training with strength training using three-sets per exercise. Strength exercises were performed twice per week, and included a half squat, leg curl and leg lift. The three set group shown better hypertrophy gains than the one set group with similar strength gains. Please note that all participants had coronary artery disease, and used dumbbells for a half squat. The participant’s average age was 61 and included men and women (vast majority were men).

McBride et al. (2003) – 28 participants, both male and female split into two groups. One group did one set of a single-joint movement and one set of a multiple joint movement twice per week, the other did six sets of each movement twice per week. Both groups also did 3 sets of chest flyes, sit-ups and low-back extensions. The multiple set group gained more strength, but no differences in hypertrophy.

Munn et al. (2005) – Had 115 total participants who were divided up into groups who did 3 sets of a movement and 1 set of a movement, with some doing the movements faster, others doing the movements slow. They found the multiple set had better outcomes than the single set, however they also found the moving faster had the same outcome as doing more sets stating “that there is a benefit of training fast or with three sets but no additional benefit of doing both.”

Rhea et al. (2002) – 16 untrained male participants. One group performed 3 sets of leg press and bench press, the other performed 1 set. Both trained three times per week, and in the remaining time performed flexibility exercises and other unrelated exercises (sit-ups, curls, lat pull-downs). Worth noting here that the 1-set group finished earlier so spent more time doing these other ‘unrelated’ exercises. They found the 3-set group shown better strength gains in the leg-press, but the bench press was fairly similar (however this was still a 33% improvement for 3-set group versus 20% for 1-set group).

Other studies shown no difference between 3 or 1 sets:

Ostrowski et al. (1997) – Participants included 35 trained men. They all had a squat and bench of 130% and 100% of their bodymass respectively. Note that the high-volume participant group’s average bodyweight was 73kg versus 79-80kg for the medium and low-volume participant’s bodyweight group, so how much muscle mass some of the ‘trained’ men had may be questionable, as no participants weighed more than 90kg. This would also effect their ability to perform bench and squat in relation to their bodyweight. The participants were split into 3 groups: one group performing 3 sets, the other 6 sets and the other 12 sets per muscle group for 10 weeks. They trained four days per week, with a body-part split (legs, chest + shoulders, lats + calves, arms). The exercise varied in rep ranges over the study. They found no differences between the three groups. They stated that “this may be due to the fact that once a minimum threshold volume level is reached, further increases in volume are no longer advantageous”. 

Cannon and Marino (2010) Participants included young (20-30) and old (60-78) women, all of whom were untrained. One group did 3 sets per exercise the other did 1 set, both groups training three times per week only using isolation exercises. Everyone had good hypertrophy and strength gains, with no differences between the the 3 set or 1 set. Interestingly, the young participants had a similar percentage of improvement to the older participants – unsurprisingly the young participants started off lifting heavier weights, but the percentage increase was very similar. 

Correa et al. (2010) – participants were untrained post-menopausal women, who were divided into two groups (with a third control group). One group performing one set, the other three sets. The exercises included bench press, biceps curl, triceps halter, 1 arm row back, leg press, knee extensor, knee flexion, and abdomen crunch, and they trained five times per week. All participants increased in strength and hypertrophy, but there were no differences between 3 and 1 set groups.

Mitchell et al. (2012) – participants included 18 untrained men aged 20-22. Each leg was assigned one of three conditions: 1 set of knee extensions at 80%, 3 sets of knee extensions at 80% and 3 sets of knee extensions at 30%. There are no notes on how frequently they performed the knee extensions. Strength and hypertrophy increased in all groups, however the 3 sets at 30% was clearly worse than 1 and 3 set at 80%. There were, however, no differences between 1 and set set at 80% groups. 

Radaelli et al. (2013) – participants included 20 untrained women aged 60-74 who were split into two groups: one group doing 1 set per exercise the other 3 sets per exercise, both exercising twice per week. Exercises included bi-lateral knee extension, lat pull-down, bilateral leg press, elbow flexion, bilateral leg curl, bench press, triceps extension, hip abduction and adduction and abdominal crunch. Rep ranges varied over the course of the study from 20RM to 10RM. Both groups had clear strength increases. The 3-set group had slightly better strength gains, but not enough to form conclusions. There were also no significant differences in hypertrophy. 

Meta-analysis

There has been a few meta-analysis into volume (meta-analysis being a study that examines previous literature on a topic and draws conclusions based on this). There are two that stood out – Shoenfeld et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis and Ralston et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis.

Shoenfeld et al. (2017) looked at past research into volume and attempted to determine whether there was a dose-response effect of volume (whether increase levels of volume causes increased strength/hypertrophy gains) and how many sets per week should be performed to achieve greater hypertrophy results.

Their meta-analysis shown that higher weekly training volume (more sets per week) caused a greater hypertrophy response. When comparing the differences between volume levels they found that higher volume caused better results, concluded “that greater muscular development is achieved by performing at least 10 weekly sets per muscle group”. This is a key point, as based on all the past research they were able to come up with a minimum volume threshold. This recommendation was for untrained adults, and was only focused on hypertrophy. However, as discussed earlier, strength is a product of hypertrophy, skill and neurological adaptations, so increased hypertrophy is logically going to cause increased strength.

Ralston et al. (2017) also conducted a meta-analysis comparing low weekly sets (1-5 sets per week), medium weekly sets (5-9 weekly sets) and high weekly sets (10+ weekly sets) per exercise. Similarly they found that medium and high weekly sets led to greater strength outcomes for novice and intermediate male trainees. They also stated that “for more experienced individuals, such as advanced and elite trainees, the sparse data available suggest that [medium weekly sets] and [high weekly sets  strength training may create greater strength gains compared with [low weekly sets]”. They also advised that a graded response to volume as you get more experienced is beneficial to achieve strength increases without performing unnecessary/excessive volume.

Other Considerations

Finally, before coming to the recommendations, there are some other considerations when considering volume beyond simply how many sets per week.

Firstly, there are general principles of strength training (such as specificity, progressive overload etc.)  that should be considered. I recommend checking out “Scientific Principles of Strength Training” by Mike Israetel to learn more about these. You should generally try to ensure any strength-training program is aligned with these principles. Regardless of volume, if you are not adhering to basic principles, especially basic ones like specificity or progressive overload then the program will be unlikely to show much success. Likewise, adhering to these principles will likely lead to some positive success even if you are doing too much or too little volume.

Additionally, whilst the research indicates a dose-response relationship with volume – indicating that more volume causes better results – consideration needs to be given to not performing excessive volume. Keep in mind Selye’s General Adaptation Syndrome – you need to cause a stress on your body that can be recovered from and then adapted to. Volume is simply a variable which we can alter that allows us to control the stress placed on our body. Too much volume may not be recoverable, and too little volume may not cause adaptations. 

However, despite the risks of doing too much and too little, there is a lot of room for movement. Numerous research articles shown participants gaining significant strength gains with just one set per exercise (usually doing each exercise 2-4 times per week), and likewise many participants made excellent strength gains with far more volume (5-8 sets per exercise several times per week). If you undershoot or overshoot you’re probably going to still make progress. The important thing is to record your workouts and regularly review your training block to see what is working and what isn’t. Of course its also important to listen to your body, if you’re overtraining you’ll likely start to feel it in your body, which is a sign that you need to back-off a little.

Additionally, although in the recommendations section I will recommend a weekly volume, volume does not need to be constant and the same every week. Bompa and Haff (2009) offer an excellent book on periodization which is worth checking out. Volume can increase overtime during a mesocycle, or it can decrease. You can also potentially deliberately perform more volume than you’d usually be able to recover from if there is planned recovery shortly afterwards to avoid the negative effects of overtraining. Likewise, if you choose to utilise specific blocks, such as hypertrophy blocks, strength blocks etc., then this may also influence your program. My recommendations in this article are, I hope, useful for setting up a basic microcycle, which can then be amended and adjusted according to your long-term needs.

Also, do not forget that volume can crossover. 5 sets of a bench press and 5 sets of a military press means you are likely hitting your shoulders for 10 sets. Other exercises may have slightly less crossover. For example, 5 sets of military press and 5 sets of pull-ups is likely not going to be equivalent to 10 sets for your shoulders, but will perhaps be more than 5 sets for your shoulders. This is where some degree of creativity and judgement is required, and you won’t always know what the right answer is. Write a program, and don’t be afraid to revisit it and amend it a few hours later or a few days later. You’ll get better at writing strength programs by writing strength programs!

I also wish to make a note of how different coaches may calculate volume. Reactive Training Systems utilise Stress Index, which gives a numerical value based on the intensity of an exercise and the volume of the exercise. JTS’s Powerlifitng Program Design Manual offers a chart which will offer a rough guideline for the number of sets you can complete. Helms et al. (2018) offer a specific rough guideline of sets for each category of lifter. However, the amount of volume each lifter performs will nearly always be similar regardless of which system you go with.

Volume is also not an independent variable. Performing 10 sets of 5 reps per week at your 5RM every time is going to be crushing, but performing 10 sets of 5 reps per week at 65% is going to be easy. This also require some creativity – you can increase volume if you are doing less intensity, but if you are doing more intense work you may need to drop the volume. There is a time and a place for both high intensity and low intensity work, and different athletes will respond differently to the varying intensities, so some degree of experimentation may be required.

Finally, research is clear that just doing 1 set of an exercise a few times a week is enough to gain strength in novices and even some trained athletes. Whilst it’s not recommended to write a program consisting of just 1 set of an exercise a few times per week, if you are pushed for time or struggling with motivation then going to the gym and doing one meaningful set is still going to help you progress. 

Recommendations: How many sets per week?

So, how many sets per week should you do? Based on the research above I think the following are acceptable as broad recommendations:

Novice Lifters – I’d generally recommend performing around 10 sets per week. This recommendation is mainly taken from Schoenfeld et al.’s (2017) meta-analysis.

For more advanced lifters there does not seem to be any meaningful recommendations from the research beyond this, however generally speaking the more advanced the lifter, the more sets they can do, so the minimum recommendations would generally increase:

Intermediate Lifters – Generally aiming for around 15 sets per muscle group per week is a good goal.

Advanced Lifters – I’d generally recommend around 20 sets per muscle group per week.

Please note that these are very broad recommendations, and increasing volume beyond 20 sets will usually begin to become unmanageable due to time. Volume is also something that must be worked up to – a novice lifter starting at 20 sets per week is an injury waiting to happen. Build up your work capacity by slowly increasing the number of sets per week.

Periodization for Intermediate and Advanced Lifters

Generally intermediate and advanced lifters can benefit from periodization, and volume can fall nicely into this. If you are aiming to perform 15 sets per week as baseline, then a 6 week block may look something like this:

Week 1 – 13 sets per week

Week 2 – 15 sets per week

Week 3 – 15 sets per week

Week 4 – 16 sets per week

Week 5 – 17 sets per week

Week 6 – Deload or pivot week

Minimum Effect Volume, or Maximum Recoverable Volume?

When considering how many sets per week you should do, this is one of the main themes you should consider. There are generally “two schools of thought”.

One school of thought recommends performing the minimum amount of volume to increase strength and muscle size at a reasonable rate. The other school of thought recommends performing as much volume as you can recover from to get the most optimal results. Of course, in practice, it will be very rare you will train at the minimum or maximum volume amounts – you may perform a few sets over the minimum, or a few sets under the maximum.

So which one is best? The truth is, they both have their merits, and as long as you are performing a sufficient number of sets to progress and at a reasonable rate, and are not doing too much you can recover from then that is sufficient. I appreciate that doesn’t really help the reader, so as a recommendation:

For novice lifters, perform roughly 10 sets per week per muscle group, and increase this over the course of 3-6 months to around 15 sets per week. Progress may not be constant during this period – deloads may be necessary every so often, along with changing exercises every few weeks as well as the increase in volume.

For intermediate and advanced lifter, perform several microcycles (probably best as a mesocycle/block) with the minimum recommendations. You may need a week or so with slightly less volume and intensity as in introductory microcycle. After this, try another block with gradually increasing volume, ideally this block will be roughly the same length as the previous one, but if you need to cut it short then that is fine. After this, complete another block at a higher volume than the recommendations, trying to keep the volume at a constant. Once you’ve done this, you should have a good idea of how much volume you can handle, and what volume loads work best for you.

How many sets per week

Final Point

Finally, as research pointed out, performing just one tough set of 3-4 exercises per muscle group per week was enough to allow novice and even trained lifters to progress (albeit at reduced rates). 

The most important thing is to get in the gym and do some hard work, aiming to lift more weight overtime. Progress can be fast for the first couple of months, but after this it slows. However, consistent work, even with reduce volume, will lead to consistent results, and consistency is the most important component of any program.

References

Bompa, T. & Haff, G. (2009) Periodization: theory and methodology of training. 5th Edn.

Bottaro, M., Velosa, J., Wagner, D., Gentil, P. (2010) ‘Resistance training for strength and muscle thickness: Effect of number of sets and muscle group trained’, Science & Sports, 26, 259-264.

Cannon, J. & Marino, F. (2010) ‘Early-phase neuromuscular adaptations to high- and low-volume resistance training in untrained young and older women’, Journal of Sports Sciences, 28, 1505-1514.

Correa, C., Teixeira, B., Kruger, R., Bittencourt, A., Lemos, L., Marques, N., Regis, R., Reischak-Oliveira, A. & Pinto, R. (2014) ‘Effects of high and low volume of strength training on muscle strength, muscle volume and lipid profile in postmenopausal women’, Journal of Exercise Science & Fitness, 12, 62-67.

Galvao, D. & Taaffe, D. (2005) ‘Resistance exercise dosage in older adults: single-versus multiset effects on physical performance and body composition’, Journal of American Geriatrics Society, 53, 2090-2097.

Helms, E., Morgan, A. & Valdez, A. (2018) The Muscle & Strength Pyramid: Training. 2nd Edn.

Marzolini, S., Oh, P., Thomas, S. & Goodman, J. (2008) ‘Aerobic and Resistance Training in Coronary Disease: Single versus Multiple Sets’, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 40, 1557-1564.

Munn, J., Herbert, R., Hancock, M. & Gandevia, S. (2005) ‘Resistance training for strength: effect of number of sets and contraction speed’, Medicine and science in sports and exercise, 27, 1622-1626.

Ostrowski, K., Wilon, G., Weatherby, R. & Murphy, P. (1997) ‘The Effect of Weight Training Volume on Hormonal Output and Muscular Size and Function’, The Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 11, 148-154.

Radaelli, R., Button, C., Wilhelm, E., Bottaro, M., Laerda, F., Gaya, A. Moraes, K., Peruzzolo, A., Brown, L. & Pinto, R. (2013) ‘Low- and high-volume strength training induces similar neuromuscular improvements in muscle quality in elderly women’, Experimental gerontology, 48, 710-716.

Radaelli, R., Fleck, S., Leite, T., Leite, R., Pinto, R., Fernandes, L. & Simao, R. (2015) ‘Dose-Response of 1, 3 and 5 sets of resistance exercise on Strength, Local Muscular Endurance, and Hypertrophy’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29, 1349-1358.

Ralston, G., Kilgore, L., Wyatt, F. & Baker, J. (2017) ‘The Effect of Weekly Set Volume on Strength Gain: A Meta-Analysis’, Sports Medicine, 47, 2585-2601.

Rhea, M., Alvar, B, Ball, S. & Burkett, L. (2002) ‘Three sets of weight training superior to 1 set with equal intensity for eliciting strength’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 16, 525-529.

Schoenfeld, B., Peterson, M., Ogborn, D., Contreras, B. & Sonmez, G. T. (2015) ‘Effects of Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training on Muscle Strength and Hypertrophy in Well-Trained Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29, 2954-2963.

Schoenfeld, B., Ratamess, N., Peterson, M., Contreras, B., Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. & Alvar, B. (2014) ‘Effects of Different Volume-Equated Resistance Training Loading Strategies on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 28, 2909-2918.

Schoenfeld, B., Ratamess, N., Peterson, M., Contreras, B., Tiryaki-Sonmez, G. & Alvar, B. (2015) ‘Influence of Resistance Training Frequency on Muscular Adaptations in Well-Trained Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 29, 1821-1829.

Schoenfeld, B., Contreras, B., Krieger, J., Grgic, J., Delcastillo, K. & Belliard, R. (2019) ‘Resistance Training Volume Enhances Muscle Hypertrophy but Not Strength in Trained Men’, Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 51, 94-103.

Schoenfeld, B., Grgic, J., Ogborn, D. & Krieger, J. (2017) ‘Strength and Hypertrophy Adaptations Between Low- vs. High-Load Resistance Training: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 31, 3508-3523.

Schoenfeld, B., Ogborn, D. & Krieger, J. (2016) ‘Effects of Resistance Training Frequency on Measures of Muscle Hypertrophy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis’, Sports Medicine, 46, 1689-1697.

Schoenfeld, B., Grgic, J., Haun, C., Itagaki, T., Helms, E., Beck, C., & Zourdos, M. (2020) ‘The Effect of Resistance Training Frequency on Muscle Hypertrophy: A Meta-Analysis’, Sports Medicine, 50, 1201-1210.

Zaroni, R., Brigatto, F. & Schoenfeld, B. (2019) ‘High Resistance-Training Volume Enhances Muscle Thickness in Resistance-Trained Men’, Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 33, 893-897.